LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of June 19, 2013

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, June 19, 2013, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners’ Dougherty, Gerrard, Jensen, Miller, Wallace, and Zitti were present.  Commissioners Bohling and Cox were absent.  Commissioner Glick presided as Chairman.  Also present were Matt Lafferty, Principle Planner, Terry Gilbert, Planning and Building Services Director, Jeanine Haag, County Attorney, Bill Ressue, County Attorney, Rob Helmick, Senior Planner, Karin Madson, Planner II, Samantha Mott, Planner II, Clint Jones, Engineering Department, Eric Tracy, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Health Department, and Jill Wilson, Recording Secretary. 

 

The Planning Commission went on a site visit to Boutique Event Center Special Review, Global Village Location and Extent, Redeemer Church Amended Special Review, and West Vine Outfall Project Location and Extent.

 

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 MAY 08, 2013 MEETING:   MOTION by Commissioner Wallace approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Dougherty.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE MAY 15, 2013 MEETING:   MOTION by Commissioner Wallace approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Dougherty.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:

None.

 

CONSENT ITEMS:

 

ITEM #1  WEST VINE OUTFALL PROJECT LOCATION AND EXTENT #13-Z1912 :   Ms. Madson provided background information on the request for improvements to provide flood mitigation and water quality improvement for the West Vine Stormwater Basin located north of Vine Drive to the Poudre River, west of Shields Street.

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approve the West Vine Outfall Project Location and Extent, file #13-Z1912, subject to the following condition:

 

1.   Applicant must obtain all identified permits and permissions as discussed in the application materials and referral comments.

 

Commissioner Dougherty seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Dougherty, Gerrard, Jensen, Miller, Wallace, Zitti and Chairman Glick voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

ITEM #2  REDEEMER CHURCH AMENDED SPECIAL REVIEW #13-Z1911 :   Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request to develop a columbarium and prayer garden for up to 1000 crypts adjacent to the church on Greenstone Drive, south of Carpenter Road.  He noted that no cremation would occur on site, and the facility would be available for only members of the church, not the public.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked about traffic.

 

Mr. Helmick stated that there would not be an increase in traffic.

 

Commissioner Jensen asked about the timeframe of building the crypts.

 

He stated that it was 15-20 years for the full build out of the 1,000 crypts.

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the Redeemer Church Amended Special Review, file #13-Z1911, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, 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 Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Redeemer Lutheran Church Special Review Modification file # 13-Z1911 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 Redeemer Lutheran Church Special Review Modification.

 

3.    Failure to comply with any conditions of the Special Review approval may result in reconsideration of the use and possible revocation of the approval by the Board of Commissioners

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

5.    In the event the applicant fails to comply with any conditions of approval or otherwise fails to use the property consistent with the approved 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 a 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 the terms of this Special Review approval, applicant agrees to pay all expenses incurred by County including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees.

 

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 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.

 

8.    Provide the drainage information requested by the Engineering Department prior to and as a part of any site development or construction.  This may take the form of a Development Construction Permit or at the time of any building permits. 

 

Commissioner Jensen seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Dougherty, Gerrard, Jensen, Miller, Wallace, Zitti and Chairman Glick voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

ITEMS:

 

ITEM #3  GLOBAL VILLAGE LOCATION AND EXTENT #13-Z1913 :   Ms. Mott provided background information on the request for a State funded charter school, which would include grades K-8.  She explained that temporary modular units would be moved on to the adjacent lot to the west and be removed after one year.  She pointed out that the site was located in a FEMA designated 100-year floodplain and floodway.  State regulations prohibit critical facilities such as a charter schools to be located within a floodway.  She mentioned that Staff also had concerns with traffic and compatibility as it was anticipated that more traffic would occur with the proposed use.  In addition, the modular units would be placed next to a hotel, and a medical marijuana facility was within 850 feet of the proposed school.   Also, the area was located in a high crime area of the city.  The Development Services Team was recommending denial of the application and recommended that the Planning Commission denied the application and authorized an application for a hearing with the State Board of Education.

 

 

 

Eric Tracy, Engineering Department, explained that the state had adopted regulations, which Larimer County was in the process of adopting.  However, the current land use code had regulations regarding floodplains.  He contacted the Colorado Water Conservation Board who remarked that if the State were to issue a building permit within the floodway without showing a rise then it would be a violation of federal regulation and could jeopardize the entire State’s ability to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program.   The Larimer County Land Use Code regulated that a school was not an allowed use within a floodway overlay zone.  A variance had not been taken to the Flood Review Board; as a result, the Engineering Department could not support the use within the floodway.

 

Commissioner Gerrard asked about the water levels and the modulars.

 

Mr. Tracy explained that they were looking at displacement in water conveyance.  If there was an obstruction in the floodplain and there was movement of the water causing an obstruction, it could cause a rise in base flood elevation.  It was not volume it was conveyance.

 

Commissioner Dougherty asked if Poudre Fire Authority commented on the application.

 

Ms. Mott replied that the application was not referred to them.

 

Commissioner Jensen asked about the flood analysis report submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Tracy stated that he received the report that morning from Northern Engineering, which he quickly read through.  He was not in a position to state whether it was safe or not as he had not had the opportunity to review the report in detail.  The National Flood Insurance Program often stated that it only took 6 inches of water flowing at a high velocity to sweep one off their feet.  He did not know what it would take to impact a child.

 

Commissioner Gerrard asked if the proposal would effect Larimer County’s relationship with  FEMA.

 

Mr. Tracy stated that if the county was issuing a building permit FEMA would require that it be shown that it was not causing a rise.  The State would be issuing the permit for the proposed application. 

 

Dustin Jones, applicant, introduced the next speaker.

 

Terry Gogerty, Global Village Academy, stated that it was a regional program, which offered several educational opportunities.  In considering the location of the school site he had found that a majority of arrests in the area were DUI related and was interested to find out more information.  He showed a video about Global Village Academy.  He stated that there was not a threat to the children or to the safety of the school.

 

Mr. Jones stated that approximately 2/3 of the school population would be bused to the site.  At full build out, they would be lower then the capacity of 500 vehicles. 

 

 

 

 

Aaron Cvar, Northern Engineering, stated that he did the flood analysis.  The issue was if the modulars would cause a rise.  He pointed out that the modulars would be in the shadow of the building in front, the hotel.  They would be in the conveyance shadow and in a zone of very little velocity.  In addition, the modulars would be raised 30 inches on cinder block foundations.  As a result, the only obstruction that the modulars would present, apart from them being in a conveyance shadow, would be the cinder block foundations.  Based on his modeling, he was fairly confident in producing a no-rise study /analysis. 

 

Mr. Jones clarified that the modulars would only be on site for up to six months.

 

Mr. Cvar stated that there was a flood zone of 6-12” in the area of the modulars, and the modulars were going to be 30” high.

 

Chairman Glick asked when the modulars would be in place.

 

Mr. Jones stated that the school was scheduled to open August 18, 2013. 

 

Commissioner Miller asked where the outdoor playground would be located.

 

Mr. Jones stated that after the modulars were removed, the play area would be built in that location.

 

Commissioner Miller noted that the existing building was in a depth of greater than 18 inches in some areas.

 

Mr. Cvar explained that there was a low lying area to the back of the building but the actual floor was raised up.

 

Mr. Jones stated that it would be a catalyst for redevelopment in the area.  Also, the concerns from Larimer County had been addressed, particularly the one related to traffic as buses would be utilized. 

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that even with the busing there would be 500 trips a day to and from the site.

 

Mr. Gogerty remarked that they were working off of an average of 1.7 students per family, which would make 150 cars coming in and out of the property a day at build out.

 

Commissioner Gerrard brought up the point that the busing situation could change and all students might have to be taken to the site by cars.

 

Bill Bethke, stated that they were working with another school to work out the busing.  He explained that transportation had been a part of the plan for the school , and they would be expected to provide public transporation.

 

Commissioner Jensen asked what the existing infrastructure could hold in terms of vehicles and traffic.

 

 

Mr. Bethke stated that they did not have the original traffic study for the site.  It was once a office building occupied by as many as 500 people.  Therefore, they assumed that the traffic for the facility had been significant.

 

Mr. Tracy stated that if 700 students, 1/3 of them being transported, with the assumption of 1.7 students per vehicle, there would be 137 vehicles transporting the students.  The vehicles would come and go in the morning and afternoon, which would give a total of 548 trips per day.  If no busing, with the same assumptions of 700 students and 1.7 students per vehicle, it would make 411 vehicles making 4 total trips to and from the site, with a total of 1647 trips per day.  He mentioned that the use would also have peak traffic use and would not be a constant flow of traffic spread out throughout the day.  It would all be in the morning for a time period and again in the afternoon.  All of the traffic would be condensed between two peaks per day.

 

Mr. Lafferty pointed out that the parking to the west was only put in about 10 years ago.  It was not used by the previous use of the building.  The area of the site had some very challenging transportation movement systems along Mulberry and had a challenging intersection in front of it.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Nate Heckel, worked for the building owner at 3828 E Mulberry, stated that the last use was a call center.  The lot behind the hotel was used for parking for that call center.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Jensen pointed out that the County was working on the crime issues in that area and wondered what the future of that area was perceived as.

 

Ms. Mott stated that the statistics were from January to the present.

 

Commissioner Zitti pointed out that it was a use not allowed in the floodplain.  He stated that the busing issue could go away at any time.  He stated that there would be condensed traffic times, which would be a heavy flow.  He also mentioned that it was in a crime area and had concerns that there were no areas to recreate for the children.

 

Commissioner Miller disclosed that he had a family friend that was involved with the charter school and recused himself from the hearing.

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that traffic in that area was bad.  She felt that a school in that location was incompatible.

 

Commissioner Dougherty stated that it was not a great location, and he did not feel that it would rejuvenate the area.  He also could not get past the issue of the location being in the floodway.  He stated that Poudre Fire Authority had a maximum allowable depth on a dedicated fire lane of 6 inches for fire apparatuses to get in to a property.  He found it to be a threat to the children and that it was a premature application.

 

Commissioner Gerrard agreed with the comments.  He wondered how they could approve a school in an area that was in a floodway and was not allowed.  He also pointed out that the intersection was a mess.  He agreed that the application was mature to bring forward.

 

Chairman Glick had concerns with the location and pointed out that most child crimes were crimes of opportunity.  He agreed that it was not compatible.  He asked about the requirement to go before the State Board of Education.

 

Bill Ressue, County Attorney, explained that in the event that the request is denied by the Planning Commission and the applicant decided to continue and build regardless of that outcome, the County had the ability to appeal and ask the State Board of Education to review it.  The County would not have to participate in a hearing with the Board of Education.  The Planning Commission could trigger a review by the State Board of Education, who would then take a look at the location and the concerns and would then have the authority to allow the project to move forward or not.

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission denial of the Global Village Academy Location and Extent, file #13-Z1913, and that the Planning Commission authorizes an application for a hearing with  the State Board of Education.

 

Commissioner Gerrard seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Dougherty, Gerrard, Jensen, Wallace, Zitti and Chairman Glick voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

 

ITEM #4  BOUTIQUE EVENT CENTER SPECIAL REVIEW #12-Z1885 :   Mr. Whitley provided background information on the request Special Review approval for a Community Hall/Event Center & a Resort Lodge/Rental Cabins in the O-Open Zoning District located at 4623 & 4625 Rist Canyon Road; located south of Rist Canyon Road approximately 300 feet west of County Road 23E.  The request also included an appeal to Section 8.6.3.C.1 of the Land Use Code Regarding Paving of the Parking and Access.  The applicant was proposing to convert some existing structures on the properties to cabins that could be rented.  It was proposed to have up to 22 overnight guests and operate from May 1 to December 31 with a total of 48 events per year.  The cabins would be available to rent during that time period also.  There would be a limit of 109 guests and staff members to be on site at any one time.  The hours of operation would be 4-10 p.m. on Fridays, 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. on Saturdays, and 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Sundays.  The applicant was proposing to build a 49 lot parking lot, which they were requesting an appeal from the paving standards and asked that the parking lot and access road be recycled asphalt.  He noted that a neighborhood meeting was conducted where three neighbors attended who had some concerns with noise.  He stated that a noise study was conducted, and it concluded that it could meet the noise ordinance as it pertained to amplified music; however, the study did not include crowd noise.  He noted that noise mitigation measures were being proposed by the applicant.  He stated that the homes on the property were served by a septic system, and the proposal would require an expansion of that system.  He noted that the there was a State requirement to provide notification to mineral interest owners; however, the applicant failed to do so.  Due to this, the applicant would be required to provide that notice prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing.  He explained the appeal and showed several event centers in the area and spoke to the

 

paving requirements of each.  He stated that the Development Services Team was recommending denial of the appeal.  He mentioned that the LaPorte Area Plan Advisory Committee had a 4-4 vote regarding the paving appeal.  He noted that a letter was received from the Tapestry House in opposition of the paving appeal as they felt that the applicant should be required to pave their access and parking.  The Development Services Team was recommending approval of the Special Review.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked what the anticipated use of the cabins would be.

 

Mr. Whitley stated that the cabins could be rented any day from May 1 to December 31.  They could be rented to people who were not holding an event at the site.

 

Allan and Emily Leibow, applicants, pointed out the different location of the proposed events on the site.  He pointed out that there would be a fence around all of the event areas.  He showed where the lodging on the site would occur.  He stated that they requested an appeal to the paving standard.  One reason was due to financial aspects.  Another was due to the aesthetic appeal and nature of the area.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked how many guests could rent the overnight accommodations.

 

Mr. Leibow stated a maximum of 22.   The goal was to allow guests of the events to have a place to stay but also open it up to others who were not having an event on the property.  There would not be more than 109 people on site.

 

Commissioner Gerrard asked how the cost of paving was estimated.

 

Mr. Leibow stated that they had obtained three contractors bids for the job.  It would cost around $80,000 or more.  The cost for not paving would be around $8500 to $10,000.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Neighbor, stated that she was looking forward to seeing the proposal being approved.  She felt that no pavement would fit with the community and aesthetics. 

 

Mary Jo Hoffman, stated that aesthetically it would be better not to pave the parking lot.  She rented the property where the parking lot would be located and felt that the area was high enough not to cause drainage issues if not paved.

 

Bobbie Randolph, Tapestry House, asked what the standard would be if it was just a lodging use.  She pointed out that her property was very similar but they had to pave.  She asked that the applicants be held to the same standard as the Tapestry House. 

 

Brian Cooke, friend of applicant, spoke to the character of the applicants and their plans.  He supported the applicants and felt that they had a good vision for the property.

 

Nancy Hillbrook, property manager of Tamasag, pointed out that their property was paved.  The owner, David Wood, had concerns with trespassing and noise.  They wondered how they could control the trespassing issues.  The owner had the idea of the applicants’ possibly fencing the property.

 

Patty Halderman, neighbor, remarked that there would be a shortage of parking spaces as staff would take up some of the parking lot.  She was concerned that cars would overflow on to the road.  She stated that the Jackson Ditch ran by her property and was concerned with possible guests going in the ditch and causing a liability to her. 

 

Marianne Glascott, neighbor, agreed with the parking issue.  She also had concerns with bicyclists on the road as there were a lot in the area.  She stated that noise was also a concern.  She remarked that she was in support as long as safety issues were addressed.

 

Mr. Leibow stated that a noise study was done with a sound engineer. 

 

Doug Ryan, Health Department, stated that the sound that was produced from the speakers was lower than the peak sound from the traffic that passed on the road. 

 

Mrs. Leibow stated that they had not completed any sound mitigation yet.

 

Mr. Leibow stated that they wanted to work with their neighbors.  He stated that they had a fence all along the Jackson Ditch on their property. 

 

Mrs. Leibow stated that they were also concerned with noise and did not want to disrupt their neighbors and asked that they speak to them if noise became an issue.  She stated that their entire pasture was barbed wire fence and pointed out that the parking lot was on the opposite side of the Tamasag property.

 

Mr. Leibow spoke to the parking lot spaces and number of guests/people on the property.  He stated that Tapestry House had around 55 parking spaces and could accommodate more guests than they were proposing.  He remarked that there were a lot of hoops to jump through for a person who wanted to start a business.  He also pointed out that he felt the paving standard should be examined if the paving standard kept coming up with applicants.

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the Boutique Event Center Special Review, file #12-Z1885, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, 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 Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Boutique Event Center Special Review, File #12-Z1885 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 Boutique Event Center Special Review.

 

3.   No more than 22 overnight guests shall be accommodated on-site.

 

4.   A maximum of 109 attendees, guests and service personnel shall be allowed on the property during events.

 

5.   The operation on the site shall be conducted in compliance with the noise mitigation measures described in the applicants’ project description.

 

6.   The Event Center shall only operate from May 1st to December 31st. 

 

7.   The home lodge and cabins shall only be available for  rent during the May 1st to December 31st operating season. Cabins may be rented seven days a week and independent from events on the property.

 

8.   A total of 48 events per year are allowed. 

 

9.   The hours of operation for events shall be limited to 4:00 pm to 10:00 pm on Fridays, 9:00am to 10:00pm on Saturdays and 9:00 am to 8:00pm on Sundays with an additional hour before and after those hours for setup and cleanup.  No events are allowed Monday through Thursday.

10.   Failure to comply with any conditions of the Special Review approval may result in reconsideration of the use and possible revocation of the approval by the Board of Commissioners.

 

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

 

12.   In the event the applicant fails to comply with any conditions of approval or otherwise fails to use the property consistent with the approved 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 a 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 the terms of this Special Review approval, applicant agrees to pay all expenses incurred by County including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees.

 

13.   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.

 

14.   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.

 

Commissioner Miller seconded the Motion.

 

 

 

Commissioners’ Dougherty, Gerrard, Jensen, Miller, Wallace, Zitti and Chairman Glick voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

Commissioner Miller felt that paving was not necessary.

 

Commissioner Zitti agreed that aesthetically it did not make sense to pave the parking.  However, for consistency, he would vote in denial of the request but felt that the issue should be reevaluated by the County and Planning Department.  There was a lack of consistency with the Land Use Code.

 

Commissioner Gerrard sympathized with business owners.  He stated that he had to follow what the Land Use Code standards required.  He agreed that the paving requirement should be examined at a worksession.

 

Commissioner Dougherty agreed with many of the comments.  He stated that he would deny the request for the appeal.

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners denial of the Boutique Event Center Special Review appeal to Section 8.6.3.C.1 of the Land Use Code, file #12-Z1885. 

 

Commissioner Dougherty seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner Miller voted against the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Dougherty, Gerrard, Jensen, Wallace, Zitti and Chairman Glick voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-1

 

 

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

 

ADJOURNMENT:   There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 9:51 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.

 

 

_______________________________                      ______________________________

Scott Glick, Chairman                                                            Nancy Wallace, Secretary

 

 

EXHIBIT A

 

 

LOT 3, BIG HORN RIDGE (20040025137)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

 

 

TRACTS 1 & 2, OWENS MLD NO. 01- S1810 (2001097693)