Loveland Bike Trail
 

LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of April 20, 2005

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, April 20, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners’ Huddleston, Korb, Oppenheimer, terMeer, Waldo and Wallace were present. Commissioner Morgan presided as Chairman.  Commissioners Boulter and Pond were absent.  Also present were Rob Helmick, Principal Planner, Al Kadera, Principal Planner, David Karan, Planner II, Matt Lafferty, Senior Planner, Geniphyr Ponce-Pore, Planner II, Christie Coleman, Engineering Department, Roxann Hayes, Engineering Department, Rusty McDaniel, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Environmental Health, and Jill Albracht, 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 MARCH 16, 2005 MEETINGS:  MOTION by Commissioner Huddleston to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheimer.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:  

None

 

CONSENT ITEMS:

 

ITEM #1 MCCLELLAND’S CREEK PLANNED LAND DIVISION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT #04-S2299:  Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request for a Preliminary Plat to create a mixed use development comprised of 135 single family residential lots and 48 multi-family residential units on the 53.78 acre property situated at the southwest corner of Straus Cabin Road and Kechter Road.  The development would also contain 8.48 acres of open space distributed within 12 open space tracts and involved a request to rezone the property from FA-1 - Farming to Planned Development (PD).  The application had been tabled from February 16, 2005 in order to resolve wetland issues.  In order to meet the requirements the applicant had to revise their plan and did so by decreasing the number of lots that were originally proposed. 

 

Commissioner Huddleston 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 request to rezone McClelland’s Creek Planned Development, file #04-S2299, from FA-1-Farming to Planned Development (PD) be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

a.   Approval of the rezoning from FA-1 (Farming) to PD (Planned Development) subject to the following condition:

 

     i.   The rezoning shall be effective upon the recordation of the final plat of McClelland’s Creek Planned Land Division.

 

b.   The zoning designation for the McClelland’s Creek PD and PLD shall be PD (Planned Development, which zoning classification will be subject to the development standards and requirements of Subsection I.f. (Mixed Use Neighborhood Area Regulations) of the Larimer County Development Standards for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area for in the Supplemental Regulations to the Larimer County Land Use Code Section 8.9.2.A.1, or as amended.

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the McClelland’s Creek Planned Land Division, file #04-S2299, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

a.   The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the McClelland’s Creek Planned Land Division (File #04-S2299), 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 McClelland’s Creek Planned Land Division.

 

b.   The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings:  Poudre R-1 school fee, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, Larimer County Community and Regional Park Fees (in lieu of dedication) and drainage fees.  The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply. 

 

c.   Per the recommendation of the Colorado Geological Service subsurface construction (basements) shall include perimeter drains as part of the foundation design and construction.

 

d.   Passive radon mitigation measures shall be included in construction of residential structures on these lots.  The results of a radon detection test conducted in new dwellings once the structure is enclosed but prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall be submitted to the Building Department.  As an alternative, a builder may present a prepaid receipt from a radon tester which specifies that a test will be done within 30 days.  A permanent certificate of occupancy can be issued when the prepaid receipt is submitted.

 

e.   The applicant shall be responsible for all the improvements and requirements as outlined in the submittal materials, including those found in the referral comments from Traci Downs of the Larimer County Engineering Department, dated January 6, 2005.

 

f.   A 100 foot wide buffer shall be provided around the existing wetlands within the McClelland Creek and a mitigation and management plan will be required as part of the Final Pat.

 

Commissioner Korb seconded the Motion.

 

 

Commissioners' Huddleston, Korb, Oppenheimer, terMeer, Waldo, Wallace, and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:   7-0

 

ITEM #2 SPRING GREEN PLANNED LAND DIVISION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT #03-S2210:  Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request for a Preliminary Plat to create a development comprised of 21 single family residential lots, five of which would have the potential for multiple dwelling units.  There would also be five common area lots for open space.  The development would also be rezoned from FA-1 – Farming and FA – Farming to Planned Development (PD).  The subject property was located on a 53.78 acre parcel of land situated along the eastern side of Overland Trail, at approximately County Road 50E.

 

Commissioner Huddleston 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 request to rezone the Spring Green Planned Development, file #03-S2210, from FA-1 – Farming and FA-Farming to Planned Development (PD) be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

a.   The rezoning shall be effective upon the recordation of the Final Plat of Spring Green Planned Land Division/Planned Development.

 

b.   The permitted uses, lot building and structure requirements, setbacks and structure height limitations for Spring Green Planned Land Division/Planned Development shall be as follows:

 

1.   The Planned Development (PD) zoning for the property shall be as follows

 

PD (Planned Development)

 

A.   Principal uses

 

Lots 1-3 and 9-17

Residential

Single-family dwelling (R)

Group home for the developmentally disabled (R)

Group home for the elderly (R)

Group home (R)

 

Lots 4-8

Residential

Single-family dwelling (R)

Group home for the developmentally disabled (R)

Group home for the elderly (R)

Group home (R)

                  Accessory Dwelling (R)*

                 

 

*The accessory dwelling on these lots may be rented to persons not related owner/occupant of the primary dwelling.

 

Lots 18-21

Agricultural

Tree Farm

Residential

Single-family dwelling (R)

Group home for the developmentally disabled (R)

Group home for the elderly (R)

Group home (R)

 

B. Lot, building and structure requirements:

 

1. Minimum lot size:

Lots 1-17 shall be no less than 5,200 square feet

 

Lots 18-21 shall be no less than 12,000 square feet

 

2. Minimum setbacks:

Setbacks for Lots 1-17 shall be as illustrated on the attached Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’,

 

Setbacks for Lots 18-21 shall be as follows:

 

a. Front yard—Refer to section 8.17 (supplementary regulations for setbacks from highways and county roads) of the Larimer County Land Use Code as amended. The setback from an interior subdivision road or established public or private road must be 25 feet from the property line or from the nearest edge of the road easement.

 

b. Side yards—10 feet.

 

c. Rear yards—10 feet.

 

d. Streams, creeks and rivers—100 feet from the centerline of the established watercourse.

 

3. Maximum structure height—40 feet.

 

4. With the Exception of Lots 4-8, no parcel can be used for more than one principal building; additional buildings on a parcel are allowed if they meet the accessory use criteria in subsection 4.3.10 of the Larimer County Land Use Code as amended.

 

 

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Spring Green Planned Land Division, file #03-S2210, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved Preliminary Plat and with the information contained in the Spring Green Planned Land Division/Planned Development (File #03-S2210), 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 Spring Green Planned Land Division/Planned Development.

 

2.   The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings:  Poudre R-1 school fee, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, Larimer County Regional Park Fees (in lieu of dedication) and applicable drainage fees.  The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply.

 

3.   Passive radon mitigation measures shall be included in construction of residential structures on these lots.  The results of a radon detection test conducted in new dwellings once the structure is enclosed but prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall be submitted to the Building Department.  As an alternative, a builder may present a prepaid receipt from a radon tester which specifies that a test will be done within 30 days.  A permanent certificate of occupancy can be issued when the prepaid receipt is submitted.

 

4.   A notice to prospective purchasers shall be recorded with the Final Plat.  In addition to the standard notice regarding radon, foundations designs, wildlife and the like, the plat shall also disclose the existing gravel quarry operations that exist on the property and such uses may present compatibility issues allowed as part of their approval by the County.

 

5.   Residual Lot A on the Preliminary Plat shall be renamed at the time of Final Plat to comply the standard naming conventions of Section 8.14.2 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

6.   Perimeter drains shall be incorporated into the construction of all dwelling units in the referral letter from Celia Greenman, Geologist, dated April 1, 2004.

 

Commissioner Korb seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Huddleston, Korb, Oppenheimer, terMeer, Waldo, Wallace, and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:   7-0

 

ITEMS:

 

ITEM #3 AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE AND THE LARIMER COUNTY ROAD MANUAL #05-CA0053, #05-CA0054:  Mr. Kadera provided background information on the proposed amendments to the Larimer County Road Manual and the Rural Land Use section of the Land Use Code.  The amendments had to do with traffic control and street name signs.  Neither the current Road Manual nor the Land Use Code included any specifications for traffic control devices and street name signs.  The amendment was intended to standardize the specifications for all traffic control and street name signs in the rural portions of the County.  The amendments would be included in Section 4.5 of the Road Manual and Section 5.8.6.D of the Land Use Code.

 

Note:  Strike through text is being deleted.  Underlined text is being added.

 

4.5  ROAD NAME SIGNS AND TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES

 

A.   General

 

This section describes general signing design requirements for use in unincorporated Larimer County. All design and construction of signing shall be in conformance with this section and the current requirements of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).  If there are discrepancies between these standards and the MUTCD, the MUTCD will take precedence. For the purposes of this section, ‘roads’ and ‘streets’ mean the same thing.

 

B.   Traffic Signing

1.   Type and Location of Signs

The County Engineer shall make the final determination regarding the type and location of signage controls within the right-of-way or access easement. These controls shall include traffic control signs, road name signs, delineators, and permanent barricades.

2.   New Roadway 

Permanent signage, unless otherwise approved by the County Engineer, shall be completely in place before any new road or access easement is opened for use.

3.   Sign Posts, Supports, and Mountings

Sign posts and their foundations and sign mountings shall be constructed to hold signs in a proper and permanent position, to resist swaying in the wind or displacement by vandalism.

Sign Post. The post shall be constructed in two sections:

 

 

 

 
Anchor Sleeve. A 2-inch 12-gauge galvanized steel square stub section with holes, three (3) feet long, is driven into the ground 30 to 33 inches with 3 to 6 inches remaining above the final grade. The sign post system’s material specification is Telspar 22F12A 03PG, or approved equal, 2-inch x 3 feet anchor post with holes.
Post Section. A 1 ¾ -inch square galvanized steel post section with holes is inserted into the stub and bolted. The material specification is Telspar 20F12P-10PG, or approved equal, 1 ¾ -inch square 12-gauge 10-foot post with holes. Posts shall be installed 6 to 8 inches into the anchor (stub), which has 3 to 6 inches sticking out above the final grade.
Post Bolts. Two 2-1/2-inch long, 3/8-inch hex head bolts are used to attach sign posts to sign anchor (stubs). These bolts shall be separated by one predrilled hole space and installed 90 degrees to one another.
Sign Bolts. Signs are mounted to the post with a minimum of two bolts (5/16-inch with nylon and metal washers) or standard rivets (TL3806 EG, drive rivet) with nylon washers placed against the sign face. The bolt or rivet system is used to fasten signs to the square tube post.
Other Sign Mounts. Streetlights and approved utility poles, when located appropriately, may be used for signs such as warning, parking, and speed limit signs. Streetlight locations should be checked for potential sign installation during the design process and shown on the sign plan sheets.
Breakaway Post System. Posts must be of appropriate length to comply with MUTCD specifications for the location, must conform to CDOT Specification Section 614, and must meet the Federal breakaway standards.

4.   Sign Reflectivity 

All traffic control signs must be fabricated with reflective materials. All reflective materials must meet the requirements of the current requirements of the MUTCD. All signs or traffic control devices must have a 7-year materials warranty.

5.   Panel Guage

Aluminum blanks of .080 gauge are standard, except for signs larger than 36 x 36 inches, which shall be .100 or .125 gauge aluminum.

 

C.   Intersections

 

1.   Street Name Sign

General. All road name signs must conform to these standards, See Plate 29 and 30. If the intersection has a traffic signal, road name signs will be designated as part of the signal.
 
Sign Assembly. All plates shall be installed with end bolts on all plates. There shall be two plates for each road, with a minimum of four plates per road sign assembly. For non-County maintained roads intersecting with numbered County roads, the only sign panels will be for the private road.  There will not be any sign panels for the County road.
Sign Face.
Letter Size. Refer to the following table and Plate 29 and 30 for letter size specifications.

Posted Speed Limit

Letter Size

Minimum Height of Sign Blank

25 mph or less

4”

6”, Lengths may vary

Greater than 25 mph

6” Caps / 4.5” lower case

8”, Lengths may vary

Multi-lane road greater than 40 mph

8” Caps / 6” lower case

10”, Lengths may vary

* The minimum letter height for the “PRIVATE” designation is 1.5 inches
Color. For all public and private roadways, including access easements, letters and numbers are to be white on a green background face. For all private roads, the word “PRIVATE” shall be included on the sign as shown on Plate 29 and 30.  The colors shall not fade when exposed to an accelerated test of ultraviolet light equivalent to 5 years of outdoor exposure. No silk screened signs are permitted.

 

Border. There shall be no borders on road name signs.

Road Name. Road name designations shall be obtained from the approved plat for a land division or shall otherwise be assigned by the County addressing coordinator.
Change of Name. At the point where a road changes names from one section to the next, the change should be designated on the road name assembly by using directional arrows and will require two additional plates.
No Outlet Signs. On any cul-de-sac, temporary dead-end road, or any other roads with only one access point a “No Outlet” (W14-2a) sign may be placed under the road name signs.

 

Commissioner Korb asked for clarification on the “Sign Assembly” portion of the amendments.  He asked if only the private road name sign would be erected and not a county road name sign at an intersection?

 

Rusty McDaniel, Engineering Department, replied yes.  He explained that with the large volume of private roads intersecting with County roads would create an enormous number of signs.  The cross signs on the private roads and private roads that intersected with public roads would be both County roads called out for the public right-of-way.

 

Mr. Kadera provided background information on the amendments to the Appeals section of the Land Use Code.  The proposed amendment would limit the Board of Adjustment’s authority to “bulk” variances, basically setbacks and building heights, and would be consistent with the State Statue (30-28-117) that required a Board of Adjustment.  All other Appeals, including anything to do with a nonconforming building, structure or use would go to the County Commissioners, with some of the items also going to the Planning Commission for a recommendation.  The amendment would clarify the Appeals process for all sections of the Land Use Code and provide a more comprehensive review of applications for Special Exception.

 

Note:  Strike through text is being deleted.  Underlined text is being added.

 

INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE TEXT

A.   All interpretations of code text are made by the planning director.

B.   The planning director's interpretations of the code text can be appealed to the county commissioners.

 

 

4.6. ZONING VARIANCES


4.6.1. Purpose.

The purpose of a zoning variance is to grant a landowner relief from certain standards in this code where, due to exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of a specific piece of property or by reason of exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions of the property, the strict application of the standard(s) would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional and undue hardship on the property owner.


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;

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

C.  From the requirements of Sections 8.17.1, 8.17.2, 8.17.3 and 8.19.

 

4.6.3. Review criteria.

To approve a zoning variance application, the board of adjustment must find the following conditions exist:

A.   There are special circumstances or conditions, such as exceptional topographic conditions, narrowness, shallowness or the shape of property, that are peculiar to the land or structure for which the zoning variance is requested;

B.   The special circumstances are not the result of actions or inactions by the applicant;

C.   The strict interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the code listed above would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other land in the area or land with the same zoning designation and would cause an unnecessary and undue hardship;

D.   Granting the zoning variance is the minimum action that will allow use of the land or structure;

 

 

E.   Granting the zoning variance will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity of the subject land or structure; and

F.   Granting the zoning variance is consistent with the purpose of this code and the master plan.

 

 

4.6.4. Conditions of approval.

A.   The board of adjustment may impose conditions on a zoning variance necessary to accomplish the purposes and intent of this code and the master plan and to prevent or minimize adverse impacts on the general health, safety and welfare of property owners and area residents.

B.   All approved zoning variances run with the land, unless conditions of approval imposed by the board of adjustment specify otherwise.

C.   All zoning approved variances automatically expire within one year of the date of approval, unless the applicant takes affirmative action consistent with the approval.

D.   The board of adjustment may require, as a condition of approval, that the applicant sign a development agreement to ensure completion of any public improvements related to the approved zoning variance.

 

 

4.6.5. Process.

All applications for zoning variances require a pre-application conference and a public hearing before the board of adjustment. If the planning director determines a zoning variance may have a significant impact on a neighborhood, a neighborhood meeting is also required. Each of these processes is described in section 12.2 (development review procedures). All board of adjustment decisions must be recorded with the county clerk and recorder.


4.6.6. Decisions of board of adjustment are final.

All board of adjustment decisions with regard to a zoning variance are final. Decisions can be appealed to court.

 

 

12.2.6. Planning Commission.

 

A.   This advisory commission must conduct a public hearing and formulate a recommendation to county commissioners on rezonings, special reviews, special exceptions, appeals to minimum lot size requirements, amendments to the official zoning map, amendments tothe text of this Code, interpretations of zoning maps, preliminary plats for subdivisions, planned land divisions and conservation developments, general development plans, appeals submitted as part of a development review application, and any other matter specifically referred by the county commissioners to the planning commission for a recommendation

B.   A checklist of submittal requirements is included in the technical supplement to this Code. Additional materials may be required, as identified in the sketch plan review.

 

 

 

 

C.   At the public hearing, the commission will consider all information presented by the applicant and the planning department and any verbal or written testimony. The commission will review the application with respect to the master plan, this Code and all information and testimony and make a recommendation for approval, approval with conditions or denial. The recommendation must include findings stating how the proposal meets or fails to meet the review criteria of this Code.

 

 

12.2.7. Board of County Commissioners.

 

A.   County commissioners will conduct a public hearing and make  final decisions about rezonings; special reviews; special exceptions; appeals to minimum lot size requirements; amendments to the official zoning map; amendments to the text of this Code; interpretations of zoning maps; preliminary plats for subdivisions, planned land divisions, conservation developments and preliminary rural land plans; TDU exemption plats; general development plans; amendments to boundaries of wetlands as shown on adopted wetland maps; appeals concerning the extension, expansions or changes in character of a non-conforming use, building or structure; appeals of planning director interpretations of this Code; appeals of decisions of administrative officers and agencies in the administration and enforcement of this Code other than those delegated to the board of adjustment; and appeals of standards and requirements imposed by this Code other than variances delegated to the board of adjustment.

B.  Prior to making a final decision on any appeal, the county commissioners may refer the matter to the planning commission for a recommendation.

C.   Public hearings will be conducted in accordance with subsections 12.4.1, 12.4.2 and 12.4.3 of this Code. At the public hearing, the county commissioners will consider all information presented by the applicant and the county staff, any verbal or written testimony and the recommendation of the planning commission or the rural land use advisory board. The county commissioners will review the application with respect to the review criteria of this Code and all information and testimony to decide whether to approve, approve with conditions or deny the application. The county commissioners may announce their decision at the conclusion of the hearing.  The county commissioners' official final decision will be in the form of a written resolution that states how the proposal meets or fails to meet the applicable review criteria of this Code.

D.   The county commissioners will administratively approve or deny final plats for subdivisions, planned land divisions, conservation developments, minor land divisions, and rural land plans and amended plats at an open meeting. The meeting will be open to the public and the date, time and location will be posted in the Larimer County Courthouse at least two days prior to the meeting. Notice of the meeting will also be given in the county commissioners' weekly schedule of meetings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12.2.8. Board of Adjustment.

 

A.  The board of adjustment has authority to approve, approve with conditions or deny applications for zoning variances from certain requirements of this Code as specified in Section 4.6.1.  Applications submitted to the board of adjustment for these zoning variances require a pre-application conference and public hearing.  Applications may be subject to a neighborhood meeting at the discretion of the planning director.

B.   The board of adjustment has authority to hear appeals of certain administrative decisions as specified in Section 22.3.1.  These appeals follow the process in Section 22.3.2.

 

 

22.0  APPEALS

 

22.1. PURPOSE

The purpose of this section is to define circumstances under and processes by which persons may appeal: (i) decisions made in the administration, interpretation or enforcement of this Code, and (ii) standards and requirements imposed by this Code.

 

 

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; or

b.  Sections 8.17.1, 8.17.2, 8.17.3 or 8.19.

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.

 

 

22.2.2. Process.

 

A.   Appeals of administrative decisions and planning director interpretations.

 

1.   Initiation of appeal.  A written application for appeal must be submitted to the planning department within 30 days of the decision or interpretation which the person believes to be in error.  The planning director may grant one 30-day extension of this time limit provided that a written request for such extension is submitted to the planning director within the initial 30-day period.

 

2.   Contents of appeal.  The appeal must be submitted on a form provided by the planning department and must include a statement of the decision or interpretation being appealed, the date of the decision or interpretation, and facts, legal authority or other evidence that supports the decision was in error.  An application fee established by the county commissioners must be paid when the appeal is submitted.

3.   Scheduling.  Upon receipt of the appeal, the planning director will schedule the appeal on the next available agenda of the county commissioners, no later than 60 days after the date on which a properly completed notice of appeal is filed.

4.   Notice.  Notice of the time and place of the appeal hearing must be published in a newspaper of general circulation at least ten days before the hearing date.  Notice by first-class mail may be sent to affected property owners if the planning director determines such notice is appropriate.

5.   Action by the county commissioners.

a.         At the appeal hearing the county commissioners will take relevant evidence and testimony from the person who filed the appeal, the administrative officer, planning director, county staff and any interested party.

b.    At the appeal hearing, the county commissioners will only consider the same application, plans and materials that were the subject of the original decision or interpretation, the record of that decision or interpretation and the issue raised by the person who submitted the appeal, unless the county commissioners, in their discretion, determine other evidence to be relevant and helpful.  Testimony from interested parties may be considered only as it relates to the administrative officer’s decision or the planning director’s interpretation.

c.    At the conclusion of the hearing the county commissioners will affirm, affirm with modifications or reverse the decision of the administrative officer or the interpretation of the planning director.

d.    The county commissioners may refer an appeal to the planning commission for a recommendation.  The decision to refer an appeal to the planning commission will be made by the county commissioners within 14 days of the date the appeal was filed.

6.   Burden of proof.  The administrative officer’s decision or the planning director’s interpretation will not be reversed unless the person who filed the appeal shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the decision is in error or inconsistent with the intent and purpose of this Code.

 

B.  Appeals to deviate from standards or requirements not filed concurrently with development applications.

1.   Initiation of appeal.  For appeals to deviate from Code standards or requirements that are not filed as part of a development review application, a written application for appeal must be submitted to the planning director.

2.   Contents of appeal.  The appeal must be submitted on a form provided by the planning department and must include a statement of the Code provision being appealed and evidence that supports the appeal, including evidence that demonstrates how Section 22.3.2 or 22.2.4 review criteria for the appeal are met.  The planning director may request additional information necessary to evaluate the appeal.

3.   Scheduling.  The appeal will be scheduled for hearing within 60 days after the date on which a properly completed notice of appeal is filed.

 

4.   Notice.  Notice of the time and place of the appeal hearing must be published in a newspaper of general circulation at least ten days before the hearing date.  Notice by first-class mail may be sent to affected property owners as determined by the planning director.

5.   Action by the county commissioners.

a.   At the hearing the county commissioners will take relevant evidence and testimony from the person who filed the appeal, county staff and any interested party.

b.   At the conclusion of the hearing, the county commissioners will approve, approve with conditions or deny the appeal.

c.   The county commissioners may refer an appeal to the planning commission for a recommendation.  The decision to refer an appeal to the planning commission will be made by the county commissioners within 14 days of the date the appeal was filed.

 

C.  Appeals to deviate from standards or requirements filed concurrently with development review applications.

 

    1. Initiation of appeal.  For appeals to deviate from Code standards or requirements that are filed as part of a development review application, a written application for appeal must be submitted to the planning director.
    2. Contents of appeal.  The appeal must be submitted on a form provided by the planning department and must include a statement of the Code provision being appealed and evidence that supports the appeal, including evidence that demonstrates how the Section 22.2.3 or 22.2.4 review criteria for the appeal are met.  The planning director may request additional information necessary to evaluate the appeal.
    3. Scheduling.  The appeal will be heard at the same time as the development review application.
    4. Notice.  Notice of the time and place of the appeal hearing must be published in a newspaper of general circulation as part of the notice of the development review application.  Notice by first-class mail may be sent to affected property owners as determined by the planning director with the notice of development review.
    5. Action by the county commissioners.

a.   At the hearing, the county commissioners will take relevant evidence and testimony from the person who filed the appeal, county staff ana any interested party.

b.    At the conclusion of the hearing, the county commissioners will approve, approve with conditions or deny the appeal.  The county commissioners will make separate findings and take separate action on each appeal before taking action on the development proposal.

c.   Appeals of Code standards or requirements submitted concurrently with a development review application will be reviewed by the planning commission along with the development proposal.

 

 

 

 

 

22.2.3  Review criteria for appeals to deviate from standards or requirements other than minimum lot size requirements.

 

When considering whether to approve an appeal to deviate from standards or requirements of this Code, other than minimum lot size requirements, the county commissioners may grant the appeal subject to safeguards and conditions consistent with their findings concerning the following factors.  The county commissioners will consider each of the following factors and make findings pertaining to each one which, in their discretion, applies to the appeal:

A.        Approval of the appeal will not subvert the purpose of the standard or requirement.

B.   Approval of the appeal will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or property values in the neighborhood.

C.   Approval of the appeal is the minimum action necessary.

D.   Approval of the appeal will not result in increased costs to the general public.

E.    Approval of the appeal is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Code.

 

 

22.2.4  Review criteria for appeals to deviate from minimum lot size requirements.

 

When considering whether to approve an appeal to deviate from the minimum lot size requirements of this Code, the county commissioners may grant the appeal subject to safeguards and conditions consistent with their findings concerning the following factors.  The county commissioners will consider each of the following factors and make findings pertaining to each one, which in their discretion, applies to the appeal:

 

A.   The lot size being proposed is consistent with the pattern of existing lots in the neighborhood.

B.   The proposed lot has sufficient area to support the intended use of the lot.

C.   There are physical features of the site or other special circumstances that support the proposed lot size.

D.   Granting the lot size appeal is consistent with the intent and purpose of this Code.

 

 

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; or

b.   Sections 8.17.1, 8.17.2, 8.17.3 or 8.19.

    1. 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; or

b.   Sections 8.17.1, 8.17.2, 8.17.3 or 8.19.

 

    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:

 

a.   The minimum setback or maximum structure height requirements of Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.21; or

b.   Sections 8.17.1, 8.17.2, 8.17.3 or 8.19.

 

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

 

 

22.3.2. Process.

 

A.   Initiation of appeal. A written application must be submitted to the planning department within 30 days of the order, requirement, decision or refusal made by the administrative official or agency. The application must be on a form provided by the planning department. A fee established by the county commissioners must be paid when the appeal is submitted.

B.   Scheduling. Upon receipt of the application, the planning director will schedule a hearing before the board of adjustment no later than 60 days after receipt of the application (see Table 12.3.I).

C.   Notice. Notice of the time and place of the appeal hearing must be published in a newspaper of general circulation at least ten days before the hearing date. Notice by first-class mail must be sent to affected property owners as determined by the planning director.

D.   Action by the board. At the appeal hearing, the board of adjustment will take relevant evidence and testimony from the appellant, the administrative officer or agency and any interested party. At the conclusion of the hearing, the board of adjustment will affirm, affirm with modifications or reverse the determination made by the administrative officer or agency. A concurring vote of four members of the board of adjustment is necessary to reverse any order, requirement, decision, or refusal of the administrative official or agency or to decide in favor of the appellant.

E.   Burden of proof. An order, requirement, decision or refusal of the administrative officer or agency shall not be reversed unless the appellant shows by a preponderance of the evidence that such order, requirement, decision or refusal is erroneous.

 

22.4. APPEALS FROM DECISIONS OF THE FLOODPLAIN REVIEW BOARD


22.4.1. Applicability.

Any person aggrieved by a decision of the floodplain review board can appeal the decision to the county commissioners.


22.4.2. Process.

A.   Appeals may be initiated by filing a notice of appeal with the county commissioners within 30 days after the date of the floodplain review board decision and paying any applicable fees.

B.   Upon receiving notice of appeal, the county commissioners will set a date for hearing the appeal no sooner than 30 days and no later than 60 days after receipt. Written notice of the appeal designating the date, time, and place of the hearing along with the appellant's name must be mailed to the appellant (and to the applicant if the appellant is someone other than the applicant) at least 14 days prior to the hearing. Notice of the date, time, and place of the hearing must also be published in a newspaper of general circulation in Larimer County at least 14 days prior to the hearing.

C.   At the appeal hearing, the county commissioners will take relevant evidence and testimony from the appellant and from any other interested party or person. At the conclusion of the hearing, the county commissioners will affirm, affirm with modifications or reverse the decision made by the floodplain review board.

D.   A decision of the floodplain review board shall not be reversed unless the appellant shows by a preponderance of evidence that the decision is in error or inconsistent with this Code.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

None

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Korb thanked the Planning staff and the Board of County Commissioners for working through the process.  He stated that the proposed approach would provide clarity for the public and should provide some economic benefit when a person wanted to evaluate their overall plans for their property.  He remarked that it was important to have the opportunity for an appeal to run concurrent with an application because previously there wasn’t clear statutory authority for that involvement.  He felt that it was a good outcome and an outcome that also came from some public input.  He stated that it improved the Code and that he was in favor of the amendments.

 

Chairman Morgan seconded Commissioner Korb’s comments.  He stated that the amendments were a significant improvement and thanked the staff for their work.

 

Commissioner Huddleston 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 Sections 3.5, 4.6, 5.8.6.D.3.E.4, 12.2.6, 12.2.7, 12.2.8, 22.0, 22.1, 22.2, and 22.3, file #05-CA0053, and the Amendments to the Larimer County Road Manual Section 3.14.D, file #05-CA0054, be approved.

 

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Huddleston, Korb, Oppenheimer, terMeer, Waldo, Wallace, and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:   7-0

 

ITEM #4 WHITE BUFFALO QUARRY SPECIAL REVIEW #04-Z1520:  Mr. Karan provided background information on the Special Review request for open pit mining for a sandstone quarry on 9.9 acres, located 2.5 miles north of the Boulder County line.

 

Rob Helmick, Senior Planner, stated that members of the Planning Commission did visit the site prior to the hearing.

 

Christie Coleman, Engineering Department, discussed the two prominent engineering issues for the site, which were storm drainage control and traffic generation.  A storm drainage plan was submitted by the applicant, which stated that they planned to do storm water detention in the mining pit areas.  It would allow the runoff from the excess precipitation generated because of the mining to have a place to be detained and a place for the sentiment load in the water to settle out.  That process would be accomplished by piling the remains from mining at the bottom of the pit, which would create an embankment.  The second issue was traffic generation and the number of trips that the mining operation would generate.  It was a very small scale mining activity.  Therefore the traffic generation would be approximately four trips per day or 24 trips per week.  It would generate a small amount of traffic and was considered an insignificant traffic impact.  She stated that she had viewed the site, and Larimer County Road 37E and the private road leading into the property were all in good shape.  As a result there were no observed traffic deficiencies, and the Engineering staff supported the claim that the project would be a low traffic generator.

 

Doug Ryan, Health Department, stated that after reviewing the project, visiting the site, and talking with the applicant the Health Department was recommending four conditions to be placed on the projects recommended approval.  The first condition dealt with air quality with a recommendation that a state Air Emission Permit be obtained or in the absence of that a waiver letter be obtained from the Air Pollution Control Division of the State Health Department.  He explained that State Air Pollution standards would apply to the facility, which had a standard that visual dust emissions at the mining face could not exceed 20% capacity and that there not be visual off-site emissions.  He stated that regarding water quality the property would have to have the State stormwater discharge permit obtained from the water quality control division and as a condition of that permit would have to submit yearly reports to the State Health Department on their water quality control techniques.  Another issue was that the mining must comply with the Larimer County Noise Ordinance at all times.  He stated that he was confident that the project would be in compliance with the Noise Ordinance; however, one of the things that would help to ensure it would comply would be the hours of operation, which were to be from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.  Those hours were during the daytime period where the County Noise Ordinance allowed for a little bit louder sound than in the more sensitive evening hours.  Also, a condition was recommended that any petroleum storage tanks must conform to the standards of the State Oil Inspection section and the Lyons Fire Department.  He remarked that the applicant stated that he did not intend to store any petroleum tanks on the site.  Finally, there was the issue of mosquito

 

control.  Based on the plan for stormwater detention he did not feel that standing water would remain for long enough periods of time to see mosquitoes finish their breeding cycle.  He thought a reasonable condition placed on the project would be to ask that the applicant monitor the detention areas for standing water and the presence of mosquito larvae, and they commit to treat the standing water for those larvae if present. 

 

Chairman Morgan asked about the backup alarms that were on equipment and whether they met the County Noise Ordinance requirements.

 

Mr. Ryan replied that the backup alarms in the back of equipment were louder than the County Noise Ordinance requirements; however, it applied to the residential receivers.  As the noise decreased through distance the standard to be met was that the alarms could not be louder than 55 decibels as measured on the A scale on residential property lines.  He stated that he was confident that it could be met in the presented case. 

 

Commissioner Korb asked why condition A.1 included the seconded sentence discussing the uses of the property outside of operating hours.  He urged that the sentence be deleted.  He also asked about condition A.2, which stated hauling hours from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and were different from the hours of operation.  He did not understand how a hauling hour was different from an operation hour and urged that the hauling hours matched the operation hours.

 

Mr. Karan replied that staff had no objections in deleting the second sentence of condition A.1. 

 

Commissioner Korb agreed that conditions should be added regarding mosquito control and noise ordinance compliance.

 

Vic Norris, White Buffalo Quarry, stated that on July 13, 2004 the Army Corp. of Engineers notified him that the water on the property had to be returned to the surrounding vegetation.  In other words the water could not just sit on the property.  He explained that the quarry would be mined in a bowl shape and trapped water would be returned to the surrounding landscape by sprinkler system.  The State of Colorado informed him that he did not own the water, and it could not be trapped.  He stated that if the water was released it should eliminate any problems with mosquito larvae.  Regarding the noise, he stated that the quarry was quite a ways from other areas and that the only time that there would be machinery noise would be when loading occurred, which would be minimal. 

 

Commissioner Waldo asked if it was beneficial to have the extended hauling hour times?

 

Mr. Norris replied no. 

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if a full truck leaving the site was left at 5:00 p.m. would be considered a hauling hour?

 

Mr. Norris hoped that the employees would leave at 5:00 p.m. with a truck load of rock and was not sure if that hauling time should be included with the hours of operation.

 

Chairman Morgan asked how the hauling time should be handled for a quarry?

 

 

Mr. Helmick stated that hauling hours were different than hours of operation.  The Condition of Approval A.2 was intentionally included to be consistent with the hours approved for other quarry operations in the area.

 

Commissioner Korb stated that he felt that Conditions of Approval should relate to the actual property that the operation would occur on.  He still felt that the Condition should be removed.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Gary LaFever, 1650 County Road 37E, thanked the Staff, Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners.  He stated that the reason that he chose to live in Larimer County was because of the efforts of the above named people, and the County had been able to create a good balance between agriculture, commercial, and residential.  He commented that County Road 37E on which he lived was well maintained.  He also stated that he was not anti-quarry or against people’s property rights.  He submitted a letter to the Commission, which he briefly read from.  He stated that additional analysis regarding impacts to surrounding property values needed to be completed and constituted a violation of the due process clauses of the U.S. and Colorado Constitution.  He explained that he contacted an appraiser and asked if an adjacent quarry would be relative to the analysis of his property, in which the appraiser replied yes.  He stated that he had proof that within a five mile radius there was dramatic reductions in adjacent property values based on recent quarry activities.  He felt that the information presented was insufficient to determine whether his property, which was adjacent to the White Buffalo Quarry, would suffer reduction in property value. 

 

Mr. Norris stated that in his personal experience property value did not decrease due to those types of quarries.

 

DISCUSSION:

Mr. Helmick explained that the equipment noise alarms were required in some form or another by federal law.  He also stated that the hauling hours in Condition #2 were included by staff to be consistent with other approved quarry applications. 

 

Commissioner terMeer stated that it may be time to require equipment alarms that minimized noise.  She also recalled that other quarries had set hauling hours, and it would be only fair to apply it to the subject application.

 

Commissioner Korb reminded the Commission that neither the staff nor the applicant objected to removing the hauling hours from the conditions.  He felt that the County should not be involved in that issue when the operation itself was going to be monitored.  He also felt that the conditions regarding noise and mosquito monitoring was not an unnecessary burden to the applicant.  With regard to Mr. LaFever’s objection, he felt that he did not bring forth any documentation, evaluations, or actions of an appraiser regarding property value to give anyone any basis for making a finding that the proposed operation would have an adverse effect on property value.  Mr. LaFever’s brief alluded that there had been problems selling homes, but there were hundreds of factors that existed in the housing market at any location in Larimer County at any particular point in time.  Therefore the information did not target and identify that the lack of ability to sell the home was due to the existence of the quarry.  He stated that he did not feel that Mr. LaFever’s commentary supported the need to reverse Staff’s findings.

 

 

Commissioner Wallace explained that on the site visit she saw a quarry to the right of the proposed, which was much larger than the White Buffalo Quarry would ever be.  She also saw other areas that had been mined in the past, and it was obvious that the area was heavily mined in many directions.  Therefore anyone that purchased or had built property in that area would have some expectation that it was an area that had the potential for mining. 

 

Chairman Morgan stated that equipment alarm technology was something that should be looked in to but was not the appropriate time to do so considering the particular property.  Given the level of intensity of the proposal it was not something that needed to be imposed on the applicant at the current time.  The area had a long history of mining and the property in the area had apparently coexisted with the mining operations for extended period of time.  He stated that there certainly could be an impact on property but given the size of the proposed operation there would be a limited impact at the present time.  He stated that he shared Commissioner Wallace’s view regarding property values in the area.  He also spoke in regards to the hauling hours and stated that there would be significant hauling time getting to the quarry from where one actually entered the property and to when one actually got to the mining operation.  He felt that the proposal should be consistent with other mining operations and supported retaining the condition regarding the hauling hours. 

 

Commissioner Huddleston moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the White Buffalo Quarry Special Review (file #04-Z1520) subject to the conditions set forth by staff with the following modifications:  remove the second sentence of Condition A.1, remove Condition A.2, add a Condition H which would state that the applicant must monitor the detention pond for standing water and the presence of mosquito larvae and commit to treat the standing water for those larvae if present, and add a Condition I which would state that the applicant would comply with the Larimer County Noise Ordinance.

 

Commissioner Korb seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner Wallace moved to Amend the Motion to reinsert Condition A.2 into the Conditions of Approval, which stated that hauling hours shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday.

 

Chairman Morgan seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Huddleston, Korb, and Oppenheimer voted against the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ terMeer, Waldo, Wallace, and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  4-3

 

Commissioner Huddleston 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 White Buffalo Quarry Special Review, file #04-Z1520, for the property described on “Exhibit C” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions: 

 

 

A.   Throughout the term of this Special Review approval:

 

1.   Except for the hauling of product offsite to destinations, the hours of operation shall be:  8 am to 5 pm Monday through Friday and 8 am to noon on Saturdays. 

 

2.   Hauling hours shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday.

 

3.   Mining shall take place in pits which will detain Stormwater.  Mining shall continue to commence upslope of rubble piles located at the toe of the slope.  The Operator shall retain rock waste piles down slope of any mining activity.  The location of these rubble piles will continue to create a natural retention pond that captures all mining activity runoff.

 

4.   If at any time in this project’s operation its trip generation exceeds 20 trips a day the applicant must submit a traffic study and pavement threshold study to determine the transportation impacts associated with this development.  If these studies determine that transportation improvements are required, the applicant will be required to construct the required improvements.

 

B.   Transportation Capital Expansion Fees shall be paid prior to the recording of the Development Agreement.

 

C.   Before commencing operations on the 9.9 acres of property as proposed the Operator shall:

 

1.   Obtain a Stormwater Discharge Permit.  Submit a copy of the Permit to the Larimer County Planning Department.  The permit must be updated annually.  Alternatively, the Operator shall submit a letter from the appropriate State Health agency stating that the White Buffalo mining operation is exempt from the requirement.

 

2.   Obtain an Air Pollution Emissions Notice (APEN) and submit a copy to the Larimer County Planning Department.  Should a submitted APEN indicate it is required; the Operator will obtain an air quality permit.  The permit must be updated annually.  Alternately, submit to County Planning a letter from the Health Department’s Air Pollution Control Division exempting this mine from submitting an APEN. 

 

3.   A Development Agreement for the Amended Special Review approval is required.  The Development Agreement must be approved by the Board of County Commissioners before the mining of this site may commence.  

 

D.   Each year, within 10 days of sending the annual report to the State MLRB, the operator shall provide a copy of the report to the Larimer County Planning Department. 

 

 

 

E.   The mining of the 9.9 acre site shall halt thirty (30) years from approval by the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners unless a Special Review is subsequently approved which further extends the life of this operation.

 

F.   The approval of the White Buffalo Special Review (file # 04-Z1520) shall be null and void if, at any time after the date of approval by the Board of County Commissioners, the subject mining operation substantially ceases for any period of 3 consecutive years.

 

G.  The operator shall monitor the detention pond for standing water and the presence of mosquito larvae and commit to treat the standing water for larvae if present.

 

H.  The operator shall comply with the Larimer County Noise Ordinance.

 

I. The White Buffalo Special Review be approved as proposed in file #04-Z1520 and as represented by the application except as modified by these Conditions of Approval.

 

Commissioner Korb seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Huddleston, Korb, Oppenheimer, terMeer, Waldo, Wallace and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

ITEM #5 WATERDALE AMENDED SPECIAL REVIEW #04-Z1522:  Ms. Ponce-Pore provided background information on the request to amend the Waterdale Special Review (file #99-Z1296) in order to add 16 homes to the approved 177 home sites for a total of 193 home sites in the manufactured home park.  The request also included an Appeal to the Larimer County Land Use Code Section 8.14.2.S regarding connectivity, Section 8.14.2.P regarding gated private roads, and Section 8.14.2.N regarding private roads.  She reminded the Commission that many of the development design standards did not apply to the application because it was not a land division, just a zoning request.  The issue regarding connectivity for the already approved portion of the site had been raised by the property owner to the south, Les Kaplan, and Cameron Gloss of the City of Fort Collins.  Ms. Ponce-Pore explained that the Development Services Team did not believe that it was appropriate to apply the current connectivity regulations for the proposed 16 home site application retroactively to the 177 home sites that were previously approved by the Board of County Commissioners.  At the time of the last approval in 1999 it was determined by the Planning Staff that there was adequate access available to Mr. Kaplan’s parcel.  And under much consideration, the Development Services Team could not support Mr. Kaplan’s request at the present time. 

 

Commissioner Huddleston asked if any actions would be taken regarding noise mitigation?

 

Ms. Ponce-Pore replied that a five foot wall was to be installed, which would provide a sound barrier along the northern portion of the lot.  An interim Site Plan had been submitted by the applicant that showed some landscaping such as trees on the northern site which would protect the residence from some of the noise. 

 

 

Don Brookshire, East Point Studio-3207 Kittery Court, explained that the proposed application was to add 16 home sites to the existing Sunflower Community (formerly known as Waterdale) located south of State Highway 14 (Mulberry Street) and approximately ¼ mile east of Interstate 25.  The proposed site was approximately 2.8 acres.  He pointed out where the street accesses and emergency access would be located with the primary access to the 16 home sites being Sunchase Drive.  He also pointed out that evergreen-type trees would be planted to supply noise mitigation from Highway 14.  He explained that the proposed community was consisted with the existing Sunflower development, and he provided pictures of what the mobile homes would look like and how they would be placed with landscaping on the site in order to show the character of the neighborhood. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Cameron Gloss, Director of Current Planning for the City of Fort Collins, stated that he had sent a letter to Rob Helmick on March 30, 2005 which outlined some concerns regarding street connectivity.  He also stated that a letter was sent to Larimer County in 1999 regarding the same issue.  He pointed out where the Fort Collins city limits were and the Growth Management Area (GMA) boundary.  He stated that the City predicted that all properties within the GMA would annex into the city.  The Waterdale (Sunflower) property owner had executed an agreement which gave their consent giving the City of Fort Collins Power of Attorney allowing the City to annex the property as soon as it was eligible.  In the near future the properties should be under the City’s jurisdiction subjecting them to City standards.  The City of Fort Collins’ Land Use Code required street connectivity with the purpose to mesh neighborhoods together as opposed to

separating them.  Mr. Kaplan had raised the issue of providing a second point of access for his property, which was impractical at the present time except for the option he was proposing for

emergency access.  He remarked that the County had mentioned that Mr. Kaplan had an option to provide access to his property which would extend south to Prospect Road.  He stated that the option would be a considerable expense for one property owner to carry.  He also stated that another option would be to cross to the west from the Kaplan property through the Boxelder Creek drainage and onto the Frontage Road, however that option would not be the City’s preference.  The City had adopted the I-25 Sub-Area Plan as well as the I-25 Regional Plan and planning for that area was for it to remain in its open state protecting the drainage way and keeping a buffer between I-25 and residential development.  Therefore, the City of Fort Collins Planning Staff was respectfully asking for a condition to be added requiring that a second point of access be provided for emergency purposes through the Waterdale (Sunflower) property to Mr. Kaplan’s property.  The Fort Collins Planning Department felt that it was an important issue for the City of Fort Collins as well as Mr. Kaplan and the development of his property in the future.

 

Chairman Morgan asked that in order to meet the requirements of the City of Fort Collins’ an emergency access would be required for the property?

 

Mr. Gloss replied yes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tim Dow, Dow Law Firm-323 S. College Avenue, stated that he represented Imago Enterprises which was owned by Mr. Les Kaplan.  Imago Enterprises owned the 47 acre tract which was immediately south of the subject property.  He submitted a packet of materials that summarized their position and included letters from the City of Fort Collins, which also had been sent to the County Attorney’s office as well as Mr. Helmick.  He explained that Imago Enterprises did not oppose the subject application.  They were only asking that an additional condition be placed on the Special Review that would require an emergency access point where Pad 39 of the development was.  They also were not asking for the applicant to be burdened by any costs.  Mr. Kaplan and Imago Enterprises was willing to endure the costs and had offered to pay for the installing of what would be a temporary emergency access between the two properties.  He explained that at the time the Imago property was developed to the south the temporary emergency access point on Pad 39 of the Waterdale development would be vacated.  He remarked that the absence of an emergency access point rendered the property to the south virtually undevelopable.  Under the Larimer County Land Use Code Section 8.14.2.N all developments must have adequate public roads and all roads must have connectivity to adjacent properties.  The property was within the Urban Growth Area and was subject to the City of Fort Collins Sub-Area Plan as well as the Intergovernmental Agreement.  The County Planning Staff had stated that when the original development was approved in 1999 connectivity to the south was considered and Staff determined that there was adequate access available to the Imago property, and access was not necessary through the Waterdale project.  However, Mr. Kaplan and he believed that decision was wrongly considered.  There was no practical or affordable access to the west, plus it would be across FEMA floodplain property and would require substantial fill.  To go to the south would cause the installation of approximately ½ mile of road just for that one property.  Therefore, the only feasible and practical additional access point was from the north down into the Imago property.  The logical place for that would be on Pad 39.  He remarked that Staff had also indicated that they did not feel that there was a nexus, which his client and he disagreed with.  They felt that the addition was in effect one entire subdivision, which meant that the Land Use Code required connectivity.  He also explained that Poudre Fire Authority supported Mr. Kaplan’s request that there be another emergency access point.  He remarked that the people that would be living in the development would benefit by having a secondary point of

access for emergency vehicles, and it would be no cost to the development.  The bottom line was that the development was effectively a subdivision or in the present case a phased subdivision development.  As such, the County was required to comply with its own Land Use Code as well as the provisions of the Intergovernmental Agreement as indicated by the City of Fort Collins.  He stated that in summary his client was requesting that the application be approved with an additional condition that would require an emergency access point on or near Pad 39. 

 

Commissioner Huddleston stated that he understood the point of view but wondered why they did not come forward in 1999 to request the emergency access?

 

Mr. Dow replied that Mr. Kaplan had just purchased the property in 1999.

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer did not see the benefit of having the access across an open dirt field until the property to the south was developed.

 

Commissioner Korb asked if there was a road along the southern boundary of the Imago property?

 

 

Mr. Dow replied no but believed that there would be a road projected there. 

 

Chairman Morgan stated that it looked like there was a projected road coming out of the southwest corner of the Clydesdale Subdivision.

 

Mr. Dow explained that when the Imago property was developed that road would be developed and would relieve the need for the emergency access point at Pad 39.  He pointed out that in 1999 the City of Fort Collins did object to the development without an emergency access point as well as to it being a gated community. 

 

Les Kaplan, Imago Enterprises President, stated that Imago Enterprises owned the 40 acres of land south of Waterdale.  He explained that the lots in Waterdale were leased, not sold.  Therefore, he had proposed to Paul Gallenstein, owner of the Waterdale property, to become a tenant of Pad 39 until such time another secondary emergency access was secured.  He explained that the only other access alternative was to the south of his property which was a 180 acre parcel and 85% of that property was in the expanded Boxelder Creek floodplain.  Issues with that property sill had to be solved and access wouldn’t be available until it was developed.  He stated that there was no other realistic connection that would not require filling the FEMA floodway, and filling that floodway would occur in an area which the County’s environmental sensitivity map designated as a wetland.  He explained that without an emergency access he could not annex into the City.  He stated that he was not asking that Waterdale pay anything and reaffirmed that it would only be temporary and not a permanent access, and that the pad would be leased by him. 

 

Chairman Morgan stated that Mr. Kaplan should be trying to work out an agreement with the Waterdale development and ownership.

 

Mr. Kaplan replied that he spoke to Mr. Gallenstein regarding the emergency access through the Waterdale development.  He drew up an agreement between them; however, he had not heard back from him regarding it. 

 

Ms. Ponce-Pore clarified that the request was not for a subdivision but for a use as an amendment to an already approved use.  She stated that she did not believe that Mr. Kaplan’s proposed site for emergency access was his only option.  She asked Mr. Kaplan how he currently accessed the property?

 

Mr. Kaplan explained that there was a dirt road off the frontage road into his property.  However, it was not a road that would be acceptable for emergency access because it was within a floodway. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Brookshire pointed out that the subject proposal was only for the 2.8 acres on the northern portion of the Waterdale development and that the project approved in 1999 was done so with the consideration that it met the current County standards at that time.  He explained that there was a Condition of Approval that require a right-in/ right-out pork chop island/intersection to be installed at the end of Sunchase Drive.  The southern portion of the Waterdale property currently would allow homes to be delivered through that intersection.  However, once the entire development was completed the pork chop intersection would be installed.  If Pad 39 was not developed and left open for the temporary emergency access the pad would not be able to be built upon because the house would not be able to physically get there.  He also stated that the need for emergency access to a vacant piece of land was unclear and in his opinion the property had multiple points of access available to it.  He displayed on the projector the Overall Development Plan that was approved by the City of Fort Collins in 2004 for the properties south of the Waterdale project down to Prospect Road.  He pointed out that roadways connected through the Clydesdale Development to the south and joined into Prospect Road.  He also pointed out an east and west connectivity to the Frontage Road of I-25.  He explained that as a result two additional points of access were available; and from those roadways, the various parcels would have access points as divided up by the Overall Development Plan.  Therefore, there were other solutions to Mr. Kaplan’s concern regarding access to his property.  Lastly, he remarked that Waterdale did have connectivity, which was through Sunchase Drive to Carriage Parkway. 

 

Mr. Gallenstein explained that originally Mr. Kaplan had two points of access because the property was originally purchased as one entire piece but then a Minor Land Division of property was done that forced the property to only have one access now.  He stated that Mr. Kaplan had options and imposed the problem on himself, and the Waterdale option was only a matter of convenience and cost savings to him.  Mr. Gallenstein also clarified that he had returned Mr. Kaplan’s phone calls to him.  He finally explained that he was against Mr. Kaplan’s proposal because the residents of Waterdale had expressed there opposition to him.   

 

Mr. Helmick stated that staff did not believe that there was a nexus between Waterdale and Mr. Kaplan’s property nor did staff believe that an error was made in 1999 when the original plan was approved. 

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Wallace felt that the Planning Commission did not have the authority to modify the plan that was originally approved in 1999.

 

Chairman Morgan commented that the proposal was not a Subdivision request but a request for an expanded use. 

 

Commissioner Korb felt that the Commission should not tamper with the original request’s outcome. 

 

Chairman Morgan stated that the Commission was dealing with an amendment to a Special Review and emergency access was something that should be dealt with between the parties involved.  He stated that he would vote in favor of the application without the improvements (emergency access) for Mr. Kaplan’s property.

 

 

 

Commissioner Waldo stated that Mr. Kaplan had made every effort to have an emergency access, and he would not see how the emergency access would adversely affect the Waterdale community.  He stated that he would vote against the application.

 

Commissioner Huddleston 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 Waterdale Amended Special Review, file #04-Z1522, Appeals to Section 8.14.2.S, 8.14.2.P, and Section 8.14.2.N of the Larimer County Land Use Code be approved.

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner Waldo voted against the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:   6-1

 

Commissioner Huddleston 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 Waterdale Amended Special Review, file #04-Z1522, for the property described on “Exhibit D” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.    Waterdale Manufactured Home Park Amended Special Review shall be developed consistent with the Amended Special Review information contained in File #04-Z1522, 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 Waterdale Manufactured Home Park Amended Special Review.

 

2.    A right-turn deceleration lane on Highway 14, per CDOT criteria, and converting the existing full-movement intersection of Sunchase Drive and SH 14 into a right-in/right-out intersection. The turn lane and intersection improvements will be constructed before a building permit is issued on the 193rd residential unit on the property, or within two years of the approval, whichever is first. A final design of this turn lane and intersection improvements will be provided to Larimer County Engineering and CDOT for review and approval, and appropriate collateral will need to be provided to Larimer County, before the Special Review Development Agreement is recorded. The applicant may be required to dedicate additional right-of-way or easements, subject to the final approved design of this turn lane and intersection improvements.

 

 

 

 

 

3.    The applicant shall submit final plans for the emergency access from Brant Lane to Highway 14 to Larimer County Engineering for final approval; the applicant shall acquire a CDOT access permit for the construction of an emergency access from Brandt Lane to SH 14.

 

4.    This application shall pay the fees and meet all associated conditions of the Development Construction Permit. In addition, if the construction of the turn-lane and associated off-site/adjacent improvements occur separately from construction of the interior road, a separate Development Construction Permit shall be acquired by the applicant.

 

5.    The applicant shall submit a final road design to Larimer County Engineering for review and approval, and appropriate collateral will need to be provided to Larimer County, before the Special Review Development Agreement is recorded. The applicant shall construct the interior road (currently named Brandt Lane) to meet or exceed Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards requirements.

 

6.    The applicant will also construct a 5-foot wide sidewalk adjacent to SH 14, outside of the ROW. The applicant will dedicate a public pedestrian/bike easement before the Special Review Development Agreement is recorded. This sidewalk shall be constructed with the interior road improvements, and subject to the same conditions. The sidewalk shall be maintained by the Waterdale/Sunflower HOA.

 

7.    Traffic Signal at SH 14 and Clydesdale Parkway/Camino del Mundo. It is expected that the traffic generated by the Development, together with traffic generated by the Clydesdale Park P.U.D., the Trails at Vista Bonita P.U.D., and Waterdale SR, will warrant signalization of the intersection of SH 14 and Clydesdale Parkway/Camino del Mundo at an estimated cost of $275,000. The Developer agrees to pay its proportionate share of the actual signalization costs in the amount of $5,790 ($362/unit) at such time as signalization is warranted, as determined by the County and CDOT based on established traffic generation engineering criteria. In anticipation of this expense, the Developer agrees to establish an interest-bearing escrow account and deposit therein the sum of $5,790 before recording this agreement. In the event that signalization is not warranted within two years after full build out of the Development or within ten years of recording of this Development Agreement, whichever shall occur first, the escrowed funds shall be returned to the Developer and the Developer shall be relieved of any future obligation to participate in the cost of the signalization.

 

8.    The applicant will publicly dedicate Sunchase Drive from SH 14 to and through Brenton Drive, as shown in Exhibit A, Waterdale Right-of-Way Description in File #04-Z1522. This right-of-way shall be 51-feet in width, as specified in Figure 7-9F of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (Residential Local Street). This right-of-way will be dedicated and recorded with the Special Review Development Agreement recordation.

 

 

 

 

 

9.    The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings:  Poudre School District fee, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, Larimer County Regional Park Fees and Drainage fees. 

 

10.   Prior to submittal of the first building permit on this amendment, the applicant shall obtain final approvals of the landscaping plans, per Sean Wheeler, Larimer County Landscape Planner.

 

11.   The applicant shall assure that all manufactured homes shall be built to meet the requirements of Section 18.2.1.B.

 

12.    The applicant shall submit a detailed site plan, including lighting levels, trenching for utilities, sidewalk details, and other site details at the time of Development to be approved prior to approval of the Development Agreement.

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner Waldo voted against the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:   6-1

 

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

 

ADJOURNMENT:  There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 10:03 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                                             Jason Waldo, Secretary

 

 

EXHIBIT A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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