Elk in Rocky Mountain National Park
 

LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of July 15, 2009

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, July 15, 2009, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners Boucher, Cox, Hart, Hess, Wallace, and Weitkunat were present.  Commissioners Benton and Glick were absent.  Commissioner Morgan presided as Chairman.  Also present were Matt Lafferty, Principle Planner, Rob Helmick, Senior Planner, Michael Whitley, Planner II, Traci Shambo, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Health Department and Jill Wilson, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary. 

 

Matt Lafferty accompanied Commissioners’ Boucher, Cox, Hart, Morgan, Wallace, and Weitkunat today on a site visit to Colorado State Forest Building Location and Extent, Ison Subdivision, and Centro Business Park Rezoning.

 

Chairman Morgan welcomed new member Andrew Boucher.

 

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 JUNE 17, 2009 MEETINGS:   MOTION by Commissioner Cox to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Hart.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:

Chairman Morgan requested to move Election of Officials to the end of the agenda.

 

Robert Smith, 31 Falls Creek Drive, had concerns regarding Items #4 and 5, Poudre Canyon Fire Protection District Stations 1 & 2 Location and Extents.

 

Chairman Morgan stated that those items would be moved to discussion.

 

CONSENT ITEMS:

 

ITEM #1  CENTRO BUSINESS PARK REZONING #09-Z1740:  Mr. Whitely provided background information on the request to rezone a 17.2907 acre parcel from C-Commercial and O-Open to PD – Planned Development located north of the intersection of Weicker Drive and Centro Way.  The site was part of the East Mulberry Corridor Plan.  He made a correction to the staff report and stated that there would be 39 parking spaces instead of the stated 40.

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that Centro Business Park Rezoning, file #09-Z1740, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

 

 

 

1.    The rezoning shall be effective upon the recordation of the Findings & Resolution for the Centro Business Park Planned Development.

 

2.    The permitted uses, lot building and structure requirements, setbacks and structure height limitations for the Centro Business Park Planned Development shall be as follows:

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

§ Uses followed by an (MS) require approval through the Minor Special Review process.

§ Uses followed by an (S) require approval through the Special Review process described in section 4.5.

§ 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).

§  Uses followed by an (L) require review through the Location and Extent review process described in section 13.0.

 

PD (Planned Development)

 

A.    Principal uses:

Agricultural

Pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital (R/S)

Livestock veterinary clinic/hospital (R/S)

Pet animal facility (R)

 

Commercial

Adult use (S)

Outdoor display/sales (R)

Convenience store (R/S)

Automobile service station (R/S)

Professional office (R/S)

General retail (R/S)

General commercial (R/S)

Restaurant/take-out (R/S)

Restaurant/sit-down (R/S)

Nightclub (R/S)

Instructional facility (R/S)

Clinic (R/S)

 

Recreational

Shooting range (R/S)

Membership club/clubhouse (R)

 

Industrial

Enclosed storage (R)

Outdoor storage (R/MS)

Trade use (R)

Light industrial (R)

General industrial, excluding slaughter houses (S)

 

Mining (S)

Oil and gas drilling and production (R)

Recycling (S)

Hazardous materials storage and handling (S)

Junkyard (S)

Small wind energy facility (MS)

 

Utilities

Utility substation (L)

Treatment plant (L)

Radio and television transmitters (S)

Commercial mobile radio service (R/S)--See section 16

Water storage facility (L)

 

Transportation

Transportation depot (R)

Bus terminal (R)

Truck stop (R)

Transportation service (R)

Parking lot/garage (R)

Park and ride (R)

Heliport (S)

Train station (R)

 

Institutional

Sheriff/fire station (L)

Church (R)

 

B.  Lot, building and structure requirements:

1.  Minimum lot size:

15,000 square feet (0.34 acres)

2.  Minimum setbacks:

a. 25 feet from all property lines adjacent to a street or road

b. 10 feet from side and rear lot lines

c. 100 feet from the centerline of the watercourse of the Cooper

    Slough

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 of the Land Use Code.

5. If any construction north of the existing building is proposed in the future, the applicant would have to address setbacks from the Cooper Slough and potential flood way, flood plain, wetland and wildlife impacts.

 

Commissioner Cox seconded the Motion.

 

 

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

ITEM #2  COLORADO STATE FOREST SERVICE FIRE MANAGEMENT BUILDING LOCATION AND EXTENT #09-Z1739:  Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request for a new 3500 square foot building for the Colorado State Forest Service on the Foothills Campus of the Colorado State University located on the south side of LaPorte Avenue west of Overland Trail Road in the Colorado State Forest Service Compound.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approve the Colorado State Forest Service Fire Management Building Location and Extent, file #09-Z1739, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   The Larimer County Planning Commission requests the University continue to work with Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins, to reach agreements on how and when fair and equitable agreement can be reached to address issues and concerns regarding public facilities and infrastructure in the area.

 

Commissioner Cox seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

ITEM #3  RED FEATHER WOODY BIOMASS LOCATION AND EXTENT #09-Z1741:  Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request for a forest products and woody biomass sort yard for the Red Feather Lakes area more specifically situated one mile north of the Red Feather Lakes School on the west side of County Road 73C.  He presented pictures of the site.  The Red Feather Lakes Planning Area Committee recommended approval with the caveat of yearly review of the site.  He stated that it would be an added condition of approval. 

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked you the clients would be to the site?

 

Mr. Helmick explained that it was operated by the Larimer County Natural Resources Department to be used by the general public. 

 

Commissioner Hart asked if there had been any feedback from the community regarding the proposal?

 

 

Mr. Helmick replied that one email was received regarding bringing invested wood in to the area.

 

Chairman Morgan asked about the hours of operation.

 

Dave Lentz, Larimer County Forester, explained that due to budget constraints they cannot operate from spring to fall.  They would be operating during off flight seasons.

 

Chairman Morgan asked that if the air burner was used or the wood was chipped on site if that would help with the spread of the problem?

 

Mr. Lentz replied that it would eliminate the problem.  He informed them that they did not have an air curtain burner but put it in the request as a possibility.  He stated that for 2009 they did not plan to take slash.  If in the future they did it would be chipped on site and disposed by a vendor.  Everything would be site at the end of the three month time period. 

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approve the Red Feather Woody Biomass Location and Extent, file #09-Z1741, subject to the following conditions and added condition 4:

 

1.   Temporary facilities such as portable toilets and bottled water will be provided at the site for those individuals operating the site.

2.   Access shall be coordinated with the Larimer County Engineering Department and if an access permit is required one will be obtained and any necessary improvements will be installed prior to any operation or activity at the site.

3.   The Department of natural Resources or the operator shall obtain the necessary air quality permits for both the site and any equipment which may operate at the site. 

4.   The Red Feather Lakes PAC recommends by vote approval of the woody biomass plan as presented by county forester, Dave Lentz for the location on Creedmore Lakes Road.  The motion stipulates annual review and update to the RFL - PAC, including site location and activity.

 

Commissioner Cox seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEMS:

 

ITEM #6  ISON SUBDIVISION #08-S2838:  Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request to create a two lot subdivision consisting of five acre lot sizes located on the east side of County Road 19 (Taft Hill Road), approximately 1.25 miles north of County Road 54G and east of the Ideal Heights Subdivision.  The request also included an appeal to Section 8.14.2.H of the Land Use Code to allow for a lot, which did not meet the depth to width ratio.  He noted that the applicant applied for a lot size appeal not supported by Planning Staff but approved by the Board of County Commissioners. The appeal allowed for lots smaller than 10 acres, which was a requirement of the RE-Rural Estate zone district.  He stated that the LaPorte Area Plan Advisory Committee (LAPAC) also recommended that the subdivision not be approved because they did not get to consider the lot size appeal, and they wanted to maintain consistency with the LaPorte Area Plan.  He remarked that the preferred design of the property would have been to have the lot split by the Jackson Ditch, which ran north and south and have access at the north of the property, which aligned with Ideal Lane. However, the applicants were unable to make contact with the property owners to the north and east to negotiate a right-of-way discussion.  As a result, the applicant defaulted to their other plan which had the lot line running east and west, eliminated the current southern access, and proposed a midline access to serve both of the properties.  He mentioned that there were significant groundwater issues to the north of the proposed subdivision on Misty Lane.  As a result, a groundwater analysis was requested and completed approximately one month ago which found that groundwater should not cause an issue in regards to basements, septic systems, etc.  The Development Services Team was recommending approval with eight conditions but requested to delete Condition #8 as a satisfactory groundwater analysis had been completed.

 

Jerry Robinson, Stewart & Associates, stated that they had no issues with the conditions of approval and were willing to give up some right-of-way on the north side of the property for a possible extension of Ideal Lane at a future date.  He remarked that attempts were made to contact the property owner to the north and to the east regarding access through certified mail and stopping by their home; however, the letter was returned and no one was home when they tried to make contact on more then one occasion.  As a result, they were proposing a shared driveway along the proposed property line. 

 

Chairman Morgan disclosed that he was the director of the Jackson Ditch Company.  He stated that the lateral that went through the property was the largest lateral on the Jackson Ditch.  He explained that during the spring there was not water in the lateral because there was so much rain.  The Jackson Ditch wasn’t turned on until June 1, 2009, and he was concerned as it would take awhile for the lateral to become full.  He felt that it was an anomaly and if basements and septic systems were constructed then there would be a problem. 

 

Mr. Robinson did not have a problem adding a condition to rereview the soils and groundwater at the time of building permit.  He noted that there was an easement on the plat to protect the lateral.

 

Chairman Morgan stated that it was very important to disclose to the potential landowners that other landowners would be performing ditch maintenance.  It was not the responsibility of the Jackson Ditch but it should be pointed out during the process how the ditch was used.

 

Mr. Robinson stated that disclosures could be noted during the final plat process so the potential landowners would be aware of what would occur to keep the lateral maintained and upgraded as needed. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Sky Weitzel, 4008 Ideal Drive and 4082 County Road 19, agreed with Commissioner Morgan.  He had a problem with dividing the lot because he was a believer that the LaPorte Area Plan Advisory Committee (LAPAC) should be the first governing group to be considered.  With all the issues that had occurred with development in the area the community felt that they were being brushed aside and their wishes were not being upheld.  They had spent a lot of time trying to plan the type of community that they wanted to have built.  He felt that they were being shown some disrespect.  He knew there were high water levels in the Misty Creek area and knew that they should not put basements in and pointed out that when tests were done at Misty Creek it was dry.  He stated that irrigation had not begun yet because of all the rain so the results from the groundwater tests were not true and would not be for a while.  He felt that the test results were not on a realistic basis of what was actually occurring in the area.  He also requested that the access be pushed to the north property line keeping Ideal Lane and the driveway to the property in the same location to make it safer on the road. 

 

DISCUSSION:

Doug Ryan, Health Department, stated that it would be a good idea to have additional testing for groundwater.  He suggested that before final plat the soils profiles be evaluated again.

 

Chairman Morgan was concerned that it was an anomaly regarding the water table, and it might be next year before the true results were seen. 

 

Mr. Helmick stated that Condition #4 addressed some of the concerns.  He suggested amending condition #8.

 

Chairman Morgan remarked on condition #7 and stated that the Jackson Ditch would not comment on the proposal. 

 

Commissioner Wallace urged notice to potential owners about access and maintenance of the ditch.  She did not believe that the true water table results would be known in one years time.  She felt that LAPAC should have had a chance to comment on the lot size appeal.  She was opposed to subdividing 10 acre pieces into 5 acres. 

 

Commissioner Hart remarked that the area was predominately small lot sizes of 2-4 acres, and the proposed subdivision would be continuing that trend.  He felt that it needed to be examined whether or not to allow basements. 

 

Traci Shambo, Engineering Department, stated that the preferred option was to have access into the site line up with Ideal Lane but since that did not occur right-of-way was being dedicated for if and when the other property developed. 

 

Commissioner Cox asked how many times the property owner to the north and east was contacted.

 

 

Mr. Robinson stated that his office tried to contact the neighbors several times and then sent a certified letter which was returned.  The owners of the property also tried to contact them several times.  A notice of the neighborhood meeting was also sent but no one attended the meeting from that residence.

 

Mr. Helmick proposed changing Condition #7 to state, “The applicant and staff will with the ditch owners establish ditch restrictions with respect to operations and use at the time of Final Plat.”  He also proposed amending Condition #8 to state, “The results of the groundwater analysis shall be repeated prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing and reflected in any restriction related to the construction.  Tests shall occur after the lateral has ran for 30 days.  Based on anecdotal evidence there is a history of seasonal high groundwater which may not be reflected in any individual soils report.”

 

Mr. Robinson stated that he would talk to the owner and tell them that they had two choices:  do a secondary soils test or have a no basement restriction on the property. 

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that she would vote against the proposal.  She stated that historically smaller lots had been allowed in the area but it was a pattern that should not be repeated which was indicated by the Rural Estate Zoning and LaPorte Area Plan Advisory Committee.  She felt that creating two, five acre lots was inconsistent with that and set a bad precedence for the area.  She did not believe that the lot size appeal should have been granted.

 

Commissioner Hart stated that he would vote for the proposal because the character of the area had already been set with the small lot developments.

 

Commissioner Cox stated that on the west side of the property there were smaller acreages but on the east side there were larger acreages.  She supported Commissioner Wallace’s view.

 

Chairman Morgan mentioned that the developed area along County Road 17 occurred prior to the current land use code, the LaPorte Area Plan, and LAPAC.  It was the historical pattern but an effort was made to change that pattern.  He shared Commissioner Wallace’s concerns. 

 

Commissioner Hart supported the LaPorte Area Plan but saw small acre development surrounding the site.

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that Ison Subdivision and appeal to Section 8.14.2.H of the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #08-S2838, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions and amended Conditions 7 & 8:

 

1.   The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the ISON SUBDIVISION Preliminary Plat 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 ISON SUBDIVISION Preliminary Plat

 

 

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

 

3.   Fire Requirements – All new structures intended for residential use and habitation shall be required to install and maintain residential fire sprinkler systems.  . 

 

4.   All habitable structures will require an engineered foundation system. Such engineered foundation system designs shall be based upon a site specific soils investigation.  The lowest habitable floor level (basement) shall not be less than 3 feet from the seasonal high water table.  Mechanical methods proposed to reduce the ground water level, unless it is a response after construction, must be proposed on a development wide basis.

 

5.   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.

 

6.   The Final Plat shall reflect and show the following Right of Way dedications 20 additional feet along Taft Hill Road (CR 19) and 5 feet of Right of way along the north boundary for a possible extension of Ideal Drive. 

 

7.   The applicant and staff will with the ditch owners establish ditch restrictions with respect to operations and use at the time of Final Plat.

 

8.   The results of the groundwater analysis shall be repeated prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing and reflected in any restriction related to the construction.  Tests shall occur after the lateral has ran for 30 days.  Based on anecdotal evidence there is a history of seasonal high groundwater which may not be reflected in any individual soils report.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner Weikunat stated that the proposal was consistent with the surrounding area.  The issues regarding the proposal were for the County Commissioners to handle and not the Planning Commission. 

 

 Commissioners’ Cox, Wallace and Chairman Morgan voted against the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Boucher, Hart, Hess, and Weitkunat voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  4-3

 

ITEM #7  AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE SECTION 6.0 #09-CA0097:  Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request to amend Section 6.0 – Site Plan Review to modify it to ensure that the process is efficient and effective both for Larimer County and its citizens.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

None.

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code Section 6.0, file #09-CA0097, be approved as follows:

 

6.0.  SITE PLAN REVIEW

 

6.1.  PURPOSE

 

The purpose of site plan review is to ensure that plans for the development of multiple-family and nonresidential uses, excluding agricultural uses allowed by right, comply with all applicable requirements of this code and any other approvals imposed by the county commissioners, the board of adjustment or floodplain review board.

 

6.2.  APPLICABILITY

 

A.   Site plan review and approval is required:

1.   Prior to the acceptance of any building permit application for:

a.    Multi-family or non-residential use;

b.   Any change of use (see definition in Section 0.1) of an existing multi-family or non-residential structure or use, including the conversion of any public use to a private use.

 

2.   Prior to the development of property for a nonresidential use that does not require a building permit.  Such as, but not limited to:

a.   Parking lots;

b.   Outdoor Storage;

c.   Outdoor Display and Sales;

d.   Accessory Outdoor Commercial Storage;

e.   Junkyards;

f.   Flea Markets.

 

B.   Site plan review is not required:

1.   For an approved development plan having the same detail as site plan review.

2.   For an agricultural use allowed by right.

 

 

 

 

C.   If the Planning Director determines that the review criteria for Site Plan Review have been met or can be satisfied through the building permit process for a development or change of use of a property, a building permit may be applied for without site plan review and approval.

 

6.3.  REVIEW CRITERIA

 

To approve a site plan application, the Planning Director must consider the following review criteria and find that each criterion has been met or determined to be inapplicable:

 

A.   The site plan complies with all applicable requirements of this code and any applicable supplementary regulations; and

 

B.   The site plan complies with all conditions of approval imposed by the county commissioners, the board of adjustment or floodplain review board under another approval process authorized by this code.

 

6.4.  PROCESS

 

A.   Any application for Site Plan Review requires a pre-application conference pursuant to section 12 of this code.

 

B.   Site Plan Review commences when a complete site plan application is submitted. Site Plan applications may be reviewed concurrently with other land use applications, but can not be approved until all required land use applications have been approved.

 

C.   Upon receipt of a complete application, the planning director will refer the applicable application materials to all appropriate departments and agencies.

 

D.   Referral departments and agencies will have 28 days to review and provide written comments to the planning director.  Referral departments and agencies may request additional review time in writing.

 

E.   Within 5 working days following the 28 day review period the planning director will provide a written determination stating that the site plan review application:

 

1.   Is approved, with or without conditions, and complies with this code and any other approvals imposed by the county commissioners, the board of adjustment or floodplain review board.

 

2.   Requires modifications based upon the referral review, to be prepared by applicant for subsequent review to demonstrate compliance with this code and any other approvals imposed by the county commissioners, the board of adjustment or floodplain review board.

 

 

 

 

 

3.   Is denied based upon an inability to comply with this code and any other approvals imposed by the county commissioners, the board of adjustment or floodplain review board.

 

The decision of the planning director can be appealed in writing to the county commissioners pursuant to section 22 (appeals) of this code.

 

F.   Upon the determination of the planning director that a site plan review application:

 

1.   Requires modifications, the applicant shall be required to make a revised submittal, for a subsequent review, that addresses the referral comments.  Prior to the revised submittal the applicant may request a meeting to discuss the referral comments.

 

2.   Is approved, the applicant shall provide final versions of the site plans and supporting documents (quantities to be determined) for approval signature by the planning director. The final site plan set and supporting documents for signature shall also include one of the following:

 

a.   An agreement (provided by the planning director) signed by the applicant indicating that the applicant is aware that all on-site and off-site improvements required for the development will need to be completed, inspected and approved prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy or final certificate of occupancy. 

 

b.   A signed and executable development agreement and collateral pursuant to the requirements of section 12.6. (post approval requirements) of this code.

 

 

6.5.  ADDITIONAL APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS

 

A.   Upon approval of a site plan and prior to the commencement of construction, a development construction permit is required.

 

B.   Approval of a site plan does not relieve the applicant from complying with the building codes as adopted by the county or the building permit submittal requirements.

 

 

6.6.  MINOR DEVIATIONS

 

Technical, engineering or other considerations during construction or operation may necessitate minor deviations from the approved site plan. The planning director may approve minor deviations, in writing, if they comply with this code and the intent of the original site plan approval.

 

 

 

6.7.  AMENDMENTS

 

Changes to the approved site plan that the planning director determines not to be minor deviations require approval through the site plan approval process. This requires a new application and receives full review under the site plan approval process described above.

 

6.8.  VESTING

 

An approved site plan does not create a vested right.  Approved Site Plans are effective for two years.  If a building permit and development construction permit are not issued within two years of the site plan approval, the site plan approval will automatically expire.

 

Commissioner Cox seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

ITEM #4  POUDRE CANYON FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT STATION 1 LOCATION AND EXTENT #09-Z1742:  Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request for a fire house (volunteer) and community hall totaling 8100 square feet located on the north side of Highway 14, approximately 6 miles west of Highway 287 in the Poudre Park Subdivision.  The proposed facilities would be replacing existing facilities already on the property.  He showed pictures of the property and explained that the applicant had illustrated a suggested plan for the site; however, the proposal was to determine the appropriateness of the site for the use of a firehouse and meeting hall.  It did not take into consideration the Section 8 requirements of the Land Use Code such as parking, drainage, septic systems, etc. that would be examined through a Site Plan review at a later date.  The Development Services Team believed that it was an appropriate site for the proposed uses assuming that the Site Plan review process was completed and showed compliance with the Land Use Code requirements and standards were met.

 

Kyle McLear, 401 S. Mason Street, Project Manager for JCL Architecture, stated that the suggested design was very schematic.  He had met with the Planning and Health Departments as well as CDOT to get their initial comments and considerations, and each department stated that the project was feasible in the proposed location.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Robert Smith, 31 Falls Creek Drive, Bellevue, stated that he lived approximately 100 yards from the proposed location.  He reminded the board of the flash floods that had occurred in the area in past years.  He stated that the property was in close proximity to the river and should be designated a flood plain area.  He remarked that there were two ongoing complaint investigations regarding the election ballet in November that approved the increased funding the project.  He also showed pictures of the site when water had built up do to weather conditions.  It was an emergency facility for firefighting and medical ambulance services, and he wondered what would happen to the equipment if the area was flooded.  He asked that the property not be approved for the use of emergency facilities because putting millions of dollars worth of tax payers money into a new facility at that location was not an appropriate land use. 

 

Dave La Mothe, 30 Falls Creek Drive, stated that he had lived in the area for 30 years and had seen flooding at the site.  He stated that he was a volunteer fireman during the 1976 flood and had seen what could happen when heavy rains occurred.  He felt that the site could not support the two buildings that were there now.  He questioned the well and septic locations also.  He asked that his tax money not be spent on the development of the land.

 

Lloyd Rowe, 31503 Poudre Canyon, resided at Glen Echo Resort.  He stated that many times there was at least two feet of water standing at that area, and he did not believe the facility should be erected on the site.  The proposed facility was too big for the site, too close to the highway, and the access to the property was not good when activities were occurring on the site.

 

Gary Kimsey, 250 Poudre River Road, stated that his family had lived in Poudre Park since 1929.  He owned several properties that surrounded the site and that were in the flood plain.  He noted that in the past there had been two to three feet of water on the site.  The drainage on site was bad and the water drained off of the site and had went in to the basement of one of his properties.  He stated that he appreciated the firehouse and the community center but their existence at their present location was in danger and putting $2 million in a larger facility would be an unwise move which would eventually be proven.  He asked that the proposal not be approved at the site. 

 

Commissioner Wallace asked where the two to three feet of water came from?

 

Mr. Kimsey replied that it usually came off of the highway, usually from snow melt, and off of the roofs of the two existing buildings. 

 

Commissioner Wallace asked how close the river was to his properties?

 

Mr. Kimsey stated that the riverbed existed near the site and most of the properties in Poudre Park had soils brought in to grow grass, etc.  However, once you got past the topsoil and dug down about two inches one would start to hit river rock and sand.  Therefore, at one point in the past, the river was going through that area. 

 

Mr. Lafferty pointed out where the location was in comparison to the river.  He noted that there were gulches that came through the area and might have caused historic problems.  It was the Development Services Team’s opinion that the above mentioned issues were something that the applicant would have to address during the Site Plan review process. 

 

 

Mr. La Mothe stated that during that process they would be using tax payer dollars to go through that process.

 

Traci Shambo, Engineering Department, stated that the drainage issues would be examined during the site plan process.  The location was not in a FEMA designated floodplain but it was an area that was considered a local designated floodplain.  A study was done after the 1976 flood which was called the Poudre Park study which the Engineering Department would reference in their analysis to try to determine what the flooding limits were in a 100 year flood event. 

 

Al Hinojosa, 9909 Poudre Canyon Road, stated that no one received notice of the hearing.

 

Mr. Lafferty replied that statutory requirements for Location and Extent reviews did not require a public notification. 

 

Mr. McLear stated that the current drainage issues on the property were not meeting the standards.  However, a civil engineer was working to improve the issues with the new proposal.  He explained that the water filtration were based on the number of occupants over a repetitive number of days and they where working with the health department in regards to that.  The facility was not used very frequently, and they rarely had over 100 people but the current facilities did not meet the needs of the community.  The existing buildings also did not meet code requirements so the goal was to create a one-story, energy efficient building that would consider future growth and have proper facilities to operate in.  He noted that many public meetings had been held and they had incorporated the publics’ comments into their design. 

 

Commissioner Hart asked if there were alternative sites in the Poudre Canyon that the fire district was aware of that would serve the purpose.

 

Mr. McLear responded no.  They had been looking for land for the last 10 years with no luck. 

 

Chairman Morgan asked how the drainage issues would be solved?

 

Mr. McLear replied that many of the adjacent surfaces did not have percolation.  The civil engineers had suggested using swales, etc. to mitigate the drainage issue.

 

Commissoner Weitkunat asked what the current buildings housed?

 

Mr. McLear explained that the smaller building housed one fire truck and ambulance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Betty Blinde, 6004 County Road 68C, President of the Poudre Canyon Fire Protection District, stated that in the firehouse there was one ambulance and one Type-6 fire truck that stored 300 gallons of water, and another fire truck was stored outside.  The buildings had been there since the 1960’s, and the new building would house all the equipment and allow the opportunity to house 6 vehicles and to obtain new equipment such as a bigger fire engine.  She explained that they had more calls for their ambulance service, and 80% of the calls were for nonresidents visiting the forest.  They also had people trained on swift water rescue in which they would like to store a boat at the site.  She noted that the district had four fire stations.  She explained that the community building would be a multipurpose type of facility which could serve the community, serve as a command center, and allow training.  She stated that in November 2008 they asked for a mill levy increase of 15.61 and it passed by a 2 to 1 margin with about 191 people voting for and 80 people against it.  

 

Commissioner Wallace asked what area the mill levy covered?

 

Ms. Blinde stated that the district stretched for about 60 miles up the Poudre Canyon from about 4 miles past Ted’s Place up to the top of the canyon which was 99 square miles.  They were also the first response to another 150 square miles that was not in the district.  She stated that they had been looking for other land but not able to find any.  It was not the most ideal site but it was all that they had.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Hart stated that he would approve the Location and Extent knowing that the applicants would have to go through a site plan process to address all of the concerns associated with the proposal. 

 

Commissioner Weitkunat stated that fire departments provided safety for the community.  It was important to have equipment that was functional and a command post to work from.  She was disturbed that there was no sense of community and need to work together.  It was a joint venture and would be to the advantage of all of the people who lived there as well as the district to be cooperative in the process.  The new facility was needed to update to 2009.  She hoped that it could be worked out because it was to the benefit of the community.  It was a public service and an asset. 

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that the proposed community hall and firehouse would provide public facilities and service as was stated in the Master Plan.  .

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approve the Poudre Canyon Fire Protection District Station 1 Location and Extent, file #09-Z1742, subject to the following condition:

 

1.    Prior to the acceptance of a Building Permit application the applicant shall obtain all approvals for the site development as required by the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Commissioner Cox seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

ITEM #5  POUDRE CANYON FIRE PROTECTION STATION 2 LOCATION AND EXTENT #09-Z1743:  Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request for a fire house (volunteer) and community hall totaling 8900 square feet located on the south side of Highway 14, approximately 1.5 miles west of Rustic.  The proposed facilities would be replacing the existing meeting hall facility and would be adding the fire house to the property.  He showed pictures of the existing site. 

 

Kyle McLear, 401 S. Mason Street, JCL Architecture, stated that the current fire station facility was recessed in to the side of a mountain and the current fire truck could barely fit. 

 

Commissoner Wallace asked how many vehicles would be housed at the site.

 

Mr. McLear replied six vehicles for future growth.  There was an additional ambulance service at the site.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked if the structure proposed would be similar to the other Poudre Park site?

 

Mr. McLear replied yes.

 

Betty Blinde, 6004 County Road 68C, Poudre Canyon Fire Protection District President, stated that there were approximately 700 full time residents in the district.  In the summer time it was increased to approximately 1500 full time residents.  According to the U.S. Forest Service approximately 2 million people visited the Roosevelt National Forest and of that 2 million 1.4 million visited the Poudre Canyon Fire District.  She pointed out that they were the first line of defense against a major wildfire in the area. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Robert Smith, 31 Falls Creek Drive, stated that the site was in a floodplain and he did not think that emergency equipment should be stored in the area.  He wondered why they could not get land from the U.S. Forest Service to locate their services and facilities.  He asked that the request not be approved.

 

Lloyd Rowe, 31503 Poudre Canyon, remarked that the fire department did not put out a fire on his property and was told that they would only contain the fire.  He stated that he did not get to vote on the mill levy increase.  He also mentioned that it was in the floodplain and disagreed with building in a floodplain.  He was also concerned that the sewer system would leak into the river with that large of a facility. 

 

Dave La Mothe, 30 Falls Creek, stated that the building would be in the floodplain.  He was also concerned with percolation into the river. 

 

 

Ms. Blinde stated that the district had tried for four years to negotiate with the U.S. Forest Service to obtain land for a site but they had refused. 

 

DISCUSSION:

Doug Ryan, Health Department, clarified that one standard that would be dealt with during the Site Plan process would be sewer service.  He stated that he had met with the applicant and their engineer preliminarily.  The Poudre Park site was very small and constrained and would not support a conventional septic tank and leach field.  As a result some type of a sealed vault that would have to be pumped by a licensed professional would most likely be the only feasible alternative on that site.  The subject site would have to complete soil and percolation testing and studies and require that the percolation neither be too slow or too fast.  In addition, there would be requirements of where a leach field could be located with respect to a floodway, floodplain, and the distance from the bank of a river.  

 

Commissioner Hart asked if it could be determined during the site plan process that the sites could not be used for the proposed facilities.

 

Mr. Lafferty replied that it was possible.

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that they had to look at whether the public facilities would provide a benefit to the area by ensuring that adequate facilities were available and convenient to the area for fire protection and medical services.  She felt that they were necessary and that it did meet the Master Plan requirements and principals.

 

Commissioner Hart stated that there needed to be more discussion so the citizens and the district could work together on a better relationship with each other.

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approve that Poudre Canyon Fire Protection Station 2 Location and Extent, file #09-Z1743, subject to the following condition:

 

1.    Prior to the acceptance of a Building Permit application the applicant shall obtain all approvals for the site development as required by the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Commissioner Cox seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

 

 

 

 

ELECTION OF OFFICIALS:

Commissioner Cox nominated Commissioner Wallace for Chairman. Chairman Morgan moved to elect Commissioner Wallace as Chairman by acclimation.  MOTION PASSED.

 

Commissioner Cox nominated Commissioner Weitkunat for Vice Chairman.  Chairman Morgan moved to elect Commissioner Weitkunat as Vice Chairman by acclimation. MOTION PASSED.

 

Commissioner Cox nominated Commissioner Hart for Secretary.  Chairman Morgan moved to elect Commissioner Hart as Secretary by acclimation.  MOTION PASSED.  

 

 

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

 

ADJOURNMENT:   There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 9:55 p.m.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

_______________________________                      ______________________________

Roger Morgan, Chairman                                           Karen Weitkunat, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT A

 

TRACT AAA, AMD TRACT AA, CENTRO BUSINESS PARK

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

LEGAL DESCRIPTION:

 

A tract of land situate in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 22,

Township 8 North, Range 69 West of the Sixth P.M., County of

Larimer, State of Colorado, which is more particularly described as

follows: Considering the West line of the Southwest 1/4 of said

Section 22 as bearing N00 °00’00”E and with all bearings contained

herein relative thereto, is contained within the boundary lines which

begin at a point on the West line of said Southwest 1/4 which bears

N00 °00’00"E 289.00 feet from the Southwest corner of said Section

22 and run thence N00 °00’00”E 482.00 feet; thence N89°O53'00”E

904.00 feet; thence S00 °00’00”W 482.00 feet; thence S89°53'00"W

904.00 feet to the point of beginning; less North Taft Hill Road

right-of-way along the Westerly 30.00 feet thereof, and also less

road right-of-way per Book 1590 at Page 186, containing 10.0029

acres, more or less, and being subject to all easements and

rights-of-way of record.

 

 

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