MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

 

Monday, July 9, 2007

 

LAND USE HEARING

(# 89 & # 90)

 

the Board of County Commissioners met at 3:00 p.m. with Rob Helmick, Principal planner.  Chair Pro-Tem Rennels presided and Commissioner Gibson was present.  Also present were:  Karin Madson, Samantha Mott, and Matt Lafferty, Planning Department; Matt Johnson, and Christie Coleman, Engineering Department; Bill Ressue, Assistant County Attorney; and Kristen Romary, Deputy Clerk.

 

Chair Pro-Tem Rennels opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance and asked for public comment on the County Budget and the Land Use Code.  No one from the audience addressed the Board regarding these topics.  Chair Pro-Tem Rennels then explained that Items 1 through 2 were on consent, and would not be discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience.

 

 

1.  AMENDED PLAT AND EASEMENT VACATION OF LOT 1 EHRLICH PLANNED LAND DIVISION - #07-S2697:  This is a request for an amended plat to reconfigure the building envelope on Lot 1 in the Ehrlich Planned Land Division.  The new building envelope will extend 10 feet further to the south.  The lot currently has a 20 foot overhead power line easement to the south of the building envelope.  That easement will be vacated in conjunction with this amended plat. 

 

There have been no objections to this proposal by surrounding neighbors.  Additionally, the following Larimer County agencies, along with the City of Loveland Fire Prevention Bureau, have stated that they have no objections to this proposal:  The Larimer County Department of Health and Environment; the Larimer County Engineering Department; and Dale Greer, Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering Department.

 

The proposed plat amendment to reconfigure the building envelope on Lot 1 of the Ehrlich Planned Land Division and vacate the 20 foot overhead power line easement will not adversely affect any neighboring properties or any county agency.  The Amended Plat will not result in any additional lots.  Staff finds that this request meets the requirements of Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the Amended Plat of Lot 1 of the Ehrlich Planned Land Division (File #02-S2047) and Easement Vacation, subject to the following conditions and authorization for the Chair to sign the plat when the conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature:

 

1.   All conditions of approval shall be met and the Final Plat recorded by January 9, 2008, or this approval shall be null and void.

2.   Prior to recordation of the Final Plat the applicant shall revise the title, the certification of ownership and dedication, and the Surveyor’s Certification so it does not include the current File number.

3.   Prior to recordation of the Final Plat the applicant shall revise the plat to include a note that the lot is subject to the same restrictions, covenants, and regulations as set forth in the plat of record for the Ehrlich Planned Land Division (File #02-S2047).

 

 

2.  SMALL MALL CONDOMINIUM MAP - #07-S2699:  The subject request proposes to formally establish, by county Commissioner approval, the Small Mall Condominiums.  Prior to this application, in 2004, the Small Mall LLC established a condominium for the property, but did so without the benefit of the required County Commissioner approval.  Therefore, to validate the Condominium of this property the applicant is requesting approval by the Board of County Commissioners as required by the Land Use Code.

 

The subject condominium application proposes to create 13 condominium units from the existing building situated on the south side of East Mulberry Street, just west of Timberline Road.  The building in question was built in 1977 and has been used as a multi-tenant commercial building since its inception.  Now the owners of the property want to create an opportunity for separate ownership and use of the units within the existing building.

 

A condominium application requires the applicant to submit a condominium plat illustrating all the common elements such as parking and open areas, as well as the Condominium Declarations, disclosing the maintenance responsibility and use of property around and common to the condominium units.  These required items have been submitted to the Planning Department for review and processing.  The review of the submitted material reveals appropriate documentation of the common elements and adequately described and assigns maintenance responsibility of the property.

 

Parking areas, landscape areas and the buildings for this development site are in place and are properly noted in the Condominium Declarations as common elements that are to be maintained by the property owners association.  Also, all utilities serving this site are in place and functional.

 

Staff recommends approval of the Small Mall Condominium Map with authorization for the Chair to sign the plat when the following conditions are met and the plat is presented for signature:

 

1.   All conditions of approval shall be met and the Final Condominium Plat recorded by January 6, 2008, or the approval shall be null and void.

2.   The owners shall resolve any Building Code issues, including life safety issues surrounding the conversion of the building use/occupancy type with the Building Department.

 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve Items 1 through 2, as listed on the Consent Agenda and outlined above. 

Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

3.  ROCKY RIDGE ESTATES REZONING - #06-Z1626:  This is a request to Rezone the subject properties from O-Open, FA-Farming and conditional FA-1 Farming to FA-1 Farming.  This request accompanies the preliminary plat review for Rocky Ridge Estates (File #06-S2535).

 

Ms. Madson explained that the application was heard by the Planning Commission at their June 20, 2007, hearing.  The item was initially on the consent agenda as staff and the applicant were in agreement with the recommendation for conditional approval and there was little neighbor interest.  A letter of opposition was received the day of the hearing, which was presented to the Planning Commission. The item moved to the discussion agenda by the Planning Commission to discuss concerns related to density and design.

 

Jim Martel, representative for the applicant, said that the applicant agrees with staff and believes the zoning is appropriate for the area.  At this time Chair Pro-Tem Rennels opened the hearing for public comment.  No one from the audience addressed the Board. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Rocky Ridge Estates Rezoning (File #06-Z1626).

Motion carried 2-0.

 

 

4.  ROCKY RIDGE ESTATES CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT - #06-S2535:      This is a request for Preliminary Plat approval for a 52 lot Conservation Development (Single Family Residential) on 275 acres, of which approximately 270 are able to be developed; an appeal to Section 8.14.2.S. of the Land Use Code for relief from connectivity requirements; and an appeal to Section 8.14.2.Q of the Land Use Code for relief from maximum dead end access requirements.

 

The Development Services Team recommends approval of the appeal to Section 8.14.2.S. of the Land Use Code for relief from connectivity requirements; approval of the appeal to Section 8.14.2.Q of the Land Use Code for relief from maximum dead end access requirements; and approval of the Rocky Ridge Estates Conservation Development (File #06-S2535) subject to the following conditions:

 

1.    The Final Plat(s) shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the Rocky Ridge Estates Conservation Development (File #06-S2535) 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 Rocky Ridge Estates Conservation Development.

2.    The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings:  Poudre R-1 school fee, Larimer County fees for county and regional Transportation Capital Expansion, and Larimer County Regional Park Fees (in lieu of dedication).  The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply. 

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

4.    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.

5.    Prior to submittal of a Final Plat application the applicant shall supply documentation from the Office of the State Engineer that indicates that the East Larimer Water District has adequate water to supply the development.

6.    Easements for public sewer, should it become available, shall be provided on the Final Plat(s). 

7.    The applicant shall execute a Disclosure Notice to be recorded with the Final Plat.  This notice will provide information to all lot owners of the conditions of approval and special costs or fees associated with the approval of this project.  The notice shall include, but is not limited to; rural and agricultural issues, fees, building envelopes, fire department requirements, requirements for engineered footings and foundations, requirements and costs associated with engineered septic systems, information that lots above elevation 5170 feet may require individual pressure pumps to insure adequate water pressure, the need for passive radon mitigation, and the issues raised in the review and or related to compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Code.

8.    The following language shall be included as a plat note and in the Disclosure Notice: “Preliminary soil testing indicates that engineer designed on-site sewer systems will be necessary to compensate for shallow bedrock on many of the lots in this development.  Perspective lot owners are advised to research the issue of sewer system design and permitting as part of their property research.  Determination of the appropriate location for a sewer system needs to be coordinated closely in the planned design and location of the residence.”

9.    Fire protection for the development shall consist of hydrants, residential sprinkler systems for lots located on cul-de-sacs exceeding 660 feet in length and all weather surface emergency accesses and temporary cul-de-sac.  The Final Plat(s) for the development shall included these elements as outlined in the memos from Carie Dann, Fire Protection Technician, Poudre Fire Authority, dated March 21, 2007, and May 18, 2007.

10.    The Final Plat(s) for the development shall address the comments and requirements of the Engineering Department as outlined in the memos from Matt Johnson dated March 8, 2007, and October 9, 2006.

11.    A final wetland mitigation plan shall be submitted with the Final Plat(s) in which wetland disturbance in planned.  This plan shall include a detailed timetable for construction of the mitigation, the name and qualifications of the contractor carrying out the mitigation and the cost of the mitigation.

12.   The Final Plat applications shall address the irrigation concerns from:

a.   Water Supply and Storage as outlined in their letter dated February 12, 2007,

b.   Bob and Norma Dent as outlined in their letter dated February 8, 2007, and

c.   North Poudre Irrigation Company as outlined in their letter dated February 14, 2007.

13.    The first Final Plat application shall include a draft emergency access agreement with the owners of the Eagle Lake development, which has been approved by those homeowners.  Prior to recordation of a Final Plat the applicant shall provide signed Emergency Access Easements with Eagle Lake Investments and the homeowners of the Eagle Lake development.

14.   The Final Plat application shall address the concerns and requirements of Xcel Energy, as outlined in the letter from Alan C. Morganfield, dated April 30, 2007.

 

Deanne Frederickson, of the Frederickson Group LLC, presented the preliminary plan to the Board.  She also outlined aspects of utilities, on-site septic, traffic study, and potential HOA documents. 

 

At this time, Chair Pro-Tem Rennels opened the hearing for public comment.  A resident had several questions regarding the location of the turn lane and expansion of the road.  Mr. Ryan also took time to explain the use of individual septic systems.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the appeal to Section 8.14.2.S and the appeal to Section 8.14.2.Q.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Rocky Ridge Estates Conservation Development with the conditions recommended by the Development Services Team.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

 

5.  RESERVE AT MOUNTAIN VIEW APPEAL - #07-G0134:  This is a request for an appeal to the requirements of Section 5.3.7.A.5 of the Larimer County Land Use Code, provisions to apply for bonus density in a Conservation Development (CD).  The applicants have submitted an application for an appeal to seek relief from the provisions of Section 5.3.7.A.5 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.  The specific relief sought is to allow the property to be divided/developed under the County regulations for a Conservation Development.  As a property zoned AP-Airport the CD process is available, however the bonus density provision of the Larimer County Land Use Code which are available to properties zoned FA and E are not available.

 

The applicant suggests in their materials that the property should be treated similarly to properties zoned FA, rather than the somewhat more restrictive AP.  This is based on the applicant’s contention that this meets the sprit of the code.  Additionally, the applicants have submitted for review two sketch plans for this site.  Both plans submitted include development at the density proposed with this appeal.  This has allowed some preliminary evaluation of the proposal for issues related to design and compatibility.

 

This site is located between two existing developments, Eagle Ranch and Mountain Range Shadows and has been an active farm.  Other influences on this site include that it is adjacent to the Fort Collins GMA, as recently expanded into the Fossil Creek CPA, and it is adjacent to and possibly benefited by the joint planning effort of the City of Fort Collins and the Town of Windsor regarding the Hwy. 392/I-25 Interchange.  Specifically, this site has been identified in transportation planning work as the alignment of the connection between Byrd Ave. in Loveland and Carpenter Road.  This connection was identified in the Crossroads Area Transportation plan, and depending upon the process may serve to in part replace the through connection which is the frontage road. 

 

As a farm there are few resources on the site, except agricultural potential. A significant wetland area exists to the north and west of this site adjacent to and a part of Eagle Ranch and properties to the north of this site.  If a Conservation Development were to be developed here there would be little potential for preserving agricultural land in any productive form and the environmental resources on site are limited.  The standards which would be a part of an evaluation of a density bonus and which are the basis of how this application might result in an application for a Conservation Development resulting in a bonus density, are the importance of the open space and impacts on water quality.  The net result of the application, which is in the Region between the City of Fort Collins and Loveland, would need to be evaluated whether a cluster of the “same size” but more units results in a benefit to the community from the standpoint of open space and impact on water quality.   Clearly a Conservation Development is the preferred pattern of development in the “corridor”, the applicants have proposed such a plan with 80% open area.  The evaluation of those criterions must be at the Preliminary Plat stage not here.  Based upon prior conversations with both the Board of County Commissioners and the Larimer County Planning Commission we believe that these will be tough to meet. 

 

The decision to exclude the AP district from the density bonus provisions was conscious at the adoption of the code.  The AP district was intended to provide protection to the airport and its environs and increasing density through a process, the GDP, a bonus was considered.  In examining this request it seems to be a better argument, from the staff perspective, not to suggest that the zoning or provisions of the code are in error but rather the process, Conservation Development, with its specific standards, is less appropriate to this site.  Processing a subdivision on this with the required General Development Plan (because of the increased density over 2.29 acres/unit) as required by the code, would provide the opportunity to evaluate the specific benefits of the project rather than attempting to shoe horn those benefits into the specific language of the Conservation Development process. 

 

This appeal was referred to a number of nearby property owners several of whom have contacted this office to inquire about the request and its intent.  Staff has advised these interested owners about the application and would note that while most have only had general questions about the process and proposal there have been both those who have indicated support for maintaining the density or allowing it to increase.  Other concerns have been with design and road alignment, issues addressed if an application is submitted for a preliminary plat. 

 

The Development Services Team believes that there is significant public benefit to be derived from the roadway connections that will occur with a project such as the applicants have proposed on this site.  In an effort to encourage the private participation in the provision of these roadways the staff believes that an appeal to allow a subdivision on the site with the required General Development Plan as allowed in the AP zone district, rather than a Conservation Development could be supported.  A project plan similar to those submitted for sketch plan providing for the roadway connections and proposed a 20% higher density in a clustered plan has merits and meets a specific public need.  Further the staff finds that the appeal meets the standards regarding an exception to the Conservation Development.

 

The Development Service Team recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed appeal, Reserve at Mountain View Appeal (File #07-G0140), requiring a General Development plan and subdivision on the site consistent with the representations in the appeal and the sketch plans reviewed.  This approval will expire in three years from the date of approval, if no application is received

 

Josh Rowland, representative for the applicant, said that it makes sense for the land to be zoned AG-Agriculture, since the surrounding area is also AG.  He explained that the current AP-Airport zoning is too restrictive.

 

Chair Pro-Tem Rennels opened the hearing for public comment, and no one from the audience addressed the Board.  Some discussion among the Board ensued.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the requested appeal as recommended by the Development Services Team.  

Motion carried 2-0.

 

 

6.  FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN MONITORING FEE PROPOSAL:  This is a request for approval of a new Forest Management Plan Monitoring Program and approval of fees to fund the program.  Starting in 2004, a work team made up of staff from the Rural Land Use Center, the Planning Department, and the Forestry Program (now in Parks and Open Lands) was formed.  The team’s charge was to explore the feasibility of setting up a self-sustaining (fee-based) program for periodic monitoring of forest management plans and, if requested, review of proposed plans.  These forest management plans are required for forested residual land and other lands associated with various county-approved land development projects.  Forest management plans are designed to promote long-term forest health and control wildfire hazards associated with excessive fuel build-up. 

 

Nine Rural Land Use Process projects would be eligible for the proposed forest monitoring program.  A half-dozen other eligible land-use project approvals were administered by the Planning Department.  Staff anticipates that there will be more projects that would qualify.  It will not apply to any other forested lands in Larimer County unless a landowner voluntarily requests assistance.

 

One significant issue that the team discussed was whether or not an already-approved project could be required to participate in the Forest Monitoring Program.  Ms. Jeannine Haag, Assistant County Attorney, said that the County cannot force owners of projects that already have approval to participate in the new program, even though the project owners may be required to provide periodic forest management plan monitoring reports.  In these instances, field observations can be performed and reports prepared by other qualified forest professionals.  However, in the future we are able to require participation as part of the approval process, if the Commissioners decide that is the way to go.

 

The proposed Forest Monitoring Program would be staffed initially by Dave Lentz, the County Forester.  A fee will be charged for his services, as listed below.  Mr. Lentz has the expertise required for this activity.  He also works closely with the Larimer County Weed Control District and has a working knowledge of the issues surrounding noxious and invasive weeds. 

 

PROPOSED FEE STRUCTURE:

 

·  Inspection fees will be $350.00/inspection.  Inspection time exceeding 8 hours will be billed at a rate of $50.00/hr.

·  Forest Monitoring Plan review (if required) will be billed at $50.00/hr.

·  Annual or periodic (depending on the requirements of the specific plan) monitoring inspections will be required until forest thinning plan is complete.  It is anticipated that yearly/periodic inspections will be needed to verify that forest health is maintained and to provide help in meeting the landowners’ forest management goals.

·  Fees will need to be adjusted or reviewed periodically to reflect actual costs.

·  The fee is to be collected for the entire monitoring period up front as a part of Final Development approval. 

 

The Team believes that this Forest Monitoring Program addresses a significant need in Larimer County.  It promises to help landowners improve the health of forested land throughout the County.  There is also an opportunity for collaboration with other government and private entities that are interested in forest health and renewable/sustainable energy generation.

 

Mr. Helmick outlined the fee scheduled as listed above.  He explained that any approval prior to September 1, 2008, does not need to apply to the program.  Chair Pro-Tem Rennels explained that the plan is for monitoring residual land to examine safety.

 

The program team discussed two likely options prior to the hearing today.  Those options include:

 

1. Make this program optional on the part of the landowner:  Periodic forest management plan monitoring would still be required by a qualifying project’s Development Agreement.  However, use of this proposed county service would not be mandatory—it would be solely an option.  The landowner could always retain the services of another qualified forestry professional to perform the required monitoring to verify that the management plan is being implemented.
2. Make this program mandatory:  The Team also considered using a model similar to our current building inspection system.  In this situation, the building plans are prepared by a qualified private designer and reviewed by county staff for compliance to code; the structure is then built by the owner or a private contractor.  In turn, the work is reviewed by a county building inspector to ensure compliance with the approved construction plans and codes.  Using this analogy, the forest management plan would be  prepared by a qualified forest professional (either private or State Forest Service), implemented by the landowner and/or a private forestry contractor, and then monitored for compliance by a qualified county employee (Dave Lentz, the County Forester or his counterpart) through this new program.

 

The other component of the mandatory program is to collect the fee up front at the time of final approval.  This, for example, for a 10 year plan would be a $3500 total to be held by the County and paid out as inspections were conducted. 

 

The team is recommending that the second option be adopted—that the program be mandatory for all new qualifying projects where forest management plans and periodic monitoring is required by a county-required Development Agreement.  This is in keeping with the Assistant County Attorney’s opinion that the county can require that monitoring of the forest plan implementation be performed by the county as part of the approval process—not for existing projects; only for new ones—if the Commissioners decide that is the way to go.

 

Commissioner Gibson stated that he believes residents should have the option to hire a private inspector if they can get a quote for less than the county would charge, or choose to utilize county staff in a timely manner.  Mr. Helmick explained that inspection responsibility is placed on county staff, and there is no way to monitor compliance, if other sources are used.  He said that in order to approve both of these options, he would need to consult staff of the policy change.  Chair Pro-Tem Rennels suggested that this item be tabled to give staff more time to discuss the different project implementation options. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioner table the Forest Management Plan Monitoring Fee Proposal to Tuesday, September 4, 2007, at 3:00 p.m.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

 

The meeting ended at 4:35 p.m.

 

 

LAND USE HEARING

(# 91)

 

The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 6:30 p.m. with Al Kadera, Planning Department.  Chair Pro-Tem Rennels presided and Commissioner Gibson was present.  Also present were:  Sean Wheeler, and Jill Bennett, Planning Department; Bill Ressue, Assistant County Attorney; and Kristen Romary, Deputy Clerk.

 

 

1.  AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTYLAND USE CODE – RED FEATHER LAKES ZONE DISTRICT – #07-CA0070:  This is a request to add the Red Feather Lakes Business (RFLB) zone district to Sec. 4.1 of the Land Use Code; add new use descriptions applying only to the RFLB district to Sections 0.1 Definitions and 4.3 Use Descriptions and Conditions; and to add the RFLB zone to provisions in Section 10. Signs and 16. Commercial Mobile Radio Service Facilities.

 

Many existing non-residential uses in the Red Feather Lakes Plan Area are either non-conforming uses or have very specific or restrictive use requirements that limit flexibility in the ways that owners can respond to changing community needs.  The Red Feather Lakes Area Plan, adopted August 2006, recommends that the county initiate a rezoning of existing businesses within the Plan area, and also consider creation of a new zone district designed specifically to meet the needs of the Red Feather Lakes community. 

 

The Plan also notes that a goal for new development in the Village Center Area is to facilitate the affected property owners ability to work together to address common infrastructure needs, including public or community water and sewer and improved transportation facilities.  Approximately three-quarters of the potential properties to be rezoned are located in the Village Center, and providing increased flexibility for these owners may help encourage this process. 

 

The Planning Department has been working with business owners in Red Feather Lakes since the plan was adopted, first identifying the issues for business owners and then crafting a proposed new zone district to respond to unique community needs.  Some of the specific issues in the area include more than one principal structure on a lot, owner-occupied residential units on the same lot with non-residential uses, and setback issues on Main Street.

 

The proposed new zone is also designed to respond to some of the community issues that were discussed during the planning process.  Concerns about noise and maintaining the existing peaceful atmosphere of the area led to requirements about outside business activities.  New outside seating areas for bars and restaurants, as well as restaurant drive-in or drive-through facilities will require an additional case-by-case review process including public input, through the Minor Special Review process.

 

The Red Feather Lakes Planning Advisory Committee met on May 10, 2007, and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the Land Use Code.

 

Item 1.

 

The following new Section 4.1.23 will be added to the Land Use Code, creating the Red Feather Lakes Business zone district that is applicable only within the Red Feather Lakes Plan Area.  This zone district allows more than one principal structure on a property, and creates special setback and parking standards for lots fronting on Main Street between County Road 179 and Grand Drive, Red Feather Lakes.

 

4.1.23. RFLB-Red Feather Lakes Business

 

This zoning district may be applied only within the Red Feather Lakes Plan Area.

 

A.        Principal uses:

 

            Commercial

1.    Convenience store (R)

2.    Automobile service station (R)

3.    Carwash (R)

4.    General retail (R/S) – See section 4.3

5.    Professional office (R)

6.    Clinic (R)

7.    Personal service (R)

8.    Bar/tavern (R/MS) – See section 4.3

9.    Restaurant (R/MS) – See section 4.3

10.   Instructional facility (R)

 

            Agricultural

11.   Pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital (R/S) – See section 4.3

                       

            Institutional

12.   Church (R)

13.   Community hall (R)      

14.   Cultural institution (R/L)

15.   Sheriff/fire station (L)

16.   Child/elderly care center(S)

 

            Recreational

17.   Place of amusement or recreation (R/S) – See section 4.3

18.   Membership club/clubhouse (R)

 

            Accommodations

19.   Hotel/motel (R)

20.   Recreational vehicle park/campground (S)

21.   Resort lodge/resort cabins (R)

22.   Nursing home (S)

 

            Industrial

23.   Enclosed storage (S)

 

            Utilities

24.   Utility substation (L/S)

25.   Commercial mobile radio service (R/S) – see section 16

26.   Treatment plant (L/S)

27.   Water storage facility (L/S)

28.   Radio and television transmitter  (S)

 

            Transportation

29.   Parking lot/garage (MS)

 

B.         Lot, building and structure requirements:

            1.         Minimum lot size:

                        a.         100,000 square feet (2.3 acres) if a well or septic system is used.

                        b.         15,000 square feet ( 0.34 acres) if public water and sewer are used 

            2.         Minimum setbacks:

a.         Front yard – refer to section 8.17 for setbacks from highways and county roads.  The setback from an interior subdivision road or established public or private road must be 25 feet from the property line or from the nearest edge of the road easement, except for those lots fronting on Main Street between County Road 179 and Grand Drive, where the setback may be the lesser of 25 feet or the same setback established by an existing structure on the same side of the street in that block.

                        b.         Side yards – 5 feet

                        c.         Rear yards – 10 feet.

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

            3.         Maximum structure height – 40 feet.

            4.         Development is subject to Site Plan review – see section 6.0. [Note: site plan review is required prior to the acceptance of any building permit application for a nonresidential or multifamily use, or for a change in use of an existing nonresidential or multifamily structure.]

            5.         A parcel may be used for one or more principal buildings.

            6.         On-site parking is not required for non-residential uses fronting on Main Street between County Road 179 and Grand Drive.

 

Item 2. 

 

Three new principal uses are allowed in the RFLB-Red Feather Lakes zone district.  These new uses will be added to Section 0.1 Definitions and Section 4.3. Use Descriptions and Conditions.  The Zoning Table following the new Section 4.1.23 also needs to be amended to include the new zone district

 

0.1  Definitions

 

Bar/Tavern.  An establishment where the primary business is  providing or dispensing by the drink for on-site consumption of fermented malt beverages and/or malt, special malt, vinous or spirituous liquors, in which the sale of food products such as sandwiches and light snacks is secondary, and where music, live entertainment and/or dancing may be provided.

 

Cultural institution.  A public or non-profit institution displaying or preserving objects of interest in one or more of the arts or sciences, including libraries and museums.

 

Restaurant. An establishment where the principal business is the sale of food and beverages in a ready-to-consume state.  Fermented malt beverages, malt, special malt and vinous and spirituous liquors may be produced on the premises as an accessory use. 

 

4.3. Use Descriptions and Conditions

 

4.3.3. Commercial uses.

 

H. Restaurant. An establishment where the principal business is the sale of food and beverages in a ready-to-consume state.  Fermented malt beverages, malt, special malt and vinous and spirituous liquors may be produced on the premises as an accessory use. 

1.    An outdoor seating area or outdoor food service requires approval through the minor special review process.

2.    Drive-in or drive-through service facilities requires approval through the minor special review process.

 

I. Bar/Tavern.  An establishment where the primary business is  providing or dispensing by the drink for on-site consumption of fermented malt beverages and/or malt, special malt, vinous or spirituous liquors, in which the sale of food products such as sandwiches and light snacks is secondary, and where music, live entertainment and/or dancing may be provided.

1.    An outdoor seating area requires approval through the minor special review process.

2.    A bar/tavern cannot include any adult use.

 

4.3.4. Institutional uses.

 

O. Cultural institution.  A public or non-profit institution displaying or preserving objects of interest in one or more of the arts or sciences, including libraries and museums.

 

The new zone district allows a new accessory use, business accessory dwelling units, to provide housing for an owner, operator, caretaker or employee on the same lot as the business use.

 

4.3.10.  Accessory uses and structures.

 

G. Business accessory dwelling units.  A single-family dwelling unit for an owner, operator, caretaker or employee of the principal use or business located on the lot is allowed in the RFLB-Red Feather Lakes Business zoning district.

1.    One business accessory dwelling unit per lot is allowed.

2.    A minimum of one off-street parking space shall be provided for an accessory business dwelling unit containing eight hundred square feet of gross floor area or less and two off-street parking spaces for a unit greater than eight hundred square feet, in addition to the required parking for the principal use or business.

3.    The accessory dwelling unit shall be occupied only by the owner, operator, caretaker or an employee of the principal use, plus his or her immediate family.

4.    Site Plan approval is required.

 

Item 3.

 

The new zone district needs to be included in Section 10.0 Signs and Section 16.0 Commercial Mobile Radio Service Facilities as follows.

 

10.0 Signs

 

10.6 Prohibited signs.

 

The following signs are not allowed in any zoning district, except as specified below.

 

A. Rooftop signs, except in the RFLB-Red Feather Lakes Business district, where rooftop signs that extend no higher than the peak of the roof shall be allowed.

 

10.19 Definitions

 

Nonresidential districts.  The A-Accommodations, T-Tourist, B-Business, C-Commercial, I-Industrial, I-1 Industrial, RFLB-Red Feather Lakes Business, and areas of the AP-Airport and PD-Planned Development zoning districts approved for nonresidential uses.

 

16.0 Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CRMS) Facilities

 

 

TABLE 16.1.2.I

ANTENNA LOCATION REGULATIONS

 

Zoning District	Attached and Concealed (Stealth) Antennas	Antenna Tower (Temporary)	Antenna Towers (Microcells)	Antenna Towers (Other)
E and E-1 Estate; R, R-1 and R-2 Residential; M and M-1 Multiple-Family; RE and RE-1 Rural Estate; FO-1 Forestry; and PD Planned Development	P	Not permitted	(P<=30 feet high--a, b) SR<=30 feet high	Not permitted
FA and FA-1 Farming and FO Forestry	P	P<=40 feet high	(P<=30 feet high--a, b) (SR<=30 feet high	(P<=40 feet high--b) SR<=60 feet high--e) (S<=80 feet high--c, e)
A Accommodations and T Tourist	P	P<=40 feet high	(P<=30 feet high--a, b) SR<=30 feet high	(P<=40 feet high-b)
B Business; RFLB Red Feather Lakes Business	P	P<=40 feet high	P<=40 feet high	P<=40 feet high SR>40--80 feet high
C Commercial and I and I-1 Industrial	P	P<=40 feet high	P<=40 feet high	P<=60 feet high (P<=80 feet high--c) (P<=100 feet high--d) SR>60--120 feet high
O Open	P	P<=40 feet high	(P<=30 feet high--a, b) SR<=40 feet high	(P<=40 feet high--b) (SR<=160 feet high--e)
AP Airport	P	P<=30 feet high	P<=30 feet high	(P<=30 feet high--b)

P--Permitted by administrative review

SR--Permitted by special review special conditions

a--Permitted only when placed 200 feet or less from the right-of-way line of I-25 (east side of road); US 34; US 36; US 287 (east side of road); Colorado 7; Colorado 14; and on lots with public and private schools for elementary and high school education, hospitals, police and fire stations.

b--Permitted only at public utility substations and in high-tension power line easements.

c--Permitted if two competing CMRS providers co-develop one tower where both will collocate.

d--Permitted if three competing CMRS providers co-develop one tower where all will collocate.

e--Neighborhood meeting required. Notice must be sent to all property owners within 500 feet of the site or a larger area if the planning director determines the facility's visual impact warrants a greater notification area.

 

Ms. Bennett explained that many businesses do not abide by their zoned use and the county wants to amend the zone districts to better meet the needs of the area.  She outlined several aspects of the new district and said that more than one use or building would be allowed on one lot, acceptable accessory use would include a single family dwelling, and there would be flexible setbacks on Main Street. 

 

Chair Pro-Tem Rennels opened the hearing for public comment.  Lucille Schmitt stated that these proposed changes have been discussed at length with support from community members. 

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the amendments to the Land Use Code pertaining to the Red Feather Lakes Business zone district as presented in the recommendations by the Planning Commission and change B.2.a from “section 8.17” to “section 4.9.”

Motion carried 2-0.

 

 

2.  AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE REGARDING LANDSCAPING – FENCES AND WALLS - #07-CA0069:  This is a request to amend the Land Use Code in Section 8.5.9.H.14 Landscaping - Fences and Walls.

 

Staff presented the below information to the Planning Commission on June 20, 2007.  The item was not discussed, except to make some minor editing changes to the Staff Report, and the Planning Commission did not raise objections to the recommendations.  In addition, there were no concerns raised by members of the public as well.

 

The Planning Commission recommended to the Board of County Commissioners that the amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code, File #07-CA0069, be approved as follows:

 

1. Amend the Larimer County Land Use Code by adding the following to Section 8.5.10

 

(Definitions):

 

Fence:  For the purposes of Section 8.5 only, a fence is defined as a structure that provides an enclosure or barrier usually made of posts, wire, wood or stakes, which is also joined together by boards, wire or rails and used to prevent entrance, to confine, to mark a boundary or to block the view into a site.

Wall:  For the purposes of Section 8.5 only, a wall is defined as a permanent upright structure having a length much greater than the thickness and presenting a continuous surface except where pierced by doors, windows, etc. that requires a continuous foundation more than posts or supports typically used for fencing.  Walls are used to divide space, to support roofs, to block a view or to perform similar functions.

 

2. Amend the Land Use Code by deleting Section 8.5.9.H.14.a, and replace it with the following:

 

a.   Fences used for screening must be at least 6 feet high and not taller than 8 feet from the finished grade.  Fences above 6’ require a building permit.  All walls used for screening require a building permit, and are allowed to a height of no more than 10 feet from the finished grade.  Wall heights above 10 feet require written approval by the Planning Director.  Fences and/or walls may be combined with landscape berms to achieve the desired height, if berms are sized appropriately to provide adequate support for the fence or wall.  In addition, the use to be screened remains visible at 6 feet off site additional screening may be required.  Items may be stored in the setback areas but they shall not be visible above the height of the fence or wall.  At least 60% of the plants provided for buffering or screening must be on the side facing the public right-of-way, open space, residential area or other uses being buffered or screened.

 

3. Amend the Land Use Code, Section 8.5.9.H.14.b, as follows:

b.   Fencing or walls used as a screen must not have gaps.  Where gaps are necessary to prevent wind damage, the placement of evergreen and deciduous trees or shrubs must conceal the view through the gaps.

 

4. Amend the Land Use Code, Section 8.5.9.H.14.c, as follows:

 

c.   Where fences are designed with vertical boards  on the alternate sides of the horizontal rail, the design must use plant materials or board widths sufficient to screen the view into the site between the pickets.

 

5. Amend the Land Use Code by deleting Section 8.5.9.H.14.d and replace it with the following:

 

d.   Where required fences or walls continue for more than 40 feet, the design must include at least one tree and six shrubs for each 40-foot section.  Four of the required shrubs must be of a variety that reaches a mature height of three feet, and two of the required shrubs must be of a variety that reaches a mature height of six feet.  Alternating 40-foot sections of fence and wall can be constructed within 3 feet of the property line, so long as they do not interfere with site triangle requirements or create safety concerns.

 

6. Amend the Land Use Code, Section 8.5.9.H.14.e, as follows:

 

e.   Required fences and walls must have a unifying theme and provide variation by using clearly visible changes in height or depth, different material combinations, offset angles or structural articulation and/or plant materials.  These are in addition to the required plant materials.

 

7. Amend the Land Use Code, Section 8.5.9.H.14.f, by adding the words “wire and rails” as follows:

 

f.   Required fences and walls must be constructed of wood, wire, rails, stone, brick, decorative concrete block, wrought iron, or products created to closely resemble these materials or combination of these.

 

Mr. Wheeler outlined the new definitions for “fence” and “wall”.  He explained that the changes are meant to enhance flexibility, and provide more options to homeowners and businesses.  Some discussion among the Board and staff ensued.  Chair Pro-Tem Rennels opened the hearing for public comment and no one from the audience addressed the Board.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed amendments to the landscaping definitions in Section 8.5.10 of the Larimer County Land Use Code adding new definitions for fences and walls.

Motion carried 2-0.

 

M O T I O N

Commissioner Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed amendments to Section 8.5.9.H.14 Landscaping – Fences and Walls – of the Larimer County Land Use Code. 

Motion carried 2-0.

 

3.  AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE REGARDING OUTDOOR STORAGE - #07-CA0069:  This is a request to make a number of changes to the adopted Land Use Code as it pertains to outdoor storage.  During the code adoption hearings staff often discusses the concept of a living Land Use Code that would be amended as needed to make it function properly.  Some changes are minor wording changes because of typographical errors or inconsistencies between parts of the code.  A few of the changes are needed because there are unintended consequences resulting from the current wording. 

 

Outdoor storage and outdoor display, whether a principle use or accessory to a business, commercial or industrial use, has the potential to adversely affect other properties in the immediate vicinity.  When outdoor storage becomes unsightly it can affect property values.  When outdoor display or outdoor storage spills over into the public right of way or into areas required for parking and access, it can result in a dangerous situation.  The proposed regulations are intended to reflect the efforts currently being made through the site plan review process to improve the appearance of some of these types of uses while still allowing the property owner full use of their property.  Just because property is zoned for commercial or industrial uses does not mean it has to be unsightly.

 

 

The following tables might help clarify what is currently allowed and where we are proposing to go with the revised regulations. 

 

R=Use by Right (May need Site Plan Review and meet standards listed in Section 4.3)

MS=Minor Special Review

S=Special Review

R/S or R/MS=Review the Use Description in Section 4.3 to determine the appropriate process

 

T-Tourist was included because there is a place for Outdoor Display and Sales and Accessory Outdoor Display and Sales in this zoning district and there are uses that are currently allowed that could include some accessory outdoor commercial storage.

Proposed Regulations	T-Tourist	C-Commercial	I and I-1 Industrial	AP-Airport
Outdoor Display and Sales as a principal use	Not allowed	R/MS	R/MS	S
Outdoor Storage as a principal use	Not allowed	Not allowed	R/MS	S
Accessory Outdoor Storage	Reviewed as part of the principal use	Reviewed as part of the principal use	Reviewed as part of the principal use	Reviewed as part of the principal use
Enclosed Storage	Not allowed	R/MS	R/MS	S
Accessory Outdoor Display and Sales	Reviewed as part of the principal use	Reviewed as part of the principal use	Reviewed as part of the principal use	Reviewed as part of the principal use

 

 

Current Regulations

T-Tourist