LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of March 17, 2004

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, March 17, 2004, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners’ Huddleston, Nelson, Pond, terMeer, and Waldo were present. Commissioner Wallace presided as Vice-Chairman.  Commissioners' Boulter, Korb and Morgan were absent.  Also present were Rob Helmick, Senior Planner, Karin Knauf, Planner II, Matt Lafferty, Planner II, Sean Wheeler, Planner II, Roxann Hayes, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Environmental Health, and Mandi Schmierer, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary.

 

COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC REGARDING THE COUNTY LAND USE CODE: None 

 

COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC REGARDING OTHER RELEVANT LAND USE MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA:  None

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE FEBRUARY 18, 2004 MEETING: MOTION by Commissioner Pond to approve the minutes; seconded by Commissioner Huddleston.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA: None

 

CONSENT ITEMS:

 

ITEM #1 DRY CREEK STORAGE PUD AMENDED SPECIAL REVIEW #03-Z1489: Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request to amend the Dry Creek Storage P.U.D. and Special Review to include the storage of semi-trailers to the allowed storage uses for the property.  The semi-trailers would be used to house stored items on a temporary basis for people moving or remodeling.  Mr. Lafferty indicated that the property was located on the south side of Highway 287, approximately 1/4 mile west of Highway 1. 

 

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

 

      BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners that the Dry Creek Storage PUD Amended Special Review for the property described on "Exhibit A" to the minutes be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   Development of the site shall be completed in strict conformance with the representations, plans and documents found in the Dry Creek Storage PUD Amended Special Review File (03-Z1489), including all conditions of previous approvals for the property.

 

2.   Prior to the commencement of the Dry Creek Storage use, the applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement setting forth timing of construction, construction requirements, and use restrictions for the anticipated storage use.

 

3.   Roadway and access improvements necessary for this property shall receive final review and approval by the Development Services Team and the Colorado Department of Transportation prior to the commencement of any storage activity on the site.  Said improvements shall be installed in accordance with an approved Development Agreement.

 

4.   Prior to the recordation of the Development Agreement the applicant shall obtain an access permit from the Colorado Department of Transportation for the access from Highway 287.

 

5.   Drainage, erosion control and storm water quality improvements necessary for this property shall receive final review and approval by the Development Services Team prior to the commencement of any storage activity on the site. Said improvements shall be installed in accordance with an approved Development Agreement.

 

6.   The hours of operation of the Dry Creek Storage use shall be 7 am – 6 pm Monday thru Friday, and 8 am – 5:30 pm on the weekends.  These hours of operation shall be memorialized in a Development Agreement for this use.

 

7.   Prior to the recordation of a Development Agreement for the use, the applicant shall provide written documentation, to the satisfaction of the Development Services Team, regarding safety measures to be utilized as part of this use and the storage of potentially hazardous materials.

 

8.   All public parking, service areas, and fire lanes necessary for the operation of this site shall be constructed of a paved or concrete surface, no compacted road base as a final surface shall be permitted in these areas of the site.

 

Commissioner Waldo seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Huddleston, Nelson, Pond, terMeer, Waldo, and Vice-Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED: 6-0

 

ITEM #2 PERRINE SUBDIVISION #03-S2218: Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request to create two residential lots on a 10-acre parcel that was located along the east side of County Road 15, approximately 1/4 mile north of County Road 2E.  Mr. Lafferty noted that the property was currently occupied by two residential dwelling units and that access to the two units would consist of a shared driveway that already existed on the property. 

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners that the Perrine Subdivision #03-S2218 for the property described on "Exhibit B" to the minutes be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   The applicant shall prepare for recordation with the final plat a maintenance agreement for the access drive serving the two properties.

 

2.   Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat for the Perrine Subdivision the applicant shall demonstrate that the locations of the existing septic systems are at least 10 feet or greater from any existing or proposed property lines.

 

3.   Within six months of the recordation of a Final Plat for the Perrine Subdivision, the property owner shall eliminate the existing driveway from County Road 15 located at middle of the western property line.

 

Commissioner Waldo seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Huddleston, Nelson, Pond, terMeer, Waldo, and Vice-Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED: 6-0

 

ITEM #3 DRY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN IMPROVEMENTS LOCATION AND EXTENT #04-Z1508: Commissioner Wallace asked that this item be removed from the consent agenda to discuss the possibility of tabling the item until the Dry Creek Basin Master Plan was approved. 

 

ITEM #4 HUGHES STADIUM RENOVATION LOCATION AND EXTENT #04-Z1509: Mr. Wheeler provided background information on the request to upgrade the existing facilities at the Colorado State University's Hughes Stadium to include new general seating, additional concession stands, box seating and a new scoreboard, video board and upgraded sound system.

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Hughes Stadium Renovation Location and Extent #04-Z1509 subject to the following condition:

 

1.  The Larimer County Planning Commission requests the University continue to work with Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins, to reach agreements on how and when a fair and equitable agreement can be reached to address issues and concerns regarding public facilities and infrastructure in the area.

 

Commissioner Waldo seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Huddleston, Nelson, Pond, terMeer, Waldo, and Vice-Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED: 6-0

 

REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA:

 

ITEM #3 DRY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN IMPROVEMENTS LOCATION AND EXTENT #04-Z1508:

Jim Hibbard, City of Fort Collins Utilities, indicated that the project they were proposing would not be the same as what was contained in the Dry Creek Basin Master Plan due to the constraints on funding.

Ms. Knauf provided background information on the Dry Creek Basin Master Plan Drainage Improvements.  The project consisted of seven components including modification of Douglas Dam to increase storm water detention capacity, construction of 2 Flood Control Basins, diversion of Dry Creek using the Larimer and Weld Canal to contain post-project 100 year flows, diversion of flood flow from the Larimer and Weld Canal into the proposed East Vine Diversion channelization project, upgrade of culverts under East Vine Drive and the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway and finally flows to the previously improved Timberline Extension and Channel and into the Poudre River.  

 

Link Mueller, Special Project Manager for Utilities, explained the improvements that were being proposed and the overall operation of the project.  He indicated that the proposed improvements would provide a 100-year protection for structures in the Dry Creek area and for critical facilities.  

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

None

 

DISCUSSION:

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

                      

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves the Dry Creek Drainage Basin Improvements Location and Extent #04-Z1508 subject to the following conditions:

 

·  The Dry Creek Basin Master Plan shall be adopted by the County prior to construction of the proposed improvements.

·  The County and City of Fort Collins shall obtain all required County, state and federal permits and approvals prior to construction of the proposed improvements.

 

Commissioner Nelson seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Huddleston, Nelson, Pond, terMeer, Waldo, and Vice-Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED: 6-0

 

ITEM:

 

ITEM #5 PRAIRIE VIEW ESTATES CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN #03-S2187:  Mr. Karan provided background information on the request to subdivide 132 acres into 13 lots.  The applicant was proposing to divide the property in three-phases.  Phase 1 would include Lots 1 through 4 plus Residual Lot A.  Phase 2 would develop Lots 5, 11, 12, & 13 and Phase 3 would include Lots 6 through 9.  The lots would range in size from 2.00 to 2.08 acres and would be located on the western portion of the property.  Mr. Karan said the site was located at the southeast corner of the intersection of County Road 66 and 5 approximately 1.25 miles northeast of Wellington and that the applicant was also requesting four appeals.  The appeals included Section 8.1.5-Road Improvements, 8.1.1-Drainage Improvements, Section 8.14.2.M-Connectivity, and Section 8.3.7.A.5-Cluster design in 80:20 Conservation Developments.   

 

Mrs. Hayes explained the applicant's request to appeal Sections 8.1.5 and 8.1.1.  She first discussed the appeal to Section 8.1.5 and indicated that the development would add approximately 130 vehicle trips per a day and that by adding a single additional vehicle trip per a day to County Road 66 would trip the threshold for paving.  Mrs. Hayes also discussed the concerns the Engineering Department had regarding the appeal to Section 8.1.1-Drainage Improvements.  She said the drainage proposal that was submitted by the applicant did not meet the Adequate Public Facilities standards for detention because the storm water road over topping depths on County Road 5 exceeded the depths that were allowed during a minor storm.  Mrs. Hayes indicated that the allowed depths were up to 6" in a minor storm and the applicant's proposal indicated a greater depth at a minor storm.   

 

Mr. Karan continued to discuss the applicant's proposal and the appeals that were being requested.  He stated that the Development Services Team did not support the appeal to Section 5.7.A.5 because they believed that additional residual land should be allocated to replace the 3.17 acres shown for Residual/Outlots B&C.  Mr. Karan also discussed applicant's request to appeal Section 8.14.2.M and stated that the Development Services Team did support the appeal of road connectivity to the east, but did not support the appeal of road connectivity to the south because there was the potential for that property to be developed in the future. 

 

Commissioner Nelson asked what solutions the applicant would need to do to address the concerns from the Engineering Department.  Ms. Hayes indicated the application would either need to create a detention pond or install 3 culverts and acquire the necessary easements to direct the flow down to Indian Creek. 

 

Commissioner Huddleston asked how large outlots B&C were.  Mr. Karan said 3.17 acres

 

Commissioner Waldo asked how much it would cost to pave a half-mile of County Road 66.  Mrs. Hayes was uncertain, but said around $250,000.

 

Mr. Ryan addressed the concerns the Health Department had about placing drainage easements on residential lots.  He recommended that because the drainage systems would be located on the proposed lots, the lot size should be increased over the minimum 2.00 acre requirements by the amount of encroachment of the drainage facility. 

 

Tom Honn, 1601 Quail Hollow Drive, represented the applicant.  He explained the proposal and said the placement of the lots was designed around the active pivot system that was located on the property.  He briefly spoke about the requirement of having to pave County Road 66 from County Road 5 and said that the traffic from the proposed development would utilize County Road 5 south to County Road 64.  Mr. Honn also discussed the drainage concerns and said that the proposed project would not be adding any new water depth. He indicated the development would not add to the existing condition and the design would accommodate the drainage from the north across the property by dispersing it into a swale.  Mr. Honn continued to explain the appeal for connectivity and drainage areas being calculated as residual land. 

 

Matt Delich, 2272 Glen Haven Drive, said he had prepared the traffic study for the proposal.  He spoke to the issues of traffic on County Road 66 and the requirement of paving.  He also provided a travel time analysis for the two accesses to the site.  The conclusion was that the shortest travel time would be from County Road 5 to County Road 64 then to the frontage road.  Mr. Delich also believed that the amount of traffic from the proposed subdivision to use County Road 66 would not trip the paving threshold at the section between County Road 5 & the paved portion of County Road 66.  He also said that he had conducted an auxiliary lane analysis at the intersection of County Road 64 & County Road 5 and concluded that no turn lane would be needed at that location. 

 

Jim Loonan, Loonan and Associates, spoke about the issues regarding drainage.  He indicated there were currently no culverts under County Road 5 and that the proposed subdivision would have no effect on the drainage because the issues were an existing condition.  Mr. Loonan also discussed the impact the development would have on the depth flow and stated that the increase in depth would only be a hundredth of a foot.   

 

Vice-Chairman Wallace asked when the traffic study was conducted and what 3 days the study had occurred.  Mr. Delich said the traffic study was done 2 years ago, but addendums had been prepared since then and the traffic count was taken on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday.  He also noted that the traffic count he was using was from the County's Engineering Department. 

 

Mrs. Hayes stated that the traffic count numbers as presented by the applicant's traffic engineering consultant appeared to be incorrect. Discussion continued between staff and Mr. Delich regarding where the traffic counts occurred on County Road 66. 

 

Vice-Chairman Wallace asked if the outlots would be used as detention ponds.  Mr. Loonan indicated that a wide based drainage channel was being proposed, but no detention ponds were being proposed on site. 

 

Commissioner Pond asked if there was a proposed modification to the current pivot system.  Mr. Honn indicated that the design of the pivot system would loose one tower and would be shifted slightly to the east from its current location. 

 

Vice-Chairman Wallace asked if a share of water from the North Poudre would be kept with the land enabling future landowners to rent additional North Poudre water.

 

Dallas Horton, 2175 Taylor Lane, responded to the question Vice-Chairman Wallace asked regarding water and stated there would be two shares of water.  One would be for the use of the pivot system and the other share would be available for the homeowners.  Mr. Horton also spoke about the drainage issues and the drainage located north of his property. 

 

Commissioner terMeer asked if the residual land could be placed on the southern portion of the proposed property.  Mr. Horton said possibly. 

 

Hearing recessed for a 10-minute break.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Ruth Wagner, 4811 East County Road 66, indicated there were two options for people driving on County Road 66.  The two options were to either take County Road 66 over the interchange to County Road 7 or to take County Road 66 to the frontage road down to County Road 64. 

 

 

 

Larry Jeffrey, 9600 North County Road 5, believed the intersection at County Road 64 & County Road 5 was a dangerous intersection.  He also spoke about the drainage and the effect it had on County Road 5.  He spoke in opposition to the proposal. 

 

Mr. Honn spoke about the issues that were raised by the public.   

 

Mr. Delich indicated that the intersection at County Road 5 & County Road 64 was safe. 

 

Public Hearing was closed at this time.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner terMeer believed the drainage was an important issue and that some provision needed to be made.  She also stated that connectivity was an issue and should be provided to the south. 

 

Vice-Chairman Wallace stated that he liked the cluster design proposal and could support the appeal for connectivity because of the small number of lots to the south.  He also indicated that he would be willing to forgive the residual land outlot issue only if they would be used as detention ponds.  Vice-Chairman Wallace also suggested offering a delay in time for the paving issue and believed the issue regarding connectivity to the south was not a concern. 

 

Commissioner Waldo agreed with Vice-Chairman Wallace regarding the issue of paving County Road 66 after the applicant had sold a certain number of lots.  He believed more information was needed regarding the drainage pattern being changed. 

 

Commissioner Pond also agreed about delaying the paving of the road until Phase 2 began construction.  He supported using the outlots as detention ponds to count towards residual land, but believed that connectivity to the south of the proposed property should be provided. 

 

Commissioner Huddleston said the issues regarding drainage should be addressed.  He agreed with the delaying the paving of County Road 66 until the second phase of construction began. 

 

Commissioner Nelson agreed with the previous comments. 

 

Commissioner terMeer recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Prairie View Estates Conservation Development General Development Plan by modifying Staff's Recommendation #1 to include providing collateral for the paving of County Road 66 prior to the construction of Phase 1, but paving the road would not be required until the construction began on Phase 2.  The recommendation also included calculating the residual land as outlots and requiring two shares of North Poudre water to be allocated to the property.

 

Commissioner Nelson, Pond, Waldo and Vice-Chairman Wallace were opposed the Motion as recommended by Commission terMeer regarding paving and requiring a form collateral to be provided before the construction of Phase 1. 

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners that the Prairie View Estates Conservation Development General Development Plan for the property described on "Exhibit C" be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   County Road 66 shall be paved from just east of I-25 to the intersection of County Roads 66 and 5 at the beginning of Phase 2.  Collateral to guarantee the paving shall be provided by the applicant at the beginning of Phase 1.

 

2.   All drainage and off-site and adjacent road improvements must be completed as part of Phase 1. The outlots will be allowed to be calculated as part of the residual land. 

 

3.   Two shares of water from the North Poudre shall be allocated to the property.       

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Huddleston, Nelson, Pond, Waldo, and Vice-Chairman Wallace voted against the Motion.

 

Commissioner terMeer voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION FAILED: 5-1

 

Commissioner Nelson moved that the Planning Commission adopt the Prairie View Estates Conservation Development General Development Plan including the modification to Staff's Recommendation #1 and #3, addition of outlots being calculated as residual land and the two shares of North Poudre water remaining with the residual land. 

 

Commissioner Huddleston offered a Friendly Amendment to the Motion regarding the additional road improvements and suggested that in order prevent the applicant from having to complete additional the improvement the drainage plan should account for infiltration and detention to account for additional runoff.  Commissioner terMeer seconded the Motion. 

 

Commissioner Nelson accepted the Friendly Amendment.

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners that the Prairie View Estates Conservation Development General Development Plan for the property described on "Exhibit C" be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   County Road 66 shall be paved from just east of I-25 to the intersection of County Roads 66 and 5 before construction of Phase 2 begins. 

 

2.   The outlots shall be allowed to be calculated as Residual Land.

 

3.   All drainage improvements must be completed as part of Phase 1 and must account for and mitigate the runoff from the impervious area created by the development.

 

4.   Two shares of water from the North Poudre shall remain with the Residual Land. 

                       

Commissioner Waldo seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Huddleston, Nelson, Pond, terMeer, Waldo, and Vice-Chairman Wallace voted in favor the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED: 6-0

 

Commissioner Nelson recommended that the applicants appeal to Section 8.14.2.M-Internal circulation road connectivity be granted as applied for by the applicant. 

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners that the Prairie View Estates Conservation Development General Development Plan for the property described on "Exhibit C" be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

5.   Roadway connectivity to the east or south shall not be required. 

 

6.   The overall configuration of interim and final access must be approved by the Wellington Fire Protection District before reactivation of file # 00-S1694 (the previous Preliminary Plat submittal).

 

7.   The entire project shall be completed within three years of the recording of the Phase 1 Final Plat (see LCLUC Section 5.13.3.D).

 

Commissioner Waldo seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Nelson, Waldo, and Vice-Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Huddleston, Pond, and terMeer voted against the Motion.

 

MOTION FAILED: 3-3

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners that the Prairie View Estates Conservation Development General Development Plan for the property described on "Exhibit C" be approved subject to the following condition:

 

5.  Roadway connectivity to the east shall not be required.  Roadway connectivity to the south shall be provided.

 

Commissioner terMeer seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Huddleston, Pond, terMeer, and Vice-Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Nelson and Waldo voted against the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED: 4-2

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Commissioners that the Prairie View Estates Conservation Development General Development Plan for the property described on "Exhibit C" be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

6.   The overall configuration of interim and final access must be approved by the Wellington Fire Protection District before reactivation of file #00-S1694 (the previous Preliminary Plat submittal).

7.   The entire project shall be completed within three years of the recording of the Phase 1 Final Plat (see LCLUC Section 5.13.3.D).

 

Commissioner terMeer seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Huddleston, Nelson, Pond, terMeer, Waldo and Vice-Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED: 6-0

 

All Planning Commission Members agreed that they acted on the General Development Plan as proposed except as modified by the conditions memorialized in the Motions which disposes of the four appeals as characterized in the Motions.

 

REPORT FROM STAFF:  Mr. Helmick reminded the Commission of their upcoming meetings. 

 

ADJOURNMENT:  There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 9:35 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.

 

 

 

_______________________________                      ______________________________

George Wallace, Vice-Chairman                                   Rodney Nelson, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT D