LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

 Minutes of March 15, 2017

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, March 15, 2017, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners’ Christman, Couch, Cox, Dougherty, Gerrard, Glick, Jensen, Miller and Wallace were present.  Commissioner Glick presided as Chairman.  Also present were Matt Lafferty, Principle Planner, Michael Whitley, Planner II, Savanah Benedick-Welch, Planner II, Eric Tracy, Engineering Department, Lea Schneider, 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 FEBRUARY 15, 2017 MEETING:   MOTION by Commissioner Cox to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Dougherty.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:

MOTION by Commissioner Cox to move Item #4 Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #17-CODE0210, to the consent agenda, seconded by Commissioner Dougherty.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

MOTION by Commissioner Jensen to remove Item #3 S Bar G Conservation Development, file #16-LAND3586, from the consent agenda due to the fact that the item involved a member of the Planning Commission, seconded by Commissioner Couch.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

CONSENT ITEMS:

 

ITEM #2 BIGUS REZONING #17-ZONE2118:  Ms. Benedick-Welch provided background information on the request for a rezoning from T-Tourist and R-1 Residential to PD Planned Development to allow a mix of commercial uses on the property located at 3214 W. Eisenhower Boulevard, which was to the south of Eisenhower Boulevard about half mile west of Wilson Avenue in Loveland.

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the Bigus Rezoning, file # 17-ZONE2118 , for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   Within 60 days of approval the applicant shall provide the Community Development staff with an executed notarized Annexation Agreement to the City of Loveland, Colorado.

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

 

Bigus Rezoning (all use descriptions referenced as listed in the Larimer County Land Use Code, as amended).

 

A.   Principal uses:

Agricultural

1.  Apiary (R)

2.  Garden supply center (SP)

3.  Livestock auction (S)

4.  Livestock veterinary clinic/hospital (SP/ S)—See   section 4.3.1

5.  Pet animal facility (SP/ 
S)—See   section 4.3.1

6.  Pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital (SP/ 
S)—See  section 4.3.1

 

Commercial

7.  Automobile service station (SP)

8.  Bar/tavern(SP/MS)

9.  Carwash (SP)

10.  Clinic (SP)

11.  Convenience store (SP)

12.  Flea market (SP/ 
S)—See   section 4.3.3

13.  General commercial (SP)

14.  General retail (SP/ 
S)—See   section 4.3.3

15.  Instructional facility (SP)

16.  Outdoor display/sales (SP)

17.  Personal service (SP)

18.  Professional office (SP)

19.  Restaurant (SP/MS)—See  section 4.3.3

20.  Church (SP/S)

21.  Community Hall (SP/S)

22.  Crematorium (S)

23.  Funeral Home (SP)

24.  Health services (SP)

25.  Hospital (SP)

26.  Rehabilitation facility (SP)

27.  School, nonpublic (S)

 

 

 

Recreational

28.  Membership club/clubhouse (SP)

29.  Place of amusement or recreation (SP/S)—See   section 4.3.5

30. Shooting range (SP/S)—See  section 4.3.5

 

Accommodation

31.  Hotel/motel (SP)

 

Industrial

32. Enclosed storage (SP)

33.  Light industrial (S)

34.  Outdoor storage (SP/MS)

35.  Small solar facility (R/PSP)

36.  Trade use (SP)—See   section 4.3.7

 

Utilities

37.  Commercial mobile radio service (SP/ S)—See section 16

38.  Radio and television transmitters (S)

 

Transportation

39.  Bus terminal (SP)

40.  Park and ride (SP)

41.  Parking lot/garage (SP)

42.  Transportation service (SP)

43.  Transportation depot (SP)

44.  Truck stop (SP)

 

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 acre) if public water and sewer are used.

2.  Minimum required setbacks: (If more than one setback applies, the greater setback is required).

a.  Street and road setback (Refer to   section 4.9.1  setbacks from highways, county roads, and all other streets and roads.) The setback from a street or road must be 25 feet from the lot line, nearest edge of the road easement, nearest edge of right-of-way, or nearest edge of traveled way, whichever is greater.

b.  Side yards—Ten feet.

c.  Rear yards—20 feet.

d.  Refer to   section 4.9.2  for additional setback requirements (including but not limited to streams, creeks and rivers).

3.  Maximum structure height—40 feet.

4.  A parcel may be used for one or more principal buildings and accessory buildings.

 

Note:

A.  Uses followed by an (R) are allowed by right but they may be subject to all other requirements of this code.

B.  Uses followed by an (SP) require approval through the site plan review process described in  section 6.1.

C.  Uses followed by a (PSP) require approval through the public site plan review process described in  section 6.2.

D.  Uses followed by an (MS) require approval through the minor special review process described in  section 4.5.

E.  Uses followed by an (S) require approval through the special review process described in   section 4.5.

 

Commissioner Dougherty seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  9 -0

 

 

ITEM #4 AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE  #17-CODE0210:   Mr. Whitley provided background information on the request to amend the Larimer County Land Use Code by:

1.   Adding Section 4.3.10.R - Accessory personal medical marijuana cultivation, personal non-medical marijuana cultivation and medical marijuana primary caregiver cultivation.

2.   Deleting Section 4.3.12.B.

3.   Renumbering the remainder of Section 4.3.12.

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #17-CODE0210 , as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.   Add the following Section:

 

4.3.10.R  Accessory personal medical marijuana cultivation, personal non-medical marijuana cultivation and medical marijuana primary caregiver cultivation.

 

1.   Personal medical marijuana cultivation and personal non-medical marijuana cultivation is allowed only as an accessory use to a dwelling, which dwelling is occupied by the person or persons cultivating the marijuana as that person or persons’ primary residence.

 

2.  Marijuana cultivation by a medical marijuana caregiver for the caregiver’s patient(s) is allowed only as an accessory use to a dwelling, which dwelling is occupied by the medical marijuana caregiver as that caregiver’s primary residence.  Only one medical marijuana caregiver cultivation shall be allowed at a dwelling.   

 

3. Personal medical marijuana cultivation, personal non-medical marijuana cultivation and medical marijuana caregiver cultivation is not allowed as a principal use in any zoning district.

 

4. Marijuana cultivated as an accessory use pursuant to this Section 4.3.10R is limited to the resident's/residents’ own personal use or the resident medical marijuana primary caregiver’s patients’ use.

 

5.   Marijuana plants cultivated pursuant to this Section 4.3.10.R shall not be visible to the naked eye at or beyond the boundary of the property containing the accessory cultivation. 

 

6. Marijuana cultivation shall not result in odors detectable at or beyond the boundary of the property containing the accessory cultivation. 

 

2.  Delete Section 4.3.12.B and R enumber the remainder of Section 4.3.12.

 

4.3.12. - Prohibited uses.

 

B. Medical Marijuana Patients and Medical Marijuana Primary Caregivers. Nothing in this Code shall prohibit, regulate or otherwise impair or be construed to prohibit, regulate or otherwise impair the use of medical marijuana by patients as defined by the Colorado Constitution, or the provision of medical marijuana by a medical marijuana primary caregiver to a medical marijuana patient in accordance with Section 14, Article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution, and consistent with the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code and other statutes, rules and regulations of the State of Colorado.

 

C . B. Private marijuana clubs are prohibited in all zoning districts as principal or accessory uses, including home occupations and accessory rural occupations, regardless of whether any such use is operated for profit or not for profit.

 

Commissioner Dougherty seconded the Motion.

 

 

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  9 -0

 

ITEM:

 

Commissioner Glick recused himself as he was the applicant for the proposal.  Commissioner Dougherty presided as Chair.

 

ITEM #3 S BAR G CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT LOT 3 REPLAT #16-LAND3586:   Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request for a Preliminary Plat for a subdivision of Lot 3, S Bar G Conservation Development, to create a 2.5 acre vacant lot and a 6 acre lot around an existing residence on property located ¼ mile west of Highway 1 on the north side of Douglas Road. He proposed to revise Condition of Approval 7 to state,

“7.  The Plat shall be revised to include the area to the north of the proposed two acre lot to be incorporated into that lot.”  That language revision would allow everything to the west of S Bar G Lane to be in one lot and everything east of S Bar G Lane to be in one lot. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Scott Glick, applicant, concurred with Mr. Helmick’s presentation and had no further comments.

 

Kristy Pabilonia, asked for clarification on what would be developed and if only one residence would be allowed.  She also asked about the dry lake on the property and any impacts to it.

 

John Elliot, resident of S Bar G, agreed with the proposal and agreed with the four acres being combined to allow one residence.

 

Kristine Kratt, resident of S Bar G, agreed with the proposal.

 

Mr. Glick stated that dry lake bed was on a separate property and there would be no impacts.  If it was approved, only one residence would be allowed.

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the S Bar G Conservation Development Lot 3 Replat, file #16-LAND3586 , for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, subject to the following conditions and revised Condition #7:  “7.  The Plat shall be revised to include the area west of S Bar G Lane to be included in the proposed Lot 2.”:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.   The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the S BAR G CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT  LOT 3 RESUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT, File # 16-LAND3586, 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 S BAR G CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT LOT 3 RESUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT.

 

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

 

3.   All new residential structures shall be fire sprinkled.

 

4.   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.

 

5.   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.

 

6.   The applicant shall provide the Emergency Access easement requested by the Poudre Fire Authority.

 

7.  The Plat shall be revised to include the area west of S Bar G Lane to be included in the proposed Lot 2.

 

Commissioner Miller seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  8 -0

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLED ITEM:

 

ITEM #1 AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE, SECTION 4.2.2 #17-CODE0209:   Mr. Tracy provided background information on the request by the Larimer County Engineering Department to make revisions to the LCLUC, Section 4.2.2, to allow repair or replacement of a flood related Substantially Damaged Structure in the FW Floodway Overlay Zone District subject to review and approval by the Larimer County Flood Review Board.  He remarked that several citizens of LaPorte had raised concerns over certain Sections of the Land Use Code involving the regulations that prohibited repair or replacement of Substantially Damage Structure in the Floodway Overlay Zone.  Due to that, the regulations were examined and some amendments proposed, which the Flood Review Board was recommending.

The recommendation was to change the language of the Land Use Code to allow a structure that had been substantially damaged in a flood event to be rebuilt if it could show that all flood risks could be permanently mitigated.  Certain criteria would also be added to the Code, which would have to be.  Such criterion would be to require more elevation, show a depth velocity product surrounding the structure of less than or equal to 8%, and show that the structure was not at risk or the risk could be mitigated.  He summarized that the regulation was being changed from ‘you can’t rebuild’ to ‘you may rebuild if’, and explained that substantially damaged meant more than 50% of the value of the structure in damage

He noted that the item had been tabled from last month due to a complaint regarding the minutes that were prepared for the April 28, 2016 Flood Review Board meeting.  There were concerns that the minutes did not accurately represent what was said at the meeting.  An official transcript was put together of that portion of the Flood Review Board meeting, and on March 10, 2017, the Flood Review Board moved to keep the minutes as they were. 

 

Commissioner Jensen mentioned the option for variances, which was included with the amendment.  He asked what the appeal process would be if a variance was denied.

 

Mr. Tracy replied that if an application was denied then it would go through the normal appeal process to the county commissioners.

 

Commissioner Glick asked how the substantially damaged amount could be determined if an appraiser did not have a baseline data set.

 

Mr. Tracy explained that after the 2013 Flood event, the Assessor Department value was used.  A property owner also had the option to hire an appraiser to determine the pre-flood market value.  He noted that he had not had any concerns from appraisers determining a pre-flood value for a structure.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

David Rose, stated he was happy to see the issue being addressed and the changes that would allow a structure to rebuilt if certain criteria could be met.

 

Scott Tally, stated that it had taken over two years to draft the language in order for it to fit for most people in the community.  He felt that it made sense for the geographically diverse county and helped the overall county.

 

Commissioner Christman thanked Mr. Tracy for his hard work drafting the language.

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code, Section 4.2.2, file #17-CODE0209, as follows:

 

1.    Amend Section 4.2.2 F - Floodplain overlay zone districts as follows:

 

1.   FW-Floodway district (comprised of FEMA floodway and local zone AE  floodway).

a.   Allowed uses can be found in the zoning table in section 4.1 .

b.   Requirements  for uses in the FW-Floodway district:

1.   All uses must comply with subsection 4.2.2.D (General Standards) and the fo ll ow i ng :

2.   Larimer County regulates the 0.50-foot rise floodway except in mountainous areas where mountain floodway criteria is sometimes applicable.

3.   Encroachments are prohibited, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements and other development within the adopted regulatory floodway unless it has been demonstrated through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed by a licensed Colorado professional engineer and in accordance with standard engineering practice that the proposed encroachment would result in less than a 0.00 foot increase (requires a no-rise certification) in base flood elevations within the community during the occurrence of the base flood discharg e.

4.   In the event fill is allowed, it must be protected against erosion by the use of rip rap, bulk heading or vegetative cover appropriately designed and certified by a   Colorado registered professional engineer.

 

5.   Structures must not be intended or used for human habitation .

6.   Structures must be constructed so the longer axis of the structure is parallel to the direction of the flood flow .

7.   Whenever possible , the placement of the structure must be on the same f l ood flow lines as those of adjoining structures .

8.   No new or e x panded on-site wastewater treatment systems shall be installed in a floodway.

9.   L ega l non - conforming  Substantially  damaged   structures  within  f l oodway the FW ­ Floodway Dist r i ct that are Substantially Damaged (defined in 4 . 2 . 2 . K Defini t i ons) where the damage was by any cause other than a flood event can be repaired or replaced in the same foo t print floodway   as long as the  lowest floor is at or above    the regulatory flood protection elevation and the repair and reconstruction meets all other applicable sections of 4 . 2. 2.

 

 

10.   Su bs tantially damaged structures within a floodway where the damage was caused by a flood e v ent can not be repaired or replaced in the f loodway. L egal non - confo r ming structures with i n the FW- F loodwa y District that are Subs tantially Damaged by a flood event  may on lbe  repaired  or  repl aced  upon  re vi ew and  pre-approval  by  the F l ood  Revi ew Board pursuant  to 4.2 . 2 . G . 8 .

11.   L egal  non - conform i ng  str uctures  w it hin  the  F W -F l oodway Dis tr i ct  t hat  susta i n d amage by a n y cause,  but a r not Substa n t i ally  Damaged may  be repa i red/improved w ithout meeting Lowest F loor Eleva t ion   requirements   only   i f the cos t o f repairs and improvement comb i ned do not const itu te a Subs t ant i a l Improvement (defined in 4 . 2. 2 .K Def i nitions) . A Floodplain Deve l op m ent Permit i s st ill required .

12.   L egal non-conform i ng structures w i thin th e F W- F loodway District may only be S ubs t anti a lly I mproved (defined i n 4 . 2 . 2 . K Definitions ) u pon revi ew and pre - approva l by the F l ood Re view Board pursuant to  4 . 2 . 2 . G . 7

13.   New s t ruct ur es wi thi n the FW-Floodway Di strict a re prohibited .

 

2.   FF-Flood fringe district (comprised of FEMA flood fringe and local zone AE flood  fringe) .

a.      Allowed uses can be found in the zoning table in section 4 .1 .

b.       Requirements  for uses in the FF-Flood fringe district:

1.   All uses must comply with subsection 4.2.2.D (Genera l Standa r ds) and the   fo ll owi ng : .

2.   Legal non-conforming Substantially d amaged structures within a flood f ringe the FF­ F lood Fringe Distri ct that are Su bst antiall y Damaged or p rop ose to be Subs t antia ll y I mproved where the damage  was by any cause can be repaired, or replaced and/or imp roved in the flood fringe as long as the L lo west  F floor is at or above the Rr egulatory F flood Pp rotection Ee levation and the repair and reconstruction repair , replacement and/or improvements meets all other applicable sections of 4 .2.2.

3.   Legal non-conforming structu res within the FF-Flood Fringe District that sustain damage   by any cause, but are not S ubstant ia lly Damaged may be repair ed/improved without meeting Lowes t Floor elevation requirements only if the cost of repair s and improvement combined do no t constitute a Substantial Imp rovement (defined i n 4. 2. 2. K Defin i t i ons) . A Floodplain Development  Perm it is sti ll   requ i re d .

 

 

 

 

 

3.   FH-Flood hazard district (comprised of FEMA zone A flood hazard).

a.    Allowed uses can be found in the zoning table in section 4.1.

b.   Requirements for uses in the FH-Flood hazard district are outlined in Subsection 4.2.2.D.

1.    All uses must comply with subsection 4.2.2 .D (General Standards) and the  following :

2. c. E ncroachments  are prohibited,  including  fill, new constructio n , substantial  improvements and other development within the FH-Flood hazard district unless it has been demonstrated through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed by a licensed Colorado Professional Engineer and in accordance with standard engineering practice that the proposed encroachment is not within the area that is defined as the 0.50 - foot floodway in the analysis performed by the engineer .

3.d . Legal non - conform i ng structures Substantially damaged structures within the FH - Flood Hazard District that have been Substant i ally Damaged or propose t o be Subs tantially Improved where the damage was by any cause can be repaired, or re placed and/o r i mproved in the FH -Flood Hazard District as long as the Llowest Ffloor is at or above the R regulatory Ff lood Pprotection. Eelevation and the repa ir and reconstruction repair, replacement and/or i mprovements meets all other applicable  sections of  4. 2. 2.

4. Lega l non - conforming structu r es within the FH-Flood Hazard District that sustain damage by any cause, but are not Substantia ll y Damaged may be repaired/improved without meeting Lowest Floor Protection requirements only if the cost of repa i rs and improvement combined do not const i tute a Substantia l Improvement (def i ned in 4 . 2 . 2 . K Definitions) . A Floodp l ain Development Perm it is still required .

 

4.   SF-Shallow flooding district (comprised of FEMA shallow flooding and local zone AO shallow flooding, and local zone AH shallow flooding .)

a.    Allowed uses can be found in the zoning table in section 4. 1.

b.   Requirements for uses in the SF-  Shallo w flooding distric t:  are outlined in Subsection 4.2.2.D.

1.   All use s must comply with subsection 4. 2 . 2 . D (General Standa r ds) and the fo l l owing : 7 :

c.    2. Residential construction-All new construction and substantial improvements of residential structures must have the lowest floor (including ba s ement) elevated above the highest adjacent grade at least 1 . 5 feet above the depth number specified in feet on the FIRM ( at least 3 . 0 feet if no depth number is specified). Upon completion of the structure, the elevation of the lowest floor , including basement, shall be certified by a registered Colorado Professional Land Surveyor. Such certification shall be submitted to the floodplain administrator.

 

 

 

d . 3. Nonresidential construction-With the exception of critical facilities, outlined in subsection 4 . 2.2 . E, all new construction and substantial  improvements  of  nonresidential  structures , must have the lowest floor (including basement) elevated above the highest adjacent grade at least 1.5 feet above the depth number specified in feet on the FIRM (at least 3. 0 feet if no depth number is specified), or together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities be designed so that the structure is watertight to at least 1.5 feet above the base flood level with wall substantiall y impermeabl e to the passage of water and with structural c omponents having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads of effects of buoyancy . A registered Colorado Professional Engineer shall submit a certification to the floodplain administrator that the standards of section 4.2 . 2 are satisfied .

4 . Lega l non-conforming structures with i n the SF-Sha ll ow Flooding District that have been Substantially Damaged or propose to be Substantially Improved can be repai r ed, replaced and/or improved i n the SF-Shallow Flooding Distr i ct as long as the L owest Floor is at or above the Regu l atory Flood Protection Elevation and the repair, replacement and/or i mprovements meet all other applicable sect i ons of 4 . 2 . 2 .

5. Legal non-conform i ng structures within the SF-Shall ow Flooding District that sustain damage by any cause, but are not Substantia l ly Damaged may be r epaired/improved w i thout meeting Lowest Floo r Protection requirements only if the cost of repairs and improvement combined do not constitute a Substantial Improvement (defined in 4 . 2 .2 . K Defin i tions) . A Floodp l ain Devel opment Permit is still required .

5.  Cache La Poudre River GMA 100-year floodplain district.

a.   Allowed uses can be found in the zoning table in section 4.1.

b.   Requirements and procedures with in the Cache La Poudre GMA 100-year floodplain zoning district shall be the same as requirements and procedures within the FF-Flood fringe and FW-Floodway  zoning districts respectively, except as noted below.

1.   Any new structure excepting expansion of existing nonconforming structures placed in the Cache La Poudre River GMA 100-year floodplain zoning district shall have its lowest floor level placed at or above the GMA regulatory flood protection elevation.

2.   If any nonresidential structure or portions thereof are not constructed on fill, the structure or portion not on fill must be floodproofed to the GMA regu latory flood protection elevation.

3.   New cri tical facilities shall be prohibited within the Cache La Poudre River GMA 100- year floodplain zoning district, regardless of any letter of map amendment based on fill that may have been issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency relative to the 100-year floodplain.

 

 

4.   Reconstruction , repair or enlargement of existing public and private utility facilities may be allowed as a floodplain special review use upon a showing that the design of the reconstruction, repair or enlargement is consistent with the need to maintain or restore normal services to flooded areas before, during and after a regulatory flood.

6. Cache La Poudre River GMA 500-year floodplain district.

a.   New critical facilities shall be prohibited within the Cache La Poudre River GMA 500-year floodplain zoning district, regardless of any letter of map revision based on fill (LOMR -F) that may have been issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency relative to the 100- year floodplain.

b.    Reconstruction, repair or enlargement of existing public and private utility facilities may be allowed as a floodplain special review use upon a showing that the design of the reconstruction, repair or enlargement is consistent with the need to maintain or restore normal services to flooded areas before, during and after a regulatory flood .

 

 

2.   Amend Section 4.2.2.G.7 - Flood review board as follows:

 

7.        Expansion of lega l non - conforming structures and uses:

a.   For Structures that are lega l non-conformi ng with respect to flood regulations in Section 4 . 2 . 2 of the Larimer County Land Use Code, Tt he flood review board shall hear and render judgment on requests for expansion of such l egal non - conforming structures and uses . from the requirements of section 4 . 2 .2 of the Larimer County Land Use Code .

b.   No such structure or use may be expanded, improved or enlarged unless the improvement expansion or enlargement itself complies with the provisions of section 4.2. 2 and does not cumulati ve ly (over a rolling ten year period) exceed 50 percent of the market value of the original structure excluding minor work and regular maintenance of existing buildings and facilities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

c.   When a building or other structure, including but not limited to a manufactured home, has been damaged so that the market value of repair or replacement does not exceed 50 percent of the market value before the damage occurred, the structure may be restored to its size immediately before the damage occurred.  Such  reconstruction shall  be  constructed as required by section 4.2.2, and shall not be deemed to be a substantial improvement or enlargement. Any restoration or replac ement of a structure, inc luding, but not limited to , a manufactured home, damaged to an extent exceeding 50 percent of its market value before the damage occurred shall be deemed to be a substantial improvement or enlargement. Any restoration or replacement of a substant i ally damaged structure sha ll on ly occur if the use is allowed with i the appl icable overlay  zone . All applicable general standards  from section 4.2 .2.D app ly. Substantial damage is not cumulatively tracked. If a permit is applied for and the damage repair and improvem ent exceeds 50 percent, it shall be deemed a substantial improvement.

 

d.   Whenever an existing manufactured home, which is legal non- conforming or is lo cated in a nonconforming  manufactured  home  park  or  subdivision  in  the  floodplain  overlay zone districts,  is  replaced  by  a  new  manufactured  home,  regardless  of  the  reason  for the replacement, the  new manufactured  home shall comply  wi th the requirem e nts of   section 4.2.2.

e.   If any person makes substantial improvement to any nonconforming building or structure or changes the use thereof, such person shall permanently change the building or structure or use to conform to the requirements o f section 4.2.2.

3Amend Section 4.2.2.G.7 - Flood review board as follows:

 

8. Repa ir or Rep lacement of flood induced Substantially Damaged Structures within the Regulatory Floodway Overlay Zone :

 

The Flood Review Board shall rev i ew and approve or de n y all applications for r epair o r replacement of a lega l no n-c onform i ng structure th a t has been Substantially Damaged (defined at 4 . 2 . 2 . K Def i nit i ons) by a fl ood e v ent in the FW-Floodway District based on th e  following criteria :

 

a.   The regulatory flood protection elevation for rebuilding a Substantially Damaged      structure in the regulatory Floodway  shall be 24  inches .

b. It shall be shown by a Colorado l icensed professional engineer that the depth ve locity product (depth of flo w (ft) x velocity(ft/sec)) surrounding the structure is less than or equal to 8 .0 .

c.   It shall be shown by a Colorado licensed professional engi neer that the structure is not at risk, or the risk can be mi tigated for bank erosion and instabil ity .

d. The structure must meet all other appl icable sections of 4 . 2 . 2

e.   Engineering design sha ll cons ider guidance outlined i n the latest edition of      FEMA technical document "P-259 Engineering Principles and Practices for Retrofitting  Flood Prone Residential Structures" .

f.   Access to the residence through areas greater than a product corridor of 8 . 0 shall be evaluated for safety .

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Miller seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  9 -0

 

 

ITEM:

 

ITEM #5 AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE, SECTION 0.1 #17-CODE0211:   Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request to amend the Larimer County Land Use Code by a dding the term “Personal Events” to Section 0.1. – Definitions.  He explained that the definition was left out of the previous code amendments regarding Special Events.  He noted that following definition was what the Community Development Staff was recommending:

Personal Event. A Gathering for social activities such as family celebrations (wakes, funerals, anniversaries, graduations, and weddings), parties (dinner parties, barbecues, house warming parties) and/or gatherings (demonstration parties, religious/club meetings) of family members and friends of the owner/resident of the property.  Personal events must be hosted by an individual that resides on the property.” 

 

The following definition was proposed by the County Attorney’s office:

Personal Event. A Gathering for social activities such as family celebrations, parties and/or meetings by family members and friends of the owner/resident of the property.  Person Events must be hosted by an individual who resides on the property.  Person Events are to be accessory and incidental to use of the property as a residence.  Examples of Personal Events include anniversaries, graduations, weddings, funerals, wakes, dinner parties, barbecues, house warming parties, demonstration parties, and club meetings

 

Mr. Lafferty recommend striking any language pertaining to religion.

 

Commissioner Jensen felt that the definition proposed by the County Attorney could open it up to allow having friend’s weddings.  He agreed with the language proposed by Staff.

 

Commissioner Dougherty agreed with the Staff language and agreed to strike ‘religious’ from the language.

 

Mr. Lafferty proposed amending the staff language to state:

Personal Event. An accessory and incidental use of a residence for the gathering for social activities such as family celebrations (wakes, funerals, anniversaries, graduations, and weddings), parties (dinner parties, barbecues, house warming parties) and/or gatherings (demonstration parties, religious/club meetings) of family members and friends of the owner/resident of the property.  Personal events must be hosted by an individual that resides on the property.

 

Commissioner Jensen wondered why the word ‘religious’ should be removed.

 

Mr. Lafferty stated it could be challenged legally but noted that it would not exclude those events.

 

Commissioner Jensen thought the word ‘religious’ should not be removed. 

 

Commissioner Miller agreed.

 

Commissioner Wallace suggested deleting ‘family’ where it stated ‘family celebrations’ in the first sentence.

 

Commissioner Gerrard suggested adding language that stated ‘including but not limited to’.

 

Mr. Lafferty stated that if ‘family’ was removed to state, ‘A Gathering for social activities such as celebrations, parties and/or meetings by family members and friends of the owner/resident of the property.’, it did not preclude it to be just for a member of the family. 

 

Commissioner Miller agreed with Commissioner Wallace’s statement that the proposed definition could be viewed as it alluded to just family events. 

 

Commissioner Glick was concerned that there was no accountability that the owner had to be on the property during the event.

 

Mr. Lafferty stated that if the property was leased/rented then those tenants should be free to hold their events.

 

Commissioner Glick suggested adding ‘owner/lessee should reside on the property’.

 

Commissioner Christman agreed with Staff’s definition and suggested redoing the first sentence so it was not such a long sentence.  She aslo suggested adding the sentence ‘A personal event shall also be accessory and incidental to use of the property as a residence.’ to the end of the definition.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

None.

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #17-CODE0211 , as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.    Add a new definition to Section 0.1. – Definitions as follows:

 

Personal Event. A gathering for social activities such as family celebrations (wakes, funerals, anniversaries, graduations, and weddings), parties (dinner parties, barbecues, house warming parties) and/or gatherings (demonstration parties, religious/club meetings) of family members and friends of the owner/resident of the property.  Personal events must be hosted by an individual that resides on the property.  A personal event shall also be accessory and incidental to use of the property as a residence. 

 

Commissioner Dougherty seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner Jensen suggested adding ‘including/not limited to’

 

Commissioner Cox was not inclined to add more wording into the definition.

 

Commissioner Dougherty stated that he was ok with removing the word ‘religious’ to avoid future challenges if the County Attorney chose to do so.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  9 -0

 

 

 

Chairman Glick stated that it would be Commissioner Couch’s last meeting.  He thanked him for his service over the past 2 years.

 

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

 

ADJOURNMENT:   There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 7:47 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                                                Mina Cox, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT A 

 

BEG AT PT 661 FT E OF NW COR NE 1/4 16-5-96, E 246.7 FT, S 65.8 FT TO S ROW HWY 34 TPOB, S 263.9 FT, S 86 45' W 306.97 FT, N 0 3' 34" W 162.48 FT, N 89 56' 26" E 185.12 FT, N 118.71 FT M/L TO S ROW HWY 34, TH ALG SD ROW S 89 57' 45" E 121.53 FT M/L TPOB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

Lot 3 of the S Bar G Conservation Development 10-S2953