HomeMy WebLinkAbout20061142.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Paul Branham, that the following resolution be introduced for denial by the Weld County
Planning Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: AmPF-354
APPLICANT: James &Cheri Scott
PLANNER: Brad Mueller
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Section 4, T6N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Amended PUD final plan to subdivideLot 7, Shiloh Estates into four lots, three
additional lots.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Cornerstone Way within Shilho Estates, which is
located north of and adjacent to County Road 72, one-half mile east of State
Highway 275.
be recommended unfavorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 27-7-30 of the
Weld County Code. Section 27-8-40 requires that changes to a PUD final plan follow the submittal
process of Section 27-7-30.
2. It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the applicant has not shown compliance with
Section 27-7-40.D of the Weld County Code as follows:
A. Section 27-7-40.D.2.a — That the proposal is consistent with Chapters 19, 22, 23, 24, and 26 of
this Code and any intergovernmental agreement in effect influencing the PUD. The proposal
— does not meet the following elements of Chapters 22 or 24:
1) Section 22-2-110.8 (UGB.Goal 2) — Concentrate urban development in or adjacent to
existing municipalities, an approved intergovernmental agreement, the 1-25 Mixed Use
Development area, urban growth boundary areas, urban development nodes, or where
urban infrastructure is currently available or reasonably obtainable. This application
proposes urban-scale development as defined by Section 24-1-40 of the Weld County
Code. (See below.) The site is not located within the 1-25 MUD area, and it is not
located within the Town of Windsor's Urban Growth Boundary Area. Urban services do
not exist at this location. The intent of this goal is to encourage urban scale development
to occur where urban scale infrastructure is available. The proposed location for this
subdivision is not located in any of the defined urban areas, and the site is unable to be
served by urban infrastructure such as municipal sanitary sewer.
2) Section 22-2-190.C.1 (R. Policy 3.1) The County should encourage an efficient form of
urban residential development by directing urban residential growth to those areas where
urban services and infrastructure are currently available or reasonably obtainable. Urban
services have not been provided and are not proposed to be provided to this site. The
site is also located outside an urban growth boundary area. Therefore, the proposal does
not comply with this Policy. Locating urban scale developments outside of urban growth
boundary areas or Intergovernmental Agreement areas is not considered efficient.
Sanitary service is not available to serve the proposed urban subdivision, nor is urban
street curb and gutter proposed.
3) Section 22-2-210.C. (PUD.Goal 3) Maintain land use regulations that allow County
officials to review development proposals which may combine Uses By Right in two (2) or
more zone districts, or which in some manner qualify as a Planned Unit Development
according to the definition set forth in Section 24-1-40 of this Code. The proposed
4 EXHIBIT
I ��
n—a__— 2006-1142
ttm 1 F #35y
Resolution AMPF-354
James Scott
Page 2
number of lots (4), in addition to the existing lots associated with this Planned Unit
Development, exceeds the definition of non-urban scale development contained in
Section 24-1-40.
4) Section 24-1-30 H. [A]cheive orderly and efficient development by. . . securing equitable
handling of all subdivision plans by providing uniform procedures and standards. The
Board of County Commissioners in Ordinance 2002-1, dated March 15, 2001, states that
non-urban scale development is nine lots or fewer. The applicant is proposing urban
scale development in a non-urban area.
Private covenants were required for the original subdivision when it was approved in
1994. These support the concept of non-urban development at the site. Article 3.32 of
these private covenants states, "No lot shall be subdivided or utilized for more than one
detached single family dwelling (with associated outbuildings and structures) without the
prior approval of the Architectural Review Board." Staff has received a faxed letter dated
February 16, 2006, stating that the Architectural Review Board has approved subdivision
of the lot. Staff has also received four resident letters questioning the process of the
Architectural Review Board's approval. However, because the covenants are private, the
County cannot enforce the covenants, and they are not a criterion for amendment to the
PUD.
5) Section 24-1-40. Urban scale development Developments exceeding nine lots and/or
located in close proximity to existing PUDs, subdivisions, municipal boundaries or urban
growth corridors and boundaries Urban scale development requires support
services such as central water, sewer systems, road networks . . . As defined by this
Section, Shiloh Estates, with 14 existing lots, qualifies as an urban scale development.
As such, a central sewer system is appropriate, as described by this Section. The
application submitted indicates that individual septic systems are planned for these
additional proposed lots.
B. Section 27-7-40.D.2.b. — That the uses which would be allowed on the subject property will
conform to the performance standards outlined in Article II of this Chapter[Chapter 27— "PUD 7.
The proposed subdivision does not conform to all performance standards. Section 27-2-190 of
the Code is located in Article II of Chapter 27 and restates the following: "Urban scale
developments are developments exceeding nine lots and/or located in close proximity to existing
PUDs, subdivision, municipal boundaries or urban growth corridors and boundaries. . . . Urban
scale development requires support services such as central water, sewer systems, road
networks . . . " As discussed above, these criteria are not met, because central sewer and curb
and gutter are not proposed.
This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application materials submitted by the
applicant, other relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral entities.
Should the Board of County Commissioners choose to approve the PUD Final Plat, Planning Commission
recommends the following be attached as Conditions of Approval:
1. Prior to scheduling the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, the following shall be
addressed:
A. The North Weld County Water District recognizes the proposal for the installation of an
additional irrigation water system. The District will need to know the fire requirements from
the Windsor-Severance Fire District that will be placed on the District for fire suppression.
(North Weld County Water District)
Resolution AMPF-354
James Scott
^ Page 3
2. Prior to recording the PUD Final Plat:
A. The applicant has submitted draft covenants to accommodate changes proposed by this PUD
amendment. The applicant shall submit three complete copies of the covenants for review
and approval by County Staff. (Department of Planning Services)
B. The North Weld County Water District shall review and inspect the installation of an additional
irrigation water system to ensure that contamination from such irrigation system to the
potable system is prevented. (North Weld County Water District)
C. The development is urban-scale in design, for which curb, gutter and sidewalk are required.
The applicant shall provide to Public Works a pavement design prepared by a professional
engineer along with the final plan submittal, with evidence of Public Works approval provided
to Planning Services. (Department of Public Works)
D. The applicant shall submit to Public Works stamped, signed and dated final plat drawings and
roadway/construction & grading plan drawings for review and approval. Construction details
must be included, with evidence of Public Works approval provided to Planning Services.
(Department of Public Works)
E. The applicant has submitted the "Improvements Agreements According to Policy Regarding
Collateral for Improvements." These agreements have been accepted by Public Works. The
agreement shall be approved by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) prior to
recording the final plat. (Department of Public Works)
F. Final drainage construction and erosion control plans (conforming to the drainage report)
stamped, signed and dated by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado shall
be submitted, with evidence of Public Works approval provided to Planning Services.
(Department of Public Works)
G. The applicant shall submit written evidence to the Department of Planning Services that an
attempt has been made to address the request of the Town of Windsor dated February 17,
2006, for a future annexation agreement. (Town of Windsor)
H. The applicant shall submit written evidence to the Department of Planning Services that an
attempt has been made to address the cash-in-lieu fees requested by the Weld County RE-4
School District in their referral response dated February 8, 2006. (Weld County RE-4 School
District)
I. The Plat shall be amended to include the following:
1) The Plat shall conform to all the requirements of a PUD final plat as indicated in
Section 27-9-20. All sheets shall be labeled Shiloh Estates, 1n Amendment, AmPF-
354. (Department of Planning Services)
2) Internal roads shall meet Weld County criteria for an urban-scale PUD. (Department of
Public Works)
3) Cornerstone Court shall be labeled as 60' right-of-way. (Department of Public Works)
4) The general note describing Cornerstone Court maintenance by the Shiloh Estates
PUD Homeowners Association shall be referred to as 60' of right-of-way. The applicant
shall dedicate Cornerstone Court to the Homeowners' Association. (Department of
Public Works)
Resolution AMPF-354
James Scott
Page 4
5) Easements shall be shown on the final plat in accordance with County standards
(Section 27-9-40) and / or Utility Board recommendations. (Department of Public
Works)
6) Intersection sight distance triangles at the development entrance will be required. All
landscaping within the triangles must be less than 31/2 feet in height at maturity, and
noted on the final roadway plans. (Department of Public Works)
7) All notes indicated below shall be included.
J. 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 ArcView shapefiles, 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)
3. The Final Plat is conditional upon the following and that each be placed on the Final Plat as notes
prior to recording:
[The following existing notes from the Shiloh Estates Final Plan, recorded on 5/26/94 at Reception
Number 02390497 shall be added to the final plat: d, g, h, k, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, v, w. Plat
lettering/numbering, including new notes list below, should be adjusted as necessary.]
A. The PUD First Amended Final Plat allows for Estate Zone Uses as indicated in the
application materials on file in the Department of Planning Services and subject and
governed by the Conditions of Approval stated hereon and all applicable Weld County
Regulations. (Department of Planning Services)
B. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 23-8-10 of the
Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
C. Water service shall be obtained from North Weld County Water District. (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
D. This subdivision is in rural Weld County and is not served by a municipal sanitary sewer
system. Sewage disposal shall be by septic systems designed in accordance with the
regulations of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality
Control Division and the Weld County Code in effect at the time of construction, repair,
replacement, or modification of the system. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
E. 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)
F. 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)
G. 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
Resolution AMPF-354
James Scott
Page 5
minimize dust emissions. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
H. 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)
I. A separate building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction of any structure.
(Department of Building Inspection)
J. A plan review is required for each building for which a building permit is required. Two
complete sets of plans are required when applying for each permit. Residential building
plans may be required to bear the wet stamp of a Colorado registered architect or engineer.
(Department of Building Inspection)
K. 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; 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)
L. Each residential 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)
ivl. 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 Zoning Ordinance. (Department of Building Inspection)
N. 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 from 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)
O. Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to
adhere to the fee structure of the County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11)
P. Effective August 1, 2005, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to
adhere to the fee structure of the Capital Expansion Impact Fee and the
Stormwater/Drainage Impact Fee. (Ordinance 2005-8 Section 5-8-40)
Q. Stop signs and street name signs are required at all intersections. (Department of Planning
Services)
R. Installation of utilities shall comply with Section 24-9-10 of the Weld County Code.
t., (Department of Planning Services)
Resolution AMPF-354
James Scott
ea. 6
S. The Weld County Department of Public Works shall be notified prior to placing utilities in the
road rights-of-way to determine if permits will be required. (Department of Planning Services)
T. 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)
U. 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)
V. The site shall maintain compliance at all times with the requirements of the Weld County
Government and adopted Weld County Code and Policies. (Department of Planning
Services)
W. Section 27-8-80.A of the Weld County Code - Failure to Comply with the PUD Final Plan -
The Board of County Commissioners may serve written notice upon such organization or
upon the owners or residents of the PUD setting forth that the organization has failed to
comply with the PUD Final Plan. Said notice shall include a demand that such deficiencies of
maintenance be cured within thirty (30) days thereof. A hearing shall be held by the Board
within fifteen (15) days of the issuance of such notice, setting forth the item, date and place of
the hearing. The Board may modify the terms of the original notice as to deficiencies and
may give an extension of time within which they shall be rectified.
X. Section 27-8-80.6 of the Weld County Code - Any PUD Zone District approved in a Final
Plan shall be considered as being in compliance with Chapter 24 of the Weld County Code
and Section 30-28-101, et seq., CRS.
Y. WELD COUNTY'S RIGHT TO FARM: Weld County is one of the most productive agricultural
counties in the United States, ranking fifth in total market value of agricultural products sold.
The rural areas of Weld County may be open and spacious, but they are intensively used for
agriculture. Persons moving into a rural area must recognize and accept there are
drawbacks, including conflicts with longstanding agricultural practices and a lower level of
services than in town. Along with the drawbacks come the incentives which attract urban
dwellers to relocate to rural area: open views, spaciousness, wildlife, lack of city noise and
congestion, and the rural atmosphere and way of life. Without neighboring farms, those
features which attract urban dwellers to rural Weld County would quickly be gone forever.
Agricultural users of the land should not be expected to change their long-established
agricultural practices to accommodate the intrusions of urban users into a rural area. Well
run agricultural activities will generate off-site impacts, including noise from tractors and
equipment; slow-moving farm vehicles on rural roads; dust from animal pens, field work,
harvest, and gravel roads; odor from animal confinement, silage, and manure; smoke from
ditch burning; flies and mosquitoes; and the use of pesticides and fertilizers in the fields,
including the use of aerial spraying. Ditches and reservoirs cannot simply be moved out of
the way of residential development without threatening the efficient delivery of irrigation to
fields which is essential to farm production.
Section 35-3.5-102, C. R. S., provides that an agricultural operation shall not be found to be
a public or private nuisance if the agricultural operation alleged to be a nuisance employs
methods or practices that are commonly or reasonably associated with agricultural
production.
Resolution AMPF-354.
James Scott
Page 7
Weld County covers a land area of over 4,000 square miles in size (twice the State of
Delaware) with more than 3,700 miles of state and County roads outside of municipalities.
The sheer magnitude of the area to be served stretches available resources. Law
enforcement is based on responses to complaints more than on patrols of the county and
the distances which must be traveled may delay all emergency responses, including law
enforcement, ambulance, and fire. Fire protection is usually provided by volunteers who
must leave their jobs and families to respond to emergencies. County gravel roads, no
matter how often they are bladed, will not provide the same kind of surface expected from a
paved road. Snow removal priorities mean that roads from subdivisions to arterials may not
be cleared for several days after a major snowstorm. Snow removal from roads within
subdivisions are of the lowest priority for public works or may be the private responsibility of
the homeowners. Services in rural areas, in many cases, will not be equivalent to municipal
services. Rural dwellers must, by necessity, be more self-sufficient than urban dwellers.
Children are exposed to different hazards in the county than in an urban or suburban
setting. Farm equipment and oil field equipment, ponds and irrigation ditches, electrical
power for pumps and center pivot operations, high speed traffic, sand burs, puncture vines,
territorial farm dogs, and livestock present real threats to children. Controlling children's
activities is important, not only for their safety, but also for the protection of the farmer's
livelihood. Parents are responsible for their children.
4. Upon completion of#1, #2, and#3 above, the applicant shall submit two (2) paper copies of the plat
for preliminary approval to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. Upon approval of the
paper copies the applicant shall submit a Mylar plat along with all other documentation required as
conditions of approval. The Mylar plat shall be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and
Recorder by Department of Planning Services' Staff. The plat shall be prepared in accordance with
the requirements of Section 27-9-20 of the Weld County Code. The Mylar plat and additional
requirements shall be submitted within thirty (30) days from the date of the Board of County
Commissioners resolution. The applicant shall be responsible for paying the recording fee.
5. Section 27-8-60 of the Weld County Code - Failure to Record a Planned Unit Development Final
Plan - If a Final Plan plat has not been recorded within one (1) year of the date of the approval of
the PUD Final Plan, or within a date specified by the Board of County Commissioners, the Board
may require the landowner to appear before it and present evidence substantiating that the PUD
Final Plan has not been abandoned and that the applicant possesses the willingness and ability to
record the PUD Final Plan plat. The Board may extend the date for recording the plat. If the Board
determines that conditions supporting the original approval of the PUD Final Plan cannot be met,
the Board may, after a public hearing, revoke the PUD Final Plan.
Motion seconded by Roy Spitzer
r
Resolution AMPF-354
James Scott
Page 8
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Michael Miller
Bruce Fitzgerald
Tom Holton
Doug Ochsner
James Welch
Erich Ehrlich
Roy Spitzer
Paul Branham
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of
this case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Voneen Macklin, 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 May 2, 2006.
Dated the 2n° of May, 200Q.
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
3- '7- ?ODIC
Paul Branham moved to add a new 1 E with the following language"The applicant shall submit a drainage report to
the Department of Public Works that takes into account the impacts of the offsite storm water." Doug Ochsner
seconded. Motion carried.
Paul Branham moved to add a new 1F with the following language"The applicant shall amend the plat to relocate the
septic envelopes for lot four out of the pipeline easement." Doug Ochsner seconded. Motion carried.
The Board of County Commissioners would grant the waiver to curb and gutter waiver. The Planning Commission is
in favor of this.
Paul Branham moved to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that they grant the waiver for curb/gutter
and sidewalk. Tom Holton seconded. Motion carried.
Robb Casseday asked for clarification on the approval for alternate solutions to fire suppression and is this Prior to
Scheduling or Prior to final plat. Mr. Gathman stated it was prior to the scheduling since this is proposed to be
administratively all concerns need to be addressed up front and are recognized on the plat. Mr.Casseday addressed
the letter to Noble Energy. Mr. Miller stated that letter will go towards providing evidence of an adequate attempt to
address the concerns of the oil and gas interest.
Robb Casseday agrees to the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards
Doug Ochsner commented that with the amendments he feels comfortable with this. This is classified as urban scale
and still has only 9 lots and fits well in the community.
Michael Miller indicated his only concern is the subdivision having only one access but if the fire district and Public
Works is agreeable that is fine.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case PZ-1094, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval.
Tom Holton seconded the motion.
r
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer,yes;
James Welch, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
James Welch has left due to a prior commitment.
CASE NUMBER: AmPF-354
APPLICANT: James& Cheri Scott
PLANNER: Brad Mueller
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Section 4, T6N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Amended PUD final plan to subdivide Lot 7, Shiloh Estates into four lots, three
additional lots.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Cornerstone Way within Shiloh Estates, which is
located north of and adjacent to County Road 72, one-half mile east of State
Highway 257.
Brad Mueller, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1540, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of the application.
Michael Miller asked when the original subdivision was approved. Mr. Mueller stated it was done in 1994. Lot 7 was
designated, at the time, to have one home on site. Mr. Mueller added that open space is adjacent to the south.
Paul Branham asked about the designation of this subdivision as being urban. Ms. Mika stated that urban vs. non
urban as currently defined in the code is new. This history is five lots dictated non-urban,then eight,then nine lots.
The scale of the number of lots has changed. At the time the rules were in place this was acceptable and fit within the
concept. Mr.Ochsner stated that the non conforming description implies that the subdivision is illegal. But at the time
it was approved and followed all the rules of the county. Mr. Branham stated it is now a nonconforming urban
subdivision because it does not meet the criteria of today. Ms. Mika stated that was correct but non-conforming
implies the negative, when in fact it is an approved subdivision approved with the criteria in place at t
1 EXHIBIT
e '
AM Pr#sstt
r
Todd Hodges, representative for the applicant, presented additional information. The area is becoming urbanized
with the addition of residences.This is located in the growth management area for Windsor. Windsor accepts this
proposal as lower density and this location will not get sewer at anytime. This continues to be a lower density area.
The site location is not adequate for sewer lines. The site has adequate water,sewer,and streets and is consistent
with the existing zone districts. The addition of three lots can be found to be consistent with the surrounding lots
within the subdivision.
Michael Miller asked why they are amending to four lots. James Scott,applicant who owns both Lots 7&8 in Shiloh,
had planned to have family move onto Lot 7 but those plans have since changed. This gave them the opportunity to
ask for additional lots based on the consistency with the remainder of the subdivision. Mr.Miller asked if the lot had
been marketed as one lot. Mr. Scott stated it had not been officially on the market. Mr. Miller asked about the
acreage in Lot 8 and if the Planning Commission can expect to see this come in with the request for additional lots.
Mr. Scott stated they have committed to the homeowners they would put language in the covenants indicating there
will be no additional development on Lot 8.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Judy Whichard, neighbor and owner of Lot 6, indicated her concerns in a letter. The letter is as follows:
Thank you very much for the opportunity to state our opinions about Case Number AmPF-354, the proposed
replatting and subdividing of Lot 7 in Shiloh Estates PUD. There are several of us here today who are strongly
opposed to this proposal and we would like to state our reasons. In order to minimize redundancy and in the
interest of time, I will speak to our common reasons for opposing this proposal. I do have a signed copy of these
statements to submit to the Department of Planning Services.
We believe it is important to note that we have not made the decision to oppose this proposal lightly. We are
neighbors who have worked and played together in the past and will continue to do so in the future; overall,we
care about one another and want to live together in harmony. Also, this is not about specific individuals or
businesses. Integrity Builders, owned by the applicants Jim and Cheri Scott, built most of our homes;we have a
daily reminder of their commitment to excellence. Rather, this is about trying to preserve a quality of life that is
unique and highly valued by each of us; and unfortunately is rapidly diminishing along the Front Range.
We have five primary reasons for opposing this proposal;
• Breach of the conditions under which we purchased our Lots
• Contradiction of the covenants governing Shiloh Estates
• Negative impact of increased density
• Loss of lifestyle
• Lack of compatibility with existing land use
Breach of the conditions under which we purchased our lots: Each of the homeowners opposing the replatting
and subdividing of Lot 7 purchased our lots with the written understanding that Lot 7 was platted as a single lot
with only one house permitted. The appeal of a smaller development(a total of 14 houses)with a single cul-de-
sac road was the primary reason we selected Shiloh Estates. We did our due diligence, researching the County
plats on file with the County wherein Lot 7 is -17 acres with only a single home allowed. Obviously, this
proposed development would seriously compromise the conditions under which we purchased our lots.
Contradiction of the covenants governing Shiloh Estates: The covenants covering the Shiloh Estates PUD that
we agreed to comply with and under which we developed our homes state that one home will be built on Lot 7.
Those of us opposing this proposal have sought legal advice about the covenants and how they were applied in
this specific case, and believe that changing the covenants to comply with the proposed subdivision is
controversial at this time. We only mention this because the covenants are used to guide and inform all
community decisions, and we are concerned that without agreement on the covenants the neighborhood will
continually face difficulty on potentially major issues. However, the legal issues surrounding changing the
covenants are civil in nature; and we believe this not an appropriate form to present legal opinions or settle legal
differences.
Negative impact of increased density: If the proposed subdivision of Lot 7 is approved, our neighborhood density
would grow by 21%. Those of us in closest proximity to Lot 7 have had independent realtors assess our current
as well as future values of our properties should the proposed development occur. We learned that we could
expect a drop in value between $15,000 and $30,000 in today's dollars. Additionally, we believe that subdividing
Lot 7 would lessen the overall community's appeal and value as the open spaces and common areas of our
neighborhood would be decreased.
10
Most importantly, this increased density would increase significantly the traffic, noise and pollution in our area.
Most of us are used to minimal traffic on our single cul-de-sac and are very concerned about the safety and
welfare of our children, pets and selves. Those of us with horses can cross the road with minimal concern;we
can walk our dogs feeling secure; and our children can currently use the street as a hockey field or skating rink.
Not only would the additional homes significantly increase the road traffic over the long run, the construction
traffic would be horrendous. Considering that the construction would take at least 3 years and more likely
upwards of 5 years to complete, we would be asked to endure construction traffic for a considerable length of
time. Unfortunately, our experiences with construction have taught us that speeding vehicles along roads is more
the rule than the exception. Furthermore, multiple cases of construction-related crime have occurred throughout
the US and CO. Although the odds of having our homes burglarized or our children harmed may be remote, it is
a gamble that we are unwilling to take.
Loss of lifestyle: One of our considerations in moving to Shiloh Estates was to procure and sustain a certain
lifestyle. We wanted to enjoy a more rural setting with restricted land development. The fact that our
surroundings are open and lend themselves to a rural feeling is highly appealing. With the rapid growth along the
entire Front Range, we are very concerned about the diminished open space. We have worked diligently to align
our building decisions with sustaining the land and maintaining a way of life that is quickly becoming obsolete.
Compatibility with existing land use: Lot 7 sits amidst one single-owned quarter section on its north, one home on
17 acres on its east(Lot 8), a horse arena and two homes on —5 and —4 acres respectively on its south. If Lot 7
is divided into four 4-acre lots, the appropriate use of this land is called into question. Our development is one of
the last areas with considerable open space. As such, it serves as a buffer zone, or transition area, helping
divide suburban from rural. It helps preserve a way of life, reminiscent of the past, and serves as a landmark for
future developments.
In summary,we strongly oppose the development because we believe that:
• The conditions under which we purchased our lots and developed our homes have been seriously
compromised. Had we known that Lot 7 would be modified perhaps our decisions to purchase our lots would
have changed. Regardless,we would have had all the facts at that time.
• Should the proposal be approved, the viability of our covenants would be seriously called into question.
• The increased construction and eventual homeowners of the proposed lots traffic would degrade the safety of
our pets and children.
• Our accustomed lifestyle would be significantly compromised.
• We are concerned about the appropriate use of Lot 7. A single home is more compatible with the adjoining
land.
Finally, we ask that you consider the following facts:
• 54% of the families in the subdivision have gone on record as strongly opposing the proposed development
• 100% of the lot owners in closest proximity to the proposed development, including the owners of the
property abutting the northern boundary who are not part of Shiloh Estates are strongly opposed to the
proposed development
• Those most strongly opposed to the development of Lot 7 have proposed numerous compromises to the
developer. Each of these has been turned down although each proposed more than one home on Lot 7 in
an attempt to consider the financial implications to the developer.
We believe that the best response to the proposed subdividing and replatting of Lot 7 would be to keep Lot 7 as a
single lot with one home. The developers could be advised to purchase other land that would welcome their
development efforts. Additionally, they can be reminded that they will still earn a considerable amount of money
by building a single home on Lot 7. With such a solution, the developers can still reap considerable profit and our
community can remain semi-rural, open, and true to its original development goals.
Again,we thank you for the opportunity to present the reasons for our opposition. We respectfully ask that you
consider our arguments and ultimately deny the proposal.
Michael Miller asked how many homeowners she represented. Ms.Whichard stated she represent seven different
homeowners.
Cheri Scott, applicant,stated they did send out an opinion poll asking for feedback from the lot owners. They did not
want to proceed if the homeowners opposed this.They received one letter back that was opposed and the remainder
was positive while some did not respond. There are some homeowners that agreed to the proposal with an
affirmative vote and are now opposed to it. The applicant has taken into consideration the well being of the
homeowners.
11
Michael Miller asked if there were 14 lots all together and why would they now be changing their minds. Ms. Scott
stated that there was a 2/3 majority vote at the HOA meeting. They changed their minds at a later date. Mr. Miller
asked if there could be another vote since there seems to be a misunderstanding. Ms.Scott stated they believed they
had done everything that was required of them with the vote at the HOA meeting.
Judy Whichard added that they did change their minds. There was no ill intent at the time the subdivision of Lot 7 was
discussed and the vote was taken.The outcome of the vote was based on erroneous information. The homeowners
believed that Lot 7 would be developed regardless. The homeowners would rather have Mr.Scott develop the area if
it were to be developed. It was later learned that they have the ability to oppose this. The homeowners proposed
another vote which would have been a split decision. Mr. Miller asked where the information regarding the
development came from. Ms.Whichard stated it was from the discussion at the HOA meeting. The ones that voted
for this development believed it was inevitable therefore they voted to have Mr. Scott do this.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
James Scott, applicant, added information regarding the time frame of this development and the process. In July
2005 a letter was sent to the homeowners asking for their opinions on this proposal which they received favorable
responses for. In August 2005 they talked to the homeowners at an HOA meeting. At this meeting there were a
number of things mentioned. There is a division between the ones in support of this and ones that are in opposition.
The end result of the meeting was vote on August 22, 2006 rather to proceed. In September there was a regular
HOA meeting and the minutes indicated a 2/3 approval vote. On September 12, 2205 a letter from the HOA board
was sent indicating the approval for the four lot subdivision from Weld County,so they began work. On November28
the applicant received a letter from the concerned homeowners requesting further discussion. They went to a
meeting on January 11 for additional discussion in which there was no resolution to the objections. They believe they
have done what was required of them. On February 14, 2006 they received a letter from an attorney from the
homeowners to take second vote. At this time they felt like they proceeded as the covenants required. They felt as
though the HOA board gave them approval so they could proceed. There are letters of support from the balance of
homeowners. Mr. Scott read a letter of recommendation to the Planning Commission.
Michael Miller asked about the remainder of lots that are in support. Mr.Scott indicated there were five not including
his two lots.
Tom Holton asked about the size of lots. Mr.Scott indicated they were 2-5 acres in size and his two lots are 17 acres.
The outlot is 2.65 acres.
Doug Ochsner asked about the possible construction traffic. Mr.Scott indicated there is a secondary access to the
lots but it is to be used as a service road used for riding and the homeowners would not be acceptable to this use.
Michael Miller asked if the homeowners were presented a packet at the meeting. Mr. Scott stated they provided the
sketch plan but most of the information was verbal due to not having the information. Mr. Miller asked if the four lots
were included. Mr. Scott stated that most of the detail was added.
Tom Holton asked for the total size of the approved PUD. Mr. Hodges indicated it was 75 acres.
Michael Miller stated from a land use standpoint,which is what Planning Commission is charged with;this is an urban
scale development. Mr. Miller agrees with both parties on certain aspects. The existing homeowners liked the open
space and are concerned about the change. The lot owners had the opportunity when they originally platted the
subdivision to plat these into four lots. Is this considered urban style and should it be brought to that standard. Both
parties should be commended in their ability to get along and willingness to work together. Mr.Miller would like this to
continue, hence the suggestion for that additional vote.
Paul Branham stated this is urban scale with fourteen units and should meet the requirements for streets,curbs and
gutters. This is a non-conforming urban development and if approved it will increase the non-conformant status. Mr.
Branham is not inclined to do.
Doug Ochsner stated that if the Planning Commission is looking at this as a land use item it does fit. Urban scale
development shall pave internal roadway, have central water, sewer system, road networks park and recreation
facilities. It does not require central sewer or curb and gutter. Mr. Mueller stated that the comment regarding urban
scale is based strictly on the nine lot designation along with the location. If the development were considered urban it
should have those standards.
Tom Holton asked about the amount of open space and the trail system in the PUD and it being 15%. Mr. Mueller
12
stated the original PUD met the requirements for open space that were in effect at the time of the original approval.
The current subdivision has an outlot of 2.65 acres. Mr. Holton stated that there is the existing open space that was
part of the approval but Lot 7 is owned by a specific owner and is not available for the entire subdivision but it is still
visual open space.
r Michael Miller asked about the amount of open space. Mr.Mueller stated there is the 2.65 in outlot and an additional
track where the acreage is not called out. Mr. Miller stated there should be around 11 acres to adhere to the 15%
requirement.
Todd Hodges added that there is 2.65 acres of open space and there are perimeter easements that were in place for
an existing trail system. This meets the intent of the existing subdivision. Mr. Miller asked how that meets the 15%
open space requirement. Mr. Hodges stated it met the intent and this is an existing subdivision and through this
application these lots are larger than the existing lots in the subdivision.
Michael Miller asked how this type of development is able to go through the process without the 15% open space
required of an urban development. Mr. Mueller stated this would be correct if a new PUD were coming into the
process. Staff is recommending denial based on the larger issues so the open space was not specifically addressed.
This would need to be considered. Mr.Miller added that at the time the subdivision was created the open space was
not required but now that they are revising it should this not be required.
Pam Smith, Department of Public Health and Environment, added the total acreage was 75.54. With 14 lots this
gives an overall density of 1 septic system per 5.4 acres. With the additional density of the three lots with a total of 17
lots there is 1 septic system per 4.4 acres which is still acceptable.
Todd Hodges added that the open space would be reviewed on this lot if this were a new subdivision not within an
existing area. There would need to be 2 acres based on the 17 acre lot and there could be other ideas like the
addition of the trail easement. This acreage has not been calculated.
Mr. Hodges and Mr.Miller disagreed on the intent of the open space. A discussion ensued regarding the open space
and which regulations should apply. Mr. Holton understands this application to be an amendment to the existing
PUD. Mr. Hodges added this was a re-subdivision of Lot 7 not an amendment to the entire subdivision. Mr. Hodges
�-. stated that the plat that would be filed is Lot 7 not the entire subdivision. Mr. Barker stated the Planning
Commission's point is that an amendment to the PUD puts the entire amount of open space in question and if this
application alters this by virtue of the development. This would go back to the entire intent.
Michael Miller stated common open space needs to be addressed. Mr.Mueller stated there is an opportunity through
the approval criteria for this to become in conformance with the existing criteria. There is no way to bring the entire
site into conformity with the criteria because there are other lots not a part of this. There are other lots that are not a
part of this application. The Code allows for open space to be one of the criteria but it does need to be balanced with
the fact this is an existing PUD. Mr. Barker stated the problem is that planning staff did not evaluate the open space
in that regard. There is concern in taking just the densities and not the remaining criteria in the code to determine the
open space. There needs to be an additional analysis. Mr. Miller stated that at this time there is only the 2.6 acres of
open space which was adequate in 1994 but is it fair to try and make this applicant come up with the 11 acres of open
space that would be required by the standards in place today. This would be the majority of Lot 7 but it is bothersome
that no additional open space is attempting to be provided. Mr. Barker stated that when this was first approved it
would not preclude any amendments in the future. At the time of approval it complied with the open space. Forcing
the applicant to amend the subdivision to adhere to the current standards may not be beneficial. Mr.Miller added that
with the additional density there will be more traffic and the children use the streets to play one. There is one way in
and one way out so all the trips will utilize the entrance road. With this increase in traffic this brings the need for more
common open space but not the 15%which would be extensive. Mr. Mueller added that the existing PUD conforms
by virtue of the approval. The question is whether it meets the criteria for a major change to the PUD. There are
different ways to look at this proposal and amending the PUD may not be the only option. Ms. Mika added that the
PUD ordinances were different at the time this was approved. Ms. Mika has Weld County Zoning Ordinance, June
28, 1994, (89AA) and July 6, 1993 for reference. There was no PUD section at that time. There was no way to
determine what was said at the time for open space.The open space will need to be proportionate to the PUD district.
Michael Miller stated that the Planning Commission is being asked to change the complexion of the subdivision and it
may be more appropriate to have them set aside more open space. Ms. Mika stated it was not uncommon to set
^ aside a community parcel and have a trail system run the length of the parcel.
Tom Holton stated he believes this is a PUD within a PUD and not an amendment.
13
Doug Ochsner stated the intent of open space can still be met with the reasoning that the lots are still 4.5 acres in
size. If there is a 2-3 acre open space in this development it will not be a gathering location for the children. It is more
dangerous to have open space to maintain. In open subdivisions like this,the need for common open space is not as
great.
Paul Branham indicated he appreciates open space but is not sure this needs 15%. The bottom line is there is a
limited amount of open space and that would not come close to meeting the standards required today. The most
important thing is there will be an addition of three more homes. This increases the number of homes per capita.
This is still a non conforming item.
Roy Spitzer stated the land owners are feeling cheated but the bigger question is that the applicant might not own the
lots and what would prohibit another owner from dividing. With the division it would not be dense. He will not be
supporting this.
Tom Holton stated this is the addition of four homes since there is nothing on site now. This is a PUD within a PUD.
The 15% may not be needed in all but this one needs more than it has.
Todd Hodges stated there are some items of concerns. The items are delete the 1s` sentence in Conditions of
Approval 2.C.,and delete Conditions of Approval 2.1.2 and all references to urban scale criteria such as curb gutter
and sidewalk.
Michael Miller stated that 2.1.2 addresses the internal roadway. Mr. Hodges added that based on discussion with staff
that would include curb/gutter and sidewalk. Mr. Miller agrees that this application does not need those items.
Brad Mueller added road standards are items that the Board of County Commissioners can waive so staff
recommends not changing the conditions if Planning Commission ends up recommending approval.
Doug Ochsner moved to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners the removal of any reference to
curb/gutter and sidewalk. Tom Holton seconded. Motion carried.
Todd Hodges agrees with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the noted concerns with the
i-� open space.
Paul Branham moved that Case AmPF-354, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning
Commissions recommendation of denial. Roy Spitzer seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer,yes;
Michael Miller,yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, no; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Roy Spitzer commented this is a tough situation in that Lot 8 could be divided at a later date.
Tom Holton commented he has some open space issues and this resembles a PUD within a PUD and more could be
seen as time goes on.
Paul Branham commented he in favor for denial based on staff recommendation and this is a nonconforming urban
development at the time and this would increase this.
Doug Ochsner commented he believes this is in compliance with Section 22-2-110.8 concentrating urban
developments adjacent to existing municipalities. This is as urban as it will get,the Town of Windsor will not annex
nor service. It is consistent and compatible with the current subdivision. 4.5 acre lots are sufficient open space.
Michael Miller commented this is urban scale development but this does not meet the standard for compatibility
because in both the zoning ordinances there is a need for common open space. The language in the all previous
codes requires open space. The HOA seems to be very responsible and willing to maintain.The fact that no effort
was made was a gross oversite by the developers. If this was included in the application he would have voted for this.
Other Business:
r Planning Commission discussed member's attendance. It was suggested that a letter be drafted by Department of
Planning Services and this be a topic be discussed at the next lunch. At the next meeting lunch it was suggested to
discuss the protocol for not attending the meetings and the attendance.
14
Meeting adjourned at 6:25pm
Ipectottc
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
15
5- - o2ccle
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, May/ 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 Chair, Bruce Fitzgerald, at p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Erich Ehrlich Absent
Roy Spitzer
James Welch Absent
Bruce Fitzgerald
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
Tom Holton
Paul Branham
Also Present: Kim Ogle, Sheri Lockman, Monica Mika, Brad Mueller, Pam Smith, Peter Schei, Don Carroll,
Jesse Hein,
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on,April 18, 2006,
was approved as read.
The following case will be continued:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1544
APPLICANT: Veterinary Properties LLC
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-2948; Pt SE4 of Section 26, T6N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for a Major
Facility of a Public Utility(70 foot monopole cellular tower).
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to O Street and 1/4 mile west of 35th Ave.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services read a letter requesting a continuance to June 6, 2006.
The applicant is attempting to collocate on an existing facility. If the collocation works this application will
be withdrawn.
The following cases are on the Consent Agenda:
— CASE NUMBER: AmPF-354
APPLICANT: James & Cheri Scott
PLANNER: Brad Mueller
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Section 4, T6N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Replat and subdivision of Lot 7, Shiloh Estates into four lots, three
additional lots, located in the Shiloh Estates PUD Zone District.
LOCATION: North of CR 72 off of Cornerstone Way within Shiloh Estates subdivision
which is located between the Towns of Windsor and Severance.
Chad Auer had to abstain from this vote due to not being present at the hearing of Case AmPF-354.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1551
APPLICANT: Great Western Oil & Gas Company
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SW4 of Section 26, T6N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
1
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a oil
and gas production facility(eight oil and gas wells and one tank battery)
in the I-1 (Industrial)Zone District
LOCATION: / mile west of CR 23; ''A mile south of CR 66.
Doug Ochsner moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Michael Miller seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Tom Holton,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes; Paul Branham,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The following cases will be Heard:
PLANNER: Monica Mika/Wendi Inloes
PROPOSAL: Changes to Weld County Code Chapter 20, Road Impact Fees.
Wendi (noes, Department of Planning Services presented the proposed Code Changes. The Department
of Planning Services in conjunction with the Department of Public Works is proposing changes to Chapter
20 of the Weld County Code regarding road impact fees. These changes include new land use types,
along with corresponding fees and definitions. Additionally there have been changes added for
clarification.
Doug Ochsner asked for clarification on Table 21, the road impact fee schedule and what the background
to determine the fees was along with some of the new ones. Perry Eisenach, Department of Public
Works, indicated they used the same formulas that Duncan and Associates had used when the original
impact fees were done. Those formulas take into account traffic generated from the proposed
development and the estimated cost of the County's Strategic Roadway improvements. Data is used from
the ITE manual that contains traffic information for different kinds of uses. The same protocol was used.
Mr. Ochsner asked if the number of animals was taken into account or is it just specific to the use. Mr.
Eisenbach stated they would pay the amount based on the size of the facility. A larger facility would be
more since they would generate more traffic. This is a part of the formula that is used.
Michael Miller asked if the fees were per thousand square feet of the buildings. Mr. Miller added that the
light manufacturing versus the heavy manufacturing is significant and what was the reasoning behind this.
Mr. Eisenach stated the heavy manufacturing has larger bulk items in the facility. The traffic is not
greater on a daily basis in heavy manufacturing. The building to store the equipment in is larger.
Tom Holton asked about the difference between the single family and multi-family detached homes. Ms.
Mika, Department of Planning Services, stated the number of individuals residing in multi-family structures
vs. single family structures is different. The numbers will not be higher since multi-family typically has
senior citizens. The fee for multi-family structures is less because it is typical for senior citizens to reside
in multi-family structures and they typically have less traffic.
Paul Branham asked for clarification on the exemptions. Ms. Inloes stated the intent was to create a
mechanism to charge the impact fee. The intent is if a piece of property was to sit vacant for longer than
six month and then a structure was to be built on it this would invoke the impact fee. Opposite of this
would be if a piece of property has consistently contained a residence and they are expanding or replacing
this it would not invoke the impact fee. This fee will be based on building permits, and is triggered by the
permit process and not based on whether the land is vacant or occupied. Mr. Barker added this was
added and designed to create a window in which the fee could be assessed. Mr. Miller indicated the way
the language is written it could be interpreted as an exemption if the ground has been vacant for six
moths. This language seems to be opposite of the intent. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if deleting the"not"would
cover the interpretation. Ms. Mika added the intent of this provision is to correlate this with non
conforming uses.
Paul Branham added the heavy manufacturing definition is general as to high number of employees and
such. Mr. Eisenach stated this was the actual definition in the IT manual. Staff reviews each case
individually.
2
Hello