Loveland Bike Trail
 

LARIMER COUNTY RURAL LAND USE ADVISORY BOARD

MEETING MINUTES

Monday, November 1, 2010

5:00 p.m.

Larimer County Courthouse Lake Estes Conference Room (Suite 333)

 

Rural Land Use Advisory Board:

RLUC Staff:

Present:

Linda Hoffmann

Suzanne Bassinger

Brenda Gimeson

Kristin Grazier

Pam Stringer

John Hatfield

 

Lauren Light

 

Mike Lynch

 

William Prewitt

 

Bill Sears

 

Bill Spencer

 

 

 

Absent:

 

Mark Korb

 

 

AGENDA TOPICS:

 

  1. Approval of June 21, 2010 - RLUAB Minutes

Chair Spencer made a motion to approve the minutes as written.  Member Prewitt seconded the motion.  All were in favor.  Minutes adopted as written.

 

  1. Approval of August 16, 2010 - RLUAB Minutes

Chair Spencer made a motion to approve the minutes with the recommended corrections.  Member Grazier seconded.  All were in favor. 

 

  1. Dry Creek Reservoir Estates R.L.U.P –Action Item

Brenda gave an overview of the Dry Creek Reservoir RLUP project which included a slide presentation.  The property is generally located off County Road 8E and west of County Road 23 on Schofield and Shale Ridge Roads next to the Cushman Estates Subdivision.  In 2002 the Little Thompson Water District approached the RLUC regarding their plan for a new water storage facility, known as Dry Creek Reservoir.  They hoped to use the RLUP as part of their planning for the reservoir.  In 2003 a work session was held with the Board of County Commissioners regarding options and direction was given to proceed.  In 2005/2006 the Ganter/Suits/Tooley RLUP and the Gaffney/Sherwood RLUP where submitted and received preliminary approval.  A Minor Land Division was completed in 2006 as part of the Dry Creek Reservoir land acquisition.  At that time it was anticipated that the land owned by the Districts would be counted towards the density of an RLUP project.  That intention was noted on the final plat of the minor land division.  In 2007, final documents were submitted for the approved projects.  In 2008 one of the properties went in to foreclosure that caused the stall in final plat approval.  Then in 2010, the applicant approached the RLUC in hopes to finish the project without the foreclosed property. At that time, it was determined, that the applicants must resubmit the project.  In May 2010 the new RLUP was submitted.  This project maintains the same configuration of the two previously approved projects and consists of 165 acres.  There are 4 existing homes sites and the applicants are requesting 4 new home sites with approximately 117 acres of Residual Land that will be owned by Little Thompson Water District and Central Weld County Water District and protected from further residential development in perpetuity.  A large portion of the residual land is and will continue to be under water.  The new property owners of the foreclosed lot have decided not to participate in the project.  Brenda went into more detail regarding the location of the new lots and pointed out on a map what roads are public (Schofield Rd) and which are private (Shale Ridge Road).  A shared road maintenance agreement with Cushman Estates is in negotiation.  Brenda also pointed out that the lots created by Minor Land Division currently do not have any building restrictions placed on them.  However, with this proposal, we are requesting they limit the buildings to allow only what is needed for a water district purposes.

 

Referral Comments:

Planning Department Comments:

·  Access through Cushman Estates still an issue.

·  Roads dedicated for public use. 

·  Applicants in the process of working with HOA to come to agreement for road maintenance.

·  Some concern new lots are undersized and might create compatibility issues. 

·  Provides housing diversity

·  New lots consistent in size with broader area

·  Compatibility can be addressed in covenants if necessary

Health Department Comments:

·  Updated commitment letter will be required before final approval.

·  Previous submittal of soil test information shows suitability for septic system locations.

·  Stormwater run-off—an erosion control plan was submitted and Little Thompson is satisfied water quality is preserved.

·  Condition of approval requiring stormwater management during construction will be carried over to new project.

Engineering Comments:

·  Drainage & runoff will be addressed during the design of project and private engineer will sign-off that project meets design criteria in Section 5.8 for roads and drainage.

·  Secondary access—not generally required for RLUP projects.  Road will be designed with pullouts to accommodate the long roadway length.

·  Roads through Cushman Estates are publically dedicated roads.  Applicants required and in process of working with Cushman Estates to attempt agreement on road maintenance.

Berthoud Fire District:

·  Requested plans that show:

-   All weather surface roads with adequate widths and turn arounds

o  Road design will meet standards in Section 5.8 and include turn arounds in design

-   Fire hydrants that meet minimum flow requirements

o  Condition will be placed on final plan that requires automatic fire protection sprinklers for new residential structures unless written permission for variance granted from fire district.

Community Concerns:

·  Road maintenance through Cushman Estates.

·  Participation of the Little Thompson Water District and the project’s viability without it.

·  Buildings being allowed on the Little Thompson owned residual land with request for site visit to property substantiate request.

·  Size and height restrictions on the properties.

 

Discussion from the Board included the following comments, suggestions and concerns:

 

Member Sears stated that he is all for approving this project.

 

Member Prewitt stated he would like to see a condition that would include vegetation and landscaping around the reservoir.

 

Member Hatfield shared his concern regarding how this project is very unique by allowing the reservoir to be part of the project to qualify for the RLUP.  He feels it does not meet the intent of the RLUB function.  He stated it may qualify but that it’s different than previous approved project where the intent was to help farmers or rancher's to split off part of their land in order to continue to stay in business.  This project does not fit into that category.  In good conscience he can not vote for this project.

 

Member Sears stated that this project meets all the requirements and does not go against the standards. 

 

Member Prewitt asked Member Hatfield what part of this development he felt did not meet the requirements. 

 

Member Hatfield stated that it is not consistent with the surrounding area and by approving this development he felt that we are setting precedence for the surrounding area to create smaller lots. 

 

Member Sears stated that was correct.  The potential is there for the surrounding area to build up around the reservoir.

 

Member Prewitt asked if that was all bad.  A minimum of 66% of the area around these private entities want to assure that there is open space and yet have a limited development vs. a subdivision coming in with two to three acre lots with no open space.  Would you be achieving what you want as a rural community?

 

Member Hatfield stated he does not have a good feeling about this project.  Every project approved previously he was able to find the good and see the bad parts but with this project he could not find the good part.

 

Member Prewitt asked the question of Member Hatfield if the land in front of these houses was land not under water would he feel differently.

 

Member Hatfield replied if a 35 acre tract of land that a house could be built on instead of half being under water to qualify would be more suitable.  He doesn’t believe this is benefiting the whole community.  We should be voting for the good of the entire community. 

 

Member Light stated her open concern was the negotiation regarding the roads.  She feels the applicants are showing a good faith effort.

 

Member Lynch asked by not participating in the road agreement what would happen.  Would the reservoir be used for public use.

 

Brenda replied nothing would change regarding the roads with the exception of the new lots.  She also indicated that the reservoir would not be used for public use, with or without this project.

 

Suggested Conditions before final approval include:

·  Private engineer will sign-off that project meets design criteria in Section 5.8 for roads and drainage. and include turn arounds in design

·  Attempt agreement on shared road maintenance Updated commitment letter will be required before final approval

·  Condition of approval requiring stormwater management during construction will be carried over to new project.

·  Condition will be placed on final plan that requires automatic fire protection sprinklers for new residential structures unless written permission for variance granted from fire district.

·  Landscape improvements for erosion control and habitat

 

Development Agreement will include Uses Not Allowed on Residual Lot:

·  Single-family residences

·  Office buildings

·  Commercial or industrial activities

 

Uses Allowed on Residual Lot A:

·  Buildings and structures clearly necessary and incidental to water supply and storage purposes and appurtenances

·  Utilities such as pipelines, electric lines, valves, pipes, pumps

·  Roadway maintenance

·  Environmental benefits such as nesting poles, etc

 

MOTION:  Member Sears moved to recommend approval with conditions listed as noted Member Light seconded the motion.

 

Roll Call Vote:

 

Suzanne Bassinger

Absent

Kristin Grazier

Yes

John Hatfield

No

Mark Korb

Absent

Lauren Light

Yes

Mike Lynch

Yes

William Prewitt

Yes

Bill Sears

Yes

Bill Spencer

Yes

 

Motion carried with 6 For to 1 Against.

 

4.   Emge/Whitaker Amended RLUP and Amended Plat-Introduction and Action Item

 

Emge/Whitaker Amended RLUP and Amended Plat-Introduction and Action Item

Brenda gave an overview of the Emge/Whitaker Amended Plat RLUP and Amended Plat project which included a slide presentation.  The property is generally located 2 miles southwest of Loveland, approximately a half a mile southwest of County Road 18 and County Road 23E, west of Old Stage Road on Golden Valley Road.  The applicant’s Marty & Roberta Emge, are requesting to move the location of Lot 1 to the southwest corner where the existing residence and outbuildings are located.  The original Emge/Whitaker RLUP was approved in 2006. The project contained 70 acres that created 2 Residual Lots and two new single family residential lots.  Each residual lot contains a building envelope that limited the development area.  The owners currently reside on Residual Lot A and the other two lots have not sold at this time.  No new lots will be created with this reconfiguration.  The current lot line will cease to exist and the land will become part of the reconfigured Residual Lot A.  This will allow the home site to be located within a bowl area on the property which is suited for development. The building envelope within Residual Lot A will increase in size from 6.596 to 9.875 and be doglegged to include the existing septic system.  A new well will be drilled to accommodate the new home site.  There is an existing road that the applicant’s will use to access the property. 

 

Referral Comments:

Planning, Health and Addressing all responded to the referral.  No major issues surfaced and all utility companies signed off with no problems.  Engineering has not responded at this time but Brenda does not anticipate any issues.

 

MOTION:  Member Hartfield made a motion to approval the Emge/Whitaker Amended RLUP and Amended Plat as submitted.  Member Sears second the motion.  Secretary Grazier amended the motion that approval be subject to any concerns the Engineering Department may have if any issues were determined.  Member Hartfield made a motion to accept the amendment and Member Sear seconded the motion.

 

Roll Call Vote:

 

Suzanne Bassinger

Absent

Kristin Grazier

Yes

John Hatfield

Yes

Mark Korb

Absent

Lauren Light

Yes

Mike Lynch

Yes

William Prewitt

Yes

Bill Sears

Yes

Bill Spencer

Yes

 

Motion carried unanimously.

 

  • RLUP Project Updates
    • Big Valley III – near completion Final Documents.
  • Other Special Projects led by RLUC Staff

·  Regional Food System Assessment – Linda gave an update on the Food System Assessment project.  She indicated the study is moving forward with the final stages.  Three counties the PAT will be meeting in December to finalize conclusions and the final report will come out in late December or January with public outreach on the outcomes in the spring of 2011.

 

The meeting was adjourned.

 

     

            _____________________________                           _________________________                   

        Chair-Bill Spencer                                                       Secretary-Mark Korb

 

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