LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of August 17, 2005

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, August 17, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners’ Huddleston, Karabensh, Morgan, Oppenheimer, Pond, terMeer, Waldo, and Wallace were present.  Commissioner Boulter presided as Chairman.  Also present were Rob Helmick, Principal Planner, Al Kadera, Principal Planner, David Karan, Planner II, Matt Lafferty, Senior Planner, Traci Downs, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Environmental Health, and Jill Wilson, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary.

 

COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC REGARDING THE COUNTY LAND USE CODE: 

None

 

COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC REGARDING OTHER RELEVANT LAND USE MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA:  

None

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE JULY 20, 2005 MEETINGS:  MOTION by Commissioner Pond to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Morgan.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:  

Rob Helmick, Principal Planner, suggested that Item #4:  Laurelwood Planned Land Division/Planned Development be moved to the consent agenda.

 

MOTION by Commissioner Wallace to amend the August 17, 2005 Planning Commission agenda by moving the Laurelwood Planned Land Division/Planned Development, file #04-S2245, to a consent item, seconded by Commissioner Pond. 

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:   9-0

 

CONSENT ITEM:

 

ITEM #1 PEAKVIEW GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN #04-S2345:  Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the General Development Plan for a Planned Land Division/Planned Development mixed use development on a 40.5 acre property, which would be divided into three planning areas situated on the northeast corner of Highway 14 and Greenfield Road. 

 

Commissioner Waldo 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 Peakview General Development Plan, file #04-S2345, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes be approved, subject to the following conditions:

 

 

 

1.   Rezoning and Preliminary Plat applications for the Peakview PD and PLD shall be consistent with the approved Peakview GDP and with the information contained in the Peakview GDP (File #04-S2345). The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Peakview GDP.

 

2.   During the Preliminary Plat process the applicant shall ensure compatibility with existing and allowed land uses in the area.

 

3.   During the Preliminary Plat process the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with all standards and other requirements of this Code and with all other federal, state and county laws and regulations.

 

4.   During the Preliminary Plat process the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with Section 8.0 (Standards for all development) of this Code.

 

5.   A wetland and wildlife buffer shall be provided along the eastern boundary of the property adjacent to the Cooper Slough, which buffer will vary from 100 feet to 150 feet as shown on the General Development Plan dated June 30, 2005.

 

6.   The Peakview Development shall be completed within three years from the date of the General Development Plan Approval.

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:   9-0

 

ITEM #2 LAURELWOOD PLANNED LAND DIVISION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT #04-S2245:  Mr. Karan provided background information on the request for a Planned Land Division and rezoning to Planned Development to create five single family residential lots and two outlots on 14.44 acres, located approximately ¾ miles east of US Highway 287.

 

Commissioner Waldo 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 Laurelwood Planned Land Division/Planned Development appeal to Section 8.14.2.M of the Larimer County Land Use Code, be approved.

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:   9-0

 

 

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Laurelwood Planned Land Division rezoning to Planned Development, file #04-S2245, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   Principal Uses

a.   Residential

1)   Single-family dwelling (R)

2)   Group home for developmentally disabled (R)

3)   Group home for the elderly (R)

4)   Group home (R)

b.   Institutional

1)   Hospital (S)

2)   School, public (L)

3)   School, nonpublic (R/S)

4)   Church (R/S)

5)   Child/elderly care center (S)

6)   Child/elderly care home (R)

7)   Congregate residence (/S)

8)   Sheriff/fire station (L)

9)   State-licensed group home (S)

c.   Recreational

1)   Public park, playground (L)

2)   Trail/trail head (L)

d.   Accommodation

1)   Nursing home (S)

e.   Utilities

1)   Utility substation (L)

2)   Water storage facility (L)

3)   Commercial mobile radio service (R/S)

4)   Treatment plant (L)

5)   Commercial mobile service (R/S)

2.   Minimum lot size:

c.   21,780 square feet (0.5 acre).

3.   Minimum setbacks:

a.   Front yard—20 feet from the property line or from the nearest edge of the road easement.

b.   Side yards— 7 feet.

c.   Rear yards— 25 feet.

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

4.   Maximum structure height—40 feet.

5.   No parcel can be used for more than one principal building; additional buildings on a parcel are allowed if they meet the accessory use criteria in subsection 4.3.10.

6.   Rezoning to PD will not be effective until and unless the Board of County Commissioners approve a Final Plat and the plat and all necessary documents are duly recorded.

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:   9-0

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Laurelwood Planned Land Division/Planned Development, file #04-S2245, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved Preliminary Plat and with the information contained in the Laurelwood PLD/PD (File #04-S2245).  The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Laurelwood PLD/PD.

2.   If and when Outlot A is divided, the 50 average daily trip-ends generated by the Laurelwood PLD must be included in the traffic analysis prepared for the development of Outlot A. The 50 average daily trip-ends must also be added to the average daily trip-ends generated by the development of Outlot A when considering the developer's requirement to design and construct adjacent and off-site road improvements as specified in Section 1.9.2 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. 

3.   The applicant shall dedicate an additional 4’ of right-of-way for County Road 13 on the Final Plat.

4.   All required fees including Transportation Capital Expansion Fees, Park Fees in Lieu of Land Dedication, Drainage Fees (Loveland Basin) and School fees must be paid at time of building permit issuance. 

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

6.   No basements will be allowed unless it is demonstrated on a lot by lot basis at Final Plat that the lowest floor elevation will be at least 3 feet above the seasonal high ground water level.

7.   At Final Plat, applicant shall a) verify that the existing hydrant on Saint Louis does meet the hydrant spacing requirements, b) provide hydrants to meet that standard or c) agree that all residences shall be sprinklered.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

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

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  9-0

 

ITEMS:

 

ITEM #2 AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE #05-CA0056:  Mr. Kadera  provided background information on the request to amend the following Sections of the Larimer County Land Use Code:  Section 4.1.5 (O-Open ) to change a reference to 8.9 to 8.17 , Section 4.3.10.F (Guest Quarters) to allow for accessory living area attached to a single family dwelling or detached if approved by the County Commissioners through the minor Special Review process, Section 5.13.6.B.2.b (Building Permits) to require that evidence of acceptance of newly installed water and sewer lines be submitted to the planning director and not the County Engineer, Section 8.3 (Hazard Areas) to include a reference to the new wildfire hazard maps produced by the Colorado State Forest Service and the US Forest Service, Section 12.2.6.C (Planning Commission) to reinstate some previously approved wording and to change all references in the land use code from "Stormwater Management Manual" to "Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards".

 

Commissioner Waldo asked if a single-wide mobile home could be considered an accessory living area? 

 

Mr. Kadera replied yes, if all the Land Use Code conditions and requirements for a single-wide mobile home were met and approved by the Board of County Commissioners.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

None

 

DISCUSSION:

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

 

 

 

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #05-CA0056, be approved as follows:

 

Item #1:      Amend the Land Use Code, Section 4.3.10.F, by replacing it with the following:

 

4.3.10.F  Accessory Living AreaFinished habitable space in a single family dwelling or in a detached building that is clearly accessory to the single family dwelling.  Accessory living area may contain a complete dwelling unit.

 

1.   Accessory Living Area attached to or incorporated into a single family dwelling.

a.   The single family character of the structure must be maintained by providing one main entrance to the structure, one set of utility meters and one address for the property;

b.   An addition to a single family dwelling to accommodate an accessory living area must be architecturally compatible with the existing structure and at least 12 feet along one wall of the Accessory Living Area must be contiguous to a wall of the single family dwelling with a doorway that allows passage between the single family dwelling and the accessory living area.  This door must connect to living area in the dwelling, not through a garage or storage area;

c.   Accessory living area may be placed in the basement of a single family dwelling;

d.   The total square footage of the accessory living area must not exceed 40% of the total square footage of the single family dwelling, excluding any basement or garage area, whether finished or not, or 800 square feet, whichever is less;

e.   Accessory living area is to be used solely for guests of the occupants of the single family dwelling or those providing a service on the site in exchange for their residency; and

f.   The accessory living area must not be rented or leased separately from the single family dwelling.

 

2.   Accessory Living Area in a detached building.

a.   Accessory living area in a detached building is subject to review and approval through the Minor Special Review Process in Section 4.5;

b.   The single family character of the property must be maintained.  The entrance(s) to the accessory living area must not be visible from any road;

 

 

 

 

c.   The total square footage of the accessory living area is limited to 40% of the square footage in the single family dwelling, excluding any garage or basement area, whether finished or not, or 800 square feet, whichever is less;

d.   One additional off-road parking space must be provided for each bedroom in the detached accessory living area;

e.   Building permit applications for accessory living area are subject to all applicable impact fees, including Transportation Capital Expansion Fees applicable to a multi-family land use type as defined in Section 9.5;

f.   Accessory living area is to be used solely for guests of the occupants of the single family dwelling or those providing a service on site in exchange for their residency; and

g.   The accessory living area must not be rented or leased separately from the single family dwelling.

 

Amend the Land Use Code by adding a definition of “accessory living area.” “Accessory Living Area”-  Finished habitable space in a single family dwelling or in a detached building that is clearly accessory to the single family dwelling on the lot.    Accessory living area may contain a complete dwelling unit.

 

Item #2:      Amend the Land Use Code by correcting the reference in Section 4.1.5.B.2.a from Section 8.9 to Section 8.17. 

 

Item #3:      Amend the Land Use Code by changes all references from “Stormwater Management Plan” to “Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards.”

 

Item #4:      Amend the Land Use Code by deleting Table 8.3.6.I in Section 8.3.

 

Amend the Land Use Code by adding the following to Section 8.3.6.A:

 

Section 8.3.6.A Wildfire Hazards (See Wildfire Hazard Areas Map which was adopted by the County Commissioners on June 25, 2001.)

 

Item #5:      Amend the Land Use Code, Section 5.13.6.2.b as follows;

 

“Public water and sewer systems are completely constructed and evidence of acceptance by appropriate water, sewer and fire protection providers has been submitted to the planning director; and”….

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  9-0

 

 

ITEM #3 DEEDS PLANNED LAND DIVISION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT #03-S2086:  Mr. Karan provided background information on the request for a Planned Land Division of the Geist Exemption, Tract B to divide 7.99 acres into three single-family residential lots and rezone to Planned Development on property located between Boyd and Horseshoe Lakes.  The request also included appeals to the Larimer County Land Use Code; Section 8.1.1.B.2.a – requirement to provide public sewer, and Section 8.14.2.S – connectivity.

 

Doug Ryan, Health Department, explained that the City of Greeley operated a water treatment plant on the south side of Boyd Lake, which pumped water to the treatment plant directly from the lake, thus defining Boyd Lake as a drinking water reservoir.  He stated that the applicant had submitted a drinking water reservoir water quality management report that outlined water quality measures that would be taken both at the beginning of the construction phase and during the later occupancy stage, which the County and the City of Greeley Water and Sewer Department had reviewed.  In that report the applicant provided four main strategies for protecting stormwater quality and protecting the reservoir for the long term occupancy of the development which were:  1) Incorporate a 100-foot rear setback between the development on the property and the rear property line, 2) Allow stormwater to sheet flow and take a long travel path over the naturally vegetated pasture, 3) Have continued flow of overland stormwater over the picnic area at the State park, and 4)  Generate a professionally prepared pasture management plan.  Mr. Ryan also noted that the City of Greeley Water and Sewer Department had provided water quality monitoring information for Boyd Lake and explained that the information indicated a number of water quality issues that were occurring on Boyd Lake.  Nonetheless, he stated that those issues had not made the water in Boyd Lake unsafe to treat or to turn into drinking water; it would only impact the water quality treatment process.  He remarked that the City of Greeley had made two recommendations:  1) all properties on Boyd Lake have sewer systems, and 2) no livestock be allowed.  The County Health Department, however, was recommending that septic systems be allowed.  He explained that the low-density rural development was preferable to bringing sewer in and having a higher level of density with the increasing impervious surface and increased runoff.  He stated that the County did support the City of Greeley in a recommendation of allowing no livestock.  The City had demonstrated through their monitoring that there were water quality issues occurring on the reservoir and that the restriction of livestock was related to those water quality issues.  He explained that the applicants had proposed to have horses on Lot 1 of the development, which had the applicant’s residence on it along with corrals, and did indicated that there had been livestock on the property in the past and could be in the future.  However, he pointed out that the Land Use Code specified that drinking water reservoirs had to achieve the highest level of protection. 

 

Rob Persichitte, Intermill Land Surveying, stated that the applicant was in agreement with all of the items and was willing to wave his request to have livestock on the property. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY;

Ed Young, Plans Superintendent for the City of Greeley’s Boyd Lake Water Plant, stated that over the past 25 years there had been a noticeable decline in the water quality and aspired to keep the water as clean as possible. 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that the burden was put on the applicant, yet water that filled the lake did not come through a system that was immune to other infiltrations.  He pointed out that the entire landscape that contributed to the issue should be examined and not just imposed on one individual. 

 

Mr. Ryan replied that the Big Thompson Watershed Forum was looking into the larger, global watershed issues.  He explained that the vision of the Larimer County Master Plan was to provide an additional measure of protection through specific drinking water regulations in addition to the State standards on livestock and the regular water quality protection that the County provided for any development.  He noted that the final body of water that was drawn from to treat the drinking water should have a higher level of protection then the rest of the watershed.

 

Mr. Young sympathized with putting restrictions on someone’s land.  However, he felt the watershed needed to be preserved and protected.

 

Commissioner Huddleston suggested having a report that showed the impacts from having one or two horses on a piece of land.  He did not feel that a well-managed horse area would have that great of an impact. 

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if the City of Greeley was okay with the County’s reasoning to approve the septic systems?

 

Mr. Young replied that the City of Greeley would like to see a sewer system but understood the County’s reasoning.  He stated that in his opinion it was a good trade-off if it meant that having septic systems would keep the population down.

 

Commissioner Karabensh asked in terms of general impact on the drinking water quality which of the City’s recommendations would have the greatest impact:  livestock or septic systems?

 

Mr. Young replied that a property with a septic system was better unless it broke down or leaked. 

 

DISCUSSION;

Commissioner Wallace remarked that the property was set up to have livestock.  She asked for clarification on the definition of livestock and the livestock restriction.

 

Mr. Helmick explained that livestock generally meant four-legged animals, regardless of use, and any animals, except dogs and cats, that were used for working purposes on a farm or ranch and any other animal designated by the state agricultural commissioner, which animal was raised for food or fiber production.

 

Commissioner Morgan stated that he did not want to minimize the issues regarding the pollution of the water; however, there was an opportunity on the property due to the already existing facilities.  He did not feel that having a couple of horses would degrade the quality of the water in Boyd Lake. 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner terMeer remarked that Commissioners were supposed to be guided by what was in the best interest of the entire community.  She stated that the line needed to be drawn some where, and while the area once had livestock it did not mean that it was appropriate now or in the future.  She asked if it was a possibility for an applicant to install a sewer system but still be a lower-density?

 

Mr. Ryan replied that the sewer system was more than a mile away from the site, which would make it more difficult to connect and create a higher cost.  If the sewer were closer, there would be no question of connecting at a low-density.

 

Mr. Helmick stated that in the Land Use Code public sewer was always the preferred option.  It was only in the rural or infeasible areas that an exception would be considered. 

 

Commissioner Waldo agreed with Commissioner Morgan’s view.  He noted that with the density creating two lots with no livestock allowed would cut the properties potential by two thirds compared to what it previously had.  It was a restriction still and felt it would be a good balance for the subdivision along with the infrastructure already built supporting a couple of animals.

 

Commissioner Huddleston suggested that a fecal, nutrient, phosphorus, etc. estimate be taken to have a standard to look at and compare to in the future. 

 

Commissioner Pond agreed with Commissioner Waldo that the area of the property was being reduced.  However, a lot of problems arose from management of small properties with horses, which exacerbated the situation. 

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Deeds Planned Land Division/Planned Development Appeal to Section 8.1.1.B.2.a of the Larimer County Land Use Code be approved.

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:   9-0

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Deeds Planned Land Division/Planned Development Appeal to Section 8.14.2.S of the Larimer County Land Use Code be approved.

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:   9-0

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Deeds Planned Land Division rezoning to Planned Development, file #03-S2086, for the property described on “Exhibit C” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

a.   PRINCIPAL USES:

1) Agricultural

Farming (R)

2) Residential

Single-Family Dwelling (R)

 

3) Institutional

     In-Home Child/Elderly Care (S)

b.   ACCESSORY USES:

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

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

      3)  No livestock may be kept or grazed on the Deeds Planned Land Division property.

      c.   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.   21,780 square feet (0.5 acre) if both public water and sewer are used.

 2) Minimum setbacks

a.   Front yards                               125' from the County Road 11C right-of-way centerline

b.   Side yards                                5 feet

c.   Rear yards                                100 feet

d.   Unmapped Wetlands                50 feet from the edge of the unmapped

                                                      wetlands if less than 1 ac., 100’ if 1+ ac.

e.   Streams, creeks and rivers        100 feet from the centerline of the established water course.

3)   Maximum structure height   40 feet

4)  Rezoning to PD will not be effective until and unless the Board of County Commissioners approve a Final Plat and the plat and all necessary documents are duly recorded.

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:   9-0

 

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Deeds Planned Land Division, file #03-S2086, for the property described on “Exhibit C” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   No livestock may be kept or grazed on the Deeds Planned Land Division property.

2.   The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved Preliminary Plat and with the information contained in the Deeds PLD/PD (File #03-S2086).  The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Deeds PLD/PD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer seconded the Motion.

 

 

 

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:   9-0

 

 

 

 

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

 

ADJOURNMENT:  There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 8:06 p.m.

 

 

 

These minutes constitute the Resolution of the Larimer County Planning Commission for the recommendations contained herein which are hereby certified to the Larimer County Board of Commissioners.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________________________                      ______________________________

Jeff Boulter, Chairman                                      Nancy Wallace, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT C