Elk in Rocky Mountain National Park
 

 

 

LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of July 21, 2004

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, July 21, 2004, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners’ Boulter, Huddleston, Morgan, Nelson, Pond, Waldo, and Wallace were present. Commissioner Korb presided as Chairman.  Commissioner terMeer was absent.  Also present were Rob Helmick, Principal Planner, Geniphyr Ponce-Pore, Planner II, Christie Coleman, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Environmental Health, and Jill Albracht, 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 JUNE 16, 2004 MEETING: MOTION by Commissioner Pond to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Waldo. This received unanimous voice approval.             

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:

Western Ridge Stables Special Review was tabled to July 21, 2004; however the applicant had asked for the application to be removed from the agenda until some outstanding issues could be addressed and resolved.  Mr. Helmick stated that a new legal notice would be published when the applicant was ready to move forward to a public hearing.

 

ELECTION OF OFFICERS:

Commissioner Pond nominated Commissioner Morgan for Chairman.  Commissioner Waldo seconded the Motion.  Commissioner Nelson moved to close the Nominations and to cast a unanimous ballot electing Commissioner Morgan as Chairman, seconded by Commissioner Pond.  MOTION PASSED.

 

Commissioner Nelson nominated Commissioner Korb for Vice Chairman.  Commissioner Pond seconded the motion.  Commissioner Pond moved to close the Nominations and to cast a unanimous ballot electing Commissioner Korb as Vice Chairman.  Seconded by Commissioner Nelson.  MOTION PASSED

 

Commissioner Nelson nominated Commissioner Waldo for Secretary.  Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.  Commissioner Boulter moved to close the Nominations and to cast a unanimous ballot electing Commissioner Waldo as Secretary, seconded by Commissioner Morgan.  MOTION PASSED

 

Chairman Korb welcomed Nancy Wallace to the Planning Commission.

 

CONSENT ITEM:

 

ITEM #1 HOLBROOK CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT/PRELIMINARY PLAT #03-S2115:  Ms. Ponce-Pore provided background information on the Preliminary Plat to create a Conservation Development of two residential lots and one residual lot with a building envelope on a total of 45.23 acres zoned RE-Rural Estate.

 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Holbrook Conservation Development/Preliminary Plat #03-S2115 for the property described on "Exhibit A" to the minutes be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   The applicant shall provide a Development Agreement for approval by the County to be recorded with the Final Plat and shall include costs for the improvement of the road per Larimer County Engineering.

 

2.   The applicant shall provide a Disclosure Notice for approval by the County to be recorded with the Final Plat. The Disclosure Notice will provide information to all lot owners of the conditions of approval from the approved Holbrook Conservation Development as well as those conditions that apply to this Conservation Development.  It will also include, but is not limited to:  information regarding special costs or fees associated with the approval of this project; the issues related to rural development; the need for individual geotechnical investigations for each lot prior to construction; the need for engineered footings and foundations; the need for passive radon mitigation.

 

3.   The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings: Drainage Fees, Poudre R-1 School fees, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, and Larimer County Park Fee (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 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.

 

5.   At the time of building permit specific recommendations made by the Colorado Geological Survey in their memo of December 1, 2003, shall be followed or demonstration that they will be followed, including the mitigation of swelling soils; determining the depth to groundwater, and if groundwater is present, mitigation measures for groundwater;  positive drainage from the house; engineered footings and foundations; and a geotechnical engineer shall provide recommendations for foundations, floors and pavement.

 

6.   At the time of building permit, the lot owners shall demonstrate that the home shall be sprinklered per the Poudre Fire Authority requirements.

 

 

 

 

7.   The applicant shall provide a Maintenance Agreement which shall be recorded with the final plat and shall require the owners of the proposed lots to pay their fair share for the maintenance of Blevins Street.

 

8.   There shall be no access to Blevins Street for the two proposed lots except that which is allowed by the joint access easement found on the plat.

 

Commissioner Morgan seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED: 8-0

 

ITEMS:

 

ITEM #2 MCDONALD SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT #01-S1848:  Ms. Ponce-Pore provided background information on the request for a three lot subdivision on 10 acres.  The request included three appeals:  Section 8.14.2.M – Connectivity and Section 8.14.2.F – maximum lengths for dead-end turn-arounds of the Larimer County Land Use Code, and Section 4.3.L of the Larimer County Road Manual. 

 

Chairman Korb asked if any of the staff’s recommended conditions were a source of concern to the public.

 

Ms. Ponce-Pore stated that the main public concerns with the application were connectivity, design standards and guidelines, and Brehm Road rights.  She remarked that the neighborhood felt that they had successfully maintained Brehm road without assistance from Larimer County.  The neighbors feared that with the subdivision request Larimer County would require that the road be improved, which would interfere with the ability to maintain the road in a way that had historically been done by the neighborhood. 

 

Commissioner Huddleston asked about the denial comment concerning the storm water drainage and erosion that was recommended by engineering?

 

Christie Coleman, Engineering Department, explained that three revisions had occurred before the feasibility of the application was sanctioned by staff.  The comments made on January 6, 2004 reflected staff’s first revisions, which at that time staff did not feel that the application aspects were feasible.  Staff’s third review of the subdivision was completed on April 21, 2004, and at that time staff felt that the applicant had established a strong, conceptual storm water plan.

 

Todd Rogers, attorney for the applicant, provided the Commission with documents and pictures relating to the proposed application and explained the necessity for the three appeals.  He explained that the Larimer County Attorney’s office determined that the McDonald property, in a subdivided state, could be served by Brehm Road.  According to the court order, Brehm Road was a private road able to serve additional lots.  He stated that the proposed use for Brehm Road was appropriate for the zone and was compatible with the area. 

 

 

 

Chairman Korb asked if Sanitas Court would become a publicly dedicated roadway that would not be maintained by Larimer County? 

 

Mr. Rogers replied yes.

 

Chairman Korb asked if there would be an association formed to maintain Sanitas Court?

 

Mr. Rogers replied yes.

 

Chairman Korb asked if condition F of the staff’s recommendations could be amended to state:  The applicant shall provide road maintenance agreements at Final Plat that serve to ensure that the owners of all lots in the McDonald Subdivision shall pay yearly dues for their portion of the maintenance of both Brehm Road and Sanitas Court?

 

Mr. Rogers stated that there would be no objection to amending condition F.  In regards to Brehm Road, the applicant was willing to maintain the road as it had been done by the neighborhood in the past. 

 

The hearing recessed for ten minutes.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Nancy Frase, Frase Consulting Group, was the representative for the neighborhood opposition.  She stated that the neighbors did not believe that the McDonald application met the requirements and standards of the Larimer County Land Use Code.  She acknowledged the definitions of Sections 5.1.3.B, 4.6 (Variance), and 3.5, 22.2, 22.3 (Appeal) of the Land Use Code and elaborated on the Variance definition.  She stated that the reason that the guidelines existed were to have predictability and consistency in the Land Use Code, and according to the Larimer County Land Use Code the appeals to the application were actually variances which had not been approved by the Board of Adjustment.  She stated that the neighbors asked that a recommendation of denial be taken to the Board of County Commissioners. 

 

Joe Bath, 2285 Brehm Road, remarked that building a public road connected to a private road was not logical.

 

Roger Seat, 2537 Brehm Road, stated that his attorney, Rick Zier, proposed to Larimer County that the application create a dead end road to the lot on the McDonald property instead of making Brehm Road a public road.  Larimer County turned the proposal down quoting the Larimer County Land Use Code and Section 8.14.2.M regarding connectivity requirements, but now Larimer County was not enforcing the connectivity issue.  This caused him to question the consistency in the Larimer County standards.  He stated that connectivity was not desired by the community because they want to limit the amount of traffic on the road.  He remarked that Mr. McDonald wanted to reconstruct the road, but neither Larimer County nor Mr. McDonald had permission to tear up the road.  For many years the neighborhood had put money into Brehm Road, and Brehm Road should be left as a private road. 

 

Carolyn Gause, 412 E. County Road 2, stated that she raised cattle on land southwest of the McDonald property.  She stated that she had a strong objection to the McDonald subdivision because it would be establishing a business in a residential area.  She mentioned that Mr.

 

 

McDonald had not consulted with the neighborhood before applying for the troubled youth day camp, and she felt that type of use on the property did not fit into the compatibility of the area.  She also mentioned that at the community’s own expense, equipment had been purchased to maintain and care for Brehm road.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked which road she used to access her property, and how big her lot was?

 

Ms. Gause stated that her lot was 2.3 acres, and she received access to her property off of County Road 2.

 

Will Colwell, 2220 Brehm Road, stated that Mr. McDonald had allowed his water rights to expire due to not paying his fees for the last three years.  He explained that the primary concern was that the community had maintained the road for less than $100 a year, and they were concerned that Larimer County would incorporate new requirements for Brehm road which would make the cost exceed $100.  He stated that thus far the neighborhood had a road maintenance system that worked and changing the character of the road would mean that the character of the road maintenance would change.  He remarked that Mr. McDonald had stated that he would cover the road expenses for the first two to three years; however, any change in the road would be a financial burden to community.  He stated that he was against any change to Brehm Road. 

 

Mike Urban, 2448 Brehm Road, also represented Elsie Winn who owned 137 acres east of the McDonald property.  He explained that they shared the use of the Osborn ditch with Mr. McDonald.  He explained that the lots around Mr. McDonald were irrigated hay land and what Mr. McDonald was creating were dry land lots. They felt that Mr. McDonald was trying to build a flagpole type subdivision, and was trying to change the structure of the environment that they live in. 

 

Gerald Geigor, 528 E. County Road 2, stated that he had concerns regarding the irrigation of the land.  He stated that a ditch easement was granted in 1984, which should not be changed without an approval from him.  He pointed out that the proposed subdivision would create a 30-40 foot road over the top of his ditch.  He strongly expressed that Mr. McDonald did not have his permission to cross the ditch.  He stated that he had a five foot easement, and the Land Use Code permitted him to have an easement of 25 more feet.  As it was now, he could not get to his ditch. 

 

Commissioner Nelson asked how he felt about relocating the ditch from the fence so it could be maintained better?

 

Mr. Geigor replied that if he moved the ditch further to the east it would not water the west side of his property. 

 

Commissioner Morgan pointed out that if the subdivision was approved that Mr. Geigor would end up with a 29 foot easement. 

 

Mr. Geigor replied that in the 1984 easement agreement the owner of the property was suppose to maintain the ditch for life.  His responsibility was only the maintenance of the structures, culverts, etc.  Therefore, now that Mr. McDonald was the owner of the property, he was responsible for maintaining the ditch that serviced his property. 

 

Melanie Burrell, 300 E. County Road 2, owned a 13-acre parcel to the west of Brehm Road.  She stated that she felt Mr. McDonald was acting irresponsible to the neighbors and the neighborhood.  She explained that Mr. McDonald was a shareholder in the Osborn Lateral Ditch Company.  As a shareholder you had to pay annual dues and pay for the right to maintain the ditch and to have water carried to the farms.  She stated that he refused to pay his dues; therefore, he was penalized and eventually lost the shares that he owned. 

 

Ms. Gause recapped that Mr. McDonald was responsible for maintaining Mr. Geigor’s ditch.  She stated that redesigning the ditch would interrupt the flow of the water.  She also remarked that the community had maintained weed control on the properties, and Mr. McDonald had let his weeds and thistles grow. 

 

Kern Scott, 409 Brehm Road, want to affirm that the neighbors did not want the proposed subdivision to be approved, and that they wanted Brehm Road to remain as a private road. 

 

Mr. Colwell stated that one week before the hearing Mr. McDonald had contributed to the maintenance of Brehm Road in the amount of $40.

 

DISCUSSION:

Brian McDonald, 2504 Brehm Road, stated that he had the understanding that a variance could be requested, and variances regarding connectivity would be treated on a case by case basis.  He explained that he had tried to consult with the neighbors ahead of time about the proposal, but was not successful in talking with any of them.  He also explained that when the property was bought two shares of Osborn Lateral Ditch were available for caring purposes only, not water.  Also available were two shares of Ish water.  He explained that he had no use for the water carrying rights because it wasn’t required for his Ish water.  He stated that he had sent money for the maintenance of the shares, but the checks were never cashed.  He addressed the neighbors’ concerns and comments mentioning that the weeds had been removed from his property.  Along with that, one year ago a check was sent to Mr. Urban for $50 for road maintenance, but the check was not cashed.  Last week he paid $40 for road maintenance.  He stated that he had tried to be reasonable and compromise from the beginning and would continue to do so. 

 

Commissioner Nelson asked if Mr. McDonald’s Ish water was obtained from the Osborn Lateral?

 

Mr. McDonald replied no. 

 

Stanley Dunn, Alpine Consulting Engineers, was the engineer for the Preliminary Plat development proposal.  He stated that at one point he was asked to meet with Mr. McDonald and Mr. Geigor regarding how the culvert would work in relation to the proposed Sanitas Court access.  Out of that meeting came a discussion of how the ditch would be maintained.  It was proposed that the ditch would be realigned to the east and moved three feet with the assumption that there would be a five foot easement.  However, as he understood it, the proposal had been rejected.

 

Mr. Rogers stated that the 1984 ditch easement agreement provided for each party to do the initial work in connection with creation or improvement of the ditch.  Thereafter, the parties were to maintain the ditch proportionate to the water they received, and they were not obligated to do anything beyond that.  He explained that the proposal presented essentially asked for a

 

movement of the existing crossing in the ditch on the McDonald property.  There would only be one crossing, and Mr. Geigor would receive equal or better water than he had received in the past.  Mr. Rogers asked that the application be approved consistent with the staff’s recommendations. 

 

Commissioner Nelson asked if there was intent to irrigate the McDonald land?

 

Mr. Dunn stated that the site would be sprinkled for fire.  An irrigation plan had not been addressed, and he believed that it would be a dry land setup for the lots.

 

Commissioner Nelson asked about piping the ditch?

 

Mr. Dunn stated that the focus had been on the open channel configuration with the exception of the culvert under Sanitas Court.  He stated that the intent of both parties was to maintain an open channel from the northwest part of the McDonald property to the north end of the proposed culvert under Sanitas Court. 

 

The hearing recessed for ten minutes.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked about the restrictions of fencing and access?

 

Ms. Ponce-Pore stated that the people would be allowed fencing as long as it did not interfere with the maintenance of the ditch.  At the time of Preliminary Plat the language for the disclosure notice would not be done.  It would be done with the development agreement at the time of Final Plat. 

 

Ms. Ponce-Pore also remarked on the neighbors’ concerns about the Planning Departments’ application process.  She explained that the Sketch Plan process was a six week process that examined applications and addressed their main issues.  It was a quick process that gave an applicant the opportunity to explain what they wanted to pursue and determine if they wanted to move forward.  The process did not solve the issues with the application; it just raised issues that could affect the application’s future compliance.  As a project moved forward, applicants were informed that if they could not comply, they had the right to appeal.  If an appeal occurred staff would take a look at the argument and if it seemed to make sense and could be supported, staff would examine it again at the time of Preliminary Plat.  She stated that projects evolved over time, and staff could not identify every issue and every solution at the Sketch Plan stage.  The Preliminary Plat stage was when issues would be looked at in more detail.  She explained that at the time Mr. McDonald had his sketch plan meeting connectivity was one of the issues raised.  Mr. McDonald was informed of his right to appeal.  He submitted the appeal, and now staff was reviewing the request.  She stated that after a detailed analysis, staff did not feel that connectivity would benefit any parties involved and did not need to be required.  She recapped that at the time of Sketch Plan staff had raised the issue of connectivity, and during that meeting staff did not have the right to waive the connectivity standard.  Therefore, staff explained to the applicant that they could appeal and argue the issue at the time of Preliminary Plat.   

 

Rob Helmick, Principal Planner, explained that the staff was obligated to communicate the connectivity standard to the applicant, and the applicant had the option to appeal.  The staff had a consistent position that anything in the Larimer County Land Use Code may be appealed. 

 

 

Commissioner Huddleston asked if the recommendation of approval of Section 4.3.L to the Larimer County Road Manual meant that there would be no changes to Brehm Road?

 

Ms. Coleman explained that the appeal dealt with Sanitas Court, however Brehm Road would need to meet the local road standards for rural areas of Larimer County.  She stated that she had measured Brehm Road that day, and it was consistently 24 feet in width with good drainage.  She stated that she felt the road had been brought into very good condition. 

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if improvements would be to the entire length of Brehm Road?

 

Ms. Coleman replied no.  If any, the improvements would be from Larimer County Road 2 to the north property line of the McDonald property.  Drainage and road conditions would need to be addressed for both sides of the road, and the improvement would address the easement held in common to Mr. Seat’s property.

 

Commissioner Boulter asked if improvements to the road were made would it change the way the homeowners had historically maintained it?

 

Ms. Coleman replied no, and could not anticipate a need for improvements to the road.

 

Chairman Korb asked why Sanitas Court was being required to be a dedicated public road?

 

Mr. Helmick explained that according to the Larimer County Land Use Code all land division roads must have a publicly dedicated right-of-way.  That standard could be appealed, but the applicant had not done so. 

 

Commissioner Huddleston asked if Mr. McDonald would have to move the fence in order to pipe or maintain the ditch?

 

Mr. Helmick stated that the subdivision did not change the character of the easement.  The Larimer County Land Use Code required the easement to be 25 feet in width; therefore, the rights and responsibilities of the parties involved should not be changed.  If subsequent negotiations and agreements occured in respect to the easement, it would be changed at Final Plat.

 

Chairman Korb recommended that condition F be amended to stateThe applicant shall provide road maintenance agreements at Final Plat that serve to ensure that the owners of all lots in the McDonald Subdivision shall pay yearly dues for their portion of the maintenance of both Brehm Road and Sanitas Court. 

 

Chairman Korb also proposed to add a condition J that stated:  There shall be a plat note that recommends Brehm Road to be a private road not maintained by Larimer County, and Sanitas Court to be a publicly dedicated roadway not maintained by Larimer County. 

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that he recommended that Sanitas Road be a right-of-way, not a public road.

 

 

 

 

Chairman Korb amended the recommended condition J to read:  The plat map shall contain a note which reflects that both Brehm Road and Sanitas Court are private roads not maintained by Larimer County.

 

Commissioner Morgan moved to amend condition F and add condition J as stated.

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED: 8-0

 

Commissioner Pond stated that he would approve the three appeals in the application and felt that there were no problems with the project.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated he supported the project.

 

Chairman Korb asked what quantity Mr. McDonald’s two shares of Ish ditch water provided? 

 

Mr. McDonald explained that the old Ish received priority over new Ish.  It was decided how many inches one share was once the new Ish could receive water.  In the past, two shares had

been five, twenty-four hour periods of water.  He was not sure how many inches it was exactly now.

 

Chairman Korb asked if Mr. McDonald would be willing to add a condition K that stated:  The developer will arrange to preserve, with the developed land, the two shares of Ish ditch water and allocate it among the lots as the lot owners deem appropriate.

 

Mr. McDonald stated that he felt that it may be difficult to add another ditch.

 

Commissioner Nelson stated that it would not be feasible to figure out an irrigation program for the land.  Mr. McDonald could voluntarily choose to leave the water, but it could not be a requirement.

 

Chairman Korb asked to add condition K, consensually added by the applicant, which stated:  The applicant will leave two shares of the Ish ditch water with the development site provided that the application can be effected without substantially impairing the proposed development plan.

 

Commissioner Boulter stated that he would not be comfortable adding the condition K. 

 

The other Commissioners also felt uncomfortable adding the condition K.

 

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 appeal to Section 4.3.L of the Larimer County Road Manual be approved.

 

 

Commissioner Boulter seconded the Motion.

 

Chairman Korb stated that he would vote against the Motion because he felt Sanitas Court was a flagpole lot setup.

 

Commissioner Huddleston, Wallace, and Chairman Korb voted against the Motion.

 

Commissioner Boulter, Morgan, Nelson, Pond, and Waldo voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  5-3

 

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 appeal to Section 8.14.2.F of the Larimer County Land Use Code be approved.

 

Commissioner Nelson seconded the Motion.

 

Chairman Korb stated he would vote against the Motion because he felt that there was too much confusion.  The standard was that the road must be within 660 feet of a public road, and it was

approximately 200 feet in excess of that standard.  He also stated that the Berthoud Fire Protection District was operating under a misapprehension regarding that issue.

 

Commissioner Huddleston, Wallace, and Chairman Korb voted against the Motion.

 

Commissioner Boulter, Morgan, Nelson, Pond, and Waldo voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  5-3

 

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.M of the Larimer County Land Use Code be approved.

 

Commissioner Boulter seconded the Motion.

 

Chairman Korb stated that he would vote against the Motion because under the circumstances the standard should not be waived.

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that neither the applicant nor the public wanted connectivity with Brehm Road, and the court also stated that Brehm Road was a private road and could not serve any other land.  He felt that connectivity was the most significant appeal to the project and easiest to approve.

 

Commissioner Huddleston, Wallace, and Chairman Korb voted against the Motion.

 

Commissioner Boulter, Morgan, Nelson, Pond, and Waldo voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  5-3

 

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 McDonald Subdivision Preliminary Plat #01-S1848 for the property described on "Exhibit B" to the minutes be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

A.   The Final Plat of the McDonald 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, #01-S1848, 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 also include, but is not limited to; the restrictions of fencing of prohibiting access to all ditches for maintenance and access for those responsible for maintenance, the issues related to rural development, fire department requirements, the requirement for an access permit and culverts, the need

 

for engineered footings and foundations, the need for engineered septic systems, and the need for passive radon mitigation.

 

C.   The following fees shall be collected at building permit for new single family dwellings: Thompson R2-J school fees in lieu of dedication, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation, Development Construction Permit fees, and the Larimer County Park Fee in lieu of dedication.  The fee amount that is current at the time building permit application shall apply.  Prior to construction, the applicant must contact the County Engineering Department and obtain a Development Construction Permit.

 

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.   Footing and foundations for any new houses and septic systems must be constructed in consideration of those specifications by the Colorado State Geological Survey memo, from Celia Greenman dated January 6, 2004, including foundation design, drainage and septic systems (ISDS).  

 

F.   The applicant shall provide road maintenance agreements at Final Plat that serve to ensure that the owners of all lots in the McDonald Subdivision shall pay yearly dues for their portion of the maintenance of both Brehm Road and Sanitas Court.

 

 

 

 

G.   Final plat documents shall reflect the expanded irrigation easements on the northern and eastern boundaries of the property, and specific notes regarding the needs of the easement holders to access and maintain those easements.

 

H.   At the time of final plat submittal, the applicant shall demonstrate adequate fire flow or agree to a requirement for residential fire sprinkler systems.   

 

I.   At the time of final plat, the applicant shall demonstrate that he has acquired the approvals regarding the ditch crossing from the holder of that easement, per the Code, Section 8.8.

 

J.    The plat map shall contain a note which reflects that both Brehm Road and Sanitas Court are private roads not maintained by Larimer County.

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

Chairman Korb stated that he opposed the Motion.

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that the Larimer County Land Use code permitted the kind of land subdivision that was being proposed and was not incompatible with the type of land use seen in the area. 

 

Chairman Korb voted against the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Boulter, Huddleston, Morgan, Nelson, Pond, Waldo, and Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-1

 

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

 

ADJOURNMENT:  There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 10:47 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.

 

 

 

_______________________________                      ______________________________

Mark Korb, Chairman                                                  Rodney Nelson, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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