HomeMy WebLinkAbout20081972.tiff RESOLUTION
RE: GRANT REQUEST TO REINSTATE APPLICATION FOR SITE SPECIFIC
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FINAL PLAN, PF#1043,
SCHEDULE HEARING DATE, AND WITHDRAW REQUEST FOR REVOCATION OF
CHANGE OF ZONE, PZ#1043 - SHERRY LAWLEY
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to
Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of
administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the 21st day of May, 2008, at 10:00 a.m., in the
Chambers of the Board for the purpose of hearing the application of Sherry Lawley, 26658 County
Road 74, Eaton, Colorado 80615, requesting a Site Specific Development Plan and Planned Unit
Development Final Plan, PF#1043,for seven(7)lots with E(Estate)Zone uses and one(1)lot with
A(Agricultural)Zone uses- Lawley Estates, for a parcel of land located on the following described
real estate, to-wit:
Lot B of Recorded Exemption #3581; being part of
the SE1/4 of Section 4, Township 6 North, Range 64
West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado
WHEREAS,pursuant to a letter,dated May 13,2008,the applicant withdrew the application
for Planned Unit Development Final Plan, PF#1043, and requested vacation of Change of Zone,
PZ#1043, and
WHEREAS, on May 21, 2008, the Board accepted the request to withdraw PF #1043,
however, the applicant presented additional information regarding the ditch agreement with the
Nazarenus Ditch Company required as a Condition of Approval for PF #1043, at which time the
Board deemed it advisable to continue the request to vacate PZ#1043 to July 23, 2008, to allow
the applicant time to discuss additional options with the Department of Planning Services, and
WHEREAS,the Board has been presented with a letter from Sherry Lawley, dated June 25,
2008, requesting the Board accept the request to reinstate the application for PF#1043, schedule
a hearing for August 6, 2008, at 10:00 a.m., and accept her request to withdraw the request for
vacation of Change of Zone, PZ#1043, and
WHEREAS,after hearing all testimony presented,the Board deems it advisable to reinstate
the application for PF#1043, schedule a hearing for August 6, 2008, at 10:00 a.m., and accept the
applicant's request to withdraw the request for vacation of Change of Zone, PZ#1043.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld
County, Colorado, that the request of Sherry Lawley to reinstate the application for a Site Specific
Development Plan and Planned Unit Development Final Plan, PF #1043, for seven (7) lots with
E(Estate)Zone uses and one(1)lot with A(Agricultural)Zone uses-Lawley Estates, on the above
referenced parcel of land be, and hereby is, accepted.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that a hearing be set for August 6, 2008, at
10:00 a.m., to consider the application of Sherry Lawley for PF #1043.
2008-1972
CC , LO, / PL 1 ft� PL1765
aS iYo-rR
REINSTATE APPLICATION FOR PF #1043, SCHEDULE HEARING, AND WITHDRAW
REQUEST FOR VACATION OF PZ #1043 - SHERRY LAWLEY
PAGE 2
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that the request to withdraw the request for
vacation of Change of Zone, PZ#1043,from the A(Agricultural)Zone District to the PUD(Planned
Unit Development) Zone District, be, and hereby is, accepted.
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by
the following vote on the 14th day of July, A.D., 2008.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST: 4,41,,/ �%f`i ELAN
am H. Jerke, Chair
Weld County Clerk to the ,'I""iti � f
Fie 4 Rort R. Masden, Pro-Tem
BY: 4Zc G ✓.s ���
Deputy Clerk to the Boa*�
William F. Garcia
APIlift0 D AS M: EXCUSED
,---? David E. Long
✓i
ounty Attorney
Dougla ademac er
Date of signature: / Q2._
2008-1972
PL1765
Memorandum
TO: Clerk to the Board
DATE: June 27, 2008
C FROM: Brad Mueller
•
COLORADO Department of Planning Services
RE: Lawley Estate Reinstatement of PUD Final Plat
& Withdrawal of Rezoning Request
CC: Clerk to the Board; Public Works
Please schedule a Board meeting for the following two business items:
1. The owner of the Lawley Estates PUD subdivision, Sherry Lawley, is requesting to
REINSTATE the application for the Final Plat(File No. PF-1043). The Board accepted
withdrawal of this application on May 21, 2008, Board Resolution Number 2008-1347.
2. The owner is also requesting to WITHDRAW their request to revoke the current PUD
zoning, and instead request to maintain the current Lawley Estate PUD zoning on the
property. The Board had considered this request on May 21, 2008, but continued a
decision until July 23, 2008. (Board Resolution Number 2008-1525)
Because these are administrative items, they can be scheduled prior to the July 23 date set by the
Board. Please schedule this for the soonest available Board meeting. (You and I have discussed
July 14.) Please avoid July 7, however, since I will be out of town that day. Attached is a letter from
the owner, requesting the reinstatement and withdrawal.
In addition, assuming that the Board accepts the request to reinstate the application, please
schedule the Final Plat hearing for the earliest possible date. (You and I have tentatively talked
about August 6.) The owner is not available on July 30, however, so please schedule around that
date. I will send the supporting Final Plat application material under a separate cover.
2008-1972
June 25, 2008
Department of Planning Services
Brad Mueller
918 10th Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
RE: Lawley Estates 9 Lot PUD
Dear Brad,
Please consider this an official request to move forward and set the hearing for approval of final
plat. For clarification all the issues submitted in the last letter to the Board of County
Commissioners are still valid. In addition, I will be requesting a waiver for paving the 3 miles of
WCR 55.
Respectfully,
Sherry L. Lawley
Esther Gesick
From: Brad Mueller
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 1:37 PM
To: Esther Gesick
Cc: Brad Mueller
Subject: Lawley update
Hi Esther,
Thanks for your phone call.
I have not received anything from the Lawleys, nor have they committed verbally to me
about their intentions. So I'm afraid I don't have much news to share.
I've told them that the administrative decisions only require a brief note from them, but
they haven' t yet provided that. I've also given them the deadlines for getting the
hearings set up, and, after your call about the upcoming dates filling up, I've let them
know that we'd have to get the remaining hearing information very soon, if they want the
hearings to happen on either July 16 or 23 .
So nothing for now. Thanks for checking with me, though.
Thanks again,
Brad
EXHIBIT
A
1
Esther Gesick
From: Brad Mueller
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 4:58 PM
To: Esther Gesick
Subject: FW: Procedural options for Lawley
Original Message
From: Bruce Barker
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 9:15 AM
To: Brad Mueller
Cc: David Bauer
Subject: RE: Procedural options for Lawley
Actually, there is the need to "undo" the withdrawal of the final plat.
The way it needs to go is this:
The Lawleys get the Board a letter saying they have changed their minds and they now want
to: 1) withdraw their request to revoke the COZ, and 2) reinstate their application for
the final plat. They also need to state that they would like to do this sooner than July
23rd.
After we receive the letter, the Clerk to the Board then puts the whole thing back on the
soonest agenda. No notice needs to go out to surrounding landowners and no publication,
because what the Board needs to do is purely administrative. It is listed as: CONSIDER
REQUEST TO REVOKE COZ # (I cannot remember the number) AND REQUEST TO REINSTATE
APPLICATION FOR PZ # (again, cannot remember the number) . The Board then accepts the
Lawley' s request to withdraw their original request to revoke the COZ, and then reverses
the withdrawal of May 21st of the application for the PZ (reinstates the application for
the PZ) and then sets the matter for hearing for the final plat.
Original Message
From: Brad Mueller
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 2:40 PM
To: Bruce Barker
Cc: David Bauer
Subject: RE: Procedural options for Lawley
Thank you, Bruce. Yes -- this is the direction that they seem to be going.
If I understand correctly, then, (assuming they withdraw the revocation request) there is
no need to "undo" the withdrawal of the final plat -- just re-notice and reschedule.
I'll let them know -- thanks.
Original Message
From: Bruce Barker
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 10 :58 AM
To: Brad Mueller
Cc: David Bauer
Subject: RE: Procedural options for Lawley
Brad:
I assume from your questions that the Lawleys have decided to ask for reversal of the
withdrawal of the POD final plan application, and to withdraw their request for the Board
to revoke the COZ? EXHIBIT
All of your questions are good ones.
1 �(,,J{
The date certain of July 23rd was for the administrative action of revoking the COZ. If
they are going to ask the Board to withdraw their request for the revocation of the COZ,
that can happen at any time. So, have them get a letter to you to that effect, and saying
that they would like the Board to reverse the withdrawal of their application for the POD
final plan. Will then need to reschedule the consideration of the POD final plan, but
that will need full notice, again. The date for the hearing just needs to be such that
our typical time frame for notice is complied with.
So, assuming the Lawleys get the letter to you and it says what I detailed above, there is
no requirement for us to notice in the Board' s consideration of that letter. Just need to
get it on the soonest agenda after we receive it.
Bruce.
Original Message
From: Brad Mueller
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 8:54 AM
To: Bruce Barker
Cc: David Bauer; Brad Mueller
Subject: Procedural options for Lawley
Bruce,
We met with the Lawley's yesterday, and a few new procedural questions arose.
* The Board continued the revocation and withdrawal considerations to July 23. The
Lawleys now want to know if that can be moved up, earlier. (My guess is no, that the date
certain announced at the hearing has to stick for noticing to be effective. Does the fact
that the withdrawal and revocation themselves didn't need noticing - just the final plat
did - change the answer?)
* Related question - does either the withdrawal or revocation need to be legally
noticed? If so, can it be "re-noticed, " to allow scheduling earlier than July 23?
* And, can the final plat hearing - which is presumed to take place after the
withdrawal is reversed - be scheduled for the same day (either July 23, or earlier, if re-
scheduled) ? We had told them that the hearing would take place subsequently to the
decision about reversing the withdrawal, at a later date; they are wondering if it
couldn't be legally noticed for the same date.
Lots of "what if" questions, I know. Thanks for any light you can shed on the situation.
Brad
2
Esther Gesick
From: Bruce Barker
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 8:50 AM
To: Brad Mueller; Esther Gesick; David Bauer
Cc: Thomas Honn
Subject: RE: Lawley case
Brad:
Your analysis of the timing is correct. Robert's Rules requires that the Board only take
up the reversal of a passed motion on the next business day, unless that right is reserved
by the Board to take up that issue at a later date. For the Lawley case, the "next
business day" would be next Wednesday, but the Board added to its motion regarding the
continuance of the COZ revocation that it was reserving its right to allow one of the
members to move to reverse the withdrawal at the 60 day mark. So, nothing will happen
next Wednesday. The matter (revocation of the COZ and right to move to reverse the
withdrawal) is continued to that 60 day time (I cannot remember the exact date) . As to
your other question, what will happen on that 60th day is only for the Board to either
revoke or not revoke the COZ, and if it does not revoke the COZ, then to move to reverse
the withdrawal of the Final Plan, in which case if such motion passes, the Final Plan will
need to be schduled for a later hearing.
Bruce.
Original Message
From: Brad Mueller
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 4 :36 PM
To: Esther Gesick; David Bauer
Cc: Bruce Barker; Thomas Honn
Subject: RE: Lawley case
Bruce,
Can you clarify on Esther's next Wednesday comment? I thought from my conversation with
you that they would not be re-considering it on Wednesday, but rather had deferred that
option to the same day as the continuance of the Revocation request (July 23) .
Also -- do we want to presume the Final Plat hearing on the same day as the Revocation? I
had thought the idea was to first decide whether the case gets re-activated on July 23,
then follow up (maybe within a week) with the hearing. I guess it doesn't matter if we do
them on the same day, other than we would need to make sure the ditch company, etc. , all
came on that day. I had simply thought we decided otherwise.
Thanks,
Brad
Original Message
From: Esther Gesick E ,...-
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 1:30 PM
To: Brad Mueller; David Bauer D
Cc: Bruce Barker; Thomas Honn
Subject: RE: Lawley case �•.✓'
Brad,
Just drop the case file in interoffice mail. As for the Withdrawal Reso, the Board will
have the opportunity to reconsider that action next Wednesday before they vote to accept
the Consent Agenda during the 9:00 board meeting.
Bruce,
Would it be appropriate to also set a hearing date at that time so I can go ahead with a
courtesy re-notice of the Final Plan to coincide with the continued date of the
1
revoke/revert item on July 23rd?
Thoughts?
Esther Gesick
Deputy Clerk to the Board
915 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80631
(970) 356-4000 X4226
(970) 352-0242 (fax)
Original Message
From: Brad Mueller
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 11:21 AM
To: David Bauer
Cc: Bruce Barker; Esther Gesick; Brad Mueller; Thomas Honn
Subject: Lawley case
Hi Dave,
The Board did accept the Lawley's Withdrawal request today, but they continued the Zoning
Revocation request 60 days to July 23 . At that time, they will re-consider the status of
the case, which could result in it being nun-withdrawn" and made active again.
So for practical purposes, this remains an active case. We will be meeting with the
Lawleys next week (time TBD) to sort through this, and to understand their intentions.
I will forward a copy of the speech that Sherry provided to the Board. In it, she raised
the issues to the Board that she would have made, if she had followed through with the
hearing as regularly scheduled today. As a result of her comment, it's likely the Board
may want to speak with us generally about drainage and off-site road policies, but I think
that because this may continue as a quasi-judicial case, it would have to be a
conversation that was not specific to the Lawley case.
Bruce, please correct me on any of this, if I'm misunderstanding it.
Esther, I will return the case packet to you for safe-keeping, if that is OK.
Thank you. If anyone can add any more clarity to where we go from here on this, please
comment.
Brad
2
Hello