Monday, February 8, 2010

5:00 p.m.

Larimer County Courthouse Lake Estes Conference Room (Suite 333)


Rural Land Use Advisory Board:

RLUC Staff:


Linda Hoffmann

Suzanne Bassinger

Brenda Gimeson

Kristin Grazier


John Hatfield


Mark Korb


Lauren Light


Mike Lynch


William Prewitt


Bill Sears


Bill Spencer






  1. Approval of the December 7, 2009 RLUAB Minutes

Member Sears made a motion to approve the minutes as written.  Member Prewitt seconded the motion.  All were in favor.  Minutes adopted as written. 


  1. Designate official public place for posting of agendas

Member Sears made a motion to designate the official place for posting the RLUAB agendas to be the public bulletin board on the 1st floor of the Larimer County Offices building at 200 West Oak Street, Fort Collins, Colorado along with a copy posted on the Rural Land Use Center webpage.  Member Prewitt seconded the motion.  All were in favor.  Adopted.


  1. Lazy D Ranch RLUP

Linda gave an overview of the Lazy D Ranch RLUP project which included a slide presentation.  The property is generally located west of Bellvue, at the crossing of County Road 63E and the south fork of the Cache la Poudre River.  The applicant, Lazy D Associates, LLC, is proposing to divide 165 +/- acres in the following manner: Up to six (6) single family residential lots and 2 (two) Residual Lots. The property consists of two (2) existing home-sites, plus the original historic farmstead which includes a ranch house and an accessory caretaker’s residence.  The applicants are proposing four (4) additional new home-sites.  Lots 1-6 will range in size from 2-5 acres.  A minimum of 110 acres of residual land will be protected from further development for a minimum of 40 years, by a conservation mechanism, as required under the RLUP.  The property is zoned O – Open which would allow up to 16 home-sites if developed through the county’s subdivision process.  


Five of the homesites (two new ones and 3 existing) are what the family refers to as behind the gate.  Lot 3 currently has the original fishing shed that is used by the family in the summer as their vacation retreat and Lot 5 is a relatively newer home (built in the 80’s) that is also used as a vacation retreat for the family.  Residual Lot A contains the original ranch house and a caretaker residence along with some other accessory buildings.  The caretakers live in the caretakers’ residence and ranch on the property.  They currently run cattle and have a few horses they use for the ranching operation.  The historic ranch house is used as temporary housing for the family in the summer.  The uses for the existing residences will continue as they are now.  Each new lot behind the gate will be allowed one new residence. 


Another two new lots (Lots 1 and 2, each with a new homesite allowed) are proposed to be located in front of the gate, directly accessing County Road 63E.  Residual Lot B will also be located in front of the gate and will have a building envelope for some existing accessory buildings along with a potential new building envelope on the northern end of Residual Lot B for future accessory buildings.  It is desired to preserve the long-time viability of the ag use.  However, Residual Lot B will not be allowed any residences. 


Linda went over the concerns brought up by each of the referral agencies.  They include: 


County Engineering Department

ü  Concerned home sites may be in flood plain or flood prone areas.  Will be requesting a certification from engineer that buildings are out of flood plain area.

ü  Access seems doable but want to be assured Lots 1 and 2 (along CR 63E) would have adequate access. 

ü  Will be requesting additional right-of-way on County Road 63E.

ü  Want to be sure access and maintenance agreements are in place when final plat is recorded.


County Health Department

ü  Lots adjacent to the Little South Fork of the Poudre River are constrained by potential for flooding.  New sewer systems in a flood way are prohibited.  Asking for flood evaluation prior to making final determination regarding the location and orientation of these lots.

ü  Will be requesting copy of existing well permit.  Applicant may either need to amend well permit or come up with well sharing agreement.


County Planning Department

ü  Setbacks from roads could be an issue for future building permits.

ü  Land Use Code doesn’t allow a lot to be split by a road.  May need to do something about Lot 3 and/or 4 regarding design.

County Wildfire and Forest Management

ü  Forest management plan recommended to be prepared by professional forester to reduce potential wildfire hazards.

ü  Implementation of forest management plan completed in building envelopes before building permit.

ü  New homes constructed with Class A roofing material.

ü  Since water supply limited, a dry hydrant should be installed in the South Fork and if can’t be, a 3000 gallon storage tank for each lot should be available.  May require permit from Corps of Engineers.


Cache La Poudre Wild & Scenic Designation

ü  Project is in the Wild & Scenic designation area.

ü  County has an agreement with Forest Service for the area

ü  Requirement for this area is only to attempt to gain fishing access from willing sellers. 

Conclusion: Applicants won’t need to do anything.


Community Comments

ü  Concern over 40-year restriction, prefer perpetuity.

ü  Most community members support plan.


Linda clarified some points about the project as follows: 

·  Need assurance Lot 3 has a location for a replacement home in case something should happen to the existing one.  This will require a building area on the other side of the road where the accessory building is now located.  Section of the Larimer County Land Use Code states that lots cannot be divided by a municipal or county boundary line, road alley or another lot.  That could create an issue with this design.  We may need to ask for an appeal from that section for Lot 3.  The RLUAB supports this appeal.

·  Want to classify the road to Lot 6 and Residual Lot A as a shared driveway instead of a road, as well as the area driveway that would access Lots 4 and 5.  The County’s Addressing Resolution defines anything that accesses two or more lots as a road.  With that designation, that would require those driveways to be designed as a road.  The RLU Process requires roads be designed at a minimum of 20 foot wide where driveways can go as low as 12 feet wide.  In this area where these driveways would not provide any future access to any other lots and with the terrain of the area, it does not make sense to make these existing driveways 20 foot wide.  County Planning also has some concerns about setbacks if this is designated as a road that would affect the existing homes and complicate any replacement homes/buildings in the future.   We will be asking for an appeal from the Commissioners regarding that designation.  The RLUAB supports this appeal.

·  The new homesites are proposed close to the river.  We will need to be sure the house and the septic are out of the floodway.  However, when the existing home was built on Lot 5, a letter was provided from an engineer indicating the home site was built outside of the flood area.  We are comfortable this won’t be an issue for the new lots.  A condition of approval will be placed on the project that will require a letter from an engineer stating the property is out of the flood prone area before any building permits can be issued.


Discussion from the Board included the following comments, suggestions and concerns.

·  A referral should be sent to the 1st responders for fire which would be the Volunteer Poudre Fire Department.

·  Concern about proposed vaults for septic systems and how that might be handled.  Linda clarified that a vault proposal will need to be determined if it is feasible by the time of final plat approval, not preliminary approval.  A condition of approval will be made that a septic proposal will need to be reviewed and approved by the Health Department before final approval.

·  There is some beetle kill in the area.  Lots should be fire mitigated before building permits can be issued.  This will be made a condition of final plat.

·  The riparian area is all located in Residual Lot A.  There is a moose population in the area.  We shouldn’t make a requirement for the applicant to pay for a consultant firm for the forest mitigation plan. 

·  There should be and access and maintenance agreement in place before final plat.  Should be written as acceptable agreement and not dictated by the County Engineers.  Linda clarified this is usually the case, that the legal documents are done by the applicants attorneys and submitted for review by the County Attorney, not dictated by the Engineers.

·  The condition of approval for the letter from the Engineer on the flood prone areas should be worded carefully so to give the applicants flexibility in the design.

·  We should not place a condition on a well sharing agreement that would make future use problematic and the agreement shouldn’t do anything to preclude all lots from drilling their own well down the road if necessary.  Just need to assure access/easements are in place for the well sharing and that agreement in place.  Would also like to see this agreement be made for perpetuity.  Linda clarified that the Health Department is ok with the shared well in the Residual Lot as long as the well sharing agreements are in place.

·  Give them options, don’t close the door. 

·  A 3000 gallon storage tank for fire protection is extremely expensive.  Would like to leave this requirement out.

·  Want to be sure that Lots 1 and 2 (outside the gate) are clustered with the existing residences in the area.  Linda assured the RLUAB they are.


Secretary Korb moved to recommend approval of the project as submitted allowing for appeal of the road standards to allow for 2 shared driveways, one to Lots 4 and 5 and the other to Residual Lot A and Lot 6, allowing the appeal of the lot standard to allow the road to go through Lot 3, and require flood plain issue to be determined by engineer prior to final platting. Member Prewitt seconded the motion.


     All favored the motion.  Motion carried unanimously.


  1. RLUP Project Updates

·  Potential RLUP projects to be filed

We may have a couple of new projects coming in soon.


  1. Other Special Projects led by RLUC Staff

·  Horse Study

The Working Group submitted their recommendation to the Planning Commission last November.  They Planning Commission was squeamish about the Code language and things fell apart.  There is a work session this week with the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners which may result in it getting back on track.  If so, would expect it to be completed by April.

·  Regional Food System Assessment

The Food System Assessment is up and running.  This study is a Regional Study and includes Boulder, Weld, and Larimer Counties along with CSU, the Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority, and the Department of Local Affairs.  This study will be looking at the food system and will be a snapshot in time so can figure out how to strengthen it.  We have a project advisory team which consists of many members of the community.  Bill Prewitt is representing the Rural Land Use Advisory Board and his winery business.  However, Bill has a conflict starting in May and has asked for alternates.  Mike Lynch, Mark Korb, and Suzanne Bassinger volunteered.  At the end, it was determined Suzanne would just take Bill’s place now on the team.

·  Others


  1. New Business



The meeting was adjourned. 



            _____________________________                           _________________________                                      


             Chair- Bill Spencer                                      Secretary-Mark Korb