HomeMy WebLinkAbout20060242.tiff 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% 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 adiacent to
n / 2006-0242
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.
The common open space requirement would seem more appropriate if the homes were clustered with a more
intense development.
Doug Ochsner asked about the location of the entire parcel. Mr. Martel indicated the size was a total of 104
acres. The subdivision will encompass 30 acres while the remaining 70 acres will continue to be farmed.
Paul Branham asked about the open space requirement and if staff believes those identified are not adequate.
Mr. Branham asked for clarification on whether the applicant wanted the Planning Commission to consider
the open space as part of the lots. Mr. Martel indicated they would prefer that the Planning Commission waive
the open space requirement in light of the open lots and openness of those lots. The entrance will not be
open space and the drainage could be open space due to the view corridor.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Mark Straface, representative for Anadarko, read a letter dated September 28, 2005, which has been
submitted as evidence addressing their concerns. Ms. Lockman indicated there is a new letter and Anadarko
would like to see an agreement in place at the time of final plat. Ms. Lockman added there is a condition in
place addressing those concerns.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Paul Branham asked Ms. Lockman about the comment made regarding the timing of the applications and if
they were separated by a year staff would not have a concern. Ms. Lockman stated there is truth to that;the
intent of the Weld County Code is that the applicant cannot use congruent applications to obtain more lots.
The intent is to not have two minor subdivisions come in at the same time on the same location to avoid being
considered an urban scale development. Staff would not have a concern if this was applied for in one year.
Mr. Branham stated that the lower half is still farming and this in effect meets the intent. Ms. Lockman stated
that they came in at the same time and it technically means there are ten lots.This would also mean there are
overlapping applications. There is one property and they are applying for two separate processes to obtain
essentially ten lots.
Doug Ochsner stated the 15% open space is in the code for PUD, there are no requirements for minor
subdivisions at this time. Ms. Lockman stated the only waivers from a PUD for the open space is for non
urban scale developments. There is no requirement for open space in a minor subdivision. Ms. Lockman
quoted Section 27-6-80-6.7 which defines the urban scale open space element.
Roy Spitzer asked about the tenth lot and the size being 70 acres. Ms. Lockman stated that was correct. Mr.
Spitzer asked if this was a technicality. Ms. Lockman stated she has seen applications denied due in part to
this but in that instance there were other circumstances. Mr.Ochsner added there have been cases in which
the applicant applied for nine lots with the tenth lot RE to be sold off and a home placed on that. Technically
that would make a ten lot subdivision. In this circumstance it is not the intent of the applicant to sell the tenth
lot off. The lot B of the RE will continue to be owned by the same applicant and farmed.
Jim Martel added that the applicant would be happy to put a restriction on the 70 acre lot in that it will not be
divided or sold in the upcoming year. The farm lease can be included in the application.
Doug Ochsner asked if the RE lot was sold this would not be a concern. Ms. Lockman stated that if it was
done in the same year it would still be discussed. The issue is if the applications are done at the same time,
the code specifies one year. The evasion is easier when the applications are done at the same time, but as
time goes by it is more difficult to prove.
Roy Spitzer indicated he was troubled with the ten lots but not sure where to draw the line. Mr.Spitzer asked
if an application would have come in after the year timeframe would the same objections be issued. Ms.
Lockman stated there would be no concerns. Ms. Lockman provided clarification on the different processes
and what each entailed. Mr. Spitzer asked if this were eight lots would it make a difference. Ms. Lockman
stated there have been some that have done this so the issue would not have to be addressed.
Roy Spitzer asked if the stormwater detention pond could be considered open space. Ms. Lockman stated it
could be if the design included a dual use.
James Welch asked about the urban scale and the proximity to some of the other subdivisions and how this
was addressed in the code. Ms. Lockman stated there are two instances in the code in which it address this.
One addresses Y mile while the other indicates close proximity. This area has developed so quickly so the Y
mile is contiguous to another subdivision property.
Doug Ochsner asked if the interior road will be paved: Drew Scheltinga, Public Works,stated this was a gated
community with an internal paved road that will be maintained by the HOA. The road will not be dedicated to
the public.
Paul Branham added the applicant has no intent to bypass the regulations with regards to the ten lots. The
concern is with the open space and he will not be in acceptance due to open space.
Doug Ochsner asked if there were any physical limitations separating the subdivision and the RE. Mr. Martel
stated that all the lots could be down sized to create larger open area and make the drainage a duel purpose.
The problem becomes the maintenance that is not necessary to this type of development. The open space is
more of a burden than a benefit. The larger lots and lack of open space provides for recreation on the lots
while the open space would not be used anyway.
Mike Ketterling, engineer for the project, added that he lives in a subdivision with open space that is nothing
more than weeds and their HOA is trying to determine who should be responsible to maintain. The open
space does not really make sense in this type of design.
Doug Ochsner agrees with the comment about open space. This application is a PUD so the applicant can
ask for what they want. This makes this a better more creative subdivision. There are places with open
spaces that are not controlled and this makes the open space more of a mess. Mr.Ochsner would be willing
to waive the open space requirement.
Paul Branham stated that there needs to be open space, but not sure that the 15 % is the right amount.
Roy Spitzer indicated he is still troubled by the regulations of the ten lots. The irregular shape for farming is
difficult to understand and hard for farming. The open space needs to be there so he will be against this
proposal.
James Welch stated that the open space lots can become a mess and he is not in favor of open space. The
ten lots is a concern though. It may not be the intent of the applicant to evade but it is creating ten lots. There
is nothing to stop the applicant from selling.
James Welch moved that Case PZ-1095,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards 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; James Welch, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner, no; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner referred to Section 21-3-90 which addresses the nine lot subdivisions. The intent of the code is
to regulate subdivisions of ten lots by having ten for sale lots by one owner. This is not the intent of this
applicant and they are going for a nine lot subdivision which is the intent of the code.
Meeting adjourned at 2:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
atiL
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello