LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of June 15, 2005

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, June 15, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners’ Boulter, Korb, Oppenheimer, Pond, terMeer, Waldo and Wallace were present. Commissioner Morgan presided as Chairman.  Commissioner Huddleston was absent.  Also present were Russ Legg, Chief Planner, Rob Helmick, Principal Planner, David Karan, Planner II, Matt Lafferty, Senior Planner, Geniphyr Ponce-Pore, Planner II, Traci Downs, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Environmental Health, and Jill Albracht, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary.

 

COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC REGARDING THE COUNTY LAND USE CODE: 

Mary Van Cleave, 8021 SW Frontage Road, wanted to address the Planning Commission regarding the procedures for discussion and decision-making.  The City of Fort Collins had given the property owners in the Cooperative Planning Area (CPA) no respect throughout the entire planning process.  She felt that respect for property owners in the CPA was important because they were the ones most greatly affected by the decisions.  All attempts at public participation had been inadequate, and the City of Fort Collins had decided to move forward with the Growth Management Area expansion even though all property owners, the City of Loveland and Windsor had expressed concerns or opposition.  She asked that the Planning Commission leave hearings open so the public would have the opportunity to interact.

 

COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC REGARDING OTHER RELEVANT LAND USE MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA:  

None

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE APRIL 20, 2005 MEETINGS:  MOTION by Commissioner Korb to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Boulter.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:  

Ken Fisher, 4916 Bingham Hill Road, expressed concerns with the Bingham Hill Estates Subdivision. 

 

Nick Ores wanted to discuss the connectivity issue for the Soaring Peaks Ranch Conservation Development.  He stated that another member of the audience requested to discuss the mineral rights.

 

Chairman Morgan stated that the Bingham Hill Estates Subdivision as well of as the Soaring Peaks Ranch Conservation Development would be removed from the consent agenda.

 

CONSENT ITEM:

 

ITEM #3 GREELEY WATER LINE LOCATION & EXTENT #05-Z1523:  Mr. Karan provided background information on the Location and Extent review for the G-Wet Segment Phase of the Bellevue Pipeline #10 Water Transmission Main, which would be located from County Road 17 to County Road 5.

 

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

 

 

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approve the Greeley Water Line Location & Extent, file #05-Z1523, subject to the following conditions:

 

A.  Construction of the Greeley Water Line shall be as specified in File #05-Z1542. 

 

B.   If construction results in any alterations to the original drainage patterns, the applicant shall provide the Larimer County Engineering Department with a Drainage Report for review and approval.

 

C.  The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Colorado Department of

      Public Health and Environment.

 

D.  Flood Plain Special Review approval shall be obtained.

 

Commissioner Korb seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:   8-0

 

ITEMS:

 

ITEM #4 FORT COLLINS GMA EXPANSION #05-Z1544, COOOPERATIVE PLANNING AREA OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT REPEAL #05-Z1543, AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE #05-CA0055:  Mr. Legg introduced the proposed request to expand the Growth Management Area Overlay Zone District, remove the existing Cooperative Planning Area Overlay Zone District from the property adjacent to the Fossil Creek Reservoir, and amend the Larimer County Land Use Code by repealing Section 8.9.3 (Supplementary Regulations for Cooperative Planning Areas).

 

Ken Waido, City of Fort Collins Advanced Planning, provided background information on the request to expand the Growth Management Area Overlay Zone District and remove the existing Cooperative Planning Area Overlay Zone District from the property adjacent to the Fossil Creek Reservoir.  He explained that the proposal sought to change the Growth Management boundary to incorporate the Fossil Creek Cooperative Planning Area into the City of Fort Collins Growth Management Area.  He remarked that the change would help to implement several plans that were mutually adopted by the City and Larimer County including the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan, the plan for the region between the City of Fort Collins and the City of Loveland, and the I-25 Regional Corridor Plan.  He noted that it was an attempt to comply with a whole serious of Intergovernmental Agreements.  He mentioned that the GMA boundary amendment had been heard and approved by the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning board as well as the City of Fort Collins City Council.  He pointed out on the map where the existing GMA boundary was and also explained why the new proposed boundary line was modified as shown on the map. 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Legg presented the Larimer County Planning Staff’s recommendation regarding the proposal, which was that the proposed enlargement of the Fort Collins GMA and the GMA Overlay Zone District met the review criteria for such actions and carry out the intent of the Larimer County/City of Fort Collins Intergovernmental Agreement.  He explained that due to Section 4.2.1.B.3.c of the Larimer County Land Use Code Staff was recommending a condition that if the GMA expansion was approved the expansion would not be effective until the City of Fort Collins had the opportunity to amend their Structure Plan after discussions with the property owners in the area.  Therefore, the County Staff recommended that the discussions regarding changes to the land use designations and densities be completed and adopted by the City of Fort Collins prior to the effective date of the zone change.  He explained that the recommendation would provide clarity to developers, landowners, and staff regarding ultimate jurisdiction authority in the area.  In addition, the effective date of the recommendation had two results; it did not require annexation to the City prior to land use issues being finalized, and it did permit applicants to apply for development under the existing rules and regulations of the CPA Zone District.  He also stated that the repeal of the Cooperative Planning Area Overlay Zone designation and supplemental regulations for the area should become final on the effective date of the zone to the GMA.  Ultimately, Staff was recommending approval of the expansion of the Fort Collins GMA Overlay Zone District, the repeal of the County Land Use Code Section 8.9.3 (in its entirety), and the removal by zone change of the Cooperative Planning Area Overlay Zone District from the area. 

 

Commissioner Korb asked for clarification on the effective date. 

 

Mr. Legg said the effective date would be when the revision to structure plan were approved by the City of Fort Collins.  There was an opportunity by the County to review the conditions of the rezoning at any time.  He noted that the City of Fort Collins’ Staff was committed to move forward expeditiously. 

 

Commissioner Korb asked if the City of Fort Collins was in agreement of the Motion proposed by Larimer County.

 

Mr. Waido replied yes.  He stated that the approval of the GMA boundary was critical for the land use planning process.  It would send a clear message to the property owners that they would be in the Fort Collins GMA, and the City would need to work with them on amending the land uses within the structure plan. 

 

Commissioner Wallace asked how many property owners would be affected by the GMA change?

 

Mr. Waido replied approximately 36.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Jeff Couch, Team Engineering, represented property owners Mary and Terry Van Cleave and Kirk Dimik.  He stated that their request was to leave the GMA boundary line where it currently was.  He commended the cities for their work on the Intergovernmental Agreements and they agreed that what Fort Collins had done was allowed according to those agreements.  However, the property owners were concerned with the Fort Collins interchange improvements.  At the City’s Planning and Zoning hearing they were told by Staff that Fort Collins could not participate in the I-25 interchange.  Also, at the Fort Collins City Council worksession they were told that the intent of Fort Collins was to create open space in that area and preserve the vistas.  Along with that it was found that Fort Collins did not provide and would not provide any services to that area.  He stated that Windsor and Loveland had closer fire and police to the area than Fort Collins.  He reinforced that the GMA boundary line not be changed.

 

Kathy Hawkins, South Fort Collins Sanitation District, pointed out that bringing the sanitation district into the new GMA boundary would bring their treatment plant under the rules of the City of Fort Collins, which they did not feel was necessary. 

 

John Barnett, John Barnett & Associates, represented Steve Prado.  He announced that there were five things that the property owners needed in order for them to support the GMA change.  Those items included:  1) an appropriate phasing plan and strategy for the redevelopment of the I-25/Hwy 392 Interchange be generated, 2) permitted land uses that when implemented would generate sufficient revenue that would help to offset the additional burden that would be placed on properties due to the development in the area caused by the interchange redevelopment, 3) natural resource regulations, which did not preclude adequate and full development of the property, 4) financing strategies such as urban renewal authorities, improvement districts, metro districts, or direct public expenditures on infrastructure in the area, and 5) an agreement that included the property owners as a part of the agreement itself encompassing all of the above, which would be signed by the municipality who would choose to annex the area, the landowners, and the County.  He pointed out on a map the proposed relocation of the frontage road.  He explained that the relocation would increase the spacing between all of the on/off ramps and all of the traffic signals.  He felt that there would not be public resources to reconstruct new ramps, and therefore financing mechanisms needed to be put in place to help the development pay for the improvements.  He stated that the whole area needed to be zoned commercial and there needed to be flexibility in the development of the area so that it could be developed in ways that could support the redevelopment of the interchange.  He also remarked that a rational land use plan permitting intense land uses necessary to generate the revenues to address public facilities concerns should be in place by the City, County, and land owners prior to expanding the GMA so everyone had clear expectations.  He stated that many of the properties were surrounded by wetlands and setbacks from Swede Lake and Fossil Creek Reservoir.  He urged that the wetlands be regulated as required by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act but recommended that the setbacks from Swede Lake and Fossil Creek Reservoir not be applied to the lands in the area because they were located below and hydrologically separate and there was no real valuable wildlife habitat.  Also, natural resource regulations that did not preclude full development of the properties in question were essential and must be agreed upon.  Finally, he noted that financing strategies were essential to upgrading the interchange.  He stated that the five previous points mentioned all had to be agreed upon by the land owners, the City, and the County before the property owners would approve the GMA expansion moving forward.  He asked that

 

 

the Planning Commission not recommend approval of the GMA boundary line change, but be tabled so the five above points could be worked out between the property owners, City, and County.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Korb stated that he was not sure there was a need for the change and/or as much change.  He asked what the motivation was for the City of Fort Collins to bring the proposal forward now?

 

Mr. Waido replied that many agreements had been put in place that indicated that the Cooperative Planning Area should be in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area and eventually annexed into the City.  Along with that, the City Planning Staff was given direction by the City Council to move forward on pursuing a GMA expansion for the specific area. 

 

Chairman Morgan asked for clarification on the City’s ability or inability to participate in public facilities such as the I-25 Interchange.

 

Mr. Waido replied that in the City Plan policy encouraged City partnerships among CDOT, Federal Highway Administration, and private interests to build new and/or improved existing interchanges, overpasses, or underpasses on I-25 to increase mobility.  Nonetheless, it did not commit the City to financial participation on interchange improvements. 

 

Chairman Morgan remarked that there were inadequate public facilities in that area, and the land uses needed to support the development costs that would be necessary in order to create the facilities that would make the intersection work.  He was concerned that an agreement needed to be in place acknowledging how the City would participate in financing mechanisms that would allow the particular interchange to be fixed.  His concern was that applications that came in to the County for development in that area would not meet the adequate public facilities requirements.  It would be hard to move forward in a development application, whether it was in the County or the City, because there were inadequate public facilities issues.  He was struggling with whether to go forward with the GMA expansion or table the proposal in order to figure out what would be the mechanism to fix the underlying structural problems before the expansion proceeded. 

 

Commissioner Boulter felt that a cooperative effort was needed to solve the issues.  The interchange was a community issue which affected people’s lives and economic value of property.  He was not comfortable going forward with the expansion when there was an adversarial effort and not a cooperative effort. 

 

Commissioner terMeer remarked that there were previous commitments that needed to be fulfilled.  She felt that cooperation was lacking because land owners did not want to deal with the City’s stricter rules.  She stated that she was for the GMA expansion.

 

Commissioner Korb remarked that approval of the GMA boundary change should also be subject to negotiation between the County and the City with respect to the zoning and the uses in that zoning.  He urged that the property closest to I-25 be zoned Commercial with appropriate uses targeted towards the maximization of revenue sources to improve the interchange.

 

Commissioner terMeer replied that she did not feel that area needed to be Commercial. 

 

Chairman Morgan stated he had concerns with the issues concerning the community separators and land uses.  His major concerns had to do with the Adequate Public Facilities issue.  He did not feel that the Planning Commission could approve any development applications that came forward in that area.  The City of Fort Collins needed to be an active player in the improvements to the Adequate Public Facilities.  He suggested that the proposal be heard by the Board of County Commissioners.

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that her position was to move forward; however, she did not feel that a position should be taken on whether the areas should be zoned a particular zone.  She felt uncomfortable stating that a certain area should be zoned Commercial and would vote against that if recommended.

 

Commissioner Korb remarked that Adequate Public Facilities influenced the type of zoning in an area.  He suggested broadening the language of the Staff’s recommended Motion to state that the City would give a priority effort to Adequate Public Facilities as affecting Carpenter Road and the I-25/Hwy 392 Interchange.  Thus the kind of uses that the City of Fort Collins wished to locate would be driven by the position that the City took on the extent of improvement of both of those roads.  He stated that he could support the expansion if that language was added to the Motion.

 

Commissioner Boulter stated that he did not like the irregular boundary line.  He felt that the City of Fort Collins inability to participate in a meaningful fashion with the interchange was a problem.  He commented that applicants were asked by the Planning Commission to re-address their plans if it didn’t seem to be right, and he felt that maybe it was appropriate for the City of Fort Collins to do the same and reexamine their policies.  He was persuaded by the substantial opposition of the land owners and that their right to use their property to its best use was being impacted severely.  He was very uncomfortable with that aspect and felt that they were being pushed into it.

 

Commissioner Pond was concerned about commercial development around the interchange.  He felt that something needed to be done if there was going to be more commercial development.

 

Commissioner Wallace 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 Fort Collins GMA Overlay Zone District, file #05-Z1544, be applied to the geographic area as shown on Map 1 dated February 1, 2005 and that the effective date of the GMA Zone District boundary change shall be the approval date of the amendment to City Structure Plan for this GMA Zone District expansion area.  Prior to the Board of County Commissioners signing the amended Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the City of Fort Collins, the Board of County Commissioners receive what is in their judgment sufficient assurances that the City will be an active participant in efforts to provide Adequate Public Facility review of the I-25/Hwy 392 Interchange and Carpenter Road.

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

Mr. Legg asked for clarification on the effective date.

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that the effective date of the GMA Zone District would be as staff recommended.

 

Commissioners’ Boulter and Waldo voted against the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-2

 

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 that the Fossil Creek Cooperative Planning Area Overlay Zone District, file #05-Z1543, be removed from the underlying zone districts as show on the Official Larimer County zone district map and as described in the legal notice for this public hearing.  The effective date of the zone change to remove the Cooperative Plan Area District Overlay Zone from the area shall be the approval date of the amendment to the City Structure Plan for this GMA zone district expansion area.

 

Commissioner terMeer seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Boulter and Waldo voted against the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-2

 

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 that Larimer County Land Use Code be amended, file #05-CA0055, by repealing Section 8.9.3 (Supplementary Regulations for the Fossil Creek Cooperative Planning Area) in its entirety.  The effective date of the repeal shall be the approval date of the amendment to the Fort Collins City Structure Plan for the GMA zone district expansion area.

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Boulter and Waldo voted against the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-2

 

 

 

Mr. Legg announced that Staff would take the Planning Commission recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners hearing July 11, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. 

 

REMOVED FROM CONSENT:

 

ITEM #1 BINGHAM HILL ESTATES SUBDIVISION #05-S2398:  Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request for a Preliminary Plat to create two single family residential lots on the existing 17.22 acre Lot 1 of the Dirks M.R.D. (File #S-12-91).  One lot would be 12.22 acres in area and would contain the existing residence, while the second lot would be 5.0 acres in area and would be used for a new residential dwelling.  The location of the proposed development was approximately one mile west of Overland Trail and within the LaPorte Area Plan.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if the new dwelling could be built on another area which was not in view of the Bellvue Valley?

 

Mr. Lafferty replied that there was only one other option that the applicant considered, which was to build on the side of the hill, which would still be in view.  Due to rock fall hazards it would have been difficult to build and a less desirable site.  The Larimer County Land Use Code currently did not have any regulations on visual impacts related to development. 

 

Dale Dirks, applicant, explained that the proposed location for the home would not block the view.  The land was split in half by two water easements, which put 90 feet of easement through the middle of the property.  Therefore, he decided to split the land.  His plan was to have a single-storied structure that would extend down.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY;

Ken Fisher, 4916 Bingham Hill Road, owned the 250-acre ranch directly west and southwest of the applicant’s property.  He explained that Mr. Dirks had inquired about purchasing part of his property in order to increase his total acreage to 35 acres, which would satisfy a requirement to obtain a well permit.  He stated that he agreed to sell enough land in order for Mr. Dirks to obtain that.  However, not long after, Mr. Dirks subdivided his 35 acres into three lots, two of which had been sold and homes had been built upon.  He stated that he expressed to Mr. Dirks his displeasure, as he would have never sold a piece of their property had they know his intention was to subdivide.  He noted that the valley had very significant historical value, and if more and more homes were added it would loose its historical significance.  In addition, the proposed new dwelling would be directly under and across the street from land which was dedicated to Larimer County for a park and would obstructed the beautiful view to visitors.  He expressed his concern for keeping the area low density, and stated that he offered to purchase the Dirk’s property for its appraised value, but so far the negotiations had been unsuccessful.  He respectfully requested that the application be denied.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lisa Ashbach, 5491 Lodgepole Drive, pleaded to the Planning Commission to deny the application to subdivide the parcel.  She was part of the community planning effort, which did not want another home overlooking the valley.  She asked the Planning Commission to designate the building envelope on the plat, have the architecture and materials of the home be revealed and specified on the plat, and have the community satisfied that the dwelling would impact the valley as little as possible.  She also requested that development be restricted on the remaining 12 acres. 

 

Larry Leckner, representative for the Bellvue Citizens Coalition, stated that the Coalition opposed the subdivision.  The past development areas on Bingham Hill had been less than desirable, the homes had significantly degraded the visual characteristics of the area, and an additional home would bring about more visual degradation.  He also remarked that it would set a very bad precedent in regards to lot size.  He stated that there was also concern that there was no designated building envelope, which would damage the community efforts that had been underway. 

 

Neil Spencer, 1820 N. County Road 23, was trying to get the area to be designated a national historic district.  The biggest concern was that the dwelling would obstruct the view of the valley. 

 

John Calderozza, 5725 W County Road 52E, agreed with the previous oppositions.  He thought it would be impossible to build a home that could not be seen by surrounding areas.  If an extra building was allowed it would ruin the area and would allow other land owners to feel that they could do the same with their property. 

 

Peter Seekell, 6008 Blue Spruce Drive, agreed that it was a property owner’s right to build on their land, however the affect the building would have should be considered.  Building more and more in a beautiful spot affected the land, wildlife, and people.  He stated that he would vote against the proposal because it would affect everyone in the area, not just one man and his home. 

 

Judy Jackson, 5200 W. County Road 52E, stated that her family had been in the valley since 1927.  She wanted to know why the Dirks wanted to subdivide their property.  She suggested they sell the land to Ken Fisher.  She remarked that the buildings that were currently on the hill should have never been there.  The area should be saved and kept beautiful.

 

Debbie Dirks, Applicant, responded to the neighborhood comments.  She stated that none of the people had expressed their concerns to them, other than the Fishers, regarding the building envelope, type of home they envisioned for the property, or how it would affect the view.  She felt that the house would not impact to the extent that the people in the Bellvue Valley felt it would. 

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer asked why they didn’t just sell the property to Mr. Fisher.

 

Ms. Dirks replied that their intention was to build the new home for themselves. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISCUSSION;

Chairman Morgan asked if there would be a building envelope restriction with the subdivision?

 

Mr. Lafferty replied yes.  Planning Staff wanted to affirm that there would be adequate spacing from the road and from the slope.  He explained that there would need to be a building envelope specifying the primary residence along with separate envelopes that would identify any outstrips, which would be part of the Final Plat process.

 

Chairman Morgan asked if there would be any restriction regarding future development on the site?

 

Mr. Lafferty replied that Planning Staff would not place a restriction on the applicant which stated that they could not further develop on their property.  However, the applicant could offer to put a restriction on further development on the site, which could be included in a plat note. 

 

Commissioner Wallace asked about the sewer system?

 

Doug Ryan, Health Department, stated that public sewer was not available.  Therefore the Dirks were asked to provide soils test information on how a sewer system could be designed to serve the property, which was done in the swale portion of the property.  The problem was getting the septic system from the house down to the swale area.  He explained that typically the septic tank would be installed close to the home and a liquid line would run down the hillside.  However, the trenching and installation in the hillside would be difficult.  The Health Department was recommending plat notes that alerted people of the issue.  Nonetheless, the Health Department was satisfied that the actual treatment system could be absorbed in the soil.

 

Chairman Morgan asked how the applicant felt about a restriction regarding further development on the remaining 17 acres?

 

Mr. Dirks replied that he did not believe that it would be possible to develop the remaining part of the parcel. 

 

Mr. Lafferty pointed out that zoning specified that until both public water and sewer were available to the property it would be restricted to a lot of 2.29 acres in area.  However, if at some point in the future sewer was extended out to the lot, it could become a half acre density. 

 

Commissioner terMeer again asked if the Dirks would be willing to restrict further development on the property?

 

Ms. Dirks replied that it was their intention to have it be the final development on the property, and they would have no problem putting that intention into writing.

 

Mr. Pond confirmed that the Dirks would be willing to place a restriction on both Lot 1 and Lot 2.

 

Ms. Dirks replied yes.

 

 

 

Mr. Lafferty provided language for an additional condition (which would be Condition #8) regarding further development restriction on the site.  Condition #8 would read:  “The applicant agrees to include on the Final Plat and in supporting documents such as a Development Agreement or Disclosure Notice that the Lots within the Bingham Hill Subdivision shall not be further subdivided.”

 

Commissioner Boulter moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Bingham Hill Estates Subdivision, file #05-S2398, be approved subject to conditions 1-7 with the inclusion of condition #8.

 

Commissioner Waldo seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner Wallace moved to amend the Motion in order to include additional language in Condition #6, which would state, “The Final Plat for the Bingham Hill Estates Subdivision shall include a building envelope on Lot 2, which would reflect the 100-foot setback from the centerline of the County Road 50E right-of-way, 50-foot setback from an existing rock cliff outcrop at the south side of the property, and a reasonable attempt made to locate the residence in the least visible location as possible given the other limitations of the property.” 

 

Commissioner terMeer seconded the Motion.

 

Chairman Morgan appreciated the concern regarding location; however, he was concerned as to how one would measure the least visual impact for the property.   He stated that he was sensitive to the request but would vote against it. 

 

Commissioner Waldo stated that he would not like to further restrict the land owner.  He felt that based on the zoning it was appropriate. 

 

Commissioner terMeer stated that height of the dwelling should be considered out of respect to the neighbors.

 

Mr. Dirks replied that his intentions were to build the upper story of the dwelling into the hill on the west.  He also planned to have a low slope pitch roof.  He stated that he had not designed the home yet since the subdivision had not been approved, however his plan was to keep it low profile.  As far as exterior materials, he planned to use stone.  He also intended to have the home height be approximately four feet to the facial height/eve line. 

 

Commissioner Korb and Chairman Morgan voted against the amendment.

 

Commissioners' Boulter, Oppenheimer, Pond, terMeer, Waldo, and Wallace voted in favor of the amendment.

 

MOTION PASSED:   6-2

 

Commissioner Boulter moved that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolution with the inclusion of Condition #8 and amendment to Condition #6:

 

 

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Bingham Hill Estates Subdivision, file #05-S2398, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   The Final Plat of the Bingham Hill Estates Subdivision shall be consistent with the plans, documents and representations contained in the file, (#05-S2398), unless modified by the conditions of approval.

 

2.   The applicant shall execute a Development Agreement and provide a Disclosure Notice for Final Plat approval by the County as part of the Final Plat.  These documents shall be recorded with the Final Plat, and shall provide notice to all future lot owners of the conditions of approval and issues, costs and fees associated with the approval of this project, as well as the potential nuisance impacts of wildlife to residential uses.

 

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

 

4.   Passive Radon Mitigation measures shall be included in the construction of residential dwellings on the approved lots.  The results of a radon test once the structure is enclosed but prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy shall be submitted to the Planning Department.  As an alternative, a builder may present a prepaid receipt for a radon tester, which specifies that a test will be conducted within 30 days.  A permanent certificate of occupancy can be issued when the prepaid receipt is submitted.

 

5.   During the Final Plat process the applicant shall demonstrate that fire protection consistent with Section 8.1.5 of the Land Use Code can be met or agree to install fire sprinklers as part of the building construction.

 

6.   The Final Plat for the Bingham Hills Estates Subdivision shall include a building envelope on Lot 2 that reflects a 100-foot setback from the centerline of the County Road 50E right-of-way, as well as the 50-foot setback from an existing rock cliff outcrop at the south side of the property, and a reasonable attempt made to locate the residence in the least visible location as possible given the other limitations of the property.” 

 

7.   Construction of a residence on Lot 2 of the Bingham Hill Estates Subdivision shall include engineered footing and foundations founded in unexposed and un-weathered sandstone as recommended in the March 2, 2005 referral comments from Andy Gleason of the Colorado Geological Survey Department.

 

8.   The applicant agrees to include on the Final Plat and in supporting documents such as a Development Agreement or Disclosure Notice that the Lots within the Bingham Hill Subdivision shall not be further subdivided.

 

Commissioner Waldo seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner Wallace voted against the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:   7-1

 

ITEM #2 SOARING PEAKS RANCH CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT #04-S2364:  Ms. Ponce-Pore provided background information on the request for a Preliminary Plat for a Conservation Development of a 98.10 acre parcel west of Berthoud.  The proposal would create 19 single family residential lots of approximately 2.0 acres each, and four residual lots.  The request also includes an Appeal to Section 3, Access Control Standards, of the Larimer County Access Policy regarding minimum spacing requirements.

 

Nicholas Ores, Applicant, stated that Anadarko Land and Anadarko E &P had concerns regarding the mineral rights on the property.  He noted that an additional proposed condition had been drafted to satisfy the concerns.  Second, he explained that a neighbor to the property had inquired about taking an outlot and dividing it in half; however, County Staff was not in favor of that.  He stated that should there be the ability to divide the outlot in half he would be flexible in negotiating a sale.  Finally, he stated his concerns regarding connectivity.  He explained that there were approximately two additional portions of road that did not connect to anything.  He stated that he did not want to pave those areas but instead put fences up on each side.  He asked that those road extensions from the cul-de-sacs to the ditch easement be dedicated right-of-way, not paved, with two-rail fence erected along side the road.

 

Ms. Ponce-Pore stated that a letter from Woodrow & Sobel, P.C., Attorneys at Law, who represented Anadarko Land and Anadarko E&P the mineral rights owners on the property, requested that their mineral rights be acknowledged.  The applicant along with a Woodrow & Sobel representative, Molly Summerville, composed a condition which they wanted to be included with the project.  The additional condition (which would be Condition #10) would state; “Prior to approval of the Final Plat by the Board of County Commissioners, the mineral rights owners, Anadarko Land and Anadarko E&P, and the applicants shall reach a final agreement regarding the severed oil and gas interests owned by Anadarko.”  Ms. Summerville stated that Anadarko would not oppose the application with the addition of that condition of approval.  Regarding connectivity, the applicants agreed to dedicate the road; therefore, they did meet the technical standard for connectivity.  Ms. Ponce-Pore explained that Staff was not requiring the road be built to the end of the property line, which ran to the centerline of the Handy Ditch.  It was not going to be required, as that would require the applicants to negotiate the crossing with the Handy Ditch Company.  As a result, Planning Staff was allowing the road to be constructed to the edge of the Handy Ditch easement.  She remarked that since the time of that agreement the applicants had changed their minds and were now proposing to not pave the road and fence it off to indicate that someday there would be a road.  Nevertheless, the Planning Staff could not support that proposal and continued to take the position that the applicants needed to both dedicate the roadway and build it to the edge of the Handy Ditch easement.

 

 

 

Chairman Morgan asked who would be responsible for continuing the road across the Handy Ditch? 

 

Ms. Ponce-Pore replied that it would be negotiated with the homeowners of the Soaring Peaks Ranch development and the incoming developer from the other side.

 

Chairman Morgan asked if there was a requirement for the Soaring Peaks Ranch development to financially participate in the crossing of the ditch?

 

Ms. Ponce-Pore replied no. 

 

Ms. Ponce-Pore explained that Mr. and Mrs. Zulzelski, who lived north and adjacent to the property, had asked to create an additional residual lot by division of Residual Lot B, which would be named Residual Lot E, that at some future time they could purchase and use.  Staff stated that there was nothing in the Larimer County Land Use Code that would support nor oppose further subdividing a residual lot for the needs of an adjacent landowner.

 

Mr. Legg explained that a Conservation Development required residual land, which would have uses and use restrictions.  It would have legal links to the homeowners who would have a say in how the land was maintained.  If the residual land was given to another owner it would have restrictions on that land which the Soaring Peaks Ranch homeowners would have to enforce.  It was best to determine what the Zulzelskis wanted to do with the land.  As a result the Soaring Peaks Ranch Home Owners Association and homeowners would understand what their residual land would be used for. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Bill Zuzelski, 4874 S. County Road 23, was the bordering neighbor to the north of the Soaring Peaks Ranch Conservation Development.  He stated that he had the hope of doing a Boundary Line Adjustment, but Planning Staff told him that the residual lot should stay as part of the development.  As a result, he wanted to purchase the residual land, which would still be part of the development.  He explained that he was proposing to split the 11-acre residual lot, which would serve the Soaring Peaks Ranch development as well, as his property, with the intent to keep the land agricultural.

 

Commissioner Korb asked the applicants if they were willing to sell the residual land to Mr. Zuzelski?

 

Anthony Baietti, Applicant, stated that they had not made a decision.  It was a land sale issue that was really not appropriate to be involved in at the present time.  As far as the division of the residual lot, they did not oppose it.  He remarked that if the Conservation Development was granted it in no way meant that a sale of the land would be conducted. 

 

Molly Summerville, attorney with the Law Firm of Woodrow & Sobel, represented Anadarko Land and Anadarko E&P, the mineral rights owners of the Soaring Peaks Ranch development.  She stated that an objection letter was filed with Larimer County on June 3, 2005.  The law firm was working with the applicant concerning oil and gas interests owned by Anadarko and expected to reach an agreement prior to the time that a Final Plat was approved.  The law firm did support the addition of Condition #10. 

 

DISCUSSION:

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 that Soaring Peaks Ranch Conservation Development, file #04-S2364, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, and the Appeal to Section 3 of the Larimer County Access Policy be approved subject to the following conditions with the inclusion of Condition #10:

 

1.    The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved Preliminary Plan and with the information contained in the Soaring Peaks Ranch Conservation Development, File #04-S2364 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 Soaring Peaks Ranch Conservation Development.

 

2.    The applicant shall provide a Disclosure Notice for approval by the County to be recorded with the Final Plat.  The 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, and shall include, but is not limited to: the need for engineered septic systems and foundations, rural area issues (including the lack of mosquito control, potential conflict with wildlife, and adjacent agricultural operations), the need for passive radon mitigation, the proximity of historical recreational hunting in the area, and methods available for assuring wildlife does not become a nuisance (per the Division of Wildlife).

 

3.    The applicant shall execute a Final Development Agreement at the time of Final Plat including the timing, responsibility and opinion of cost estimate for all public improvements.

 

4.    The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings:  Thompson R2-J school fee, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, Larimer County Regional Park Fees, Development Construction Fees, and if greater than 1 acre is disturbed, those fees associated with a Development Construction permit from the State.  The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply. 

 

5.    At the time of Final Plat, the applicant shall demonstrate that fire hydrants are possible, pursuant to Section 8.1.4 of the Code, or all homes shall be sprinklered.  

 

6.    Passive radon mitigation measures shall be included in construction of residential structures on these lots.  The results of a radon detection test conducted in new dwellings once the structure is enclosed but prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy shall be submitted to the Building Department.  As an alternative, a builder may present a prepaid receipt from a radon tester which specifies that a test will be done within 30 days.  A permanent Certificate of Occupancy can be issued when the prepaid receipt is submitted.

 

7.    Per the Colorado Geological Survey’s letter, dated February 26, 2005, the homeowners shall perform percolation test and profile borings in the area for the absorption field for each septic system.

 

8.    An Amended Plat for Lot 1 of Paradise Valley Estates, securing the necessary right-of-way for Soaring Peaks Ranch, shall be reviewed and approved by Larimer County Commissioners prior to Final Plat approval for this proposal.

 

9.    Details for fixtures and adequate lighting levels for the bus staging area will be reviewed and approved at the time of Final Plat.

 

10.   Prior to approval of the Final Plat by the Board of County Commissioners, the mineral rights owners, Anadarko Land and Anadarko E&P, and the applicants shall reach a final agreement regarding the severed oil and gas interests owned by Anadarko.

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:   8-0

 

 

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

 

ADJOURNMENT:  There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 11:05 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