LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of October 15, 2014
The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, October 15, 2014, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room. Commissioners’ Christman, Gerrard, Glick, Miller were present. Commissioner Jensen participated via telephone. Commissioner Wallace presided as Chairman. Commissioners’ Cox, Dougherty and Zitti were absent. Also present were Matt Lafferty, Principle Planner, Rob Helmick, Senior Planner, Michael Whitley, Planner II, Eric Tracy, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Health Department, and Jill Wilson, Recording Secretary.
The Planning Commission went on a site visit to ARDEC Location and Extent and Sweetheart City Winery Special Review.
Commissioner Dougherty had to depart due to a family emergency. Commissioner Jeff Jensen joined the hearing via telephone.
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 SEPTEMBER 17, 2014 MEETING: MOTION by Commissioner Glick to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Miller. This received unanimous voice approval.
AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:
None.
CONSENT ITEMS:
ITEM #1 ARDEC LOCATION AND EXTENT #14-Z1948 : Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request for a Location and Extent Review of a new classroom/shop building at the CSU ARDEC Campus, which was located east of I-25 on County Road 56 at the ARDEC Campus of Colorado State University. The new building would serve multiple uses and would be an 18,500 square foot single story metal building, which would contain classrooms, offices and a large shop area. It was intended to serve the University’s Agricultural Education Program. He stated that the University was encouraged to work with the Larimer County Road and Bridge Department regarding paving thresholds.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Glick moved that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approve the ARDEC Location and Extent, file #14-Z1948, subject to the following condition:
1. The applicant shall coordinate any contemplated drainage or traffic improvements with the Larimer County Road and Bridge and Engineering Department.
Commissioner Miller seconded the Motion.
Commissioners’ Gerrard, Glick, Jensen, Miller, and Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.
Commissioner Christman abstained.
MOTION PASSED: 5-0
ITEM #2 AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE – SECTION 13 #14-CA0146 : Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request to make changes to Sections 13.2 and 13.3 of the Larimer County Land Use Code to reflect current policy regarding types of projects that would require Location and Extents.
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 Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code – Section 13, file #14-CA0146, as follows:
Delete the current Section 13.2:
13.2. APPLICABILITY
The following projects require location and extent
review:
A. Public schools; and
B. Public roads, public
parks, trails and trailheads, public ways, grounds and spaces, public buildings
and structures and utilities, whether public or privately owned.
And replace it with the previously adopted policy language:
13.2 APPLICABLITY
The following projects require location and extent review:
A. The following types of public projects including; public roads, public parks, trails and trailheads, public ways, grounds and spaces, public buildings and structures and utilities, whether public or privately owned will be brought before the Larimer County Planning Commission for Location and Extent Review, unless they are listed as “No Review Required” below:
Review Required:
· Water transfers out of County
· Active recreation / community and neighborhood parks / regional trail acquisition outside open space areas or existing parks (not part of a land division application)
· School land acquisition (not part of a land division application)
· Site development for new schools
· Shops and yards – county, municipal, schools, CDOT, utilities, etc.
· Roads – additional new lanes, ROW for new roads, improvement from gravel to paved surface
· New interchanges on highways
· Trailhead with parking > 1acre
· New campground
· Fire stations/barns
· Sheriff or ambulance station
· Hospital / clinic
· Jails / detention centers
· Water storage – above ground and reservoirs
· New water / sewer treatment plant
· Land fills
· Sludge farms
· Recycling centers / solid waste transfer stations
· Communication towers
· Public office buildings
· Sand/gravel mining
· Any use with trip generation > 20 ADT
· Any use with outdoor storage or expansion of existing outdoor storage
· Any use not listed as No Review Required above
· Any public project that falls below the thresholds listed in Section 14.4 Designated Matters of State Interest.
No Review Required:
· Open space acquisition of land for passive recreation
· Trailhead parking <1 acre
· Expansion of existing active recreation areas
· Service distribution lines
· Roads – maintenance / lane widening / shoulder improvements / signals
· Bridge reconstruction, realignment, expansion
· Expansion of fire stations
· Expansion of water / sewer treatment plants
· Land acquisition for schools previously reviewed in a land division application
B. Public schools.
1. Prior to acquiring land or contracting for the purchase of land for a school site, the Board of Education must consult with and advise the Planning Commission in writing to ensure that the proposed site conforms to the adopted Master Plan as far as is feasible.
2. Prior to construction of any structure or building, the Board of Education must submit a site development plan for review and comment to the Planning Commission.
Modify Section 13.3. by deleting items 1. and 2. and renumbering the balance of the section.
A. Public schools.
1. Prior to acquiring land or
contracting for the purchase of land for a school site, the board of education
must consult with and advise the planning commission in writing to ensure that
the proposed site conforms to the adopted master plan as far as is feasible.
2. Prior to construction of
any structure or building, the board of education must submit a site
development plan for review and comment to the planning commission.
Commissioner Miller seconded the Motion.
Commissioners’ Christman, Gerrard, Glick, Jensen, Miller and Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.
MOTION PASSED: 6-0
Commissioner Gerrard recused himself from the next item.
ITEM:
ITEM #3 SWEETHEART CITY WINERY SPECIAL REVIEW #13-Z1904 : Mr. Whitley provided background information on the request for a Special Review for a winery, tasting room with gift shop and community hall/event center in the FA-1 - Farming Zoning District, which was located at 5500 W. Highway 34, more specifically situated south of Highway 34 approximately ¼ mile west of the intersection of Highway 34 and Wild Lane. He mentioned that the request also included an appeal to Section 8.6.3.C.1 of the Land Use Code regarding paving of the parking spaces and access. He explained that the primary winery structure and attached tasting room would be 5,500 square feet. The winery structure would be 4,000 square feet and would be where grapes would be processed, crushed, fermented into wine, aged, bottled and stored. The 1,500 square foot tasting room and gift shop would offer samples of wine, bottled wine and wine related gifts and accessories for sale. The tasting room would also offer deli-style food to complement the wine samples. The winery and tasting room was anticipated to have an average of 40 customers per day during the high season (May 15th to October 15th) and an average of 7 customers per day during the low season (October 16th to May 14th). The applicant and property owners’ Community Hall request included the ability to hold up to 8 events per month with up to 210 people including event attendees, employees and service personnel. A 2,000 square foot executive building was also proposed to be used for some events. He noted that there were also a number of outdoor areas identified in the project description and on the site plan for outdoor activities associated with the community hall.
Mr. Whitley explained the traffic memorandum prepared by Matt Delich, which described the average high season event size as having 136 guests and the average low season event size as having 65 guests. The proposed traffic numbers were high enough to trigger off-site road improvements and a left turn lane on Highway 34 was warranted; however, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) commented that they would not require the turn lane at the present time but reserved the right to require it if deemed necessary in the future. As a result, CDOT requested the following condition of approval:
"If the traffic generated by this parcel increases by greater than 20% from the metrics found in the 7/20/14 Delich traffic study, a new CDOT Access Permit will be required at which point CDOT may investigate the possibility of constructing auxiliary lanes on the highway."
Mr. Whitely showed the site plan and layout of the proposal. He also spoke about the floodway and flood fringe effects from the Flood of September 2013. He explained that the applicant was appealing the Land Use Code regarding paved parking and was proposing to use recycled asphalt. There were 90 proposed parking spaces, and the Development Services Team was recommending denial of the paved parking appeal. He noted that if the appeal was granted, the Team requested that a paved apron be completed.
Commissioner Glick asked about the flood plain requirements as it affected the proposed property and project.
Eric Tracy, Engineering Department, explained that the property had both a floodway and flood fringe. The applicant designed the proposal to occur in the flood fringe area and standards were based on the current flood plain maps. He explained that if in the future the floodplain maps were amended, and a proposed building not yet built was in a new delineated floodway, a building permit for the new structure could not be issued.
Commissioner Glick asked about using recycled asphalt.
Mr. Tracy explained the requirement of using a road base in that area. The Engineering Department felt that recycled asphalt was not the same as asphalt or concrete. Nevertheless, the traffic threshold was being exceeded, and the appeal was not supported.
Commissioner Glick asked about the standards for the septic system.
Doug Ryan, Health Department, stated that the sewer system would need to be in flood fringe and that a conceptual plan had been submitted for the sewer systems. If soil testing was completed and reasonable, then the Health Department was confident that the standards could be met.
David Burks, applicant, stated that they were in the process to raise the ground on the property.
Jack Cantley, property owner, stated that they would be raising the ground 3 feet, which was approved by the State.
Mr. Burks, explained that the primary reason to use recycled asphalt was due to the desire to keep a country feel for the area and the site. They felt that it was more natural and would blend more with the area. It would also help with dust suppression and drainage and was also permeable. He stated that the Parks and Wildlife Division were supportive of the recycled asphalt. He noted that they were supportive of installing an apron at the drive and also comfortable with CDOT’s recommendations. Regarding the noise, a study was completed and the sound was minimal. He also noted that there would be structures erected that would help buffer the noise.
Mr. Cantley stated that a landscape plan was also proposed to help reduce noise. He also explained that the wine was produced out of a 2,000 square foot building and there were no air quality issued.
Mr. Burks stated that they were working with the City of Loveland regarding a new water main being brought to the property. There was currently a 2-inch line crossing under Highway 34, and they were proposing a 4-inch line, which the neighbors would also be able to tap in to.
Commissioner Miller asked how much more expensive it would be to pave.
Mr. Cantley stated that it would be at least 40% more. In addition, they had a desire to do something more aesthetically appealing to/for the area.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY:
Sandra Brewer, Wild Lane, stated that she has been on the property for 35 years. She had concerns with the soil and contamination. She stated that 44% of the drainage flow increase from the late 1970’s was over and above historical flows and did not factor in the huge increases in local amounts affecting the site. There was also uncontrolled illegal drainage every time it rained or snowed, which had increased substantially beginning in the 1990’s and was due to the lack of drainage studies completed by Larimer County. She remarked that the proposal sat in a direct drainage path from the highly environmentally impacted drainage. The traffic analyses presented was based on pre-flood numbers and did not represent the traffic impacts that existed today. She also mentioned that noise could not be removed from the impact from this type of development. The noise was at unacceptable levels now without an additional source. She also stated that the site was in a flood zone and to consider adding new development should not be allowed.
John Fogle, Loveland City Council member, stated that Loveland was the largest adjacent property owner to the site. The City Council supported the project unanimously. They felt it would be a great addition to the Highway 34 corridor. He also noted that he was a board member of the Loveland Fire Protection Authority and noted that there would be a new fire station within the one mile of the site in approximately 4 years. He also stated that the owners were great community members.
David Thompson, property to the east of the proposal, was in favor of the project and spoke highly of the owners.
Ida Suppes, owned Sunny Jim’s Candy adjacent to the project. She stated that she was in favor of the project as she felt more businesses were needed in the area.
Mr. Whitley stated that two property owners in attendance had to leave and had voiced their concerns about the development of the site and future flood events. Other concerns were noise and traffic.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Miller was in favor of the proposal. He did not oppose using the recycled asphalt.
Commissioner Christman was also in favor of the proposal. She was unsure of her decision regarding the paving requirement.
Commissioner Glick supported the paving of the parking and driveway areas. He encouraged the applicant to work with the Planning Staff on a compromise.
Commissioner Jensen supported the proposal but did not support the appeal.
Commissioner Wallace agreed and stated that it was a great proposal and presentation. She also stated that she would not support the appeal. She suggested paving the drive to the parking area and then possibly coming up with another compromise for the parking area.
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 Sweetheart City Winery Special Review, file #13-Z1904, and denial of the appeal to Section 8.6.3.C.1 of the Land Use Code, 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 Sweetheart City Winery Special Review, File #13-Z1904 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 Sweetheart City Winery.
3. Events shall be limited to 8 per month.
4. A maximum of 210 people including event attendees, employees and service personnel shall be allowed on the property during events.
5. The operation on the site shall be conducted in compliance with the noise mitigation measures described in the applicants’ project description.
6. Outdoor operations shall be limited to between 7am and 7pm and indoor operations shall cease at or before midnight.
7. If the traffic generated by this parcel increases by greater than 20% from the metrics found in the 7/20/14 Delich traffic study, a new CDOT Access Permit will be required at which point CDOT may investigate the possibility of constructing auxiliary lanes on the highway.
8. It will be the property owner’s responsibility to provide traffic information and any requested traffic studies to the Colorado Department of Transportation. This would not preclude CDOT from conducting their own study.
9. All required plans and reports, including but not limited to, a landscaping plan, drainage report, fire protection plan and water line Final Public Improvement Construction Plans, shall be completed by the property owners and approved prior to the issuance of a Development Construction Permit or building permits on the property.
10. Failure to comply with any conditions of the Special Review approval may result in reconsideration of the use and possible revocation of the approval by the Board of Commissioners.
11. This application is approved without the requirement for a Development Agreement.
12. In the event the applicant fails to comply with any conditions of approval or otherwise fails to use the property consistent with the approved Special Review, applicant agrees that in addition to all other remedies available to County, County may withhold building permits, issue a written notice to applicant to appear and show cause why the Special Review approval should not be revoked, and/or bring a court action for enforcement of the terms of the Special Review. All remedies are cumulative and the County’s election to use one shall not preclude use of another. In the event County must retain legal counsel and/or pursue a court action to enforce the terms of this Special Review approval, applicant agrees to pay all expenses incurred by County including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees.
13. County may conduct periodic inspections to the property and reviews of the status of the Special Review as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of the Special Review approval.
14. The Findings and Resolution shall be a servitude running with the Property. Those owners of the Property or any portion of the Property who obtain title subsequent to the date of recording of the Findings and Resolution, their heirs, successors, assigns or transferees, and persons holding under applicants shall comply with the terms and conditions of the Special Review approval.
Commissioner Miller seconded the Motion.
Commissioners’ Christman, Glick , Jensen, Miller and Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.
MOTION PASSED: 5-0
REPORT FROM STAFF: Mr. Lafferty reminded the Commission of their upcoming meetings.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 8:32 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
That portion of Sections 7 and 18, Township 5 North, Range 69 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Larimer County. Colorado, as described in a deed recorded in book 1479 at page 885,
together with a 150.00 foot wide strip of land lying adjacent to the west side of said parcel described in book 1479 at page 885, more particularly described as follows;
Considering the South line of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 7 as bearing North 88 °17'29 M West, between the Southeast comer as monumented with brass cop stamped LS 16415 and the South Quarter comer as monumented with a 2” aluminum seal on a number 6 rebar stomped PlS 20676. with all bearings contained herein relative thereto;
Commencing at the Southeast comer of said Section 7. thence North 89'59'2'· East a distance at 374.58 feet to a point on the Southwesterly line of the Colorado and Pacific Railroad right-of-way; thence along said Southwesterly line North 33'54'39" West, a distance of 198.21 feet to the Southerly line of the right-of-way for U.S. Highway 34; thence along sold Southerly line North 75'26'34" West, a distance of 574.20 feet; thence along said right-ot-way N6rth 14"26'52" East, a distance of 49.45 feet to the Southerly line of the right-of-way for U.S. Highway 34; thence North 75"17' 00· West. along said Southerly line, a distance of 614.48 feet to the Point of Beginning;
Thence containing along said Southerly line North 75 ° 17'00· West a distance of 150.00 feet to
the Northwest comer of said parcel of land as described in 0 deed recorded in book 1479 at page 885: thence continuing along said Southerly line North 75 ° 17'00· West a distance of 150,00 feet to a point on a line parallel with and 150.00 feet West of, measured at right angles to the West line of said parcel of land described in a deed recorded in book 1479 at page 885; thence South 14"43'00· West, along said parallel line a distance of 1109.06 feet, to the centerline of the Big Thompson River; thence North 65'48'39" East. along said centerline. a distance 192.76 feet to the Southwest comer of said parcel of land as described in a deed recorded in book 1479 at page 885; thence continuing along said centerline North 65'48'39-East. along the south line of that parcel as described in deed recorded in book 1479 at page 885: thence North 15'10'55" East. along the East line of said parcel of land as described In a deed recorded In book 1479 at page 885, a distance of 872.69 feet to the point or beginning. •
.
