LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of April 20, 2016
The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, April 20, 2016, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room. Commissioners’ Christman, Cox, Dougherty, Glick, and Wallace were present. Commissioner Couch, Gerrard and Miller were absent. Commissioner Jensen presided as Chairman. Also present were Matt Lafferty, Principal Planner, Terry Gilbert, Community Development Director, Karin Madson, Planner II, Tony Brooks, Code Compliance Department, Amy White, Code Compliance Department, Clint Jones, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Health Department and Jill Wilson, Recording Secretary.
COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC REGARDING THE COUNTY LAND USE CODE:
None.
COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC REGARDING OTHER RELEVANT LAND USE MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE MARCH 18, 2016 MEETING: MOTION by Commissioner Cox to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Glick. This received unanimous voice approval.
AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:
MOTION by Commissioner Cox to move Item #1 Mountain Whitewater Descents Amended Special Review, file #16-Z2002, to the consent agenda, seconded by Commissioner Glick. This received unanimous voice approval.
Commissioner Cox suggested moving Item #3 Windjammer Roadhouse Special Exception to the second item on the agenda and move Item #2 to the third item on the agenda. Chairman Jensen accepted the suggestion in order to accommodate schedules associated with Item #2.
CONSENT ITEM:
ITEM #1 MOUNTAIN WHITEWATER DESCENTS AMENDED SPECIAL REVIEW #16-Z2002: Ms. Madson provided background information on the request for an amended Special Review to change the layout and location of the parking and amphitheater areas to improve circulation and visitor experience. No other changes were proposed to the previously approved Special Review (hours, events, etc), File#14-Z1926. The site was located on the south side of Highway 287, approximately ½ mile west of North Shields Street. The applicant was requesting to change the location and layout parking and restaurant/bar & amphitheater areas. The new layout showed the relocation of the existing 1854 residence (office) to a southern portion of the lawn area for weddings, changing the emergency access to a pedestrian promenade, piping the irrigation lateral on the western boundary of the property, adding a second pedestrian bridge on the southern portion of the property for maintenance access and a vegetated perimeter on the western edge of the property. No other changes are proposed to the approved Special Review
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Cox moved that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval Mountain Whitewater Descents Amended Special Review, file #16-Z2002, 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 Mountain Whitewater Descent Special Review File #14-Z1926 and the Mountain Whitewater Descent Amended Special Review File #16-Z2002 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 Mountain Whitewater Descent Special Review and Mountain Whitewater Descent Amended Special Review.
3. All other conditions of approval for the Mountain Whitewater Descent Special Review File #14-Z1926 continue to apply.
4. The Site Plan Review application shall address the requirements of the Poudre Fire Authority noted in the memo from Jim Lynxwiler, dated March 16, 2016.
Commissioner Glick seconded the Motion.
Commissioners’ Christman, Cox, Dougherty, Glick, Wallace and Chairman Jensen voted in favor of the Motion.
MOTION PASSED: 6-0
ITEMS:
ITEM #3 WINDJAMMER ROADHOUSE SPECIAL EXCEPTION #15-Z1995: Ms. Madson provided background information on the request for a Special Exception for approval to:
1. Continue to use the existing “beer garden” to serve food and beverages, including alcohol.
2. Provide outdoor musical performance entertainment during the summer months in the “beer garden” area.
3. Allow the business to hold charitable auctions on the premises periodically.
The property was located on the west side of County Road 31 & north of North Shore Drive.
The current use of the property was a "bar/tavern" based on the approved liquor license for a tavern. The history of the property was as follows:
· In 1963 the property was zoned O-Open and that zoning allowed all uses not otherwise prohibited, including a restaurant.
· Assessor records indicate the structure on the property was built in 1965. According the applicant it was an ice cream parlor.
· In 1968 (File #33-68) the property was rezoned from O-Open to T-Tourist. The T-Tourist zoning district at that time restricted the serving of food and beverages to “within a building”. No outside patio uses were allowed.
· The applicant submitted a photo from 1973 which does not show an outside patio. We can assume the patio was constructed after this date.
· According the applicant the property was transitioned to a bar/tavern around 1974-1976.
· In 1991 the County issued a liquor license issued for a restaurant (Could have been earlier, but nothing prior to this in the Clerk's current file).
· In 1995 the liquor license changed from restaurant to tavern (current license designation).
· In 1992 (File #92-0071) the T-Tourist zoning district was changed to allow outside patio by special review. Prior to this date an outdoor patio was not allowed. There is no of record of a Special Review having been completed.
Places serving food and beverages for consumption within a building, which may also include an adjoining accessory patio area.
Special Review required for: places serving food and beverages for consumption off the premises, or in an area outside a building, which area does not meet the definition of an "accessory patio area."
Accessory patio area - any outside, open to the air, courtyard type are for use which is incidental to, subordinate to, and devoted exclusively to the main use of the premises, and which meets the following requirements:
a. Does not contain any separate, outside food or beverage station.
b. Does not permit any live or recorded entertainment or use any amplified sound system on the patio area,
c. No food or beverage service after 10 pm.
d. Has requires and received approval from the County Building Inspection Division,
e. Complies with all the requirements of the applicable fire protection authority,
f. Complies with the applicable requirements of the State Liquor Enforcement Division, and
g. Said patio area is located at least 250 feet from any residentially zoned property outside the Urban Growth Area.
· In 2001 the Land Use Code (LUC) would have allowed an outdoor patio or other serving area for either a Restaurant or Nightclub by Special Review. Again, there is no record of Special Review approval during this time.
· In 2007 the LUC was amended. The uses Bar/Tavern (changed from nightclub) and Restaurant allowed an outdoor patio or other serving area by Minor Special Review. There is no record of Minor Special Review approval during this time.
· In 2010 the LUC was again amended (current code). The LUC also allows a restaurant with an outdoor patio or serving area component as an accessory use to a restaurant by Minor Special Review approval.
· The current Land Use Code allows a bar/tavern in the T-Tourist zoning district by Special Review, which would make the current indoor use of the property non-conforming. A Bar/Tavern allows music, live entertainment and/or dancing.
· The LUC also requires Minor Special Review for an outdoor patio or serving area for a Bar/Tavern and restricting that use to the B-Business, C-Commercial, I-Industrial and RFLB-Red Feather Lakes Business zoning districts. An outdoor patio or serving area is not allowed in the T-Tourist zoning district.
· The current owners purchased the property in 2014, believing its current use to be acceptable.
The current Windjammer Roadhouse Bar & Grill Special Exception request consisted of three components:
1. To continue to use the existing “beer garden” to serve food and beverages, including alcohol.
2. To provide outdoor musical performance entertainment during the summer months in the “beer garden” area.
3. To allow the business to hold charitable auctions on the premises periodically.
The business currently operated from 11 am to 9 pm weekdays, and 11 am to 10 pm on weekends during the winter months (November to March). During the summer months when outdoor music was proposed (April to October) the business operated 11 am to 9 pm weekdays, and 11 am to 10 pm on weekends. There were 12 year round employees and 20+/- employees during the summer months. The applicant included some noise mitigation strategies including the construction of a sound stage and limiting the volume through the use of a sound meter and the use of sound board materials. No other physical changes were proposed for the property. Ms. Madson noted a neighborhood meeting had been held on the property regarding the proposal. She also noted several unresolved concerns regarding the noise impacts on surrounding properties as well as other unresolved issues regarding the application as proposed. As a result, approval of the application could not be supported unless the applicant could demonstrate that the venue had the ability to be compatible with the neighborhood and meet the standards Larimer County Noise Ordinance. She remarked that staff could be supportive of application if the proposal was modified to eliminate the outdoor music portion of the request. She also pointed out that there was limited information regarding the request for charitable auctions, and Staff could not support that request.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY:
Audrey Bocock, Iraq veteran, lived near the site. She stated that she had no ill will toward the owners, and she liked the bar there; however, she had PTSD and the noise created from the bar affected her PTSD. She explained that the bar used part of her property for an access point for deliveries. She had spoken to the owners about that portion of property and asked that they take care of it. She stated that the land was a mess, and they had not taken care of it. She also stated that she had talked to them several times about the music and lights because she had to keep her doors and blinds closed. She also did not want to be in fear of parishioners coming to the site and being threatening. She was against the Special Exception but wanted to make it clear that she did not want the bar to close. She was frustrated that she was forced into the position, and she did not want to have to move. She felt that she had more health issues since the bar changed ownership, and she found that it was due to the noise and lights. She pointed out that her driveway gets blocked by people visiting. She reiterated that she had spoken with the owners several times regarding the issues.
Commissioner Wallace asked if she was objecting to the outdoor dining.
Ms. Bocock replied no. She understood wanting to expand their business but was afraid that if they were given an inch they would take a mile.
Chris Miller, co-owner of Windjammer, stated that he had the property surveyed and pointed out the property boundaries. He was unsure of the property subject to the issues brought up by Ms. Babcock. He explained the background of how the application came about and that he found out from staff that the property was not zoned for the beer garden. He remarked that the whole process for the Special Exception got overwhelming due to all of the requirements with engineering, septic standards, etc. He felt that they had been trying to come to a compromise. He stated that he researched the property before he bought it and thought it was ok to purchase. He noted that several changes to the bar/tavern were approved by the County Commissioners in the past and none of the issues were ever brought up to previous owners. He understood not being able to demonstrate compliance with the noise ordinance but felt that he could not demonstrate compliance until he built it and tried. He stated that he was unclear about the Special Event permit stipulations. He also disagreed with the requirement to dedicate right of way on County Road 31. In addition, he disagreed with the county wanting to move the access to North Shore Drive. He spoke to other requirements that he disagreed with. He noted a new proposal for sound that he had modified since the neighborhood meeting. The proposal was:
1. Outdoor live music only be provided 3 months of the year from Memorial Day weekend or the last Monday of May through Labor Day weekend or the first Monday in September, which included the entire holiday weekend.
2. Rather than hosting a band every Thursday and Friday evening throughout the summer months they would limit weekday outdoor music performances to two Fridays a month and national holidays such as 4th of July, which could land on a Friday but would not be counted as one of the Friday performances.
3. No live outdoor music would be provided past 9 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays and no live outdoor music would be provided past 6 p.m. on Sundays.
He noted that in the past they had tried to mirror the quite hours according to the surrounding campground quiet hours, which were 10 p.m.. He pointed out that now they were proposing to cut back on those hours.
Commissioner Cox mentioned the lights on the property.
Mr. Miller stated that there was one, 250 watt flood light on the property that was pointed to the ground, which they usually didn’t turn it on. He stated that they had put LED lights on the back perimeter fence.
Commissioner Jensen asked how tall the fence was.
Mr. Miller stated approximately 8 feet and had been there approximately 8-10 years. He stated that the proposed sound stage would be on the northwest corner of the property would be a loafing shed type structure that had three sides and one opening. He noted that it would have the thickest sound barrier that could be manufactured.
Commissioner Cox asked if he would be ok with removing the live music aspect.
Ronald Jung, owner’s attorney, stated that his clients were willing to compromise but did not want to go as far as saying they would not have live music. He pointed out that they were proposing sound barriers. He remarked that the music was important to the business and pointed out that three months out of the year was when the business made the most money, which carried their business for the rest of the year.
Mr. Miller reiterated that outdoor music would only be three months of year and during stipulated times of day.
Commissioner Dougherty asked about the times of the music.
Lisa Miller, co-owner, explained that the live music on Fridays and Saturdays would be from 6-9 p.m. and on Sundays it would be in the afternoon hours for approximately 2-3 hours.
Dennis Henneberg, lived near the Windjammer, stated that he started a petition in favor of the Windjammer. He stated that he, along with many others, went there to eat and enjoy music. He understood the noise issue but he supported the proposal. The petition included signatures from 188 residents in the general vicinity, 1968 residents of Larimer County, 41 members from the Carter Lake Sailboat Club, and 164 signatures from people that were at the Carter Lake Marina. He stated that they had 3212 signatures total.
Commissioner Wallace asked if the petition differentiated between live music.
Mr. Henneberg stated that there was a section regarding the outdoor music, and the comments were that provided the noise issues could be agreed upon then the people were supportive of the outdoor music.
Lori McCallum, lived on Rainbow Lane, supported the Windjammer. The music was not overly loud, and the owners had done a lot to the neighborhood and to the facility. She agreed with the previous speaker. She pointed out that the business did a service to the Carter Lake area and the rest of the community, and the owners had taken care of the property. She felt that it was unfortunate that people buy property next to a bar and then complain about. She urged them to remember the service to the community.
Sherri Knorr, live on North Shore Drive, did not want anything to change. She liked the music and having a place to go to eat or meet people. They had cleaned up the property and helped to make it a great part of the neighborhood. They were trying to mitigate the noise and were trying to do right by the neighbors. She did not want the atmosphere in the area to change.
JD Bothun, live immediately west of the Windjammer, stated that he had noticed the volume increase in the last couple of years and would like to see the volume controlled. He wondered how many days they were proposing to have the music. He stated that he would like a limit on the number of days or weeks that the live music could occur.
Phil Nikkel, lived next to the Windjammer for 33 years, stated that in the past it had been a tolerable place to live next to. He remarked that he lived there before the bar was built. He stated that he heard the music 60% of the time and stated that he could no longer live in the area if the music continued.
Commissioner Wallace asked if there was an acceptable amount of time to have the music.
Mr. Nikkel stated that he did not want to be forced to enforce the county noise ordinance.
Don Waldburger, owner of Carter Lake Marina, had been a user of the Windjammer. He stated that the owners were good owners who had improved the property and gave the community a place to enjoy a meal and music. He stated that he could not hear music from his personal property that was close to the Windjammer. He felt that some of the noise concerns could be mitigated. He remarked that it was a good use of the property and it was a form of tourism for the county. He noted that the marina customers did use it along with campers.
Jasper Johnson, lived on Rainbow View Lane, stated that he had been going to the Windjammer for years. He noted that the new owners had been good with the property. He stated that people need to expect noise living next to a bar.
Wayne V, lived four miles down the road, stated that the owners had improved the property, and it was a nice to have a neighborhood place. He felt that sound control could be accomplished. He remarked that a small business should be helped, and the music could help the business.
Richard Hughes, lived in the vicinity, stated that some of the people who signed the petition did not live in the area and did not have to deal with the noise. He stated that the Windjammer special events had an impact on County Road 31 and impacted the different modes of transportation that frequented that road, which were bicycles, motorcycles, motor homes, cars, etc. He submitted a petition signed by more than half of the residents in the area that had received notification of the first notice of the proposal. He also brought up concerns regarding the impact to wildlife in the area.
Diane Jeffries, lived on Rainbow Ridge, had been to the Windjammer and wished no ill will to the property owners. She noted that the topography of the area was like an amphitheater and the sound traveled up the hill. She appreciated what the owners were proposing as far as sound mitigation but wished the commissioners to consider the topography, which magnified the sound. She reiterated that she did not want the restaurant to close but just wanted the sound issue mitigated.
Karen Pierro, direct neighbor of the Windjammer, stated that there was a misconception that neighbors were trying to close the Windjammer which was not true. The way the proposal was set she could not agree with four nights a week of the live music and asked for some neighborly consideration. She agreed that the owners had done a great job cleaning up the property.
Georgina Minto, had been going to the Windjammer for 40 years. She remarked that people should not complain about an established business, and the owners should not be penalized. The owners were limiting their hours of operation which in turn limited their income. It was tourist area. She supported the application and hoped they would accept the proposal and not penalize the Windjammer.
Charlie Nash, stated that he had frequented the site for 15 years. He stated that it was better than it had ever been. They were trying to fix the place up and trying to do what was right. It was good for Larimer County and for Carter Lake.
Christopher Pearson, lived ½ mile from Windjammer, stated that he moved up there 4 months ago. He stated that having the restaurant in the area was nice, and he did not have any noise complaints. Regarding noise mitigation, he wondered about proposing construction of a 6-8 foot fence on the west side of the property and possibly a tree line to help with noise mitigation.
Kevin Hildreth, felt that the applicants were trying to mitigate the noise and encouraged the commission to allow the applicants to try. It was a positive place for Larimer County as far as economics. It was advantageous to the county and the applicant.
Terry Sybrandts, owned the RV Park and store next to the Windjammer, he stated that it had prospered and had been cleaned up. His tenants at the campground had not complained about the Windjammer. He also stated that his house was across the street. He stated that their request should be accepted and pointed out that the applicants were trying to compromise.
Jay Branch, lived at Carter Lake, stated that the Windjammer was like a community center. He admitted that it could get noisy sometimes but they were trying to do something about that. He pointed out that they did many things for the community and that they were trying mitigate the issues.
Barry Gustafson, lived in the area for 35 years, stated that he was in favor of the application with limited noise. He read a letter from a previous owner who had history of the site.
Mr. Jung felt that it was a legal, nonconforming use as it was originally zoned O-Open. He explained that the liquor license authority information from approximately 1997 showed the configuration of the patio as it was today. He stated that the main issue was the noise mitigation. He remarked that the owners wanted to work with the neighborhood, and they were asking to continue a use that had been occurring for 15-20 years. He reiterated that they were willing to reduce days and spend the money needed to help mitigate the noise. He noted that there was only one confirmed noise compliant investigated by the Sheriff’s Department. The applicant wondered how they could demonstrate they were at the required sound levels unless the mitigation was installed and tested. He confirmed that they would like to amend the application to the newly proposed hours and times that was provided to staff.
Commissioner Glick pointed out that if it was a non-conforming use then the expansion of the stage was an expansion of a non-conforming use.
Mr. Jung reiterated that his clients wanted to conform to the requirements. They were not trying to expand the footprint, just trying to mitigate the sound.
Commissioner Glick asked about the access to the property.
Mr. Jung stated that the owners were willing to delineate the property line to accommodate the access issues.
Commissioner Glick asked what the occupancy limit was for the bar and the outdoor patio.
Mr. Jung replied the occupancy limit was 78. He stated that Berthoud Fire had not commented yet regarding the patio.
Mr. Miller asked if it would be allowed to have a temporary stage/structure to see if it worked.
Ms. Madson pointed out the zoning history, and she stated that there was not a patio allowed under that zoning until 1992. In 2001, the code changed to allow approval for an outdoor patio. The bar/restaurant was there since 1965 but there was no evidence of the outdoor patio prior to 1992.
Commissioner Cox asked about the sewer system.
Doug Ryan Health Department, stated that there was a septic system on the property. If the Special Exception was approved, an administrative Site Plan Review application would have to be submitted. During that review, the parking and sewage standards would be examined.
Commissioner Dougherty asked about the access to North Shore Drive.
Clint Jones, Engineering Department, stated that there was an existing 60-foot right-of-way along North Shore Drive. The applicants would be required to improve that road up to their access point. The Engineering Department would require access off of North Shore Drive and not County Road 31.
Commissioner Glick asked about driving vehicles over a leach field.
Mr. Ryan stated that when designing the parking lot the leach field needed to be avoided in the drive aisle.
Commissioner Dougherty asked about the light pollution.
Ms. Madson stated that those details would be addressed during the site plan review.
Commissioner Jensen asked about the noise levels and topography.
Mr. Ryan spoke about the Larimer County noise ordinance and its requirements.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Cox pointed out that a Special Exception went with the property and not the owners. She stated that she needed to determine if the proposal was compatible with the area. She wondered how the County could monitor the conditions and wondered if it would it end up falling on the neighbors to monitor. She also wondered about concerns to wildlife.
Commissioner Wallace pointed out that the commission could try to create standards to make the different issues work but standards might not be able to address the real issue of live music. She pointed out that there were attempts to fix an issue or make it work but sometimes it was not possible.
Commissioner Christman stated that she did not have an issue with the compromise proposed by the applicants. She felt that a temporary test of it would be a good idea.
Commissioner Wallace went over the review criteria for Special Exceptions.
Commissioner Dougherty stated that he was concerned that if the applicants spent money and tried the sound mitigation was not sufficient, then the approval could be revoked.
Commissioner Cox stated that the noise issues depended on where the citizens lived. The petition submitted provided evidence from neighbors that lived in the area that they did have noise concerns.
Commissioner Jensen wondered if a rezoning should have taken place instead of a Special Exception. He pointed out that the noise had an adverse impact on the neighbors. He remarked that he would have a hard time supporting the application as it did have a substantial impact on the surrounding area. He also pointed out that the T-Tourist zoning district did not allow the outdoor music.
Commissioner Glick pointed out that many of the surrounding neighbors did not support the live music. He was not sure he could support the expansion of the patio to allow an outdoor music stage.
Commissioner Cox suggested amending Condition of Approval #1 to state: ‘No outdoor live music of any kind is allowed on the property.
Commissioner Cox 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 Windjammer Roadhouse Special Exception, file #15-Z1995, for the property described on “Exhibit C” to the minutes, subject to the following conditions and amended condition 1:
The Development Services Review Team does support a portion of the Windjammer Roadhouse Special Exception request, file #15-Z1995, to include an accessory outdoor seating area including outdoor food and drink service in addition to the existing restaurant and bar with the following conditions:
1. No outdoor live music of any kind is allowed on the property.
2. Requests to hold charity auctions at the property (including those with fewer than 300 people at any one time) shall be evaluated through the Special Events process as outlined in Section 7 of the Larimer County Land Use Code. No other outdoor events are allowed.
3. Failure to comply with any conditions of this approval may result in reconsideration of the use and possible revocation of the approval by the Board of Commissioners.
4. The applicant shall submit a Site Plan Review application for review and approval within 90 days of approval. The Site Plan Review application shall address the comments outlined in the memo from Clint Jones, dated Dec. 2, 2015 , including right-of-way dedication, the access along County Road 31, and show that the site has the ability to function properly. The site plan shall be based off of survey data and should include property dimensions, existing and proposed right-of-way, roads, buildings, the septic system, drive isle locations and dimensions, and setbacks.
5. The requirements of the Loveland Fire Rescue Authority as outlined in the memo from Carie Dann, dated Dec. 9, 2015 shall be met at building permit submittal.
Commissioner Glick seconded the Motion.
Commissioners’ Christman, Cox, Dougherty, Glick, and Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.
Chairman Jensen voted against the Motion.
MOTION PASSED: 5-1
ITEM #2 PEAK VIEW ESTATES CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT #14-S3231: Ms. Madson provided background information on the request for a Preliminary Plat for a Conservation Development consisting of 2 residential lots (approx. 8-9 acres each) and one residual lot (22.25 ac.) with an existing residence and outbuildings, which was located east of Beverly Drive and north of Meining Road. The request also included an appeal to Section 8.14.2.S. of the Land Use Code (LUC) regarding connectivity and an appeal to Section 8.14.4. requiring utility easements between lots where the common lot line is the centerline of the ditch.
The Development Services Team did not support approval to the appeal to connectivity, Section 8.14.2.S. The Development Services team did support the appeal to Section 8.14.4 and the overall proposal for the Conservation Development.
Commissioner Glick asked what would trigger the access easements.
Ms. Madson replied that the Development Services Team would ask the applicant to build out that easement.
William and Ellyn Prescott, applicant, stated that they originally asked for 5 lots and then reduced it to two lots. He stated that there was a private easement on the property to the east that would connect to the platted Melody Road.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY:
Peter Reinke, 3650 Cottonwood Lane, was the secretary of the Cottonwood Knolls Subdivision. He stated that the 15 of 19 property owners in attendance were opposed to any increased traffic including dust, speeding, noise, degradation of road quality, and increased road maintenance. He stated that the homeowner’s association was opposed to the application providing connectivity to the east. He asked that the commission reject the requirement for connectivity.
Mike Freund, President of Road Association of Cottonwood Knolls and Cottonwood Lane, agreed with the previous speakers. He stated that he moved into the subdivision because it was a dead end road, and he wanted to keep it that way.
Barry Eckland, lived on Cottonwood Lane in Cottonwood Knolls, asked if there would be value in adding the connectivity. He stated that he lived there because it was a dead end street and was opposed to any sort of connectivity.
Richard Stonachek, lived in Cottonwood Knolls, stated that he was against connectivity. He stated that he built his home 45 years ago and would fight against any connectivity.
Rosanne Stonachck, stated that they built their home in 1970 and liked the dead end road and was against any connectivity. They felt that the dead end road helped with security.
Mark Rodrigo, felt that connectivity could bring good things to a neighborhood. He stated that his main concern was the ability of emergency services to access properties. He was concerned about what would occur to Meining Road when traffic was increased on that road. He stated that he would like to see more gravel put on the road and less magnesium chloride. He asked that the traffic be minimized on Meining Road.
Sylvia Cummings, Cottonwood Lane, reiterated that there be no connectivity.
Richard Cummings, Cottonwood Lane, also agreed with having no connectivity.
Carmen Brown, Cottonwood Lane, stated that she lived there for 18 years and liked it as a dead end road. She mentioned that the homeowner’s association was responsible for the road maintenance.
Don Brown, remarked that Cottonwood Lane was a private, dead-end road, maintained by the homeowner’s association, and he was opposed to connectivity.
Brad Olwin, lived in Kent Estates on Meining Road. He did not believe that building half of a road that went nowhere was a valuable use of resources.
Peter Bridgeman, Kent Estates, was opposed to connectivity. He pointed out that in the past appeals to connectivity had been granted.
David Harris, Kent Estates, was opposed to connectivity. He remarked that the Section in Land Use Code regarding connectivity listed the benefits of having connectivity; however, the proposed connected road would not achieve any of those objectives, i.e. emergency services, etc. He stated that it was good idea for urban areas but not in this area.
Tom Cook, Cottonwood Estates, asked for no connectivity.
Barbara Bridgeman, lived on Meining Road, did not want connectivity.
James Kelly, resident on Meining Road, stated that emergency service personnel would not use a connectivity road. He stated that emergency services pre-planed routes.
Susan Chesson, Kent Estates, asked for no connectivity. She had concerns that the road would be used with people wondering around on it and was worried about fire safety.
Mel Kooy, Cottonwood Lane, stated that there was access to the property, and he was opposed to adding a new road.
Mr. Prescott stated that the fire department was not requiring connectivity, and a fire hydrant would be installed.
Commissioner Glick asked if the lots could be divided.
Ms. Madson stated that the residual lot could not be further divided but the two new lots could be subdivided.
Commissioner Glick asked how wide the road would be.
Mr. Jones stated that a 60-foot right-of-way would be required if connectivity was not provided. If connectivity was provided then 70-feet would be required.
Mr. Lafferty explained the reasoning behind the connectivity standard.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Cox 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 Peak View Estates Conservation Development, file #15-S3231, along with the appeal to Section 8.14.2.S of the Land Use Code regarding the connectivity, and the appeal to Section 8.14.4 requiring utility easements between lots where the common lot line is the centerline of the ditch, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, subject to the following conditions:
1. The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the Peakview Estates Conservation Development, File #14-S3231 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 Peakview Estates 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.
The Disclosure Notice shall include information regarding the dam failure hazard associated with the Dry Creek Dam as it relates to the existing home on Residual Lot A.
The Disclosure Notice shall also include the following information:
Lighting Guidelines:
a. Outdoor fixtures should be designed, shielded, aimed, located and maintained to prevent glare and light trespass on abutting properties and the vicinity.
b. The style of light standards and fixtures should be consistent with the style and character of architecture proposed on the site.
c. The use of exterior lighting should be minimized in areas of important wildlife habitat. Lighting should be designed so it does not spill over onto such habitat.
d. All outdoor lighting, except low-output (2000 lumens or less) lighting, should be equipped with an on-off switch.
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 Fees (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 include a hydrant at the intersection of Rocky Heaven Land and Menifee Street that 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. The applicant/developer shall provide evidence of satisfactory fire flows prior to the issuance of any permits. In the event fire flows are not satisfactory, the residences shall be fire sprinklered with NFPA 13D residential sprinklers, installed by an approved contractor. Plans for the sprinkler system shall be approved by the Berthoud Fire Department.
5. All habitable structures will require an engineered foundation system. Such engineered foundation system designs shall be based upon a site specific soils investigation. The lowest habitable floor level (basement) shall not be less than 3 feet from the seasonal high water table. Mechanical methods proposed to reduce the ground water level, unless it is a response after construction, must be proposed on a development wide basis.
6. 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.
7. The Final Plat application shall include information to describe the source of water rights needed to supply the anticipated demands of this development. This information shall also be provided to the Little Thompson Water District. This information will then need to be reviewed and confirmed to be adequate for the Division of Water Resources to confirm a finding of no potential for injury to existing water rights and the adequacy of the proposed water supply.
8. The Final Plat application shall include information to address the comments of Clint Jones, Engineering Department, dated Feb. 3, 2016.
9. The Final Plat application shall include information to address the comments #2, #3, and #7 from the Dry Creek Lateral Ditch Company, in the letter from Randy Starr, dated Feb. 12, 2016.
Commissioner Wallace seconded the Motion.
Commissioners’ Christman, Cox, Dougherty, Glick, Wallace and Chairman Jensen voted in favor of the Motion.
MOTION PASSED: 6-0
REPORT FROM STAFF: Mr. Lafferty reminded the Commission of their upcoming meetings.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 10:11 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.
_______________________________ ______________________________
Jeff Jensen, Chairman Mina Cox, Secretary
EXHIBIT A
LOT 1, TAMLIN MLD 2ND AND TRACT A, KANE EXEMPTION AMND FIL NO 14-S3228 (20150002273)
EXHIBIT B
THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29,
TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., TOGETHER WITH A
NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS ACROSS A PORTION
OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF 29,
TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, 69 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., LARIMER COUNTY
COLORADO, AS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN DEED RECORDED,
DECEMBER 1, 1977, BOOK 1817 AT PAGE 939, RECORDS LARIMER
COUNTY, COLORADO, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO.
EXHIBIT C
BEGINNING AT USBR AP NO.2 WHENCE THE . EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 70 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN BEARS NORTH 82°25'12" EAST 2543.4 FEET; THENCE NORTH 32 ° 08' WEST 379.8 FEET ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF CARTER LAKE ACCESS ROAD TO ANGLE POINT STATION 83 + 54.6; THENCE NORTH 5°05' EAST 42.06 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE
NORTH 5°05' EAST 210 FEET; THENCE NORTH 67 ° 40' WEST 217 .2 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 5°05' WEST 210 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 67 ° 40' EAST 217.20 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, COUNTY OF LARIMER,
STATE OF COLORADO.
