HomeMy WebLinkAbout20081192.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
• Moved by Robert Grand,that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: AMPZ-516
APPLICANT: George Bollinger
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Outlot A of Avery Acres PUD;located in W2 of Section 10,T6N,R65 of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: An amendment to the PUD change of zone from Agricultural to Estate for a portion
of Outlot A (to create two buildable lots for residential purposes) in Avery Acres
PUD.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 43 and north of and adjacent to CR 70.
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 27-5-30 of
the Weld County Code.
2. The submitted materials are in compliance with Section 27-6-120 of the Weld County Code as
follows:
A. Section 27-6-120.B.6.a-The proposal is consistent with any intergovernmental agreement
in effect influencing the PUD and Chapters 19(Coordinated Planning Agreements), Chapter
22 (Comprehensive Plan), Chapter 23(Zoning), Chapter 24 (Subdivision) and Chapter 26
(Mixed Use Development)of the Weld County Code. The proposed site is not influenced by
an Inter-Governmental Agreement. The proposal is consistent with the aforementioned
documents as follows:
• 1. Section 22-2-190 - D. R.Goal 4. Conversion of agricultural land to E (Estate) Zone
residential uses may be accommodated when the subject site is in an area that can
support such development. The proposed Estate lot would be adjacent to Avery Acres
PUD (5 lots). All five (5)existing residential lots in Avery Acres are zoned Estate.
B. Section 27-6-120.6.6-The uses which would be allowed in the proposed PUD will conform
with the Performance Standards of the PUD Zone District contained in Article II, Chapter 27
of the Weld County Code.
Section 27-2-20,Access standards—The applicant originally proposed to access the site via
an access easement extending off of Avery Drive.After subsequent review,the Departments
of Planning Services and Public Works are requiring right-of-way for Avery Drive be extended
to the north to encompass a minimum 30-foot access connection to County Road 72.
Section 27-2-40, Bulk requirements — The applicant has chosen to adopt the bulk
requirements of the E (Estate)Zone District.
Sec. 27-2-140. Nonurban scale development. Nonurban scale developments are
developments comprised of nine (9) or fewer residential lots, located in a nonurban area
as defined in Chapter 22 of this Code, not adjacent to other PUDs, subdivisions,
municipal boundaries or urban growth corridors. Avery Acres PUD is located in a
nonurban area. The two proposed additional lots would create a total of seven (7) lots in
the Avery Acres PUD which is consistent with nonurban scale development requirements.
The applicant has met the remaining performance standards as delineated in Section 27-2-
10. The Conditions of Approval and Development Standards ensure compliance with
• Sections 27-2-20 through 27-2-220 of the Weld County Code.
EXHIBIT
:mPF #5 •
2008-1192
Resolution AmPZ-516
George Bollinger
Page 2
• C. Section 27-6-120.6.c- That the uses which would be permitted shall be compatible with the
existing or future development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing Zoning,
and with the future development as projected by Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code or
master plans of affected municipalities. The subject property lies within the three mile referral
area of the City of Greeley and Town of Eaton. Both the City of Greeley and Town of Eaton
indicated in their respective referrals dated November 26 and November 9, 2007 that they
had no concerns with the application.
D. Section 27-6-120.6.d- That the PUD Zone District shall be serviced by an adequate water
supply and sewage disposal system in compliance with the Performance Standards in Article
II the Weld County Code.The North Weld County Water District indicated in their letter Dated
February 1, 2008 that they are able to and intend to provide water to the proposed new lots
(Lots 6 and 7). All other lots on the site have existing water service. The Department of
Public Health and Environment has recommended approval of this application in their referral
dated December 10, 2007.
E. Section 27-6-120.6.e-That street or highway facilities providing access to the property are
adequate in functional classification, width, and structural capacity to meet the traffic
requirements of the uses of the proposed PUD Zone District. The Department of Public
Works is requiring that 30-feet of right-of-way be dedicated for County Road 72 to ensure
access to the proposed lots and to provide a second access connection to the remainder of
the Avery Acres PUD.
F. Section 27-6-120.6.f - An off-site road improvements agreement and an on-site
improvements agreement proposal is in compliance with Chapter 24 of the Weld County
Code as amended and a road improvements agreement is complete and has been
submitted,if applicable. The Department of Public Works is requiring that 30-feet of right-of-
• way be dedicated for County Road 72 and that an on-site improvements agreement be
submitted for the internal road at the time of the final plat.
G. Section 27-6-120.6.g - That there has been compliance with the applicable requirements
contained in Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code regarding overlay districts, commercial
mineral deposits, and soil conditions on the subject site.The western portion of Avery Acres
is located within the 100-year floodplain limits of Lone Tree Creek. Per the Department of
Public Works, portions of Outlot C shall be labeled as"No Build Zones with the exception of
agriculturally exempt, non-insurable facilities."The Department of Public Works is requiring
that Avery Drive be extended to the north to connect with County Road 72 to allow for another
access point. Portions of Avery Drive to the south and west are located within the floodplain
(FIRM Community Panel Map 080266 0489C).
Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to
adhere to the fee structure of the County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11)
Effective August 1, 2005, Building permits issued on the subject site will be required to
adhere to the fee structure of the Capital Expansion Impact Fee and the
Stormwater/Drainage Impact Fee. (Ordinance 2005-8 Section 5-8-40)
H. Section 27-6-120.6.h-Consistency exists between the proposed zone district(s), uses, the
specific or conceptual development guide. The submitted Specific Development Guide does
accurately reflect the performance standards and allowed uses described in the proposed
zone district, as described previously. The Common Open Space Usage (page 5) of the
conceptual development guide submitted with the original Avery PUD change of zone
application(approved by the Board of County Commissioners on December 16, 1998)states:
"We respectfully request that the remaining agricultural outlot be accepted as open space in
•
this requirement. It provides a significant border between the residential PUD and any county
roads as well as ensuring that the open feel which these lots will have is maintained forever."
Resolution AmPZ-516
George Bollinger
Page 3
• The proposed amended change of zone would create two additional lots between the existing
residences and County Road 72 to the north. However, the balance of the open space area
to the west will remain within the boundaries of Lot A, is located within the 100-year
floodplain, and is to be designated as non-buildable with the exception of agriculturally
exempt, non-insurable facilities.
This approval recommendation is based upon compliance with Chapter 27 requirements.
The Amended Change of Zone from the A (Agricultural) Zone District to E(Estate) for a portion of Outlot A
within Avery Acres PUD is conditional upon the following:
1. Prior to recording the Amended Change of Zone plat:
A. The applicant shall address the requirements(concerns)of Department of Public Works,as
stated in the referral response dated December 12, 2007. Evidence of such shall be
submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of
Planning Services)
B. The plat shall be amended to include the following:
1. All sheets of the plat shall be labeled AMPZ-516.(Department of Planning Services)
2. The approved change of zone plat notes. (Department of Planning Services)
3. The reference to the area to be rezoned as "Outlot C" shall be removed. The
area to be rezoned shall be identified as "Lot 6". (Department of Planning
Services)
• 4. The statement "Area to be Vacated from Avery Acres PUD" shall be removed.
(Department of Planning Services)
5. Areas of Outlot A within the 100-year floodplain shall be labeled as "no-build zone
with the exception of agriculturally exempt, non-insurable buildings."
6. The applicant shall show a 65' diameter radius right of way cul-de-sac between the
lot lines of lots 6 and 7. An additional 30-foot access shall connect to the south side
of this cul-de-sac parallel to the west side of lot 6 and lot 1 of Avery Acres connecting
the cul-de-sac of Avery Acres Drive. This portion of the 30-foot right of way shall be
designated as for emergency access only. A knock box approved by the local Fire
District, Galeton Fire District shall be placed at both ends of this emergency access
road.
7. A roadway cross-section shall be indicated. All the above roadway improvements
shall be improved with 6 inches of road base and 4 inches of gravel surface or per a
Geotechnical Report stamped with an Engineer's stamp, registered and able to
practice within the State of Colorado, reviewed and accepted by the Public Works
Department.
C. The applicant shall submit written evidence from the Galeton Fire Protection District that they
have reviewed and approved the proposed 30-foot emergency only access connecting Avery
Drive and the proposed access and cul-de-sac for Lots 6 and 7.
2. The Amended Change of Zone is conditional upon the following and that each shall be placed on the
Amended Change of Zone plat as notes prior to recording:
A. The site specific development plan is for a PUD Amended Change of Zone from the A
•
(Agricultural)Zone District to E (Estate) Zone District for a portion of Outlot A within Avery
Acres PUD and subject and governed by the Conditions of Approval stated hereon and all
applicable Weld County Regulations. (Department of Planning Services)
Resolution AmPZ-516
George Bollinger
Page 4
• B. Development on Outlot A shall be limited to structures related to agricultural use.Agricultural
uses on Outlot A shall be limited to Uses by Right and Accessory Uses in the A(Agricultural)
Zone District (Article III, Division I of the Weld County Code, as amended). No residential
structures shall be allowed. (Department of Planning Services)
C. Water service shall be obtained from the North Weld County Water District. (Department
of Public Health and Environment)
D. This PUD is in rural Weld County and is not served by a municipal sanitary sewer system.
Sewage disposal shall be by septic systems designed in accordance with the regulations
of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control
Division and the Weld County Code in effect at the time of construction, repair,
replacement, or modification of the system. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
E. A stormwater discharge permit may be required for a development/redevelopment/
construction site where a contiguous or non-contiguous land disturbance is greater than
or equal to one acre in area. Contact the Water Quality Control Division of the Colorado
Department of Public Health and the Environment at
www.cdphe.state.co.us/wa/PermitsUnit for more information. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
F. During development of the site,all land disturbances shall be conducted so that nuisance
conditions are not created. If dust emissions create nuisance conditions,at the request of
the Weld County Health Department, a fugitive dust control plan must be submitted.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
G. In accordance with the Regulations of the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission any
development that disturbs more than 5 acres of land must incorporate all available and
• practical methods that are technologically feasible and economically reasonable in order
to minimize dust emissions. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
H. If land development creates more than a 25-acre contiguous disturbance, or exceeds 6
months in duration,the responsible party shall prepare a fugitive dust control plan,submit
an air pollution emissions notice,and apply for a permit from the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
"Weld County's Right to Farm"as provided in Appendix 22-E of the Weld County Code shall
be placed on any recorded plat. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
J. A Homeowner's Association shall be established prior to the sale of any lot. Membership in
the Association is mandatory for each parcel owner. The Association is responsible for
liability insurance, taxes and maintenance of open space, streets, private utilities and other
facilities along with the enforcement of covenants. Open space restrictions are permanent.
(Department of Planning Services)
K. Stop signs and street name signs will be required at all intersections. (Department of Public
Works)
L. WARNING: LOTS MAY NOT BE BUILDABLE DUE TO FLOODPLAIN OR FLOODWAY
DESIGNATION.THE ACCESS ROAD TO THIS LOT IS WITHIN THE FEMA REGULATORY
FLOODPLAIN LIMITS FOR LONE TREE CREEK AND MAY NOT BE PASSABLE DURING
A 100-YEAR STORM EVENT. Please be advised that owners of Lot 6 may not be able to
obtain building permits to construct non-agricultural structures. All construction or
improvements occurring in the flood plain as delineated on Federal Emergency Management
Agency FIRM Community Panel Map 080266 0489 C dated September 28, 1982, shall
comply with the Flood Hazard Overlay District requirements of Chapter 23,Article V, Division
• 3 of the Weld County Code and all applicable FEMA regulations and requirements as
described in 44 CFR parts 59 and 60.
Resolution AmPZ-516
George Bollinger
Page 5
• M. All signs including entrance signs shall require building permits.Signs shall adhere to Article
4 Division 2 and Appendix 23-C through 23-E of the Weld County Code. These requirements
shall apply to all temporary and permanent signs. (Department of Planning Services)
N. Installation of utilities shall comply with Section 24-9-10 of the Weld County Code.
(Department of Planning Services)
O. Building permits shall be obtained prior to the construction of any building or structure.
Building permits are also required for signs and structures such as bus shelters if provided.
(Department of Building Inspection)
P. A plan review is required for each building. Plans shall bear the wet stamp of a Colorado
registered architect or engineer. Two complete sets of plans are required when applying for
each permit. (Department of Building Inspection)
Q. Buildings shall conform to the requirements of the codes adopted by Weld County at the time
of permit application. Current adopted codes include the 2003 International Building Code,
2003 International Residential Code,2003 International Mechanical Code,2003 International
Plumbing Code, 2002 National Electrical Code and Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code.
(Department of Building Inspection)
R. Each building will require an engineered foundation based on a site-specific geotechnical
report or an open hole inspection performed by a Colorado registered engineer. Engineered
foundations shall be designed by a Colorado registered engineer. (Department of Building
Inspection)
S. Prior to all new construction a letter of approval from the Galeton Fire Protection District shall
• be submitted to the Department of Building Inspection. (Department of Building Inspection)
T. Building height shall be measured in accordance with the applicable Building Code for the
purpose of determining the maximum building size and height for various uses and types of
construction and to determine compliance with the Bulk Requirements from Chapter 23 of the
Weld County Code. Building height shall be measured in accordance with Chapter 23 of the
Weld County Code in order to determine compliance with offset and setback requirements.
Off-set and setback requirements are measured to the farthest projection from the building.
(Department of Building Inspection)
U. The property owner shall be responsible for complying with the Performance Standards of
Chapter 27, Article II and Article VIII, of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning
Services)
V. Personnel from Weld County Government shall be granted access onto the property at any
reasonable time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the
Development Standards stated herein and all applicable Weld County regulations.
(Department of Planning Services)
W. The site shall maintain compliance at all times with the requirements of the Weld County
Departments of Public Works, Public Health and the Environment, Planning Services, and
State and Federal agencies and the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
X. Property shall be maintained in such a manner that grasses and weeds are not permitted to
grow taller than twelve(12)inches. In no event shall the property owners allow the growth of
noxious weeds. (Department of Planning Services)
• Y. No development activity shall commence on the property, nor shall any building permits be
issued on the property until the Final Plan has been approved and recorded.(Department of
Planning Services)
Resolution AmPZ-516
George Bollinger
Page 6
• Z. The applicant shall comply with Section 27-8-50 Weld County Code, as follows: Failure to
submit a Planned Unit Development Final Plan - If a PUD Final Plan application is not
submitted within two(2)years of the date of the approval of the PUD Zone District,the Board
of County Commissioners shall require the landowner to appear before it and present
evidence substantiating that the PUD project has not been abandoned and that the applicant
possesses the willingness and ability to continue with the submission of the PUD Final Plan.
The Board may extend the date for the submission of the PUD Final Plan application and
shall annually require the applicant to demonstrate that the PUD has not been abandoned. If
the Board determines that conditions or statements made supporting the original approval of
the PUD Zone District have changed or that the landowner cannot implement the PUD Final
Plan, the Board of County Commissioners may, at a public hearing revoke the PUD Zone
District and order the recorded PUD Zone District reverted to the original Zone District.
(Department of Planning Services)
AA. The PUD Final Plan shall comply with all regulations and requirements of Chapter 27 of the
Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
3. The Amended Change of Zone plat map shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services'
for recording within thirty (30) days of approval by the Board of County Commissioners. With the
Amended Change of Zone plat map,the applicant shall submit a digital file of all drawings associated
with the Change of Zone application. Acceptable CAD formats are.dwg, .dxf,and .dgn(Microstation);
acceptable GIS formats are .shp (Shape Files), Arclnfo Coverages and Arclnfo Export files format
type is .e00. The preferred format for Images is .tif (Group 4) ... (Group 6 is not acceptable).
(Department of Planning Services)
4. At the time of Final Plan application submission:
A. Easements shall be shown in accordance with County standards and/or Utility Board
recommendations, and dimensioned on the Final Plat. (Department of Planning Services)
B. The applicant shall submit an on-site(Private)Improvements Agreement with the Final Plat
application that addresses all improvements associated with this development, per
compliance with Section 24-9-10 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning
Services)
C. The applicant shall dedicate 30-feet of right-of-way for County Road 72 on the Final Plat.
(Department of Planning Services)
D. The applicant shall submit revised covenants for Avery Acres PUD.The covenants shall be
approved by the Weld County Attorney's Office prior to recording the final plat.(Departments
of Public Health and Environment and Planning Services)
E. All rights-of-way for proposed roadways must be dedicated on the final plat. (Department of
Public Works)
F. Improvements agreements (on-site)shall be approved by the BOCC prior to recording the
final plat. (Department of Public Works)
G. The applicant shall submit an executed agreement securing water from the North Weld
County Water District for service to the PUD. Evidence of the agreement and sign off from
the North Weld County District shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Planning Services)
• H. The applicant shall complete a Nonexclusive License Agreement for the upgrade and
maintenance of County Road 72 right-of-way. There is a $100 application fee for the
Nonexclusive License Agreement. There is additionally a $150 fee for the fabrication and
Resolution AmPZ-516
George Bollinger
Page 7
• installation of blue and white cross road signs identifying the section line road intersection for
the use of addressing and emergency response. The blue and white signs identify a non-
maintained County right-of-way. Distance and location from the nearest county road may
require additional information signs. The fee for the sign designating the access as a non-
maintained county right-of-way shall be paid to the Department of Public Works and the sign
shall be installed prior to recording the plat. If existing signs are in place, the fee and
installation may be waived by the Department of Public Works. Evidence of such shall be
submitted to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
The applicant shall submit a digital file of all drawings associated with the Final Plan
application. Acceptable CAD formats are.dwg, .dxf,and .dgn(Microstation); acceptable GIS
formats are .shp (Shape Files), Arclnfo Coverages and Arclnfo Export files format type is
.e00. The preferred format for Images is.tif(Group 4)... (Group 6 is not acceptable). (Dept.
of Planning Services)
5. Prior to construction:
A. Stop signs and street name signs will be required at all intersections.(Department of Public
Works)
B. A letter of approval from the Galeton Fire Protection District shall be submitted to the
Department of Building Inspection. (Department of Building Inspection)
Motion seconded by Roy Spitzer.
VOTE:
• For Passage Against Passage Absent
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Tom Holton
Doug Ochsner
Erich Ehrlich
Roy Spitzer
Paul Branham
Mark Lawley
Nick Berryman
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this
case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Kristine Ranslem, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission,do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County,
Colorado, adopted on March 4, 2008.
Dated the 4th of March, 2008.
• /÷, 'tt eaL,Y)
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• Tuesday, March 4, 2008
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Department of
Planning Services, Hearing Room, 918 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by
--Chair, Doug Ochsner, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Doug Ochsner- Chair
Tom Holton -Vice Chair
Nick Berryman
Paul Branham — ''
"�
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Mark Lawley —`
Roy Spitzer
Also Present: Hannah Hippely,Chris Gathman, Roger Caruso,Department of Planning Services;Don Dunker,
Dave Snyder, Don Carroll, Department of Public Works; Lauren Light, Department of Health; Bruce Barker,
County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Bill Hall moved to approve the February 19, 2008 Weld County Planning Commission minutes,seconded by
Roy Spitzer. Motion carried.
The Chair read the case into record.
• CASE NUMBER: USR-1647
APPLICANT: Public Service Company of Colorado
PLANNER: Hannah Hippely
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parts of Section 3 and Section 10 of T3N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Major Facility
of a Public Utility (electric power plant and associated gas pipeline) in the I-3
(Industrial)and A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 34,and adjacent to the east and west of CR 19.5.
The Chair asked Hannah Hippely if this can remain on consent as it is a permit for a Major Facility of a Public
Utility. Ms. Hippely replied that typically a Major Facility of a Public Utility would not be on a consent agenda
because it is something that the Planning Commission makes a final decision on. However this case is a little
different because it is also a 1041 Permit which means that it is a more complex case and requires a Board of
County Commissioner's hearing. She added that in this case it can remain on the consent agenda.
The Chair asked if the applicant wished for this case to remain on the consent agenda. Ms. Hippely stated
that they do wish for it to remain on consent.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
The Chair asked the Commissioners if they wish to have this case pulled from consent. No one wished to pull
the item from consent.
Robert Grand moved to approve the Consent Agenda and that Case USR-1647 be forwarded to the Board of
County Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning
• Commission's recommendation of approval, Bill Hall seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair read the next case into record. EXHIBIT
CASE NUMBER: AMPZ-516
�cn n 3-/7- Ainn #5/4,
APPLICANT: George Bollinger
• PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Outlot A of Avery Acres PUD;located in W2 of Section 10,T6N,R65 of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: An amendment to the PUD change of zone from Agricultural to Estate for a portion
of Outlot A (to create two buildable lots for residential purposes) in Avery Acres
PUD.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 43 and north of and adjacent to CR 70.
Bill Hall commented that with regard as a potential conflict of interest, he is very familiar with Avery Acres and
was involved in a proposal earlier on. He stated that he believes that he can judge it on a fair and equal basis
and is willing to hear the testimony. He added that if there is anyone in the audience that feels differently
about that he will step away from this issue.
The Chair asked Commissioner Hall if he feels that he will make his decision based on the information heard
at this hearing rather than from prior information. Mr. Hall stated that he would.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who had an objection to Mr. Hall hearing the case.
Jackie Johnson spoke representing the Homeowner's Association in Avery Acres and conveyed their concern
of a conflict of interest with Mr. Hall's participation in this case. Commissioner Hall excused himself from
hearing this case.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, introduced Case AmPZ-516. Mr. Gathman commented
that the applicant is George Bollinger and is represented by Pat McNear of Scott Realty.
The site is located on Outlot A of Avery Acres; located in the W2 of Section 10,Township 6 North, Range 65
West in Weld County.
The site is North of and adjacent to County Road 74 and Y. mile east of County Road 15.
• The site is west of and adjacent to County Road 43 and south of adjacent to a non-county right-of-way on the
County Road 72 section line. The area proposed to be rezoned Estate is located approximately 710-feet east
of County Road 43.
Seven(7)referral agencies reviewed this case and six(6)referral agencies provided comments addressed as
conditions of approval and/or development standards.
The two proposed additional residential lots are to be served by the North Weld County Water District and
Individual Septic Systems.
A letter of opposition addressed to County Attorney Bruce Barker dated February 11,2008 was received from
Attorney John Barry of Witwer,Oldenburg, Barry&Johnson, LLP on behalf of the homeowners of Lots 1-5 in
Avery Acres PUD.The letter asserts that the owner of Outlot A cannot utilize the existing access road(Avery
Drive)except for Agricultural purposes.The letter also asserts that at the time PZ-516 was approved in 1998
that Outlot A would remain agricultural and would not be subdivided or allowed residential construction.The
resolution adopted on December 16, 1998 had the following language:
"The agricultural lot shall be labeled "Non buildable agricultural Outlot". Development on the
agricultural Outlot shall be limited to structures related to the agricultural use.No residential structures
shall be allowed."
Avery Acres PUD is located in what is classified as a non-urban area. It is outside of any existing municipal
IGA areas and urban growth boundary areas. It is also not located adjacent to any existing subdivisions or
PUDs. It is approximately 2 miles from the nearest subdivision which is Apaloosa Acres.
At the time PZ-516 was approved in 1998,five(5)lots was the maximum number of lots allowed for non-urban
•
scale PUDs.The Weld County Code has since been amended to allow up to nine(9)lots for non-urban scale
PUDs. The proposal would add two additional lots(allowing up to 7 lots)which is consistent with the County
Code for non-urban scale development. Also, the Weld County Code, as amended, does not require open
2
space for non-urban PUDs. At the time PZ-516 was originally approved, a minimum 80-acre outlot was
• required because there was no guarantee that public water would be available and an 80 acre outlot was
required for PUDs/subdivisions on individual wells. Currently all homes within Avery Acres PUD are now
connected to North Weld County Water District.
Outlot A of Avery Acres PUD was always under the separate ownership from the Homeowners Association. It
was and is agricultural land under private ownership. Mr. Gathman added that currently Mr. Bollinger is the
owner. He continued to add that at the time the PUD was approved it was under the ownership of the Sutter
family.
The applicants are proposing to The Common Open Space Usage(page 5)of the conceptual development
guide submitted with the original Avery PUD change of zone application (approved by the Board of County
Commissioners on December 16, 1998)states:"We respectfully request that the remaining agricultural outlot
be accepted as open space in this requirement. It provides a significant border between the residential PUD
and any county roads as well as ensuring that the open feel which these lots will have is maintained forever."
The proposed amended change of zone would create two additional lots between the existing residences and
County Road 72 to the north. However, the balance of the open space area to the west will remain within the
boundaries of Outlot A. This is located within the 100-year floodplain, and is to be designated as non-
buildable with the exception of agriculturally exempt, non-insurable facilities as required through staff
recommendation.
It should be noted that an amended final plat application has been submitted along with this amended change
of zone application. In the PUD process as laid out in the county code,an amended final plat is reviewed only
by the Board of County Commissioners. Under the amended final plat process, in addition to platting lots 6
and 7, the applicant is proposing to vacate that portion of Outlot A that is located to the south of Avery Drive
and Lot 5 of Avery Acres PUD. If approved, land vacated through the amended final plat will revert to
agricultural zoning.
• In regard to access,the applicant had originally proposed a single lot to access onto the road at the north end
of the property(the County Road 72 section line road).After review by the Departments of Public Works and
Planning Services, it was recommended that a road right-of-way connect existing Avery Drive(serving lots 1-
5)with the section line road to allow two(2)access points into and out of Avery Acres PUD.
However,after further discussions with Public Works and with the existing Avery Acres Homeowners as well
as with the applicant, the Department of Public Works and Planning Services is recommending a separate
road access with a cul-de-sac(coming off of the section line road to the north)access proposed lots 6 and 7.
There would be an emergency only access with a knox box connecting the proposed road and cul-de-sac
accessing lots 6 and 7 with the existing Avery Drive that accesses existing lots 1-5.We have discussed this
with the applicant and they are in agreement with this request and these changes will be reflected on the
amended change of zone and amended final plats prior to the Board of County Commissioner's hearing.An
on-site road improvements agreement along with a non-exclusive license agreement for County Road 72 to
create a non-maintained county road right-of-way will be amended final plat requirements for the access to
these lots. Don Dunker with Public Works can certainly elaborate on this in more detail.
The applicants are willing to make the two proposed lots part of the Homeowner's Association for Avery Acres
PUD, however the representative for the homeowners may have something to say about whether or not they
would want those lots to fall under the existing covenant for lots 1-5 in Avery Acres PUD.
Commissioner Branham asked about this letter from the attorney on Page 2 in which there is a reference to a
Resolution passed on December 16, 1998. It states that "Outlot A shall be limited to structures related to
agriculture use. No residential structures shall be allowed." Mr.Branham asked if that was legally binding on
the Weld County Planning Commission. He is concerned that if it is, then that would negate all of this. He
asked County Attorney Bruce Barker if in his opinion it holds any legal consequence for the Planning
Commission. Mr. Barker replied that with approval from the Planning Commission, he would like the board to
first hear about that from the opponent's attorney to hear what the argument is and also the applicant's legal
• representative. He added that he believes that it would be wise to hear from both of the legal representatives
first on the issue and then he will be happy to talk about it.
3
Commissioner Branham expressed that this issue needs to be resolved before we proceed with the hearing.
• Commissioner Ochsner commented that the burden of proof is on the applicant and they have brought experts
to show that is not a binding statement or that it is not a limitation and apparently by staff making a
recommendation for approval at this point, he believes that we need to go forward and hear the case from the
applicant based on that.
Mr. Gathman indicated that he passed out a memorandum with three proposed changes to the staff
recommendation to address the emergency access connection between Avery Drive and Lots 6 and 7.
Pat McNear, Scott Realty Company, 1212 8th Ave, representing George Bollinger. Mr. McNear stated that
Avery Acres PUD was approved in December of 1998 as a five(5)lot residential subdivision. At that time,the
maximum number of residential lots allowed in a minor subdivision was five.
The original application did not include a commitment from a domestic water supply to provide taps for the five
lots; therefore the remainder of the land owner's property was designated as Oulot A of which was
approximately 190 acres. This was to achieve allocation of 35 acres per lot to comply with the requirements of
the Colorado Division of Water Resources which will allow for a domestic well for each of the 35 acres and
would supply a domestic water tap for each of the five lots.
Since approval of Avery Acres PUD the County Code, in accordance with Section 27-2-140, has changed to
allow a maximum of nine(9)residential lots in a non-urban development. Since the original approval, North
Weld County Water District has installed a supply pipeline through the property and does supply service to all
of the existing lots as well as provided a commitment for additional service to accommodate the proposed lots.
Mr. McNear stated that the current owner,George Bollinger,desires to vacate 158 acres more or less from the
PUD to be returned to the Agricultural zoned district whereas,the 35 acre well spacing is no longer necessary.
In addition to the vacation of the land,the owner has requested to change the zone to allow two(2)additional
lots totaling 7.3 acres to Estate zoning. They are currently zoned Ag which is not A(Agricultural) but rather
• PUD Agricultural within the confines of that subdivision. He added that the restriction for development on that
is that most of that lies within the 100 year floodplain.
In making these changes it would leave the remainder of 24.34 acres which would then become what is known
as Outlot A. Outlot A will remain zoned PUD Agricultural and be designated as non-buildable.
The owner has spent considerable money and time to clean up the overall condition of the property. He has
redrilled three irrigation wells, installed a lift station and pipeline to provide irrigation water to the Agricultural
portion.
Tom Grant, 821 9t"St,#101, Greeley CO. He stated that he is the legal representative for the applicant and
added that what he believes empowers the Planning Commission to approve this case exists in a document
that is entitled"Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Avery Acres PUD". He added that
this document is recorded in the Weld County Clerk and Recorder's Office.
Mr. Grant pointed out that there are some places in particular where he believes it shows an anticipation by
the Avery Acres PUD that there would be further development. On Page 6 of the Declarations, Section 7
Allocation of Interest, it states,"the percentage of liability for common expenses shall be determined by using
a formula in which the numerator is one and the denominator is the total number of lots subject to this
declaration or subject to this declaration by supplemental expansion or any additional number of lots approved
by the County of Weld." He continued to add that right in the PUD Declarations they talk about expansion of
lots to be approved by Weld County. There is also on Page 4, Section 18 Lot or Residential unit shall mean
and referred to any number of area of land shown as such upon the recorded final filing of plat in Weld
County, Colorado. He added that in this document of allowing for and anticipating future development of the
property.
Mr.Grant also pointed out on Page 33, Section 6 it talks about conflicts between documents and specifically it
• says "In case of a conflict between this declaration and the articles and bylaws of the Association, this
declaration shall so control." He added that you have a declaration here that is filed that says within the
declaration that this is the controlling document and it allows for and anticipates expansion.
4
• Commissioner Branham commented that Mr.Grant referenced the declarations involving private parties and
added that his concern is with the resolution adopted by Weld County on December 16, 1998 that says that
there will be no residential structures. Commission Branham asked what Mr. Grant's response is to that
resolution that at the present time it would not be legally binding on us. Mr. Grant said that he understands
that that resolution specifically has been changed through other resolutions. His argument would be that there
has been a change in the ordinances that allows for this development.
The Chair asked the Department of Public Works to go over the driveway situation again. Don Dunker,
Department of Public Works, stated that the access for lots 6 and 7 will be off of County Road 72 and 43. He
added that there will be a cul-de-sac for those two lots and then there will be an emergency drive between the
existing cul-de-sac and the new cul-de-sac. Mr. Dunker said that this would allow for emergency vehicles to
get through.
Commissioner Berryman asked why the connection is necessary. Mr.Dunker commented that because of the
100 year storm the floodplain will run through there and they felt that the current driveway is probably going to
be under water and felt that there would be a better chance for emergency vehicles to get in there if they had
two choices to go in.
Commissioner Ehrlich asked if the floodplain was updated when the original PUD was put in. Mr. Dunker
replied that the last time the floodplain was updated was in 1982.
The Chair asked the Department of Health for their comments. Lauren Light, Department of Health,
commented that the site is served by North Weld County Water District and based on if they vacate the
southern portion of this, there will be about 40 acres that would contain the outlots and the seven lots total
which would be an overall density of about 5 acres and that does meet the requirements of putting septics in.
Therefore, they have no concerns with that.
• The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Jackie Johnson, Council representing the Homeowners of Avery Acres,822 7"'St,Ste 760,Greeley,CO. Ms.
Johnson commented that one of the difficulties that she had conceptualizing this was that it intersects between
County zoning regulations and the creation of PUDs and State law concerning common interest communities
which is what the five lot owners in Avery Acres have. She added that the PUD is a zoning regulation and it
allows for the development of mixed uses in subdividing land. Part of the PUD approval and the resolution to
which Mr. Branham referred to,at the time required the land owner to submit a Declaration of Covenants to be
reviewed by the County Attorney. That declaration set forth a way of amending the common interest
community to increase the number of lots if the homeowners association wish to vacate or delete property
from the common interest community. The common interest community is made up of five lots and they own
Oultot B which is Avery Drive which is the common element in the common interest community. The PUD
encompasses a larger area including Outlot A; however Outlot A has no rights in the Homeowner's
Association. It is not a part of the described real estate in the declaration of covenants.
Ms. Johnson wanted to answer Mr. Branham's question of"can the County come in and change the rules
now." She said that the homeowners relied on the approval of the covenants and the process for amending
the PUD that was set out in that. The County approved the PUD with the understanding that this was the
process by which an amendment would occur. She added that what they are facing is an attempt to amend
the PUD and affect the common interest community in a way that wasn't anticipated in the governing
documents of the common interest community which governing documents are provided for through state law.
Ms. Johnson commented that Mr. Grant referred to a couple of provisions in the declaration which he
suggests it indicates that there was additional development contemplated. Even if that were true there was
additional development contemplated only under the rules of the covenants which say we aren't going to add
any property to this common interest community unless the land owners approve.
• Ms.Johnson said that now what the County is proposing to do is to create a new common interest community
with its own set of covenants and road access and essentially counter what the whole idea of a PUD was in
the first place. She added that you are going to have the potential of different restrictive covenants in terms of
5
lot size, what types of things can be built, and what rules and regulations govern.
• Ms. Johnson said that you might be able to amend the PUD but doing so would be in violation of your
recognition at the time that you approved the PUD of the restrictions that were placed on how that PUD would
be enlarged. She stated that you cannot force the homeowners to accept these two lots into their
Homeowner's Association because that is all set out in the recorded covenants.
Commissioner Berryman asked Ms. Johnson to clarify for him if the applicant is governed by the covenants
that are set forth on Avery Acres. Ms. Johnson replied that the applicant does not have any standing at all in
the common interest community. She clarified by saying that the applicant cannot force himself upon them
and become part of them and because he cannot what the County is forced to do, if it approves this, is to
create a second entity of a two-lot common interest community that potentially has different rules than Avery
Acres.
Mr. Barker indicated that he would agree and disagree with Ms.Johnson. He agrees in the sense of the last
statement she made with respect to modify the PUD such that there would be two common interest
developments side by side. Mr. Barker said that he disagreed in the sense that the approval of the covenants
is not made a part of the PUD itself. He said the reason is that the review that we do on covenants typically is
only to make certain that it has all of the elements for covenants. We have seen covenants that come in that
say three things and it doesn't meet with the statutory requirements are for covenants in general. We do not
approve covenants and thereby make those binding upon the PUD itself. He believes for that reason it is
allowable for the applicant to go forward with the request to change the PUD. It really gets down to the issue
of fairness to the current land owners in Avery Acres and you have to weigh that as part of your decision. He
believes that is the real issue and is not a legal issue as to whether or not they can go forward, because in his
opinion they can.
Ms.Johnson commented that the County knew when it reviewed those covenants what the procedure was to
add property to the common interest community was. Mr. Barker disagreed and added that in the assertion
• that approval of those covenants and that one provision then changes or puts a requirement on the PUD itself.
Ms. Johnson stated that she agrees with him, but does think that when these folks purchased the property
they knew that it would be changed by having an approval. Ms. Johnson pointed out that the Planning
Commission's job is to remember that this is part of a County planning process and she cannot imagine that it
is good planning to allow two contiguous homeowners associations with two possibly different requirements,
regulations, and standards.
Commissioner Grand commented that as he understands, the reason that Outlot A was the size that is was,
was to meet the acreage requirement to provide water for the five lots. Mr.Gathman replied that 80 acres was
required if there were going to be individual wells out there. At the time it was approved,it was not guaranteed
that they were going to get public water out there so that is why it was so big. He also added that at that time
there was a 15% open space requirement for any PUD.
Commissioner Holton asked how big the entire property is. Mr. Gathman replied that it currently is 193 acres.
Mr. Holton asked if the homeowners have control over the entire 193 acres. Mr.Gathman said that they don't
have control over Outlot A which is approximately 180 acres. He added that Outlot A is under separate
ownership and was never considered common open space.
Commissioner Spitzer asked what lots 6 and 7 are apart of. Mr.Gathman replied that they are where Outlot A
is right now under the proposed application.
Commissioner Spitzer clarified that none of this was covered by any of the covenants by the Homeowner's
Association. Mr. Gathman said that was correct.
Jeff Raisley, 3584 Avery Drive, (Lot 3)stated that when they purchased property out there they were told that
this was the way their final plat reads. He added that they thought they had protection with zoning with the
final plat and also with their road and now they are coming in and saying that they are going to go ahead and
• use their road for emergency access which is still a use of their road. He further added that they all paid for
that road through their lot cost and have maintained that road through their HOA. Mr.Raisley commented that
they were never asked for nor did they give approval for that and doesn't understand how that can be taken
6
away when it was something that was bought.
fra Kelly Raisley 3584 Avery Drive, (Lot 3) pointed out that within 5-8 miles of their house there are several
different subdivisions similar to theirs. She said that to the east of them is Owl Creek in which there are nine
lots and there are no houses built there and they have been vacant for years. She added that to the west of
them there is Faith Estates and there are three homes built out of the nine lots that are available and currently
one of those homes is for sale. A little farther west of that is Cattail Creek that has nine lots and three houses
are built there and currently one of those houses is for sale. Farther north of that there is an area called WB
Farms Estates which there are seven lots and one house on them. There is also Eagle View Ranch and
Eagle View Farms that are going in. She mentioned that they are considered non-urban and added that she is
concerned that the applicant and the Planning Department are trying to add density to their non-urban area.
Mrs. Raisley stated that she is curious to how that is a benefit to the County when there is clearly urban areas
around them.
Joel Hansen, 35884 Avery Drive, (Lot 2)stated that he agrees with everything that the Raisleys have stated.
In addition to that he added that they were presented with the fact that there was going to be five lots out there
and thought that their covenants were going to protect them from any other lots from being developed and the
fact that Outlot A was undevelopable. He believes that the majority of them were not given the second set of
covenants which have some different language in there which say they can develop that land. Mr. Hansen
expressed that they purchased that land to raise their families and assumed that what they were presented
with is what they bought into and that is what they want to keep.
Ken Harris, 35910 Avery Drive, (Lot 1), concurs with all the others and their points and added that when they
moved out there they were pretty hesitant to buy out there because they were worried that there would be
expansion. He said that they were given a copy of the final plat which had written on it that there would be no
residential development on Outlot A and added that is one of the conditions that they bought their house out
there for.
• Commissioner Ehrlich mentioned that the homeowners have said that when they bought the property out there
it was on the plat that no other building would happen. He asked the homeowner if that was under another
owner because since then ownership of Outlot A and the 180 acres has changed. Mr. Harris replied that was
correct.
Karen Kapperman, 35768 Avery Drive,(Lot 5),agreed with all the neighbors statements. She added that what
has been unfortunate is that the new landowner has come in and has not made any effort to talk to the
homeowners in the area. She added that they were notified from his attorney and it has become a reactive
instead of a proactive situation and believes that it is unfavorable in that respect.
Ms.Johnson summarized in saying that when this property was made part of a PUD and when the covenants
were filed and then amended and refilled,the land owner did not reserve the right to add property from Outlot
A. Instead he set forth a procedure by which property could be added to the common interest community and
that procedure is set forth in those covenants. Ms. Johnson added that while technically the County can
amend the PUD to create these two lots, it cannot require the homeowners to include it in their common
interest community. She urged the Planning Commission to think about the wisdom of having two side-by-
side common interest communities with a potential for totally different development requirements and
standards. She echoed that perhaps it would be a wise suggestion for the new property owner to make some
effort to talk to these folks and see if there is some accommodation that might be reached where there might
be a more sensible long range result and still have protection of everyone's interests.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
Mr. Grant, 821 9`h St, #101, Greeley CO, stated that there is an issue of fairness. He pointed out that there
needs to be a balance in terms of that fairness. The perception that he is getting is that the prior owner of this
property made some representations to the five lot owners and he can understand why that is upsetting to
them. He added that he doesn't think that on the legal issues they are really far apart. He indicated that he
• agrees with what Ms.Johnson has stated and also what Mr. Barker has concluded which is that the common
interest community is made up of those five lots and is not made up of the proposed lots 6 and 7. He does
agree that it is not fair to stick lots 6 and 7 in that common ownership and thinks that the two lots would
7
become their own common ownership. Mr.Grant added that the thing that is really important to understand is
• that ownership has changed.
Commissioner Holton commented that the last testimony that they just heard mentioned that the applicant did
not try to contact the Homeowners and then he asked the applicant if they did try to work this out. He added
that he doesn't think the addition of two lots are a big problem, however it concerns him that the applicant did
not attempt to work with the homeowners prior to coming to the Planning Commission. Mr. Grant said that it
was his understanding that the homeowners were contacted and there were attempts to work with the
homeowners. He added that when he came on board he was asked to send a letter to the homeowners which
gave them a notification of what the plan was.
Commissioner Holton said that the impression he understands from the homeowner's attorney is that they are
willing to talk about it and it should have been prior to this. He added that he thinks that this could have been
solved a long time ago. Mr. Grant said that when he sent the letter to the homeowners the only response he
received was from Mr. Barry, who is from Ms. Johnson's firm, not mentioning anything about working
something out but rather indicating that here is the law and why your client cannot do that.
Commissioner Branham commented that the owner of Lot 3 mentioned that they have paid for and maintained
that road and now the applicant will be coming in to take over a part of it. He asked if they have had any
contact with the homeowners on that and what the applicant's position is on that. Mr. Grant said that the
applicant is being required to build their own road and so they will also be paying and maintaining their own
road. He added that it will also have a cul-de-sac at the end of it and the only time that there would be a
common use of the road from that entry would be for emergency purposes only.
Commissioner Ochsner asked that by proposing to change the Outlot to be unbuildable and Agricultural,what
is the guarantee to the homeowners in saying that they are not going to come back and change that in another
year or so. He further asked if there is a requirement that makes that land unbuildable. Mr.Grant replied that
it is in the flood plain and is unbuildable. Mr.Gathman stated that everything to the south would revert back to
• Agricultural zoning.
Tom Holton moved to accept the changes to the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards
according to staff recommendations of which are 1.C (page 5) and 1.B.6 and 1.6.7 (page5), seconded by
Mark Lawley. Motion carried.
The Chair asked the applicant if they read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Commissioner Holton commented that this is unusual in the fact that typically if they have outlots like this
somebody owns a house there and it is included in the property and asked Chris if this is something new. Mr.
Gathman replied that this is unique.
Corn missioner Branham said that we heard a lot from the attorneys but one thing that all the attorneys brought
out is to look at the issue of fairness. The issue of fairness to the homeowner is that they purchased the
property under the condition that Outlot A would remain Agricultural and not Residential. The applicant's
attorney has pointed out that the prior owner made the representations, not the new owner. Mr. Branham
wondered if the new owner should have known about those prior representations when he purchased that
property. Mr. Branham commented that he still believes that there is an issue of legality and when it comes
down to the issue of fairness he is on the side of the homeowner.
Commissioner Ehrlich commented that this is a real dynamic application and this is what planning is all about.
He added that it is good to have the community here and representation of both sides. Mr. Ehrlich reiterated
Commissioner Holton's statement of having no communication between the applicant and the Homeowner's
Association. Mr. Ehrlich stated that in terms of the planning process he is not going to say that Weld County
does a bad job in planning for the future, it's the Weld County Code that gets changed and the Code was
changed on March 1, 2004 which trumped the 1998 PUD of 5 lots and 15% open space. You have
• interpretations here and there but the County Code is what guides his opinion.
Commissioner Grand said that in terms of fairness this new property owner has some rights and the current
8
homeowners have some negative exposure. He added that the County Attorney has said that in his opinion,
• legally this case should proceed.
Commissioner Holton commented that this was handled very poorly and there should have been some
communication between the land owner and the current residents. He added that he doesn't believe that it is
fair to the current owner that everything to south be tied up when they could be doing something to it. Mr.
Holton said that this is unusual and is not fair to both sides but could have been handled a lot better.
Commissioner Berryman commented that we are charged to approve or deny this application based on the
County Code and from his understanding if it is denied what do we base it on regarding the code that staff has
outlined. He added that it is an interesting dilemma apart from the issue of fairness.
Robert Grand moved that Case AmPZ-516, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval, Roy Spitzer seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman,yes; Paul Branham, no; Erich Ehrlich,yes with comment;Robert Grand,yes;Bill Hall,abstain; Mark
Lawley, yes with comment; Roy Spitzer, yes with comment; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion
carried.
Commissioner Ehrlich cited County Code Section 27-2-140 and also commented that to the current Avery
Acres Association as well as the current landowner that communicating now is going to be the issue that is
going to be impactful because of what you heard today with the southern property.
Commissioner Branham commented that he has not heard enough evidence to overrule the former resolution.
Commissioner Lawley commented that he believes that it is consistent with the existing County Code.
• Commissioner Spitzer commented that these are two additional lots to a five-lot subdivision and he thinks that
it is within the rights of the property in accordance to the current County Code. He is not thrilled by it because
of the fairness issues involved but he thinks that realistically it shouldn't result in any new regular traffic to the
existing homeowner's out there and it shouldn't result in a huge change in their lifestyle if it is done properly.
The Chair reminded the public that this was a recommendation by the Planning Commission and it will be
heard before the Board of County Commissioners and that is where the decision will be made and urged them
to attend that meeting.
The Chair called a recess at 3:08 p.m.
The Chair called the meeting back to order at 3:16 p.m.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1642
APPLICANT: Luceme Commons, LLC Go Ag Professionals, LLC
PLANNER: Hannah Hippely
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parts of the SW4 of Section 17,T6N,R65W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for an Oil and Gas
Support and Service facility(fracking company),Agricultural Service Establishment
(commodity storage and drying),Use allowed in the Commercial or Industrial Zone
District(recycling business)in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Highway 392 and east of and adjacent to CR 39.
The Chair pointed out that this case was continued from the February 5, 2008 meeting and Commissioner
Branham was not there to hear the case so he will not be able to vote on this case.
Hannah Hippely, Department of Planning Services,highlighted some points to the Commissioners again. The
•
site location is at the corner of County Road 39 and State Highway 392. Currently the site has three existing
structures on it that the applicant is intending to repurpose for Commercial and Industrial uses.
9
2c',?
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• Tuesday, February 5, 2008
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Department of
Planning Services, Hearing Room, 918 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by
Chair, Doug Ochsner, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Doug Ochsner-Chair ;; Fri
Tom Holton -Vice Chair cr
Nick Berryman
Paul Branham N) w
Erich Ehrlich CC
y
Robert Grand -43
Bill Hall c-`'
Mark Lawley ,=
Roy Spitzer
Also Present: Chris Gathman, Hannah Hippely, Roger Caruso, Department of Planning Services; Dave
Snyder, Don Dunker, Don Carroll, Department of Public Works; Lauren Light, Pam Smith, Department of
Health; Roger Vigil, Bryon Horgen, Department of Building Inspection;Cyndy Giaugue,County Attorney,and
Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Robert Grand moved to approve the January 15,2008 Weld County Planning Commission minutes,seconded
by Tom Holton. Motion carried.
The Chair read the case into record.
• — CASE NUMBER: AMPZ-512
APPLICANT: George Bollinger
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Outlot A of Avery Acres PUD; located in W2 of Section 10,T6N, R65 of the 6th
P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: An amendment to the PUD change of zone(create one(1)additional residential
lot with estate zoned uses)for Avery Acres PUD.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 43 and north of and adjacent to CR 70.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, stated that the applicant is requesting that this case be
continued to March 4, 2008. Mr. Gathman added that the applicant was unable to obtain the thirty(30)
day mineral notice waiver from the surrounding property owners. They have pre-emptively notified the
mineral interest owners for the March 4, 2008 hearing date. Mr. Gathman commented that staff is in
support of this request.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Bill Hall moved that Case AmPZ-512 be continued to March 4, 2008, seconded by Mark Lawley. Motion
carried.
The Chair read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1641
APPLICANT: Univest Development Company LLC c/o Bror Cederstrom
PLANNER: Hannah Hippely
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A parcel located in the N2 of the SW4 of Section 35,T6N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,
• Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a use
permitted as a Use by Right,and Accessory Use,or a Use by Special Review in
the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts(business offices and research
laboratory)in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to F Street and approximately 1 mile west of 35 Ave.
1- g-9..00$,7
• SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Department of
Planning Services, Hearing Room, 918 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by
Chair, Doug Ochsner, at 1:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Doug Ochsner-Chair
Tom Holton -Vice Chair
Nick Berryman
Paul Branham `i
t..
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand
Bill Halliri
Mark Lawley
Roy Spitzer ui
Also Present: Hannah Hippely, Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services;Don Carroll, Dave Snyder,
Department of Public Works; Pam Smith, Department of Health;Cyndy Giauque, County Attorney, and Kris
Ranslem, Secretary.
Robert Grand moved to approve the December 18, 2007 Weld County Planning Commission minutes,
seconded by Paul Branham. Motion carried.
The Chair read the case into record.
•
CASE NUMBER: USR-1606
APPLICANT: Connell Resources Inc.
PLANNER: Hannah Hippely
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot C of RE-2972 Sections 23 and 24,T6N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a use
permitted as a Use by Right,Accessory Use, or Use by Special Review in the
Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts(highway construction equipment
maintenance and storage facility)in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 23 and 1/2 mile South of State Highway 392.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to hear this case. No one wished to speak.
The Chair asked the Commissioners if they wish to pull this case to be heard. No one wished to have it
pulled.
The Chair asked the applicant if they wish for this case to remain on the Consent Agenda. The applicant
replied that they would like it to remain on consent.
The Chair asked Ms. Hippely if staff wishes for this case to remain on consent. Ms. Hippley responded that
staff would like for this case to remain on consent.
Roy Spitzer moved that Case USR-1606, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, Tom Holton seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
• The Chair read the following case into the record.
CASE NUMBER: AMPZ-512
APPLICANT: George Bollinger
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of Avery Acres PUD;located in W2 of Section 10,T6N, R65 of the 6th
P.M.,Weld County,Colorado.
• REQUEST: An amendment to the PUD change of zone(create one(1)additional residential
lot with estate zoned uses)for Avery Acres PUD.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 43 and north of and adjacent to CR 70.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, stated that the applicant has submitted a request for a
continuance as they need to meet State Mineral Owner notice requirements. He added that they also are
looking at revising the application to create an additional 2nd residential lot which would require re-
notification. The applicant is requesting a continuance until February 5, 2008. Mr. Gathman said that staff
is supportive of the request.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against the continuation of
this case.
Jeff Raisley, 35844 Avery Dr., asked how they could obtain a copy of how the two additional lots will be
platted. Mr. Gathman stated that he would get them a copy as the applicant will be submitting a revised
map this week.
Tom Holton moved to continue Case AmPZ-512 to February 5, 2008, seconded by Roy Spitzer. Motion
carried unanimously.
The Chair read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1628
APPLICANT: TARH E&P Holdings, L.P.
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: W2NE4SE4 of Section 23,T6N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for oil and gas
production facilities(two oil and gas wells)in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
• LOCATION: Approximately 1/4 mile north of CR 66 and approximately'%mile west of CR 35.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, stated that the application is a request for a Special Use
Permit to allow two(2)well heads to be placed in the Residential Zoned District.
Mr. Gathman commented that there was a letter received from the representative of the landowner dated
November 26, 2007 in which they are requesting that the proposed wells be relocated so they are in a
north/south direction rather than an east/west direction. Mr. Gathman stated that currently there is one well
head on the site and in the original proposal it was stated to locate one well head approximately 35 feet to the
east and the other one approximately 35 feet to the west of the existing well head. The applicant has indicated
that they are acceptable to relocate the wells so that one well is 35 feet north of the existing well and one well
is 35 feet south of the existing well.
Mr. Gathman commented that part of this application lists some future tank batteries and compressors to be
located to the north of this site, however these are on Agricultural Zoned properties and they would actually be
a Use by Right and would not be a part of this application. He clarified that the only part of this application are
the two (2) proposed well heads as that property is zoned Single-Family Residential.
Mr. Gathman added that from the letter dated November 26, 2007, another item that the landowner is
requesting is that the compressor be electrically powered or sound-proofed to mitigate noise issues. Mr.
Gathman added that if there ever is a compressor that is placed on the site, it will be placed to the north which
is Agricultural Zoned property and again it is not under this application.
Mr.Gathman wished to make a correction and stated that in the original notice for this case,the property was
identified as Agricultural,which is incorrect, and should be Single Family Residential. Mr.Gathman stated that
in talking with the County Attorney, he indicated that the description of the proposed use for the two(2)well
heads was accurately described in the notice, so no re-notification was necessary for this hearing. However
• we will correct this notification prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing.
Commissioner Ehrlich asked if there is a difference in distance, in terms of well heads, to Residential areas
versus Agricultural. Mr. Gathman replied that it is 350 feet away in Single Family Residential versus 150 feet
for well heads and 200 feet for tank batteries in the Agricultural Zone District.
Hello