HomeMy WebLinkAbout20043338.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Doug Ochsner,that the following resolution be introduced for approval by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1050
APPLICANT: P &A Turkey Farms Inc
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NE4 of Section 36, T5N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Planned Unit Development Change of Zone for nine (9) lots with Estate
uses; one (1) common open space outlot (6.369 acres); and two (2)
agricultural outlots (101.106 acres).
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 52; west of and adjacent to CR 49.
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 26-5-30 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 the Weld County Code. The proposed site is not influenced by
an Inter-Governmental Agreement and is outside of the Mixed Use Development Area
(MUD). The proposal is consistent with the aforementioned documents as follows:
1. Section 22-2-210.D.2 (PUD.Policy 4.2.) -- A Planned Unit Development which
includes a residential use should provide common open space free of buildings,
streets, driveways or parking areas. The common open space should be designed
and located to be easily accessible to all the residents of the project and usable for
open space and recreation. Some Planned Unit Developments may not require
common open space depending on their type, density, or other factors. The
proposed development is not required to have open space per Section 27-2-140
however, the applicants have included 6.611 acres of open space in the form of a
detention pond and have dedicated 101.1 acres into a conservation easement.
2) Section 22-2-210.D. 3. (PUD.Policy 4.3.) — Conservation of natural site features
such as topography, vegetation and water courses should be considered in the
project design. In their referral received by the Department of Planning Services on
10/20/2003 (for sketch plan) the Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company stated
that they had five concerns: drainage into the canal, they would like a maintenance
road on both sides of the canal, groundwater into basements, crossing agreement,
and the right to farm understanding. The applicants have entered into a right of way
easement and license agreement per reception number 3044497 in order to cross
the Gilmore Canal. The Department of Planning Services is requesting that the
Right to Farm note be placed on the plat. The attached Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards address the remaining concerns of the Farmers Reservoir
and Irrigation Company.
3) Section 22-3-50.8.1, P.Goal 2 "Require adequate facilities and services to assure
the health, safety and general welfare of the present and future residents of the
County."The residential lots will be serviced by Central Weld County Water District.
Four(4)shares of Farmer's Reservoir d Irrigation Cmmnanv ill be used to irrigate
Outlots B and C. EXHIBIT
I2004-3338
r ,é/ 5p
Resolution PZ-1050
P &A Turkey Farms
Page 2
B. Section 27-6-120.6.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 the Weld County Code.
Section 27-2-20, Access standards -The applicant has agreed to pave the internal road to
county standards.
Section 27-2-40, Bulk requirements — The applicant has chosen to adhere to the bulk
requirements of the E (Estate)Zone District except for the number of animal units, and the
ability to have carriage estates.
Section 27-2-76, Conservation Easement—The applicant has entered 101.1 acres(Outlots
B and C)into a conservation easement with the Colorado Open Lands Corporation to ensure
the protection and viability of the area.
The applicant has met the remaining performance standards as delineated in Section 27-2-
10. The Conditions of Approval and Development Standards ensure compliance with
Sections 27-2-20 through 27-2-210 of the Weld County Code.
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 the Weld County Code or
master plans of affected municipalities. The proposed site is not influenced by an Inter-
Governmental Agreement. The proposed development is located within the three mile
referral area for the City of Evans, City of Garden City, Town of Kersey, and the Town of
LaSalle. The City of Evans, City of Garden City, Town of Kersey, and Town of LaSalle
indicated no conflicts with their interests.
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 the Weld County Code.The residential lots will be serviced by Central Weld County Water
District. Four(4)shares of Farmer's Reservoir and Irrigation Company will be used to irrigate
Outlots B and C. The Weld County Attorney's Office has indicated that the agreements
submitted by the applicant are adequate for the Change of Zone. The Weld County
Department of Public Health and Environment has indicated in a referral response dated
September 15, 2004 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 Department
of Public Works has reviewed the interior roadway and has required the applicant to comply
with the PUD requirements per Section 27-2-20 of the Weld County Code.The Department
of Public Works has required the local residential road right-of-way to be 60-feet in width,
including cul-de-sacs with a 65-foot radius,and dedicated to the public.Atypical section shall
be shown on the change of zone plat. The typical local roadway section shall be shown as
two 12-foot paved lanes with two 4-foot gravel shoulders. The cul-de-sac edge of pavement
radius shall be 50-feet. Public Works has not required sidewalk, curb and gutter for this
development.
The Department of Public Works is requiring a 65-foot right-of-way reservation for County
Road 49 to be dedicated on the final plat. County Road 49 is classified by the County as a
rural area arterial and requires a 130-foot right-of-way. County Road 49 serving this
development is paved.
The Department of Public Works is requiring a 30-foot right-of-way for County Road 52 to be
dedicated on the final plat.County Road 52 is classified by the County as a local gravel road
and requires a 60-foot right-of-way. County Road 52 serving this development is gravel.
Resolution PZ-1050
P &A Turkey Farms
Page 3
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. The Weld County Departments of Public Works and Planning
Services have required an Improvements Agreement in accordance with Section 27-6-120.6.f
of the Weld County Code for improvements to Ridgeview PUD for all on and off-site
improvements prior to recording the final plat.
G. Section 27-6-120.6.g - That there has been compliance with the applicable requirements
contained in Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code regarding overlay districts, commercial
mineral deposits, and soil conditions on the subject site. The applicants have entered into
an avigation easement with the Greeley/Weld County Airport Authority(reception#3205455)
because the proposed development is within the approach path of the airport.
According to the application,there are three known mineral interests;the State of Colorado,
Prima Oil and Gas Company, and Patina Oil and Gas Corporation. In a letter dated
September 17, 2004 Patina Oil and Gas Corporation stated that they have no concerns with
the proposed development. The Department of Planning Services has not received any
correspondence from the State of Colorado or Prima Oil and Gas Company regarding the
proposed development. The Conditions of Approval will ensure that all future structures will
meet the appropriate setbacks.
H. Section 27-6-120.6.h - Consistency exists between the proposed zone district(s), uses, the
specific or conceptual development guide.
The submitted Specific Development Guide does accurately reflect the performance standards
and allowed uses described in the proposed zone district,as described previously. The applicant
is requesting that the Final Plan be administratively reviewed. The Department of Planning
Services is in agreement with this request.
This approval recommendation is based upon compliance with Chapter 27 requirements.
Planned Unit Development Change of Zone for nine(9)lots(Ridgeview PUD)with Estate uses except
animal units and carriage estates as stated in the development standards, one (1) common open
space Outlot(6.611 acres), and two (2) agricultural Outlots (101.106 acres) is conditional upon the
following:
1. Prior to recording the Change of Zone Plat:
A. The Change of Zone plat shall be amended to delineate the following:
1) All sheets of the plat shall be labeled PZ-1050. (Department of Planning Services)
2) All future signs including entrance signs, street signs and stop signs shall be
delineated on the plat. (Departments of Planning Services)
3) The internal roads shall address all issues indicated in the Weld County Department
of Public Works referral dated September 20, 2004. Written evidence of their
approval shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. (Department
of Public Works)
4) The applicants representative has indicated that Outlot A will be used as a drainage
detention for the development, therefore the plat shall be amended to show a
detention pond in Outlot A. (Department of Planning Services)
5) The plat shall be amended so the"farm access"from County Road 49 is removed.
(Department of Planning Services)
Resolution PZ-1050
P &A Turkey Farms
Page 4
6) The existing residential access on Block 2, Lot 2, off of County Road 49 shall be
removed. (Department of Planning Services)
7) The plat shall include the Weld County's Right to Farm per Appendix 22-E of the
Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
8) Given the lot sizes, the likelihood of engineered septic systems, and that livestock
are allowed on lots,two septic system envelopes (primary and secondary)shall be
placed on each lot. Written evidence of their approval shall be submitted to the
Department of Planning Services. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
B. The applicant shall provide the Weld County Department of Planning Services with a
Statement of Taxes from the Weld County Treasurer showing no delinquent taxes exist for
the original parcel. (Department of Planning Services)
C. The applicant shall address the remaining requirements(concerns)of the Farmers Reservoir
and Irrigation Company as stated in the referral response received 10/20/03. In their
referral the Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company indicated they would like a minimum
of 20' maintenance road on both sides of the ditch. The applicants shall submit written
evidence to the Department of Planning Services that the road is within the ditch right of way,
an agreement has been made with the Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company or
evidence that an adequate attempt has been made to mitigate their concerns shall be
submitted to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
D. The existing septic system(currently not known to be permitted)must be properly abandoned
in accordance with Section 30-4-20(D)as a part of this development OR the existing septic
system will require an I.S.D.S. Evaluation prior to the issuance of the required septic permit
(recorded Statement of Existing).Written Evidence from the Department of Public Health and
Environment showing the applicant has met their requirements shall be submitted to the
Department of Planning Services. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
E. The Change of Zone plat map shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services'
for recording within thirty(30)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)
2. The Change of Zone is conditional upon the following and each shall be placed on the Change of
Zone plat as notes, prior to recording:
A. Change of Zone PZ-1050 is from A(Agricultural)to PUD (Planned Unit Development). The
PUD shall consist of nine (9) residential lots with Estate uses, one (1)common open space
Outlot(6.611 acres), and two(2)agricultural Outlots (101.106 acres).The Estate uses shall
comply with the Estate Zone District requirements as set forth in Section 23 of the Weld
County Code except for animal units and carriage estates as stated in the development
standards. (Department of Planning Services)
B. The intent and use of the carriage estates within the proposed development is to be
consistent with the definition of auxiliary quarters in Section 23-1-90 of the Weld County Code
with the exception of the 2.5 acre minimum lot size. (Department of Planning Services)
C. There may be a combination of cats and dogs not to exceed three animals on each lot.
(Department of Planning Services)
Resolution PZ-1050
P &A Turkey Farms
Page 5
D. Each lot shall have no more than one animal unit. Each of the following shall comprise one
"animal unit":two horses,one burro,one mule,one cow,three llamas,six alpacas,six rabbits
or ten chickens (no roosters). A combination of animals is allowed as long as the total
animal units does not exceed one animal unit per lot. (Department of Planning Services)
E. A maximum of two (2) offspring, up to six (6) months old, shall be excluded from the
calculation for animal unit. (Department of Planning Services)
F. No swine, sheep or goats shall be allowed unless approved by the HOA, specific to 4-H
projects. The number of swine, sheep,or goats shall never exceed four of any combination
per lot. (Department of Planning Services)
G. Water service shall be obtained from Central Weld County Water District. (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
H. This subdivision is in rural Weld County and 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.(Department of Public Health and Environment)
Primary and secondary septic envelopes shall be placed on each lot. Each envelope must
meet all setback requirements. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
J. Activities such as permanent landscaping, structures, dirt mounds or other items are
expressly prohibited in the absorption field site. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
K. 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)
L. 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)
M. 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 which are technologically feasible and economically reasonable in order
to minimize dust emissions. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
N. 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)
O. All landscaping within the site distance triangles must be less than 3% feet in height at
maturity, and noted on the Landscape Plan. The bus stop bench and mailboxes must be
located outside of the sight distance triangles. (Department of Public Works)
P. Weld County's Right to Farm shall be recognized at all times. (Departments of Planning
Services and Public Health and Environment)
Q. The site shall maintain compliance at all times with the requirements of Weld County
Government. (Department of Planning Services)
Resolution PZ-1050
P &A Turkey Farms
Page 6
R. 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)
S. Installation of utilities shall comply with Section 24-9-10 of the Weld County Code.
(Department of Planning Services)
T. A Home Owner's Association (HOA) 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, streets, private
utilities and other facilities along with the enforcement of covenants.(Department of Planning
Services)
U. Appropriate Building Permits shall be obtained prior to any construction of structures or
excavation. (Department of Planning Services)
V. 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)
W. 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. (Building Inspection)
X. 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; 2003 International Fuel Gas Code; 2002 National Electrical
Code and Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code. (Building Inspection)
Y. 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. (Building Inspection)
Z. Fire resistance of walls and openings,construction requirements, maximum building height
and allowable areas will be reviewed at the plan review. Setback and offset distances shall
be determined by the Weld County Code. (Building Inspection)
AA. 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 setback requirements are measured to the farthest projection from
the building.Property lines shall be clearly identified and all property pins shall be staked prior
to the first site inspection. (Building Inspection)
AB. 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)
AC. 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 before it 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
Resolution PZ-1050
P &A Turkey Farms
Page 7
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)
AD. The PUD Final Plan shall comply with all regulations and requirements of Chapter 27 of the
Weld County Code.
4. At the time of Final Plat:
A. Prior to recording the final plat,the applicant shall provide written evidence from Weld County
School District RE-7 which indicates that all district requirements have been met.
(Department of Planning Services)
B. The applicant shall submit an Improvement Agreement regarding collateral for all
improvements to the PUD Subdivision for acceptance by the Board of County
Commissioners prior to recording the final plat. (Department of Planning Services and
Department of Public Works)
C. The applicant shall submit covenants for Ridgeview PUD. The covenants shall include the
following number of animal units and language for the protection of septic envelopes,
activities such as landscaping (i.e. planting of trees and shrubs) and construction (i.e.
auxiliary structures,dirt mounds,etc.) are expressly prohibited in the designated absorption
field site. The covenants shall be approved by the Weld County Attorney's Office prior to
recording the final plat. 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. (Departments of Planning Services and Public
Health and Environment)
D. The right-of-way for the internal roadway shall be dedicated to the County. (Department of
Planning Services)
E. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with Weld County to proportionally share the cost
of improvements to the County Roads. The applicant shall submit a proposed agreement
with the final plat application. (Department of Public Works)
F. The applicant shall submit to the Department of Planning Services evidence of review for
the preliminary addresses and street name from the Postal Service,Fire District and Sheriff's
Department. (Department of Planning Services)
G. All landscaping within the site distance triangles must be less than 3% feet in height at
maturity, and noted on the Landscape Plan. The bus stop bench and mailboxes must be
outside the sight distance triangles. (Department of Public Works)
H. Roadway and grading plans along with details must be approved prior to recording final plat.
Indicate stop signs and street names on final roadway plans. (Department of Public Works)
Easements shall be shown in accordance with County standards and / or Utility Board
recommendations on the final plat. (Department of Planning Services)
J. The applicant shall provide a pavement design prepared by a professional engineer along
with the final plat submittal. (Department of Public Works)
K. A final drainage report and construction plans, conforming to the drainage report, shall be
approved prior to recording final plat. (Department of Public Works)
Resolution PZ-1050
P &A Turkey Farms
Page 8
M. The applicant shall address the remaining requirements (concerns) of the Weld County
Sheriffs Office as stated in the referrals response dated 9/14/04 and 10/20/03. (Sheriff's
Office)
N. The applicant shall address the remaining requirements(concerns)of the Farmers Reservoir
and Irrigation Company as stated in the referral response received 10/20/03. In their
referral the Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company indicated they would like no drainage
into the ditch. The applicants shall submit written evidence to the Department of Planning
Services that an agreement has been made with the Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation
Company or evidence that an adequate attempt has been made to mitigate their concerns
shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning
Services)
O. Prior to recording the final plat, 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)
Motion seconded by Bryant Gimlin
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Michael Miller
John Folsom
Bryant Gimlin
Bruce Fitzgerald
James Rohn
Tonya Stobel
Chad Auer
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 November 2, 2004.
Dated the 2n°of November, 2004.
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, November 2, 2004
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2004, in the Weld County
Department of Planning Services,Hearing Room,918 10th Street,Greeley,Colorado. The meeting was called
to order by Chair, Michael Miller, at 1:30 p.m.
m t. J
ROLL CALL r rw1
Michael Miller =;
Bryant Gimlin
John Folsom h,
James Welch ,_j ca -
James Rohn Absent '
Bruce Fitzgerald Absent wi
Tonya Strobel Absent
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
Also Present: Char Davis, Peter Schei, Don Carroll, Sheri Lockman, Michelle Martin, Pam Smith
The summon/of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on October 19,2004,
was approved as read.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1486
APPLICANT: Karen & Gerrit Voshel
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B RE-2723; pt of the W2NW4 Section 28, T9N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a kennel
(25 dogs) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: Approximately 1/4 mile south of CR 102 and est of and adjacent to CR 17.
John Folsom asked if the Conditions of Approval and Development Standard had been approved by the
applicant. Mr. Morrison indicated that was part of the guidelines for the Consent Agenda.
Doug Ochsner moved to approve. Bryant Gimlin seconded. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1050
APPLICANT: P &A Turkey Farms Inc
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NE4 of Section 36, T5N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Planned Unit Development Change of Zone for nine (9) lots with Estate
uses; one (1) common open space outlot (6.369 acres); and two (2)
agricultural outlots (101.106 acres).
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 52; west of and adjacent to CR 49.
Michelle Martin,Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-1050,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.
Todd Hodges, representative for the applicant, provided clarification on the proposal. This proposal will be
for a 9 lot nonurban scale PUD, lot sizes range from 1.5 -2.5 acres. The applicants have entered into a t }
conservation easement with Colorado Open Lands on outlots B&C. This easement will never be built on and
has been left with water for the sprinkler pivot. Access to the residential lots is proposed from CR 52 and will
be paved. There are existing accesses along CR 49 and CR 52. These serve existing oil and gas uses as
well as agricultural uses on site. There are two oil and gas interests in the area, Patina & Prima. Patina Oil 1V
and Gas has signed off that they have no problem with the proposed development. Prima is very close to
(�.tSYI/.,.,./} ()kiln)/n /�-15'r�LOLI ._h•,
signing a surface use agreement with the applicant. Mr. Hodges provided additional photos of the site. The
proposal has the element of open space even though it is no longer required for nonurban scale
developments. Therefore this proposal is compatible with the area and services are available.
Bryant Gimlin asked about the existing access to the current home off of CR 49 and how will it be change.
Mr. Hodges indicated that was a Condition of Approval the applicant had concerns with. Future access for
the existing home will be from the internal road way,however,the applicant does not want to close or change
the access until the internal road is available. One of the Conditions of Approval requires the access to be
removed from the plat, but the intent of the applicant is to keep the access until the new internal roadway is
available. The existing residential access of CR 49 will be closed once the internal road is complete.
John Folsom asked about the secondary access to the development for the Fire Department. Mr. Hodges
indicated the Fire Department did not request secondary access. Mr. Folsom asked about CR 52 and if it is
paved? Mr. Hodges indicated CR 52 was gravel. The internal roadway will be paved.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Ron Bernhart, neighbor,indicated the proposed access into the subdivision is directly across from his home.
The traffic from CR 52 to CR 49 is extremely dangerous. The speed limit has increased along CR 49. When
turning north onto CR 49 the oncoming traffic cannot be seen because the intersection of CR 49 and CR 52
is below a hill. There are now more trucks on CR 49 than Hwy 85.
The Chair closed the public portion.
Michael Miller asked Mr.Schei if he could address the access onto CR 49 from Public Works standpoint. Mr.
Schei stated"First of all we need to clarify if it's the access from the development onto the gravel roadway 49
or if it's a concern at the intersection of 49 and 52 pulling out into 52 from a stop conditions that has existed
for some time." Mr. Miller stated the issue is pulling off of CR 52 onto CR 49. Mr. Schei stated"I think he is
talking about that intersection and what I can say about that intersection if it's a hazard (pause) has been a
hazard with Public Works, we have noted that in our improvement projects for safety improvements in the
County. It is not, I am not personally aware of that being a problem at that intersection. One of the things they
look at of course is when the sign those intersections is site distance and so forth. What I can do is take a
note of that and have it looked into but this is more of an offsite issue pertaining to the bigger picture that just
does not happen to(pause)the subdivision is going in but this may be a safety issue for all of the County itself,
but I am not aware of it being a safety issue." Mr. Miller added when he visited the site it was difficult to get
on CR 49 from CR 52, is there something that can be done as far as signage indicating traffic entering the
county road.Also when trying to pull out onto CR 49 tires spin in the gravel. Mr. Schei added"that is a good
point but this is probably not the only intersection along the route." Mr. Miller stated it was not but it is the one
that is being addressed today. Mr. Schei stated"that would be something that would need to be looked into,
but in perspective of this is that(pause) if this is a big overall problem which needs to be addressed (pause)
when Public Works,for example, raises the speed limit they just don't do it arbitrarily they look at the traffic
studies and take into consideration impacts and input for this. So as far as the speed and so forth like that
in turning out onto it, I don't foresee that as being a particular issue at this time and what I am saying is that
I can take note of it and look into it but that is what you are proposing, in my mind is a much larger problem."
Mr. Miller asked if there is an offsite improvements agreement. Mr. Schei stated yes. Mr. Miller suggests the
offsite agreement address the issue of accessing onto CR 49. Mr. Schei stated"we can look at that but one
of the things I need to bring up the fact of the pointing is that should the infrastructure be a million dollars, I
am making a big picture item,and this applicant puts in 5-10%as compared to the traffic,the County is being
stuck with a large bill." Mr. Miller indicated this would not cost a million dollars, the issue is the County
evaluating what can be done to mitigate the problem of entering CR 49. Mr.Schei stated"he does understand
that."
John Folsom asked Mr. Schei if he could address the line of site problem from the hill on CR 49. Mr. Schei
stated "that is a good perspective but what you are addressing is a current intersection that is out in the
County that is not to my understanding, and I can check with Don Carroll, if that is a problem. What we
normally do, is there is a ranking within Public Works that takes into account safety issues as far as
intersections and so forth like that."
Mr. Folsom asked Mr. Miller about his feeling about the line of site problem. Mr.Miller stated it is over a crest
of a hill. If a person is south bound on CR 49 at 65 mph, you are limited in the response time if someone is
pulling out from CR 52. Mr.Miller added it may not have been a problem in the past but Planning Commission
is looking at adding nine homes at the intersection. This is what we are trying to address, not what happens
historically on the road. There are no subdivisions down the road and if Planning Commission is adding an
additional 30-40 trips a day mitigation can be beneficial. Mr.Schei indicated"I understand and I think we have
to take this into consideration." Mr. Miller stated the only affective thing might be to pave the surface at the
intersection of CR 52 that would allow vehicles to take off without spinning on the gravel. Mr. Schei stated
"my colleagues have asked me to bring up the accidents layer for 2004-2001 and in that vicinity we have had
one accident, basically in the last four years. I think in perspective of looking at the data and so forth,we will
look at the situation. I guess my perspective is that we need to take that into consideration with a note of
measure." Mr. Miller stated that was all he was asking. When the offsite improvements agreement is being
reviewed consider that as a part of it.
John Folsom clarified that this would include the possibility of paving CR 52 to CR 49. Mr. Miller stated he
would be looking at paving another 30-40 feet from CR 49 into CR 52 so a vehicle has traction onto the main
roadway. Mr. Folsom indicated that CR 49 is paved and the internal road is paved, will the road agreement
include a responsibility to pave CR 52. Mr.Schei stated"yes it was a possibility. We would look at the current
count and where the County stands as far as dust mitigation and so forth, should it be above the threshold
we would ask for a participation agreement. One of the things that we are running into is the fact that we may
get a lot of agreements in Public Works but to take advantage of those monies that are coming into the Public
Works department, the share may be so small that to take advantage of that money we might not be able to
afford to do that so that is one of the things I am dealing with administration and in our staff is trying to see
what we can do because we might be putting ourselves in a spot where we may not be able to use those
funds and quote unquote bankrupt the County, trying to do those improvements. So that is one of the big
picture items that we are looking at. We may have four hundred thousand dollars in escrow but it may take
us four million dollars or a large sum of money to do the improvements." Mr. Miller indicated the case needs
to be dealt with and not the overall budget concerns for Public Works. These are things that need to be
addressed on this case. We are not dealing with million dollar issues.
James Welch asked about the limitations or improvements if the entrance was directly onto CR 49. There
appears to be an existing access onto CR 49. Mr. Schei stated "this would come with the layout of the
subdivision and what is presented." Mr. Schei added "one of the things they will look as is the stopping
distance from the crest of the hill to ensure it is adequate at 65 mph. This will probably be in the vicinity of
650-800 feet depending on the data. The different entrance would need to be up to the applicant."
Michael Miller asked about the access to the subdivision and the lights reflecting onto neighboring properties
and if any conditions or Development Standard had addressed this. Ms. Martin stated"at this point and time,
no." The applicants have proposed the internal access where it is. According to my site visit the access does
line up from across the residential home but at this point and time we do not have anything in the staff
comments to have them re-align the road." Mr. Schei added"that is normally what they try and do,try to line
up the access points so they be across from each other to try to eliminate conflicts. We try to do that in this
case, it may be unfortunate the headlights shine straight across, that is the normal policy that is used."
Michael Miller opened the public portion of the meeting back up to Mr. Bernhart to address the mitigation of
the lights onto the home with possible plantings or landscape.
Mr. Bernhart stated the landscaping would be on their side and the applicants would have to do. According
to Mr. Bernhart the safest access would be onto CR 49.
Michael Miller asked Mr.Hodges if landscape mitigation had been considered. Mr. Hodges indicated this was
the first they had heard of this. The sketch plan aligned the access farther to the west and it was realigned
based on referrals.
Michael Miller stated the access onto CR 49 is something Public Works will need to deal with and determine
what can be done.
John Folsom added it should go back to the drawing board to make the access to the development from CR
49. The negative would be the access would be onto a highly traveled road. Therefore, this would make the
entrance from a paved road to paved road.
Chad Auer stated it would be smarter to put the access from the subdivision directly onto CR 49,this would
•
make paved onto paved.
Bryant Gimlin indicated this would solve a small problem but create a bigger one. CR 49 is essentially a
highway. It would be better off channeling the vehicles off of CR 49 and onto CR 52. The traffic at CR 52
could be controlled with signs until things can be made better.
Michael Miller asked if Public Works would prefer the access be onto CR 52 or a private access onto CR 49.
Mr.Schei indicated"CR 52 would be preferred. In this stage the onsite improvements is not looked at heavily,
the final design is not determined but it could end up being paved road to paved road. As far as the offsite,
the topography indicates the site needs to be reviewed." Mr. Schei stated "he was under the
misunderstanding of the location of the hill but I think it would be good to look at for possible signing. It would
need to be reviewed to determine if the criteria was met."
John Folsom asked Mr. Schei if there were any alternative accesses that Public Works would look to at for
the subdivision. Mr.Schei stated"they would take into consideration the classification of the roadway which
is a minor arterial and there are certain spacing requirements for access points. They are laid out to us,we
would work our best to make certain or to find a resolution for the applicant that comes to us, it cannot be
guaranteed to them. We would try to work with them to make something fit for the situation and what we
need to do in those circumstances is to look at the existing access points on CR 49,the spacing and take this
into consideration. We would not arbitrarily deny it though. There is the appropriateness to providing access
to parcels." Mr.Folsom stated the deciding factor would be the proximity of other accesses. Mr.Schei agrees
with this.
Michael Miller indicated the Planning Commission needs to address the lights from the entrance shining on
other property.
Bryant Gimlin asked Mr. Hodges about the access alignment and if the meet driveway to driveway? Mr.
Hodges indicated they were designed to be right across from each other. Mr. Gimlin asked if lights would
shine directly into the home, is the house lined up with the driveway. Mr. Hodges was not aware of the exact
location of the home but the applicant is willing to provide evergreens on the property to attempt to mitigate
some of the concerns. Mr. Gimlin asked if it would be suitable if a standard was developed to address this.
Mr. Hodges indicated that would be fine. Mr. Gimlin asked Ms. Martin to work on some language to address
mitigation for traffic impact or lighting impact on the adjacent property.
Michael Miller indicated Planning Commission needs to address the existing residential access from CR 49
and rather it should remain until internal access is available. Mr. Hodges referred to 1.A.7 which deals with
the condition. This condition pertains to removing the access from the plat. The applicant proposed some
language as a note on the plat consisting of"the existing residential access to the existing residential structure
located on block 2 lot 2 from CR 49 shall be closed when access is available from Ridgeview Lane." Ms.
Martin stated typically with existing accesses the Department of Planning Services has been consistent to
have them removed from the plat and then at the time of the improvements agreement make that a condition
that the collateral is released based on the access being closed. Therefor the Department of Planning
Services is requesting to keep the Condition and have the existing access removed from the plat and then
at time of the release of collateral make sure the access is closed and the existing residence is accessing
from Ridgeview Lane. Mr. Miller asked for clarification on the lot block. Ms. Martin stated it was block 2 lot
2 which will need to be changed on staff comments.
Bryant Gimlin moved to amend 1.A.7 to state Block 2, Lot 2. Doug Ochsner seconded. Motion carried.
Michelle Martin asked Mr. Morrison about enforcing improvements off site. Mr. Morrison stated it is a matter
of the off site improvements agreement. Depending on which format is taken,something construct at the time
of the development that is one format another is typically used when the collection process is ongoing. Either
way off site improvements has to be tied to the agreement. Mr. Miller added that the offsite improvements
agreement could be amend to include addressing the light issue on the road. Mr. Schei indicated it could be
tied to the improvements agreement and it will be an offsite agreement that will be done immediately. Mr.
Miller asked if this will be done prior to the Board of County Commissioners?Mr. Schei stated it will be at the
time of Final Plat.
James Welch asked about the lights shining on the neighbors and if it would be a large deal to relocate the
access. Mr.Schei stated"that is something that we can look at,bear in mind this is a very old case that I have
been brought into in the tail end of things so I don't have the history, I am not making an excuse, but that the
normal procedure is what is in front of us,we can go back and look at the those situations and those items."
Mr. Miller stated it could be addressed at the time of Final. Mr. Schei added"that at this point the change of
zone is being done,they are not nailing down the alignment. The applicant has shown the roadways with lots
and layouts. Public Works can still work with them if adjustments be made." Mr. Gimlin indicated the
alignment may not have to move but other possible mitigating factors such as plantings may be used.
Todd Hodges indicated the applicants have concerns with condition 1.A.5 regarding the amendment of the
plat so the farm, oil & gas accesses from CR 49 are labeled only for oil & gas. These accesses have
historically been in existence for the farm. There access need to continue to be used for the operation of the
farm. They have been in place anyway. Ms. Martin stated staff is trying to eliminate some of the accesses
that are currently going to this site. Staff is allowing the applicant to keep the farm access from CR 52 and
alleviate the two on CR 49 which is already a busy road. According to my site visit they appear to be used for
only oil & gas at this time. Mr. Hodges added that they have historically been used as farm accesses. The
applicant is willing to remove an access out on the very south end of the property because it is not safe. The
others have cattle guards and are fenced. Mr. Hodges indicated the concern for Condition 1.C referring to
the ditch company referral. The condition states that prior to recording the change of zone the applicant must
submit written evidence that the road is within the ditch right of way,which it is not, as well as the items listed
in the referral from sketch plan have been addressed. The applicant has provided staff with a correspondence
list between the engineer and the ditch company representative. The items all seemed fine with exception
to one item which was water from the detention ditch. There is a condition that addresses the applicant
continued work with the ditch company on the amount of water released. The final engineering and final plan
will contain all the needed information. The applicant wants this Condition completely deleted. Mr. Miller
clarified staff is asking for evidence that the road is within the ditch right of way and it is not? Mr. Hodges
stated that was his understanding. The road is a farm road but historically the ditch wants to keep it open
also. There is a ditch rider road on the other side of the ditch but they use this side of the road. The ditch
company wanted the road to be maintained and the road is used as a buffer separation between their right
of way and the beginning of the improvements for the drainage. The applicant wants to keep the road for both
purposes. Ms. Martin stated, that in an email from Mr. Hodges, which explained the ditch company's
concerns. The applicants engineer indicated it is likely that an access easement would need to be dedicated
through out lot A to accommodate the existing ditch road. Ms. Martin continued to state that if the applicants
were willing to add an access easement on the plat it would meet the condition.
Michael Miller stated that if access has been historically used on the farm Planning Commission should allow
the use. Mr.Ochsner agrees. Mr.Miller indicated 1.A.5 could be deleted because the accesses are currently
referred to as farm and oil &gas on the plat.
Doug Ochsner moved to delete Condition 1.A.5 and renumber. Chad Auer seconded. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case PZ-1050, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Bryant Gimlin seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,no;James Welch,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes;Chad Auer,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes.
Motion carried.
John Folsom commented this should go back to the drawing board and consider the access to be relocated
on CR 49.
Doug Ochsner commented the traffic concerns needs to be addressed prior to final plat but is in favor of the
change of zone and subdivision if all the issues can be met.
Michael Miller commented and agrees the traffic issues need to be seriously considered with possible
alternatives. Mr. Miller would like to commend the applicant for providing open space even though it is not
required. There has been great care to make this an acceptable and high quality subdivision using those
standards.
Meeting adjourned at 2:36pm
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello