LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of September 20, 2006

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, September 20, 2006, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners’ Hart, Karabensh, Morgan, Oppenheimer, Pond, and Waldo were present.  Chairman Wallace presided as Chairman.  Commissioners’ Boulter and Cox were absent.  Also present were Matt Lafferty, Senior Planner, Porter Ingrum, Planner II, Casey Stewart, Planner II, Christie Coleman, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Environmental Health, and Jill Wilson, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary. 

 

Matt Lafferty accompanied Commissioners’ Hart, Karabensh, Morgan, Pond, Waldo and Wallace today on a site visit to Katsamakis Rezoning, PRPA Rawhide Plant Sign Appeal, and Jif Rezoning.  Commissioners’ Boulter, Cox, and Oppenheimer were absent. 

 

COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC REGARDING THE COUNTY LAND USE CODE: 

None

 

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

None

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE AUGUST 16, 2006 MEETINGS:  MOTION by Commissioner Pond to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheimer.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:  

None

 

CONSENT ITEMS:

 

ITEM #1  NEWT PIPELINE LOCATION AND EXTENT #06-Z1605:  Mr. Ingrum provided background information on the request for a water pipeline for North Weld County and East Larimer County Water Districts, which would be located between Taft Hill Road and Timberline Road, north of Vine Drive.

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approve the Newt Pipeline Location and Extent, file #06-Z1605, subject to the following conditions:

 

A.  Construction of the NEWT Pipeline shall be as specified in File #06-Z1605. 

 

B.   If construction results in any alterations to the original drainage patterns, the applicant shall provide the Larimer County Engineering Department with a Drainage Report for review and approval.

 

 

 

C.  The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Colorado Department of

      Public Health and Environment.

 

D.  Flood Plain Special Review approval shall be obtained.

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

ITEM #2  POUDRE VALLEY REA DEADMAN ROAD SUBSTATION LOCATION AND EXTENT #06-Z1604:  Mr. Stewart provided background information on the request for a utility substation with associated equipment building for Poudre Valley REA located on the north side of Deadman Road, just west of Creedmore Lakes Road (County Road 73C).

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approve the Poudre Valley REA Deadman Road Substation Location and Extent, file #06-Z1604, subject to the following conditions:

 

A.   This L&E is not considered approved unless and until the applicant obtains approval of the associated Minor Land Division, File #06-S2613.

 

B.   The applicant shall submit a landscape plan for the purpose of buffering the substation from public view from public roads adjacent to the site.  This landscape plan shall be submitted to the planning department and approval granted by the same department prior to recordation of the Minor Land Division plat.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer seconded the Motion.

 

 

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

ITEM #3  KATSAMAKIS REZONING  #05-Z1546:  Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request to rezone a property in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area from T (Tourist) to PD (Planned Development) to allow uses consistent with the East Mulberry Corridor.  The property is located on the north side of the Highway 14 Frontage Road, approximately ¼ mile east of Summit View Drive.

 

 

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 Katsamakis Rezoning, file #05-Z1546, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

A.   The existing residence on the property may continue to be utilized as a residential dwelling until a commercial use is located on the property. Upon the approval of a commercial use for the property, the residential dwelling may be occupied as a dwelling that is accessory to the commercial use, and must be occupied by the owner/operator of the commercial use.   If the existing residence is vacated for living purposes for a period of more than one year it shall not be re-established as a dwelling.

 

B.   The permitted uses, lot building and structure requirements, setbacks and structure height limitations for Katsamakis Planned Development shall be as follows:

 

1.   The Planned Development (PD) zoning for the property shall be as follows

 

PD (Planned Development)

 

A.   Principal uses:

 

Agricultural

Garden supply center (R)

Pet animal facility (R)

Pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital (R/S)

Livestock veterinary clinic/hospital (R/S)

 

 

 

 

 

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)

Instructional facility (R)

Outdoor display/sales (R)

Clinic (R)

 

Institutional

20.   Health services (R)

21.   Hospital (R)

22.   School, public (L)

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

24.   Rehabilitation facility (R)

27.   Church (R)

 

Recreational

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

29.   Shooting range (R/S)--See section 4.3

30.   Membership club/clubhouse (R)

 

Accommodation

31.   Hotel/motel (R)

 

Industrial

32.   Enclosed storage (R)

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

34.   Light industrial (S)

 

Utilities

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

38.   Radio and television transmitters (S)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B.   Lot, building and structure requirements: 15,000 square feet

 

1.   Minimum setbacks:

a.  Front yard- The setback from an interior subdivision road or established public or private road must be 25 feet from the property line.

b.         Side yards--10 feet.

c.  Rear yards--20 feet.

d.  Streams, creeks and rivers--100 feet from the centerline of the established watercourse.

2.   Maximum structure height--40 feet.

3.   No parcel can be used for more than one principal building; additional buildings on a parcel are allowed if they meet the accessory use criteria in subsection 4.3.10.

 

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 of the Larimer County Land Use Code, as amended.

 

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) of the Larimer County Land Use Code, as amended.

 

Uses followed by an (L) require review through the location and extent review process described in Section 13.0 of the Larimer County Land Use Code, as amended.

 

Commissioner Waldo seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEMS:

 

ITEM #4  PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY – RAWHIDE PLANT SIGN APPEAL #06-G0116:  Mr. Stewart provided background information on the request for an appeal to Section 10.14.B.1 of the Land Use Code sign regulations, which limited the number of freestanding signs to one per street frontage.  The proposal was for two signs at the facility entrance of the Platte River Power Authority’s Rawhide Plant which was situated along County Road 82.  The property had two freestanding signs in the past which were nonconforming:  one located at the drive entrance and an archway sign further up the drive where the plant entrance gate was located.  In 2005, the applicant removed the principal sign at the drive entrance due to its deteriorated state and now wanted to erect a new sign in the same location.  Mr. Stewart explained that the applicant could make modifications to the archway sign to bring it into compliance without an appeal or even or permit.  Those options included reducing the size of the archway sign to 32 square feet or removing the archway sign completely.  Mr. Stewart noted that the Development Services Team was recommending denial.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Joe Wilson, Assistant General Counsel for the Platte River Power Authority, stated that the Rawhide Plant was on approximately 4000 acres.  He explained that heavy tractor-trailer traffic came to the site and often at night and there were no lights on the County Road or at the intersection to the property.  Therefore they wanted an entry sign at that location so it would notify drivers.  He showed the Commission pictures of the old sign, the archway sign, and the new proposed sign.  He stated that he felt that there were unique circumstances that should allow the appeal to be granted.  Those circumstances were:  1) the plant was a use that stood by itself, and the additional sign would not clutter the area, 2) the options provided by Staff did not provide any relief, would be a waste of money, and would not benefit anyone.  Removing the archway sign or minimizing it would not make the site any more or less appropriate in the context of the sign code, 3) there was a need for two signs:  one informed the public of the entrance, and the security gate sign alerted the public that there was a secured gate and served to route traffic down the correct road, and 4) the prior sign did stand for 22 years, had a useful purpose, and was not subject to any complaints. 

 

Commissioner Hart stated that the archway sign said “Rawhide” and did not inform the public that they needed to stop.  The stop signs on the gate were what informed them of the correct actions.  He asked if a smaller 32 square foot sign would serve the purpose?

 

Mr. Wilson replied that he did not feel that there would be a benefit.  One could not see the sign from the County Road anyway.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Morgan asked if when developing the sign code if any consideration was given to government agencies in terms of their identification signs? 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Stewart replied yes.  He also stated that a thorough review was done on the application.  He noted that Staff was okay with the monument sign but some compromise could be made regarding the archway sign.

 

Commissioner Morgan remarked that the taxpayers’ money shouldn’t be used on reducing the archway sign, which had already been there for so many years.  He stated that there should be some consideration since the signs did not cause any competitor disadvantage, the signs had been there for years, and the new proposed sign was very attractive.  He felt that from a security standpoint the sign on the archway was valid.  He felt that the signs were an exception.

 

Commissioner Waldo stated that the second sign in question was barely visible and was tasteful.  It had been there for a long time, and it would be a wasted resource to reduce the sign size.  He stated that he supported the appeal. 

 

Commissioner Pond also stated that he supported the appeal.  He stated that the sign at the road entry was important due the remote area in which the property was located. 

 

Commissioner Karabensh agreed with many of the comments.  However, she did not feel that the appeal could meet all of the review criterion.  She stated that in order to be consistent with each application the request presented needed to meet all the criterion, and although she wanted to support the appeal she could not due to that reason.

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer stated that he supported the appeal.  He acknowledged that the applicant came forward before erecting the sign to get the correct approval.  He agreed with Commissioners’ Morgan, Pond, and Waldo’s comments.

 

Commissioner Hart stated that the Commission’s job was to uphold the integrity of the Code.  He felt that public entities should be held to the same standards as private entities. 

 

Chairman Wallace agreed that it was a violation of the Code and all the review criterion had not been met; therefore, she agreed with Commissioners Hart and Karabensh.

 

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 Platte River Power Authority-Rawhide Plant Sign Appeal, file #06-G0116, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, be approved.

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Hart, Karabensh, and Chairman Wallace voted against the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  4-3

 

ITEM #5  JIF REZONING #06-Z1584:  Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request to rezone a property in the Fort Collins Growth Management area from B (Business) to PD (Planned Development) to allow uses consistent with the Larimer County C (Commercial) zone district.  The property was located on the north side of County Road 38E (Harmony Road), approximately 1/8 mile west of County Road 19 (Taft Hill Road).  He explained that the property had an indoor storage facility with some outdoor storage that was not permitted, and the ultimate purpose was to expand the existing facility to be more of an enclosed storage facility with concealed (not visible from public view) storage of vehicles.  The Development Services Team along with the applicant was proposing that a mini storage framework be used along the periphery of the property that would provide a visual blockade from the public areas adjacent to the site into the center.  Within that confined area boats, RV’s, vehicles, etc. could be stored.  He stated that the application would also be reviewed under the Site Plan Review process. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Matt Blakely, Jim Sell Design, showed the Commission some computer generated images of how the proposed storage facility would look. 

 

Commissioner Karabensh felt that it was a very innovative and creative approach to meet a community need and tried to mitigate the visual impacts. 

 

DISCUSSION:

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 JIF Rezoning, file #06-Z1584, for the property described on “Exhibit C” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

A.   Concealed outdoor storage shall be allowed in association with an enclosed storage facility.  Concealed storage shall mean that the outdoor storage shall not be visible to the public.

 

B,   Concealed outdoor storage shall consist only of licensed and operable vehicles, RV’s, boats and sporting vehicles (i.e. atv’s and jet ski’s).

 

C.   The permitted uses, lot building and structure requirements, setbacks and structure height limitations for JIF Planned Development shall be as follows:

 

1.  The Planned Development (PD) zoning for the property shall be as follows

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PD (Planned Development)

 

A.   Principal uses:

 

Agricultural

Garden supply center (R)

Pet animal facility (R)

Pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital (R/S)

Livestock veterinary clinic/hospital (R/S)

 

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)

Instructional facility (R)

Outdoor display/sales (R)

Clinic (R)

 

Institutional

20.   Health services (R)

21.   Hospital (R)

22.   School, public (L)

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

24.   Rehabilitation facility (R)

27.   Church (R)

 

Recreational

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

29.   Shooting range (R/S)--See section 4.3

30.   Membership club/clubhouse (R)

 

Accommodation

31.    Hotel/motel (R)

 

Industrial

32.   Enclosed and concealed storage (R) (see conditions 1 & 2)

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

34.   Light industrial (S)

 

Utilities

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

38.   Radio and television transmitters (S)

 

B.   Lot, building and structure requirements: 15,000 square feet

 

1.   Minimum setbacks:

a.  Front yard- The setback from an interior subdivision road or established public or private road must be 20 feet from the property line.

b.   Side yards--0 feet.

c.  Rear yards--0 feet.

d.  Streams, creeks and rivers--100 feet from the centerline of the established watercourse.

2.   Maximum structure height--40 feet.

3.   No parcel can be used for more than one principal building; additional buildings on a parcel are allowed if they meet the accessory use criteria in subsection 4.3.10.

 

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 of the Larimer County Land Use Code, as amended.

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) of the Larimer County Land Use Code, as amended.

 

Uses followed by an (L) require review through the location and extent review process described in Section 13.0 of the Larimer County Land Use Code, as amended.

 

Commissioner Karabensh seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

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

 

 

ADJOURNMENT:  There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 7:35 p.m.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________________________                      ______________________________

Nancy Wallace, Chairman                                            Kristen Karabensh, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT C