Elk in Rocky Mountain National Park
 

LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of January 17, 2007

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, January 17, 2007, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners Hart, Karabensh, Oppenheimer, Pond, Cox and Boulter were present.  Commissioner Wallace presided as Chairman.  Commissioners Waldo and Morgan were absent.  Also present were Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner, Russell Legg, Chief Planner, Matt Johnson, Development Services Engineer, Mark Peterson, County Engineer, Traci Downs, Development Services Engineer, Martina Wilkinson, Traffic Engineer, Rex Burns, Project Engineer, Doug Ryan, Environmental Health, and Heather Taylor, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary

 

Matt Lafferty accompanied Commissioners Hart, Karabensh, Pond, Cox and Wallace on this date for a site visit to Peakview PLD/PD.  Commissioners Oppenheimer, Boulter, Morgan and Waldo were absent. 

 

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

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:  

None

 

CONSENT ITEMS:

 

ITEM #1  COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY ERL CLIENT MARE BARN LOCATION AND EXTENT – 06-Z1624:  Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request for a Location and Extent approval for construction of a mare barn for the Colorado State Facilities Services Center on Colorado State University’s Foothills Campus.

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approve the Colorado State University ERL Client Mare Barn Location and Extent, file #06-Z1624, subject to the following condition:

 

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 Hart seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners Hart, Karabensh, Oppenheimer, Pond, Boulter, Cox, and Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

ITEM #2  COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY EQUINE LAPORTE RESEARCH LOCATION AND EXTENT – 06-Z1625:  Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request for a Location and Extent approval for construction of a small lab building on Colorado State University’s Foothills Campus.

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approve the Colorado State University Equine Laporte Research Location and Extent, file #06-Z1625, 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 a fair and equitable agreement can be reached to address issues and concerns regarding public facilities and infrastructure in the area.

 

2.    The Larimer County Planning Commission requests the University continue to work with Larimer County to reach agreements on how to address the Engineering Department’s concerns with the potential traffic issues at the intersection of Overland Trail and Laporte Avenue and the use of Best Management Practices for controlling erosion.   

 

Commissioner Hart seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners Hart, Karabensh, Oppenheimer, Pond, Boulter, Cox, and Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

ITEMS:

 

ITEM #3  PEAKVIEW PLANNED LAND DIVISION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT –

05-S2345:  Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request for preliminary plat approval for the Peakview Development, a mixed use development on a 40.5 acre property that will be divided into 3 development blocks, and also a request for rezoning from C (Commercial) and I (Industrial) to PD (Planned Development).

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Troy Jones, 204 Walnut Street, Suite D, project manager for the Peakview Development, remarked that he was comfortable with the conditions listed on the staff report.  He explained that all the buildings on the property were located outside of the floodplain area.  But in order to comply with the Colorado Department of Transportations standards for building the frontage road, the floodplain area was slightly breached.  Therefore, they would need to go to the Floodplain Review Board.  He remarked that staff had pushed the issue off to the final plat stage and he believed that it was an appropriate action. 

Mr. Jones stated that they would prefer not to use a roundabout as the control type at the intersection of Highway 14 frontage road and Greenfields road, but understood staffs position.  He remarked that the control type was another piece that would be decided at the final plat stage. 

 

Robert Slate, 726 Sherry Drive, remarked that he was concerned about flooding in his development.  He explained that he does not want the flooding situation aggravated in the neighboring developments.  He said that he did not want to hold up the project, but would not like it to go forward without a plan in place. 

 

Matt Johnson, Development Review Engineer, replied that Peakview would be required to provide detention and show that there would not be adverse impacts from additional flow.  He explained that detention ponds were to capture the runoff and release it at a slow rate. 

 

Matt Lafferty, County Planner, further explained that the detention basins in the buffer were additional storage for runoff. 

 

DISCUSSION:

None

 

Commissioner Pond 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 Peakview Planned Land Division Preliminary Plat, file# 05-S2523, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.    The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the Peakview Planned Land Division (File #05-S2523), 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 Peakview Planned Land Division.

 

2.    The control type for the intersection of the Highway 14 Frontage Road and Greenfields Road shall be determined by the Larimer County Engineering Department, which design may be determined to be a roundabout.

 

3.    Prior to the completion of the Final Plat the applicant shall obtain all necessary approvals from the Flood Plain Review Board for those portions of the development within the existing flood plain.

 

4.    The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for the uses within the development  Poudre R-1 School Fees (residential only), Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, Larimer County Community Park Fees (in lieu of dedication for residential uses only) and drainage fees.  The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply. 

 

5.    Any 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.

 

6.    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.

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Rezone of the Peakview Development from C (Commercial) and I (Industrial) to PD (Planned Development), file# 05-S2523, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.    The rezoning from C (Commercial) and I (Industrial) to PD (Planned Development shall be effective upon the recordation of the final plat of the Peakview Planned Land Division.

 

2.    The permitted uses, lot building and structure requirements, setbacks and structure height limitations for Peakview Planned Development shall be based upon the following: 

 

The vision of Peakview Development is an energetic, pedestrian oriented community consistent with the East Mulberry Corridor Plan.  Peakview is divided into four planning areas reflecting their unique land use mixture and design character:

·   Lot 1The portion of the site designated as MMN (Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood)  represents a more integrated multi-use character combining with a flexibility of either storefront office or medium density residential and retail uses along with storefront office uses.

·   The portion of the site designated as NC (Neighborhood Commercial) Lot 2 comprises the central commercial core characterized by mixed use (office andprimarily retail, )with potential office uses, all with and a strong pedestrian orientation.

·   The portion of the site designated as E (Employment) Lot 3 includes a variety of workplaces, including light industrial uses, offices, and institutions. This designation is also intended to accommodate uses that complement or support the primary workplace, such as hotels, restaurants, convenience shopping centers, child care and limited residential.

·   The portion of the site designated B (Buffer) includes the area immediately west of the Cooper Slough within the wetland/wildlife buffer.  Detention ponds are proposed no closer than 60 feet to the Cooper Slough within this buffer, but water quality ponds are located outside the buffer. highway-oriented uses suited to its location at the intersection of Mulberry Street and Greenfield Drive. These uses are limited to those with limited traffic generation to reduce turning-movement conflicts with the realigned frontage road.

 

Purpose and Intent of the Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Area (MMN)

The Medium Density Neighborhood District is intended to be a setting for concentrated housing within easy walking distance of transit and a commercial district. Secondarily, a neighborhood may also contain other moderate-intensity complementary and supporting land uses that serve the neighborhood. These neighborhoods will form a transition and a link between surrounding neighborhoods and the commercial core with a unifying pattern of streets and blocks. Buildings, streets, bike and walking paths, open spaces and parks will be configured to create an inviting and convenient living environment.  This District is intended to function together with surrounding “Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood” designated areas and a central commercial core as provided in the adjacent Neighborhood Commercial Center” designated area. The intent is for the component land use designation areas to form an integral, town-like pattern of development, and not merely a series of individual development projects in separate land use zone districts.

In the immediate vicinity of Greenfields Drive and East Mulberrry Street, the East Mulberry Corridor Plan designates 14.7 acres of “MMN” designation, 4.5 acres of which is on the Peakview site.  In other words, only 30.6% of the “MMN” designated land in the vicinity of Greenfields Drive and East Mulberry Street is on the Peakview site.

 

Purpose and Intent of the Neighborhood Commercial Center Area (NC)

The Neighborhood Center encourages a compact mixed-use center for the Mulberry Corridor. The mix of land uses establishes places for a full range of activity -- a diverse range of business opportunities in proximity to residential uses and recreation, with public transit opportunities. The Center promotes a more intense and efficient use of land at increased densities to support private development. Uses and development are regulated to create a more intense built-up environment, oriented to pedestrians, and to provide a density and intensity that is transit supportive. Design standards reflect community supported traditional neighborhood design principles.

 

In the immediate vicinity of Greenfields Drive and East Mulberrry Street, the East Mulberry Corridor Plan designates 29.6 acres of “NC” designation, 16.1 acres of which is on the Peakview site.  In other words, 54.4% of the “NC” designated land in the vicinity of Greenfields Drive and East Mulberry Street is on the Peakview site.

Purpose and Intent of the Employment Area (E)

The Employment designation is intended to provide locations for a variety of workplaces, including light industrial uses, offices, and institutions. This designation is also intended to accommodate uses that complement or support the primary workplace, such as hotels, restaurants, convenience shopping, child care and limited residential.

 

In the immediate vicinity of Greenfields Drive and East Mulberrry Street, there are a total of 31.2 acres of E designation, 8.2 acres of which is on the Peakview site.  In other words, only 26.3% of the “E” designated land in the vicinity of Greenfields Drive and East Mulberry Street is on the Peakview site.

 

Purpose and Intent of the Buffer Area (B)

The Buffer designation is intended to provide a distance separation between Cooper Slough and adjacent development.  The buffer is intended primarily to minimize disturbance of wildlife using the slough, and secondarily it is intended to complement and enhance the natural features of the slough.  It is intended that stormwater drainage facilities are appropriate in this buffer area.  Additionally, a regional trail is intended within, but along the outside edge of the buffer.

 

Peakview has approximately 6.4 acres of “B” designated land which is constituted by a 100 foot wide buffer on approximately the southern most 2/3 of the development site, and a 150 foot wide buffer on approximately the northern most 1/3 of the development site.

Permitted Uses

1. Use Table.

Table I lists the types of land uses permitted in Peakview. A “R” in this table indicates that a use type is allowed by right, subject to conformance with applicable provisions of this section and applicable County regulations. A “CCS” in this table indicates that a use type is allowed by right but only as part of a “convenience shopping center.”  An ”S” in this table indicates a use type which may be permitted in that planning area, but which is subject to Special Review Approval.  An “L” in this table indicates that a use type is allowed subject to a Location and Extent Review.  An “NA” in this table indicates a use type that is not allowed in that planning area.  A “(2nd)” indicates that the use is a secondary use; see section 2 of this Permitted Use portion of this development guide for secondary use restrictions for each use category.

 


TABLE I PERMITTED USES

Use Categories

Lot 1MMN area

Lot 2NC area

Lot 3E area

Agricultural 

Garden supply center (R)

NA

NA

R

Pet animal facility (R)

S (2nd)

R

R (2nd)

Pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital (R/S)

S (2nd)

R

R (2nd)

Residential

Single-family dwelling (on lots 6,000 sq. ft or smaller)

R

NA

R (2nd)

Duplex dwelling (R)

R

R (2nd)

R (2nd)

Multiple family dwelling (R)

R

R (2nd)

R (2nd)

Mixed-use dwellings

R

R

R

Group home for the developmentally disabled (R)

R

R (2nd)

R (2nd)

Group home for the elderly (R)

R

R (2nd)

R (2nd)

Commercial 

Emergency service facility such as a fire station or ambulance service Convenience store (with fuel sales)

NA

R

CSS

Convenience store (without fuel sales)

S (2nd)

R

CSS

Cultural centers such as museum, performing art center, art galleries Automobile service station (R)

NA

R

NA

Carwash (R)

NA

R

NA

Professional office (R)

R (2nd)

R

R

General retail (R/S) See section 4.3

NA

R

R

General commercial (R)

NA

R

R

Personal service (R)

R (2nd)

R

R

Takeout restaurant (R)

NA

R

R (2nd)

Takeout restaurant (in mixed-use building)

S (2nd)

R

R

Takeout restaurant (with drive-up window from which food is served)

NA

R

CSS

Sit-down restaurant (R)

NA

R

R

Nightclub (R)

NA

S

S (2nd)

Flea market (R/S)--See section 4.3 (use descriptions and conditions)

NA

R

NA

Instructional facility (R)

R (2nd)

R

R

Outdoor display/sales (R)

NA

NA

NA

Clinic (R)

R (2nd)

R

R

Grocery Store

NA

R

R (2nd)

Supermarket

NA

R

NA

Open-air farmers market

NA

R

R (2nd)

Financial services

R (2nd)

R

R

Entertainment facilities & theaters

NA

R

R

Institutional

Health services (R)

R (2nd)

R

R

Hospital (R)

NA

NA

R

School, public (L)

L

L

L

School, nonpublic (R/S)--See section 4.3

S (2nd)

R

R

Rehabilitation facility (R)

S (2nd)

NA

S (2nd)

Jail/prison (S)

NA

NA

L

Church (R)

R

R

R

State-licensed group home (S)

R (2nd)

R

R

Child/elderly care center (S)

R (2nd)

R

R (2nd)

Child/elderly care home (R)

R (2nd)

R

R (2nd)

Congregate residence (S)

R (2nd)

S

S (2nd)

Sheriff/fire station (L)

L

L

L

Accommodation 

Hotel/motel (R)

NA

NA

R

Bed and breakfast (R/S)--See section 4.3

R (2nd)

NA

R

Nursing home (R)

R (2nd)

NA

R

Boarding/rooming house (S)

R (2nd)

R

R

Recreational

Place of amusement or recreation (R/S)--See section 4.3

NA

R

R (2nd)

Membership club/clubhouse (R)

NA

R

R (2nd)

Public park/playground (L)

R

R

R

Trail/trail head (L)

R

R

R

Industrial

Enclosed storage (R)

NA

NA

S (2nd)

Trade use (R/S)--See section 4.3

NA

NA

R

Light industrial (S)

NA

NA

R

Workshops & custom small industries

NA

R

R

Utilities 

Utility substation (L)

L

L

L

Treatment plant (L)

L

NA

L

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

S

R

R

Radio and television transmitters (S)

S

 

S

S

Water storage facility (L)

L

L

L

Transportation

Transportation depot (R)

NA

R

R

Bus terminal (R)

NA

R

R

Truck stop (R)

NA

NA

R

Transportation service (R)

NA

R

R

Parking lot/garage (R)

NA

R

R

Park and ride (R)

NA

R

R

2. Secondary Uses.

Medium Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MMN) Area.

The use table above identifies secondary uses in the MMN sub-district of the PD zone.  For development projects containing 10 or more acres of MMN designated land, secondary uses shall occupy no more than 15 percent of the total gross area of the development plan.  For development projects that have less than 10 acres of MMN areas within the development plan, the development plan only needs to demonstrate how secondary uses contributes to the overall mix of land uses within the surrounding area, but shall not be required to provide a mix of land uses within the development.

b) Neighborhood Community Commercial (NC) Area. The use table above identifies secondary uses in the NC sub-district of the PD zone.  For projects containing ten (10) or more acres of NC designated land, secondary uses shall occupy no more than thirty (30) percent of the total gross area of NC portion of any development plan. If the project contains less than ten (10) acres of NC designated land, the development plan must demonstrate how it contributes to the overall mix of land uses within the surrounding area, but shall not be required to provide a mix of land uses within the development.

c) Employment (E) Area. The use table above identifies secondary uses in the E sub-district of the PD zone.  All secondary uses shall be integrated both in function and appearance into a larger employment district development plan that emphasizes primary uses.  Secondary uses within the E sub-district of the PD zone shall occupy no more than twenty-five (25) percent of the total gross area of the development plan.

 

3. Use Definitions.  In addition to Use Definitions in section 4.3 of the Larimer County Land Use Code, the following use definitions apply within the MMN, NC and E areas:

a)   Mixed-use dwelling shall mean a dwelling that is located on the same lot or in the same building as a nonresidential use.

b)   Grocery store shall mean a retail establishment which primarily sells food, but also may sell other convenience and household goods, and which occupies a space of at least five thousand (5,000) square feet but not more than forty-five thousand (45,000) square feet.

c)   Supermarket shall mean a retail establishment primarily selling food, as well as other convenience and household goods, which occupies a space of not less than forty-five thousand one (45,001) square feet.

d)   Open-air farmers market shall mean an occasional or periodic market held in an open area or in a structure where groups of individual sellers offer for sale to the public such items as fresh produce, seasonal fruits, fresh flowers, arts and crafts items, and food and beverages (but not to include second-hand goods) dispensed from booths located on-site.

e)   Business services shall mean shops primarily engaged in providing services to business establishments such as, but not limited to, employment service, mailing or copy shops.

f)   Entertainment facilities & theaters shall mean a building or part of a building devoted to showing motion pictures or dramatic, musical or live performances.

g)   Workshops & custom small industry shall mean a facility wherein goods are produced or repaired by hand, using hand tools or small-scale equipment, including small engine repair, furniture making and restoring, upholstering, custom car or motorcycle restoring or other similar uses.

Development Standards

1.   Standards Specific to Each Land Use Category

a)   Block Structure: 

MMN area

NC area

E area

Development plans shall be designed as a series of complete blocks bounded by streets. Natural areas, wildlife / wetland buffer zones, irrigation ditches, high-voltage power lines, operating railroad tracks and other similar substantial physical features may form up to two (2) sides of a block.

Each Neighborhood Commercial District and each development within this District shall be developed as a series of complete blocks bounded by streets.  Natural areas, irrigation ditches, high-voltage power lines, operating railroad tracks and other similar substantial physical features may form up to two (2) sides of a block.

To the extent reasonably feasible, industrial buildings shall provide a primary entrance that faces and opens directly onto the abutting street sidewalk or a walkway, plaza or courtyard that has direct linkage to the street sidewalk without requiring pedestrians to cross any intervening driveways or parking lots unless the development provides a campus or park-like development block with a unifying, formative internal framework of outdoor spaces and connecting walkways that function as an alternative to street sidewalks by connecting buildings within the site and directly connecting to common destinations in the district (such as transit stops, restaurants, child care facilities and convenience shopping centers). Such an internal network shall provide direct pedestrian access to the street sidewalk(s).

 

b)   Block Size:

MMN area

NC area

E area

All blocks shall be limited to a maximum size of seven (7) acres.

All blocks shall be limited to a maximum size of seven (7) acres, except that blocks containing “large retail establishments” shall be limited to a maximum of ten (10) acres.

There is no maximum block size.

 

c)   Building Frontage:

MMN area

NC area

E area

Forty (40) percent of each block side or fifty (50) percent of the block faces of the total block shall consist of either building frontage, plazas or other functional open space.

Forty (40) percent of each block side or fifty (50) percent of the total block frontage shall consist of either building frontage, plazas, or other functional open space.

There is no building frontage requirement.

d)   Building Height:

MMN area

NC area

E area

Buildings shall be limited to a maximum of three (3) stories.  The portion of a building located within a radius of seventy-five (75) feet of the right-of-way of an intersection of two (2) arterial streets may contain an additional fourth story.  The portion of a building within a radius of fifty (50) feet of the right-of-way of any street intersection (except an arterial/arterial intersection) may contain an additional fourth story.

All buildings shall have a minimum height of twenty (20) feet, measured to the dominant roof line of a flat-roofed building, or the mean height between the eave and ridge on a sloped-roof building. In the case of a complex roof with different co-dominant portions, the measurement shall apply to the highest portion. All buildings shall be limited to five (5) stories.

Maximum height for all nonresidential buildings, including those containing mixed-use dwelling units, shall be four (4) stories. Maximum height for residential buildings shall be three (3) stories.

 

e)   Residential Density / Non-Residential FAR:

MMN area

NC area

E area

Residential developments shall have an overall minimum average density of twelve (12) dwelling units per net acre of residential land except that residential developments containing twenty (20) acres or less shall have an overall minimum average density of seven (7) dwelling units per net acre of residential land. The requirements of this paragraph shall not apply to mixed-use dwellings in multistory mixed-use buildings.  The minimum residential density of any phase in a multiple-phase development plan shall be seven (7) dwelling units per net acre of residential land.

Residential developments have no minimum or maximum density requirements.

All residential development in the E Employment District shall have an overall minimum average density of seven (7) dwelling units per net acre of residential land.

Non-residential developments have no minimum or maximum FAR requirements.

Non-residential developments have no minimum or maximum FAR requirements.

Non-residential developments have no minimum or maximum FAR requirements.

2.   General Development Standards

a)   Orientation to a Connecting Walkway for development with frontage oriented toward Greenfield Drive and/or Frontage Road

At least one (1) main entrance of any commercial or mixed-use building shall face and open directly onto a connecting walkway with pedestrian frontage. Any building adjacent to the Cooper Slough buffer or any building which has only vehicle bays and/or service doors for intermittent/infrequent nonpublic access to equipment, storage or similar rooms (e.g. self-serve car washes and self-serve mini-storage warehouses) shall be exempt from this standard.

b)   Buffers

Landscaped buffers shall be located in tracts adjacent to major thoroughfares within or adjacent to Peakview.

East Mulberry – 80 feet

Greenfields – none.  (Buildings along Greenfields are intended to face and open directly onto the street sidewalk.  Trees must be planted in tree wells along the Greenfields urban attached sidewalk.

Frontage Road – 10 feet

c)   Building Orientation

Standards

Commercial, mixed-use, and community service buildings in all planning areas (except buildings adjacent to the Cooper Slough buffer) shall comply with the following standards for Building Orientation and Primary Entrance:

·   To the extent practicable, buildings shall have a primary entrance oriented to an adjacent public street. This entrance shall be open to the public during all business hours.

·   Primary building entrances shall be architecturally emphasized and visible from the street.

·   All building entrances and exits shall be well lighted.

·   Exterior lighting should be an integral part of the architectural and landscape design.

·   Lighting levels shall be in accordance with the Larimer County Zoning Resolution, as amended.

·   For building facades over 300 feet in length facing a street, two or more building entrances on the street must be provided.

·   Building entrances shall incorporate arcades, roofs, porches, alcoves, porticoes and/or awnings.

·   If the building has frontage on more than one street, the building shall provide a primary entrance oriented to one of the streets, or a single entrance to the corner where two streets intersect.

d)   Parking areas and standards

Automobile parking standards

·   All automobile-parking standards shall be in accordance with those set forth in the Peakview Planned Land Division unless otherwise stipulated in this section.

·   On-street parking shall count toward any minimum parking requirements.

·  On-street parking shall be provided on Greenfields, but not on the Frongtage Road.

·   Where primary parking abuts streets within the interior of the park, appropriate screening is required.

Bicycle parking design standards

·   Use.  Areas set aside for required bicycle parking must be clearly reserved for bicycle parking only.

·   Location.  Outdoor bicycle parking must be located closer to primary building entrances than automobile parking, within 50 feet or less from the primary building entrances. Outdoor bicycle parking shall be visible from on-site buildings and/or the street.

·   Pedestrian conflicts.  Bicycle parking and bicycle racks shall be located to avoid conflict with pedestrian movement and access walk.

 

 

Exemptions

The following uses are exempted from bicycle Parking requirements:

·   Temporary uses

3.   Buildings

a)   Articulation/form

    (i)   Variation in Massing.

Horizontal masses shall not exceed a height-width ratio of 1:3 without substantial variation in massing that includes a change in height and a projecting or recessed element.

    (ii)   Facade Treatment.

b)   Minimum Wall Articulation.

·   Building bays shall be a maximum of thirty (30) feet in width. Bays shall be visually established by architectural features such as columns, ribs or pilasters, piers and fenestration pattern. In order to add architectural interest and variety and avoid the effect of a single, long or massive wall with no relation to human size, the following additional standards shall apply:

·   No wall that faces a street or connecting walkway shall have a blank, uninterrupted length exceeding thirty (30) feet without including at least two (2) of the following: change in plane, change in texture or masonry pattern, windows, treillage with vines, or an equivalent element that subdivides the wall into human scale proportions.

·   Side or rear walls that face walkways may include false windows and door openings defined by frames, sills and lintels, or similarly proportioned modulations of the wall, only when actual doors and windows are not feasible because of the nature of the use of the building.

·   All sides of the building shall include materials and design characteristics consistent with those on the front. Use of inferior or lesser quality materials for side or rear facades shall be prohibited.

·   Facades that face streets or connecting pedestrian frontage shall be subdivided and proportioned using features such as windows, entrances, arcades, arbors, awnings, treillage with vines, along no less than fifty (50) percent of the facade.

·   Entrances. Primary building entrances shall be clearly defined and recessed or framed by a sheltering element such as an awning, arcade or portico in order to provide shelter from the summer sun and winter weather.

·   Awnings. Awnings shall be no longer than a single storefront.

·   Base and Top Treatments. All facades shall have a recognizable "base" consisting of (but not limited to): thicker walls, ledges or sills; integrally textured materials such as stone or other masonry; integrally colored and patterned materials such as smooth-finished stone or tile; lighter or darker colored materials, mullions or panels; or planters.

·   Encroachments. Special architectural features, such as bay windows, decorative roofs and entry features may project up to three (3) feet into street rights-of-way, provided that they are not less than nine (9) feet above the sidewalk. Trellises, canopies and fabric awnings may project up to five (5) feet into front setbacks and public rights-of-way, provided that they are not less than eight (8) feet above the sidewalk. No such improvements shall encroach into alley rights-of-way.

·   Streets. Conceptual cross sections for the full range of streets are consistent with Larimer County standards.

 

Commissioner Karabensh seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners Hart, Karabensh, Oppenheimer, Pond, Boulter, Cox, and Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

ITEM #4  AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE REGARDING THE CACHE LA POUDRE FLOODPLAIN IN THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT AREA – 07-CA0067:  Mr. Burns provided background information on the Amendment to Section 4.2.2 of the Larimer County Land Use Code regarding the Cache La Poudre Floodplain located within the City of Fort Collins Growth Management Area. He explained that 2 years ago Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins conducted an area plan for the East Mulberry corridor.  As part of that area plan it was determined that the floodplain issues between Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins were very different and if a property were annexed into the City the property owner might not be able to obtain a building permit.  He further explained that the reason for not being building permit eligible was that the City’s floodplain regulations were more restrictive.  He elaborated on the restrictive regulations and the regulation changes. 

 

Mr. Burns explained the amendment language in brief detail. 

 

Commissioner Cox asked if Mr. Burns could elaborate on the fill requirement.

 

Mr. Burns explained that if material was removed it was favorable but if material was brought in, it was unfavorable.  If material was removed and a flood came there would not be a place for water to be stored. 

 

Mr. Burns explained that property owners could file a Letter of Map Revision based on fill LOMR-F with FEMA which could take an area out of the floodplain. 

 

Mark Peterson, County Engineer, stated that if this was filed, the property owner would still be required to fill and meet the flood protection elevation.  He remarked that property owners would then have to fill 2 feet above the 100 year floodplain level. 

 

Commissioner Wallace asked what the impact would be on the critical facilities if the amendments were adopted?

 

Mr. Burns explained that the Larimer County Land Use Code, in floodplain matters, does not recognize expansion of non conforming uses or structures.  He further explained that to expand a non conforming use or structure one must get a variance or a new special review approval to have the use in place.  He remarked that if a public entity or public utility was within the 100 year floodplain and wanted to expand, they could only do so by getting a variance. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Ravindra Srivastava, General Manager Boxelder Sanitation District, stated that he did not believe the regulations were warranted for the properties that were affected.  He remarked that the City was thinking that all the properties currently in the Growth Management Area (GMA) would eventually be annexed into the City.  He explained that the GMA boundaries were drawn and the property owners were not asked to be a part of the GMA, they were drawn in.  He stated that properties that were currently in Larimer County would have new regulations that are much more stringent.  Basically, the restrictions would be tightened for properties outside the City limits.  He explained that the burden of demonstrating compliance with the more complicated regulations would rest entirely and solely on the property owners that were impacted.  He explained that the Boxelder Sanitation plant would be mandated to make improvements to the facility and then burdened with the added cost of having to comply with the more stringent regulations.  He stated that the maps that were used were 23 years old and that if property owners were to be designated with more stringent regulations, then the maps used should be up to date.  He suggested that if the regulation were to pass, it should be done with up to date maps. 

 

Commissioner Boulter asked if the regulations were to pass, would immediate updates need to be done to the Boxelder facility?

 

Mr. Srivastava replied that immediate updates would not need to be done, though they would need to update this year sometime to comply with changing state regulations.  He explained that with mining and development along the Poudre River, land that is shown on the 23 year old maps to be in the 100 year or 500 year floodplain may not necessarily be in ground reality. 

 

Commissioner Boulter asked if his presentation came with a suggestion to the Planning Commission?

 

Mr. Srivastava replied that he did have a suggestion.  If the Planning Commission were to recommend approval of the amendments, he would urge the Board of County Commissioners to not consent to adopting the amendments using the old maps.  He suggested putting a time frame for the County to commit some resources to update the maps. 

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Boulter asked for staff’s response to the mapping questions.

 

Mr. Burns stated that he could not promise that new mapping would come anytime soon.  He remarked that he would agree that the terrain around the Poudre River has been heavily modified by mining in the area.  He explained that it was a fragile area and if maps were re-done and a flood came through, the maps would then have to be re-done again.  He remarked that he would like to have new mapping every 5 years, but that was not possible given the resources the staff had.

 

Mr. Peterson remarked that the County would like to have up to date maps.  FEMA allotted a certain amount of money, but unfortunately flood studies are very expensive and the County does not have those resources at this time. 

 

Commissioner Wallace asked that when someone comes in with an application, would staff look at what might be a difference in the maps at the time of the application versus the maps that were on file?  She questioned whether staff would only look at the old maps or look at a variety of information. 

 

Mr. Peterson replied that the applicant had the ability to replicate the existing FEMA study and then show that there was corrected data that would modify those elevations shown in the FEMA study. 

 

Commissioner Cox asked that if these were being proposed for extra protection for properties in floodplain areas, then why not have these regulations apply to all floodplain areas in Larimer County?

 

Mr. Peterson replied that the desire was to bring consistency between City of Fort Collins and Larimer County regulations.  The reason the GMA was being looked at was because a property could be conforming in Larimer County, then be annexed and immediately become non-conforming in the City of Fort Collins because of the difference in regulations. 

 

Commissioner Boulter asked if there was a significant cost associated with the change in the regulation?

 

Mr. Peterson replied that the cost would occur at the building permit stage, but the property owner would have to show that they were in compliance with the flood protection elevation.  He explained that there was a variance process.  If someone were to show that they had good cause or a good reason for not meeting the elevation, they could go to the Floodplain Review Board to get a variance to that elevation. 

 

Mr. Burns stated that critical facilities needed to be 24 inches above the 100-year floodplain. 

 

Commissioner Hart asked what would happen to Boxelder’s facility if this regulation passed?  He asked if they would have to go through the variance process? 

 

Mr. Burns stated that they would have to go through the variance process and could be granted that variance. 

 

Commissioner Karabensh stated that the language had been narrowed down to only affecting new facilities, but asked why critical facilities were not included in that language?

 

Mr. Burns replied that it was talked about and was an alternative.  He stated that it was hard to devise language that fits all plans, structures, and facilities. 

 

Commissioner Boulter remarked that he was sorry that current mapping was not available and he understood the economics of it.  He stated that he felt better that there was an out for the applicant.  A variance process and a way of appealing what had been put in place.  He stated that he was sensitive to the Boxelder situation.  He remarked that they had been there for a very long time and never had a problem with what they have.  He stated that he would be in support of the amendments and would then let the Board of County Commissioners make a decision from there.  He stated that he would like to see alternative language given to the Board of County Commissioners for their review.  He remarked that he would like a record of the meeting and the concerns raised sent to the Commissioners for their review of the proposed amendments. 

 

Commissioner Cox stated that she was aware that it was a burden to get through the variance process, and she questioned whether there was something that could be done to simplify that process. 

 

Commissioner Hart remarked that if you have ever been around a flood and seen what it could do to critical facilities, you would understand why they are not allowed in the 100-year floodplain.  He stated that there should be work done to the critical facilities located within the 100-year floodplain to protect them.  He explained that existing facilities should not be a hazard to public health and safety. 

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Amendments to Section 4.2.2 of the Larimer County Land Use Code regarding the Cache La Poudre Floodplain in the Growth Management Area as described below, file# 07-CA0067, be approved:

 

Add Sections:   4.2.2 A.4. Cache La Poudre River GMA 100-year Floodplain Zoning District and

Section 4.2.2 A.5. Cache La Poudre River GMA 500 year Zoning District

Add the following language to the end of the current language contained in Section 4.2.2 .B:

The Cache La Poudre River GMA 500-year Floodplain Zoning District shall apply within the boundaries of the Fort Collins GMA to all properties lying within the 500-year floodplain of the Cache La Poudre River.

 

The Cache La Poudre River GMA 100-year Floodplain Zoning District shall apply within that part of the FW-Floodway Zoning District pertaining to the Cache La Poudre River and that part of the FF-Flood Fringe Zoning District pertaining to the Cache La Poudre River which is within the Growth Management Area (GMA) of the City of  Fort Collins.

 

Add a new Section 4.2.2 G as follows:

 

G.   Cache La Poudre River GMA 100-year Floodplain Zoning District

 

1.   Requirements, procedures and uses allowed within the Cache La Poudre GMA 100-year Floodplain Zoning District shall be the same as requirements, procedures and uses allowed within the FF Flood Fringe and FW Floodway Zoning Districts respectively, except as noted below.

2.   Any new structure excepting expansion of existing non-conforming structures placed in the Cache La Poudre River GMA 100-year Floodplain Zoning District shall have its lowest floor level placed at or above the GMA regulatory flood protection elevation. 

3.   If any nonresidential structure or portions of any non-residential structure are not constructed on fill, the portion not on fill must be floodproofed in a manner consistent with the requirements for placing a structure within the Cache La Poudre River GMA 100-year Floodplain Zoning District to the GMA regulatory flood protection elevation.

4.   Critical facilities shall not be allowed anywhere within the Cache La Poudre River GMA 100-year Floodplain Zoning District.

5.   Modification of the terrain within the FW Floodway portion of the Cache La Poudre River GMA 100-year Floodplain Zoning District may be allowed only by Flood Plain Special Review.

 

Add a new Section 4.2.2 H as follows:

 

H.      The Cache La Poudre River GMA 500-year Floodplain Zoning District. Critical facilities shall be prohibited within the Cache La Poudre River GMA 500-year Floodplain Zoning District.

 

·  The existing Section G shall become Section I.  Said section shall be expanded as follows:

Add paragraphs h, i, and j.  in  4.2.2.I.2 as follows:

4.2.2.I.2

h.   Any modification of the terrain within the FW-Floodway Zoning District will not result a rise in overall flood heights at any location. 

i.   Any modification of the terrain within the FW-Floodway Zoning District will not reduce available flood storage volume.

j.   Any modification of the terrain within the FW-Floodway Zoning District is environmentally sound and will not result in a net loss of vegetation nor wildlife habitat

 

The existing Section H shall become Section J

The existing Section I shall become Section K

The existing Section J shall become Section L

The existing Section K shall become Section M

The existing Section L shall become Section N

The existing Section M shall become Section O, which section shall be revised by adding the following definitions:

 

GMA Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation.  The elevation two feet above the regulatory flood datum.

 

500 year floodplain of the Cache La Poudre River.  The area of the Cache La Poudre River that has a 0.2 percent chance of flooding in a given year.

 

Critical Facility:  

Critical facilities shall include hospitals, schools, daycare, nursing homes, group homes, police and fire stations, public and private utility facilities that are vital to maintaining or restoring normal services to flooded areas before, during and after a flood, and equipment storage for flood response.

 

Commissioner Hart seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners Hart, Karabensh, Oppenheimer, Pond, Boulter, Cox, and Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

ITEM #5  AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY URBAN AREA STREET STANDARDS:  Ms. Downs provided background information on the proposed amendments to the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards.  She explained that the Urban Area Street Standards document was a comprehensive set of engineering designs and construction standards used within the City of Fort Collins, the City of Loveland, and their Growth Management Areas.  She stated that within these areas, the Urban Area Street Standards guide the design for private developments as well as public engineering capital projects.  She stated that the County enforced these standards through existing intergovernmental agreements between the City of Fort Collins and the City of Loveland, and remarked that standards represented in the document had been a significant collaborative effort between the City of Fort Collins and the City of Loveland.  The document was adopted in 2001 and up to now there had only been one revision, which was in October 2002.  The past 12 months staff from Larimer County, Fort Collins, and Loveland had reviewed the entire document and identified a number of technical changes that needed to be made.  Ms. Downs explained that the changes that applied to the Growth Management Area were minor, and the changes that were proposed were to better reflect the most current engineering methods, and current reference materials.  The other proposed changes were housekeeping items, such as typos and language refinement throughout the document. 

Ms. Downs stated that nothing had changed with the variance process, and that applicants still had the option of getting a variance from the standards.  She explained that when the standards were being looked at, the line had to be drawn somewhere but staff also recognized that every case was different, that was why no changes were proposed to the variance process. 

 

Ms. Downs remarked that the standards update committee worked with interested parties who gathered input and provided information on the changes in an effort to provide balance on the finished product.  She stated that the proposed amendments were available on the web.  Over 150 fliers were sent out to registered users of the manual which included planners, engineers, developers and contractors.  There were 2 open houses, and a meeting with the Loveland Construction Advisory Board.  All of the proposed changes were well received with minimal negative impact. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

None

 

DISCUSSION:

None

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Amendments to the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, be approved.

 

Commissioner Hart seconded the Motion.

Commissioners Hart, Karabensh, Oppenheimer, Pond, Boulter, Cox, and Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

ITEM #6  AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE 06-CA0066:  Mr. Legg provided background information on the request to make a number of changes to the Larimer County Land Use Code, specifically pertaining to amendments to Section 4.6.7.A concerning administrative variance for stream setbacks, amendments to Sections 4.6.7, 4.1.5.B.3.B and C, and 4.8.B.2.b and c concerning setback requirement in O-Open and RE-Rural Estate zoning districts, amendments to Sections 10.13.A.5 concerning Home Occupation Signs, amendments to Section 4.7.8 concerning regulations to Special Exceptions, amendments to Sections 4.3.5 and 4.1.5 concerning rafting businesses, amendments to Section 5.8.6 concerning the Rural Land Use Process, amendments to Section 8.14.2.S concerning Connectivity, amendments to Section 4.3.7 concerning Power Plants, and amendments to Section 8.14.2 concerning private road easements. 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

None

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Hart asked if staff felt confident that the Minor Special Review process was the appropriate process to look at parking, and outdoor storage for Rafting businesses?

 

Commissioner Boulter stated that he could not imagine staff wanting to encourage more rafting businesses.  He stated that rafting business have a lot of traffic issues, especially during the summer, and he felt that Rafting businesses were a huge impact to whatever they were near.  He suggested that the process to approve rafting businesses be changed from a Minor Special Review to Special Review.  He asked what the difference was between a Minor Special Review and Special Review application? 

 

Mr. Legg elaborated on the review criteria for Minor Special Review. 

 

Commissioner Boutler asked if the Planning Commission made a recommendation  on Minor Special Review applications?

 

Mr. Legg replied no.

 

Commissioner Boulter recommended that he would change Item 5 to make Rafting businesses go through the Special Review process rather than the Minor Special Review Process.

 

Commissioner Boulter commented that staff needed to try to stay on the cutting edge of the facilities designed to generate wind. 

 

Mr. Legg replied that staff had worked very hard to stay on top of the situation. 

 

Commisioner Wallace asked if Item 7 concerning Connectivity would be subject to the standard appeal process?

 

Mr. Legg replied yes. 

 

Commissioner Karabensh asked if rafting would be the only type of business that would be in the Special Review versus Minor Special Review category?

 

Mr. Legg replied that staff was trying to expand where rafting businesses could be located.  This amendment would be under the zoning section as a category.  He remarked that the amendment would make only rafting businesses allowed in the O-Open zoning district through Minor Special Review, or the proposed Special Review process.  He explained that there were other amendments like that one coming in the future. 

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if there was a difference in cost for Special Review applications versus Minor Special Review applications?

 

Mr. Legg replied that there was a difference in cost.  He explained that the fee was higher for a Special Review application.  He remarked that the County Commissioners were reviewing fees, but the project was currently on hold.

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code, as described below, with an change to Item 5 concerning Rafting Businesses to make Minor Special Review become Special Review, file# 06-CA0066, be approved:

 

Item 1.  Administrative variance for stream setbacks

 

In all zoning districts the Land Use Code requires a minimum setback of 100 feet from the centerline of all streams, creeks and rivers that appear on the U. S. G. S. 7.5 minute quadrangle maps, including intermittent streams.  We already have a minor variance procedure to allow the planning director to approve a 90-foot setback or a 10% variance.  For many of the intermittent streams this does not address the situations where there is very little chance for flooding and the riparian area along the stream is very narrow.  For these situations the planning director should be able to grant a 50% variance where it can be clearly shown that flood waters will not likely damage the building and the building will not damage the riparian area or any wetlands associated with the stream.  This administrative variance process will replace the existing process in Section 4.6.7.A that deals with setbacks in O-Open and RE-Rural Estate zoning districts.  The next item on this agenda addresses these setbacks in a different way.

Delete the current Section 4.6.7.A and replace with the following:

 

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

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

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

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

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

           

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

 

 

 

Item 2.  Setback requirements in O-Open and RE-Rural Estate Zoning Districts

 

We have been discussing setbacks in these two districts for quite a long time.  We had previously amended Section 4.6.7 to provide for an administrative variance process to deal with additions to existing buildings or to allow new buildings that line up with existing, nonconforming buildings.  This amendment will remove the need for any kind of variance when an addition or a new building is proposed on a lot in these two zoning districts and there is a nonconforming building on the lot.  We will leave the 25-foot side and rear setbacks in place for all new construction in these zoning districts that does not fall under the exception proposed below.

Amend Section 4.1.5.B.3.b and c to read as follows:

 

b.  “Side yard—25 feet except that if there is an existing building over 120 square feet in area that has been legally established prior to (date of code amendment) that is setback less than 25 feet from the side yard, said existing building shall be deemed conforming with respect to side yard setback, and an addition to said existing building or a new building shall be allowed a side yard setback equal to or greater than the existing building, but in no case shall the side yard setback be less than 5 feet. “

 

c.  “Rear yard—25 feet except that if there is an existing building over 120 square feet in area that has been legally established prior to (date of code amendment) that is setback less than 25 feet from the rear yard, said existing building shall be deemed conforming with respect to rear yard setback, and an addition to said existing building or a new building shall be allowed a rear yard setback equal to or greater than the existing building, but in no case shall the rear yard setback be less than 10 feet. “

 

Amend Section. 4.1.8.B.2.b and c to read as follows:

b.  “Side yard—25 feet except that if there is an existing building over 120 square feet in area that has been legally established prior to (date of code amendment) that is setback less than 25 feet from the side yard, said existing building shall be deemed conforming with respect to side yard setback, and an addition to said existing building or a new building shall be allowed a side yard setback equal to or greater than the existing building, but in no case shall the side yard setback be less than 5 feet. “

 

c.  “Rear yard—25 feet except that if there is an existing building over 120 square feet in area that has been legally established prior to (date of code amendment) that is setback less than 25 feet from the rear yard, said existing building shall be deemed conforming with respect to rear yard setback, and an addition to said existing building or a new building shall be allowed a rear yard setback equal to or greater than the existing building, but in no case shall the rear yard setback be less than 10 feet. “

 

            Item 3.  Home Occupation Signs

 

Section 10.13.A.5 currently requires that a sign for a home occupation be mounted on the building near the entrance to the home occupation.  In some cases this is not practical because there may be a very long driveway making a three square foot sign unreadable from the road.  Allowing the sign to be placed anywhere on the same lot with the home occupation will overcome this problem and should not result in any problems for the neighborhood.

 

            Amend Section 10.13.A.5 as follows:

Signs for home occupations and uses approved by minor special review shall be limited to one flush wall nameplate sign, not to exceed three square feet in area. at or near the entrance to the business. and located on the same lot as the home occupation or use.

 

            Item 4.  Section 4.7.8

 

When we amended the regulations pertaining to special exceptions in Section 4.7 we overlooked Section 4.7.8 which was to be deleted.

 

            Delete Section 4.7.8.

 

            Item 5.  Rafting Business

 

We have been talking to some of the rafting companies who have had difficulty finding places from which to operate their business.  Under the current code these businesses are limited to property that is zoned C-Commercial or I-Industrial.  There simply is not much of that zoning in the areas close to the rafting places.  By adding “rafting business” to the O-Open Zoning District through the special review process we can add many more possible locations for this type of business.

Add a definition for “Rafting Business”-A facility for the operation of a commercial rafting business where vehicles, rafts and other equipment are stored and where customers congregate to change clothes and be transported to and from the put in and take out sites.”

 

            Add “Rafting Business” to Section 4.3.5, Recreational Uses under a new subsection J.

           

Add “Rafting Business (MS)” to Section 4.1.5.A under the heading of Recreational Uses and renumber the rest of Section 4.1.5.A.

 

Add “Rafting Business” to the recreational use section of the zoning table at the end of Section 4.1 and place the “MS” designation under the O-Open column.

 

            Item 6.  Rural Land Use Process

 

The director of the Rural Land Use Center has two minor changes to make in Section 5.8.6.

I discovered an error in the RLUP Engineering Standards and Guidelines portion of the RLUP--Section 5.8.6.C.3.d.3.c. re: Road Grade.  There is a typographical error in the italicized guideline portion of the Road Grade section (for the purposes of the RLUP guidelines are intended to be "recommendations and suggestions").  The last sentence should read: "However, the average grade for 200 feet should not exceed 12%".  It currently says "must".  I know there is a big difference between "should" and "must":  For the RLUP "should" designates a recommendation or suggestion and "must" or "shall" designates requirements.  However, it was intended that this particular RLUP Guideline reflect the precise wording ("...should not exceed...") used in Appendix G - Design and Construction Standards for Private Local Roads (Section G.7.B).  Somehow it got by me.

In section 5.8.6.C.3.c Road and Driveway Drainage it states: "...Road and driveway design must contain provisions for storm water drainage sufficient to achieve a standard of no ponding at all locations."  I thought I'd changed it a couple of years ago to something simpler and more realistic:    "Road and driveway design should provide for positive storm water drainage at all locations."

 

Item 7.  Connectivity

 

From time to time we have land division projects that have connectivity issues with adjacent parcels.  There is always the discussion concerning the construction of the connecting road even though the road is not needed for the project under review.  If the road is not built, the right of way is gradually appropriated by the adjacent lot owners who plant landscaping, install play ground equipment and other improvements which then must be removed.  If the road is constructed and signage is installed to advise of the future road connection, we can avoid any surprises when the adjacent property is developed.

 

We propose to add a new paragraph under LCLUC Section 8.14.2.S (Connectivity) as follows:

 

Where future connectivity is required to adjacent undeveloped parcels, a road must be constructed to the property line meeting applicable County Road or Street Standards.  When such a road is constructed, a sign stating "Future Road Connection" shall be erected and maintained in a conspicuous location along such road.

 

Item 8.  Power Plant

 

Power Plant is listed as a use permitted by special review in the I-1 Industrial Zoning District and it is listed in the zoning table which follows Section 4.1 of the Code.  However, this use was omitted from Section 4.3, Use Descriptions.

 

In Section 4.3.7, Industrial Uses add a new subsection “M.  Power Plant.  A facility designed, constructed and operated to generate electric power by steam, wind, solar, water or other means.”

 

Item 9.  Incorrect reference in Section 4.1.10.B.4

 

There is a typographical error in Section 4.1.10.B.4 where there is a reference to Section 4.2.10.  The correct reference is to Section 4.3.10.

 

 

Item 10.  Private Road Easements

 

Section 8.14.2 provides a mechanism for a developer to request that roads in a development be private.  There is some concern that private road easements might preclude the installation and maintenance of street name signs.

 

Staff proposes amending Section 8.14.2.N.2.a to read as follows:  “There is an easement, agreement, covenant or other appropriate document to be recorded in the county records that grants the right of access for emergency and service vehicles and that defines the persons/entities entitled to use the road easements, including the installation and maintenance of street name signs within the easement, the purpose for and manner in which the roads may be used, any limitations on the use of the roads, the persons/entities authorized to enforce the terms of the easement and penalties for violation of the terms of the easement.”

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners Hart, Karabensh, Oppenheimer, Pond, Boulter, Cox, and Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

 

REPORT FROM STAFF:  None

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

_______________________________                      ______________________________

Nancy Wallace, Chairman                                            Kristen Karabensh, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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