LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of March 16, 2005
The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, March 16, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room. Commissioners’ Huddleston, Oppenheimer, Pond, terMeer, Waldo and Wallace were present. Commissioner Morgan presided as Chairman. Commissioners’ Boulter and Korb were absent. Also present were Rob Helmick, Principal Planner, Al Kadera, Principal Planner, Porter Ingrum, Planner II, David Karan, Planner II, Matt Lafferty, Senior Planner, Karin Madson, Planner II, Traci Downs, Engineering Department, Roxann Hayes, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Environmental Health, and Jill Albracht, Planning Technician and 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 JANUARY 19, 2005 AND FEBRUARY 16, 2005 MEETINGS: MOTION by Commissioner Pond to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Huddleston. This received unanimous voice approval.
AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:
None
TABLED ITEM:
Commissioner Pond moved that the Planning Commission table the McClelland’s Creek Planned Land Division/Planned Development, file #04-S2299, to the April 20, 2005 Planning Commission Hearing. Commissioner Huddleston seconded the Motion. This received unanimous voice approval.
CONSENT ITEMS:
Keith Jacobson, 489 N. County Road 23E, stated that he lived to the west of the Centennial Farms Conservation Development. He inquired about the access for the southwest 35-acre tract.
Virginia Peabody, 535 Westhill Drive, was concerned about the Centennial Farms Conservation Development in respect to the surrounding environment. She advised that there were endangered species in the area.
Chairman Morgan stated that he also had concerns with Item #1 Centennial Farms Conservation Development and asked that it be removed from the consent agenda.
ITEM #2 CALBRESE CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT #04-S2267: Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request for a three lot Conservation Development on 35 acres, located on the west side of County Road 25E.
Commissioner Pond moved that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Calabrese Conservation Development, file #04-S2267, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the Calabrese Conservation Development (File #04-S2267) 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 Calabrese Conservation Development.
2. The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings: Thompson R2-J 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. Calabrese Lane shall be designed and constructed to extend to the northern property line of the development site.
4. Passive radon mitigation measures shall be included in construction of residential structures on these lots. The results of a radon detection test conducted in new dwellings once the structure is enclosed but prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall be submitted to the Building Department. As an alternative, a builder may present a prepaid receipt from a radon tester which specifies that a test will be done within 30 days. A permanent certificate of occupancy can be issued when the prepaid receipt is submitted.
5. Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat the applicant shall define the uses allowed within each of the residual lots and identify building envelopes necessary for any support buildings.
6. Residential dwellings for Lots 2 and 3 shall be required unless an acceptable alternative to fire protection is approved by the Loveland Fire Prevention Bureau.
7. Engineered footings and foundations may be required for new habitable construction. Engineering for any new residential and/or septic system construction shall be done in consideration of the recommendations of the Colorado Geological Survey as outlined in the letter from Celia Greenman dated January 10, 2005.
8. The applicant shall execute a Disclosure Notice for approval by the County to be recorded with the Final Plat. This notice shall provide information to all lot owners of the conditions of approval and special costs or fees associated with the approval of this project. The notice shall include, but not be limited to, the issues related to rural development, fire department requirements, the recommendations of the State Geological Survey (addressing foundations), the need for passive radon mitigation, and the issues raised in the review and/or related to compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Code.
9. During the Final Plat process the applicant shall address and resolve all the technical issues found in the following referral letters:
· Larimer County Engineering Department by Roxann Hayes dated January 5, 2005.
Commissioner Waldo seconded the Motion.
Commissioners' Huddleston, Oppenheimer, Pond, terMeer, Waldo, Wallace, and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
ITEM #3 CHILSON AMENDED REZONING #05-Z1535: Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request to amend the conditional use of a property zoned Commercial to allow for the outdoor display and sale of vehicles, which would include RV’s, boats, cars and similar vehicles.
Commissioner Pond moved that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Chilson Amended Rezoning, file #05-Z1535, for the property described on “Exhibit C” to the minutes, be approved.
Commissioner Waldo seconded the Motion.
Commissioners' Huddleston, Oppenheimer, Pond, terMeer, Waldo, Wallace, and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
ITEM #4 SHYANNE PLANNED LAND DIVISION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT #03-S2180: Mr. Karan provided background information on the request to subdivide the 14.45 acre Hirsch Family Trust Minor Residential Division (MRD) into four single-family residential lots, located within the Loveland Growth Management Area (GMA) on N. County Road 11C between Boyd and Horseshoe lakes. The request also included a rezoning to Planned Development and an Appeal to Section 8.14.2.S of the Larimer County Land Use Code.
Commissioner Pond moved that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Shyanne Planned Land Division/Planned Development, file #03-S2180, for the property described on “Exhibit D” to the minutes, and the Appeal to Section 8.14.2.S of the Larimer County Land Use Code be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved Preliminary Plat and with the information contained in the Shyanne PLD/PD (File #03-S2108). The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Shyanne PLD/PD.
2. Engineered foundations are required for new habitable construction on this site as recommended by the Colorado Geologic Survey. A letter from an engineer/professional land surveyor will be required verifying that the finished floor elevation for a lot is 4980’ or higher before a Certificate of Occupancy for that lot will be issued.
3. Passive radon mitigation measures shall be included in the construction of all new residential structures on these lots. The results of a radon detection test 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 that specifies that a test will be done within 30 days. A permanent Certificate of Occupancy can be issued when the prepaid receipt is submitted.
4. The following fees shall be collected at building permit for new single family dwellings. Thompson R-2 school fee, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion (TCEFs), Larimer County Regional Park Fee (in lieu of dedication) and drainage fee. The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply. Both the Development Agreements and the Disclosure Affidavits will reference this requirement. The County Engineer’s office also requires a Developmental Construction Permit, prior to commencing development construction.
5. The applicant shall execute a Disclosure Notice for approval by the County to be recorded with the Final Plat. This notice shall provide information to all lot owners of the conditions of approval and special costs or fees associated with the approval of this project. The notice shall include, but not be limited to, the issues related to rural development, fire department requirements, the requirement for any access permits and culverts, the recommendations of the State Geological Survey (addressing foundations), building envelopes, the need for passive radon mitigation, and the issues raised in the review and/or related to compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Code.
6. Prior to scheduling of for the Board of County Commissioners hearing, the applicant shall submit specifications of the PD zoning consistent with the plans and other materials contained in File # 03-S2180 and acceptable to the Planning Department.
7. A final drainage plan shall be submitted with the Final Plat application.
8. All residential structures shall be sprinklered in compliance with National Fire Protection Act standard 13D.
9. A mitigation plan for impacts to the Horseshoe Lake shoreline shall be approved by the Planning Department as part of the Final Plat Review process.
Commissioner Waldo seconded the Motion.
Commissioners' Huddleston, Oppenheimer, Pond, terMeer, Waldo, Wallace, and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
ITEMS:
ITEM #5 DRIPPING SPRINGS SPECIAL REVIEW #04-Z1515: Mr. Karan provided background information on the Special Review request for a bed and breakfast and accommodation resort situated approximately one mile downstream from Estes Park. The request also included an Appeal to Section 8.6.3.C.1 (parking pavement standards) of the Larimer County Land Use Code. The application was originally heard at the February 16, 2005 Planning Commission hearing but was tabled in order for Conditions of Approval to be drafted.
Amy Plummer, Van Horn Engineering, was representing the owners, Oliver and Janie Robertson, who were out of town. She stated that Mr. Robertson had agreed to all of the Conditions of Approval. However, he had a question about Condition of Approval h regarding Building Permits. She asked for clarification of that condition before the application was heard before the Board of County Commissioners.
Rob Helmick, Principal Planner, explained the required Building Permit. He stated that the issue would be addressed before the County Commissioners hearing.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY:
None
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Wallace moved that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Appeal to Section 8.6.3.C.1 of the Larimer County Land Use Code be approved.
Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.
Commissioners’ Huddleston, Oppenheimer, Pond, terMeer, Waldo, Wallace and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
Commissioner Waldo moved that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Dripping Springs Special Review, file #04-Z1515, for the property described on “Exhibit E” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:
a. Implementation of the provisions of this Special Review shall be consistent with the information contained in the Dripping Springs Special Review (File #04-Z1515). The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Dripping Springs Special Review.
b. A legally binding instrument to form a Limited Liability Company (LLC), or comparable instrument, to ensure the three lots covered by the Special Review approval are operated as one and only one resort is approved by the Development Services Team and the County Attorney. This instrument must be signed and notarized by all parties owning one or more lots at the time of recording. Any owner opting out of the Special Review approval will be required to physically or functionally eliminate all habitable units except one single-family residence per lot unless the LCLUC has been altered to allow more than one principal dwelling on one legal lot.
c. A set of Covenants which defines the roles of the LLC in operating and maintaining water supply and sewage disposal systems is approved by the County Department of Health and Environment. These covenants shall be properly recorded.
d. An Amended Plat is submitted, processed and approved to adjust property lines in accordance with the plan approved as part of this Special Review.
e. The applicant will be responsible for constructing paved aprons at both access points to US 34. These paved aprons will extend to the property boundary. The applicant will be required to apply for, and receive, a CDOT access permit, and for complying with all associated conditions and specifications of that permit. The paved aprons will need to be installed, and approved by CDOT, on or before 1Sep05.
f. A Site Plan process is completed and approved by the County Planning Department.
g. All required State-level permits for water supply treatment and for sewage disposal are obtained.
h. The applicant obtains required change-of-use Building Department permits.
Commissioner Oppenheimer seconded the Motion.
Commissioners’ Huddleston, Oppenheimer, Pond, terMeer, Waldo, Wallace and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
ITEM #5 AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE #05-CA0052: Mr. Kadera provided background information on the request to amend Section 5.11 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.
Note:
Underlined text is new or added text and strike through text is
being deleted from the Code.
5.11 STREET AND ROAD NAMING*
The purpose of this section is to establish a consistent process for naming street and roads; to establish a process for changing existing street and road names and to provide standards so street and road names are not duplicated. The terms "street" and "road" include any access drive or easement that provides access to two or more building sites or lots. This section is intended to provide street and road naming standards where the Larimer County Road Naming and Site Addressing System Resolution does not apply.
Note: The Larimer County Road Naming and Site Addressing System Resolution can be viewed at: www.larimer.org/addressing/resolution.pdf
5.11.2 Applicability.
This
section applies to the naming of all roads and streets in unincorporated Larimer County
in the GMA District, the Estes Valley,
and the Growth Management Areas for Loveland
and Berthoud as designated in current inter-governmental agreements in unincorporated Larimer County
except Estes Valley.
5.11.3 Naming new roads and streets in developments and assigning addresses.
A.
Proposed street
and road names must be included in the preliminary final plat
application for any subdivision, planned land division, conservation
development, or minor land division or final plat application
for a rural land use plan. The plat will be referred to the
Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) for a recommendation as to whether
the proposed names are consistent with the standards in this section.
B.
If the chief building official determines the proposed
street and road names are not consistent with the standards, the plat will not
be scheduled for a hearing before the county commissioners recorded
until the applicant submits acceptable names. Proposed street and roads names
become official on approval by the county commissioners recording of
the final plat. The county building department will assign an address number
for each lot within 21 days of county commissioner approval, consistent
with the standards of the applicable city or town.
5.11.4. Changing existing road and street names and naming unnamed roads and streets.
A. Proposed name changes and road names for existing unnamed roads and streets require approval by the chief building official with review by the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) and notice to all affected property owners.
B. All applications for proposed name changes and names for existing unnamed roads and streets require a pre-application conference with building department staff and approval by the chief building official. The decision of the chief building official may be appealed to the county commissioners pursuant to section 22 (appeals).
C. Proposed names must be consistent with this section.
D. The chief building official's decision on the application will be in the form of an affidavit which will be recorded with the county Clerk and Recorder. On appeal, the County Commissioners' decision will be in the form of a written findings and resolution, which will be recorded with the county Clerk and Recorder.
5.11.5. Standards for street and road naming.
A. Purpose. Standards for naming roads and streets are intended to standardize terminology and avoid duplications to improve emergency service response to all parts of the county.
B. Directions. Directions can not be part of any street or road name. (For example, Westover Road or Fossil Creek Drive North are not acceptable) North, South, East and West are intended to be directional features of the addressing system and lead to confusing addresses if included as part of the name. Directions must be placed ahead of the name. (For example, East Smith Street).
C. Names that are numbers. Names that are numbers must be expressed numerically (for example, 2nd Street, not Second Street).
D. General naming standards. Road names must be unique and not repeated in the county. Alternate spelling, homonyms (deer and dear) and corporate trade names are not acceptable. All road names must use common spelling as found in a standard dictionary. Road names must not contain any punctuation or symbols. Only letters of the alphabet, numbers from 0 to 9 and blank spaces may be included in road names. Any roads or streets making a directional change of about 90 degrees must have a unique name after each directional change. Any road that serves two or more parcels must be named.
E. County roads are numbered. North-South county roads are odd numbers starting at the east county line. East-West county roads are even numbers starting with "2" at the south county line. County road numbers followed by a letter indicate a county road is not on a section line. For each tenth of a mile west or north of a section line the letter designation increases. (For example, County Road 38E indicates a county road that is five-tenths of a mile north of County Road 38). Numbered county roads outside designated growth management areas must not be named. Inside growth management areas county roads may be named using the applicable city's street names.
F. State and federal highways numbered. State and federal highways are numbered. These highways are not named.
G. Road name suffixes. The following road name suffixes must be used in the naming of new roads and streets in the county:
1. Avenue (AVE). A roadway or thoroughfare that is continuous and not limited to a single subdivision.
2. Boulevard (BLVD). A street with a landscaped median dividing the roadway.
3. Court (CT). A permanently dead-end street or a street terminating in a cul-de-sac not longer than 660 feet in length.
4. Drive (DR). A curvilinear street.
5. Lane (LN). A minor street within a subdivision
6. Parkway (PKWY). A thoroughfare designated as a collector or arterial with a median reflecting the parkway character implied in the name.
7. Place (PL). A permanently dead-end street terminating in a cul-de-sac, or a short through street, not longer than 660 feet in length.
8. Road (RD). A designated thoroughfare.
9. Street (ST). The common or default suffix.
10. Way (WY). A curvilinear street.
H. Abbreviations. Abbreviations of the main title of the street or road name can not be used. (For example, Mount Shasta Drive, not Mt. Shasta Drive) Street or road designations such as drive or lane may be abbreviated according to a list of standard abbreviations available from the county building department.
I. Continuations of existing streets or roads names. Street and road names can not change at intersections. Continuations of existing streets or roads must use the existing name.
J. Addresses. All addresses will be assigned by the county building department. Lots in new developments will be assigned addresses when the final plat is approved. Addresses for unplatted lots or parcels will be assigned when a building permit is issued on that lot or parcel.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY:
None
Mr. Kadera provided background information on Sections 3.2, 12.2.6, 12.2.7, 12.2.8, and 21.1 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.
Note:
Underlined text is new or added text and strike through text is
being deleted from the Code.
Section 3.2 General Rules
Add a new Subsection H. to be worded as follows:
In the event a matter is brought before the Board of Adjustment, Planning Commission or County Commissioners, all or in part to “cure” a violation or alleged violation of this Code, the review criteria applied shall be those as stated in the Code for the applicable type of approval without regard to past investment in an illegal use.
Section 12.2.6 Planning Commission
Amend Subsection C to be worded as follows:
C. At the public hearing, the commission will consider all information presented by the applicant and the planning department and any verbal or written testimony. Except in the event a matter is brought before the commission, all or in part to “cure” a violation or alleged violation of this Code, the review criteria applied shall be those as stated in the Code for the applicable type of approval without regard to past investment in an illegal use. The commission will review the application with respect to the master plan, this Code and all information and testimony and make a recommendation for approval, approval with conditions or denial. The recommendation must include findings stating how the proposal meets or fails to meet the review criteria of this Code.
Section 12.2.7 Board of County Commissioners
Amend Subsection B to be worded as follows:
B. Public hearings will be conducted in accordance with subsections 12.4.1, 12.4.2 and 12.4.3 of this Code. At the public hearing, the county commissioners will consider all information presented by the applicant and the county staff, any written or verbal testimony and the recommendations of the planning commission or the rural land use advisory board. The county commissioners will review the application with respect to the review criteria of this Code and all information and testimony to decide whether to approve, approve with conditions or deny the application. Except in the event a matter is brought before the county commissioners, all or in part to “cure” a violation or alleged violation of this Code, the review criteria applied shall be those stated in the Code for the applicable type of approval without regard to past investment in an illegal use. The county commissioners’ decision will be in the form of a written resolution that states how the proposal meets or fails to meet the applicable review criteria of this Code.
Section 12.2.8 Board of Adjustment
Amend this section to be worded as follows:
This Board has final authority to approve, approve with conditions or deny any application for a variance, special exception, requests for interpretations of the zoning provisions of this Code or an appeal of an administrative decision made in the enforcement of zoning and related sections (3.0, 4.0 except 4.2.2, 8.7, 8.17.1, 8.17.2, 8.18.2, 8.19, 16.0 and the definitions section [0.1]) of this Code. All applications submitted for a variance or special exception require a pre-application conference and a public hearing. An application for special exception or variance may be subject to a neighborhood meeting at the discretion of the planning director. A request for an interpretation or appeal of an administrative decision must follow the process in subsection 22.2.2. In the event a matter is brought before the board of adjustment, all or in part to “cure” a violation or alleged violation of this Code, the review criteria applied shall be those as stated in the Code for the applicable type of approval without regard to past investment in an illegal use.
Section 21.1 Violations
Amend this section by adding Subsection G to be worded as follows:
G. In the event a matter is brought before the planning commission, board of county commissioners or board of adjustment, all or in part to “cure” a violation or alleged violation of this Code, the review criteria applied shall be those as stated in the Code for the applicable type of approval without regard to past investment in an illegal use.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY:
Evelyn King, 6321 14th SW, stated that she was a member of the Board of Adjustment but was not at the hearing on behalf of the Board. She remarked that she was opposed to the proposed amendments to the Land Use Code, Sections 3.2, 12.2.6, 12.2.7, 12.2.8, and 21.1, in regard to the investment for an illegal use. As the proposed amendments read it implied that anything already built (thus an investment) could not be considered when requests were heard for Variances or Appeals. She explained that the Board of Adjustment heard cases for garages, decks, etc. where the investment, or planned investment, was the exact reason for the applicant to ask for flexibility in the Code standards. She stated that the Board of Adjustment discussed the proposed amendments and were assured that nothing would change in regards to how cases were heard. She suggested that the language not be added if that was truly the case.
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Kadera stated that the issue was discussed with the Board of Adjustment members at their last hearing. He explained that he did state that he did not believe that the amendments would change the way the Planning Department looked at requests for Variances and Special Exceptions. The review criterion had been the only thing considered by staff when examining an application. An investment had never been and would not be a reason to approve an application even if the applicant stated that it should be considered. Therefore, he believed that adopting the amendments would not change the way that staff reviewed applications for the Board of Adjustment, Planning Commission, or Board of County Commissioners. He remarked that the amendments were simply informative to people that came before the boards with their applications.
Chairman Morgan remarked that all people should be treated equally under the code, and the people that had the privilege to invest money should not be viewed any differently. The amendment just made it clear that an investment made by an applicant would not be persuasive with respect to a particular land use. He did not feel that the amendment was taking away from the deliberations and the ability to make a decision based on a criterion in terms of the particular use or the impact. The dollars themselves, although perhaps a factor to the applicant, should not be the determining factor with respect to the body making the decision.
Commissioner Wallace 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 Sections 3.2, 5.11, 12.2.6, 12.2.7, 12.2.8, and 21.1.
Commissioner Huddleston seconded the Motion.
Commissioners’ Huddleston, Oppenheimer, Pond, terMeer, Waldo, Wallace and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
REMOVED FROM CONSENT:
ITEM #1 CENTENNIAL FARMS CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT #03-S2207: Ms. Madson provided background information on the request for a Conservation Development to create 53 two-acre minimum lots, three residential residual lot of 35-70 acres, and several common area residual parcels and outlots on 328 total acres. She stated that throughout the processing of the application the applicant had provided a number of studies regarding wildlife/wetland and access issues and had worked with the Planning staff to address some of those concerns. She explained that the applicant had proposed an emergency access to the County Road 23/State Highway 56 intersection and another emergency/primary access adjacent to or along the County Road 23E alignment. Due to a number of unresolved issues associated with the County Road 23E alignment, the final design for the emergency or primary access would be resolved prior to the approval of the Final Plat. Three other alternatives were submitted by the applicant; however, the preferred alternative recommended by the Development Services Team was that the western access be a full access within dedicated right-of-way.
Ross Brazil, THK Associates, explained that one of the access alternatives for the southwest lot was a dedicated right-of-way that ran out of Westhill Estates north to south and touched the southern part of the Centennial Farms property line. If the dedicated right-of-way did not occur then it was agreed that a driveway would be constructed to County road standards and fire department standards. It would run from the finished roadway section from Westhill Estates along the dedicated existing right-of-way up into the property and onto the building envelope. He also noted that there was a Wildlife Conservation Plan in place due to the environmental impacts on the property. The required buffers were adequately provided with the nearest one approximately 325 feet from the nearest building envelope. Along with that, a section of the pedestrian trail would be closed during nesting season. He stated that after meeting with the Division of Wildlife the lots to the south of the property were moved north a minimum of 600 feet due to the Colorado Butterfly Plant and the wildlife corridor that existed along the Little Dry Creek. He stated that the goal was to protect the environmental features on the site.
Commissioner Huddleston had questions about the drainage.
David Boles, RG Consulting Engineers, explained that all of the lots were checked for the lowest building footprint elevation that would be allowed. The most southwestern corner lot, closest to the creek, was also checked, and the minimum elevation would be 76. The 100-year elevation would be at 70.84 at that location of the creek, and the finished floor was at least 5 feet above the 100 year floodplain.
Commissioner Wallace was concerned about the pedestrian trail. She wondered how well the closing of the trail would be monitored and if it would be possible to move it away from the Cottonwood trees.
Mr. Brazil stated that at Final Plat there would be a final Wildlife Plan, and the homeowners association would carry out the enforcement and maintenance of the trail. He stated that moving the trail away from the area of concern could be examined.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY:
Keith Jacobson, 489 N. County Road 23E, stated that he was a property owner immediately to the west of the proposed development, and the drainage for the development ran through the northeast corner of his property. He stated that at the present time it looked as if the access was located at the southwest 35-acre tract located on County Road 23E.
Ms. Madson explained that there were a number of alternatives. The access shown on the plat at the present time was shown on the County Road 23E alignment. If it turned out that the road could not be a publicly dedicated road the alternative would be for that access to be to the south through the Westhill Estates platted right-of-way.
Mr. Jacobson stated that there was a culvert on his property, and he did not believe that the culvert would be adequate if the road became publicly dedicated.
Traci Downs, Engineering Department, pointed out that if and when in the future County Road 23E became dedicated the culvert would have to be analyzed. The County currently analyzed drainage based on a 100 year storm event, and generally, historic drainage patterns were kept.
Chairman Morgan asked if Mr. Jacobson was opposed to County Road 23E becoming a publicly dedicated road?
Mr. Jacobson stated that he was not opposed; however, he questioned who would maintain the road – the County or him.
Mr. Helmick stated that the issue was something that was unclear at the present time.
Mr. Jacobson stated that he was not opposed to the development; however, he felt that certain issues needed to be addressed.
Virginia Peabody, 535 Westhill Drive, was concerned about Westhill Drive becoming an access.
Ms. Madson stated that as proposed as access to one lot it was not and would not be a through street to County Road 23E. It would only serve as a driveway to the southern parcel of the Centennial Farms development.
Ms. Peabody hoped that during the development process the environment would be well taken care of.
Laura Reynolds, 485 N. County Road 23E, asked if the project could go forward without a resolution of what would become of County Road 23E?
Ms. Madson explained that one of the conditions for the Preliminary Plat was related to comments submitted by the Engineering Department. The applicant had submitted two primary alternatives to the access to the development and three alternatives for either a primary or emergency access each of which met the requirements of the Land Use Code. Therefore, in concurrence with the recommendation, the issues would have to be resolved prior to the recording of the Final Plat.
Mr. Brazil reinforced that the Westhill Drive access would only be to one residence in the development.
Commissioner Wallace asked if there would be covenants regarding minimum outdoor lighting?
Mr. Brazil replied yes.
DISCUSSION:
Chairman Morgan stated that he had a major concern with the connectivity. He was concerned with the unresolved issues regarding County Road 23E and felt that the lots on the northwest portion of the property needed a significant secondary access. He felt that it would be poor planning to have all of the traffic go on to County Road 8E. The Prairie Way access road needed to be developed and the 30-foot right-of-way should be improved. It would allow two discrete access points and would be in the best interest of the property owners to the west of the development. He stated that he would recommend to the County Commissioners an additional condition requiring a public access roadway along the County Road 23E alignment approved from County Road 8E to County Road 6E. He also proposed that the County consider taking maintenance of that improved road in order to have connectivity that would ultimately be needed in the future.
Ms. Downs agreed that the Prairie Way connection was the preferred alternative to tie into the County Road 23E alignment to the west, which explained why the applicant was encouraged to dedicate the 30-foot half right-of-way from County Road 8E along the western boundary of the property. She stated that it was the Engineering Departments preferred alternative because it would minimize accesses off of County Road 8E, it would improve emergency accesses to the proposed development, and it would allow connectivity. She explained that another possible option could be for the existing owners to the west to dedicate the other 30 feet of that segment to the north. She explained that the idea brought forth of dedicating the full public right-of-way from County Road 8E to 6E would bring up issues that would need to be examined such as the culvert crossings, maintenance of the entire roadway, and the intersection of County Road 6 and 23E. She did agree that at least developing the north portion of County Road 23E would benefit the properties on each side of the road.
Chairman Morgan stated that the development was well planned; however,
connectivity was an issue that needed to be addressed. The access issue was
substantial enough that it needed to be dealt with permanently to allow for
better circulation of traffic out of the development.
Commissioner Wallace agreed that the access was a primary problem, and the only major problem with the proposed development was County Road 23E. She believed that the County Commissioners should be encouraged to include the road as a public road maintained by the County.
Commissioner terMeer agreed with Commissioner Wallace and Chairman Morgan on the connectivity issue.
Chairman Morgan opened the public hearing to the applicant only in respect to the connectivity comments.
Mr. Brazil stated that at the current time the proposed project had done all that it could do in regards to access by dedicating the 30 feet along the property line. He remarked that fundamentally the traffic from the development would be going north and east. By putting connectivity on the west property line it would create another direction for people to go, and people would be more likely to use the main intersection that was being provided.
Mr. Boles remarked that holding up the progress on the development because of a road that may be development in the future was unfair.
Commissioner Pond felt that the developer was doing their share by providing the 30-foot easement. If any development occurred to the west it would be incumbent upon that developer to provide the rest of the right-of-way and construct the road. He felt that the development was satisfying connectivity.
Commissioner Pond moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Centennial Farms Conservation Development, file #03-S2207, be approved subject to staff recommendations.
Commissioner Huddleston seconded the Motion.
Commissioner Wallace moved to amend the Motion to require an alternative exit along County Road 23E from Prairie Way to County Road 8E and also a dedicated 30-foot right-of-way emergency access along Lot 1-8 be provided as part of the Development Agreement.
Chairman Morgan seconded the Motion.
Commissioner Huddleston asked how the recommended amendment was different from what the developer was providing.
Ms. Downs replied that it was one of the alternatives provided. It left the option open in the future to develop the road to local standards if the 30 feet was dedicated. She explained that the first alternative (which was preferred by staff) was an access from Prairie Way to the County Road 23E alignment and also a dedication of a 30-foot right-of-way along the entire western property line, which would be an interim and incremental improvement to any future needs of that roadway. Depending on access issues, there would be the ability to build the emergency access within the 30-foot right-of-way dedicated by the applicant. She explained that another option, if access right issues occurred, would be to add another access point onto County Road 8E, which technically would meet the County Engineering spacing standards for a minor collector. She remarked that typically the Engineering Department liked to minimize access off of minor collector roadways and liked them to be on lesser classified roadways; however, it was an option that could meet County standards. A third option would be to shift Prairie Way to the north.
Commissioner Huddleston stated that the amendment was unnecessary due to the alternatives presented by staff.
Commissioners’ Huddleston, Oppenheimer, Pond and terMeer voted against the Motion.
Commissioners’ Waldo, Wallace, and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.
MOTION TO AMEND: FAILED: 3-4
Commissioner Pond moved that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Centennial Farms Conservation Development, file #03-S2207, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the Centennial Farms Conservation Development (File #03-S2207) 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 Centennial Farms Conservation Development.
2. The applicant shall execute a Disclosure Notice to be recorded with the Final Plat. This notice will provide information to all lot owners of the conditions of approval and special costs or fees associated with the approval of this project. The notice shall include, but is not limited to; rural and agricultural issues, fees, building envelopes, fire department requirements, requirements for engineered footings and foundations, requirements and costs associated with engineered septic systems, the need for passive radon mitigation, and the issues raised in the review and or related to compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Code.
3. The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings: Thompson R2-J school fee, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, and Larimer County Regional Park Fee (in lieu of dedication). The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply.
4. Fire Requirements – The final construction plans shall be designed to be capable of providing a water supply that meets the requirements of the Berthoud Fire Protection district. Specifically, fire hydrants shall be capable of flowing at 1000 GPM with a 20 Psi residual pressure. Hydrants shall be spaced at no less than 600 feet apart unless a greater distance is approved by the fire district. The applicant/developer shall provide evidence of satisfactory fire flows prior to the issuance of any permits.
5. Engineered footings and foundations are required for new habitable construction. Engineering for habitable construction within the development shall be done in consideration of the recommendations made by the Colorado State Geological Survey memo, prepared by Andy Gleason, dated August 5, 2004, including complete geotechnical investigation and engineered foundation, foundation drains and avoidance of building on lots with areas of slopes greater than 20%.
6. The building envelopes for lots 32-36 and 40-45 shall be revised to avoid slopes 20% or greater. The building envelope for residual lot 56 shall be revised so that it is entirely out of the proposed right-of-way dedication.
7. 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.
8. Water service shall be provided consistent with the requirements of the Little Thompson Water District as detailed in their letter dated August 3, 2004 and their commitment letter dated December 11, 2003. The applicant shall provide an updated commitment letter prior to recordation of the final plat.
9. As long as the stick raptor nest (as shown on the site inventory) exists on the property the following restriction shall apply: Between February 15th and July 15th the portion of the pedestrian trail between lots 35-38 shall be closed during the nesting season to protect the nesting raptors. Signs shall be posted on the trail by representatives of the HOA indicating that the trail is temporary closed to protect nesting raptors. The applicant shall be responsible for creating the signs and distributing them to the HOA.
10. During the final plat process the applicant shall fulfill the requirements of the proposed conditions as outlined in the memo from Traci Downs, Larimer County Engineering Department, dated February 24, 2005.
Commissioner Huddleston seconded the Motion.
Commissioners' Huddleston, Oppenheimer, Pond, terMeer, Waldo, Wallace, and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
REPORT FROM STAFF: Mr. Helmick reminded the Commission of their upcoming meetings.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 8:45 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.
_______________________________ ______________________________
Roger Morgan, Chairman Jason Waldo, Secretary
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT E
