LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of October 19, 2005

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, September 21, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners’ Huddleston, Karabensh, Morgan, Pond, terMeer, and Wallace were present.  Commissioner Boulter presided as Chairman.  Commissioners Oppenheimer and Waldo were absent.  Also present were Rob Helmick, Principal Planner, Russ Legg, Chief Planner, Matt Lafferty, Senior Planner, Porter Ingrum, Environmental Planner, Karin Madson, Planner II, Sean Wheeler, Planner II, Christie Coleman, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Environmental Health, and Jill Wilson, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary.

 

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 SEPTEMBER 21, 2005 MEETINGS:  MOTION by Commissioner Morgan to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Wallace.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:  

Mr. Helmick stated that per the applicant’s request, Item #5: Greenman Acres Conservation Development, be removed from the agenda.

 

CONSENT ITEM:

Katherine Throckmorton, 2589 Windstar Road, stated that she had concerns with Item #2:  Wendel Amended Special Review and explained that the US Cable property was interfering with her property.

 

Chairman Boulter felt that the issue should be discussed further and removed Item #2:  Wendel Amended Special Review from the consent agenda.

 

ITEM #1 COOKIES PARCELS SUBDIVISION #05-S2471:  Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request to divide a ten acre parcel into two residential lots situated along the north side of County Road 4, approximately ¼ mile east of County Road 23E. 

 

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 Cookies Parcels Subdivision, file #05-S2471, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   The Final Plat of the Cookies Parcels Subdivision shall be consistent with the plans, documents and representations contained in the file, (#05-S2471), unless modified by the conditions of approval.

 

 

 

 

2.   The applicant shall execute a Development Agreement and provide a disclosure notice for final plat approval by the County as part of the Final Plat.  These documents shall be recorded with the Final Plat, and shall provide notice to all future lot owners of the conditions of approval and issues, costs and fees associated with the approval of this project.

 

3.   The following fees shall be collected at building issuance for new single family dwellings: Thompson R2-J School Fees, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, and Regional Larimer County Park Fees (in Lieu of land dedication).  The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit shall apply.

 

4.   Passive Radon Mitigation measures shall be included in the construction of residential dwellings on the approved lots.  The results of a radon test once the structure is enclosed but prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall be submitted to the Planning Department.  As an alternative, a builder may present a prepaid receipt fro a radon tester, which specifies that a test will be conducted within 30 days.  A permanent certificate of occupancy can be issued when the prepaid receipt is submitted.

 

5.   The applicant shall provide an access easement across Lot 2 for access to Lot 1 of the subdivision.  Said access easement shall extend from County Road 4 to 20 feet north of the Culver irrigation ditch on the property.

 

6.   Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat the applicant shall provide an agreement with the Culver Ditch Company for any crossing of the ditch and any storm water releases into the ditch.

 

7.   The applicant shall provide access and maintenance easements along the Culver Irrigation Ditch in accordance with Section 8.8 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

8.   The standard for connectivity found at Section 8.14.2.S of the Larimer County land Use Code shall not be required for this development.

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Huddleston, Karabensh, Morgan, Pond, terMeer, Wallace, and Chairman Boulter voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEMS:

 

ITEM #3 AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE #05-CA0057:  Ms. Madson provided background information on the request to amend Section 16:  Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) Facilities of the Larimer County Land Use Code.  The amendments would encourage the use of existing structures for CMRS facilities, allow limited CMRS facilities on residential properties, and add a requirement for annual facility inventory with an application. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

John Bass, Colorado Wireless Exchange Cooperative (CWX), was concerned that the changes to Section 16 of the Land Use Code would be used to expedite cures on currently non-permitted facilities located along the ridge in front of approved tower sites.  Currently it impacted CWX and a number of other facilities because it placed RF transmitters in between hilltops.  As a result, there was a real concern that the change would allow some sites that were operated by many of the other wireless providers in the County to act against the commitment to consolidate on tower sites, which would effectively destroy the economic value of those tower sites by creating legalized interference sites in front of them. 

 

Commissioner Huddleston asked for clarification on what code amendments Mr. Bass was against.

 

Mr. Bass replied that his concerns were with allowing CMRS facilities to be established on residences and particularly on residential structures in the FA-Farming zone districts.  He explained that the nature of the facilities could and would interfere with expected use of wireless devices in County residence homes.  It would interfere with portable phones, wireless data applications, and other wireless applications which were surrounding the sites.  In some cases it could present problems where a portable phone would no longer work in an area that the resident would expect.  He stated that in some areas allowing microcell antennas to be attached outside of a structure would circumvent the ability of a resident to take their portable phone outside of a building because of the low power transmitter associated with the base station and/or the wireless access point for their data connection would have low signal strengths.  He remarked that with an adoption of Canopy equipment, CMX saw a technical problem with that type of equipment interfering heavily with consumer equipment, which would not be in the best interest of the County. 

 

Commissioner Pond asked if people that created interference were responsible for correcting it?

 

Mr. Bass replied that the FCC specifically stated that users of the device must accept any and all interference even if it caused unintended or non-operation. 

 

Commissioner Morgan asked for confirmation that the bands used for cordless telephones would be affected by the changes.

 

Mr. Bass replied yes, it would shut out the use of the devices of the proximity around it if Canopy equipment was allowed to be installed inside in a residential location surround by people.  He also asked who could enforce the regulations?

 

 

Ms. Madson stated that the interference or RF issues were under the authority of the FCC, even though they were not regulated by the FCC at the present time.  Consequently, it was Staff’s opinion that it was not a County land use, zoning issue.  She explained that facilities in residential areas were currently allowed, however not on residentially used properties.  Therefore by Administrative Review, Staff would process an application for a facility on a property adjacent to a neighborhood as long as that property was not used for residential purposes.  She noted that the County would enforce the Code on a complaint basis.  She also remarked on expediting illegal site fixes and stated that depending on the type of facility being proposed, an applicant would have to go through an Administrative Review process or Special Review.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked what motivated the change to Section 16.1.2.D (Facilities on residential properties) to add the sentence, “with the exception of attached or concealed (Stealth) microcell antennas that do not alter the character of the residential or accessory structures.”?

 

Ms. Madson replied that the motivation came from a number of requests from different providers to site those types of facilities on residentially zoned properties.  She explained that the properties would be in areas that were not currently agriculturally used.  She noted that the facilities were currently allowed to be on farms or ranches but were not allowed where there was a house only.  If the property was not being used for agriculture, the County did not currently allow CMRS facilities on them. 

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that it was a very substantive change on what the prior regulation was. 

 

Ms. Madson reiterated that the County currently allowed CMRS facilities in residential areas not on residentially used properties.  Therefore it was the use of the residential property that was the change, not the location.  The facilities could be in residential neighborhoods based on what type of facility was proposed but not on property used for residential purposes.  She noted that making the change did not change the ability for the facilities to be installed in those neighborhoods.

 

Commissioner Karabensh asked what type of properties in residential neighborhoods the facilities were allowed on?

 

Ms. Madson replied that the facilities could be located on outlots, power poles, parks, the corner store, a farm or ranch, etc. 

 

Russ Legg, Chief Planner, reminded the Commission that Staff was trying to regulate land use and visibility and not interference.  He acknowledged that there may be a problem, however, Staff was not aware of it and did not have the ability to regulate it. 

 

Commissioner Wallace asked what the antennas looked like?

 

Mr. Bass replied that the size of the equipment varied depending on the band width.  The higher frequency bands had a smaller antenna which would be 3x9 inch radials on a pole.  Others with different frequency bands would have longer antennas that would be between two and five feet in length and typically about one foot wide. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if a company could pay a resident to put an antenna on their property if the home was in a prominent position?

 

Ms. Madson replied that the situation could occur; however, what was typically seen were urbanized areas having the antennas.  The properties further out were more likely to be a farm or ranch and the antennas were already allowed there. 

 

Commissioner Morgan pointed out that anyone wanting to co-locate any type of facility would have to go through an Administrative or Special Review because it would be a modification or an addition to an existing facility. 

 

Mr. Bass confirmed that the change to Section 16 opened up for ridgeline homes becoming a tower facility.  He stated that companies were already offering money to put their antennas on homes.

 

Commissioner terMeer asked to see a model of an antenna.

 

Mr. Bass showed the Commission the different antenna models.

 

Chairman Boulter asked where the antennas would be mounted?

 

Mr. Bass replied on the side of a building, a roof, a pole, or a tower.  He stated that allowing residential access in town, particularly where there was already DSL or cable, was not needed.

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that from a land use issue he did not see the antennas as being intrusive.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Huddleston thought that the intent of the Planning Staff was good regarding the Code amendments; however, the issues brought up by Mr. Bass could potentially impact all of the regular users of portable cordless phones.  He was concerned about the size of an area that a microcell antenna would impact.  He was concerned that the small change in the Land Use Code could create angry residents and lack of phone service.  He stated that he would like to have one more worksession regarding the issue.

 

Commissioner Wallace commented that approving the changes to Section 16 of the Land Use Code equalized the playing field for people that lived in higher density areas versus those that lived in lower density areas.  She stated that in a sense it made it fairer for those people who wanted to put those antennas on their property.  She remarked that the Planning Commission’s goal was to allow uses that were equivalent or similar no matter where one lived in the County and was not to regulate interference. 

 

Commissioner Huddleston proposed to add “and did not impact the neighbors nearby” to the new proposed sentence in Section 16.1.2.D.

 

Chairman Boulter and Commission Wallace did not feel that Staff could enforce that.

 

 

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that he agreed with Commissioner Wallace’s comments.  He remarked that what had to be determined was whether it would change the character of the residential neighborhood.  He stated that the more critical issue was to have the regulations clear especially when dealing with the facilities and co-location.  He stated that he was sensitive to Mr. Bass’s comments and what some of the unintended consequences could be but felt that the amendments should be approved. 

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the amendments to Section 16:  Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) Facilities of the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #05-CA0057, be approved as follows:

 

Item #1:        Amend the Land Use Code by adding the following to Section 16.1.1.A and deleting Section 16.1.1.E:

 

A.   Enhancing the ability to provide wireless services to county residents, businesses and visitors, while using performance standards and incentives to promote location of CMRS facilities on concealed structures and existing buildings and towers;

 

E.   Using performance standards and incentives to promote location of CMRS facilities on concealed structures and existing buildings and towers.

 

Item #2:            Amend the Land Use Code, Section 16.1.2.B.1, as follows:

 

1.   Collocation Co-location on existing CMRS or broadcast antenna towers.

 

Item #3:            Amend the Land Use Code by adding the following to Section 16.1.2.:

 

C.   Location:  To the maximum extent feasible personal wireless service facilities shall be located on existing structures, including but not limited to buildings, water towers, existing telecommunications facilities, utility poles and towers, and related facilities, provided that such installation preserves the character and integrity of those structures. In particular, applicants are urged to consider use of existing telephone and electric utility structures as sites for one or more personal wireless service facilities. The applicant shall have the burden of proving that there are no feasible existing structures upon which to locate.  If the applicant demonstrates that it is not feasible to locate on an existing structure, personal wireless service facilities shall be designed so as to be camouflaged to the greatest extent possible, including but not limited to: use of compatible design, building materials and colors, screening, landscaping and placement within trees.

 

Item #4:            Amend the Land Use Code, Section 16.1.2, as follows:

 

CD.   Facilities on residential properties. CMRS facilities may not be placed on properties or buildings used primarily for residential purposes, with the exception of attached or concealed (Stealth) microcell antennas that do not alter the character of the residential or accessory structures. This does not apply to CMRS facilities may be placed on buildings containing eight or more dwelling units or farms and ranches containing dwelling units.

 

E.   Facilities at County Special Places, state or federally designated historic sites. and visually-sensitive areas. CMRS facilities may only be located on a designated County Special Place, state or federally designated historic site or structure with the county commissioners' permission. CMRS facilities must not unreasonably interfere with the view from any designated special place, historic site or structure, or public park. natural scenic vista, historic building, major view corridor or residential area. CMRS facilities shall not be permitted within one-quarter mile (1,320 feet) of the Interstate 25 right-of-way, unless such facility is combined with and is consistent with the architectural style of an existing structure, or is located on an existing CMRS facility and/or within the East Mulberry Corridor Plan area except for locations at least ¼ mile north of the State Highway 14/ East Mulberry Street centerline where planning and design for facilities in this area includes an assessment that indicates that there are no feasible existing structures upon which to locate.

 

F.   Radial spacing. Antenna towers over 40 feet high must be located at least 1,000 feet from other antenna towers over 40 feet high that are capable of supporting CMRS facilities. Closer spacing between towers may be granted through the special review process. This radial spacing requirement does not apply to facilities located at designated antenna farms.

 

Item #5:            Amend the Land Use Code, Section 16.13.D, as follows:

 

D.   Collocation Co-location on antenna towers.

1.   CMRS providers must not exclude other providers from co-locating on the same tower when collocation co-location is structurally, technically or otherwise possible.

2.   In addition to equipment proposed for the applicant's use, proposed antenna towers (excepting concealed antennas) and sites must be designed to accommodate collocation co-location of one additional CMRS provider for every 40-foot segment of tower height over 40 feet.

3.   The county commissioners may reduce the required shared capacity if an antenna tower necessary to provide for such sharing dominates and adversely alters the area's visual character.

 

 

 

4.   The county commissioners may revoke a tower building permit or other administrative approvals if conditions for approval of an antenna tower include collocation co-location but:

a.   The tower owner is not willing to provide space for other carriers at a fair market rate when it would not impair the structural integrity of the tower or cause interference; or

b.   The tower owner modifies the structure in a way to make collocation co-location impractical or impossible. If approval is revoked, the facility must be removed at the owners' expense.

5.   Addition of equipment for collocation co-location of additional CMRS providers or for existing CMRS providers on existing antenna towers and sites does not require the special review process if the tower height remains unchanged.  Addition of equipment for collocation co-location of additional CMRS providers or for existing CMRS providers on existing legal, nonconforming antenna towers is not considered a nonconforming use expansion and is exempt from subsection 4.8 (nonconformities), if the tower height remains unchanged.

 

Item #6:            Amend the Land Use Code, Section 16.1.3.E.2, as follows:

 

2.   Dismantle the facility. If the facility is not removed within 90 days of abandonment, the county may pursue enforcement subject to the provisions of Section 21 Enforcement.  remove the facility at the facility and/or property owner's expense. If the facility is removed, county approval of the facility expires is null and void.

 

Item #7:            Amend the Land Use Code, Section 16.1.4.A.9, as follows:

 

9.   A letter of intent to allow collocation co-location on the antenna tower as provided in subsection 16.1.3.D (collocation co-location), if the antenna tower is over 40 feet.

 

            Item #8:            Amend the Land Use Code, Section 16.1.4.B, as follows:

 

B.   Facility inventory. The first application in a calendar year (January through December) for a proposed CMRS facility by a provider must include a detailed inventory of all the provider's existing and approved facilities within Larimer County, all incorporated areas within the county, and one mile beyond the county border, including Wyoming.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item #9:            Amend the Land Use Code, Sections 16.1.5.A and 16.1.5.B, as follows:

 

16.1.5. Application review.

A.   Administrative review. Applications for proposed CMRS facilities requiring administrative review must comply with subsection 16.1.2 (where permitted) and subsection 16.1.3 (requirements and performance standards). The planning director will make a decision to approve or deny within 45 days of submittal or the application is deemed approved. If a third-party technical study (subsection 16.1.5.C, technical issues and expert review) is required, a decision to approve or deny an application may be postponed until 10 days after the study is complete. Any decision to deny a request to place, construct or modify facilities must be in writing and include specific reasons for the action. The planning director's decision can be appealed by the applicant within 30 days to the board of adjustment Board of County Commissioners. The fee for administrative review of a proposed CMRS facility will be collected when the application is submitted. All applications for administrative review require a pre-application conference as described in subsection 12.2.2, development review procedures.

 

B.   Special review. Applications for proposed CMRS facilities requiring special review must comply with subsection 16.1.2 (where allowed); subsection 16.1.3 (requirements and performance standards); subsection 16.1.4 (application contents) and special review factors in subsection 4.5 (procedure for permitting uses by special review). The fee for special review of a proposed CMRS facility must be collected when the application is submitted.

 

Item #10:          Amend the Land Use Code, Section 16.1.6.B, by deleting the word collocation and replacing it with co-location.

 

Item #11:          Amend the Land Use Code, Section 16.1.7, by deleting the word Collocation and replacing it with Co-location.

 

Commissioner Wallace seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner terMeer stated that she wished the Commission had the ability to look at the interference issue.

 

Commissioner Huddleston stated that he agreed with the co-location but the addition of the sentence in Section 16.1.2.D (facilities on residential properties) made him feel that it would change things for the residents in the County.

 

Commissioners’ Huddleston and Karabensh voted against the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Morgan, Pond, terMeer, Wallace, and Chairman Boulter voted in favor of the Motion.

 

 

MOTION PASSED:  5-2

 

ITEM #4 WILSON PLANNED LAND DIVISION #05-S2399:  Mr. Wheeler provided background information on the request for a Planned Land Division to divide 25.96 acres into two residential lots situated on the west side of North County Road 23E, west of LaPorte.  The request also included two appeals to the Larimer County Land Use Code Section 8.14.2.S (Connectivity) and Section 8.14.2.N (Right-of-Way Design Standards).  Mr. Wheeler also explained that the Larimer County Environmental Planner was requesting that a building envelope be on Lot 2 of the development to address the existing wildlife habitat in the area, in which the applicant had no objection to. 

 

Christie Coleman, Engineering Department, stated that an evaluation was done regarding Section 8.14.2.N of the Larimer County Land Use Code, which outlined a procedure under which certain circumstances could be met that would allow a subdivision to develop on a private road system, and it was determined that there was no need for the public to use that right-of-way.  In addition, since it was only a two lot subdivision, the Engineering Department felt that there was no need for connectivity and that the development could be serviced from access easements as long as those access easements were extended to provide for emergency service.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY;

Caroline Wilson, 3603 N. County Road 23E, noted that she was available for questions.

 

DISCUSSION;

Mr. Wheeler pointed out that conditions G, H, I, and J for the Planned Land Division were also conditions included with the appeal to Section 8.14.2.N of the Land Use Code.  He recommended that the conditions of approval for the appeal to Section 8.14.2.N remain but be deleted from the Planned Land Division.  The Planned Land Division conditions would then need to be re-lettered to A-J.  The Development Services Team also recommended that a condition K be added to the Planned Land Division to stipulate that “The Final Plat shall include a two acre building envelope on the eastern end of Lot 2”, which would address the placement of the building envelope and inclusion on the plat.

 

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 Wilson Planned Land Division, file #05-S2399, appeal to Section 8.14.2.S of the Larimer County Land Use Code be approved.

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Wilson Planned Land Division, file #05-S2399, appeal to Section 8.14.2.N of the Larimer County Land Use Code be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      A.  The applicant provide an easement, agreement, covenant or other appropriate document to be recorded in the county records that grants the right of access for emergency and service vehicles and that defines the persons/entities entitled to use the roads, the purpose for and manner in which the roads may be used, any limitations on the use of the roads, the persons/entities authorized and responsible to construct and maintain the roads, the persons/entities authorized to enforce the terms of the easement and the penalties for violation of the terms of the easement;.

 

      B.   The design and construction of the private road will meet applicable county road or street standards.

 

      C.  Provisions acceptable to the county commissioners have been made for maintenance of the private roads.

 

      D.  County requirements for road naming, road name signs and addressing have been or will be met prior to the issuance of any building permit.

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner Karabensh noted that there had been a prior dispute with the landowners of the easement and wanted confirmation that both the existing lot and the proposed new lot had rights to the existing access.

 

Mr. Wheeler replied that the representation made to the Planning Staff by the applicant’s attorney confirmed that and there had been nothing received to dispute that.

 

Commissioner Karabensh asked if Condition A of the Section 8.14.2.N appeal contemplated sign off by the other parcel owner?

 

Mr. Helmick stated that what it contemplated was not sign off but that the language of the easement clearly allowed for services providers.

 

Aldean Hill, Attorney at Law-160 W. Mountain Avenue, was the representative for the applicant.  He explained that the applicant had not been involved in the court action that occurred several years ago.  In 1993 there was an agreement regarding the use of the road, which then deteriorated into litigation on what was meant by installing an access road across the corner of the property.  The end result was an order by the Judge to have the property owners (plaintiffs) execute an easement.  A motion to amend the ruling was then brought forth that requested the court to limit the easement granted to the use of the defendants, their invitees, and guests for access to one single family dwelling.  The court denied that request and required that the easement be executed.  As a result, he had the opinion that there was no need to seek approval, and the applicant should have the right to the new home site and the emergency vehicles as required.

 

Commissioners' Huddleston, Karabensh, Morgan, Pond, terMeer, Wallace, and Chairman Boulter voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:   7-0

 

 

Commissioner Wallce 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 Wilson Planned Land Division, file #05-S2399, for the property described on “Exhibit C” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions and added condition K:

 

      A.  The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the Wilson Planned Land Division, File #05-S2399, 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 Wilson Planned Land Division.

 

      B.   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 the Larimer County Regional Park Fees (in lieu of dedication).  The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply.

 

      C.  The new residential use shall include a residential fire sprinkler system must be designed and installed to meet NFPA standards.

 

      D.  Engineered footings and foundations are required for new habitable construction.

 

      E.   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.

 

      F.   Prior to obtaining a building permit to install a septic system on Lot 2, the lot owner must consult with the Health Department on the need for advanced secondary treatment for the sewer system.

 

      G.  Blasting is prohibited on-site from March 1st through July 1st in order to minimize disturbances to a nearby eagle’s nest during the critical nesting period.

 

      H.  The Final Plat shall include a note that advises lot owners of the presence of the eagle’s nest and the restricted access near it.

 

      I.    An outlot incorporating the common well, together with adequate area for access and maintenance, must be included on the final plat. 

 

 

 

 

 

J.   The disclosure agreement and covenants shall outline the provision for a well sharing agreement to allow the owners of Lot 1 and Lot 2 to have access and use of the water well located on a jointly owned outlot.  An acceptable well sharing agreement shall be submitted prior to approval of the final plat.

 

K.  The Final Plat shall include a two acre building envelope on the eastern end of Lot 2 as shown on the Preliminary Plat.

 

Commissioner Morgan seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Huddleston, Karabensh, Morgan, Pond, terMeer, Wallace, and Chairman Boulter voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:   7-0

 

ITEM #2 WENDEL AMENDED SPECIAL REVIEW #02-Z1502:  Ms. Madson provided background information on the request to amend the Wendel Special Review to allow the expansion of an existing cable TV receive/relay facility by expanding the perimeter of the site, the existing building and the number of earth station “dishes” located east of County Road 17, approximately 1/8 mile south of County Road 54G on Windstar Lane.  She stated that there had been previous zoning and building code violations on the property, which have been resolved.  She also noted that the applicant proposed to move their fence line away from the road in order to allow for parking spaces for their vehicles.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if they would be moving the east fence line?

 

Ms. Madson replied yes, the fence currently existed up to the property boundary and the applicant had agreed to pull it back so there would be space to park their vehicles because they currently parked on the road.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked how far the fence line would be pulled back from the road?

 

Ms. Madson explained that the applicant would have to submit a site plan, reviewed by the County, to determine the exact and adequate area sufficient for parking.

 

Commissioner terMeer wondered how the County would keep track of the applicant’s actions since in the past the applicant had not complied with County regulations and the conditions of their first Special Review.

 

Josh Patchett, Lead Technician for US Cable, replied that it was their intent to fulfill all of the County’s regulations for any future expansions or upgrades to the property.

 

Rich Fremsted, US Cable, explained where employees currently parked and did realize that the vehicles did impede the road to some degree.  He pointed out where the location of the parking area would be.

 

 

 

 

Mr. Patchett admitted that the road was not maintained and stated that US Cable was working with the property owner, Mr. Wendel, to come up with a plan to put down a road base or crushed gravel from the facility out to Highway 287.

 

Katherine Throckmorton, 2589 Windstar Road, stated that she had lived on the property for 24 years.  She stated that she was not aware of the first Special Review application when it was approved.  She passed out pictures to the Commission of the deterioration of the site and road over the past years.  

 

Jim Kimball, stated that US Cable employees were accessing the property right by their driveway.  He proposed that the employees access the site from Mr. Wendel’s property instead of Windstar Road.

 

Ms. Throckmorton pointed out that the original Special Review application stipulated no more than one to two car visits to the site per week, and currently there were three to four cars there daily.  She noted that US Cable had not complied with the originally approved Special Review so she was concerned about what would happen if the facility was expanded.  She noted that her main concern was the maintenance of the road and that she was in favor of a parking lot.  She explained that she wanted US Cable to help with the road maintenance and wanted to make sure it got done.

 

Mr. Kimball stated that the zoning violations had not been conformed to and it was still a junkyard.

 

Ms. Throckmorton stated that the road maintenance issue could be fixed if the US Cable employees would enter the property off of Highway 287 into Mr. Wendel’s property.

 

Christie Coleman, Engineering Department, stated that access spacing for this type of facility off of an access easement were typically a low traffic generator only generating a few trips a month not 10 trips a day as the typical residential unit.  As a result there had generally never been a problem with access spacing; therefore, it has not been regulated.

 

Ms. Throckmorton disagreed and stated that there had been 3-4 cars there daily for the past five years.

 

Mr. Patchett admitted that there had been a higher amount of trip generation due to the construction and upgrading work that needed to be done at night.  He noted that when the construction decreased there would probably be only one to two trips per day to and from the facility for maintenance and monitoring.  He stated that US Cable was willing to work with the road situation and work with Mr. Wendel to bring in road base or crushed gravel to repair the road where it had been damaged; however, he did not have a time frame on when it would occur.

 

Mr. Fremsted noted that Windstar Road was a public access easement.  He agreed that the traffic generation had been greater due to the construction and upgrading of the system.  He stated that in approximately two months most of the primary work should be completed and then the traffic load on the road would decline.

 

Commissioner terMeer asked how many parking spaces were proposed?

 

Mr. Fremsted replied that the parking lot did not have specific dimensions, however it was a 70 foot wide area and two-thirds would be used for parking. 

 

Mr. Patchett replied that they were allotting for three to four spaces because the vehicles were oversized and that would allow for two oversized vehicles.

 

Commissioner terMeer asked if a lot of the work at the facility would be completed at night?

 

Mr. Patchett replied yes because most of the services they provided needed to be operating during the daytime hours; nevertheless, maintenance of that nature would probably occur only once a month.

 

Commissioner Morgan felt that if there was to be an expansion of the Special Review then there should be a stipulation of the parking.

 

Ms. Madson stated that the applicant had provided in writing that a parking lot for the facility would be provided.

 

Mr. Helmick noted that Windstar Road was a publicly dedicated 60-foot wide easement that was not County maintained.

 

Commissioner Huddleston stated that he was comfortable with the Planning Staff’s recommendation and thanked the applicant for their willingness to work on the road.  He asked that whenever convenient the employees of US Cable enter the property from Highway 287 and not Windstar Road. 

 

Chairman Boulter felt that it was appropriate to include a direction on road maintenance.  He appreciated the applicant’s willingness to be proactive about the roads. 

 

Commissioner Wallace suggested adding a condition of approval #9 that stated that the applicant would provide a minimum 40 foot wide by 25 foot deep parking area on the east side of the lot.  She also suggested adding a condition of approval #10 that stated that the applicant would provide an all weather surface road 24 feet wide.

 

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 Wendel Amended Special Review, file #02-Z1502, 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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.   The plans submitted by the applicant constitute a Site Specific Development Plan.  Operation of the Wendel Amended Special Review shall be as specified in the representations of the applicant and consistent with the conditional approval outlined in the Findings and Resolution Concerning the Petition of Wendel recorded at reception #89056525 on 12/08/89 and the information contained in file #Z-32-89, except as modified by the request contained in this file #02-Z1502, unless modified by conditions of approval.

 

3.   Within 180 days of approval the applicant shall provide 6 foot, solid wood fencing around the enlarged equipment area and building to screen this area from the road and neighboring properties.  All equipment shall be located within the fenced area. 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

8.   If the Special Review use is discontinued for a period of three years, the County may issue a notice to applicant to appear and show cause why the Special Review approval should not be revoked.

 

9.   The applicant shall provide a designated parking area 40 foot wide by 25 foot deep within the 70 foot by 70 foot cable facility.

 

10.   The applicant shall improve Windstar Road to an all weather surface road 24 foot wide prior to issuance of building permits.

 

Commissioner terMeer seconded the Motion.

 

 

 

Commissioners' Huddleston, Karabensh, Morgan, Pond, terMeer, Wallace, and Chairman Boulter voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

 

 

 

 

REPORT FROM STAFF:  Mr. Helmick 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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________________________                      ______________________________

Jeff Boulter, Chairman                                      Nancy Wallace, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT C