Elk in Rocky Mountain National Park
 

LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of January 3, 2007

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a special session on Wednesday, January 3, 2007, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners Hart, Karabensh, Oppenheimer, Pond, Cox and Waldo were present.  Commissioner Wallace presided as Chairman.  Commissioners Boulter and Morgan were absent.  Also present were Rob Helmick, Principal Planner, Porter Ingrum, Planner II, Casey Stewart, Planner II, Karin Madson, Planner II, Matt Johnson, Development Services Engineer, Martina Wilkinson, Traffic Engineer, Doug Ryan, Environmental Health, and Heather Taylor, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary

 

Rob Helmick accompanied Commissioners Hart, Karabensh, Pond, Cox and Wallace on this date for a site visit to Old Farm Planned Land Division/Planned Development and Sunrise Ranch Special Review and Special Exception.  Commissioners Oppenheimer, Boulter, Morgan and Waldo were absent. 

 

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 NOVEMBER 15, 2006 MEETING:  MOTION by Commissioner Pond to approve the minutes; seconded by Commissioner Hart.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:  

None

 

CONSENT ITEMS:

 

ITEM #1  OLD FARM PLANNED LAND DIVISION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT –

06-S2582:  Mr. Ingrum provided background information on the request for preliminary plat approval for a Planned Land Division and Rezoning to divide a 9.95 acre parcel into 2 lots of 4.05 and 5.90 acres.  The property would be rezoned to PD consistent with the existing FA-Farming zoning of the property.  The application also included an appeal to section 8.1.1.B.2.a which requires that developments within a Growth Management Area provide public sewer.

 

Commissioner Pond pointed out a correction to the site data information on page 1 of the Planning Commission agenda.  He stated that is should read 9.95 acres not 11.44 acres.

 

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 Old Farm Planned Land Division/Planned Development, file# 06-S2582, 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 Plat and with the information contained in the Old Farm PLD/PD (File #06-S2582).  The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Old Farm PLD/PD.

2.    The following notes shall be placed on the Final Plat:

“Due to high groundwater, basements are not allowed on any new structures constructed within this subdivision.”

“Any new structures placed within the Cache La Poudre 100 year flood fringe must have their lowest floors 18 inches above the base flood elevation.”

3.    The applicant shall provide a Final Development Agreement and Disclosure Notice for approval by the County 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; the issues related to rural development, the need for engineered footings and foundations, the need for passive radon mitigation, required sprinklers for the new dwelling unit and the issues raised in the review and or related to compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Code.

4.    All required fees including Transportation Capital Expansion Fees, Park Fees in Lieu of Land Dedication, and Poudre R-1 School fees must be paid at time of building permit issuance. 

5.    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.

6.    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, elimination of basements, 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.

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the request to rezone the property for the Old Farm Planned Land Division from FA (Farming) to PD (Planned Development). The permitted uses, lot, building and structure requirements, setbacks and structure height limits for the Old Farm Planned Land Division and Planned Development shall be as follows: 

 

1.   Principal Uses

a.   Agricultural

1) Farm (R)

2) Boarding stable (S)

3) Pet animal facility (MS/S)

4) Greenhouse (R)

b.   Residential

1)   Single-family dwelling (R)

2)   Group home for developmentally disabled (R)

3)   Group home for the elderly (R)

4)   Group home (R)

c.   Institutional

1)   Hospital (S)

2)   School, public (L)

3)   School, nonpublic (R/S)

4)   Church (R/S)

5)   Child/elderly care center (S)

6)   Child/elderly care home (R)

7)   Community hall (R/S)

8)   Sheriff/fire station (L)

9)   State-licensed group home (S)

c.   Recreational

1)   Trail/trail head (L)

d.   Utilities

1)   Utility substation (L)

2)   Water storage facility (L)

3)   Commercial mobile radio service (R/S)

4)   Treatment plant (L)

5)   Commercial mobile service (R/S)

2.   Minimum lot size:

a. 100,000 square feet (2.3 acres) if a well or septic system is used.

b.   21,780 square feet (0.5 acre) if both public water and sewer are used.

3.   Minimum setbacks:

a.   Front yard—25 feet from the property line or from the nearest edge of the road easement.

b.   Side yards— 5 feet.

c.   Rear yards— 10 feet.

d.   Streams, creeks and rivers—100 feet from the centerline of the established watercourse.

4.   Maximum structure height—40 feet.

5.   No parcel can be used for more than one principal building; additional buildings on a parcel are allowed if they meet the accessory use criteria in subsection 4.3.10.

6.   Rezoning to PD will not be effective until and unless the Board of County Commissioners approve a Final Plat and the plat and all necessary documents are duly recorded.

 

Commissioner Waldo seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Hart, Karabensh, Oppenheimer, Pond, Waldo, Cox, and Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

ITEM #2  RAWHIDE POWER PLANT UNIT F LOCATION AND EXTENT  #06-Z1617:  Mr. Ingrum provided background information on the request for a location and extent approval for a gas turbine generator at the Rawhide Power Plant.

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approve the Rawhide Power Plant Unit F Location and Extent, file #06-Z1617.

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Hart, Karabensh, Oppenheimer, Pond, Waldo, Cox and Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

ITEMS:

 

ITEM #3  JIBBEN APPEAL – 06-G0125:  Mr. Stewart provided background information on the appeal of section 4.1.5.b.1.a (O-Open zoning minimum lot size) of the Land Use Code to allow a lot size of 9.56 acres rather than 10 acres.  If approved, the lot would be created through the subdivision process. 

 

Commissioner Waldo remarked that it was his knowledge that a person could apply for an in-house well permit if the parcel was less than 35 acres.

 

Doug Ryan, Environmental Health, stated that the parcel was to be subdivided and because of that a water augmentation plan would be needed.  The applicant could apply for an in-house only well, which would be an easier technical issue to deal with.  He explained that groundwater was a state owned resource and the Division of Water Resources would make the final decision of whether or not an augmentation plan would be required.  He remarked that in communication with the Department of Water Resources an augmentation plan for this project would be required.

 

Commissioner Waldo asked that if this were an existing lot, not in a subdivision, could the applicant apply without the augmentation plan?

 

Mr. Ryan stated that if it were a legal lot of record that was created prior to certain dates and statutes, in this case prior to 1972, then the applicant could apply for an exempt well permit.

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Gyorgy Vidacs, 10731 Rist Canyon Road, suggested that the land be divided vertically instead of horizontally, partly because the property had a 30-40% slope.  He stated that it was not a good idea to split the land horizontally, but he was not opposed to it. 

 

Commissioner Karabensh asked why it was not a good idea to split the land horizontally?

 

Mr. Vidacs replied that it was very steep, and there would be no secondary way out if there were a fire. 

 

DISCUSSION:

Mr. Helmick pointed out that the application before the Planning Commission was only for the lot size appeal and not the subdivision of the property.  The applicant would have to answer the questions on the design of the lot when a subdivision application was actually submitted to the Planning Department.  The appeal approval only gave the applicant the ability to proceed in submitting an application for subdivision.  Mr. Helmick stated that the applicant could propose a different design at that point but one lot has to be at 10 acres and the other has to be at 9.56 acres, if the application was approved.

 

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 Jibben Appeal, file# 06-G0125, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.    This approval shall automatically expire two years from the date of approval unless a final plat of the subdivision of the property is recorded prior to that date.

 

Commissioner Hart seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Hart, Karabensh, Oppenheimer, Pond, Waldo, Cox, and Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

ITEM #4  SUNRISE RANCH SPECIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS – 05-Z1578:  Ms. Madson provided background information on the request for Special Review approval for a master plan to expand an existing non-conforming religious community to include housing, an instructional facility, small conference center, storage units, a shop and a wellness center.  Ms. Madson stated that there were 3 appeals included in the application; 1. the appeal to Land Use Code (LUC) Section 8.6 to allow unpaved parking areas in the north campus housing area;  2. the appeal to Section 9.7 of the Land Use Code for relief from the requirement to dedicate additional right-of-way for a minor collector (CR 29); and 3. the appeal to Section 8.1.5 of the Land Use Code to allow relief from paving requirements for County Road 29.

 

Matt Johnson, Development Services Engineer, explained why staff was not in support of the appeal to Section 9.7 of the Land Use Code.  He stated that the Land Use Code required right-of-way dedication for all Special Review applications, if and when the existing right-of-way did not meet the current roadway classification width, which was outlined in the Larimer County Transportation Plan.  He stated that there was 60 feet of existing right-of-way along the entire project.  The Larimer County Transportation Plan classifies County Road 29 as a Minor Collector which required a minimum of 80 feet of right-of-way; therefore, the right-of-way adjacent to the development was 20 feet short.  He stated that the Engineering Department was requesting 20 feet of additional right-of-way, 10 feet on each side of County Road 29, to meet the Minor Collector classification.  He explained that County Road 29 was classified as a Minor Collector rather than a local roadway because it connected various communities along the road, it spanned miles not blocks, had a higher posted speed limit than a local roadway, and it distributed traffic between County Road 27 to the North and US Highway 34 to the South.  Mr. Johnson explained that a sufficient width for the given Minor Collector classification would give enough room for adequate access.  It would also give room for frequently needed improvements like swale grading, localized grading and drainage improvements, installation of wet and dry utilities, and shoulder widening.  The improvements were more minor in nature than road widening.  Mr. Johnson remarked that, per the Land Use Code, dedicating additional right-of-way was one of the requirements for a development such as Sunrise Ranch.  He explained that Sunrise Ranch would be responsible to help insure safe, convenient, adequate public infrastructure.  Having the adequate right-of-way up front as development occurred was the intent of the Land Use Code.  This would prevent a situation where improvements were needed and the right-of -way was not there. 

 

Mr. Johnson further explained why staff was not in support of the appeal to Section 8.1.5 of the Land Use Code.  He stated that the Land Use Code applied paving thresholds for new developments that would access unpaved County roads as part of the adequate public facilities requirement.  He remarked that in the case of Sunrise Ranch they used County Road 29 a chip sealed surface road rather than an asphalt paved road, and the paving thresholds applied to chip sealed roads.  He explained that chip sealed roads wear down faster, much like gravel roads.  He said the adequate public facilities standards applied to all Special Review applications.  The standards required all developments to have safe and adequate access to public roads so the development did not create a new demand for improvements that could not be met with the existing resources of the County.  He explained that if safe and adequate access did not exist at the time of development, then it would be the developments responsibility to make the improvements necessary to meet the standard or they could wait until the improvements are constructed by others.  The Land Use Code stated that safe and adequate access existed when traffic volumes did not exceed the capacity of the road or when the pavement section could accommodate the projected traffic volume that the development would produce.  He stated that the capacity of a chip sealed road was 400 vehicle trips per day; the Land Use Code states that paving is required when the projected volume of the new development exceeded the 400 trips per day threshold.  That threshold was determined by the Road and Bridge Department.  The Road & Bridge department determined that maintaining an unpaved road with more than 400 vehicle trips per day would be more costly, compared to a paved road surface.  Mr. Johnson stated that based on the phase by phase trip generation provided in the applicant’s traffic impact study, phase 1 and phase 2 would not exceed the 400 trips per day threshold, however phase 3 would.  When that was added to the traffic studies current daily count of 285 vehicle trips per day, the 400 vehicle trips per day threshold would then be exceeded.  He stated that Sunrise Ranch would be responsible for paving County Road 29 for the portions that are adjacent to the properties and up to County Road 27.  Mr. Johnson elaborated on the intents of the paving thresholds.  He explained that the Sunrise Ranch would be responsible for paving the road in the phase that would exceed the trips per day threshold, which was phase 3. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Charlene Hunter, representative of Emissaries of Divine Light, owners of Sunrise Ranch, remarked that Sunrise Ranch was not a development proposal.  The word development had been used by County staff, but she wanted to emphasize that they were a Spiritual Community not a development, and would never make any money from the community.  She explained that a big portion of County Road 29 was owned by the City of Loveland and had 60 feet of right-of-way.  She mentioned that there were 4 reasons why their community should be granted a variance of the requirement to dedicate an additional 20 feet of right-of-way; 1. It was not necessary; 2. It was not practical; 3. It was not fair; 4. It was questionable whether it was legal.  She explained that they did not understand the statement that was made that the road was between communities; they were not sure what communities’ staff could mean.  She did not believe that additional right-of-way was necessary for the flow of traffic.  She pointed out that the new road that the City of Loveland put in 2 years ago only had 60 feet of right-of-way and will never have more right-of-way than that.  She explained that the area was designated as a wetlands and wildlife area and she was worried that with more right-of-way the speed of traffic would be higher and there would be more danger to the wildlife in the area.  She explained that when the City of Loveland put the new portion of the road in they were not required to meet the County’s Minor Collector road standards, and questioned why Sunrise Ranch would be required to do what the City of Loveland was not required to do, and why Sunrise Ranch was required to dedicate additional right-of-way when no one else was or will be required to do the same.  She remarked that they believe forced right-of-way had no legal basis when used in place of eminent domain. 

 

Ms. Hunter elaborated on the road paving appeal.  She stated that the trips per day on County Road 29 was over the maximum trips per day already, and after exceeding the maximum trips per day it would require the road to be paved.  She explained that the County had not made a move to pave it and it was not on any Capital Improvement project list.  She stated that the paving of County Road 29 North to County Road 27 would cost Sunrise Ranch more than $250,000.  She explained that there was no one to pay for the paving of the road, and would like to emphasize that the road was already over capacity, and the County had made no effort to pave the road.  She stated that the small increase in the trips per day from their community should not constitute paying for the paving of the road.  She remarked that if they were required to pave the road they would be discouraged from even moving into phase 3 which could have been very useful. 

 

Commissioner Wallace asked staff what the impact would be of the additional 10 feet of right-of-way on each side of the road?

 

Mr. Helmick stated that the real impact was the transfer of a partial interest in the land to the government.  This would give the County the authority to enter the property to do whatever was necessary to expand or improve the road.  The roadway designation had more of an impact on the setback issue than that of the right-of-way itself.  Mr. Helmick stated that there was a setback from the edge of the right-of-way, but with the exception of local roads, the setbacks had all decreased with recent changes to the transportation plan.  Mr. Helmick explained that the setback would increase with the additional right-of-way but, it was recently reduced.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if the road was reclassified as part of the changes to the transportation plan, or if it was it always a minor collector?

 

Mr. Johnson replied that it had always been designated as a minor collector, and the only thing that had changed was the right-of-way width.  He stated that the right-of-way width for a minor collector was 100 feet and was downsized in the transportation plan update to 80 feet.  He remarked that they now only have to dedicate 20 feet instead of 40 feet. 

 

Commissioner Wallace asked what the impact of paving would be on the right-of-way issue?

 

Mr. Johnson stated that the County was not requiring any road widening, just paving.  He stated that the County does not have any plans as part of the Capital Improvements projects to widen County Road 29.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if someone wanted to put in a pedestrian or bicycle trail, would that go into the right-of-way?  She asked if that would be an appropriate use of the land?

 

Mr. Helmick explained that it would have to be a public entity putting in the trail, not a private entity. But, yes it would be an appropriate use of the land.

 

Commissioner Waldo asked about the City of Loveland dedication of right-of-way.

 

Mr. Johnson replied that the City of Loveland had come in with a Location and Extent application for the drinking water storage reservoir.  Location and Extent applications are not subject to the development review guidelines that Special Review applications were, therefore, staff could not request that additional right-of-way be dedicated. 

 

Commissioner Hart asked if additional right-of-way was being requested on the south portion of the reservoir?  He asked if the traffic on County Road 29 exceeded the 400 trips per day as earlier stated?

 

Mr. Johnson replied that a traffic study was completed in 2003 and showed that the trips per day had been exceeded on the road.  The applicants’ traffic engineering study reported 285 trips per day. 

 

Commissioner Hart asked if the County staff and the applicant had discussed the possibility of repayment for the paving if someone else came in and developed? 

 

Mr. Helmick explained that what was being proposed was a pavement overlay of the existing roadway.  He stated that the only possible repayment would be toward the Capital Expansion Fees, and the road would have to be rebuilt to the Minor Collector standard which would significantly change the applicant’s original estimate for paving the road. 

Commissioner Wallace questioned the density of the community.  She asked why there were no restrictions being applied to the application?

 

Mr. Helmick stated that the zoning control of the area prohibited the applicant from doing anything further on the property without going through the County’s review process and receiving approval.  The application was looked at differently because it was a religious community, not a subdivision. 

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Karabensh asked what the criteria would be for the road to be downgraded from a minor collector to a local roadway?

 

Mr. Johnson explained that there is no reason why the road would be downgraded.  With the expansion of the development the amount of traffic was only going to be increased.

 

Commissioner Karabensh asked if the road had already exceeded any local roadway criteria?

 

Mr. Johnson replied that local roadways are meant for subdivisions where there is local access every 30 to 100 feet, on a minor collector access spacing could be managed; posted speeds could be higher, therefore, there was no reason why the road classification would be downgraded.

 

Commissioner Waldo asked if staff had considered compromising on the number in phase 3 to alleviate the paving requirement?

 

Mr. Johnson replied that it had not been considered.  He stated that phase 1 and phase 2 would not leave many left over trips per day to work with.  He stated that if the applicant wanted to propose a plan that would not exceed the trips per day threshold, then that could be evaluated. 

 

Mr. Helmick stated that putting the paving off to phase 3 was a compromise by staff.  The current county policy was that if you asked for county approval for a development and the impact exceeded the trips per day threshold, then you were required to pave. 

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that the community would be nice see in the area and would support the use of the property, but she would not be in support of the 2 appeals. 

 

Commissioner Hart stated that his concern was with the growth.  He felt the concern of the Planning Commission should be to make sure that activity causing growth in Larimer County does not cause the taxpayers to pay for it.  He stated that he thought this was a good proposal, but did not want to see the taxpayers of Larimer County paying for it. 

 

Commissioner Pond pointed out that the code specified what needed to be done.  He remarked that he agreed with the staffs recommendations.

 

Commissioner Waldo stated that the applicants have been given breaks.  He remarked that it was regrettable that so much money had to be spent and that may mean not moving into phase 3, but it would just be too many trips on that road and would really wear it down. 

Commissioner Karabensh remarked that she agreed with staff recommendations. 

 

Commissioner Karabensh 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 Sunrise Ranch Special Review and Appeal to section 8.6 of the Larimer County Land Use Code, file# 05-Z1578, for the property described on “Exhibit C” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

A.   The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Sunrise Ranch Special Review (File #05-Z1578), 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 Sunrise Ranch Special Review.

 

B.   The applicant shall provide a Development Agreement for review and approval by the Board of County Commissioners no later than June 30, 2007.  The Development Agreement may address both the Sunrise Ranch Special Review and Special Exception.  The Development Agreement shall be amended during Phase 3 of the development to include collateral for the public road improvements (paving) if those improvements have not been completed.

 

C.   The applicant shall provide a properly executed deed of dedication for the right-of-way required along County Road 29 for review and approval by the Board of County Commissioners prior to any building or Site Plan Review application, but no later than June 30, 2007.

 

D.   Prior to application for any building permit the applicant shall submit a Site Plan Review application for review and approval for the proposed phase in which the structure is planned. Each phase shall meet the Land Use Code requirements in place at that time of submittal.

 

E.    The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Loveland Fire Prevention Bureau as outlined in their letter dated January 13, 2006.  The Site Plan Review for each phase shall address the fire protection requirements necessary for the phase.  No building permit application will be accepted for any structure included in a phase until required fire protection improvements are in place.

 

F.    The applicant shall complete the Forest Stewardship Plan in accordance with the proposed annual work plans beginning with the year 2007.  Each application for Site Plan Review shall include documentation that demonstrates that the property is in compliance with the Forest Stewardship Plan work plan.

 

G.   Ultimate buildout as anticipated in this Special Review and Special Exception proposal for the Sunrise Ranch Master Plan proposal will necessitate expansion of the water and sewer systems operated by Sunrise Ranch.  Required State and County approval for the construction of these expansions must precede the issuance of building permits for any affected phase.  Compliance with these requirements will be evaluated as part of the County’s Site Plan Review process.  It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide adequate technical demonstration of water and sewer capacity for each project development review phase.

 

H.   The drainage report for each phase shall address the potential for stormwater drainage to enter the Green Ridge Glade Reservoir.  For those projects that will direct stormwater toward the reservoir, a drinking water reservoir report shall be prepared as outlined in the applicant’s water quality letter dated September 6, 2006 and Section 8.12.6 of the Land Use Code.

 

Commissioner Hart seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Hart, Karabensh, Oppenheimer, Pond, Waldo Cox, and Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

Commissioner Hart 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 Sunrise Ranch Special Review Appeal to Section 9.7 and Appeal to Section 8.1.5 of the Larimer County Land Use Code, file# 05-Z1578, for the property described on “Exhibit C” to the minutes, be denied.

 

Commissioner Cox seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Hart, Karabensh, Oppenheimer, Pond, Waldo Cox, and Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

ITEM #5  SUNRISE RANCH SPECIAL EXCEPTION – 05-Z1577:  Ms. Madson provided background information on the request for Special Exception approval for a portion of the master plan for Sunrise Ranch to expand an existing non-conforming religious community to include an Assisted Living Facility.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

None

 

DISCUSSION:

None

 

Commissioner Hart 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 Sunrise Ranch Special Exception, file# 05-Z1577, for the property described on “Exhibit C” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

A.   The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Sunrise Ranch Special Exception (File #05-Z1577), 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 Sunrise Ranch Special Review.

 

B.   The applicant shall provide a Development Agreement for review and approval by the Board of County Commissioners no later than June 30, 2007.  The Development Agreement may address both the Sunrise Ranch Special Review and Special Exception.  The Development Agreement shall be amended during Phase 3 of the development to include collateral for the public road improvements (paving) if those improvements have not been completed.

 

C.   The applicant shall provide a properly executed deed of dedication for the right-of-way required along County Road 29 for review and approval by the Board of County Commissioners prior to any building or Site Plan Review application, but no later than June 30, 2007.

 

D.   Prior to application for any building permit the applicant shall submit a Site Plan Review application for review and approval for the proposed phase in which the structure is planned. Each phase shall meet the Land Use Code requirements in place at that time of submittal.

 

E.    The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Loveland Fire Prevention Bureau as outlined in their letter dated January 13, 2006.  The Site Plan Review for each phase shall address the fire protection requirements necessary for the phase.  No building permit application will be accepted for any structure included in a phase until required fire protection improvements are in place.

 

F.    The applicant shall complete the Forest Stewardship Plan in accordance with the proposed annual work plans beginning with the year 2007.  Each application for Site Plan Review shall include documentation that demonstrates that the property is in compliance with the Forest Stewardship Plan work plan.

 

G.   Ultimate buildout as anticipated in this Special Review and Special Exception proposal for the Sunrise Ranch Master Plan will necessitate expansion of the water and sewer systems operated by Sunrise Ranch.  Required State and County approval for the construction of these expansions must precede the issuance of building permits for any affected phase.  Compliance with these requirements will be evaluated as part of the County’s Site Plan Review process.  It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide adequate technical demonstration of water and sewer capacity for each project development review phase.

 

H.   The drainage report for each phase shall address the potential for stormwater drainage to enter the Green Ridge Glade Reservoir.  For those projects that will direct stormwater toward the reservoir, a drinking water reservoir report shall be prepared as outlined in the applicant’s water quality letter dated September 6, 2006 and Section 8.12.6 of the Land Use Code. 

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Hart, Karabensh, Oppenheimer, Pond, Waldo Cox, and Chairman Wallace 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 8:20 p.m.

 

 

 

These minutes constitute the Resolution of the Larimer County Planning Commission for the recommendations contained herein which are hereby certified to the Larimer County Board of Commissioners.

 

 

 

 

 

_______________________________                      ______________________________

Nancy Wallace, Chairman                                            Kristen Karabensh, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Background Image: Rocky Mountain National Park by Sue Burke. All rights reserved.