HomeMy WebLinkAbout20052014.tiff HEARING CERTIFICATION
DOCKET NO. 2005-52
RE: SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND AMENDED USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT #1268 FOR A RECREATIONAL FACILITY, WITH USES SIMILAR TO THOSE
SEEN AT GUEST FARMS AND FAIRGROUNDS, IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE
DISTRICT- EDWARD AND EILEEN FRITZLER, C/O KGF, INC. /GLEN FRITZLER
A public hearing was conducted on August 17, 2005, at 10:00 a.m., with the following present:
Commissioner William H. Jerke, Chair
Commissioner M. J. Geile, Pro-Tem
Commissioner David E. Long
Commissioner Robert D. Masden
Commissioner Glenn Vaad
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Esther Gesick
Assistant County Attorney, Lee Morrison
Planning Department representative, Sheri Lockman
Health Department representative, Char Davis
Public Works representative, Donald Carroll
The following business was transacted:
I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated June 24,2005,and duly published June 29,2005,in
the Fort Lupton Press, a public hearing was conducted on July 13, 2005, to consider the request
of Edward and Eileen Fritzler,c/o KGF, Inc./Glen Fritzler,fora Site Specific Development Plan and
Amended Use by Special Review Permit#1268 for a Recreational Facility,with uses similar to those
seen at Guest Farms and Fairgrounds, in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. At said hearing,at the
request of the applicant,the Board deemed it advisable to continue the matter to August 17,2005,
when a full quorum of the Board would be present. At said hearing on August 17, 2005, Lee
Morrison,Assistant County Attorney,made this a matter of record. Sheri Lockman,Department of
Planning Services, gave a brief description of the location of the site and surrounding land uses.
She stated thirteen referral agencies reviewed the proposal,twelve responded favorably or provided
comments which have been addressed in the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards,
and staff received one letter of concern from a surrounding property owner. She displayed
photographs of the site and surrounding area, stated the applicant is proposing a sign with an
electric message board that rotates information, and indicated the location of the existing access.
Ms. Lockman stated the applicants have not reached an agreement with the Western Mutual Ditch
Company; however, they have submitted a Landscaping/Buffering Plan, marked Exhibit F, to
address the Planning Commission's request to screen the future homes that will be located
northeast of the site. She stated the applicant is proposing to use hay bales or berms to screen the
site, which staff feels is adequate due to the temporary nature of the use; however, staff is
requesting the location of screening be indicated on the plat as stated in the proposed Condition of
Approval#1.C.12. She proposed the addition of Development Standard#37 to address comments
from the Colorado Department of Transportation (COOT)requesting a one-way access from the
U.S. Highway 85 Frontage Road,with an exit to the north onto State Highway 256. She stated the
applicant has completed Condition of Approval #1.B and it can be deleted.
2005-2014
PL1415
filr ; PA.? 1714_ O8- /-D$_
HEARING CERTIFICATION - EDWARD AND EILEEN FRITZLER, C/O KGF, INC. / GLEN
FRITZLER (AMUSR#1268)
PAGE 2
Char Davis, Department of Public Health and Environment, stated the site will be serviced by the
Central Weld County Water District,and staff is agreeable to allowing the use of Port-A-Potties due
to the temporary nature of the use. However,when the bam/concession stand is built,the applicant
will be required to install a septic system and leach field. Responding to Chair Jerke, Ms. Davis
stated currently there is not a septic system on the property.
Donald Carroll, Department of Public Works, stated there are two accesses to the site from U.S.
Highway 85 and State Highway 256. He stated CDOT is agreeable to allowing two-way traffic on
the U.S. Highway 85 Frontage Road when the applicant is operating the vegetable stand;however,
during the Corn Maze activities,traffic would only be allowed to enter from the Frontage Road and
then exit through the site onto State Highway 256. Responding to Chair Jerke, Mr. Carroll stated
CDOT was going to try using a fence to prevent traffic from accessing directly onto U.S. Highway 85
from the Frontage Road. Ms. Lockman added CDOT wants traffic to exit the site onto
State Highway256. Mr. Morrison stated CDOT's position is that granting the access permit requires
the applicant to place any necessary barriers. Responding to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Carroll
stated the U.S. Highway 85 Traffic Study suggests closing the access to the Frontage Road and
reworking the access further north at State Highway 256 due to the large amount of traffic
anticipated.
Glen Fritzler,applicant,stated he concurs with CDOT's traffic circulation request; however,he does
not agree with the requirement from CDOT to construct a ditch which would be totally on CDOT
property. Chair Jerke stated it may not be the applicant's property; however, with CDOT's
permission, the applicant would have authority to complete the requested project. Mr. Morrison
stated CDOT has requested the applicant propose a plan for addressing the problem of traffic
accessing directly onto U.S. Highway 85,and the project may be at the applicant's expense,with
CDOT's approval to work within its right-of-way. Mr. Fritzler stated CDOT has not directly
requested him to address this issue, rather, the request was made by the Department of Planning
Service. Ms. Lockman stated CDOT concurred that there is potential for a traffic safety hazard;
however,she does not have a written request,and CDOT intends to address the matter later if there
is a problem. She stated staff was trying to be proactive in requesting the matter be addressed
now. Commissioner Vaad commented Development Standard #5 does not seem to be a fair
requirement of the applicant since it requires action by CDOT to place "One-Way" signs. Mr.
Fritzler requested any reference to the produce stand be stricken from the Board's Resolution. Ms.
Lockman stated the applicant brings in produce that he does not grow,therefore,the produce stand
needs to be permitted through this Use by Special Review process. Responding to Chair Jerke, Mr.
Fritzler clarified he does not agree with the one-way traffic requirement for the produce stand since
it generates such a limited amount of traffic. He also requested a starting date of July 1st through
the end of September due to the closure of the Go Cart facility in Evans,which may provide him with
an additional business opportunity. Ms. Lockman stated allowing a longer operating time may be
problematic at this point since the referral responses were based on a temporary seasonal use.
Mr.Fritzler stated the earlier time would only be for the uses allowed under this permit. In response
to Commissioner Vaad, Mr. Fritzler stated the ATV and motorcycle racecourse was omitted from
the application at the Planning Commission hearing. Mr. Morrison stated the requested
modifications can only be allowed if the Board finds there was adequate notice and that referral
comments will not be impacted by a longer operating time. Mr. Fritzler requested Condition#1.C.4
be deleted since widening the access would only further encourage people to exit in the wrong
2005-2014
PL1415
HEARING CERTIFICATION - EDWARD AND EILEEN FRITZLER, C/O KGF, INC. / GLEN
FRITZLER (AMUSR#1268)
PAGE 3
direction. Mr. Carroll stated 24 feet allows for two-way traffic for the produce stand activity,and if
the width is reduced, it must be at least 20 feet to accommodate emergency equipment, with
approval from emergency responders. Commissioner Geile referred to Development Standard#25
and questioned whether the existing access is adequate to accommodate 2,000 customers. Mr.
Carroll stated 24 feet is an adequate width for buses and long-bed trucks or trailers. Mr. Fritzler
reiterated the existing width is adequate for buses and agricultural equipment,and his concern for
widening the access is that it may encourage people to try and exit at this point rather then through
the property and north to State Highway 256. He stated he has worked with CDOT regarding
signage and he is requesting a rotating message board;however,staff has indicated the Code does
not allow for changes in the sign. Chair Jerke stated the Board previously held a work session
regarding signage,and at that time the Board indicated agreement with going toward what is allowed
by State or Federal regulations for signage along their right-of-way. Mr. Fritzler stated he does not
agree with the requirement for posting a person in the CDOT right-of-way where traffic has been
accessing U.S. Highway 85,and he noted they do have personnel directing traffic during the busy
times. Ms. Lockman stated staff just wants to ensure that the traffic is not leaving in the wrong
direction; however, there is no written request from CDOT for this requirement. In response to
CommissionerGeile, Mr. Fritzler stated they would be allowed a maximum of 2,000 customers,not
2,000 vehicles, and they are very well prepared for the increase. He stated they have 70 people
working during the busy times,there is adequate security,and traffic is only problematic during the
slower times. He further stated they do take group reservations,so it is not difficult to handle walk-in
customers, and they have five years of history to help make attendance predictions. Mr. Fritzler
stated there are two trailers which are used for storage, and the Planning Commission
recommended allowing them for five years,at which time they need to be removed. He requested
they be allowed to keep the trailers for a longer amount of time in case they are not financially ready
to make other arrangements. Ms. Lockman stated the trailers are similar to cargo containers and
the existing language in the Code is very confusing. She stated staff and the Planning Commission
felt five years was an adequate amount of time to construct permanent storage. She explained the
Code limits cargo containers to agricultural produce only, so they are currently in violation unless
a Use by Special Review permit is obtained. She further stated the storage containers were not
included in the application materials and were not discovered until staff visited the site. Mr. Fritzler
requested Condition#1.D be deleted. Ms.Lockman stated this Condition primarily addresses gravel
surfaces and the access width, and if the work is done, the agreement will not be required. Mr.
Fritzler stated if the access is widened, he will also have to widen the oil and gas gates and ditch
culvert,which requires coordination with other parties. Mr. Fritzler also requested the area south
of the maze be included in Detail Ato allow a pedestrian walkway between the existing activities and
the area to the west,rather than going along the internal road near the vehicle traffic. Ms. Lockman
stated by expanding Detail A, the applicant will be able to include more activities. Mr. Fritzler
clarified they would have more room to place the activities;however,it would be limited to the uses
allowed under this permit. Responding to Chair Jerke, Mr. Fritzler indicated the other properties
owned by the Fritzler family.
Brad Grasmick represented the Western Mutual Ditch Company. Chair Jerke stated he owns two
shares of the Ditch;however,unless protests are made,he will not recuse himself from the hearing.
Mr. Grasmick expressed concerns regarding runoff into the ditch and trash generated by the
proposed activities. He stated the ditch is located down gradient from the property, and the
anticipated amounts of traffic and people will likely result in compacted dirt or an asphalt surface
2005-2014
PL1415
HEARING CERTIFICATION - EDWARD AND EILEEN FRITZLER, C/O KGF, INC. / GLEN
FRITZLER (AMUSR#1268)
PAGE 4
which alters the runoff amounts. He stated any alternations in the system can hinder delivery or
cause flooding on surrounding properties. Mr. Grasmick stated the trash generated by large
amounts of people may cause damage to the ditch,and they have requested the construction of a
retention pond to control the release of runoff amounts, as well as filters to help collect trash. He
stated these expenses should be borne by the developer. He further stated as development
increases in this area, and as each project takes land out of production,there will be alterations in
runoff amounts, which will cause the Ditch Company to undergo drastic changes. Mr. Grasmick
referred to Section 23-2-30.B.7 of the Weld County Code, which states the applicants must
demonstrate the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the County. He
stated the Ditch Company has made proposals for mitigation;however,they have not received any
input from the applicant. Responding to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Grasmick stated the Ditch
Company is reviewing its bylaws and how it intends to handle the selling of shares to developers
in anticipation of future growth in the area.
Frank Eckhardt, Western Mutual Ditch Company President, stated they want a retention pond to
regulate the speed of water entering the ditch. He submitted photographs dated June 4, 2005,
marked Exhibit N,showing the results on the ditch from 1.2 inches of rain coming through crop land.
He stated the Ditch Board feels development of the proposed site will only increase the runoff rates
and amounts. He stated this same storm resulted in a breakout on the ditch which had to be
repaired. Mr. Eckhardt also submitted photographs of stormwater from another site, marked
Exhibit Q, which also flows into the ditch, which he reviewed for the record. He stated the Ditch
Company wants to be proactive in preventing conflicts, rather than going to court in the future.
Commissioner Geile commented the applicant may be required to obtain a Stormwater Discharge
Permit,and Ms. Davis stated one will likely be required since the proposal will be disturbing more
than one acre. Commissioner Geile referred to Development Standards#18 and#33, and stated
if there is any damage,the applicant would be in a position of non-compliance. Mr.Eckhardt stated
the quality of the water coming off the land must also be considered with chemicals from vehicles
and trash. Responding to Chair Jerke, Mr. Eckhardt stated the Western Mutual Ditch usually runs
through October,and with the Central Augmentation Plan,they will have to run the water as long as
possible. Chair Jerke commented eighty to ninety percent of the anticipated use will be during the
fall when there is less call for irrigation water.
Mr. Grasmick added the Ditch Company will try to run water as much as possible because they
have applications to provide recharge and augmentation for nearby wells. He stated that water will
run later in the season when senior ditches are not pulling water. He stated the proposed changes
and impacts created by the subject site will be there year round. Chair Jerke stated his comments
related to trash. Responding to Commissioner Masden, Mr. Grasmick confirmed the applicant is
a shareholder in the ditch. Commissioner Masden commented it would seem apparent that the
applicant would be very familiar with runoff impacts to users downstream. Mr.Eckhardt added there
is also concern with a past incident where a vehicle did not slow down and almost landed in the
ditch.
Based on requests from the applicant and staff,the Board made the following motions to modify the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
2005-2014
PL1415
HEARING CERTIFICATION - EDWARD AND EILEEN FRITZLER, C/O KGF, INC. / GLEN
FRITZLER (AMUSR#1268)
PAGE 5
Chair Jerke suggested the second sentence of Condition #1.E be modified so the applicant is
required to make an attempt at working with CDOT to mitigate the problem. He suggested the
modification takes away the possibility of a third-party veto power. Ms. Lockman suggested new
language to state, "The applicant shall submit evidence, from the Colorado Department of
Transportation,that an attempt has been made to develop a plan to ensure traffic does not cross
the borrow ditch to access directly onto U.S. Highway 85." Commissioner Vaad moved to replace
Conditions#1.C.6 and#1.E with the language proposed by staff. Commissioner Masden seconded
the motion,which carried unanimously. In response to Esther Gesick, Deputy Clerk to the Board,
Ms. Lockman indicated the language is not necessary in both places and Condition#1.C.6 can be
deleted, and the Board concurred.
Commissioner Vaad moved to delete Condition of Approval#1.C.4,since there is evidence that the
existing entrance is adequate for school buses and large equipment. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Masden, and it carried unanimously.
Commissioner Vaad moved to delete Condition of Approval #1.6 as requested in staff's
memorandum, marked Exhibit M,since evidence of water service has been provided. Seconded
by Commissioner Masden, the motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Vaad commented the Section referenced in Condition #1.C.8 should have been
Section 23-4-110.A.4 which deals with electric signs with different intensities of light; however,
based on previous work session discussion,he moved to waive the County restriction and allow the
applicant to place signs in accordance with CDOT's standards. Commissioner Masden seconded
the motion, which carried unanimously.
Commissioner Masden moved to add Condition of Approval #1.C.12 to state, "The plat shall be
amended to include the location of the screening in the northeast corner of the site as approved by
the Board of County Commissioners. The plat shall indicate that the screening shall be limited to
hay bales and earthen berms unless otherwise approved by the Department of Planning Services."
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Long. Mr. Fritzler stated he is proposing screening
along the north-south property line between the subject site and the proposed housing development
on the Recorded Exemption lot. He stated he owns the existing house located at the entrance,and
the Board concurred that screening is not necessary in that area. There being no further discussion
on the matter, the motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Vaad commented the proposal fora staff member to be stationed at the entrance
came from the Department of Planning Services based on discussion with CDOT. Ms. Lockman
stated CDOT's access permit was rather vague and staff was unsure how they wanted to address
the issue of traffic accessing directly onto U.S. Highway 85. Chair Jerke suggested although the
Board is not taking action on the specific language proposed for Development Standard #37, it
would be wise for the applicant to be proactive during the high volume times and possibly post a
staff member as recommended by staff to create a better traffic plan.
Commissioner Vaad moved to add a new Condition of Approval#1.C.13 to state"Detail A shall be
expanded to include the area to the south side of the proposed maze." Commissioner Masden
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
2005-2014
PL1415
HEARING CERTIFICATION - EDWARD AND EILEEN FRITZLER, C/O KGF, INC. / GLEN
FRITZLER (AMUSR#1268)
PAGE 6
Mr. Fritzler stated he has completed the work required under the improvements agreement for
Condition#1.D,and Mr. Carroll stated he has no concern with deleting the condition; however, he
will inspect the site to ensure it is done. Commissioner Vaad moved to delete Condition #1.D.
Seconded by Commissioner Long, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Fritzler requested Development Standard#23 be modified to allow the site to operate beginning
in July and striking the reference to the produce stand. Chair Jerke stated he would prefer to see
what resolution is made with the Ditch Company regarding runoff and trash and the potential
impacts from a longer operating time.
Regarding Development Standard#34,ChairJerke commented it seems odd to keep a requirement
if the use is not currently permitted. Responding to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Morrison stated the
issue of the trailers came up late in this process, and this language was a compromise to allow
them to remain for a limited term. Commissioner Geile commented he would like to delete the
Standard because it does not seem appropriate. Mr. Morrison stated deleting the Standard creates
a violation and the Code does not allow the Board to permit the cargo units as a Use by Special
Review at this time. Commissioner Geile commented what is stored in the units should not matter.
Ms. Lockman explained the Code limits the storage to agricultural goods. Commissioner Geile
commented this is still an agricultural property, and trying to define the storage seems to be
inconsistent. Mr. Morrison stated because the Code is ambiguous, the Board could interpret the
Code to allow the use under a Use by Special Review and simply delete the five-year term. Ms.
Lockman questioned whether allowing the use to remain creates a notification issue. Mr.Morrison
stated the specific uses were not listed in the notices,so it should not be an issue. Commissioner
Masden moved to modify Development Standard#34 to delete the phrase"removed from the site
within five years". The motion,which was seconded by Commissioner Long,carried unanimously.
Responding to Commissioner Vaad, Mr. Fritzler stated one of the containers is a semi-trailer and
the other is pulled with a regular hitch, both can be maintained and drivable.
Mr. Fritzler stated although the Ditch Company stated they did not receive a response from him,
he did send a letter with his comments regarding the ditch mitigation issues. Ms. Lockman stated
she received a copy of the letter, marked Exhibit G,which addressed Condition of Approval#1.C,
which was required prior to scheduling the Board hearing. Mr. Fritzler read said letter for the record.
He stated the photographs submitted by the Ditch Company were taken during a time when there
was no Corn Maze and the storm event created historically allowed runoff amounts. He stated the
Corn Maze operates late in the year when the ditch is running at less than full capacity, therefore,
any modifications on his property should still have a much less significant impact on the ditch during
a late season storm event. Responding to Chair Jerke, Mr. Fritzler stated once the sweet corn is
harvested, they plant rye and irrigate it until it is established, and then that crop area is used for
parking. He clarified for Chair Jerke that they harvest a 2005 crop in the same place where they
establish parking for the fall activities, which proves there is little, if any, compaction. He stated
trash and debris can be addressed separately. Commissioner Geile commented Stormwater
Discharge Permits are not cheap or easy to obtain, and Development Standard#33 requires the
applicant to maintain historical flow patterns, therefore, Development Standard #18 may not be
applicable. Chair Jerke commented since the applicant is irrigating the area of the proposed
activities,the existing standards are adequate; however,should he submit a future amendment to
pave the parking, then it is considered an impervious surface and will be treated differently.
2005-2014
PL1415
HEARING CERTIFICATION - EDWARD AND EILEEN FRITZLER, C/O KGF, INC. / GLEN
FRITZLER (AMUSR #1268)
PAGE 7
Commissioner Geile commented trash and debris does impact his findings regarding the applicant's
request for increasing the times of operation because it does have a bigger impact on the Ditch
Company during irrigation season. (Switched to Tape #2005-33) Chair Jerke suggested the
applicant consider investing in a trash collector along the ditch. Mr. Fritzler stated he is happy to
construct a simple trash collector in the ditch running through his property;however,it may be more
involved if he is required to install a trash collector in the main ditch, and he does not feel that is
necessary because they manage on-site trash very well. Ms. Davis stated there is also a
Development Standard which addressed trash disposal.
In response to Chair Jerke, Mr. Eckhardt stated he would request a trash collector at the culvert
located at the intersection of Weld County Road 33 and U.S. Highway 85 before the water enters
the Western Ditch. He stated the trash collector should catch small debris items,and although he
has not researched the cost, it will likely be less than $500. Chair Jerke stated any future
amendments would require future approval by the Board, which would allow the Ditch Company
additional input at that time. ChairJerke commented it would be good idea to require the applicant
to install a trash catching device to be determined by the applicant and Ditch Company at the
applicant's expense. Commissioner Vaad moved to insert a new Development Standard #34 to
state, "The applicant shall install a trash collector at the culvert located at the intersection of Weld
County Road 33 and U.S. Highway 85. The type of device shall be agreed upon by the applicant and
Western Mutual Ditch Company, and the applicant shall be responsible for any costs associated
with the project." The motion was seconded by Commissioner Masden,and it carried unanimously.
In response to Mr. Fritzler, Ms. Lockman stated Condition #1.C.9 is irrelevant since the Board
agreed to allow the applicant to place signs in accordance with CDOT's standards,Condition#1.C.8
was previously modified,and Condition#1.C.7 needs to remain since the Use by Special Review
boundary needs to be changed to include the signs that were located off-site. She stated the
applicant has already shown staff a plan with the Use by Special Review boundary amendment.
In response to Chair Jerke, Mr. Fritzler explained the other signs mentioned in Conditions#1.C.7
and#1.C.9 have been approved by CDOT,and he is requesting all three Conditions be deleted and
replaced with one Condition that states the signs must be in compliance with CDOT's standards.
Ms. Lockman explained the applicant is very close to meeting Weld County's standards,with the
exception of one banner which he wants up for two weeks. She stated it may be easier to keep the
County Standards and grant a variance for the banner. Chair Jerke stated the two large signs will
be under CDOT's discretion; however, the small interior signs should be regulated by the County.
Ms.Lockman stated CDOT does have some jurisdiction over signs which can be viewed from their
right-of-way. The Board indicated Conditions #1.C.7 and #1.C.9 should remain as proposed.
The Board also concurred that it is difficult to modify the operating months without further review by
referrals and the public input, therefore, no changes were made to Development Standard #23.
Responding to Chair Jerke, Mr. Fritzler stated he has reviewed and concurs with the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards as proposed and modified.
Commissioner Geile moved to approve the request of Edward and Eileen Fritzler, do KGF,
Inc./Glen Fritzler,fora Site Specific Development Plan and Amended Use by Special Review Permit
#1268 for a Recreational Facility,with uses similar to those seen at Guest Farms and Fairgrounds,
2005-2014
PL1415
HEARING CERTIFICATION - EDWARD AND EILEEN FRITZLER, C/O KGF, INC. / GLEN
FRITZLER (AMUSR#1268)
PAGE 8
in the A(Agricultural)Zone District, based on the recommendations of the Planning staff and the
Planning Commission,with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards as entered into
the record and modified by previous motions, and to renumber or reletter as appropriate. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Vaad. Commissioner Vaad commented this is a legitimate
attempt by the applicant to maintain agricultural activities and create public knowledge of, and
respect for, agriculture. Commissioner Geile stated he feels the impacts of a major assemblage
of people will be addressed through the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards,
therefore, he supports the proposal. There being no further discussion, the motion carried
unanimously. There being no further discussion, the hearing was completed at 12:30 p.m.
This Certification was approved on the 22nd day of August 2005.
APPROVED:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
C
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
William . erke, Chair
1861ka .--L7.--- ,,/,..,...4
Coif ty erk to the Board ,
: � —
JM. . eile, Pro-Tem
Clerk to the Board G
David . L ng
TAPE #2005-32 and #2005-33
Robe . Masde�
DOCKET#2005-52 pnti / a,
lenn Vaad ((v// --
2005-2014
PL1415
EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET
Case AMUSR#1268 - EDWARD AND EILEEN FRITZLER, C/O KGF, INC., ATTN: GLEN
FRITZLER
Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description
A. Planning Staff Inventory of Items Submitted
B. Planning Commission Resolution of Recommendation
C. Planning Commission Summary of Hearing (Minutes 05/03/2005)
D. Clerk to the Board Notice of Hearing
E. Applicant E-mail addressing Condition #1.A Prior to
Scheduling, dated 06/06/2005
F. Applicant Landscaping/Buffering Plan addressing
Condition #1.B Prior to Scheduling, dated
05/05/2005
G. Applicant Letter addressing Condition #1.C Prior to
Scheduling, dated 06/03/2005
H. Lind, Lawrenence and Ottenhoff, LLP Letter regarding Western Mutual Ditch
Company concerns, dated 06/03/2005
I. Applicant E-mail addressing Condition #1.D Prior to
Scheduling, dated 05/31/2005
J. Applicant E-mail requesting continuance, dated
06/28/2005
K. Applicant E-mail requesting continuance to August 17,
2005, dated 07/08/2005
L. Planning Staff Certification and Photo of sign posting
M. Planning Staff Memorandum re: Modified Conditions of
Approval, dated 08/16/2005
N. Frank Eckhardt, Western Mutual Six photographs of ditch adjacent to subject
Ditch Company site, dated 06/04/2005
O. Planning Staff Certification and Photo of sign posting
P. Applicant Notice to Proceed, dated 08/01/2005
EXHIBIT INVENTORY-AMUSR#1268-EDWARD AND EILEEN FRITZLER,C/O KGF, INC./GLEN
FRITZLER
Page 2
Q. Frank Eckhardt, Western Mutual Ten photographs of ditch following storm,
Ditch Company dated 06/04/2005
R. Public Works Staff Referral response, dated 06/27/2005
S. Planning Staff Letter from Central Weld County Water
District, dated 07/07/2005
p
M
S ki
f
1 O
» � cm
o
-JIll « \
re
u. q` o
r \
-Jw _ \
o O re i « �� � / 2
°
° < Si- � � e
CC o a k
CM
' \ hri \ \0U
u = o f 8 y \ )
Z
k k - % .-
COo « u CO N.
}
Z
« � • 't
° a y . 7
[ 2 = 2 § \ y v. a m «
« = E go re k �_ r ± % 3
[ Ea § co 2 ) [ _ , \
CO Buz 0 _ 1 .
re g co
z al 2
« 2
\ % a5 f /
mg ‘r:
\
O fa ° J 3i
al j / i C \
� �� /
■
\ ~
< / / / Cc
m
2 max@ Co w ° I
: } $ v
< 000 $ \ �/y%
I 000 a.
Hello