Loveland Bike Trail
 

LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of June 21, 2006

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, June 21, 2006, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners’ Karabensh, Morgan, Oppenheimer, Pond, terMeer, Waldo were present.  Chairman Boulter presided as Chairman.  Commissioner Wallace was absent.  Also present were Rob Helmick, Principal Planner, Porter Ingrum, Planner II, David Karan, Planner II, Casey Stewart, Planner II, Christie Coleman, Engineering Department, Traci Downs, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Environmental Health, and Jill Wilson, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary. 

 

Rob Helmick accompanied Commissioners’ Karabensh and Pond today on a site visit to Chateau Du Vallon Subdivision, Ashcroft Kennels 2nd Amended Special Review, Building 287 Sign Appeal, and Preserve Conservation Development/Rezoning.  The Crist/Gallivan Subdivision was not visited.  Commissioners’ Morgan, Oppenheimer, terMeer, Waldo, and Wallace were absent.  Chairman Boulter visited the sites independently. 

 

Chairman Boulter thanked Commissioner terMeer for her participation and service on the Planning Commission.

 

COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC REGARDING THE COUNTY LAND USE CODE: 

Brian Schumm, 5948 Colby, wanted to comment on the Land Use Code Amendments that went before the Commission May 17, 2006, specifically regarding enforceability.  He believed that the Code could help with enforceability and the home occupation rules.  He felt that there was a huge disconnect from when a home occupation regulation was approved and then enforced.  He stated that he supported business and home occupation; however, his concern was that rules were established but not enforced.  The Code provided opportunity and a privilege for a resident to establish a home occupation and provided protection for the neighbors from someone operating the home occupation.  He remarked that if the Code was not enforced it would create a bad situation for all involved.  He stated that he was recently informed that the Code could only be enforced when a violation could be proven by the Code Enforcement Staff.  He went on to state that the Code was unenforceable in many areas because the Staff lacked the tools to smoothly and efficiently obtain the proof of a violation.  He acknowledged that legal action to obtain the proof was an option but he would rather have the Enforcement Staff concentrate on complaints and enforcement rather than spending time using the legal system to find proof of violations.  He suggested that amendments to the Code be examined to determine whether they could be enforced and if not then exclude them from the Code.  He felt that writing provisions in the Code that would aid in the enforcement system would be a good first step to solving the problem.

 

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

None

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE MAY 17, 2006 MEETINGS:  MOTION by Commissioner Pond to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Morgan.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:  

None

 

 

 

CONSENT ITEMS:

 

ITEM #1  CRIST/GALLIVAN SUBDIVISION #05-S2460:  Mr. Ingrum provided background information on the Preliminary Plat for a subdivision of 11.12 acres into two lots; one with an existing residence on a 2.30 acre lot and one with an existing residence on an 8.50 acre lot, situated 500 feet south of Buckhorn Court and ½ mile north of County Road 24 in Loveland.

 

Commissioner Morgan 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 Crist/Gallivan Subdivision, file #05-S2460, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

A.   The Final Plat of the Crist/Gallivan Subdivision shall be completed in strict compliance with the conditionally approved preliminary plat and other information submitted by the applicant and contained in the file, #05-S2460, unless modified by the conditions of this approval.

 

B.   The applicant shall provide a Final Development Agreement and Disclosure Notice for approval by the County to be recorded with the Final Plat.  This notice will provide information to all lot owners of the conditions of approval and special costs or fees associated with the approval of this project.  The notice shall include, but is not limited to; the issues related to rural development, the width of the shared access and the issues raised in the review and or related to compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

C.   The following fees shall be collected prior to recordation of the development agreement: Larimer County fees for the balance of Transportation Capital Expansion Fees, Larimer County Park Fee in lieu of dedication and Loveland School District Fees.

 

D.   Prior to recordation of the Development Agreement an Access Permit must be obtained from the Larimer County Engineering Department for the proposed shared access.  The shared access apron must be a minimum of 24-feet in width, and the access itself must be a minimum of 20-feet in width and constructed of an all weather surface and provided with an approved turnaround. 

 

E.   Prior to recordation of the Development Agreement the applicant must submit a maintenance agreement for the shared access that specifies that the access will be maintained to have a minimum 20-foot wide compacted, all-weather, base course surface. 

 

F.   The Larimer County Engineering Department reserves the right to require the existing home on Lot 1 to use Shannon Court for access once it is built to County standards as a result of future development of the adjacent lots.

 

 

 

 

G.   The applicant must obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Larimer County Building Department for the residence under Building Permit 04-B1192 within 30 days of the recordation of the Final Plat.   

 

Commissioner Pond  seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

ITEM #2  CHATEAU DU VALLON SUBDIVISION #06-S2562:  Mr. Ingrum provided background information on the request for a subdivision of two lots on 25.4 acres located along the southern edge of State Highway 1 adjacent to Windsor Reservoir and Canal #8.  One lot would be 13.8 acres in size and contain an existing residence while the other lot would be 10.4 acres

 

Commissioner Morgan 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 property for Chateau Du Vallon Subdivision, file #06-S2562, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

A.   The Final Plat of the Chateau Du Vallon Subdivision shall be completed in strict compliance with the conditionally approved preliminary plat and other information submitted by the applicant and contained in the file, #06-S2562, unless modified by the conditions of this approval.

 

B.   The applicant shall provide a Final Development Agreement and Disclosure Notice for approval by the County to be recorded with the Final Plat.  This notice will provide information to all lot owners of the conditions of approval and special costs or fees associated with the approval of this project.  The notice shall include, but is not limited to; the issues related to rural development, the need for engineered footings and foundations, the need for passive radon mitigation, required sprinklers for the new dwelling unit and the issues raised in the review and or related to compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

C.   The following fees shall be collected at building permit for new single family dwellings: Poudre R-1 school fees in lieu of dedication, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation, and the Larimer County Park Fee in lieu of dedication.  The fee amount that is current at the time building permit application shall apply. 

 

 

 

 

 

D.   Passive radon mitigation measures shall be included in the construction of all new residential structures in this development. Radon detection tests are required in all new residential structures on this site. The results of these tests shall be submitted to the Planning Department once the structure is enclosed but prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. As an alternative, a builder may present a prepaid receipt for 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.

 

E.   Prior to recordation of the Final Plat the 100-foot wetland buffer from the Windsor Reservoir and Canal #8 must be shown on the Final Plat.  

 

F.   An access permit for the new residence on Lot 1 shall be obtained from the Colorado Department of Transportation.

 

G.   The applicant shall submit a letter indicating if the existing well permit no. 212772-A will be used to supply water to the proposed lots in this subdivision.

 

H.   During the Final Plat review process for this development and prior to recordation of the Preliminary Plat, the applicant shall resolve the technical issues found in the following referral letters:

 

·  Larimer County Engineering Department by Matt Johnson (dated May 8, 2006) Items 1, 3 and 5 in Transportation/Access Issues and item 1 in Drainage/Erosion Control Issues.

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

ITEM #3  ASHCROFT KENNELS 2ND AMENDED SPECIAL REVIEW #06-Z1585:  Mr. Karan provided background information on the request to amend the Amended Ashcroft Special Review (file #04-Z1518) to expand the existing dog kennel occupancy from 160 to 260 dogs, which would require construction of one additional kennel building.  The kennel is situated south of County Road 3 along the Burlington Northern Railroad line, approximately 5 miles south of east County Road 38.

 

Commissioner Morgan 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 Ashcroft Kennels 2nd Amended Special Review, file #06-Z1585, for the property described on “Exhibit C” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

 

 

A.   The kennel operation shall be conducted in accordance with the Larimer County Noise Ordinance at all times. 

 

B.   If noise complaints are received and a violation is substantiated by Health Department staff, the operator shall take all necessary steps to reduce the noise in order to comply with the Ordinance.  Those steps may include, but not be limited to, conversion of existing kennel space to an indoor exercise area so that the kennel is a totally indoor facility.  Any violation may, at the County's discretion, trigger provisions of LCLUC, Section 21.2.B.2 and require the applicant to show cause why the Special Review Approval should not be revoked

 

C.   The kennel shall be licensed as a Pet Animal Care Facility by the Colorado Department of Agriculture, and shall comply with the regulatory standards they administer.

 

D.   In the event that the existing septic system(s) serving this property should need to be repaired or enlarged, an analysis of the feasibility to connect to public sewer will be required.

 

E.   A landscaping and fencing plan will be submitted and approved prior to the scheduling of the Board of County Commissioners hearing.

 

F.   The site plan will be revised so all of the existing outdoor lighting will be indicated prior to scheduling of the Board of County Commissioners.

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEMS:

 

ITEM #4  BUILDING 287 SIGN APPEAL #06-G0115:  Mr. Stewart provided background information on the request to appeal Section 10.14.B of the Larimer County Land Use Code to exceed the height and size requirements for a proposed freestanding sign located at 6712 S. College, approximately ½ mile south of Trilby Road.  The proposed sign would be 17 feet tall and 90 square feet in size, and at the proposed location the sign standards were 7 feet tall and 45 square feet in sign face area.  He explained that based on the location of the site, the proposed sign would have to be approximately 36 feet from the right-of-way line.  He stated that the Planning Staff had compromised with the applicant to allow the sign to be 17 feet high because it was in compliance with the City of Fort Collins sign code, and the property was within the Fort Collins Growth Management Area.  He noted that the property was also in the southwest annexation area.  He remarked that while approving the height, the Planning Staff notified the applicant that the sign would have to be 15 feet from the right-of-way line, which was the requirement of both the County and the City.  He listed many options for the applicant to comply with the sign code and stated that the Development Services Team was recommending denial of the application. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Scott Charpentier, owner of Building 287, stated that it had been an extremely difficult site to build on.  He explained that the problem with the approved placement of the sign was that it would be right up against the building.  He remarked that putting the sign on the south side of the property would not work and adding extra signage to the building was undesirable because he felt that it decreased the visual look of the building.  He mentioned that the Colorado Department of Transportation took 24 feet of frontage off of the road and site for their potential Highway 287 widening project.  Therefore, in addition to the County’s 15-foot setback requirement from the right-of-way, the sign would have to be 31 feet from the curb.  He stated that he was surrounded by signage that was 10-12 feet off of the curb or less.  He explained that his sign was down from the embankment of the road and was actually 12 feet high above the crown of the road.  He stated that CDOT was okay with the sign, and their only concern was that it did not encroach into the new right-of-way.  He felt that the east side of Highway 287 was not possible to widen and would probably be widened on the west side of the street.  He apologized and explained that he did make a calculated decision to erect the sign even though he knew that it was not an approved site.  He stated that the appeal process was going be three to four months, he was four months behind schedule due to the fire, he could not get the landscaping or certificate of occupancy until the sign was in place, and a business decision had to be made.  He stated that he understood that he would have to move the sign if the appeal was denied.  He gave the example of the Young’s Liquor case and asked for an exception.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked when CDOT expanded the right-of-way?

 

Mr. Charpentier explained that it was expanded before he bought the property but did not have the knowledge until he applied for the building with the Planning Department.

 

Chairman Boulter pointed out that he had signed the signage agreement which stated that the sign was required to be setback 15 feet. 

 

 

 

Mr. Charpentier replied that he was misinformed by the sign company when he signed the signage plan.

 

John Shaw, DaVinci Sign Systems, explained that the site plan that he worked with showed the existing property line before the CDOT revocation of the 24 feet.  The sales person was under the impression that the setback was from the property line and was unaware that the setback was going to be from the new line set by CDOT.  Mr. Charpentier did not know initially that the sign would be up against the building with the 15-foot setback.  He also explained that there was confusion on whether they would have to abide by the County or City sign code and when annexation would actually take place.

 

Commissioner terMeer confirmed that they were aware that the sign did not abide by the sign code when it was erected.

 

Mr. Shaw replied yes, with the understanding that they could go through the appeal process and that the sign would possibly have to be moved. 

 

Mr. Charpentier stated that he thought the sign was going to be 15 feet from the curb not 15 feet plus the CDOT 24 feet. 

 

Mr. Shaw stated that the site plan had a small note that stated “future right-of-way”.  It was interpreted by the sales staff that at some point in the future another 24 feet would be taken from the right-of-way.  Therefore they designed and surveyed the sign and then found out that the right-of-way was occurring immediately.  He pointed out that there was signage on the building but Mr. Charpentier wanted to limit the building signage and focus on a monument sign.  He remarked that to the south of the property there was a billboard placed on the hill which prevented signage from being located to the south.  He explained that the City regulated height by the crown of the road; therefore, they only counted the signage from the crown of the road up.  They believed that the site would be annexed into the City at some point in the near future and negotiated with the County.  He illustrated that the setback would actually have to be 46 feet from the curb. 

 

Michael Al, Rapid Lube owner, was a tenant of the building located on the north side of the building by the sign.  He stated that he was in support of the appeal.  He had a concern with the visibility of the sign.  He explained that he had an investment in the sign and pushing it back 15 feet left an obstructed view while driving north.  Moving the sign would put it right next to his building and there would not be the visibility.  He stated that it was a nice sign and with a substantial investment in the sign it needed to be useful.  As a business owner he wanted to be able to utilize the sign to the best of his ability. 

 

Mr. Charpentier suggested a temporary approval until such time that the property was annexed into the city or until the businesses were up and running.  He hoped that an exception could be made to the current situation because there was a hardship to the property. 

 

Mr. Stewart pointed out that the Code allowed for different setbacks for different heights therefore the sign could be in the current location but not as high as proposed. 

 

 

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that perhaps the City’s thoughts on a variance for the sign should be examined. 

 

Commissioner Pond pointed out that the letter from the City of Fort Collins stated that the sign could have some sort of setback like five to ten feet rather than a zero foot setback as requested.  He also pointed out that in discussions with CDOT over widening the road the right-of-way may shift to the west because of the development on the east.

 

Chairman Boulter asked what would happen to all the other signs already erected along Highway 287?

 

Mr. Stewart replied that the City had an amortization program for signs.  Once a property was annexed into the City there was a certain amount of time for those properties to come into compliance.  The thought that time period was five years.

 

Chairman Boulter asked if the property was unique and created a unique situation?

 

Mr. Stewart replied that the flexibility in the sign code could deal with that issue. 

 

Mr. Charpentier replied that the site was a 400-foot frontage with a 100-foot depth and taking away 24 feet of the right-of-way took away one fourth of his property.  Due to those restraints the whole property was a special situation.  He stated that the County knew about the location of the sign because it had to be inspected before erected.  Both the setback and foundation permits were signed off by the inspector. 

 

Mr. Shaw stated that they were unable to find a way to identify all the businesses on a shorter sign that could be read from College Avenue at speeds of 40-55 mph.  He felt that the appeal process was put into place for situations like theirs.  The 24-foot frontage almost took away the applicant’s ability to advertise with a non-premise sign, which was the least expensive advertisement for a business. 

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Waldo did not feel that it was fair that the other signs on the road were bigger and closer.  He wanted to find a compromise, however recognized that the new regulations were in place.

 

Commissioner Morgan felt that the site did have some difficult characteristics.  He felt that it would be appropriate to have a variance conversation with the City to get their thoughts and recommendations.  He stated that rather than denying the variance Staff and the applicant pursue a variance with the City and based upon that outcome the County Commissioners could make a final decision. 

 

Commissioner terMeer felt that the sign code was put in place for a reason.  She realized that the site was unique, however maybe the applicant needed to do something different with the site and not build a car wash, etc. to deal with those issues.  She thought that the appeal should be denied.

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Karabensh liked that the County had been working with the City of Fort Collins on the project.  She stated that it seemed that the County had compromised by changing a few requirements so they matched with the City.  She did not see that the applicant had met the requirements/review criteria for the appeal.

 

Chairman Boulter commended the Staff on their efforts on the application.  He commented that the sign was not out of place for the area that it was in.  He thought that the applicant should possibly be given 12 to 18 months to come into compliance to ease the burden. 

 

Commissioner Pond had concerns on what would occur in the area with CDOT because south of the area CDOT was planning to widen the road to the west instead of the east because there was less development.  He stated he would be in favor of approving the application with some sort of sunset condition. 

 

Commissioner terMeer felt that they could not try to figure out what CDOT was going to do in the future.

 

Commissioner Morgan pointed out that CDOT did not have an opinion on where the sign was placed.  He agreed that Staff had done an outstanding job.  He still felt that the application needed to go to the City of Fort Collins to decide if they had any long-term adverse reaction to leaving the sign where it was or moving it to some level that would be to their acceptance.

 

Commissioner terMeer 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 Building 287 Sign Appeal, file #06-G0115, for the property described on “Exhibit D” to the minutes, be denied.

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that he would vote against the Motion.  He felt that the application could meet all the review criteria to approve the appeal. 

 

Commissioner terMeer felt that the appeal was significant to future sign appeals that may be brought forth.

 

Commissioners’ Morgan, Pond, and Chairman Boulter voted against the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Karabensh, Oppenheimer, terMeer, and Waldo voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  4-3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM #5  PRESERVE CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT/REZONING #05-S2522/05-Z1576:  Mr. Karan provided background information on the request for a Conservation Development to divide 85 acres into 10 residential lots and three residual lots located on the south side of County Road 48 (Vine Drive), ¾ mile east of I-25.  The request also included a rezoning of a portion of the property from R-1 (Residential) to FA-1 (Farming).  In addition there were two appeals to the Larimer County Land Use Code, Section 8.14.2.S (connectivity) and Section 5.3.6.B.f (residual land design) and one appeal to the Larimer County Road Manual, Table 4-1 (road horizontal curve radii).  He recommended that the applicant redesign the project as such:  create truly compact clusters, double-load the residential lots along the internal streets, and eliminate the berming proposed.  He stated that conditions of approval 3-5 in the staff report addressed those issues. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

John Barnett, John Barnett and Associates, 3200 Greenwood Court, was the planning consultant on the project.  He explained that initially they submitted an application for 65 lots but then scaled back the development to only 10 lots.  He stated that they wanted to avoid doing improvements to County Road 5 and figured that 10 units could be developed without improvements.  He explained that 80% of the site was residual lots, each lot had a building and landscape envelope, and the areas outside of the landscape envelop were to be managed as wildlife habitat.  He remarked that the berms directed the eye over the development, the Streamside development, and other developments to the west and southwest so views were directed up to the mountains.  He showed what the proposed berming would look like.  He asked that the application be approved with the exception of Staff’s conditions of approval 3, 4, and 5. 

 

Commissioner Karabensh asked how high the berms would be?

 

Mr. Barnett replied that while driving on County Road 5 not just berms and trees would be seen, the mountains would be in view.  He stated that the objective was to cut off the view of the rooflines. 

 

Chairman Boulter asked if the purpose of the berms was to preserve view sheds from the roadway or to provide buffering from road noise? 

 

Mr. Barnett replied yes.  He acknowledged that the project had visual impacts, which they were concerned about.  The buffering of the homes could be done with trees; however, by having the berms in place during construction those views would be cut off.

 

Commissioner Karabensh asked if the intent was to create more wildlife habit.  She also asked what was meant by the area being managed as wildlife habitat.

 

Mr. Barnett replied that the intent was to create wildlife habitat where there was none.  They planned to establish a native tree, shrub, and grass community.  A homeowner would only be allowed to take care of the area within the landscaped area and anything beyond that would be taken care of by the management company.

 

Commissioner Waldo asked if horses would be allowed?

 

Mr. Barnett replied no.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked how far the berms would be set back from County Road 5.

 

Mr. Barnett replied that they would be outside of the right-of-way but would start fairly close after that.  He stated that the setbacks would vary, and the berms would be 3-5 feet. 

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if there would be irrigation for the trees.

 

David Shanns, 114 Rebecca Court, was the developer of the project.  He explained that they had irrigation water that they were buying that would be turned over to ELCO water district.  Therefore there would be a tap from ELCO and an irrigation system to water the trees and shrubs.

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer asked if there would be a Home Owner’s Association?

 

Mr. Shanns replied yes. 

 

Chairman Boulter asked if the development design was done to give the homeowners view of the mountains?

 

Mr. Barnett replied yes and each of the lots would have the ability for walkout basements.

 

Commissioner terMeer had an issue with the width between the cluster of the four houses and the cluster of the six houses.  It was an important wildlife corridor, and she did not feel that there was enough space. 

 

Mr. Barnett replied that he had not seen much wildlife use in that area.  The width was close to 500 feet between Lot 4’s building envelope and Lot 5’s building envelope.

 

Commissioner terMeer asked what the importance of double loading on the street was?

 

Mr. Karan replied that it created real compact clusters, which would open up the property.

 

Mr. Barnett explained that the project would become infeasible if the streets were double-loaded.

 

Mr. Shanns explained that the reason for the layout was to get maximum value out of the lots.  He remarked that for another development, Vista Grande, they were required to build a berm.  He thought that the berms gave more privacy and would cut down on the road noise for the ten lots. 

 

Greg Feit, 782 N. County Road 3, disclosed that he had a vested interest in the property as he was the listing broker on the project.  He was in support of the project and felt that it was a great design and would be good for the neighborhood.

 

Larry Beckman, resident of Vista Bonita, stated that he approved of anything that could be done to increase the availability for animals and wildlife in the area.  He stated that he approved of the development. 

 

 

 

 

Kristi Rice, 5100 E. County Road 48, had some concerns about the development.  She stated that she lived on the northeast corner of County Road 5 and 48.  She felt that it was catering just to the development not the properties surrounding it, especially to the east, and they should be taken into consideration.  She also did not see the purpose of the berms.    She thought that the tile drainage was a sensitive issue.  She had a concern on who owned the water that went through the tile drainage and whether the water went back down into the canal that fed the other farmers.  She felt that the development was good but more needed to be done and the surrounding areas needed to be taken into consideration.  She felt that it would be a mistake not to require paving on County Road 5 because it was a dangerous road, and she stated that the increased traffic and dust was a big concern.  She also stated that the speed on County Road 5 was a concern. 

 

Lisa Rice, 920 N. County Road 5, was concerned with the speed limit on the road.

 

Kristi Rice stated that she was also concerned about the irrigation water and the cost of the water taps for the homeowners. 

 

Christie Coleman, Engineering Department, stated that the speed limit on County Road 48 was 55 miles per hours.  Staff had noticed that it was becoming a higher density area, and it was on the list to evaluate a different speed limit to accommodate the density in the area.  She stated that the development was recommended to have water quality ponds instead of a combination of detention and water quality ponds because of the proximity to Boxelder Creek.  The ponds would not be as large as a typically subdivision pond because there would not be as much storage volume.  She noted that incorporating wetlands was also a recommended best management technique on how to treat water before it was released.

 

Kristi Rice asked if other people in the area would be able to tap into the sewer that was a part of the development.

 

Doug Ryan, Health Department, stated that there was a sewer easement that went across County Road 5 but could not be tapped into until properties were developed on the east side.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Morgan stated that the berms were unnecessary. 

 

Chairman Boulter did not feel that berming was necessary on the property.  He felt that if development could be kept at the proposed size he was content with the plan and was in favor of supporting the development except for the berming. 

 

Commissioner terMeer felt that it was better to have fewer homes developed but she wanted to see a bigger space between the two clusters.  She also stated that she could not support a berm.

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer remarked that it was a good project.  He supported the project as presented.

 

Commissioner Morgan had an issue with the wording of condition of approval 5.  He recommended that the condition read, “Lot layout shall be redesigned so that the drainage area is reserved as residual land.”

 

 

Commissioner Morgan 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 Preserve Conservation Development, file #05-S2522, for the property described on “Exhibit E to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions and the elimination of staff condition of approval 4 and rewording of condition of approval 5 to state: “Lot layout shall be redesigned so that the drainage area is reserved as residual land prior to the Board of County Commissioner hearing”:.

 

1.  The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the Preserve Conservation Development (File # 05-S2522) 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 Preserve Conservation Development (File # 05-S2522).

 

2.  A final design of the sewer system including hook up to the downstream line must be approved by County Engineering and Health Departments during the Final Plat stage of review.  The Final Plat will not be approved without a complete, specific plan for providing sewage disposal.  Construction of this improvement including connection to the downstream line will need to occur concurrent with or prior to other improvements. 

 

3.  Berming will be eliminated.

 

4.  Lot layout shall be redesigned so that the drainage area is reserved as residual land prior to the Board of County Commissioner hearing. 

 

5.  The fire protection requirements discussed in Poudre Fire Authority’s January 24, 2006 memorandum will be fully addressed during the Final Plat process.

 

6.  The applicant will install guard rail along the western side of LCR 5 to State Highway 14 where this road abuts the Larimer and Weld Cannel.

 

7.  The Floodplain Special Review must be completed before submittal of a Final Plat application.

8.  The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings: Poudre R1 school fee, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, Development Construction Permit Fees, Larimer County Regional Park Fees (in lieu of dedication) and Cooper Slough/Boxelder drainage basin fees.  The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply.

 

9.  All habitable structures will require an engineered foundation system. Such engineered foundation system designs shall be based upon a site specific soils investigation.  The lowest habitable floor level (basement) shall not be less than 3 feet from the seasonal high water table.  Mechanical methods proposed to reduce the ground water level, unless it is a response after construction, must be proposed on a development wide basis.

 

 

10.  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.

 

11.  The applicant must provide sufficient evidence to the Colorado Division of Water Resources that no material injury to other property owners’ rights will result.

 

12.  All fire protection issues in Poudre Fire Authority’s 1/24/06 letter must be addressed as part of the Final Plat process.

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED  7-0

 

 

Commissioner Morgan 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 Preserve Rezoning, file #05-Z1576, be approved subject to the following conditions:.

 

1.   Staff supports the removal of the portion of the property in the Fort Collins GMA from the GMA Overlay Zone and rezoning to the FA-1 distirict.

 

2.   Rezoning to FA-1 will not be effective until and unless the Board of County Commissioners approve a Final Plat and the plat and all necessary documents are duly recorded.

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED  7-0

 

Commissioner Morgan 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 appeals to Section 8.14.2.S and Section 5.3.6.B.f of the Larimer County Land Use Code and appeal to Table 4-1 of the Larimer County Road Manual with the condition that the applicant follows the horizontal curve minimum radii requirement of Table 7-3 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, which require a minimum horizontal radius of 165 feet for a residential local road, be approved..

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

 Commissioners' Karabensh, Morgan, Oppenheimer, Pond, terMeer, Waldo, and Chairman Boulter 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 10:10 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________________________                      ______________________________

Jeff Boulter, Chairman                                                  Nancy Wallace, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT E

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Background Image: Loveland Bike Trail by Sharon Veit. All rights reserved.