HomeMy WebLinkAbout20050639.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Bruce Fitzgerald, 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-1043
APPLICANT: Sherry Lawley
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B. RE-3581; being part of the SE4 Section 4, T6N, R64W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to PUD for 8 (eight) lots with E
(Estate)Zone uses and 1 (one)lot with A(Agricultural)Zone uses, Lawley
Estates.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 72; west of and adjacent to CR 55.
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 26-5-30 of the
Weld County Code.
2. The submitted materials are in compliance with Section 27.6.120 of the Weld County Code as follows:
A. Section 27-6-120.8.6.a The proposal is consistent with any intergovernmental agreement in effect
influencing the PUD and Chapters 19 (Coordinated Planning Agreements), Chapter 22
(Comprehensive Plan), Chapter 23 (Zoning), Chapter 24 (Subdivision) and Chapter 26 (Mixed
Use Development) of the Weld County Code. The proposed site is not within the three mile
referral area of any municipality. The proposal is consistent with the aforementioned documents
as follows:
1) Section 22-3-50.8.1, P.Goal 2 "Require adequate facilities and services to assure the
health, safety and general welfare of the present and future residents of the County." The
proposed PUD will be serviced by North Weld County Water District and Individual sewage
disposal systems will handle the effluent flow. In a referral dated November 2,2004,Weld
County Department of Public Health and Environment has indicated that the application
has satisfied Chapter 27 of the Weld County Code in regard to water and sewer service.
B. Section 27-6-120.6.b- The uses which would be allowed in the proposed PUD will conform with
the Performance Standards of the PUD Zone District contained in Article II, Chapter 27 of the
Weld County Code.
Section 27-2-20, Access standards — "All PUD developments will be served by an internally
paved road system according to County standards. An exception to paving may be granted by
the Director of Public Works for residential PUDs of nine (9) lots or less located in nonurban
areas as defined in Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code, when the PUD is not located within
close proximity to other PUDS, subdivisions and municipal boundaries, and when access to the
PUD is not from a public road which is paved or will be paved within a year of approval of the
PUD." In a referral dated November 9,2004 the Department of Public Works has indicated that
they have accepted the applicants proposal to utilize a gravel interior road.
Section 27-2-40, Bulk requirements—The application indicated that the all lots shall adhere to
the bulk requirements of the E(Estate)Zone District. Lot 5,which is proposed to be 78.81 acres,
will vary from the maximum twenty (20) acre lot size allowed in the Estate Zone District.
The applicant has met the remaining performance standards as delineated in Section 27-2-10.
The Conditions of Approval and Development Standards ensure compliance with Sections 27-2-
20 through 27-2-210 of the Weld County Code.
C. Section 27-6-120.6.c - That the uses which would be permitted shall be compatible with the
existing or future development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing Zoning, an.
with the future development as projected by Chapter22 of the Weld County Code or master plan• M
of affected municipalities. The proposed site is not within the three mile referral area for an p
municipality.
2005-0639
1.,
Resolution PZ-1043
Sherry Lawley
Page 2
D. Section 27-6-120.6.d-That the PUD Zone District shall be serviced by an adequate water supply
and sewage disposal system in compliance with the Performance Standards in Article 11 the Weld
County Code. The proposed PUD will be serviced by North Weld County Water District and
Individual Sewage Disposal Systems will handle the effluent flow. In a referral dated November
2, 2004, Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment has indicated that the
application has satisfied Chapter 27 of the Weld County Code in regard to water and sewer
service.
E. Section 27-6-120.6.e - That street or highway facilities providing access to the property are
adequate in functional classification, width, and structural capacity to meet the traffic
requirements of the uses of the proposed PUD Zone District. In a referral dated November 1,
2004 the Weld County Department of Public Works has indicated that this development will
introduce additional vehicle trips to the roadway system. This increased level of traffic on
unpaved roads creates fugitive dust and surface maintenance problems. The Department of
Public Works has required the applicant to enter into an agreement with the County to
proportionately share the cost of paving. The cost will be based on a proportion of the traffic
generated by the development to existing(background)traffic on County Road 55 between State
Highway 392 and County Road 74, which connects to paved roadways.
F. Section 27-6-120.6.f-An off-site road improvements agreement and an on-site improvements
agreement proposal is in compliance with Chapter 24 of the Weld County Code as amended and
a road improvements agreement is complete and has been submitted, if applicable.
Conditions of approval ensure that the applicant will complete an on-site(Private)Improvements
Agreement that addresses all improvements associated with this development, per compliance
with Section 24-9-10 of the Weld County Code prior to recording the final plat.
G. Section 27-6-120.6.g - That there has been compliance with the applicable requirements
contained in Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code regarding overlay districts,commercial mineral
deposits, and soil conditions on the subject site. The Colorado Geological Survey indicated
concerns with soil compositions on the site affecting foundations and roadways. As
recommended by the Colorado Geological Survey, conditions have been included which insure
site-specific engineering investigations for foundations and a separate geotechnical investigation
for the design of the roadway and cul-de-sac. The Colorado Geological Survey also indicated
concerns with the possibility that coal beds in the Laramie Formation could de-gas over time if
they are penetrated and exposed by a house foundation.As recommended,venting systems will
be required in foundation plans or an engineer will be required to monitor foundation excavations.
If coal is not encountered, venting may not be needed.
H. Section 27-6-120.6.h - Consistency exists between the proposed zone district(s), uses, the
specific or conceptual development guide.
The submitted Specific Development Guide does accurately reflect the performance standards
and allowed uses described in the proposed zone district, as described previously.
This approval recommendation is based upon compliance with Chapter 27 requirements.
The Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to PUD for eight(8)lots with Estate Zone Uses is conditional
upon the following:
1. Prior to scheduling a Board of County Commissioners hearing:
A. The applicant shall submit evidence that all Division of Water Resources Concerns have been
addressed. (Department of Planning Services)
2. Prior to recording the Change of Zone plat:
Resolution PZ-1043
Sherry Lawley
Page 3
A. The applicant shall submit a plan to the Colorado Division of Wildlife for the management of the
Black-tailed Prairie Dogs and Burrowing Owls on the site. Evidence of approval and a copy of the
approved plan shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of
Planning Services and Colorado Division of Wildlife)
B. The plat shall be amended as follows:
1) All sheets of the plat shall be labeled PZ-1043. (Department of Planning Services)
2) The appropriate signature blocks shall be delineated on the plat. (Department of Planning
Services)
3) The Weld County Roadway Classification Plan currently shows County Road 72 with a
classification as a local requiring a 60-foot 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 right-of-way cannot be verified, it will be dedicated on the final
plat. County Road 72 is gravel adjacent to the proposed development and maintained by
the County. (Department of Public Works)
4) The Weld County Roadway Classification Plan currently shows County Road 55 with a
classification as a local requiring a 60-foot 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 right-of-way cannot be verified, it will be dedicated on the final
plat. County Road 55 is a stabilized gravel base(2004)roadway adjacent to the proposed
development and maintained by the County. (Department of Public Works)
5) The applicant has proposed a school loading area and pedestrian shelter at the entrance
of the subdivision. The applicant shall submit evidence that School District RE-2 has
accepted the proposal. (Department of Planning Services)
6) The applicant has proposed a postal delivery unit at the entrance of the subdivision. The
applicant shall submit evidence that the appropriate postal district has accepted the
proposal. (Department of Planning Services)
7) The plat shall indicate the appropriate setback from the oil and gas facilities on the site in
accordance with section 23-3-440.K of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning
Services)
8) The PUD internal roadway right-of-way shall be 60-feet in width including cul-de-sacs with
65- foot radius, and dedicated to the public. The typical cross-section of interior road
should be shown as two 13-foot gravel lanes minimum on the change of zone plat. The
cul-de-sac edge of roadway radius must be 50-feet. (Department of Public Works)
C. 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 eight
(8)residential lots 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 Lot 5 will
vary from the maximum lot size allowed in the Estate Zone District. 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 Public Works)
Resolution PZ-1043
Sherry Lawley
Page 4
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)
D. Weld County's Right to Farm as delineated on this plat shall be recognized at all times.
(Department of Planning Services)
E. Water service shall be obtained from North Weld County Water District. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
F. 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)
G. 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)
H. 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)
r
I. 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)
J. 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)
K. A separate building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction of any building.(Department
of Building Inspection)
L. A plan review is required for each building. Building plans may be require the wet stamp of a
Colorado registered engineer or architect.Two complete sets of plans are required when applying
for each permit. (Department of Building Inspection)
M. 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)
N. Each building will require an engineered foundation based on a site-specific geotechnical report
or an open hole inspection performed by a Colorado registered engineer. Engineered
foundations shall be designed by a Colorado registered engineer. (Department of Building
Inspection and Colorado Geological Survey)
O. 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)
Resolution PZ-1043
Sherry Lawley
Page 5
P. 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)
Q. Coal beds in the Laramie Formation could de-gas over time if they are penetrated and exposed
by a house foundation.Venting systems shall be built into all of the foundations to account for all
potential radiation and coal-gas exposures or an engineer will be required to monitor foundation
excavations. If coal is not encountered,venting may not be needed. Should the homeowner not
build a venting system,a letter from a professional engineer shall be submitted to the Department
of Building Inspection indicating that coal was not encountered and the venting is not necessary.
(Colorado Geological Survey)
R. 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)
S. Potential Purchasers are hereby notified that numerous confined animal feeding operations are
located in the area. Off-site impacts that may be encountered include noise from trucks,tractors
and equipment; dust from animal pens and odors from animal confinement,silage, and manure.
(Department of Planning Services)
T. The Weld County Sheriff's Office has limited traffic enforcement powers on subdivision roadways
which are not adopted or maintained by the County. (Weld County Sheriff's Office)
U. Oil and Gas facilities shall be fenced to mitigate the potential for tampering. (Weld County
Sheriff's Office)
V. Installation of utilities shall comply with Section 24-9-10 of the Weld County Code. (Department
of Planning Services)
W. 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)
X. 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)
Y. 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)
Z. 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)
AA. The applicant shall comply with Section 27-8-50 Weld County Code,as follows: Failure to submit
a Planned Unit Development Final Plan - If a PUD Final Plan application is not submitted within
three (3) years of the date of the approval of the PUD Zone District, the Board of County
Commissioners shall require the landowner to appear before it and present evidence
substantiating that the PUD project has not been abandoned and that the applicant possesses
the willingness and ability to continue with the submission of the PUD Final Plan. The Board may
extend the date for the submission of the PUD Final Plan application and shall annually require
the applicant to demonstrate that the PUD has not been abandoned. If the Board determines that
Resolution PZ-1043
Sherry Lawley
Page 6
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)
BB. 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. At the time of Final Plan submission:
A. The applicant shall submit Improvements Agreements According to Policy Regarding Collateral
For Improvements with the final plan application. These agreements must be reviewed by County
Staff and shall be approved by the BOCC prior to recording the final plat. (Departments of Public
Works and Planning Services)
B. This development will introduce additional vehicle trips to the roadway system. This increased
level of traffic on unpaved roads creates fugitive dust and surface maintenance problems. The
applicant shall enter into an agreement with the County to proportionately share the cost of
paving. The cost will be based on a proportion of the traffic generated by the development to
existing (background)traffic on County Road 55 between State Highway 392 and County Road
74,which connect to paved roadways. The applicant shall submit a proposed off-site agreement
with the final plan. (Department of Public Works)
C. Stop signs and street name sign locations must be shown on the final roadway construction
plans. (Department of Public Works)
D. Intersection sight distance triangles at the development entrance 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)
E. 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 application) and
approval. Construction details must be included. (Department of Public Works)
F. The applicant has indicated that drainage will be directed to a detention pond then discharged
at historic rates into the Nazarenus Ditch.The applicant shall submit evidence that the Nazarenus
Ditch Company has approved discharge from the site into the Ditch. If approval is not obtained
from the Ditch Company, the Drainage Plan shall be amended. (Department of Planning
Services)
G. 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.
(Department of Public Works)
H. 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)
Resolution PZ-1043
Sherry Lawley
Page 7
I. The applicant shall prepare a construction detail for typical lot grading with respect to drainage
for the final 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)
J. 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 the final plan application. (Department of Public Works)
K. It is recommended that the final roadway plan include a geotechnical investigation for the design
of the roadway and cul-de-sac. (Colorado Geological Survey)
L. Easements shall be shown on the final plat in accordance with County standards and/or Utility
Board recommendations. (Department of Planning Services)
M. The applicant shall submit covenants for review and approval. The covenants shall address
concerns listed by the Colorado Division of Wildlife regarding the restriction of livestock to prevent
the loss of vegetative cover and measures to prevent overgrazing of pasture as no irrigation
water is being proposed for the subdivision. The covenants shall also address the limitations
placed on individual homeowners by the Right-of-way and Easement Agreement with the
Nazarenus Ditch Company, recorded on July 22, 2002, reception number 2970917. Finalized
covenants and the appropriate fee shall be submitted for recording with the final mylar plats.
(Department of Planning Services, Colorado Division of Wildlife and the Nazarenus Ditch
Company)
N. All signs including entrance signs shall require building permits.Signs shall adhere to Section 23-
4-80 of the Weld County Code.These requirements shall apply to all temporary and permanent
signs. (Department of Planning Services)
O. The applicant shall submit evidence to the Weld County Department of Planning Services with
the final plan application that all proposed street names and lot addresses have been submitted
to the Post Office for review. The final plan applications shall include copies of the proposed
street names and lot addresses for review by all referral agencies. (Department of Planning
Services
6. Prior to recording the final plat:
A. The applicant shall submit evidence to the Department of Planning Services that the required
School District cash in lieu of land dedication fee has been paid. (Department of Planning
Services)
B. The applicant shall enter into Improvements Agreements According to Policy Regarding
Collateral for Improvements. These agreements shall be approved by the Board of County
Commissioners. (Departments of Planning Services and 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 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)
E. The applicant shall submit a digital file of all drawings associated with the Final Plan application.
Acceptable CAD formats are .dwg, .dxf, and .dgn (Microstation); acceptable GIS formats are
.shp(Shape Files),Arclnfo Coverages and Arclnfo Export files format type is.e00. The preferred
format for Images is .tif(Group 4) ... (Group 6 is not acceptable). (Dept. of Planning Services)
Resolution PZ-1043
Sherry Lawley
Page 8
7. At time of building permit:
A. Coal beds in the Laramie Formation could de-gas over time if they are penetrated and exposed
by a house foundation.Venting systems shall be built into all of the foundations to account for all
potential radiation and coal-gas exposures or an engineer will be required to monitor foundation
excavations. If coal is not encountered,venting may not be needed. Should the homeowner not
build a venting system,a letter from a professional engineer shall be submitted to the Department
of Building Inspection indicating that coal was not encountered and the venting is not necessary.
(Colorado Geological Survey)
Motion seconded by Doug Ochsner
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Michael Miller
John Folsom
Bryant Gimlin
Bruce Fitzgerald
James Rohn
Tanya Stobel
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
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 December, 2004.
Dated the 7'h of December, 2004.
UCN\ 8. 11 C
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
42 - -7 ,„zc2)v
Add the following note to the plat under 2.Y"Any disturbance of wetlands shall require the applicant
to contact the Army Corps of Engineers for permits pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act."
Reword 1.A.9 to say the following "The applicant shall work with the Colorado Department of
Transportation to determine the current right-of-way along State Highway 37 and the area to be
reserved for the future expansion of State Highway 37. Written evidence shall be submitted to the
Department of Planning Services."
John Folsom asked Ms. Martin the approximate size of the wetlands on site. Ms. Martin indicated they were
approximately less than an acre.
Clayton Harrison,Pickett Engineering representative for the applicant,stated he was is available for questions
but had nothing to add. Mr. Harrison indicated staff had done a great job with the presentation.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Mike Miller asked about a letter from CDOT and should it be included in the comments. Ms. Martin indicated
the letter was to be used as a reference to one of the Conditions staff was proposing to have changed.
John Folsom asked Ms. Martin if the internal road will be paved. Ms. Martin indicated it would not be paved.
Michael Miller indicated staff was recommending the following changes:
Add the following note to the plat under 2.Y"Any disturbance of wetlands shall require the applicant
to contact the Army Corps of Engineers for permits pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act."
Reword 1.A.9 to say the following "The applicant shall work with the Colorado Department of
Transportation to determine the current right-of-way along State Highway 37 and the area to be
reserved for the future expansion of State Highway 37. Written evidence shall be submitted to the
Department of Planning Services."
Doug Ochsner moved to approve the staff changes. Chad Auer seconded. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case MZ-1056, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. John Folsom seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes;James Welch,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1043
APPLICANT: Sherry Lawley
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B RE-3581;being part of the SE4 Section 4,T6N,R64W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to PUD for 8 (eight) lots with E
(Estate)Zone uses
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 72; west of and adjacent to CR 55.
Sheri Lockman,Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-1043,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.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the internal roadway being dedicated but not maintained. Ms Lockman indicate• i z 1
the road would be dedicated but maintained by HOA. Mr. Fitzgerald asked about the Sheriff Department-
'*.
2z�
referral. Ms. Lockman indicated staff was requesting a note on the plat so the property owners realize there
are some traffic enforcement limitations. Mr. Fitzgerald asked for further clarification regarding if the internal
road. Mr. Schei indicated if an internal roadway is paved for a subdivision it would be maintained and under
the jurisdiction of the County. All roadways are dedicated to the citizens of Weld County. Mr. Fitzgerald asked
if a road grader will go down the road. Mr. Schei indicated it would not and added that no gravel roadways
within subdivisions are accepted for maintenance by the County.
John Folsom asked Ms.Lockman about the remaining Sheriff Department recommendations. Ms.Lockman
stated those recommendations are already incorporated into the comments.
Jeff Couch, representative for the applicant, presented additional information on the proposal. The Sheriff
Department comments are standard and the applicant is intending to widen the internal road at the entrance.
There is a cul-de-sac at the end of the roadway. The HOA will maintain the roadway. Addressing and street
naming is taken care of through the County process. The Colorado Division of Water Resources has been
faxed the information they requested. There is a Water Extension Agreement in place which is what the
Division requires. Galeton Fire Protection District will be met with to address any concerns they might have.
There is a letter from Division of Wildlife in the packet addressing the six issues for them. The prairie dogs
have been removed from the site. The native grasses will be replaced to maintain the vegetative cover. The
biggest issue is working with the Nazarenus Ditch. Most of the six conditions requested by the ditch company
can be met by slight modifications. The first request is the ditch company has a recorded right of way
agreement,therefore the drawings will need to reflect this and the laterals associated with the ditch company.
The second request is to add a note to the plat indicating an exclusive right of way easement. There is 120
feet of right of way from the ditch to the west and 50 foot to the east of the ditch. The exclusive easement is
170 foot wide. The issue is the maintenance of that 120 feet. The ditch company wants the 120 feet to be
adequately maintained and allow them to function as they have historically functioned. The soil is sandy in
the area and there has been some silting concerns. The ditch company wants to make sure there is a
vegetative cover and there are no problems with that to affect the function of the ditch. The ditch company
wanted the 120 feet to be dedicated as a common area,that would take approximately 1 V2 acres from each
of the lots. The applicant did not want to dedicate it. The property will not be fenced and will still be accessible
to the ditch company. The HOA and landowners can maintain the land better. A plan can be put together that
will satisfy both the landowners and the ditch company. The applicant does not want to dedicate the property.
The ditch company does not want drainage from the site so the internal drainage will be done so that no water
drains into the ditch but drains into a pond. The applicant does not want to add any water that has not been
historically added to the ditch.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Morrison about the historic drainage into the ditch and it cannot be prevented in the
future. Mr. Morrison stated that historical flow cannot be prevented with the limitation that is will not be
modified to the detriment of the ditch. The water cannot be channeled in a way to erode the ditch bank where
it did not do this before or intensify the flow. As a general rule the continuing right of the historical drainage
can be maintained.
Michael Miller asked Mr.Couch if the applicant is in agreement with the last sentence containing the language
that the engineer from the ditch company review and approve the drainage report. Brent Goan,representative
for the applicant, indicated the engineer for the ditch company be given the opportunity to comment on the
report but there is a concern with the County delegating the authority to approve. Mr. Miller indicated the
language refers to the ditch company having the approval authority.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Dennis Egge, Vice-President of the Nazarenus Lateral Ditch Company, indicated their concerns about
development next to the ditch. There is a 120 foot right of way on the west side,the ditch company would like
to keep maintenance of this. There are several reasons this should be done and one is they do not want
drainage from the site into the system. The soil is sandy and the ditch will fill quickly. The ditch has
historically sat higher than the ground so the water typically banks up to the ditch and stood in the fields.
Another concern would be homeowners located on the ditch could object to spraying the weeds on the ditch.
The ditch company would like to see their right of way fenced so the area could be defined. There may be
future problems. Mr. Miller indicated the ditch company does not own the property there is an easement. So
3
the company is asking for the people who do own the property to fence off part of their ground. Mr. Egge
stated they have an exclusive right of way easement and in the agreement it is defined how the right of way
can be used. Mr. Miller asked if the easement defined who maintained the area. Mr. Egge stated the ditch
company has always done the maintenance. Mr. Miller asked whether the easement indicates it should be
fenced off. Mr. Egge stated the easement is defined so the ditch company can control all activity that goes
on inside the easement to protect the ditch. Mr. Miller stated that asking the owners to fence the easement
off is in effect taking that portion of their property away from them. Mr. Egge stated the owners cannot
technically use the property unless they clear it with the ditch company anyway. The easement is written so
the owner cannot even stack hay, build corrals or a structure without the approval of the ditch company.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Morrison about the fencing off of a portion of the property. Mr.Morrison asked if the
discussion was about the exclusive portion or the non exclusive portion? Mr. Egge indicated the exclusive
portion,the 120 feet on west side of the ditch. Mr.Morrison stated the exclusive is the smaller area. Mr.Egge
indicated the ditch company would like to see this as common ground so these concerns would not have to
be dealt with. Mr. Egge added the homeowners will not be allowed to use the ground for anything according
to the agreement. Mr. Morrison stated that the exclusive easement still allows for the owner to be the land
owner. There are special provisions in the recorded document that states the Lawley's will not be permitted
to cross under or over the easement with any structure. They can still use the ground for pasture and such.
Structures are prohibited without approval but it does not say any use. Exclusive does not refer to the fee
owners rights it refers to anyone being able to obtain an easement in the area.
Michael Miller clarified that the land owners have the ability to graze or recreate on the easement. Mr.
Morrison added that the fee owner cannot interfere with the use of the easement. It is possible that some of
the uses would interfere and structures are prohibited.There are other uses that could interfere and could be
a violation. Mr. Miller indicated that if the Planning Commission requires them to fence the area off it would
in effect be asking them to remove some of their property from use. Mr. Morrison stated that was true,there
is some allowed use of the easement although it is limited. Mr. Egge indicated the ditch company does not
want the property owners to fence back to the ditch and have the ditch rider have to open four sets of fences
to do his job. Mr. Egge continued with the request that there be a note indicating the easement on the plat.
The fence issue needs to be defined. There is a concern with kids near the ditch. The main concern is the
easement and the maintenance of it. The ditch company will work with the applicant.
Michael Miller asked if there any historical drainage from the site. Mr. Egge stated the ditch is higher than the
surrounding area. It was done this way when the ditch was created because of the sandy soil. The ditch
company wants to look at the storm drainage because of the amount the ditch can hold and at what level it
will overflow. Mr. Egge added the excess run off drains into the county ditch.
Chair closed the public portion
Michael Miller asked Ms. Lockman about Condition 5 M and delineating this on the plat so homeowners will
know. Ms. Lockman stated the intent is so the homeowners will be aware of the limitations placed by the
easement agreement to the plat.
Brent Coan asked about the addition to 3 B note on plat. There is an agreement in place with Petroleum
Development Corporation that indicates they will fence the facilities. The concern is for the applicant to fence
someone else's property. The applicant would like to be able to provide the agreement to staff before Board
of County Commissioners. Mr. Miller indicated the goal was to make sure it was fenced, it would be better
to leave this and provide the information to the Board of County Commissioners at that time.
Chad Auer moved to approve staff comments. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. Motion Carried
Doug Ochsner asked if the applicant could address the comments of the public. Mr. Couch indicated the one
issue left is a maintenance standard for the 120 feet. The rest of the requests from the ditch company are
fine. There is approximately 110 feet owned by lot owners and it is believed the HOA could maintain the
ground better than the ditch company. The ditch company has limited resources. There still needs to be
standards established. Mr. Coan stated the right of way and easement agreement does not address
maintenance. The applicant is requesting to continue working with the ditch company to best accommodate
4
both parties. Both parties want to see that the ground is properly maintained. Mr. Millers stated the owners
should be the ones who maintain their property. Mr. Ochsner stated that if maintenance interferes with the
workings of the ditch, for example if the ditch company cleans the ditch and leaves dirt on the right of way
which is the owners property they will not approve of this. The homeowners might decide they like the weeds
and want to keep them. Mr. Miller asked how involved does the Planning Commission want to get in
establishing a precedent for the homeowners to maintain their property. Mr.Ochsner states that it should be
left up to the ditch company to take care of their ditch. Mr. Morrison stated this is unique because the actual
ditch is smaller than the easement. The user of the easement is responsible for maintaining the use and not
the property owner. The issue gets clouded on the portion away from the ditch. It seems as though the
parties have come a long way at resolving the issues. It might be best to let the parties work out an
agreement before the Board of County Commissioners hearing. Mr. Miller's concern is it can be said who is
responsible for maintaining but it then needs to be defined as "maintained in what condition". Mr. Morrison
stated it would function better if the parties had an agreement as to who did what and to what standard
because they have a much more direct interest in the outcome. Mr. Coan added the County has standards
regarding weed control and such. It is good for the parties to address who does what part of the maintenance.
Both parties are interested in the best solution for the maintenance. Mr.Miller added that it is the responsibility
of the property owner unless there are other provisions.
John Folsom indicated there needs to be a mutual agreement between both parties.
Dennis Egge added the maintenance can be worked out but he has other issues specifically discing the
ground. The area is hard to burn because the access is on CR 55, it is something that can be worked out
through the HOA. Mr. Egge added that it was their understanding that if they had an easement they were
obligated to maintain.
Jeff Couch continued with the concerns of the ditch company. The issues can be addressed including the
drainage concerns. It would even improve the area drainage. The improvements will decrease the
maintenance for the ditch company. The HOA will assist in this. The homeowners really have no need to be
in the easement,they can get the grasses established and maintain them. It would be great to define some
of the uses for the land owners.
Jeff Couch had questions about Condition S. The applicant would like to see the language changed to"the
property owners shall not unreasonably interfere with the mineral owners." Mr. Miller asked if this provision
has been used in the past. Ms. Lockman stated it is fairly new language and she has no concerns with the
requested additions. Mr.Couch would like to add at the end language consisting of"...located on these lands
to the extent those rights exist on the north half of the SE4 of Section 4. No such ingress or egress rights exist
in the SE4SE4 of Section 4 and nothing contained herein is intended to change the rights of the parties or to
grant additional rights to any mineral owner or lessee". The reason for this is there has been a lease that
allows drilling but there are specifics in the lease that keep the lessee off the property. Mr. Miller would be
in favor of deleting the entire paragraph. There is an oil and gas lease that will determine what can be done
and not.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to delete Condition S. Dough Ochsner seconded. Motion carried.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that Case PZ-1043, 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. John
Folsom, yes; James Welch,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Chad Auer,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Doug Ochsner commented he believes this is a good plan but the ditch company maintenance needs to be
addressed. It is a very important issue in this case.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1441
APPLICANT: LW Miller Transportation, LLC
5
Hello