HomeMy WebLinkAbout20042535.tiff HEARING CERTIFICATION
DOCKET NO. 2004-62.A
RE: SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FINAL
PLAN, PF #613, FOR EIGHT (8) LOTS WITH E (ESTATE) ZONE USES AND ONE (1)
LOT WITH A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE USES, ALONG WITH APPROXIMATELY 7.1
ACRES OF OPEN SPACE - CATTAIL CREEK GROUP, LLC
A public hearing was conducted on August 18, 2004, at 10:00 a.m., with the following present:
Commissioner Robert D. Masden, Chair
Commissioner William H. Jerke, Pro-Tem
Commissioner M. J. Geile
Commissioner David E. Long
Commissioner Glenn Vaad
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Esther Gesick
Assistant County Attorney, Lee Morrison
Planning Department representative, Sheri Lockman
Health Department representative, Pam Smith
Public Works representative, Peter Schei
The following business was transacted:
I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated July 1,2004,and duly published July 7,2004,in the
Fort Lupton Press, a public hearing was conducted on July 21, 2004, to consider the request of
Cattail Creek Group, LLC,do George DuBard,for a Site Specific Development Plan and Planned
Unit Development Final Plan, PF#613,for eight(8)lots with E (Estate)Zone uses and one (1)lot
with A(Agricultural)Zone uses, along with 30.13 acres of open space. At said hearing the Board
deemed it advisable to continue the matter to August 18, 2004, to allow staff adequate time to
publish a corrected legal notification reflecting the correct amount of open space as 7.1 acres. Lee
Morrison,Assistant County Attorney,made this a matter of record. Sheri Lockman,Department of
Planning Services, gave a brief description of the location of the site and surrounding land uses.
She stated 14 referral agencies reviewed this proposal, 13 responded with comments that have
been addressed in the Conditions of Approval, and staff received one letter of support from a
surrounding property owner. She further stated the site will be serviced by the North Weld County
Water District and septic systems, the internal road will be paved, and the applicant will pay a
proportional share of the cost to upgrade and maintain the external road. Ms. Lockman stated the
applicant has completed Conditions of Approval #1.D, #1.1, #1.L, and #1.M, therefore, those
requirements can be deleted from the Resolution.
Pam Smith, Department of Public Health and Environment,stated the lots will be a minimum of four
acres, and septic system envelopes have been placed on the eight lots at least 100 feet from the
canal to the east.
Peter Schei, Department of Public Works, stated all transportation issues have been resolved.
2004-2535
PL1628
�L AJ //zra� e17-O.3-a/
HEARING CERTIFICATION - CATTAIL CREEK GROUP, LLC (PF #613)
PAGE 2
Anne Best-Johnson, Todd Hodges Design, LLC, represented the applicant and stated various
changes have been made to this application based on direction provided by the Board at previous
phases of this review. She described the location of the site,and stated surrounding uses consist
of rural residential and agricultural. Ms. Johnson stated the Town of Eaton, City of Greeley, and
Town of Severance have expressed no conflict with this proposal, and she reviewed the other
referral agencies that the applicant has worked with to address their concerns. She stated the
mineral owners and lessees were properly notified, and an agreement has been reached with
Bonanza Oil, marked Exhibit F. Ms. Johnson stated this will be a nonurban Planned Unit
Development, located on 33 acres, or 20 percent, of 161.34 acres. She stated 18.2 acres, or 54
percent of the site,has been designated as no-build envelopes,and Lot 9 is a 1040-acre agricultural
lot with a five-acre building envelope. She described the areas of common open space,and stated
the intent of providing common open space has been met by these areas,and this proposal meets
the criteria listed in the Weld County Code, as shown on slides 4 and 5 of Exhibit E. Ms. Johnson
stated this property is not within an Intergovernmental Agreement area, it will be compatible with
surrounding and future uses, and they have increased landscape buffers to address comments
from the Board in an effort to mitigate neighborhood concerns. She stated water and sewer
services are adequate,maintenance is addressed through the Covenants,traffic requirements have
been met,and there will be an Off-site Improvements Agreement for Weld County Road 70 and an
On-site Improvements Agreement. She further stated compliance regarding mineral and overlay
district issues will be ensured by the Department of Planning Services and referral agency
responses. She stated the file also contains a letter of support from Gary Jurgensmeier, marked
Exhibit C,which indicates this development will benefit his property in various ways. In response
to Chair Masden, Ms.Johnson stated the applicant has reviewed and concurs with the deletion of
the four items discussed by Planning staff. (Switched to Tape#2004-36.)
Michael Miller, surrounding property owner, stated during the Change of Zone and Substantial
Change hearings, neighbors requested fencing;however,fencing is not indicated on the final plan.
He stated lack of fencing represents a safety hazard for children in the area,as well as a liability for
the ditch owners. Mr. Miller stated the proposed landscaping is not sufficient to screen the
development from neighboring properties, and many area residents signed a petition indicating
opposition due to incompatibility. He stated only five percent of the development is common open
space, which does not comply with Section 22-2-210.B.2 (Policy 4.2) of the Weld County Code.
He further stated the non-buildable areas on each of the lots and the large agricultural lot are not
accessible to everyone,which is contrary to the intent of common open space. Mr. Miller stated the
agricultural lot is being marketed for sale with no provisions for what the future use may be,and will
no longer be justifiable as open space. He expressed concern with children wandering onto
adjacent properties or into Coalbank Creek,which creates liability concerns for the neighbors. He
further stated the proposal does not meet the intent or 15 percent requirement of the Weld County
Code pertaining to open space. He stated the applicants did not provide an adequate secondary
irrigation system, the engineering study was based on assumptions, and the president of
Woodslake Irrigation Company has indicated the available water is not sufficient for this site. Mr.
Miller reiterated the application is incompatible with the surrounding area, the open space is not
sufficient, and irrigation requirements have not been met.
Debra Page,surrounding property owner,stated this proposal has been reviewed numerous times;
however,at this point the issues of concern remain the same. She stated they did not have the time
or resources to recirculate a petition for this hearing; however,the petition submitted at a previous
hearing still reflects the sentiments of the area residents. Ms. Page stated the buffering is
2004-2535
PL1628
HEARING CERTIFICATION - CATTAIL CREEK GROUP, LLC (PF #613)
PAGE 3
inadequate and Sections 27-2-35 and 27-2-30 of the Weld County Code have not been met. She
stated there is no provision to fence the east or north property lines to protect neighbors from
encroachment, the proposed irrigation is inadequate, and the open space does not comply with
Section 22-2-190.D.2 (PUD.Policy 4.2) or Section 27-6-8 of the Weld County Code. She stated
there is no conservation easement on the agricultural lot,therefore, if the property is sold there is
no protection from future development. Ms. Page stated certain members of the Board previously
made comments implying they must be cautious in denying this application due to the potential for
a lawsuit. She stated this decision should be based on what is in the best interest of the area
residents rather than fear of the applicant's reaction. In response to Chair Masden, Ms. Page
indicated the location of her ten-acre property.
Fred Walker,County resident,stated he heard this case as a previous Planning Commissioner and
he also served on the Comprehensive Plan Review Committee. He stated the Comprehensive Plan
acknowledges the growth of Weld County and reflects an intent to protect agricultural activities. He
stated he visited the proposed site and the area appears to have many properties that were created
through the Recorded Exemption process. He further stated the applicant has offered to provide
irrigation as an enhancement to the development beyond what is required. Mr.Walker stated he
also served as the President of the Water Supply and Storage Company, which travels through
urbanized areas in Larimer County. He stated they always had a concern with attractive nuisances,
which they tried to communicate to adjacent land owners. He stated in this instance the Woodslake
Irrigation Company has made little or no effort at trying to make the situation compatible. He stated
the area is changing and this development preserves private property rights. In response to
Commissioner Geile, Mr.Walker stated an"attractive nuisance" relates to potential conflicts, and
he feels if there are open communications, parties can often work to mitigate and establish a
working relationship. Responding to Chair Masden, Mr. Walker stated the Water Supply and
Storage Company often requested fencing if it was feasible; however,they did review the locations
on a site-specific basis rather than a"blanket"approach. He stated fences across the maintenance
roads or located too close to their right-of-way can be a problem, but they could generally
communicate and reach an agreement. He stated speaking to Homeowners'Associations was also
very helpful. He further stated ditch companies are not responsible for fencing people out;however,
there are still liability issues which sometimes resulted in lawsuits.
Ms.Johnson stated since the Change of Zone phase,the Weld County Code has been revised and
no longer requires open space for this type of development; however,the applicant chose to keep
some open space areas. She stated the fencing has been addressed to comply with the comments
from the Division of Wildlife,and the Covenants also provide for fenced yards to contain children and
pets. She stated the wet area along the eastern property boundary is not a ditch, rather, it is a
seepage area. In response to Commissioner Jerke,Ms.Johnson reiterated the open space is not
required on Planned Unit Developments that are located outside of Intergovernmental Agreement
areas and the Mixed Use Development area. However, the applicant chose to keep 7.1 acres of
open space and construct one residence on each four-acre lot. In response to Commissioner
Geile,Mr.Morrison stated Section 27-2-140 deals with nonurban scale developments,in nonurban
areas, not adjacent to other PUD's,municipal boundaries,or Urban Grown Boundaries. He stated
it was modified to specify that in those instances a development is not subject to the PUD
requirements. He stated open space can still be considered to mitigate compatibility issues;
however, a specific amount is not required. He further stated the Code amendment was not
intended to impact Intergovernmental Agreements in effect as of 2001. Commissioner Geile stated
Sections 27-2-60, 27-6-80, and 27-2-140 do not apply to this development. Responding to Chair
2004-2535
PL1628
HEARING CERTIFICATION - CATTAIL CREEK GROUP, LLC (PF #613)
PAGE 4
Masden, Ms. Johnson stated they concur with deletions recommended by staff. Ms. Lockman
concurred with Mr. Morrison's comments regarding the open space requirements. In response to
Commissioner Geile, Ms. Johnson stated the issue of screening has been addressed, and she
reviewed the details of the landscaping plan, including the type, number, and location of various
types of trees. She stated the size of the trees has also been increased in response to the Board
comments to mitigate concerns.
Todd Hodges,Todd Hodges Design,LLC,stated additional,larger trees have been incorporated into
the plan; however, they are intended to buffer the adjacent properties, not provide a screen. He
explained screening is generally required to mitigate incompatible uses, not separate similar uses.
He added there is additional distance between the proposed homes and the neighboring properties
because the back side of each lot has been designated as a no-build area. Responding to
Commissioner Jerke, Ms. Johnson reviewed the types and sizes of homes specified in the
Covenants,and the applicant estimated the finished sites to sell for approximately$300,000,which
is comparable with other properties in the area.
Commissioner Geile commented the public testimony urged him to review issues, such as
buffering/screening,open space,and compatibility. He referenced Section 27-2-140 and stated the
open space requirement has been met with provision of seven acres of open space, and the fact
that this is a nonurban scale development. He stated Sections 27-2-30 and 27-2-35 have been met
regarding buffering and screening,and the applicant has complied with the Design Standards listed
in Section 27-2-80. Commissioner Geile stated Section 27-2-140 does take preference over the
references regarding open space as presented in public testimony.
Commissioner Jerke commented open space is not a requirement for this type of development,yet
the applicant will be providing approximately seven percent. He stated there are 17 parcels within
500 feet, which suggests there has already been a significant amount of development in the
neighborhood, and the petition of 170 signatures suggests extensive subdivision of the area. He
further stated this will have four-acre lots on a parcel of land that was difficult to irrigate with a pivot
sprinkler, while leaving the area to remain in agricultural production. He stated any future
development of the agricultural lot would have to be reviewed by the Board.
Commissioner Long commented he did not vote in favor of the Change of Zone application;
however,the zoning was approved,and at this point the Board's purpose is to review the application
materials and evidence submitted for the Final Plan. He stated although it is apparent the
neighborhood sentiments regarding the overall Change of Zone remain the same,he is satisfied that
the criteria for a Planned Unit Development Final Plan has been met.
Commissioner Vaad commented 177 signatures indicates a large number of people live in close
proximity to the site, which implies they do not want more of what already exists. He stated he is
aware of the growth and transition of the area. He stated screening is meant to mitigate
incompatible uses, but the proposal is similar to the surrounding uses, and he feels the issues of
opposition were addressed at the Change of Zone phase. He further stated irrigation is not a
requirement for this type of development; however, the applicant is offering a secondary source,
and improvements to the system will likely benefit some of the surrounding properties.
2004-2535
PL1628
HEARING CERTIFICATION - CATTAIL CREEK GROUP, LLC (PF #613)
PAGE 5
Commissioner Long added if this plan were to be denied,the zoning is still in place and the applicant
would have the option of submitting a different design. He feels the criteria has been fulfilled,
contrary to what testimony presented, and the property owner does have property rights.
Chair Masden commented this has been a long process because the first application was denied
based on comments from the surrounding property owners regarding a poor application. He stated
the Board did approve the Substantial Change and second Change of Zone application,and through
the entire process the application has been significantly improved,with some of the improvements
benefitting some of the existing residents. He stated this is a very fast changing area and there are
numerous land splits creating lots smaller than what is proposed in this development.
Commissioner Geile commented this Board does not take public testimony lightly, and he
apologized for any previous comments that may have offended the area residents. He stated there
is always the potential for litigation regardless of the outcome;however,he deliberates a case based
on facts and tries to make his decisions consistent with the intent of the Weld County Code.
Commissioner Geile moved to approve the request of Cattail Creek Group, LLC, do George
DuBard,for a Site Specific Development Plan and Planned Unit Development Final Plan, PF#613,
for eight(8)lots with E(Estate)Zone uses and one(1)lot with A(Agricultural)Zone uses,along with
approximately 7.1 acres of open space, based on the recommendation of the Planning staff, and
the finding that the application is in compliance with Sections 27-2-30 (Buffering and Screening),
27-2-35(Buffer Zone or Area),27-2-140(Nonurban scale development),27-7-30(Requirements for
submittal),and 27-7-40.D.2.a through D.2.h. ,with the Conditions of Approval as entered into the
record. His motion also included deleting Conditions of Approval#1.D,#1.1,#1.L,and#1.M. The
motion was seconded by CommissionerJerke,and it carried unanimously. There being no further
discussion, the hearing was completed at 12:00 p.m.
This Certification was approved on the 23rd day of August 2004.
APPROVED:
Elea BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD OUNTY, COLOR(ADO
Robert D. Masden, Chair
�� -' `•\ � erk to the Board
`'����'�'• • William H. J e, Pro-Tem
BY:
Deputy Clerk to the Board
M. J. e
TAPE #2004-35
David E. ong
DOCKET#2004-62.A
GI nn Vaad
2004-2535
PL1628
EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET
Case PF #613 - CATTAIL CREEK GROUP, LLC
Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description
A. Clerk to the Board Notice of Hearing
B. Clerk to the Board Corrected Notice of Hearing, dated
07/23/2004
C. Gary Jurgensmeier Letter of Support, dated 08/12/2004
D. Planning Staff Certification and Photo of sign posting,
submitted 08/18/2004
E. Applicant 5 PowerPoint Slides, presented 08/18/2004
F. Applicant Agreement Not to Oppose Development
Plan with Bonanza Creek Operating
Company, recorded 08/10/2004
G.
H.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
O.
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
U.
ATTENDANCE RECORD
HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS ON THIS 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2004:
DOCKET#2004-70 -DARREL ADOLF AND DELMER ZIEGLER
DOCKET#2004-62 - CATTAIL CREEK GROUP, LLC
PLEASE legibly write or print your name and complete address.
NAME ADDRESS
John Doe 123 Nowhere Street, City, State, Zip
dG€7d ia-46< /l-34' E 57/( /er sT $/e c7o10 F / /k5 ;1(:) 5
Orel 14ao \ V 7753 Ltfle Fc76 ciw A/// , o& , Uo go 549
9 /� e Z . -cy /eh 3 Cyr R o s 4 Di, iv e 4e- c/4.:.jt.2 c, .2 fs0-CY9
bai9 /2,96C /-e-g Nele 70 -,eaz i Co gc)6 a /
fi(-AO- )MAl. t54 3(aSD &'4 Jtiv£, (act' ,t' , /6') grko 3`(
Rein r:,3.. MegS vner" 15b C z'PP 6+, 41713 1 L ntic.fct cl ,C5) Rv538-'
4,441 Ovt,o-94/ 33zio /1-1 g5 /PO Sto Lrrc<.cve c0 eOlo f/lv
In-2 //e /147- 336c/ (tics{ / 3 AJr ..ce..d� co ,Fo/.7,4,,a. 4i - a 9 Lc.> „0S `"fiS7I /mil ljr %� r cvo fSo6 .=/
ni -Q c+evict 13c i J , Cte%re.Itiv-r /1-.re ; ` ,re I , CD. �,c537
1V lark Mel .eah J3a,s bay Circle, 1_ OA y-vlo.Y,4 (O WOS0/
AnY� � ( 11 TO/4d Hvoilti L,Lt I�(,61 k . ( Ivvc land > o I 3-)
a, wren r (Eh". /Fc/z 5,6"a 1 ,.,,...c-/ &e 4 / (0 kObi f
re e0 O1V-k e 7„7 oe 271 taA-m n2 6-v55?
kMben /Ieryer[ /.2315 GJ2- ti7 =L /ton S-?“, S/
Vega /er7err t
ATTENDANCE RECORD
HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS ON THIS 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2004:
DOCKET#2004-62 - CATTAIL CREEK GROUP, LLC
DOCKET#2004-61 - DAVID AND DARLENE ROTHROCK
PLEASE legibly write or print your name and complete address.
NAME ADDRESS
John Doe 123 Nowhere Street, City, State, Zip
AUI A c 1 33GF I (ac I.-7 0i ,4-0,t, Cola. 10,yo
DA--J D c t we 1Ro`rl-4UZodc 5vi c- it43 ) Po.Psn 30c/ 4-cApsov Oo
76\VW Johrm ,lTaa-t- es cues,jr w N, Cleveland AR L-AbeWhd co is"7
Hello