Loveland Bike Trail
 

LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of December 19, 2012

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, December 19, 2012, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners’ Bohling, Cox, Dougherty, Jensen, Miller, Wallace, and Zitti were present.  Commissioner Gerrard was absent.  Commissioner Glick presided as Chairman.  Also present were Matt Lafferty, Principle Planner, Rob Helmick, Senior Planner, Eric Tracy, Engineering Department, Clint Jones, Engineering Department, Martina Wilkinson, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Health Department and Jill Wilson, Recording Secretary. 

 

The field trip was canceled due to the weather.

 

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 OCTOBER 17, 2012 MEETING:   MOTION by Commissioner Cox approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Dougherty.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:

None.

 

CONSENT ITEMS:

 

ITEM #1  GLEN HAVEN FIRE DEPARTMENT LOCATION AND EXTENT #12-Z1902:  Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request for a new firehouse/station for the Glen Haven Fire Department on County Road 43 (Devil’s Gulch Road), east of the post office in Glen Haven. 

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approve the Glen Haven Fire Department Location and Extent, file #12-Z1902, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   The applicant shall complete and have approved the applied for setback variances prior to commencing any construction at the site.

2.   The applicant shall complete the required Site Plan Review prior to commencing any construction at the site.

3.   The applicant shall obtain both a Development Construction Permit and Building permit to construct the use at this site. 

4.   The applicant shall dedicate an additional five feet for ROW for CR 43.

 

Commissioner Jensen seconded the Motion.

 

 

 

Commissioners’ Bohling, Cox, Dougherty, Jensen, Miller, Wallace, Zitti and Chairman Glick voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

ITEM #2  DAVIS CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT #12-S3097:  Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request for a conservation development of six residential lots, two residual lots, and one outlot on 46.71 acres at 3579 S. County Road 5 in Loveland, situated approximately 500 feet south of the intersection of County Road 5 and I-25 on the west side of the road.  The request also included an appeal to Section 8.14.1.R of the Land Use Code regarding connectivity.

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Wallace asked about the access point for the proposed Lots 1 & 2.

 

Eric Tracy, Engineering Department, explained that the existing access was suppose to be abandoned during the original subdivision of the property.  The applicant requested that the access remain because it was an agricultural access to the property to the north.  The access did meet access spacing requirements and was intended to be a private drive, and the other residents of the development would need to use the main access created with the proposal.

 

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 approval of the Davis Conservation Development and appeal to Section 8.14.1.R of the Land Use Code, file #12-S3097, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the Davis Conservation Development, File #12-S3097 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 Davis Conservation Development.

 

2.   The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings: Thompson School fee, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, and Larimer County Regional and Community Park Fees (in lieu of dedication).  The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply. 

 

3.   All new homes within the Conservation Development must install residential sprinkler systems.  This information must be noted on the plat as follows:  “All new residential structures in the Davis Conservation Development are required to be protected by approved residential fire-sprinkler systems.  Fire-sprinkler plans must be submitted to Loveland Fire Rescue Authority Community Safety Division for review and permit prior to commencing installation.”

 

 

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 secondary emergency access point and agricultural access point shall not be used by the new lots generated by this development as an accees to the county road.

 

7.   The required asphalt apron onto the County Road needs to be shown on the construction plans.

 

8.   The existing mailboxes and fencing shall be shown to be relocated outside of the right-of-way.

 

9.   All utility lines must be placed underground.

 

10.   The applicant shall modify the plat to reflect the following changes:

·   Revise the plans to show Lot 2 as a building envelope for Residual Lot A.

·   Clarify that building located in any of the building envelopes must meet the applicable zoning district setbacks as well.

·   Rename Residual Lot B to Outlot B.

 

Commissioner Jensen seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Bohling, Cox, Dougherty, Jensen, Miller, Wallace, Zitti and Chairman Glick voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEMS:

 

ITEM #3  HERON’S HILL SUBDIVISION #11-S3039:  Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request for a subdivision of 47.6 acres into three lots, two of 10 acres and one of 27.6 acres located east of Cobb Lake and west of County Line Road.  The request also included appeals to the Larimer County Land Use Code, Section 8.14.1.M Public roads, Section 8.14.1.P Access, Section 8.14.1.R Connectivity, and Section 8.14.2 Flag lot standards.  He explained that the applicant requested an appeal to do a subdivision instead of a Conservation Development, which was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in 2011.  He provided information regarding access to the proposed lots and noted information about the site, the surrounding area, and the topography.  He pointed out that the applicant was proposing two building envelopes to preserve the wildlife habitat on the property as well as to respect the setbacks from Cobb Lake.  He explained that Lot 2 would have a flag lot, which would create a long driveway for Lot 3. 

 

Commissioner Zitti asked about the access.

 

Mr. Helmick explained that the access off of Sunwater Way to Lot 2 would be an 18-foot wide private access with a hammerhead turnaround.  From that point forward, the owner of Lot 2 and Lot 3 would be responsible for the construction of their own driveways to their properties.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Steve Roy, applicant, stated that he was requesting three parcels and described the size of the surrounding properties.  He acknowledge that the proposed building envelopes would be in the adjacent property owner’s view but explained that he was trying to cluster the building sites and also preserve the wildlife habitat areas.  He explained that one reason he wanted to end the road at the point proposed was because the width of the required easement would impact the wildlife enhancement area.  He mentioned that the adjacent landowner, Ms. Moore, had concerns regarding view shed as well as building height.  He did not feel that any size home would block the view as there was 750 feet from her building site to the nearest point of the building envelopes plus there was a drop in elevation of about 50-75 feet depending on where one might build on the sites.  From what he understood, Ms. Moore also had concerns that the building envelopes were too close together, too large, and too far east towards her property.  To help with concerns, he proposed to change the size of the building envelopes and move the Lot 2 building envelope farther north away from the building envelope on Lot 3, which would make the separation between building envelopes 170 feet instead of the originally proposed 50 feet. 

 

Commissioner Bohling pointed out that the topography from Ms. Moore’s building site to the site of the proposed building envelopes dropped approximately 50 feet in elevation.

 

Commissioner Dougherty asked where the driveway would be located?

 

Mr. Roy explained that it would be on the east side of the row of trees, which were on the east side of the habitat enhancement area.

 

Commissioner Jensen asked what type of trees were planted and wondered if they created a visual break.

 

 

Mr. Roy replied that they were Junipers, shrubs, and deciduous trees and would eventually create a visual break.  He stated that they were planted six years ago and some were 12-14 feet high.

 

Chairman Glick asked if any soils reports were done. 

 

Doug Ryan, Health Department, stated that a soils report was done in 2012, and the soils would allow reasonable on-site septic systems.

 

Judson Hyatt, representative for Candace Moore, stated that Ms. Moore felt that the properties in the vicinity were around 35 acres, and the proposal was not in the character of the neighborhood.  She felt that one additional lot instead of two would fit the character of the area better.  She also proposed that a condition be in place that homes could only be one-story in height or be limited to 30-feet in height if the applicant could not agree to one story.  He indicated that Ms. Moore had not seen the new proposal presented from the applicant.  He pointed out that the habitat enhancement area would be disturbed by having a driveway on the east side of it and a house on the west side and proposed having the driveway on the west side of the habitat area.  He remarked that there could be fire potential in the area and fire hydrants might be needed.  He reiterated that the site views would be obstructed and affect property values and there was a consistency issue with the proposed size compared to the surrounding properties.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if Ms. Moore could build anywhere on the site.

 

Mr. Helmick stated that the applicant could build anywhere on the 35 acre site subject to setbacks.

 

Chairman Glick asked what the county standards were for roads.

 

Clint Jones, Engineering Department, explained that county standards required a 70-foot right-of-way and a 20-foot road.  Standards for a private drive were 18 feet with no right-of-way. 

 

Mr. Roy stated they were trying to be sensitive to all the issue and to the wildlife .  He pointed out that the development of the Hill CD created substantial changes in the view but they adapted.  He apologized about the late submittal of the new proposal to change the building envelope location and mentioned that he had emailed it to Ms. Moore and her representative to look at.  He asked that no height restriction be placed on the lots as he did not believe it would serve a significant useful purpose.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if the septic system had to be within the building envelope.

 

Mr. Ryan replied no.

 

DISCUSSION:

Mr. Zitti stated that it was a well thought out project with some concessions from the applicant.  He stated that there was about a 50-foot drop from Ms. Moore’s home site and it would not be a substantial impact.  He felt that there would be minimal traffic, and the wildlife area was a good thing for both Ms. Moore and the applicant.

 

 

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that further discussions could take place regarding the size of the building envelopes.  She also did not believe that height restrictions should be put in place. 

 

Commissioner Dougherty felt that the applicant had put forth an acceptable plan.  He commended the applicant for putting forth a different option for Ms. Moore regarding the building envelopes.  He did not feel that there should be a restriction on height of the buildings.  He felt that the parcels would fit in with the surrounding properties. 

 

Commissioner Cox stated that the new proposal of decreasing the size of the building envelope was a good idea and felt that the new proposal should be more strongly considered then the original proposal.

 

Commissioner Jensen commended the applicant on trying to work out the issues with the neighbor.  He supported the three lots and did not support a height restriction.  He supported the second proposal of decreasing the building envelope size on Lot 2 but would be in favor of the first/original proposal.  He did not feel that property values would be affected. 

 

Commissioner Bohling stated that it was an excellent proposal and could support either proposal. 

 

Commissioner Miller liked both proposals.

 

Chairman Glick stated that he would not support a height restriction based on cost and disruption of land.  He liked the idea of the flagpole, which would be less disruption to the wildlife habitat area.  He pointed out that the size of the building envelope and soils needed to be considered.  He supported the proposal with an additional condition regarding the wildlife area.

 

Mr. Helmick stated that an additional condition was proposed regarding the wildlife management plan to state, “The applicant shall provide a management plan for the wildlife and habitat enhancement area at final plat.  The plan shall be reviewed and approved by county staff and Colorado Department of Parks and Wildlife .’

 

Commissioner Jensen confirmed that the applicant could abandon the wildlife enhancement area.

 

Chairman Glick remarked that the applicants argument to go through the subdivision process rather than the conservation development process was due to the fact that the enhancement area was in place.  He could abandon it according to the State but his appeal to go through the subdivision process was approved through the county based on the enhancement area.

 

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 approval of Heron’s Hill Subdivision and requested appeals to Sections 8.14.1.M public roads; 8.14.1.R, connectivity; 8.14.1.P access; and 8.14.2 flag lot standards of the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #11-S3039, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes subject to the following conditions and additional Condition 9 with direction that both plans are acceptable but there is a preference for Plan 2:

 

1.   The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the Herons’ Hill Subdivision File # 12-S3131, 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 Herons’ Hill Subdivision.

 

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, and Larimer County Regional Park Fees (in lieu of dedication).  The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply. 

 

3.   Fire Requirements – All new residential structures will be required to have residential fire sprinkler systems.  The developer shall be responsible for the construction and acceptance of a hammerhead turn around as shown on the plans.

 

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 developer is responsible for the construction and acceptance of the domestic water line for the Northern Colorado Water Association, as described in their letter of August 2, 2012. 

 

7.   All road improvements identified on the plans are the responsibility of the developer. 

 

8.   A revised roadway use and maintenance agreement for both Sunwater Way and Herons Hill Way shall be provided at Final Plat.

 

9.   The applicant shall provide a management plan for the wildlife and habitat enhancement area at final plat.  The plan shall be reviewed and approved by county staff and the Colorado Department of Parks and Wildlife .

 

 

Commissioner Dougherty seconded the Motion.

 

 

 

Commissioners’ Bohling, Cox, Dougherty, Jensen, Miller, Wallace, Zitti and Chairman Glick voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

ITEM #4  LITTLE THOMPSON AND COAL CREEK FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) DFIRM AND LOMR MAP REVISION AND COUNTY FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY ZONE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT:   Mr. Tracy provided background information on the request to adopt the new FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) and Flood Insurance Study (FIS) dated February 6, 2013 and to amend the Larimer County Floodplain Overlay Zone District boundary as a result of FEMA Floodplain Map Changes.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if there had been public meetings about the Coal Creek project.

 

Mr. Tracy stated that there had been extensive public outreach, which started several years ago. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

None.

 

DISCUSSION:

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 approval of the L ittle Thompson and Coal Creek Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and LOMR Map Revision, and County Floodplain Overlay Zone Boundary Amendment as follows:

 

1.   Adoption of the following Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FEMA FIRMs) dated February 6, 2013:

 

(a)   Panel Number 08069CIND1D

(b)   Panel Number 08069CIND2D

(c)   Panel Number 08069C1368G

(d)   Panel Number 08069C1369G

(e)   Panel Number 08069C1375G

(f)   Panel Number 08069C1386G

(g)   Panel Number 08069C1387G

(h)   Panel Number 08069C1388G

(i)   Panel Number 08069C1389G

(j)   Panel Number 08069C1391G

(k)   Panel Number 08069C1400G

 

 

2.   Approval of the amendments to the Larimer County Floodplain Overlay Zone District Boundaries as a result of FEMA’s adoption of the revised FIRMs for both Little Thompson and Coal Creek.

 

 

Commissioner Dougherty seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Bohling, Cox, Dougherty, Jensen, Miller, Wallace, Zitti and Chairman Glick 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 9:15 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.

 

 

_______________________________                      ______________________________

Scott Glick, Chairman                                                            Nancy Wallace, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT A

 

 

 

 

LOT 1, BAIRD M.R.D. S-411-93, BEING SITUATE IN THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

 

A tract of land located in Section 24, Township 8 North, Range 68 West of the 6th

Principal Meridian, County of Larimer, State of Colorado, being more particularly

described as follows:

 

BEGINNING at the South Quarter comer of Section 24 and considering the South line of

Section 24 as bearing South 89°55'59" West with all other bearings herein relative

thereto;

 

Thence along the North-South centerline of said Section, North 00°35'42" East, 1317.41

feet to the Center South 1116 corner; thence along the 1116 line, North 89°59'37" East,

135.00 feet; thence, North 05°53'03" West, 537.08 feet; thence, North 88°55'41" West,

1330.33 more or less to the high water line, as per Deed, Exhibit A, Reception No.

88010419, Larimer County Records; thence along said high water line the following

eight courses: South 04°05'17" West, 140.03 feet; thence, South 14°17'10" East, 393.06

feet; thence, South 05°17'48" East, 213.90 feet; thence, South 25°39'55" East, 199.72

feet; thence, South 22°51'11" East, 336.21 feet; thence, South 20°01'54" West, 390.42

feet; thence, South 18°16'01" East, 260.25 feet; thence, South 39°13'48" East 51.96 feet

more or less to the South line of said Section 24; thence along said Section line, North

89°55'59" East, 931.95 feet to the South Quarter comer of said Section 24 and the POINT

OF BEGINNING.

 

Containing 47.657 acres more or less.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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