LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of April 15, 2015

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, April 15, 2015, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners’ Christman, Dougherty, Gerrard, Glick, Jensen, Miller, and Zitti were present.  Commissioner Cox was absent.  Commissioner Wallace presided as Chairman.  Also present were Terry Gilbert, Community Development Division Director, Matt Lafferty, Principle Planner, Karin Madson, Planner II, Eric Tracy, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Health Department, and Jill Wilson, Recording Secretary. 

 

The Planning Commission went on a site visit to Shaffer-Drake Campground Special Review.

 

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 MARCH 18, 2015 MEETING:   MOTION by Commissioner Glick to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Gerrard.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:

None.

 

CONSENT ITEM:

 

ITEM #1 MORNING FRESH DAIRY 2ND AMENDED SPECIAL REVIEW #15-Z1963:   Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request for an amendment to the Morning Fresh Dairy Special Review (Planning file #’s 12-Z1894 and 14-Z1932) to identify a future expansion area for the Value Added Agricultural operations for Noosa Yogurt.  If approved, future additions to the yogurt operations/facilities would be required to occur in the defined area and would be through the Site Plan Review process.  The project site was situated on both the north and south sides of County 54E, just west of Highway 287.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked when the wastewater treatment plant would be completed.

 

Rebecca Spears, RB&B Architects, stated that it was a State process but felt that the timelines projected in the letter dated February 13, 2015 would be feasible.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Glick 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 Morning Fresh Dairy 2nd Amended Special Review, file #15-Z1963, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, subject to the following conditions:

 

 

 

 

1.   This Special Review approval shall automatically expire without a public hearing if the use is not commenced within three years of the date of approval.

                                                         

2.   The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Morning Fresh Dairy Special Review (File # 12-Z1894), the Morning Fresh Dairy Amended Special Review (File #14-Z1932), and the Morning Fresh Dairy 2nd Amended Special Review (File #15-Z1963) 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 Morning Fresh Dairy Special Review and the Morning Fresh Dairy Amended Special Review(s).

 

3.   Failure to comply with any conditions of the Special Review and Amended Special Review(s) approvals 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. 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 and Amended Special Review(s), 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 and Amended Special Review(s) approval should not be revoked, and/or bring a court action for enforcement of the terms of the Special Review and Amended Special Review(s).  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 and Amended Special Review(s) approval, applicant agrees to pay all expenses incurred by County including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees.

 

5.   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 and Amended Special Review(s) approval.

 

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

 

7.   Wastewater management for the dairy farm, dairy plant, and yoghurt manufacturing facility shall be conducted in accordance with water quality requirements administered by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Compliance shall proceed according to the applicant’s Wastewater Treatment Compliance Schedule dated February 13, 2015, or more stringent standards as may be imposed by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.

7.

 

 

8.   Unless the Planning Department is notified in writing to by the Poudre Fire Authority and the Larimer County Building Department, the yogurt expansion and annex buildings on the South Side of CR 54E and the warehouse building on the north side of CR 54E shall be equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems, and a fire hydrant shall be installed on each side of the building complex shall be as stated in the referral letter from Poudre Fire Authority by Jim Lynkwiler, Fire Protection Technician dated May 23, 2014. 

 

9.   Site lighting required for the use shall include shielding to cause downward lighting in accordance with Section 8.15 for the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Commissioner Jensen seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

ITEM:

 

ITEM #3 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.  Additional structures to be included include the “guest house”, the cabin/office, 2 cabins and an RV that was occupied by family members.  The subject property was located northwest of the Highway 34 and County Road 43 intersection at Drake, CO.  She stated that the request also included appeals to the following sections of the Land Use Code (LUC):

18.3. Recreational Vehicle (RV) Parks

18.3.2. Sites, comfort stations, water stations and sanitary stations. 

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

18.4 Campgrounds

18.4.2. Campsites.

18.4.3. Road and setback requirements.

18.4.4. Comfort Stations.

18.4.5. Water and sanitary stations.

 

She gave the history of the property and noted that there were no plans by the applicants to expand the campground.  She mentioned that after the 2013 flood the applicants did submit a revised site plan of the project due to the changes in the site from the flood.  She noted that the electrical hookups to the RV sites had been replaced since the flood.  She stated that Staff’s assessment of the project was that the site was not compatible due to the lack of services as there was a lack of information provided to Staff regarding water supply, sanitary services, traffic, drainage and erosion control, etc..   She also mentioned that the property was located within the floodplain and floodway.  She stated that the appeal requests would not meet the criteria for the appeals due to adequate public facilities requirements along with the public health, safety and welfare considerations.  She stated that the Development Services Team was recommending denial of the proposal and appeals.

 

 

Commissioner Miller asked if the non-permitted buildings were constructed after the 1976 flood and also asked if they withstood the 2013 flood.

 

Ms. Madson stated that they were built after the 1976 flood and had been on site for years.  She stated that there were structures not permitted that did survive the 2013 flood.

 

Commissioner Glick asked if the electrical RV hookups required a permit.

 

Ms. Madson stated that an electrical permit was required through the State.

 

Eric Tracy, Engineering Department, also mentioned that a floodplain development permit was required through the Engineering Department for the hookups, which were not issued.

 

Commissioner Glick asked if the site was currently operating.

 

Ms. Madson stated that the Board of County Commissioners had given the applicants 3 years to obtain appropriate approvals and also operate during that time.  She stated that the approval was until May 31, 2015.  The applicants were asking for an extension of that date to November 2015, which would be heard before the Board of County Commissioners.

 

Commissioner Miller asked why the State issued a permit for the RV hookups if the flood plain permit was not obtained.

 

Mr. Lafferty explained that it was a State issued permit and was not processed through county.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Jerry Shaffer, owner, stated that they bought the property in 1983 at which time it was a campground.  He explained more history of the site.  He stated that most of the buildings had been on site since 1986 and stated that they were in process of obtaining a permit for the guest house.  He stated that the RV hookups were permitted through the State because it was a stipulation of the Special Review that they were trying to abide by.  He explained that they were asking for an extension because their lives had been turned upside down since the flood, they had endured financial hardships, and they had not had enough time to acquire some of the materials/requirements for the submittal.  He stated that they did not need all of the appeals but were asking for them because they had not had enough time to get all of the materials in order.  He mentioned that the buildings did make it through the 2013 flood.  He understood that the property was within the floodway and that was why Staff was recommending denial.

 

Commissioner Miller asked if they were informed in 1986 that they property was not incompliance and the buildings were not permitted.

 

Mr. Shaffer replied yes.  He explained the history of the buildings and permits on the site.  He stated that they had been trying to legalize the campground since 1986 and wanted the extension to get the campground legalized.

 

 

 

 

 

James Baranobic, motel owner in Estes Park, stated that he had known the Shaffer’s for 45 years.  He stated that they were changing the area for the better and that the property was a benefit to the community.  He also mentioned that they were outstanding community members.  He wondered about the fairness and mentioned that they were one of the only sites that survived the flood.  He mentioned other sites that were rebuilding since the flood and did not understand why the Shafer’s could not rebuild.  He felt that it was the right thing to do to allow them to rebuild.

 

Raymond Beck, Dillmann’s Custom Concrete, stated that the Shaffer’s had done so much for the community.   He stated that no rules were trying to be broken, and the applicant’s wanted to be in compliance.  He felt that the property should be approved and not be shut down.

 

Lori Shaffer, owner, stated that an evacuation plan was in place and had been used in the past.  She pointed out that during the 2013 flood they had everyone evacuated before the evacuation orders were in place.  She mentioned how the site had helped the community throughout the years and since the flood.  She felt that it would be a detriment to the area to close down the campground.  She also pointed out the other sites in the canyon that were rebuilding.  She mentioned that the port-a-potties along with the trash were emptied every week.  She stated that they needed the business but also wanted to continue to help the community and volunteers trying to rebuild.

 

Don Knox, Colorado Campground Association, stated that Colorado needed more campgrounds not less campgrounds.  He stated that most were terribly devastated in the flood and felt that some lenience was appropriate in this situation.

 

Jerry Shaffer stated that the campground had been in existence since 1927, and the previous owner changed the zoning which affected the conformity of the site.

 

Commissioner Gerrard mentioned that there was an agreement signed by the owner stating that the site was not grandfathered.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Dougherty asked if buildings could be rebuilt in that area.

 

Mr. Tracy explained that if the structure was not substantially damaged (damaged less than 50% damaged) then the structure could be rebuilt.  He explained that several sites in the canyon were legal, nonconforming uses, which allowed those uses to continue.  He stated that a new campground was not allowed in the flood overlay areas and pointed out that the Shaffer Campground was being treated as a new campground.

 

Ms. Madson explained that there was no proof that the site was a legal, nonconforming campground.  As a result, the remedy was to gain approval through Special Review.

 

Mr. Tracy stated that a Floodplain Special Review along with the Flood Review Board voted unanimously to not allow that use in the area; however, the Board of County Commissioners went into agreement with the applicant for the past 3 years to allow them to operate.

 

Commissioner Jensen asked how much information submitted by the applicant was satisfactory. 

 

 

Ms. Madson stated that no technical information had been submitted such as reports regarding traffic, drainage, water supply, etc.

 

Commissioner Jensen asked about the septic on the site.

 

Doug Ryan, Health Department, explained that there were a series of septic systems for the site.  He stated that the tent and RV sites were served by outhouses and during the last 3 years had been served by chemical toilets.  The applicants were asking for an appeal to not have a comfort station, which had toilets, showers, etc as they wanted to operate more rustically.  He stated that 2 vaulted privies would be required and would need to be located outside of the floodway.  He stated that no site plan had been received showing where those privies would be located.  He understood that the applicants were willing to work towards that but at the current time he could not determine if the standards could be met for the site.  

 

Commissioner Jensen asked if there was anywhere on site that could house those sanitary systems.

 

Mr. Tracy stated that the site did have areas in the flood fringe or completely out of the floodway where those sanitary systems could possibly be located.

 

Commissioner Miller asked why the old systems could not be replaced.

 

Mr. Ryan stated that it might be possible for the residential structures; however, there were no records for permits for privies on the site that served the campground.  He stated that generally permanent campgrounds needed permanent toilet facilities, which would need to serve the RV and campground sites.  He explained that the applicants were asking to appeal the requirement of the comfort station and use privies instead.  In that case, the Health Department would require 2 privies on the site.  He also mentioned that the RV’s would need sanitary hookups or dump stations, which was also being appealed by the applicant.   He stated that the Health Department historically found that dump stations were needed for campgrounds because when those were not supplied the gray water, etc. ended up being dumped onto the ground.

 

Commissioner Zitti asked what had been completed during the time of the Special Review submittal in 2012 and the flood in 2013.

 

Ms. Madson stated that little had been submitted.  She stated that in December 2014 another meeting was completed with the applicants to go over requirements.  She stated that some additional information was received in March 2015 but no technical information was received.

 

Commissioner Dougherty stated that he could not see that anything was completed from May 2012 to the flood of 2013 that furthered the process.  He did not feel that there was a good faith effort prior to the flood to get things completed.

 

Commissioner Miller agreed but felt that corrections could be made to the site.  He stated that he was for giving an extension to the applicants with them knowing that it was their last chance to get things accomplished.  He felt that the site could work as a campground and would like to see the use continue.  He understood the applicants’ hardships and felt that they could use an extension.

 

Commissioner Wallace had sympathy and empathy for the applicants; however, the lack of information made it difficult to move forward and grant approval.

 

Commissioner Christman supported an extension given to the applicants because she felt that if more information was received then the Planning Commission would be able to make a better decision regarding the Special Review.

 

Commissioner Gerrard empathized with the applicants.  He stated that since 1988 nothing had been done and/or nothing had been brought into compliance.  There was also a time from 2012 to 2013 where not a lot of effort was made to move forward with the process.  He hoped the Board of County Commissioners would allow an extension to their agreement with the applicants due to the flood and the circumstances that stemmed from that.  He stated that he would have to vote in denial of the application due to the lack of information received as it was needed to determine if the use could be compatible and meet the required standards.

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners denial of the Shaffer-Drake Campground Special Review, file #12-Z1899, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes.

 

Commissioner Dougherty seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

Commissioners’ Miller and Zitti voted against the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REPORT FROM STAFF:  Mr. Lafferty asked for thoughts from the Commissioners regarding the several meetings held regarding the flood regulations.

 

Commissioners Dougherty, Jensen, and Miller stated their thoughts

 

ADJOURNMENT:   There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 8:20 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.

 

 

_______________________________                      ______________________________

Nancy Wallace, Chairman                                          Mina Cox, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT A 

 

. A parcel of land being part of North Half of the Southwest Quarter (N1/2 SWl/4) of Section

Twenty-four (24), Township Eight North (T.8N.), Range Seventy West (R.70W.) of the Sixth

Principal Meridian (6th P.M.), County of Larimer, State of Colorado and being more particularly

described as follows:

 

COMMENCING at the West Quarter (W1/4) corner of said Section 24 and assuming the West

line of the Southwest Quarter (SW1/4) of said Section 24 as bearing South 01 °11'55" East, being a

Grid Bearing of the Colorado State Plane Coordinate System, North Zone, North American Datum

1983/2007 , a distance of 2634.47 feet with all other bearings contained herein relative thereto;

 

THENCE South 01 °11'55" East along the West line of said Southwest Quarter (SWl/4) a distance

of 359.26 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING;

 

THENCE North 88°49'36" East a distance of 1063.35 feet to the West line of Lot 1, Graves Minor

Land Division (M.L.D.) #02-S2001, recorded December 31, 2002 as Reception No. 2002143298 of

the records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder;

Thence along the West, Northerly, Easterly and Southerly lines of said Lot 1 the following Fifteen

(15) courses and distances:

THENCE North 01 °51'01" East a distance of 146.23 feet;

THENCE South 72°55'15" East a distance of 25.57 feet;

THENCE South 81 °43'40" East a distance of 209.90 feet;

THENCE South 58°17'12" East a distance of 104.69 feet;

THENCE South 56°14'05" East a distance of 260.92 feet;

THENCE South 44°06'25" East a distance of 200.63 feet;

THENCE South 29°48'47" East a distance of 188.86 feet;

THENCE South 01 °05'40" East a distance of 134.75 feet;

THENCE South 49°12'23" West a distance of 154.59 feet;

THENCE North 87°30'18" West a distance of 114.19 feet;

THENCE South 86°10'40" West a distance of 59.41 feet;

THENCE South 86°10'40" West a distance of 55.23 feet;

THENCE South 79°14'13" West a distance of 132.53 feet;

THENCE South 52°05'56" West a distance of 509.14 feet;

THENCE North 67°56'23" West a distance of 8.12 feet to the South line of said North Half of the

Southwest Quarter (N1/2 SWl/4);

THENCE South 89°33'47" West along said South line a distance of 937.09 feet to the South

Sixteenth (S1/16) comer between said Section 24 and Section Twenty-three (23), Township Eight

North (T.8N.), Range Seventy West (R.70W.) of the Sixth Principal Meridian (6th P.M.);

THENCE North 01 °11'55" West along the West line of said Southwest Quarter (SW1/4) a distance

Of 957.98 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING;

 

EXCEPTING THEREFROM:

The Fifty (50) feet of Dedicated Right-of-Way for Larimer County Road 25E dedicated by said

Graves Minor Land Division (M.L.D.) #02-S2001.

Said described parcel of land contains 33.738 Acres, more or less (±), and is subject to any rights of-

way or other easements of record or as now existing on said described parcel of land.

 

 

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 N orth 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,°_5 7 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 °3 2'-50" East 2416.05 feet to the point. of beginning.