HomeMy WebLinkAbout20041008.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by James Rohn, that the following resolution be introduced for denial by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1020
APPLICANT: Clifford Clift, Appaloosa Acres Estates PUD
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 15C; Fourth Replat of Gilbaughs Appaloosa Acres; being in the W2 SW4
of Section 33, T7N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from Agricultural to PUD; Estate for a 22 lot residential
development outside of an IGA and UGB; east of the Town of Eaton.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 74; east of CR 41.
be recommended unfavorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
1. The submitted materials are not in compliance with Section 27-6-120 of the Weld County Code as
follows:
A. Section 27-6-120.B.6.a. The proposal is inconsistent with Chapters 22, 23, 24 and 27 of the
Weld County Code.
Section 22-2-110.B UGB.Goal 2. Concentrate urban development in or adjacent to existing
municipalities, an approved intergovernmental agreement, the I-25 Mixed Use Development
area, urban growth boundary areas, urban development nodes, or where urban infrastructure
is currently available or reasonably obtainable. The proposed location for this subdivision is
not located in any of the defined urban areas, and the site is unable to be served by urban
infrastructure such as municipal sanitary sewer.
Section 22-2-90.B. An important factor of urban development is the efficient use of land as a
resource. Since the density of urban development accommodates more density on each acre,
the amount of land relative to the number of people who live on or use the land is an efficient
ratio. Locations where urban development can occur should be encouraged to develop as
urban. Jurisdictions that can accommodate urban development should employ policies and
regulations that facilitate urban development while managing the quality of this development.
The County has adopted policies and regulations that promote urban development in the
areas where it is appropriate resulting in the most efficient use of land and infrastructure.
Section 22-2-190.C. R. Policy 3.1 states, "The County should encourage an efficient form of
urban residential development by directing urban residential growth to those areas where urban
services and infrastructure are currently available or reasonably obtainable". Locating urban
scale developments outside of urban growth boundary areas or Intergovernmental Agreement
areas is not considered efficient, nor is sanitary service available to serve the proposed urban
subdivision.
Section 22-2-210.C. PUD.Goal 3. states "Maintain land use regulations that allow County
officials to review development proposals which may combine Uses By Right in two(2)or more
zone districts, or which in some manner qualify as a Planned Unit Development according to
the definition set forth in Section 24-1-40 of this Code". The proposed number of Lots, (22),
exceeds the definition of non-urban scale development contained in Section 24-1-40.
Section 22-2-190.B.3. R.Policy 2.3. New residential development should demonstrate
compatibility with existing surrounding land use in terms of general use, building height, scale,
density, traffic, dust and noise. While there are subdivisions in the immediate vicinity, of this
proposal, these were either platted decades ago or were processed as nonurban
i P' developments. To the west is Gilbaughs Appaloosa Acres, a subdivision with an average lot
size of 0.5 acres that was platted in 1973 with the Fourth Replat occurring in 2001. Total lots
created are 17 with one agricultural lot of 60.5 acres which was platted as open space for
' ` Gilbaughs Appaloosa Acres. It is this Lot that is the location of the proposed
.A)4O(/• /O0�'
Resolution PZ-1020
Cliff Clift
Page 2
development(Appaloosa Acres E states P UD); t o the southeast i s A very Acres a 6 I of
subdivision with lot sizes averaging 2.5 acres, platted in 2000; to the southwest is Pinnacle
Park subdivision,a 31-Lot development with an average lot size of 2.5 acres,platted in 1969.
Also to the southeast is Sonny View Estates, a 41 Lot subdivision with an average lot size of
1.2 acres, platted in 1972.
Section 22-2-190.B.3.R. Policy 2.3 states, "New Residential development should
demonstrate compatibility with existing surrounding land-use...". The existing surrounding
land uses include predominantly agricultural uses and associated rural residential uses.
Urban scale development may conflict with these existing uses. As proposed the site will
conflict with existing and proposed uses.
Sections 23-1-90 & 24-1-40 both state Nonurban Scale Development: Developments
comprised of nine (9) or fewer residential lots, located in a nonurban area as defined in
Chapter 22 of this Code, not adjacent to other PUDs,subdivisions, municipal boundaries or
urban growth corridors. Nonurban Scale Development s hall a'so include land used or
capable of being used for agricultural purposes and including development which combines
clustered residential uses and agricultural uses in a manner that the agricultural lands are
suitable for farming and ranching operations for the next forty(40) years. Nonurban Scale
Development on Public Water and septic systems may have a minimum lot size of one (1)
acre and an overall density of two and one-half (21/2) acres per septic system. Nonurban
Scale Development proposing individual, private wells and septic systems shall have a
minimum lot size of two and one-half(21/2) acres per lot. This definition does not affect or
apply to those Coordinated Planning Agreements between the County and municipalities
which are in effect as of May 14, 2001.
Section 24-1-30 H. Promotes "...equitable handling of all subdivision plans by providing
uniform procedures and standards." The Board of County Commissioners in Ordinance
2002-1 dated March 15,2001 stated that non-urban scale development is nine lots or fewer.
The applicant is proposing urban scale development in a non-urban area.
Section 24-1-30.A;B;C;D;and E. Assisting orderly and integrated development. Promoting
the health,safety and general welfare of the residents of the County. Ensuring conformance
of land subdivision plans with the public improvement plans of the County and its various
municipalities.Ensuring coordination with public municipal improvement plans and programs.
Encouraging well-planned subdivisions by establishing adequate standards for design and
improvement. The Town of Eaton reviewed this application and stated that the request does
not conflict with their interests.
Section 27-2-40-Bulk Requirements- The applicant has chosen to adhere to all applicable
Estate Zone requirements, with the exception of a deviation of the minimum lot size in the
Estate Zone District for the twenty-two proposed residential lots, from a minimum of 2.50
acres to the proposed average lot size of 1.00 acres.
This recommendation is based,in part, upon a review of the application materials submitted by the applicant,
other relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral entities.
Should the Planning Commission choose to approve the Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to PUD with
Estate uses for twenty-two (22) residential Lots and 32 acres of Common Open Space, the following are
recommendations for conditions of approval:
1. The Change of Zone plat shall meet all requirements of Section 27-9-20 and shall be amended to
delineate the following:
A. "Weld County's Right to Farm"as provided in Appendix 22-E of the Weld County Code shall
be placed on any recorded plat. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
B. Primary and secondary septic system envelopes shall be designated on the plat. Each
envelope must meet minimum current setbacks as specified in the Weld County Individual
Sewage Disposal System Regulations. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
Resolution PZ-1020
Cliff Clift
Page 3
C. The Landscape Plan and Maintenance Schedule as approved by the Department of Planning
Services. The Landscape Plan shall adhere to the requirements of Section 27-6-60 of the
Weld County Code.The Landscape Plan shall be delineated in a legible font for all call-outs
with the Plant Material List including Botanical Name,Common Name,Species as applicable,
Size of material and whether it is can or Balled & Burlap (B&B). (Department of Planning
Services)
D. The location of the bus pull-off/pull-out area and bus shelter as required by the Eaton School
District, RE-2 and the Weld County Sheriffs Office. (Department of Planning Services)
E. The location of the mail box facility as required by the local postal authority. (Department
of Planning Services)
F. The location of the subdivision sign. (Department of Planning Services)
G. The Landscape Drawing shall be identify the irregular shaped circle located in the Northwest
corner of the property. Should this delineated element be inaccurate, this element shall be
removed from the drawing(s). (Department of Planning Services)
2. 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 PUD shall consist of twenty-two (22) residential Lots and 32 acres of Common Open
Space. The Change of Zone allows for Estate Zone District bulk requirements, except for
the minimum lot size, and development sign standards, as indicated in the a pplication
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.
(Department of Planning Services)
B. Water service shall be provided by the North Weld County Water District. (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
C. This subdivision is not served by a municipal sanitary sewer system. Sewage disposal shall
be by septic systems designed in accordance with the regulations of the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment,Water Quality Control Division and the Weld
County Code in effect at the time of construction,repair, replacement,or modification of the
system. Septic systems shall be designed for site specific conditions including, but not
limited to, shallow groundwater, bedrock, gravel and/or clay. (Department of Public Health
and Environment)
D. Primary and secondary septic envelopes shall be placed on each lot. All septic system
envelopes must meet all setbacks, including the 100-foot setback to any irrigation ditch.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
E. If required,the applicant shall obtain a storm water discharge permit from the Water Quality
Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment. Silt
fences shall be maintained on the down gradient portion of the site during all parts of the
construction phase of the project. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
F. During development of the site, all land disturbances shall be conducted so that nuisance
conditions are not created. If dust emissions create nuisance conditions, at the request of
the Weld County Health Department, a fugitive dust control plan must be submitted.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
G. In accordance with the Regulations of the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission any
development that disturbs more than 5 acres of land must incorporate all available and
practical methods that are technologically feasible and economically reasonable in order to
minimize dust emissions. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
Resolution PZ-1020
Cliff Clift
Page 4
H. If land development creates more than a 25-acre contiguous disturbance, or exceeds 6
months in duration,the responsible party shall prepare a fugitive dust control plan,submit an
air pollution emissions notice,and apply for a permit from the Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
A Home Owner's Association (HOA) shall be established prior to the sale of any lot.
Membership in the HOA is mandatory for each parcel owner. The HOA is responsible for
liability insurance, taxes and maintenance of open space, streets, private utilities and other
facilities. Open space restrictions are permanent. (Department of Planning Services)
J. The site shall maintain compliance at all times with the requirements of the Weld County
Department of Public Works,Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment,
and the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
K. Installation of utilities shall comply with Section 24-9-10 of the Weld County Code.
(Department of Planning Services)
L. Weld County's Right to Farm, as stated in Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code shall be
recognized at all times. (Department of Planning Services)
M. A separate building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction of any building. Permits
are required for any sign, bus shelter or access gate, if provided. (Department of Building
Inspection)
N. A plan review is required for each building. Plans shall bear the wet stamp of a Colorado
registered architect or engineer. Two(2)complete sets of plans are required when applying
for a permit. (Department of Building Inspection)
O. Buildings shall conform to the requirements of the various codes adopted at the time of
permit application. Currently the following codes have been adopted by Weld County: 1997
Uniform Building Code, 1998 International Mechanical Code, 1997 International Plumbing
Code, 1999 National Electrical Code and Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code.(Department
of Building Inspection)
P. Each building will require an engineered foundation based on a site-specific geo-technical
report or an "open hole" inspection conducted by a Colorado Registered Professional
Engineer. Engineered foundations shall be designed by a Professional Engineer registered
in the State of Colorado. (Department of Building Inspection)
Q. Building height shall be limited to the maximum height allowed by UBC Table 5-B. Wall and
opening protection and limitations shall be in accordance with UBC Table 5-A. Separation
of buildings of mixed occupancy classifications shall be in accordance with UBC Table 3-B
and Chapter 3. Setback and offset distances shall be determined by Chapter 23 of the Weld
County Code. (Department of Building Inspection)
R. Building height shall be measured in accordance with the 1997 Uniform 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 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 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 frame inspection.
(Department of Building Inspection)
S. Any signs located on the property shall require building permits and adhere to Section 27-6-
90 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
Resolution PZ-1020
Cliff Clift
Page 5
T. The property owner shall be responsible for complying with all regulations and requirements
of Section 27 of the Weld County Code including the Performance Standards listed in Article
II and Article VIII. (Department of Planning Services)
U. No development activity shall commence on the property, nor shall any building permits be
issued on the property until the final plan has been approved and recorded. (Department of
Planning Services)
V. Weld County Government Personnel shall be granted access onto the property at any
reasonable time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the
Development Standards stated herein and all applicable Weld County regulations.
(Department of Planning Services)
W. The property owner shall be responsible for complying with all regulations and requirements
of Section 27 of the Weld County Code including the Performance Standards listed in Article
II and Article VIII. (Department of Planning Services)
X. The applicant shall comply with Section 27-8-50 Weld County Code, as follows:
Failure to submit a Planned Unit Development Final Plan- If a PUD Final Plan application is
not submitted within three(3)years of the date of the approval of the PUD Zone District,the
Board of County Commissioners shall require the landowner to appear and present evidence
substantiating that the PUD project has not been abandoned and that the applicant
possesses the willingness and ability to continue with the submission of the PUD Final Plan.
The Board may extend the date for the submission of the PUD Final Plan application and
shall annually require the applicant to demonstrate that the PUD has not been abandoned.
If the Board determines that 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)
4. Prior to recording the Change of Zone Plat:
The applicant will be required to submit a traffic impact study. The traffic impact study will
be used to determine the required improvements; especially the off-site improvements with
access from County Road 74. Improvements may include:engineering design,roadway and
grading plans along with construction details, pavement design, construction, appropriate
roadway cross-section,acceleration lane(s),deceleration lane(s),turning movement lane(s),
striping,signing,intersection sight-distance,safety measures, rights-of-way,road widening,
shouldering, paving, and roadway construction materials. The applicant will be responsible
for all off-site improvements resulting from impact of the proposed development and
acceptance of County standards. (Department of Public Works)
B. The County's maximum block length is 1,500-feet as permitted by County Code Sec. 24-7-
40-E. A cul-de-sac will be required as a safety turn-around adjacent to Lot 10 and Lot 11.
The P ublic Works Department has reviewed t his roadway I ayout and finds i t generally
acceptable. The applicant shall provide Public Works with written documentation verifying
that the roadway layout is acceptable to appropriate referral agencies, especially the fire
department of jurisdiction. (Department of Public Works)
C. The applicant shall address the comments listed above at the specific step of the review
process stated. The review process will continue only when all appropriate elements have
been submitted. Issues of concern must be resolved with the Public Works Department prior
to recording the Change of Zone Plats.
Resolution PZ-1020
Cliff Clift
Page 6
D. The applicant shall submit a digital file of all drawings associated with the Change of Zone
application. Acceptable CAD formats are .dwg, .dxf, .dgn, (Microstation) acceptable GIS
formats are .shp (Shape Files), Arclnfo Coverages and Arclnfo Export files format type is
.e00. The preferred format for Images is .tif (Group 4) (Group 6 is not acceptable).
(Department of Planning Services)
5. The Final Plan application shall adhere to Section 27-7-30 of the Weld County Code and shall
specifically address the following:
A. In accordance with Section 27-6-20.B. - Because the proposed uses differ between the
Change of Zone and specific guide, additional review of the Final Plan by the Board of
County Commissioners is warranted at a public hearing. (Department of Planning Services)
B. The Final Plan application shall specify the Home Owner's Association method of trail,open
space and/or landscape maintenance in accordance with the approved Landscape Plan.
(Department of Planning Services)
C. The Covenants for Appaloosa Acres Estates PUD shall be approved by the Weld County
Attorney's Office prior to recording the final plat.At a minimum,the covenants shall address
the issue of placement of landscape materials and other encumbrances over primary or
secondary leachfields as outlined in the referral received from the Weld County Department
of Public Health and Environment. (Department of Planning Services)
D. Language for the preservation and/or protection of the absorption field envelopes shall be
placed in the development covenants. The covenants shall state that activities such as
permanent landscaping, structures, dirt mounds, animal husbandry activities, or other
activities that would interfere with the construction, maintenance, or function of the fields
should be restricted over the absorption field areas while in use. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
6. Prior to submittal of the Final Plan plat:
A. The applicant shall submit a digital file of all drawings associated with the Final Plan
application.Acceptable CAD formats are.dwg, .dxf,and.dgn(Microstation);acceptable GIS
formats are .shp (Shape Files), Arclnfo Coverages and Arclnfo Export files format type is
.e00. The preferred format for Images is .tif(Group 4) ... (Group 6 is not acceptable).
(Department of Planning Services)
B. The applicant shall provide written evidence from Weld County School District RE-2 (Eaton
School District) which indicates that all district requirements have been met. (Department
of Planning Services)
C. County Road 74 is a paved road. The applicant will be required to build any necessary
improvements to County Road 74 directly resulting from impacts of the proposed
development. The applicant shall submit an improvements agreement and any roadway
plans with the final plat materials. Additionally, the applicant may be asked to enter into an
agreement with the County to proportionately share costs of improvements to County Road
74 and County Road 41 as a result of increased traffic impacts. The costs will be based on
a proportion of the traffic generated by the development to existing traffic. A detailed traffic
impact study will be reviewed. The applicant must submit any proposed off-site agreement
with the final plat application. This development will add approximately 211 daily vehicle trip
ends to the County roadway system. (Department of Planning Services)
D. The applicant shall submit covenants for Appaloosa Acres Estates PUD.The covenants shall
be approved by the Weld County Attorney's Office prior to recording the final plat.Covenants
shall address the issues of the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment,
at a minimum. (Department of Planning Services)
Resolution PZ-1020
Cliff Clift
Page 7
E. The applicant shall submit paperwork addressing the creation of the HOA for Appaloosa
Acres Estates PUD. (Department of Planning Services)
F. The right-of-way for the internal roadway shall be dedicated to the County. (Department of
Planning Services, Department of Public Works)
G. The applicant shall submit approval of preliminary addresses and street name from the
Postal Service, Fire District,Ambulance Services and Sheriffs Department. (Department of
Planning Services)
H. The applicant shall provide for a bus stop/pick up area at the entrance to Appaloosa Acres
Estates PUD or provide written evidence from Weld County School District RE-2, the Weld
County Sheriffs Office and the Postal Service indicating that an alternative was preferred.
(Department of Planning Services)
The applicant shall provide a pavement design prepared by a professional engineer along
with the final plat submittal. (Department of Public Works)
J. Easements shall be shown on the final plat in accordance with County standards(Sec.24-7-
60)and/or Utility Board recommendations. "Easements shall follow rear and side lot lines
whenever practical and shall have a minimum total width of twenty (20) feet apportioned
equally on abutting properties. Where front line easements are required, a minimum of
fifteen (15) feet shall be allocated as a utility easement." The applicant shall show and
dimension 20-foot rear lot easements on the Final plat submittal. (Department of Public
Works)
K. Roadway and grading plans along with construction details will be required with the final plat
submittal. (Department of Public Works)
L. The applicant shall submit to Public Works stamped, signed and dated final plat drawings.
This is consistent with County Code:Sec.24-3-50,"The PUD subdivision final plat submitted
shall contain the original signatures and seals of all parties required". (Department of Public
Works)
M. Stop signs and street name sign locations must be shown on the final roadway construction
plans. (Department of Public Works)
N. The applicant shall submit an on-site Improvements Agreement According to Policy
Regarding Collateral For Improvements with the final plan application. These agreements
must be reviewed by Public Works and shall be approved by the BOCC prior to recording the
final plat. (Department of Public Works)
O. The applicant shall submit an Improvements Agreement According to Policy Regarding
Collateral for Improvements(Private Road Maintenance)with the final plan application. This
agreement must be reviewed by Public Works and shall be approved by the BOCC prior to
recording the final plat. (Department of Public Works)
P. A drainage report stamped,signed and dated bya professional engineer licensed in the State
of Colorado shall be submitted with the final plat application. The 5-year storm and 100-year
storm drainage studies shall take into consideration off-site flows both entering and leaving
the development. Increased runoff due to development will require detention of the 100-year
storm developed condition while releasing the 5-year storm existing condition. (Department
of Public Works)
r
Q. The final drainage report shall include a flood hazard review documenting any FEMA defined
floodways. The engineer shall reference the specific map panel number,including date. The
development site shall be located on the copy of the FEMA map. (Department of Public
Works)
Resolution PZ-1020
Cliff Clift
Page 8
R. 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)
S. Final drainage construction and erosion control plans (conforming to the drainage report)
stamped,signed and dated by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado shall
be submitted with the final plan application. (Department of Public Works)
7. Prior to the release of any building permits:
A. The applicant shall supply designated street signs and a stop sign at the appropriate location
adjacent to the entrance of the subdivision. (Department of Building Inspection)
B. A geologic study, drainage study and soils report shall be supplied to Weld County
Building Inspections with blueprints when applying for building permits. (Department of
Building Inspection)
C. A plan review is required for each building. Plans shall bear the wet stamp of a Colorado
registered architect or engineer. Two complete sets of plans are required when applying for
each permit. (Department of Building Inspection)
D. Buildings shall conform to the requirements of the codes adopted by Weld County at the time
of permit application. Current adopted codes include the 1997 Uniform Building Code, 1998
International Mechanical Code, 1997 International Plumbing Code,2002 National Electrical
Code and Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code. Weld County intends to adopt the 2003
International Building, Residential, Mechanical, Plumbing and Fuel Gas Codes on March 1,
2004. (Department of Building Inspection)
E. Each building will require an engineered foundation based on a site-specific
geotechnical report or an open hole inspection performed by a Colorado registered engineer.
Engineered foundations shall be designed by a Colorado registered engineer. (Department
of Building Inspection)
F. Building h eight, protection o f walls and openings and separation of buildings o f mixed
occupancy classifications shall be in accordance with the Building Code. Setback and offset
distances shall be determined by the Weld County Code, Chapter 23.. (Department of
Building Inspection)
G. Building height shall be measured in accordance with the 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 setback requirements are measured to the farthest projection from the building.
(Department of Building Inspection)
Motion seconded by John Folsom
Resolution PZ-1020
Cliff Clift
Page 9
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Michael Miller
John Folsom
Bryant Gimlin
Stephen Mokray
Bruce Fitzgerald
James Rohn
Tim Tracy
Doug Ochsner
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this
case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I,Voneen Macklin, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution, is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County,
Colorado, adopted on February 3, 2004.
Dated the 3rd of February, 2004.
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Rich Miller, prospective buyer, would like to keep his farms going and use the feed for this facility. This is
a nice facility that has good drainage and pens. He wants to put all the cattle in one spot to make it easier.
The Chair closed public portion.
Mr. Orr indicated the applicant has concerns with the Conditions of Approval and the Development
Standards. Condition of Approval 1C-there is not even a ditch. This is a drainage way, there is no one to
contact. Mr. Miller stated the way to satisfy this is to write a letter indicating that a reasonable effort has
been made to determine if there are rights to the ditch or drainage way. Mr. Orr continued with concerns
on Condition E and everything under it. The lighting has no effect on anyone. The nearest neighbor is
2700 feet away. Mr. Miller indicated that the Conditions states"if applicable." Mr. Orr added that adhering
to the CAFFO regulations is going to be the applicants primary concern. Mr. Orr asked about Condition H
and if it falls under CAFFO? Mr. Jiricek stated that those issues are not addressed by CAFFO. CAFFO is
strictly a water quality based rule. Mr. Miller stated this is one of the Health Departments conditions which
must be satisfied. Mr. Orr added that Condition L is not appropriate, off street parking with curbs is not in
the area. Ms. Katyryniuk stated that this was referring to the office as stated on the application material
and the number of employees. Ms. Katyryniuk is asking that it be delineated on the map where parking
would be for the employees. Mr. Miller stated that a line on the map needs to be identified showing
parking spaces. Planning staff does not have the authority to vary from the code, they have to write
appropriate conditions for this. Mr. Orr stated he understood, but that is why Section 22-2-120 was
referenced. There is also a question on the amount of water that could be supplied. There is a 2500
gallon cistern on site. This is the source for fire protection and is also used for a backup water source
when needed. The type of cattle are not mature therefor do not consume as much water. Mr. Miller
stated that all that is being asked for is a description of the well permits indicating how many gallons per
minute the well will provide. Ms. Katyryniuk added that the applicant has submitted 2 well permits, one for
domestic and commercial. The Division of Water Resources indicated 12 gallons per day per year is
needed to water one cow. The well permits indicated 33 acre feet which does not add up to supporting
3000 head of cattle proposed. Staff would like additional information. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if the size of
the cattle made an impact on the amount of consumption? This could cause a dispute in the amount
available.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case AmSUP-227, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners
along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Doug
Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1020
APPLICANT: Clifford Clift, Appaloosa Acres Estates PUD
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 15C; Fourth Replat of Gilbaughs Appaloosa Acres; being in the W2
SW4 of Section 33, T7N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from Agricultural to PUD; Estate for a 22 lot residential
development outside of an IGA and UGB; east of the Town of Eaton.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 74; east of CR 41.
Kim Ogle, Planner, Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-1020, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending
denial of the application, should the Planning Commission recommend approval of this application the
following Conditions of Approval and Development Standards should be included.
Bryant Gimlin asked Pam Smith about the septic systems as proposed. Ms. Smith stated there are 4
previous replats, one through four, with 18 total residences. There are 17 single family and 1 duplex lots. t_
This proposal would contain 22 septic systems on 61 acres. The Health Department comments did not m
reflect the previous residences or the possible impact of septic on the overall development. The ground - k `
under review for this application is now vacant in pasture grass. Ms. Smith indicated that when this was v
application reviewed, the proposal did meet the minimum lot size with a density of 2 1/2 acres. The density N
to total land in this application calculates out to 2.7 acres per septic system. The minimum lot size by
aws
Health Department guidelines, is one acre as development is on public water. (North Weld County Water
District)
Clifford Cliff, applicant, provided clarification on the project. CR 74 is in a down grade status as far as the
county road classification. There will be acceleration and deceleration lanes to accommodate the traffic
on CR 74 turning into and out of the development. There will be an internal paved road. The school
district will dictate where the drop off and pick up will be. The front entrance will be landscaped with
xeriscape type material. There will be a drip line installed to irrigate the plants. The internal road is a
paved with a cul-de-sac every 1500 feet. The development has 32 acres of open space that will be
maintained by the Homeowners Association (HOA). The County Code enables the open space to
surround the internal lots. The bridle path will be maintained by the HOA. There will also be two detention
ponds adjacent to CR 74. This proposal is not removing any prime farm ground as there is only 2 shares
of water available for irrigation. In a typical year,this will allow for irrigation three to four times. The open
space will be seeded with native grasses and flood irrigated. According to title insurance the bridle trail is
a 12 foot easement for the benefit of those in the platted Gilbaughs Acres Subdivision, including this lot,
Lot 15C. The covenants will address the bridle path and the maintenance of it. There is some concern
with the open space and bridle trail. Colorado is a recording State and this means the last recorded plat,
4•'" Replat, is the instrument that is referred to for determination of uses, zoning, etc.
Staff indicated the application was inconsistent with the County Code. The inconsistency is that the
application is outside the Intergovernmental Agreement Area (IGA)with the Town of Eaton. There is no
precedence being set, as within 1/2 mile there are 35 homes and within 3/4 mile there are over 100 homes.
The applicant is trying to do something that is beneficial and unique to the area. There is no water
associated with the land and therefor is not considered prime ground. This use is the highest and best
use for the land. The comments deal with non urban and urban development. The issue was the open
space area that was designated residential agricultural on the 4`" Replat. This was changed on the third
Replat and carried to the fourth Replat. The Town of Eaton does not have an issue with the project.
There will be dual evaporation pads for each septic system. The applicant is trying to do a positive
development with high end homes.
James Rohn asked about Section 22-2-110 B -this site is unable to be served by urban infrastructure
which would include municipal sewer. Is it a possibility to be in the Eaton Sewer District? Mr. Clift
indicated that the City of Eaton was not very receptive to that possibility. There is a requirement of a lift
station.
Doug Ochsner asked if there is a specific septic pumping plan to take care of the systems. Mr. Cliff
indicated that there could be a three year plan required in the covenants, depending on the size of the
tanks.
John Folsom asked Mr. Ogle if the land was zoned agricultural residential. Mr. Cliff stated that was what
was on the zoning plat. Mr. Folsom stated that if it is agricultural residential, Section 23-3-100 gives the
intent for residential uses. Mr. Ogle indicated that was the interpretation from the County attorney. Mr.
Ogle stated that an agricultural lot can have a primary residence built on it. The applicant is able to apply
for a subdivision based on the agricultural zone district.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Dan Foster, representative for Appaloosa Acres Subdivision HOA, indicated the new development is
opposed by the HOA for the following reasons: the residents were told the land would not be developed
because it was open space and pasture with a bridle path around it. The residents believed they were
protected from the land ever being developed. The land was productive farm land until water was sold off
of it. The bridle path, which is a easement,was platted on the Subdivision Plat when this was developed
in 1974. The contention of the HOA is the bridle path can neither be moved or changed on use. The
residents were told that this development was not going to be horse properties. In a letter to the County
from the applicant it stated the open space will be used for grazing horses and those residents have
access to the bridle path. Appaloosa Acres HOA carries insurance on the bridle path. Mr. Foster read
statements from the Appaloosa Acres attorney, John Berry of Witwer, Oldenburg, Barry& Bedingfield,
LLP dated January 23, 2004 addressing the concerns of the bridle path. The following is direct quote from
that letter. "The covenants provide that"each and every one of these covenants, conditions, reservations
and restrictions is and are all for the benefit of each owner of land in such subdivision. Thus, when the
covenants are recorded, and when the plat was recorded, each of the approximate 15 owners of lots in
the Gilbaughs's Appaloosa Acres subdivision had vested rights in the bridle path as well as the other
property rights referenced in the covenants. By recording the plat and referencing the covenants, Mr. and
Mrs. Gilbaughs placed every homeowner in the subdivision with individual vested rights in the bridle paths.
I do not see anywhere in the covenants or on the plat that the Gilbaughs reserved any rights in the bridle
path area to allow them or their successors to utilize or convey any of the bridle path. Thus, it appears to
me that the only persons with any rights in the bridle path are those who are owners of the lots in
Gilbaughs's Appaloosa Acres.
Presumable, when each owner acquired his or her interest in a lot in Gilbaughs's Appaloosa Acres, such
purchaser relied upon the covenants and the assurance that they would have an unobstructed use of the
bridle path when making their purchase decision. As a vested property right, I do not believe that either
the Gilbaughs or their successors have any right to attempt to change the location of the bridle path, to
alter the use of the bridle paths or to attempt to allow other persons or parties to make use of the bridle
paths in any way. I do not even believe that the Gilbaughs or their successors would have the right to
authorize other parties to utilize the bridle paths even if solely for bridle path purposes." Any change in the
bridle path would take a written consent from a majority of Appaloosa Acres HOA members. The access
development into the proposed development is over the bridle path. The access road to the development
will cross over the bridle path which could be a major safety issue for the residents of either development.
Mr. Foster added that this development is urban scale in a non urban area. Traffic is a concern. The
existing residents are fearful that the proposed property owners will use their private road to access the
back of the proposed lots. The native grasses proposed in the open space will turn to weeds. Property
values will decrease. These existing homes will be looking at the back yards of the proposed homes.
Drainage is a concern as the land drains to south. In times of heavy rainfall the area is covered with water
for a lengthy time period. The retention ponds will be breeding sites for insects. The situation is unique
and this will change the way of life of the Appaloosa Acres residents.
John Folsom asked Mr. Morrison about vested rights in bridle path and mentioned in covenants. Mr.
Morrison stated this was an agreement that concerns the land but does not usually involve the County.
This is a private agreement, it is not a contract because it involves property. It is a document affecting use
of benefit and burden on property. It is not part of the plat. It is an issue between private property owners.
It will be an important issue to whether this could proceed but the County has no opinion in a possible civil
action. Mr. Morrison indicated that this may require litigation at a future time.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Foster if the bridle path was a recorded easement. Mr. Foster stated it was their
understanding that it was an easement platted with the development. Mr. Ogle added that on Replat 2
and the original document there is a designation of a 12 foot bridle path but not an easement. Mr. Miller
asked Mr. Morrison about the fourth replat and if the path would need to be called out at that time for it to
be valid. Mr. Morrison stated that the fourth replat was a realignment of property lines. The replat was
only dealing with two lots, it was not intended to affect the entire alignment of the lots. Mr. Morrison stated
that the vested rights are identified in the covenants and it is also identified on the plat. The argument for
vested rights is because of covenants not necessarily the plat. The legal right comes from the covenants.
Mr. Miller asked if the prolonged use gave them a right to the path as an adverse possession? Mr.
Morrison stated it was possible. There a several possibilities for this.
Joanne Gilbaughs, adjacent property owner, presented clarification on the project. The first sale of the
property and movement of the bridle plan was for a house to be built by the purchaser. It was not
agreeable to the owners to move the path. When this did not occur, there were proposals by Mr. Moody
for development however Mr. Moody encountered opposition by the property owners. The plans were
abandoned and the property was sold. This land will eventually be developed regardless but the idea of a
cluster development with more open space is more attractive. The intent is to keep the bridle path where
it has historically been. There are concerns with the turn lanes into the subdivision. There would need to
be a culvert under the access drive. Ms. Gilbaughs shares some concerns with what they, the residents,
will be looking at. The suggestion is to turn the homes around to face open space leaving the backyards
facing each other. Another suggestion is to leave as much open space as possible, keep the homes in
one area.
Diane Druitt, neighbor, indicated concerns with the development. The private road has been deeded the
association for Gilbaughs's Appaloosa Acres in 2001 by Ms. Gilbaughs previous owner and maintenance
of Happy Road.
The Chair closed the public portion
Clifford Cliff, applicant, responded that the title insurance company will back the applicant on the situation
of 4`" Replat and the easements associated with this development. The applicant feels as though the
bridle path is an easement. Lot 15 C is part of Appaloosa Acres. This parcel of ground does own and has
a right to the easement because it is part of the original plat. The HOA and covenants will address issues
of derelict vehicles and noxious weeds. The applicant wants to maintain the parcel as a high quality
development. There are things that can addressed regarding landscape.
Doug Ochsner asked if there is a plan to have the bridle plan open to the lots and if the covenants are
allowing horses. Mr. Cliff stated there will be horses and they are allowed to use the path.
John Folsom commented that this development is compatible with the surrounding area. The issue
comes with the code and concentrating urban development in or around municipalities. The code also
states that locating urban scale developments outside urban boundaries is not efficient. There are no
sanitary services provided for the proposed urban subdivision. The minimum lot size in estate needs to be
2 ''A acres. The proposed site is one acre.
Bruce Fitzgerald added that if this was a 9 subdivision it would be more agreeable. This use is too intense
for the area.
Bryant Gimlin agreed. He stated the density of units is too high. Mr. Gimlin, thinking out loud inquired,
should something be included to address the concerns of the bridle path?
Michael Miller added that Planning Commission worked long and hard on the revision of the
Comprehensive Plan and the urban vs non urban statement was discussed extensively. Urban style
development should be in urban locations not where there are 22 septic system. The changes were
adopted to help alleviate the issues that have risen due to this type of development. Mr. Folsom stated
that this proposal is years to late. The rules have changes since the other subdivision have been
approved. Mr. Gimlin added that part of the reason the original subdivision was approved was because of
the large open space area incorporated into the development.
James Rohn stated he would be in favor of the proposal if it were to be done in two sections. Meaning 9
lots in phase one then come in with an additional 9 lots in the second phase. The main issue is the sewer.
Mr. Miller stated that there is also a provision that indicates if a 9 lot subdivision is located next to another
subdivision it is considered urban, with urban scale development.
Doug Ochsner commented that in urban vs non urban standards the urban scale is required to provide
central water, sewer system, road networks and parking facilities. Section 22-2-176 does not say it has to
be a public sewer system. A septic can be approved for this type of location. Mr. Ochsner's issue is
having one acre lots and horses. There is not enough acreage to support the livestock.
James Rohn added that the neighbors have believed this was open space for them.
James Rohn moved that Case PZ-1020, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Planning Commissions recommendation of denial. John Folsom seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Doug
Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Ochsner commented that he is voting yes only because he disagrees with the size and the design of
the subdivision and the legal issues of the bridal path and not because of the urban scale development or
septic systems.
Mr. Miller commented that he does not agree with the application because it does not meet the standards
of Section 22-2-110. B UGB.Goal 2. It is urban style development in a non urban area. Section 22-2-
190.C R. Policy 3.1.
Meeting adjourned at 7:00pm
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello