Loveland Bike Trail
 

LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of October 18, 2006

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, October 18, 2006, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners Boulter, Hart, Karabensh, Morgan, Oppenheimer, Pond, and Waldo were present.  Chairman Wallace presided as Chairman.  Commissioner Cox was absent.  Also present were Rob Helmick, Principal Planner, Matt Lafferty, Senior Planner, David Karan, Planner II, Al Kadera, Principal Planner, Mark Peterson, County Engineer, Rusty McDaniel, Assistant County Engineer, Martina Wilkinson, Traffic Engineer, Marc Engemoen, Public Works Director, Matt Johnson, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Environmental Health, Heather Taylor, Planning Technician, and Jill Wilson, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary. 

 

Rob Helmick accompanied Commissioners’ Hart, Karabensh, Morgan, Pond, and Wallace today on a site visit to Demmel Lake Estates Conservation Development, Huschka Rezoning, and Jones Special Exception.  Commissioners’ Cox, Oppenheimer, and Waldo were absent.  Commissioner Boulter visited the sites independently.

 

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 SEPTEMBER 20, 2006 MEETINGS:  MOTION by Commissioner Pond to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheimer.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:  

Two members of the public were interested in discussing Demmel Lake Estates Conservation Development; file #04-S2385, which was on the consent agenda.  Chairman Wallace requested that the item be moved off of the consent agenda and be discussed as the first action item.

 

CONSENT ITEMS:

 

ITEM #1  RESERVOIR RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER LOCATION AND EXTENT #06-Z1608:  Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request for a parking lot and environmental center at the Reservoir Ridge Natural Open Space located at the western terminus of Michaud Lane at the Southeast corner of Claymore Lake.

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approve the Reservoir Ridge Environmental Center Location and Extent, file #06-Z1608.

 

Commissioner Karabensh seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

ITEM #2  HUSCHKA REZONING  #05-Z1575:  Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request to rezone portions of two adjacent properties to coincide with a boundary change between the two adjoining properties, with one zoning change from FA-1 (Farming) to T (Tourist), and the other zoning change from T (Tourist) to FA-1 (Farming) situated on the south side of Highway 34, approximately ¼ mile west of County Road 23H.

The rezoning request was to resolve a nonconforming use for the Fireside RV Park and Cabins.  He noted that Condition of Approval C should state that there would be 11 RV sites instead of 16, which was stated in the agenda.

 

Chairman Wallace confirmed that only a one acre piece of the 18 acre property would be rezoned.

 

Mr. Lafferty replied yes. 

 

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 Huschka Rezoning, file #05-Z1575, for the property described on Exhibit “A” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

A.   The permitted uses, lot building and structure requirements, setbacks and structure height limitations for the property being added to the Fireside RV site shall be consistent with the T (Tourist) Zone District of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

B.   The permitted uses, lot building and structure requirements, setbacks and structure height limitations for the property being added to Disney site shall be consistent with the FA-1 (Farming) Zone District of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

C.   Within six months of the approval of this application the applicant shall either:

 

·  Submit a Special Review application for the Fireside RV Park and Cabins site to justify the additional 11 RV sites and to ensure that compliance with the applicable codes and requirements will be met across the property, or

 

·  Eliminate the 11 illegal RV spaces at the southeast corner of the property and utilize the space as active or passive recreation space for the RV Park.

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

 

ITEMS:

 

ITEM #3  DEMMEL LAKE ESTATES CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT  #04-S2385:  Mr. Karan provided background information on the request for a Preliminary Plat for a Conservation Development to divide 182 acres into 17 lots located one mile west of Wellington between Demmel Lake and North Poudre Reservoir #4.  The request also included an appeal to Section 8.14.2.S of the Larimer County Land Use Code to deviate from the connectivity requirement due to limited development potential on adjacent parcels.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Bud Curtiss, Northern Engineering, was available to answer any questions.

 

Donna Brown stated that she lived south of the property and was concerned about her irrigation well being relocated.  She stated that her barn, irrigation well, pipeline, and transportation ditch were in the proposed right-of-way.  She remarked that she had been told in good faith that any work that would be done would be done around her irrigation well, but now it seemed that the well would have to be moved.  She questioned the truth in what she had been told.

 

Mr. Helmick replied that the property was under review for a development proposal, therefore subject to the current requirements of the Land Use Code.  If Ms. Brown did not develop her property then it could remain subject to any future right-of-way acquisitions that the County may do on County Road 11.    

 

Chris Kaul, 1651 County Road 64, stated that his parcel was on the west and south side of County Road 64.  He recapped that the applicant was proposing to move the access 500 feet to the east to improve visibility, but he did not feel that the visibility would be improved because of how close the access had been moved towards the west property line.  He also voiced concerns about his ability to have the Town of Wellington annex his property, what would occur on the residual lots, and the connectivity to other parcels.  He explained that he had a dirt bike track on his property for the last ten years and wanted the developer to disclose that to the potential buyers.  He knew potential complaints could arise and only thought it was fair that they knew ahead of time that the dirt bike track was there.  He stated that he tried to respect his neighbors and ride during the day but it was his personal property, and he wanted to keep his right.  He stated that he had talked with Doug Ryan from the Health Department regarding the soils and septic systems on the property and the problem of the ground not percolating very well.  He was concerned about septic failure leaching to his property because the east side of his lot was lower than the west side of the proposed development.  He also suggested that a primary access be off of County Road 11 and an emergency access be off of County Road 64 because the amount of traffic on County Road 11 was about 1/100 of what it was on County Road 64.  He mentioned that the aesthetic value in the area on both sides of County Road 64 would now be houses on the ridgeline.  He also questioned the County’s cluster development.

 

Mr. Karan explained that the residual land would have a use plan that would detail what could and what could not occur on the residual land.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked what would happen to the land use designation if the Town of Wellington would annex the property?

 

 

Mr. Helmick explained that Larimer County and the Town of Wellington did not have an intergovernmental agreement and neither recognized each others’ master plan.  The Development Agreement for the Conservation Development would contain a perpetual covenant between the County, County Commissioners, and the developer, which was an agreement that bound successors and heirs to the property.  Permission from the County Commissioners would have to be obtained if anything different would be done with that property.  However at that time, according to the County Attorney, all the homeowners would have a voice in any potential change. 

 

Commissioner Waldo asked what would happen if the Town of Wellington annexed the property?

 

Mr. Helmick replied that the Town of Wellington could not annex the property unless the County Commissioners agreed to remove the perpetual restriction. 

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if the developer could have a deed restriction for that land.

 

Mr. Helmick replied that the Development Agreement, in essence, accomplished the same thing.

 

Commissioner Boulter asked whether the status of Mr. Kaul’s dirt bike track would change with the proposed development?

 

Mr. Helmick replied that Mr. Kaul had the right to have the dirt bike track on his property.  He agreed that it would be wise to have the Disclosure Notice for the development notify and identify the agricultural uses in the area and other potential uses that may cause concern for future property owners. 

 

Matt Johnson, Engineering Department, stated that in regards to the site distance issue on County Road 64 the traffic impact study revealed that that there was a 50 mph speed limit which would require about a 500-foot spacing/site distance.  The traffic engineer for the project stated that the requirement would be fulfilled to the east and west along County Road 64.  With respect to the access question of why the internal roads were not being accessed from County Road 11, he stated that County Road 11 was a local road and asked the applicant to explain that decision.  He noted that from the plat it appeared that there were significant topographic constraints for a road from County Road 11 to the west.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Doug Ryan, Health Department, stated that Mr. Kaul and he did discuss the site conditions.  He explained that since the subdivision was a rural subdivision outside of any public sewer service area the proposal was to plat it with individual septic systems.  Both the County soil mapping and preliminary soils tests that were performed indicated that there were soils with a fairly high degree of clay that were slow percolation rate soils.  That meant that the septic system design would have to be different than normal and be designed by registered, professional engineers based on site specific soil tests that would be performed by each lot owner before they applied for a building permit.  He explained that if a septic failure did occur it was usually because the sewer system backed up into the house or the system could surface out on the ground, which Mr. Kaul was concerned about.  If the system did surface out on to his property then that would be a violation of the County’s individual sewer system regulations that the Health Department regulated, and the department would issue orders and work with the land owners to fix that system.  He explained that the biggest concern by the Health Department was the lack of room on the sites for the septic systems; therefore, he recommended a Disclosure Notice that notified the future lot owners that it was important to plan the location of the septic system at the same time as they planned the location of their home.  He remarked that one of the reasons the County required a two-acre land size was to try to ensure that there was room for more than one septic system because they knew that the home would be there for more than 100 years, and it was possible that the homes would have to install two systems in its life time.  In the current case, with the setbacks in place from the ditch on the south side and the various wetlands on the property, he was satisfied that with the shape and orientation of the lots the individual systems could be installed and would protect public health for the life of the subdivision. 

 

Mr. Karan noted that there was a condition of approval, condition #6, that stated “A statement will be prominently displayed in a plat note, building permit records, and disclosure notice that, “Standard septic systems are not feasible due to soil conditions.  With platted lot sizes, location of sewage disposal may take precedence over location of residences.  Sewage disposal system design must take place at the beginning of site design.  No building permits will be issued until site-specific plans for sewage disposal is approved by the County Health Department." ”   

 

Chairman Wallace asked if there were restrictions on keeping the outside lighting to a minimum?

 

Mr. Helmick replied that it was not a Land Use Code provision; therefore, it was only an option for the developer.

 

Mr. Curtiss stated that the developer would work with the County to accomplish down-lighting at night.

 

Mr. Kaul asked whether the Town of Wellington could annex the property?

 

Chairman Wallace replied that it was unlikely but not impossible.

 

Mr. Kaul asked if he would be able to annex his property into Wellington?

 

Chairman Wallace stated that he may not be able to annex.

 

Mr. Kaul asked if the 500-foot site distance was measured on flat ground or if it took into consideration the slope of the hill to the west?

 

Mr. Johnson replied that the site distance would take into account anything that would obstruct the line of sight within the right-of-way for 500 feet either side of the access point.

 

Mr. Kaul asked about the connectivity options?

 

Chairman Wallace replied that it would be difficult to have connectivity to the north and south because of the wetlands and the ditch.  The proposed plan would not be able to have access off of County Road 11 because of the residual land design.

 

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 Demmel Lake Estates Conservation Development and appeal to Section 8.14.2.S (connectivity) of the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #04-S2385, 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 plan and with the information contained in the Demmel Lake Estates Conservation Development (File # 04-S2385) 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 Demmel Lake Estates Conservation Development (File # 04-S2385).

 

2.  All residential buildings will be fire sprinklered.  Wellington Fire Department must review the Final Plat submittal.   

 

3.  The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings: Poudre R1 school fee, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, Larimer County Regional Park Fees (in lieu of dedication) and Cooper Slough/Boxelder drainage basin fees.  The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit application shall apply.  Development Construction Permit Fees shall be paid prior to the start of improvement construction.

 

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 and approved 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. A statement will be prominently displayed in a plat note, building permit records, and disclosure notice that, “Standard septic systems are not feasible due to soil conditions.  With platted lot sizes, location of sewage disposal may take precedence over location of residences.  Sewage disposal system design must take place at the beginning of site design.  No building permits will be issued until site-specific plans for sewage disposal is approved by the County Health Department."   

 

7.  One and only one direct access will be provided to the existing house which meets the minimum access spacing requirement of 300’.  One access must be eliminated within 90 days of issuance of the Development Construction Permit or the DCP will be revoked.

 

8.  The existing irrigation well near the intersection of County Roads 64 and 11 shall be relocated outside of the existing and proposed right-of-way for those roads. The well must be relocated within 90 days of the issuance of the Development Construction Permit or the DCP will be revoked.

 

Commissioner Hart seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

ITEM #4  JONES SPECIAL EXCEPTION #06-Z1593:  Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request for a Special Exception to allow a mobile home on C (Commercial) zoned property to be used as a caretaker’s residence for the existing business situated approximately ¼  mile north of County Road 10E and ¼ mile west of old Highway 287, on the north side of Berthoud.  Mr. Lafferty explained that the site had been utilized for nearly 20 years by the Jones Plumbing business as a storage yard for various plumbing and construction equipment.  In 2002 the property owner requested a Minor Land Division to separate the commercial portions of the property from the residential portions of the property.  During the review a zoning compliance record was started due to an outdoor storage facility on the property.  The Minor Land Division was approved with a condition that within five years the commercial portions of the property be brought into compliance, including addressing the illegal residential use on the site.  He noted that the Development Services Team was recommending denial on the basis that the Planning Department did not believe that commercial and residential uses in Larimer County, unless they were designed in urban growth areas, should be co-mixed and did not want to establish a precedence. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Paul Jones, 410 W. County Road 10E, stated that he lived in the illegal mobile home in question.  He explained that his father had changed the zoning to Commercial and turned it into a junkyard.  He stated that he had been working hard to clean up the property and remarked that there were no similar properties in the area.  He explained that there was a security issue with the property because it was not visible from any roadways.  He stated that other than a large security fence being erected there was no way to keep people off of the property and noted that since he had been living on the site the number phone calls to the police because of trespassing or vandalism had been minimal.  He also stated that a residence on the property would help allow him to sell some of the materials on the property and work to clean up the site.  He remarked that the land had almost become like a private park and once he resolved some of the issues he wanted to open it up to charitable organizations, church groups, and boy and girl scouts.  It was a unique property situated amongst many commercial properties, and it would benefit his neighbors and himself if the mobile home was allowed to remain to keep the area safe.

 

Patricia Rice, 2486 N. County Road 17, remarked that it was a gorgeous property but had become known as “party central” for the kids when no one was living on the property.  She felt that there was a safety issue and did not want to feel responsible for something bad that could occur on the property.  She noted that a very small amount of the property was used for Jones Plumbing. 

 

Thomas Jones, son of the previous owner to the property, explained that his father had stored a lot of his equipment on the property over the years, and unfortunately that equipment had been subject to theft and vandalism.  He felt that having a person living on the property that could watch over the land and the equipment would help the situation. 

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if the County permitted having a resident manager live on site for storage facilities?

 

Mr. Lafferty replied that the County had historically considered a mini-storage operation that had public coming to and from the site an extension or accessory to that business because they needed to allow the public access and security. 

 

Commissioner Morgan suggested installing a gate at the access to the property to help with security issues.

 

Mr. Paul Jones replied that there was only one vehicular access; however, the property could be accessed by foot in other areas, which would require a very lengthy fence.  He felt that a fence would become an eyesore.

 

Commissioner Boulter remarked that commercial storage property typically had fencing. 

 

Mr. Paul Jones replied that he unfortunately did not have the funds to erect such fencing. 

 

Commissioner Waldo asked if a commercial use could have a “watchman”?

 

Mr. Lafferty replied yes; however, a residential use could not be on the property.

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if the applicant could rezone the property to a residential use?

 

Mr. Lafferty replied yes, but if the applicant wanted the property to maintain operational characteristics of a commercial business and a residence then the best option would be to annex to the Town of Berthoud.

 

Mr. Helmick noted that the County could not rezone the property or do a land division due to the agreement the County had with the Town of Berthoud. 

 

Ms. Rice explained that a couple of years ago her father approached the Town of Berthoud about annexing.  Berthoud replied that they would annex the property but wanted to have five to seven acres of the parcel for a park, and for that reason they did not want to annex. 

 

Commissioner Boulter confirmed that the Town of Berthoud wanted to purchase the property instead of annexing.

 

Ms. Rice replied no.  The Town of Berthoud wanted to annex and wanted the land with no charge.

 

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 Jones Special Exception, file #06-Z1593, for the property described on “Exhibit C” to the minutes, be denied.

 

Commissioner Hart seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner Boulter sympathized with the situation.  Nevertheless he was concerned with a precedence being set.  He stated that he would support the Motion.

 

Commissioner Waldo also felt very sympathetic to the Jones family and regretted that he would vote in favor of the Motion because the Commission had to be aware of a precedence being set on the commercial property.

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer stated that he agreed with Commissioners Boulter and Waldo.

 

Commissioner Pond also agreed with the Commissioner’s comments.  In addition he complemented the Jones family on their clean up of the property. 

 

Commissioner Hart remarked that he tried to find a unique reason to allow approval of the Special Exception, but was not successful.  As a result, he could not recommend approval.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

 

 

ITEM #5  AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLAN #06-CA0062:  Mr. Engemoen provided background information on the Larimer County Transportation Plan.  He noted that the Board of County Commissioners had reviewed the plan and recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the plan. 

 

Mark Peterson, County Engineer, remarked that the purpose of the Transportation Master Plan was to examine existing and future needs in the County and serve as a basis for a development Capital Transportation Fee program.  He explained that the original plan looked ahead to the year 2020.  The County had experienced dramatic and rapid growth, and the new plan looked to the year 2030.  He explained the changes and updates to the Plan, which included:  traffic volumes, functional road classifications, capacities, types of improvement, and construction costs.  He noted that he handed out a memo to the Commissioners which identified the changes to the draft plan that had previously been given to the Commission members.

 

Martina Wilkinson, Traffic Engineer, remarked that the purpose of functional road classifications were to provide an efficient transportation system that balanced mobility, access, and safety.  She explained the definitions of an arterial, major collector, minor collector, and local road and explained that one change to the functional classifications was  to change “local road” designations to minor collectors along mainline county-maintained roads.  She noted that overall 62% of county road miles would remain the same classification, 37% of road miles were proposed to have a higher classification, and 1% of road miles were being recommended for a lower classification.  She explained that if a road changed to a higher classification than it was previously classified then three areas would be examined:  right-of-way width, setback distance reductions, and an administrative variance procedure for setback changes.  She remarked that the setback distances were proposed to be reduced by as much as 50%, right-of-way was proposed to be reduced from 100 feet to 80 feet for a minor collector, and a local road setback would be increased from 60 feet to 70 feet.  The overall impact of the setback and right-of-way changes would result in 83% of road miles seeing no change or a decrease in setback location and only 3% of road miles seeing an increase in setback location of greater than ten feet.  She noted that for the 17% of the road miles that would see an increase in the setback location only about 110 properties that were conforming structures under the previous plan would now become nonconforming.  About 250 properties that were currently nonconforming would become conforming.  She also noted that not all of the 110 structures were homes, but were garages, chicken coops, etc.

 

Rusty McDaniel, Assistant County Engineer, explained the background on the Rural Area Road Standards.  He stated that the needed changes to the standards were technical due to changes that had occurred since the manual was adopted in 2000.  He remarked that the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards (LCUASS) would be eliminated from the manual, and the other changes would update any outdated references to city, county, and state standards.  He also reiterated that there would be the creation of a low-volume road that would serve only a few homes.  He noted that the separate access policy had been updated and incorporated into the road standards to make it consistent with current standards.  Along with that, the stormwater management manual had also been updated.

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Peterson explained the purpose of the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee, which was to have new development in the County pay its share for impacts to the County maintained road system.  He explained that the fees were established in 1999 and applied to the Major County Road Systems (arterial or collector), and the Regional Roads. 

 

Mr. Engemoen noted that the fees had not been changed since adopted in 1999.

 

Mr. Peterson stated that the proposed fee changes were:  1) Capital expansion fees would increase by approximately 50 percent, which would be about a 6% per year increase over seven years, 2) More capacity-related improvements on numbered county roads would be eligible for inclusion, and 3) A yearly review of the fees would be completed to determine whether construction cost changes would warrant an adjustment of the fee.  He explained that in terms of an implementation plan the Engineering Department did recognize that a fee increase would be a significant change; therefore, the Department was purposing that the fees be implemented in phases.  The first phase would go into effect on April 1, 2007 and would include the entire increase to the Regional Road fee and fifty percent (50%) of the Non-Regional Road fee.  The second phase would go into effect on April 1, 2008 and would include the remaining fifty percent (50%) of the Non-Regional Road fee.  Along with that, during the month of January, 2009 and during the month of January each year thereafter a yearly cost adjustment would be implemented by the fee administrator without further action by the Board of County Commissioners.  The amount of the adjustment would be based on an accepted regional cost data study.  Furthermore, applications made for building permits prior to either April 1, 2007 or April 1, 2008 or the date of future escalation factor implementation would be charged the fee in place at the date of permit application, not the date of permit issuance.  

 

Mr. Engemoen noted that the Engineering Department had completed some public outreach processes to inform the public about the proposed changes and to receive feedback and input.  He explained that some of the outreach effort included:  1) notification of 110 property owners by letter that explained that the proposed changes could possibly change the status of certain structures on their property from currently conforming to the setbacks to becoming non-conforming, 2) summary packets were sent to governmental entities in Larimer County explaining the proposed changes, 3) two open houses were held; one in Loveland with approximately 10 people in attendance and one in Fort Collins with approximately 20 people in attendance, 4) meetings with the Home Builder’s Association to discuss the proposed increases to the Capital Expansion Fees were held, and 5) a meeting was also held with a group of residents from the Waverly area.. 

 

Mr. Peterson noted that some changes would occur to Section 9 of the Land Use Code, specifically regarding Capital Front Ending Agreements and taking that language out of the Code.  He also explained that the construction cost index that had been used was no longer available so a recommendation was being made to have the fee be tied to a Colorado Construction Cost Index that was maintained by the Colorado Department of Transportation. 

 

Commissioner Morgan asked if Section 9 of the Code needed language that would allow an enabling clause?  He felt that if language was left out it would not allow for authority to participate in any level of participation funding.

 

 

 

Mr. Engemoen replied that he recommended the changes regarding the Capital Front Ending because he felt that it limited the Department.  He also stated that the issue was discussed with their attorneys, and it was believed that the Department would have the freedom and authority to enter into those agreements to participate in certain projects without adding it in the Code language.  He stated that one concern with having that language was whether it would necessitate or create an expectation that the Department would enter into those agreements.  He reiterated that he did not believe that eliminating that language would preclude them from entering into creative agreements to partner with people in the future.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Michelle Jacobson, Director of Community Affairs for the Home Builders Association of Colorado, thanked the Engineering Staff for their thorough review of the plan.  She stated that the Home Builder’s Association believed that the upgrading of certain county roads would be of great benefit to the County residents that had come to use those roads on a daily basis and had paid toward those capital expansions.  The new classification designations were logical, and the increase to the Rural Area Road Standards would also provide safe travel on Larimer County roads.  Additionally, the changes to lessen the setback requirements would be an ease on the development of road side construction.  She remarked that it had been increasingly difficult to endorse such high fee increases such as Capital Expansion Fees, and the Home Builder’s Association could not support the fee increase.  The Association acknowledged that a way had to be found to fund the transportation necessities but was very mindful of the bottom line on each building permit.  Since permits were continuing to slow, the Association believed that another fee increase would increasingly slow permit issuance even more thereby generating less revenue that otherwise would not have slowed down as much.  The Association was grateful that a phased system was considered for the fee, but the combination of fee increases did take its toll on the bottom line of a building permit.  She stated that the Home Builder’s could not recommend approval of the large fee increase for the transportation improvements. 

 

DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Morgan complimented the County staff on their efforts to update the transportation standards.  He asked if Larimer County would take the position that unless a municipality was willing to endorse and participate in a regional capital expansion fee program that the County would not be willing to execute an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)?

 

Mr. Engemoen replied that the major IGA’s that the County had with the cities and other communities had benefits so great that the County would not want to jeopardize those benefits that come with those agreements over the issue of regional roads.  He noted that the best way of approaching it with other communities was to model what the County thought was proactive, good behavior and that was why the County was the first to propose the regional roads. 

 

Commissioner Wallace acknowledged that the fee increase was substantial but also stated that one of the goals had been to have development pay its own way. 

 

Commissioner Boulter agreed; however, he felt that it was unfortunate for the people that would come after the change because they may have to bear the brunt of what should have been done in the past. 

 

 

 

Mr. Engemoen explained that the law stated that new development could not be asked to pay for existing deficiencies and fix existing problems.  The fees would pay for the capacity improvements that were needed for future development and did not go back and address previous errors in judgment or existing deficiencies. 

 

Commissioner Morgan wanted to make sure that the Colorado Construction Cost Index would be representative of the type of road building that the County would be doing and did not include other roads such as I-25 and its overpasses.

 

Commissioner Hart stated that the Engineering Department had done a good job in making sure that the existing residents of the County did not get the burden of new growth put on them. 

 

Mr. Helmick informed the Commission that the Board of County Commissioners approved the increase to school fees two weeks earlier.  As a result home builders were seeing a spectrum of fee increases. 

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission adopt the Larimer County Transportation Plan dated August 2006 as an element of the Larimer County Master Plan.

 

Commissioner Waldo seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

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 Functional Road Classification designations, Rural Roadway Right-of-Way widths, Setback requirements, Rural Area Road Standards, and the Transportation Capital Expansion Fees be adopted.

 

Commissioner Morgan seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEM #6  AMENDMENTS TO THE LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE CODE #06-CA0063:  Mr. Kadera provided background information on the request to make a number of changes to the Larimer County Land Use Code, specifically pertaining to the adoption of the Larimer County Rural Area Road Standards, the Roadway Functional Classification Map, amendments to Sections 4 and 8 of the Land Use Code concerning setback requirements and variances from those setbacks, amendments to the definitions of "Vehicle Miles of Travel" and "Level of Service",  amendments to Section 5.8.6 to change references to the Road Manual, several amendments in Sections 8.1, 8.6 and 8.9 and amendments to Section 9 of the Land Use Code concerning Transportation Capital Expansion Fees and level of service references.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

None.

 

DISCUSSION:

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 Amendments to the Larimer County Land Use Code, file #06-CA0063, be approved as follows:

 

1.   Amend the Land Use Code Section 4.6.7 Administrative Variance as follows:

 

Item 1.  Section 4.6.7 Administrative Variance

 

A.  The planning director is hereby authorized to approve administrative variances in the O-Open and RE-Rural Estate Zoning Districts which meet the following criteria.

1.         The required side and rear setbacks on the lot are 25 feet;

2.         An addition to an existing building is proposed and the addition will be at least five feet from the side lot line and ten feet from the rear lot line; or

3.         A new building is proposed and the building will match the setback of an existing building along the same lot line which building is at least five feet from the side lot line and ten feet from the rear lot line;

4.         A notice of the proposed administrative variance was mailed to all property owners adjacent to the subject property and no objections were stated; and

5.         The review criteria in Section 4.6.3 are met or determined to be inapplicable.

 

B.   The planning director is hereby authorized to approve administrative variances from the county road setback requirements listed in Section 4.9.1  for additions to existing buildings which are nonconforming with respect to county road setbacks, subject to the following criteria:

 

1.   The proposed addition must meet the following minimum setbacks:

a.   Arterial roads-90 feet from ROW centerline;

b.   Major Collector roads-80 feet from ROW centerline;

c.   Minor Collector roads-60 feet from ROW centerline;

d.   Local roads-55 feet from ROW centerline.

 

 

2,   A notice of the proposed administrative variance was mailed to all property owners within 250 feet on each side and across the road from the subject property and no objections were stated;

 

3.   The review criteria in Section 4.6.3 are met or determined to be inapplicable.

 

The decision of the planning director can be appealed to the Board of Adjustment.   See Section 22, Appeals.

 

 

2.    Amend the Land Use Code by moving Sections 8.17, 8.18, and 8.19 to Section 4 and renumber the remainder of Section 8.

 

 

3.    Amend the Land Use Code by amending Section 4.9.1.B as follows:

 

Arterial   

160 110 feet *  

Major collector   

125  100 feet *  

Minor collector   

100  70 feet *  

Local, numbered county roads   

60 feet *  

*Setbacks for additions to existing buildings, which are nonconforming with respect to county road setbacks, are eligible for an administrative variance procedure.  See Section 4.6.7.

 

 

4.   Amend the Land Use Code, Section 4.9.3 as follows:

 

4.9.3. Minor setback variances.

 

The planning director may grant minor variances in writing from setback requirements up to ten percent of the required setback after finding the proposed setback is consistent with the intent and purpose of this code. The planning director's decision must be in writing and may be appealed to the board of adjustment.   See Section 22, Appeals.  Also see Section 4.6.7, Administrative Variances.

 

 

5.   Amend the Land Use Code, Section 5.8.6.C.1, as follows:

 

5.8.6.C.1

C. Intersections

1. Street name sign

General. All road name signs must conform to the standards in Chapter 4 and standard drawings 8, 9, and 10 of the Rural Area Road Standards.

 

 

6.   Amend the Land Use Code, Section 8.1.5 Road capacity and level of service standard, as follows:

 

8.1.5. Road capacity and level of service standard.

C. Safe and adequate access.  All development must have safe and adequate access on the county roads or state highways within the traffic impact area of the development. Safe and adequate access exists when traffic volumes do not exceed the capacity of the road; when operating conditions on the road and at intersections do not fall below a specified level of service (LOS); and when pavement sections and structures can accommodate projected traffic. 

The capacity of an unpaved road is defined as the maximum traffic volume that can be accommodated without creating unsafe operating conditions for vehicles and without negatively impacting air quality by creating excessive amounts of dust. The capacity of a paved road is defined as the maximum traffic volume that can be accommodated at a specified level of service and depends on road characteristics, such as number of lanes, lane widths, intersection geometry and signalization.

 

The adequacy of pavement sections and structures depends on the physical conditions of the improvements, such as type, depth and condition of pavements and the load-bearing capacity of bridges.

Standards for capacity of a road vary between rural and urban areas of the county. Urban areas consist of GMA districts and other areas designated by the county master plan as urban areas. Rural areas consist of all properties outside these urban areas.

1. Capacity and level of service for unpaved roads.  To prevent adverse impacts on vehicles and air quality and to allow for effective road maintenance, roads must have an all-weather gravel surface. The county engineer may waive the requirement for gravel and allow a road to be surfaced with native material in limited cases when, in the opinion of the county engineer, traffic volumes, materials and location allow such a surface. However, in no case will a native material surface be allowed when the average daily traffic volume (ADT) exceeds 50 vehicles per day at the time of full build-out of the development. 

The capacity of an untreated gravel road is defined as an ADT of 150 vehicles per day in an urban area or an ADT of 200 vehicles per day in a rural area at the time of full build-out of the development. The capacity of a treated gravel road (treated with chemicals to control dust) is defined as an ADT of 300 vehicles per day in urban or mountain areas or an ADT of 400 vehicles per day in rural, non-mountain areas.

Paving is required when cumulative traffic volumes exceed these capacities and must consist of asphaltic concrete or Portland cement concrete, base course material and subbase material (if required) placed on compacted subgrade.

 

 

D. Traffic impact area.  The limits of the traffic impact area for a proposed development are determined by the county engineer in consultation with the applicant as described in Appendix F of the Rural Area Road Standards. At a minimum, the limits of the traffic impact area must include: 

1. Internal roads;

2. Adjacent roads;

3. Off-site local roads to the nearest county collector or arterial road or state highway;

4. Off-site roads where traffic from the development will account for at least ten percent of the average daily traffic on those roads in urban areas or at least 20 percent of the average daily traffic on those roads in rural areas; and

5. Intersections with planned or existing traffic signals where traffic from the proposed development will account for at least five percent of the traffic volume on any approach leg of the intersection in an urban area or at least ten percent of the traffic volume on any approach leg of the intersection in a rural area.

Note:   Roads in new developments must be paved if they exceed specified daily vehicle trip limits. 

 

E. Documentation outside of a GMA district. 

1. Every development must meet the requirements outlined in Appendix F of the Rural Area Road Standards. that will create more than two new dwelling units or is expected to generate more than 20 new daily vehicle trips on an unpaved native material or gravel road in the traffic impact area is required to demonstrate compliance with the capacity and level of service requirements in subsection C above.

A "paving threshold study" must be submitted to demonstrate that these capacity and level of service requirements for unpaved or gravel roads are satisfied. The minimum requirements for a paving threshold study are described in Appendix F, "Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies," of the Technical Supplement to this Code, Larimer County Road Standards.

2. Every development that will create fewer than 20 new dwelling units or is expected to generate fewer than 200 new daily vehicle trips on a paved road in the traffic impact area is required to demonstrate compliance with the capacity and level of service requirements in subsection C above.

A "preliminary traffic impact study" must be submitted to demonstrate that these capacity and level of service requirements for paved roads are satisfied. The minimum requirements for a preliminary traffic impact study are described in Appendix F, "Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies," of the technical supplement to this code, Larimer County Road Standards.

Upon review of the limited traffic impact study, the county engineer will determine if a "detailed traffic impact study" will be required. Such a determination will be based on the magnitude of the new traffic generated and the impacts of that new traffic on the transportation system.

The minimum requirements for a detailed traffic impact study are described in Appendix F, "Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies," of the Technical Supplement to this Code, Larimer County Road Standards.

3. Every development that will create 20 or more new dwelling units or is expected to generate 200 or more new daily vehicle trips or 100 or more new vehicle trips during any peak hour period on a paved road in the traffic impact area is required to demonstrate compliance with the capacity and level of service requirements in subsection C above.

A "detailed traffic impact study" must be submitted to demonstrate that these capacity and level of service requirements are satisfied. The minimum requirements for a detailed traffic impact study are described in Appendix F, "Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies," of the Technical Supplement to this Code, Larimer County Road Standards.

Upon review of the detailed traffic impact study, the county engineer will determine if any additional traffic analyses will be required. Such a determination will be based on the magnitude of the new traffic generated and the impacts of that new traffic on the transportation system.

4. Any other development will be presumed to have an insignificant impact on the roadway system and will be exempt from the requirements for paving threshold and traffic impact studies. Such development would, however, be subject to county road capital expansion fees.

 

 

 

 

 

 

F. Documentation within a GMA district. 

1. Every development must meet the requirements of Chapter 4 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards.that will create more than two new dwelling units or is expected to generate more than 20 new daily trips on an unpaved native material or gravel road in the traffic impact area is required to demonstrate compliance with the capacity and level of service requirements in subsection C above. A paving threshold study must be submitted to demonstrate that these capacity and level of service requirements for unpaved or gravel roads are satisfied. The minimum requirements for a paving thresholdstudy are described in Appendix F, "Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies," of the technical supplement to this code, Larimer County Road Standards..

2. Developments within the GMA district must submit a traffic impact study as required in Chapter 4 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, in the technical supplement to this code.

 

 

7.   Amend the Land Use Code, Section 8.6.3 Multiple-family residential and nonresidential development, as follows:

 

these standards, See Exhibits (Same as Plate 29 and 30 added to the Road Manual). If the intersection has a traffic signal, road name signs will be designated as part of the signal.   

Sign assembly. All plates shall be installed with end bolts on all plates. There shall be two plates for each road, with a minimum of four plates per road sign assembly. For non-county maintained roads intersecting with numbered county roads, the only sign panels will be for the private road. There will not be any sign panels for the county road.   

Sign face.   

Letter size. Refer to the following table and Exhibits (Plate 29 and 30) same as added to the Road Manual) for letter size specifications.

TABLE INSET:

 

8.6.3. Multiple-family residential and nonresidential development.

 

B. Development standards. 

1. Access. 

c. When entrances and exits must be located off higher classification roads, they shall be sited to minimize safety and operational problems and to preserve the traffic-carrying capacity of the road. Speed change lanes or auxiliary lanes must be provided as outlined in Appendix F of the Rural Area Road Standards or if required by the county engineer. Whenever possible, access points on higher classification roads shall be separated by the following distances described in Chapter 10 or the Rural Area Road Standards:.

TABLE INSET:

 

On arterial roads:   

2,640 feet   

On major collector roads:   

1,700 feet   

On minor collector roads:   

600 feet   

On all other roads   

300 feet   

d. Entrances and exits to the parking lot must also be sited to minimize conflicts within the parking lot and encourage efficient circulation patterns.

e. In cases where there are adjacent and compatible land uses, parking areas must be designed with circulation between the uses in mind, providing internal connections between the parking areas for the adjacent uses.

f. All accesses must meet the requirements of Chapter 10 of the Rural Area Road Standards.the Larimer County Access Policy included in the technical supplement to this code and available from the county engineer.

 

 

8.   Amend the Land Use Code, Section 8.9.1 Supplementary engineering regulations, as follows:

 

8.9.1. Supplementary engineering regulations.

A. Larimer County Road Manual. Adopted November 22, 1999 Rural Area Road Standards adopted.

B. Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. Adopted December 18, 2000Repealed and Reenacted October 1, 2002.

C. Larimer County Stormwater Design Standards. Adopted April, 1979 and last amended August, 1996. adopted June 2005

 

 

9.   Amend the Land Use Code by changing the reference to the Access Policy in Sections 8.6 and 8.9 and references to the Road Manual  in Sections 8.9, 5.8, 9.7, and 10.2.

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

 

 

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

 

 

ADJOURNMENT:  There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 9:55 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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT C

 

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