HomeMy WebLinkAbout20052856.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Tom Holton, that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County
Planning Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application
for:
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1071
APPLICANT: Melody Homes- DR Horton
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt SW4 and Pt. SE4 of Section 33 and Part of the SW4 of Section 34, T3N,
R68W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Application for a change of zone from A(Agriculture)for PUD for 833 single
family residential lots along with an elementary school site and 70.08 acres of
open space
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 28 and east and west of and adjacent to CR 7.
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 27-5-30
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 this Code. The proposed
site is not located within an intergovernmental agreement area. The proposal is
consistent with the aforementioned documents as follows:
1) Section 22-2-110.B (UGB.Goal 2) states, "Concentrate urban development in
or adjacent to existing municipalities or the I-25 Mixed Use Development area
and maintain urban growth boundary areas that provide an official designation
between future urban and non-urban uses." The proposed subdivision is
located within the Mixed Use Development (MUD) area, and within the
Municipal Referral Areas of the Town of Mead, City of Longmont, Town of
Firestone and Town of Frederick.
2) Section 22-2-230.A (MUD.Goal 1) states "To plan and to manage growth and
to provide for ease of inclusion in the I-25 Mixed Use Development area and
urban development nodes so as to balance relevant fiscal, environmental,
aesthetic and economic components of the area." The proposal assures that
new development occurs in such a manner as to maintain an attractive working
and living environment. Further, all applicable standards and regulations,
unless otherwise modified herein, of Chapter 22, Chapter 23 and Chapter 26,
along with Chapter 27 shall be integrated in the design of the Final Plan.
3) Goal MUD.C. Goal 1 in Chapter 26, Article 1 Section 26-1-50.B.1.a of the Weld
County Code states, "Establish a sense of community identity within the Mixed
Use Development area by planning and managing residential, commercial,
industrial, environmental, aesthetic and economic components of the area."
The land uses shown on the change of zone plat reflect the uses shown on the
MUD Structural Land Use Map. (Map Number 2.1, dated June, 2005)
4) MUD.C. Goal 3 in Chapter 26, Article 1 Section 26-1-50.B.3.a of the Weld
County Code states, "Community form and identity shall be encouraged H
through the enhancement and preservation of natural resources and features." CO
Where feasible, drainage ways shall be maintained in their natural state to =
ensure optimal re-charge (MUD.C. Policy 3.2, Section 26-1-50.B.3.c). Impacts x 1)(
to air quality will be minimized (MUD.C. Policy 3.3, Section 26-1-50.6.3.d). W \ "
2005-2856 , „
Resolution PZ-1071
Melody Homes
Page 2
Disturbed areas will be re-vegetated immediately following construction. In
order to minimize wind and soil erosion, temporary stabilization measures will
be established until permanent cover is in place. (MUD.C. Policy 3.5, Section
26-1-50.B.3.f). Native species have been selected for some of the re-
vegetation. (MUD.C. Policy 3.6, Section 26-1-50.B.3.g).
5) Section 22-3-140.B TGoal 2. states "A Countywide trail system should be
considered to service transportation and recreation purposes." Several
pedestrian and open space connections are provided to connect the three
phases of the development and the surrounding area.
6) Section 22-3-140.A. Goal 1. states "Provide a unified and coordinated
countywide street and highway system which moves people and goods in a
safe, economical, and efficient manner. The proposed development will
comply with Sections 22-3-60 through 22-3-140 of the Weld County Code.
Access to the development will preserve the existing and future function of
roads and highways affected by this proposed development. Traffic generated
by the proposed development will conform to the recommendations and
requirements of the Department of Public Works, the Town of Mead and the
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) per attached conditions of
approval.
7) Section 26-1-50.6.4.c MUD.C.Policy 4.2 of the Weld County Code states, "All
proposals for commercial, industrial and residential development within the 1-25
Mixed Use Development area and urban development node overlay district
should use the Planned Unit Development application process and
regulations." The Planned Unit Development process allows developers
flexibility and variety needed to offer a range of products, services and uses. It
will also give the developer an opportunity to explain the development plans to
surrounding land owners and the County so that important information about
land use compatibility and services, facilities or utilities needed to serve the
proposal are determined to be adequate.
B. Section 27-6-120.B.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 this Code.
Section 27-2-20 Access Standards
Access to this PUD will be off of County Road 7, County Road 26.5 and County Road
28. County Road 7 runs through the middle of this proposed development between the
Northwest and Southwest phases to the west and the Southeast phase to the east.
County Road 26 is located along the southern boundary of this site.
Further, the internal roads as proposed shall meet all the requirements of Chapter 24
and Chapter 26 of the Weld County Code.
The application is within the Weld County Road Impact Program, Ordinance 2002-11,
Section 20-1-10 of the Weld County Code and shall require the payment of road impact
fees at the time a building permit is applied for as addressed through Section 20-1-200.
Section 27-2-30 Buffering and Screening
An open space buffer is proposed on all sides of the development between the
residential components of the development and adjacent roads and properties
including the proposed regional high school and county roads 7, 26.5 and 28.
Resolution PZ-1071
Melody Homes
Page 3
The site shall maintain compliance with the Mixed Use Development standards
regarding screening and buffering of the property, per Section 26-2-70, Landscape
Regulations of the Weld County Code.
Section 27-2-40. Bulk Requirements
The applicant has proposed a deviation from the bulk requirements as set out in the
Weld County Code, Table 23.4 for the residential component. Four-Hundred and
Twenty-Four (424) of the proposed single family lots are designated to be no larger
than 5,500 square feet. This is less than the minimum lot size of six-thousand (6,000)
square feet per lot under the R-1(Low-Density Residential) Zone District requirements.
The remaining lots meet R-1 (Low-Density Residential) lot size requirements.
The Department of Planning Services is requiring that building setback envelopes be
designated within this subdivision per the attached conditions of approval. The
applicants are proposing to vary from the R-1 offset requirement of one (1) foot for
each three (3) feet of building height by proposing a minimum five (5) foot clear zone
with an additional 2.5 foot zone to include any appurtenances (counter forts, eaves...)
The applicant has also proposed a deviation from the 350-foot setback for oil and gas
production facilities as required for R-1 (Low Density Residential) uses under Section
23-3-160.F of the Weld County Code. Proposed lots will be setback a minimum of
(200) two-hundred feet from existing oil and gas production facilities.
Section 27-2-50. Circulation
Development within a PUD Zone District shall be designed and constructed to include
adequate, safe and convenient arrangements for pedestrian and vehicular circulation,
off-street parking and loading space. Pedestrian and vehicular circulation shall relate
to the circulation system external to a PUD Zone District. All streets within the PUD
Zone District, whether private or public shall be designed and constructed to meet the
requirements of the Weld County Public Works Department, Chapter 24 (Subdivision)
and Chapter 26 (MUD), of the Weld County Code and the Colorado Department of
Transportation, if applicable, unless otherwise modified herein.
Section 27-2-60. Common Open Space
As proposed, the site does meet the open space requirements of Chapter 27 and
Chapter 26 (MUD). The property meets the Twenty (20%) open space requirement
outlined in Table 26.1 of the Mixed Use Development chapter of the Weld County
Code.
Section 27-2-90. Filing
The applicant has indicated that the development will occur in five (5) phases.
Section 27.2-100. Landscaping Standards
This proposal shall adhere to Section 24-9-10, Section 26-2-70, and Section 27-2-100
of the Weld County Code. A detailed landscape, berm and screening plan along with a
maintenance and planting schedule shall be submitted with the Final Plan application.
The applicant has submitted a proposed entry sign obelisk monument that is
approximately twenty (20)feet wide by four (4) feet wide at the base. The Department
of Planning Services has consistently required that entry signs for PUDs be no larger
than 32 square feet, per Section 23-4-80 of the Weld County Code. The applicants
are asking to vary from this standard.
Resolution PZ-1071
Melody Homes
Page 4
Section 27-2-120. Mixed Use Development Area (MUDI
This proposal is located within the MUD area and adheres to Chapter 26 of the Weld
County Code when the attached conditions are met.
Section 27-2-130. Monuments
Permanent reference monuments shall be set on the Planned Unit Development
according to Chapter 24 of the Weld County Code and Section 30-51-101, et seq.,
Colorado Revised Statues.
Section 27-2-150. Parking Requirements
All parking and loading areas shall meet the requirements of Chapter 23, Article IV,
Division I of the Weld County Code. Adequate parking spaces and internal pedestrian
circulation shall be designed to meet requirements of the Americans with Disabilities
Act and shall be illustrated on the Change of Zone plat.
Section 27-2-160. Phasing
A Final Plan may develop in phases within a PUD. The applicant has indicated that the
development will occur in multiple filings and phases. Each Filing shall adhere to the
requirements of the Change of Zone.
Section 27-2-190. Urban Scale Development
For the purpose of review, this application is considered urban scale and shall adhere
to the requirements of urban type developments.
Section 27-2-200. Uses
The applicant shall provide a conceptual time frame for the completion of the project,
including future amenities and landscape treatment of adjacent streets and properties
prior to recording the Change of Zone Plat. The Plat shall be amended to reflect this
time frame.
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, and with the future development as projected by Chapter 22 of this Code or
master plans of affected municipalities.
The City of Longmont, in their referral received May 13, 2005, requests a minimum
buffer of 300-feet on the east side of Liberty Gulch as previously stated in their sketch
plan comments for this case.
The Town of Mead, in their referral dated May 16, 2005 objects to the development
being considered an unincorporated subdivision and requests that the County refer
them to petitiion to the Town of Mead for Annexation. The Town of Mead also
indicated that they object to the requirement that the applicant refer to the Town of
Longmont Comprehensive Plan while the Town of Mead is ignored.
The Town of Mead, in their supplemental referral dated May 23, 2005, states that the
Town still desires to work with all parties and requests that additional lanes at the
intersection of County Road 7 and State Highway 66 (as identified in the May 17 Traffic
Impact Study) be installed and that paving of County Road 7 from County Road 28 to
State Highway 66 be completed. The above improvements should be completed
Resolution PZ-1071
Melody Homes
Page 5
concurrent with Phase I of the project and it is requested that no Certificates of
Occupancy will be issued for the project until the above improvements are completed.
The City of Dacono, in their referral dated May 16, 2005, states that this is urban
development that is appropriate for a town or city and not appropriate for a county.
The Town of Frederick, in their referral dated May 19, 2005, states that it finds no
conflict with its interests.
Referral comments from municipalities are addressed through attached conditions of
approval and development standards.
The proposed PUD does meet the intent and is in compliance with the Weld County
MUD Structural 2.1 Land Use Map dated June 2005. The proposed site is surrounded
by agricultural land. A proposed St. Vrain Valley School District Regional High School
site is located to the north of the proposed Southeast Phase of the development. The
Liberty Gulch runs along the western edge of the proposed PUD.
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 of this Code.
A signed and notarized water service agreement between the applicant and Long's
Peak Water District for domestic use has been provided with the application materials.
It has been reviewed and approved as to form by Lee Morrison, Assistant County
Attorney.
The referral dated May 13, 2005 from the Office of the State Engineer, Division of
Water Resources stated that :"the proposed water supply may be provided without
causing material injury to existing water rights and the supply is expected to be
adequate contingent upon obtaining a letter of commitment from the district and
contingent upon completion of the District's improvements to its facilities."
The applicants have indicated that irrigation water for open space and lawns will be
provided by Long's Peak Water District as well. Provisions for irrigation water are
provided in the Long's Peak Water District Subdivision Service Agreement for Adler
Estates.
The applicant has also provided a signed and notarized sewer service agreement with
the Saint Vrain Sanitation District.
The Department of Public Health and Environment indicated in their referral dated May
9, 2005 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.
The Weld County Public Works Department has reviewed the proposal and has
determined the internal streets meet the requirements of Chapter 24 of the Weld
County Code. Roadway plans will be required at final plat per the Department of Public
Works.
All internal road rights-of-way should be dedicated to the public, and the roads
designed and constructed to County standards. At the final plat phase for each
development phase, road construction plans, improvement agreements and collateral
will be required in accordance with County policies.
Resolution PZ-1071
Melody Homes
Page 6
Weld County Code Section 22-2-220, of the Comprehensive Plan, addresses
interconnection of community. Connectivity of roadway systems between
neighborhoods is critical. It reduces trip lengths between neighborhoods and helps to
reduce traffic congestion. New development should be configured as neighborhoods,
not isolated enclaves.
The Department of Public Works is requiring that the southeast phase of the
development address future connectivity with adjacent parcels to the east and south.
F. Section 27-6-120.61 - 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.
Development Standards and Conditions of Approval ensure compliance with Chapter
24, Article VII, and Sections 24-9-10 and 24-9-20 of the Weld County Code.
The Weld County Public Works Department and Department of Planning Services, the
Town of Mead and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) shall require an
Off-Site (Private) and On-Site (Public) Improvements Agreement in accordance with
Section 27-6-120.6.f of the Weld County Code at the time of Final Plat application.
G. Section 27-6-120.6.g - That there has been compliance with the applicable
requirements contained in Chapter 23 regarding overlay districts, commercial mineral
deposits, and soil conditions on the subject site.
The Colorado Geological Survey, in their referral letter dated May 16, 2005 indicated
concerns with groundwater/drainage on the site (referring to a supplemental
Geotechnical Investigation by Terracon (12-14-04), and a letter and map regarding the
Groundwater Management/Soil Treatment of the Adler Property by Terracon (1-17-05).
Their referral states, "Groundwater was found at depths of 2 to 13 feet throughout the
property. Terracon recommends against basement construction in the center of the
property due to shallow groundwater. This should be on the plat notes and be a
condition of plat approval. The site specific subsurface investigations should note
depth to groundwater and make recommendations for subsurface construction."
The engineering report dated December 14, 2004 and subsequent letter dated January
17, 2005 from Terracon indicates that an underdrain system will be installed within the
subdivision to draw down the water table. In addition, fill will be placed in areas of
shallow groundwater to provide a minimum 1-3 foot clearance between the
groundwater table and the bottom of the basements. Perimeter drains are planned
around all basements.
The Weld County Department of Public Works in their referral dated May 31, 2005,
stated that The Preliminary Drainage Report for Adler Estates, January 2005, by Kurt
R. Rollin, P.E. with Tetra Tech RMC is generally acceptable as a master drainage and
grading plan for the Change of Zone request. A final drainage plan for each final plat
(development phase)application shall be submitted.
A final drainage report(s) must be stamped, signed and dated by a professional
engineer licensed in the State of Colorado and submitted at final plat for each
development phase. The applicant must address the small "dam" features along
Liberty Gulch in the vicinity of the proposed development, as well as down stream.
Final drainage construction plans, conforming to the drainage report, shall be submitted
with each filing and phase.
Resolution PZ-1071
Melody Homes
Page 7
In the referral response dated May 13, 2005, the Weld County Building Inspection
Department states "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."
H. Section 27-6-120.6.h - Consistency exists between the proposed zone district(s), uses,
the specific or conceptual development guide.
The proposal shall be consistent with the PUD with (R-1) Low Density Residential with
the exception of lot size requirements, building setbacks, and oil and gas setbacks in
the Mixed Use Development Overlay District.
3. The submitted materials are in compliance with Section 27-6-30 of the Weld County Code, as
follows:
Section 26-6-40
Wildlife Impacts - A referral dated May 15, 2005 from the Colorado Division of Wildlife stated
that the property is currently agricultural land and generally cannot be considered as critical
habitat for any wildlife species. The Liberty Gulch area should be maintained as an open
corridor and improved and enhanced with native vegetation.
The applicant has indicated that they are proposing to revegetate the Liberty Gulch area per
the Colorado Division of Wildlife recommendation in the Preliminary Site Improvement plans.
The Department of Public Health and Environment in their referral dated May 9, 2005 states
"The initial impact plan submitted in the application materials appears to address all the
environmental impacts of Section 27-6-40."
Section 27-6-50 Service Provision Impacts:
Schools - The application indicates that Adler Estates PUD has agreed to participate in the St.
Vrain Valley School District impact fee program. A 10-acre elementary school site has been
provided at the request of the school district.
Fire Protection - Fire protection will be provided by the Mountain View Fire Protection District
Ambulance-The PUD will be serviced by Mountain View Fire Protection District. The applicant
will continue to work with Mountain View to ensure that all development within the PUD will be
accessible and meet all requirements of Mountain View as discussed under the heading of fire
Protection.
Transportation —The application states that"the applicant has agreed to the on-site and off-site
roadway improvements as outlined in the February 4, 2005 letter of understanding from the
Weld County Department of Public Works.
Traffic Impact Analysis
A traffic impact study dated May 17, 2004 was submitted by Eugene G. Coppala P.E. Public
Works is requiring a final traffic impact study to be submitted with the final plan application(s)
taking into account the final street layout and traffic studies.
Resolution PZ-1071
Melody Homes
Page 8
Section 27-6-60 Landscaping Elements:
The applicant shall submit a revised Comprehensive Landscape Plan in accordance with this
Section of the Weld County Code.
A detailed landscape, berm and screening plan along with maintenance and planting schedule
shall be submitted with the Final Plan application.
Section 27-6-70. Site Design:
Compatibility of Uses to Areas Surrounding the PUD — The proposed PUD is currently
surrounded by agricultural land. A future high school site is indicated to the north of proposed
filings 4 and 5 of this PUD. Generous landscaped areas and setbacks help to buffer the
surrounding single family lots from the adjacent arterial roads and surrounding properties. The
program uses and scale of building types within the development are compatible as proposed.
Hazard Districts - The proposed PUD Zone District is not located within a Flood Hazard,
Geologic Hazard or Airport Overlay District.
Section 27-6-80. Common Open Space Usage:
The application states that 70 acres of open space or approximately 23% of the site is common
open space. As proposed, the site does meet the open space requirements of Chapter 26 and
Chapter 27 of the Weld County Code.
Three tot lots, a swimming pool, a roller hockey rink and a basketball court are indicated in the
three main designated park areas along with a trails system in the open space areas on the
perimeter of the development along that also provides connections to the residential portions of
the development. Trail connections to adjacent properties are indicated in the northwest
boundary of the site (along County Road 28), the southern boundary of the site, and the
eastern boundary of the site (along County Road 26.5).
In the referral response from the City of Longmont dated May 13, 2005, the City recommends a
300-foot buffer along the east side of Liberty Gulch be implemented. The applicants are
proposing a setback of 100-500 feet along Liberty Gulch.
The Department of Public Health and Environment, in their referral dated May 9, 2005,
recommends that permanent restroom and handwashing facilities be placed in close proximity
to public gathering areas. The applicant's have indicated that they will provide two permanent
restroom facilities. One will be adjacent to the pool and roller hockey facilities and another will
be adjacent to the tot lot and basketball court. They have also agreed to provide a concrete
pad and screen fence for a future portable restroom facility in the phase one and phase three
pocket parks.
Section 27-6-90. Proposed Signs:
The applicants have submitted elevations for a proposed obelisk sign to serve as an
identification sign for the proposed PUD. The proposed obelisk sign is larger than 32-square
feet standard for PUD entrance signs per Section 23-4-80.A.2 of the Weld County Code. The
applicants are requesting a waiver from this standard.
Section 27-6-100. MUD Impacts:
The proposed change of zone does lie within the Mixed Use Development area, and requires
adherence to all criteria outlined in Chapter 26 of the Weld County Code, or as modified in the
application materials.
Resolution PZ-1071
Melody Homes
Page 9
This Approval recommendation is based upon compliance with Chapter 27 requirements.
The Change of Zone from (A) Agricultural to PUD for 833 single-family lots with R-1 (Low Density
Residential) uses along with 70.08 Acres of open space in the Mixed Use Development Overlay District
is conditional upon the following:
1. Prior to scheduling Board of County Commissioners hearing:
A. The applicant shall submit an agreement with the properties mineral owners/leasehold
interests stipulating that oil and gas activities have been adequately incorporated into
the design of the site or provide written and/or graphic evidence that an adequate
attempt has been made to mitigate the concerns of the mineral owners/leasehold
interests. (Department of Planning Services)
B. The applicant shall submit a revised building envelope diagram and maximum building
footprint for each proposed lot type.
2. Prior to recording the Change of Zone plat:
A. All proposed street names shall be submitted to the Mountain View Fire Protection
District and the Longmont Post Office for review. (Department of Planning Services)
B. Location of proposed mail boxes shall be reviewed by the Post Office. Evidence of
Post Office approval shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Planning Services)
C. The Change of Zone plat shall meet all requirements of Section 27-9-20 of the Weld
County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
D. The applicant shall submit a proposed estimate for time of construction of the PUD.
(Department of Planning Services)
E. The applicant shall attempt to address the concerns of the City of Longmont, as stated
in their referral dated May 13, 2005. Written evidence of such shall be provided to the
Department of Planning Services. (City of Longmont)
F. The applicant shall address the concerns of the Weld County Sheriffs office, as stated
in a memo dated May 6, 2005 and incorporate remedies for these concerns. Written
evidence of a solution shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services. (Weld
County Sheriffs Office)
G. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements/concerns of the Longmont Soil
Conservation District as stated in their referral dated May 6, 2005. Written evidence of
such shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services. (Longmont Soil
Conservation District)
H. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements/concerns of the Colorado
Division of Wildlife as stated in their referral dated May 15, 2005. Written evidence of
such shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services. (Colorado Division of
Wildlife)
The applicant shall provide written evidence from the Colorado Geological Survey that
their issues/concerns with groundwater/drainage and future basement construction as
stated in their referral dated May 16, 2005 have been addressed and basements can
be constructed on the lots located within the high groundwater areas or a plat note shall
indicate which lots should not have basements. (Colorado Geological Survey)
Resolution PZ-1071
Melody Homes
Page 10
J. The applicant has proposed trees to line the interior roadways. It is unclear if these
trees are to be in the individual lots or the road right-of-way. If they are intended to be
in the individual lots the covenants need to ensure that their placement does not
interfere with utility easements. Utility easements are addressed in section 24-7-60 of
the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
3. In accordance with Weld County Code Ordinance 2005-7 approved June 1, 2005, should the
plat not be recorded within the required thirty (30) days from the date of the Board of County
Commissioners hearing a $50.00 recording continuance charge shall be added for each
additional 3 month period. (Department of Planning Services)
4. The plat shall be amended to include the following:
A. The proposed locations of the oil and gas drilling envelopes (if no agreement is
reached) and the existing oil and gas facilities on site, including all easements
associated with these facilities. (Department of Planning Services)
B. Weld County's Right to Farm note as delineated in Appendix 22-E of the Weld County
Code. (Department of Planning Services)
C. A bike lane adjacent to the outside through lanes must be added to roadway cross-
section (Section A). The bike lane should be six-feet in width. (Department of Public
Works)
r—.
D. A typical alley cross-section shall be indicated. (Department of Public Works)
E. A typical 80-foot Collector roadway cross-section shall be indicated. The typical
roadway section of the interior roadway shall be shown as two 12-foot paved lanes with
8-foot paved parking lanes on the change of zone plat (the traffic impact study shall
classify interior roadways of the development). The MUD shall require curb, gutter and
sidewalk. (Department of Public Works)
F. Building envelopes with overhang areas noted shall be indicated. (Department of
Planning Services)
G. County Road 7 is classified by the Weld County 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study as a major
arterial road which required 140-feet of right-of-way. If the right-of-way cannot be
verified, it shall be dedicated on the final plat. (Department of Public Works)
H. County Road 28 is classified by the Weld County 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study as a major
arterial road and required 140-feet of right-of-way. If the right-of-way cannot be
verified, it shall be dedicated on the final plat. (Department of Public Works)
I. County Road 26% is classified as a 4-lane major arterial road and requires a 80-foot
right-of-way. (Department of Public Works)
J. The wellhead setback radius' as indicated on the plat shall be amended from 300 feet
to 200 feet.
K. The Change of Zone plat map shall be submitted to the Department of Planning
Services' for recording within Sixty (60) 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)
Resolution PZ-1071
Melody Homes
Page 11
5. 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 PUD change of zone from (A)Agricultural to
PUD with (R-1) Low Density Residential and continuing Oil and Gas Production Uses in
the Mixed Use Development Overlay District as indicated in the application materials
on file in the Department of Planning Services and subject and governed by the
Conditions of Approval stated hereon and all applicable Weld County Regulations. The
(R-1) Low Density Residential lots shall comply with all (R-1) requirements with the
exception of minimum lot size, oil and gas setbacks, building offsets, animal units
and/or associated kennel facilities and carports and/or parking areas. Adler Estates
PUD shall be allowed their proposed signage concept that is in excess of the allowable
signage area per Code (23-4-80). Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Conditions
of Approval may be reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County
Commissioners.
B. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Article VIII, Section
23-8-50 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
C. Adler Estates PUD shall obtain water from Long's Peak Water District. (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
D. Adler Estates PUD shall obtain sewer service from St. Vrain Sanitation District.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
E. A stormwater discharge permit is required for a development /redevelopment
/construction site where a contiguous or non-contiguous land disturbance is greater
than or equal one acre in area. Contact the Water Quality Control Division of the
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment at
www.cdnhe.state.co.us/wq/PermitsUnit for more information. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
F. If land development creates more than a 25 acre contiguous disturbance, or exceeds
six (6) months in duration, the responsible party shall prepare a fugitive dust control
plan, submit an Air Pollution Emissions Notice (A.P.E.N.), and apply for a permit from
the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
G. During the development of the site, all land disturbance shall be conducted so that
nuisance conditions are not created. If dust emissions create nuisance conditions, at
the request of the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment, a
Fugitive Dust Control Plan must be submitted. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
H. In accordance with the Regulations of the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission,
any development that disturbs more than five acres of land must incorporate all
available and practical methods which are technologically feasible and economically
reasonable in order to minimize dust emissions. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
The pedestrian school crossing at the intersection of County Road 7 and County 26.5
to the Future St. Vrain School Site shall be signalized. (Department of Public Works)
J. Permanent restroom and handwashing facilities shall be provided within easy access of
the public gathering areas. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
Resolution PZ-1071
Melody Homes
Page 12
K. Building permits shall be obtained prior to any construction. A separate permit will be
required for each structure. Permits are required for structures such as bus shelters or
entrance gates. (Department of Building Inspection)
L. A plan review is required for each building for which a building permit is required.
Plans shall include a floor plan. Residential building plans may be required to bear the
wet stamp of a Colorado registered architect or engineer. (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; 2002 National Electrical Code and Chapter
29 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Building Inspection).
N. Each residential building will require an engineered foundation based on a site-specific
geotechnical report or an open hole inspection performed by a Colorado registered
engineer. Engineered foundations shall be designed by a Colorado registered
engineer. (Department of Building Inspection)
O. 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. Offset and setbacks are
measured from the farthest projection from the building. An ILC (Improvement Lot
Certificate) will be required for each building showing the building height as measured
according to Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code as well as the offset and setback
distances to property lines. The ILC, bearing the stamp of a Colorado registered
engineer or the certification of a Colorado registered surveyor, will be required prior to
the frame inspection. (Departments of Building Inspection and Planning Services)
P. All signs including entrance signs shall require building permits. Signs shall adhere to
Section 26-2-90 and Section 23-4-100 of the Weld County Code. These requirements
shall apply to all temporary and permanent signs. With each Filing, The applicant shall
follow the approved Sign Plan. (Department of Building Inspection, Department of
Planning Services)
Q. 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 Area. (Ordinance
2002-11)(Department of Planning Services)
R. Short term improvements in the form of additional lanes on the north and south legs of
the intersection of County Road 7 and State Highway 66, as identified in the Traffic
Impact Study — Adler Esates — Weld County, Colorado dated May 17, 2004 Traffic
Impact Study are to be installed, and paving of County Road 7 from County Road 28 to
State Highway 66 is to be completed to allow the roadways listed to function at an
acceptable level of service. These improvements are to be completed concurrent with
Phase I of the project, and that no certificates of occupancy are to be issued for the
'" project until all of these improvements identified are completed. (Town of Mead)
S. Installation of utilities shall comply with Section 24-9-10 of the Weld County Code.
(Department of Planning Services)
Resolution PZ-1071
Melody Homes
Page 13
T. The property owner shall be responsible for complying with the Performance Standards
of Chapter 27, Article II, of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
U. The property owner shall be responsible for complying with Chapter 27, Article VIII, of
the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
V. The property owner shall be responsible for complying with the criteria of Chapter 26 of
the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
W. Personnel from the Weld County Government 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)
X. The property owner shall be responsible for maintaining compliance with Section 26-2-
100 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
Y. No development activity shall commence on the property, nor shall any building permits
be issued on the property until the final plan as been approved and recorded.
(Department of Planning Services)
Z. All landscaping within the site distance triangles must be less than 31/2 feet in height at
maturity. (Department of Planning Services)
AA. 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, private
utilities and other facilities. Open space restrictions are permanent. (Department of
Planning Services)
BB. The property owner shall allow any mineral owner or lessee the right of ingress or
egress for the purpose or exploration development, completion, re-completion, re-entry,
production and maintenance operations associated with existing or future operations
located on these lands. Installation of utilities shall comply with Section 24-9-10 of the
Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
CC. Adler Estates PUD 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 applicant possesses the willingness and ability to continue with the
submittal of the PUD Final Plan. The Board may extend the date for the submittal 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 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)
6. At the time of Final Plan submittal:
A. The applicant shall submit a final drainage report, stamped, signed and dated by a
professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado to the Department of Public
Works for approval with each final plan (phase) of the PUD. The final drainage
report(s)shall contain/address the following items:
Resolution PZ-1071
Melody Homes
Page 14
1. The final drainage report shall include Water Quality Capture Volume
(WQCV) analysis. The volume must be conducted as the 2-yr. storm
with a 24-hr drain time or other approved system. As an alternative to
the WQCB 2 year storm and 24 hour drain time sedimentation base
and sand filtration beds, vegetation filtration beds and other passive
and natural filtration systems may be used. Please refer to Urban
Drainage, Volume 3.
2. Public Works is generally agreeable with the engineer's approach to
• stormwater runoff and will support the "no detention" option, provided
there are no hazards downstream. This evidence must be included as
analysis in the final drainage plan to be submitted with each phase of
the PUD.
3. The final drainage report(s) 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)
B. 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)
C. The applicant shall submit a plan delineating all fire hydrant locations, the specific size
of the water mains, and the projected flow rate for each Filing. The submittal must
include a water supply analysis indicating the available fire flow at the most demanding
point in the water system. (Mountain View Fire Protection District)
D. Final drainage construction and erosion control plans (conforming to the drainage
report) stamped, signed and dated by a professional engineer licensed in the state of
Colorado shall be submitted with each final plan (phase) application. (Department of
Public Works)
E. The applicant shall submit stamped, signed and dated final plat drawings and
roadway/construction & grading plan drawings for review by the Department of Public
Works. Construction details must be included. Stop signs and street name signs will
be required at all intersections and shown as a signing plan on the final roadway plans.
The current edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) shall
govern the signing plan. (Department of Public Works)
F. The applicant shall provide a pavement design prepared by a professional engineer.
The minimal acceptable pavement section for Weld County is 3-inches HBP over 6-
inches ABC.
G. Easements shall be shown on the final plat in accordance with County standards (Sect.
24-7-60) and/or the recommendations of the recommendations of the Utility Board.
(Departments of Public Works and Planning Services)
H. Intersection site distance triangles at the development entrance will be required. All
landscaping within the triangles must be less than 31/2 feet in height at maturity, and
noted on the final roadway plans and final plat. (Department of Public Works and
Planning Services)
Resolution PZ-1071
Melody Homes
Page 15
The applicant shall discuss more fully the parking for the proposed community
swimming pool and basketball court at the final plan (phase). (Department of Public
Works)
J. The applicant must handle the pedestrian traffic in the roadway system perimeter of the
proposed school site. Also, pedestrian impacts (pertaining to the proposed on-site and
off-site school sites) to associated pedestrian crossings of County Road 7 and County
Road 28.5 shall be determined. (Department of Public Works)
K. Future interconnectivity must be discussed at the final plan (phase). The proposed
southeast parcel (south of CR 28.5 and east of CR 7) must address future
interconnectivity to adjacent parcels located to the east and south. (Department of
Public Works)
L. County Road 28.5 at Liberty Gulch must be barricaded and shown as such on the final
plan (phase). (Department of Public Works)
M. The applicant shall submitted to Public Works stamped, signed and dated final plat
drawings and roadway/construction & grading plan drawings for review with the final
plan (phase) application and approval. Construction details must be included. Stop
signs and street name signs will be required at all intersections and shown as a signing
plan on the final roadway plans. The current edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD)shall govern the signing plan. (Department of Public Works)
N. The applicant shall submit an on-site (Private) and off-site (Public) Improvements
Agreement that addresses all improvements associated with this development, per
compliance with Section 24-9-10 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning
Services)
O. The applicant shall submit evidence to the Department of Planning Services that
approval was received from the Department of Public Works of an Improvements
Agreement Regarding Collateral for the Transportation and Non-Transportation portion
of the PUD. (DepartmentsofPublicWorksandPlanningServices)
P. Service Provision Impacts for ambulance shall be addressed as required by Section
27-6-50.B.4 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
Q. The landowner/applicant shall submit a Conceptual Landscape Plan with topographical
features delineated in accordance with Section 27-2-100 (PUD), and Section 26-2-60
(MUD) of the Weld County Code, for each Filing. (Department of Planning Services)
R. The applicant/landowner shall submit a Conceptual Sign Plan in accordance with
Section 23-4-70 (Zoning) and Section 26-2-90 (MUD) of the Weld County Code, for
each Filing. (Department of Planning Services)
S. The applicant/landowner shall submit a Phasing Plan with incremental intervals
identified in accordance with Section 27-2-160 (PUD) of the Weld County Code, for
each Filing. (Department of Planning Services)
T. The applicant/landowner shall submit a Conceptual Lighting Plan in accordance with
Section 23-3-100 (Zoning); Section 27-6-90 (PUD), and Section 26-2-90 (MUD) of the
Weld County Code, for each Filing. (Department of Planning Services)
U. The applicant shall submit the final alignment of the connection of the recreational trail
to planned regional trails in the area (if any)shall be completed and all land dedications
completed within the PUD. (Department of Planning Services)
Resolution PZ-1071
Melody Homes
Page 16
V. The applicant shall submit the final agreement with the St. Vrain School District for the
proposed development. (St. Vrain RE-1J School District)
W. The applicant shall submit three Draft copies of the Homeowners Association (HOA)for
review and approval by Weld County Government. (Department of Planning Services)
X. The applicant shall submit covenants for review and approval. The covenants shall
address the proposed noxious weed plan, and wildlife issues. Finalized covenants and
the appropriate fee shall be submitted for recording with the final mylar plats.
(Department of Planning Services)
Y. The PUD Final Plan shall comply with all regulations and requirements of Section 27 of
the Weld County Code, or as modified in the application materials. (Department of
Planning Services)
Z. The applicant shall submit nine (9) additional copies of the final plat application, final
plat and utility plans to the Department of Planning Services for review by the Utility
Board. (Department of Planning Services)
AA. A final traffic study shall be submitted taking into consideration the final layout and
traffic studies. The traffic study shall address any and all transportation requirements
for the final build out of the development. (Department of Public Works)
BB. The applicant shall submit a digital file of all drawings associated with the Final plat
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).
7. Prior to Recording the final plat:
A. Original copies of the approved covenants and Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation for
the Homeowners Association along with the appropriate recording fee (currently $6 for
the first page and $5 for subsequent pages) shall be submitted to the Weld County
Department of Planning Services. 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)
B. The applicant shall submit the finalized agreement/service plan for the Metro District.
(Department of Planning Services)
8. Prior to the release of any building permits:
A. The applicant shall supply designated street signs and stop signs, as required by Weld
County Public Works, at the appropriate locations. (Department of Public Works)
B. Complete drawings shall be submitted for review by the Mountain View Fire Protection
District. (Department of Building Inspection)
C. Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required
to adhere to the fee structure of the Weld County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance
2002-11) (Department of Planning Services)
Resolution PZ-1071
Melody Homes
Page 17
Motion seconded by Doug Ochsner
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Michael Miller
Bruce Fitzgerald
Chad Auer
Tom Holton
Doug Ochsner
James Welch
Erich Ehrlich
Roy Spitzer
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 August 16, 2005.
D ted the 16t}h of August, 2005.
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
r
Michael Miller asked if there will be a different landscape plan from the original approval, a letter was received requesting
more of a buffer. Mr. Ogle stated staff intends to leave the facility as originally approved regarding the landscaping.
Doug Ochsner moved to strike the above references language from Development Standard#23 "no more than 50 times
each day." Michael Miller seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer,yes;James
Welch,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Tom Holton,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Tom Holton asked Ms. Etcheverry about the past violations dealing with the drinking water. Ms. Etcheverry stated the
violations' regarding the drinking water was done by the previous owner. That owner has been charged and is presently in
court. The violations have been repaired by this applicant and are currently under remediation. This applicant provides a
quarterly report as well as maintains monitoring wells.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked how the Planning Commission feels about the landscape issue. Mr. Miller stated he does not
believe additional landscaping will be a solution but there could be some type of sound buffering. Mr. Ochsner asked if
adding this process will increase sound to this facility. Mr. Butcher stated this is insignificant and would add very little noise
to the facility. There will not be a large increase to the number of trucks either.
Roy Spitzer asked if there would be changes to the hours of operation. Mr. Butcher indicated it would not.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if the trucks would be dump trucks or tanker. Mr. Butcher stated they are 100 barrel or 130 barrel
trucks. They are the ones that look like the milk trucks. The water is pumped into the tanks which is the same process
used now.
Michael Miller moved that Case 2AmUSR-1198, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Tom
Holton 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; Michael Miller,yes;Tom Holton,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes. Motion carried unanimously.
— CASE NUMBER: PZ-1071
APPLICANT: Melody Homes-DR Horton
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt SW4 and Pt. SE4 of Section 33 and Part of the SW4 of Section 34,T3N, R68W of the 6th
P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Application for a change of zone from A(Agriculture)for PUD 833 single family residential lots
along with an elementary school site and 70.08 acres of open space
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 28 and east and west of and adjacent to CR 7.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-1071, 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.
This application is PZ-1071 (Adler Estates PUD), a Planned Unit Development Change of Zone, to create eight hundred
thirty three(833)single-family residential lots for Estate uses along with one(1)elementary school site and 70.08 acres of
open space. The applicants are Melody Homes/DR Horton c/o Land Architects. The property owners are Floyd&Marian
Adler. The site is located in the easterly 120 acres of the NE4 and part of the SE4(approx. 68.5 acres)of Section 33,and
part of the SW4 (approx. 111 acres)of Section 34, Township 4 North, Range 68 in Weld County. The site is south of and
adjacent to County Road 28,east of and west of County Road 7 extending south almost to County Road 26 on the west side
of County Road 7.
Agricultural(cropland)is located to the north, east and west of the site. Three(3)single-family residences are located to the
north and south of the proposed Phases 4 &5 (east of CR 7&CR 26, east of CR 7&south of CR 28). Liberty Gulch runs
along the west side of the proposed PUD(forming the western border). The Centex Homes subdivision being developed%
mile to the north, and the Elms @ Meadowvale/Meadowvale Farms subdivisions is located % mile to the southwest. A
`uture high school site for school district RE-1J is located adjacent to Adler Estates Subdivision (east of CR 7 and north of
future CR 26.5). This site has been annexed to the Town of Mead. Twenty-Three(23)referral agencies have reviewed this
case and seventeen referral agencies offered comments in favor of the proposal or with conditions of approval that are
addressed in staff comments. Two(2)referral agencies(Town of Mead and City of Dacono)objected to the deeveelooment or
2
C
#/0"7/
expressed concerns with the urban scale development in a county area. No letters from surrounding property owners have
been received.
This site is located within the boundaries of the Mixed Use District{(MUD)(which allows urban scale development)}and the
site is not located within an intergovernmental agreement area. The site is located within the three-mile(3)referral area for
the cities of Longmont&Dacono and the towns of Frederick, Firestone and Mead. The City of Longmont, in their referral
dated 5/13/2005, recommended a minimum 300-foot buffer on the east side of Liberty Gulch from the PUD. The Town of
Mead indicated that they objected to this being an unincorporated PUD and wants the applicant to petition for annexation
(5/16/2005). The Town of Mead indicated in a follow up referral (5/23/2005)they would like to see improvements to CR 7
and State Highway 66 intersection completed prior to Certificates of Occupancies being issued on Phase/Filing I of the
project. The Town of Frederick indicated no conflict with its interests and the Town of Dacono indicated that this
development was not appropriate for an unincorporated area. Recommendations/requirements for the City of Longmont&
Town of Mead are addressed through Development Standards & Conditions of Approval.
The proposed PUD is to be served by the Longs Peak Water District (for Public Water) and the Saint Vrain Sanitation
District (for Public Sewer). The applicants are proposing an irrigation system (for the open space areas) that will be
provided through the Longs Peak Water District. The applicants are proposing to develop the PUD in five (5) phases
starting from the north and running to the southeast.
The applicants indicated that the applicant wishes to enter into an agreement with Anadarko to purchase surface rights for
($5,000.00). Anadarko indicated in previous correspondence no objection to this development. The applicant is in the
process of negotiating an oil&gas agreement with Kerr-McGee/True Oil. An agreement will need to be in place or evidence
that an adequate attempt to reach an agreement has been made will be required prior to scheduling the Board of County
Commissioners hearing.
The Weld County Department of Planning Services is recommending this request be approved and has determined that the
submitted materials are in compliance with Section 27-6-120.C of the Weld County Code as follows:
The proposal is consistent with the Weld County Code,specifically Section 22, (Comprehensive Plan), Section 26(MUD)if
applicable, Section 24 (Subdivision) and any Intergovernmental Agreement in effect influencing the PUD.
Section 27-6-80.b.7 of the Weld County Code states:"All urban scale development PUDs containing a residential element
shall provide for a fifteen percent(15%)common open space allocation,unless otherwise stated in Chapter 26 of this Code.
The applicants have met the fifteen 15%open space requirement. The applicants are proposing a community pool along
with an outdoor roller hockey rink,two(2)smaller parks(with tot lots),a larger community park with a tot lot and basketball
court, trails (crusher fine & concrete)and open space (native plantings) running along the exterior and connecting to the
residential portions of the development.
The Conditions of Approval and Development Standards ensure compliance with Section 27-2-20 through and including
Section 27-2-210 of the Weld County Code. The Department of Planning Services is in support of this request.
Chris Gathman indicated that staff has the following amendments to the comments:
1. Amendment#1 Page 5 (Section 27-2-40—Paragraph#2): amend this paragraph to read as follows: "The
Department of Planning Services is requiring that building setback envelopes be designated within this
subdivision per the attached Conditions of Approval. The applicants are proposing to vary from the R-1 offset
requirement of one (1)foot for each three (3)feet of building height by proposing a minimum five (5)foot clear
zone with an additional 2%foot zone to include any appurtenances (counter forts, eaves...)"
Michael Miller asked for clarification on the side setback variance request, the building would be five (5)feet from the
property line while the eaves will be 2 %feet. Mr. Gathman stated there would be a five foot setback that is considered
a clear zone; nothing will encroach in this area which would include the eaves. Mr. Miller asked what the current
requirement is. Mr. Gathman stated the current requirement is one foot for every three foot of building height. The
height of the house determines the setback. The applicant is proposing to vary from this by stating the following:
2. Amendment#2 Page 6 (Section 27-2-40 -- Paragraph#3): The applicant has also proposed a deviation from
the 350-foot setback for oil and gas production facilities as required for R-1 (Low Density Residential)uses
under Section 23-3-160.F of the Weld County Code. Proposed lots and playground facilities will be setback a
minimum of(200)two-hundred feet from existing oil and gas production facilities.
(This setback is based on correspondence from Kerr-McGee but an agreement has not been submitted).
3
Michael Miller asked if the current regulations were two hundred feet(200)from a tank battery and one hundred fifty
feet(150)from well head. Mr. Gathman indicated they were actually three hundred fifty(350)feet in the R-1 district.
3. Amendment#3 Page 9 (Item G—Paragraph#1): The Colorado Geological Survey, in their referral letter dated
May 16, 2005 indicated concerns with groundwater/drainage on the site (referring to a supplemental
Geotechnical Investigation by Terracon (12-14-04), and a letter and map regarding the Groundwater
Management/Soil Treatment of the Adler Property by Terracon (1-17-05). Their referral states, "Groundwater
was found at depths of 2 to 13 feet throughout the property. Terracon recommends against basement
construction in the center of the property due to shallow groundwater. This should be on the plat notes and be
a condition of plat approval. The site specific subsurface investigations should note depth to groundwater and
make recommendations for subsurface construction." This is addressed through the attached conditions of
approval.
Staff recommends that the following statement be added: The engineering report dated December 14, 2004
and subsequent letter dated January 17, 2005 from Terracon indicates that an under drain system will be
installed within the subdivision to draw down the water table. In addition, fill will be placed in areas of shallow
groundwater to provide a minimum 1-3 foot clearance between the groundwater table and the bottom of the
basements. Perimeter drains are planned around all basements.
4. Page 12 (Item 1.B)should be removed.
5. Page 13 (Item 4.1)should be amended to read: County Road 26.5 is classified as a collector roadway which
requires 80-foot of right-of-way.
6. Page 13 the following condition (Item 4.J) should be added: "The wellhead setback radius' as indicated on the
plat shall be amended from 300-feet to 200-feet."
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the change in elevations and how the County will enforce the height restrictions when
there will be multiple builders. Mr. Gathman stated there could be a floor area ratio or place a height standard. Mr.
Fitzgerald stated there is currently a height standard for each district that could be added. This would give the County a
^measure of control.
Michael Miller asked if this site was located in the MUD. Mr. Gathman stated it was.
Ken Poncerelli, Land Architects, provided a PowerPoint presentation regarding the proposal. Mr. Poncerelli provided
an overview of the history of the proposal in process and what the intentions are. The presentation included locations
of the various amenities within the proposed development. The intent has been the same since the original inclusion
into the MUD to the Sketch Plan and onto this process. There are several parks, trails, and amenities. The
developments utilize 23%open space versus the required 20%. There are seventy(70) acres of open space of which
ten (10) is irrigated turf. The remainder will be irrigated but will be limited once the vegetation is established. There will
be irrigation amendments to take care of the master plan community for a better and more economical benefit. There
will be guidelines included in the covenants with regards to the landscaping of the lots with the intent is to make this a
water wise community by utilizing different methods of water conservation. There will be pedestrian and school zone
flashers at the appropriate locations.
There are five (5)phases to this development and maps were shown depicting those individual filings. Each phase will
have different home types along with specific amenities associated with the individual phases. Those can include
landscaping, entrances, native plantings along with park improvements. Each phase will have different elements within
the actual phase. There will be fencing adjacent to the open space throughout the development while the interior lots
will be allowed a six (6)foot privacy fence and the lots that backup to the open space will be a split three (3)rail fence.
The pool facility will be in Phase Three. Phase Two will include an inline skate park and parking lot that will be shared
for the pool in Phase Three. Mr. Poncerelli addressed each phase and the requests for variances regarding setback,
lot size, well head set back and the sign variance. The side yard setback request is defined as fifteen (15)feet
foundation to foundation but there will be a five (5)foot clear zone in which nothing will be obstructing including the
eaves of the houses. There will be ten (10)foot side yard setback on corner lots. The variance request for the well
head was due to a typographical error by the applicant. The Oil & Gas Company is in agreement with this variance and
sees no issues with it. Kerr McGee and staff are comfortable with the setback distance. The applicant would like to
exclude any animal units as well as carports or parking areas (in addition to drive ways)of any type.
The applicant is considering the three (3)foot section that actually depicts the sign adverse to the entire sign for the
variance. The obelisk will have three (3)faces that provide the name of the subdivision. Mr. Poncerelli presented
some examples of possible elevations. There have been several agencies that the applicant has been in contact with
including the school district. A future elementary school site has been provided and the impact fees have been
4
addressed for the school district. Becky Eustice, engineer from Tetra Tech, presented information regarding the
roadways. There will also be phases with the roadway system. The applicant will be reimbursed by other
developments as they begin to develop. There will be improvements to the intersection of Hwy 66 and CR 7 including a
north and south bound turning lane. The applicant will pave CR 7 to CR 26 which will start with two (2) lanes and be
adjusted according to incoming development. CR 26 and CR 28 will be paved and the intersection at CR 28 and CR 7
will also be improved. CR 26 %to the east will be paved in Phase Two of the development. Phase Three will be an
interior road, Phase 4 & 5 will complete CR 26 %and improvements to either the intersection of CR 5 % and Hwy 119
or the connection of CR 7 to Hwy 119. CR 28 and CR 7 will be built out as a 140 foot wide arterial cross section; the
internal streets will be 60 foot local right-of-way. CR 26 '%will be an 80 foot urban collector as well as some of the
interior roads. The village green will be a 40 right-of-way local street. The south traffic circle will be a 60 foot right-of-
way round a bout.
There was no sanitary sewer in the area so St. Vrain Sanitation District was approached for service. There will be
major infrastructure to the area including tying into a line east of 1-25 and running it under Interstate 25 to the north to
connect into the Centex subdivision. St. Vrain Sanitation District will take on the project with funding from Centex due
to their immediate needs. Longs Peak Water District will provide potable water. The system will be owned and
maintained by Longs Peak. There will be a storage tank and the end project will include 3300 taps. This project will be
a water design therefore using the Highland Ditch shares as well as the delivery route to have irrigation ponds and a
pump system. This will provide water for the development. Longs Peak Water District will provide potable water for the
development to have a drip system for the trees and HOA areas during the winter months when there is no irrigation.
This will be utilized for both the HOA and the individual yards. The historic drainage for the area was utilized in the
design for the irrigation. There will be no detention on site and there are three (3)release points. Kerr McGee has
agreed to use the existing sites and will use directional drilling if any future sites are desired. The existing sites will be
screened with landscape and berming. There are some existing lines that have easements and the utility service
providers have been contacted with regards to this area.
Michael Miller asked if the reduction of lot size was to accommodate an increase in lots. Mr. Poncerelli stated it was to
provide a variety of housing types and some of the homes are an alley product. This was also to comply with the MUD
for a variety of housing types. Mr. Miller stated the homes in the presentation were two(2)stories and when the
variance for smaller lot size and smaller setback would be to place a larger home on them. Mr. Poncerelli stated the
presented home elevations are at approximately thirty one and a half(31%)feet without a walkout or garden level.
--There is fifteen (15)feet between the houses with a ten (10)foot clear zone,five (5)foot on each property line. There
could be air conditioning units, bay window and such in the two and a half(2%)feet clear area from the foundations.
Chris Gathman clarified that the existing building height under the R-1 Residential is thirty(30)feet.
Michael Miller asked rather the variance request for reduction of setbacks was from wellheads or tank batteries. Mr.
Poncerelli stated they were from both and they are requesting two hundred (200)feet.
Doug Ochsner asked about the maintenance and operation of all the parks and recreational facilities. Mr. Poncerelli
stated the HOA will maintain all the native open space, parks, streetscapes, swim pools, inline parks as well as the tot
lots
Roy Spitzer asked if the setback from the oil and gas was for safety reasons. Mr. Poncerelli stated it was a safety zone
and Kerr McGee is comfortable with this request. There could be a requirement of three hundred fifty(350)foot for
gathering areas including elementary schools but this are residences which is acceptable. The elementary school site
and gathering areas are further than three hundred fifty(350)feet from any existing oil and gas facility.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to
speak.
Ken Poncerelli provided clarification on the sign variance request in that the applicant does not believe the entire sign should
be included in the dimensions of the lettering for the sign. Mr. Poncerelli provided a photo in the presentation of what the
obelisk would resemble. The primary entrances will be twenty(20)foot tall with a simple design. There would be a total of
twenty seven (27) square foot of signage per obelisk. There are four (4)signs which are twenty(20)foot in height and a
smaller one of ten (10) feet at the pool facility. Mr. Gathman stated staff includes the entire structure not just where the
signage will be in the sign size calculation. The number may be of a concern but there are limited regulations regarding the
number of signs available. There is one sign allowed of thirty two (32)square feet for this type of development. This will
-equire a variance to the size as well as the number of signs. Mr. Gathman indicated it would seem logical to allow more
signs due to the size of the development. Mr. Miller stated the request was reasonable since the signs are not obtrusive.
Mr. Gathman stated additional language could be added to 5.A,but staff recommends there be one sign per entrance into
the PUD. Mr. Poncerelli stated there will be four(4)entrance signs, plus one(1)community identifier at CR 7 and CR 28.
5
There will also be a small one at the pool. Mr. Miller stated he is not in favor of placing this in 5.A due to the other variance
requests.
^Mr. Poncerelli handed out a letter addressing clarifications to staff comments. The letter includes the variances and the
equested changes to staff comments. A copy of the body of the letter has been inserted.
Variances from R-1 Zoning:
1. Applicant Requests a minimum size of 5,500 s.f. for single family residential lots.
2. Applicant requests residential side yard setbacks be 5 feet in width as opposed to the bulk\plane requirements.
3. Applicant requests a 200' setback from oil/gas facilities to residential lots and recreational amenities including
trails, sport courts/fields, restrooms, and playground facilities.
4. Applicant requests that livestock animal units and/or associated kennel facilities be prohibited in the Adler
Estates PUD.
5. Applicant requests that carport and/or parking areas be prohibited on residential lots within the Adler Estates
PUD.
6. Applicant requests the Adler Estates PUD be allowed the proposed signage concept that is in excess of the
allowable signage area per Code (23-4-80).
Requested changes to Planning Staff's report:
1. P.6, B, 27-2-40; Change to... "Proposed lots will be setback a minimum of(200) two—hundred feet from
existing oil and gas production facilities."
2. P.7, B, 27-2-200; Remove sentence stating... "The Final Plat application will be heard by the Board of
County Commissioners for final approval and action."
3. P.7, C; Remove note referencing City of Longmont referral comment regarding setback from Liberty Gulch. The
Applicant has addressed this concern in the Sketch Plan process and in the Change of Zone, Specific Guide
Narrative.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked what the minimal design is now. Mr. Poncerelli stated it was 50 feet from the property line
and approximately 100 feet to the center of Liberty Gulch
4. P.9, G; Remove note referencing Colorado Geological Survey(CGS)referral comments regarding groundwater
and drainage. The Applicant has addressed this concern through a second submittal to the CGS which
supplied a supplemental report and letter explaining measures that will be used to mitigate the concerns.
5. P.12, 1, B; Remove item B that states... "The applicant shall submit building elevations indicating the
height of each proposed housing model." This item is no longer necessary as it has been determined that •
the side yard setbacks will not be determined by the height of the residential structure.
Additionally, housing models are continually changing and several lots will be built on by outside builders. There are not
standard housing model elevations that will cover all possible housing designs.
6. P.12, 2, E; Remove note referencing City of Longmont referral comments as the Applicant has addressed the
concern in the Sketch Plan process and in the Change of Zone, Specific Guide Narrative.
7. P.12, 2, F; Remove note referencing County Sheriffs referral comments as the Applicant has addressed the
concerns in the Change of Zone submittal.
8. P.12, 2, G; Remove note referencing Longmont Soil Conservation District referral comments as the Applicant
has addressed the concern in the Change of Zone submittal.
9. P.12, 2, H; Remove note referencing Colorado Geological Survey referral comments as the Applicant has
addressed the concerns in the Change of Zone submittal.
6
10. P.12, 2, I; Remove note referencing Colorado Geological Survey(CGS) referral comments as the Applicant has
addressed this concern through a second submittal to the CGS which supplied a supplemental report and letter
explaining measures that will be used to mitigate the concerns.
11. P.13, 4, I; Change to... "County Road 26 is classified as..."
12. P.14, 5, I; Provide further clarification for"...shall be signalized."to define a flashing light and signage at
pedestrian crossings, not to be confused with a signalized vehicular traffic intersection.
13. P.15, 5, O; Remove part of item O that states... "... to determine compliance with the Bulk Requirements
from chapter 23 of the Weld County Code." This item is no longer necessary as it has been determined that
the side yard setbacks will not be determined by the height of the residential structure.
14. P.15, 5, R; Change to... "... in the form of additional lanes on the north and south legs of the intersection of
County road 7 and State Highway 66..."
15. P. 16, 5, AA; Remove part of item AA that states... "... maintenance of open space, streets, private utilities..."
Local streets will be maintained by the county.
16. P.16, 6, A; Change to... "The volume must be conducted as the 2-year storm with a 24-hour drain time, or
other approved system."
Linda Sweetman-King, TerraVisions, indicated that DR Horton is not a custom home builder ,therefore the company is
unable to adhere with the County's Bulk Standards. Those will need to be amended due to the fact that the homes will be
chosen by the individual lot owners and will not be preset for the specific lots. The products that have been presently
chosen can change over time. There are homes presently on the list that are at 30'6"and 31'. The bulk standards limit the
ability of the developer to be flexible with the individual lot owners and their choices for homes. Mr.Gathman added that the
offset is measured by 1 foot of building height for every three(3)foot of offset. There is a maximum building height in R-1 of
thirty(30)feet.
^Michael Miller asked how the building height was measured. Mr.Gathman stated the maximum building height according to
the IBC (International Building Code) is measured to the center line of the roof pitch. Mr. Morrison stated the IBC is
measured from the existing grade. There is a note on the Development Standard that addresses the building height.
Michael Miller questioned the Development Standard and referencing the Weld County Code Chapter 23 as opposed to the
IBC. Mr.Gathman stated that building height shall be measured in accordance with Chapter 23 of the Weld County code in
order to determine compliance with offset and setbacks only. Mr. Miller added that the condition indicates offsets and
setbacks are measured from the farthest point on the building which would be the eaves.
Ken Poncerelli added that twenty (20) percent open space is the minimum requirement in the MUD and this proposal is
utilizing twenty three(23)percent which equates to ten (10)acres over. That increase was a part of the PUD process with
the understanding that smaller lots with smaller setbacks were not a concern in the beginning to Mr. Ogle or Ms. Mika.
Chris Gathman stated that the memorandum he distributed could be cross referenced to the letter from the applicant. Mr.
Gathman addressed his memo that has been previously included in the minutes. Mr.Fitzgerald suggested addressing each
item separately so a motion could be made on each.
1. Item 1 is a clarification on the proposed change to the offset requirement. The applicant would like a minimum five
(5) foot clear zone with and additional two and a half (2%) foot zone to include any appurtenances. Staff is in
agreement with this suggestion.
Michael Miller commented he does not agree. The setbacks were established to provide adequate distances between
houses. The applicant is proposing to take a fifty five (55)foot wide lot and reduce the setback in order to make the lot
work. That is not the intent of the code. Mr. Morrison stated the PUD process allows for the applicant to not have to abide
by the zone district regulations, but they can essentially create their own with setbacks, density and other requirements
within that PUD. Mr. Miller stated that the product on the lots and the end result that does not fit in the environment. Mr.
-- Fitzgerald added that the additional open space could compliment the homes which would be an added buffer. Mr. Miller
stated that all the yard is in back and none is between the homes causing a crammed in look. This is not appropriate in this
type of a rural setting. Mr.Ochsner indicated he agrees with Mr. Miller on the homes being larger with smaller lots and that
smaller lots should have smaller homes. Mr. Holton asked how large of homes will be placed on the smaller lots. Ms.
Sweetman-King stated the homes would be approximately 1500-2300 square feet which is what will fit with the variance
7
request. A ranch home takes up more space then two (2) stories and it is difficult to determine the homes and limit the
square footage of the homes when the product is ever changing.
—Michael Miller stated he does not feel the standards need to be amended to fit the applicants designed lot sizes. Mr.
Fitzgerald indicated that there was no motion so it will be treated as such. Mr. Miller pointed out that the applicant is
requesting this as a part of his application and if there is no motion to amend, then there will need to be a vote on the
application as a whole. Mr. Morrison asked if this language was in the application. Mr. Gathman stated it is a part of the
application request. Mr. Morrison asked for clarification on staff recommendations based on the request of the applicant.
Mr. Gathman stated that staffs recommendation was based on the variance being included and approved. Mr. Morrison
stated the application must be dealt with as submitted and approved as submitted with no amendments to it.
Discussion about the application follows including the variance requests. Since the request for variances is included in the
application there would need to be a motion to delete the variance request for amendments to the setback and offset
requirements. Staff has recommended approval based on those variance requests being included therefore the application
would then need to be voted on as a whole. If the included requests are determined to be substantial then the application
could be voted for denial as a whole. The Planning Commission cannot make changes to the application in hopes that the
applicant will accept them. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if the application could be approved with exceptions made to those
conditions. Mr. Morrison stated that staff has accepted the recommendations. Mr. Ochsner stated that if staff changes
were accepted there was still the ability to vote at the end to accept that recommendation or not.
Mr. Morrison stated there are two categories for the application. The first category is one that is essential to the application.
The applicant has designed this according to the existing product line and how this is put together. This is the way they
would like it done. The second category is non essential elements to the application. There is no need to modify the
application for the applicant.
Mr. Morrison asked Mr. Gathman if the items in the August 16, 2005 letter from the applicant were included in his memo.
Mr.Gathman indicated items one(1)and two(2)from the applicants letter was addressed in the memo. Item three(3)was
also addressed. Item four (4) was not addressed in staffs memo. The applicants did not outline this in the original
application. Item five (5) was not addressed either. Mr. Morrison stated those are not elements that are integral to the
application. Item six(6)has been addressed. Mr.Morrison stated that if items 1-3 are accepted it will make the application
consistent. Mr. Morrison stated that during the final vote it is determined by the individual Planning Commission members
that the above referenced items are significant then it can be decided by them at that point.
Mr. Gathman indicated staff was in agreement with setback reduction to two hundred (200)feet in the oil &gas setback.
This request is in the original application. Mr. Morrison stated this would be dealt with later at the last vote.
Roy Spitzer asked what the industry standards for oil&gas setbacks. Mr.Morrison stated it was one hundred fifty(150)feet
from well head and two hundred(200)feet from tank battery. There is a high density rule in which a circle is drawn around
the facility to determine the density of homes to more than one(1)per two and a half(2%)acres. Oil &Gas Commission
recommends three hundred fifty(350)foot standard when structure is there and the house are then put in. It has not been
determined to be a safety issue by the County to be one hundred fifty(150)feet when agreed upon by the on site oil&gas
operators.
Chris Gathman continued with Item three (3) on his memo. The Geological Survey condition was to provide additional
information. It is addressed as a condition later in the comments. The latest referral from Colorado Geological Survey
stated that there was high ground water and that Terracon recommends against basement construction in the center of the
property. A letter submitted by Terracon further addresses groundwater issues and the construction of basements. The
current referral does not talk about the follow up report. Mr.Gathman indicated his concern would be to remove this without
something in writing from the Geological Survey.
Michael Miller asked if there is language that there will be engineered foundations. Mr.Gathman indicated there is language
and it will be done at final plat stage.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if Condition 1.6 should be deleted. Mr.Gathman thought this would need to be revisited. There was
a copy of a lot matrix from the sketch plan included in the packets. This matrix referred to where the footprints were going
to fit on the lots based on the size of the lots. Staff is requesting an updated matrix that shows the footprint of the buildings
on the lot. This would include the largest possible footprint that would fit. Included with this would be a color coded map
that refers to the various lot types. Mr. Gathman would like to have the applicant provide building envelopes for all three lot
types within the subdivision along with a map of where the various lot sizes are located. Mr.Gathman suggests keeping 1.B
and adding the above referenced language to this.
8
Michael Miller moved to add the following language to Condition 1.6"The applicant shall submit a housing and lot matrix for
each lot type with in Adler Estates along with a overall map of subdivision that refers to each lot type." This is just for
clarification.
_inda Sweetman-King asked for clarification on the request. She indicated they could provide a matrix map showing the
different lot sizes including the largest footprint possible on them. The elevations are too much of a variable at this time to
provide. Mr. Gathman indicated that this would be fine.
Michael Miller indicated this would go back to the height of the home and the setback issue. There is no way to know what
type of home is going to be built on the lot hence the formula for setbacks. Mr.Ochsner stated that if the setback variance
is accepted the height does not matter since it will revert back to the code for the R-1 district. Mr. Fitzgerald indicated he
believes that item 1.B should be removed because each element is covered in another section of the conditions. Mr.
Gathman stated that the clear zone shows the setback. The reason to show the envelopes is so there is not further
concerns for a larger home and a need to decrease the setback further. Mr. Gathman recommends getting an updated
matrix for each lot type as referenced above.
Chris Gathman asked Mr. Poncerelli about the 5 foot clear zone that is proposed for the 55x100 foot lot side setback which
was proposed at sketch plan, was at 5 '/z feet and larger lots would be at six (6) feet. Why the need to change? Mr.
Poncerelli indicated it was due to not knowing who about the builders. The applicant has worked very close with staff and
has gone the direction suggested to them regarding all the issues.
Chris Gathman suggested rewording the condition. The applicant shall submit a building envelope diagram along with a
building footprint for each lot type within the subdivision including the maximum allowable lot footprint. Mr.Gathman clarified
the envelopes will deal with the setbacks and the footprints will deal with the location.
Michael Miller moved to place the following language in Condition 1.6 "The applicant shall submit a revised building
envelope diagram and maximum building footprint for each proposed lot type." Roy Spitzer seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer,yes;James
Welch,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Tom Holton,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Gathman continued with Item five (5)on his memo. The reference to CR 26 has been changed to CR 26.5.
Doug Ochsner moved to add the proposed language. Michael Miller seconded. Motion carried.
Mr. Gathman indicated that Item six (6) needs to be added as Condition 4.J then renumbered. Mr. Miller asked about it
being specifically addressing the well head and rather it should state oil&gas facilities. Mr.Gathman agreed that should be
changed.
Tom Holton moved to accept the above referenced language. Doug Ochsner seconded. Motion carried.
Planning Commission proceeded to address the letter from Land Architects. The letter has been entered into the minutes
previously.
Lee Morrison stated that Items 1-3 need to have a motion made. If they do not then there will be a conflict with the
application. Those will need to be included whether the final vote in approval or not. Mr. Fitzgerald clarified that the items
need to be included and then the application considered. Those elements are essential to the application. Mr. Morrison
added that staff comments should have been written with these in mind. They will be added in with the understanding it may
not get approval.
Mr. Gathman indicated that the first item dealing with setbacks and offsets was for clarification purposes. He was trying to
clarify what the applicant was asking for. The essence of what was being asked was included in the staff comments. Item 1
seems to be the only significant concern in the application.
Discussion continued with regards to the items that have been addressed in the memo that was requested by Land
Architects. Mr.Gathman stated that Item two(2)from the letter would not be a substitution but a possible amendment to the
code. Mr. Miller added the code states setback is established as farthest point of house. Mr. Morrison added that a PUD
:an write their own codes when comes to setbacks. Mr.Ochsner added that if Planning Commission accepts the language
to be consistent with the application there is still the opportunity to vote on the application as a whole.
Mr. Morrison added that Planning Commission needs to accept Items 4-6 so the County could enforce. Mr. Gathman
9
suggested adding this in 5.A.
Doug Ochsner moved to add Items 4-6 from the Land Architect letter. Tom Holton seconded. Motion carried.
Diann ing Commission then addressed the requested changes to planning staffs recommendations outlined in the letter from
Land Architect.
Mr.Gathman stated that Item one(1)has been covered; Item two(2) staff has no concerns because the Board of County
Commissioners will ultimately determine whether this is applicable. The Planning Commission would like to see this at final
plat. Mr. Gathman continued with item 3 and the applicants attempt to address the concerns. This is nothing more than the
standard language. Mr. Welch does not feel comfortable removing any of items that refer to removing notes from the
Conditions of Approval. Mr. Gathman indicated this would not prohibit the applicant from moving ahead in the process. Mr.
Miller agrees with Mr. Welch and added there is nothing detrimental to the applicant. Item 11 has been addressed. The
applicant would like clarification on item 12 that it not be a signaled intersection but a flashing light signage at a pedestrian
school crossing. Public Works is not looking for a stop signal at the intersections. Item 13 is the large issue pertaining to
setbacks.
Mr. Gathman stated that the building height would be to the IBC code standard. The building height is measured at six(6)
feet from the building at grade to the middle of the peak. If a slope is present then the average slope is taken. Item 13 is in
conflict with the bulk requirements. Mr. Miller stated this needs to be addressed due to the conflicts with what the applicant
is asking for. Mr. Gathman stated the building height still needed to be met with the thirty (30) foot requirement. Ms.
Sweetman-King would like to make the language adhere to the IBC codes not the Weld County Code. This will make it
easier for the building inspectors as they would know what regulations to adhere to. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if this could be
addressed prior to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Ochsner stated it would go back to code should something not
be worked out which would not be to the benefit of the applicant. Mr. Fitzgerald continued with Item 14 regarding State
Highway 66. Public Works is in agreement with this suggestion.
Michael Miller moved to amend 5.R to the suggested language. Tom Holton seconded. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner moved to amend 5.AA to the suggested language. Michael Miller seconded. Motion carried.
Mr. Fitzgerald continued with Item 16 addressing the drainage concern. Public Works is in agreement with the suggestion
and the applicant will be adding additional language to further clarify. Ms. Eustice suggested the following language"As an
alternative to the WQCB 2 year storm and 24 hour drain time sedimentation base and sand filtration beds, vegetation
filtration beds and other passive and natural filtration systems may be used. Public Works is agreeable to this language.
Michael Miller moved to accept the above referenced language in 6.A. Tom Holton seconded. Motion carried.
Ken Poncerelli agrees with the Development Standard and Conditions of Approval as amended. Ms. Sweetman-King
indicated her concerns with the statement that final plat should be reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners. Mr.
Morrison stated that the Board of County Commissioners will address the issue of the Final Plat at their hearing.
Ms. Sweetman King asked for a copy of the minutes as quickly as possible.
Michael Miller indicated his concern is still with the setbacks. In reviewing the map of the subdivision the perimeter is lined
with the smaller lots so the view will be of the smaller lots. This will be the first impression and this is not the place where
the homes should be placed so closely together. This is not an area where the Code should be amended because a dense
development does not make for a good neighborhood. Mr. Miller added that he is in appreciation of the intent for a
secondary water system for irrigation. This is a good application, but the applicants designed the lot sizes therefore it is not
the Planning Commission's job to amend the Code to make it fit this application. Mr. Miller will not be in support of the
proposal for those reasons. This is based on the bulk requirements under Section 27-2-40 of the Weld County Code.
Doug Ochsner stated he is torn, he agrees that the lot sizes are a concern, but the applicant has followed all the rules. This
being a PUD,they are allowed to make changes and variances from the overall master plan of the Code. It is not his right to
deny someone the option of purchasing a smaller lot.
Tom Holton agrees with Mr. Miller to an extent. There are condos and town homes that are packed in like that. This is a
great plan, but he would like to see the lots bigger and the setbacks larger.
Roy Spitzer indicated he would like to see the lots as larger but does not feel it is the Planning Commission responsibility to
10
deny the application based on personal opinion. Mr. Spitzer added there should be smaller homes on the smaller lots.
James Welch indicated he would not purchase the smaller lots but this is assuming the worst case. The smaller homes on
,the lots will fit into the setback requests but the builder will want an attractive neighborhood for the sales. He would like to
:ee larger setbacks but the applicant has gone through the right process and has done what needed to be done therefore
he does not see this as a reason to deny.
Bruce Fitzgerald stated that the Planning Commission has not seen this type of development very often. He would rather
this be done in a municipality with their planners but the MUD does allow for this. This is a good project and there has been
a great deal of detail with what is being planned.
Tom Holton moved that Case PZ-1071, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Doug Ochsner
seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer,yes;James
Welch, yes; Michael Miller, no; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried.
Michael Miller commented he does not believe that this is the place to lower the standards rather it should be a place to
develop higher standards. Higher and better quality developments need to be brought to this area not ones that diminish the
existing standards. This is a step backwards.
Commissioner Doug Ochsner had to leave due to a prior commitment.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1519
APPLICANT: Glen &Virginia Van Oerveren
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A RE-2345; Pt NE4 of Section 14,T2N, R65W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a use permitted as a Use by
Special Review(Home Business, Parking and Maintenance of Trucks and Trailers) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District
"LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 22;west of and adjacent to CR 47 Section Line.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1519, 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 violation. Mr.Ogle indicated there was a trucking business without a USR. Mr.Fitzgerald
asked what a use by right would be. Mr. Ogle indicated it would be a maximum of one truck.
Virginia Van Oerveren, applicant, provided clarification on the project. There are some questions with regards to the
conditions and Development Standard. Van ovary is a subcontractor for Halliburton. There is some concern for the hours
of operation being 6:00am to 6:00pm because there have been times in which those hours could not be adhered to. The
operation is a small mom and pop operation with no intent to grow any further. They want to be good neighbors and will do
whatever is necessary to accomplish this and they have asked the drivers to be good neighbors also. There is no intent to
have any additional trucks. There are presently 18 trucks with 7 of them at this location. Six are owned while the
remainders are contractors. There is no disposal of waste on site, the trucks are taken out. The oil from the maintenance
that is done on site is used in an oil furnace in the shop. The applicant is willing to use magnesium chloride for dust
abatement.
Michael Miller asked about the Development Standard limiting the number of trucks to 10 when there is a total of 18. Ms.
Van Oerveren stated the 18 trucks would not be at the site at the same time, the most there will be is 8 in the yard. Mr.
Miller stated the Development Standard limits it to 10 at any time. Ms.Van Oerveren stated they do not want all the trucks
in the yard at the same time but it could happen. Mr. Miller asked about the hours of operation. Ms.Van Oerveren was not
sure what would work and would like some assistance on this. The trucks leave between 6:00 a.m. -6:30 a.m. and are
back around 6:00 p.m. but there are times in which that does not work. There needs to some exceptions that occur on a
rare basis.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Ogle about the agricultural building exempt from building permits and if this is the one that has
electricity and heat. Mr. Ogle stated those buildings would need to be brought up to code since it is being used as
something other than an AG exempt building. It is being used as shop maintenance not the original intent. Ms. Van
Oerveren indicated that the barn in the back does have a dirt floor. The gentleman that built the shop in the front was to get
11
LOCATION: Approximately 1/4 mile east of CR 7 and south of and adjacent to CR 36.
Moved by James Rohn to approve the Consent Agenda. Seconded by Bruce Fitzgerald. Motion carried
unanimously.
Consent items to be continued:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1513
APPLICANT: Chris &Joe Miller
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A& B of RE-2617 pt of W2NW4 of Section 27, T3N, R67W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a
Recreational Facility with uses similar to those seen at Guest farms and
fairgrounds in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. (For a complete list of
uses see application).
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Hwy 66 and east of and adjacent to CR
19.
Due to incomplete information, the Chair suggested this case be continued.
Moved by Chad Auer to be continued to the July 19, 2005 hearing. Seconded by Bruce Fitzgerald. Motion
carried unanimously.
Hearing items to be continued:
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1071
APPLICANT: Melody Homes - DR Horton
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt SW4 and Pt. SE4 of Section 33 and Part of the SW4 of Section 34,
T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Application for a change of zone from A(Agriculture)for PUD for 833
single family residential lots along with an elementary school site and
70.08 acres of open space.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 28 and east and west of and adjacent to CR
7.
Moved by James Rohn to be continued to the August 16, 2005 hearing. Seconded by Bruce Fitzgerald.
Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: 2AmUSR-1198
APPLICANT: Marcum Midstream 1995-2 Business Trust
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of AmRE-3308; Pt N2NW4 of Section 32, T4N, R65 of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Amended Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for
an Oil and Gas Support Facility(Class II Oilfield Waste Disposal Facility
and a Solids Recovery System) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 40 and 250 feet more or less east of CR 39.
Moved by Bryant Gimlin to continue indefinitely. Seconded by James Rohn. Motion carried unanimously.
Hello