LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of June 20, 2012

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, June 06, 2012, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners’ Cox, Dougherty, Gerrard, Hart, Jensen, Miller, Wallace, and Zitti were present.  Commissioner Glick presided as Chairman.  Also present were Matt Lafferty, Principle Planner, Rob Helmick, Senior Planner, Karin Madson, Planner II, Michael Whitley, Planner II, Traci Shambo, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Health Department and Jill Wilson, Recording Secretary. 

 

Mr. Lafferty accompanied Commissioners Cox, Dougherty, Gerrard, Glick, Hart, Jensen, Miller Wallace and Zitti on a site visit to Brownstone Quarry 2nd Amended Special Review, Atlas Tower/AT&T CMRS Special Review, and Kechter Farm General Development Plan and Rezoning.

 

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 16, 2012 MEETING:   MOTION by Commissioner Cox approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Dougherty.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:

MOTION by Commissioner Jensen to move Item #3 Amendments to the Larimer County Land – Non-Conformities (12-CA0125) to the consent agenda, seconded by Commissioner Cox.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

Betty Wilmoth, had concerns regarding Item #1 Atlas Tower/AT&T CMRS Special Review #12-Z1876.  Chairman Glick moved Item #1 off of the consent agenda to be discussed.

 

CONSENT ITEMS:

 

ITEM #2  BROWNSTONE QUARRY 2ND AMENDMENT SPECIAL REVIEW #12-Z1875:   Mr. Whitley provided background information on the request for the expansion of a previously approved 29-acre sandstone mining operation onto 3.03 acres of an adjacent 135.14 acre parcel located north of County Road 56 and east of Highway 287, approximately 0.5 miles southeast of Ted’s Place.

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval of Brownstone Quarry 2nd Amendment Special Review, file #12-Z1875, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes subject to the following conditions:

 

 

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

 

2.   The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Brownstone Quarry Second Amended Special Review, File #12-Z1875 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 Brownstone Quarry Second Amended Special Review.

 

3.   The hours of operation shall be 8:00am to 5:00pm, Monday through Friday.

 

4.   There shall be no blasting at any time.

 

5.   When possible, the reclamation shall be accomplished in a phased manner, concurrent with the mining operation.

 

6.   Should the mining activity still be active January 1, 2037, the Board of County Commissioners shall review and update the conditions approved for this Special Review.  The Board of County Commissioners review may include additions, deletions, and modifications of the conditions as necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Larimer County.  This review shall be completed in 25 year intervals thereafter.  The quarry operator shall submit the following information by July 1 of the year that the review is to be completed:

 

a.   A current site plan of the quarry. The site plan should be similar to those submitted as a part of the Special Review application. The site plan should clearly show:

·  The property boundaries;

·  The location of permanent identification posts on the perimeter of the quarry area;

·  Current approved mining boundaries;

·  Current and old mining areas, with acreage;

·  Storage and loading areas;

·  Processing areas and any structures or improvements on the property.

 

b.   A narrative that describes the current operation and any reclamation efforts that have been completed.

 

7.   Materials shall not be removed from the top of the hogback.

 

8.   No material will be sold on-site.

 

9.   Heavy equipment maintenance, including oil changes, shall be done off-site.

 

10.   The mining operation shall comply with the Larimer County Noise Ordinance. 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Commissioner Dougherty seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Cox, Dougherty, Gerrard, Hart, Jensen, Miller, Wallace, Zitti and Chairman Glick voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  9-0

 

 

ITEM #3  AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE –NON-CONFORMITIES #12-CA0125:   Mr. Whitley provided background information on the request to amend the Land Use Code by repeal/replacing Section 4.8 to modify the standards and processes for the continuation and expansion of nonconforming uses, buildings, and structures.

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code  - non-conformities, file #12-CA0125, as follows:

 

 

 

1.    Repeal and replace Section 4.8 with:

 

4.8.1. - Purpose.

This section governs uses, building and structures (except signs), and lots that were legally established prior to the adoption of this code but that do not comply with one or more requirements of this code. The provisions of this section are intended to recognize the interests of property owners in continuing and putting to productive use nonconforming uses, buildings, structures and lots while also encouraging as many aspects of such uses, buildings, structures and lots to be brought into conformance with this code as is reasonably practicable.

 

4.8.2. - Nonconforming use.

A nonconforming use is an existing use that does not comply with the requirements of this code but did conform to all applicable regulations in effect at the time the use commenced.

 

4.8.3. - Nonconforming building or structure.

A nonconforming building or structure is an existing building or structure that does not comply with the requirements of this code but did conform to all applicable regulations in effect at the time the building or structure was constructed.

 

4.8.4. - Determination of  nonconforming status.

The planning director shall have the authority to determine whether or not a use, building or structure is nonconforming.  A property owner must make a written request for the designation of a nonconforming use, building or structure status.  The burden of proof for establishing the date when a nonconforming use was established or when a nonconforming building was constructed shall be the responsibility of the applicant or property owner. The applicant or property owner shall present competent evidence to the planning director to support the claim of a legal nonconforming use or of a legal nonconforming building.

 

4.8.5. - Continuation of a nonconforming use.

A.         A nonconforming use may be continued subject to this section 4.8. Normal or routine repairs and maintenance of a building, structure or area containing a nonconforming use are allowed.  Unless specifically allowed by provisions within this code or allowed though approval pursuant to section 4.8.11, normal or routine repairs and maintenance do not include any repairs or maintenance that enlarge a building, structure or area containing a nonconforming use.

B.        A nonconforming residence may be expanded as long as the residence addition is not more than 50 percent of the square footage of the initial residence and is not more than 2,000 square feet.  The residence addition must be located outside the required setbacks. 

 

C.        The addition of accessory buildings or structures to a property containing a nonconforming residence or agricultural use and/or building does not constitute the expansion of the nonconforming building or use.

 

 

 

4.8.6. - Discontinuance or reduction in intensity of a nonconforming use.

A.        If a nonconforming use is discontinued for more than 12 consecutive months, the use may not be reestablished. If a question arises as to whether a nonconforming use has been discontinued, the property owner has the burden to show by competent evidence that the nonconforming use has not been discontinued.

B.        If a nonconforming use is reduced in intensity for more than of 12 consecutive months, the nonconforming use may thereafter only be used or operated at that reduced intensity.  The planning director shall make the determination regarding whether or not a nonconforming use has been reduced based upon competent evidence. 

C.        The planning director may grant a twelve-month extension to the discontinuance or reduction in intensity provisions on a case-by-case basis for reasonable cause.  Reasonable cause may include, but is not limited to, the use being discontinued while the property is for sale or being reconstructed after a disaster.  The property owner must make a written request for each twelve-month extension within 24 months of the initial discontinuance or reduction in intensity.

 

4.8.7. - Continuation of nonconforming building or structure.

A.        A nonconforming building or structure may continue to be used and occupied subject to this section 4.8.  Normal or routine repairs and maintenance of a nonconforming building or structure are allowed.  Unless specifically allowed by provisions within this code or allowed through approval pursuant to section 4.8.11, a nonconforming building or structure may not, however, be repaired or altered in a way that would increase the degree of nonconformity with respect to this code.

B.        A nonconforming deck  with any finished floor elevation and associated stairs that does not meet setback requirements may be removed and reconstructed as long as the size of the deck is not increased and the nonconforming setback is not decreased.  The replacement deck and stairs must meet all applicable building code requirements.

 

4.8.8. Destruction of a nonconforming use

If a building or structure containing a nonconforming use is destroyed by a calamity beyond the control of the property owner, the property owner may reestablish the nonconforming use and may repair or replace the building or structure, provided that he/she submits a complete building permit application within 12 months of the calamity. The building or structure containing the nonconforming use and the nonconforming use may only be replaced in the same location, size and character as the original building or structure and use.  Any repair or replacement of a damaged or destroyed building or structure containing a nonconforming use must meet the requirements of subsection 4.2.2 (floodplain overlay district).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.8.9. Destruction of a nonconforming building or structure

If a nonconforming building or structure is destroyed (i.e., incurs damages of more than 50 percent of the building or structure's replacement cost) by a calamity beyond the control of the property owner, other than a flood, the property owner may repair or replace the nonconforming building or structure, provided that he/she submits a complete building permit application within 12 months of the calamity. The nonconforming building or structure may only be replaced in the same location and size as the original building or structure. Any repair or replacement of a damaged or destroyed nonconforming buildings or structure must meet the requirements of subsection 4.2.2 (floodplain overlay district).

 

4.8.10. - Extension, expansion, enlargement or change in character of a use.

A.        Except as otherwise specified in this code, a nonconforming use or a building or structure that contains a nonconforming use cannot be extended, expanded, enlarged or changed in character without the approval through the process found in section 4.8.11.

B.        When a building is nonconforming only as to a required setback, it may be extended, expanded or enlarged as long as the following conditions are met:

1. The proposed addition is not more than 50 percent of the square footage of the original building and is not more than 2,000 square feet;

2. The proposed addition is outside the required setback; and

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

 

4.8.11. - Process.

A.        Any request to extend, expand, enlarge or change the character of a nonconforming use, building or structure requires a pre-application conference pursuant to section 12 of this code.

B.        Review of the request commences when a complete application is submitted.

C.        Upon receipt of a complete application, the planning director will refer the applicable application materials to all appropriate departments and agencies and mail written notice of the application to property owners in the vicinity of the proposal.

D.        Referral departments and agencies will have 21 days to review and provide written comments to the planning director. Referral departments and agencies may request additional review time in writing.

E.         Neighbor notification and comment.

1. Written notice of the proposal shall be mailed to neighbors in the vicinity of the subject property.

2. The notice shall provide 14 days for neighbors to respond with any questions or concerns. Comments shall be provided to the planning department.

3. The planning department shall provide the applicant with a copy of any comments received.

4. If neighbors’ comments or concerns are raised, the applicant and the neighbor(s) have the opportunity to agree on a solution. The applicant and neighbor(s) have 14 days to agree to a solution unless an extension is requested by either party. Documentation of the solution shall be provided to the planning department prior to the director's decision and the administrative determination shall proceed including the agreed upon mitigation measures.

 

F.         Administrative determination. Within five working days following the 21-day review period the planning director will provide a written determination stating that the request to extend, expand, enlarge or change the character of a nonconforming use, building or structure:

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 and/or neighbor comments.

3. Requires a public hearing based on unresolved neighbor comments/concerns.

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

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

H.        Upon the determination of the planning director that the application:

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

2. If approved, the applicant shall provide final versions of the site plan and supporting documents (quantities to be determined) for approval signature by the planning director.

I.          Public hearing. If neighbor comments/concerns cannot be resolved, the application will be scheduled for a hearing by the county commissioners to resolve outstanding issues. To approve the request to extend, expand, enlarge or change the character of a nonconforming use, building or structure the county commissioners must consider the review criteria found in section 4.8.12 and find that each criterion has been met or determined to be inapplicable.

 

4.8.12. – Review criteria for requests to extend, expand, enlarge or change the character of a nonconforming use, building or structure.

To approve a request to extend, expand, enlarge or change the character of a nonconforming use, building or structure, the planning director or county commissioners must consider the following criteria and find that each has been met or determined to be inapplicable:

A.        The extended, expanded, enlarged or changed use, building or structure is not more than 50% larger or more intense than the initial use, building or structure as measured by indoor area and/or outdoor use area or as measured by other means deemed applicable by the planning director or board of county commissioners;

B.        The request to extend, expand, enlarge or change the character of a nonconforming use, building or structure complies with all applicable requirements of this code and any applicable supplementary regulations to the maximum extent practicable;

C.   The request to extend, expand, enlarge or change the character of a nonconforming use, building or structure 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;

 

D.    The proposed use will be compatible with existing and allowed uses in the surrounding area and  be in harmony with the neighborhood;

E.   The proposed use will not result in a substantial adverse impact on other property in the vicinity of the subject property.

 

4.8.13. – Determining whether there has been a change in character

A.        In determining whether there has been a change in character of a use, building or structure, the following factors may be considered:

1. Whether there has been a change in the location, nature, volume, intensity, frequency, quality or degree of the use, building or structure. (For example, has there been a significant increase in the number of employees or traffic volume; has there been a change in the days or hours of operation; or have the physical dimensions of the building or structure been increased);

2. Whether there has been a change in the activity, products or services. (For example, a dog grooming facility that has been converted to a retail store for pet supplies could be considered a change in the character of the use).

3. Whether the new use, building or structure reflects the nature and purpose of the prior use or structure. (For example, an air strip used for seasonal crop dusting operations that is subsequently used only for recreational parasailing could be considered a change in the character of the use);

4. Whether the new use is different in kind on its effect on the neighborhood. (For example, has there been a change in environmental influences on the neighborhood, such as light, noise or air quality).

 

4.8.14.   – Number of approvals.

Only one request to extend, expand, enlarge or change the character of a nonconforming use, building or structure shall be granted  per nonconformity.  Additional expansions or changes in character must be accomplished by following the appropriate procedure to make the use, building or structure conforming (see section 4.8.20).

 

4.8.15. - Conditions of approval.

The planning director or county commissioners may impose conditions on a request to extend, expand, enlarge or change the character of a nonconforming use, building or structure to accomplish the purposes and intent of this code and the master plan; prevent or mitigate adverse effects on the public, neighborhoods, utilities and county facilities; and ensure compatibility of land uses. These conditions may include a requirement that some or all elements of the nonconforming use and/or that some or all areas of a nonconforming building, structure or site be brought into compliance with the standards in section 8 of this code.

 

4.8.16. - Additional approval requirements.

Approval of a request for an extension, expansion, enlargement or change of character of a nonconforming use, building or structure does not relieve the applicant from complying with the building codes as adopted by the county or the building permit submittal requirements.

 

 

 

4.8.17. - Minor deviations.

Technical, engineering or other considerations may necessitate minor deviations from the approved plans. The planning director may approve minor deviations, in writing, provided they comply with this code and the intent of the original approval.

 

4.8.18. - Amendments.

Changes to the approval that the planning director determines not to be minor deviations require approval through the applicable process as described in this code. If the amendments are not minor deviations, a new application will be required and it will receive full review under the approval processes appropriate to the use as described in this code.

 

4.8.19. - Vesting.

An approved request for an extension, expansion, enlargement or change of character of a nonconforming use, building or structure does not create a vested right. Approved plans are effective for two years. If the use has not commenced and/or a building permit and/or development construction permit are not issued within two years of the approval, the approved plan will automatically expire.

 

4.8.20. - Changing nonconforming status to conforming.

A.        A use that is nonconforming because it has not obtained approval through the require approval procedure may become a conforming use by  gaining approval through the applicable review procedure.

B.        A use that is nonconforming because it is not allowed in a zoning district may seek conforming status through a rezoning of the property (section 4.4) and subsequent approval through the appropriate review procedure or through the special exception process (section 4.7). 

C.        A building or structure that is nonconforming because it has not obtained approval by the flood review board or because it does not meet current setbacks or height restrictions may become a conforming building by obtaining flood review board approval and/or obtaining the necessary setback or height variance approval as applicable to address the nonconforming element(s) of the building.

 

4.8.21. - Nonconforming lots.

A.        A nonconforming lot is a lot, parcel or tract of land that does not meet one or more of the requirements of this code and:

1. Was created by deed or other instrument of property transfer signed before May 5, 1972; or

2. Was approved by the county commissioners on or after May 5, 1972; or

3. Appears on a final plat of record approved by the appropriate authority at the time the plat was recorded. (See definitions, legal lot).

B.        Nonconforming lots must meet all requirements of this code except minimum lot size and minimum lot width-to-depth ratio.

 

Commissioner Dougherty seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Cox, Dougherty, Gerrard, Hart, Jensen, Miller, Wallace, Zitti and Chairman Glick voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  9-0

 

 

ITEMS:

 

ITEM #1  ATLAS TOWER/AT&T CMRS SPECIAL REVIEW #12-Z1876:   Ms. Madson provided background information on the request for a 70-foot freestanding Commercial Mobile Radio Service tower and associated equipment located on the south side of West County Road 56E and west of County Road 21 (Overland Trail).  Ms. Madson noted that the tower would be designed for future co-location.  The original, proposed tower was approved to be a windmill tower, 40 feet high; however it was found that it would not meet their needs.  As a result, a new application was submitted for a 78-foot tower with a windmill top, which would be a galvanized, metal structure.  She explained that the application was amended due to staff comments and comments from the LaPorte Area Planning Advisory Committee (LAPAC).  The tower was now proposed to be 70 feet tall with no windmill top.  She noted that LAPAC had a split decision regarding whether there should be a windmill.  Ms Madson remarked that there was neighborhood concerns regarding the visual impacts of the tower. 

 

Commissioner Cox tried to discern whether the neighbors understood that the proposal was was for a cell tower or a windmill.

 

Jeff Keith, Atlas Tower, explained that the proposal was for an oversized tower with a functioning windmill.  He stated that there became concerns regarding aesthetics and noise from the windmill design.  As a result, the tower was altered and the windmill component removed.  He explained that having a higher tower would allow co-location so there would not be additional towers in the area. 

 

Commissioner Wallace asked why a new tower was needed.

 

Mr. Keith stated that other sites were examined but would not meet line of sight needs.  The existing towers in the area did not meet the needs for the area but the new antenna would. 

 

Commissioner Cox asked if he was aware of any other carriers that wanted to co-locate on the tower.

 

Mr. Keith stated that he was unaware of other carriers that wanted to co-locate on the proposed antenna at the current time. 

 

Betty Wilmoth, stated that she was unable to come to the neighborhood meeting and did not know that LAPAC had a meeting.  She felt that it was a small area of coverage to justify a new tower.  She had concerns that no one was notified that the design had changed on the tower.  She mentioned concerns regarding noise, possible fires, and mitigation.  She also wondered what would happen if the tower became obsolete.  She mentioned that property values could decrease from 4-10% for homes located near a cell tower.

 

Mr. Keith spoke to the noise concerns.  He explained that an air conditioner would run when the equipment became hot.  He stated that he had accommodated all requests from the fire department.

 

Commissioner Cox asked what would happen if the site was abandoned.

 

Ms. Madson stated that the Land Use Code required a decommissioning and removal letter.

 

Commissioner Hart asked about the noise from the windmill configuration.  He also asked if an air conditioner could exceed the noise ordinance.

 

Doug Ryan, Health Department, stated that there were concerns that the windmill could exceed the noise ordinance.  As a result, the Health Department asked the applicant to provide a report with more in depth information on the windmill design and noise generation.  The applicant had since decided to amend the proposal to eliminate the windmill.  He also noted that the Health Department had never received complaints regarding an air conditioning unit for the type of facility proposed.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Commissioner Hart felt that there was ample notification but did admit that a better description could have been sent out to the neighborhood.  He felt that one tower at 70 feet was better than 4 towers.

 

Commissioner Dougherty agreed that one tower was better than a possible four. 

 

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 approval of Atlas Tower/AT&T CMRS Special Review, file #12-Z1876, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes subject to the following conditions:

 

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

 

2.    The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Atlas Tower/AT&T CMRS Special Review File #12-Z1876 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 Atlas Tower/AT&T CMRS Special Review.

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

8.    All antennas shall be mounted as close as possible to the structure to reduce the visual profile of the tower.

 

9.    Prior to building permit application the applicant shall obtain an access permit and private road construction permit from the Engineering Department.  Access to the site shall address the comments in Ms. Shambo’s memo dated Mar 23, 2012, including the requirement for a culvert.

 

10.   Appropriate measures shall be taken to control erosion and sedimentation during all phases of construction.  Disturbed areas shall be repaired to a condition equal or better than the existing condition, including reseeding with a native seed mix.

 

11.   Prior to building permit application the applicant shall provide a copy of an executed access easement and maintenance agreement.

 

12.   The building permit application for the proposed facility shall address the requirements of the Poudre Fire Authority regarding battery storage, if applicable.

 

13.   The tower shall not be lit.  The light on the equipment building shall be designed, shielded, aimed, located and maintained to prevent glare and light trespass on abutting properties and the vicinity. 

 

14.   Prior to building permit application the applicant shall provide a letter withdrawing the previously approved zoning application, File # 10-Z1830. That zoning approval shall be voided and no longer eligible for a building permit. 

 

Commissioner Dougherty seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Cox, Dougherty, Gerrard, Hart, Jensen, Miller, Wallace, Zitti and Chairman Glick voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

 

ITEM #4  KECHTER FARM GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND REZONING #11-S3063 & 11-Z1860 :   Mr. Helmick explained that prior to the item being heard, the applicant along with several other agencies had come to terms on issues that had previously not been agreed upon.  The applicants were requesting to table the item for 30 days to revise the proposed plan. 

 

Tom Dougherty, Mike Sollenberger, applicants, asked for the application to be tabled for 30 days in order to revise and articulate new agreements with the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County Natural Resources Department.

 

Lindsay Ex, City of Fort Collins Environmental Planner, supported tabling the application. 

 

Mr. Dougherty apologized to the public that attended the meeting and encouraged them to come back to the next meeting.

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission table the Kechter Farm General Development Plan & Rezoning, file # 11-S3063 & 11-Z1860 , to the July 18, 2012 Planning Commission hearing. 

 

Commissioner Zitti seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Cox, Dougherty, Gerrard, Hart, Jensen, Miller, Wallace, Zitti and Chairman Glick voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  9-0

 

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

 

ADJOURNMENT:   There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 8:05 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.

 

 

_______________________________                      ______________________________

Scott Glick, Chairman                                                            Nancy Wallace, Secretary

EXHIBIT A

 

Commencing at a point 1084.7 feet North 6 deg. 34 min 37 sec. and 75 feet North 71

deg. 21 min. East of the South quarter corner of section 13, T8N, R70W, 6 th P.M.

Larimer County, Co. Thence 500 feet N20W, thence 200 feet N5W, thence 175 feet

E12S, thence 230 feet S5W, thence 395 feet S20E, thence 175 feet West 19 deg.39 min.

south. More or less 3.2 acres in W1/2W1/2NW1/4SE1/4, N1/2N1/2W1/2SW1/4SE1/4,

E1/2E1/2NE1/4SW1/4 all in Section 13, T8N R70W, 6 th PM of Larimer County, Colo.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

 

BED AT E ¼ COR 18-8-69, S1320 FT, N 18 58’ W 716.9 FT, N 25 59’ W 650.8 FT, S 83 56’ W 330 FT, N 1 30’ W 292.72 FT, N87 57’ E 854.49 FT, S231.30 FT TPOB; LESS HWY AS PER 86065531