Elk in Rocky Mountain National Park
 

LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of June 16, 2004

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, June 16, 2004, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners’ Huddleston, Morgan, Pond, terMeer, Waldo, and Wallace were present. Commissioner Korb presided as Chairman.  Commissioners' Boulter and Nelson were absent.  Also present were Rob Helmick, Principal Planner, David Karan, Planner II, Karin Madson, Planner II, Geniphyr Ponce-Pore, Planner II, Sean Wheeler, Planner II, Roxann Hayes, 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 MAY 19, 2004 MEETING: MOTION by Commissioner Morgan to approve the minutes; seconded by Commissioner Wallace.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:

Chairman Korb moved Item #7;  Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code, to Item #4.

 

With Commissioner Wallace’s Planning Commission term ending July 1, 2004, Chairman Korb expressed the Board of County Commissioners’ as well as the Planning Commissions’ sincere thanks for the nine years he contributed to the Commission. 

 

Commissioner Morgan read a Resolution of Appreciation in recognition of his service to Larimer County, and his activities on the Larimer County Planning Commission.

 

Commissioner Waldo seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner Pond moved that the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution.

 

Commissioner Morgan seconded the Motion.

 

The Resolution received unanimous voice approval.

 

Rob Helmick, Principal Planner, recommended that Item #5:  McDonald Subdivision be tabled to July 21, 2004 due to nonpayment of fees by the applicant.

 

Commissioner Morgan moved that the Larimer County Planning Commission table Item #5:  McDonald Subdivision #03-Z1469 to July 21, 2004.

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion

 

Motion Passed:  7-0

 

 

 

 

CONSENT ITEMS:

 

ITEM #1 BENNETT CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT #03-S2143: Mr. Wheeler provided background information on the request to subdivide 35 acres into a Conservation Development, which would be located off the south side of Davis Street, east of County Road 21 and north of the Gilmore Acres Subdivision, northwest of Fort Collins.

 

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

 

      BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Bennett Conservation Development #03-S2143 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 Bennett Conservation Development (File #03-S2143) 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 Bennett Conservation Development.

 

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 and the Larimer County Regional Park Fee (in lieu of dedication).  The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply.

 

C. The applicant shall provide a Final Development Agreement and 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 shall include, but is not limited to; the issues related to rural development, fire department requirements, the requirement for an access permits and culverts, the need for engineered footings and foundations, the need for engineered septic systems, the need for passive radon mitigation, and the issues raised in the review and or related to compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

D. Engineered footings and foundations are required for new habitable construction.

 

E. 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.

 

F. The Final Plat shall include all technical corrections identified in this report or at the public hearings.

 

Commissioner Huddleston seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

ITEM #2  TWO LAKES SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT #02-S1932: Ms. Madson provided background information on the request to divide a 35-acre parcel into two lots for single-family residence, located approximately 1/2 mile west of County Line Road, off County Road 54. 

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Two Lakes Subdivision Preliminary Plat #02-S1932 for the property described on "Exhibit B" to the minutes be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   The Final Plat of the Two Lakes Subdivision shall be completed in strict compliance with the conditionally approved preliminary plat and other information submitted by the applicant and contained in the file, #02-S1932, unless modified by the conditions of this approval.

 

2.   The applicant shall execute a Final Development Agreement and 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 shall include, but is not limited to; the issues related to rural development, fire department requirements, the requirement for an access permits and culverts, the recommendations of the State Geological Survey  (addressing foundations, groundwater, septic systems and basements), wildlife concerns and requirements, building envelopes, Kaneb Pipeline conditions for development, the need for passive radon mitigation, and the issues raised in the review and or related to compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

3.   The following fees shall be collected at building permit for new single family dwellings: Poudre R-1 school fees in lieu of dedication, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation, and the Larimer County Park Fee in lieu of dedication.  The fee amount that is current at the time building permit application shall apply.  Prior to construction, the applicant must contact the County Engineering Department and obtain a Development Construction Permit.

 

4.   Passive radon mitigation measures shall be included in the construction of all new residential structures in this development. Radon detection tests are required in all new residential structures on this site. The results of these tests shall be submitted to the Planning Department once the structure is enclosed but prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. As an alternative, a builder may present a prepaid receipt for a radon tester that specifies that a test will be done within 30 days. A permanent certificate of occupancy can be issued when the prepaid receipt is submitted.

 

 

5.   The applicant shall comply with the recommendations and conditions of approval outlined in the memo from Traci Downs, Larimer County Engineering Department, dated April 8, 2004.

 

6.   The applicant provided a letter of commitment for two taps to serve the project, from the Northern Weld County Water District.  The final plat submittal shall include an updated letter of commitment that must be valid at the time of final plat recordation.

 

7.   The final plat shall show a driveway setback for Lot 2 to meet the requirements of the Colorado Geological Survey dated Jan. 6, 2004.  This setback shall be tied to the property survey, clearly indicate where a driveway may be placed and that extend the entire length of the area of concern (along the deeply incised ditch inlet) from the beginning of the driveway at County Road 54 to the west property boundary.  Prior to issuance of a building permit for Lot 2 the applicant shall fence the area surrounding the drop inlet structure and install warning signage advising of the potential danger as outlined in the letter from Mayo Sommermeyer, The Dow Law Firm, LLC, dated March 28, 2002. 

 

8.   All wetland areas and their associated buffer areas shall be shown on the plat and tied to the property survey.  In addition, the final plat submittal shall include a plan for management and use of the wetland/wildlife areas and associated buffer area.  This plan must address the concerns and requirements outlined in Section 8.2.8 and 8.4.5 of the Land Use Code including a method of protecting these areas from damage due to livestock, restricting these areas from non-native plants and/or animals, requirements

related to raptor nesting during construction and the maintenance of existing vegetation.  All disturbed areas shall be promptly revegetated to prevent erosion and invasion of weeds.

 

9.   The Development Agreement shall specify that if actively nesting raptors are found during the nesting season (February through July) while the property is under construction, the developer shall contact the Division of Wildlife to determine an appropriate non-disturbance zone until young are fledged.

 

10.   The final plat submittal shall include the revised or replacement access easement agreement for the relocated access easement serving the interests of the North Poudre Irrigation Company for Hinkley Lake and the Slagle property.  This agreement shall be approved by the owners of the Slagle property and the North Poudre Irrigation Company or the building envelope for Lot 1 shall be revised to exclude the existing access easement.

11.   All easements shall be shown on the plat with the dimensions for each clearly defined. This shall include all easements for the ditches crossing the property by either historic easement or with an easement that meets the requirements of Section 8.8 of the Land Use Code. 

 

Commissioner Huddleston seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

ITEM #3 RANCHO COLORADO PLANNED LAND DIVISION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAT #03-S2226:  Ms. Madson provided background information on the request to divide a 39.70-acre parcel into two lots, with the parcel being located on the west side of North Shields Street, approximately ½ mile south of the intersection of County Road 54G.

 

Commissioner terMeer asked if the neighbors’ concerns regarding high ground water was addressed?

 

Ms. Madson replied that the foundation requirements were addressed through the building permit process and the septic requirements were addressed through the septic permitting process.  She pointed out that it would be noted as a disclosure notice item and not a specific condition of approval.

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Rancho Colorado Planned Land Division Preliminary Plat and Rezoning to Planned Development #03-S2226, Appeal to Section 8.1.1.B.4, Appeal to Section 8.1.3., and Appeal to Section 8.1.4.B.1 for the property described on "Exhibit C" to the minutes be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   The Final Plat of the Rancho Colorado Planned Land Division shall be completed in strict compliance with the conditionally approved preliminary plat and other information submitted by the applicant and contained in the file, #03-S2226, unless modified by the conditions of this approval.

 

2.   The applicant shall execute a Final Development Agreement and 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 shall include, but is not limited to; wetlands, high groundwater, that basements are not likely to be feasible, the need for engineered septic systems and foundations, use and maintenance of the platted (unbuilt) right-of-way, the requirement for an access permit and culverts, fire department requirements, rural area issues (even though the area is within the GMA), the need for passive radon mitigation, and the issues raised in the review and or related to compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

3.   The following fees shall be collected at building permit for new single family dwellings: Poudre R-1 school fees in lieu of dedication, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation, and the Larimer County Park Fee in lieu of dedication.  The fee

amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply.  Prior to construction, the applicant must contact the County Engineering Department and obtain a Development Construction Permit.

 

 

 

4.   Passive radon mitigation measures shall be included in the construction of all new residential structures in this development. Radon detection tests are required in all new residential structures on this site. The results of these tests shall be submitted to the

Planning Department once the structure is enclosed but prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. As an alternative, a builder may present a prepaid receipt for a radon tester that specifies that a test will be done within 30 days. A permanent certificate of occupancy can be issued when the prepaid receipt is submitted.

 

5.   All residential structures shall be equipped with residential fire sprinkler systems.

 

6.   The applicant shall comply with the recommendations and comments outlined in the memo from Traci Downs, Larimer County Engineering Department, dated April 8, 2004.

 

7.   An access permit from the Larimer County Access and Utility Coordinator shall be obtained for the shared access off of Shields Street.

 

8.   The Final Plat submittal shall include an executed Annexation Agreement to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado.

 

9.   Approval of the Rancho Colorado Planned Development (rezoning) application, file #03-S2226, from FA (Farming) to PD (Planned Development) subject to the following conditions.

 

a.   Development of the Rancho Colorado PLD and PD shall be consistent with the Preliminary Plat as found in file #03-S2226.

 

b.   The permitted uses, lot building and structure requirements, setbacks and structure height limitations for Rancho Colorado PLD and PD shall be as follows:

 

PD (Planned Development)

A.   Principal Uses

Agricultural.

1. Farm (R)

2. Sod farm, nursery (R)

3. Tree farm (R)

4. Greenhouse (R)

5. Garden supply center (S)

6. Commercial poultry farm (S)

7. Feedyard (S)

8. Boarding stable (S)

9. Kennel (S)

10. Fur farm (S)

11. Agricultural labor housing (S)

12. Packing facility (R)

13. Pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital

(MS/S)

14. Livestock veterinary clinic/hospital

(MS/S)

 

Residential

15. Single-family dwelling (R)

16. Group home for developmentally disabled (R)

17. Group home for the elderly (R)

18. Group home (R)

Institutional

19. Cemetery (S)

20. Hospital (S)

21. School, public (L)

22. School, nonpublic (R/S)—See section

4.3 (use descriptions and conditions)

23. Church (R/S)—See section 4.3

24. Child/elderly care center (S)

25. Child/elderly care home (R)

26. Community hall (R/S)

27. Sheriff/fire station (L)

28. State-licensed group home (S)

Recreational

29. Golf course (S)

30. Country club (S)

31. Riding academy (S)

32. Public park, playground (L)

33. Trail/trail head (L)

Accommodation

34. Seasonal camp (S)

Industrial

35. Mining (S)

36. Oil and gas drilling and production

(R)

Utilities

37. Utility substation (L)

38. Water storage facility (L)

39. Treatment plant (L)

40. Commercial mobile radio service (R/S)—See section 16

41. Radio and television transmitters (S)

B. Lot, building and structure requirements:

1. Minimum lot size:

a. 100,000 square feet (2.3 acres) if a well or septic system is used.

b. 21,780 square feet (0.5 acre) if both public water and sewer are used.

2. Minimum setbacks:

a. Front yard—Refer to section 8.17 (supplementary regulations for setbacks from highways and county roads). The setback from an

interior subdivision street 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—five feet.

c. Rear yards—ten feet.

 

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

 

3. Maximum structure height—40 feet.

4. 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.

 

NOTE:

Uses followed by an (R) are allowed by right.

Uses followed by an (S) require approval through the Special Review Process described in Section 4.5 of the Larimer County Land Use Code as amended.

Uses followed by an (R/S) may be allowed by right or require

Special Review approval based on thresholds in Section 4.3 (Use Descriptions) of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

Uses followed by an (L) require review through the Location and Extent Review Process described in Section 13.0 of the Larimer County Land Use Code as amended.

 

10.   The rezoning of this site shall not be effective unless and until the final plat of Rancho Colorado PLD and supporting documents have been approved and recorded.

 

Commissioner Huddleston seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED: 7-0

 

ITEM:

 

ITEM #4: AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE:  Mr. Kadera provided background information on the request to amend three proposed amendments of the Land Use Code:  Planned Land Divisions and Planned Development rezonings, definition of Special Places, and Section 4.7.2 Special Exceptions – Applicability.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

None

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners the adoption of the amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code:  Planned Land Divisions and Planned Development rezonings, Special Places definition, and Section 4.7.2 Special Exceptions – Applicability.

 

 

Commissioner Wallace seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED: 7-0

 

ITEM #4 : PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PRAIRIE VIEW ESTATES CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT #00-S1694:  Mr. Karan provided background information on the proposal to implement the Prairie View Estates General Development Plan (GDP).  The approved GDP included three phases due to limited availability of water taps, and the Preliminary Plat examined the three phases.  The Final Plat for each phase will be submitted at a later time.  The GDP proposed a 13 lot single-family residential development on approximately 132 acres located on the southeast corner of the intersection of County Roads 66 and 5, approximately 1 ¼ miles north-northeast of Wellington.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Rob Persichiitte, Intermill Land Surveying, stated that the company agreed with the proposed conditions for the project.

 

Commissioner Wallace proposed that two shares of irrigation water remained as part of the project, with at least one share being attributable to the residual land.

 

Commissioner Waldo asked if the road must be paved before the building permits could be released for Phase III? 

 

Mr. Persichitte replied yes.

 

Commissioner Waldo asked if the separated lots were legal once recorded?

 

Mr. Karan replied yes.  He explained that the Planning Commission had recommended that the road improvements occur before Phase II, but the Board of County Commissioners approved the improvement to occur prior to Phase III completion.

 

Commissioner Waldo asked if unbuildable legal lots would be sold?

 

Mr. Karan stated that building permits could not be issued for Phase III lots until the road improvements had been made and collateralized.

 

Mr. Helmick explained that Phase III would have improvement guarantees in place.  Failure to perform would allow the county to use secure funds, placed available by the developer, and use them to put the improvements in place and protect individual lot owners.

 

Chairman Korb suggested adding a development agreement condition that stated that the collateral would go into place during Phase I.

 

Mr. Persichitte asked if Larimer County would take the collateral to pave County Road 66 if the developer chose not to go into Phase III?

 

Chairman Korb replied yes.

 

Mr. Persichitte clarified that the building envelope on the residual land would not become a buildable lot until County Road 66 was paved.  Therefore, there would only be seven lots.

 

Commissioner Morgan remarked that the first recommended condition did not deal with adequate collateral for the paving of the public improvements.  He said that the way the condition read made it seem like eight lots could be built, Phase III would not occur, the road would not be paved, and no collateral would be required.

 

Commissioner Waldo pointed out that the Planning Commission had approved four lots with no paving and no collateral.  Therefore, it would be fair to enforce the paving be done before Phase II not Phase III

 

Jim Loonan, Loonan & Associates, explained that the Board of County Commissioners decided not to have road improvements collateralized until Phase III. 

 

Chairman Korb questioned whether the fire protection would involve sprinklers or hydrants.

 

Mr. Helmick explained that the property was within the Northern Colorado Water Association District where they do not do hydrants.  Sprinklers would have to be used to meet the water requirement for fire protection.

 

Chairman Korb asked if a condition could be added to state that the residences would be sprinklered?

 

Mr. Helmick replied yes.

 

Chairman Korb asked if the foundations had to be a minimum of four feet above the prevailing ground water?

 

Mr. Helmick stated that an engineered footing and foundation would have to be completed and the issues of ground water and soil stability would need to be addressed at the building permit stage. 

 

Mr. Persichitte explained that engineered footings and foundations were a requirement through the Building Department.  He stated that he was comfortable with a recommended condition for site specific soil tests, which would identify the ground water issue. 

 

Roxann Hayes, Engineering Department, stated that Engineering did not want to recommend no basements or recommend a sub-drain system around the entire development.  She explained that an evaluation of the ground water site would be completed before a permit was obtained to make sure the basements were three feet above the ground water level.  She explained that the new Uniform Building Code would require perimeter drains on all structures on all residential lots. 

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Morgan and Chairman Korb expressed their concerns with the clarity of the proposed recommendations.

 

Discussion continued between the Commission members and Mr. Helmick to clarify how recommendations could be brought forth to the Board of County Commissioners.

 

Mr. Helmick suggested staff Recommendation #1 state:  This Preliminary Plat and the three subsequent phased Final Plats shall comply with all of the conditions of approval of the Prairie View Estates GDP and all provisions of the latest submittals or revisions contained in the Prairie View Estates GDP and CD files.  A building permit for the building envelope on Residual Lot A will not be issued until Phase 3 improvements are completed.  He also suggested adding a Recommendation #6 that considered water rights, a Recommendation #7 that addressed the fire sprinklers, and a Recommendation #8 that stated the Colorado Geological Survey comments.

 

Mr. Persichitte stated that he had no objections to the modifications made by Mr. Helmick.

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners that the Preliminary Plat for Prairie View Estates Conservation Development for the property described on "Exhibit D" be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   This Preliminary Plat and the three subsequent phased Final Plats shall comply with all of the conditions of approval of the Prairie View Estates GDP and all provisions of the latest submittals or revisions contained in the Prairie View Estates GDP and CD files.   A building permit for the building envelope on Residual Lot A will not be issued until Phase 3 improvements have been completed.

 

2.   Any applicable State Water Quality or Air Quality permits will be obtained during the Final Plat process for Phase 1.

 

3.   Passive radon mitigation measures shall be included in the construction of all new residential structures in this development. Radon detection tests are required in all new residential structures on this site. The results of these tests shall be submitted to the Building Department once the structure is enclosed but prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. As an alternative, a builder may present a prepaid receipt from

a radon tester that 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.   Capital Expansion Fees, Fees in Lieu of Park Land, School Dedications, and Construction Permit Fees shall be collected at building permit for new single family dwellings. The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply. Both the Development Agreements and the Disclosure Affidavits will reference this requirement.  The County Engineer’s office also requires a Developmental Construction Permit, prior to commencing development construction.

 

5.   The applicant shall provide a Disclosure Notice to be approved by the County as a part of the Final Plats, and recorded with the Final Plats.  This notice shall provide notice to all future lot owners of the conditions of approval and special costs or fees associated with the approval of this project. Included but not limited in this are the issues related to rural development, the need for engineered footings and foundations, the need for passive radon mitigation, and the issues raised in the review and or related to compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

6.   Two shares of irrigation water will remain with the project for the use of homeowners and the agricultural operator to enable the rental of irrigation water.

 

7.   All residential units shall be equipped with internal fire sprinkler systems.

 

8.   Foundation and ISDS Design shall follow the recommendations of the Colorado Geological Survey letter dated 06/26/2002. 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED: 7-0

 

Commissioner Morgan stated he proposed to amend the Appeal to Section 8.1.5 Road Improvements to state:  Collateral must be provided before recording the Final Plat for Phase II.

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners to reconsider the Appeal to Section 8.15, Road Improvements, and provide collateral prior to recording the Final Plat for Phase II.

 

Commissioner Wallace seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED: 7-0

 

Hearing recessed for ten minutes.

 

Commissioner terMeer was excused from the remaining of hearing due to feeling ill.

 

ITEM #5: WHITMAN DEVELOPMENT REZONING #03-Z1469:  Mr. Karan provided background information on the request to rezone the parcel to a Planned Development. 

 

Commissioner Waldo and Chairman Korb asked if the area would be annexed by the city?

 

Mr. Karan stated that there would be an annexation agreement required.

 

Mr. Helmick remarked that he understood that the City of Fort Collins planned to proceed in the first part of 2005 an annexation of an enclave, which was a larger portion of the South College Avenue area, which the subjected property was a part of. 

 

Rick Zier, attorney for the applicant, stated the rezoning request was the best effort to address the issues raised by the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County.  He pointed out that the applicant asked the city if annexation should occur, and the city replied no. 

 

Marvin Organti, architect for the applicant, stated that he had tried to develop a plan that would transition the site from the residential occupancy to the business occupancies that were located to the west.  He proposed having Skyway Drive be a residential use on the east side of the property with mini-storage buildings behind it.  On the west side of the property another building would be developed at the same eave height as the existing metal building and would be used for mini-storage rental bays and storage related to the existing business.  He also explained that a new road would be built by the city that would connect from Skyway Drive to Trilby Road.

 

Chairman Korb asked how much of the right-of-way was located in the applicant’s property versus the adjacent property?

 

Mr. Organti stated that thirty feet of the property would be dedicated to the future built road. 

 

Chairman Korb asked what the current zoning was for the properties to the south?

 

Mr. Organti replied FA-Farming zoning.

 

Chairman Korb asked if the property to the south would be apart of the annexation?

 

Mr. Organti replied yes.  He stated that they would like to create landscaping, buffers, and fencing in the first phase, with the fencing following the future building line.  Buffering would also be done between the project and the adjacent school.  A front yard buffer would be placed with landscaping and fencing to block any view back into the site.  The future use would be to take the entrance into the complex off of Skyway Drive and move it onto the new road that was being built. 

 

Commissioner Huddleston asked if a 30 foot easement would overlap the existing fencing into the yard?

 

Mr. Organti stated that the east side fencing would be removed when the road was built.  He explained that the existing building was 50 feet off of the property line.  A new building would be 60 feet off of the line.  The road way easement would be 30 feet from the line with another 15 foot utility easement.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

 

Brian Schumm, 5948 Colby Street, volunteered the opinion that the applicant should have asked for a rezoning before the start of the illegal use on the property.  He explained that he had been told that the city could not annex something that had a zoning violation on it.  If at the time of annexation it came to a conclusion to rezone the property, the city did not have to annex the property in at its present zoning.  The city had stated that they would annex the property in as

 

Urban Estates with a nonconforming use.  On three prior occasions the applicant had gone to the city to address the rezoning issue but was told that they would not consider annexation if it

 

wasn’t zoned as Urban Estates.  He also mentioned that to get the building permit for the building, the applicant had to sign an affidavit that stated the applicant agreed that the operation would only be used for personal use.  He requested that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners denial of the applicant’s request.

 

Wendy Studinski, 6037 Auburn Drive, presented the Commission with pictures she took of the property.  She stated that the current improvements on the property were in contrast to the residential neighborhood to the north, the horse property residential estates to the south and east, and the high chain link fence topped with barbed wire was an eye sore to the whole neighborhood.  The constant increase of vehicles parked on the Whitman property was disheartening, and the recently erected privacy fence erected around one grouping of vehicles to the south of the metal warehouse on the property did not help the situation.  She also mentioned that within the last few weeks another grouping of parked vehicles, boats, RV’s, and trailers began to fill further east of that now enclosed lot.  Homes directly across the street to the north of the business had been impacted in a negative way and reduced their value.  She stated that at the neighborhood meeting held by the Whitmans, they explained that if the Commercial rezoning use was granted it would mean that they could not live on the property.  Therefore, they would then consider the home to be the care taker quarters, which would allow them to continue to live there.  She asked the Planning Commission to recommend denial. 

 

Fred Weaver, 806 Huntington Hills Drive, stated that there were five entrances into the Huntington Hills subdivision, and the Whitman property was not located at the major entrance into the subdivision.  He felt that the school and homeowners were in violation, not just the Whitmans.  He stated that he felt the business brought value to the area, and he supported approval of the rezoning. 

 

Mr. Schumm stated that he had complained repeatedly about the parking by the school, but felt that the other property owners were not in violation. 

 

Commissioner Waldo asked for more detail regarding the signed affidavit.

 

Randy Whitman, 209 E. Skyway, owner of the property, explained that he was told in 1998 by a staff planner that he would be allowed to have the operation on the property.  He stated his father was the one that signed the affidavit and was told by their lawyer that it would allow them to obtain a special exception. 

 

Mr. Helmick stated that the current intergovernmental agreement Larimer County currently had with the City of Fort Collins contained a paragraph that stated that Larimer County agreed to use the cities’ comprehensive plan as a guideline for development inside of the Growth Management Area, specifically for land use.  The specific area was for Urban Estate and not Commercial. 

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that he supported staff’s recommendation. 

 

Chairman Korb remarked that he felt the property was in violation of the FA-Farming zoning.  He remarked that he also supported the staff’s recommendation. 

 

 

 

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Morgan moved that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the Whitman Development Rezoning.

 

Commissioner Huddleston seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner Morgan proposed to accommodate the existing home occupation and permit the use of the 6,000 square foot building subject to the Larimer County Land Use Code. 

 

Mr. Helmick advised the Commission that a recommendation of denial may not be the best action to pursue.  A denial of the application would not allow an opportunity to revise changes to the property.  An approval with stipulations would convey that an inappropriate, nonconforming use was occurring on the property, allowing the applicant to revise their processes.

 

Commissioner Morgan withdrew his Motion to deny the Whitman Development Rezoning.

 

Commissioner Huddleston stated he would not vote in favor of a Commercial rezoning.  He agreed to withdraw the Motion.

 

Commissioner Waldo stated that he did not support the expansion, but did not want to see the business shut down.

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners that the Whitman Development Rezoning #03-Z1469 for the property described on "Exhibit E" be denied subject to staff’s following conditions:

 

1.   County Zoning Enforcement shall immediately request the Board of County Commissioners pursue the existing violations.

 

2.   The owner shall begin efforts to bring the use of his property into full compliance including elimination of any overnight or weekend outdoor storage of equipment associated with the home occupation within three (3) days of the Board of County Commissioners hearing.  Should outdoor storage not cease with the three days, the Board of County Commissioners instructs the County Attorney to immediately pursue legal action. 

 

3.   The applicant shall be in full compliance within 30 days of the Board of County Commissioners hearing.  Should the owner fail to do so the Board of County Commissioners instructs the County Attorney to immediately take legal action. 

 

Commissioner Huddleston seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner Waldo voted against the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED: 5-1

 

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

 

ADJOURNMENT:  There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 10:16 p.m.

 

These minutes constitute the Resolution of the Larimer County Planning Commission for the recommendations contained herein which are hereby certified to the Larimer County Board of Commissioners.

 

 

 

_______________________________                      ______________________________

Mark Korb, Chairman                                                  Roger Morgan, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT E

Background Image: Rocky Mountain National Park by Sue Burke. All rights reserved.