HomeMy WebLinkAbout20071344.tiff RESOLUTION OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Moved by Bruce Fitzgerald 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: PZ-1120
APPLICANT: Willard•& Linda Owens
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-3479; located in part E2NE4 of Section 23, T6N, R67W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to PUD for nine (9)residential lots
with E (Estate) Zone uses (with the exception that uses by right and
accessory uses be restricted to the following: one (1)single family dwelling
per lot; accessory uses for garages, carports and parking areas; swimming
pools, tennis and similar recreational facilities; service buildings and
facilities; and any other structure or use clearly incidental and accessory to a
use allowed by right; and that no animal units as defined in Section 23-1-90
of the Weld County Code be allowed)along with 7.55 acres of open space.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 23 and approximately 300 feet south of SH 392
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 located within the urban
growth boundary for the Town of Windsor. Section:
UGB.Policy 3.1. The County may consider approving a land use development within an
urban growth boundary area if all of the following criteria are met:
a. UGB.Policy 3.1.1. The adjacent municipality does not consent to annex the land or
property in a timely manner or annexation is not legally possible.
b. UGB.Policy 3.1.2. The proposed use, including public facility and service impacts, is
compatible with this Chapter and with other urban type uses.
c. UGB.Policy 3.1.3. The proposed use attempts to be compatible with the adjacent
municipality's comprehensive plan.
Section 22-1-120.A.states: "It is the goal of the Comprehensive Plan to express the needs
and vision of a developing county, while protecting individual property rights."
Section 23-2-220 states:
1) That the proposal is consistent with Chapter 22 of this Code and any other applicable code
provisions or ordinance in effect.
EXHIBIT
T8
2-? #llze
2007-1344
Resolution PZ-1120
Willard & Linda Owens
Page 2
2) That the proposal is consistent with the intent of the district in which the USE is located.
3) That the USES which would be permitted will be compatible with the existing surrounding
land USES.
4) That the USES which would be permitted will be compatible with future development of the
surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning and with the future development as
projected by Chapter 22 of this Code or MASTER PLANS of affected municipalities.
5) That the application complies with Article V of this Chapter if the proposal is located within
the Overlay District Areas identified by maps officially adopted by the COUNTY.
6) That if the USE is proposed to be located in the A(Agricultural)Zone District,the applicant
has demonstrated a diligent effort has been made to conserve PRIME FARMLAND in the
locational decision for the proposed USE.
7) That there is adequate provision for the protection if the health, safety and welfare if the
inhabitants if the NEIGHBORHOOD and the COUNTY.
B. Section 27-6-120.6.c - That the uses which would be permitted will 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.
Sec. 27-2-70. Compatibility—Section 27-2-70 states: "The density, design and location of
land uses within and adjoining a PUD shall be designed to be compatible with other uses
within and adjoining the PUD. Compatible uses shall be determined by evaluating the general
uses, building height, setback, offset, size, density, traffic, dust, noise, harmony, character,
common open space, screening, health, safety and welfare of the PUD in relation to
surrounding uses." (Weld County Code Ordinance 2003-10)
The Planning Commission's recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following:
1. Prior to recording the Change of Zone plat:
A. The plat shall be amended as follows:
1) All sheets of the plat shall be labeled PZ-1120. (Department of Planning Services)
2) Stagecoach Road (County Road 23) is classified as a collector road. The collector
minimum right-of-way of 40-feet from centerline shall be dedicated on this Change of Zone
plat to the southern boundary of the PUD. (Department of Public Works)
3) The approved road cross-section (two 12-foot paved lanes with 4-foot gravel shoulders)
shall be indicated on the plat. (Department of Planning Services)
4) The right-of-way documentation for the Greeley No. 2 Canal shall be indicated.
(Department of Public Works)
5) The public trail easement between the Town of Windsor and the Greeley No.2 canal shall
•
Resolution PZ-1120
Willard & Linda Owens
Page 3
be indicated. (Town of Windsor/Department of Planning Services)
B. The applicant shall address the requirements/recommendations of the Weld County Sheriffs
Office as stated in their referral received April 2, 2007. Written evidence of such shall be
provided to the Department of Planning Services. (Weld County Sheriffs Office)
C. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements/recommendations of the Town of
Windsor as stated in their referral received March 5, 2007. Written evidence of such shall be
submitted to the Department of Planning Services. (Town of Windsor)
D. The applicant shall address the requirements/recommendations of the Weld County Paramedic
Services as stated in their referral received March 30,2007. Written evidence of such shall be
provided to the Department of Planning Services. (Weld County Paramedic Services)
E. The applicant shall address the requirements/recommendations of the Department of Planning
Services as stated in their landscape referral received February 19,2007 in regards to clarifying
water supply provisions for fire protection and potable/non-potable water supplies. Written
evidence of such shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services. (Weld County
Planning Services)
F. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements/recommendations of the New Cache La
Poudre Irrigating Company/Cache La Poudre Reservoir Company as stated in their referral
received February 15, 2007. Written evidence of such shall be submitted to the Department of
Planning Services. (New Cache La Poudre Irrigating Company)
G. The applicant shall address the requirements/recommendations of the Department of Public
Works as stated in their referral received March 9, 2007. Written evidence of such shall be
provided to the Department of Planning Services. (Weld County Public Works)
H. The applicant shall either submit a copy of an agreement with the property's mineral
owner/operators stipulating that the oil and gas activities have been adequately incorporated into
the design of the site or show evidence that an adequate attempt has been made to mitigate the
concerns of the mineral owner/operators. Drill envelopes can be delineated on the plat in
accordance with the State requirements as an attempt to mitigate concerns. The plat shall be
amended to include any possible future drilling sites. (Department of Planning Services)
I. The applicant shall address the requirements/recommendations of the Department of Public
Health and Environment as stated in their referral received March 12,2007. Written evidence of
such shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services.(Department of Public Health and
Environment)
J. The applicant shall submit verification that any requirements of the Windsor/Severance Fire
Protection District(if any) have been addressed. (Department of Planning Services)
K. The applicant shall submit two (2)paper copies of the plat for preliminary approval to the Weld
County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
3. The Change of Zone is conditional upon the following and that each shall be placed on the Change of
Zone plat as notes prior to recording:
Resolution PZ-1120
Willard & Linda Owens
Page 4
A. The site specific development plan is for a Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to PUD for nine
(9)residential lots with E(Estate)Zone uses as indicated in the application materials on file in the
Department of Planning Services. The PUD will be subject to and governed by the Conditions of
Approval stated hereon and all applicable Weld County Regulations. The E (Estate) lots shall
comply with all (Estate) requirements with the exception uses by right and accessory uses be
restricted to the following: one (1) single-family dwelling per lot, accessory uses for garages,
carports and parking areas, swimming pools, tennis and similar recreational facilities, service
buildings and facilities, and any other structure or use clearly incidental and accessory to a use
allowed by right;and that no animal units as defined in Section 23-1-90 of the Weld County Code
be allowed. (Department of Planning Services)
B. A Home Owner'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.
Open space restrictions are permanent. (Department of Planning Services)
C. Weld County's Right to Farm as delineated on this plat shall be recognized at all times.
(Department of Planning Services)
D. Signs shall adhere to Article IV, Division 2 of the Weld County Code. These requirements shall
apply to all temporary and permanent signs. (Department of Planning Services)
E. Water service shall be obtained from the North Weld County Water District. (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
F. This subdivision 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. . In accordance with
the Weld County Code, if a sewer line exists within four hundred (400)feet of the property line
and the sewer provider is willing to serve the proposed structure, a septic permit cannot be
granted by the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment. (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
G. Activities such as permanent landscaping, structures, dirt mounds or other items are expressly
prohibited in the absorption field site. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
H. Primary and secondary septic envelopes shall be placed on each lot.All septic system envelopes
must meet all setbacks, including the 50-foot setback to any irrigation ditch. (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
I. Language for the preservation and/or protection of the absorption field envelopes shall be placed
in the development covenants. The covenants shall state that activities such as permanent
landscaping,structures,dirt mounds or other items are expressly prohibited in the absorption field
site. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
J. A storm water 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 Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Resolution PZ-1120
Willard & Linda Owens
Page 5
Environment at www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/PermitsUnit for more information. (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
K. 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 Department of Public Health and Environment,a fugitive dust control plan must be
submitted. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
L. 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)
M. 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)
N. A separate building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction of any structure(including
signs). (Department of Building Inspection)
O. 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) (Department of
Planning Services)
P. 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)
Q. Installation of utilities shall comply with Section 24-9-10 of the Weld County Code.(Department of
Planning Services)
R. 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)
S. Weld County personnel 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)
T. The site shall maintain compliance at all times with the requirements of the Weld County
Government and the adopted Weld County Code and Policies.(Department of Planning Services)
U. 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)
V. 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
three (3)years of the date of the approval of the PUD Zone District, the Board of County
Resolution PZ-1120
Willard & Linda Owens
Page 6
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)
W. The PUD Final Plan shall comply with all regulations and requirements of Chapter 27 of the Weld
County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
4. The Change of Zone plat map shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services'for recording
within sixty(60)days of approval by the Board of County Commissioners.With the 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)
5. In accordance with Weld County Code Ordinance 2005-7 approved June 1,2005,should the plat not be
recorded within the required sixty (60) days from the date the Administrative Review was signed a
$50.00 recording continuance charge shall added for each additional 3 month period.
6. At the time of Final Plan submission:
A. The applicant shall submit a set of sign standards as required by Section 27-6-90.E.1. of the
Weld County Code for review and approval. If a PUD entrance sign is proposed its location shall
be indicated on the final plan.The entrance sign shall be placed on an outlot under the jurisdiction
of the homeowners association. (Department of Planning Services, Sheriff's Office)
B. The applicant shall submit an on-site (Private) Improvements Agreement that addresses all
improvements associated with this development for review and approval. (Departments of
Planning Services and Public Works)
C. The applicant shall submit an off-site (Public) Improvements Agreement (for improvements to
County Road 23)that addresses all improvements associated with this development for review
and approval. (Departments of Planning Services and Public Works)
D. The applicant shall submit development covenants for Sunset PUD. Language for the
preservation and/or protection of the absorption field envelopes shall be placed in the
development covenants. The covenants shall state that activities such as permanent
landscaping,structures,dirt mounds or other items are expressly prohibited in the absorption field
site.The covenants shall also address signage requirements and refer to the Weld County Code.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
E. Intersection sight triangles at the development entrance will be required. All landscaping within
the triangles must be less than 3 and 1/2 feet in height at maturity,and noted on the final roadway
plans. (Department of Public Works)
Resolution PZ-1120
Willard & Linda Owens
Page 7
F. Primary and secondary septic envelopes shall be placed on each lot.All septic system envelopes
must meet all setbacks, including the 50-foot setback to any irrigation ditch. (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
G. The applicant shall submit a time frame for construction in accordance to Section 27-2-200 of the
Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
H. Easements shall be delineated on the final plat in accordance with County standards(Sec.24-7-
60)and Utility Board recommendations. (Departments of Planning Services and Public Works)
I. The applicant shall submit all proposed street names and lot addresses to the Weld County
Department of Planning Services for review and approval by the Windsor/Severance Fire
Protection District, the Weld County Sheriff's Office, the Weld County Ambulance Services
Department and the United States Post Office. (Department of Planning Services)
J. The applicant shall submit 3 copies of the Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation for the
Homeowners Association for review and approval. (Department of Planning Services)
K. The applicant shall contact the Vegetation Weed Management Specialist with the Weld County
Public Works Department at(970)356-4000 ext 3770 to develop a weed management plan.The
approved plan shall be included in the Final Plan application. (Department of Planning Services)
L. The applicant shall address the requirements of the Department of Planning Services
(Landscaping referral)dated February 19, 2007. Written evidence of such shall be provided to
the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
M. The applicant shall address the requirements/recommendations of the Weld County Sheriff's
Office as stated in their referral received February 26, 2007. Written evidence of such shall be
provided to the Department of Planning Services. (Weld County Sheriff's Office)
N. The applicant shall submit to Public Works stamped, signed and dated final plat drawings and
roadway/construction & grading plan drawings for review (with the final plan application) and
approval. Construction details must be included. (Department of Public Works)
O. A final drainage report stamped, signed and dated by a professional engineer licensed in the
State of Colorado shall be submitted with the final application. The 5-year storm and 100-year
storm drainage studies shall take into consideration off-site flows both entering and leaving the
development. Increased runoff due to development will require detention of the 100-year storm
developed condition while releasing the 5-year storm existing condition.The final drainage report
shall include a flood hazard review documenting any FEMA defined floodways. The engineer
shall reference the specific map panel number, including date. The development site shall be
located on the copy of the FEMA map. (Department of Public Works)
P. The applicant shall prepare a construction detail for typical lot grading with respect to drainage for
the final application. Front, rear and side slopes around building envelopes must be addressed.
In addition, drainage for rear and side lot line swales shall be considered. Building envelopes
must be planned to avoid storm water flows, while taking into account adjacent drainage
mitigation. (Department of Public Works)
Resolution PZ-1120
Willard & Linda Owens
Page 8
Q. Final drainage construction and erosion control plans (conforming to the drainage report)
stamped,signed and dated by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado shall be
submitted with the final plan application. (Department of Public Works)
R. Please refer to the Weld County Storm Drainage Criteria addendum to Urban Drainage for all
COZ and Final Plan drainage requirements. (Department of Public Works)
S. Please provide appropriate erosion control at pipe outlets and inlets, overflow areas, channel
bends, high shear stress channels and swales, or any other areas requiring erosion control.
Design calculations must be provided to support the selection of any and all erosion control
measures, and must demonstrate that the proposed designs provide stable channel conditions
prior to the establishment of vegetation.
1. Please add rock riprap protection at all culvert outlets for the final drainage plans,and include
rock size (D50) and apron limits (length, width, and thickness). Please utilize UD&FCD
methods, and include all design calculations and/or spreadsheets in the report appendix.
2. A self-launching termination key with a design detail is required for rock riprap protection.
Please follow guidance provided in the USDCM, Chapter 4.4.2.4(UD&FCD 2001). Another
useful guide may be HEC-11, Chapter 2 (FHWA 1989).
3. Please specify an appropriate geo-textile filter fabric under the rock. The geo-textile shall be
identified by a product name and number,or approved equal. The selected product shall be
fully documented with manufacturer specifications and installation procedures,drawings,and
details. (Department of Public Works)
T. Please utilize engineering calculations to determine all conveyance swales and channels in the
subdivision are stable under proposed hydraulic conditions. (Department of Public Works)
U. Please add the following note to the text of the Final Drainage Report and to the notes on the
Final Plat: "Weld County will not be responsible for the maintenance of drainage related areas."
(Department of Public Works)
V. All culverts must be analyzed using UD-Culvert, HY-8, HEC-RAS, CulvertMaster, or other
approved programs that adhere to HDS-5 guidelines (FHWA 2005). (Department of Public
Works)
W. All culvert inlets shall include debris racks to prevent clogging due to debris accumulation and to
protect the public safety. Debris racks shall be sloped at 3H:1V or flatter per UD&FCD research.
(Department of Public Works)
X. Please provide an emergency spillway on all proposed detention ponds.
1. A typical cross section of the emergency overflow crest must be provided on construction
plan sheets with point elevations and slopes.
2. The depth of flow out of the spillway shall be 6 inches or less and the spillway shall have
effective erosion protection supported by calculations.
3. A spillway cutoff wall is required for each detention pond to prevent possible breach during
the major(100-yr)storm event.
Resolution PZ-1120
Willard & Linda Owens
Page 9
4. The elevation of the top of the spillway embankment and of the lowest finished floor of all
proposed building structures shall be a minimum of 1.0 ft above the 100-year water surface
elevation in the detention pond.
5. Each spillway shall have adequate erosion protection to prevent erosion during operation.
(Department of Public Works)
Y. Re-vegetation of all disturbed earth shall comply with all standards defined in the Re-vegetation
section of the Weld County Storm Drainage Criteria dated February 2006. (Department of Public
Works)
Z. A dedicated drainage easement is required for all onsite drainage areas inundated by the 100-
year event. Please identify and dimension all drainage easements on all plan sheets submitted
with the Final Drainage Report. (Department of Public Works)
AA. A standard detail sheet for all drainage and erosion control features must be provided as part of
the construction plan set. (Department of Public Works)
AB. The applicant shall submit a copy of a finalized Water Service Agreement between the applicant
and North Weld County Water District for service to the PUD.(Department of Planning Services)
7. Prior to recording the final plat:
A. Original copies of the approved covenants along with the appropriate recording fee(currently$6
for the first page and $5 for subsequent pages) shall be submitted to the Weld County
Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
B. The applicant shall submit Certificates from the Secretary of State showing the Homeowners
Association has been formed and registered with the state. (Department of Planning Services)
C. The applicant shall enter into an on-site Improvements Agreement According to Policy Regarding
Collateral for Improvements. This agreement shall be approved by the Board of County
Commissioners. (Departments of Planning Services and Public Works)
D. The applicant shall enter into an off-site Improvements Agreement According to Policy Regarding
Collateral for Improvements. This agreement shall be approved by the Board of County
Commissioners. (Department of Public Works)
E. The applicant shall provide evidence that the voluntary capital mitigation fee has been paid along
the fee in lieu of land dedication as stated in the agreement with the Weld RE-4 School District
and that the remaining requirements of the RE-4 School District have been addressed. (Weld •
School District RE-4)
F. 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)
Resolution PZ-1120
Willard & Linda Owens
Page 10
8. Prior to release of collateral:
A. Evidence shall be provided that the open space tracts have been deeded to the Homeowner's
Association. (Department of Planning Services)
Motion seconded by Tom Holton.
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Chad Auer—Chair
Doug Ochsner—Vice Chair
Paul Branham
Erich Ehrlich
Bruce Fitzgerald
Tom Holton
Mark Lawley
Roy Spitzer
James Welch
The Chair declares the resolution passed and orders that a certified copy be placed in the file of this case
to serve as a permanent record of these proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Donita May, 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 April 17, 2007.
Dated the 17th of April, 2007.
� A
Donita May
Secretary
Mr.Holton asked Mr.Butcher if this well would be operated like the thousands of other oil and gas wells in the County,as
far as drilling and work over rigs,instead of pumping product out,they were pumping product in. Mr.Butcher replied that
was correct.
Mr. Ehrlich asked Jesse Hein, Department of Public Works, about acceleration and deceleration lanes on CR 39 and
would the applicant be required to set aside money for improvements on CR 39. Mr.Hein replied that prior to recording
the plat there was a long term maintenance and improvements agreement in item N.,page six,for CR 39 that must be
met. Mr. Ogle said item D., page five, also pertained to Mr. Ehrlich's question.
James Welch inquired about current traffic counts for the area. Mr.Hein said the last count in 2004 varied between 600
and 800 vehicles per day.
The Chair asked the applicant if he had read and agreed with the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval.
Mr. Butcher said he had read them but there was a stipulation from Public Works regarding road improvement that they
pave the access road from CR 39 west to the facility and we have requested they consider allowing us to put ninety feet
of pavement from the west side of CR 39,west ninety feet and put ground asphalt to further create the road from their,
and they would also commit to magnesium chloride application for dust abatement.
Jesse Hein, Department of Public Works, said something that was inaudible. Mr. Ogle asked to amend item seven,
page four to read,'The applicant shall pave the first 90 feet with an asphalt(bituminous)surface. The applicant will
be required to provide a pavement design for the entrance and a mixture design for the asphalt pavement prior to
construction." •
Doug Ochsner moved to amend item number four, page 7 to read as Mr.Ogle recommended. Tom Holton seconded.
Motion carried. Mr. Holton asked if the Board needed to modify the hours of operation in number twenty eight of the
Development Standards. Mr.Ogle said his interpretation of the application is that they want to be able to accept brine
water from 7 am to 10 pm.
The Chair asked the applicant if he had read and agreed with the amended Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval. Mr. Butcher agreed as amended.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case USR-1604, 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. Paul Branham,yes;
Erich Ehrlich,yes;Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;Tom Holton,yes;Mark Lawley,yes;Roy Spitzer,yes;James Welch,yes;Doug
Ochsner, yes;Chad Auer,yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Chad Auer reminded the audience that the Planning Commission only made recommendations to the Board of County
Commissioners and they could contact their office for date and time of the next hearing pertaining to this case.
The Chair called for a brief break and reconvened at 2:30 p.m.
- CASE NUMBER: PZ-1120
APPLICANT: Willard& Linda Owens
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-3479;located in part E2NE4 of Section 23,T6N,R67W of the
6th P.M.,Weld County,Colorado.
REQUEST: A Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to PUD for nine(9)residential lots
with E (Estate) Zone uses (with the exception that uses by right and
accessory uses be restricted to the following:one(1)single family dwelling
per lot;accessory uses for garages,carports and parking areas;swimming
pools, tennis and similar recreational facilities; service buildings and
facilities;and any other structure or use clearly incidental and accessory to
a use allowed by right;and that no animal units as defined in Section 23-1-
90 of the Weld County Code be allowed) along with 7.55 acres of open
space.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 23 and approximately 300 feet south of SH
392.
Doug Ochsner asked Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, why this case was being heard at the South t
building rather than in Greeley. Mr. Gathman said it was due to allowing referral agencies more response time, as the m 2
application had changed since its original presentation. Mr. Gathman said surrounding property owners had been re-
5 NJ
notified of the changes as well.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning,said this application is PZ-1120(Sunset PUD),a Planned Unit Development
Change of Zone,to create nine(9)single-family residential lots for Estate uses along with an elementary school site and
7.55 acres of open space.The applicants/property owners are Willard and Linda Owens and are represented by David
Shoup of David L.Shoup Consulting.
The site is located on Lot B of RE-3479;located in part E2NE4 of Section 23,Township 6 North,Range 67 West in Weld
County.
The site is about 300 feet south of State Highway 392 and west of and adjacent to County Road 23.
The Willow Springs Subdivision is located east of and adjacent to the site(and would share the County Road 23 access
off of Highway 392).
Seventeen referral agencies have reviewed this case and fifteen referral agencies offered comments in favor of the
proposal or with conditions of approval that are addressed in staff comments.
Four letters from neighboring property owners have been received. Concerns mentioned re: Who is responsible for
maintenance repair of the entrance road (Stagecoach Rd. — County Road 23), additional drainage created by the
proposed development adversely impacting Willow Springs Subdivision and traffic and other impacts associated with a
proposed event facility that was originally proposed as apart of this PUD.
It should be noted that the applicants have revised their application and have removed the proposed banquet facility that
was a part of the original application.
This site is located within the urban growth boundary(within %2 mile of existing sewer facilities)of the Town of Windsor
and is not located within the 3-mile referral area of the City of Greeley.
The proposed PUD is to be served by the North Weld County Water District and Individual Septic Systems.
There are three mineral interest owners that hold interests to minerals under the property(the applicant is one of the
parties). There are no leasehold interests,nor existing oil and gas facilities(wellheads&tank batteries)on the property.
The applicant was proposing to waiver from the R-1 residential zoning requirements. The E(Estate)lots shall comply
with all(Estate)requirements with the exception uses by right and accessory uses be restricted to the following:one(1)
single-family dwelling per lot, accessory uses for garages, carports and parking areas, swimming pools, tennis and
similar recreational facilities, service buildings and facilities, and any other structure or use clearly incidental and
accessory to a use allowed by right;and that no animal units(horses,cattle...)as defined in Section 23-1-90 of the Weld
County Code be allowed.
Section 27-6-80.B.7 states: "All urban scale development PUD's containing a residential element shall provide for a
ffteen-percent common open space allocation,unless otherwise stated in Chapter 26 of this Code." Approximately 2.94
acres of the designated common open space area,under this application,is located within the right-of-way of the Greeley
No.2 Ditch. This area is under the control of the Greeley No.2 Ditch and is not considered common open space.As a
result,4.61 acres of the site is considered common open space. This is only 14%of the total site.
Mr.Gathman had spoken to the applicants'representative re:this requirement and he has indicated that they will modify
the PUD to meet this 15% requirement.
The proposed PUD has two proposed access points due to on-site constraints(the size of the parcel). Section 24-3-60.1
states:"That no additional access to a county, state or federal highway will be created"for subdivisions.
The proposed site is located within the urban growth boundary for the Town of Windsor(within%2 mile of existing sewer
facilities) and is located within the 3-mile referral area of the City of Greeley. Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code
states:
UGB.Policy 3.1.The County may consider approving a land use development within an urban growth
boundary area if all of the following criteria are met:
a. UGB.Policy 3.1.1.The adjacent municipality does not consent to annex the land or property in a
timely manner or annexation is not legally possible.
b.UGB.Policy 3.1.2.The proposed use,including public facility and service impacts,is compatible with
this Chapter and with other urban type uses.
6
c. UGB.Policy 3.1.3. The proposed use attempts to be compatible with the adjacent municipality's
comprehensive plan.
The Town of Windsor, in their referral received March 5, 2007, indicated that this site is located within the"Town of
Windsor Growth Management Area"as identified in the Windsor Comprehensive Plan,the"East Side Industrial Sub area
Plan(ESISP)Area",and the Cooperative Planning Area as defined in an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Town of
Windsor.Windsor indicates this property is delineated as General and Neighborhood Commercial and Light Industrial on
the Town of Windsor's Land Use Map. Windsor also indicates that the Cooperative Planning Area(depicted in Windsor's
IGA with the Town of Severance) anticipates commercial and industrial development of the property. The Town of
Windsor goes on to state that the proposed development, if developed in Windsor, would not in compliance with the
Town of Windsor Municipal Code in regards to minimum required lot sizes for individual septic systems and that the
development would exceed its maximum allowable closed-end street length requirement. As a result, the Town of
Windsor is requesting denial of this application and asks that the applicant pursue annexation to the Town of Windsor in
accordance with the land use depictions indicated in its comprehensive plan and in its Cooperative Planning Area IGA
with the Town of Severance.
Sec.27-2-70.Compatibility—Section 27-2-70 states:"The density,design and location of land uses within and adjoining
a PUD shall be designed to be compatible with other uses within and adjoining the PUD. Compatible uses shall be
determined by evaluating the general uses,building height,setback,offset,size,density,traffic,dust,noise,harmony,
character,common open space,screening,health,safety and welfare of the PUD in relation to surrounding uses."(Weld
County Code Ordinance 2003-10)
The proposed PUD would be located ¼mile north of existing 1-3 (Industrial)zoned land. The (Owens Illinois Bottling
Plant)and proposed uses(Vesta Wind Turbine plant)could adversely impact this proposed PUD. The proposed PUD
would not be compatible with these existing uses the character of existing and future surrounding uses as outlined under
adjacent comprehensive Plans and IGA's. As a result,the Department of Planning Services is recommending denial.
Scott Ballstadt,Town of Windsor, is also available for questions today.
Pam Smith is the Health Department representative and Jesse Hein is here from Public Works.
Chad Auer asked Mr. Gathman if the applicants had approached the Town of Windsor regarding annexation. Mr.
Gathman replied they had and deferred to the Town of Windsor for further explanation. Bruce Fitzgerald asked if the
County had a current IGA with the Town of Windsor. Mr.Gathman replied that the County does not. Tom Holton asked
where Owens Illinois was in relation to the applicant's property and if Willow Springs had two accesses. Mr.Gathman
said they have one access point and the rest is internal.
Dave Shoup, 1060 Milano Point, #1123, Colorado Springs CO, applicant's representative, said this was a nine lot
residential subdivision with access off Stagecoach Road. It is not adjacent to CR 23. CR 23 from the north comes down
and stops at Hwy 392 and then picks up farther to the west of their project and comes down the other side so CR 23
splits there,so the proposed subdivision is actually between the two pieces of CR 23. They have met and addressed the
SPO concerns and their opposition to the commercial lot,so it has been dropped from the plan. The 2.94 acres of open
space in Lot C that run along the ditch is an easement agreement with#2 Ditch Company for a trail easement,so Mr.
Shoup wondered why that was not classified as open space in their proposal. They are a little over a quarter acre short
of meeting open space requirements but feel they can make that up with the reduction in Lot C. They have met with
Windsor regarding annexation but contiguity prevents that. Mr.Shoup said there was a letter in the packet regarding the
outcome of their meeting with Windsor. There are no imminent plans for any development in the area. They have met
with Public Works who suggested the two access points and they recommended approval of the application as did the
Environmental Health Department.
Kent Bruxvoort, Engineer, QED Associates, 204 Walnut St., Fort Collins, CO said it was appropriate to consider the
broader neighborhood rather than just the property to the south, and that the property adjacent to the east and to the
west should also be considered when evaluating compatibility. Mr.Shoup added that they had met with Department of
Public Works,who recommended approval and suggested two access points for the nature and shape of the subdivision.
Pam Smith,Environmental Health Department,has recommended approval of the application as well. So the linchpin is
back to the annexation question with Windsor and Mr.Shoup said he feels they have exhausted that possibility at this
point.
Doug Ochsner asked for more detail about the agreement to share the road with the adjacent subdivision. Mr.Shoup
said they understood it was truly a private road,not a state highway or County road,and their HOA would draft language
and fee structure to aid in the repair and maintenance of that road if that time comes to pass. Mr.Ochsner then asked if
the current homeowners,that now own that road,would have their responsibilities change. Mr.Shoup said they would
change and get less for the current homeowners as the road responsibilities of the proposed subdivision increased. Mr.
Ochsner asked Mr.Shoup if they had had dialogue with the current owners in the subdivision and he replied they had not
7
specifically addressed that topic at this point,but had discussed it with some of them today during the short recess. Mr.
Ochsner asked Jesse Hein,Department of Public Works,about the agreement and internal road maintenance. Mr.Hein
said that CR 23(Stagecoach Road)is designated as an arterial road that will connect to CR 23 in the future. The internal
roads would remain private and be maintained by the HOA. Mr.Ochsner asked about what percentage of improvements
to CR 23 would be born by the PUD. Mr. Hein replied it would be up to the subdivision as they would be using that
roadway primarily as a secondary access point. Mr.Shoup said the improvement of the road would be born one hundred
per cent by their subdivision. Erich Ehrlich inquired if they had gone back to the Town of Windsor with the PUD since the
removed the banquet facility. Mr.Ehrlich also inquired about the September,2006 letters and if the application had eight
lots with the commercial lot,or when they went back to the Town of Windsor did it have nine lots. Mr.Shoup said they
had not gone back with the nine lot proposal,that there was not a possibility of annexation because it was not contiguous
to the Town of Windsor, and therefore did not feel the outcome with the Town of Windsor would change. Mr. Ehrlich
asked how the Town of Severance had responded and Mr.Shoup said there was no response from them as they were
not listed as a referral in the information they received from the County, or they would have asked them. Mr. Ehrlich
asked something that was inaudible. Mr.Shoup deferred to Mr.Gathman who said he had spoken to Amelia Tuttle and
that Severance held the same position as Windsor regarding annexation. Mr. Shoup said that was news to him. Mr.
Gathman responded that he had contacted her by phone.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Mark Olson,32570 Stagecoach Road,Willow Springs Subdivision:said he and other residents in the area did not want
an industrial area between the two subdivisions and would like to see it as a PUD with estate lots rather than light
industrial between the two subdivisions; was confident they could come to agreement on roads and drainage; also
requested the lighting in this subdivision have the same look and feel as the Willow Springs subdivision subdivision.
Chris Godlefsky,32791 Stagecoach Road,Willow Springs subdivision: said she would like clarification regarding the
access road on Highway 392 , because in talking with the County they were under the impression the repair,
maintenance, and signage of Stagecoach road was entirely that of the Willow Springs subdivision and if Public Works
would take over road maintenance if the new subdivision did not maintain and repair the road and if that is not the case;
how would it be handled regarding repair and maintenance cost distribution and would there be a legal document
outlining those responsibilities;issues regarding drainage and wants clarification on the plan and drain water mitigation.
Mr. Hein, Department of Public Works,said future plans call for CR 23 to go straight through at some point in time and
that was the basis for the eighty foot right of way,but to be privately maintained until then,at which point the County will
take over repair and maintenance. Once the County took over repair and maintenance of CR 23, the internal CR
23/Stagecoach Road would still be maintained by the subdivision homeowners. The only road we are talking about is
between the said properties.
Gary Castleman,32723 Stagecoach Road,agreed with the proposal as it was laid out and did not want Windsor to come
into the area with light industrial development;expressed concern about the Owens Illinois facility and how it has reduced
property values and was so poorly done that it would not even be acceptable in Beijing, China.
Scott Ballstadt, Senior Planner, Town of Windsor, 301 Walnut Street, Windsor, CO, said: the subject property was
located within the Town of Windsor's growth management area and was delineated as general and neighborhood
commercial and light industrial on the Town's land use map and was also located within the Town's east side industrial
sub area plan; the subject property was located within the cooperative planning area as depicted in the Town's IGA with
Severance who concurs with the Town of Windsor's recommendation;the proposed residential lots are inconsistent with
Windsor's commercial and industrial plans for the area; he had an agreement showing some of the existing and
proposed industrial uses in the area which he passed out to the Board;Windsor has been working with Weld County,
Upstate Colorado Economic Development and the Great Western Development Company to develop a new rail served
industrial park in the area;that development began with Owens-Illinois and would be served by Windsor infrastructure
and there is an agreement in place that the facility would be annexed to Windsor in the next year in return for the
infrastructure provided to them;following Owens-Illinois,came the Front Range Energy Ethanol Plant,soon to be joined
by Vestas Blades; Windsor recently approved a maintenance facility and water needs for Connell Resources in
unincorporated Weld County and they were told they would need to be annexed by Windsor in order to receive water
service and they may be exploring their options with Weld County;a nine lot subdivision is contrary to development goals
for the area given the number of industrial uses,both existing and proposed ;given the complaints they have received
from residents in the Willow Springs subdivision regarding industrial use in the area, it seems reasonable that adding
residents to existing adjacent industrial uses is not a logical extension;and based on these reasons,the Windsor town
board is also recommending denial of the application. Mr. Ballstadt added that the applicant did attend two Planning
Commission meetings with Windsor and they did have a meeting with staff regarding several questions they had. Mr.
Ballstadt said to date,Windsor has not received any formal request for application or petition of annexation to the Town
and they request the property be developed within Windsor.
Chad Auer asked Mr.Ballstadt if removing the commercial component was a substantial change. Mr.Ballstadt stated the
amended application was reviewed by the Planning Commission and there was no change from Windsor's original
8
referral comments. Mr.Auer asked what the process was for incorporating SPO input and if the Willow Springs residents
were included in that process. Mr.Ballstadt replied Windsor held several open houses conducted at various locations
with Willow Spring's residents and surrounding areas in attendance.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked when their Comprehensive Plan was redone and if the zoning for the property was also changed
within that time period. Mr.Ballstadt said it was changed within the last two years. Mr.Fitzgerald then asked if Windsor
were to receive a request from the applicant for annexation today,when could Windsor annex the property and could
they request a zoning change. Mr.Ballstadt responded that the process was fluid and could proceed quickly once the
owner submitted plans and the owner could ask for a zoning change. Mr.Fitzgerald said Windsor's recommendation,for
him, would be stronger if they had an IGA with Weld County and asked that Mr. Ballstadt relay to Windsor that their
position would be stronger if they had an IGA with Weld County. Mr. Ballstadt said Windsor has IGA's with Severance
and Larimer County.
Roy Spitzer asked if it were accurate they were trying to limit conflict between growth and development by focusing on
light industrial. Mr.Ballstadt said more residential developments could create conflicts with future industrial development.
Mr.Spitzer said this property lends itself to estate development due to the east and west developments,the shape of the
property seems to preclude industrial development from locating there,and wouldn't the applicant's development make
more sense.Mr.Ballstadt replied they would try to buffer/mitigate impacts on the existing property owners but to go out
and continue to rezone small residential subdivisions adjacent to what is planned as industrial and commercial
development seems contrary to the common goal to develop the Great Western Industrial Park. Mr.Spitzer asked how
flexible their Comprehensive Plan was,and could it accommodate this subdivision which was a unique parcel between
areas that are already developing as residential. Mr. Ballstadt said it would be based on the logic of the proposal. Mr.
Spitzer said the application makes sense to him to,based on the existing uses adjacent to the west and the east. Chad
Auer made comments regarding residential developments and industrial complaints that were inaudible.
Erich Ehrlich said he appreciated Windsor's participation in today's hearing and also asked that Mr.Ballstadt relate to his
Board the need for an IGA with Weld County. Mr. Ehrlich asked Mr. Ballstadt about the East Side Industrial Sub-area
plan boundaries and Mr. Ballstadt replied the boundary is an eighth of a mile either side of SH 392 and is projected as
commercial with light industrial projected further to the south. Mr. Ehrlich then said something else that was inaudible.
Mr. Ballstadt replied they would have the land use depiction in place and they would have to annex,go through zoning
and then proceed through the site plan process. Mr.Ehrlich then asked about a sewer line. Mr. Ballstadt replied that it
was currently serving the Owens-Illinois plant however that is a forced main with a lift station and is not something that
could be accessed by the applicant, however the proposed Vestas blades factory is south of and adjacent to Owens-
Illinois and they will be serviced by Windsor sewer. The new system would be a gravity system from that area down to
the property by the river.
Tom Holton asked several questions that were inaudible. Mr.Ballstadt said through the site plan process,they would do
whatever they could to mitigate any adjacent land uses. Paul Branham asked how long ago Willow Springs was
approved by Weld County. Mr. Ballstadt replied it was 1993. Tom Holton inquired about something regarding the
Comprehensive Plan with Severance and the IGA,and expressed concern that property owners will not have much say.
Mr.Ballstadt replied that the Windsor Planning Commission took into account surrounding property owner's comments
just as this Planning Commission does.
Dave Genay,32841 Stagecoach Road,Willow Springs resident:said he supports this application and would welcome
them as neighbors; said light industrial does not make sense in the area as it would be adjacent to residential on both
sides;and in his opinion it would be a travesty to approve it for light industrial,especially when you have someone who
wants to put the land to good use..
Mr.Shoup thanked Mr.Ballstadt,representing Windsor for attending and helping to make their case.Mr.Shoup said that
it makes no sense to put two residential areas on either side of a light industrial area and thanked the surrounding
property owners for their support today. He said the problem remains that Weld County has no IGA with Windsor and
that Weld County was their last hope. Mr. Shoup said the access road needs further clarification from Public Works.
Drainage was developed by QED Associates and deferred to Mr. Bruxvoort, who said they had prepared a couple of
drainage reports suitable for the stage the process is in;100 year flood would be detained at the historic five year level;
they would place a diversion ditch on the west side of the new road to remove surface drainage and redirect it to the
three or four acre tract at the southern edge of the property; in terms of groundwater, they will put appropriate notes
regarding high ground water levels and drainage on the plat for future home owners.
Mr. Holton asked why if the County and Windsor both require 2.5 acres for septic systems, why make a plan that will
allow something below those standards. Mr. Shoup said he understood two acres was allowed by the Environmental
Health Department. Pam Smith, Environmental Health Department, stated that the PUD meets minimum lot size
requirements for septic. Mr. Holton asked if internal roads would be paved. Mr. Ochsner asked if Public Works was
recommending street lights and did that require further discussion. Jesse Hein,Department of Public Works,said they
were requiring a stop sign at each entrance roadway but no street lights.
9
Mr. Ehrlich asked if future plans for Stagecoach Road to connect to CR 23 were based on future build out. Mr. Hein
replied plans for CR 23 to extend would be based on future development of properties to the south of the PUD.
Mr. Spitzer asked if the Planning Commission needed to address open space. Mr. Gathman said the applicant will
address this at final plat stage and no conditions are needed at this time.
Mr.Branham said he had looked at the site this morning and quite frankly was surprised that Windsor would have plans
for it to be a commercial/industrial site in the future and agreed it was a peninsula and this was the best use for the
property now and in the future.
Mr.Ochsner echoed Mr. Branham's comments and added this was a unique situation and they need to take each case
individually rather than just draw a line on a map. The applicant has proven compatibility with the surrounding area,this
is a good quality application and he would support it.
Mr. Fitzgerald said this was a classic conflict between a city and County and the argument should have been with
Windsor when they did their Comprehensive Plan. Mr.Fitzgerald supported the request but wants cities to control their
growth and said the Planning Commission was brought into an area that Windsor should have controlled.
Mr.Auer agreed with Mr.Fitzgerald regarding the County approving residential and Windsor approving light industrial.
The lack of an IGA goes both ways and certainly there are different perspectives and if the application moves forward it
still does not alleviate coming situations and an IGA with Windsor would certainly be a benefit.
Mr. Ochsner added this was a perfect example why they have Boards and that system works much better. He did not
feel IGA's were the answer because they give 100 percent complete power to either the County or the Town or whatever
the entity in the IGA. He said he was satisfied with the way the system is working and not be so concerned with the
IGA's.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that Case PZ-1120, 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. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
r
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul Branham,yes;
Erich Ehrlich,yes;Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;Tom Holton,yes;Mark Lawley,yes;Roy Spitzer,yes;James Welch,yes;Doug
Ochsner,yes; Chad Auer,yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Paul Branham commented that our motion is in conflict with the recommendation of the Planning Department and
cited Chapter 27 of the Code, Section 27-2-70 regarding compatibility as the reason for his vote to approve the
application.
• Erich Ehrlich cited Section 27-6-120.6.C.
Bruce Fitzgerald cited compatibility with the existing or future development of the surrounding area.
Tom Holton cited Section 22-1-120 and Section 23-2-220 and added this Board was here to protect the rights of
individuals that live within the County. Citizens that live within other municipalities already have those options.
People that live within the County often do not and he thinks it is the job of the Board to protect the rights of the
citizens.
Mark Lawley said the use was compatibility with the surrounding area,that he appreciated Windsor's concerns and
involvement but this was a unique situation and believed it was compatible.
Roy Spitzer cited compatibility with the existing or future development of the surrounding area.
James Welch cited compatibility with the existing or future development of the surrounding area.
Doug Ochsner cited compatibility with the existing or future development of the surrounding area,specifically UGB
Policy 3.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.2,and 3.1.3. Mr. Ochsner also said the applicant had made their case because Windsor has
said they will not annex the property. He added it may be the municipality's Comprehensive Plan that is not
compatible with the surrounding area as proven in Section 27-6-120 6.C. and therefore all three policies or
guidelines have been met.
Chad Auer cited compatibility with the existing or future development of the surrounding area, more specifically
Section 27-2-70.
10
Meeting adjourned at 4:02 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Donita y
Secretary
11
4-3 - 2cO 7
and catering)in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: 1/2 mile north of State Hwy 14;west of and adjacent to CR 17.
Chris Gathman stated that he received a verbal confirmation from the applicant that they wish to withdraw the
case, however he has not received a written request to do so,therefore staff would request that this case be
continued until April 17, 2007.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that Case USR-1601 be continued until the April 17, 2007 meeting, Tom Holton
seconded the motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
CONTINUED ITEMS
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1120
APPLICANT: Willard & Linda Owens
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-3479; located in part E2NE4 of Section 23,T6N, R67W of
the 6th P.M.,Weld County,Colorado.
REQUEST: A Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to PUD.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 23 and south of and adjacent to SH 392.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services,requested that this case be continued two weeks until April
17, 2007. The applicants have modified their application from eight (8) residential lots with a Commercial
parcel to nine(9)residential lots. Staff has sent out amended referrals to referral agencies and also amended
notices to surrounding property owners and are just waiting to get responses back.
Paul Branham moved that Case PZ-1120 be continued until April 17,2007 so that it can be re-advertised,Tom
Holten seconded the motion. Motion carried.
CONSENT ITEMS
CASE NUMBER: USR-1602
APPLICANT: Cockroft Dairy LLC
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of AmRE-178; Section 11,T6N, R64W of the 6th P.M.,Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for an
Agricultural Service Establishment primarily engaged in performing
agriculture,animal husbandry,or horticultural service on a fee or
contract basis including Livestock Confinement Operations (a dairy
operation for a total of 4500 cattle including milking cow and dry cows)
in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 72;west of and adjacent to CR 59; north
of and adjacent to CR 70 and east of and adjacent to CR 57.
Chris Gathman requested that this case be pulled from the Consent Agenda. The applicant has a letter they
would like to present to the board in regard to some potential changes to conditions of approval and
development standards.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that USR-1602 be pulled from the Consent Agenda, seconded by Doug Ochsner.
Motion carried.
2
Hello