Elk in Rocky Mountain National Park
 

LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of February 16, 2005

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, February 16, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners’ Boulter, Huddleston, Korb, Oppenheimer, Pond, and Wallace were present. Commissioner Morgan presided as Chairman.  Commissioner terMeer and Waldo were absent.  Also present were Rob Helmick, Principal Planner, David Karan, Planner II, Matt Lafferty, Senior Planner, Traci Downs, Engineering Department, Roxann Hayes, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Environmental Health, and Jill Albracht, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary.

 

POSTING OF MEETINGS IN COMPLIANCE WITH OPEN MEETINGS LAW:  Commissioner Pond moved that the Larimer County Planning Commission designate the Oak Street entrance to the Larimer County Courthouse as the public posting place for notices of all official actions and public meetings in accordance with the requirements of the Colorado Open Meetings law (CRS 24-6-402).  Commissioner Korb seconded the Motion.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

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 MEETING: Chairman Morgan requested to move the approval of the January 19, 2005 minutes to March 16, 2005 in order for members of the Commission to submit additional comments and for the minutes to be revised.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:  

Rob Helmick, Principal Planner, stated that the Development Review Team requested to table Consent Item #1 McClelland’s Creek Planned Land Division/Planned Development to the March 16, 2005 hearing.

 

Matt Lafferty, Senior Planner, stated that the Development Review Team in conjunction with the applicant were requesting to table the item due to unresolved wetland issues. 

 

TABLED ITEM:

Commissioner Korb moved that the Planning Commission table the McClelland’s Creek Planned Land Division/Planned Development, file #04-S2299, to the March 16, 2005 Planning Commission Hearing.  Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

Chairman Morgan asked if members of the audience wanted to remove any items from consent?

 

Bill Morrison, 543 Linden View Drive, stated that his property was adjacent to the proposed Auburn Estates Conservation Development.  He stated that he was President of the Linden Ridge Home Owner’s Association, which had covenants restricting night lighting.  He asked if Auburn Estates would have any covenants regarding street lights and/or night lighting?

 

 

 

John Barnett, John Barnett & Associates, 3200 Greenwood Court, was the applicant for Auburn Estates.  He stated that covenants had not yet been development specifically for the project.  He remarked that the goal was to be compatible with the neighboring areas and planned to include restrictions on night lighting and street lighting in the covenants.

 

Sarah Johnson, 549 Linden View Drive, stated that she had moved to the area with a hope that there would not be development around the area.  She mentioned that in addition to the already mentioned night lighting she had questions regarding the water rights, the landscape and utility planning for each individual lot, the heights of the home units, and the criteria for proposed additions and outbuildings.  She also stated that she was informed that the lakes in the area were part of an endangered area for wildlife and vegetation. 

 

Chairman Morgan moved that Consent Item #3 Auburn Estates Conservation Development (#03-S2143) be removed from the Consent agenda.

 

CONSENT ITEMS:

 

ITEM #2 SANCTUARY PLANNED LAND DIVISION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT #02-S1993:  Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request for a Preliminary Plat to create 20 single family residential lots on the 16.18 acre property situated along the southern boundary of the Fossil Lake Planned Unit Development.  The request also included a rezoning from FA-1 Farming to Planned Development.

 

Commissioner Korb 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 request to rezone the property for the Sanctuary PD, file #02-S1993, from FA-1 (Farming) to PD (Planned Development) subject to the following condition:

 

1.   The zoning designation for the Sanctuary PD and PLD shall be PD (Planned Development), which zoning classification will be subject to the development standards and requirements of Subsection I.E. (Mixed Use Neighborhood Area Regulations) of the Larimer County Development Standards for the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area for in the Supplemental Regulations to the Larimer County Land Use Code Section 8.9.2.A.1, or as amended.

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Sanctuary Planned Land Division/Planned Development, file #02-S1993, 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 Sanctuary Planned Land Division (File #02-S1993), 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 Sanctuary Planned Land Division.

 

 

2.   The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings:  Poudre R-1 school fee, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, Larimer County Community and Regional Park Fees (in lieu of dedication) and drainage fees.  The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply. 

 

3.   Per the recommendation of the Colorado Geological Service regarding subsurface construction (basements) shall include perimeter drains as part of the foundation construction.

 

4.   Per the recommendation of the Colorado Geological Service regarding foundation construction shall include over excavation and engineered footing and foundations as provided in the Geotechnical evaluation provided by the applicant.

 

5.   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.

 

6.   The applicant shall be responsible for the all improvements and requirements as outlined in the submittal materials, including those found in the referral comments from Traci Downs of the Larimer County Engineering Department, dated January 6, 2005.

 

7.   As part of the Final Plat application, the applicant shall provide a plan for mitigation, which will include landscaping and fencing requirements, as the result of encroachments into the Resource Management Area

 

Commissioner Huddleston seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Boulter, Huddleston, Korb, Oppenheimer, Pond, Wallace, and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:   7-0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEMS:

 

ITEM #4 HOFF CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT #03-S2205:  Mr. Karan provided background information on the request for a Preliminary Plat for a Conservation Development to divide 146 acres into 14 lots including three residual lots.  The request also included an Appeal to Section 5.3.6.B.1.f of the Larimer County Land Use Code due to Residual Lot B of the development being only 20.6 acres in size.  The application was tabled at the December 15, 2004 Planning Commission hearing in order for the applicant to work out outstanding Engineering issues.  Mr. Karan stated that the issues had been solved. 

 

Commissioner Wallace asked for more information on the drainage and irrigation plans.

 

David Karan stated that the applicant intended to provide a detailed irrigation plan but requested that a recommendation regarding the design be determined before additional funds were invested to draw up a detailed irrigation plan.

 

Mike DiTullio, 7785 Highland Meadows Parkway, was the applicant for the project.  He explained that on the eastern portion of the property the irrigation flowed from the north to the south and on the western side the irrigation flowed from the west to the east.  He stated that to provide connectivity to the south the plat had to be redesigned, and the residual lot to the south was split in order to irrigate the area properly.  He explained that the emergency access road location was due to Poudre Fire Authority’s request to see the secondary access 660 feet from the bulb. 

 

Chairman Morgan asked how the water was moved across the emergency access?

 

Mr. DiTullio stated that a preliminary irrigation plan had been done, and it was determined that a culvert would need to be put underneath the access road.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

None

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Huddleston commended Mr. DiTullio for working out the problems that arose from the December 15, 2004 hearing.

 

Mr. DiTullio thanked the Commission for their guidance on the project as well as the Planning Department for their cooperation. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that she opposed the project.  She did not believe that the application met the requirements of the Larimer County Master Plan and was a benefit for developers but not to members of the community.  She remarked that the Master Plan stated that agriculture would remain a viable long-term segment of Larimer County’s economic, cultural, and social fabric, and the proposed plan did not meet that requirement.  It was not in the best interest of agriculture for the County because it broke up the property making it almost impossible to irrigate, and it catered to 35-acres which would allow for only hobby farming.  She referenced Section 2.1 of the Master Plan which stated that the growth management needed to conserve and enhance sensitive biological resources, protect viable agricultural lands, and conserve rural lands.  Paragraph 3.2.1 the Master Plan stated that in rural conservation developments the lands were to be clustered in design based on the characteristics of the specific site, and the ability to maintain the open area in agriculture may also be a prime consideration on appropriate sites.  She remarked that it was a spread out development, the water irrigation on the west side of the development would not be used for agriculture, and Residual Lot B would be divided off from the other Lot to the east side making it almost impossible to irrigate Residual Lot B.  Along with that she felt that it divided up a wonderful piece of agricultural land for the purpose of building lots, which was not the purpose of Conservation Developments.  She stated that the Planning Commission had a responsibility to maintain agriculture in the County. 

 

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 Hoff Conservation Development, file #03-S2205, for the property described on “Exhibit C” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:  

 

a.   The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved Preliminary Plat and with the information contained in the Hoff CD (File #03-S2205).  The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Hoff Development.

 

b.   Engineered foundations are required for new habitable construction on this site as recommended by the Colorado Geologic Survey.

 

c.   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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

d.   The following fees shall be collected at building permit for new single family dwellings. Poudre R-1 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.

 

e.   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.

 

f.   The applicant shall provide connectivity to the south property line by constructing the local road to County local road standards and dedicating the 60 foot public right-of-way to the south property line.  A revised Preliminary Plat and preliminary construction plans showing this connection shall be submitted for review and approval before the Board of County Commissions hearing will be scheduled.

 

g.   All necessary water line easements requested by the ELCO water district shall be shown on the revised Preliminary Plat and plans.  A Preliminary Plat and preliminary construction plans showing these easements need to be submitted to our department for review and approval before the Board of County Commissions hearing will be scheduled.

 

h.   The applicant shall provide an emergency access gate at the emergency access that is located out of the Highway 1 right-of-way and meets Poudre Fire Authority requirements.  A revised Preliminary Plat and Preliminary construction plans showing the gate location and type of gate must be submitted to our department for review and approval before the Board of County Commissions hearing will be scheduled.

 

i.   The applicant shall comply with the Poudre Fire Authority requirements, which may include a paved emergency access road that will tie in to the end of the cul-de-sac bulb.  A revised Preliminary Plat and preliminary construction plans showing the details for the emergency road must be submitted for review and approval before the Board of County Commissions hearing will be scheduled.    

 

 

 

 

 

j.   A drainage and irrigation plan, which does not have adverse impacts to the proposed homes, must be submitted for review and approval before the Board of County Commissions hearing will be scheduled.  All proposed irrigation and drainage ditches must be shown to be within drainage and irrigation easements or tracts designated for drainage and irrigation.

 

k.   A licensed Professional Engineer must verify that the adjacent earthen irrigation ditch has additional capacity in the 100 year storm event for the additional undetained flows off of this site without causing additional overflow and impacts to downstream properties before the Board of County Commissions hearing will be scheduled.

 

Commissioner Huddleston seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner Wallace voted against the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Boulter, Huddleston, Korb, Oppenheimer, Pond, and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-1

 

Commissioner Boulter 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 Hoff Conservation Development Appeal to Section 5.3.6.B.1.f of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Commissioner Huddleston seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner Korb stated that the circumstances of the location did not justify the Appeal.  However he did feel that the overall development was consistent with the goals and objectives that the Planning Commission was trying to set forth.  He stated that he would vote against the Appeal feeling that Residual Lot B should not be cut off from the other Residual Lot. 

 

Commissioners’ Korb and Wallace voted against the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Boulter, Huddleston, Oppenheimer, Pond, and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  5-2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM #5 DRIPPING SPRINGS SPECIAL REVIEW #04-Z1515:  Mr. Karan provided background information on the request for a Special Review of a bed and breakfast and accommodation resort situated approximately one mile downstream from Estes Park.  He stated that the Development Review Team was recommending denial due to the proposal not meeting requirements of the Larimer County Land Use Code Review Criteria.

 

Doug Ryan, Health Department, explained that the water and sewer for the resort needed to be managed as a combined system.  The property functioned as a unified resort.  Due to that, the total capacity of 32 people meant that the combined water systems met the definition of a small public water supply.  The treatment and distribution system and ultimately the water quality produced needed to meet State drinking water standards.  The Health Department was concerned that the resort would not meet the threshold of State standards if broken down into smaller units, and the water system would no longer be regulated.  He explained that the situation concerning the sewer was a little different.  Currently there was a series of septic systems on the property which were at the limit where their combined total needed to be considered as a whole.  For instance, if the resort needed to expand in the future the Health Department had the view that any expanded sewer would trigger a State mandated water quality review and necessitate advanced treatment of the sewer system.  The State Health Department based on regulations they administered had developed a policy for dealing with multiple individual sewer systems that occurred on those types of properties.  The Health Department had the view that splitting the property into three different resorts, in terms of management, clouded the issue and would limit the ability both of the County and of the State to manage the cumulative impacts of the water and sewer systems and of the number of guests.  At four acres the property had achieved a high level of development over the years and the cumulative impacts require managing the water and sewer systems in a way that was different from the way private wells and private septic systems were managed.  He noted that in the written recommendations to the applicant and to the Planning Department the Health Department recommended approval of the resort based on the condition that the water and sewer systems be managed as single units and not split up in terms of their management. 

 

Mr. Karan informed the Commission that as a compromise the applicant’s consultant and the Development Services Team tried to develop a legally binding agreement to achieve unitary management of the water and sewer systems, which would protect the public adequately.  Unfortunately, the agreement that was put together was rejected by the owners, and for that reason, the Development Services Team was recommending denial. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bill Van Horn, Van Horn Engineering - 1043 Fish Creek Road, thanked the staff for the effort made to try to come to a conclusion regarding the application.  He stated that Dripping Springs Inn was a legal, non-conforming use, and the Big Thompson Canyon had unique characteristics and was not the normal residential neighborhood.  He explained that the resort was operational now, the owners had spent a lot of time trying to bring it up to standards, and the current intensity of use was the most that it would be.  He stated that the O-Open 10-acre maximum enforcement was not a realistic standard.  He stated that the owner, Mr. Robertson, was willing to agree to the unified water and sewer.  He was just asking that the historical buildings be allowed to remain if the lots were sold.  Mr. Van Horn explained that if the property was divided off the lots would remain operational as a resort/rentals, and the operation would still be singular.  He explained that Mr. Robertson was asking to reconfigure the existing lots into something that made more sense in terms of where existing buildings were.  He pointed out that if the structures were not allowed to remain non-conforming and one of the lots was sold and did not remain as a resort; it would turn into a residential use.  Consequently, the structures would have to be neutered as a dwelling unit, removed, or some how become attached.

 

Mr. Karan stated that the resort was a non-conforming use and units were added, which made it an illegal, non-conforming use.

 

Mr. Helmick stated that there had not been a substantial change in the “foot print” of the structures on the property, but there had been in increase over time without permission on the number of “pillows” available for rental purposes on the property, which created an expansion of a non-conformity.

 

The hearing recessed for ten minutes.

 

David Osborn, Attorney to Oliver Robertson, stated that the basic issue was the accessory buildings that were on the three lots.  There were three separate lots with historically existing non-conforming uses.  It was felt that those buildings on the lots should sustain whether they were rented as three separate lots by three separate owners or three separate lots under one owner.  He also remarked that Mr. Robertson had not expanded the “foot print” or the number of “pillows” and was just asking to allow the accessory uses of the existing cabins to continue if the three lots went into separate ownership.  He asked that Mr. Robertson not be penalized for trying to work with the County to bring things up to standards. 

 

Commissioner Wallace recapped that any potential buyers of the Dripping Springs lots would have the ability to elect in or elect out of the resort operation.  She pointed out that if the new owners would choose to opt out then there would still be rentals on the property and there would be no way to monitor those.  She stated that the property should have to go back to a single residential use.

 

Mr. Osborn replied that the property should be allowed to go back to accommodation rentals and continue its historical non-conforming use.

 

Commissioner Korb suggested looking at each lot individually to determine the history of each building on the lot.  The non-conforming buildings would then be allowed to remain, but the illegal ones would have to go.  If a lot was sold then the new owner would be aware that the illegal building would need to cease. 

 

Oliver Robertson, Owner of Dripping Springs Inn, stated that the issues had been resolved except for the three lot configuration and the use of the non-conforming structures.  He stated that he had not increased the “pillow” count and he had corrected all building violations. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

None

 

DISCUSSION:

The Commission questioned tabling the application to construct Conditions of Approval

 

Chairman Morgan stated that the County needed to take a look at all of the Big Thompson Canyon and create some kind of zoning classification that would reflect the kind of uses that were there and had historically been there.  An effort needed to be funded to do a detailed study of that corridor in order for the properties to perform the operations that they had historically done. 

 

Mr. Osborn stated that Mr. Robertson requested that the item be tabled for 30 days to allow for preparation of documents and Conditions of Approval.

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission table the Dripping Springs Special Review, file #04-Z1515, to March 16, 2005.

 

Commissioner Korb seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Boulter, Huddleston, Korb, Oppenheimer, Pond, Wallace and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

REMOVED FROM CONSENT:

 

ITEM #3 AUBURN ESTATES CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT #03-S2143:  Mr. Karan provided background information on the request for a Preliminary Plat for a proposed Conservation Development to divide 78.45 acres into 26 lots and five residual lots located on the west side of County Road 3 east of Interstate 25 between State Highway 14 (Mulberry Road) and County Road 48 (Vine Drive).

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Chris Leininger, N. County Road 3, stated that he was in favor of the development.  He asked if the road would be paved and if there would be any dust mitigation while the project was being developed?

 

Ron Greenwald, 5882 Seldovia Road, stated that the intersection of County Road 3 and Highway 14 was very dangerous.  He suggested that the problem be corrected.

 

 

 

William Morrison, 543 Linden View Drive, agreed that the intersection previously mentioned was a problem.  He stated that the main concern was the character of the proposed development. 

 

John Barnett, John Barnett & Associates, stated that County Road 3 would be paved from the northern end of satisfactory paving (somewhere in the vicinity of Ridgeview) north to the northeast corner of the project.  The mitigation of dust would occur to the standards of State Health Department air quality control including dust suppression.  He acknowledged the County Road 3 and Highway 14 intersection stating that one of the conditions of approval required a more in-depth traffic study.  He stated that the project would have covenants similar to the surrounding subdivisions.

 

Commissioner Korb asked if there would be water left in the residual land?

 

Mr. Barnett replied yes. 

 

Chairman Morgan noted that the irrigation lateral was going to be relocated.  He asked if there was an easement to get the water across from Auburn Drive to the south property?

 

Mr. Barnett replied that the property would continue to be irrigated.  He explained that there would be an easement and pointed out where the relocated irrigation lateral would be located.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked how the ownership of the residual land would be handled? 

 

Mr. Barnett stated that the intent was to have the Home Owner’s Association own the residual lots.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

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 Auburn Estates Conservation Development, file #03-S2143, 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 Auburn Estates CD (File #03-S2143).  The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Auburn Estates Conservation Development.

 

2.   Engineered foundations are required for new habitable construction on this site as recommended by the Colorado Geologic Survey.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. Poudre R-1 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 sha

 

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.   Paving will be required on CR 3 from Ridgewood Meadows (or further south, depending on the surface determination) to the north, to and through the subject property, which shall include the emergency access location.

 

7.   A revised traffic impact study will be provided by the applicant, as prepared and stamped by a professional traffic engineer. This traffic study shall be provided at least 4 weeks prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing, to allow for staff comment. This traffic study shall address the comments as discussed in the  2/11/04 comments provided by the Engineering Department.

 

8.   Water Balance Calculation for the Developed and Wildlife Habitat Areas or a complete and sufficient analysis of groundwater available for sustaining the created wetland shall be stamped by a certified professional engineer.  This documentation must be with the Final Plat submittal if not sooner. 

 

Commissioner Huddleston seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Boulter, Huddleston, Korb, Oppenheimer, Pond, 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 9:50 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

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