The Larimer County Virtual Courthouse website may be unavailable during maintenance on Wednesday, June 3 from 6 - 8 p.m. MST.
LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of December 15, 2010
The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, December 15, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room. Commissioners’ Cox, Dougherty, Glick, Hess, Miller, Wallace, Weitkunat and Wendt were present. Commissioner Hart presided as Chairman. Also present were Matt Lafferty, Principle Planner, Rob Helmick, Senior Planner, Toby Stauffer, Planner II, Eric Tracy, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Health Department and Jill Wilson, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary.
Mr. Lafferty accompanied Commissioners Cox, Glick, Hart, Wallace, Weitkunat, and Wendt on a site visit to Northfield Conservation Development, Prairie Garden Special Review, and S Bar G Conservation Development. Commissioner Hess visited the sites independently.
Chairman Hart mentioned that a member of the commission was an applicant for an item and would step down during that item.
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 NOVEMBER 17, 2010 MEETINGS: MOTION by Commissioner Cox to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Glick. This received unanimous voice approval.
AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:
ITEM #1 NORTHFIELD CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT #10-S2997 : Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request for a preliminary plat for a three lot Conservation Development on 39.3 acres, creating two lots of 2.9 acres and a residual lot of 33 acres with an existing home located northeast of Wellington, at the north end of Waldo Lane, north of County Road 66 ½ mile east of County Road 5. The request also included an appeal to Section 8.14.4.D of the Larimer County Land Use Code requiring all utilities to be placed underground. The applicants were appealing placing the exiting utilities to the existing home underground but were willing to place the utilities to the new home sites to the north underground.
Commissioner Weitkunat asked about the policy for underground utilities.
Mr. Helmick stated that the requirement was more than 20 years old with a purpose of aesthetic and safety of infrastructure. If the site had no improvements, utilities would be required to be placed underground. Since there were existing improvements, the Staff concurred with the applicant to not underground the utilities to the existing homestead. Any new extension of utilities to the northern most sites would have to be underground.
Commissioner Cox moved that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that Northfield Conservation Development and appeal to Section 8.14.4.D of the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #10-S2997, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:
Commissioner Weitkunat seconded the Motion.
Commissioners' Cox, Dougherty, Glick, Hess, Miller, Wallace, Weitkunat, Wendt, and Chairman Hart voted in favor of the Motion.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
ITEM #2 AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE, SECTION 10 - SIGNS #10-CA0012: Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request to amend the Land Use Code,. Sections 0.1 definitions, 4.3.10.B.3.a. – Home Occupation, 5.7.3 Amended Plat review criteria, 8.2.11.A.6. and 10. – Wetlands and 8.14.1.M.2. – Development Design for Land Division.
Commissioner Cox moved that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Larimer County Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approve the Amendments to the Larimer County, file #10-CA0113, as follows:
1. Amend Section 0.1 Definitions as follow:
A facility used for
recreational, social and cultural activities.
, open to the public or
a designated part of the public and usually owned and operated by a public or
nonprofit group or agency. (Note: when we changed the use description
for community hall we did not change the definition. This change will make the
A building or portion thereof
used for residential occupancy, including cabin, single-family, duplex and
multiple-family dwellings. It does not include hotels, motels, boarding/rooming
houses, resort cabins, lodges, guest houses or manufactured homes that comply
with the "National Manufactured Standards of 1974," 42 U.S.C. 5401 et
seq., as amended.
A dwelling may be leased or rented for any time period.
A dwelling may be leased or rented for any time period provided that the use of
the property as a rental unit does not convert the property to a use
contemplated by tourist or accommodation zoning, i.e. as a resort cabin,
providing single night transient rentals. (Note: delete redundant sentence)
where food and/or beverages are prepared and served to patrons for consumption
primarily within the principal building.
where food and/or beverages are sold in a form ready for consumption primarily
off the premises. (Note:
we now just have one definition for a restaurant.)
A facility for the processing and confinement of people held in lawful custody.
(Note: we are changing this to be consistent with the recently updated use
2. Amend Section 4.3.10.B.3.a by amending the chart as follows:
Home Occupation (Note: the chart is not properly formatted Replace the existing chart with the following. No language has been changed.)
Maximum area of screened outdoor storage
Minimum setback from all property lines
200 square feet
201 - 400 square feet
401 - 800 square feet
3. Amend Section 5.7.3.D as follows:
5.7.3. - Review criteria.
resultant lots will meet the requirements of subsection 8.14.
4. Amend Section 8.2.11.A.6 and 10 as follows:
6. A maintenance program that includes
weed control; litter and debris removal; erosion control; watering, repair of
water-control structures; maintenance of vegetation and wildlife habitat; and
cleaning of culverts. The maintenance program must be included in the use plan
for residual land and/or common area described in section
10. A three-year, post-construction
monitoring program. The monitoring program must be included in the use plan for
residual land and/or common area described in section
5. Amend Section 8.14.1.M.2. – Development Design for Land Division as follows:
2. The county commissioners find that
road connectivity to adjacent parcels is not needed or practical and have
granted an appeal to Section 8.14.
Commissioner Gllick seconded the Motion.
Commissioners' Cox, Dougherty, Glick, Hess, Miller, Wallace, Weitkunat, Wendt and Chairman Hart voted in favor of the Motion.
MOTION PASSED: 9-0
ITEM #3 PRAIRIE GARDEN SPECIAL REVIEW #10-Z1812: Ms. Stauffer provided background information on the request for a Special Review to allow a Community Hall (Events Center) located at 3634 W County Road 60, at the intersection of W. County Road 60E and Savvy Place, north of Highway 287, west of County Road 19. The applicant was seeking to add a new venue for weddings, receptions, and other family oriented events. The single-family residence would remain, and the proposed venue would occupy a portion of the property west of the existing house. A renovated barn and an adjacent landscaped/lawn area would be use for the events. One room in the main residence would serve as the dressing room for the bridal party. The community hall/events center would host events on weekends from May through September. One event would be held per day with approximately 20-24 events over a 5-month season. Events would not exceed 30 per year. Events would be limited to 90 guests and parking on the site could accommodate about 35 vehicles. Activities would occur inside and outside, though any music would be inside the building. The applicant was proposing hours of operation to be limited to no later than 10:00 pm. Additionally, the applicant provided a noise mitigation plan that indicates that all amplified music would be indoors and all music to be shut off at 9:30 pm. Ms. Stauffer explained that the proposed development would generate less than 20 new vehicle trips per day over the course of a year and paving of the road would not be required. The applicant was proposing a 180’ X 80’ gravel parking lot for guests. She noted that there were neighborhood concerns; however, the Development Services Team was recommending approval.
Commissioner Hess asked if future owners would be held to the noise mitigation plan.
Ms. Stauffer stated that the use would run with the property and all future owners would be held to the requirements of the Special Review.
Duane Bush, applicant, stated that they wanted to have minimal impact to the neighbors and try to keep the proposed use small. It would be a self-catered event with no hard alcohol allowed. They were suggesting the use of chartered buses in and out of the site to minimize traffic. All amplified music would be kept inside, and all events would be limited to no later than 10:00 pm. He stated that last year they did hold events without the knowledge that county approval was needed. The County Commissioners allowed events to continue through half of the summer, and they shut down in early July.
Commissioner Cox asked how long they have lived on the site.
Mr. Bush replied since 2002.
Commissioner Cox asked if they were aware of the subdivision covenants.
Mr. Bush replied yes; however, they did not feel that they were in violation of the covenants.
Commissioner Hess asked how they would police 35 vehicles.
Mr. Bush stated that the parking lot only held 35 vehicles.
Commissioner Hess pointed out that that the cars could park on the street.
Mr. Bush stated that they would not allow street parking.
Commissioner Hess asked how many events were held last summer.
Mr. Bush replied four weddings were held from May to July.
Commissioner Glick asked how they would limit 90 people/guests.
Mr. Bush replied that they would put language in the contracts stating that stipulation or they would have to turn people away.
Commissioner Wendt asked if the parking spaces were limited to the parking area.
Mr. Bush stated yes; however, there was an additional area for handicap parking.
David Osborn, attorney, stated that the applicant built the barn without a permit and started the use without approval. He did not believe that the applicant would comply with any of the conditions. He outlined the covenants of the Lovata RLUP, which stated that 75% of the surrounding neighbors had to be in support which was not the case. He stated that intentional misconduct would be rewarded. He was also concerned about drinking and driving. The parking area was inadequate and people would end up parking on the road. He remarked that there was no way to regulate the drinking or the parking. He also pointed out that property values would be decreased.
Mark Reed, 6883 N County Road 21, lived adjacent to the proposed events center. He believed that preserving the historical land use was important, and the event center request was not a proper use of the RLUP philosophy. Along with that, County Road 21 was not designed for that kind of traffic. He stated that there would be reduced public safety with all the vehicles and the drinking. In addition, the rural feel of the neighborhood would be depleted. He requested that the event center be denied.
Pat Reed, 6883 N. County Road 21, stated that her property was purchased in 2002. Her 70 acres had about 10 cars that drove by. The parcel was originally 80 acres with two, five acres parcels split off. She pointed out that there were covenants with the RLUP and her property was under a 40-year conservation easement. She stated that she did not want the added noise. She also pointed out that there was 10 miles to the closest fire station, and she was worried about the possible hazards as the guests would have to drive by her property. She also noted that the police were not close by either. She felt that the barn was built with the intention to hold the events. She stated that she was able to hear the events from her home. She showed a picture of the road, which was treated gravel. She stated that the use was not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. She also remarked that they were advertising for the business, which she provided a copy of.
Karen Crawford, resident on County Road 60E, stated that she did feel an impact from the events that were held last summer. She bought her property for the rural area and would be affected by the added traffic and people. She stated that the neighbors were not in support of the proposal. She wondered about the catering vehicles, band vehicles, deliveries, etc. She also did not know how the alcohol would be regulated. She stated that they started the business without an approval, and she did not feel that it should be approved in the rural area. She stated that if approved and the conditions of approval were broken the neighbors would have to be the ones to police it. She stated that she could hear the events and the vehicles.
Mr. Bush stated that the barn was built with a permit but some renovations made to the barn were done without a permit. He stated that he was working with the code compliance department to rectify that issue. He stated that they were unaware that they needed an approval for the small events but was trying to rectify that with the Special Review. He noted that all advertisements were pulled last summer. He stated that typically there was one vehicle in and one vehicle out for the caterers, florists, etc. He stated that they planned to put anther row of trees in to help buffer the noise. He understood that traffic would increase but hoped to keep it minimal with the small events. He stated that in the past they had no issues with alcohol.
Commissioner Miller asked if it was their intent to have the events when they purchased the property.
Mr. Bush replied no. He also did not believe that having a home business went against the covenants.
Ms. Stauffer explained that Larimer County did not enforce covenants.
Commissioner Wallace asked who lived directly east of the property.
Mr. Bush stated that Claudia Hershey owned the property but was renting it out.
Commissioner Cox asked if a commercial use had ever been approved during the Rural Land Use process.
Ms. Stauffer believed that the primary intent was rural land agricultural/residential. The county commissioners did decide that Rural Land Use lots were similar to any lot in the county.
Commissioner Dougherty asked about the vehicle trips.
Eric Tracy, Engineering Department, explained that the number of trips were calculated by taking the number of guests at an event (90) by 2.5 people averaged to be in a car. The average was calculated for a years time
Commissioner Wallace asked if the 90 guests would include the caterers, florists, etc.
Mr. Lafferty replied that it was presumed that it would.
Commissioner Wallace commented that it was not in the prevue of the permit process to monitor liquor as it was not a land use issue.
Commissioner Glick asked if vehicle trip calculation could be done over the 5 month period that of the events rather than a one year period.
Mr. Tracy stated that by that calculation there would be 20 trips per day.
Commissioner Cox asked what the response time was for emergency services regarding safety.
Ms. Stauffer replied that the sheriff would respond but there was also a possibility to have private security.
Commissioner Glick stated that compatibility was an issue with the surrounding uses.
Commissioner Weitkunat stated that there was non-compatibility with the surrounding neighbors.
Commissioner Hess stated that compatibility was a concern, and she did not see the applicants being prepared to enforce the conditions.
Commissioner Dougherty had a concern with the road use and parking on the road. He also wondered how the number of people and vehicles would be regulated.
Commissioner Wendt echoed Commissioner Glick. He also did not feel that compatibility should be defined by a lack of concerns/complaints from the community. However, he did not feel that the use was a good fit with the neighborhood.
Commissioner Miller stated that he had an events center in his rural community and it had blended into the neighborhood. He also did not believe that something should be viewed as incompatible just because someone did not like it.
Commissioner Wallace went over the review criteria. She stated that the surrounding area was predominately agricultural uses. She also stated that the access was two miles from a paved road, which would inhibit emergency response time. The proposal also seemed to cause a substantial adverse impact to the surrounding area. Finally, the distance of the roads and seclusion of the property was a negative.
Commissioner Cox moved that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that Prairie Garden Special Review, file #10-Z1822, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, be denied.
Commissioner Dougherty seconded the Motion.
Commissioner Miller and Chairman Hart voted against the Motion.
Commissioners' Cox, Dougherty, Glick, Hess, Wallace, Weitkunat, and Wendt voted in favor of the Motion.
MOTION PASSED: 7-2
Chairman Hart noted that Commissioner Glick recused himself from the hearing as he was the applicant for the following Conservation Development.
ITEM #4 S BAR G CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT #10-S2953: Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request for a four lot Conservation Development on 51.6 acres located ¼ miles west of Highway 1 on the north side of Douglas Road. The request also included appeals to the Larimer County Land Use Code Section 8.14.1.O Gated Private Road, Section 8.14.1.M Roads must be public right-of-way, Section 8.14.1.R Connectivity, and Section 8.8.4.D regarding additional ditch easement. The site was served by public water and in the service area of the Cherry Hills Sanitation; however, no taps were available for any additional service in the area. The site was surrounded by the Jackson Ditch and a portion of the site was classified as a Class 3 Wetland. The proposal was to cluster three lots, two of 2 acres, one of 18 acres, and one of 27 acres which would be a Residual Lot with a 2 acre building envelope where the applicants residence was already present. He explained that the site was in the East Larimer County Water District (ELCO), which would serve the three new lots. The applicant’s home was currently served by a domestic well. Mr. Helmick noted that the State Engineer commented that the subdivision of the property into four lots would represent a material injury to the water rights for the State of Colorado and for the fourth lot to continue to be served by the individual well the applicant would need to have an augmentation plan. Along with proposal, the applicant was proposing an appeal to Section 8.14.1.O to have a gated private internal road system, and an appeal to Section 8.14.1.R regarding connectivity. Mr. Helmick noted that both were supported by the Development Services Team. He explained that the Jackson Ditch currently had an easement 40 feet in width on the entirety of the ditch through the property, and the Jackson Ditch was asking for an additional 20 feet on either side of the ditch above the high water line. The applicant disagreed with that recommendation as he felt the ditch easement in place was adequate and was therefore appealing Section 8.8.4.D of the Land Use Code. Mr. Helmick explained that the original plan proposed Lot 3 to be 18 acres with a building envelope for one lot. The full development potential was not being used; as a result, Lot 3 had the potential to development in the future if public access, public sewer, and connectivity could occur all of which were believed to be long term, difficult issues. However, the applicant was choosing not to forgo that opportunity and maintain the availability for the future. Mr. Helmick explained that due to the water issues the applicant was proposing an alternative plan which made Lot 3 13 acres and Lot 4 38 acres. If issues could not be resolved with the State Engineer then it was his intention to submit a Minor Land Division (MLD) application to divide the 38 acres to the north off from the balance of the property. The remaining 13.5 acres would be divided as a three lot Conservation Development. The new plan was to create a way for the applicant not to go through a costly augmentation or have to extend a water line 1100 feet to his current home. If the applicant split off the 35 acres surrounding his home he could retain his well and it would still allow him to do a Conservation Development on the balance of the property.
Commissioner Miller asked why water would have to be provided if the other three lots were on a tap from a municipality.
Mr. Helmick explained that in the State Engineer’s evaluation they concluded that although the three new lots would be served by public water and the existing home would continue to be served by the existing well it was determined that there would be material injury to the water rights of the State of Colorado. Based on those comments the applicant would have to obtain a tap for his home or create 35 acres to keep his well.
Commissioner Miller asked if the Jackson Ditch was currently maintaining the ditch with the easement already in place.
Mr. Helmick deferred the question to the applicant.
Commissioner Hess confirmed that due to the State’s comments creating a Minor Land Division before the Conservation Development would be the most economical choice for the applicant.
Mr. Helmick explained that if the Minor Land Division did take place then the proposal would be a three lot Conservation Development rather than a four lot Conservation Development. The 38 acre balance would not be a part of the Conservation Development plat.
Commissioner Hess asked if the 38 acres split off by the Minor Land Division would have restriction for no further development.
Mr. Helmick replied yes.
Commissioner Wendt asked about the gated road.
Mr. Helmick explained that all roads must be public unless it was found that there could be no connectivity and the service providers had no conflict. Connectivity was unlikely and the service providers found no conflict with the proposed road; therefore, a recommendation of approval regarding the appeal to Section 8.14.1.O could occur.
Chairman Hart asked about the issue of the Jackson Ditch easement.
Mr. Helmick explained that the applicant felt that he was not changing the context of the ditch, not changing the use of the ditch, and the easement had been adequate for some historic period of time; therefore, he did not understand why additional easement was necessary.
Scott Glick, applicant, explained that the access to the ditch would not change with the proposal. He noted that the development did not encroach upon the ditch easement and chose to keep the ditch easement under one lot (proposed residual lot) to make it easier for the ditch company. He stated that he talked to the Jackson Ditch and understood the Ditch Company’s concerns but wondered how he would be compensated for the additional easement. The Ditch Company stated that they did not pay for land. He stated that at the neighborhood meeting there was a concern of the location of the leach field on Lot 2. As a result, soils test were done to make sure the criteria for an individual sewage system were met. He explained that the new plat (if a minor land division was done) would create a 13 acre Conservation Development creating an 8-acre lot, 2-acre lot, and 2.5 acre lot. He stated that potential future development on Lot 3 was very slim as access, connectivity, and such would have to be changed. He stated that if the 38 acre lot was created through the MLD process then he would have no problem restricting development on that lot. He stated that doing the MLD process was more practical as augmenting water or extending a water line were very costly alternatives.
Commissioner Hess asked about the ditch easement.
Mr. Glick explained that there was a 20-foot easement from the centerline of the ditch. Jackson Ditch wanted to add an additional 20 feet from the high water line of the ditch. He stated that the ditch had historically been maintained with that easement in place since 1870.
Tom Peterson, neighbor, stated that there was traffic and safety issues as there were Russian Olive trees along Douglas Road, which caused blocked sight distance. He was also concerned about the drainage as it had been affecting the neighbor to the south. He believed that Lots 1 & 2 should have specific drainage plans completed and there should be a condition to require site-specific grading plans for each of those lots. He believed that it was poor planning to put a septic system next to an already developed property. He stated that the soils in the site were not very good and surrounding lots had past septic system issues. He stated that Eagle Lake was having drainage issues with Dixon Reservoir (Eagle Lake) and was concerned with the overall drainage for the area. He felt that there were many requests for variances to the code but did not feel that there was enough testimony/explanation to warrant those variances.
Jim Kriewall, 4036 Eagle Lake South, questioned what would happen to Residual Lot A. He wondered if there could be more development on it.
Mr. Helmick explained that if it was platted as a Residual Lot then no additional development could occur on the property perpetually.
Mr. Kriewall asked if Lot 3 could be developed with additional homes.
Mr. Helmick replied yes, if the existing private road was converted to a public road.
Mr. Kriewall stated that he had no objection with three or four more homes but wanted to understand whether there was the potential for many more homes.
Brenda Carns, 180 W. Douglas Road, lived adjacent to the proposed Lot 2. She was concerned about the drainage and the location of the proposed leach field. She explained that she had trouble with groundwater coming to her home, and she was concerned that installing a new septic system would not absorb the water and there would be additional problems. She wanted to know what mitigation measures would be put into place regarding the drainage to her property and pasture. She remarked that traditionally drainage came through her pasture but after the applicant started to improve his property the water started to change course and created a ravine on her property. She was concerned about run off from other properties potentially being toxic to her pasture and horses. She also had concerns regarding the visibility regarding traffic and access to the proposed property. She stated that she was confused about what was being proposed and concerned about the future development potential.
Mr. Glick stated that the drainage had been established for a long time and he had done nothing to change the path of the drainage. He stated that he would be wiling to dedicate more easement but the ditch company had not provided sufficient evidence as to why more easement was needed. They were also unwilling to compensate for the loss of land/development potential. He stated that with the change to the plat and decreasing the acreage to Lot 3 the development potential was being significantly decreased. He explained that if Lot 3 was only 8 acres with a 2 acre building envelope and any future development did occur the Conservation Development standards would require 4 acres of residual land. As a result, it would only allow the development potential of one more lot on the proposed Lot 3.
Commissioner Wendt commented that Mr. Peterson’s and Ms. Carns’ concerns could be addressed if a sight specific drainage plan was done.
Mr. Glick spoke to the site specific plan for the septic systems and leach fields. He stated that it was the engineer’s opinion that it would not have a significant impact or significant increase in drainage.
Commissioner Weitkunat wanted clarification of what was being proposed. She also pointed out that there was a public view who might think preferential treatment was being done.
Mr. Helmick explained that in response to the State Engineer there was one proposal with two options being proposed. The first option was to create a 38-acre residual/exemption lot through the Minor Land Division process leaving the balance of the property, which was 13 acres, to become a three lot Conservation Development. Option 2 was for the applicant to go through the water augmentation process or extend a water line which would create a four lot Conservation Development. It was an effort to allow two options so the applicant would not have to go through the public hearing process twice for essentially the same proposal/result.
Mr. Glick believed that he had been held to a higher standard. He stated that he notified more neighbors for the meeting then were required, and he had spent a lot of time on the proposal. He explained that he had to react to the comments from the State Engineer thus causing a change to the originally submitted plat.
Mr. Helmick recommended an additional condition, Condition 7, which would state, “The Larimer County Planning Commission finds that an alternate plat for development which would constitute a Minor Land Division (MLD) creating a 38-acre parcel and 13.5-acre parcel restricting further development on the 38-acres and finding a Conservation Development plat on the 13.5-acre of three lots meets the requirements of the Land Use Code and is recommended to the Board of County Commissioners with the conditions noted here.”
Chairman Hart commented that drainage and septic systems seemed to the substantial issue. He asked if there were any outstanding issues regarding those items.
Doug Ryan, Health Department, explained that the Health Department reviewed the proposal and septic system plans. At the time of building permit, the Health Department would require an engineers’ design of the system.
Eric Tracy, Engineering Department, explained that a drainage memo was required by a professional engineer, which was provided by the applicant. The conclusion from that report stated that “the nature and amount of improvements associated with the site were slight creating no adverse affects on the site or down stream”. The Engineering Department agreed with that statement.
Commissioner Miller felt that the applicant had gone above and beyond to address all standards and concerns. He was recommending approval.
Commissioner Dougherty felt that the application met all the review criteria. He would recommend the application be approved.
Commissioner Hess believed that the applicant had met the standards.
Commissioner Weitkunat stated that the application was confusing and felt that it was very confusing to the public. She felt that the applicant had done his due diligence.
Commissioner Cox stated that it was compatible with existing and allowed land uses.
Commissioner Wallace believed that it complied with the applicable requirements of the Land Use Code. She also felt that the applicant had tried to protect the wetland area. The ditch company needed to show a reason for additional easement but did not address that in their letter. As a result, she felt that it had not been shown that additional easement was a reasonable necessity.
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 S Bar G Conservation Development and appeals to Section 8.14.1.O Gated Private Road, Section 8.14.1.M Roads must be public right-of-way, Section 8.14.1.R Connectivity, and Section 8.8.4.D regarding additional ditch easement of the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #10-S2953, for the property described on “Exhibit C” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions and additional Condition 7:
1. The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the S BAR G CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAT File # 10-S2953 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 S BAR G CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAT.
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 and Community Park Fees (in lieu of dedication) and drainage fees. The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply. .
3. All new residential structure shall be fire sprinkled.
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. The private access road, hammerhead turn around and gated entry are subject to final review and approval by the Larimer County Engineering Department and the Poudre Fire Authority.
7. The Larimer County Planning Commission finds that an alternate plat for development which would constitute a Minor Land Division (MLD) creating a 38-acre parcel and 13.5-acre parcel restricting further development on the 38-acres and finding a Conservation Development plat on the 13.5-acre of three lots meets the requirements of the Land Use Code and is recommended to the Board of County Commissioners with the conditions noted here.
Commissioner Dougherty seconded the Motion.
Commissioners' Cox, Dougherty, Hess, Miller, Wallace, Weitkunat, Wendt and Chairman Hart voted in favor of the Motion.
MOTION PASSED: 8-0
REPORT FROM STAFF: Mr. Lafferty reminded the Commission of their upcoming meetings.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 10:30 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.
Gerald Hart, Chairman Jana Hess, Secretary
BEING A PORTION OF TRACT "c" OF THE SOLOMON
EXEMPTION TOGETHER WlTH A PORTION OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 9
NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, TO WIT;
CONSIDERING THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF SAlD SECTION 23 AS BEARING NORTH
89 ° 59'09" WEST AND WlTH ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED
HEREIN RELATIVE THERETO;
BEGINNING AT THE CENTER QUARTER CORNER OF
SAlD SECTION 23;
THENCE, ALONG THE EAST LlNE OF SAlD SOUTHWEST
QUARTER, SOUTH 00° 01 '06" WEST 1141.19 FEET TO
THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1 OF THE WALDO
THENCE, ALONG THE NORTH LlNE OF SAlD LOT 1,
NORTH 89° 59'10" WEST 1320.04 FEET TO THE EAST
LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAlD
THENCE, ALONG SAlD EAST LINE AND A
PROLONGATION THEREOF, NORTH 00° 00'35" EAST
1284.82' TO THE NORTHERLY LlNE OF THAT PARCEL
DESCRIBED AT RECEPTION NUMBER 93072732;
THENCE ALONG SAlD NORTHERLY LlNE BY THE
FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES:
1) NORTH 88° 47'37" EAST 96.18 FEET;
2) THENCE NORTH 89° 39'36" EAST 105.38 FEET;
3) THENCE NORTH 88 ° '53'51 " EAST 1118.92 FEET
TO THE EAST LlNE OF SAlD NORTHWEST QUARTER;
THENCE, ALONG SAlD EAST LINE, SOUTH 00 °01'11 "
WEST 168.1 3 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, LARIMER
. SITUATE, LYING AND BEING IN THE COUNTY OF LARIMER AND STATE
OF COLORADO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
LOT 2, LOVATA R.L.U.P. 98-EX1178, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE
ADDRESS: 3634 W COUNTY ROAD 60E; FORT COLLINS, CO 80524
Lot 2 of the Amended Plat of a portion of Tract B of the E.W. Stewart Exemption, situate in the Southeast 114 of Section 23, Township 8 North, Range 69 West of the Sixth P.M., County of Larimer, State of Colorado, being more particularly described as follows, to-wit; considering the South line of said Section 23 as bearing S89 ° 55'00"W and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto, is contained within the boundary lines which begin at a point on the East line of said Southeast 1/4 which bears N00°00'40"W 287.00 feet from the Southeast Corner of said Section 23, and run thence S89 °55'00"W 348.44 feet; thence South 207.00 feet to a point in the existing North right-of-way line of County Road No. 54; thence along said existing North right-of-way line, S89°55'00" W 72.30 feet; thence N00 ° 00'00"E 488.8 1 feet; thence N90°00'00" W 56 1.25 feet; thence N32 ° 29'14"E 135 .00 feet; thence N79 ° 07'00” E 157.93 feet; thence N29° 12'00"E 97.40 feet; thence N35°02'00"W 447.00 feet; thence N27 ° 13'00"W 76.90 feet; thence N19°05'00"W 122.75 feet; thence N06 ° 58'00" W 459.50 feet; thence N01° 10'30"E 500.85 feet; thence N24° 48'00" W 307.70 feet; thence N08° 24'00"E 62.41 feet to a point on the North line of the South 112 of said Section 23; thence along said North line, N89 ° 48'41”E 1203.74 feet to the East 1/4 corner of said
Section 23; thence along the East line of said Southeast 1/4, S00°00'40"E 2362.20 feet to the point of beginning, containing 51.6149 acres, more or less.