HomeMy WebLinkAbout20071637.tiff HEARING CERTIFICATION
DOCKET NO. 2007-38
RE: CHANGE OF ZONE, PZ#1116, FROM THE A(AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT TO
THE PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) ZONE DISTRICT FOR THREE (3) LOTS
WITH E (ESTATE)ZONE USES, WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT TWO (2) CATTLE PER
ACRE BE ALLOWED -A BETTER JOB, INC.
A public hearing was conducted on May 30, 2007, at 10:00 a.m., with the following present:
Commissioner David E. Long, Chair- EXCUSED
Commissioner William H. Jerke, Pro-Tem
Commissioner William F. Garcia
Commissioner Robert D. Masden - EXCUSED
Commissioner Douglas Rademacher
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Esther Gesick
County Attorney, Bruce Barker
Planning Department representative, Jacqueline Hatch
Health Department representative, Pam Smith
Public Works representative, Jesse Hein
The following business was transacted:
I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated May 4,2007,and duly published May 9,2007, in the
Fort Lupton Press,a public hearing was conducted to consider the requestofA BetterJob, Inc.,for
a Change of Zone, PZ #1116, from the A (Agricultural) Zone District to the PUD (Planned Unit
Development) Zone District for three (3) lots with E (Estate) Zone uses, with the exception that
two(2)cattle per acre be allowed. Bruce Barker,County Attorney,made this a matter of record and
advised the applicant that they have the option of continuing this matter to a date when the full Board
will be present. However, if they decide to proceed today, it will require three affirmative votes, or
in the case of a tie vote, Commissioners Long and Masden will listen to the record and make the
determining vote. The applicant's representatives,Troy and Angela Hauer,indicated they would like
to proceed today.
Jacqueline Hatch,Department of Planning Services,presented a brief summary of the proposal and
entered the favorable recommendation of the Planning Commission into the record as written. She
stated the applicants are proposing a low-density,three-lot PUD on 24.7 acres,with a minimum lot
size of 6.719 acres. Ms. Hatch stated a majority of the site is within the one hundred (100)year
floodplain, building and septic envelopes shall be delineated on the plat, and a Flood Hazard
Development Permit will be required prior to issuance of any building permit. She reviewed the
surrounding land uses,and stated the site will be serviced by the North Weld County Water District
and septic systems. She stated Lone Tree Estates is not considered an urban scale development
and does not require,or propose,any open space. She further stated 15 referral agencies reviewed
the proposal,two offered no comment, and nine responded favorably or provided comments that
have been addressed in the Conditions of Approval. She stated no response or correspondence
has been received from the Army Corp of Engineers, Spring Creek Ditch Company, North Weld
County Water District, Eaton Fire Protection District, or surrounding property owners. Ms. Hatch
2007-1637
Cr,. ), PGJ }P�L1895
v / -05--0-7
HEARING CERTIFICATION -A BETTER JOB, INC. (PZ #1116)
PAGE 2
stated the applicant is requesting an Administrative Review of the Final Plan, and she displayed
photographs of the site and surrounding properties.
Pam Smith, Department of Public Health and Environment, stated the proposal is for a three-lot
PUD, with lots ranging from 6.7 to 8.8 acres in size, and all of Lot 2 is currently in the floodplain.
Ms. Smith explained septic systems are allowed in the floodplain, but not in the floodway. She
stated since the floodway boundary has not been determined, staff must revert to the floodplain
boundary and designate Lott as unbuildable until a floodway boundary determination is made. She
stated there are small areas on Lots 1 and 3 that are out of the floodplain which are suitable for
septic systems, and there are Conditions of Approval and notes to be placed on the plat that will
advise future buyers of the restrictions.
Jesse Hein, Department of Public Works, stated the site will be accessed from County Road 43,
which is a collector status road,and the applicant has shown the additional 10 feet of right-of-way
needed for the 80-foot cross section of right-of-way. He stated the internal road will be paved,with
two twelve-foot lanes and four-foot gravel shoulders,and it will be privately maintained at the time
of Final Plan. (Changed to Tape #2007-16). He stated because a majority of the site is in the
floodplain,the applicant is requesting a variance for on-site drainage requirements. He stated staff
is agreeable to the request because water cannot be detained in a floodplain. Mr. Hein stated the
applicant is proposing some improvements,which are addressed in Condition of Approval#2.U.
In response to Commissioner Garcia, Mr. Hein stated the cul-de-sac is adequate for school buses,
and it is only 200 feet from the center of the roadway to the center of the cul-de-sac.
In response to Commissioner Jerke, Brian Varrella, Department of Public Works, stated staff has
been working with the applicant's engineer, since a majority of the site is within the 100-year
floodplain as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA). Mr. Varella
stated he is working to assist the applicant in finding a viable way to place a building envelope or go
through a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR)process,which allows them to propose changes to the
existing map approved by FEMA. He stated if the applicant is unwilling or unable to complete a
LOMR, staff must enforce the current floodplain boundary and restrict septic use on Lot 2.
Angela Hauer represented the applicant and stated they recognize the problems with the floodplain.
She stated there are two lots with areas that have areas outside the floodplain,and they would like
to proceed with building on those lots while they are pursuing the LOMR. She stated their engineer
has done extensive research to show that the lots are not in the floodplain and any future structures
would not obstruct any flow. She further stated they are confident that Lot 2 does have an area that
will be removed from the floodplain.
Troy Hauer represented the applicant and stated they live one mile east of the subject site,and he
is confident a portion of Lot 2 will be removed from the floodplain to allow for a septic system. In
response to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Hauer stated they have resolved the issue of fire flow
by proposing fire sprinkler systems for the houses, which has been approved by the Eaton Fire
Protection District. In response to CommissionerJerke,Mr.Barker stated the Board should not be
creating non-buildable lots;however,in this case,a Condition of Approval could be added requiring
the applicant to submit a LOMR prior to recording the plat,or include a note on the plat stating Lot 2
is unbuildable. Responding to Commissioner Jerke, Ms. Hauer stated the LOMR will be for the
entire site, but it is their understanding that they are not required to do LOMR, since building is
2007-1637
PL1895
HEARING CERTIFICATION -A BETTER JOB, INC. (PZ #1116)
PAGE 3
allowed in the floodplain. Mr.Varela stated FEMA has not designated a floodway on this portion of
Lone Tree Creek,and he read the definition of a floodway from Section 23-1-90 of the Weld County
Code. He explained a floodway is the area of fastest water and deepest depth,and considered the
area of highest hazzard to human life and property. He stated a floodway is designated as a
no-build zone because it is considered the primary course of water during a one hundred(100)year
storm event. He further stated there is no floodway designated on the map;however,any creek of
this size always has a floodway, which is a calculated political boundary. Mr. Varela stated the
applicant's engineer is working to complete a detailed hydraulic and hydrologic analysis to show
where the floodway should be had it been identified by FEMA when the initial floodplain identification
was made back in the late 1960's or early 1970's for this portion of Lone Tree Creek. He stated
FEMA does allow construction in the floodplain,and if anyone proposes construction in a floodplain,
the Department of Public Works requires that they show the site to be reasonably safe from flooding
and not in the floodway, and they must submit responses from the neighbors indicating they
recognize there may be impacts to their site as a result of construction on the neighboring site.
Responding to Commissioner Rademacher,Mr.Varrella stated the floodplain does allow for septic
systems. Ms.Smith reiterated this area does not have a floodway designation,therefore,staff must
revert to enforcing the floodplain boundary. In response to Com missioner Jerke, Mr.Barker stated
Conditions of Approval#1.R.3 and#1.R.4 state the septic and building envelopes must be out of the
floodplain for all three lots. Ms. Hauer stated Lots 1 and 3 have building and septic envelopes out
of the floodplain. Mr. Barker stated it will be to the applicant's benefit to obtain the LOMR to allow
for larger septic and building envelopes on each of the lots. Ms. Hauer stated they have done
extensive hydrology studies showing the amount of change. Mr. Varrella stated the preliminary
Drainage Report findings show that there will be less than three-hundredths of a foot or less, and
staff considers that a very minimal impact and does not require input from adjacent or impacted
neighbors. He further stated the report shows a maximum rise of.03 feet,which is a fraction of an
inch, and that is based on a one hundred (100) year storm event. In response to Mr. Barker,
Mr. Varrella stated the three items of criteria are part of the Flood Hazard Development Permit
(FHDP)process, which is done administratively by the Department of Public Works. Mr. Barker
questioned whether the FHDP is a requirement of the applicant,or if it will become the responsibility
of the future purchasers. Mr. Hauer stated the three conditions have already been met by the
applicant's preliminary study of the site. Responding to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Barker
stated the FHDP needs to be tied to the recording of the plat,and the Board may want to consider
allowing some flexibilityto allow for the sale of some of the lots while others are pending. Ms. Hauer
stated they are agreeable to a note on the plat stating portions of the lots are in the floodplain;
however,they want to record the plat and start building on two of the lots while they are waiting on
the LOMR. Responding to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Varrella stated the study is almost
complete; however, FEMA reserves 90 days to review and comment,and then another 90 days to
respond, therefore, it will take at least six months to receive a determination on the LOMR.
Responding to Commissioner Garcia regarding Condition of Approval#4.H, Ms. Hatch stated all
three lots will be owned by private parties, and although the School District intends to pick the
children up on the road,the Condition does allow the option of providing a bus pickup shelter. She
stated the current plat does not show any open space. Ms. Hauer stated when they started the
process,the Department of Public Works informed them the interior road would need to be paved,
so they assumed it would be publically maintained;however,they would prefer to have a gravel road
privately maintained by the Homeowners'Association. Responding to Commissioner Rademacher,
Mr.Hein stated the Code requires paving within a Planned Unit Development;however,the applicant
2007-1637
PL1895
HEARING CERTIFICATION -A BETTER JOB, INC. (PZ #1116)
PAGE 4
can request a waiver from the Board. Ms. Hauer stated they will pave the road if required;however,
they would prefer to have a gravel road with private maintenance. Mr. Hein stated Conditions of
Approval #4.N, #4.O, and #4.P reference the pavement design and roadway plans.
No public testimony was offered concerning this matter. Com m issioner Jerke commented he would
prefer to allow a gravel roadway and delete Condition of Approval#4.O. Mr.Barker stated the FHDP
is specific to the building to be constructed; however, the applicant does not know what the buyer
is going to put on the lot. He stated Conditions of Approval#2.X,#2.Y,and#2.Z reference the FHDP
as notes on the plat to put the buyer on notice;however,if that is going to shift to the applicant,they
must know what type of building will be built. He stated it would be best to make the submittal of the
LOMR and payment of applicable fees a Condition Prior to Recording the Plat. He suggested the
addition of a new Condition of Approval#1.R to state,"The applicant shall provide evidence of the
submittal of an application of a CLORM/LOMR Permit and payment of applicable fees to FEMA."He
stated that is fair to both the applicant and the buyer to protect all parties involved and will hopefully
result in more room on the plat to allow additional building options. The Board concurred. In
response to Commissioner Rademacher, Ms. Hauer stated the bus shelter is not a requirement,
although it is an option. Com m issionerJerke suggested modifying Condition of Approval#4.H from
"shall" to "may" to allow options. Ms. Hauer clarified the proposed language for Condition of
Approval#1.R requires them to submit the LOMR application,not get a determination. Mr.Varrella
clarified the engineer's study designates both the floodplain and the floodway. Ms. Hauer stated
even if the LOMR does not change the floodplain,they would still be able to get a FHDP for the lots
to build a septic system within the floodplain. Ms. Smith stated once staff has a set determination
for the floodway,they can then determine appropriate placement for the septic system envelopes.
In response to CommissionerJerke, Ms. Hauer stated their engineer is Drexel Berel and Company.
Ms. Hatch stated Conditions of Approval #1.R.3 and #1.R.4 need to be relocated since the new
language only requires evidence of submittal for a LOMR prior to recording. Commissioner
Rademacher stated the current placement contradicts and prohibits placement within the floodplain.
Commissioner Jerke suggested changing "floodplain" to "floodway." Mr. Barker proposed
eliminating Conditions of Approval #1.R.3 and #1.R.4 since the issue is already addressed by
Conditions #2.X, #2,Y, and #2.Z.
In response to Commissioner Jerke,the applicants indicated they have reviewed,and concur with,
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards, as proposed and modified.
Commissioner Garcia moved to approve the request of A Better Job, Inc. for Change of Zone,
PZ#1116, from the A(Agricultural)Zone District to the PUD (Planned Unit Development)Zone
District for three(3)lots with E(Estate)Zone uses,with the exception that two(2)cattle per acre
be allowed, based on the recommendations of the Planning staff and the Planning Commission,
with the Conditions of Approval as entered into the record. His motion included adding Condition
of Approval#1.R,deleting Conditions#1.R.3 and#1.R.4, modifying Condition#4.H to replace the
word "shall" with "may," deleting Condition #4.O, relettering as appropriate, and allowing an
Administrative Review of the Final Plan. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Rademacher,
and it carried unanimously.
There being no further discussion, the hearing was completed at 11:45 a.m.
2007-1637
PL1895
HEARING CERTIFICATION -A BETTER JOB, INC. (PZ#1116)
PAGE 5
This Certification was approved on the 4th day of June 2007.
APPROVED:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST: L L% XCUSED
�, „',r; avid E. Long, Chair
Weld County Clerk to the 'a . ( 5,110 r
{ � )
iii
am H - o-Te
BY: iAJ �'i►1A L\1S:�D:
William F.Garcia
TAPE#2007-15 and 16 EXCUSED
Robert D. Masden
DOCKET#2007-38
Douglas ademac�h
2007-1637
PL1895
EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET
Case PZ#1116 -A BETTER JOB, INC.
Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description
A. Planning Staff Inventory of Items Submitted
B. Planning Commission Resolution of Recommendation
C. Planning Commission Summary of Hearing (Minutes 03/06/2007
and 04/03/2007)
D. Clerk to the Board Notice of Hearing
E. Planning Staff Certification and Photo of sign posting
F.
G.
H.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
O.
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
U.
V.
N
O
N
a
a o
t '' c
� ? � / ` �'
0 e.....)
�� V tIN• V ,��
o - 14; i `n ^� \ 3.\. —I
M-
L el v 1 --�- a
w a \ 3k � z
z N J Q m U 6 n 4 �, V'' l
cc } N v 3CLa s � r
W : � -'(1 one
Z a G W m 22 \ J -` ,- )` it
wO
H >- LLW C y 3 \ .\ � 1 � O t
Q = YZO c re Z `kii r. N.,-) Ill
� a � a. � N N
V J a r� J a N do, N....- -
0
O — c - to 3 3 � `� NN
= KZ m
r Ord c
N O re T
.I ILL, C r ` "�
o mam cS i- o
a m a m I-Cto Y il, i, -.-LIJ Lc n2
a `
Co0 \ J
0 lt * N N 1 1 S �` o
Z W W N W \ at Z �(J
Q OO W Q it\,,, 4- �
Hello