LARIMER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes of November 16, 2005

 

The Larimer County Planning Commission met in a regular session on Wednesday, November 16, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. in the Hearing Room.  Commissioners’ Huddleston, Karabensh, Oppenheimer, Pond, terMeer, Waldo, and Wallace were present.  Commissioner Boulter presided as Chairman.  Commissioner Morgan was absent.  Also present were Rob Helmick, Principal Planner, David Karan, Planner II, Karin Madson, Planner II, Casey Stewart, Planner II, Porter Ingrum, Environmental Planner, Christie Coleman, Engineering Department, Traci Downs, Engineering Department, Doug Ryan, Environmental Health, and Jill Wilson, Planning Technician and Recording Secretary.

 

COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC REGARDING THE COUNTY LAND USE CODE: 

None

 

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

None

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE OCTOBER 19, 2005 MEETINGS:  MOTION by Commissioner Pond to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Oppenheimer.  This received unanimous voice approval.

 

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA:  

None

 

REMOVED ITEM:  PARRISH RANCH ESTATES CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT #04-S2269:  Mr. Helmick requested that Parrish Ranch Estates Conservation Development be removed from the agenda.  He stated that it would be rescheduled for a later date and re-advertised in the newspaper.

 

CONSENT ITEM:

 

ITEM #1 BOBCAT RIDGE NATURAL AREA LOCATION & EXTENT #05-Z1572:  Mr. Ingrum provided background information on the Location & Extent review for a parking lot for the trailhead at the Bobcat Ridge Natural Area located adjacent to County Road 103 and ¼ mile south of County Road 190.

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approve the Bobcat Ridge Natural Area Location & Extent, file #05-Z1572, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.  The trailhead application shall be submitted to the Larimer County Planning Department for Site Plan Review to address drainage, safety and environmental impacts associated with the improvements to County Road 32C. 

 

2.  As part of the road improvements for County Road 32C, the applicant shall submit a revegetation plan. The plan shall be reviewed and commented on by the Larimer County Planning staff.

 

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:   8-0

 

ITEM #2 WILD TEAL LIFT STATION LOCATION & EXTENT #05-Z1571:  Mr. Helmick provided background information on the Location and Extent review for a sanitary sewer lift station to serve the Teal Creek PUD in Larimer County and other developments in Weld County for the Boxelder Sanitation district.

 

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

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approve the Wild Teal Lift Station Location & Extent, file #05-Z1571.

 

Commissioner Pond seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioner Karabensh abstained from voting on the item due to providing legal services to the Town of Severance with respect to one of the developments that would be served by the lift station. 

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  7-0

 

ITEM #3 INTERNATIONAL APPROVALS LABS AMENDED SPECIAL EXCEPTION #05-Z1569:  Mr. Stewart provided background information on the request to remove a previously approved Special Exception condition that limits the business operation to the original applicant and to add an accessory storage shed to the site located in the Pinewood Springs area, ¾ mile north of the Boulder County line.  The original Special Exception (file #V-26-90) was approved in 1990 and only for Amador Corporation.

 

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 International Approvals Lab Amended Special Exception, file #05-Z1569, for the property described on “Exhibit A” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   The project shall comply with and conform to the site plan and supporting documents submitted with this application.

2.   No additional principal uses other than the use permitted by this Special Exception are allowed on this property unless proper approval is granted in the future.

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

ITEM #4 SAGE VALLEY CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT/REZONING #05-S2405, #05-Z1540:  Mr. Karin provided background information on the request for a Conservation Development to divide 35 acres into three single family residential lots and one Residual Lot and rezone to O-Open.  The property is located on the west side of Glade Road (County Road 25E) less than ¼ mile north of County Road 24H.  The request also includes appeals to the Larimer County Land Use Code, Sections 8.14.2.S (connectivity) and 8.14.2.N (dedicating right-of-way for internal streets).

 

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 Sage Valley Conservation Development/Rezoning, file #05-S2405, #05-Z1540 appeal to Section 8.14.2.S (connectivity) of the Larimer County Land Use Code, be approved.

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that Sage Valley Conservation Development/Rezoning, file #05-S2405, #05-Z1540 appeal to Section 8.14.2.N (dedicating right-of-way for internal streets) of the Larimer County Land Use Code, be approved.

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Sage Valley Rezoning to O-Open, file #05-Z1540, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, be approved.

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Sage Valley Conservation Development, file #05-S2405, for the property described on “Exhibit B” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved Preliminary Plat and with the information contained in the Sage Valley Conservation Development (file #05-S2405).  The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Sage Valley Conservation Development.

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

 

 

 

 

 

3.   The following fees shall be collected at building permit for new single family dwellings. Thompson R-2 school fee, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion (TCEFs), Larimer County Regional 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 Development Construction Permit, prior to commencing development construction.

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

5.    Basement construction will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated during the Final Plat process on a lot-by-lot basis that groundwater is at least 3 feet below the proposed basement floor elevation. 

6.    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 the residual lot, and c) specify how residual land will be managed.  This condition will be fully satisfied before the Final Plat proceeds to the County Commissioners for approval.

7.    The applicant will address all other final plat issues discussed in County Engineering Department’s 10/7/05 comments including, but not limited to, the dedication of additional County Road 25E right-of-way, meeting street standards and improvement of the design of the intersection of Sage Valley Court and Lot 2 driveway easements.

8.    A Homeowners Association bylaws and documents or a Road Maintenance Agreement shall be approved by County Planning and Engineering Department, specify that all maintenance of the driveway easements will be the responsibility of the owner of Lot 2, and establish a method for joint maintenance of the Sage Valley Court right-of-way by the owners of Lots 1 and 2 and Residual Lot A.   

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

ITEMS:

 

ITEM #5 COLORADO BOAT CENTER APPEAL #05-G0089:  Mr. Stewart provided background information on the request for an appeal to Section 10.14.B (commercial, freestanding signs) of the Larimer County Land Use Code to exceed the height and size requirements for a proposed freestanding sign.  The proposed sign would be 18 feet tall and 90 square feet in size.  At the proposed location, the sign would be limited to 10 feet tall and 33 square feet in area.  The Development Services Team was recommending denial of the appeal.

 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY;

Nancy Smith, Colorado Boat Center, explained why her company felt that the imposed sign code would create hardship to their business.  She pointed out that there was a driveway in the middle of the property and two buildings, one to the north which was parts and service and one to the south that was administration and sales.  Currently there was a sign on the front of their north building and customers were thinking that only the north building was Colorado Boat Center and did not realize that the whole property was one business.  She explained that the intention was to have a sign that would be placed approximately half way in between the property so that people would recognize that it was all one business.  She stated that if the code standards were followed the sign would have to be in the middle of the driveway, which would be very difficult to move.  The other option would be to move the sign beyond the driveway so the boats could be moved back and forth between the buildings, which would then put the sign well over 50 feet from the property line.  She stated that the property was an old, existing one, and the surrounding properties had already been annexed into the Town of Johnstown.  She remarked that when looking at the business community in the area there were surrounding standards that could cause a hardship.  The business was on I-25 and was surrounded by a municipality that allowed much more lenient signs to be erected, and the property surrounding their business would potentially be competing with their business.  Colorado Boat Center customers would have an adverse advantage in recognizing what the business was with a sign that was erected one third of the way back on the property because cars on I-25 were going by at 75 miles per hour rate.  She stated that they were only asking for a simple sign that would identify the business and allow for people to see their sign easier while driving at a faster speed.   She passed out to the Commission photographs of the signage of the surrounding properties to show where the signage was placed in comparison to the Colorado Boat Center property, the frontage road, and the neighboring community.  She stated that the business was not asking for a bigger or taller sign just a location that made sense for the area with the existing businesses and signs and was feasible for their existing business and property. 

 

Commissioner terMeer asked if the driveway could bend to the east to accommodate the sign?

 

Ms. Smith replied that the business dealt with 26-27 foot boats, and it would make it difficult to maneuver them.  She stated that it would also take up more space on the property.

 

Commissioner Pond asked if the sign could be erected at the south end of the south building to meet the setback requirements?

 

Ms. Smith replied that the main purpose for trying to have a sign in the middle of the north-south section of the property was because there were multiple buildings and they wanted to pull the buildings all together to alert people that it was only one property and one business.  She remarked that there was a berm that impaired northbound I-25 traffic from seeing the property and there was a row of trees on the north end of the property that obstructed the view of southbound I-25 traffic.  It was important to have their customers know who they were and not struggle to find them from the road.  She felt that the signage they were asking for was not excessive and would be something large enough for the location, traffic, and would fit well with the neighboring businesses.  She stated that if their business signage was held to the code their business would be out of place compared to the surrounding properties and businesses. 

 

 

 

Tim Hayes, Gardner Signs, Inc., stated that the Colorado Boat Center’s objective was to have visibility of their sign from I-25.  He explained that if the sign was erected according to the code it would be set back so much further compared to the surrounding properties and businesses, and it was hard to meet the setback requirement the way the lot was set up.

 

Ms. Smith stated that the business had to work with existing infrastructure and buildings and it would be a costly and huge transition to have to move everything on the property. 

 

Commissioner terMeer stated that some how the business had existed before without the signage and people were able to find them.

 

Ms. Smith acknowledged that fact but stated that there were two new competing businesses between the exit off of the interstate and their business. 

 

Commissioner Wallace asked how wide the interior driveway on the property was?

 

Ms. Smith replied that it was approximately 20 feet.

 

Gerald Granberg, owner of Young’s Liquor, stated that he was going before the Board of County Commissioners on November 21, 2005 to appeal the sign code on an issue similar to the current case.  He remarked that there were issues with the sign code, particularly for businesses that were on the interstate and on busy highways such as Highway 14 (Mulberry).  The roads were divided and traffic moved fairly quickly, and the businesses need to let the public know that they were there. 

 

Chairman Boulter noted that one of the issues he had when reviewing the new sign code was I-25 signs.  He understood that communities needed to have standards for signs but his concern was high speed signs, I-25 signage, and competitive business signage.  The surrounding properties were operating under the Johnstown sign code while the applicant was operating under the County sign code, which seemed to be substantively different.  He felt that it put the applicant at a disadvantage, which was one of his big concerns.  He wondered if the County was giving the correct amount of leeway for signage because of the fact that they were on I-25.  He stated that when the sign code was in its preliminary review it was determined that the location and uniqueness of the property would be dealt with on a case to case basis.  The applicant had a unique situation whereas they were in a competitive situation were different signage was allowed, and he felt that an exception should be made.  He stated that he could support denying the application if the applicant wanted to build a sign that was bigger or taller than allowed on the property, but the applicant was asking for placement not change.  They were asking for a sign at the maximum height with the maximum square footage just closer to the road.  He was not sure that the 20 feet in question violated enough of the sign code. 

 

Mr. Stewart agreed that they were asking for a shorter distance but at that distance the applicant was asking to be bigger and taller.

 

Commissioner Boulter noted that he had been consistent on his feelings that I-25 high speed signage should be an exception.  He stated that he felt that it was more of a technical requirement then something that was going to make the County look better.

 

 

Commissioner Wallace noted that she had believed that signage on I-25 should be restricted.  She felt that erecting large signs such as the ones that surrounded the applicant’s property were not appropriate, obstructed the view, and interfered with the stated purposes of the County.  She stated that it was because of view sheds that the County had limitations on signs.  She did not see any particulars in the applicant’s case that should allow an exception to be made. 

 

Commissioner terMeer stated that she agreed with Commissioner Wallace and felt that view shed was very important.  She stated that “when there was a will there was a way” and she could not see why there wasn’t a way to move some of the boats in order to have the sign setback on the property to meet the regulations.  She stated that people had found the business for many years and having the sign closer to the road was making it a larger and taller sign.  She honored the applicant’s need to have a sign but did not feel that it was a hardship.

 

Commissioner Waldo stated that as a fellow business owner he sympathized with competitors and felt that it was a disadvantage when a neighbor went by a grossly different set of rules.  The proposed sign was significantly less then the RV America sign and was in a very close proximity to it.  As a competitor it was a very viable business strategy to try to protect the interest of ones’ business.  As Chairman Boulter had pointed out the sign size was allowed but would be 20 feet to close to the road and 20 feet was not going to make a difference in the grand scheme of things.  He stated that he believed strongly in property rights and did not like the County getting in that deep into a property owners rights.  He stated that he would support the appeal.

 

Commissioner Karabensh asked what the height and area restrictions were at the 14 foot setback?

 

Mr. Stewart replied that a sign would be allowed to have a height of 12 feet and a sign area of 50 square feet per face.

 

Commissioner Huddleston asked how large the sign could be if the property was in Johnstown?

 

Mr. Helmick tried to interpret the Town of Johnstown’s website and thought that a sign could be up to 35 square feet per 1500 square feet of business, 13 feet from the property line, and 25 feet tall.  He stated that his interpretation was that a sign could be taller and closer to the property line in Johnstown but one third of the size. 

 

Mr. Hayes stated that the Johnstown sign code for I-25 was much more lenient.  He stated that looking at the country in a whole, 90 square feet on an interstate was very small and very restrictive for an interstate situation. 

 

Chairman Boulter stated that his concern was the high speed locations.  He remarked that if the same argument was being made at a lower speed or different location the sign code would address it very well.  However, his continuing concern was having a sign of that size at a 75 mile an hour interstate.  He did not think the proposed sign seemed out of line or obtrusive.  He understood that codes were put in place for a reason, but he also understood that they were subject to appeal and to discussion if the code posed a hardship on the business owner or if it was a unique situation and location.

 

 

 

 

Commissioner Pond stated that he could understand personal preferences and agreed that the sign was not obtrusive in the area but a sign code was established.  The County Commissioners stressed that personal preferences should not come into play when making decisions, and he felt that should be remembered. 

 

DISCUSSION;

Commissioner Waldo stated that the Planning Commission was set up as a diverse body to have differing opinions and that there was room for appeal and discussion.  He believed that the Commission’s personal opinions did come into play and that was why there were nine members on the board.

 

Commissioner Huddleston stated that the current signage was a special circumstance, and he did not agree with the staff recommendation for denial since the property was so close to Johnstown and the owner was attempting to fit in with their surroundings.  He recommended that the Planning Commission approve the appeal to the sign code.

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer stated that he agreed with all of Commissioner Waldo’s comments.

 

Commissioner terMeer referenced Review Criteria A:  Approval of the appeal will not subvert the purpose of the standard or requirement.  She stated that she felt that was a significant point.  A standard was set and she did not feel that the minimal thing that the applicant could do was move the sign closer to the road. 

 

Commissioner Karabensh remarked that she interpreted Review Criteria A differently than Commissioner terMeer.  She stated that the requirement was to maintain a community standard and if the subject property was compared to the physical community of I-25 she felt that granting the appeal did maintain that standard in that particular community.  She did agree that if it was a different situation the standard would be measured by a different community standard; however, she interpreted the criteria to be what the immediately surrounding vicinity of the community was.  She also referenced Review Criteria B regarding public health, safety, and property values in the neighborhood and noted that a larger sign might help advocate for public safety in driving as people wouldn’t be as distracted as they might be while trying to read a smaller sign.

 

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 Colorado Boat Center Appeal, file #05-G0089, for the property described on “Exhibit C” to the minutes, be approved.

 

Commissioner Huddleston seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Pond, terMeer, and Wallace voted against the Motion.

 

Commissioners’ Huddleston, Karabensh, Oppenheimer, Waldo, and Chairman Boulter voted in favor of the Motion.

 

MOTION PASSED:  5-3

 

 

ITEM #6 EAGLE RIDGE ESTATES PUD REZONE #05-Z1570:  Ms. Madson provided background information on the rezoning request to take action to revert the FA-1 – Farming conditional zoning tied to an expired development plan back to the original zoning.  There are three parcels that are affected by the conditional zoning.  The original zoning of the parcels was FA–Farming and O-Open.  The property is located on the west side of Highway 1, southwest of the County Road 15 intersection.

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY;

None

 

DISCUSSION;

Commissioner Wallace stated that personally she would like to see all the property go back to O-Open zoning because the zoning was more restricted but in light of consistency it made sense for it to go back to its original zoning and would support the rezoning.

 

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 Eagle Ridge Estates PUD Rezone, file #05-Z1570, for the properties described on “Exhibit D” to the minutes, be approved as follows:

 

·  Rezone Parcel 98130-00-003 from conditional FA-1-Farming to O-Open.

·  Rezone Parcel 98140-00-004 from conditional FA-1-Farming to FA-Farming.

·  Rezone Parcel 98140-00-007 from conditional FA-1-Farming to FA-Farming.

 

Commissioner Oppenheimer seconded the Motion.

 

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

 

MOTION PASSED:  8-0

 

ITEM #7 MEADOWS AT ROLLING HILLS PLANNED LAND DIVISION/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT #04-S2337:  Mr. Karan provided background information on the request for a Planned Land Division to divide a 43 acre parcel into 11 residential lots ranging from 2.3 to 3.88 acres and three outlots located south of Rolling Hills Estates 2nd Filing, east of County Road 54G and west of Buckskin Trail in the LaPorte Area Plan.  Included with the request was a rezoning to Planned Development and appeals to Sections 3.1.2.a and 8.14.2.N of the Larimer County Land Use Code.

 

Connie Barnes, 4411 W. County Road 52E – applicant, stated that she and her husband would be deeding the property to their son who would live on the property. 

 

Commissioner Wallace asked if there would be a requirement for downward directed lighting in the covenants?

 

 

 

 

Mrs. Barnes replied yes and that the covenants for Meadows at Rolling Hills would closely mirror the Rolling Hills covenants.  She stated that the subdivision road would be paved from the County Road 54G access down.  She explained that the ditch tile had been replaced with a ten inch line.  She also noted that there was a quarry pit located on Lot 1, in which reclamation had occurred.  She stated that her son would live on that lot and no buildings would be built on the old quarry pit area.  She also stated that the emergency access road was a 60 foot easement and would be covered with road base. 

 

PUBLIC TESTIMONY;

John Eckberg owned the property to the west of the proposed development.  He stated that preliminary discussion had taken place regarding the access road. 

 

Larry Miller, 4600 Moccasin Circle, was Treasurer of the Rolling Hills Home Owners Association and was representing the board.  He stated that the Rolling Hills Homeowners Association had no funds or desires to develop, design, engineer, or maintain a walkway/bike trail to Moccasin Circle.  The potential intersection where that pathway would be located had a dangerous corner and there were concerns of what impacts it may have as far as drainage whenever there were high rains.  He also said that as a homeowner adjacent to what might be a walkway with a steep ramp may cause people to use his driveway instead of the ramp, and he did not want that.

 

Susanne Cordery-Cotter, 4437 Moccasin Circle, echoed some of Mr. Miller’s concerns.  She also stated that the connectivity pathway was not needed, would pose a safety hazard, and would only serve to allow ATV’s and dirt bikes to travel from a paved area to roads that were maintained by the Rolling Hills homeowners.  She stated that there was adequate connectivity for both developments and another one was not needed.

 

Robert Gardner, 3701 Buckskin Trail, asked if the temporary access to Buckskin Trail would be blocked off so cars could not access it.  He was also concerned about the property if developed because there had been floods in the past. 

 

Larry Lewis, 4221 Buckskin Trail, had a concern about the irrigation water that went through his and his neighbors’ pastures.  He wondered if drainage problems could occur for Lots 9, 10, and 11 of the proposed development.  He also had concerns about the wildlife in the area and the sensitivity the development would have to it.  He also remarked that having low-level lights was a good idea. 

 

Commissioner Wallace asked where the irrigation water ran to?

 

Mr. Lewis replied that there was a small pond that some of the water ran off into and the rest he was not sure where it went after it left his property.

 

Lyle Vanhorn, 3611 Buckskin Trail, pointed out where the water on Mr. Lewis’s property went.  He also remarked that he would like the covenants to state that no pit bulls would be allowed.

 

Richard Stutz, 4509 Lance Court, stated that he did not have a problem with the Barnes’ developing their property.  He asked if the 40 foot right-of-way/utility easement in that area would be gated?

 

Christie Coleman, Engineering Department, stated that the utility easement on the north portion of the property would be incorporated into the right-of-way. 

 

Mr. Karan stated that the applicant was intending to vacate the utility easement. 

 

Ms. Barnes stated that the pedestrian path did not have to occur.  It was only proposed to be there if the Rolling Hills homeowners wanted it.  She stated that she would leave the easement there to be used at a later date if desired but would not develop the pathway at the present time.  She explained that the emergency access road would be gated but not locked and the gates would be updated from the wire ones that were currently there.  She explained that the pipe put in on the property went in to the pond, and the water flowed from the subdivision down into a catch basin at the south end of the property, which would be constructed and would be a concrete catch basin with a grate on the top.  She went on to explain the route the irrigation water would take.  She noted that they were proposing to line the road and entire property with a three rail white fencing, which they did not believe would be any more evasive to wildlife then the wire fencing that was currently on the property.  She noted that the utility easement would be reclaimed and reseeded.  There would not be a road there anymore, and the utility companies would use the new road.

 

Commissioner terMeer asked if the open space on the southern end of the property could not be fenced and left open for wildlife?

 

Ms. Barnes replied that it was already fenced, and the fencing proposed would not be as tall and would be safer for the animals.  She said that an opening in the fencing could be left for the wildlife to go through.

 

Commissioner Wallace stated that she felt it was a good idea to have the pedestrian walkway.  She understood that homeowners on Moccasin Circle were opposed but allowing access to those areas was important.  She asked if Moccasin Circle was a public right-of-way?

 

Mr. Helmick replied that it was a publicly dedicated right-of-way that was privately maintained. 

 

DISCUSSION;

Commissioner Wallace encouraged that the irrigation situation be worked out and did not interfere with Lots 9, 10, and 11 of the proposed development.  She felt that the pedestrian walkway should exist and be developed, but if it wasn’t that it not be vacated.  She stated that she did not like plastic fences and felt that they divided the landscape and the view shed.

 

Commissioner Waldo remarked on the pedestrian walkway and stated that people valued their privacy and did not want connectivity from one subdivision to the next.

 

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 Meadows at Rolling Hills PLD/PD, file #04-S2337, appeal to Section 3.1.2.a (access spacing) be approved.

 

 

 

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Meadows at Rolling Hills PLD/PD, file #04-S2337, appeal to Section 8.14.2.S (connectivity) be approved.

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Meadows at Rolling Hills Planned Land Division, file #04-S2337, for the property described on “Exhibit E” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.   The Final Plat shall be consistent with the approved Preliminary Plat and with the information contained in the Meadows @ Rolling Hills Planned Land Division (file #04-S2337).  The applicant shall be subject to all other verbal or written representations and commitments of record for the Meadows @ Rolling Hills PLD& Rezoning.

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

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 test once the structure is enclosed but prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy shall be submitted to the Building Department.  As an alternative, a builder may present a prepaid receipt from a radon tester that specifies that a test will be done within 30 days. A permanent Certificate of Occupancy can be issued when the prepaid receipt is submitted.

4.   The following fees shall be collected at building permit for new single family dwellings. Thompson R-2 school fee, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation Capital Expansion (TCEFs), Larimer County Regional 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 Development Construction Permit, prior to commencing development construction.

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

6.   Basement construction will not be permitted on lots 5 and 6.

7.   Any required right-of-way along County Road 54G will be dedicated at part of the final plat process.

8.   Prior to scheduling for a Board of County Commissioners hearing, the applicant must provide evidence of the intent of the Eckbergs to transfer ownership of land for the primary access right-of-way.

 

 

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Meadows at Rolling Hills rezoning to Planned Development, file #04-S2337, for the property described on “Exhibit E” to the minutes, be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.  Principal uses

      Agricultural.

      1.  Farm (R)

      2.  Greenhouses (R)

      Residential.

      1.  Single-family dwelling (R)

      2.  Group home for developmentally disabled (R)

      3.  Group home for the elderly (R)

      Institutional:

      1.  Child/elderly care home (R)

      Recreational.

      1.  Riding academy (S)

      Accommodation.

      1.  Bed and Breakfast (S)

2.  Lot, building and structure requirements

      1.  Minimum lot size – 2.3 acres.

      2.  Minimum setbacks :

            a.  Front – 25’

            b.  Side – 5’

            c.   Rear – 10’

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

3.   Maximum building height – 40’ measured from the existing grade.

4.   No parcel can be used for more than one principal building; additional buildings are allowed on a parcel if they meet the accessory use criteria in Section 4.3.10 except as modified above in Section 4.1.22. 

 

Commissioner Waldo seconded the Motion.

 

Commissioners' Huddleston, Karabensh, Oppenheimer, Pond, terMeer, Waldo, Wallace, and Chairman Boulter 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 9:00 p.m.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________________________                      ______________________________

Jeff Boulter, Chairman                                      Nancy Wallace, Secretary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXHIBIT E