Loveland Bike Trail
 

LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of June 20, 2007

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, June 20, 2007, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners Boulter, Cox, Hart, Karabensh, and Pond were present.  Commissioners Morgan, Oppenheimer, and Waldo were absent.  Commissioner Wallace presided as Chairman.  Also present were Larry Timm, Planning and Building Services Division Director, Tom Garton, Chief Building Official, Stan Griep, Leads Plans Examiner, Jill Bennett, Principle Planner, Al Kadera, Principle Planner, Rob Helmick, Principal Planner, Karin Madson, Planner II, Sean Wheeler, Planner II, Gary Buffington, Parks and Open Lands Director, Marc Engemoen, Public Works Director, Matt Johnson, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Environmental Health, and Jill Wilson, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary. 

 

Rob Helmick accompanied Commissioners’ Cox, Hart, Pond, and Wallace today on a site visit to the Brauch Subdivision, Rocky Ridge Estates Rezoning and Rocky Ridge Estates Conservation Development.  Commissioners’ Karabensh, Morgan, Oppenheimer and Waldo were absent.  Commissioner Boulter visited the site independently.

 

Commissioner Boulter recognized Commissioner Pond’s last meeting.  He acknowledged his commitment and dedication to serving on the Planning Commission.  He remarked that he was a valuable asset to the Commission and would be greatly missed.

 

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 MAY 16, 2007 MEETINGS:  MOTION by Commissioner Pond to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Cox.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:  

Chairman Wallace requested that Item #1 and #2:  Rocky Ridge Estates Rezoning and Conservation Development be removed from the consent agenda and be placed as Items #1 and #2.  She noted that the Commission received a letter from a neighbor, Robert and Sara Phillips.  She stated that her primary concern was that she did not feel the application met the criteria for a Conservation Development.  The very north edge of the development joined with O-Open, which allowed one unit per ten acres, and it looked like an urban development.  The Master Plan stated that Conservation Developments were designed to provide open space without changing density determined by existing zoning, and a portion was to be up-zoned.  She stated that Section 5.9 of the Larimer County Land Use Code stated that flexibility in lot size was important and diversity and originality in lot design was encouraged.  She stated that the development had the same size lots with the same size roads and took advantage of the maximum number of lots with no interest and no regard to different sizes.  She believed that it had to be developed in two pieces as proposed but the plan only showed 52, two acre rectangular lots, and she found it contrary to anything that wanted to be accomplished with Conservation Developments.  

 

 

 

ITEMS:

 

ITEM #1  ROCKY RIDGE ESTATES REZONING  06-Z1626 AND ITEM #2  ROCKY RIDGE ESTATES CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT  06-S2535:  Ms. Madson provided background information on the request to rezone Parcel #98130-00-003 from conditional FA-1 Farming to FA-1 Farming, rezone Parcel #98140-00-004 from conditional FA-1 Farming to FA-1 Farming, rezone Parcel #98140-00-007 from conditional FA-1 Farming to FA-1 Farming, Rezone the portion of Parcel #98113-00-906 that was included in the Rocky Ridge Estates Conservation Development application from O-Open and FA-Farming to FA-1 Farming, and rezone the portion of Parcel #98140-00-901 that was included in the Rocky Ridge Estates Conservation Development application from FA-Farming to FA-1 Farming.  She also provided background information on the request for the Preliminary Plat approval of a 52 lot Conservation Development on 275 acres, of which approximately 270 were developable.  The request also included two appeals to the Larimer County Land Use Code:  Section 8.14.2.S (connectivity) and Section 8.14.2.Q (maximum dead end access requirements).  The subject requests were located on the west side of Highway 1, southwest of the County Road 15 intersection.  She explained that Planning Department Staff had brought a proposal to the Commissioners in 2005 to revert the zoning on the particular pieces of property back to their original zoning.  At that time, the easterly most piece had original zoning of O-Open.  The other pieces were FA-Farming.  All the pieces had been rezoned to FA-Farming in 2000, and the conditions of that development were not fulfilled, therefore to resolve that the proposal to revert the zoning was presented.  At that time, the Commissioners granted the applicant one year to submit a Preliminary Plat application with the presumption of FA-1 Farming zoning in order to work with the same density and same zoning that the previous application came under.  The Development Services Team reviewed the proposed application under three different scenarios, which had the two clusters to the east and to the west and also examined the site conditions and density, which in FA-Farming and FA-1 Farming was 2.3 acres divided into the total development area.  It was the Development Services Team’s opinion that the development was designed in a way so that it did preserve the corridor in the middle of the property that had most of the wildlife and natural features of the property. 

 

Commissioner Boulter asked if the design was allowed because it was the best use for the land?

 

Mr. Helmick stated that the Development Services Team believed that the proposal met the intent of the regulations and the Land Use Code.  He stated that he understood Chairman Wallace’s concerns. 

 

Chairman Wallace replied that the development would end up looking like an urban development.  It had smaller lots then the subdivision to the south, which had different sized lots and different size pieces of open space.  The proposal was not an extension of what was further south and consistent to what was to the north.  She also mentioned that the area was not suitable for septic systems.  She felt that a position should be taken that developments should not necessarily have the maximum number of lots on a property that was allowed under the Land Use Code. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Doug Ryan, Health Department, stated that the property had been divided into an east and west piece.  On the east piece the prominent features were the sandstone outcrops and the steep slopes; therefore, when the Health Department met with the applicant at the Sketch Plan phase the goal that the Health Department suggested was to cluster the lots up on top as far to the east as possible to avoid the steep slopes and to avoid the drainage ways.  He stated that the minimum lot size in Larimer County that would utilize on-site sewer systems was two acres.  He noted that the Health Department asked for preliminary soil testing on the site to demonstrate whether septics were feasible which indicated and confirmed that there were shallow areas of bedrock but moderate percolation rates.  The Health Department found that mounted absorption fields would be needed on the sites, and a primary and backup absorption system could be installed on the two acre sites.  The Heath Department did recommend a plat note to inform potential lot owners about the issue, and Planning Staff had included that in their conditions of approval.  He explained that on the west side of the development the conditions were different.  The soils were more like the Eagle Lake development to the south.  There were wetlands and lake shore lines that were a hazard.  As a result, the Health Department asked for setbacks from those features which the applicant had provided.  The Health Department felt that the applicant had clustered around the sites that were most appropriate for on-site sewer systems. 

 

Mr. Helmick stated that the Development Services Team believed that the purpose of a Conservation Development allowed residential development to the zone district density in maintaining certain characters.  To the south in Eagle Lake the lots extended to the lake boundaries and were 2.25 to 4 acres in size.  It was also mature; therefore, the landscaping and structures had a chance to mature.  The Development Services Team disagreed and felt that the proposed development met the purposes of the Land Use Code.

 

Chairman Wallace asked why the proposed development did not have two accesses?

 

Ms. Madson replied that originally the Development Services Team had recommended that there be a full connection to Eagle Lake Drive.  However, the roads in Eagle Lake were private and there was also a strip in between the two properties that caused a gap in the accesses.  The homeowners in Eagle Lake did not want the through traffic; therefore, one of the appeals that went along with the proposal was an appeal to the connectivity requirement because the applicant would not have the legal right to use the access except for emergency purposes.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Deanne Frederickson, The Frederickson Group, LLC, stated that the total site area was 275.4 acres.  The total development area was 132 acres, a little less than 50% of the site.  The minimum lot size was two acres.  She explained that the O-Open zoning area was just the tip of the whole development area, and five different properties were assembled in order to create the full piece.  She stated that in her experience it was not beneficial to have zoning lines that did not coincide with lot lines or boundary lines.  In the long term changing the O-Open zoning was just a “housekeeping” issue in order to get all of the property to FA-1 – Farming.  The site plan showed that the O-Open piece did not have any proposed homes to be on it, and it was a residual, open space area.  She also noted that they preserved the land where the Grey Heron rookery was.  She pointed out that the lots in Eagle Lake Estates went to the lake boundary/shore and stated that their initial proposal did the same thing; however, Staff advised that there be a setback from the lake.  As a result, the rear setback of the lot line was proposed to be 200 feet back from the high water line of the lake.  She also mentioned that there was a 50 foot setback from the wetlands. 

 

Chairman Wallace explained that her comments were not an attack on the concept.  She just felt that there were too many lots.  She believed that less lots and larger size lots would give more diversity and variation. 

 

Ms. Frederickson replied that in her experience the most that an owner could landscape on a lot was about half an acre and beyond that it became grasslands or mowed area.  Two acres was a good site as far as residential space.

 

Chairman Wallace hoped that the covenants would address restricting lighting.

 

Commissioner Hart asked about Outlot C.

 

Ms. Frederickson explained that it was the only connection to allow Water Supply and Storage access to their property.  An all-weather surface not unlike what they already had would be used in order to maintain their facilities.

 

Commissioner Hart asked if there was potential for emergency access on that site?

 

Ms. Frederickson replied no, not at the current time.

 

Robin Wood, 5817 N. County Road 15, stated that she was the property owner to the north.  She stated that the parcel between the two lakes was of concern regarding septic systems.  She suggested consideration of a possible monitoring system.  She was concerned about what would happen if the systems did fail because there had been no discussion about that, and she felt that the area was prone to very unusual drainage.  In regards to the zoning, she found it arbitrary in terms of where the FA-Farming and O-Open zoning occurred.  She asked the Commission to exam the zoning as the area further developed because there were not many open spaces to the north, and it seemed that due to the growth, the proximity of the parcel to town, and the cross section in terms of major arterials that there would be more proposals of higher densities.  She agreed with the suggestion about the lighting and thought it was important to start to look at solar lighting for street and house lights.  In terms of the bird nesting, she stated that the map that was provided by the applicant was somewhat arbitrary since trees lined the entire lake. 

 

Mr. Ryan stated that the Health Department did have concerns regarding septic systems on the property; therefore, the Department was recommending a plat note which had been incorporated into the conditions of approval.  He explained that if the subdivision was approved by the Board of County Commissioners the Health Departments would issue permits for individual on-site septic systems at the time building permits were requested.  At that time each lot owner would be responsible for obtaining soil testing information at the site specific area for the absorption field.  The Department would then do an inspection prior to the issuance of the permit, the system would be constructed by contractor’s that were licensed by the Health Department, and the Department would do a final inspection on the sewer system.  He explained that there was not a formal monitoring system but as the properties sold in real estate transactions most lending companies required an inspection by the local Health Department. 

 

Commissioner Cox asked about the traffic flow to the Highway 1 and County Road 15 intersection?

 

 

Matt Johnson, Engineering Department, stated that the applicant’s traffic engineer did a site distance evaluation and placed the access in a location that met the State’s access spacing criterion as well as their minimum site distance requirements.  The Engineering Department as well as the Colorado Department of Transportation’s access manager agreed with the findings of the applicant’s traffic engineer. 

 

Commissioner Hart wondered what would happen if the applicant did not get the emergency access through Eagle Lake Estates. 

 

Ms. Madson replied that the applicant had a commitment from the homeowners association to resolve the access, and they also had a formal agreement from the property of land between Eagle Lake and the proposed development.  If the agreement between the Eagle Lake homeowners did not occur then the development as proposed would not be able to meet the conditions and would not be able to move forward.

 

AJ Glazer, 425 Pelican Bay, stated that it was his understanding that nothing had been decided about the emergency access by the Eagle Lake homeowners.

 

Ms. Madson replied that the applicant had a letter from the homeowner’s association stating that they would continue to work the issue out.

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Rocky Ridge Estates Rezoning, file #06-Z1626, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved.

 

Commissioner Cox seconded the Motion.

 

Chairman Wallace voted against the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Boulter, Cox, Hart, Karabensh, and Pond, voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  5-1

 

Ms. Madson pointed out an error in the staff report which referenced an appeal to Section 8.14.2.M.  She stated that the appeal should be to Section 8.14.2.S.

 

Commissioner Boulter 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 Rocky Ridge Estates Conservation Development and appeal to the Larimer County Land Use Code Section 8.14.2.S (connectivity) and Section 8.14.2.Q (maximum dead end access), file #06-S2535, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

 

 

1.   The Final Plat(s) shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the Rocky Ridge Estates Conservation Development (File #06-S2535) 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 Rocky Ridge Estates Conservation Development.

 

2.   The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings:  Poudre R-1 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.   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.

 

4.   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.

 

5.   Prior to submittal of a Final Plat application the applicant shall supply documentation from the Office of the State Engineer that indicates that the East Larimer Water District has adequate water to supply the development.

 

6.   Easements for public sewer, should it become available, shall be provided on the Final Plat(s). 

 

7.   The applicant shall execute a Disclosure Notice to be recorded with the Final Plat.  This notice will provide information to all lot owners of the conditions of approval and special costs or fees associated with the approval of this project.  The notice shall include, but is not limited to; rural and agricultural issues, fees, building envelopes, fire department requirements, requirements for engineered footings and foundations, requirements and costs associated with engineered septic systems, information that lots above elevation 5170 feet may require individual pressure pumps to insure adequate water pressure, 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.

 

 

 

 

 

8.   The following language shall be included as a plat note and in the Disclosure Notice: “Preliminary soil testing indicates that engineer designed on-site sewer systems will be necessary to compensate for shallow bedrock on many of the lots in this development.  Perspective lot owners are advised to research the issue of sewer system design and permitting as part of their property research.  Determination of the appropriate location for a sewer system needs to be coordinated closely in the planned design and location of the residence.”

 

9.   Fire protection for the development shall consist of hydrants, residential sprinkler systems for lots located on cul-de-sacs exceeding 660 feet in length and all weather surface emergency accesses and temporary cul-de-sac.  The Final Plat(s) for the development shall included these elements as outlined in the memos from Carie Dann, Fire Protection Technician, Poudre Fire Authority, dated March 21, 2007 and May 18, 2007.

 

10.   The Final Plat(s) for the development shall address the comments and requirements of the Engineering Department as outlined in the memos from Matt Johnson dated March 8, 2007 and October 9, 2006.

 

11.   A final wetland mitigation plan shall be submitted with the Final Plat(s) in which wetland disturbance in planned.  This plan shall include a detailed timetable for construction of the mitigation, the name and qualifications of the contractor carrying out the mitigation and the cost of the mitigation.

 

12.   The Final Plat applications shall address the irrigation concerns from:

·  Water Supply and Storage as outlined in their letter dated February 12, 2007,

·  Bob and Norma Dent as outlined in their letter dated February 8, 2007, and 

·  North Poudre Irrigation Company as outlined in their letter dated February 14, 2007.

 

13.   The first Final Plat application shall include a draft emergency access agreement with the owners of the Eagle Lake development, which has been approved by those homeowners.  Prior to recordation of a Final Plat the applicant shall provide signed Emergency Access Easements with Eagle Lake Investments and the homeowners of the Eagle Lake development.

 

14.   The Final Plat application shall address the concerns and requirements of Xcel Energy, as outlined in the letter from Alan C. Morganfield, dated April 30, 2007.

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Cox, Hart, and Chairman Wallace voted against the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Boulter, Karabensh, and Pond voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION FAILED:  3-3

 

 

 

Commission Hart did not feel that the zoning was the issue, but the design of the property as it fit the land.  He felt that the design wasn’t adequate for the property, and a better design could have been created.  He did not have a problem with the overall density but felt that it was a “cookie cutter” project in an area that could be considered a good transition between the urban development to the south and the rural development to the north. 

 

Commissioner Boulter stated that he did not mind having a split vote because it sent a clear message to the County Commissioners that there were issues to consider.  He felt that a better solution could not be crafted at the current time.

 

Commissioner Pond agreed.

 

Chairman Wallace also agreed.

 

Commissioner Cox asked the Commissioners to explain why they had voted for the Motion.

 

Commissioner Boulter stated that when he visited the site he could not see a substantial difference between a 2.8 acre and a 2.0 acre lot.  He liked the fact that the applicant buffered the lakes.  He felt that it was another form of clustering. 

 

Commissioner Karabensh agreed with Commissioner Boulter’s comments.  She also considered the concept of consistent application of the Land Use Code.  She stated that the applicant was told what was expected of them and had taken in the various aspects of the development such as the topography, the nature of the area, and the regulations and requirements of the Code, and their application had met that standard.  She did agree to some point about the perspective of having a rural character but felt that the mechanism for that needed to occur at another time.  She stated that the applicant had complied with and met the rules.

 

Commissioner Pond also agreed with Commissioners’ Boulter and Karabensh.  He also liked the idea of the smaller lots with the open space area.  He had no problem with the plan the way it was laid out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM #3  ADOPTION OF THE 2006 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODES AND PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE NEW WIND SPEED MAP:  Mr. Timm provided background information on the request to adopt the 2006 International Residential Code, 2006 International Building Code, 2006 International Mechanical Code, 2006 International Fuel Gas Code, 2006 International Existing Building Code and proposed amendments, and repealing of the currently adopted 2003 International Residential Code, 2003 International Building Code, 2003 International Plumbing Code, 2003 International Mechanical Code, 2003 International Energy Conservation Code, 2003 International Existing Building Code and proposed amendments, all to be effective October 02, 2007.  He explained that by adopting the 2006 International Building Codes Larimer County would also be adopting a new high wind speed map proposed by the Structural Engineers of Colorado and the Colorado Chapter of International Code Council.  He also noted that the Board of Appeals reviewed the proposed amendments and voted to recommend approval.  He explained that from the June 06, 2007 joint work session between the Board of County Commissioner and Planning Commission two issues arose regarding the design of pole barns in the high wind areas, and the requirement to take off old asphalt roofing if new asphalt roofing was being installed.  Due to the feedback that came from the June joint work session three options were being presented regarding the pole barn requirement:  1.  Leave footnote of R301.2.1.1 Building Geometry Limitations* as stated; *Pole barns using Larimer County’s Prescriptive Design are limited to 600 square feet in high wind areas, 2.  Delete the footnote*, or 3.  Amend the footnote to read *Pole barns in high wind areas shall use the Prescriptive Design for pole barns in high wind areas, dated June 20, 2007.  Also, there were two options to considered regarding Section R907.3 Re-covering versus replacement, which currently stated, “New roof covering shall not be installed without first removing existing covering where any of the following conditions occur:  Item 4.  For asphalt shingles, when the building is located in an area subject to moderate or sever hail exposure according to Figure R903.45.  The two options proposed were to leave Item 4 as stated or delete the requirement.

 

Mr. Garton explained that when discussions began regarding adopting a new proposed high wind speed map the Building Department understood that there would be a concern with the home builders that the new high wind speeds could cause an added cost to the construction.  Therefore, the Building Department met with a committee comprised of the Home Builders Association, an architect, an engineer, and two home builders to determine how to avoid increasing the cost of a home.  He stated that the Residential Design Limitation proposed by the Residential Code Review Committee would not cause a major change in the way homes were being built in the high wind areas.  It would require foundation bolts to be four foot on center instead of six, require additional bracing at garage narrow wall, and additional fasteners on roof covering.  A Residential Design Limitation was created which limited structures built in Larimer County.  He also noted that the Building Department had received a letter from Tom McCall stating concerns regarding reroofing.  Mr. Garton explained that if a building was located in a moderate hail area then the roof should be stripped down to the plywood sheathing before reroofing.  If hail damage occurred because there was more then one roof covering, then the insurance rates would likely go up because insurance prices were adjusted after a big hail event. 

 

Commissioner Cox asked if the third option to amend the footnote for the pole barns could be expanded to state, “*Pole barns in high wind areas shall use the Prescriptive Design for pole barns in high wind areas or approved engineered design.”

 

 

 

Mr. Garton replied that the language in the Code did allow a person the choice to use an engineered design or the Prescriptive Design.

 

Commissioner Boulter asked why insurance rates would increase if an old roof was not removed?

 

Mr. Garton explained that if there was a major hail event in Larimer County, and a home had two to three layers of shingles on the roof, the insurance companies thought that the extra shingles would cause more damage to the house in the hail event. 

 

Mr. Timm asked if the reason for the cost increase was because after the hail event more then one roof layer had to be removed?

 

Mr. Garton replied no.  If shingles were lying on a hard surface the hail would bounce off better, but if there were more layers the surface was softer, and the hail did more damage.  He remarked that after a hail event the insurance companies want and recommend that the roof be stripped.  Many roofing contractors also suggested the same. 

 

Commissioner Cox asked if it applied to the whole roof?

 

Mr. Garton replied that an area on a roof that was 100 square feet or less that needed to be repaired did not need a building permit.  The Code only applied when all the shingles on a roof were being replaced.

 

Chairman Wallace asked what the average cost was to remove the old shingles?

 

Mr. Garton stated that on a 2400 square foot building the average cost would be around $200.00.

 

Chairman Wallace asked what the Building Department’s recommendation was?

 

Mr. Garton stated that it was the Building Department and the Board of Appeals recommendation that Item 4 be left in Section R907.3.  It was best for the citizens in Larimer County to remove the shingles because overall it would keep damage down if there was a hail event.  Regarding Section R301.2.1.1, it was recommended that the footnote be left as it was stated in the Code. 

 

Chairman Wallace stated that option 3, which amended the footnote regarding pole barns, gave people the option of not having to get an engineered design.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Lucille Schmidt, 60 Deer Mountain Court, stated that it would cost more then $200.00 to tear the old shingles off of a home in the mountains.  She stated that many people were installing new metal roofs over the old roofs on a home. 

 

Mr. Garton stated that Section R907.3 only applied when using asphalt shingles.  There was an exemption in the Code which stated that a standing seam metal roof system that was designed to transmit the roof load directly to the building’s structural systems that did not rely on existing roofs and roof coverings for support shall not require the removal of existing roof coverings. 

 

 

Michelle Jacobs, Director of Community Affairs of the Home Builders Association of Northern Colorado, presented a letter to the Commission from the Home Builders Association and their president, Jeff Schneider, which expressed its support for the proposed code changes. 

 

DISCUSSION:

Chairman Wallace stated that she favored option 3 to amend the language of the footnote regarding pole barns.

 

All Commissioners agreed with Chairman Wallace.

 

Chairman Wallace stated that Item 4 in Section R907.3 should stay in the Code language.

 

All Commissioners agreed with Chairman Wallace.

 

Commissioner Karabensh 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 2006 International Residential Code, 2006 International Building Codes, 2006 International Plumbing Code, 2006 International Mechanical Code, 2006 International Fuel Gas Code, 2006 International Energy Conservation Code, 2006 International Existing Building Code and proposed amendments to be effective October 02, 2007, including the new wind speed map, and amendments to Section R301.2.1.1 Building Geometry Limitation footnote to read *Pole barns in high wind areas shall use the Prescriptive Design for pole barns in high wind areas, dated June 20, 2007 and Section R907.3 Re-covering versus replacement, by leaving the current Item 4, be adopted.

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend the Board of County Commissioners repeal of the currently adopted 2003 International Residential Code, 2003 International Building Codes, 2003 International Plumbing Code, 2003 International Mechanical Code, 2003 International Fuel Gas Code, 2003 International Energy Conservation Code, 2003 International Existing Building Code and proposed amendments to be effective October 02, 2007

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Boulter, Cox, Hart, Karabensh, Pond, and Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM #4  RED FEATHER LAKES BUSINESS ZONE AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE #07-CA0070:  Ms. Bennett provided background information on the request to add the RFLB-Red Feather Lakes Business zone district to the Larimer County Land Use Code.  The Red Feather Lakes Area Plan was adopted in August, 2006.  One of the recommendations from that plan was to consider rezoning existing businesses.  Most of the businesses in Red Feather Lakes were non-conforming or had a form of use approval such as a Special Exception which limited them to a single use.  She stated that the Plan also suggested making amendments to existing zoning districts to better meet the needs of the Red Feather Lakes community or consider creating a new zoning district specific to that area.  After meeting with an informal group of business owners in the area a choice was made to create a new zone district.  The zoning district would be based on the B-Business district with a few changes such as allowing some uses required to Special Review in the B-Business zone to be uses by right in the RFLB – Red Feather Lakes Business zone.  The new proposed business zone would amend Section 4.1 of the Larimer County Land Use Code, add new descriptions applying only to the RFLB district to Section 0.1 Definitions and Section 4.3 Use Descriptions and Conditions, and add the RFLB zone to provisions in Section 10 Signs and Section 16 Commercial Mobile Radio Service Facilities. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Lucille Schmidt, 60 Deer Mountain Court, was on the Red Feather Lakes Area Plan Committee and also owned a business in Red Feather.  She stated that the new zone district was the first step to implementation of the Plan.  She stated that it had been a unanimous decision to approve the new zoning district by the Red Feather Lakes Area Plan Committee. 

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Boulter 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 Red Feather Lakes Business Zone District, file #07-CA0070, be adopted as follows:

 

1.   Amend the Larimer County Land Use Code by adding Section 4.1.23  RFLB-Red Feather Lakes Business:

 

4.1.23. RFLB-Red Feather Lakes Business

This zoning district may be applied only within the Red Feather Lakes Plan Area.

 

A.        Principal uses:

 

            Commercial

1.    Convenience store (R)

2.    Automobile service station (R)

3.    Carwash (R)

4.    General retail (R/S) – See section 4.3

5.    Professional office (R)

6.    Clinic (R)

7.    Personal service (R)

8.    Bar/tavern (R/MS) – See section 4.3

 

9.    Restaurant (R/MS) – See section 4.3

10.   Instructional facility (R)

 

            Agricultural

11.   Pet animal veterinary clinic/hospital (R/S) – See section 4.3

                       

            Institutional

12.   Church (R)

13.   Community hall (R)      

14.   Cultural institution (R/L)

15.   Sheriff/fire station (L)

16.   Child/elderly care center(S)

 

            Recreational

17.   Place of amusement or recreation (R/S) – See section 4.3

18.   Membership club/clubhouse (R)

 

            Accommodations

19.   Hotel/motel (R)

20.   Recreational vehicle park/campground (S)

21.   Resort lodge/resort cabins (R)

22.   Nursing home (S)

 

            Industrial

23.   Enclosed storage (S)

 

            Utilities

24.   Utility substation (L/S)

25.   Commercial mobile radio service (R/S) – see section 16

26.   Treatment plant (L/S)

27.   Water storage facility (L/S)

28.   Radio and television transmitter  (S)

 

            Transportation

29.   Parking lot/garage (MS)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B.         Lot, building and structure requirements:

            1.         Minimum lot size:

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

                        b.         15,000 square feet ( 0.34 acres) if public water and sewer are used 

            2.         Minimum setbacks:

a.         Front yard – refer to section 8.17 for setbacks from highways and county roads.  The setback from an interior subdivision road or established public or private road must be 25 feet from the property line or from the nearest edge of the road easement, except for those lots fronting on Main Street between County Road 179 and Grand Drive, where the setback may be the lesser of 25 feet or the same setback established by an existing structure on the same side of the street in that block.

                        b.         Side yards – 5 feet

                        c.         Rear yards – 10 feet.

                        d.         Streams, creeks and rivers – 100 feet from the centerline of the watercourse.

            3.         Maximum structure height – 40 feet.

            4.         Development is subject to Site Plan review – see section 6.0. [Note: site plan review is required prior to the acceptance of any building permit application for a nonresidential or multifamily use, or for a change in use of an existing nonresidential or multifamily structure.]

            5.         A parcel may be used for one or more principal buildings.

            6.         On-site parking is not required for non-residential uses fronting on Main Street between County Road 179 and Grand Drive.

 

 

2.         Amend the Land Use Code by adding the following to Section 0.1  Definitions:

 

0.1  Definitions

 

Bar/Tavern.  An establishment where the primary business is  providing or dispensing by the drink for on-site consumption of fermented malt beverages and/or malt, special malt, vinous or spirituous liquors, in which the sale of food products such as sandwiches and light snacks is secondary, and where music, live entertainment and/or dancing may be provided.

 

Cultural institution.  A public or non-profit institution displaying or preserving objects of interest in one or more of the arts or sciences, including libraries and museums.

 

Restaurant. An establishment where the principal business is the sale of food and beverages in a ready-to-consume state.  Fermented malt beverages, malt, special malt and vinous and spirituous liquors may be produced on the premises as an accessory use. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.         Amend the Land Use Code by adding the following to Section 4.3  Use Descriptions and Conditions:

 

4.3. Use Descriptions and Conditions

4.3.3. Commercial uses.

 

H. Restaurant. An establishment where the principal business is the sale of food and beverages in a ready-to-consume state.  Fermented malt beverages, malt, special malt and vinous and spirituous liquors may be produced on the premises as an accessory use. 

1.    An outdoor seating area or outdoor food service requires approval through the minor special review process.

2.    Drive-in or drive-through service facilities requires approval through the minor special review process.

 

I. Bar/Tavern.  An establishment where the primary business is  providing or dispensing by the drink for on-site consumption of fermented malt beverages and/or malt, special malt, vinous or spirituous liquors, in which the sale of food products such as sandwiches and light snacks is secondary, and where music, live entertainment and/or dancing may be provided.

1.    An outdoor seating area requires approval through the minor special review process.

2.    A bar/tavern cannot include any adult use.

 

4.3.4. Institutional uses.

O. Cultural institution.  A public or non-profit institution displaying or preserving objects of interest in one or more of the arts or sciences, including libraries and museums.

 

The new zone district allows a new accessory use, business accessory dwelling units, to provide housing for an owner, operator, caretaker or employee on the same lot as the business use.

 

4.3.10.  Accessory uses and structures.

 

G. Business accessory dwelling units.  A single-family dwelling unit for an owner, operator, caretaker or employee of the principal use or business located on the lot is allowed in the RFLB-Red Feather Lakes Business zoning district.

1.    One business accessory dwelling unit per lot is allowed.

2.    A minimum of one off-street parking space shall be provided for an accessory business dwelling unit containing eight hundred square feet of gross floor area or less and two off-street parking spaces for a unit greater than eight hundred square feet, in addition to the required parking for the principal use or business.

3.    The accessory dwelling unit shall be occupied only by the owner, operator, caretaker or an employee of the principal use, plus his or her immediate family.

4.    Site Plan approval is required.

 

 

 

 

 

4.         Amend the Land Use Code by adding the following to Section 10.0  Signs:

 

10.0 Signs

10.6 Prohibited signs.

 

The following signs are not allowed in any zoning district, except as specified below.

 

A. Rooftop signs, except in the RFLB-Red Feather Lakes Business district, where rooftop signs that extend no higher than the peak of the roof shall be allowed.

 

10.19 Definitions

 

Nonresidential districts.  The A-Accommodations, T-Tourist, B-Business, C-Commercial, I-Industrial, I-1 Industrial, RFLB-Red Feather Lakes Business, and areas of the AP-Airport and PD-Planned Development zoning districts approved for nonresidential uses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.         Amend the Land Use Code by adding the following to Section 16.0 CRMS Facilities:

 

16.0 Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CRMS) Facilities

 

TABLE 16.1.2.I

ANTENNA LOCATION REGULATIONS

 

Zoning District

Attached and Concealed (Stealth) Antennas

Antenna Tower
(Temporary)

Antenna Towers
(Microcells)

Antenna Towers
(Other)

E and E-1 Estate; R, R-1 and R-2 Residential; M and M-1 Multiple-Family; RE and RE-1 Rural Estate; FO-1 Forestry; and PD Planned Development   

P   

Not permitted   

(P<=30 feet high--a, b)
SR<=30 feet high

Not permitted   

FA and FA-1 Farming and FO Forestry   

P   

P<=40 feet high   

(P<=30 feet high--a, b)
(SR<=30 feet high

(P<=40 feet high--b)
SR<=60 feet high--e)
(S<=80 feet high--c, e)   

A Accommodations and T Tourist   

P   

P<=40 feet high   

(P<=30 feet high--a, b)
SR<=30 feet high

(P<=40 feet high-b)   

B Business; RFLB Red Feather Lakes Business   

P   

P<=40 feet high   

P<=40 feet high

P<=40 feet high
SR>40--80 feet high   

C Commercial and I and I-1 Industrial   

P   

P<=40 feet high   

P<=40 feet high

P<=60 feet high
(P<=80 feet high--c)
(P<=100 feet high--d)
SR>60--120 feet high   

O Open   

P   

P<=40 feet high   

(P<=30 feet high--a, b)
SR<=40 feet high

(P<=40 feet high--b)
(SR<=160 feet high--e)   

AP Airport   

P   

P<=30 feet high   

P<=30 feet high

(P<=30 feet high--b)   

P--Permitted by administrative review

SR--Permitted by special review special conditions

a--Permitted only when placed 200 feet or less from the right-of-way line of I-25 (east side of road); US 34; US 36; US 287 (east side of road); Colorado 7; Colorado 14; and on lots with public and private schools for elementary and high school education, hospitals, police and fire stations.

b--Permitted only at public utility substations and in high-tension power line easements.

c--Permitted if two competing CMRS providers co-develop one tower where both will collocate.

d--Permitted if three competing CMRS providers co-develop one tower where all will collocate.

e--Neighborhood meeting required. Notice must be sent to all property owners within 500 feet of the site or a larger area if the planning director determines the facility's visual impact warrants a greater notification area.

 

 

Commissioner Hart seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner Hart voted against the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Boulter, Cox, Karabensh, Pond, and Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  5-1

 

 

 

ITEM #5  ADOPTION OF THE LARIMER COUNTY PARKS MASTER PLAN #07-CA0071:  Mr. Engemoen provided background information on the request to adopt the 2007 Parks Master Plan as an element of the Larimer County Master Plan, which would supercede the 1993 Parks Master Plan.  He thanked everyone who was involved in the development of the Master Plan, which included the Bureau of Reclamation, the Parks Master Plan Task Force, EDAW, Parks and Open Lands Staff, and the citizens that participated.  He stated that the proposed Parks Master Plan was an effort to look towards the future as Larimer County was growing and the parks system was changing.  He noted that the Board of County Commissioners had recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the Parks Master Plan.

 

Matt Buechler, Bureau of Reclamation, stated that the Parks Master Plan was a comprehensive plan for Larimer County parks in the future; whereas, the Resource Management Plan was a required document from the Bureau of Reclamation.  The Resource Management Plan (RMP) applied only to the Bureau of Reclamation reservoirs in Larimer County, which were Carter Lake, Horsetooth, Flatiron, and Pinewood Reservoirs.  The RMP provided for a mechanism to foster sustainable management of lands owned by the Bureau of Reclamation and mechanism for managers to take into account land use and natural resources when making decisions.  It also addressed the public’s needs for the next ten years in Larimer County.  

 

Linda Knowlton, Vice Chairman for the Parks Master Plan Task Force, stated that the Task Force was made up of 14 people from the community.  She stated that the Task Force held six meetings, which were open to the public, and on April 10, 2007 the Task Force approved the plan.  She remarked that she looked forward to implementing the plan because she felt it was a great plan for Larimer County. 

 

Drew Stoll, EDAW, stated that there was extensive public participation including several stakeholder interviews, four public workshops, six Parks Master Plan Task Force meetings, Open Lands Board meetings, and an Environmental Advisory Board meeting.  He stated that there was also a project webpage that the public could go to comment on the proposed plan and a park visitor survey that was conducted.  He explained that the Bureau of Reclamation had looked at trends throughout the State and nationally to examine the parks along with feedback from a visitors’ survey.  It was found that population growth was affecting the parks because there was more demand.  The visitors were now more interested in being involved in more activities.  He stated that there were four issues that the public most commented on, which were:  1. Group event center at Horsetooth, 2.  Archery range in the area north of Horsetooth Damn, 3.  New swim beach at Carter Lake, 4.  Additional cabins at Pinewood Reservoir.  He remarked that all four of those issues would be further studied before any implementation would occur.  He stated that all together 36 different improvements were developed among the four reservoirs.   At Horsetooth Reservoir shower houses and visitor cabins were being added, campgrounds were being expanded, and a new swim beach on the east side of the Reservoir was being added.  At Carter Lake campgrounds were being upgraded, the marina was being redeveloped, and visitor cabins, group camping and activities were being added.  At Flatiron Reservoir the only proposed addition was to add two additional cabins.  Finally, at Pinewood Reservoir the facilities were quite old and needed to be redeveloped.  As a result, the distribution of the campsites and the topography were being improved, the number of social trails were being reduced, a trail along the east shore line would be created, two cabins would be added, and the circulation at the boat ramp to improve parking and reduce some of the inefficiencies that went along with loading and unloading boats would be improved. 

 

He noted that implementation and financing was examined to determine what would be feasible, and Staff projected that in the next ten years an average of $500,000 would be available annually to meet the needs of the Master Plan.  Those funds would be used to match other grant opportunities from the Great Outdoors Colorado, Bureau of Reclamation, and others to stretch the funds so that the entire Master Plan could be accomplished within the next ten years.  He noted that the implementation would be broken down into phases according to priorities. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

None

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Boulter appreciated the archery range being of future study.  He stated that if practicing opportunities were not provided for the public they would do so on their own properties or other areas, which would cause problems and safety issues.  He believed that having a facility that was properly and safely designed would be more desirable from a more general public standpoint. 

 

Chairman Wallace stated that the traffic generation as a result of activities on Horsetooth Reservoir was of some concern to the people of Bellvue.

 

Mr. Engemoen stated that traffic impacts would be examined and considered for all proposals. 

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission adopt the Larimer County Parks Master Plan, file #07-CA0071.

 

Commissioner Hart seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner Boulter moved to amend the Motion to include that the 2007 Larimer County Parks Master Plan supercede the 2003 Larimer County Parks Master Plan.

 

Commissioner Cox seconded the Amended Motion.

 

Commissioners' Boulter, Cox, Hart, Karabensh, Pond, and Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM #6  AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE #07-CA0069:  Mr. Kadera provided background information on the request to make a number of changes to the adopted Land Use Code.  The amendments would affect the following sections of the Larimer County Land Use Code:  Sections 4.3.3.O, Outdoor Display and Sales; Section 4.3.7.A, Enclosed Storage; and Section 4.3.7.H, Outdoor Storage will be amended to add specific criteria for these uses and a procedure for allowing these uses which cannot meet the criteria.  Section 4.3.10.I, Accessory Outdoor Commercial Storage and Section 4.3.10.J, Accessory Outdoor Display and Sales will be added to the Land Use Code to include specific criteria for these uses and a process to allow these uses which cannot meet the criteria.  Section 4.0, Zoning, will also be amended to require that outdoor display and storage uses be kept outside the part of a lot that is needed for required parking, traffic circulation and/or landscaping and to require that all outdoor display and storage be outside the sight triangle at any intersection or driveway.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

None

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #07-CA0069, be approved as follows:

 

1.    Amend the Larimer County Land Use Code, Section 4.3.3, as follows:

 

4.3.3  Commercial uses

 

O. Outdoor display and sales.  A principal commercial use that requires the outdoor display of materials, parts, inventory or goods including, but not limited to, lumber and builder supply yards, landscape materials, automobile and truck sales, recreational vehicle sales, boat sales, farm implement sales and manufactured housing sales, excluding flea markets.
 

1.  Outdoor display and sales uses must be maintained in an orderly manner with no trash, junk or debris.

 

2.    Outdoor display and sales uses must effectively screen the side and rear of the display areas from adjacent properties that are zoned to allow residential uses.  See Section 8.5, Landscaping.  Outdoor display and sales areas that cannot be screened require approval through the minor special review process.

3.   Outdoor display and sales uses must maintain adequate emergency access lanes around and through the outdoor display and sales areas.

 

4.   Outdoor display and sales areas must be outside any parking, traffic circulation, right of way or landscaping area that serves the site.

 

 

 

 

5.   Outdoor display and sales areas must be located outside the sight triangle at any intersection or driveway as determined by the Urban Area Street Standards or the Rural Area Road Standards.

6.    

2.         Amend the Land Use Code, Section 4.3.7, as follows:

 

4.3.7  Industrial uses.

 

A.  Enclosed storage.  A principal use where goods are kept in a completely enclosed building or buildings.

 

1.  Enclosed storage includes self-storage and ministorage facilities, and may include an accessory single family dwelling for the owner/operator of the facility.

 

2.  Enclosed storage includes freezers and meat lockers.

 

3.  Enclosed storage facilities must use building orientation and landscaping (See Section 8.5, Landscaping) to restrict the view of the interior of storage units and loading areas and docks from adjacent properties that are zoned to allow residential uses.  Enclosed storage facilities that are unable meet this requirement require approval through the minor special review process.

 

H. Outdoor storage.  A facility principal use where goods such as recreational vehicles, boats and other large items, are stored outside of a buildingOutdoor storage uses that cannot meet the following requirements require approval through the minor special review process.

 

1. All outdoor storage as a principal use must comply with screening and landscaping requirements in section 8.5.

2.  Outdoor storage as a principal use must be effectively screened from adjacent properties located outside the area that is zoned I or I-1 Industrial.  See Section 8.5, Landscaping. 

 

3,  All outdoor storage areas must maintain adequate emergency access lanes around and through the outdoor storage areas,
 

4.  An outdoor storage use, as a principal use, may include one single family dwelling that is occupied by the owner or operator of the storage use.


5.  Outdoor storage uses must be maintained in an orderly manner with no junk, trash or debris.

 

6.  Outdoor storage areas must be outside the sight triangle at any driveway or intersection as determined by the Urban Area Street Standards or the Rural Area Road Standards.

 

7.  Outdoor storage areas must be located outside any parking, traffic circulation, right of way or landscaping area that serves the site.

 

3.         Amend the Land Use Code by adding Sections 4.3.10.I and 4.3.10.J, as follows:

 

4.3.10.I  Accessory outdoor commercial storage.  The storage of materials, equipment, products and any other goods that are clearly incidental and subordinate to the principal business, commercial or industrial use of the property.  Parking of employee and customer vehicles is not accessory outdoor commercial storage.  Accessory outdoor commercial storage areas that cannot meet all the following requirements require review and approval through the Minor Special Review process.

1.  Accessory outdoor commercial storage areas must be effectively screened from any adjacent property zoned to allow residential uses (See Section 8.5, Landscaping).

2.  Accessory outdoor commercial storage areas cannot cover an area larger than the principal building on the site or 50% of the total area of the site, whichever is greater. 


3.  Accessory outdoor commercial storage areas must be maintained in a orderly manner with no junk, trash or debris. 

4.  Adequate emergency access lanes must be maintained around and through the storage area.

5.  Accessory outdoor commercial storage must be outside any parking, traffic circulation, right of way and/or landscaping area that serves the site.

6.  Accessory outdoor commercial storage must be outside the sight triangle at any intersection or driveway.


4.3.10.J  Accessory Outdoor Display and Sales.  
The outdoor display of merchandise for sale and which outdoor display is clearly secondary and incidental to the principal use of the property.

 

1.  The accessory outdoor display area must be outside any parking, traffic circulation, right of way and/or landscaping area that serves the site.

2.  The accessory outdoor display area must be outside the sight triangle at any intersection or driveway.

3.  The accessory outdoor display area cannot be any larger than the square footage of the principal building on the lot.

4.  Accessory outdoor display areas must be effectively screened from any adjacent property zoned to allow residential uses (See Section 8.5, Landscaping).

 

5.  Accessory outdoor display and sales items are displayed outdoors only when the principal use is open for business.

 

Commissioner Karabensh seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Boulter, Cox, Hart, Karabensh, Pond, and Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

 

ITEM #7  AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE #07-CA0069:  Mr. Wheeler provided background information on the request to amend the Larimer County Land Use Code, specifically Section 8.5.9.H.14 Landscaping – Fences and Walls.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

None

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Boulter 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 Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #07-CA0069, be approved as follows:

 

1.   Amend the Larimer County Land Use Code by adding the following to Section 8.5.10 (Definitions):

 

Fence:  For the purposes of Section 8.5 only, a fence is defined as a structure that provides an enclosure or barrier usually made of posts, wire, wood or stakes, which is also joined together by boards, wire or rails and used to prevent entrance, to confine, to mark a boundary or to block the view into a site.

 

Wall:  For the purposes of Section 8.5 only, a wall is defined as a permanent upright structure having a length much greater than the thickness and presenting a continuous surface except where pierced by doors, windows, etc. that requires a continuous foundation more than posts or supports typically used for fencing.  Walls are used to divide space, to support roofs, to block a view or to perform similar functions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.         Amend the Land Use Code by deleting Section 8.5.9.H.14.a, and replacing it with the following:

 

a.  Fences used for screening must be at least 6 feet high and not taller than 8 feet from the finished grade.  Fences above 6’ require a building permit.  All walls used for screening require a building permit, and are allowed to a height of no more than 10 feet from the finished grade.  Wall heights above 10 feet require written approval by the Planning Director.  Fences and/or walls may be combined with landscape berms to achieve the desired height, if berms are sized appropriately to provide adequate support for the fence or wall.  In addition, the use to be screened remains visible at 6 feet off site additional screening may be required.  Items may be stored in the setback areas but they shall not be visible above the height of the fence or wall.  At least 60% of the plants provided for buffering or screening must be on the side facing the public right-of-way, open space, residential area or other uses being buffered or screened.

 

 

3.   Amend the Land Use Code, Section 8.5.9.H.14.b, as follows:

 

b.   Fencing or walls used as a screen must not have gaps.  Where gaps are spacing may be necessary to prevent wind damage, the placement of gaps may be allowed only if evergreen and deciduous trees or shrubs must  are planted and maintained to conceal the view through the gaps.

 

 

4.   Amend the Land Use Code, Section 8.5.9.H.14.c, as follows:

 

c.   Where fences are designed with where the vertical boards are on the alternate sides of the horizontal rail, the design must use plant materials or board widths sufficient to screen the view into the site between the pickets. are allowed where complete opacity is required only if the design will provide complete opacity.

 

 

5.   Amend the Land Use Code by deleting Section 8.5.9.H.14.d and replacing it with the following:

 

d.   Where required fences or walls continue for more than 40 feet, the design must include at least one tree and six shrubs for each 40-foot section.  Four of the required shrubs must be of a variety that reaches a mature height of three feet, and two of the required shrubs must be of a variety that reaches a mature height of six feet.  Alternating 40-foot sections of fence and wall can be constructed within 3 feet of the property line, so long as they do not interfere with site triangle requirements or create safety concerns.

 

 

7.   Amend the Land Use Code, Section 8.5.9.H.14.e, as follows:

 

e.   Required fences and walls adjacent to a county road or state highwaymust have a unifying theme and provide variation by using clearly visible changes in height or depth, different material combinations, offset angles or structural articulation and/or plant materials.   These are in addition to the required plant materials.

 

 

8.   Amend the Land Use Code, Section 8.5.9.H.14.f, by adding the words “wire and rails” as follows:

 

f.    Required fences and walls must be constructed of wood, wire, rails, stone, brick, decorative concrete block, wrought iron, products created to closely resemble these materials or combination of these.

 

Commissioner Cox seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Boulter, Cox, Hart, Karabensh, Pond, and Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

 

ITEM #8  BRAUCH SUBDIVISION #06-S2596:  Mr. Helmick provided background information on the request to subdivide 13.8 acres into five lots ranging in size from 2.44 acres to 4.5 acres located on the east side of Shields, north of Douglas Road, and immediately north of Mesa Drive.  He stated that the site was zoned FA – Farming and was surrounded by FA-Farming zoning except to the west, which was zoned RE-Rural Estate.  The proposed subdivision was in the Boxelder Sanitation District service area but service was determined to not be feasible due to the distance and mechanical needs needed to serve the site.  He stated that during review there was some concern about the flag lot, Lot 4, but due to the topography the Development Services team felt that a flag lot was a reasonable design solution to accommodate most of the density on the property. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Ken Giesen, 4200 N. Shields, had concerns about the additional traffic.  He stated that the posted speed limit going northbound was 45 m.p.h. and going southbound there was no posted speed limit.  He stated that the visibility was poor and felt that the two new accesses would be a traffic hazard.  He remarked that the shoulders on the road were very short and there was a lot of bicycle traffic.  He stated that the building envelopes would be in his field of view, which was undesirable.  He was also concerned about the light pollution that would be caused by five additional residences along with dogs and other noise that came with development.  He stated that there was white tail, mule deer, and red fox in the area, which more development would have an impact on. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Matt Johnson, Engineering Department, stated that Staff had been concerned with the vertical alignment with Shields Street (County Road 17) given the two new proposed accesses.  He explained that when the design was submitted Staff verified the locations while at the site with the site distance standards of the Rural Area Road Standards.  Staff did conclude that the accesses would meet the site distance requirements.  He noted that there had been some accidents in the area over the past five years; however, the majority of the accidents were at Douglas Road.  Only two accidents over the past five years were between Douglas and Travis Roads and caused only property damage.  As a result, Staff did not feel that the additional five lots would have a significant enough impact to preclude access.  He stated that the speed limit going northbound was 45 m.p.h., and Staff was going to investigate whether a speed study had been done recently and have the Road and Bridge Department install the proper speed limit sign going southbound. 

 

Commissioner Hart asked if the Division of Wildlife had commented on the proposed subdivision?

 

Mr. Helmick replied yes and stated that they did not identify any issues. 

 

Chairman Wallace asked if septics would be feasible on the lots?

 

Doug Ryan, Health Department, replied yes.  He stated that he had pulled the permits from the adjacent subdivision to compare and those systems all responded to the same kind of soil conditions that was expecting on the subject parcel. 

 

Commissioner Boulter appreciated Mr. Geisy’s comment regarding lighting.  He felt that it was important to be sensitive to light issues in previously undeveloped areas and to surrounding neighbors. 

 

Don Birkshire, Eastpoint Studio, represented the applicant.  He stated that the lighting was something that would be taken into consideration.  He stated that there was no planned lighting except for the residences. 

 

Commissioner Hart asked what the purpose of the building envelope locations was?

 

Mr. Birkshire stated that access points and the topography of the site were a driving force.  He stated that most of the eastern portion of the site was level which gave a better building site and created a buffer so that the homes were not built close to Shields.  He stated that one of the goals of the developer was to keep the site as undisturbed as possible.  Also, the vision was not to have walkout homes on the hillside.  He stated that it would be encouraged, if not required, that a ranch style design be used.  Therefore, keeping the building envelopes away from the hillside would help with that issue and visual impact. 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Brauch Subdivision, file #06-S2596, as described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved as follows:

 

1.   The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plan and with the information contained in the Brauch Subdivision (File #06-S2596), 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 Brauch 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, 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. 

 

3.   Fire Requirements, all residential structures shall be equipped with residential fire sprinklers.  Hydrants are not available for this development. 

 

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 Final Plat application must adders to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department the remaining concerns as identified in the memo from Mathew Johnson, date March 5, 2007.  Specifically, items 2, 5 & 6 under Transportation and items 1-6 under drainage.  Unless satisfactorily addressed prior tot the Larimer County Planning Commission hearing. 

 

7.   The Final Plat shall include building envelops for the construction of all structures. 

 

Commissioner Cox seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Boulter, Cox, Hart, Karabensh, Pond, and Chairman Wallace voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  6-0

 

 

 

 

 

ELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION LIASON TO THE PARKS AND OPEN LANDS ADVISORY BOARD:  Commissioner Boulter nominated Commissioner Wallace for Planning Commission liason to the Larimer County Parks and Open Lands Advisory Board.  Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.  The Motion received unanimous voice approval.

 

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

 

ADJOURNMENT:  There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 9:45 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.

 

 

 

_______________________________                      ______________________________

Nancy Wallace, Chairman                                            Kristen Karabensh, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT “A”

 

Rocky Ridge Estates Overall Description

 

A parcel of land lying in Sections 11, 13 and 14, Township 8 North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Larimer County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows:

 

Considering the North line of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 13, Township 8 North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Larimer County, Colorado as defined by an iron rod and 2.0-inch aluminum cap stamped PLS 5028 at the Northwest Section corner and an iron rod and 3.0-inch aluminum cap stamped PLS 10740 at the North 1/4 Corner of said Section 13 as bearing S 89°36'33" E with all bearing contained herein relative thereto.

 

BEGINNING at the Northwest corner of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 13, Township 8 North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Larimer County, Colorado;

thence run S 89°36'33" E along the North line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section  13 for a distance of 1258.27 feet to a point on the West right of way  line of North Larimer County Road 15;

thence leaving said North line run S 00°27’38" W along said West right of way line for a distance of 893.80 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve concave to the Southeast and having a radius of 1146.00 feet and a chord bearing of S 07°46'42" W, said curve also being the West right of way line of Colorado State Highway 1;

thence along said West right of way line of Colorado State Highway 1 the following five (5) courses:

thence leaving said West right of way  line of North Larimer County Road 15 run Southwesterly along the arc of said curve for a distance of 76.87 feet, through a central angle of  3°50'35" to the end of said curve;

thence run S 02°06'38" W for a distance of 320.49 feet;

thence run S 00°23'20" E for a distance of 1049.93 feet;

thence run S 01°06’49" W for a distance of 297.94 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve concave to the Northwest and having a radius of  1860.00 feet and a chord bearing of S 07°43'40" W;

thence run Southwesterly along the arc of said curve for a distance of 232.06 feet, through a central angle of 7°08'55";

thence leaving said West right of way  line of Colorado State Highway 1 run N 89°41'46" W for a distance of 983.16 feet;

thence run S 15°10'20" E for a distance of 1072.48 feet;

thence run S 89°41’03" E for a distance of 277.15 feet to the aforesaid West right of way line of Colorado State Highway 1;

thence along said West right of way line the following three (3) courses:

thence run S 22°51’43" W for a distance of 263.97 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve concave to the Southeast and having a radius of 1196.00 feet and a chord bearing of S 15°21'40" W;

thence run Southwesterly along the arc of said curve for a distance of 74.76 feet, through a central angle of 3°34'53" to the end of said curve;

thence S 07°51'38" W along said tangent line for a distance of 77.02 feet to the South side of the North Poudre Ditch;

 

 

thence along the South and East side of said North Poudre Ditch the following ten (10) courses:

thence leaving said West right of way  line of Colorado State Highway 1 run N 82°12’04" W for a distance of 113.45 feet;

thence run S 47°46’56" W for a distance of 73.80 feet;

thence run S 31°42'56" W for a distance of 55.60 feet;

thence run S 05°08'04" E for a distance of 177.70 feet;

thence run S 11°18'56" W for a distance of 123.60 feet;

thence run S 17°45'04" E for a distance of 59.90 feet;

thence run S 35°10’04" E for a distance of 98.40 feet;

thence run S 05°43’56" W for a distance of 101.40 feet;

thence run S 13°09'06" W for a distance of 280.27 feet;

thence run S 22°39'55" E for a distance of 60.08 feet;

thence leaving said East side of the North Poudre Ditch run S 89°50'26" E for a distance of 87.43 feet to the aforesaid West right of way line of Colorado State Highway 1;

thence run S 04°24'47" W along said West right of way  line for a distance of 19.90 feet to the South line of the Southwest 1/4 of the aforesaid Section 13;

thence leaving said West right of way line run N 88°57'08" W along said South line for a distance of 467.33 feet to the approximate South and West side of the Larimer County Canal;

thence leaving said South line run along said approximate South and West side of the Larimer County Canal the following thirteen (13) courses:

thence run N 09°28'33" W for a distance of 185.02 feet;

thence run N 10°36'52" E for a distance of 153.87 feet;

thence run N 01°43'31" W for a distance of 124.47 feet;

thence run N 14°33'09" W for a distance of 391.76 feet;

thence run N 09°09'23" W for a distance of 58.15 feet;

thence run N 03°56'05" E for a distance of 63.69 feet;

thence run N 15°18'11" E for a distance of 147.62 feet;

thence run N 07°30'26" E for a distance of 93.54 feet;

thence run N 07°40'16" W for a distance of 140.59 feet;

thence run N 11°33'42" W for a distance of 171.70 feet;

thence run N 03°39'24" W for a distance of 184.32 feet;

thence run N 09°44'05" W for a distance of 87.38 feet;

thence run N 23°33'58" W for a distance of 172.09 feet to the West line of the aforesaid Southwest 1/4 of Section 13;

thence leaving said approximate South and West side of the Larimer County Canal run N 02°08'07" E along said West line for a distance of 737.85 feet to the Southeast corner of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14, aforesaid Township 8 North, Range 69 West;

thence leaving said West line run S 89°47'33" W along the South line of said Northeast 1/4 for a distance of 2785.86 feet to the Southwest corner of said Northeast 1/4;

thence leaving said South line run N 03°29'41" W for a distance of 194.63 feet;
thence run N 13°18'55" W for a distance of 350.66 feet;

thence run N 23°37'14" W for a distance of 314.24 feet;

thence run N 00°20'09" W for a distance of 231.98 feet;

thence run N 33°48'27" W for a distance of 372.02 feet;

thence run N 06°34'56" W for a distance of 504.44 feet;

thence run N 18°39'04" W for a distance of 275.60 feet;

 

thence run N 22°29'54" W for a distance of 518.93 feet;

thence run N 29°56'02" W for a distance of 365.58 feet;

thence run N 89°00'37" E for a distance of 102.27 feet;

thence run N 15°55'08" E for a distance of 275.88 feet;

thence run S 55°20'14" E for a distance of 262.41 feet;

thence run S 83°40'02" E for a distance of 269.88 feet;

thence run S 53°29'05" E for a distance of 236.59 feet;

thence run S 58°16'07" E for a distance of 256.10 feet;

thence run S 50°22'02" E for a distance of 540.26 feet;

thence run S 20°18'37" E for a distance of 396.95 feet;

thence run S 39°13'51" E for a distance of 138.78 feet;

thence run S 76°20'05" E for a distance of 265.32 feet;

thence run S 43°20'22" E for a distance of 107.75 feet;

thence run S 32°17'17" E for a distance of 337.52 feet;

thence run S 71°29'09" E for a distance of 363.39 feet;

thence run S 78°23'15" E for a distance of 137.32 feet;

thence run N 69°44'35" E for a distance of 342.15 feet;

thence run N 00°00'00"E for a distance of 804.56 feet;

thence run N 11°18'46" W for a distance of 357.61 feet to the North line of the aforesaid the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14;

thence run S 89°05'19" E along said North line for a distance of 886.23 feet to the Point of Beginning.

 

Containing 275.40 acres (11,996,585 square feet), more or less, and being subject to any easements or rights of way of record.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

Legal Description for Brauch Subdivision:

 

A tract of land situated in the West 112 of Section 23, Township 8 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., in Larimer County, Colorado; being more particularly described as follows:

Considering the West line of said Section 23 as bearing North 00 00' East and with all bearings contained herein relative thereto; Commencing at the Southwest comer of said Section 23; thence North 0" 00' East 1490.0 feet; thence North 900 00' East 30.00 feet to the true point of beginning; thence North 0" 00' East parallel to and 30.00 feet East of said West line of said Section 23, 1200.00 feet; thence North 90" 00' East 500.00 feet; thence South 0" 00' West 1200 feet; thence South 90" 00' West 500.00 feet to the point of beginning, Larimer County, State of Colorado.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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