Loveland Bike Trail
 

LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of April 15, 2009

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, April 15 2009, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners Cox, Glick, Oppenheimer, Wallace, and Weitkunat were present.  Commissioner Benton, Hart, and Hess were absent.  Commissioner Morgan presided as Chairman.  Also present were Russell Legg, Chief Planner, Toby Stauffer, Planner, II, Sean Wheeler, Planner II, Rob Helmick, Senior Planner, Traci Downs, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Health Department and Jill Wilson, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary. 

 

Matt Lafferty accompanied Commissioners’ Cox, Glick, Morgan, Wallace and Weitkunat today on a site visit to Greenfields Planned Land Division/Planned Development, Huang Planned Land Division/Planned Development, and Ward Recycled Products 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 FEBRUARY 18, 2009 MEETINGS:  MOTION by Commissioner Weitkunat to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Cox.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:

None

 

CONSENT ITEMS:

 

ITEM #1  GREENFIELDS PLANNED LAND DIVISION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT  #08-S2777:  Ms. Stauffer provided background information on the request rezone from C-Commercial to PD-Planned Development and to divide by Planned Land Division into two commercial use lots located on the southwest corner of Highway 14 (Mulberry Road) and Greenfields Road.  She noted that the development was within the East Mulberry Corridor Plan.

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Greenfields Planned Land Division/Planned Development rezoning from C-Commercial to PD-Planned Development, file #08-S2777, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.                  The rezoning shall be effective upon the recordation of the final plat of Greenfields Planned Land Division.

 

2.                  The permitted uses, lot building and structure requirements, setbacks and structure height limitations for Greenfields Planned Land Division shall be as follows:

 

 

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

§Uses followed by an (MS) require approval through the minor special review process.

 

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

§Uses followed by an (R/S) may be allowed by right or require special review approval based on thresholds in section 4.3 (use descriptions).

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

 

PD (Planned Development)

A.     Principal uses:

Agricultural

Garden supply center (R)

Pet animal facility (R/S)

Pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital (R/S/MS)

Commercial

Convenience store (R)

Automobile service station (R)

Carwash (R)

Professional office (R)

General retail (R/S) See section 4.3

General commercial (R)

Personal service (R)

Takeout restaurant (R)

Sit-down restaurant (R)

Nightclub (R)

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

Instructional facility (R)

Outdoor display/sales (R)

Clinic (R)

Institutional

Health services (R)

School, public (L)

School, nonpublic (S)--See section 4.3

Sheriff/fire station (L)

Church (R/S)

Recreational

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

Membership club/clubhouse (R)

Accommodation

Hotel/motel (R)

Industrial

Enclosed storage (R)

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

Light industrial (S)

 

Utilities

Utility substation (L)

Commercial mobile radio service (R/S)

Radio and television transmitters (S)

Water storage facility (L)

Transportation

Transportation service (R)

Parking lot/garage (R)

Park and ride (R)

 

B.  Lot, building and structure requirements:

1.  Minimum lot size:

15,000 Square feet

2.  Minimum setbacks:

a. 5 feet from north property line or ROW line

b. 10 feet from east property line or ROW line

c. 20 feet from all other property lines or ROW lines.

3.  Maximum structure height--40 feet.

4.  No parcel can be used for more than one principal building

 

Commissioner Cox seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Cox, Glick, Oppenheimer, Wallace, Weitkunat, and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Greenfields Planned Land Division, file #08-S2777, 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 Greenfields Planned Land Division (File #08-S2777), 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 Greenfields Planned Land Division.

 

2.                  The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance:  Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion and drainage basin fees.  The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply.

 

3.                  Prior to final plat approval the applicant shall adequately address all referral agency comments and concerns or, if a subsequent site plan is needed, prior to the approval of a site plan.

 

4.                  Prior to final plat approval the applicant shall provide a signed and executable ditch agreement with the Lake Canal Company as stated in letters dated January 23, 2009 and March 12, 2009.

 

5.                  Construction Plans for the water infrastructure shall include the relocation of the Fire Hydrant on site to a location that is acceptable to ELCO and the Poudre Fire Authority. A letter from ELCO and PFA confirming that the location is acceptable shall be provided with the final plat application.

 

6.                  Prior to final plat approval the applicant shall place a sight distance easement to the west of the access point between the new frontage road alignment and the drive thru exit lane.

 

7.                  The final plat shall include cross parking and cross access easements shown on the properties.

 

8.                  Prior to the recordation of the final plat a signed and executable parking lot access agreement shall be submitted to the planning department for recordation.

 

9.                  Prior to the recordation of the final plat final construction plans and the final drainage and erosion control report shall address comments listed in the memo from the County Engineering Department dated February 26, 2009.

 

Commissioner Cox seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Benton, Cox, Glick, Oppenheimer, Wallace, Weitkunat, and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

ITEM #2  HUANG PLANNED LAND DIVISION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT #08-S2797:  Mr. Wheeler provided background information on the request to rezone from FA-Farming to PD-Planned Development and divide 10 acres into three lots for single family residential uses located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Abbotsford Street and Inverness Street, north of Richard’s Lake Road.  The request also includes appeals to Section 8.1.1.B.4 (Sewage Disposal Service Standards in a GMA) and Section 8.14.7.B (Road surfacing requirements) of the Larimer County Land Use Code.  He clarified that the ditch located near the site was belonged to Water Supply and Storage.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that Huang Planned Development to rezone from FA-Farming to PD- Planned Development, file #08-S2797, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, be approved effective upon the recordation of the Final Plat and Development Agreement.

 

 

 

Commissioner Cox seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Cox, Glick, Oppenheimer, Wallace, Weitkunat, and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that Huang Planned Land Division, file #08-Z2797, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.      The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved Preliminary Plan and with the information contained in the Huang Planned Land Division and Planned Development, File # 08-S2797, 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 Huang Planned Land Division and Planned Development, File # 08-S2797.

 

2.      The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings:  Poudre School District Fee, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion and Larimer County Regional Park Fees (in lieu of dedication) and a drainage basin fee.  The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply.  The County Engineering Department Development Construction Permit Fee and Access Permit Fee also apply.

 

3.      The development shall connect to the public water system and be designed / constructed to supply a minimum fire flow of 1,000 gallons per minute with a minimum pressure of 20 pounds per square inch (psi).  In addition, the development must provide fire hydrants no more than 1,000 feet from each occupied structure.

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

6.   Prior to recordation of the final Development Agreement and Final Plat, Developer shall provide a signed Agreement to Annex for review and approval by the Larimer County Attorney, to be recorded with the Final Plat and the Development Agreement.

 

Commissioner Cox seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Cox, Glick, Oppenheimer, Wallace, Weitkunat, and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that Huang Planned Land Division/Planned Development appeals to Sections 8.1.1.B.4 and 8.14.7.B of the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #08-Z2797, be approved.

 

Commissioner Cox seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Cox, Glick, Oppenheimer, Wallace, Weitkunat, and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

 

ITEMS:

 

ITEM #3  WARD RECYCLED PRODUCTS REZONING  #06-Z1623:  Mr. Wheeler provided background information on the request to rezone the site from FA-Farming to PD-Planned Development and to operate a facility to recycle asphalt and concrete for use by the City of Loveland in road maintenance projects.  The subject business was an active code compliance case as it never received proper approval to operate at its current location.

He stated that the site was in the Loveland Growth Management Area and was eligible for annexation.  The City of Loveland stated that they were not interested in seeking annexation as they felt that it was not acceptable with their comprehensive plan.  As a result, the Development Services Team was recommending denial.  (The project was initially submitted as a Special Review but was changed to a Rezoning.  The title change was not reflected in the April 15, 2009 Planning Commission agenda.)

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Ed Ward, Ward Construction, stated that the business had been in operation since 1962 and had processed recycled materials for the City of Loveland for several years.  The City of Loveland stated to him that they did not feel that they could go against their own comprehensive plan and rezone the property.  He did not feel that the area was compatible for low density residential as it was across the street from the wastewater treatment plant and mentioned that the neighborhood by the plant had complained of the odor in the past.  He stated that a berm was installed so any noise would be buffered.  He asked that the rezoning be considered and approved. 

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked what Mr. Ward wanted to place on the site?

 

Mr. Ward explained that the city hauled their broken asphalt and concrete and it was ran through a crusher to size it for the road base.  He noted that they did not crush daily, and the operation only crushed approximately 20,000 to 25,000 ton a year.  It was not a high volume operation. 

 

Commissioner Weitkunat confirmed that all of the materials were being brought into the operation.

 

Mr. Ward replied yes.  He noted that there currently was an active mining permit for the site to crush. 

 

Commissioner Cox asked why the City of Loveland changed their minds about annexing the property?

 

Mr. Ward explained that the city once needed the land to use as a corridor to get to another parcel owned by the City of Loveland but another corridor was eventually used. 

 

Donn Conn, 530 Magpie Drive, President of Arbormeadows Homeowner’s Association, pointed out that the use was not compatible with the surrounding areas and in harmony with the neighborhood.  He mentioned that Ward Construction had been a company in Larimer County for many years, were good citizens, and were a large employer; however, he wanted to protest their request.  He stated that in 2006 he wrote Commissioner Gibson regarding the use several times but never received a response.  He remarked that the concerns from the neighborhood were the air, noise, and water pollution.  Air quality was in question when the cement was crushed.  Also, there was a large pile of asphalt next to the river and there was a concern that it could leach into the Big Thompson River.  He stated that he could hear the crusher from his property.  He also mentioned that the traffic was a concern.  He stated that there were plans to petition to extend the river walk from at least Madison to Boise Avenue. 

 

Lori Goebel, 1383 Warbler, Vice President of Arbormeadows Homeowner’s Association, concurred with the denial of the proposal as the use was not compliant with the zoning.  She stated that the berm put in place blocked the view and did not stop the noise or air pollution.  She stated that she had several pictures of the berm and noted that it did decrease the property values.  She mentioned that the wastewater plant put in $13 million worth of improvements to upgrade the facility and reduce the odor which she felt had been done.  She also mentioned that there was a lot of wildlife that came through the area.

 

Edward Seely, 516 Magpie Drive, concurred with what Mr. Conn and Ms. Goebel stated.  He added that the City of Loveland stated that all of the updating to the wastewater treatment plant had eliminated the odor problem.  He hoped that the recommendation of denial was sustained.

 

Deann Rowe, 1374 Swallow Street, asked if there had been a study done on the leaching of the asphalt and off gassing of the crushing?

 

Commissioner Morgan noted that detailed studies had not been done because the recommendation was for denial.

 

 

Doug Ryan, Health Department, stated that if the application was approved the Health Department would need additional studies such as a stormwater management plan which would deal with the water quality and leaching issue that was brought up.  He stated that Mr. Ward did have an air emissions permit for the crushing issued by the Colorado Department of Health, and that permit ensured that certain controls were used during the operation.  Therefore, in the Health Department’s view, the operation could comply with State air emission requirements for the crushing operations.

 

Mr. Ward confirmed that he had all air quality permits required by the State of Colorado.  He noted that in a letter from Mr. Conn in 2006 he stated that his concerns were alleviated after visiting the site where crushing operations occurring during that time.  He stated that the berm that was installed was to help reduce the visual and noise impacts.  He stated that no crushing had been done since the berm was installed.  He stated that the wildlife was still coming to the area.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Wallace was very sympathetic with the proposed project; however, since there was an Intergovernmental Agreement she did not feel that they had the authority to go against it.  She stated that she would vote against the proposal as it did not comply with the City of Loveland’s Growth Management Area or Master Plan and the Intergovernmental Agreement. 

 

Commissioner Cox asked if there was a possibility to go back to the City of Loveland?

 

Mr. Ward replied that they needed to change the Master Plan.  He spoke with Greg George from the City of Loveland and asked for a letter from the City Attorney to give leeway to the County for approval but he had not received a letter.

 

Commissioner Morgan concurred with Commissioner Wallace. 

 

Commissioner Glick 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 Ward Recycled Products Rezoning, file #06-Z1623, the property described on “Exhibit C” to the minutes, be denied.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Cox, Glick, Oppenheimer, Wallace, Weitkunat, and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM #4  ESTES VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT SERVICE PLAN  #09-G0167:  Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request for a service plan for a single purpose special district for establishing fire protection services in the Estes Valley including the Town of Estes Park and Rocky Mountain National Park and adjacent to the Loveland Rural Fire District and the National Forest.  He noted that the Town of Estes Park had provided service to the town and outside the city limits on an on-call basis but as growth occurred and costs had risen the town and sheriff’s department reached an agreement where citizens would be charged for calls outside the town limits.  He explained that the new proposal split the funding using 7% sales tax revenues and a mill levy to fund an approximately $1 million dollar budget for salary, personnel, equipment, and overhead.  The Development Services Team was recommending approval of the service plan.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if the proposed fire protection district would still bill for services provided once the district was approved and went into effect?  She also noted that Condition of Approval #3 needed the word “be” added so it would state,  “……property to be taxed……..”.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if changes in a mill levy for a service plan and had to go to a vote to members of the district if in the future the district wanted to raise or lower the mill levy in order to fund the operations? 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Tom Anderson, 1706 Mary’s Lake Road, Chairman of the Fire Initiative Committee for Estes Valley Fire Protection District, stated that it was their third attempt to establish a fire service/fire protection district in the Estes Valley.  He explained that the first proposal was based solely on property tax covering the town and unincorporated areas, the second effort was a donut plan to establish a second fire department for the unincorporated area based on property tax revenues, and the current proposed plan was based on the sales tax and property tax at a 1.95 mill levy to support the budget.  He explained that the YMCA taxes had an assessed valuation and had 285 parcels covering approximately 450-500 acres in the Estes Valley.  He stated that the YMCA property was not included as a taxable entity in the budget; therefore, any taxes that would come from it would be in addition and there would be no negative impact on the budget.  He remarked that it would be footnoted in the service plan so it was clear that the YMCA budget was not included.  Regarding the Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County their legal council believed that the agreement should occur after the formation of the IGA; therefore, within 90 days of the formation of the district the district would enter into an IGA with the county.  He also noted that some of the boundary area may change in the future such as the Glen Haven area but would not constitute a material change to the service plan.  He stated that the Town of Estes Park was purchasing a new fire engine, and if the voters approved the fire district the engine would be transferred to the fire district at no cost.  He also explained that a special fire district could lower the mill levy by vote of the Board of Directors but any raise in the mill levy had to go to the voters.  He thanked Mr. Helmick for his help.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if there would be continued billing to property owners?

 

Mr. Anderson explained that the Town of Estes Park instituted the billing not the fire department, and the Town of Estes Park would no longer be the legal entity responsible.  As a result, the billing would go away as soon as the fire district was formed potentially on January 1, 2010.

 

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if the detaborizing language would be on the proposal?

 

Mr. Anderson remarked that the language would be on the ballet.  He stated that there would be three items on the ballet.  The first would ask if the fire district should be formed, the next would ask to approve the 1.95 mill levy, and the third would be the detaborizing which would not be for the property tax but for the total revenue. 

 

Commissioner Glick asked if the National Park would reimburse the fire district if they helped to fight a fire?

 

Jim Austin, 1661 Windham Court, stated that the fire department in Estes Park had a mutual agreement and a memorandum of understanding with the parks service for fire protection.  The Estes Park Fire Department would provide fire protection services on structural properties within the national park up to the continental divide.  In return there was no funding exchange.  He noted that the national park allowed the fire department to put one fire engine in the national park’s new fire station.  

 

Commissioner Weitkunat stated that she served several years with the Poudre Fire Authority and was supportive of the service plan.  She asked how much staff there would be?

 

Mr. Anderson replied that there would be a fire chief, a training officer, and an administrative assistant.  Three full time positions.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat stated that it might be beneficial to include that information and also explain that there would be part time staff.  She asked what the incentives for volunteer firefighters implied?

 

Mr. Anderson explained that they would receive $4 every time they showed up to a fire, and also the volunteer firefighter pension.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked what the town was currently paying for the town fire department?

 

Don Widrig, 2661 Eagle Rock Drive, explained that the process started about one year ago when a task force was chartered to look into the question.  A statewide proposition was being proposed for the pensions that would be like a 401K plan that the volunteer firefighters could pay into.  It would be part of the incentive plan and was included in the budget figures in addition to a standard pension plan.  With respect to funding, the budgets from the past couple of years were taken and broken down into different categories.  The current years budget was about $929,000 but included a $370,000 fire engine.  Under normal circumstances the budget could be anywhere from $550,000 to $600,000 to operate the fire department as it currently stood.  However, in the budget projected for the next five years a number of allowances made for additional capital reserve funds, increased pension plans, and increased provisions for part time staff that would be used to help the growth of the fire department.  He noted that the fire department was almost entirely ran by volunteers as there were 30 volunteers that got paid nothing other than $4 per each fire call.  In the new budget an additional $71,000 was added per year to allow for the usage of part time staff to supplement the high fire season for example.  It would be a straight dollar per hour position, and those people would not receive the benefits or the pension.  

 

 

The fire chief also agreed to a flat $71,000 for the next several years and would work his staffing around that as the need arose.  Mr. Widrig explained that in 2008 the funded pension plan for the firefighters was about $81,000, and they were projecting a growth rate of 3.5%  per year over the next few years.  However, that had nothing to do with the 401k-like plan that was being added.  He explained that the incentive was being added because they were losing firefighters, and it was hard to attract new people to become firefighters in the area.  As a result they were trying to offer financially responsible incentives to induce volunteers to continue to come into the operation.  He explained that up until last year acquiring volunteer firefighters was a serious problem but was happy to report the Estes Park Fire Department had attracted 8 new members in the past few months which would be necessary as there was a large area, and it was growing all the time.  He remarked that the calls each year for a variety of circumstances were increasing and the nature of firefighting had changed dramatically since 2001.  Firefighters now were in constant training mode for anthrax scares, terrorist attacks, etc. which had put a burden on the volunteer firefighters.   He noted that they had an excellent trained fire department with an ISO rating of 4 which was outstanding for a town of its size and those kinds of incentives helped to acquire the people.  He stated that the goal was to build for the future and build for growth of the fire department because currently the fire department had no reserve for anything. 

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that in order to have a successful election the feelings and considerations of the people affected by the tax should be examined.

 

Mr. Widrig replied that the task force comprised of business owners in town because they wanted to find out how the business people would react to another tax.  The 1.95 mill levy that was selected made the financials work out very nicely, and it was the lowest mill levy for a fire protection district of any place along the front range.  The reason it was possible was because the town and had agreed to offer up 7% of their sales tax revenues each year to help support the operation.  It would be a joint operation between the town, the residents, and the businesses of the area. 

 

Commissioner Weitkunat stated that the difficulty in increasing the mill levy after having it established was astronomical regardless if everybody understood the need for fire protection.  If the numbers had already been worked then there was validity in keeping those numbers.  The idea was to sell it to the people because they had to know what a 1.95 mill levy meant on property taxes and to them.  The whole campaign had to be selling it to the public and letting them know what they were getting out of it.  She felt that capital reserves were necessary because a special district was unpredictable and a wise budget always had those reserves.

 

Commissioner Morgan remarked that if he was a citizen of Estes Park he would want to know how much money they were going to take and how they were going to use it.  Therefore, an explanation needed to be given regarding how much staff, what the pension involved, etc.

 

Mr. Widrig agreed that there needed to be an explaintion.

 

Commissioner Glick asked who would be responsible for major maintenance?

 

Mr. Widrig replied that the city had agreed to provide the maintenance for the structural stuff such as snow plowing, lawn mowing, repairs to the building, etc.  Maintaining vehicles and such was included in the budget and would be contracted out to an appropriate subcontractor.

 

Commissioner Glick asked if there was a cap on the reserves?

 

Mr. Widrig replied that there was no cap on the reserves but the budget made a projection to the amount of reserves that would grow 3.5% each year.  The capital reserves would be for equipment replacement.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat asked if it would be strictly a fire district or emergency responders as well?

 

Mr. Widrig replied that it was fire and emergency services.  The district would supply fire and rescue services, hazardous material mitigation, etc. and would support the Estes Park ambulance services.

 

DISCUSSION:

Mr. Helmick noted corrections to the conditions of approval.  Condition #3 should add the word “be” to state ….. property to be taxed……  Condition #4 should be revised to state, “Within 90 days of formation the district shall execute a satisfactory IGA with Larimer County.  This IGA shall at a minimum include language allowing the County to assure the District is working to include properties in a cooperative manner and in a reasonable and cost effective manner.  Further allowing the County review and input into the construction of facilities, including Site Plan review and building permit issuance when proposed in their jurisdiction.”  He also mentioned that the intention of Condition #5 was to add land without modifying the service plan and was not sure of the final wording but proposed to change it to state “The potential inclusion area in the Service Plan shall not require a material modification to the service plan only for inclusion of those lands.”  He remarked that Condition #6 should be deleted.

 

Commissioner Wallace believed that the district was necessary and would approve it.  The issues of transparency and being very careful about how the budget was presented would make or break the plan.  It needed to be done very carefully with due deliberation so that everyone understood what each of the line items were for.  The fact that the Planning Commission had to ask questions was probably an indicator that everyone would have those same kinds of questions and if it could get resolved with footnotes or extra clarifications it would go along way in getting the plan passed.

 

Commissioner Weitkunat agreed that transparency and more public outreach and explanations were key to success. 

 

Commissioner Glick suggested that transparency and credibility issues be handled.

 

Commissioner Morgan agreed with Commissioner Wallace’s comments.  The need was clearly there and he wished success in the campaign.

 

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 that the Estes Valley Fire Protection District, file #09-G0167, the property described on “Exhibit C” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following modified conditions:

 

1.      The applicant shall address the concerns of the Commission, staff (as identified in this report and that arise during additional review and analysis) and referral agencies prior to the final decision of the Board of County Commissioners. 

2.      The plan shall meet the minimum requirements of State statute regarding the formation of a new special district.

3.      The Service Plan must be revised to reflect the potential of the YMCA of the Rockies property to be taxed at a different rate (residential).  This shall include either a revised budget and or revised mill levies to maintain the funding levels proposed.

4.      Within 90 days of formation the district shall execute a satisfactory IGA with Larimer County.  This IGA shall at a minimum include language allowing the County to assure the District is working to include properties in a cooperative manner and in a reasonable and cost effective manner.  Further allowing the County review and input into the construction of facilities, including Site Plan review and building permit issuance when proposed in their jurisdiction.

5.      The potential inclusion area in the Service Plan shall not require a material modification to the service plan only for inclusion of those lands. 

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Cox, Glick, Oppenheimer, Wallace, Weitkunat, and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.

 

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

 

ITEM #4  AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE  #09-CA0092:  Ms. Downs provided background information on the request to amend the Land Use Code to make changes to Section 9.5 and 9.6 related to Transportation Capital Expansion Fees. 

 

Commissioner Cox asked that wording be consistent and “6 or fewer guests” be used rather than “less than 6 guests.”

 

Commissioner Wallace recommended that “road fee schedule” be capitalized.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

None.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Weitkunat 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, file #09-CA0092, be approved as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

1.                  Amend section 9.5.3.A. as follows (to be consistent with wording in 9.6.3.A):

 

A.   General.   Intent. This regulation is intended to implement and be consistent with the master plan and the transportation plan. 

 

2.                  Add section 9.5.6.B.5. as follows:

 

5.  Home occupation, accessory living area attached or incorporated into a single family dwelling and Bed and Breakfast with less than 6 guests.

 

3.                  Amend section 9.5.6.C.1. as follows:

 

1.   Any person who causes the commencement of traffic-generating development, except those persons exempted under subsection 9.5.6.B (exemptions) or preparing an independent fee calculation study under subsection 9.5.7 (independent fee calculation study), must pay a non-regional road expansion fee in accordance with the road fee schedule. in Table 9.5.6.I (non-regional road fee schedule).

 

4.                  Delete section 9.5.6.C.2. and renumber.

 

2.   For a one year period from April 2007 through March 2008, Table 9.5.6.I shows the imposition of interim non-regional road capital expansion fees. These interim fees reflect the fees applicable under the previous regulation plus one-half of any increase in such fee calculated in the Road Fee Study. Beginning in April 2008, Table 9.5.6.I shows the imposition of non-regional road capital expansion fees reflecting the full amount of any increase in such fee calculated in the Road Fee Study. Where Table 9.5.6.I shows the interim and full fees to be the same (a) the fees declined from those collected through the previous regulation, or (b) there was no comparable fee category in the previous regulation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.                  Amend section 9.5.6.C.3. as follows:

 

3. 2.  During the month of January, 2009, and d During the month of January of each year thereafter, the fees in Table 9.5.6.I the road fee schedule shall be updated by the fee administrator to reflect changes in road construction costs during the previous year. The updated fees shall become effective on the first day of March. To calculate an updated fee, Eeach fee in the table road fee schedule shall be multiplied by a ratio, the numerator of which is the most recently available two-year moving average of the annual Colorado Construction Cost index by the Colorado Department of Transportation and the denominator of which is the same index for a period one year earlier than the numerator. If the ratio is less than, or equal to 1.05, the fees in Table 9.5.6.I  the road fee schedule shall be updated by the fee administrator without further action by the county commissioners. If the ratio is greater than 1.05, the fee administrator shall report the ratio to the county commissioners, and the county commissioners shall determine the ratio that shall be used to update the fees. All obligations to pay the non-regional road capital expansion fee shall apply to the most recent update of the fees shown in Table 9.5.6.I.  in the road fee schedule.

 

6.                  Delete TABLE 9.5.6.I.

 

  TABLE 9.5.6.I: Non-Regional Road Fee Schedule   

Land Use Type   

Unit   

Interim Fee 4/07 thru 3/08   

Full Fee After 3/08   

Residential   

   

   

   

Single-family Detached   

Dwelling   

$2,205   

$2,655   

Multifamily Dwelling   

Dwelling   

$1,539   

$1,864   

Mobile Home Park   

Site   

$1,131   

$1,386   

Hotel/Motel   

Room   

$2,051   

$2,474   

Retail/Commercial   

   

   

   

Shop Ctr/Gen Retail 1,000 sf   

$8,090   

$9,656   

Shop Ctr/Gen Retail 1,000 sf   

$6,107   

$6,847   

Shop Ctr/Gen Retail 1,000 sf   

$5,657   

$5,657   

Shop Ctr/Gen Retail 1 million sf+   

1,000 sf   

$4,413   

$4,548   

Auto Sales   

1,000 sf   

$4,091   

$4,828   

Auto Service/Repair/Tire Store   

1,000 sf   

$2,636   

$2,956   

Bank   

1,000 sf   

$13,802   

$15,502   

Bldg Materials/Hardware/Nursery   

1,000 sf   

$5,588   

$6,737   

Convenience Store   

1,000 sf   

$36,615   

$39,555   

Discount Store   

1,000 sf   

$4,871   

$4,871   

Furniture Store   

1,000 sf   

$947   

$1,061   

Movie Theater   

1,000 sf   

$14,598   

$16,372   

Restaurant, Fast Food   

1,000 sf   

$23,121   

$23,121   

Restaurant, Sit Down   

1,000 sf   

$7,966   

$7,966   

Office/Institutional   

   

   

   

Office/general 1,000 sf   

$3,629   

$4,304   

Office/general 1,000 sf   

$2,936   

$3,671   

Office/general 200,000 sf +   

1,000 sf   

$2,583   

$3,344   

Office/medical   

1,000 sf   

$8,048   

$9,500   

Hospital   

1,000 sf   

$3,842   

$4,622   

Nursing Home   

1,000 sf   

$1,261   

$1,630   

Church/Synagogue   

1,000 sf   

$2,031   

$2,397   

Day Care Center   

1,000 sf   

$4,236   

$5,000   

Elementary/Secondary School   

1,000 sf   

$1,503   

$1,907   

Industrial   

   

   

   

General Light Industrial   

1,000 sf   

$1,760   

$2,247   

Warehouse   

1,000 sf   

$1,253   

$1,601   

Mini-warehouse   

1,000 sf   

$633   

$808   

 

 

7.                  Amend section 9.5.11.B.2 as follows:

 

2.   Automatic annual adjustments. The provisions of subsection A. 1. above shall not affect the provisions of section 9.5.6.C.32, which provide for annual adjustments to the fee schedule to reflect changes in construction costs without further action by the county commissioners.

 

8.                   Amend section 9.6.3.A as follows:

 

A.      Intent.  This regulation is intended to implement and be consistent with the master plan and the transportation plan

 

 

 

 

9.         Add Section 9.6.7.B.5.

 

5.  Home occupation, accessory living area attached or incorporated into a single family dwelling and Bed and Breakfast with less than 6 guests.

 

10.              Amend section 9.6.7.C.1. as follows:

 

1.   Any person who causes the commencement of traffic-generating development, except those persons exempted under subsection 9.6.7.B (exemptions) or preparing an independent fee calculation study under subsection 9.6.8 (independent fee calculation study), must pay a regional road capital expansion fee in accordance with the road fee schedule. in Table 9.6.7.I (regional road fee schedule).

 

11.              Delete section 9.6.7.C.2 and renumber.

 

2.   For a one year period from April 2007 through March 2008, Table 9.6.7.I shows the imposition of interim regional road capital expansion fees. These interim fees reflect the fees applicable under the previous regulation plus one-half of any increase in such fee calculated in the Road Fee Study. Beginning in April 2008, Table 9.6.7.I shows the imposition of regional road capital expansion fees reflecting the full amount of any increase in such fee calculated in the Road Fee Study. Where Table 9.6.7.I shows the interim and full fees to be the same (a) the fees declined from those collected through the previous regulation, or (b) there was no comparable fee category in the previous regulation.

 

12.              Amend section 9.6.7.C.3 as follows:

 

3. 2.  During the month of January, 2009, and d During the month of January of each year thereafter, the fees in Table 9.6.7.I  the road fee schedule shall be updated by the fee administrator to reflect changes in road construction costs during the previous year. The updated fees shall become effective on the first day of March. To calculate an updated fee, Eeach fee in the table road fee schedule shall be multiplied by a ratio, the numerator of which is the most recently available two-year moving average of the annual Colorado Construction Cost index by the Colorado Department of Transportation and the denominator of which is the same index for a period one year earlier than the numerator. If the ratio is less than, or equal to 1.05, the fees in Table 9.6.7.I the road fee schedule shall be updated by the fee administrator without further action by the county commissioners. If the ratio is greater than 1.05, the fee administrator shall report the ratio to the county commissioners, and the county commissioners shall determine the ratio that shall be used to update the fees. All obligations to pay the regional road capital expansion fee shall apply to the most recent update of the fees shown in Table 9.6.7.I the road fee schedule.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13.              Delete TABLE 9.6.7.I.

 

  TABLE 9.6.7.I: Regional Road Fee Schedule   

Land Use Type   

Unit   

Interim Fee
4/07 thru 3/08   

Full Fee After 3/08   

Residential   

   

   

   

Single-family Detached   

Dwelling   

$211   

$258   

Multifamily Dwelling   

Dwelling   

$147   

$180   

Mobile Home Park   

Site   

$109   

$135   

Hotel/Motel   

Room   

$197   

$240   

Retail/Commercial   

   

   

   

Shop Ctr/Gen Retail 1,000 sf   

$773   

$933   

Shop Ctr/Gen Retail 1,000 sf   

$582   

$660   

Shop Ctr/Gen Retail 1,000 sf   

$546   

$546   

Shop Ctr/Gen Retail 1 million sf+   

1,000 sf   

$420   

$438   

Auto Sales   

1,000 sf   

$390   

$465   

Auto Service/Repair/Tire Store   

1,000 sf   

$252   

$285   

Bank   

1,000 sf   

$1,316   

$1,497   

Bldg Materials/Hardware/Nursery   

1,000 sf   

$534   

$651   

Convenience Store   

1,000 sf   

$3,491   

$3,819   

Discount Store   

1,000 sf   

$471   

$471   

Furniture Store   

1,000 sf   

$90   

$102   

Movie Theater   

1,000 sf   

$1,393   

$1,581   

Restaurant, Fast Food   

1,000 sf   

$2,232   

$2,232   

Restaurant, Sit Down   

1,000 sf   

$768   

$768   

Office/Institutional   

   

   

   

Office/general 1,000 sf   

$349   

$420   

Office/general 1,000 sf   

$282   

$357   

Office/general 200,000 sf +   

1,000 sf   

$249   

$327   

Office/medical   

1,000 sf   

$771   

$921   

Hospital   

1,000 sf   

$368   

$447   

Nursing Home   

1,000 sf   

$121   

$149   

Church/Synagogue   

1,000 sf   

$195   

$234   

Day Care Center   

1,000 sf   

$406   

$486   

Elementary/Secondary School   

1,000 sf   

$145   

$186   

Industrial   

   

   

   

General Light Industrial   

1,000 sf   

$169   

$219   

Warehouse   

1,000 sf   

$121   

$156   

Mini-warehouse   

1,000 sf   

$61   

$78   


14.       Amend section 9.6.12.B.2. as follows:


2.   Automatic annual adjustments. The provisions of subsection A. 1. above shall not affect the provisions of section 9.6.7.C.32, which provide for annual adjustments to the fee schedule to reflect changes in construction costs without further action by the county commissioners.

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Cox, Glick, Oppenheimer, Wallace, Weitkunat, and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.

 

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

 

 

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

 

ADJOURNMENT:  There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 9:05 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.

 

 

 

 

_______________________________                      ______________________________

Roger Morgan, Chairman                                           Karen Weitkunat, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT “A”

 

 

A PARCEL OF LAND BEING LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF

SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH. RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH PRNCIP.AL

MERIDIAK, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO BElNG MORE

PARTICULARY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

COMMENCING AT THE KORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 16;

THENCE ALOKG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER

N89"12'00"W, 163 1.92 FEET; THEXCE LEAVING SAID NORHT LNE,

S0Oo16'00"W, 213.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF STATE

HIGHWAY 14 (MULBERRY STREET) AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;

THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY S89°12'00"E, 362.14 FEET

TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF GREENFIELDS

COURT; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF WAY LINE S00°12'30"W, 429.08

FEET; THENCE LEAVlNG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LIKE N84°50'30"W, 140.52

FEET; THENCE N52°32'0O"W. 279.40 FEET: THENCE NOO°I6'OO"E. 25 1.54 FEET

TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGNNING; SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 134,369 SQUARE FEET (3.08 ACRES) MORE OR LESS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

 

TRACT 18, HIGHLAND PLACE SUBDIVISION, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT “C”

 

Two parcels of ground located in the West Half of Section 19, Township 5 North, Range

68 West of the 61h P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado, being more particularly

described as follows;

 

Considering the East line of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 19 as assumed to bear North 00°12'47" West and with all bearings contained herein relative

thereto:

 

Beginning at the Southwest Sixteenth Comer of Section 19, said point being the TRUE

POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along the East line of the West Half of the Southwest

Quarter of said Section 19 North 00°12'48" West 131 5.02 feet; thence along the East line

of the West Half of the Northwest Quarter North 00°12'47" West 636.49 feet; thence

departing said East line North 88°56'49" West 82.11 feet; thence South 70°11'27" West

100.09 feet; thence South 44°10'34" West 213.77 feet; thence South 38°35'19" West

121.28 feet; thence South 52°52'47" West 190.38 feet; thence South 57°35'55" West

78.38 feet; thence South 58°28'42" West 393.89 feet to a point on the North line of the

Southwest Quarter of said Section 19; thence along said North line South 89°35'21" West

33.43 feet; thence departing said North line South 00°10'14" East 1317.33 feet to a point

on the South line of the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 19; thence

along said South line North 89°27'2l’’East 991.45 feet to a point on the East line of the

West Half of the Southwest Quarter and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.

Said parcels contain 29.95 acres, more or less, and are subject to all existing easements

And/or rights of way of record.

 

 

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