HomeMy WebLinkAbout20061795.tiff RESOLUTION OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Moved by 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-1082
APPLICANT: Kiteley Farms, LLLP do Jerry Eckelberger, Longs Peak Investors, LLC
PLANNER: SHERI LOCKMAN
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-843 being part of the NW4 of Section 27, Township 3 North,
Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to PUD (Planned Unit
Development)for 429 residential lots, open space and continuing oil and
gas production (Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake)
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 26-5-30 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 27-6-120.8.6.a The proposal is consistent with any intergovernmental agreement
in effect influencing the PUD and Chapters 19(Coordinated Planning Agreements),
Chapter 22(Comprehensive Plan), Chapter 23(Zoning), Chapter 24 (Subdivision) and
Chapter 26(Mixed Use Development) of the Weld County Code. The proposed site is not
influenced by an Inter-Governmental Agreement. The proposal is consistent with the
aforementioned documents as follows:
Section 22-2-110.8 (UGB. Goal 2)—states, "Concentrate urban development in
or adjacent to existing municipalities or the /-25 Mixed Use Development area
and maintain urban growth boundary areas that provide an official designation
between future urban and non-urban uses." The proposed PUD is located within
the Mixed Use Development (MUD) area, and within the three mile Municipal
referral area with the Towns of Mead and Frederick and the City of Longmont.
Section 22-2-230.A (MUD Goal 1)—states, "To plan and to manage growth and
to provide for ease of inclusion in the 1-25 Mixed Use Development area and
urban development nodes so as to balance relevant fiscal, environmental,
aesthetic and economic components of the area." The proposal assures that new
development will occur in such a manner as to maintain an attractive living
environment. Further, all applicable standards and regulations, unless otherwise
modified herein, of Chapters 22, 23, 26, and 27 of the Weld County Code shall be
integrated in the design of the Final Plan.
Section 26-1-50.8.1.a. (MUD.C.1 Goal 1) states, "Establish a sense of community
identity within the Mixed Use Development area by planning and managing
residential, commercial, industrial, environmental, aesthetic, and economic
components of the area." The land uses shown on the Change of Zone plat
reflect the uses shown on the Amended MUD Structural Land Use Map 2.1,
dated April 2006
iv. Section 22-2-230.F(MUD.Goal 6) states, "The extraction of minerals and oil and m
gas resources should conserve the land and minimize the impact to Planned Unit Z ri(�
Developments': As proposed, the future oil and gas operations are limited to one 1t I..—
location within the open space. Conditions of Approval require a completed W
agreement prior to scheduling the Board of County Commissioners hearing.
rx' earexad
v. Section 26-1-60(MUD.P Goal 1) states, "Provide efficient and cost-effective \
2006-1795
Resolution PZ-1082
Kitely Farms LLLP
Page 2
delivery of adequate public facilities and services which assure the health safety
an general welfare of the present and future residents of the area." The
application has signed agreements in place with St. Vrain Sanitation District and
the Longs Peak Water District. The Weld County Attorney's Office has indicated
that the agreements submitted by the applicant are adequate.
vi. Section 26-1-70 MUD.T. Goal 2 states, "Promote a pedestrian trail system to
service transportation and recreation purposes within the Mixed Use
Development area." Conditions of Approval ensure that a pedestrian connection
will be created to the Mead Crossing development to the east prior to recording
the change of zone plat. The applicant is also required to establish a trail
connection along Foster Reservoir as shown on Amended MUD Structural Land
Use Map 2.1, dated April 2006. (Department of Planning Services)
vii. Section 22-3-140.A. T.Goal 1. states "Provide a unified and coordinated
countywide street and highway system which moves people and goods in a safe,
economical, and efficient manner." Conditions of Approval ensure that the
applicant shall address the issues outlined by the Town of Mead, the Weld
County Department of Public Works and the Colorado Department of
Transportation.
viii. Section 26-1-70.B.T.Goal 2 states, "New development within the Mixed Use
Development area shall provide a mechanism for balancing relevant fiscal and
economic components of transportation systems." In a referral dated April 4,
2006, the Weld County Department of Public Works stated "LSC Transportation
Consultants (LSC)submitted an updated Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)dated
March 28, 2006; a second review was completed by Weld County's traffic
engineering consultant, Felsburg Holt& Ullevig (FHU)on March 23, 2006. With
the exception of the State Highway 66 and County Road 7 intersection and
north-south travel, the items in FHU's second review can be addressed at the
time of final plat application".
On March 9, 2006, LSC provided a letter in which they stated impacts on the
existing roadway and recommendations for improvements would be made in
revised traffic reports at each construction phase. In a letter of March 28th LSC
cites regional off-site improvements at the intersections of State Highway 66 and
County 7 as well as County Road's 28, 7 and 5.5 and further states the required
contribution be based on discussions with Weld County.
Because of the extent of the proposed development, Public Works has asked for
the Traffic Impact Study to address the impact at each construction phase on the
existing roadways and make recommendations for improvements needed at each
phase. Public Works also requested proposed roadway improvement
agreements be submitted prior to the change of zone hearings. The applicant
has acknowledged the issue but not provided the requested information.
Conditions of Approval require the applicant to provide a schedule of
recommended roadway improvements and proposed agreements that will
mitigate the traffic impacts of the proposed development prior to scheduling the
Board of County Commissioners change of zone hearing.
The applicant is proposing a Metropolitan District for the maintenance obligations
of improvements within the PUD and wishes to participate in the Southwestern
Weld County Law Enforcement Authority.
B. Section 27-6-120.8.6.b- The uses which would be allowed in the proposed PUD will
conform with the Performance Standards of the PUD Zone District contained in Article II,
Chapter 27 of the Weld County Code.
Resolution PZ-1082
Kitely Farms LLLP
Page 3
Section 27-2-20. Access standards
In an email dated March 15, 2006, Gloria Hice-Idler, Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT)Access Manager, asked for a right-of-way reservation of 100'
from the centerline of the existing roadway on State Highway 66. The revised plat shows
the future right-of-way line but does not show a reservation on the Kiteley property. Also,
the proposed easement for the Highland Ditch/Recreational Trail is shown within the
reservation. Prior to scheduling the Board of County Commissioners change of zone
hearing, the applicant is required to revise the change of zone plat to delineate and
dimension the State Highway 66 reservation on the Kiteley Ranch PUD and delineate and
dimension the proposed Highland Ditch/ Recreational Trail easement outside and south
of the State Highway 66 right-of-way reservation.
In CDOT's email dated March 15, 2006, Gloria Hice-Idler indicated the Highland Ditch is
"historical" and widening of State Highway 66 would likely be to the north. The
Department of Public Works indicated that the status quo location is acceptable to their
department if it is acceptable to the Highland Ditch. Prior to scheduling the Board of
County Commissioners change of zone hearing, the applicant is required to obtain written
verification from the Highland Ditch that no additional easement is required in light of the
future widening of State Highway 66.
County Road 7 is within the Town of Mead. Conditions of Approval require a letter from
the Town indicating that their concerns regarding County Road 7 have been met prior to
scheduling the Board of County Commissioners change of zone hearing. If that letter can
not be supplied the applicant is required to outline, in detail, all efforts that have been
made to acquire Mead's approval.
The Weld County Department of Public Works has indicated that, in the future, extensive
improvements, including turn lanes, will be required to the intersection of State Highway
66 and County Road 7. Fifty(50)feet of right-of-way per Mead's requirement is shown on
the revised zoning plat. The Department of Public Works requested additional
right-of-way on County Road 7 at the intersection. No additional right-of-way has been
shown. The Preliminary Site Improvement Plan shows an eight(8)foot trail within the
right-of-way. Clearly, there is not enough right-of-way to accommodate future intersection
improvements and a trail system. Prior to scheduling the Board of County Commissioners
change of zone hearing, the applicant is required to provide a schematic layout of future
intersection improvements at State Highway 66 and County Road 7, taking into
consideration alignment with County Road 7 to the north, and showing and dimensioning
any required additional right-of-way on the change of zone plat.
Section 27-2-40, Bulk requirements
The applicant has proposed a deviation from the bulk requirements and allowed uses as
set out in the Weld County Code as follows:
1) The minimum setback from a road right-of-way shall be 20 feet. The minimum
backyard setback shall be 20 feet from the property line. The minimum side yard
offset shall be 7.5 feet from the property line. Eaves, bay and box windows, room
projections and cantilevers, foundation counterforts, brick ledges, air conditioning
units and window wells shall be allowed within a 2.5 foot zone within these
setbacks. Front-yard sidewalks, front porch steps, back-yard patios, decks and
air conditioning units shall be allowed within the setback. Side-yard concrete
sidewalks and stoops shall be excluded from side yard setback areas.
These same setbacks and offsets were determined to be adequate by the Board
of County Commissions through the approval of Change of Zone PZ-1078 for
Melody Homes, Inc. and are therefore supported by Planning staff.
2) The minimum lot size shall be 6,270 square feet. Staff supports this variance as it
is larger than the 6,000 square foot lot allowed in the R-1 zone district by the
Resolution PZ-1082
Kitely Farms LLLP
Page 4
Weld County Code.
3) Storage of vehicles or recreational vehicles shall only be allowed inside garages
that are a part of the principle use structure. Carports and/or parking areas are
not allowed.
4) Section 23-3-160.L.1.f of the Weld County Code requires a three-hundred-fifty-
foot setback from any oil and gas production facility within a residential zone
district. The applicant is requesting a 200 foot setback from tank batteries and a
150 foot setback from wellheads and separator units. Planning staff does not
support this request.
The applicant does not have a finalized agreement with the property's mineral
owners. Staff does not feel that it is appropriate to approve the requested setback
without first reviewing the agreement with the property's mineral owners.
Conditions of Approval require the submittal of a completed agreement prior to
scheduling the Board of County Commissioners hearing. The Board of County
Commissioners will have the chance to review the agreement and the applicants
request.
5) Livestock shall be prohibited.
6) Household pets shall be limited to two (2).
7) Entryway signage of two (2)monument signs of thirty-two (32) square feet.
Conditions of Approval require the applicant to identify if signage can meet
required setbacks.
Section 27-2-50, Circulation
Section 22-2-220 and Section 26-2-30 of the Weld County Code require an
interconnected network of local streets. The Weld County Department of Public Works
has requested a connection to the Mead Crossing development to the'east. The
applicant is not willing to do so and states the reasons in their letter of March 23, 2006.
Public Works strongly supports interconnectivity of developments because of the traffic
benefits derived by reducing trips on collectors adjacent to developments. Public Works
does not agree with the applicant's conclusion that the safety of Kiteley Ranch residents
will be compromised by making the connection.
Conditions of approval require the applicant to show a connection from Silver Sky Circle
to Hyland in the Mead Crossing development to the east prior to recording the change of
zone plat. The applicant is also required to dimension all rights-of-way prior to scheduling
the Board of County Commissioners change of zone hearing.
Section 27-2-60, Common open space
As proposed, the site does meet the open space requirements of Chapter 27 and Chapter
26 (MUD). Public Works requested separate easements expressly for the irrigation
ditches which are commonly requested by ditch companies. The revised plats indicate
there will be joint use of the Highland Ditch maintenance road and the recreational trail
within the same easement. If the Highland Ditch does not agree to joint use, separate
easements for the ditch and outlots for the trail system must be delineated on the plat.
The maintenance road should be removed from the open space calculation if not used as
a recreational trail. Prior to scheduling the Board of County Commissioners change of
zone hearing, the applicant is required to provide an agreement between the Highland
^ Ditch and the applicant addressing joint use and adequacy of the proposed easements.
The applicant is also required to provide an agreement with the owner of the property
south of the site for the relocation of the irrigation ditch serving the property prior to
scheduling the Board of County Commissioners change of zone hearing.
Resolution PZ-1082
Kitely Farms LLLP
Page 5
Section 27-2-74, Conservation area
Kiteley Ranch PUD is adjacent to Foster Reservoir and is impacted by non-jurisdictional
wetlands, flood plains and high water tables. The Weld County Department of Public
Works cited three major concerns that were requested to be addressed at change of zone
application phase. They were off-site drainage, FEMA floodplain and erosion of the
Highland Ditch. The applicant's letter of March 23, 2006 said additional survey
information needed to address off-site drainage has not been completed at this time and
that a revised drainage report will be submitted prior to the Board of County
Commissioners change of zone hearing.
On March 31, 2006, Public Works received a Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report
from S. A. Miro, Inc. that provides additional information. Public Works is in the process
of making a detailed review of the report and will forward a supplementary memorandum.
On page 1, paragraph 3, the Miro report states"until a Letter of Map Amendment has
been adopted by FEMA there will be no development of lots that encroach into the
floodplain". On page 2, paragraph 3, the report states "future supporting calculations will
be performed and any erosion remediation will be coordinated with the County and the
Highland Ditch". On page 2, paragraph 5, the report states"it is impractical to reduce the
100-year flows traveling off-site to the 5-year release rate". Weld County Code Section
24-7-130.D establishes that retention requirement. Prior to scheduling the Board of
County Commissioners change of zone hearing, the applicant is required to address
off-site drainage, erosion of the Highland Ditch and revise the drainage report to meet all
Weld County drainage criteria. Further, a Letter of Map Amendment, approved by FEMA,
is required with the final plat application materials. No buildings shall be allowed inside the
effective FEMA defined floodplain.
The applicant has met the remaining performance standards. The Conditions of Approval
and Development Standards ensure compliance with Sections 27-2-20 through 27-2-210
of the Weld County Code.
C. Section 27-6-120.8.6.c- That the uses which would be permitted shall be compatible with
the existing or future development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing
Zoning, and with the future development as projected by Chapter 22 of the Weld County
Code or master plans of affected municipalities. The proposed PUD is located within the
Mixed Use Development(MUD)area, and within the three mile Municipal referral area
with the Towns of Mead and Frederick and the City of Longmont. The Town of Mead is
opposed to this development being approved as an unincorporated project and wants the
applicant to petition the Town of Mead for annexation. Mead further asks that the
applicant complete an access permit for access onto County Road 7 which is within the
Town limits. The applicant is required to complete an access permit with the Town or
show an adequate attempt has been made prior to scheduling the Board of County
Commissioners change of zone hearing. The Town of Frederick and the City of
Longmont indicated no conflicts with the proposal.
D. Section 27-6-120.8.6.d- That the PUD Zone District shall be serviced by an adequate
water supply and sewage disposal system in compliance with the Performance Standards
in Article II the Weld County Code. The Weld County Department of Public Health and
Environment indicated that the application has satisfied Chapter 27 of the Weld County
Code in regard to water and sewer service.
The PUD is to be serviced by St. Vrain Sanitation District. The District has indicated that
an agreement between the proposed Metro District and St. Vrain Sanitation will be
required. Further, St. Vrain confirmed that the property lies within the St. Vrain Sanitation
District 208 service area, and sewer service to the property can be achieved with several
conditions, one of which is inclusion into the District. The applicants have agreed to apply
for inclusion after approval of the change of zone.
The Department of Public Health and Environment is recommending permanent restroom
Resolution PZ-1082
Kitely Farms LLLP
Page 6
and handwashing facilities be provided in close proximity to those public gathering areas
where water and sewer services are available.Active and passive recreational
opportunities will include such things as sports fields, fitness/recreation center, swimming
pool, trails, picnic grounds, bike paths, playgrounds, etc. These varied recreational
opportunities must address the sanitation requirements of any area where people work,
live, or congregate. The applicant has agreed to provide restroom facilities in the pool/tot
lot park and the 1.42 acre part in the north entrance park. This is acceptable. However,
there was no restroom facility noted in the north entrance park on sheet 4 of the
Preliminary Site Improvements Plans. The pool will be for the private use of the
residents and guests of the development and therefore will not be subject to the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment Swimming Pool and Mineral Bath
Regulations.
The Kiteley Homestead Place, which includes two residences, will be preserved and the
driveway access will be re-located to the internal subdivision. The houses will be placed
on St. Vrain Sanitation service and any exiting septic system abandoned in accordance
with County regulations.
A Subdivision Service Agreement is in place with Longs Peak Water for a potable and
non-potable water supply. The Colorado Division of Water Resources has indicated that,
contingent upon completion of improvements to the current facilities and water service
being provided by the District, the proposed water supply will not cause material injury to
existing water rights and the supply is expected to be adequate.
E. Section 27-6-120.B.6.e - That street or highway facilities providing access to the property
are adequate in functional classification, width, and structural capacity to meet the traffic
requirements of the uses of the proposed PUD Zone District. As previously indicated, the
applicant is required to submit additional information regarding improvements to State
Highway 66 and County Road 7 prior to scheduling the Board of County Commissioners
change of zone hearing.
F. Section 27-6-120.6.6.f-An off-site road improvements agreement and an on-site
improvements agreement proposal is in compliance with Chapter 24 of the Weld County
Code as amended and a road improvements agreement is complete and has been
submitted, if applicable. The Weld County Departments of Public Works and Planning
Services shall require an Improvements Agreement in accordance with Section
27-6-120.6.f of the Weld County Code for improvements to Kiteley Ranch PUD and all
on-site and off-site improvements at the time of Final Plat. Additionally, documentation
for the Metropolitan District will be required to be approved for internal road construction
and maintenance prior to recording the final plat.
G. Section 27-6-120.8.6.g- That there has been compliance with the applicable
requirements contained in Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code regarding overlay
districts, commercial mineral deposits, and soil conditions on the subject site. A portion
of the site adjacent to Foster Reservoir lies within the 100-year flood plain. Prior to
scheduling the Board of County Commissioners change of zone hearing, the applicant is
required to address off-site drainage, erosion in the Highland Ditch and revise the
drainage report to meet all Weld County drainage criteria. Further, a Letter of Map
Amendment, approved by FEMA, is required with the final plat application materials. No
buildings shall be allowed inside the effective FEMA defined flood plain.
H. Section 27-6-120.6.6.h - Consistency exists between the proposed zone district(s), uses,
the specific or conceptual development guide. The submitted Specific Development
Guide does accurately reflect the performance standards and allowed uses described in
the proposed zone district, as described previously.
This approval recommendation is based upon compliance with Chapter 27 requirements.
Resolution PZ-1082
Kitely Farms LLLP
Page 7
The Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to PUD is conditional upon the following:
1. Prior to scheduling the Board of County Commissioners hearing:
A. The applicant shall address the following to the satisfaction of the Weld County
Department of Public Works. Evidence of such shall be submitted to the Department of
Planning Services:
1) The applicant shall provide a schedule of recommended roadway improvements
and proposed agreements that will mitigate the traffic impacts of the proposed
development.
2) The applicant shall revise the zoning plat to delineate and dimension the State
Highway 66 reservation on the Kiteley property and delineate and dimension the
proposed Highland Ditch/ Recreational Trail easement outside and south of the
State Highway 66 right-of-way reservation.
3) The applicant shall obtain written verification from the Highland Ditch that no
additional easement is required in light of the future widening of State Highway
66.
4) The applicant shall provide a letter from the Town of Mead indicating their
concerns regarding County Road 7 have been met. If that letter cannot be
supplied the applicant should outline, in detail, all efforts that have been made to
acquire Mead's approval.
5) The applicant shall provide a schematic layout of future intersection
improvements at State Highway 66 and County Road 7, taking into consideration
alignment with County Road 7 to the north, and showing and dimensioning any
required additional right-of-way on the change of zone plat.
6) All rights-of-way shall be dimensioned on the Change of Zone plat.
7) The applicant shall provide an agreement between the Highland Ditch and the
applicant addressing joint use and adequacy of the proposed easements.
8) The applicant shall address off-site drainage, erosion in the Highland Ditch and
revise the drainage report to meet all Weld County drainage criteria. (Department
of Public Works)
B. The applicant shall either submit to the Department of Planning Services a copy of an
agreement with the properties mineral owners and lessees stipulating that the oil and gas
activities have adequately been incorporated into the design of the site, or indicate the
400'x 400' and the 800'x 800'drilling envelope locations per state statute. (Department
of Planning Services)
C. The plats shall be amended so that proposed entry signs are outside of the future road
right-of-way and proposed 25'utility easement. Further, signage must meet the
appropriate setback of fifteen (15)feet from adjacent properties and the offset of ten (10)
feet from the road right-of-way per section 27-6-90.E.4.d of the Weld County Code. If
these distances cannot be met, the applicant shall request a variance from Section 27-6-
90.E.4. of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
2. Prior to recording the Change of Zone plat:
A. The applicant shall address the concerns of the Weld County Sheriffs Office, as stated in
a memo dated February 21, 2006 and incorporate remedies for these concerns. Written
evidence of a solution shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services. (Sheriff's
Office)
Resolution PZ-1082
Kitely Farms LLLP
Page 8
B. The applicant shall submit details of the proposed mailbox areas to the appropriate postal
district for review and approval.Any required changes shall be indicated on the plat.
Further, the applicant shall verify that each facility meets the intent of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA)for access. (Department of Planning Services)
C. The plat shall be amended as follows:
1) The plat shall show a connection from Silver Sky Circle to Hyland in the Mead
Crossing development to the east prior to recording the zone change plat.
(Department of Public Works)
2) The plat shall show a pedestrian connection to the Mead Crossing development
to the east prior to recording the change of zone plat. (Department of Planning
Services)
3) The plat shall indicate the location of school bus shelters. Evidence of St. Vrain
Valley School District approval shall be submitted to the Department of Planning
Services. If necessary, a variance to setbacks must be requested prior to
approval of the change of zone. Further, the applicant shall verify that each facility
meets the intent of the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA)for access.
(Department of Planning Services)
4) The extension of Pioneer Drive (S)south of Silver Sky Circle (S)shall be
designated as a future road connection to be developed upon the development of
the property to the south. (Department of Planning Services)
D. 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:
A. The site specific development plan is for a Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to PUD
(Planned Unit Development)for 429 residential lots, open space and continuing oil and gas
production as indicated in the application materials on file in the Department of Planning
Services. The residential lots will adhere to the uses allowed in the R-1 (Low-Density
Residential)Zone District except as indicated below. The PUD will be subject to and governed
by the Conditions of Approval stated hereon and all applicable Weld County Regulations.
(Department of Planning Services)
B. The minimum setbacks shall follow the exhibit on page 3 of this change of zone plat.
(Department of Planning Services)
C. The minimum lot size shall be 6,000 square feet. (Department of Planning Services)
D. Storage of vehicles or recreational vehicles shall only be allowed inside garages that are
part of the principle use structure. Storage of vehicles or recreational vehicles within carports
and/or parking areas are not allowed. (Department of Planning Services)
E. The minimum setback from an oil and gas production facility shall be three-hundred-fifty-feet.
(Department of Planning Services)
F. Livestock is prohibited. (Department of Planning Services)
G. Household pets are limited to two (2). (Department of Planning Services)
H. Two (2) entry signs of thirty-two (32)square feet. (Department of Planning Services)
Resolution PZ-1082
Kitely Farms LLLP
Page 9
I. A Metropolitan District has been established. The District 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)
J. A Homeowner's Association has been established. Membership in the Association is
mandatory for each parcel owner. (Department of Planning Services)
K. Kiteley Ranch is a member of the Southwestern Weld County Law Enforcement District and
shall be taxed accordingly. (Department of Planning Services)
L. Weld County's Right to Farm as delineated on this plat shall be recognized at all times.
(Department of Planning Services)
M. Water service shall be obtained from Longs Peak Water District. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
N. Sewer service shall be obtained from the St. Vrain Sanitation District. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
O. Permanent restroom and handwashing facilities shall be provided within the pool/tot lot park
and the 1.42 acre park in the north entrance. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
P. All existing septic systems must be abandoned in accordance with Section 30-7-70 of the
Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
Q. A stormwater discharge permit may be required for a development/redevelopment
/construction site where a contiguous or non-contiguous land disturbance is greater than or
equal to one acre in area. Contact the Water Quality Control Division of the Colorado
Department of Public Health and the Environment at www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/PermitsUnit
for more information. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
R. During development of the site, all land disturbances shall be conducted so that nuisance
conditions are not created. If dust emissions create nuisance conditions, at the request of the
Weld County Health Department, a fugitive dust control plan must be submitted. (Department
of Public Health and Environment)
S. 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)
T. 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)(Department of
Public Health and Environment)
U. A separate building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction of any building.
(Department of Building Inspection)
V. A plan review is required for each building for which a building permit is required. Plans shall
include a floor plan. Commercial building plans shall bear the wet stamp of a Colorado
registered architect or engineer. Two complete sets of plans are required when applying for
each permit. Commercial building plans require a Code Analysis Data sheet, provided by the
Weld County Building Department. Residential building plans may be required to bear the wet
stamp of a Colorado registered architect or engineer. (Department of Building Inspection)
W. Buildings shall conform to the requirements of the codes adopted by Weld County at the time
of permit application. Current adopted codes include the 2003 International Residential Code;
Resolution PZ-1082
Kitely Farms LLLP
Page 10
2003 International Building Code; 2003 International Mechanical Code; 2003 International
Plumbing Code; 2003 International Fuel Gas Code; 2002 National Electrical Code and
Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Building Inspection)
X. Each building will require an engineered foundation based on a site-specific geotechnical
report or an open hole inspection performed by a Colorado registered engineer. Engineered
foundations shall be designed by a Colorado registered engineer. (Department of Building
Inspection)
Y. Fire resistance of walls and openings, construction requirements, maximum building height
and allowable areas will be reviewed at the plan review. Setback and offset distances shall
be determined by the Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Building
Inspection)
Z. Building height shall be measured in accordance with the 2003 International Building Code for
the purpose of determining the maximum building size and height for various uses and types
of construction and to determine compliance with the Bulk Requirements as indicated on this
plat or delineated in Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code. Building height shall be measured
in accordance with Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code in order to determine compliance
with offset and setback requirements. When measuring buildings to determine offset and
setback requirements, buildings are measured to the farthest projection from the building.
Property lines shall be clearly identified and all property pins shall be staked prior to the first
site inspection. (Department of Building Inspection)
AA. Building plans shall be submitted to Mountain View Fire Protection District for their approval.
(Department of Building Inspection)
BB. 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)
CC. 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 2002-11) (Department of Planning Services)
DD. Oil and gas structures shall be fenced to avoid tampering. (Sheriff's Office)
EE. Except where noted on this plat, signs shall adhere to Section 23-4-80 and Section 23-4-110
of the Weld County Code. These requirements shall apply to all temporary and permanent
signs. (Department of Planning Services)
FF. Installation of utilities shall comply with Section 24-9-10 of the Weld County Code.
(Department of Planning Services)
GG. The property owner shall be responsible for compiling with the Performance Standards of
Chapter 27, Article II and Article VIII, of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning
Services)
HH. 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)
II. The site shall maintain compliance at all times with the requirements of the Weld County
Departments of Public Works, Public Health and the Environment, and Planning Services,
and adopted Weld County Code and Policies. (Department of Planning Services)
JJ. 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
Resolution PZ-1082
Kitely Farms LLLP
Page 11
Planning Services)
KK. 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 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)
LL. 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 thirty(30)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 thirty(30)days from the date of the Board of County
Commissioners resolution a $50.00 recording continuance charge shall be added for each
additional 3 month period. (Department of Planning Services)
6. At the time of Final Plan submission:
A. Only one single family residence per legal lot is allowed in the R-1 (Residential)Zone District.
The applicant is proposing to place the existing homes on one lot. The applicant shall submit
a non-conforming use application for one of the existing residences. (Department of Planning
Services)
B. Prior to submitting the Final Plan application, the applicant shall contact Lin Dodge, Weld
County Building Inspection Department, to obtain preliminary addresses. The applicant shall
include a copy of the proposed street names and preliminary addresses with the Final Plat
applications for review and approval by referral agencies. (Department of Planning Services)
C. A Letter of Map Amendment, approved by FEMA, shall be provided with the final plat
application materials and no buildings shall be allowed inside the effective FEMA defined
floodplain. (Department of Public Works)
D. The applicant shall provide an Improvements Agreement for both Public and Private
Improvements According to Policy Regarding Collateral for Improvements with the final plan
application. These agreements must be reviewed by County staff and shall be approved by
the Board of County Commissioners prior to recording the final plat. (Department Planning
Services)
E. The applicant shall submit to the Department of Planning Services a copy of the Restrictive
Covenants, the Metropolitan District, the Law Enforcement Authority and Home Owners
Association Incorporation paperwork for the PUD for review by the Weld County Attorney's
Office. Any changes requested by the Weld County Attorney's Office shall be incorporated
prior to recording. (Department of Planning Services)
Resolution PZ-1082
Kitely Farms LLLP
Page 12
F. The final plan shall include a Landscape Plan for all open space amenities within the PUD.
The applicant shall also clarify how the proposed 25 foot Utility and Landscape easement
shall be utilized. Landscaping within utility easements in not usually allowed. The applicant
shall provide additional information pertaining to the plant materials, including common,
botanical and species names, size at installation and any additional information deemed
necessary, if any. (Department of Planning Services)
G. The applicant shall submit a re-vegetation plan of all disturbed areas during construction. The
plan shall include information regarding plant type, installation methods and maintenance.
(Department of Planning Services)
H. The applicant shall demonstrate how the proposed plant material will be watered. Further, the
applicant shall provide evidence that the tap from Longs Peak District is permitted to provide
irrigation water to the landscaped areas. (Department of Planning Services)
I. 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)
J. The applicant shall contact the Colorado Division of Wildlife to discuss the concerns raised by
the Division in a referral dated January 17, 2006. The Final Plan application shall indicate how
the concerns of the Colorado Division of Wildlife have been addressed. (Colorado Division of
Wildlife)
K. The covenants for Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake shall address the following:
1) A noxious weed plan as requested by the Longmont Soil Conservation District.
(Longmont Soil Conservation District)
L. The final plat application materials shall include a detailed final engineering
geology/geotechnical report that addresses the limitations of construction due to groundwater
and soil conditions identified in the Subsurface Exploration Program Preliminary Geotechnical
Recommendations report by Ground Engineering Consultants, dated November 22, 2004.
M. All septic systems located on the property shall have appropriate permits from the Weld
County Department of Public Health & Environment. The Environmental Health Division of
the Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment was unable to locate a septic
permit for 13844 CR 7. Any existing septic system(s)which is not currently permitted through
the Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment will require an I.S.D.S.
Evaluation prior to the issuance of the required septic permit(s). In the event the system(s) is
found to be inadequate, the system(s) must be brought into compliance with current I.S.D.S.
regulations.
7. Prior to recording the final plat:
A. The applicant shall submit evidence that all requirements of the St. Vrain Valley School
District have been completed. (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 submit evidence that the Covenants have been approved by the County
Attorney's Office. (Department of Planning Services)
D. The applicant shall submit the finalized agreement/service plan for the Metropolitan District.
(Department of Planning Services)
Resolution PZ-1082
Kitely Farms LLLP
Page 13
E. The applicant shall present a unanimous petition of all landowners and residents of the Kiteley
Ranch PUD registered to vote in the State of Colorado thus qualifying the Development for
inclusion into the Southwest Weld County Law Enforcement Authority(SWCLEA) (if it has
been created) or for creation of a separate Law Enforcement Authority(LEA) (if it was not
created). A LEA is a taxing unit with a maximum mill levy of 7 mills created for the purpose of
providing additional law enforcement by the county sheriff to the residents of the developed or
developing unincorporated Weld County. The revenues would be available initially to provide
directed patrols and eventually to provide additional deputies to carry out those activities
within the LEA. This is intended to offset the demand for law enforcement generated by
increased population densities. (Department of Planning Services)
F. Finalized covenants and the appropriate recording fee (currently$6 for the first page and $5
for all others)shall be submitted to the Weld County Department of Planning Services for
recording at the Weld County Clerk and Recorders office. (Department of Planning Services)
G. 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)
8. Prior to construction:
A. The applicant shall provide a letter on letterhead from the Mountain View Fire Protection
District stating that all requirements have been met for each Filing and/or Phase of this
development. (Department of Planning Services)
9. Prior to release of collateral:
A. The applicant shall submit evidence that the open space have been deeded to the
Metropolitan District. (Department of Planning Services)
B. Evidence shall be submitted from the Weld County Department of Public Health and
Environment indicating that the existing septic systems have been abandoned in accordance
with County regulations. (Department of Planning Services)
Motion seconded by
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Michael Miller
Roy Spitzer
Erich Ehrlich
Bruce Fitzgerald
Chad Auer
Tom Holton
Doug Ochsner
James Welch
Paul Branham
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.
Resolution PZ-1082
Kiteley Farm LLLP
Page 14
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 18, 2006.
Dated the 18th of April, 2006.
Donita
Secretary
r
-5- 7- Zct
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: 1. EXHIBIT
CASE NUMBER: 3r°AmUSR-552 I v
APPLICANT: Duke Energy tjO$a.
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-614 (located in part of the W2SE4) and a portion of a strip
1
/ - /:7- G��L
applicant's attorney confirmed that he did.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
3. CASE NUMBER: MF-1069
APPLICANT: David &Susanne Schwind
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-2651; being part NW4 of Section 4, T3N, R68W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Minor Subdivision Final Plat for four(4) residential lots,The
Highlands, with Estate Zoning.
The Chair asked if the applicants were present and if they wished to remain on the consent agenda. The
applicant's confirmed that they did.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Mike Miller moved that Cases USR-1548,AmUSR-1476 and MF-1069, 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; Michael Miller, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes;
Paul Branham, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
A short recess was called due to technical difficulties with technical equipment. Meeting reconvened at 1:50
p.m.
Specific time for public input has been set aside for discussion on the following items:
4. 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. This case was continued from the March 7,2006 Planning
Commission hearing date at the request of the applicant with the support of planning staff to allow the
applicant additional time to address concerns raised by referral agencies
Kiteley Farms, LLLP c/o Jerry Eckelberger, Longs Peak Investors, LLC have applied for a Change of Zone
from Agricultural to PUD for 429 residential lots, open space and continuing oil and gas production.
The signs announcing the Planning Commission hearing were posted March 31, 2006 by Planning Staff and
are evidenced by photograph and affidavit.
The proposed Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake PUD is located south of and adjacent to State Highway 66 and
east of and adjacent to County Road 7. The Town of Mead has annexed properties to the east, west and
north. Liberty Ranch is to the west and Mead Crossing is planned to the east. Liberty Ranch is presently
under construction.
2
The site has two(2)existing homes without buildings which are to be retained within one lot.The remainder of
the site is undeveloped with the Highland Ditch following the north and east boundaries of the site.
On the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area Structural Plan, Map 2.1,the site is designated as residential with
limiting site factors adjacent to Foster Reservoir.
The proposed PUD will be serviced by Longs Peak Water District for potable and non-potable water. St.Vrain
Sanitation District will handle the effluent flow.
The site is located within the three mile referral area of the Towns of Mead and Frederick and the City of
Longmont. The Town of Mead is opposed to this development being approved as an unincorporated project
and wants the applicant to petition for annexation. Mead further asks that the applicant complete an access
permit for access onto County Road 7 which is within the Town limits.The applicant is required to complete an
access permit with the Town or show an adequate attempt has been made prior to scheduling the Board of
County Commissioners change of zone hearing. The Town of Frederick and the City of Longmont indicated
no conflicts with the proposal.
The applicant is proposing a Metropolitan District be established which will be responsible for maintenance of
the facilities,taxes and insurance. Also,Kiteley Ranch is proposed to be a member of the Southwestern Weld
County Law Enforcement District and shall be taxed accordingly.
The applicant has proposed to set their own unique standards with respect to certain bulk requirements rather
than follow the default requirements as set out in the Weld County Code. The variances include minimum
setbacks,which are outlined on the plat and are equivalent to those proposed for the recently approved Adler
Estates.Also the storage of vehicles or recreational vehicles shall only be allowed inside garages that are a
part of the principle use structure. Livestock will be prohibited, household pets will be limited to two(2)and
two (2)entry signs of thirty-two (32) square feet will be allowed, one at each entrance.
The applicant has also requested a two hundred(200)foot setback from oil and gas production facilities,and
a one hundred fifty(150)foot setback from oil and gas wells and separator units. Staff does not support this
request. The applicant does not have a finalized agreement with Kerr-McGee specifying the lesser setback.
Staff comments support the three hundred fifty(350)foot setback that is set by Code in the R-1 Residential
District.
The original plat also included a variance to the minimum lot size. The newly submitted plat indicates that the
lots will follow the R-1 Residential standard minimum lot size of six thousand (6,000)square feet. Staff is in
support of this request. Condition of Approval 3.C needs to be deleted by the Planning Commission.
Twenty-four(24)referral agencies reviewed this case,four(4)referral agencies did not respond,nineteen(19)
responded favorably or included conditions that have been addressed through development standards and
conditions of approval. One (1) referral agency (Mead) requested that the applicants annex into their
municipality and complete an access permit with the Town.
No letters have been received from surrounding property owners.
The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of PZ-1082 for Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake
PUD with the attached conditions of approval and development standards.
The applicants have submitted responses to staff comments. The Departments of Public Works and Planning
Services completed a preliminary review of the submittal. Two(2)of the twelve (12) items required prior to
scheduling the Board of County Commissioners hearing have been adequately addressed. Staff agrees that
conditions 1A.8 and 1.B can be removed. These conditions are in regard to obtaining an agreement for
relocation of a neighbors ditch and amending the plat to show existing oil and gas gathering lines. The
remaining ten (10) items have not been addressed to the satisfaction of County staff.
The applicant has also adequately addressed items 2A and 2.D.3,4 and 6 regarding requested plat changes.
3
The Weld County Department of Public Works has asked that one additional condition be added.Staff asks
that the following Condition be included as 6.L:"the final plat application materials shall include a detailed final
engineering geology/geotechnical report that addresses the limitations of construction due to groundwater and
soil conditions identified in the Subsurface Exploration Program Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations
report by Ground Engineering Consultants, dated November 22, 2004."
The applicant has ten(10)outstanding items that are required to be addressed prior to scheduling their Board
of County Commissioners hearing. Prior to hearing the entire case, we ask that you consider if you can
comfortably give a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners without a resolution to these ten
(10) issues. County staff did feel comfortable proceeding today with the items to be addressed prior to the
Board of County Commissioner's hearing, however the applicant's first attempt at addressing the issues has
been inadequate. I have asked the applicant to be prepared to address the commission regarding why they
believe that resolution of these outstanding issues is not essential for your recommendation.
At this time I would like to ask Pam Smith, Department of Public Health and Environment and Drew Scheltinga
with the Department of Public Works to address the Planning Commission.
Pam Smith, Department of Public Health and Environment, said this application is for approximately four
hundred twenty-seven (427)homes to be served by Longs Peak Water District for potable and non-
potable water. St. Vrain Sanitation District will handle the effluent flow. There is some discrepancy
between resolution numbering and item "O"should instead be a "Q" in the Change of Zone plat note. Ms.
Smith had originally requested that the applicants provide two permanent restroom facilities, one at the
pool/tot lot park and the 1.42 acre part in the north park entrance. As of Friday, April 14, 2006, the
Department of Public Health and Environment learned that the applicant had changed their mind. There is
also no restroom facility noted in the north entrance park on the Corrected Site Plan, sheet 4. Therefore
the Department of Public Health and Environment requests that Change of Zone Plat note "Q"be
amended to read:
1. Permanent restroom and handwashing facilities shall be provided within the pool/tot lot park and the
1.42 acre park in the north entrance.
Ms. Smith continued that during an inspection of the property on April 17, 2006, the Department of Public
Health and Environment found two residences on the property(a correction of the addresses from the
original Change of Zone comments). Residences at 13844 and 13812 have undocumented septic
systems. In a conversation with the applicant, the Department of Public Health and Environment learned
that these houses will be connected to St. Vrain sewer during Phase II of the development. This phase
will be started in approximately three to four years. Therefore, both undocumented septic systems that
will remain in use must be permitted and evaluated for accuracy. As a result of this information Ms. Smith
asked that a condition 6.M be added to page fourteen under"at time of Final Plan submission"which
should read:
All septic systems located on the property shall have appropriate permits from the Weld County
Department of Public Health and Environment. The Environmental Health Division of the Department of
Public Health and Environment was unable to locate a septic permit for 13844 CR 7. Any existing septic
system(s)which is not currently permitted through the Weld County Department of Public Health and
Environment will require and I.S.D.S. Evaluation prior to the issuance of the required septic permit(s). In
the event the system(s) is found to be inadequate, the system(s) must be brought into compliance with
current I.S.D.S. regulations.
Mr. Miller asked Ms. Smith if the applicant was initially providing restroom and handwashing facilities in
both places and then changed that to one but the Department of Public Health and Environment is now
asking for two. Ms. Smith replied that was correct and that the Department of Public Health and
Environment wants restrooms in both locations. The applicant is still planning to provide facilities at the
pool/tot lot because there is plumbing available in that area, but would not provide facilities at the north
entrance as was agreed upon in a conversation.
Drew Scheltinga, Department of Public Works, said that normally with projects of this scale, they try to get
every one of the major issues resolved prior to the Planning Commission hearing, whether that be actual
4
written agreements or part proposals by the applicant, so the Planning Commission can determine
whether the application is adequate and addresses the impacts of development. The Department of
Public Works conducted a Sketch Plan Review in January, 2005 in which they identified major issues. A
Change of Zone Review was made on February 9, 2006 and since then they have had several meetings
with the applicant and have received additional material from them. There was a second review April 4,
2006 that led to the administrative recommendations where twelve items were identified that needed to be
addressed that could be contingencies. Two issues were required to be addressed at Final Plat, two
issues that have been resolved, there are two issues where Public Works has been provided
supplementary information very recently by the applicant and has not had the opportunity to discuss it with
the applicant. Mr. Scheltinga said he does not agree with some of the information as it is not adequate to
address the issue at present. There is one issue that is a Code variance and five others that are in the
process of adjustment by the applicant. Mr. Scheltinga wanted to be sure the Planning Commission did
not get the impression that Public Works staff did not feel this information was important and forward the
application on to the Board of County Commissioners too quickly. This case could be heard today but Mr.
Scheltinga recommended going over those twelve items briefly so that those items could be made
contingent upon scheduling the Change of Zone hearing before the Board of County Commissioners.
The Chair suggested that Mr. Scheltinga go through each issue point by point.
Mr. Scheltinga addressed Department of Public Works concerns on page nine: item 1.A.1., not all had
been adequately addressed; item 1.A.2., not complete at this time; item 1.A.3., applicant has submitted
proposals but there was no resolution at this time; item 1.A.4., not complete at this time; item 1.A.5.,
applicant had submitted information and materials but problem had not been resolved; item 1.A.6.,
completed; item 1.A.7., in process but not resolved; item 1.A.8., completed; item 1.A.9., not complete as
this time. Page ten: item 2.D.1., connectivity at issue which is supported by the Public Works Department
and should be added as a variance, but the applicant disagrees; at time of Final Plat a letter of map
amendment from FEMA to change the flood plain; final improvements agreement for construction on and
off site; and groundwater and soils problems require additional engineering.
Mr. Holton asked Mr. Scheltinga about 1.A.3. regarding future widening of Hwy 66 and referral from CDOT
that the ditch is a historical feature and any widening should be to the north. Mr. Scheltinga said there
would be no problems as far as he was concerned, but the ditch board needed to agree.
The Chair asked Mr. Barker, County Attorney, for advice as to completeness of the application. Mr.
Barker suggested they wait to hear from the applicant.
Jerry Eckelburger, Longs Peak Investors LLC, 7120 E. Orchard Road, Ste. 450, Englewood, CO 80111,
was accompanied by Josh Roland of Land Architects and said there were Longs Peak investors present
as well as the Kiteleys. Mr. Eckelburger said there are two existing homes with the two separate septic
systems and if they are found to be working improperly, they will hook them into the new water and sewer
system in the first phase of the development. He then addressed what he said were the two major issues
to be resolved; the restroom facilities and interconnectivity with Mead Crossing. Mr. Eckelburger said this
is a 429 lot community and it does not make sense to connect with Mead Crossing, which is zoned light
industrial commercial and could present a safety factor for homes with young children. They have two
accesses on CR 7 and have provided for interconnectivity to the south at the Anderson property. The
restroom facilities are needed at the pool area and clubhouse but not close to the entry of the
development due to proximity to Hwy 66 and CR 7 and he saw a maintenance issue for the HOA
(Homeowners Association) long after they are gone. Mr. Eckelburger asked the Planning Commission to
let them go forward with the application. They applied in September, 2005 and it languished on staff desks
for a couple of months and then got moving. In February they met with Planning and Public Works, at
which time they were given a list of nine items to comply with. He thinks they have complied with the
items on the list but other items have subsequently been added. It was their understanding if they
complied with those nine items from Peter Schei, Public Works Department, that would be sufficient for
this hearing. Mr. Eckelburger read the nine items to the audience, defended his position, and said he
believed they had done what they were requested to do. He said he felt they had met the conditions for
this hearing and the rest of the conditions would be resolved prior to the Board of County Commissioner's
Hearing.
5
Josh Roland, Land Architects, 9137 S. Ridgeline Blvd., Highlands Ranch, CO 80126, gave an overview of
the project. He said Hwy 66 was north of their project and CR 7 was to the south and both provide great
access to their project. The Mud planning area includes their proposed development and the Kitley Ranch
PUD had been prepared following the MUD guidelines and they feel was consistent both in the goals of
the MUD and the framework. The applicant would make a donation to the school mitigation impact fund
of the St. Vrain Valley School District. There would be two Mountain View Fire District stations within a
two mile, five minute response time, of their development. Residents of Kitley Ranch would also be
providing tax dollars to support the future development of the Southwest Weld County Law Enforcement
Authority District. They would also be contributing to the improvements of the intersection at CR 7 and
Hwy 66. They have had countless meetings with Terry Enright from Kerr-McGee regarding the surface
use agreements they were proposing today which included the two hundred (200)foot residential setbacks
from oil and gas tanks and the one hundred fifty(150)foot residential setbacks from other minor facilities
such as the well heads and separator units. These conditions were called out in the guidelines for the
Colorado Oil and Gas Commission. Mr. Roland then spoke about amenities the residents would have;
their proximity to Foster Lake, the trails within the development, the community pool park and cabana, the
tot/lot, a picnic shelter, the shade park, tree lined boulevards, and other passive recreation areas. The
single family residences consist of four hundred twenty-nine(429) homes as well as the Kitely homeplace
which would be preserved as part of the project and help maintain the rural feel of the area. Lot sizes
range from sixty-eight(68)feet wide by one hundred ten (110)feet deep for the largest, to fifty-seven (57)
feet wide by one hundred ten (110)feet deep for the smallest and would be intermingled in the
development to provide a more varied streetscape and street appeal. The Highland Ditch Company
Board had also recognized the need to improve their ditch crossing at Hwy 66 and have agreed with the
applicant's efforts to do so. Mr. Roland then outlined the right-of-ways, roadway improvements, detached
sidewalks, tree lined boulevards and landscape median at the entrance. The oil and gas surface
agreement with Kerr-McGee was nearly complete and they would provide that signed contract as part of
their submittal for the Board of County Commission hearing. Currently their smallest lot would be six
thousand two hundred seventy(6270)feet but they would like to reserve the right to use the six thousand
(6000)square feet minimum called out in the PUD to allow flexibility for their builders. They have
proposed a seven and one half(7-1/2)foot side yard setback and will maintain a five (5)foot clear zone
for utilities. They have requested that outdoor household pets for the residents be limited to two(2).
Carports and parking areas, not a part of the principle garage or driveway area, would be prohibited.
Lastly they would like to be allowed some flexibility in their entrance signage beyond the county
requirement of thirty-two(32)square feet.
Mr. Miller asked about the park near the entrance and the applicant's rationale for not putting restroom
facilities by the entrance. Mr. Roland said unwanted public foot traffic and public safety were major
concerns. Mr. Miller said he saw a need and did not agree with Mr. Roland's rationale. Mr. Roland said
they don't think, as builders and developers, that this was something that was needed or desirable but if
the Planning Commission thought this was necessary, they can live with restroom facilities being added at
the entrance.
Mr. Miller asked Ms. Lockman about the three hundred fifty(350)foot residential setbacks for oil and gas
facilities called out in the Code. Ms. Lockman responded that staff has in the past adhered to that
requirement. However the Board has approved a two hundred (200)foot setback at Adler Estates. If the
applicant got a signed agreement from Kerr-McGee specifying lesser setbacks, staff would agree to two
hundred (200)feet but that would still encroach into the lots, so the applicant is asking for even less than
the Board of County Commissioners have approved in the past.
Mr. Eckelburger said they do not have a signed agreement with Kerr—McGee but were confidant it would
be signed. Mr. Miller inquired how many proposed wells would be placed on the site and the site's square
footage. Mr. Eckelburger replied there were two at the present time and up to three more in the future.
Mr. Roland responded the site would contain five well heads with five separator units, two oil tanks and
one water tank. Flow lines run to the east in the open space, with one collection line in and out of the
area.
r
Mr. Miller then inquired about connectivity to the development to the east that staff was requesting. Mr.
Roland replied that a lot would have to be eliminated to satisfy connectivity. Mr. Miller asked Ms. Lockman
if zoning was light industrial and commercial there could potentially be a strip mall or convenience store in
6
the area. Ms. Lockman said she believed so. Mr. Eckelburger said they have allowed for interconnectivity
in the residential area to the south but he did not see a need to do so for the light industrial/commercial
area and did not think it was appropriate. Mr. Miller then outlined the convoluted route the residents would
have to take to get in and out of the development to the commercial areas. Mr. Eckelburger said Centex
would have a development in the future and residents could use their access. He concluded by saying
that connectivity from residential to residential was appropriate but he did not think the Code called for
connectivity between residential and commercial.
Mr. Holton asked what the applicant has on paper in the way of agreements with the Highland Ditch
Company. Mr. Eckelburger responded that they have met with the Highland Ditch Board and they were
agreeable to the recreation trail of the development and their maintenance easement being one and the
same. Regarding erosion there was some erosion prevention on the north side but something may need
to be done in the future. Mr. Roland said Highland Ditch was agreeable to the sixty foot setback off the
center line of the ditch and they have provided adequate room for their maintenance of the ditch. Highland
Ditch was also very amenable to the shared access road and recreation trail.
Mr. Holton requested more detail and specifics because he felt many of the issues had not been
adequately addressed with Highland Ditch, CR 7 and the Town of Mead, and Kerr-McGee. Mr.
Eckelburger said again that they have done what they were asked to do by staff and would like this
application to move forward. They would meet the remaining conditions prior to the Board of County
Commissioner's hearing and added they would not have be here today if they thought they could not settle
the remaining issues prior to the Board of County Commissioner's hearing.
Mr. Auer echoed Mr. Holton's concerns and cited their responsibility to pass along complete
recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners and added that it was difficult to make an
informed decision without more concrete information from the various entities involved. He asked the
applicant about access permits and payment for road paving with the Town of Mead. Mr. Eckelburger
responded that staff should have that information and that before he came to Weld County with this
application he had consulted with the Town of Mead. They have worked with Centex, CDOT, Mead and
the Adler property and have agreements for the improvements on CR 7 and Hwy 66 intersection. Mead
has indicated that access points were fine with them and they would pursue access permits with Mead
prior to the Board hearing. Mr. Eckelburger reiterated how hard they had worked to meet staff
recommendations, how much money they had spent to get to this point, and that they would meet all
conditions prior to the Board hearing. Mr.Auer said he sympathized with the applicant's dilemma and was
not defending Mead's approach.
Ms. Lockman said there were some deletions and one addition that needed to be addressed.
Mr. Ochsner asked staff for clarification on the MUD process and if staff had final approval on these
stipulations. If those conditions were not completed, then what happens. Ms. Lockman replied that the
most outstanding issues must be satisfied prior to the Board hearing. If the applicant did not meet what
staff felt was adequate, staff would inform the Board. The Board could amend the application again or
approve it as the applicants like. Staff would still have another opportunity to refute all of this information
and the applicant would still have to go through the final plating process so there were a lot of conditions
that could be brought up at that point. Mr. Ochsner asked who the"we"referred to, was it staff or the
Planning Commission, and if all of the agreements must be met prior to sending the application to the
Board. Ms. Lockman said the Planning Commission would only hear this application again if they were to
continue it and also if conditions were not met, the Board of County Commissioners would be informed as
to what had not been met and why. Mr. Eckelburger thanked the Planning Commission for their time and
said the conditions would be met prior to the application being scheduled before the Board.
Mr. Holton said there were too many unanswered questions and the Planning Commission is the sounding
board for the County Commissioners, so he wanted those questions answered prior to that, even though
he likes the overall project. Mr. Eckelburger said he understood that if they did not meet the conditions
they would not get before the Board and that the Planning Commission had fulfilled their obligations.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
7
Ms. Lockman then presented the following changes to the application:
Delete Condition of Approval 3.C regarding minimum lot size. The applicant has requested to follow the R-1
Residential Zone District standard minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. (Page 11)
Delete Condition of Approval 1.A.8 which states"The applicant shall provide an agreement with the owner of
the property to the south (Anderson)for the relocation of the irrigation ditch." (Page 9)
Delete Condition of Approval 1.B which states "The plats shall be amended to show any gathering line
easements for the existing oil and gas structures along with proposed relocation if necessary." (Page 9)
Delete Condition of Approval 2.A which states"All sheets of the Change of Zone plat shall be labeled PZ-
1082." (Page 10)
Delete Condition of Approval 2.D.3 which states"Amended MUD Structural Land Use Map 2.1, dated April
2006 shows plans for a trail connection along Foster Reservoir. A trail shall be established along the
southeastern edge of the property connecting to Pioneer Drive. The trail shall also include a linkage to the
property to the south for the planned future regional trail system."
Delete Condition of Approval 2.D.4 which states"A link from the trail adjacent to County Road 7 to the south
end of Silent Point"shall be added.
Delete Condition of Approval 2.D.6 which states""Weld County's Right to Farm"as provided in Appendix 22-E
of the Weld County Code shall be delineated on the plat.
Add Condition of Approval 6.L at the request of the Weld County Department of Public Works(page 14).The
Condition shall state "The final plat application materials shall include a detailed final engineering
geology/geotechnical report that addresses the limitations of construction due to groundwater and soil
conditions identified in the Subsurface Exploration Program Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations
report by Ground Engineering Consultants, dated November 22, 2004." (Page 14)
Mike Miller motioned to accept the changes, deletions and additions recommended by staff. 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; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes;
Paul Branham, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Pam Smith, Department of Public Health and Environment, asked that item O. page 11, be amended to
read, "Permanent restroom and handwashing facilities shall be provided within the pool, tot/lot park and
the 1.42 acre park at the north entrance." On page 14, please add condition item M.6. under"At time of
Final Plan submission", M.6. "All septic systems located on the property shall have appropriate permits
from the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment. The Environmental Health Division
of the Department of Public Health and Environment was unable to locate a septic permit for 13844 CR 7.
Any existing septic system(s)which is not currently permitted through the Weld County Department of
Public Health and Environment will require and I.S.D.S. Evaluation prior to the issuance of the required
septic permit(s). In the event the system(s) is found to be inadequate, the system(s) must be brought into
compliance with current I.S.D.S. regulations."
Mike Miller motioned to accept the amendment recommended by Ms. Smith. Chad Auer 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; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes;
Paul Branham, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Scheltinga, Public Works, suggested leaving the conditions at different stages as they work toward
8
resolution of the remaining issues. The Chair said he would like to discuss the connectivity to the east
further. Mr. Auer said connectivity helps remove the burden from the major arterials and agreed with the
recommendation. Mr. Miller said the area is somewhat developed now with the storage units and did not
see any benefit for people using the light commercial area to cut across the subdivision to get to CR 7. It
would be quicker for them to access Hwy 66, so he supported connectivity.
Mr. Ehrlich asked Mr. Scheltinga to comment, if he could, about a timetable for the improvements on 1-25
and Hwy 66. Mr. Scheltinga responded that he and the applicant had met with CDOT and discussed the
issue of widening Hwy 66 and 1-25 as well as the ditch issues, but there was no set schedule for the
improvements to Hwy 66, however the widening of 1-25 was imminent.
Mr. Branham said he agreed with the connectivity recommendation due to the commercial aspect and
supported it from the standpoint of public safety.
Mr. Holton asked if there was to be a trail that connected the subdivision to the commercial area. Ms.
Lockman said staff had requested a pedestrian path to the area. Mr. Holton then said he could
understand the connection from the standpoint of safety, but agreed with the applicant that connection to
the commercial areas was unnecessary.
Mr. Miller asked if there were any variances requested by the applicant.
The Chair asked the applicants back to address the materials dated April 14, 2006. Mr. Roland said they
were proposing the framework for the PUD proposal and they did have a few minor tweaks to Ms.
Lockman's report. Mr. Roland said the first item in Ms. Lockman's report used the smallest lot size
proposed, as the minimum lot size (6270 square feet) but they wanted that to read six thousand (6000)
square feet instead. Item two discussed their requested oil and gas setbacks, which, until the applicants
have a signed agreement, staff was recommending remain at three hundred fifty(350)feet. Mr.
Eckelburger brought up again the Adler setbacks and said they will obtain a signed agreement with Kerr-
McGee, and at that time it should become apparent that the setbacks they were requesting would be
acceptable to staff and the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
Mr. Branham asked Ms. Lockman if they had agreed to a minimum two hundred (200)and one hundred
fifty(150)foot setbacks for the Adler subdivision. Ms. Lockman responded that the minimum staff would
be willing to accept was a two hundred (200)foot setback. Beyond that, the Planning Commission or the
Board of County Commissioners would need to make the final decision.
Mr. Roland said item three concerns the current sign ordinance of a maximum thirty-two (32) square foot
area for a sign and they would like a variance for entry monumentation. They want a column and low
walls to complement the entry and their proposal was consistent with the entry. Mr.Auer asked Ms.
Lockman if the Planning Commission was to consider this variance now. Ms. Lockman replied that the
way staff comments were written now, the applicant would be allowed one sign of thirty-two (32) square
feet at each entrance. Planning has allowed the applicants two signs. If the applicants want a variance
they need to provide Planning with more specific information as to how big those signs will be. The Chair
asked for clarification from applicant regarding the signs. Mr. Roland said that with little add-ons and
plantings, the signs could go over the thirty-two (32) square feet allowed. Mr. Miller said they can't act on
this request until something is submitted. Mr. Holton asked about sign variances for Melody Homes. Ms.
Lockman said she did not know about Melody Homes but the biggest issue with the signs in this case was
that they were in the median and whether they meet the required ten (10)foot setback from the road was
not of real concern. The major concern was that the signs are in a future road right-of-way as well as a
twenty-five(25)foot utility easement, so they will have to be moved. Planning needs a concrete idea of
size because they may impede site distance triangles etc. Mr. Eckelburger said they would live with the
thirty-two (32)square foot requirement for two signs, one at each entrance. Mr. Branham said the
discussion was different from the written request in that the Sheriffs Department requested a sign at each
entry, and that is completely different from what he had heard discussed. Ms. Lockman said the Sheriff's
Department request was standard and not really an issue.
Mr. Miller asked about two other variances; one from lot lines and car ports, and the other concerning
animal units. Ms. Lockman replied that setbacks were the same as was approved for the Adler
9
subdivision. She asked for clarification from the applicant concerning animal units. Mr. Eckelburger said
they would request that outdoor pets be limited to two per house. Ms. Lockman said that the note would
need to be amended. Mr. Miller said he felt that was a pretty vague regulation they were asking be added
as it was all subject to interpretation.
Mr. Miller said he hated to say it, but he told them so. Back when they heard Adler Estates, they started
setting variances from standards and now they have applicant's coming in saying they did it for Adler
Estates and we want the same things. He said that each application should be considered on its own
standards and merits and not compared to a previous application. We opened a can of worms when we
approved placing homes closer to lot lines and we need to adhere to the requirements in the County Code
as they were established for a reason. As lots were getting smaller, houses were closer together and we
were degrading the quality of the developments. At some point we need to draw the line, say enough is
enough, and stick to the Code. We have previously accepted decreased setbacks in other applications
and now everyone wants them. There is a reason houses in the community are located where they are in
proximity to the wells. We established a precedent we shouldn't have. Lastly, restricting domestic pets
would be difficult to enforce and we would be counting ferrets and rabbits, cats and dogs.
The Chair asked Mr. Barker how to proceed- do they consider each issue or vote in totality. Mr. Barker
replied that on page eleven, the items in C., E., G., and H could be changed to"as requested"and then
each becomes part of their application. The Chair asked if they did that would the applicant's request then
be compatible with the County standards. Mr. Barker replied that Mr. Miller had a good point as it was
somewhat of a variance from Code standards but was unique to this PUD.
Mr. Spitzer asked if each issue should be reviewed one at a time.
The Chair asked for discussion regarding oil and gas setbacks.
Mr. Ochsner said that until they had a signed agreement from Kerr-McGee they don't have any concrete
information to evaluate. Mr. Miller supported the Code standards of three hundred fifty(350)feet. Mr.
Spitzer cited industry standards and wants an agreement with Kerr-McGee. Mr. Auer agreed with Mr.
Miller regarding the three hundred fifty(350)foot setbacks and we must leave them as written. Mr.
Branham also agreed setbacks should be left at three hundred fifty(350)for issues of public safety and a
letter from Kerr-McGee lowering the number would not affect his opinion. Mr. Spitzer asked Ms.
Lockman for setback recommendations in the Code. She replied the Code stipulates three hundred fifty
(350)foot setbacks from oil and gas production facilities in the R-1 zone district. The Chair agreed with
the Code setbacks as well and said they would only be changed if a motion was made. There was none
presented.
Mr. Eckelburger asked for clarification regarding the three hundred fifty(350)foot setbacks that stand until
and unless they get a letter from Kerr-McGee saying two hundred fifty(250)feet is acceptable. He once
again cited the inequity between their application and what Adler Estates was granted and the hardship
this would cause them if they were not given the same concessions. Mr. Barker, County Attorney, said
three hundred fifty feet has been in the Code since 1999 and the applicant is free to lobby the Board of
County Commissioners for a change to the Code, but that is the Code standard. A variance was made for
Adler PUD, but that does not mean Planning Commission needs to do this for every PUD that comes
along. Mr. Miller said the Oil and Gas Commission looks at whether that was an adequate zone for
maintenance and repair of the well head and tank batteries after installation. These zones were
established to provide adequate access and work areas for equipment maintenance. Mr. Eckelburger
disagreed and said that he knew from sitting on the board of a public oil and gas company and conferring
with Kerr-McGee, they do consider two hundred (250)feet to be a safety zone, and the last thing they
want to do is set them up for a lawsuit. We also would not do anything that was unsafe for our residents.
Mr. Barker interjected and said it was not proper for the applicant to come back and argue with the
Planning Commission after they have already made a decision.
The Chair asked for discussion regarding animal units. Mr. Miller said the wording was fine. Mr. Holton
asked why they were even considering this. Ms. Lockman responded that was already in the Code as to
specifics, that the applicant was just instituting further limitations. Mr. Branham did not agree that they
should be addressing the household pet issue at all. Ms. Lockman said this could go in the applicant's
10
covenants and that would be an option. Mr. Miller asked about amending the setbacks from lot lines. Ms.
Lockman replied that page eleven (11), item B. and page three (3)of the Change of Zone plat shows the
setbacks the applicant wished to call out. Ms. Lockman said Planning was agreeable with the setbacks
due to the Adler precedent per the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Auer asked if that was in there
and the justification for it was because we did it for Adler. Ms. Lockman said it was deemed to be
adequate by the Board of County Commissioners through a different process and a different subdivision.
Mr. Miller asked if the Code defined the setbacks relative to the height of the structure. Ms. Lockman
replied that in R-1 the minimum setback would be twenty(20)feet, off-set would be five (5)feet or one (1)
foot for each three (3)feet of building height, whichever is greater. Mr. Miller said he felt that regulation
was created for a purpose and to establish a standard, and because they had been lax in the past, they
were now in an awkward position, but decisions should be based on the Code, not based on applicant
requests.
Chad Auer motioned to remove item 3.B., page 11. Mike Miller seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer,no; Michael Miller,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes;Tom Holton, no; Chad Auer,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes;Paul
Branham, no; Bruce Fitzgerald, no. Motion tied.
Mr. Branham commented that he felt this was a real challenge for them. On the one hand he saw the privacy
and noise issues with homes so close together but at the same time he was not sure that another two and a
half(2-1/2)feet would make much difference. Also considering that the Board of County Commissioners
approved Adler Estates, a precedent had been set.
The Chair asked the applicant if he agreed with the amended Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval. Mr. Eckelburger replied that three hundred fifty(350)feet was for churches and schools and
things of that nature, but the precedent was important. If you allowed one developer to do it and not
another, then it punishes them in terms of making this a financially viable project. If this was safe for Adler
Estates, then it was safe for them, and he wanted to hear from staff, as he understood that once they
received the letter from Kerr-McGee, that was acceptable. The Chair reminded Mr. Eckelburger this had
been addressed and there was no motion made by the Planning Commission. Ms. Lockman said staff
agreed that since the Board of County Commissioners did make those waivers for Adler Estates, which
have been withdrawn and are no longer an issue, that they would support this applicant's request but they
have never seen the agreement. Planning Staff becomes the representative for the Planning Commission
from this point on. If Planning Commission should not support varying from the standard setback, staff
will not support the variance. Mr. Eckelburger said they agree with all but the three hundred fifty(350)foot
setback requirement.
The Chair asked the Commission for any final discussion of this application.
Mr. Ehrlich said he felt like he had been in a Las Vegas poker match for the past four hours and he
doesn't know what cards are held out there and he doesn't know what cards had been dealt. The only
thing he did know was that as a new member on the Planning Commission he would always default back
to the County Code. We can't look at past applications. We need to look at this specific application. The
Highland Ditch issue was a concern. We cannot keep putting in residential areas without having a better
idea of the transportation impacts. He felt that perhaps CDOT needed to become more involved. Other
than the application, he felt they had a good presentation and felt a lot of young families would benefit
from the community but he would continue to follow the County Code because as a Planning
Commissioner, he was accountable to the public for the decisions they made. The County Code was up
for review in 2006 and he invited the applicant to join a task force with him and revisit the Code if
necessary. Mr. Ehrlich closed by saying he was holding all aces but he thought he just threw them all
away, so he was going to fold.
Mr. Auer agreed with Mr. Ehrlich and added that he was not comfortable in moving forward with
incomplete information. The applicants and staff have worked hard on this issue. This particular
development is in the MUD we know there was a lack of congruence in the area. Municipalities will
ultimately deliver services to these developments, and he preferred to see development happen within the
municipalities. Regarding connectivity and the increased traffic on Hwy 66, CDOT seemed to be reluctant
11
or slow to put in traffic lights or make improvements. There were still too many issues needing resolution.
Mr. Branham said there were many issues yet to be resolved, particularly regarding the Highland Ditch.
He was however, inclined to approve the applications with the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval, but with a word of caution to the staff that he would like them to present future projects that are
better prepared.
Mr. Ochsner agreed with Mr. Branham and added that their job was to address topics in progress. They
do not need to see an absolute final plan every time. It was their job to put in conditions if needed and
then it was staffs responsibility to work with the applicant to guarantee them. This property is in the MUD
and is the goal of the County to develop this property and to force them into a town is against the Code.
The development was in the county and he felt that was where the development should remain.
Mr. Miller said staff is capable but questioned Highland Ditch allowing an adjacent trail. He had never
heard of anything similar, was surprised that they would agree to that, and wanted to see something in
writing. Mr. Miller was not happy with the county development being based on the applicant's complaint
they can't compete if lot sizes are reduced. We needed to look to the future—not just the profit. We
needed to follow the Code, draw a line in the sand, and hold everyone to the standards, or the Code was
meaningless. If we don't take a stand, developers will push us to that point. Mr. Miller said it was a good
plan with the amendments they had made and trusted staff to follow through on the application.
Mr. Holton said he agreed with Mr. Miller on some things, but that some needed to be tempered. He felt
the market should drive the lot size. If the lots were too small and the houses too close, people would not
buy them. He also would like to see the Board of County Commissioners look more closely at the oil &
gas setbacks.
Mr. Spitzer said he supports staff recommendations and felt most of the issues could be resolved and
trusts the developer would meet those requirements. Mr. Spitzer agreed with Mr. Holton regarding the oil
and gas setbacks and they should ensure safety rather than be concerned with how much land could be
developed. He felt they would see more and more conflicts with the oil and gas issues due to the nature of
the area. Affordable housing would continue to be an issue. They must look to the Code for guidance
when considering variances but there were places for exception.
The Chair said there were fifteen (15) pages of development standards and conditions of approval, but
what staff had handed them was a good document and he would support it.
Mike Miller moved that Case PZ-1082, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval. Torn Holton 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; Erich Ehrlich,yes;Tom Holton,yes;Chad Auer,no;Doug Ochsner,yes; Paul
Branham, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried.
5. CASE NUMBER: PZ-1110
APPLICANT: Charles and Theresa Hellmer
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-3492; part E2NE4 Section 30, T3N, R68W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Change of Zone from the R-1 (Low Density Residential)Zone
District to PUD to allow for storage of landscaping equipment and
materials along with uses by right in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 3 and approximately 1/4 mile south
of Highway 66.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services. Charles &Theresa Hellmer have applied for a change
12
Hello