Elk in Rocky Mountain National Park
 

LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of September 21, 2005

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, September 21, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners’ Huddleston, Karabensh, Morgan, Oppenheimer, terMeer, Waldo, and Wallace were present.  Commissioner Boulter presided as Chairman.  Commissioner Pond was absent.  Also present were Rob Helmick, Principal Planner, Matt Lafferty, Senior Planner, David Karan, Planner II, Casey Stewart, Planner II, Sean Wheeler, Planner II, Christie Coleman, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Environmental Health, and Jill Wilson, 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 AUGUST 17, 2005 MEETINGS:  MOTION by Commissioner Morgan to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Huddleston.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

BYLAW REVIEW:

Chairman Boulter asked that the Commission review the bylaws and bring their concerns to the October 12, 2005 PC/BCC worksession.

 

REMOVED ITEM:SOMETHING FROM THE FARM – DORY SPECIAL EXCEPTION #05-Z1551:  Mr. Stewart requested that Something from the Farm – Dory Special Exception be removed from the agenda per the applicant’s request.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:  

None

 

CONSENT ITEM:

 

ITEM #1 RAM SPIRIT HALL LOCATION & EXTENT #05-Z1560:  Mr. Wheeler provided background information on the Location & Extent review for an enclosed building at Hughes Stadium to be used for receptions, parties, etc.  The building would be used by the Ram Spirit Committee, but owned by Colorado State University.

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approve the Ram Spirit Hall Location & Extent, file #05-Z1560, subject to the following condition:

 

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

 

Commissioner Huddleston seconded the Motion.

 

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:   8-0

 

ITEM #2 PARVIN LAKE TRANSFER STATION LOCATION & EXTENT #05-Z1561:  Mr. Karan provided background information on the Location and Extent review for a solid waste transfer facility to serve the Red Feather Lakes area.  The transfer station would be open Saturdays from April through October and one Saturday per month November through March.  Mr. Karan informed the commission of amended language to condition C of the staff recommendation.

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approve the Parvin Lake Transfer Station Location & Extent, file #05-Z1561, subject to the following conditions and amended condition C:

 

A.  The access location and sight distance evaluation is approved by the County Engineering Department.   

 

B.   Best Management Practices are followed to control erosion. 

 

C.  A deed for an access easement following the proposed alignment alternative or the proposed alignment alternative is properly recorded at the County Clerk and Recorders Office.

 

D.  A lease agreement is reached with the Colorado Division of Wildlife. 

 

Commissioner Huddleston seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

ITEM #3 NEW VISION CHARTER SCHOOL LOCATION & EXTENT #05-Z1563:  Mr. Helmick provided background information on the Location and Extent review of a proposed site and preliminary site development plan for a charter school in the Thompson R-2J School District.  The site is located on the south side of 1st Street, ¼ mile east of Boise Avenue in the Loveland Growth Management Area.

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approve the New Vision Charter School Location & Extent, file #05-Z1563.

 

Commissioner Huddleston seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

ITEM #4 VERN’S PLANNED LAND DIVISION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT #04-S2288:  Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request for a Planned Land Division with a rezoning to Planned Development.  The Planned Land Division would create three commercial use lots for a existing restaurant, office, and enclosed storage on 3.48 acres located on the north side of County Road 54G, approximately 1/8 mile east of County Road 52E.

 

Commissioner Huddleston asked if the road side drainage issue had been resolved?

 

Mr. Lafferty replied yes, and explained that the applicant had provided an easement through the property that in the future would provide drainage opportunities.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked about the Jackson Ditch access.

 

Mr. Lafferty replied that White Road had been vacated to allow access and would be shown on the Final Plat.

 

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 Vern’s rezoning to Planned Development, file #04-S2288, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

a.   The rezoning shall be effective upon the recordation of the Final Plat of Vern’s Planned Land Division.

 

b.   The permitted uses, lot building and structure requirements, setbacks and structure height limitations for Vern’s Planned Development shall be as follows:

 

1.   The Planned Development (PD) zoning for the property shall be as follows

 

PD (Planned Development)

 

A.   Principal uses (See Section 4.3 of the Larimer County Land Use Code for Use Descriptions and Conditions)

 

Agricultural

Pet Animal Facility (R)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commercial

Enclosed Storage (R)

Convenience Store (S)

Automobile Service Station (S)

Car Wash (S)

Professional Office (R)

Takeout Restaurant (S)

Sit-down Restaurant (R)

Nightclub (R)

Instructional Facility (R)

Clinic (R)

Pet Animal Veterinary Clinic/Hospital (R/S)

Live Stock Veterinary Clinic/Hospital (R/S)

Institutional

Health Services (R)

Hospital (R)

School, public (L)

School, non-public (R/S)

Rehabilitation Facility (R)

Child/Elderly Care Center (S)

Sheriff/Fire Station (L)

Church (R)

Accommodations

Hotel/Motel (R)

Bed and Breakfast (R/S)

Nursing Home (R)

Transportation

Park and Ride (R)

Recreational

Membership Club/Clubhouse (R)

 

B. Lot, building and structure requirements:

1. Minimum lot size:

Lots 1 shall be no less than 0.32 acres

Lots 2 shall be no less than 1.23 acres

Lot 3 Shall be no less than 1.47 acres

 

2. Minimum setbacks:

Setbacks for Lots 1 shall be as follows:

a. Front yard - The setback from Galway Drive and must be no less than 15 feet from the property line/right of-way line, and the setback from County Road 54G must be no less than 23 feet from the property line/right-of-way line.

b. Side yards - 15 feet.

c. Rear yards - 15 feet.

 

 

 

 

Setbacks for Lots 2 shall be as follows:

a. Front yard - The setback from Galway Drive and must be no less than 15 feet from the property line/right of-way line, and the setback from County Road 54G must be no less than 15 feet from the property line/right-of-way line.

b. Side yards - 5 feet.

c. Rear yards - 5 feet.

 

Setbacks for Lots 3 shall be as currently exists (existing restaurant building):

 

3. Maximum Structure Height – 40 Feet

 

4. With the Exception of Lots 4-8, no parcel can be used for more than one principal building; additional buildings on a parcel are allowed if they meet the accessory use criteria in subsection 4.3.10 of the Larimer County Land Use Code as amended.

 

Uses followed by an (R) are allowed by right.

 

Uses followed by an (MS) require approval through the minor special review process.

 

Uses followed by an (S) require approval through the special review process described in section 4.5.

 

Uses followed by an (R/S) may be allowed by right or require special review approval based on thresholds in section 4.3 (use descriptions).

 

Uses followed by an (L) require review through the location and extent review process described in section 13.0.

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Vern’s Planned Land Division, file #04-S2288, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

A.   The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved Preliminary Plat and with the information contained in the Vern’s Planned Land Division/Planned Development (File #04-S2288), 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 Vern’s Planned Land Division/Planned Development.

B.   The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance:  Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion and applicable drainage fees.  The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply.

C.   Prior to the recordation of the Final Plat, the applicant shall provide a landscape enhancement plan for the area of the disturbed wetlands.

 

Commissioner Wallace seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

ITEM #5 GOLTZ ASPHALT COMPANY REZONING#04-Z1532, GOLTZ ASPHALT COMPANY SPECIAL REVIEW #05-Z1537:  Mr. Wheeler provided background information on the request for a Rezoning and Special Review to amend the list of allowed uses from a previous rezoning to I-Industrial, and to permit outdoor storage as an accessory use.  The property is located on the south side of County Road 18, approximately ¾ miles east of Interstate 25.

 

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 Goltz Asphalt Company Rezoning, file #04-Z1532, and the Goltz Asphalt Company Special Review, file #05-Z1537, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

A.  This Special Review approval shall automatically expire without a public hearing if the use is not commenced within three years of the date of approval.

B.   The Site shall be developed consistent with the approved plan and with the information contained in the Goltz Asphalt Company Special Review (File #05-Z1537) and Rezoning (File #04-Z1532) 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 Goltz Asphalt Company Special Review and Amended Zoning.

C.  This application is approved without the requirement for a Development Agreement.

D.  In the event the applicant fails to comply with any conditions of approval or otherwise fails to use the property consistent with the approved Special Review, applicant agrees that in addition to all other remedies available to County, County may withhold building permits, issue a written notice to applicant to appear and show cause why the Special Review approval should not be revoked, and/or bring a court action for enforcement of the terms of the Special Review.  All remedies are cumulative and the County’s election to use one shall not preclude use of another.  In the event County must retain legal counsel and/or pursue a court action to enforce the terms of this Special Review approval, applicant agrees to pay all expenses incurred by County including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees.

F.   County may conduct periodic inspections to the property and reviews of the status of the Special Review as appropriate to monitor and enforce the terms of the Special Review approval.

G.  The Findings and Resolution shall be a servitude running with the Property.  Those owners of the Property or any portion of the Property who obtain title subsequent to the date of recording of the Findings and Resolution, their heirs, successors, assigns or transferees, and persons holding under applicants shall comply with the terms and conditions of the Special Review approval.

 

H.  Allowed uses are restricted to those which are allowed under the “Light Industrial” and “Trade Use” definitions of the Land Use Code with the following exception:  Any use that generates non-domestic septic waste products will not be permitted at this site.  In addition, all permitted uses must be conducted internally to the principal structure, except for the normal delivery or pick up of goods. 

I.    All permitted uses are also subject to the Site Plan approval process to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval and zoning, prior to the issuance of any building permits.

 

Commissioner Wallace seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

ITEMS:

 

ITEM #6 SOMETHING FROM THE FARM – BIG HORN SPECIAL EXCEPTION #05-Z1552:  Mr. Stewart provided background information on the request for a Special Exception to allow a commercial farm products stand for the sale of farm produce, baked goods, coffee, seasonal and holiday gifts, Christmas trees, and pumpkins in the FA-1 – Farming zoning district.  The property is legally described as Lot 3 of the Big Horn Ridge Subdivision and adjoined by the Redeemer Lutheran Church, which is located on the south side of Carpenter Road, about ½ mile west of Timberline Road.  The request also included an appeal to the Larimer County Land Use Code, Sections 8.1.1 and 8.1.2 for public water and sewer requirements.  Mr. Stewart noted that the Special Exception would be approved for a two year period, which would last from September 1 through December 31 for the years 2005, 2006, and 2007.

 

Jon Dory, 8020 S. Timberline Road, requested that the Special Exception approval be extended one extra year to include 2008 in order to enable the business to have three years of run time. 

 

Mr. Stewart stated that the subject property (Lot 3) was a part of the Big Horn Ridge Subdivision, and the Development Agreement stipulated that Lot 3 would become a residential developed lot.  The subject use was commercial in nature; as a result, staff hesitated extending the use time because the intent of the lot was to be residential.  He explained that the other concern was establishing permanent facilities such as restrooms, parking, and access, which should be considered when establishing a use for a number of years. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Commissioner Morgan asked how long Mr. Dory had operated the corn maze that was on the site?

 

Mr. Dory replied that it would be the first year of operation on the subject property.  The agricultural operation that occurred on his other property had been operating since 1998.  He explained that the catalyst for the request was the growing popularity of corn mazes and produce stands.

 

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that the land use agreement between the applicant and the church granted the applicant temporary use of the site, and the church at any time could decide to develop the site.  As a result, she saw no reason to not let the applicant have the use for three years.

 

Commissioner Karabensh asked if there was any County regulation of the continuation of the corn maze?

 

Mr. Stewart replied that the corn maze was not a part of the Special Exception request.  It was a separate temporary recreational use and could continue as long as it received annual approval from the County.  

 

Commissioner Morgan mentioned that there was no vesting of rights with the proposed continued use.  He also stated he felt that an additional use on the subject property was acceptable and agreed with the applicant’s requested operation time frame of three years as it took time to establish agricultural business and buy awareness.  He did not feel that the time extension for the application was unrealistic if a broad view was taken out of the presented application and issue.  He stated that he was a firm believer on finding ways to continue and achieve a viable agricultural industry in Larimer County.  The County needed to find ways to start encouraging rural, agricultural businesses and provide ample time for those businesses to succeed.  He also stated that he would like to see the County evolve and become proactive in order to let people know what the Larimer County Land Use Code permitted and what the County could do to support rural-agriculture.  He also stated that he would like to have standards set so everyone was treated fair and equally. 

 

Chairman Boulter asked if an extension of one year would make a significant difference?

 

Mr. Stewart replied no as far as improvement requirements.  However, the property was intended for residential development and staff did not want to give the applicant the hope that the property could be used permanently. 

 

Chairman Boulter asked what happened after the time request expired?

 

Mr. Stewart replied that the applicant would have to reapply for a Special Exception or apply to rezone the property. 

 

Commissioner Waldo stated that he agreed with Commissioner Morgan.  He also remarked that it was nice to see an agricultural use, and it would be a great value added to the community.

 

Commissioner Karabensh pointed out that the land use agreement between the applicant and Redeemer Lutheran Church provided for automatic termination of the land use agreement upon sale of the property.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if the Capital Expansion Transportation fees were required and if those fees would be proportioned out to the number of years since it was not a permanent use?

 

 

 

 

Christie Coleman, Engineering Department, replied yes.  The Capital Expansion Transportation fees were typically based on a 20 year horizon for permanent uses, therefore the applicant would be charged 3/20 of the regular fee.  She explained that the amount was based on trip generation. 

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that it may be fair for temporary use applications to only be charged a fee of half of a year.  He also asked about the drainage fees for the property?

 

Ms. Coleman explained that drainage fees would be charged for the property and were assessed for drainage improvement districts, which were specific geographical locations in the County. 

 

Commissioner Morgan did not understand why the applicant would have to pay a drainage fee for the types of uses that were going to occur on the property.  He stated that if the County wanted to enhance the agricultural sector then the previous mentioned fees needed to be looked at so people did not become discouraged because of a huge upfront cost.  He also mentioned that the Building Department required permits for structures exceeding 120 square feet in floor area, whether the structures were permanent or temporary, and asked what type of building permit fees the County had for a tent?

 

Mr. Stewart replied that the fee would be determined by the Building Department and the fees were based on a percentage of the value of the building itself. 

 

Mr. Dory commented that the church was grateful to have their property utilized.  He stated that if the use was going to extend beyond the three year period that he would take the appropriate steps to have it approved again.

 

DISCUSSION:

Chairman Boulter stated that he agreed with Commissioner Morgan, Waldo, and Wallace and was very interested in seeing the County help the small, rural agricultural operations to continue to move forward.  It was an historical part of the lifestyle in the area and as the County continued to become more urban and more growth occurred there was more danger of loosing a lot of the contact with the rural roots.  He appreciated the fact that people were trying to make a living and that it was difficult to accomplish.  He stated that he was a big supporter of making agricultural operations work for people and wanted to make sure that in the future there were precedents set and fees were evaluated for the situations.  He realized that fees could be involved but the temporary nature of the operations needed to be considered, and he did not want fees to get in the way of the operations any more than was necessary.  The sensitivity to a small business and a small agricultural operation was trying to get their product directly to the consumer and allowing the community to have direct contact with those operations was beneficial.  He stated that he would support the most accommodating stance possible while also taking into account the other issues raised such as services and improvements.

 

Commissioner terMeer stated that she supported extending the application one more year making the operation run time three years.  She also felt that the drainage fees were reasonable, as it was important to take care of the bigger picture.

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that if the Commission wanted to approve the Special Exception for three years that Condition 1 would need to be changed to add in the year 2008 and Condition 3 would need to be changed to state January 1, 2009.

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that Something from the Farm – Big Horn Special Exception, file #05-Z1552, appeal to Section 8.1.1 of the Larimer County Land Use Code (Sewage disposal level of service standards) be approved.

 

Commissioner Morgan seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that Something from the Farm – Big Horn Special Exception, file #05-Z1552, and the appeal to Section 8.1.2 (Domestic water level of service standards) of the Larimer County Land Use Code, be approved.

 

Commissioner Morgan seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

Commissioner Wallace noted that to extend the operation time frame Condition 1 of the staff recommendation would be amended to state; “The uses and activities approved for this Special Exception are to be conducted September 1 through December 31 for the years 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008……”, and Condition 3 would be amended to state; “If the applicant can provide an agreement between him and the owner of Lot 2 of the Big Horn Ridge Subdivision demonstrating the right to use the parking lot for parking and access to Lot 2 this Special Exception approval shall automatically expire on January 1, 2009 and shall not continue past that date unless and until another Special Exception and/or other appropriate review required at the time is granted.  Otherwise, this Special Exception approval shall automatically expire on January 1, 2007”:

 

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 Something from the Farm – Big Horn Special Exception, file #05-Z1552, for the property described on “Exhibit C” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions with amendments to Condition 1 and Condition 3: 

 

 

 

 

1.   The uses and activities approved for this Special Exception are to be conducted September 1 through December 31 for the years 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 and include the sale of produce grown on the site and retail sale of the following: fruits from local growers, whole bean and ground coffees, wheat berries, whole grains and beans, canned jams and jellies, pre-packaged pies, gift baskets, seasonal holiday items, and Christmas trees.  All food items shall either be whole farm products or pre-packaged items that are not classified as potentially hazardous and come from approved licensed retail food establishments.

2.   The hours of operation shall be Monday - Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Sunday 1:00 – 500 p.m.

3.   If the applicant can provide an agreement between him and the owner of Lot 2 of the Big Horn Ridge Subdivision demonstrating the right to use the parking lot for parking and access to Lot 2 this Special Exception approval shall automatically expire on January 1, 2009 and shall not continue past that date unless and until another Special Exception and/or other appropriate review required at the time is granted.  Otherwise, this Special Exception approval shall automatically expire on January 1, 2007.

4.   No permanent structures are allowed with this approval.  The applicant shall provide portable chemical toilets and hand washing stations and must have them serviced by a licensed firm.

5.   The applicant shall obtain Site Plan review approval from the County Planning Department prior to commencement of any uses approved by this Special Exception.

6.   The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the appropriate fire protection district by locating all structures, including all sides of the structure, within 150 feet of the fire truck access in the parking lot of the Redeemer Lutheran Church.

7.    The applicant shall contact the Engineering Department to pay associated Transportation Capital Expansion Fees as part of the building permit application process.

8.   During the time period for which this Special Exception is approved in condition #2, failure to comply with any other conditions of this approval may result in reconsideration of the use and possible revocation of the approval by the Board of County Commissioners. 

 

Commissioner Morgan seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM #7 DAELIN ESTATES PLANNED LAND DIVISION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT #04-S2278:  Mr. Karan provided background information on the request for a Planned Land Division to divide a 8.073 acre metes and bounds parcel into three single-family residential lots, and rezone to Planned Development.  The parcel is located approximately 1/3 mile south of County Road 30 between North County Road 11C and Boyd Lake Reservoir in the Loveland Growth Management area.  The request also included appeals to the Larimer County Land Use Code Section 8.1.1.B.2.a (sewage disposal level of service standards), Section 8.14.2.S (connectivity), Section 8.5.5.A.3 (streetscape landscaping), and an appeal to Chapter 7 (spacing requirement between entrances) of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards.  Mr. Karan also noted that Boyd Lake was a drinking water reservoir, and the applicant was requesting to retain the ability to have livestock on the property; however, the City of Greeley objected to that request.

 

Doug Ryan, Health Department, noted that the issue regarding livestock near Boyd Lake was discussed at the August Planning Commission hearing concerning the application for the Deeds Planned Land Division/Planned Development.  The applicant for that development along with other individuals (such as the City of Greeley) who wanted to speak regarding the livestock issue had the opportunity to do so at that meeting.  He explained that the Larimer County Land Use Code, Section 8.12.6, specified extra protection for drinking water reservoirs and stated that drinking water reservoirs must be given the highest achievable level of environmental protection.  The section also provided three standards, which stated:  1) stormwater from new developments could not run into a drinking water reservoir unless water quality would not be impaired, 2) drinking water quality management reports addressing the standard must address water chemistry, biological contamination and sediment transport, and 3) the County Health Department and the municipality or special district that provided water review the report and make recommendations to the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners.  Mr. Ryan stated that the applicant did prepare a report which outlined the reasons why (in their view) the drinking water or water quality would not be negatively impacted.  Those points were:  the increased runoff would be somewhat minimal due to the lot size and relatively small amount of impervious service, the land division incorporated a 300 foot setback from the rear lot line, the soils tests indicated that an on-site sewer system could be installed for the new lots but due to slower percolation rates evaporative sewer systems would need to be installed, and a livestock management plan had been outlined.  He explained that the applicant was requesting up to three horses per each lot for a total of nine horses and had supplied a pasture management and manure management plan.  He stated that the City of Greeley had commented on those reports and had also demonstrated through long-term and routine monitoring that there were a number of water quality issues occurring to the raw water in the lake such as elevated phosphorus levels and sediment loading.  Those issues were all related to both urban and agricultural development; therefore, the City of Greeley recommended that the property be required to be on public sewer and that no livestock be allowed.  He stated that the County Health Department was recommending on-lot individual sewer systems be allowed because it was believed that the lower density development created less impervious surface and would have a lower impact on the lake than a high-density development would if public sewer was extended.  The County Health Department, however, was supporting the City of Greeley’s recommendation that no livestock be allowed on the property since the property was immediately adjacent to Boyd Lake.  Mr. Ryan also mentioned to the Commission that Ed Young, Superintendent to the Boyd Lake Water Treatment Plant, was at the hearing and was available to answer any questions.

 

 

Mr. Karan clarified that the 300 foot setback was for the building area, however, as proposed grazing could take place all the way to the edge of the reservoir. 

 

Tiffane Johnson, Landmark Engineering, thanked Doug Ryan and David Karan for their time spent with the project.  She explained that the applicant, David Poortinga, was proposing to subdivide his 8 acre piece of property into three 2.69 acre lots with the intention of deeding those lots to his daughters.  She stated that the biggest issue with the proposal was the water quality issues and the impacts to Boyd Lake.  She stated that the applicant understood those issues but also recognized that the property was in an area zoned for farming and was in the City of Loveland’s Master Plan to remain agricultural in use.  She also noted that the applicant had prepared an extensive management plan to incorporate into a development agreement or disclosure notice for any future owners of the property.  She explained that the proposed three lot Planned Land Division (PLD) reduced the impacts of agricultural uses by the fact that the property was zoned FA-1 (Farming) and technically could allow up to 16 horses.  Nonetheless, by going through the PLD process the applicant proposed to reduce the amount of livestock and animals that could currently occur on the site by 44%.  She pointed out where the 300 foot building setback was and explained that within the setback was pasture area to the east and to the west was where all building activity would occur.  She stated that the applicant had taken steps to mitigate the water quality issues on the site such as reducing the number of livestock on the property.  She explained that the horses would not be able to graze to the water’s edge because there was fence that prevented that.  The pasture area for each lot was equivalent to approximately 1 ½ acres with a separate livestock yard area, which were key items to the pasture management program.  She pointed out that the water quality of Boyd Lake was being impacted by both the agricultural effects and all of the recreational uses that occurred on the lake.  She preceded to further detail Mr. Poortinga’s best management practices on his land.

 

Reid Bond, Landmark Engineering, spoke regarding water quality and the direct relationship between storm water runoff and the impacts to Boyd Lake.  He pointed out that the site was 2 ½ miles north of the City of Greeley’s Water Treatment Plant and a recreational area for Boyd Lake was also in between that distance.  He stated that there were a lot of other pollutants that were occurring in the area, which would affect the water. 

 

David Poortinga, 6600 N. County Road 11C - owner of the property, stated that his intent for dividing the land was to give the lots to his daughters and their families.  He proceeded to explain how and why he acquired his land, the historical use of the land surrounding him, and his management plan for the land.  He understood the concern for the water quality of the lake, however he was concerned about being able to provide a rural area, a buffer between the cities, and a rural setting for his children and him to be apart of.  He hoped that the Commission would be able understand what he was proposing and that it was a workable plan for all concerned.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked how many horses Mr. Poortinga currently owned?

 

Mr. Poortinga replied four horses.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if that had been the consistent number of animals on the land and if he had irrigation water?

 

 

 

Mr. Poortinga replied yes to both.  He explained that he rented irrigation water and irrigated the land once a year. 

 

Mr. Ryan stated that he agreed that the relative contribution of pollutants to Boyd Lake from the horse owner’s property would be relatively small.  He explained that the Health Department made a recommendation as such because of the City of Greeley’s water quality testing.

 

Ms. Johnson reiterated what the applicant was proposing on the property.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY;

Commissioner Morgan asked the representative from the City of Greeley’s Water Treatment Plant to come to the podium.  He stated that he had an issue with weighing the equities for the situation.  He saw Boyd Lake as a major recreational vehicle.  He understood the effort to protect the water to the highest achievable level and stated that in order to accomplish that there should not be motor boats and people swimming in the lake or dogs running in the area.  He stated that perhaps as a matter of equity recreational activity should be stopped or limited before the ability to have horses on the land and individual property rights were taken away.  He pointed out that if the application would not have come forth, the applicant would have been able to continue to have as many as 16 horses on the property.  He stated that he would be more sympathetic to Greeley’s concerns if all the other pollutants were not occurring on the lake.  He did not feel that the government was making the highest effort to keep the water as clean as possible.  He felt that enforcing no livestock on the property was a burden put on the type of lifestyle that people had been used to and had done for years. 

 

Ed Young, Superintendent of the Boyd Lake Water Treatment Plant, replied that the recreational activities on the lake were a concern but their input was never asked for and the City’s water intake was put in after the State park was created.

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that he did not have a problem with having the septic systems. 

 

DISCUSSION;

Commissioner terMeer stated that the highest protection available for the water quality would be to have no septic systems for the development.  However, it was the best compromise to allow septic systems because it would save the land.  She felt that the Commission could not count on future land owners of the property to practice the highest standards.  She stated that she would vote for the development but was opposed to allowing animals on the property because she did not feel that they belonged close by the water.

 

Commissioner Waldo agreed with all of Commissioner Morgan’s points.  He found that allowing animals was an extremely minimal impact on the water quality.  He stated that the applicant had come forward with a development that restricted the amount of animals allowed on the land by half of what was currently allowed.  He also pointed out that there was no guarantee that all land owners would have all three animals on their properties at one time.  He stated that his biggest problem was the property rights reduction that was occurring and the fact that the County was going to tell the applicants that they could not have any animals on their property.  He stated that aspect greatly disturbed him and felt that it was un-American.  He pointed out that the amount of manure that nine horses could produce was no where near what it took to fertilize a field and in his opinion it was ridiculous to restrict animals on the property.

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer stated that he agreed with Commissioners Morgan and Waldo regarding the animals on the property.  The applicant was voluntarily reducing the number of horses that was allowed on his property, which was 16, and should be able to have that many horses per the acreage even if split. 

 

Commissioner Wallace agreed with the recommendation of no livestock.  She pointed out that the potential changes to the animal control regulations would not allow 16 horses on the property, and the degradation of the two acres with two, three, or four horses would be substantial.  She stated that the maximum amount of animals allowed per unit that she could support would be one.  She also stated that if Boyd Lake was not along the property she still would not support three horses per unit on the property. 

 

Commissioner Waldo pointed out that the animal regulations had not been changed.

 

Commissioner Huddleston remarked that the engineer from Landmark Engineering, Reid Bond, seemed to be arguing that “the solution to pollution was dilution.”  He pointed out that the applicant and his family would not always be the land caretakers.  He also felt that the land would be damaged from the horses since there was a reduced area of land for them to graze.  He agreed with Commissioner Wallace that one horse per acre would be appropriate, but at the same time he agreed that pollution control was an entire watershed responsibility and should not be put on the responsibility of one land owner.  He stated that he was split on the issue and pointed out that the property would not do all the damage but would contribute.  He felt that if the problem was allowed to continue it would get worse for Boyd Lake.  He felt that there needed to be a better management plan from the County and the State. 

 

Chairman Boulter stated that he felt that the current owners of the property knew how to take care of their property very well, but was unsure of what would happen to the property when the owners changed.  He stated that under the current stewardship of the land he felt that the applicants were very capable of having three horses on their land and on each lot and should be rewarded for that.  He suggested that when the property sold that the animal usage revert to the current zoning laws that were in affect at that time. 

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that the issue he had was the elimination of livestock on the property.  He agreed that one horse or a livestock equivalent on the properties be allowed.  He did not want to deny the owners of a lifestyle but felt that only one horse would be appropriate.

 

Commissioner Waldo asked if a compromise of two horses would be acceptable, which would be a drastic reduction from what was currently allowed.

 

Commissioner Morgan replied that he wanted to see a balance.  He felt that one horse would allow a lifestyle that he felt was important and two would start to push the water quality issues. 

 

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 Daelin Estates Planned Land Division/Planned Development, file #04-S2278, appeal to Section 8.1.1.B.2.a of the Larimer County Land Use Code be approved.

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Daelin Estates Planned Land Division/Planned Development, file #04-S2278, appeal to Section 8.14.2.S of the Larimer County Land Use Code be approved.

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Daelin Estates Planned Land Division/Planned Development, file #04-S2278, appeal to Section 8.5.5.A.3 of the Larimer County Land Use Code be approved.

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Daelin Estates Planned Land Division/Planned Development, file #04-S2278, appeal to Chapter 7 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards be approved.

 

Commissioner Huddleston seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner Waldo stated that he would vote no to send a message to the Board of County Commissioners that he found it ridiculous and an extreme taking of property rights.

 

Commissioner Waldo voted against the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:   7-1

 

Commissioner Morgan moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Daelin Estates rezoning to Planned Development, file #04-S2278, be approved subject to the conditions with an amendment to condition 1a to remove the sentence:  no livestock may be kept or grazed on the Daelin Planned Land Division property.

 

Commissioner Huddleston seconded the Motion.

 

Mr. Helmick pointed out that by simply stating “agricultural” it would allow for any kind of agricultural use on the property.

 

Commissioner Morgan amended his Motion in order to reword condition 1a to state:  Agricultural.  Farm.

 

Commissioner Wallace seconded the amendment to the Motion. 

 

Mr. Helmick pointed out that by excluding the discussion of horses from the rezoning of the property would limit the horses in the land division and not in the rezoning. 

 

Commissioner Morgan withdrew his Motion.

 

Commissioner terMeer suggested putting a 100 foot buffer along the waterline.

 

Commissioner Morgan moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Daelin Estates rezoning to Planned Development, file #04-S2278, be approved subject to the conditions with an amendment to Condition 1a to state:  Agricultural:  Farm.  Livestock shall be limited to one horse or the animal equivalent thereof per lot to be kept or grazed on the Daelin Planned Land Division property.

 

Commissioner Wallace seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner terMeer offered a Friendly Amendment to the Motion to add a 100 foot buffer from the edge of Boyd Lake to the pasture land.

 

Commissioner Huddleston seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner Waldo pointed out that cutting the pasture land size down would create a higher impact and opportunity for the horses to damage the land. 

 

The Commission voted on the Friendly Amendment.

 

Commissioners’ terMeer and Wallace voted for the Friendly Amendment.

 

Commissioners' Huddleston, Karabensh, Morgan, Oppenheimer, Waldo, and Chairman Boulter voted against the Friendly Amendment.

 

MOTION FAILED:   6-2

 

Mr. Helmick noted that the “animal equivalent” was not defined in the Land Use Code.

 

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 Daelin Estates rezoning to Planned Development, file #04-S2278, for the property described on “Exhibit D” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions with an amendment to 1a to state:  Agricultural:  Farm.  Livestock shall be limited to one horse or the animal equivalent thereof per lot to be kept or grazed on the Daelin Planned Land Division property.

 

1.   PRINCIPAL USES

a.   Agricultural.  Farm.  Livestock shall be limited to one horse or the animal equivalent thereof per lot to be kept or grazed on the Daelin Planned Land Division property

b.  Residential.  Single Family Dwelling

                        c.   Institutional. In-Home Child/Elderly Care

2.   ACCESSORY USES:

a)   No parcel can be used for more than one principal single-family residential building.

b)   Additional accessory structures on a parcel are allowed if they meet the Accessory Use Criteria in Subsection 4.3.10 of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

3.  LOT, BUILDING, AND STRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS

a)   Minimum lot size - 100,000 square feet (2.3 acres) if a well or septic system is used.

b)   Minimum Setbacks

1)    Front Yard- 125’ from County Road 11C east right of way line

2)    Rear Yard-300’ from the rear property line

3)    Side Yard – 5’

4)   Steams, creek, rivers-100’ from the centerline of established water course

a)   Maximum structure height – 40’

B.   Rezoning to PD 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 Wallace seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Oppenheimer, terMeer, and Waldo voted against the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Huddleston, Karabensh, Morgan, Wallace, and Chairman Boulter 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 Daelin Estates Planned Land Division, file #04-S2278, for the property described on “Exhibit D” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions with an amendment to Condition 1 to state:  Livestock shall be limited to one horse or the animal equivalent thereof per lot to be kept or grazed on the Daelin Planned Land Division property.

 

1.   Livestock shall be limited to one horse or the animal equivalent thereof per lot to be kept or grazed on the Daelin Planned Land Division property

2.   A drainage easement for proposed irrigation structures shall be shown on the plat during the Final Plat process.    

3.   The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved Preliminary Plat and with the information contained in the Daelin PLD/PD (File #04-S2278).  The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Daelin PLD/PD.

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

5.   No basements will be allowed unless potential groundwater issues are resolved during the Final Plat process or during Final Plat it is demonstrated on a lot by lot basis that the lowest floor elevation would be at least 3 feet above the seasonal high ground water level.

 

 

 

 

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

7.   The following fees shall be collected at building permit for new single family dwellings. Thompson R-2 school fee, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion (TCEFs), Larimer County Regional and Community Park Fees (in lieu of dedication) and drainage fee.  The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply. Both the Development Agreement and the Disclosure Affidavit will reference this requirement.  The County Engineer’s office also requires a Developmental Construction Permit, prior to commencing development construction.

8.   The applicant shall execute a Disclosure Notice for approval by the County to be recorded with the Final Plat.  This notice shall provide information to all lot owners of the conditions of approval and special costs or fees associated with the approval of this project.  The notice shall include, but not be limited to, the issues related to rural development, fire department requirements, the requirement for any access permits and culverts, the recommendations of the State Geological Survey (addressing foundations), building envelopes, the need for passive radon mitigation, and the issues raised in the review and/or related to compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Code.

9.   Applicant shall provide a signed Annexation Agreement prior to the recording of the Final Plat and related documents.

 

Commissioner Wallace seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer pointed out that the applicant owned four horses and realized that by approving only one horse per lot the applicant would have to get rid of three horses.  He stated that the applicant had the right to have those horses until he sold his lot and it was wrong to make him change what he already had and take away his fundamental rights.

 

Commissioner Waldo concurred with Commissioner Oppenheimer.

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer was adamant on finding a way for the applicant to keep his horses.

 

Commissioner Morgan reminded the Commission that a Motion for the rezoning to limit one horse per lot had already been approved. 

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer stated that he realized the issue too late but wanted the Board of County Commissioners to know that he did not agree and objected to the previous Motion which recommended allowing only one horse per lot because it would force the applicant to eliminate some of his horses.

 

 

 

 

Chairman Boulter proposed to vote on the Motion as it stood with the caveat that some of the Commission members were very passionate about the issue and objected to limiting the applicant’s number of horses, which would cause him to have to eliminate some of his horses. 

 

Commissioners’ Oppenheimer, terMeer, and Waldo voted against the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:   5-3

 

Commissioner terMeer excused herself from the remainder of the meeting.

 

ITEM #8 WARBERG FARM CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT #04-S2296:  Mr. Wheeler provided background information on the request to subdivide 102 acres into a Conservation Development with 18 single-family residential lots and 7 residual lots that would be developed in two phases.  The property is located off the south side of County Road 16, north of the Chapman Reservoir and southeast of Loveland.  The request also included an appeal to Section 8.14.2.S (connectivity) of the Larimer County Land Use Code, which Staff was not supporting. 

 

Phillip Flores, Landscape Architect for Norris Dullea, found the Development Services’ Team recommendations to be acceptable except for their recommendation to deny the connectivity appeal.

 

Sonja Warberg Mast – owner, 3644 E. County Road 16 stated that the Conservation Development would consist of 17 residential lots.  She felt it was important to maintain the existing farm on the property in order to continue the authenticity and history of the land.  She proceeded to explain the history of the metes and bound property.  She also explained that she felt connectivity would not serve the property because County Road 16 was ¼ mile to the north.

 

Mr. Flores further discussed the access on the property and the request to waive the connectivity requirement.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY;

Ken Ludwig, owned the land east of the development.  He had an issue with the density of the development and noted that the area around the development was generally low density land that was 5, 10, and 35 acre developments.  He felt that developing around the lake with so many homes did not serve to conserve the land in the way a Conservation Development should and it was being developed more like a subdivision.  He mentioned that the 30 acre piece of Residual Land had an oil well on it, which could have buildable/support buildings, and he felt that a definition should be defined of what sort of structures could be put on that land.  He explained that County Road 9 that extended to the south of the property was not a public road, and he was concerned that people would be using the road to get to the southern two lots.

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Schnorr, 3350 Paddy Lane, had concerns on the lay out of the lots to the west of him.  Lots 1 & 2 were going to be animal lots approximately 2 acres in size, and he wondered how many animals would be allowed.  He suggested that those lots be moved up by Lot 18 so the horse properties would be next to each other, which would allow open space and a better view shed for the current residents to the east.  He was also concerned with where the homes were going to be built on the ridgeline.  He had been told the only roof tops would be seen but it was now looking like the road would drop below the oil well and the homes would be set on top of the ridgeline.  He asked if covenants would be in place regarding the types and sizes of homes and asked if there would be building envelopes for them. 

 

Barbara Johnston, 707 N. Carter Lake Road, was the secretary for the Guard Lateral Ditch Company and the Secretary for Mountain View Farms, Inc.,  which was a 2/9 owner of Chapman Reservoir.  She stated that she had spoke with Ms. Warberg Mast regarding some of the issues the ditch company had regarding maintaining the access to their head gate and the open part of their ditch where measuring was done.  She commented on the waste ditch and addressed whether silt would become a problem.  She also brought up the issue of signage for the ditch because of concern with liability issues.  She stated that she had also asked for the covenants to list specifics of the ditch so the irrigation rights were not infringed upon.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked about a fencing requirement for the ditch and if the ditch easements would be shown on the plat?

 

Mr. Wheeler replied that access to the ditch was required and easements would be shown on the Final Plat.  He stated that fencing and signage for the ditch had been discussed. 

 

Gordon Gilstrap, 3401 E. County Road 16, stated that his property was a very active farm that used heavy equipment, crop dusters, and ground sprayers.  He stated that his concern was with being able to continue his farming activities without constant interference.  He believed that Ms. Warberg Mast could do whatever she wanted to with her land, but acknowledged that it would be a high density neighborhood with 17 lots which may not coincide with a farming operation very well.  He stated that he had worked hard to maintain his farm but had not received support from the County and did not have confidence that the County would support him through time with residences developing and going up against farming.  He stated that he had worked hard to keep the land open and to keep it agricultural but had been penalized by the County for doing that.

 

Mr. Flores stated that the density of the development was 2 to 2.5 acres and the density across the way was 3, 4, and 5 acres.  He explained that extensive testing had been done on the ground and to keep the drainage away from the reservoir the septic fields would be on the east side of the ridge.  He stated that the residual land around the reservoir, excluding the existing house, was setback 100 feet from the reservoir for conservation and operation.  He explained that the County Road 9 extension was currently an access road that provided for the oil wells, and pointed out where the wells were on the property and where the two lots would be on the east side of the reservoir.  He stated that the views of the homes would be a roofline or second story, covenants would be developed for the entire development, .an easement and access would be left for the ditch, and the building envelopes would be determined and laid out in the Final Plat stage. 

 

Commissioner Wallace asked where the building envelopes would be?

 

 

Mr. Flores replied on the west side of the lots and the septic systems would drain away from the reservoir.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked what the residual lots labeled buildable/support buildings would allow?

 

Mr. Flores replied that agricultural, farm buildings would be allowed.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if the owners of Lots 1 & 2 could build support buildings on Residual Lot C?

 

Mr. Flores replied no.

 

Mr. Wheeler explained that the Residual Lots were created to be separate legal lots and Ms. Warberg Mast would be the owner of those lots.  It was the owner of the residual land that had the ability to build the agricultural support structures on those lots.  The intended uses of the lots were to preserve the agricultural use on the property.

 

Commissioner Morgan pointed out that a residual lot could be sold, therefore it would allow an owner to build support buildings on the lot.

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that she objected to building on the lots because she felt that the residual lots were not meant to be used in that way. 

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that his issue was with the density of the land.  He suggested that some of the residual lots be made nonbuildable. 

 

Commissioner Huddleston asked if Lots 1 & 2 were currently being used for agriculture?

 

Mr. Flores replied yes.

 

Commissioner Huddleston asked why those lots were not moved by the other agricultural lot (Lot 18), which would have made Residual Lot B contiguous to Residual Lot C.

 

Ms. Warberg Mast replied that it was not done because of the irrigation and integrity of the field.  She explained that moving the lots upward would take the alfalfa field and a corner of agricultural land would be isolated, which would make it very difficult to farm.  She explained that she still needed a tenant farmer willing to farm the property, and it would not be doable from an agricultural standpoint. 

 

Commissisoner Huddleston asked if there was a specification of how many animals would be allowed on Lots 1 & 2?

 

Mr. Wheeler replied that there were no specifications but would be subject to the zoning requirements of one horse per half acre.

 

 

 

 

DISCUSSION;

Commissioner Morgan was not sure that connectivity was necessary in the particular case.

 

Mr. Wheeler stated that the County’s recommendation for connectivity was to the west because it was unknown what would develop on that property in the future, and it would take pressure off of the County Road system.

 

Mr. Helmick stated that the connectivity was an opportunity to plan for the future.

 

Christie Coleman, Engineering Department, stated that one important aspect of connectivity was that it allowed to do transportation planning.  One important concept was to promote the numbered county roads as truly being a regional road network.  Providing connectivity between one parcel and another allowed subdivision roads to be inner connected and allowed the regional roadways to function in the way they were intended to.  Without the concept of connectivity there would not be a transportation mechanism to create connections between one development and another because it was unknown when the next parcel would develop. 

 

Chairman Boulter asked if connectivity would be provided through John Daniel Court to the west?

 

Mr. Wheeler replied yes, which would allow the applicant to reconfigure Lots 13 & 14.

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that she had a concern with the residual lots being labeled buildable/support buildings.  She also felt that the buildable lots 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 should not have the building envelopes on the ridgeline and that there should also be some sort of height restriction.  She also thought that there should be lighting restrictions for the development.  She suggested that Lots 1 & 2 be restricted to one animal unit per one acre and felt that there should be connectivity because it would not impact the development, and it would provide another access. 

 

Commissioner Huddleston reiterated that the septic systems would be put on the east side of the ridgeline and the homes built to the west side.  He noted that there was a greater slope on the west and suspected that there would be trouble with the septic water going back into the direction of the homes.

 

Commissioner Wallace agreed but did not know how to solve the problem.

 

Mr. Ryan explained that the City of Johnstown was concerned about the water because it fed a drinking water reservoir.  They asked the County Health Department to help protect that; therefore, the Health Department recommended that the sewer systems go on the east side. 

 

Commissioner Boulter remarked that there was a trade-off between view shed and a water quality drainage issue.  

 

Commissioner Huddleston stated that he was in favor of adding a condition O to the staff recommendation that would state, “Livestock of one horse or the animal equivalent per lot may be kept or grazed on Lot 1 & 2 of the Warberg Farm CD.”

 

 

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 Warberg Farm Conservation Development, file #04-S2296, appeal to Section 8.14.2.S (connectivity) be denied.

 

Commissioner Huddleston seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that he would not support the Motion because he felt that connectivity would not be needed in the area.  He did acknowledge that it would allow for an emergency access in the future.

 

Chairman Boulter stated that potential development to the west should be planned for and connectivity should be required.  He did not see the requirement creating a burden or hardship to the landowner. 

 

Commissioner Morgan voted against the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Huddleston, Karabensh, Oppenheimer, Waldo, Wallace, and Chairman Boulter voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:   6-1

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that it did not serve the process very well to put the homes on the ridge and to require them to be on the west side.  She felt that it was poor design but there was no other alternative. 

 

Commissioner Huddleston proposed to add Condition O:  Livestock of one horse or the animal equivalent per lot may be kept or grazed on Lot 1 & 2 of the Warberg Farm CD.

 

Commissioner Wallace suggested Condition P be added to state:  Residual Lot C shall be a nonbuildable lot.

 

Commissioner Morgan concurred with Commissioner Wallace.

 

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 Warberg Farm Conservation Development, file #04-S2296, for the property described on “Exhibit E” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions and added conditions O and P:

 

A.  The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan & the information contained in the Warberg Farm Conservation Development (File #04-S2296) 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 Warberg Farm Conservation Development.

 

 

B.   The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings:  the Thompson R2-J school fee, the Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, Larimer County Regional Park Fees in lieu of dedication, and drainage fees.  The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply.

 

C.  Engineered footings and foundations are required for new habitable construction.

 

D.  Septic systems for Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 are relegated to areas east of the drainage divide to ensure that surface drainage is directed away from Chapman Reservoir.  The septic permits shall be issued accordingly.

 

E.   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.

 

F.   The applicant shall sign a Final Development Agreement for approval by the County as a part of the Final Plat, and to be recorded with the Final Plat.  This notice shall provide notice to all future 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, the provision of fire protection measures and the issues raised in the review and or related to compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

G.  The applicant shall sign a Disclosure Notice for approval by the County as a part of the Final Plat, and to be recorded with the Final Plat, that provides important information to potential buyers about conditions of approval, rural area issues, water rights, etc.

 

H.  The Final Plat must show and dedicate all required easements for existing irrigation facilities, including adequate easements for maintenance access.  The size and layout of easements must comply with the requirements of Section 8.8 of the Land Use Code.  The Disclosure Notice and the Covenants shall also make note of these easements.

 

I.    A Use Plan in compliance with Section 8.10 of the Land Use Code is required for this project and must identify specific plant types and measures that will be used to protect the wetland areas.

 

J.    Lots 11, 12, 13 and 14 must be redesigned to comply with Section 8.14.2.G. and 8.14.2.H. related to lot configuration standards.

 

K.  The Final Plat application shall include a provision for the construction of a school bus staging area on County Road 16.  The design of the bus stop plan meets the Thompson R2-J School District standards and include lighting for safety during winter months.

 

L.   The Final Plat shall eliminate the areas designated in the cul-de-sacs as “neighborhood parks” and the areas eliminated or established with landscaping.

 

M.  The Final Plat shall designate building envelopes that provide for the following:  they shall meet the set back requirements for the zone district, and; they shall provide for the proper placement of septic systems on Lots 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, and; they shall be designed to ensure that no building shall be allowed within the oil well easements.

 

N.   The Final Plat must be redesigned to comply with the connectivity requirements in Section 8.14.2.S of the Land Use Code, with the extension of John Daniel Court on the Final Plat to the western property line of the site.

 

O.   Livestock of one horse or the animal equivalent per lot may be kept on Lots 1 & 2 of the Warberg Farm Conservation Development.

 

P.   Residual Lot C shall be a nonbuildable lot.

 

Commissioner Morgan seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Huddleston, Karabensh, Morgan, Oppenheimer, Waldo, Wallace, 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 11:45 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: Rocky Mountain National Park by Sue Burke. All rights reserved.