LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of October 21, 2009
The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, October 21, 2009, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room. Commissioners’ Boucher, Glick, Hart, Hess, and Weikunat were present. Commissioners’ Benton, Cox and Morgan were absent. Commissioner Wallace presided as Chairman. Also present were Matt Lafferty, Principle Planner, Rob Helmick, Senior Planner, Eric Tracy, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Health Department and Jill Wilson, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary.
Mr. Lafferty accompanied Commissioners Glick, Wallace, and Weitkunat on a site visit to the Lake at Bighorn Conservation Development.
COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC REGARDING THE COUNTY LAND USE CODE:
COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC REGARDING OTHER RELEVANT LAND USE MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE SEPTEMBER 16, 2009 MEETINGS: MOTION by Commissioner Glick to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Weitkunat. This received unanimous voice approval.
AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:
ITEM #1 THE LAKE AT BIGHORN CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT #08-2776: Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request for a Conservation Development of 31 single family lots on 317 acres located north and west of County Road 56 and Taft Hill Road (County Road 19). He noted that the cement silos and other ancillary buildings for Holcim were located near the site and the railroad was still in use and served the cement plant. The request also included an appeal to Section 8.14.2.Q (maximum length of dead-end access) of the Larimer County Land Use Code.
Doug Ryan, Health Department, showed the site plan and the soils associated with the site. He pointed out that Longmont clay soils were located in the northwest corner of the property and all along Curtis Lake, which was a heavy clay soil that had very poor percolation rates and was very poorly suitable for septic systems. The rest of the soils in the northeast quadrant and the southern portion of the property were of a variety but all could be engineered for an on-site septic system. He stated that there were 19 large lots that were planned for individual on-site sewage systems. Each of those lots were 2.5 acres in size and could support a septic system. There were 12 lake front lots that were approximately 1 acre in size, and the plan proposed community sewer systems on those lots where 2 or 3 lots would have one septic system that they would share. He explained that the plan had five leaching systems and showed which lots shared a system and their locations. He stated that the most common type of community sewer systems were lagoon type systems or mechanical systems (packaged treatment plant) where there was a collection system going to a central treatment system that was owned and managed by the homeowners association or a district.
The reason the applicant had proposed the shared sewer system design was because small systems that served 2 or 3 houses could be regulated by the county health department. Larger systems that had more then 3 houses on a system and generated 2000 gallons a day of sewage were classified as a sewage treatment works and were regulated by the State of Colorado and would have different standards and permits. He also noted that connecting to public sewer was not a viable option. He stated that the Health Department was recommending five different conditions of approval regarding the sewer systems which were: requiring the formation of a special district to manage the shared sewer systems, the community sewer systems be designed at final plat, a sewage management plan be prepared for the final plat, the community sewer systems be constructed with the initial subdivision improvements, and the Health Department and the special district formed both had to inspect and approve the community sewer systems before building permits could be issued. The Health Department felt that those were the minimum conditions needed to meet the land use codes provisions for community sewer.
Commissioner Wallace asked if the lots were larger if they could handle their own on-site system?
Mr. Ryan replied no because of the Longmont clay soils in those area.
Commissioner Wallace asked why one would not want to have a system that was monitored by the State?
Mr. Ryan replied that from a management position, it would be more favorable but from a cost standpoint the state systems had certain discharge standards, involved advanced wastewater treatment, were more expensive to operate, and required more detailed monitoring. It also was a longer process.
Commissioner Wallace asked what kind of notice there would be to make the buyers aware of the septic systems.
Mr. Helmick stated that a disclosure notice would stipulate which lots had their sewage systems management by the special district.
Commissioner Glick asked if all the lots would be associated with the special district?
Mr. Helmick replied yes.
Commissioner Glick asked if there was sufficient land set aside in case other lots needed to have shared systems?
Mr. Helmick replied yes.
Mr. Ryan pointed out that the larger, southern lots designed for individual sewer systems had been designed to meet the county standards for those systems, and the health department was not anticipating that those lots would need to go to a community sewer system.
Patricia Kroetch, Northstar Design, 700 Automation Drive, felt they had addressed the concerns from the neighbors, the county, and the LaPorte Area Plan Advisory Committee. She showed several layouts of the design as they went through the process. The original plan included more acreage and more lots and over time the acreage and the lots decreased. She noted that they originally had 730 acres and were pursuing a density transfer to the area.
Commissioner Wallace asked if Water Supply and Storage had reviewed the plans and was aware that there would be houses directly below the damn.
Ms. Kroetch replied yes and their major concerns was that they stayed out of their easement and the conveyance ditch was not disturbed.
Commissioner Wallace asked what the planning was in regards to horses?
Ms. Kroetch replied that the intent was to prohibit horses on the individual lots and to provide a management plan for the open area so that some horse could be maintained. She did not believe that it would be an issue to prohibit horses on the development if it became an issue.
John Lynn, 3263 W County Road 60, said that initially he had issues with the development but the applicants had now addressed all of his concerns, and he felt that it should be approved.
Tim O’Hara, 1929 W. County Road 56, stated that he was on LAPAC for nine years and was the Chairman for six years. He stated that the area needed to grow in order to sustain itself. He liked the setup of the development, and it was a development needed in LaPorte. He felt that horses were a big part of what the area was about.
Matt Hoeven, 227 Hawks Nest Way, stated that he owned 140 acres on the south side of Holcin. He felt that it was a good plan, and he supported horses in the area.
Rene Suazo, 1124 Stratborough Lane, asked if dirt would be moved to the parcels to the southeast side, Lots 14, 15, 16, & 17? He stated that the residents in the area did not want to create a southeast Fort Collins look and wanted to keep north Fort Collins looking like it did.
Ms. Kroetch stated that a preliminary grading plan had been completed and it was the intent to try to put the roadways in with the least disturbance to the property. The disturbance would be limited to the area around the roadways and at the most maybe a quarter of the lot frontages. It would not extend to the back property lines.
Alan Strope, 1309 Hearthfire Court, was on the board for the Boettcher Farm Estates Association and the association was pleased with the development. However, they did have a concern regarding improvements off of Curtis Lake Lane.
Mark Loader, 533 S. Taft Hill Road, felt that it was a good plan and did feel that it would be beneficial to allow horses. It was a rural community, and he wanted to see the individuals that moved in compatible with the community.
Dale Squire, 6485 N. Taft Hill Road, stated that he had horses on his property and felt that the area was rural and horses were part of a rural lifestyle. He felt that the lots should be larger to keep the rural feeling. He also thought that the open area should be allowed for horses and recreation.
Commissioner Weitkunat asked about the noise concerns associated with the cement plant.
Mr. Helmick stated that the disclosure notice would need to include that the industrial use existed and could be included as a condition of approval.
Commissioner Hart stated that the proposal was appropriate for the area but he was not comfortable with the joint septic systems.
Commissioner Wallace felt that they would approve the shared community sewer if the lots were not that close together and in a different location. She did like that the development was away from the road and would not be as visible. She was not opposed to horses but felt that there needed to be a management plan. She also wanted a condition regarding the disclosure notice concerning noise from the cement plant and the shared community sewer system and a management plan for the horses.
Commissioner Glick 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 Lake at Bighorn Conservation Development and appeal to Section 8.14.2.Q of the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #08-S2776, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approval subject to the following conditions and added conditions of approval 17, 18, and 19 to be written by the Development Services Team regarding a disclosure notice regarding the noise generated by the cement plant, a horse management plan, and a disclosure notice regarding the sewer set up:
1. The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the Lake At Bighorn Conservation Development Preliminary Plat and Appeal to Section 8.14.Q File # 08-S2776 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 The Lake at Bighorn Conservation Development Preliminary Plat and Appeal to Section 8.14.Q.
2. The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings: Poudre School District school fee, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, Larimer County Regional Park Fees (in lieu of dedication) and Dry Creek drainage fees. The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply.
3. Fire Requirements – All new residentially occupied structures shall be required to be fire sprinklered.
4. All habitable structures will require an engineered foundation system. Such engineered foundation system designs shall be based upon a site specific soils investigation. The lowest habitable floor level (basement) shall not be less than 3 feet from the seasonal high water table. Mechanical methods proposed to reduce the ground water level, unless it is a response after construction, must be proposed on a development wide basis.
5. 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.
6. Eliminate the stub road at Lots 1 & 2 by reorienting the lost or providing a cul de sac bulb.
7. Provide an agreement or acknowledgement regarding the use of Curtis Lake Lane for emergency access.
8. Plat the emergency access as a full Right of Way to Curtis Lake Lane.
9. A special district with authority to manage the shared community sewer systems shall be formed prior to approval of the final plat. (Note that this condition acknowledges that part of the special district approval process involves the need for approval by the Larimer County Board of Commissioners, whose decision on a request to form a district are made on based on statutory and developed policy after a formal application has been presented.)
10. The final plat submittal shall include a detailed design for the shared community sewer systems. Permits to install those systems shall be obtained by the special district from the county Department of Health and Environment prior to installation.
11. A sewer management plan meeting the standards outlined in Section 8.1.1.B.3 of the Land Use Code shall be prepared for implementation by the special district and submitted for review and approval with the final plat.
12. The development agreement shall provide for construction of the shared community sewer systems as part of the initial subdivision improvement process.
13. Prior to acceptance of the subdivision for building permits, the shared community sewer systems need to be installed and accepted by both the county Department of Health and Environment and the special district that will own and manage the systems.
14. Provide agreement from the Water Supply and Storage Irrigation Company at final Plat with respect to use and access to Curtis Lake and the outlet of Curtis Lake for drainage purposes.
15. Update the traffic analysis to respond to the concerns of the Engineering Department. If this new analysis results in the need for turn lane or other road way improvements adjacent to the site or off site they will be required. As a part of the Final Plat the applicant shall provide the appropriate plans and construction documents for review and collateralize those improvements.
16. The Final Use Plan for the residual lots shall clearly reflect the concerns associated with the fact that the lots do not have irrigation water available and therefore, must be carefully managed to insure that the lots do not generate dust or become a weed problem,.
Commissioner Weitkunat seconded the Motion.
Commissioner Hart voted against the Motion.
Commissioners' Boucher, Glick, Hess, Weitkunat and Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.
MOTION PASSED: 5-1
REPORT FROM STAFF: Mr. Lafferty reminded the Commission of their upcoming meetings.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 8:30 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.
Nancy Wallace, Chairman Gerald Hart, Secretary
A tract of land located in Section 16, Township 8, North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, County of Larimer, state of Colorado, being more particularly described as follows, to wit:
Considering the east line of said Section 16 as bearing North 00o39'12'' East relative to
Grid North of the Colorado Coordinate System of 1983 North Zone as determined by
GPS observations on the Southeast Corner of said Section 16, a found #6 rebar with a
3" aluminum cap in a range box and o the Northeast Corner of said Section 16, a
found #6 rebar with a 2 1/2" aluminum cap in a range box, and with all bearings
contained herein relative thereto;
Commencing at a Southeast Corner of aid Section 16; thence along said east line,
North 00 °39'12" East 1,363.12 feet to t e southeast corner of those lands described at
Reception Number 20060046125 in the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Larimer
County and the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along the southerly, westerly and
northerly boundaries of said lands the following fourteen (14) courses:
1 - South 80 °29'32" West 2,755.60 feet;
2- thence North 47 °40'43" West 1376.1 5 feet;
3- thence North 28 °26'00" East 121.02 feet;
4- thence North 00 °1 8'00" East 440.00 feet;
5- thence North 36 °00'00" West 290.00 feet;
6- thence North 10 °18'00" West 300.00 feet;
7- thence North 16 °34'00" East 200.00 feet;
8- thence North 17 °25'00" West 620.00 feet;
9- thence North 66 °13'00" West 385.00 feet;
10- thence North 59 °03'00" West 370.00 feet;
11 - thence North 58 °55'00" West 430.00 feet;
12- thence North 36 °26'13" East 399.20 feet;
13- thence North 89 °09'14" East 2,158.54 feet;
14- thence South 89 °42'14" East 2,707.39 feet to the east line of said Section 16;
thence along said east line, South 00°3 '12" West 3,237.65 feet to the POINT OF
The above-described tract of land contains 31 7.45 acres, more or less and is subject
to all existing easements and rights of day of record or in place.