HomeMy WebLinkAbout20060504.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 approval by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1090
APPLICANT: Ridgeview Farms, LLC
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part NE4 of Section 23, T6N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agriculture) to PUD (Planned Unit Development)
for 24 Residential lots and 9.7 acres of open space.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Highway 392 and west of and adjacent to
CR 35.
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
Planning Commission indicated the applicant has meet the requirements of Section 27-2-190 for urban
services.
The Planning Commission recommends the following be included as Conditions of Approval:
1. Prior to Scheduling the Board of County Commissioners hearing:
A. The applicant shall either submit to the Department of Planning Services a copy of an
agreement with the properties' mineral 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)
B. County Road 35 serving this development is paved and under the jurisdiction/maintenance
of Weld County.The applicant shows an access road adjacent to County Road 35 extending
to ditches and oil/gas facilities in the vicinity of the development. This access road must be
located outside the future minor arterial 110-foot right-of-way. The applicant shall address
the possibility of the public accessing this 'utility'road, since it extends around the perimeter
of the proposed development. The ditch company and oil/gas company must be contacted
to address the proposed 'utility'access road. This road shall be called out on the plat as an
access easement and shall be located within the open space. (Departments of Public Works)
C. The applicant has submitted a tentative agreement with the Ogilvy Irrigating and Land
Company which states that a formal agreement shall be enter into.The applicant shall submit
to the Department of Planning Services a copy of an agreement with the Ogilvy Ditch
Company stipulating that the ditch activities have adequately been incorporated into the
design of the site. (Department of Planning Services)
D. Application materials state that the applicant will be relocating the Duke Energy gas line and
meter house within the perimeter landscape buffer. The plat shall be amended to show the
current and future location of the gas line. Further, the applicant shall submit a signed
agreement with Duke Energy for the relocation of the gas line and meter house. (Department
of Planning Services)
E. The plat shall be amended to include the required 15%open space outside of the future road
rights-of-way for State Highway 392 and County Road 35.(Department of Planning Services)
2. Prior to recording the Change of Zone plat:
A. The plat shall be amended as follows:
1) All sheets of the plat shall be labeled PZ-1090. (Department of Planning Services) H v
m �
2) County Road 35 is classified by the County as a minor arterial road (Weld County Roadway _
Classification Plan, June 2002) adjacent to the proposed development requiring a 110-foot 6
(a
2006-0504
awn■r
Resolution PZ-1090
Ridgeview Farms
Page 2
right-of-way. The applicant shall verify the existing right-of-way and the documents creating the
right-of-way shall be noted on the change of zone plat. If the existing right-of-way cannot be
verified, it will be dedicated on the final plat. (Department of Public Works)
3) State Highway 392 is under the jurisdiction and maintenance of CDOT adjacent to this
development. The applicant shall verify the existing right-of-way and the documents creating
the right-of-way shall be noted on the change of zone plat. If the right-of-way cannot be
verified, it will be dedicated on the final plat. State Highway 392 is paved. The applicant shall
coordinate with CDOT concerning right-of-way and any required roadway improvements.
(Department of Public Works)
4) The plat shall delineate the location of the proposed access road for the existing ditches and
oil/gas facilities in the vicinity of the development. This access road must be located outside
the future minor arterial 110-foot right-of-way. This road shall be called out on the plat as an
access easement and shall be located within the open space. (Departments of Public Works
and Planning Services)
5) The detention pond shall be incorporated into Outlot A which will be owned and maintained
by the Homeowner's Association. (Department of Planning Services)
6) The plat shall designate a future bus/mail pull-off area and additional open space adjacent to
Lot 1 for relocating the facilities upon the expansion of County Road 35. (Department of
Planning Services)
7) The applicant shall submit a recorded copy of the agreement with the Cache La Poudre
Irrigating Company regarding the Greeley#2 Canal. (Department of Planning Services)
8) The plat shall delineate the required building setback from the existing oil and gas structures
south of the site in accordance with Section 23-3-440.L of the Weld County Code.
(Department of Planning Services)
9) Internal roads shall meet Weld County criteria for a PUD. The internal roadway right-of-way
shall be sixty (60) feet in width including cul-de-sacs with a sixty-five (65) foot radius, and
dedicated to the public. (Department of Planning Services)
B. 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 for twenty-
four (24) residential lots and open space as indicated in the application materials on file in the
Department of Planning Services. The lots will adhere to the uses allowed in the E (Estate)Zone
District except for minimum lot size which shall be 1.75 acres, offset requirements for the
pedestrian shelter which shall be ten(10)feet and the development sign located within the entrance
median will not be required to meet the required offset from Ridgeview Drive. 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. All landscaping within the site distance triangles must be less than 3%feet in height at maturity.
(Department of Planning Services)
C. A Home Owner's Association shall be established prior to the sale of any lot. Membership in the
Association is mandatory for each parcel owner. The Association is responsible for liability
insurance,taxes and maintenance of open space,streets,private utilities and other facilities. Open
space restrictions are permanent. (Department of Planning Services)
Resolution PZ-1090
Ridgeview Farms
Page 3
D. The internal roadways of gated communities shall be maintained by the Homeowners Association.
(Department of Public Works)
E. The Weld County Sheriff's Office has limited traffic enforcement powers on roadways within
subdivision that are not maintained by the County. (Sheriff's Office)
F. Weld County's Right to Farm as delineated on this plat shall be recognized at all times.
(Department of Planning Services)
G. Water service shall be obtained from North Weld County Water District. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
H. 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)
I. Primary and secondary septic envelopes shall be placed on each lot. All septic system envelopes
must meet all setbacks, including the 100-foot setback to any well. (Department of Public Health
and Environment)
J. Activities such as permanent landscaping, structures, dirt mounds or other items are expressly
prohibited in the absorption field site. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
K. 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)
L. 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)
M. 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)
N. 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)
O. A separate building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction of any structure including the
electronic gates,development sign and pedestrian shelter.(Departments of Building Inspection and
Planning Services)
P. 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)
Q. 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
Resolution PZ-1090
Ridgeview Farms
Page 4
Weld County Code. (Department of Building Inspection)
R. 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)
S. 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 Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Building Inspection)
T. 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 Chapter23 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)
U. Groundwater may impact construction of basements. Basement construction shall only be allowed
where basement subgrade is 3 feet above groundwater level. (Department of Planning Services)
V. All 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)
W. 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)
X. 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)
Y. Installation of utilities shall comply with Section 24-9-10 of the Weld County Code. (Department of
Planning Services)
Z. 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)
AA. 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)
BB. 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)
CC. No development activity shall commence on the property, nor shall any building permits be issued
on the property until the final plan has been approved and recorded. (Department of Planning
Services)
DD. 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
Resolution PZ-1090
Ridgeview Farms
Page 5
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)
EE. 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. Prior to submitting the Final Plan application:
A. The applicant shall contact Lin Dodge with the Weld County Building Inspection Department to
obtain preliminary addresses for the lots. (Department of Planning Services)
7. At the time of Final Plan submission:
A. The applicant shall submit an Improvements Agreements According to Policy Regarding Collateral
For (on-site) Improvements with the final plan application. This agreement must be reviewed by
County Staff and shall be approved by the Board of County Commissioners prior to recording the
final plat. (Department of Planning Services)
B. The applicant shall submit draft covenants for review by County Staff.The covenants shall address
comments made by the Weld County Sheriff's Office. As requested by the Weld County
Department of Public Health and Environment, language for the preservation and/or protection of
the absorption field envelopes shall be placed in the development covenants. The covenants shall
state that activities such as permanent landscaping, structures, dirt mounds or other items are
expressly prohibited in the absorption field site. Further, the covenants shall address uses which
are limited by the agreement with the Cache La Poudre Irrigation Company. (Departments of
Planning Services and Public Health and Environment, Weld County Sheriff's Office)
C. The Cache La Poudre Irrigation Company has asked to review the landscaping, fencing and trail
design along the Greeley#2 Canal.The applicant shall submit written evidence that the Cache La
Poudre Irrigation Company has reviewed the Landscape Plan, trail construction and fencing and
that ditch activities have adequately been incorporated into the design of the site. (Department of
Planning Services, Cache La Poudre Irrigation Company)
D. The applicant shall submit written evidence that the Ogilvy Ditch Company has reviewed the
Landscape Plan and that ditch activities have adequately been incorporated into the design of the
site. (Departments of Planning Services and Public Works)
E. The applicant shall submit a detailed Landscape/Screening Plan which includes a perimeter
treatment to ensure that buffering and screening is provided to effectively shield the subject lots that
are adjacent to State Highway 392 and County Road 35. The plan shall specify size, type and
method of planting for all live landscaping material.The Plan shall also show any proposed fencing
adjacent to existing ditches. New permanent landscaping such as trees, trail or fencing shall not
be placed within the existing or future road rights-of-way. (Department of Planning Services, City
of Greeley)
Resolution PZ-1090
Ridgeview Farms
Page 6
F. All copies of the final plan application shall include a copy of the preliminary street name and
addressing as obtained from the Weld County Building Inspection Department. (Department of
Planning Services)
G. The final plat shall include details on the bus turnout and future bus turnout (upon the expansion
of County 35) to ensure the requirements of the Eaton School District have been met. The bus
turnout shall provide additional right-of-way equal to the dimensions of the bus turnout. This
right-of-way shall be added to County Road 35 adjacent to the bus turnout and dedicated on the
final plat. Also the plat shall delineate the well pump within the school pull-off area which may be
necessary for fire flow. Evidence shall be submitted from the Eaton School District and the Eaton
Fire Protection District that the shared turnout meets their requirements.(Departments of Planning
Services and Public Works, Eaton School District, Eaton Fire Protection District)
H. The applicant shall include evidence in the final plan application that the appropriate postal district
has reviewed the preliminary addressing and interior street name. (Department of Planning
Services)
I. The applicant shall submit evidence that the gated access has been approved by all emergency
service providers. (Department of Public Works)
J. Easements shall be shown on the final plat in accordance with County standards(Sec.24-7-60)and
/or Utility Board recommendations. (Department of Public Works)
K. Intersection sight distance triangles at the development entrance(s) will be required. All
landscaping within the triangles must be less than 3%feet in height at maturity, and noted on the
final roadway plans. (Department of Public Works)
L. The applicant shall submit to Public Works stamped, signed and dated final plat drawings and
roadway / construction & grading plan drawings for review with the final plan application and
approval. Construction details must be included. (Department of Public Works)
M. Stop signs and street name signs will be required at all intersections and shown as a signing plan
on final roadway plans. The current edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD) shall govern the signing plan. (Department of Public Works)
N. A final drainage report stamped,signed and dated by a professional engineer licensed in the State
of Colorado shall be submitted with the final plan application. The 5-year storm and 100-year storm
drainage studies shall take into consideration off-site flows both entering and leaving the
development. Increased runoff due to development will require detention of the 100-year storm
developed condition while releasing the 5-year storm existing condition. The final drainage report
shall include a flood hazard review documenting any FEMA defined floodways. The engineer shall
reference the specific map panel number, including date. The development site shall be located
on the copy of the FEMA map. (Department of Public Works)
O. The applicant shall prepare a construction detail for typical lot grading with respect to drainage for
the final plan application. Front, rear and side slopes around building envelopes must be
addressed. In addition, drainage for rear and side lot line swales shall be considered. Building
envelopes must be planned to avoid storm water flows,while taking into account adjacent drainage
mitigation. (Department of Public Works)
P. 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 each final plan (phase) application. These plans (stormwater management plans) may be
based on Urban Drainage methodology. (Department of Public Works)
8. Prior to recording the final plat:
A. The applicant shall enter into Improvements Agreement According to Policy Regarding Collateral
for Improvements. The agreement shall be approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
Resolution PZ-1090
Ridgeview Farms
Page 7
(Departments of Planning Services and Public Works)
B. The applicant shall enter into a separate escrow agreement for the left turn lane on the south leg
of County Road 35 at State Highway 392 because construction of the left turn lane is not eminent.
The term of the agreement will be for 10 years and if construction does not take place the funds
will be returned to the applicant. The amount to be deposited in the escrow account should be 29%
of the construction cost estimate. After construction of the left turn lane,partial reimbursement may
be available in accordance with the Improvements Agreement,Section 5.0,Off-Site Improvements
Reimbursement Procedure. (Department of Public Works)
C. 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)
D. The applicant shall submit finalized covenants and the appropriate recording fee (currently$6 for
the first page and $5 for each additional page) to the Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Planning Services)
E. The applicant shall submit a copy of a finalized Water Service Agreement between the applicant
and North Weld County Water District for service to the PUD. (Department of Planning Services,
Division of Water Resources)
F. The applicant shall submit evidence that all Eaton Fire Protection District requirements have been
met. (Eaton Fire Protection District)
G. The applicant shall submit evidence that the requested cash-in-lieu of land dedication fee has been
paid to the Eaton School District. (Department of Planning Services, School District RE-4)
H. The bus turnout shall provide additional right-of-way equal to the dimensions of the bus turnout.
This right-of-way shall be added to County Road 35 adjacent to the bus turnout and dedicated on
the final plat. (Department of Public Works)
I. County Road 35 is classified by the County as a minor arterial road (Weld County Roadway
Classification Plan, June 2002) adjacent to the proposed development requiring a 110-foot
right-of-way. If the existing right-of-way cannot be verified, it will be dedicated on the final plat.
(Department of Public Works)
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.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)
9. Prior to the release of collateral:
A. The applicant shall submit recorded deeds which transfer ownership of the open space to the
Homeowners Association. (Department of Planning Services)
Motion seconded by Doug Ochsner
Resolution PZ-1090
Ridgeview Farms
Page 8
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Michael Miller
Bruce Fitzgerald
Erich Ehrlich
Roy Spitzer
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
James Welch
Tom Holton
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 February 7, 2006.
Dated the 79' of February, 2006.
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
a- - �
District
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Two Rivers Parkway and approximately'A mile
north of 49th Street.
Larry Kamerzell, neighbor, indicated his concerns on proposal. Mr. Kammerzell had done a lease but the
lease was for a valve site not a compressor station. If the site was not used for two or more years then
the lease would become null and void and it has not been used. Mr. Kamerzell wrote a letter to the
applicant to negotiate a new lease but did not receive a reply. The concern is there was a motor installed
for a valve site that was to be less than 100 horsepower, but this was not the case. The motor makes a
large amount of noise and is disruptive.
Mr. Morrison provided clarification on the process. The Planning Commission can not address the
contractual issues, those need to be addressed with the applicant.
Doug Ochsner requested this be taken off consent. James Welch and Tom Holton also requested this be
removed.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1534, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending
approval of the application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Tim Clancy, representative for Duke Energy, indicated he was aware of the letter but was not aware of the
issue of noise, screening and the proximity to the home. The applicant would like to request a
continuance to March 7, 2006 to clarify the issues brought forward today.
Mr. Gathman indicated that there was no need to re-advertise.
Roy Spitzer moved to continue the case. Doug Ochsner seconded. Motion carried.
The following cases will be heard:
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1090
APPLICANT: Ridgeview Farms, LLC
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part NE4 of Section 23, T6N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agriculture)to PUD (Planned Unit Development)
for 24 Residential lots and 9.7 acres of open space.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Highway 392 and west of and adjacent to
CR 35.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-1090, reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Ms. Lockman indicated
Ridgeview Farms, LLC c/o Bradley Keirnes, has applied for a Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to
PUD (Planned Unit Development)for 24 residential lots and 9.7 acres of open space. The sign
announcing the Planning Commission hearing was posted January 20 by Planning Staff. The site is
located South of and adjacent to State Highway 392 &west of and adjacent to County Road 35.
Surrounding properties to the west and east are agricultural in nature. Highway 392 and Pinnacle Park
Subdivision are to the north. Sonny View Estates lies to the south. Seventeen referral agencies reviewed
this case, twelve responded favorably or included conditions that have been addressed through
development standards and conditions of approval. The City of Greeley stated that the applicants request
for a waiver from curb gutter and sidewalk should be denied. They also requested that connectivity with
future subdivisions be considered and an adequate buffer between the lots and roadways be established.
A copy of a petition from the surrounding property owners has been distributed to the Planning
Commission members. Mr. Danny Hart submitted the petition to our office and he did ask that the
Planning Commission be told that all but one of the signatures was taken from within one mile of the site
and that he only asked for one person to sign at each residence. An updated plat for the subdivision was = �„ \ i.!
also distributed. Staff has not had adequate time to review this plat. Also you were given a preliminary `J
easement agreement for the Ogilvy Ditch. The Department of Planning Services is recommending denial �+1�
�-. of PZ-1090. The subdivision is located outside of any defined urban areas such as intergovernmental
agreement areas, urban growth boundary areas, the 1-25 Mixed Use Development area or urban growth
nodes. The Weld County Code does not support subdivisions above 9 lots outside of these defined urban
areas. Further, the application is not proposing urban type services such as curb, gutter and sidewalk and
public sewer. Planning Staff also has concerns with the amount and design of the open space. The
fifteen-percent common open space includes the future road rights-of-way. Further, the applicant has
designed a trail system that leads onto the interior roadway, but the interior roadway is not proposed to
have any sidewalks for pedestrian travel.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the closest municipality. Ms. Lockman stated it was approximately'% mile to
the south and it was the City of Greeley.
Doug Ochsner asked if services were available within the IA mile requirement. Ms. Lockman stated the
sewer lines were north to O Street and one line runs to the old Monfort building on CR 66.
Doug Ochsner asked about the concerns with the trails. Ms. Lockman indicated the trail system utilizes
the internal roadways. There is no sidewalk or trail, it will be in the road right-of-way.
Robb Casseday, applicant representative, provided clarification on the proposal with a PowerPoint
presentation. The applicant feels as though the obstacles can be dealt with. The proposal will be Estate
lots with upper scale homes and will be gated. The density is 2.5 acres per residence with the open space
being the required 15%. The neighboring subdivisions have densities of 1.5 acres (Sony View) and 2.5
acres(Pinnacle). There will be a perimeter trail as part of open space. The trail is included for walking
biking, hiking and being able to enjoy the water way. The adjacent subdivisions do not have curb and
gutter or sidewalk. City of Greeley does have conceptual plans to extend sewer lines. There are sewer
lines proposed to the Spanish Colony but the time frame is not determined. City limits of Greeley are
within 1/2 mile. The City of Greeley is positive with regards to the annexations to the north side of town.
i-. Should the properties around Seeley Lake be annexed those would be done first due to density. City
development is not favorable to the larger size lots. This proposal is a compromise between the City and
the County. The size of lots is adequate for septic systems. This subdivision will have positive aspects to
the county. The site is located within the Eaton School District and Eaton Fire District. The perimeter of
the site will be fenced and berming will be along the traffic corridors. This will be gated for motorized
traffic only. The conditions from the referral agencies have been addressed by the Department of
Planning Services staff. There is an agreement with Cache La Poudre Irrigation and in process for an
Olgivy Ditch Company agreement. The plat addresses the setback for the CR 35 right-of-way as well as a
landscape buffer for CR 35 and Hwy 392. This proposal is consistent with Chapter 27 of the Weld County
Code. The trail will surround the proposal and will utilize the internal streets so as not to be a safety
hazard on the Olgivy Ditch. Elizabeth Relford, continued by addressing the issues of the code and how
this proposal adheres to those criteria. Ms. Relford, representative for the applicant, stated she will be
talking about how Ridgeview Farms is Code compliant. The staff report quotes Section 27-6-120.B.6.a as
being criteria for this proposal. The staff report states Ridgeview Farms has some inconsistencies with
the requirements. The Comprehensive Plan is what most of the sections are focused on. The applicant is
going with the estate zoning. The bulk requirements for the estate zone district are being complied with.
The proposal is also in compliance with Chapter 24, Subdivisions and the MUD section does not apply to
this subdivision. The comprehensive plan will be the first topic. Ms. Relford discussed the location of the
subdivision in relationship to Greeley. Section 22-2-190 talks about urban residential uses being
encouraged when the subject site is located inside an IGA. There are many criteria, one being an IGA
area, UGB area, MUD area, urban growth node or where adequate infrastructure and services are
currently available or reasonable obtainable. Ridgeview Farms can articulate that current infrastructure is
available and reasonably obtainable. Even though there is no approved IGA for this area this site is
located within an urban growth boundary. Section 22-2-190.B.1 states that the county should encourage a
compact form of development by directing residential growth to urban growth boundary areas and to those
areas where urban services are currently available or reasonable obtainable. When you visually look at
this map you will agree that the location of this proposal would classify as compacting urban development
and directing growth. This is not an isolated subdivision that is being requested in a remote area of Weld
County where nothing else exists. There are existing services in both subdivisions and this proposal is
asking to utilize those. Ridgeview Farms actually complies with the Comprehensive Plan by locating to
areas where urban services are currently available and encouraging compact urban development. A map
of Greeley's Urban Growth boundary was presented. With no agreement between Weld County and
Greeley the boundary cannot be recognized. Greeley does recognize the boundary. As a result of this the
developer has been working with Greeley to address their referral comments and comply with their
concerns regarding future development of roadways adjacent to Ridgeview Farms. Greeley is saying that
in the long range Greeley will probably absorb and they want to have some type of similar design
standards to what is already there. Since the site does exist in an Urban Growth Boundary it is an urban
scale development with urban scale services essentially it would comply with the City of Greeley's
Comprehensive Plan. Section 22-2-190.C.1 states 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. An aerial map has been provided
showing how this proposal will fit with the existing developments that are already there. This will be a
natural continuation. This subdivision will only add 24 lots to the existing 90 lots that are in the two
existing subdivisions. The county definition of urban scale development probably applies to Pinnacle Park
and Sonny View Estates and that implies that those urban services existed. Ridgeview Farms would then
be able to utilize the existing services. Ridgeview Farms is asking for the same consideration for sanitary
sewer that has been approved for two existing subdivisions being septic systems. This would be on a
smaller number of lots. Those have been reviewed and approved by the Health department. Ridgeview
Farms is currently zoned agricultural with R-1 to the north and south. Section 22-2-60 and Section 22-2-
210 talk about the conversion of agricultural land to urban scale residential, commercial/Industrial uses to
be considered when the site is located inside an approved IGA, UGB, MUD, urban development node or
where adequate services are currently available or reasonable obtainable. The reasonable obtainable is
another criteria to allow development at an urban scale to occur. Ridgeview Farms is a perfect example
of a subdivision that complies with that code section. In the packet staff explained the intent of this goal in
the Comprehensive Plan. They stated that the goal is intended to address the conversion of agricultural
lands to minimize the incompatibilities that occur between uses in the agricultural zone district and other
zone districts that allow urban uses. In addition the goal is expected to contribute to minimizing the cost to
county taxpayers for the addition of services in rural areas for uses that require services on an urban scale
level. This property is surrounded by R-1 zoning it is not surrounded by other agricultural zone properties
on an isolated site, therefore it is more compatible to the surrounding uses. Since the services already
exist due the other subdivisions in the area the costs related to construction of the site is minimal. This
does not create the need for additional public services in a rural area. This is not an isolated area where
new services will need to be brought in. The services are already there. Ridgeview Farms is consistent
with Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code by complying with the following sections:
2-2-70.A—Population and economic growth will create a demand for conversion of land to urban uses.
The urban development goals and policies are designed to plan for this anticipated growth by directing
urban growth uses to where urban services exist or can be provided.
22-2-60.C.2—Availability of services such as electricity, telephone, water, natural gas, sewer, sheriff and
fire protection will determine the intensity of the development allowed.
22-2-60.C.3.b—Availability, location and accessibility to existing infrastructure and utilities.
22-2-60.C.3.d—Consideration of existing improvements or structures.
22-2-90.B—Locations where urban development can occur should be encouraged to develop as urban.
Section 27-1-10.A.8 Encourage flexibility and variety in development while promoting the most efficient
use of the land. This subdivision represents smart efficient planning by utilizing the urban services that
currently exist rather than creating new services that could potentially affect county taxpayers. Ridgeview
Farms is compatible with the existing housing. It is an asset to Weld County. Weld County
Comprehensive Plan limits on urban scale development in the county do not exist to prohibit the
development but to allow projects such as Ridgeview Farms to be reasonably planned and developed
where and when they make sense.
Robb Casseday continued with the conditions of approval regarding the agreement with the mineral lease
owner. There is an agreement currently in process with the mineral lease owner and it is very close. It will
include an offsite drilling location. Condition B addresses an access road to the ditches off of CR 35 and
those are separate from the subdivision. This access road can also be used as a walking trail. Condition
C addresses an agreement with the Olgivy Ditch and this is in process and will be done prior to the Board
of County Commissioners. Condition D addresses an agreement with Duke Energy dealing with the
relocation of a gas line. The applicant has provided them with a 20 foot exclusive easement this parallels
the#2 ditch and Hwy 392. This agreement is waiting for final approval. Condition E addresses the 15%
open space being addressed on the plat. This has been done and is exclusive of the detention. This is
the right time for an approval. This is the right place for urban scale development the amenities are
adequate. The development will be of high quality and an asset. There are couple of variances that will
be needed, those being the sewer requirement and the curb, gutter and sidewalk. The applicant has met
the 2.5 acres per lot for septic systems. The lack of curb, gutter and sidewalks will enhance the rural
nature of this development. The subdivision meets the intent of the code and would be an asset to the
area.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if the 15%open space included the use of the street. Mr. Casseday indicated it
does not. Mr. Fitzgerald asked about the time frame for annexation into Greeley. Mr. Casseday indicated
the city would concentrate on the Seeley Lake area and then shift north. Mr. Fitzgerald asked about the
sewer line and the incorporation of that. Mr. Casseday stated the drainage basin is a low spot, therefore a
natural place for the construction. The line would pick up all three subdivision in the future.
Chad Auer added that the applicant would like to have Planning Commission believe that the sidewalks
take away from the rural character but then want to be considered urban. Mr. Auer believes the sidewalks
are for pedestrian safety. Mr. Casseday indicated the applicant is not strongly for or against sidewalks but
feels they are not needed in this few of lots. In a nine lot subdivision with a cul-de-sac there are no
sidewalks and this is nothing more than three cul-de-sacs dispersed out. Ms. Relford added that they
would like to stay consistent with what is out there and would rather have this be rural but have to be
urban according to county code. Mr.Auer indicated the applicant stated that adding sites does not impact
current services since those exist. There will be additional need for services and it will increase. Mr.
Casseday stated that was correct, there will be an impact to water. North Weld Water District will supply
the water and there will be upgrading of lines to bring services to this subdivision so as not to take away
from the exiting subdivisions. There will be impacts to certain services and there are associated fees for
those.
Doug Ochsner asked if the streets width is an adequate size for walking or riding and with a gated
community are those streets deemed public or private streets and who maintains. Mr. Scheltinga, Public
Works, stated the county does not maintain a private street. The streets will be twelve foot paved lanes
with four foot gravel shoulders. This is the normal size and is adequate for pedestrian safety. The
Department of Public Works is not objecting to variance for deletion of curb and gutter since the streets
will not connect to another development.
Lee Morrison questioned the designation of a fully gated community and the streets being not technically
public and will be privately maintained. Mr. Casseday stated they will be dedicated but maintained by the
HOA. Mr. Morrison asked how those can be classified as public streets when the general public is not
able to utilize them. Mr. Casseday indicated that this designation could change down the road and this
could become a non gated community. All the installation and maintenance will be at the developer's
expense. Mr. Morrison stated that from a legal standpoint the concept of having a gate on a road that is
private and the public not being able to use is an issue. This issue needs to be resolved before final plan.
Mr. Scheltinga stated that most all subdivision have public right-of-way for drainage and things could
change. Mr. Casseday indicated that Lighthouse Cove is gated and a Weld County subdivision.
Tom Holton asked if there was a time frame for annexation into Greeley. Mr. Casseday stated there was
not, the proposal is included in the 20 year growth plan boundary. The shorter range boundaries will need
to change before this annexation could happen. The City has been referred to but there would be far to
much that would need to happen. Mr. Holton stated that they may not have sewer to them in the next 20
years. Mr. Casseday stated they are within 20 years and there are things planned but no time frames.
Mr. Holton asked how the city would annex Seeley Lake. Ms. Lockman stated the city would need to go to
each owner or surround the area and force annexation. Ms. Lockman stated that the annexation would be
in the long range area.
Bruce Fitzgerald stated that when a property is annexed it then goes under the Greeley sewer district. Ms.
Lockman stated it is common to annex when sewer is available or not annex if sewer were not available.
Erich Ehrlich asked questions about the septic system and the water levels. Pam Smith, Department of
Public Health, indicated the perk rate was done in irrigation season and groundwater was found at 51/2
feet to 6 feet. This would be worse along the existing ditches. There was an area of high perk rate but
most sites will be conventional septic systems. The septic systems can be designed around this.
Tom Holton asked the average lot size of Pinnacle and the homes around Seeley Lake. Ms. Lockman
states staff would need to pull the plats for that information.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Danny Hart, representative for the neighbors in Pinnacle Park. The neighbors have concerns with traffic and
the number of accidents at CR 35&Hwy 392. Another concern is the deepness of the Olgivy Ditch. Pinnacle
Park is considered agricultural with animals and they do not want the neighbors complaining about the smell.
Eaton schools are overcrowded and will this development cause the taxes to increase. There is a vast
majority of surrounding property owners that are against this proposal. The neighbors are concerned with the
amount of open space that is being lost to development.
The Chair closed public portion
Robb Casseday stated that the petition addresses something new and it is normal for residences to not want
any additional development in their area. There are others who would like to have the same thing with the
rural setting. This subdivision will not block the views and will not create hardship on their property. This will
increase the value. This parcel is difficult to farm and placing this in residences on this ground will not take
away from Weld County but will enhance it. The applicant agrees there will be an increase in traffic on Hwy
392 and the fee associated with this will address those increases.The neighborhoods can enhance each other
and increase value.
Paul Branham addressed the traffic concern by indicating the applicant has agreed to help with left turn lane
construction and pay 29%of that cost. Mr.Casseday indicated that was correct and the applicant has done a
traffic report.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the variance requests. Mr. Casseday stated the subdivision would like the
variances to address septic, curb, gutter and sidewalks. Mr. Fitzgerald asked Ms. Smith about the Health
Departments position on the septic tanks. Ms. Smith quoted parts of Section 27-2-190 of the Weld County
code that pertains to the sewer systems. The Commissioners left that area vague with sewer services to allow
for these kinds of developments. This fits within that scale and is in close proximity to two existing
subdivisions with the same conditions. The quoted criteria allows for the latitude. Ms. Smith stated that if
sewer goes in within 400 feet they are required to connect once the systems fail. There have been some
systems in Seeley Lake that have failed but not many. New septic systems are more difficult especially when
land needs to be dedicated. There is a high cost to replace so the owners may want the connection.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked for clarification on the septic systems. Ms. Lockman stated that if the proposal is
approved this would allow for septic systems. Mr. Fitzgerald asked about the curb and gutter variance. Ms.
Lockman stated that was addressed in the conditions of approval.
Paul Branhan indicated this is a gated subdivision with no connectivity with other roadways. For the City of
Greeley to request curb/gutter and sidewalks is not reasonable,since there are developments in Greeley that
do not have these. Mr. Branham would agree to the variance since this is consistent with what is in the area.
Chad Auer asked about the developments within Greeley that do not have the curb/gutter and how old they
are. Mr.Branham indicated Pine Ridge is a new development within the last five years. Mr.Auer stated there
is rational in having sidewalks for public safety and Greeley may be thinking long term. Mr. Branham agrees
but not in a gated subdivision where there is little traffic.
James Welch asked Mr. Morrison if the roads were subject to the rules or standards. Mr. Morrison stated the
roads are subject to the county design standards. The design process is for the benefit of the future
purchasers to insure quality of the development.
Doug Ochsner moved to delete the sentence"Curb/Gutter and sidewalk are required"from condition 2.A.9
James Welch seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; James Welch, yes; Chad Auer, no; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner indicated the applicant has shown they meet the requirements of Section 27-2-190 for urban
services. This is urban area with urban scale with the surrounding area.
Chad Auer indicated he agrees with the urban nature. Mr. Auer added that before the two existing
subdivisions were created there were those who were opposed to influx of residences. The nature of the
county is growth and the developers have shown they will work with the neighbors.
James Welch stated this development fits with the area and there is existing urban scale to north and south.
The only concern was for the intersection of Hwy 392 and CR 35. That has been addressed by the applicant
and their willingness to help upgrade the intersection.
Roy Spitzer stated the development is compatible with the existing developments. There is still a concern
regarding the ditch and the safety of it.
Robb Casseday agrees with the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval.
Paul Branham moved that Case PZ-1090, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Doug Ochsner seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; James Welch, yes; Chad Auer, no; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1540
APPLICANT: John Montera
PLANNER: Brad Mueller
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B and part of Lot D of RE-3961; being part of the SE4 of Section 10,
T6N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Public
and Quasi-public building including a Church in the Agricultural Zone
�.� District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 70;west of and adjacent to CR 33.
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 approval of the application
along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Mr. Mueller requests a deletion on a
portion of Development Standard #19 stating " including the large indoor riding area" and the third
sentence in Development Standard #20.
Robb Casseday, representative for applicant, provided clarification of the proposal. The site will become a
church site with a building. Presently the parishners are meeting in the existing roping arena. This will
allow them to build a church with parking off of CR 33; this application will also allow room for expansion.
Doug Ochsner asked if the area is for private use and how that works with the church members. Mr.
Casseday stated Mr. Montera lives on another parcel and that is his facility. The church has had events
for one day and has applied for the appropriate permits through the county. Mr. Hoff, representative for
Mr. Montera, indicated the church uses the arena as a favor and now they need their own facility. The
roping arena is used by Mr. Montera personally. There have been some major events during the year but
that has been all it was utilized for except services. Mr. Mueller indicated the site is under violation at this
time for the church but this application will remedy the violation. Development Standards#3 addresses
the use of the arena for church activities and requiring the adequate permits through the county.
Paul Branham questioned the number of events only being six per year. Mr. Mueller stated there could
only be six events pre year and if they want to amend that it would need to be requested.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
r
Robb Casseday indicated they would like to be able to have twelve events per year.
Paul Casseday moved to amend Development Standards#3 from six times a year to twelve times a year.
Paul moved to approve the above referenced language. Chad Auer seconded. Motion carried.
I - 3 ZOe tt-
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 3, 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 Vice-Chair, Chad Auer, at p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller Absent
Erich Ehrlich Absent
Roy Spitzer
James Welch
Bruce Fitzgerald Absent
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
Tom Holton Absent
Paul Branham
Also Present: Sheri Lockman, Don Carroll, Drew Scheltinga, Jesse Hines, Char Davis, Pam Smith
The following items will be continued:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1534
APPLICANT: Duke Energy Field Services
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part N2N2SW4 of Section 29, T5N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
mineral resource development facility including an oil and gas support
and service facility(gas processing facility) in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Two Rivers Parkway and approximately'A mile
north of 49th Street.
Brad Mueller, Department of Planning Services read a letter requesting a continuance to February 7, 2006
for mineral notification.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1539
APPLICANT: Keith &Shirley Ashbaugh
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW4 of Section 15, T7N, R59W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
Mineral Resource Development (Gravel Mining) in the A (Agricultural)
Zone District
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 115; approximately 3/4 mile north of CR 80.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services read a letter requesting a continuance to February 7,
2006 for mineral notification.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1090
APPLICANT: Ridgeview Farms, LLC
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part NE4 of Section 23, T6N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agriculture)to PUD (Planned Unit Development)
for 24 Residential lots and 9.7 acres of open space.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Highway 392 and west of and adjacent to
Oanaon-7 Lc uto1c. /-fit-6Thee
CR 35.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services read a letter requesting a continuance to February 7,
2006 for mineral notification.
The following items will be heard:
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1095
APPLICANT: Sonja Stonestreet
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt of Lot 2 of RE-2690; pt SE4 of Section 31, T8N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to PUD with Estate Zone used for
Nine (9) Residential Lots (Waterford Hill PUD)
LOCATION: % mile north of CR 86 and west of and adjacent to CR 15.
Sheri Lockman,Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-1095,reading the recommendation and
comments into the record.The Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of the application.
The site is located 1/2 mile north of County Road 86 and west of and adjacent to County Road 15 and the
surrounding properties are agricultural in nature. No correspondence has been received from surrounding
property owners. The present property owner, Sonja Stonestreet, submitted an application for a Recorded
Exemption and a nine lot PUD Change of Zone on September 21, 2005. The proposed nine lot subdivision
and the Recorded Exemption will create a total of ten lots. The Department of Planning Services staff has
consistently interpreted the intent of the Weld County Code to be that a Recorded Exemption used in
conjunction with a subdivision of 9 lots, results in urban scale land development. This subdivision is not
located in any of the defined urban areas. Further,Sage Hill PUD is being proposed 1/4 mile south of the site.
Because of the location of Sage Hill and the numerous developments currently in the process or recently
approved in this area, Planning staff has determined that Waterford Hill PUD should be required to include a
15% open space component. The applicant is proposing 3 outlots. Outlot A is 1.979 acres reserved for the
stormwater detention pond. Outlot B is 0.757 acres located adjacent to Cactus Hill Lateral Ditch. Neither of
these outlots will be useful to the residents of the PUD for recreational or scenic purposes as they are
exclusively for the use of the detention pond and irrigation ditch.Outlot C is 0.014 acres at the entrance to the
subdivision. It is intended to contain the development sign. However,the landscaping,bus shelter and cluster
mailbox are all proposed to be placed within the road right-of-way or on Lot 1. A copy of the letter from
Woodrow and Sobel, the Attorneys for the properties mineral owners is included in your packet. Should the
applicant not come to an agreement with Andadarko,drilling envelopes will be required and Anadarko will be
notified of the Board of County Commissioners hearing so that they can be present to voice their concerns.
Doug Ochsner asked for clarification on the location of the Recorded Exemption(RE). Ms.Lockman indicated
that lot B of the RE would be the 70 acres south of the site. Mr. Ochsner asked if there was currently a
residence on site. Ms. Lockman stated this was open farm ground.
Jim Martel,attorney representing the applicant,provided additional clarification on the proposal and addressed
two specific issues of concern. The Anadarko agreement is in second draft form and needs nothing more
than signatures. The concern with the ten lots adverse to nine can be addressed very simply. The applicant
choose to apply for both since there was going to be an agreement with Anadarko. Planning staff has
interpreted the code and determined the exemption to be part of the subdivision due to the timing of the
applications. The large lot of the RE would be the tenth lot in the process. The important aspect is there is no
place in regulations that actually says that the second RE lot has to be considered a part of the subdivision.
The applicant does not disagree with the possible interpretation but would add that they have not conveyed
any land in the last year to evade the regulations. Should the application for the subdivision be done a year
from now the Department of Planning Services would not have any concerns. The lower 70 acres of the
proposed RE will be maintained by the applicant and there is a farm lease in place for the next year. The
second issue pertaining to the open space and landscaping, the applicant would like a waiver of the open
space requirement. The applicant contends that the open space is more suitable to the individual lots adverse
to designed open space that will not be utilized by the homeowners. The size of the lots provides for view
corridors and allows for adequate recreation on the individual lots. There is the ability to divert from the open
space requirement as long as the intent of the code is met and the applicant feels the large lots will do this.
Hello