Loveland Bike Trail
 

LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of October 20, 2004

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, October 20, 2004, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners’ Boulter, Huddleston, Korb, Pond, terMeer, Waldo, and Wallace were present. Commissioner Morgan presided as Chairman.  Commissioner Nelson was absent.  Also present were Rob Helmick, Principal Planner, Porter Ingrum, Planner II, David Karan, Planner II, Matt Lafferty, Senior Planner, Geniphyr Ponce-Pore, Planner II, Christie Coleman, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Environmental Health, Larry Timm, Planning Director, Tom Garton, Chief Building Official, and Jill Albracht, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary.

 

COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC REGARDING THE COUNTY LAND USE CODE: 

Brian Schumm, 5948 Colby Street, expressed his concerns regarding zoning and enforcement issues, specifically with the Whitman Rezoning application.  He explained that zoning violation enforcement had been delayed for a long period of time due to his belief of an unwritten policy that allowed a zoning violator to legalize their illegal use by applying for an application such as a Variance or Rezoning.  And as a result, there was no enforcement of the zoning violation.  He stated that there was a need for a defined policy in the Larimer County Land Use Code that only allowed violators to submit an application that would specifically address the issues that were of concern to the zoning violation. 

 

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

None

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE SEPTEMBER 15, 2004 MEETING: MOTION by Commissioner Pond to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner terMeer.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:  None

 

TABLED ITEM:  HOFF CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT:  MOTION by Commissioner Wallace to table the Hoff Conservation Development, file #03-S2205, to December 15, 2004.  Commissioner Boulter seconded the Motion.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

CONSENT ITEMS:

Commissioner Korb stated that he would like the opportunity to ask questions of staff regarding Items #2 and #3.  He requested to remove Item #4 Olander Farms Conservation Development from consent in order to express his dissent to the idea that the application matched the requirements of a Conservation Development.  He asked that the item be voted on separately from the other consent items. 

 

Diane Keirn, 624 Colt Drive, stated that she had questions regarding Item #3 Garnet Valley Acres Subdivision, specifically the road access and the sewage.

 

Chairman Morgan recommended raising the issues as they were brought forth.  Item #4 Olander Farms Conservation Development would remain consent but would be voted on separately from the other consent items.

 

 

ITEM #1 LARIMIE RIVER ROAD & BRIDGE LOCATION & EXTENT #04-Z1525: Mr. Ingrum provided background information on the request to construct a new modular home and garage for a full time employee of the Larimer County Road and Bridge Department.

 

Commissioner Korb 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 Laramie River Road and Bridge Location & Extent, file #04-Z1525, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   Within 6 months of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy the original house and garage on this parcel shall be removed.

 

2.   This parcel may only house one county employee; both houses shall not be occupied at the same time 

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:   8-0

 

ITEM #2 ASHCROFT KENNELS AMENDED SPECIAL REVIEW #04-Z1518:  Mr. Ingrum provided background information on the request to increase kennel occupancy of the existing Ashcroft Kennels dog facility adjacent to County Road 3.  The desired occupancy would increase from 80 to 160 dogs.

 

Commissioner Korb recommended that a fourth condition of approval be added to state that the permitted expansion was to be consistent with the Special Review approval of December 18, 2000 and that there shall be no further expansion without the submission of a new application.

 

Chairman Morgan concurred with Commissioner Korb’s recommendation.  He stated that the application should stipulate that there would be no further physical expansion to the facility nor an increase in the number of pets given the facilities size today. 

 

Rob Helmick, Principal Planner, suggested the fourth condition state:  The approval shall be consistent with the December 2000 approval except as modified herein, with no further expansion to occur without further review. 

 

Commissioner Korb 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 Ashcroft Kennels Amended Special Review, file #04-Z1518, for the property described on "Exhibit A" to the minutes be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

 

 

1.   Within 45 days of the Board of County Commissioners approval the applicant shall pay the Transportation Capital Expansion Fee of $1,518.00.

 

2.   The kennel facility shall operate in conformance with the County Noise Ordinance.

 

3.     Licensing approval from the Colorado Department of Agriculture Animal Industry Division shall be obtained prior to expanding the number of dogs.     

 

4.   The approval shall be consistent with the December 2000 approval except as modified herein, with no further expansion to occur without further review.

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

ITEM #3 GARNET VALLEY ACRES SUBIDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT #04-S2242:  Mr. Wheeler provided background information on the request for a Preliminary Plat for a 14.47 acre subdivision to create 5, single-family residential use lots ranging in size from 2.3 to 4.26 acres.  The subject property would be located off the north side of County Road 20, west of Loveland.  The request also included an appeal to Section 8.14.2.N (Road Connectivity) of the Larimer County Land Use Code. 

 

Diane Keirn, 624 Colt Drive, asked if there was a request for the 5 new homes to be added to the existing septic in the HorseTail Ranch Estates? 

 

Doug Ryan, Health Department, remarked that the subject property was outside of a planned public sewer service area.  He explained that part of the HorseTail Ranch Subdivision had a community sewer system, which was at its designed capacity.  Consequently, it was requested for the new lots to be supported by their own on-site individual sewer systems. 

 

Commissioner Korb 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 Garnet Valley Acres Subdivision Preliminary Plat, file #04-S2242, and Appeal to Section 8.14.2.N of the Larimer County Land Use Code for the property described on "Exhibit B" to the minutes be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   The Final Plat of the Garnet Valley Acres Subdivision shall be consistent with information contained in file, #04-S2242 or as modified by conditions of approval.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.   The following fees shall be collected at the time of building permit for new single-family dwellings: the Thompson R-2J School District fees in lieu of dedication, the Larimer County Capital Transportation Expansion fee and the Larimer County Park Fee in lieu of dedication.  The fee amount that is current at the time building permit application shall apply.  Before construction, the applicant must also contact the County Engineering Department and obtain a Development Construction Permit.

 

3.   The applicant shall sign a Final Development Agreement, to be prepared by Staff and approved by the County Attorney, which details in standard language the conditions of approval and other important information related to the Subdivision.

 

4.   The Final Plat shall comply with Fire Protection Standards as required by Section 8.1.4 of the Land Use Code as related to the rural water supply requirements including the placement and use of hydrants for the subdivision.

 

5    The applicant shall sign a Final Disclosure Notice for approval by the County 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 must include, but is not limited to; all issues related to rural development; the requirement for engineered footings and foundations and the requirement for passive radon mitigation.  Other items raised in the review, or related to compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Code, may also be included.

 

6.   The Final Plat shall provide for emergency vehicle access to adjoining subdivisions with a design that satisfies the requirements of Larimer County and is subject to review and approved by the Development Services Team prior to recordation.

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0     

 

ITEM #5 GLENN RIDGE ESTATES 2ND FILING SUBDIVISION #04-S2328:  Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request to re-subdivide Lot 8, Tracts B, C and D of the Glenn Ridge Estates Subdivision, Tract A of the Amended Plat of Tract C of the Vigor Exemption, and Tract B-1 of the Amended Plat of the Vigor Exemption into 5 single family residential Lots and 2 open space Tracts. 

 

Commissioner Korb 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 Glenn Ridge Estates 2nd Filing Subdivision, file #04-S2328, for the property described on "Exhibit C" to the minutes be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

 

 

1.   The Final Plat of the Glenn Ridge Estates 2nd Filing Subdivision shall be consistent with the information contained in the file, #04-S2328 or as modified by conditions of approval.

 

2.   The applicant shall execute a Development Agreement and provide a Disclosure Notice for final approval by the County as a part of the Final Plat.  These documents shall be recorded with the Final Plat, and shall provide notice to all future lot owners of the conditions of approval and issues, costs or fees associated with the approval of this project.

 

3.   The applicant shall provide a Disclosure Notice to be recorded as part of the final plat, which addresses or provides notice to potential buyers of the conditions of approval, special costs or fees associated with the approval of this project.

 

4.   The following fees shall be collected at building permit issuance for new single family dwellings:  Poudre R-1 School fees, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion, and Larimer County Park Fee (in Lieu of Land Dedication).  The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit shall apply.

 

5.   Except for Lots 1 and 4, the new lots within the Glenn Estates Ridge 2nd Filing shall be made part of the Glenn Ridge Estates Subdivision Homeowners Association, and be required to participate with a proportional of the cost of maintenance of the common area and roadways.

 

6.   Except for Lots 1 and 4 all the Conditions of the Glenn Ridge Estates Subdivision found in the Findings and Resolution recorded at Reception Number 2000042211 shall be applicable to the new lots within the Glenn Ridge 2nd Filing Subdivision.

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Boulter, Huddleston, Korb, Pond, terMeer, Waldo, Wallace, and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

ITEM #4 OLANDER FARMS CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY PLAT #04-S2289:  Mr. Karan provided background information on the request to divide 77.68 acres into a Conservation Development with 13 single-family residential lots, located on the north side of State Highway 60 approximately ½ mile east of County Road 11. 

 

Commissioner Korb stated that he did not agree with the consolidation and grouping concept of the developable lots previously approved in the General Development Plan.  He stated that he would vote against the application due to the layout of the property.  He also inquired about the high ground water problem and stated that the disclosure notice should address the issue to inform potential purchasers of the problem. 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Helmick stated that unless the State engineer specifically requested a no basement condition, staff took the position that on-site soils inspections required by the Building Code would suffice for the issues of both engineered foundation design and basement adequacy. 

 

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 Olander Farms Conservation Development Preliminary Plat, file #03-S2218, for the property described on "Exhibit D" 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 Olander Farms  Conservation Development (File #04-S2289) and with the Chapman Farms/Olander Farms General Development Plan (GDP - File #02-S2008) 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 Olander Farms Conservation Development and the Chapman Farms/Olander Farms General Development Plan.

 

2.   Engineered foundations are required for new habitable construction. 

 

3.   Passive radon mitigation measures shall be included in the construction of all new residential structures on these lots.  The results of a radon detection tests 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.

 

4.   The following fees shall be collected at building permit for new single family dwellings. Thompson R-2 District school fee, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion (TCEFs), Larimer County Regional Park Fee (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.

 

5.   Interim and final emergency and secondary access will be approved by Loveland Fire Bureau and County Staff. 

 

6.   All lots must be 100 foot from edge of the wetland.  The wetland boundary along the southeastern portion of the reservoir shall be restaked.  Alternately, the applicant may provide a re-vegetation plan acceptable the County Planning Department. 

 

 

 

 

7.   In the Final Plat submittal, the applicants will specify whether or not Phase 1, Residual Lot C and Phase 2, Residual Lot D will be connected by a foot trail.  If so, the plans for the trail must be approved by County Planning.  They will also indicate whether or not residents will have access to any of the residual lots that will be developed during the other phase.

 

8.   The applicant shall provide a Disclosure Notice to be approved by the County as a part of the Final Plat review, and recorded with the Final Plats.  This notice shall inform all future lot owners of the conditions of approval and special costs or fees associated with the approval of this project.  Included but not limited in this are the issues related to rural development, the need for engineered footings and foundations, the need for passive radon mitigation, wildlife, hunting, rural practices, high groundwater and agricultural uses and the issues raised in the review and or related to compliance with the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

9.   A Conservation Easement, Development Agreement, or other instrument will:  a) state that no further development of any residual land lots will be allowed, b) specify uses allowed on each residual lot and in the wetland buffer, c) specify how residual land will be managed including, but not limited to, groundcover, irrigation and assignment of responsibilities for each residual lot to each lot owner.  This condition will be fully satisfied before the Final Plat proceeds to the County Commissioners for approval.

 

Commissioner Boulter seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Huddleston, Korb, and Wallace voted against the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Boulter, Pond, terMeer, Waldo, and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  5-3

 

ITEM:

 

ITEM #6 2003 NON-RESIDENTIAL INTERNATIONAL CODES ADOPTION AND PROPOSED AMENDMENTS:  Mr. Timm provided information on the adoption of the 2003 International Building Code, 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, and repealing the currently adopted 1997 Uniform Building Code, 1997 Uniform Plumbing, 1997 Uniform Mechanical Code, 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, and the 1977 Colorado Energy Conservation Standards. 

 

Commissioner Korb asked about the type of impacts the proposed new codes would have on the existing building code, and how the recommended amendments would accommodate localized needs?

 

 

 

Tom Garton, Chief Building Official, stated that the Non-Residential International Codes were being supported by numerous nationwide organizations.  The local amendments were basically just a transfer of the existing code amendments, while others would help to give people a heads up on certain building codes when they initially consulted the Building Department. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

None

 

DISCUSSION:

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 2003 Non-Residential International Building Code be approved.                 

 

Commissioner Waldo seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Boulter, Huddleston, Korb, Pond, terMeer, Waldo, Wallace, and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

The hearing recessed for 10 minutes.

 

ITEM #7 HAIRE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT #04-S2324:  Ms. Ponce-Pore provided background information on the request to subdivide a 15 acre parcel into two lots.  Lot 1 would consist of 11.53 acres; Lot 2 would consist of 3.139 acres.  She also informed the Commission of the Special Review application heard in November 2003 for an expanded kennel facility on the property and affirmed that the current request had nothing to do with the uses on the property. 

 

Mark Corbridge, Absolute Surveying, was the consultant for the applicant.  He stated that the request was a division of the natural terrain of the property where the ditch subdivided the property.  The owners had no use for the other property, and therefore wanted to sell it for residential use.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Bill Kaufman, Attorney, 200 E. 7th Street, represented property owners Tom and Marsha Rano who lived south of the subject property and were in opposition of the proposal.  He submitted a petition that had been signed by other neighbors in the area.  He explained that his clients believed that the application would cause traffic problems on County Road 23E.  There was a total of 31 access points, 14 on the east side and 17 on the west side of the County Road.  The 14 access points on the east side included 40 single family residences not counting the kennel.  The 17 access points on the west side included 39 single family residential units.  According to his

calculations, approximately 1,100 vehicle trips would occur per day on the road.  He pointed out that the access points were not directly across from one another which his clients felt caused problems and created an unsafe environment, and they asked for a recommendation of denial.

 

 

Commissioner Korb asked if there was an existing access point from Lot 2?

 

Mr. Kaufman replied yes.

 

Christie Coleman, Engineering Department, stated that County Road 23E had an average daily trip of 1,111.  In addition, the Haire Subdivision had an existing subdivision access point with adequate site distance.

 

Mr. Corbridge stated that the subdivision would not be creating a new access point, just utilizing an access that was already existing. 

 

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 Haire Subdivision Preliminary Plat, file #04-S2324, for the property described on "Exhibit E" to the minutes be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   The Final Plat of the Haire Subdivision shall be completed in strict compliance with the conditionally approved preliminary plat and other information submitted by the applicant and contained in the file, #04-S2324, unless modified by the conditions of this approval.

 

2.   The applicant shall provide a Final Development Agreement to be recorded with the Final Plat, which shall include provision for all requirements for public improvements, including the fire hydrant as required by Loveland Fire, and memorialize the conditions under which this application is approved.

 

3.   The applicant shall provide a Disclosure Notice for approval by the County 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 also include, but is not limited to; the restrictions of fencing of prohibiting access to all ditches for maintenance and access for those responsible for maintenance and items for notification, as requested by Randy Starr in his memo of February 21, 2002, the issues related to rural development, fire department requirements, the requirement for an access permits and culverts, the need for engineered footings and foundations and the restrictions for basement construction, the need for engineered septic systems, the issue of noise from the adjacent dog kennel, and the need for passive radon mitigation.

 

4.   The following fees shall be collected at building permit for new single family dwellings: Thompson R2-J school fees in lieu of dedication, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation, Drainage Basin fees, Development Construction Permit fees, and the Larimer County Park Fee in lieu of dedication.  The fee amount that is current at the time building permit application shall apply.  Prior to construction, the applicant must contact the County Engineering Department and obtain a Development Construction Permit.

 

5.   Passive radon mitigation measures shall be included in the construction of all new residential structures in this development. Radon detection tests are required in all new residential structures on this site. The results of these tests shall be submitted to the Planning Department once the structure is enclosed but prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. As an alternative, a builder may present a prepaid receipt for 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.   Basement construction shall only be allowed if the applicant, at the time of building permit, can demonstrate that the ground water table is at least three feet below the basement floor elevation.

 

Commissioner Korb seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Boulter, Huddleston, Korb, Pond, terMeer, Waldo, Wallace, and Chairman Morgan voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

ITEM #8 MOSER SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT #04-S2287:  Mr. Lafferty provided background information on the request to divide a 10 acre parcel into three (3) residential lots located along the north side of County Road 4, approximately ½ mile east of County Road 23E.  He also addressed the applicant’s connectivity proposal to complete the Green Ridge Road segment from the Arleigh Acres Subdivision to Meining Road in Kent Estates.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked about the status of the roads involved with the proposed connectivity?

 

Mr. Lafferty explained that Meining Road was a publicly dedicated dirt road treated with Magnesium Chloride and maintained on an annual basis by the County.  The roads within the Arleigh Acres Subdivision were publicly dedicated paved roads maintained by the homeowners.

 

Commissioner Boulter asked if anything prevented the applicant from connecting a road through the property up to Melody Road?

 

Mr. Lafferty replied no. 

 

Commissioner Waldo asked about the future probability of Green Ridge Road developing if the property to the north of Kent Estates was developed?

 

Mr. Lafferty stated that his opinion was that the only access available for those lots would be through Green Ridge Road. 

 

Tiffanie Johnson, Landmark Engineering, explained that the current access to the Moser property came from County Road 4 (Mr. Moser’s driveway), which would be abandoned and relocated to the proposed Moser Court.  To create connectivity, the applicant proposed to develop an approximate 500-foot unpaved roadway segment of Green Ridge Road, which would supply

 

regional connectivity, create an improved emergency access, and allow an alternative connection to the neighboring properties such as Arleigh Acres and Kent Estates.  The applicant recognized that there was a platted portion of unbuilt roadway north of their proposed subdivision.  However, placing that roadway created negative impacts to the significant tree line located in the roadway, which could displace some of the wildlife with their demolition.  Constructing Melody Road would also create a split lot and an undesirable subdivision.  In addition, the right-of-way from Melody Road was encumbered by the existing garage on Mr. Moser’s property.  Ms. Johnson remarked that the proposed connectivity offered a reasonable solution to achieve the regional neighborhood transportation network that would connect all of the subdivisions and offer future development a potential right-of-way. 

 

Commissioner Huddleston asked if a traffic flow analysis was completed?

 

Ms. Johnson replied no. 

 

Commissioner Wallace asked about the applicant’s requested appeal to the access road requirements in the Moser Subdivision?

 

Christie Coleman, Engineering Department, stated that the applicant requested an appeal to the road right-of-way standards to decrease the width of the right-of-way to 50 feet instead of the 60-foot standard in order to accommodate the garage located on the property.  The local road geometry would remain the same:  24-foot driving surface, 4-foot shoulders, with borrow ditches on both sides. 

 

Mr. Lafferty explained that the applicant would need to apply for a Variance through the Board of Adjustment to obtain a Setback Variance from the road right-of-way.  Upon approval of a Variance, any structure that was rebuilt would have to be built subject to setback standards. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY:

Charlotte Armstrong, 4204 W. County Road 4, stated that the Arleigh Acres property owners would be greatly affected by opening up the 500-foot section of Green Ridge Road. 

 

Christina Kowslowski, Applicant, stated that she would own Lot 3 of the proposed Moser Subdivision.  She remarked that she was frustrated because the purpose for the subdivision was strictly to allow her sister and her to own two lots of their father’s land.  She explained that the family did not want the connectivity and wanted the standard waived.

 

Tim Baxter, 4128 Arleigh Court, had several concerns regarding the Green Ridge Road extension.  He stated that he was on the board for the Culver Lateral Ditch Company and believed that the Green Ridge Road connectivity would intersect two ditches that were located above road level.  He believed that the connection would increase traffic because cars currently tried to go through the dead end road.  He also remarked that the residents were responsible for the maintenance of road, and the extension would create an additional burden for which they would be responsible.

 

Commissioner Korb asked if there was an existing road association for Arleigh Acres?

 

Mr. Baxter replied yes.  The association collected dues and performed routine maintenance. 

 

Ken Woods, Arleigh Acres resident, commented that there would be a huge impact to the residents of Arleigh Acres if Green Ridge Road was completed and felt that neither the public nor the community would benefit from it.

 

George Hoffman, Vice President of the Culver Ditch Company, pointed out where the Culver Ditch was located.  He stated that constructing Green Ridge Road would require at least four culverts, plus the amount of traffic through Arleigh Acres would increase. 

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if ditch culverts would be required if Melody Road was continued?

 

Mr. Hoffman replied yes. 

 

Bill Ludwig, 4026 Arleigh Drive, was the President of the Arleigh Acres Homeowners Association.  He stated that the road was in poor shape and could not withstand an increase in traffic.  He also inquired whether the Homeowners Association would be liable for any accidents that occurred since they maintained the road. 

 

Jack Summers, 1528 Arleigh Drive, stated that he was in favor of the Mosers subdividing their property, but not in favor of the proposed connectivity.  He suggested waiving the connectivity requirement and allowing the access to be off of County Road 4.

 

Mary Fishbeck, 4120 Arleigh Court, submitted a letter signed by the 23 homeowners of Arleigh Acres disapproving of the improvement to Green Ridge Road. 

 

L. Key, 4129 Arleigh Court, was not in favor of extending Green Ridge Road and asked that another connectivity solution be created.

 

RuthAnn Baxter, 4128 Arleigh Court, asked the County to be accountable for their decisions, stating that the County should take over the road maintenance if the connectivity through Green Ridge Road was approved.

 

Barbara Bridgeman, 3713 Meining Road, suggested that a Variance to the Connectivity standard be allowed.  She remarked that it should be the responsibility of the County to pay for the road construction and maintenance if the connectivity issue was going to be forced. 

 

Peter Bridgeman, 3713 Meining Road, was opposed to connecting Green Ridge Road and felt that the access should come from County Road 4.  He did not see utilizing a road for connectivity that was so far from the subject property.  He asked the Planning Commission to make a decision that the neighborhood could live with. 

 

DISCUSSION:

Ken Merritt, Landmark Engineering, remarked that the applicant’s effort to meet the Larimer County Land Use Code requirement for Connectivity had upset the balance of conditions as they existed today.  He explained that there were three options available to the applicant:  build Green Ridge Road, build Melody Road, or be allowed to submit a Variance application for the connectivity standard.  He explained that the third option would provide a better benefit to the current residences and to the applicant.  The applicant’s goal was simply to subdivide the land so that Mr. Moser could gift two lots to his daughters.  However due to County policy; the

 

connection issue had to be debated.  Whether the project triggered the need was questionable.  The current proposal was a unique situation, with a scale and magnitude that may warrant an exception to the standard and would not set precedence for future larger projects.  He reiterated that the applicant did not want to make the connection and felt that it was unnecessary.  The GDP application determined that the applicant had to address the connectivity issue; therefore, the issue was embraced and an alternative solution to the Melody Road connection was created.  It was concluded that there was a future need for connectivity in the area, but Melody Road was not a good solution for the subdivision nor the transportation flaws that existed.  The better solution would be to connect Green Ridge Road because it was clearly intended to happen.  Kent Estates platted the right-of-way, and Arleigh Acres built the road to the north boundary.  Analyzing the map and circulation flows it made no sense to connect Melody Road.  It was only a solution to the problem of the subdivision not a solution to the problem of transportation and connectivity.

 

Commissioner Boulter asked if Melody Road was a public road?

 

Mr. Lafferty replied no.  It was a publicly dedicated right-of-way privately maintained.

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if the Melody Road connection would create a future connectivity problem considering future development that could occur to the north of the area?

 

Mr. Lafferty replied that there were four, forty acre parcels of undeveloped land to the north.  With broad calculations of a Conservation Development there could potentially be eight lots per each forty acre parcel.  An option available could be to connect Melody Road through the subdivision and if traffic increased due to future development Green Ridge Road could be connected through to Kent Estates and Arleigh Acres.  Nonetheless, connectivity through Melody Road created a less desirable option for the applicant and for the potential overall development pattern.  He stated that the applicant had proposed an application that staff believed to satisfy the criteria as it was outlined in the Land Use Code. 

 

Commissioner Korb stated that Melody Road was dedicated with the intention to be completed, and it was the most likely connection because of its direct connection to County Road 4.  He also pointed out that according to the Land Use Code that the only way that the Moser Subdivision could provide connectivity would be to connect a road up to an existing dedicated road in the neighboring subdivision.  The proposed idea of activating the previously established connection between Kent Estates and Arleigh Acres through Green Ridge Road did not meet the purpose of the Code.  According to Section 8.14.2.N of the Land Use Code, “All roads in new land divisions must be designed to connect to adjacent property to allow a neighborhood traffic circulation system and to improve emergency and service access.”  He presented the option to approve the development as proposed without the connection to Green Ridge Road and plat the right-of-way from the Moser Subdivision cul-de-sac to Melody Road requiring no construction of that road. 

 

Mr. Helmick replied that in staffs’ analysis of the project the applicant’s Green Ridge Road connectivity proposal allowed for a neighborhood traffic circulation improvement and met the Code requirement. 

 

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Korb commented that as a general rule a Preliminary Plat application that was consistent with a previously approved General Development Plan could not be objected.  In the current situation the General Development Plan had proposed to wave connectivity but was denied.  Consequently, the connectivity standard should be upheld.  He stated that if the subdivision wanted the three lot subdivision the road should be connected through the property to Melody Road.

 

Commissioner terMeer stated that she interpreted Section 8.14.2.N of the Land Use Code to mean that all roads in new land divisions had to be designed to connect, not just be dedicated.  She stated that connectivity needed to occur, and it made more sense to connect, dedicate, and pave Melody Road. 

 

Commissioner Boulter remarked that the connectivity solution proposed was not appropriate for the other subdivisions in the area and connection should occur from County Road 4 up to Meining Road.  He understood that the application was just for a three lot subdivision and connecting Melody Road would create a public road and an access point right through the property.  However, he felt that roads needed to be constructed before future development problems occurred, and the Melody Road connection was the best solution. 

 

Mr. Lafferty pointed out that the number of traffic trips that would generate from connecting Melody Road to Meining Road would not be at a level that would require the road to be paved. 

 

Commissioner Huddleston stated that he agreed with Commissioner Boulter’s and Korb’s comments.

 

Commissioner Pond stated that connecting Melody Road through to County Road 4 was appropriate for the subdivision application. 

 

Commissioner Korb moved that the Planning Commission deny the following Resolution:

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Moser Subdivision Preliminary Plat, file #04-S2287, for the property described on "Exhibit F" to the minutes be denied.

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Boulter, Huddleston, Korb, Pond, terMeer, Waldo, Wallace, and Chairman Morgan 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 10:20 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.

 

 

 

_______________________________                      ______________________________

Roger Morgan, Chairman                                             Jason Waldo, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT E

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT F

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