HomeMy WebLinkAbout20050804.tiff Amended Section of the July 19, 2005 minutes
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1074
APPLICANT: Frank Wright
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of AmRE-3381; Pt S2NW4 of Section 5, T1 N, R68W of the
6th
P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Application for Change of Zone from A(Agriculture)to PUD for
nine(9) residential lots with E (Estate) Uses.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 3 and 1/4 mile south of State
Highway 52.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, Department of Planning Services presented
Case PZ-1074, 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.
Fifteen (15)referral agencies reviewed this case and thirteen (13)offered comments on this
application.
Planning staff has determined that the submitted application does comply with the twenty
standards described in Section 2 of the PUD ordinance with the exception of the following:
Section 27-6-90, Signage — Section 27-2-90.C. states: "Signage within a PUD shall
adhere to all requirements in this Chapter and Chapters 23 and 26 of this Code, if
applicable."
The Department of Planning Services has consistently required that subdivision signs
adhere to the size standards of signs for public and quasi-public uses, which is 32-
square feet, per Section 23-4-80 of the Weld County Code. The applicant is
proposing a sign that is larger than 32 square feet. The Department of Planning
Services recommends that the size of the PUD entrance sign not exceed 32 square
feet.
Section 27-2-190, Urban Scale Development—Section 27-2-190 states: "Urban scale
developments are developments exceeding nine (9) lots and/or located in close
proximity to existing PUDs, subdivisions, municipal boundaries or urban growth
corridors and boundaries."
The subject property borders the Carmacar Estates, Peaks at Mountain View and
Summit at Mountain View Subdivisions to the west and therefore is considered urban
scale development. The Departments of Planning Services and Public Works have
consistently required curb gutter and sidewalk for urban scale developments.
The applicant is requesting a waiver from the curb, gutter and sidewalk requirement
for this proposed subdivision. The Department of Planning Services is
recommending curb, gutter and sidewalks for this subdivision.
The applicant is in the process of negotiating mineral agreements with Encana and Anadarko.
The applicant has indicated that these agreements are nearly finalized.
The Division of Water Resources has indicated that the proposed water supply would not cause
material injury to existing water supply and that the water supply is expected to be adequate.
aTh azni O+ :. 1O- 3/-Zcti>S— 2005-0804
However, the Division said the water amount stated in the water summary information sheet is
low.
The applicant has provided updated information regarding landscaping in the common open
space area along with the original agreement with the Lower Boulder Ditch Company.
The applicant has been working with the Lower Boulder Ditch Company regarding an agreement
pertaining to the conveyance of drainage water into the ditch. An agreement has not yet been
finalized. David Yardley, with the Lower Boulder Ditch Company indicated that he would be at
today's hearing if the Planning Commission would like him to speak on this issue.
The Department of Planning Services has determined that this PUD is in compliance with Section
27-6-120 of the Weld County Code and recommends that this application be approved.
Bryant Gimlin asked about other PUD's and if they have curbs, gutters and sidewalks as part of
their requirements. Mr. Gathman replied that he had looked into three subdivisions: Carmacar;
the Summit at Mountain View; and the Peaks at Mountain View; none of which had requirements
for curbs, gutters and sidewalks.
Frank Wright, Boulder, CO. This property consists of seventy-four acres he would like developed
into nine lots and three non-residential outlots. Anadarko has requested the fourth non-
residential lot have no property lines running through their operations area so he made it an
agricultural outlot with no fences placed in the middle of the lot. Mr.Wright said he has been
working with David Yardley, Lower Boulder Ditch Company regarding the retention pond that
drains into ditch. The average lot size is six acres; the right-of-way takes 4.2 acres; the retention
pond takes 1.8 acres; and the open space is 13.4 acres. Mr.Wright requested the requirement
for curbs, gutters and sidewalks be waived as other developments in adjacent areas have none
and he wants to preserve the rural feeling. The houses are proposed to be located at the top of
the hill to maximize the best views, and curbs, gutters and sidewalks would have to run uphill
quite a long distance. The ditch company has also requested no curbs, gutters and sidewalks to
better control run-off to the retention pond and the ditch. Tom Holton inquired about paving and
something in-audible to do with the ditches. Mr.Wright replied in the affirmative. Mr.Wright
agreed with the conditions of approval and development standards except for the requirement of
curbs, gutters and sidewalks.
Pam Smith, Department of Environmental Health, said that due to the relatively good condition of
the soil and the large size of the lots, she was not going to require primary and secondary septic
envelopes on the lots, therefore on page seven, items 3.G and 3.H can be removed. James
Rohn moved that items 3.G and 3.H on page seven be deleted. Tom Holton seconded. Motion
carried.
John Folsom asked Mr. Gathman about Section 27-2-190 of the Weld County Code which says
urban scale development requires support services such as central water and sewer systems.
Are we interpreting septic systems to be a sewer system. Mr. Gathman said a septic system is
not an urban scale sewer system. There have been several urban subdivisions with more lots
than this one that were on septic. Ms. Smith said the Commissioners intentionally left this vague
so we could deal with these types of situations on an individual basis. Mr. Folsom asked if this
was a broad interpretation. Mr. Gathman replied that it was.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application.
David Yardley, 3838 Florentine Circle, Longmont, CO 80504, Secretary and Director of the new
Lower Boulder Consolidated Ditch Company. Mr. Yardley said he had two major issues with
development flows into the ditch. The quality of the water from agricultural flow is entirely
different from pavement and roof top flow which contains anti-freeze, chemicals, oil etc. The
quantity is also an issue due to a structural integrity standpoint for the ditch. If there are
concentrated, unregulated flows, it may compromise the integrity of the structure. Mr. Yardley
also said the ditch company prefers the absence of curbs, gutters and sidewalks to better control
run-off to the retention pond and ditch.
Alison Berry, Woodrow&Sobel, P.C., representing Anadarko Land Corporation, wants their
objection letter, dated June 3, 2005, and submitted by Molly Sommerville, to be a part of the
proceedings. Anadarko and Mr.Wright have reached agreement since filing objections with the
county regarding the hard rock minerals. Anadarko does not object to the oil and gas interests or
to the zoning for the property, but would object to the approval by the county of a final plat for the
property in the absence of an agreement between the Anadarko entities and Mr. Wright. Ms.
Berry said they want surface use agreements with Kerr-McGee and Encana in place prior to final
approval and anticipate those will be executed in the next few weeks. Anadarko's goal is to have
a final surface use agreement in place prior to approval of the final plat for the property.
Chad Auer moved that we amend 1.B, page 5 and delete(with Kerr-McGee and Encana Energy
Resources, Inc.). Second by James Rohn. Motion passed.
Bryant Gimlin asked Mr.Wright, the applicant, to step forward to discuss the curbs, gutters and
sidewalks once again. Mr. Gimlin said as he sees it they have three options: leave it as is;
change it; or defer to the Board of County Commissioners. Tom Holton said the interpretation is
so broad it should not require curbs, gutters and sidewalks. Mr. Gimlin agreed they should not
burden the applicant as other similar developments have no curbs, gutters and sidewalks and
also because the ditch company is requesting they be waived. James Rohn said other PUD's do
not requires curbs, gutters and sidewalks and that normally he would be in favor of this
requirement but supports waiving the requirement. Chad Auer said he feels the requirement is
beneficial to developments but in this case it makes sense and he reluctantly agreed to waive the
requirement. Tom Holton motioned to waive the curb, gutter and sidewalk requirement. Mr.
Gathman then pointed out that this was not a condition of approval or a development standard.
Mr. Gimlin responded that the commission was adding their recommendation to that of staff. Mr.
Morrison said a motion was not required to get that recommendation to the board as it would be
reflected in the minutes, but if the commission wanted to make a formal motion, they could do so.
Mr. Holton withdrew his motion. Mr. Holton asked if it would be a requirement to vegetate the
edges of the barrow ditches along the side of the road. Mr. Gathman said there is a requirement
in place where the applicant must come to an agreement or provide evidence that they have
addressed the concerns of the ditch company prior to scheduling of the board hearing. If it is not
a condition in the agreement, it is something that we could look at adding. Mr. Gimlin asked Mr.
Gathman to look at page 6, items 2. A. 6 and 2. D., as they say the same thing. Mr. Gathman
agreed that item 2.D could be removed.
It was moved by James Rohn and seconded by Chad Auer to remove item 2. D. Motion passed.
John Folsom asked Mr. Gathman if planning looks at the maps in regard to coal mining. Mr.
Gathman replied that they do look at a geologic hazard map that determines whether the
subsidence area is severe, moderate, slight or not at all.
Mr. Gimlin asked Mr.Wright if he agreed with the amended development standards and
conditions of approval. Mr.Wright said he agrees.
Chad Auer moved that Case PZ-1074, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners
along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning
Commissions recommendation of approval as amended. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision.
John Folsom, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Chad Auer, yes.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hello