HomeMy WebLinkAbout20060987.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, March 7, 2006
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2006,in the Weld County Department
of Planning Services, Hearing Room,918 10th Street,Greeley,Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Michael
Miller, at p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Erich Ehrlich Absent
Roy Spitzer
James Welch
Bruce Fitzgerald Absent
Chad Auer Absent
Doug Ochsner
Tom Holton
Paul Branham
Also Present: Sheri Lockman, Chris Gathman,Jacqueline Hatch, Kim Ogle, Brad Mueller, Don Carroll, Pam Smith,
Trevor Jiricek, Jesse Hein, Peter Schei
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on, February 21,2006,was
approved as read.
Item to be withdrawn:
CASE NUMBER: SD-06-001
APPLICANT: Melody Homes
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcels of land described as the easterly 120 acres of the NE4 and part of the SE4
(68.579 acres more or less)of Section 33 and part of the SW4(111.102 acres more or
less)of Section 34,T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Request for a Service Plan for a Metropolitan District(Adler Estates).
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 28 and east and west of and adjacent to CR 7.
Mr. Miller asked if there any objections from Planning Commission in him being chair for today.
The following items will be continued:
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1082
APPLICANT: Kiteley Farms, LLLP
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-843; Pt NW4 of Section 27, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agriculture)to PUD (Planned Unit Development)for
429 residential lots, open space and continuing oil and gas production (Kiteley
Ranch at Foster Lake)
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Highway 66 and east of and adjacent to CR 7.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services read a letter requesting a continuance to April 18, 2006 for
additional time for referral agency comments.
Doug Ochsner moved to continue the case to April 18, 2006. Tom Holton seconded. Motion carried.
The following items are on the Consent Agenda:
CASE NUMBER: 3r°AmUSR-552
APPLICANT: Duke Energy
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-614 (located in part of the W2SE4) and a portion of a strip
1
d ein c.J- G1,dG y- 3-ZCG(O
00�� 2006-0987
of land 150 feet wide located in part of the W2SE4 of Section 28, T6N, R65W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Amended Special Review Permit for a
mineral resource development facility including a natural gas processing facility
in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: 1/4 mile west of CR 47 and approximately 1/2 mile north of CR 64.
Doug Ochsner moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Roy Spitzer seconded. Motion carried.
The following items will be Heard:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1534
APPLICANT: Duke Energy Field Services
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part N2N2SW4 of Section 29, T5N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a mineral
resource development facility including an oil and gas support and service facility
(gas processing facility) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Two Rivers Parkway and approximately'A mile north of
49th Street.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1534, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the application
along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. The applicant is proposing three Conditions
of Approval. The first one would be located in Prior to Scheduling, item 1 B and it will state"The applicant shall
submit a lighting plan to the Weld County Department of Planning Services for review by the Department of
Planning Services. Item 5 B shall be inserted with the following language"The applicant shall install a hospital
muffler on the facility." Add Development Standard #18 to state"The facility shall be limited to a total of one
compressor engine."
Tim Clancy, representative for the applicant, indicated they have addressed the concerns that were brought
forward by the neighbor at the previous meeting.
Michael Miller asked if they were replacing an existing compressor. Mr. Clancy stated this site did not have an
original USR so they are attempting to come into compliance. The compressor has been used intermittently.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one
wished to speak.
Doug Ochsner moved to accept the Conditions of Approval requested by staff. Tom Holton seconded. Motion
carried.
Tim Clancy indicated the applicant accepts the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval.
Paul Branham moved that Case USR-1534, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval.
Doug Ochsner seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer,yes;
James Welch, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1543
APPLICANT: Cozy Cow Dairy LLC
PLANNER: Brad Mueller
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part NE4 of Section 8, T5N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan &Special Review Permit for a Guest Farm
(educational programming, restaurant, gift shop) located in the A(Agricultural)
Zone District
LOCATION: West of and immediately adjacent to CR 17, one-half mile north of Highway 34
Brad Mueller, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1543, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the application
2
along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Staff recommend the following modifications:
delete 1.B, modify 2.F& 2.G to state"attempt to address" and modify H.5 to refer to the court case number
instead of the recording number.
Trevor Jiricek, Weld County Department of Health, suggested modifying Development Standard#9 to state"The
facility shall maintain compliance with the Animal Feeding Operation Control Regulations (5-CCR-1002-81)
Lauren Light, representative for the applicant, presented additional information regarding the proposal. The site
is for an agricultural educational facility that will have tours for the public. This facility will include the making of
the product from beginning to end. The retail sales will be in the future. The site will also include a small petting
zoo. The intent of the proposal is to provide a facility for kids and adults. The tours will take approximately an
hour. The facility expects to generally have one bus on site with the forty children. Eight buses per day could be
320 children a day on site. This number does not reflect the equivalent amount of cars. The number of people
will consist of more children, not forty cars. There will not be anything noticeably different on site. The septic
system has been reviewed for maximum capacity and it will handle 322 people. The applicant suggests changing
Development Standard #4 to reflect five employees and 317 visitors or change to capacity of the septic system.
Additional parking can be done in the back if more is needed.
Doug Ochsner asked about the number of cattle onsite and if the facility was designed for this. Ms. Light
indicated there were approximately 90 on site and the facility is designed to accommodate 200 head. Mr.
Ochsner asked if the Town of Windsor had been referred to. Ms. Light stated they had spoken with them and a
Condition of Approval has been added to address their concerns.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one
wished to speak.
Doug Ochsner moved to accept staff changes listed above, 16,2F&G, H5, Development Standard#9. Tom Holton
seconded. Motion carried.
Trevor Jiricek asked for clarification on the engineer's review of the septic system. Ms. Light indicated there is a
condition in prior to recording that an engineer should review and this has already been done. Ms. Light added they
could give a copy of the report to Public Health. The applicant wanted the Planning Commission to know that the
number was not four hundred. The applicant would rather lower the numbers adverse to put money into the system.
Mr. Jiricek stated his only concern was that the report may not always coincide with the regulations and there may
need to be some negotiations for the report. Ms. Light stated a Conditions of Approval could be added to Prior to
Scheduling.
Brad Mueller suggested moving Conditions of Approval 2.B to Prior to Scheduling 1.B,and Development Standard#4
would remain the same and the Board of County Commissioners could address.
Tom Holton moved to accept the proceeding recommendations. Roy Spitzer seconded. Motion carried.
Lauren Light agrees with the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval.
Don Carroll would like to have the overflow parking identified on the plat.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case USR-1543, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval.
Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer,yes;
James Welch, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Tom Holton, yes, Doug Ochsner, yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
Doug Ochsner commented this is a great proposal and he is excited to have something like this in the county.
CASE NUMBER: 3AmUSR-842
APPLICANT: Tire Recycling Inc.
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots A& B of RE-1367; Pt S2N2SE4; the S2S2SE4, and N2S2SE4 of Section
32, T3N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: 3r°Amended Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
3
solid waste disposal site and facility(commercial junkyard and salvage yard
including tire landfill, storage, shredding and recycling facility), heavy
manufacturing- processing facility(cryogenic processing-crumb rubber)and a
mobile home for housing in the 1-3 Zone District
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 41 and approximately 1 mile south of CR 28.
Jacqueline Hatch,Department of Planning Services presented Case 3AmUSR-842,reading the recommendation and
comments into the record.The Department of Planning Services is requesting this case be continued till March 21,
2006 to allow for comments to be received from both the State of Colorado and the Weld County Department of
Public Health and Environment. On December 9,2005 this case was sent out to the referral agencies including in the
request the amendment to the Certificate of Designation on the site. Per a phone conversation on February 27,2006
with the State of Colorado Department of Public health and Environment it was determined that the Certificate of
Designation does not need to be amended and is not required for this facility since it is a recycling facility. The State
has been working with weld county department of public health and environment staff and the applicant to address
other issues that will need to be addressed through the Use by Special Review process but no official documentation
or referral has been received at this time.Staff is requesting this case be continued till March 21,2006 to allow for the
referral agencies to respond.
Trevor Jiricek, Department of Public Health and Environment, stated staff has proceeded with the understanding
the CD would need to be amended. In the end it was deemed not necessary therefore, there is no referral from
the Department of Public Health and Environment. The Department of Public Health and Environment was
waiting for a referral from the state. With the State just determining that the CD was not required this did not give
the Department of Public Health and Environment time to respond. Mr. Jiricek stated the applicant's
representative directed staff to the amended CD process. There has been some additional information
requested from the applicant that will expedite the referral even more.
Bruce Barker indicated Planning Commission should hear from the applicant regarding this request.
Dwain Immel, applicant, provided some clarification on the application. There has been some confusion on the
application process. The applicant began this process by simply believing they needed a building permit since
recycling was a part of the approved use. The business is used to dispose tires but they also want to be able to
recycle those tires into useable products. Their main purpose in the business is to recycle the tires and the State
has encouraged them to do so. The existing USR indicates the site is set for the collection and recycling. The
applicant believed the only thing needed was a building permit for recycling facility. The process is to shred a tire
into smaller chips then those chips are ground down further into smaller chips. The larger chips are frozen with
liquid nitrogen then it is dropped through a screen into a smaller size. The screens vary in size which determines
the size of the crumb rubber. The applicant has signed a long term contract for field turf which uses the crumb
rubber.
The applicant is now aware that he does not need to amend the existing CD since the use is already permitted
under state statute and allowed in the existing CD. The applicant is willing to go forward and explain the situation
to the Board of County Commissioners so there is no confusion as to the intent of the applicant and the
operation. The applicant believes the existing zoning allows for this use. The applicant wants this placed on the
record as the intent for recycling so there is no additional confusion at a later date. The applicant would like to
get approval to install the equipment needed within the building and not delay the process any further. The
applicant has signed a contract for crumb rubber to begin delivery in May so they would like to get the equipment
installed so it is ready once final approval is given by the Board of County Commissioners. The applicant
understands of the possible risks this imposes but states this form of production is extremely low impact.
Michael Miller asked Ms. Hatch if this was previously permitted for recycling then why the need to amend the
USR. Ms. Hatch stated staff determined that this was a significant change due to the addition of the liquid
nitrogen and being a 24/7 operation. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Barker about the option with regards to getting into
production with a contingent permit with the knowledge that the application could be denied. Mr. Barker stated
the Board of County Commissioners could determine this. They would also need some assurance that if the
application was denied there would be a time frame for removal of the equipment. Planning Commission needs
to determine whether they would like to continue with no comments from the Department of Public Health and
Environment. Mr. Miller stated he believes the board needs the referral and if this was permitted for recycling
then there is no need to go through the process. This seems to be back tracking to cover the lack of specifics in
the original permit. Mr. Barker stated that the issue of rather this was a change is something that could have
been appealed through the Board of Adjustment. This is the way the proposal has been presented and what the
Planning Commission must address. Mr. Miller stated that they would have the opportunity to apply for a
conditional building permit. Mr. Barker stated that would depend on the assurances the applicant can give should
it be denied. All the factors will be considered by the Board of County Commissioners.
4
Doug Ochsner asked what is best for applicant so he can proceed. Ms. Hatch stated that Planning Commission
has the option to decide. There are a few options; one being hear the case without the Department of Public
Health and Environment referral, recommend denial, recommend approval or continue the case. Mr. Jiricek
added that with the elimination of the need to amend the CD and not needing the State referral has sped the
process up immensely. The referral from the State would not have been done for at least a month if a CD would
have needed to be amended.
Michael Miller stated he is not comfortable with no referral from Department of Public Health and Environment.
Paul Branham indicated he agrees with the need for the referral. It seems that the time frame would be the best
for the applicant should this be continued for two weeks.
Dwain Immel, applicant, added that the continuance to March 21, 2006 is not a concern. The applicant would like
to go forward, at their own risk, and install the equipment. Mr. Miller stated the Board of County Commissioners
can give that approval the Planning Commission cannot.
Trevor Jiricek added that the case could be heard today and get a recommendation for denial and still be heard
before the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Barker indicated this was correct but the Planning Commission
needs to provide a complete recommendation and they cannot do this without the referral from Department of
Public Health and Environment. The applicant can request a pre-ad which will speed up the process. Mr. Immel
stated they have a building permit and he would like to know if they can put the equipment in the building and not
operate. Mr. Barker stated that the Department of Planning Services could determine this.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one
wished to speak.
Paul Branham moved to continue the case to March 21, 2006. Roy Spitzer seconded. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1094
APPLICANT: Ed Orr
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: W2NE4 lying south of Greeley Canal No. 2 in Section 24, T6N, R66W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agriculture)to PUD for nine residential lots with E
(Estate) uses along with continuing oil & gas production and 32.23 acres of open
space
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Highway 392 and 1/4 mile west of CR 37.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1540, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of the application. Staff
recommends that the following conditions be added as Conditions of Approval (and subsequently renumber
remaining conditions):
Item 1.B: The applicant shall submit an agreement with the Van Gorham Ditch Company or provide written
evidence that an adequate attempt has been made to address their concerns. (Department of Planning Services)
Item 1.D (to replace existing condition 1.D): The applicant has indicated that additional water for fire suppression
shall be provided by a proposed well. The applicant shall provide written evidence to the Department of Planning
Services regarding the proposed well (location, water supply needs)to the Department of Planning Services to
forward to the State of Colorado, Division of Water for their review. Division of Water Resources comments
regarding the review of the proposed fire well shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services. (State of
Colorado, Division of Water Resources, Department of Planning Services)
Remove Item 1.E—The applicants are proposing to pipe water from the Graham Seepage and Van Gorham
Ditches off of the property to the east of the retention pond. Therefore a potential amendment to the
augmentation plan would not be necessary.
Chris Gathman indicated that the proposed pond will be developed regardless of this application. The applicant
has an agreement with Cache La Poudre for the water. There will be an underground pipe for the irrigation
ditches on site that will carry water through the site. There are drill windows on site and there may be wells that
have been capped. This would cause problems with setbacks. The staff is recommending lot one be modified to
5
adjust to the wells in the area. The applicant shows lot one as less than 2.5 acres so this will need a variance.
Mr. Gathman added that the applicant may have reached an agreement with the Van Gorham Ditch Company so
this condition may be removed.
Michael Miller asked about the concern with mineral notification and that possible problem. Mr. Gathman stated
that he would defer this to Clayton Harrison from Noble Energy and also William Crews from Crews and Zeren for,
the applicant.
Clayton Harrison, Noble Energy, provided their concerns. They want to protest the development. They have a
leasehold interest on the minerals but do not presently have drilling locations on site. Mr. Miller stated he wants
to address the possible notification errors. Mr. Harrison stated it was his understanding that notification was sent
to Noble Energy but to no other interest. They are a minor interest in the property. Mr. Miller asked if there was
written evidence of the other mineral interest. Mr. Harrison stated he does not have a complete list and the office
is the one that notified him of the lack of notification.
William Crews, preparer of the mineral list for the applicant, provided clarification on the mineral list in the
application. Mr. Crews indicated that Noble Energy is a leasehold owner even though the applicant believes that
Noble has breached the conditions of the lease due to no development over a long period of time and there is
litigation in the process as to the validity of the oil and gas lease that covers this area. The notice was provided to
Noble as the recorded operator on the property. Noble Energy has been designated as the representative.
Noble would be appearing on all that are subject to the agreement. The applicant notified Noble and they were
responsible to notify them. Noble has been assigned the operating rights. There are three abandoned wells and
one un-drilled location. Mr. Barker stated this testimony was adequate to certify the certification of the list of
owners. Mr. Crews stated they are contending the lease.
Doug Ochsner asked Mr. Gathman about the redesigning of lot one and the need for a variance if under 2.5
acres. Mr. Gathman stated they can request the variance through this PUD process and it will need to be called
out before the plat is recorded. Mr. Ochsner asked if this was due to it being an urban scale development, in the
PUD section the minimal lot size can be 1 ac with a gross density of 2.5 acres. Mr. Gathman stated PUD is
typically tied back to the zoning code. They can go below the minimum size of 2.5 acres in the Estate Zone
District but it needs to be called out.
Tom Holton asked what the gross overall density of the site was. Mr. Gathman stated it was approximately one
lot per 7.3 acres.
Robb Casseday, representative for the applicant, provided additional information. The applicant believes they
have addressed all the issues of concern for staff. The drill window on the corner section is not the fifth window
site; it is on the east side of the site at approximately the center. The recharge lagoon that is planned will be
done regardless of this proposal. The applicant has an agreement with Cache La Poudre which will be added to
the record. There is a letter of intent from the Van Gorham ditch company president that states negotiations are
under way and the relocation of the pipe is agreeable. The final papers will be done prior to the final plat. Mr.
Casseday continued on by addressing each of the Conditions of Approval staff is requesting to be added and
exist. Mr. Casseday stated there is a letter just entered into the record addresses the first revision of staff. The
applicant has addressed the Duke Energy pipeline by aligning the property lines and will leave it as a utility
easement throughout the site. With this being addressed on the plat it could be removed as a condition. The
requirement for the well being used for fire flow has been addressed. The applicant would like this removed due
to them being able to utilize three different options. They can both upgrade the water lines and connect to
existing lines that would give them the pressure needed. Another option is to use the water from the recharge
pond, with engineering that would meet the supply for the fire flow. There is 6-700 gallons of flow to the
subdivision. The existing well on site has the ability to convert to well for fire department use. Engineering would
go along with this. The applicant wants to study on all three options and choose the best for the fire district.
There is a signed agreement for the recharge pond. This would mean the deletion of item 1 E. The applicant has
met with Public Works regarding the drainage plans and those conditions. Drexel barrel has submitted
information addressing the conditions and requirements from Public Works. There is a permit for access from
CDOT on Hwy 392. The City of Greeley had concerns with cul-de-sacs and urban scale standards. There is no
opportunity to connect so there will be longer cul-de-sacs. There are turnabouts for emergency vehicles with mail
stops and school stops. This layout addresses any rural area design. The applicant is not sure this is urban
scale development and they would like to maintain the rural nature. They would like a variance to the curb and
gutter. There are walking and riding trails surrounding the lots. There are other interests in the subdivision. Mr.
Casseday stated the applicant notified Noble at the beginning of this process asking for comments. They did not
respond. There was a legal document drafted addressing the lack of comment and the lack of activity on site.
According to Noble they did not need a letter since there was no production they would not have any interest, so
6
the applicant would like to request to remove drill windows from plat.
Paul Branham asked for clarification on the drainage issue. Mr. Casseday stated there were questions
considering offsite drainage. Drexel Barrel considered the canal to be a dam to any water that would come offsite
onto this site because of the design of Hwy 392 there is one offsite area that would be an influence. Public
Works would like the applicant to consider the possibility that water could enter the drainage pond should the
canal #2 be full. The recharge pond will double as a 100year flood detention. This will handled the water on a
one time basis. This has been designed into pond and the calculations.
Peter Schei indicated they have not seen the drainage report as of yet. There needs to be room to pass the 100
year storm and information on how it will work with the pond. There is concern for some possible changes in the
future. Mr. Miller asked about the lack of a secondary access. Mr. Schei stated Public Works does not have a
standard in with regards to this. The fire and emergency personnel will sign off on this. There is adequate turn
around provided in the subdivision.
Paul Branham asked if Public Works was comfortable with verbal confirmation from the engineers or would they
rather see the document. Mr. Schei stated they would like to see the document and see the engineer take care
of at beginning of the process. The document will give verification that the work will be done to the written
standards. Mr. Branham added that if approved it could be a Condition of Approval that a drainage report would
need to be submitted. Mr. Schei stated Public Works would like to be aware of how the system will work and the
applicant should understand this also. Public Works would like to see the documentation as soon as possible to
give them time for review before the Board of County Commissioners hearing.
Pam Smith,Weld County Public Health, added that Lot 4 septic envelopes are in gas line easements and will
need to relocated. Mr. Miller asked about the septic envelope being adjacent to the lot lines and if this is
beneficial. Ms. Smith stated there is a ten foot setback to line and she is not aware of the topography in the area.
There needs to be 100 foot setback from the high water line of lake. The easement can be addressed at final
plat.A Conditions of Approval could be added to address this.
Doug Ochsner asked about the variance on street design for curb and gutter and if this was agreeable to Public
Works. Mr. Schei stated Public Works cannot grant the variance but the Board of County Commissioners can. It
is reasonable to not expect a subdivision like this to have curb and gutter.
Robb Casseday added they would like to request administrative approval of the final plat.
Doug Ochsner asked if the drill window on Lot 1 was correct. Mr. Crews stated the envelope should be removed
due to it being in error. The fifth drill location should be on the east side of the site approximately in the center. A
drill window does not mean the oil company gets the entire location of the window. It means the bottom hole of
the well must fall within envelope. There is no intent to shut out the legal rights to drill. The lease is being
disputed as to the legality of it. Mr. Miller asked if both properties are owned by the same owner. Mr. Crews
indicated Mr. Orr owns both sites.
Discussion ensued on the legality of the lease agreement. There will not be an agreement since the parties do
not agree. Mr. Orr does not believe there is an agreement due to the lack of development over the years. There
is court proceeding occurring regarding this.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
John Gerry, neighbor to the south and ditch rider for Van Gorham, indicated he is in agreement with this since they
will be piping the Van Gorham and Graham Seepage underground. The only minor concern will be traffic. Oil and
gas has been drilled in the area and produced nothing but saltwater. The water for the ditches will flow smoothly due
to a 24 inch pipe.
Clayton Harrison, Noble Energy, suggested a condition be added to acknowledge their rights under the oil and gas
lease and reach an agreement before final. Mr. Miller questioned why Noble did not respond when the initial letter
was sent. In not responding it makes the job of the Planning Commission difficult in trying to address all the concerns
especially when the applicant has made an adequate attempt.
The Chair closed the public portion
Robb Casseday added this site will be well planned. There is adequate buffering and there will be a nice recharge
facility with amenities.
7
Michael Miller asked for clarification on the recharge pond and the purpose of it. Mr.Casseday stated that Cache La
Poudre needs an augmentation pond to put water back into the basin. It is an unlined pond in which water will flow
back into the underground basin through seepage. The applicant will take actions to keep the water from being
stagnant. The flow will fluctuate as irrigation is used and it is designed to be 15 foot deep. There will be water in the
pond continuously.
Pam Smith suggested adding the following language in 1F under Prior to Scheduling the Board of County
Commissioners, "The applicant shall amend the plat to relocate the septic envelopes for Lot 4 out of the pipeline
easement."
Michael Miller proceeded with the requested amendments. The applicant wants to remove the first condition staff
suggested adding. Mr. Gathman stated the applicant is asking for an administrative review and as a result needs to
have all of the agreements and such in order before the Board of County Commissioners. This could be moved to
Prior to recording plat. The second request by the applicant was to delete 1B that addresses the easement for the
existing pipeline. Mr. Gathman stated that if anything changes it could cause concern. This should still be an issue
that needs finalization. There have been talks with Sinclair but there is nothing in writing. Mr.Gathman recommends
the language be included. The third option the applicant would like removed is 1D which addresses the water for fire
suppression. Mr. Gathman stated that it sounds like there are three proposals with regards to fire suppression and he
is not sure which proposal they want. This will need to be clarified since they are requesting administrative review at
final plat. The applicant is asking to delete 1 E addressing the piping of water for the ditches. Mr. Gathman agrees
with this.
Michael Miller asked Mr.Schei about his recommendation for denial and the requirement for the storm drainage. Mr.
Schei stated he would still like this prior to scheduling the Board of County Commissioners so they have time to
review the document. Mr. Schei state he would like language added to 1G that states"The applicant shall submit a
drainage report that takes into account the impacts of the offsite storm water." Mr. Schei stated Public Works is in
agreement with the variance request for the exception of curb/gutter and sidewalks.
Michael Miller asked if the drill window can be removed from the plat. Mr. Barker stated removing the drill windows
does not really change things. This does not modify anything that already exists. Removing the windows will not
make much difference. The applicant is asking to go through an administrative final plat and the Board of County
Commissioners will decide this.
Michael Miller asked for clarification on the applicant's evidence that they have adequately attempted to come into
agreement with the oil and gas holders. Mr. Gathman stated there was a letter sent to Noble and there was nothing
sent back. There is nothing in the Conditions of Approval or Development Standards to get agreement. Mr.Gathman
stated that all written correspondence should be submitted to the Department of Planning Services and if the
applicant would like to proceed then that is their choice. Should anything be submitted today it will be forwarded to the
Board of County Commissioners.
Tom Holton would like to see Section 27-5-30.H of the code be inserted in place of 1C. Mr.Gathman stated there is a
pending court case and if the case goes through what the affect will be. Should there be common ownership on both
sites there will not be an issue. Mr. Miller's concern is with the lack of language for an adequate attempt to obtain an
agreement, there could be future concerns. Mr. Barker suggested the applicant could show compliance to Section
27-5-30.H. and not necessarily quote the code.
Tom Holton move to delete 1C and reference Section 27.5.30.H,by stating"The applicant shall show compliance with
Section 27.5.30.H." Doug Ochsner seconded. Motion carried.
Paul Branham moved to accept staff language for the addition of 1B stating"The applicant shall submit an agreement
with the Van Gorham Ditch Company and provide written evidence that an adequate attempt has been made to
address their concerns." Tom Holton seconded. Motion carried.
James Welch stated his concern for staff recommendation on item 1D is the limitation to only the well and negating
the other two options. Mr. Gathman suggested adding the language "The applicant shall provide a plan to the
Department of Planning Services regarding how they propose to address additional water for fire suppression on site."
James Welch moved to accept the prior language for item 1 D. Tom Holton seconded. Motion carried.
James Welch moved to delete item 1E. Tom Holton seconded. Motion carried.
8
Paul Branham moved to add a new 1 E with the following language"The applicant shall submit a drainage report to
the Department of Public Works that takes into account the impacts of the offsite storm water." Doug Ochsner
seconded. Motion carried.
Paul Branham moved to add a new 1F with the following language"The applicant shall amend the plat to relocate the
septic envelopes for lot four out of the pipeline easement." Doug Ochsner seconded. Motion carried.
The Board of County Commissioners would grant the waiver to curb and gutter waiver. The Planning Commission is
in favor of this.
Paul Branham moved to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that they grant the waiver for curb/gutter
and sidewalk. Tom Holton seconded. Motion carried.
Robb Casseday asked for clarification on the approval for alternate solutions to fire suppression and is this Prior to
Scheduling or Prior to final plat. Mr. Gathman stated it was prior to the scheduling since this is proposed to be
administratively all concerns need to be addressed up front and are recognized on the plat. Mr.Casseday addressed
the letter to Noble Energy. Mr. Miller stated that letter will go towards providing evidence of an adequate attempt to
address the concerns of the oil and gas interest.
Robb Casseday agrees to the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards
Doug Ochsner commented that with the amendments he feels comfortable with this. This is classified as urban scale
and still has only 9 lots and fits well in the community.
Michael Miller indicated his only concern is the subdivision having only one access but if the fire district and Public
Works is agreeable that is fine.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case PZ-1094, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval.
Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer,yes;
James Welch, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
James Welch has left due to a prior commitment.
CASE NUMBER: AmPF-354
APPLICANT: James & Cheri Scott
PLANNER: Brad Mueller
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Section 4, T6N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Amended PUD final plan to subdivide Lot 7, Shiloh Estates into four lots, three
additional lots.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Cornerstone Way within Shiloh Estates,which is
located north of and adjacent to County Road 72, one-half mile east of State
Highway 257.
Brad Mueller, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1540, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of the application.
Michael Miller asked when the original subdivision was approved. Mr. Mueller stated it was done in 1994. Lot 7 was
designated, at the time, to have one home on site. Mr. Mueller added that open space is adjacent to the south.
Paul Branham asked about the designation of this subdivision as being urban. Ms. Mika stated that urban vs. non
urban as currently defined in the code is new. This history is five lots dictated non-urban,then eight,then nine lots.
The scale of the number of lots has changed. At the time the rules were in place this was acceptable and fit within the
concept. Mr.Ochsner stated that the non conforming description implies that the subdivision is illegal. But at the time
it was approved and followed all the rules of the county. Mr. Branham stated it is now a nonconforming urban
subdivision because it does not meet the criteria of today. Ms. Mika stated that was correct but non-conforming
implies the negative, when in fact it is an approved subdivision approved with the criteria in place at the time.
9
Todd Hodges, representative for the applicant, presented additional information. The area is becoming urbanized
with the addition of residences. This is located in the growth management area for Windsor. Windsor accepts this
proposal as lower density and this location will not get sewer at anytime. This continues to be a lower density area.
The site location is not adequate for sewer lines. The site has adequate water, sewer,and streets and is consistent
with the existing zone districts. The addition of three lots can be found to be consistent with the surrounding lots
within the subdivision.
Michael Miller asked why they are amending to four lots. James Scott,applicant who owns both Lots 7&8 in Shiloh,
had planned to have family move onto Lot 7 but those plans have since changed. This gave them the opportunity to
ask for additional lots based on the consistency with the remainder of the subdivision. Mr. Miller asked if the lot had
been marketed as one lot. Mr. Scott stated it had not been officially on the market. Mr. Miller asked about the
acreage in Lot 8 and if the Planning Commission can expect to see this come in with the request for additional lots.
Mr. Scott stated they have committed to the homeowners they would put language in the covenants indicating there
will be no additional development on Lot 8.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Judy Whichard, neighbor and owner of Lot 6, indicated her concerns in a letter. The letter is as follows:
Thank you very much for the opportunity to state our opinions about Case Number AmPF-354, the proposed
replatting and subdividing of Lot 7 in Shiloh Estates PUD. There are several of us here today who are strongly
opposed to this proposal and we would like to state our reasons. In order to minimize redundancy and in the
interest of time, I will speak to our common reasons for opposing this proposal. I do have a signed copy of these
statements to submit to the Department of Planning Services.
We believe it is important to note that we have not made the decision to oppose this proposal lightly. We are
neighbors who have worked and played together in the past and will continue to do so in the future; overall, we
care about one another and want to live together in harmony. Also, this is not about specific individuals or
businesses. Integrity Builders, owned by the applicants Jim and Cheri Scott, built most of our homes;we have a
daily reminder of their commitment to excellence. Rather, this is about trying to preserve a quality of life that is
unique and highly valued by each of us; and unfortunately is rapidly diminishing along the Front Range.
We have five primary reasons for opposing this proposal:
• Breach of the conditions under which we purchased our Lots
• Contradiction of the covenants governing Shiloh Estates
• Negative impact of increased density
• Loss of lifestyle
• Lack of compatibility with existing land use
Breach of the conditions under which we purchased our lots: Each of the homeowners opposing the replatting
and subdividing of Lot 7 purchased our lots with the written understanding that Lot 7 was platted as a single lot
with only one house permitted. The appeal of a smaller development (a total of 14 houses)with a single cul-de-
sac road was the primary reason we selected Shiloh Estates. We did our due diligence, researching the County
plats on file with the County wherein Lot 7 is -17 acres with only a single home allowed. Obviously, this
proposed development would seriously compromise the conditions under which we purchased our lots.
Contradiction of the covenants governing Shiloh Estates: The covenants covering the Shiloh Estates PUD that
we agreed to comply with and under which we developed our homes state that one home will be built on Lot 7.
Those of us opposing this proposal have sought legal advice about the covenants and how they were applied in
this specific case, and believe that changing the covenants to comply with the proposed subdivision is
controversial at this time. We only mention this because the covenants are used to guide and inform all
community decisions, and we are concerned that without agreement on the covenants the neighborhood will
continually face difficulty on potentially major issues. However, the legal issues surrounding changing the
covenants are civil in nature; and we believe this not an appropriate form to present legal opinions or settle legal
differences.
Negative impact of increased density: If the proposed subdivision of Lot 7 is approved, our neighborhood density
would grow by 21%. Those of us in closest proximity to Lot 7 have had independent realtors assess our current
as well as future values of our properties should the proposed development occur. We learned that we could
expect a drop in value between $15,000 and $30,000 in today's dollars. Additionally, we believe that subdividing
Lot 7 would lessen the overall community's appeal and value as the open spaces and common areas of our
neighborhood would be decreased.
10
Most importantly, this increased density would increase significantly the traffic, noise and pollution in our area.
Most of us are used to minimal traffic on our single cul-de-sac and are very concerned about the safety and
welfare of our children, pets and selves. Those of us with horses can cross the road with minimal concern; we
can walk our dogs feeling secure; and our children can currently use the street as a hockey field or skating rink.
Not only would the additional homes significantly increase the road traffic over the long run, the construction
traffic would be horrendous. Considering that the construction would take at least 3 years and more likely
upwards of 5 years to complete, we would be asked to endure construction traffic for a considerable length of
time. Unfortunately, our experiences with construction have taught us that speeding vehicles along roads is more
the rule than the exception. Furthermore, multiple cases of construction-related crime have occurred throughout
the US and CO. Although the odds of having our homes burglarized or our children harmed may be remote, it is
a gamble that we are unwilling to take.
Loss of lifestyle: One of our considerations in moving to Shiloh Estates was to procure and sustain a certain
lifestyle. We wanted to enjoy a more rural setting with restricted land development. The fact that our
surroundings are open and lend themselves to a rural feeling is highly appealing. With the rapid growth along the
entire Front Range, we are very concerned about the diminished open space. We have worked diligently to align
our building decisions with sustaining the land and maintaining a way of life that is quickly becoming obsolete.
Compatibility with existing land use: Lot 7 sits amidst one single-owned quarter section on its north, one home on
17 acres on its east (Lot 8), a horse arena and two homes on -5 and -4 acres respectively on its south. If Lot 7
is divided into four 4-acre lots, the appropriate use of this land is called into question. Our development is one of
the last areas with considerable open space. As such, it serves as a buffer zone, or transition area, helping
divide suburban from rural. It helps preserve a way of life, reminiscent of the past, and serves as a landmark for
future developments.
In summary,we strongly oppose the development because we believe that:
• The conditions under which we purchased our lots and developed our homes have been seriously
compromised. Had we known that Lot 7 would be modified perhaps our decisions to purchase our lots would
have changed. Regardless,we would have had all the facts at that time.
• Should the proposal be approved, the viability of our covenants would be seriously called into question.
• The increased construction and eventual homeowners of the proposed lots traffic would degrade the safety of
our pets and children.
• Our accustomed lifestyle would be significantly compromised.
• We are concerned about the appropriate use of Lot 7. A single home is more compatible with the adjoining
land.
Finally, we ask that you consider the following facts:
• 54% of the families in the subdivision have gone on record as strongly opposing the proposed development
• 100%of the lot owners in closest proximity to the proposed development, including the owners of the
property abutting the northern boundary who are not part of Shiloh Estates are strongly opposed to the
proposed development
• Those most strongly opposed to the development of Lot 7 have proposed numerous compromises to the
developer. Each of these has been turned down although each proposed more than one home on Lot 7 in
an attempt to consider the financial implications to the developer.
We believe that the best response to the proposed subdividing and replatting of Lot 7 would be to keep Lot 7 as a
single lot with one home. The developers could be advised to purchase other land that would welcome their
development efforts. Additionally, they can be reminded that they will still earn a considerable amount of money
by building a single home on Lot 7. With such a solution, the developers can still reap considerable profit and our
community can remain semi-rural, open, and true to its original development goals.
Again,we thank you for the opportunity to present the reasons for our opposition. We respectfully ask that you
consider our arguments and ultimately deny the proposal.
Michael Miller asked how many homeowners she represented. Ms.Whichard stated she represent seven different
homeowners.
Cheri Scott,applicant, stated they did send out an opinion poll asking for feedback from the lot owners. They did not
want to proceed if the homeowners opposed this.They received one letter back that was opposed and the remainder
was positive while some did not respond. There are some homeowners that agreed to the proposal with an
affirmative vote and are now opposed to it. The applicant has taken into consideration the well being of the
homeowners.
11
Michael Miller asked if there were 14 lots all together and why would they now be changing their minds. Ms. Scott
stated that there was a 2/3 majority vote at the HOA meeting. They changed their minds at a later date. Mr. Miller
asked if there could be another vote since there seems to be a misunderstanding. Ms.Scott stated they believed they
had done everything that was required of them with the vote at the HOA meeting.
Judy Whichard added that they did change their minds. There was no ill intent at the time the subdivision of Lot 7 was
discussed and the vote was taken.The outcome of the vote was based on erroneous information. The homeowners
believed that Lot 7 would be developed regardless. The homeowners would rather have Mr.Scott develop the area if
it were to be developed. It was later learned that they have the ability to oppose this. The homeowners proposed
another vote which would have been a split decision. Mr. Miller asked where the information regarding the
development came from. Ms.Whichard stated it was from the discussion at the HOA meeting. The ones that voted
for this development believed it was inevitable therefore they voted to have Mr. Scott do this.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
James Scott, applicant, added information regarding the time frame of this development and the process. In July
2005 a letter was sent to the homeowners asking for their opinions on this proposal which they received favorable
responses for. In August 2005 they talked to the homeowners at an HOA meeting. At this meeting there were a
number of things mentioned. There is a division between the ones in support of this and ones that are in opposition.
The end result of the meeting was vote on August 22, 2006 rather to proceed. In September there was a regular
HOA meeting and the minutes indicated a 2/3 approval vote. On September 12,2205 a letter from the HOA board
was sent indicating the approval for the four lot subdivision from Weld County,so they began work. On November28
the applicant received a letter from the concerned homeowners requesting further discussion. They went to a
meeting on January 11 for additional discussion in which there was no resolution to the objections. They believe they
have done what was required of them. On February 14, 2006 they received a letter from an attorney from the
homeowners to take second vote. At this time they felt like they proceeded as the covenants required. They felt as
though the HOA board gave them approval so they could proceed. There are letters of support from the balance of
homeowners. Mr. Scott read a letter of recommendation to the Planning Commission.
Michael Miller asked about the remainder of lots that are in support. Mr.Scott indicated there were five not including
his two lots.
Tom Holton asked about the size of lots. Mr.Scott indicated they were 2-5 acres in size and his two lots are 17 acres.
The outlot is 2.65 acres.
Doug Ochsner asked about the possible construction traffic. Mr. Scott indicated there is a secondary access to the
lots but it is to be used as a service road used for riding and the homeowners would not be acceptable to this use.
Michael Miller asked if the homeowners were presented a packet at the meeting. Mr.Scott stated they provided the
sketch plan but most of the information was verbal due to not having the information. Mr. Miller asked if the four lots
were included. Mr. Scott stated that most of the detail was added.
Tom Holton asked for the total size of the approved PUD. Mr. Hodges indicated it was 75 acres.
Michael Miller stated from a land use standpoint,which is what Planning Commission is charged with;this is an urban
scale development. Mr.Miller agrees with both parties on certain aspects. The existing homeowners liked the open
space and are concerned about the change. The lot owners had the opportunity when they originally platted the
subdivision to plat these into four lots. Is this considered urban style and should it be brought to that standard. Both
parties should be commended in their ability to get along and willingness to work together. Mr.Miller would like this to
continue, hence the suggestion for that additional vote.
Paul Branham stated this is urban scale with fourteen units and should meet the requirements for streets,curbs and
gutters. This is a non-conforming urban development and if approved it will increase the non-conformant status. Mr.
Branham is not inclined to do.
Doug Ochsner stated that if the Planning Commission is looking at this as a land use item it does fit. Urban scale
development shall pave internal roadway, have central water, sewer system, road networks park and recreation
facilities. It does not require central sewer or curb and gutter. Mr. Mueller stated that the comment regarding urban
scale is based strictly on the nine lot designation along with the location. If the development were considered urban it
should have those standards.
Tom Holton asked about the amount of open space and the trail system in the PUD and it being 15%. Mr. Mueller
12
stated the original PUD met the requirements for open space that were in effect at the time of the original approval.
The current subdivision has an outlot of 2.65 acres. Mr. Holton stated that there is the existing open space that was
part of the approval but Lot 7 is owned by a specific owner and is not available for the entire subdivision but it is still
visual open space.
Michael Miller asked about the amount of open space. Mr. Mueller stated there is the 2.65 in outlot and an additional
track where the acreage is not called out. Mr. Miller stated there should be around 11 acres to adhere to the 15%
requirement.
Todd Hodges added that there is 2.65 acres of open space and there are perimeter easements that were in place for
an existing trail system. This meets the intent of the existing subdivision. Mr. Miller asked how that meets the 15%
open space requirement. Mr. Hodges stated it met the intent and this is an existing subdivision and through this
application these lots are larger than the existing lots in the subdivision.
Michael Miller asked how this type of development is able to go through the process without the 15% open space
required of an urban development. Mr. Mueller stated this would be correct if a new PUD were coming into the
process. Staff is recommending denial based on the larger issues so the open space was not specifically addressed.
This would need to be considered. Mr.Miller added that at the time the subdivision was created the open space was
not required but now that they are revising it should this not be required.
Pam Smith, Department of Public Health and Environment, added the total acreage was 75.54. With 14 lots this
gives an overall density of 1 septic system per 5.4 acres. With the additional density of the three lots with a total of 17
lots there is 1 septic system per 4.4 acres which is still acceptable.
Todd Hodges added that the open space would be reviewed on this lot if this were a new subdivision not within an
existing area. There would need to be 2 acres based on the 17 acre lot and there could be other ideas like the
addition of the trail easement. This acreage has not been calculated.
Mr. Hodges and Mr.Miller disagreed on the intent of the open space. A discussion ensued regarding the open space
and which regulations should apply. Mr. Holton understands this application to be an amendment to the existing
PUD. Mr. Hodges added this was a re-subdivision of Lot 7 not an amendment to the entire subdivision. Mr. Hodges
stated that the plat that would be filed is Lot 7 not the entire subdivision. Mr. Barker stated the Planning
Commission's point is that an amendment to the PUD puts the entire amount of open space in question and if this
application alters this by virtue of the development. This would go back to the entire intent.
Michael Miller stated common open space needs to be addressed. Mr. Mueller stated there is an opportunity through
the approval criteria for this to become in conformance with the existing criteria. There is no way to bring the entire
site into conformity with the criteria because there are other lots not a part of this. There are other lots that are not a
part of this application. The Code allows for open space to be one of the criteria but it does need to be balanced with
the fact this is an existing PUD. Mr. Barker stated the problem is that planning staff did not evaluate the open space
in that regard. There is concern in taking just the densities and not the remaining criteria in the code to determine the
open space. There needs to be an additional analysis. Mr. Miller stated that at this time there is only the 2.6 acres of
open space which was adequate in 1994 but is it fair to try and make this applicant come up with the 11 acres of open
space that would be required by the standards in place today. This would be the majority of Lot 7 but it is bothersome
that no additional open space is attempting to be provided. Mr. Barker stated that when this was first approved it
would not preclude any amendments in the future. At the time of approval it complied with the open space. Forcing
the applicant to amend the subdivision to adhere to the current standards may not be beneficial.Mr.Miller added that
with the additional density there will be more traffic and the children use the streets to play one. There is one way in
and one way out so all the trips will utilize the entrance road. With this increase in traffic this brings the need for more
common open space but not the 15%which would be extensive. Mr. Mueller added that the existing PUD conforms
by virtue of the approval. The question is whether it meets the criteria for a major change to the PUD. There are
different ways to look at this proposal and amending the PUD may not be the only option. Ms. Mika added that the
PUD ordinances were different at the time this was approved. Ms. Mika has Weld County Zoning Ordinance, June
28, 1994, (89AA) and July 6, 1993 for reference. There was no PUD section at that time. There was no way to
determine what was said at the time for open space.The open space will need to be proportionate to the PUD district.
Michael Miller stated that the Planning Commission is being asked to change the complexion of the subdivision and it
may be more appropriate to have them set aside more open space. Ms. Mika stated it was not uncommon to set
aside a community parcel and have a trail system run the length of the parcel.
Tom Holton stated he believes this is a PUD within a PUD and not an amendment.
13
Doug Ochsner stated the intent of open space can still be met with the reasoning that the lots are still 4.5 acres in
size. If there is a 2-3 acre open space in this development it will not be a gathering location for the children. It is more
dangerous to have open space to maintain. In open subdivisions like this,the need for common open space is not as
great.
Paul Branham indicated he appreciates open space but is not sure this needs 15%. The bottom line is there is a
limited amount of open space and that would not come close to meeting the standards required today. The most
important thing is there will be an addition of three more homes. This increases the number of homes per capita.
This is still a non conforming item.
Roy Spitzer stated the land owners are feeling cheated but the bigger question is that the applicant might not own the
lots and what would prohibit another owner from dividing. With the division it would not be dense. He will not be
supporting this.
Tom Holton stated this is the addition of four homes since there is nothing on site now. This is a PUD within a PUD.
The 15% may not be needed in all but this one needs more than it has.
Todd Hodges stated there are some items of concerns. The items are delete the 1s` sentence in Conditions of
Approval 2.C.,and delete Conditions of Approval 2.1.2 and all references to urban scale criteria such as curb gutter
and sidewalk.
Michael Miller stated that 2.1.2 addresses the internal roadway. Mr.Hodges added that based on discussion with staff
that would include curb/gutter and sidewalk. Mr. Miller agrees that this application does not need those items.
Brad Mueller added road standards are items that the Board of County Commissioners can waive so staff
recommends not changing the conditions if Planning Commission ends up recommending approval.
Doug Ochsner moved to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners the removal of any reference to
curb/gutter and sidewalk. Tom Holton seconded. Motion carried.
Todd Hodges agrees with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the noted concerns with the
open space.
Paul Branham moved that Case AmPF-354, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning
Commissions recommendation of denial. Roy Spitzer seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer,yes;
Michael Miller, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, no; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Roy Spitzer commented this is a tough situation in that Lot 8 could be divided at a later date.
Tom Holton commented he has some open space issues and this resembles a PUD within a PUD and more could be
seen as time goes on.
Paul Branham commented he in favor for denial based on staff recommendation and this is a nonconforming urban
development at the time and this would increase this.
Doug Ochsner commented he believes this is in compliance with Section 22-2-110.B concentrating urban
developments adjacent to existing municipalities. This is as urban as it will get, the Town of Windsor will not annex
nor service. It is consistent and compatible with the current subdivision. 4.5 acre lots are sufficient open space.
Michael Miller commented this is urban scale development but this does not meet the standard for compatibility
because in both the zoning ordinances there is a need for common open space. The language in the all previous
codes requires open space. The HOA seems to be very responsible and willing to maintain.The fact that no effort
was made was a gross oversite by the developers. If this was included in the application he would have voted for this.
Other Business:
Planning Commission discussed member's attendance. It was suggested that a letter be drafted by Department of
Planning Services and this be a topic be discussed at the next lunch. At the next meeting lunch it was suggested to
discuss the protocol for not attending the meetings and the attendance.
14
Meeting adjourned at 6:25pm
Rtpectfully su did_ C B /
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
15
Hello