LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of January 20, 2016

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, January 20, 2016, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners’ Christman, Couch, Cox, Gerrard, Miller, and Wallace were present.  Commissioner Glick and Jensen were absent.  Commissioner Dougherty presided as Chairman.  Also present were Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner, Karin Madson, Planner II, Michael Whitley, Planner II, Eric Tracy, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Health Department and Jill Wilson, 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 DECEMBER 16, 2015 MEETING:   MOTION by Commissioner Cox to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Miller.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:

None.

 

CONSENT ITEM:

 

ITEM #1  GARDNER SUBDIVISION  #14-S3262:  Mr. Whitley provided background information on the request for a subdivision of two lots on a 7.64 acre parcel located at 4017 W. County Road 8, Berthoud, CO, which was located southeast of the intersection of County Road 8 and County Road 23.  The request also included an appeal to Section 8.14.1.H of the Larimer County Land Use Code (lot depth to width ratio).

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if the second access was reviewed by the appropriate departments.

 

Mr. Whitley replied that the secondary access was evaluated and reviewed by the Engineering Department and that access satisfied the requirements.

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval the Gardner Subdivision, file #14-S3262, and appeal to Section 8.14.1.H of the Larimer County Land Use Code for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the Gardner Subdivision, File #14-S3262 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 Gardner Subdivision.

 

 

2.   The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings: Thompson R-2J 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.

 

Commissioner Gerrard seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Christman, Couch, Cox, Gerrard, Miller, Wallace and Vice-Chairman Dougherty voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

ITEM:

 

ITEM #2  SHAFFER/DRAKE CAMPGROUND SPECIAL REVIEW  #12-Z1899:   Ms. Madson provided background information on the request for a Special Review for a Recreation Vehicle (RV) Park with 12 sites and campground with 40 tent sites on the site located northwest of Highway 34 and County Road 43 intersection at Drake, CO.  Additional structures to be included include the “guest house”, the cabin/office, 2 cabins and an RV that was occupied by family members.  She noted the following appeals to the Larimer County Land Use Code:

·  Section 18.3.2. Sites, comfort stations, water stations and sanitary stations to waive the requirement for a drainage and erosion control plan and report requirement.

·  Section 18.3.3. Density, road, setbacks requirements, signs and outdoor recreation areas.

·  Section 18.4 Campgrounds

·  Section 18.4.2. Campsites.

·  Section 18.4.3. Road and setback requirements.

·  Section 18.4.4. Comfort Stations.

·  Section 18.4.5. Water and sanitary stations

·  Section 8.5 regarding the requirement for a landscape plan.

·  Section 8.6.3.C.1 regarding the requirement for paved parking.

·  Section 9.7 regarding the requirement for right-of-way dedication for Highway 34 and County Road 43.

·  And an appeal to not pay the required Special Review application fee.

 

Ms. Madson noted that the campground was within the floodway and flood fringe and also referred to the history of the site, and the processes that had occurred to bring the site into compliance thus far.  She noted that in 2012, the Board of County Commissioners entered into an ‘agreement’ with the applicants which allowed the campground to operate while in the process of a Special Review and Flood Plain Special Review applications.  A Flood Plain Special Review was completed, and the Flood Board recommended denial.  In 2013, the Board of County Commissioners then approved the Flood Plain Special Review.  In 2015, there was a request for an extension of the ‘agreement’ between the applicant and the Board of County Commissioners.  The extension allowed continued operation of the campground with additional conditions.  She stated that the project was previously heard by the Planning Commission in April 2015 where a recommendation of denial was made with a vote of 6-2.  Since that time the applicants had made other submittals and updated their project description to include two vaulted privies and a RV dump station and were working to obtain legal water source for the campground, cabin office, main house and guest house.  They had also committed to obtain the required State and County drinking water system permits.  She explained that the cabin office, main house and cabins had been determined to be outside of the floodway but were still within the flood fringe.  She also pointed out that parking for the tent camping and the internal road access would need to be analyzed, a legal water source obtained, and a setback variance needed for some of the buildings on the site.  She went over the review criteria for the Special Review use and for the appeals.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Sean Rutledge, attorney for the applicant, stated that there would be no new adverse impacts as there was nothing new proposed at the site as the campground had been in existence since at least the 1950’s.  He explained that on August 31, 1981 the predecessors of the land subdivided the property into 2 lots.  A condition was put on that subdivision that the subject parcel could only be used for residential uses; however, that was not disclosed to the new owners.  The owners bought the property with the intention of running the property as a campground as it had been in the past.  In the 2000’s a judgment was made against the owners, and the campground was shut down.  An agreement was then made between the County and owners, which allowed the campground to operate.  The agreement also stipulated that the site go through Special Review and Flood Plain Special Review processes.  He stated that the Board of County Commissioners ultimately approved the Flood Plain Special Review.  He felt that there were two considerations that help with that decision of approval, which were that the early warning flood protection system was adequate and substantially above anything else that was within the canyon, and the minimal impact the facility had on the hydrology in the area.  He felt that they also notice the minimal extent the facility had on the infrastructure demand but also the long historical use of the site.

He acknowledged the long history of the site operation being rustic but mentioned that it had worked, and the customers liked it that way.  He stated that in regards to the water supply, there was a decreed water supply on the property, and five wells that were part of that decree.  The decree use was for domestic water.  He stated that there was not a well permit, which process they were currently undergoing to obtain. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Jerry Shaffer, co-owner of the site, noted that they had tried over the years to rectify the site.  A grandfathered status was denied, and they had spent thousands of dollars on submittals, surveying, etc.  He noted that during the flood they were able to evacuate people

 

Commissioner Gerrard asked why the grandfathered status was denied.

 

Mr. Shaffer stated that the property had been divided and a residential use placed on the property.  It then made the campground illegal. 

 

Commissioner Gerrard asked if the sewage disposal would be adequate.

 

Doug Ryan, Health Department, stated that the department did not have a problem appealing having a comfort station as long as two vaulted privies were placed outside the floodway and RV dump stations were available. 

 

Commissioner Miller asked if the well permit would allow public use for potable water.

 

Mr. Rutlege replied yes.

 

Commissioner Dougherty asked if the well permit was a large enough quantity to supply all the campsites.

 

Mr. Rutlege replied yes, there would be sufficient water.

 

Commissioner Couch asked about the evacuation plan.

 

Mr. Shaffer stated that there was a loud speaker system, a flashing strobe light, and loud siren.  There was also an evacuation map handed out to the campers and posted at the site entrance. 

 

Commissioner Couch asked if the 12 RV sites proposed would be the maximum number of RVs allowed on the site.

 

Mr. Shaffer replied yes.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked how there could be any basis to deny the application based on the site being in a floodplain if the Flood Plain Special Review was approved.

 

Eric Tracy, Engineering Department, explained that the Flood Plain Special Review went to the Flood Review Board where they recommended denial but then the County Commissioners approved it.  He explained that what was approved was for the campground use to be located within a floodway overlay zone.  It did not necessarily approve it in regards to the Master Plan aspect.

 

Commissioner Cox asked if any fees had been paid by the applicant.

 

Ms. Madson replied no.

 

Commissioner Miller asked about obtaining a setback variance for the cabins.

 

Ms. Madson explained that the variances would be for the county roads.  The cabins had not obtained any permits and thus had not historically been looked at.

 

Commissioner Dougherty asked about the lack of roadway and parking spaces for the tent sites.

 

Ms. Madson stated that adequate roadway and access had not yet been analyzed. 

 

Mr. Lafferty stated that overnight parking was not allowed in a floodway. 

 

Commissioner Dougherty confirmed that if a parking plan was put in place then the parking for the tent sites would have to occur outside of the floodway.

 

Mr. Lafferty replied yes, if it occurred overnight.

 

Commissioner Gerrard asked if there had been many complaints about the site.

 

Ms. Madson stated that the code compliance department received one complaint regarding the septic system.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if there was any part of the property that would be acceptable to have overnight parking.

 

Mr. Tracy showed the areas on the floodplain map that were not within the floodway.  He did not believe that it was clear within the Flood Plain Special Review approved by the County Commissioners whether parking was assumed to be part of the campground use or not but he did not believe that the RVs would have to be moved out of the floodway at night.

 

Mr. Shaffer stated that engineers were hired to dispute the floodplain map because the map was not correct.  He stated that he assumed that parking could be allowed by the tent and did not realize that the parking could not be in those spots. 

 

Commissioner Gerrard asked about the fees.

 

Mr. Shaffer stated that they had paid fees for the previous processes but not for the current process.  He explained that it was a small business and their cash flow was small.

 

Commissioner Christman asked if the campground was open in the winter.

 

Mr. Shaffer explained that they sometimes would allow hunters to come in but the business was usually from May to August.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Wallace acknowledged that the Flood Plain Special Review was approved but she had a hard time approving the use when the property was in an area that could be of great danger to people.  She thought that if the water situation was resolved, the sanitation requirements completed, and the parking was analyzed so access in and out of property along with parking at the campsites was adequate then it would be more acceptable to approve.  She stated that she did not believe that the fee should be waived.

 

Commissioner Miller understood the avoidance of development in hazard areas but pointed out that the site had been a serviceable campground for 50 years.  He felt that the site should have been grandfathered in, and he was in favor of approval.  He believed that a waiver of the fee should not be given.

 

Commissioner Christman stated that there had been an effort to meet the requirements since the application was last heard.  She supported the application subject to the conditions outlined.  She stated that the fee could be paid possibly in payments or paid at a reduced fee.

 

Commissioner Couch agreed with the previous comments.  His major concern was the safety for the campers on the site.  He trusted Mr. Shaffer’s comments regarding his evacuation plan.  The conditions proposed were good for the applicant and the county with the date specific conditions.

 

Commissioner Gerrard supported the approval.  He acknowledged that the process could be daunting to small businesses and empathized with the applicant in that respect.  He believed that the site should have been grandfathered and believed that the fee should be waived.

 

Commissioner Cox wondered if the appeal to Section 18.4.2.B-Campgrounds would be needed if analysis could be completed to identify adequate parking spacing at the tent sites, adequate parking signage, and adequate evacuation routes.  She stated that she did not want to grant the appeal until the work regarding the parking had been completed.

 

Mr. Lafferty explained that a site plan illustrating campsite spots designed to not interfere with the flow of traffic along the drive could be part of an adequate parking analysis for the site. 

 

Mr. Tracy reiterated that he did not believe it was at all clear within the County Commissioners approval for the Flood Plain Special Review whether the cars could or could not be within the floodway and until tonight, he had been under the impression that having the car next to the tent was a part of the use.  It was true that overnight parking was not allowed within the floodway; however, the Commissioners had approved an overnight use within the floodway against our recommendations. 

 

Commissioner Dougherty was troubled that the site was within the floodway; however, there had been a long history on the site.  He would not support the fee appeal and would ask that it be received by the deadlines set forth.

 

Commissioner Cox 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 Shaffer-Drake Campground Special Review and associated appeals except for the appeal to Section 18.4.2, file #12-Z1899, 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 Shaffer/Drake Campground Special Review, File #12-Z1899 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 Shaffer/Drake Campground Special Review.

 

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.   Prior to operation of the RV Park and campground in 2016 the applicant shall submit a site plan that includes information regarding parking for the proposed campground along with plans for the construction of the new internal road.

 

9.   Prior to operation of the RV Park and campground in 2016 and no later than June 30, 2016, the applicant shall have installed out of the floodway:

    1. two vaulted privies, each containing a men’s and women’s toilet, and
    2. one RV dump station.

 

10.   Prior to operation of the RV Park and campground in 2016 the applicant shall submit evidence to Planning Staff that demonstrates:

    1. The water source has been approved by the Division of Water Resources,
    2. Registration and approval of the water treatment and distribution system as a public non-commodity supply, in accordance with State requirements.

 

11.   N o permanent structures shall be built within the projected right-of-way for Hwy 34, which is 75 feet of the highway centerline.

 

12.   The applicant shall obtain Setback Variance approvals for structures #E (office/cabin), #G (cabin 1) and #H (cabin 2) prior to Building Permit application.

 

13.   Within 60 days of Special Review approval the applicant shall obtain all required building permits and inspection approvals for Structures #E (office/cabin), #G (cabin 1) and #H (cabin 2) as identified on the Plot Plan dated 2-20-2015.

 

14.   The application fee of $5,800 shall be paid by Feb. 29, 2016 if the appeal is not  

      granted.

 

Commissioner Miller seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Christman, Couch, Cox, Gerrard, Miller, Wallace, and Vice-Chairman Dougherty voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

Commissioner Cox 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 Shaffer-Drake Campground Special Review fee appeal, file #12-Z1899.

 

Commissioner Miller seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Christman, Couch, Cox, Miller, Wallace, and Vice-Chairman Dougherty voted in favor of the Motion.

 

Commissioner Gerrard voted against 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 7:00 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 Jensen, Chairman                                                 Mina Cox, Secretary

 

EXHIBIT A 

 

Property Description (Lot 1, Gardner Subdivision):

That portion of the Northwest Quarter of Section 20, Township 4 North, Range 69 West

of the 6th P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado, being more particularly described

as follows;

 

Considering the North line of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 20 as bearing South

90°00'00" East and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto;

 

Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Section 20; thence along the North line of said

Section 20, South 90°00'00" East 132.02 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;

said point being on a non-tangent curve concave to the East, having a central angle of

13°12'00" and a radius of 1220.00 feet, the long chord of which bears South 18°56'20"

West 280.45 feet; thence Southwesterly along the arc of said curve 281.07 feet; thence

non-tangent from said curve South 01 °51'00" West 61.56 feet; thence South 85°11 '41"

East 246.32; thence North 29°34'38" East 10.73 feet; thence North 84°32'57" East

116.99 feet; thence North 39°43'46" East 129 . 76 feet; thence North 21 ° IT 18" East

120.48 feet; thence North 07°50'43" East 65.26 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve

concave to the North, having a central angle of25°3TOI" and a radius of 583.63 feet, the

long chord of which bears North 78°41'47" West 258.77 feet; thence Northwesterly

along the arc of said curve 260.94 feet; thence non-tangent from said curve North

90°00 ' 00" West 155.84 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.

 

The above described parcel contains 3.08 acres, more or less, and is subject to any

existing easements and/or rights of way of record.

 

Property Description (Lot 2, Gardner Subdivision):

That portion of the Northwest Quarter of Section 20, Township 4 North, Range 69 West

of the 6th P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado, being more particularly described

as follows;

 

Considering the North line of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 20 as bearing South

90°00'00" East and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto;

 

Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Section 20; thence along the North line of said

Section 20, South 90°00'00" East 132.02 feet to a non-tangent curve concave to the East,

having a central angle of 13°12'00" and a radius of 1220 . 00 feet, the long chord of which

bears South 18°56'20" West 280.45 feet; thence Southwesterly along the arc of said

curve 281.07 feet; thence non-tangent from said curve South 01 °57'00" West 61.56 feet;

to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence South 01 °57'00" West 706.26 feet; thence

North 70°22'20" East 13.47 feet; thence North 89°30'09" East 61.88 feet; thence North

67°46'08" East 56.10 feet; thence North 52°00' 19" East 57.00 feet; thence North

27°17' 52" East 100.52 feet; thence North 12°41' 51" West 58.52 feet; thence North

47°08'26" West 71.32 feet; thence North 08°16'02" West 28.03 feet; thence North

30°36'22" East 96.44 feet; thence North 08°25'06" East 65.87 feet; thence North

00°55'23" West 95.87 feet; thence North 14°37'34" East 85 . 12 feet; thence North

29°34'38" East 86.00 feet; thence North 85°11 '41" West 246.32 feet to the TRUE

POINT OF BEGINNING .

The above described parcel contains 2.94 acres, more or less, and is subject to any

existing easements and/or rights of way of record.

 

EXHIBIT B

 

A tract of land situate in the northwest 1/4 of Section 3, Township 5 north, Range

71 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County Colorado, which begins at the North 1/4

• corner of said Section 3, thence S 0°13'00"W. a distance of 878.00 feet to the

North line of the North Fork Subdivision, thence along said north line, S 81°30'-00” W

a distance of 405.00 feet, thence North, a distance of 253.72 feet., thence West.

305.22 feet, thence South, a distance of 120.39 feet. thence S 47°-47'-00" E. a

distance of 72.03 feet, thence South, a distance of 254..57 feet to a point on the

North line of Highway No. 34, thence along said North line, S 80° -.56·-00" W, a

distance of 27.44 feet; thence along a curve to the left having a radius or 480.8

feet, a distance of 171.19 feet ( chord. S 70° -44.' W 170.28 feet thence S 60°- 32' W.

a distance of 303.10 feet, thence along a curve to the left having a 398.10 feet radius,

a distance of 90.40 feet. (chord S .54° -01' -40" W, 90.21 feet.). to a point. on the

Northerly line of the County Road to Glen Haven, thence along said Northerly line

N .57° -10'-30" W. a distance of 183.35 feet, and again along said Northerly County

Road line, on the arc of a 603 foot radius curve to the left, the long chord of

Which bears North 66 °27’ West 194.37 :feet; and again along said Northerly County .

road line North 75° -43'-30" West 202.20 feet, and again along said Northerly County'

Road line, on the. arc of a 935 foot radius curve to 'the right, the long  chord of

Which bears North 73°-02' West 186.62 :feet; and again along said Northerly County

Road line North 64° -13'-30" West 292.70 feet, and ~again along said Northerly County

Road line. on the arc of a 593 foot. radius curve to the left, the long chord of which

bears North 71° -50' West 157.04.. feet; and again along said Northerly County Road

line North 79,°_57 30”" West 352.52 feet. to the West line of' the Northwest 1/4 of'

said. Section 3; thence along said West line. North 01° -14'-20" West 16.96 :feet, thence

south 79° -48'-30" East 254.95 feet along the approximate centerline of the north Fork

of the .Big Thompson River; thence North 01°-14'-20" West 898.49 feet to a point on the

North line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 3. "thence along said North line, South

89°32'-50" East 2416.05 feet to the point. of beginning.