The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20042606.tiff 08/24/2004 12:41 9703517851 Aug 24 04 12: 22p Todd Hodges Design, LLC 970-613-0775 PAGE 02 p.2 41& !fi" BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PHONE (970)338-7204, Ext.4200 FAX: (970)3520242 CP. O. 8OX 758 O GREELEY,COLORADO 80632 COLORADO August 20, 2004 Olando, LLC do Ed Orr and Tammy Ellerman c/o Todd Hodges Design, LLC • 1269 North Cleveland Avenue Loveland, Colorado 80537 To Whom it May Concern: Your application for Change of Zone#547 from the A(Agricultural)Zone District to the E (Estate) Zone District for a nine (9)lot Minor Subdivision has been recommended unfavorably to the Board of County Commissioners by the Planning Commission. The legal description of the property involved is shown as Lot B of Recorded Exemption #2018; being part of the SE1/4 of Section 16, Township 6 North, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. If you wish to be heard by the Board of County Commissioners, it will be necessary for you to indicate your request by signing the bottom of this letter and returning it to this office, Regular hearing procedures will then be followed. In order to proceed with a headng date of September 29, 2004, as discussed, we must receive your reply by September 1, 2004. If we are not 1n receipt of your request by that date, the matter • will be scheduled for a subsequent date. If a response is not received by September 20, 2004, the matter will be considered closed. Sincerely, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO wa."44,_ Robert D. Masden, Chair RDM/eeg 1/we, ��n h �oa6A /t.n 1/wa, •stoners t do hereby request the Board of County gonsider the above mentioned application. EXHIBIT I 2004-2606 mE-#5y7 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' SIGN POSTING CERTIFICATE THE LAST DAY TO POST THE SIGN IS September 14, 2004 THE SIGN SHALL BE POSTED ADJACENT TO AND VISIBLE FROM A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. IN THE EVENT THE PROPERTY BEING CONSIDERED FOR A SPECIAL REVIEW IS NOT ADJACENT TO A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES SHALL POST ONE SIGN IN THE MOST PROMINENT PLACE ON THE PROPERTY AND POST A SECOND SIGN AT THE POINT AT WHICH THE DRIVEWAY (ACCESS DRIVE) INTERSECTS A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. I, SHERI LOCKMAN, HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE SIGN WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY AT LEAST FIFTEEN DAYS BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS HEARING FOR MZ-547 IN THE AGRICULTURAL ZONE DISTRICT. SHERI LOCKMAN Name of Person Posting Sign Signet lyt of Perso Posting Sign ' {747/g4-7( STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF WELD G- _ 1 The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to me this r'1 day of .Z' ;] iqa a , 2004. WITNESS my hand and official seal. I I � ` L/, Notary Public /- 7 My Commission Expires 7 l IEXHIBIT 1 A z.*c-4.7 . ............ . ' f'w is : t / 4 1. _ '" -� N r r ran +-1( ,' j)ff{{ •s : -4 14, '4;5)2!) , Cr q ; f t S C '>: 7_4e'1,. ' U f w.jl _ '< 4� "' „fit � �,/ & °,11 Posted September 14, 2004 by Sheri Lockman September 23, 2004 Ms. Sheri Lockman. Planner Weld County Planning Services 918 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Owl Creek Acres, Minor Subdivision Change of Zone Dear Ms. Lockman: I have reviewed the Board of County Commissioners Resolution for the aforementioned land use application. [here are several items that have been addressed either prior the Planning Commission hearing, or herein. These items will be discussed below. We will be asking the Board to remove these items at the hearing. Condition of Approval item 1,'13 Permits have been obtained from CDOT and were included in application materials. We are proposing to pave the internal road for dust suppression, above what is required for a Minor Subdivision (gravel) per County Code. Condition of Approval Item I E Two well permits were pulled by the previous land owner. These two wells were never drilled. The permits expired on August 18, 2002 and copies are attached. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. I look forward to working with you. Please make this information available for the Board of County Commissioners with application materials prior to the hearing. Sityc yrelc t c c c: , ��i�t Ed Orr Tammy Herman Orr Land Company/ Olando LI,C Orr Iand Company/Olando LLC Or Land Company 826 9th Street EXHIBIT a Greeley, Colorado 80031 Z Cfl 1 t\ Bus. • (970) 351-8777 Fax • (970) 351-7851 Web • orrland.com 07/03/05 SUN 09:53 FAX 3074726105 ^ 0 001/002 Form No.____.OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER GWS-2-5- COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 918 Centennial Bldg., 1313 Sherman St., Denver,Colorado 80203 (303)866.3581 857 WELL PERMIT NUMBER 22831 _ APPLICANT DIV. 1 WD 1 DES. BASIN MD APPROVED WELL LOCATION WELD COUNTY AFFORDABLE COUNTRY HOMES LLC NW 1/4 SE 1/4 Section 16 2337 10TH ST#C Township 6 N Range 64 W Sixth P.M. GREELEY, CO 80634- DISTANCES FROM SECTION LINES 2970 Ft. from North Section Line (970) 381-9054 2840 Ft. from West Section Line PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A WELL ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1) This wall shall be used in such a way as to cause no material injury to existing water rights. The issuance of this permit does not assure the applicant that no injury will occur to another vested water right or preclude another owner of a vested water right from seeking relief in a civil court action. 2) The construction of this well shall be in compliance with the Water Well Construction Rules 2 CCR 402-2,'unless approval of a variance has been granted by the State Board of Examiners of Water Well Construction and Pump Installation Contractors in accordance with Rule 18. 3) Approved pursuant to CRS 37.92-602(3)(b)(II)(A) as the only well on a tract of land of 38.00 acres described as that portion of the SE 1/4, Sec. 16,Twp.6 N, Rng. 64 W. Sixth P.M.,Weld County,more particularly described as the N 1/2 of Lot B on the attached exhibit A. , 4) The use of ground water from this well is limited to fire protection, ordinary household purposes inside not more than three (3) single family dwellings,the Irrigation of not more than one (1) acre of home gardens and lawns, and the watering ,'• • of domestic animals. 5) The maximum pumping rate of this well shall not exceed 15 GPM. 6) The return flow from the use of this well must be through an individual waste water disposal system of the non-evaporative type where the water is returned to the same stream system In which the well is located. 7) This well shall be constructed not more than 200 feet from the location specified on this o%t/`e, APPROVED wL1 z . Ago.. / ACti2 JSG State Engineer AUG 18 2000 By EXPIRATION DATE AUG 'I 2 Receipt No.0463144 DATE ISSUED 07/03/05 SUN 09:53 FAX 3074726105 2002/002 Form No.__.. OFFICE OF '. E STATE ENGINEER GWS'rs COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 818 Centennial Bldg., 1313 Sherman St., Denver, Colorado 80203 (303)866-3581 �.� 857 WELL PERMIT NUMBER 228115 - _ APPLICANT DIV. 1 WD 1 DES. BASIN MD APPROVED WELL LOCATION WELD COUNTY AFFORDABLE COUNTRY HOMES LLC SW 1/4 SE 1/4 Section 16 2337 10TH ST#C Township 6 N Range 64 W Sixth P.M. GREELEY, CO 80634- DISTANCES FROM SECTION LINES (970)381-9054 640 Ft. from South Section Line PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A WELL 2840 Ft. from West Section Line ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT CONFER A WATER RIGHT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1) This well shall be used in such a way as to cause no material Injury to existing water rights. The issuance of this permit does not assure the applicant that no injury will occur to another vested water right or preclude another owner of a vested water right from seeking relief in a civil court action. 2) The construction of this well shall be In compliance with the Water Well Construction Rules 2 CCR 402-2: unless approval of a variance has been granted by the State Board of Examiners of Water Well Construction and Pump Installation Contractors in accordance with Rule 18. 3) Approved pursuant to CRS 37-92-602(3)(b)(II)(A) as the only well on a tract of land of 38.00 acres described as that portion of the SE 1/4, Sec. 16, Twp, 6 N, Rng. 64 W,Sixth P.M., Weld County. more particularly described as the S 1/2 of Lot B on the attached exhibit A. 4) The use of ground water from this well is limited to fire protection, ordinary household purposes inside not more than jthree (3)single family dwellings,the irrigation of not more than one (1) acre of home gardens and lawns, and the watering ./ f domestic animals, 5) The maximum pumping rate of this well shall not exceed 15 GPM, 6) The return flow from the use of this well must be through an individual waste water disposal system of the non-evaporative type where the water is returned to the same stream system in which the well is located. 7) This well shall be constructed not more than 200 feet from the location specified on this pormitG20,S/,7/oo APPROVED lr� g� JSG .f.Jefrb State Engineer .Receipt No.0463146 DATE ISSUED AUGyG 182000 EXPI TION DATEAUG 18 200 Board of Weld County Commissioners Re: Zone change for proposed Owl Creek Estates 9/27/04 To the board of commissioners, I object to the development of the proposed Owl Creek Estates for the following reasons: 1. The Weld county sheriff's office has stated in its referral that it lacks the ability to absorb any more service demand without the resources it recommended in the multi-year plan given to the county commissioners, "or as indicated by growth not considered at the time the plan was developed". If these resources have not been allocated, it would be irresponsible for the planning commission or the county commissioners to approve this plan, and it can be expected that the two agencies would be held fully accountable by the community for any failures in the emergency response system resulting from increased unmet demand on the system. 2. The county commissioners, based in part on their concern for the adequacy of water to irrigate the 15 acres of proposed open space, rejected the previous application. In response, the developer has indeed substantially changed this present application: he has eliminated the 15 acres of open space, and added two more houses. I argue that the total acreage remains the same: it's still +/- 76 acres; and, except for the minimal acreage covered in buildings, will probably require even more water to irrigate (for intensive landscaping), than 15 acres of native grassland, which was the original proposal for planting this piece. The attached copy of the response from the Office of the State Engineer, Division of Water Resources, expresses the concern that in the first place, the agreement between North Weld County Water District and the owners has not yet been signed. Does this indicate some hesitation on the part of NWCWD to commit the water resources to this project? The engineer also notes that a"Water Supply Information Summary" was provided in the application, but without indicating what the estimated water requirement for the subdivision would be. The letter notes that NWCWD will restrict the delivery of water as necessary when the CBT allotment is less than 50%. We all know full well that the water district will indeed restrict water supplies to us if necessary. All of us here know the effects of the ongoing drought: the Eaton ditch isn't t running at all this year, and we are not able to buy any additional water from NWCWD as we have in past years. And contrary to the contention that there will be adequate supplies of water for these additional nine homes, many of us are already experiencing decreasing pressure in our water systems, and not happy about it. The Statewide Water Supply Initiative reports have stated that every major river system in Colorado is over- adjudicated, even in wet years. How on earth does it make sense to continue developing densely populated areas in the face of such definitive water shortage data? 3. Although the county comp plan was significantly revised recently, to allow for increased development, it continues to extol the virtues of preserving farmland and the value of rural living, and it continues to actively encourage the preservation of agriculture in the county. The right to farm clause speaks of the many incentives for rural living: open views, spaciousness, lack of noise and congestion,presence of wildlife, and a rural atmosphere. In fact, however, randomly plopping a nine-house subdivision 10 miles from a municipality will violate all of these incentives, and is completely inconsistent with the pattern of development in our neighborhood up to this point. There will be fewer open views from our windows, decreased spaciousness, far less wildlife to view, and increased noise and congestion from increased traffic and denser population, as well as the end of any sense of a rural atmosphere. 4. The CDOT estimates that this subdivision will increase the number of vehicle trips per day by 86, and describes this as insignificant. This increase is not insignificant to us: this subdivision will be located just beyond the crest of a hill, on a highway that posts a traffic speed of 65 mph. This includes a high volume of semi-truck traffic, already significantly increased since the improvements to highway 37. 5. In chapter 22 of the county comprehensive plan, it is stated that the county should "Discourage urban-scale residential, commercial, and industrial development which is not located adjacent to existing incorporated municipalities." In this application, the developer states that this project is a non-urban, minor subdivision. But given the pattern of development thus far in our neighborhood, I do not consider this a"minor" subdivision. The pattern of development has been the purchase of small acreages (usually sprinkler corners), or fair-sized parcels (60 or more acres), with one house built on them, and the remainder of the parcel farmed. The population density of this subdivision would be dramatically greater than that of any other parcel for miles, and would not be at all consistent with the existing neighborhood. The placement of subdivisions in this neighborhood is just anomalous: it does not fit, and is not welcome. 6. Eliminating the open space is the exact opposite of one of the principles of smart growth: to cluster buildings and preserve some percentage of open space on each parcel, thereby at least attempting to preserve views, wildlife habitat, etc. In this respect, this proposal is contrary to contemporary, cutting-edge growth planning, and would be rejected by many conscientious and forward-thinking public officials. 7. In the application, the applicant states that the individuals living in the vicinity of the property live in an ag area, but are not affected by the maintenance and aesthetic guidelines typical of a subdivision. Is he joking? Is he saying that we won't be affected by the quick addition of nine houses in our neighborhood, the increased demand on services, the increased population density, the increased noise, and the ensuing increase in traffic? Agriculture and subdivisions are exact opposites, and I fail to understand the applicant's statement. -- 8. Despite the claims of the developer that covenants will strictly-control such issues as conservation, noise, livestock, nuisances, etc., there are NO covenants included in this application, and I am extremely dubious about the lack of commitment to the controls espoused in this application. I'd like to end by asking that the planning commission and the county commissioners admit that preserving farmland and developing it cannot occur at the same time: we can't have our cake and eat it too. It's time to recognize that we either have to commit to fully embracing agriculture in this county, and explore alternatives to development to help farmers and ranchers realize a gain from their property, or we need to abandon agriculture entirely, and throw ourselves wholly into developing and urbanizing this county. Development and urbanization is what's slowly happening here, and I am tired of hearing and seeing these contradictions. Neither should the commissioners delude themselves that they can promote suburban growth and insist that these new suburban neighbors keep quiet about the noise and smell of their ag neighbors: as development increases, so will complaints against ag neighbors. The county commissioners will have to mediate these complaints, and be more accountable to constituents who have spent a lot of money to move to this area, and want the services and amenities they're used to in their old urban neighborhoods. Julie Boyle 26414 Hwy. 392 Gill, CO 80624 SW T ar Board of County Commissioners of Weld County ® " Re: Docket# 2004-85 Applicant: Olando, LLC/Ed On and Tammy Ellerman 9/29/04 To the Weld County Commissioners: The undersigned object to the zone change requested in this application for the following reasons: 1. We have great concerns about the adequacy of water supplies, and the adequacy of water pressure to existing homes. We are all too familiar with the effects of the drought, and are under no illusions that drought concerns are past. The response from the Office of the State Engineer, Division of Water Resources, expresses the concern that the agreement between North Weld County Water District and the owners has not yet been signed. Does this indicate some hesitation on the part of NWCWD to commit the water resources to this project? The engineer also notes that a"Water Supply Information Summary" was provided in the application, but without indicating what the estimated water requirement for the subdivision would be. The letter notes that NWCWD will restrict the delivery of water as necessary when the CBT allotment is less than 50%. We all know full well that the water district will indeed restrict water supplies to us if necessary. We are not able to buy any additional water from NWCWD as we have in past years. And contrary to the contention that there will be adequate supplies of water for these additional nine homes, many of us are already experiencing decreasing pressure in our water systems, and are not happy about it. 2. Incompatibility with the existing neighborhood: The right to farm clause speaks of the many incentives for rural living: open views, spaciousness, lack of noise and congestion, presence of wildlife, and a rural atmosphere. In fact, however, randomly plopping a nine-house subdivision 10 miles from a municipality will violate all of these incentives, and is completely inconsistent with the pattern of development in our neighborhood up to this point. The pattern of development has been the purchase of small acreages (usually sprinkler corners), or fair-sized parcels (60 or more acres), with one house built on them, and the remainder of the parcel farmed. The population density of this subdivision would be dramatically greater than that of any other parcel for miles, and would not be at all consistent with the existing neighborhood. The placement of subdivisions in this neighborhood is just anomalous: it does not fit, and is not welcome. 3. The county comp plan was significantly revised recently, to allow for increased development, but it continues to extol the virtues of preserving farmland and the value of rural living, and it continues to actively encourage the preservation of agriculture in the county. "Minor" subdivisions are not an example of preservation of farmland, and are counter to the spirit of the comp plan. Also, Chapter 22 of the county comprehensive plan states that the county should "Discourage urban-scale residential, commercial, and industrial development which is not located adjacent to existing incorporated municipalities." 4. We are concerned about the increased traffic to and from this subdivision. The CDOT estimates that this subdivision will increase the number of vehicle trips per day by 86, and describes this as insignificant. This increase is not insignificant to us: this subdivision will be located just beyond the crest of a hill, on a highway that posts a traffic speed of 65 mph. This includes a high volume of semi-truck traffic, already significantly increased since the improvements to highway 37. 5. At the time of the hearing before the Planning Commission, the application spoke of controlling covenants that would govern this subdivision, but none were included in this application. We believe no application for such a zone change should be approved without being able to review covenants, and decide on their acceptability or lack thereof. Due to the above concerns, we request that the commissioners vote to deny this zone change request. Respectfully submitted and signed: y • • . us: this subdivision will be located just beyond the crest of a hill, on a highway that posts a traffic speed of 65 mph. This includes a high volume of semi-truck traffic, already significantly increased since the improvements to highway 37. 5. At the time of the hearing before the Planning Commission, the application spoke of controlling covenants that would govern this subdivision, but none were included in this application. We believe no application for such a zone change should be approved without being able to review covenants, and decide on their acceptability or lack thereof. Due to the above concerns, we request that the commissioners vote to deny this zone change request. R ectfully submitted and signed: us: this subdivision will be located just beyond the crest of a hill, on a highway that posts a traffic speed of 65 mph. This includes a high volume of semi-truck traffic, already significantly increased since the improvements to highway 37. 5. At the time of the hearing before the Planning Commission,the application spoke of controlling covenants that would govern this subdivision, but none were included in this application. We believe no application for such a zone change should be approved without being able to review covenants, and decide on their acceptability or lack thereof. Due to the above concerns, we request that the commissioners vote to deny this zone change request. Respectfully submitted and signed: 3352)9 IU6,e 5 3 l-/Zz. c? 60ipz/ ,, VicinityqiiiijIii Map . ,... , .. . ,. . , .. . , _ , . „,....rj...,...2 ,.. "7 :Iiii '': ...: .. , ,_ . k, ® f „4.tiai q ; .mp,tAilleR t� + -II.. l Spa ,y a � . '3,7IIIM e . r-..'t . t 1.; Ar ''. i ir...‘ Clip; a j i 'vy .qR k'W '�4 ii :‘ , i sZ �J'a,n � r xr h ,.. `^`e . . ` OZ: - 4 r/ aye-.* Ytt. t,+',° . ell..�i /! .. rte. , Lar iv, co k kill .,� 4. - rP" I• DI 1 _(4 �eac." .. r irT 1 + 7 v,.Hc .�r.c Goland*Santana" ogir a 'tgiu„ talc, i Warier of Section is Lo.robC 6 Veit. Range 64 Weal el h •,.._ 1.. a ....... o. of Weld.Stele of CoInd°. bgid port carbine 15.24 acne.mw.A is asa 4 TYPICAL ROAD CROSS SECTION eefemert.en o rights of say of retort.ins. �.r Not to Scale Seen Id-6-94 Foal,_Mar sin PROPERTY OWNER'S CERTIFICATE -IFS' n Ma Sefy'ell 1 M,SN' 6e 151yN I(We),the Ylgeraigned. dim]the bake trier. in tea o1 Ito OM '�A r.,. I oe hereb certify the zoning a flown a,the attached $89YB'4TW fi3B,�T propel r r r g e --'hleg� ��1-Fw lry'rbw -y—P r.r16-6-6a Lzr a.a u....t ,a5 aWDS7Jt9W d/.-ar l SOS 34'1-1W •1.a y'u 4--20'Y i a ur+w. I 178.'1' Clanks. :LC SS 4: rl-4!.1 ,/2.new l OA re.eat A u•D tore•A. . .524'08'54`[ The lancing tatifaaan sob xhreaad.on Wort me d1>__ 221.07' A6.. 26_. • f.4i -502'00'37TE mm, I e ere. 144.14' NY mn an F.p.n lane 6A srerl l 58 l34.1/"6 WM.v wareJ OT 5 _ _ ,34.12'atie Ws'rube. Sd•.esn my Hoed end Seal 15.2)a Oates ' ^"" 54b4/;3"_ MANNING COMMISSION C?ftiIFICAIE. ` 123.43' .�m a DFv�nM`j I` _ \: `F..a 1/Y rear nos is b neNly that tea MOW County R4mM5 C nmla6en does /. , tla E.'''seal r;.1 *aid County • 529.20'u t sweep m ) rhe'c laws aaWYesd1 atwam aoe4onbel Lint Zone Clung*Ca 278.83' described hare.. INS day Of 23—_ 3r Y•o LgeenF-‘rt• • CO Gsw hat) ,.t loada4a. Oberman e'the rIon'eg Gm„is.an - '(51I li LOT 4 _-- --- _ GERIIFIGI I.: 51 Ades ,dC .o r..-t Me Olaf is aobwde. M 5 YF Y i C[axMt A mmew&-r a '.� A u•o u.... " LOT 6 Q I, am Iltl ow sae; a 6.2.1t Acres 4 the wit rte - C -- -I I r 'II..l.n nr,N.,__ieii el Mlneaa my • lea a.p�...�. - l� IS' •6[marmot - - LOT 3 • I Y it a. Clarwlwp. 5.14:Acres I y - ..':65r `.n? / i • V AT[SC 4 I • Li0'Y••41vwt n-.an » s.ea... <' t1o'oh.usi LOT 7 gt. Wua Carat 1 • 6115 ion By t A • lOT 20 Hr Nelira . SURVEYOR 1 4.. bit LOT 8 ;51)• —1 5 U 4 D Steven Je S hereby cob ].214 Awes - tag thin plc • 1 t . MS bat co . State Bees ,• l .. ::T- r - rreY4erer... s.... wad Cans L�� n Leann 1 weal 6;r �!' WC famerebid xiFPYdL I. ._.. J rut, ses] t_ -. LOT 9 — --- I sNem Jtlm •/-a'u a a 4anal • 0 I 6.952 boa JOT 1 rT - .. xM: — ` -.2.43•02.444.• �.M J•are __ t1.56. Acres p GENERAL I Ii. ��)) frl N89.36 45"W 1228.1 T 'j •'�°• 1! Y k D yese.e— JC 4�use 65 I IMO) r..:e' r alai MyRSa fit• 1 B.Fa16. ti r.-..«. -1./ ... =tem.My j__-SOT:l'21"W .a em.+r>.o- j{ u'a•o O.no+ntl} 4, 266.15' ..._..a.,L =�'"=",''�.,n .'1_7Cµ-- Ip/_.ntar.` N p • . p bOW'Mi N64SYL/la 9L 1 _ _ Y—it ) 1. 0 TaJ' -�tlMd]air _fWM 5. 1/4 co — . .•. •n ta my aid—r Sf. ca 4. Site a Sc 16-6-64 - '.,a. set er ens 6n. '6-4-84 W E Flood I ;^d Ve an,o STATE HIGHWAY 392 %;/2;;.;m—i „ 5- 1Z:a.tins li.) \._IS rSJJ. 1 1 1 1 1 II • Looking SW from Well #1 � 1 . . sit V i 'fit -f • 4-‘'� '0. yFi .. .x.'. '.lf'fr \-y tl . t � ' t j ? a l -�41 • V ry t 1` { s it {_ a 1. a a s. 1, 1• - 4 t k jf {3 d- 7 Lo �, 4i x i'y j y }, k 4. y �, '441'r r 4-I it 1101 r x $yr, , ,ss,kiat, ty� 7 :,F ,ie 5 b it fF mod. . ;.'L, art � •.� fiPy � qgK Y 9� nfl Cpl: a,It'99'* L d} ,��qq t�4s } 1 g .1 it kV..iii,l� $ctt eft ! tti 4 . t`i 44 4 ir^u >r 4 4 ' is i a.'—.., - 4 144 fi s ' A 4 } y� iv !F c4 , 5. . y r _ f f' ;�T ffrit d''atlit • rht� * i } el. rt . = t 1 I . t a 5 at" o A - Pn * Fr M db 141 as { EkY rangy ll y _. 'Sri 2 A Fp 4 x' ,*fie i !. . `, r , • q ° . ' s t 'rS" S{y � _ P'+'4 Y Y:5 eY G 3� s 5 v --fit -,x s — t 5'.. e ,. a zA +1 �', P' L 4,V.-,," ti 8 r4 t ,.... t y^t 5R k i - . u kZ � + .r `J' ii. . _yr. t E if5r�y c+f '' . ..,':,.;,13:;', ,re. r t 4 j fit4 f� 4+ ° R S gay - A— .. g� - .' aF , iB ,i2,µ;{h.�. f #Y 4 .. A �YfY ti t S r k + yY 4 , ..„..,4•:,,.. , it,"1::4-.,...: - A - ;al.'''. @4 1' z t * L } • Looking North from Well #1 • • • ./ d f1 I F ) l Looking NE at Dairy from Well #1 , Looking East from Well #1 -.�I.•. � `•_ _ 1 ' • ^ - '-4 1 i ;• a I �. Looking SE from Well #1 : . . , ` .� t - - " r r { Looking NE at dairy from approx. center • , • ._ y , • m,• Looking North from Well #2 • • • • • \ k '.i 5 • v1. tortiy a�'y1f: ',' . _ fit , ;'' ' f x'17- 1 ' ' §t « R1 S R\ .� 4:. ,:_,..., it, • . _. . , . ..y. ...... . ..• , ""'n Obi • r I c •iF <. Looking NE from Well #2 t •, . , is. ii ~t!' s .i .. ; , -s •L e fi F��rViti l r 4 .+ rY"�,Z rt • • _ f' w- ', 1 •i'� e ° bY�Y., A - ''. ` ^eRi. t s. T.l 4i Y:� 1 '7141‘.1<-1,.46:- ,ofir i.Y ..R'1t� 9 i'.5 i 1.d`., i. ' r 51 �+.N}! ',yam y�L .+�{ •' s `} Ll M .S tile .. _`.ey a . It 2-1..„,.. .R� M - ;F ;Lelia • h.^ - ...• ..s T,,. 3- ' Y.`_ ,A� r }-ate ir`rt rye .µsYn+! ,` �^?. Looking East at dairy from Well #2 • ., • 'F ✓ - _,a. — — _ —_. $fie- )ya / .i. at 'd6t -11,-; V.w ]p" _.y l,�- Z• �! _ ' fir . ..: }: �1`• ri{4 ii ii:::. . + jaa. YYYY r• 1 4! ti• `, r Looking SE along Owl Creek i O 1 " ! 3 • a 1 • 4. F i - - / ' . . . • • / �. I . , • -\ • , 1 1 i 1 J - / .. S 1 •I • • /7 _ • w i Looking NW on owl creek • b _ tt i u i%:" r . 1,--. �� I 1 `f 1. a_ `4 ".y vy R -1.1-Nay, 1 } l r Al Y � 'T 1 f 1M1 .,. ; v 1 ' 4 1 �yf . �dt�z 1 .t,•.;-4,c}.•.;. • ' 't'y4 y f a a .s ! .t 1° A,J 4, t •,,�I '• F i �I' 1 •fir •'. ! . 1 ? , ,t 5 1 r p - t^,' .,�• • `sf¢ t . t -.kJ-I.,. ", ' k, 11.: ,- " r"Cl Z :4! 1'i..-,:•,, \` : ?mil. ,�.•,'._•. t ,,-,A4-. .,..., x&- a # - 1 ,,.`, s ryryyttic- 1 ' i Vii' t S'� - r '. � '1 •,a i A i "'s, � r k `1 .a .ry t \ r ' f I i 1 -; 1il • !i�� jA 1Saa ',.. ''I, ,4 r 'sir Ir'1�, 1 r".•.S it ,,!4'.,-'1 �1! �1, 4 ''I a 11 A t} 11 r.� 4 _�L r� 1 ' r i •1. . • , . i� F l 'i r \ F d• '..is''''‘, t ' 1 • r'fF tr r '5 at v 1 ,� 1 � i i r { K ,.j � t }1 fi �. Ft`' SC -c:. ..V. F�•- Frr =! ' r 1 S 1 tr A' } '1 {+c if r I I j' F f ly /'I ,/ ms' '��i Cja / l 13I . EIL r . „ 1 A ?' 9H.,,, :v 1 1 1 1 I, , � t7. �},.Jf t+ 1 at4 r�.I: 1 at H' 1 r Kj I/ y� tJF w �. ,Rr , A r iM, s r t+ a� 1 1 1 • r'rr Q 0;';‘-‘0-, •• I. l/j .', fr ;`- li'/,i:.�R' T- .-� - rr�t • .4n a, 1 ,) 1 ll i i �'� r „1 t �� c 1 i 1 r , `� '4,44:," 1 AL •P 1 • i t t �`r !;At.... I d 1 ' 1 •�y ray,. yd +. '} ; ,•;:!`‘,---;-;it .7- 1 ,,P & L ;a:, ',rt + - p r'. t 1 y i!. SS"/ • . FIsi .6 4 h'r. { '•� ! yr= l 1 ` 1 r1stic 7 .1:, , t 1 ,r� � • ♦ �{[ f- i44 -3; ‘1. , �r 1'1� 1� 'it, 1 ! ' .� h ' � ,.^R '` 1(y I `!". ' Y. .�{A\ . 'I t i Looking NW from Dairy entrance on WCR 55 . fir a �I°t g110➢� MK. ..5t A 1 f K "44 ` 'T4n via. ix k�. .w.a5� #' � x_'�4 � $�45 `�.% • '�- '°-'��" �b -to ' r t t -a' ,../.,,,, t K* ,,. 'r tx ..tt;'S''a �b terry tx'$ '' a �.+ '' < } `; , 6x s y , - t''A t-tt"'t 4•• 11.7f1,31444.1-. ^.74¢ 1di Y -ii. „Ir. F ice, sd jk lA ill.x r4 i ;a ,+r� r � � 'N" "S,r" > 4 X4.4 *1w ' . x • _ v1 `� . �f Va 3 $ i e. 4 x • e a j s k 4i.4.: : [k 's i',. ,i,..1 3 f `i a 44:4, A .�i ''.I'' «� �" 3"ckl � {�11 rn I � � f � .:41, `` rtik fs I i 4� ,t w,- .. _ ti. 1 — • ,. 'h, \ .: , ! t S[ l iy I Otil, ' T f IA1 x f I Y' 1 , � � ''t 'N �r I " � f YS Iii , �� \� i s."� � i �� ff � it �,"� y:?�.� r `�A . x..� • �- I \ II `y. x\ M. '1"' pk 4 v„‘, 1,,,,,,, I ,i �"i set- , .f ' 4 it L v ' ' 1 .j al '' ti lal V > .s,ty, .0. v tt 1', t� i ', . . r , y a 'ii( ,...� ,4 1 �+" t \, . ,, 1 , r � o v Nki\\,r .I 2 mot, \ , : .i +, x \ - - 1 - - i J' 1 j Looki SW from 55 at dairyng entrance . • • 22.‘„:"•23,-, 7 � �� d#do- �o � lTc ut � d z q,�.i„. .,3 , k•' 4 $` d % ' ,Y ' 'r`I % *' 43.lr 3 .� } ' y' . v i ,.. o-+41 o-,,�. „�,o- , +r c. St71'�,4° tr x4 ¢,, 1} � Y..z... Y ) -5 7, 5' 3 iii 'o- a1 4 r t)n-1G"A ,.t 4 Z Y x -, ` F x btu o-� ?r #" +Rx a A a, 42.� 4 , s s, `, aj f `' �6 + ,i,�'s-a ,,, y ty 'ly t It,�4` 1°1: ';' � .:LOC. SP say ..» 1 �, 4.„ e' f `i •< ,1 R. Y Sp M R•4 45 3� ........ �' n o-1 j°"lck. % y ''. 1+ t} i r � If� °'�d � rfB�� L �' �% f � yt'ry3 ;a -1,,,,-;_,,,,,,,,*s � ,� lt �'. N„ ti, -` r D4 ; 9rko- j,`,(�y, &44 it ,1' {{�� 9 �� ry*% ' 77„„��„„.. '�* k 3sfi„4' o- i t 1 t# 771 ` 1 F ,, w r ` `'i`S 4� dp ] ,:' I E t C': . .z� x w 14i 1i iii o-' YG� SF P.:• aS a}Y �'� � C t9 '' � ! " 2 1:.,/,;„ite �" , - � {v ' 1$ ��S e". ht �.'4� •d r.� �� c �yo-llt.. t4114.: f; ft.. r � nr S i d ! ,it � f. Rt I� r ��1 1 <J1 Jta s � 10-' ly''5 r t i Isii �ti ' r��l r 1 El1 'r rs� k i 1 .I.,.;',"- *+:� Y iv J T µ 4.'} 1 yv. , �i , ..-:,:t..3 f, f ..s" ,may ,`I j t #�,n 014 s � l r IYV I1I 1NM;B.1 ON 3.. ~� ., may_ Propertyr. . ₹A , Creation + � .. V �.: , i ` t _ , k .may i ry_� y ! y Y ' a P #��L s �g: e'-1• ; ; .Y* .4 j s y6' a 41 g NOTE: Weld County 44.,., c Gift " Merrick Web site and I •y a Planning records were ""`" create this map. MAIConally,Cobrado „`i I ....,4.:: ! 4._.. used to Key to Surrounding Property Creation Map : 202 Lots Total • Not Colored: • 12 Parcels, 6% . Linde's Lake PUD (7 lots), 1999 . Grandview Acres Minor Sub (5 lots), 1998 • Creation unknown, 23 Parcels, 11% ▪ Prior Zoning, or incomplete records available • Green: Site • Additional 9 lots equate to 4% of new total • Yellow: 35 Parcels, 18% • RE/SE Lots created prior to Dairy USR (3/30/1988) • Orange: 109 Parcels, 54% ▪ RE/SE Lots created between Dairy USR (3/30/1988) & AmUSR (2/14/01). • Salmon/Red: 23 Parcels, 11% ▪ RE/SE Lots created after AmUSR (2/14/01). • 11% of parcels have been created in past 3-1/2 years. 7.,.. v ` • • Or 10 [[ ! ' 'b i . t_., : _ I1 i f rIIII r " r 4 Vii`-- r r • " I 1 ..1 '- rh i' [ rte... .+M'td ") r •..... . 1,, i _ I__ i _ _ .... , . . , ______;.3 ', ya , , ° I NI rt •;: � 1. • . . fin Zratt .co- - 0 co . _{ > 2 i i ; ) Weld County Code Compliance : iii. Comprehensive Plan • Provide for an Opportunity to divide Agricultural Zoned Land to accommodate Low-Intensity Development. • Section 22-2-190.E Residential Goal 5 • Section 22-2-60.C Agricultural Goal 3 • Rural Developments are generally found in areas such as on the fringes of municipal boundaries and property between communities. • Section 22-2-180.F. Residential Principles • "Conversion of agricultural land to non-urban residential commercial and industrial uses will be accommodated when the subject site is in an area that can support such developments. Such developments shall attempt to be compatible with the region."Services are available to support this Minor Subdivision and the design is compatible with the surrounding area and region. • Section 22-2-60.D Agricultural Goal 4 } I } Board of County Commissioners Criteria for Approval : Change of Zone Minor Subdivision (23-2-40 & 50) Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan • Section 23-2-40.6.1 The proposal is consistent with the policies of Chapter 22 of this Code. • Proposed uses are compatible with Surrounding Uses • Section 23-2-40.6.2 That the uses which will be allowed on the subject property by granting this Change of Zone will be compatible with the surrounding land uses. • Adequate Water and Sewer Service Availability • Section 23-2-40.6.3 Adequate water & sewer service can be made available to serve the site. • Adequate Street Availability and Design • Section 23-2-40.6.4 That street or highway facilities providing access to the property are adequate in size to meet the requirements of the proposed Zone District. • Compliance with Overlay Districts • Section 23-2-40.6.5 That in those instances where the following characteristics are applicable to the rezoning request the applicant had demonstrated compliance with the applicable standards of an applicable Overlay District and any limiting site conditions. • Application Requirements of 23-2-50 • The applicant has complied with all the application requirements listed in Section 23-2-50 of the Weld County Code. � • �« " k ,x, , t 14 'i t iys t F 7 » r g" r 3 L , t1 s : tr : ,. , . , 6. 4 m 7 f 47:- fir.. /.!ui_.S".ffi {/ t � , �"4X 0 hl yea k _ „ine ' :.,rFi Y Ms ae { . � i : .r =, 5 A! ry r f 5 `J 4 a:`,,��' SS viol '. s' g�„ � ‘04 7, w it Plaw.�, �',: .,.aw � K ^ Q ` g +� i r i . °�R 4,44 i { i4 rwn `M4 f I i 4Nnaa r `'m rr . ! �a �k 4u''.,1,14 "1441* u 3 Y yy° y e f r ..; M S �d„ 3F i, h,� cF a �>fr' ' a B Fail sat to �r r r �R u r atyn v �q w :.: ' „V• ^Yt,itsa per„ } t y " r: b z . .— Iti I .aiiiiirp....... er. 1 '1:11' u 1 . _ s' - C, irrniinrlinn - � ;, k ir- , a ,, �+L: .J\al 1 oul lull ly h Y _- _ - < Property :. _ - - J $ � i Creation _ - - ) i i- a. ' -1...--1 C. - r i I i I I , I ti 9 i 1 ' ,' h . Y NOTE: Weld County I .i1 GiltF' 1 Merrick Web site and Planning records were rYwbCooal CoColoradog■rsde a :' used to create this map. '..— , -- Y ` .-.--. Key to Surrounding Property Creation Map : 202 Lots Total • Not Colored: • 12 Parcels, 6% • Linde's Lake PUD (7 lots), 1999 • Grandview Acres Minor Sub (5 lots), 1998 • Creation unknown, 23 Parcels, 11% • Prior Zoning, or incomplete records available • Green: Site • Additional 9 lots equate to 4% of new total • Yellow: 35 Parcels, 18% ▪ RE/SE Lots created prior to Dairy USR (3/30/1988) • Orange: 109 Parcels, 54% ▪ RE/SE Lots created between Dairy USR (3/30/1988) & AmUSR (2/14/01). • Salmon/Red: 23 Parcels, 11% ▪ RE/SE Lots created after AmUSR (2/14/01). • 11% of parcels have been created in past 3-1/2 years. Hello