Elk in Rocky Mountain National Park
 

LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of July 19, 2006

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, July 19, 2006, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners’ Cox, Karabensh, Morgan, Oppenheimer, Pond, Waldo, and Wallace were present.  Chairman Boulter presided as Chairman.  Commissioner Hart was absent.  Also present were Rob Helmick, Principal Planner, Al Kadera, Principle Planner, Porter Ingrum, Planner II, Sean Wheeler, Planner II, Christie Coleman, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Environmental Health, and Jill Wilson, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary. 

 

Rob Helmick accompanied Commissioners’ Cox, Karabensh, Morgan, Pond, and Wallace today on a site visit to Silo Estates Subdivision, Gardels Pit Special Review, and Glade Quarry Special Review.  Commissioners’ Hart, Oppenheimer, and Waldo were absent.  Chairman Boulter visited the sites independently. 

 

Chairman Boulter acknowledged the two new members of the board, Mina Cox and Gerald Hart.

 

COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC REGARDING THE COUNTY LAND USE CODE: 

None

 

COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC REGARDING OTHER RELEVANT LAND USE MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA:  

None

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE JUNE 21, 2006 MEETINGS:  MOTION by Commissioner Pond to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheimer.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

ELECTION OF OFFICIALS:

Commissioner Morgan nominated Commissioner Wallace for Chairman. Commissioner Waldo     seconded the nomination.  Chairman Pond moved to elect Commissioner Wallace as Chairman by acclimation, seconded by Commissioner Waldo.  MOTION PASSED.

 

Commissioner Morgan nominated Commissioner Pond for Vice Chairman. Commissioner Oppenheimer seconded the nomination.  Chairman Morgan moved to elect Commissioner Pond as Vice Chairman by acclimation, seconded by Commissioner Karabensh. MOTION PASSED.

 

Commissioner Morgan nominated Commissioner Karabensh for Secretary.  Commissioner Pond    seconded the nomination.  Chairman Pond moved to elect Commissioner Karabensh as Secretary by acclimation, seconded by Commissioner Waldo.  MOTION PASSED.  

 

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:  

Mr. Helmick requested that Item #4:  PRPA Rawhide Plant Sign Appeal be tabled.  The applicant had requested additional time and requested the application be tabled to September 20, 2006.

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission table the PRPA Rawhide Plant Sign Appeal, file #06-G0116, to the September 20, 2006 Planning Commission hearing.

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

CONSENT ITEMS:

 

ITEM #1  BULL MOUNTAIN DTR LOCATION AND EXTENT #06-Z1595:  Mr. Helmick provided background information on the location and extent of a radio communication tower and accessory equipment building on a one-acre lease site on the Bureau of Land Management land.  The land currently had a county-approved Qwest Communications facility occupied on it.  The site was located approximately 2 ½ miles northeast of the intersection of County Road 103 and Bull Mountain Road, four miles south of the Wyoming border.

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approve the Bull Mountain DTR Location and Extent, file #06-Z1595, subject to the following conditions:

 

A.  Prior to submitting a building permit application for any of the structures, the applicant shall demonstrate to the County Engineering Deparment the legal right to use Bull Mountain Road.

B.   Best Management Practices are followed to control erosion and dust emissions during construction.

C.  All disturbed areas shall be repaired to a condition that is equal to or better than the exisiting conditions prior to construction.

D.  If this project will disturb more than one (1) acre of ground, Public Service Company of Colorado will obtain a stormwater management permit from the Colorado Department of Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division.

 

Commissioner Karabensh seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

ITEM #2  SILO ESTATES SUBDIVISION #05-S2394:  Mr. Ingrum provided background information on the request for a subdivision of six lots ranging in size from 2.3 acres to 3 acres on an 18.27 acre parcel situated approximately 665 feet north of the intersection of County Road 21 and W. County Road 4 on the west side of S. County Road 21 in Berthoud.  The request also included two appeals to the Larimer County Land Use Code, Sections 8.14.2.Q and 8.14.2.N, which concerned emergency access standards and public right-of-way road standards.

 

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Silo Estates Subdivision, file #05-S2394, appeal to Sections 8.14.2.Q of the Larimer County Land Use Code, be approved.

 

Commissioner Karabensh seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Silo Estates Subdivision, file #05-S2394, appeal to Sections 8.14.2.N of the Larimer County Land Use Code, be approved.

 

Commissioner Karabensh seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the property for Silo Estates Subdivision, file #05-S2394, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

A.   The Final Plat of the Silo Estates Subdivision shall be completed in strict compliance with the conditionally approved preliminary plat and other information submitted by the applicant and contained in the file, #05-S2394, unless modified by the conditions of this approval.

 

B.   The applicant shall provide a Final Development Agreement and Disclosure Notice for approval by the County to be recorded with the Final Plat.  This notice will provide information to all lot owners of the conditions of approval and special costs or fees associated with the approval of this project.  The notice shall include, but is not limited to; the issues related to rural development and the issues raised in the review and or related to compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

 

 

 

 

C.   The following fees shall be collected prior to recordation of the development agreement: Larimer County fees for Transportation Capital Expansion and Development Construction Permit Fees, Larimer County Park Fee in lieu of dedication and Thompson School District R2-J fees.

 

D.   The applicant shall place a fire hydrant near the intersection of County Road 21 and Dune Place.  The fire hydrant costs shall be included in the estimate for the subdivision improvement costs as outlined in the Development Agreement.

 

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

 

Commissioner Karabensh seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

ITEM #3  GARDELS PIT SPECIAL REVIEW #05-Z1541:  Mr. Wheeler provided background information on the request to operate a sand and gravel mine on 50.14 acres situated on the east side of County Road 11H, immediately north of the Big Thompson River in the Loveland Growth Management Area.  He stated that mining would take place during a 2-3 year time frame. 

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Gardels Pit Special Review, file #05-Z1541, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   This Special Review approval shall automatically expire without a public hearing if the use is not commenced within three years of the date of approval.  Mining activities shall be completed within no more than three years from the start of operations.

 

2.   The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Gardels Gravel Pit Special Review (File #05-Z1541) 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 Gardels Gravel Pit Special Review.

 

 

3.   The applicant shall execute a Development Agreement to be signed by the Board of County Commissioners and recorded with the Larimer County Clerks Office, before the commencement of any excavation activities and no longer then 1 year of the date of approval.

 

4.   No operation of the quarry shall occur at any time on weekends, or County recognized weekday holidays.  Monday through Friday hours of operation are limited to the time between 7:00 am and 5:00 pm, to include the time for equipment warm-up and staging. Additional operations during the same hours on Saturday are allowed prior to occupancy of the first residence in that portion of the Garden Gate Subdivision south of the Greeley Loveland Canal.

 

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

 

6.   The applicant must identify all wetland areas on site and provide a Wetlands Mitigation Plan for all disturbed wetland areas, for review and approval by Planning Staff prior to commencement of any activity in the wetland areas.  The final site plan shall also identify wildlife habitat areas on or immediately adjacent to the site, and include a 100-foot setback line from these areas.

 

7.   The applicant must provide a fencing plan for screening between the use and the residential areas, to be reviewed and approved by Planning Staff.  Fencing must be installed prior to commencement any excavation activities at the site.

 

8.   Reclamation shall begin as soon as possible after the completion of mining activities in each 10-acre section and no later then the start of the next growing season.

 

9.   The applicant shall comply with requirements contained in the 09-29-05 memo from the County Department of Health and Environment:

 

      -     To limit impacts on the adjacent residential area, mining shall begin with the west pit and move to the east.

 

      -     Electric grid power shall be used for the dewatering pumps in order to limit noise from diesel generators.

 

      -     The operations shall be conducted in compliance with the Ordinance Concerning Noise Levels in Unincorporated Larimer County.

 

      -     Noise mitigation measures identified in the noise mitigation plan shall be implemented in conjunction with the operation of the mine. 

 

      -     State air emission and stormwater discharge permits shall be maintained during the mining and reclamation operations, and shall be complied with during each of these phases.

 

 

10.       The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the County Engineering Department outlined in their comments dated 10-24-05:

 

      -  The applicant shall provide for the payment of all required fees including the          Transportation Capital Expansion Fee.  The applicant must also pay a Drainage Fee to be calculated by the Engineering Department within 60 days of their approval.

 

11.    Operator shall provide the Larimer County Planning Department a copy of their annual report to the State that details overall compliance with the stormwater management plan      and a copy of the annual report required by the State MLRB.

 

12.    No parking, loading or unloading of any vehicles is allowed in the County right-of-way

 

13.    Trucks shall not back onto or use the County Road for a turnaround.

 

14.    Larimer County will not issue overweight permits for trucks, and reserves the right to spot check weight on loaded trucks.

 

15.    The applicant is responsible for prompt and complete removal of material spilled onto the County roadway.

 

16.    The applicant will meet with the Platte River Power Authority and provide a signed letter stating they have addressed PRPA’s concerns regarding the legal status of utility easements on site and other issues they have with the quarry.

 

17.    The applicant shall provide a signed Agreement to Annex with the City of Loveland.

 

Commissioner Karabensh seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

ITEMS:

 

ITEM #4  GLADE QUARRY SPECIAL REVIEW #05-Z1547:  Mr. Wheeler provided background information on the request for a sandstone quarry on 46.2 acres with an estimated permit life of 8 to 10 years.  The site was located on the west side of Highway 287, approximately 2.5 miles north of Ted’s Place, directly west of Haystack Rock.  The request also included appeals to Section 8.2.8 (Wetland Development Standards) and 8.6.3.C (Construction Standards) of the Larimer County Land Use Code.  He explained that the main issue with the application was whether the Glade Reservoir would be built, and Highway 287 would be relocated.  He stated that the Development Services Team supported the application but could not support it if the reservoir was not built.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Deanne Frederickson, The Frederickson Group, was a consultant for the applicant.  She explained that the applicant recognized that there was a reservoir in the planning stages.  She stated that it was important to consider the reservoir plan when creating the quarry plan in order to plan for appropriate timing of the quarry and to diminish concern of long term effects.  She remarked that the applicant had significant conversations with the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District to understand the decision process, funding, and schedule of the reservoir project.  She explained where the quarry would be located and what was located near the area.  She also explained how the quarry would operate.  She stated that the project requested a variance from the 100-foot buffer standard for wetlands to be only 25 feet along the eastern edge of the wetland while mining occurred.  The wetlands were actively grazed, which left a relatively disturbed grassland habitat.  She explained that a three foot berm and vegetated swale was planned between the margin of the wetland and the toe of the quarry slope to capture runoff from the open portions of the quarry.  She noted that the Army Corps of Engineers visited the site and determined that the wetland had no nexus to waters of the United States and was not protected under the Clean Water Act.  For those reasons, the applicant believed that a reduction in the buffer requirement would not negatively impact the wetland as a result of quarry operations.  She stated that the project proposal was contingent on approval of the Glade Reservoir and was done to diminish the long term effects from the quarry.  She explained that once the reservoir had been finally permitted then the quarry would start operation and operate for 8-10 years while the reservoir was being designed, constructed, and filled.  She pointed out that the application would be based on the condition that mining activity would not commence until the Glade Reservoir was approved as evidenced by a positive record of decision.  She went on to explain that the Glade Quarry plan had minimized potential impacts such as air quality, water quality, traffic impacts, wetlands, wildlife, noise, and visual impacts.  She explained that there would be infrequent crushing of materials, and the crushing operation was expected to take place two weeks out of the year.   There would be paved access drives and parking lots, and no more than two semi-trucks would enter or leave the site each day.   She stated that there would also be daytime operations, and a site design that would limit the need for backing of equipment.  The area would be mined using phased excavation of very small cells, there would only be the use of an excavator, loader, and fork lift, and there would be no blasting.  She stated that it was good stewardship to actively mine an important resource before it was lost.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if the mining could be done within four years?

 

Ms. Frederickson explained that an 8-10 year mining period would minimize the visual impacts to that corridor. 

 

Commissioner Morgan suggested that the quarry could be mined within 4-6 years while the reservoir was filling. 

 

Chairman Boulter stated that there needed to be a certainty.  He suggested a more intensely mined project that would have a shorter time frame. 

 

Ms. Frederickson replied that the decision on the reservoir would not be known until it was too late for the quarry to move forward.  She felt that it was a bad decision for Larimer County because it was an important resource.

 

 

Ray DeGood, owned 245 acres adjacent to the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District property.  One of his major concerns was how to determine whether the reservoir would be built and when the right would be established to commence the operation.  He did feel that the applicant minimized the impact that the project would have on the surrounding area.  He felt that the resource was important but didn’t want to see it commence until there was a certainty that the reservoir project would go forward.  He asked if the crushing could take place at a different facility?  He mentioned that the project be approved for four to five years and evaluated again after that time. 

 

Commissioner Waldo asked if Staff would like the construction of the reservoir to coincide with the mining so it would be one visual impact at one time.  

 

Mr. Wheeler replied no, the concern was that the Master Plan was clear on how the area was to be treated.  The visual integrity of the corridor needed a higher level of protection because it was a scenic byway. 

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that he would fully support the project as set forth; however, he needed certainty of construction of the reservoir.  If it was constructed the quarry did not need to operate for 8 to 10 years.

 

Chairman Boulter remarked that there was no reason to not to mine the area more intensely if the reservoir was built and Highway 287 was relocated. 

 

Ms. Frederickson remarked that the visual impacts would greatly decrease if some of the wetland area could be used. 

 

Kent Bruxvoort, QED Associates – 204 Walnut Street, explained that a positive record of decision and a 404 permit constituted approval that the project could precede.  The record of decision was expected to be issued in early 2007 and the 404 permit was expected to come at the middle of 2007.  He stated that the applicant would like to trigger the project’s approval on the record of decision and issuance of the 404 permit. 

 

Mr. DeGood remarked that if the reservoir was built then the adjacent property owners had no objection to the quarry.  However, if the reservoir was not built there would be an objection to the project because of the visual impacts, the dust, the traffic, etc.  He stated that he would not have an objection to more rapidly mining the resources if the reservoir was approved.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Waldo felt that mining over a longer period would allow the materials to be distributed into the community more evenly where a more rapid mining period would force the materials to be stored until needed.

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that there needed to be certainty that the reservoir would be constructed at the time the mining operation started.  She felt that it should be at the time when the contracts for construction where in process not when the 404 permit was obtained or the design phase was started.  She stated that the applicant should also have the right to accelerate the mining operation so it could be done in a time frame compatible with the information they obtained at that time.

 

Commissioner Pond was uncomfortable approving a mining operation until after the 404 permit was obtained and the design phase began. 

 

Commissioner Karabensh agreed with Commissioner Wallace; however, she did not feel that she was educated enough to make a decision on what the trigger factor should be.

 

Commissioner Cox stated that she would rather see a conservative approach instead of allowing a quarry to be built when the visual impact would be so strong in the area.  She stated that there was still uncertainty about what would happen and she was not comfortable with that.

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer stated that there were issues that were out of the applicant’s control.  He definitely felt that there should be a trigger point but did not feel informed enough to make that decision. 

 

Chairman Boulter also agreed that he did not want to approve a project with so many uncertainties.  He stated that he liked the last sentence of Condition #2.

 

Mr. Helmick replied that the last sentence of Condition #2 did not need to include “by County legal staff.”  He stated that there were three triggers:  permitting, design, and award of contract.

 

Commissioner Morgan suggested that Condition #2 state, “The approval of the Special Review is specifically conditioned on the provision that the applicant provide to the County sufficient evidence that the Glade Reservoir project has been finally permitted, designed, and construction contracts are awarded.  No operation of the quarry shall begin until this information has been provided to Larimer County and accepted as adequate.”  He also stated that in the time between the current hearing and the Board of County Commissioner’s hearing that the applicant and Staff develop a more definitive trigger, which the Planning Commission would accept as an alternative. 

 

Chairman Boulter stated that he did not want to bind the applicant to some of the conditions if the project would be approved and the reservoir was built. 

 

Commissioner Karabensh recommended that Condition #1 state that the use would expire within three years of the date of the conditions set forth in Condition #2 if not commenced.

 

Chairman Boulter asked if Condtions #5 and #7 could be left out?

 

Mr. Wheeler replied that Condition #7 could be removed because that issue had been solved.  He remarked that Condition #5 was set forth because of the concerns of truck traffic and accidents that occurred on the Highway after dark.  He stated that it did not seem that the applicant had a problem with limiting the operation to daylight hours.  He recommended leaving the condition as it was and revising it if needed before the Board of County Commissioners hearing. 

 

Chairman Boulter did not want the applicant limited on hours of operation if the quarry would end up running on an accelerated schedule shorter than 8-10 years.

 

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

 

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Glade Quarry Special Review, file #05-Z1547, appeal to Section 8.2.8 (Wetland Development Standards) to reduce the 100 foot buffer requirement for wetlands down to 25 feet) be approved.

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Glade Quarry Special Review, file #05-Z1547, appeal to Section 8.6.3.C.1. (Construction Standards, Pavement) to be able to use recycled asphalt as a parking lot surfacing material, be approved.

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners that the Glade Quarry Special Review, file #05-Z1547, for the property described on “Exhibit C” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions as modified:  Amend Condition #1 by deleting “within three years of the date of approval” and replacing with “within three years of the date of the conditions set forth in Condition #2”, amend Condition #2 to read, “The approval of the Special Review is specifically conditioned on the provision that the applicant provide to the County sufficient evidence that the Glade Reservoir project has been finally permitted, designed, and construction contracts are awarded.  No operation of the quarry shall begin until this information has been provided to Larimer County and accepted as adequate.”  Amend Conditions #4 to state, “three years of the date of conditions set forth in Condition #2”, and amend any reference to State Highway, County right-of-way, or County Road to “public road”.

 

1.   This Special Review approval shall automatically expire without a public hearing if the use is not commenced within three years of the date of the conditions set forth in Condition #2, or if the applicant does not provide evidence that the Glade Reservoir project has been approved and funded, and a schedule for the commencement of construction activities for the reservoir set in place.

 

2.   The approval of the Special Review is specifically conditioned on the provision that the applicant provide to the County sufficient evidence that the Glade Reservoir project has been finally permitted, designed, and construction contracts are awarded.  No operation of the quarry shall begin until this information has been provided to Larimer County and accepted as adequate.

 

3.   The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Glade Quarry Special Review (File #05-Z1547) 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 Glade Quarry Special Review.

 

4.   On compliance with Condition 2 above, the applicant shall execute a Development Agreement to be signed by the Board of County Commissioners and recorded with the Larimer County Clerks Office, before the commencement of any excavation activities at the site and no more than 3 years after the date of the conditions set forth in Condition #2.

 

5.   Operation of the quarry is limited to daylight hours.

 

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

 

7.   The applicant shall provide a plan to mitigate the short-term impacts to wetlands and wildlife, for review and approval by Planning Staff prior to incorporation as an exhibit to the Development Agreement.

 

8.   Reclamation for each phase of mining, identified as cells, will begin as soon as possible after the completion of mining activities in that cell and consistent with the State approved Reclamation Plan.

 

9.   The applicant shall comply with requirements contained in the 3-02-06 memo from the County Department of Health and Environment including:

 

-     State air emission and stormwater discharge permits shall be maintained during the mining and reclamation operations, and shall be complied with during each of these phases.

 

-     The operations shall be conducted in compliance with the County Ordinance Concerning Noise Levels in Unincorporated Larimer County.

 

-     Noise mitigation measures identified in the noise mitigation plan shall be implemented in conjunction with the operation of the mine.

 

10.    The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the County Engineering Department outlined in their comments dated 5-2-06 and before commencement of any quarry excavation activities including:

 

-        The parking area shall be surfaced with recycled asphalt to promote dust suppression.

 

-        Parking spaces will be identified with landscape timbers or other identifiable devices.

 

-        The entry drive to the site will be paved from the public road to the public right-of-way to keep mud and dirt from being tracked onto the public road, and provide an easily maintainable drive.

 

-        The applicant shall make all technical corrections noted on the Preliminary Drainage Report, and submit a Final Drainage Report for review and approval by Staff.

 

-        Within 120 days of signing the Development Agreement, the applicant shall provide

         for the payment of all required fees including the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee.

 

         The applicant must also obtain all required permits including a Stormwater Construction Permit from the Colorado Department of Health and Environment and a Development Construction Permit from the County.  The applicant shall provide a copy of the State Stormwater permit to the Engineering Department.

 

11.    Operator shall provide the Larimer County Planning Department a copy of their annual report to the State that details overall compliance with the stormwater management plan and a copy of the annual report required by the State MLRB.

 

12.    No parking, loading or unloading of any vehicles is allowed in the public road.

 

13.    Trucks shall not back onto or use the Public Road for a turnaround.

 

14.    Larimer County will not issue overweight permits for trucks, and reserves the right to spot check weight on loaded trucks.

 

15.    The applicant is responsible for prompt and complete removal of material spilled onto the public road.

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM #5  AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE #06-CA0060:  Mr. Kadera explained that the amendments were heard by the Planning Commission in May but shortly before the Board of County Commissioners hearing the Planning Department discovered that there was an error in the legal notice for both the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioner hearings.  Five of the items were omitted from the notice.  The County Attorney had recommended that the Planning Department re-advertise and rehear the items that were omitted from that legal notice.  He provided background information on the request to amend the Larimer County Land Use Code, specifically Sections 4.3.2.E and 4.3.2.F and by adding a new Section 4.3.2.I concerning group homes for the elderly, group homes for the developmentally disabled and group homes for the mentally ill; amending the definition of group home for the elderly and adding a definition for group home for the mentally ill.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Mark Korb, 3630 Woodridge Road, stated that he was there on behalf of a group of occupants of a residentially zoned single family area.  He stated that State Statute 30-28-1-15 dealt with county planning and building codes, which provided information that there shall not be any regulations enacted which compared the ability to have homes for developmentally disabled or homes for the exclusive use of not more than eight persons of sixty years of age or older.  He explained that he second State Statute enacted was 31-23-3-03, which had to do with planning and zoning.  It also stated that developmentally disabled, aged, and manufactured homes be allowed.  When enacted the statutes stated that with regard to the homes for the developmentally disabled and aged they had to be owner occupied or non-profit group homes.  He stated that on behalf of the people living in the single family residences they did not have any objection to the idea that people who were developmentally disabled, aged, or mentally ill should have the right to live in group homes.  Both State Statutes stated that, “nothing in this subsection (2) shall be construed to supersede the authority of municipalities and counties to regulate such homes appropriately through local zoning ordinances or resolutions, except insofar as such regulation would be tantamount to prohibition of such homes from any residential district.”  “If reasonably related to the requirements of a particular home, a local zoning or other development regulation may, without violating the provisions of this section, also attach specific location requirements to the approval of the group home, including the availability of such services and facilities as convenience stores, commercial services, transportation, and public recreation facilities.”  He stated that the State Statute and Code had existed for years with no problems presented.  He understood that everyone wanted to abide by State Statute; therefore, Section 4.3.2 should be amended to include group homes for the mentally ill.  However, it was not necessary to delete the other requirements, and he did not feel there was any need to remove the requirement that a group home be operated by the person that lived there or operated by a non-profit organization.  He stated that changing the occupancy number to four to eight people allowed three people to be in a home that was not licensed, was potentially within 750 feet of somebody else, and not owner occupied or run by a non-profit.  He remarked that nothing in the State Statute prohibited a county from putting reasonable regulations on the location, etc. of a group home as long as it did not have the effect of eliminating group homes from residential areas.  He did not believe that anyone had shown opposition with the group homes being owner occupied or non-profit; therefore, he urged the Commission to not amend that section of the code. 

 

 

 

 

 

Ron Warren, 3500 Terry Ridge Road, wondered if there was an advantage to having the actual home owners live in the neighborhood.  He felt that the home owner would be more likely to be involvemed in the neighborhood, involved in decision making, and involved in activities.  He stated that the code should be left as it was since it wasn’t required to change.  He urged that the language not be changed.

 

Mike Loughlin, resident of Terry Shores, stated that the issue was an intangible, which centered around the neighborhood.  The language currently in the code did not prevent anyone from opening a group home.  He remarked that an entity would not have to be responsive to the neighbors.  He stated that the neighborhood was not against having a group home.  The concern was introducing something into the neighborhood that could be non-responsive if they chose.  He stated that the language as it currently read was fine and there was no real logical reason to remove it because it was not preventing anyone from setting up the businesses. 

 

Lee Anderson, resident of Terry Shores, stated that he lived across the street from a group home for the elderly.  He explained that the owner did not live in the residence and felt that it was an atrocity that there were not owners living in the building.  He urged that the language be left as was in the code. 

 

Chairman Boulter pointed out that the letter from Nancy Snow, State of Colorado, stated that the language “should be” not “must be” adopted.  He wondered if it was just an advisory letter and not a compliance letter?

 

Mr. Kadera replied that when the code was written his direction was to write that section so it was consistent with State Statue. 

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if any of the other home occupation regulations had a restriction on whether the home occupation had to be run by the owner of the home and not a renter of the home?

 

Mr. Kadera replied that a person who rented property could have a home occupation.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if there was a limit to the number of people that could live in a house that was rented?

 

Mr. Kadera replied that a single family dwelling could be occupied by a “living unit”, which was any number of people related by blood, marriage, or adoption plus two individuals.  That was why three people constituted a family or “living unit”. 

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if a group home with three or less people would not be required to have a State license?

 

Mr. Kadera stated that if the amendment was adopted as proposed there could be three developmentally disabled, mentally disabled, or aged people living in a home and not be State licensed.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if there was a State regulation that required licensing for less than three people?

 

Mr. Korb replied that he did not check the State Statue on that issue.  He stated that if it was going to be a group home it needed to be licensed.  He explained that the State Statue stated that “nothing in the statue prohibits a county from having reasonable regulations provided that it doesn’t prevent the group homes from existing in single family residential areas.”  He stated that there was no reason to tamper with something that didn’t need to be fixed.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Wallace remarked that the community needed assisted living facilities of a small nature.  She stated that the statue as written restricted the ability of any kind of an entity or organization except for non-profit and owner occupied to provide assistance.  She wanted the regulation for the single family dwelling be changed to two to eight people in order to make sure the group home was licensed by the State. 

 

Chairman Boulter did not see that the county was conflicting with State law regarding the issue.  He acknowledged that having a restriction on the group home being owner operated would decrease the opportunities for the facilities. 

 

Commissioner Waldo pointed out that a possible repercussion could occur by having people open the businesses in a residential community because they could acquire the building cheaper.

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that there was a differential impact on a community when there were situations where there was a difference between owner occupied and non-owner occupied.  He recommended leaving the regulation as it was with respect to being owner occupied and for non-profit. 

 

Commissioner Karabensh stated that by not conforming to the State statue impediments were being added that did not need to be.  She felt that it may have a discriminating effect by not changing the regulations and allowing people to make money while running the facilities.

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #06-CA0060, specifically Sections 4.3.2.E and 4.3.2.F and by adding a new Section 4.3.2.I concerning group homes for the elderly, group homes for the developmentally disabled and group homes for the mentally ill; amending the definition of group home for the elderly and adding a definition for group home for the mentally ill, be approved subject to the exception that Section 4.3.E.5 and Section 4.3.E.4 remain and Section 4.3.I a subsection 5 be added to state that “A group home for the mentally ill must be occupied by the owner or operated by a nonprofit agency as defined by the State of Colorado”.

 

Chairman Boulter seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Cox, Karabensh, Oppenheimer, Pond, Waldo, and Wallace voted against the Motion.

 

Commissioner Morgan and Chairman Boulter voted in favor of the Motion.

 

 

MOTION FAILED  6-2

 

 

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 Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #06-CA0060, be approved as follows subject to the amendment that Section 4.3.E.2 be changed to state, “Two to eight developmentally disabled persons can be housed in such a group home not including staff’; Section 4.3.F.2 state, “Two to eight people can occupy a group home for the aged not including staff’; and Section 4.3.I state that a group home for the mentally ill be “a single family dwelling occupied by two to eight people who are mentally ill as defined in Colorado Revised Statute 30-28-115.”

 

1.    Amend the Land Use Code, Section 4.1, change each zoning district that includes the “Residential” category of uses, add Group Home for the Mentally Ill and change Group Home for the Elderly to Group Home for the Aged.

 

2.    Amend the Land Use Code, Section 4.3.E, as follows:

 

E. Group home for the developmentally disabled.  A single-family dwelling occupied by two to eight people who are developmentally disabled. 

1. A group home must be licensed by the State of Colorado prior to occupancy.

2. Two to eight developmentally disabled persons can be housed in such a group home not including staff

3. Developmentally disabled means people having cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, mental retardation, autism or epilepsy.

4. Anyone proposing to occupy a single-family dwelling as a group home for the developmentally disabled must demonstrate by competent evidence that there are no other such group homes within 750 feet of the proposed facility.

5. A group home for the developmentally disabled must be occupied by the owner or be operated by a nonprofit agency as defined by the State of Colorado.

 

3.    Amend the Land Use Code, Section 4.3.F, as follows:

 

F. Group home for the elderly aged.  A single-family dwelling occupied by two to eight people who are 60 or older. 

1. A group home for the elderly aged must be licensed by the State of Colorado prior to occupancy.

2. Two to eight people can occupy a group home for the elderly aged not including staff

3. Anyone proposing to occupy a single-family dwelling as a group home for the elderly aged must demonstrate by competent evidence that there are no other such group homes within 750 feet of the proposed facility.

4. A group home for the elderly must be occupied by the owner or operated by a nonprofit agency as defined by the State of Colorado.

 

 

 

4.    Amend the Land Use Code by adding Section 4.3.I – Group Home for the Mentally Ill.

 

4.3.I  Group Home for the Mentally Ill  A single family dwelling occupied by two to eight people who are mentally ill as defined in Colorado Revised Statute 30-28-115.

 

1.    A group home for the mentally ill must be licensed by the State of Colorado prior to occupancy.

2.    Two to eight people can occupy a group home for the mentally ill not including staff.

3.    Anyone proposing to occupy a single family dwelling as a group home for the mentally ill must demonstrate by competent evidence that there are no other such group homes within 750 feet of the proposed facility.

4.    No person shall be placed in a group home for the mentally ill unless they qualify pursuant to Colorado Revised Statute 30-28-115.

 

Commissioner Waldo seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner Waldo stated that he was in favor of the motion due to the overwhelming need for that type of care and stated that just because it might be for profit did not necessarily mean that it would be done irresponsibly.

 

Commissioner Morgan and Chairman Boulter voted against the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Cox, Karabensh, Oppenheimer, Pond, Waldo, and Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED  6-2

 

Mr. Kadera proceeded to explain the proposed amendments to amend Sections 4.1.3 and 4.1.4 to add uses to the FO-Forestry and FO-1 Forestry Zoning Districts; add a new Subsection 4.3.7.L Sawmill and add a definition of "Sawmill"; and amend Section 5.13.6 concerning the issuance of building permits. 

 

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 the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #06-CA0060, be approved as follows:

 

1.   Amend the Land Use Code, Sections 4.1.3 and 4.1.4, by add Boarding Stable (S) under the Agricultural heading and add Riding Academy (S), Golf Course (S) and Country Club (S) under the Recreational heading.  Renumber the uses accordingly.

2.   Amend the Land Use Code by adding a new definition of “Sawmill” and add a new subsection 4.3.7.L Sawmill to read as follows:

 

“A facility where logs or partially processed cants are sawn, split, shaved, stripped, chipped or otherwise processed to produce wood products, not including the processing of timber for use on the same lot by the owner or resident of the lot.”

 

3.   Amend the Land Use Code by deleting Section 5.13.6.B.2.c. as follows:

 

5.13.6. Building permits.

A. A building permit will not be accepted for processing on property that has a valid application pending for review of a variance, special exception, special review, site plan, rezoning, subdivision, conservation development, planned land division, minor land division, minor special review, amended plat or rural land plan.

 

B. The building department may accept applications for building permits after a site plan, variance or rezoning is approved. The building department may accept applications for building permits on property subject to a special exception or a special review after all requirements of Section 12.6 of this code are metThe building department may accept applications for building permits for individual lots in approved subdivisions, conservation developments and planned land divisions as follows:

 

1. Footing and foundation permits for new construction will be accepted only after the following have occurred:

a. Over lot grading is complete, and the county engineer has inspected and approved the grading;

b. Final grading of drainage easements and the installation of the stormwater drainage system is complete, and the county engineer has inspected and approved the grading and installation; and

c. Construction of the roadway sub-grade and installation of the aggregate base course, or other all-weather surface, for the roadway serving the project is completed and inspected and approved by the county engineer, and acceptable density tests for the subgrade and utility trenches have been submitted to and approved by the county engineer.

d. Street signs are properly installed at all intersections and have been inspected and approved by the county engineer.

     

2. Full building permits for new construction will be issued only after the following have occurred:

a. Roadway surfacing at least through aggregate base course or plant mix bituminous base application is complete; the county engineer has inspected and approved the surfacing and density tests for the applied material have been submitted to and approved by the county engineer;

b. Public water and sewer systems are completely constructed, and evidence of acceptance by the appropriate water, sewer and fire protection providers has been submitted to the county engineer; and

 

 

 

C. No structure can be occupied until a certificate of occupancy is accepted by the building department.

 

Commissioner Karabensh seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED  8-0

 

 

Mr. Kadera also explained the other amendments, which were adding a new section 4.6.7, Administrative Variance; amending Sections 4.1.5.B.3 and 4.1.8.B.2 concerning setbacks in the O-Open and RE-Rural Estate Zoning Districts; moving Section 8.17.3 to Section 4.6.8 and renumbering Section 8.17.4.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Evelyn King, 6321 14th Street SW, stated that she was a member of the Board of Adjustment and wanted to come before the Planning Commission to try to fix unjust things that she saw occurring during the Board of Adjustment hearings.  She remarked that many variances were tied to nonconformities that were caused by the increase in the side and rear setbacks in the O-Open and RE – Rural Estate zoning districts.  She stated that if the setbacks were rescinded then those properties would become conforming.  It would also remove the burden and hardship that went along with those properties.  She explained a Board of Adjustment case where they could not meet the 25 foot setback but could easily have met the five foot setback if given that opportunity.  Because the change was made in the year 2000 many of the neighbors had buildings that met the five or ten foot rear setbacks and now other neighbors did not get the same right to that setback.  She remarked that owners had to pay property taxes on the whole property and the setbacks took away the ability to use their property to their benefit.  She also stated that the administrative variance did not help many property owners because it was limited to additions or to those areas where there was already a building.  She stated that in examining all of the Board of Adjustment applications from 1998 that dealt with side and rear setbacks there were 114 cases.  71 of those applications or 62% were cases where the setbacks were required to have a 25 foot setback or greater.  43 cases or 38% dealt with setbacks smaller than 25 feet.  She pointed out that people wanted to have the best use of their property and larger setbacks make it more difficult.  She suggested that the setback be rescinded back to the five and ten foot setback for current residents and possibly have the 25 foot setback remain for new development.  She also pointed out that while examining the Board of Adjustment cases the administrative variance would have only applied to one case.  She wondered how many applicants did not go through the process and gave in to the 25 foot setback just so they would not have to pay the money and go before the board.  She stated that she would advocate for an administrative variance but not as proposed.  She asked that the 25 foot setback for the O-Open and RE-Rural Estates zoning districts be rescinded, and the administrative variance be rewritten to cover all variances.  She stated that the current process burdened property owners, and she felt that there was an opportunity to remove a large portion of that burden. 

 

 

Chairman Boulter asked what percentages of cases were approved by the Board of Adjustment?

 

Ms. King replied that she believed there were approximately 38 cases denied out of 500. 

 

Commissioner Waldo wanted to see it implemented or discussed at a work session since Ms. King was familiar with it and dealt with those kinds of cases. 

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that there was a benefit to the administrative variance.

 

Mr. Kadera replied that it would help but it did only address the setbacks in the O-Open and RE-Rural Estate zoning districts.  Based on the discussion with the Steering Committee, Staff proposed the administrative variance to address some of Ms. King’s issues.  He stated that the administrative variance could help people in the interim while more discussion occurred about the setbacks.

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #06-CA0060, regarding Section 4.6.7, Administrative Variance, and amending Sections 4.1.5.B.3 and 4.1.8.B.2 concerning setbacks in the O-Open and RE-Rural Estate Zoning Districts; be tabled in order to discuss the amendments at a work session.

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner Wallace pointed out that the amendments had been before the Planning Commission twice and were discussed at several work sessions.  It had been an ongoing discussion and she was opposed to the motion to table it.

 

Commissioner Pond stated that he would vote against the motion but favored a review of all setback requirements at a work session.  He felt that the administrative variance would help a number of people in the interim.

 

Commissioners' Cox, Karabensh, Morgan, Pond, Wallace and Chairman Boulter voted against the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Oppenheimer and Waldo voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION FAILED:  6-2

 

Chairman Boulter agreed that the item needed to be examined. 

 

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 Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #06-CA0060, regarding Section 4.6.7, Administrative Variance, and amending Sections 4.1.5.B.3 and 4.1.8.B.2 concerning setbacks in the O-Open and RE-Rural Estate Zoning Districts; be approved.

 

1.   Amend the Land Use Code by adding a new Section 4.6.7, Administrative Variance.

 

The planning director is hereby authorized to approve administrative variances in the O-Open and RE-Rural Estate Zoning Districts which meet the following criteria.

A.   The required side and rear setbacks on the lot are 25 feet;

B.   An addition to an existing building is proposed and the addition will be at least five feet from the side lot line and ten feet from the rear lot line; or

C.   A new building is proposed and the building will match the setback of an existing building along the same lot line that is at least five feet from the side lot line and ten feet from the rear lot line;

D.   A notice of the proposed administrative variance was mailed to all property owners adjacent to the subject property and no objections were stated; and

E.   The review criteria in Section 4.6.3 are met or determined to be inapplicable.

The decision of the planning director can be appealed to the Board of Adjustment.

 

2.   Amend the Land Use Code, Section 4.1.5.B.3 to read, “Minimum setbacks for lots created after November 29, 1973.  See Section 4.6.7, Administrative Variance.”

 

3.   Amend the Land Use Code, Section 4.1.8.B.2, Minimum setbacks to read, “Minimum setbacks.  See Section 4.6.7, Administrative Variance.”

 

4.   Amend the Land Use Code by moving Section 8.17.3, Minor setback variances to Section 4.6.8.  This results in Section 8.17.4 being renumbered to be 8.17.3.

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Oppenheimer and Waldo voted against the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED  6-2

 

 

Mr. Kadera stated that he would make sure that Larry Timm, Planning Director, would put the item on a worksession agenda.

 

Commissioner Morgan appreciated Ms. King bringing the concerns before the commission as she did have experience and knowledge about the issue.  He stated that he valued her input.

 

 

Commissioner Waldo commented that often times the commission made a standard that items were not approved unless they were right; however, the item was passed just to appease it for the time being.  He stated that it was approved after several people admitted that it was not right.

 

 

 

 

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

 

ADJOURNMENT:  There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 10:25 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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________________________                      ______________________________

Jeff Boulter, Chairman                                      Nancy Wallace, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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