HomeMy WebLinkAbout20041020.tiff HEARING CERTIFICATION
DOCKET NO. 2004-37
RE: CHANGE OF ZONE #1020 FROM THE A(AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT TO THE
PUD(PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT)ZONE DISTRICT FOR 22 RESIDENTIAL LOTS
AND 35 ACRES OF COMMON OPEN SPACE -WAKE, LLLP
A public hearing was conducted on April 21, 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, Carol Harding
Assistant County Attorney, Lee Morrison
Planning Department representative, Kim Ogle
Health Department representative, Char Davis
Public Works representative, Peter Schei
The following business was transacted:
I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated April 2,2004,and duly published April 7,2004,in the
Fort Lupton Press, a public hearing was conducted to consider the request of Wake, LLLP for a
Change of Zone #1020 from the A (Agricultural) Zone District to the PUD (Planned Unit
Development) Zone District for 22 residential lots and 35 acres of common open space. Lee
Morrison, Assistant County Attorney, made this a matter of record. Kim Ogle, Department of
Planning Services, presented a brief summary of the proposal and entered the unfavorable
recommendation of the Planning Commission into the record as written. He stated the site is not
within an Intragovernmental Agreement or Urban Growth Boundary area and is serviced bythe North
Weld County Water District and individual septic systems. Mr. Ogle stated the site is Lot 15-C of
the Fourth Replat of Gilbaugh's Appaloosa Acres and was originally platted as open space;and the
historic use of the property utilized open pasture with a twelve-foot bridle path at the perimeter. He
stated surrounding uses are primarily agricultural; however, Gilbaugh's Appaloosa Acres, Avery
Acres, Pinnacle Park, and Sunny View Estates are located in the area. Mr. Ogle stated thirteen
referral agencies reviewed the case, and of eleven agencies which responded, eight requested
conditions or recommendations which have been addressed in the Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval. He stated the site is within the three-mile referral area of the Town of Eaton,
which indicated no concerns regarding the proposal. Mr. Ogle stated eight letters were received
from surrounding property owners, seven against the proposal, and one in favor. Those letters
included concerns regarding multiple lot development outside the Urban Growth Boundary Area,
property maintenance issues including the potential for noxious weeds,decrease in property values,
increased traffic on area roads,retention basins promoting mosquito breeding grounds,poor on-site
drainage,dried up farmland because of the sale of water,and the access through Appaloosa Acres
Subdivision. Mr. Ogle stated a letter was received from the applicant's attorney which addressed
the bridal path easement.
2004-1020
• PL1245
f/L<E-2O)
HEARING CERTIFICATION -WAKE, LLLP (PZ#1020)
PAGE 2
Mr. Ogle stated the Planning Commission recommendation of denial was based on Section
22-2-110.B,and 22-2-190.C,since the proposed site is not within any defined urban area,is unable
to be served by urban infrastructure, is not considered efficient, nor is sanitary sewer available;
Section 24-1-40,which defines non-urban scale development at less than nine lots,although this
proposal is for 22 lots;and Section 24-1-30.1,which promotes equitable handling of all subdivision
plans by providing uniform procedures and standards. Responding to Commissioner Geile
regarding the bridle path,Mr.Ogle stated it does go around the entire 64 acres,at the perimeter with
one exception;and Mr. Morrison advised the Board to hear testimony from both sides before trying
to interpret the issues regarding the easement and the applicant's ability to cross that easement.
Mr. Morrison further stated the Board cannot resolve the issues with regards to the bridle path
because it does not have final jurisdiction over the easement;and the Board's decision in this matter
may still be subject to court determining otherwise. Char Davis, Department of Public Health and
Environment,stated she is available to answer questions. Responding to Commissioner Geile,Mr.
Ogle stated of the 64 acres,21 or22 acres are included in this development,with an average of 1.3
acres per lot. Ms. Davis responded to Commissioner Geile that common open space is included
in figuring the allowed acreages, and 2.5 acre lots are allowed without community water and one
acre lots are allowed with community water. Peter Schei, Department of Public Works, stated
access is from Weld County Road 74,which is paved,with a current traffic count of 2,175 average
vehicles per day. Mr.Schei stated both Weld County Roads 74 and 41 are both County maintained,
and Weld County Road 74 is a strategic corridor, although it is proposed to be downgraded from
arterial to collector status.
Clifford Clift, representing Wake, LLLP, stated he and Paul Clift are the owners of the property.
Using a Desktop Publishing Presentation, Marked Exhibit N, Mr. Clift reviewed the proposal. He
stated the Town of Eaton has no conflicts with the requested zone change; showed maps of the
site; discussed acceleration and deceleration lanes on Weld County Road 74; stated the internal
street will be paved; and pointed out the school bus pickup, located at the request of the school
district. Mr. Clift indicated the bridle path, and stated the proposal will provide 60 percent of the
property in open space. He stated the Notice and other materials presented states the site is 32
acres;however,it is 35 acres. Mr.Clift also indicated the detention ponds forstormwaterand stated
the open space will be planted in native grass because irrigation is limited to two shares of
Larimer-Weld water,therefore,they will be out of water by the end of June. He indicated the areas
where landscaping will be provided,described the entrance sign,and stated a three-rail white vinyl
fence will be placed along Weld County Road 74. Mr.Clift stated 22 water taps will be provided by
North Weld Water District; engineered individual septic systems will be utilized with dual leech
fields;and gas,electric,and telephone service will also be provided. Mr. Clift stated the residents
of this Planned Unit Development (PUD)will not be using the bridle path; however, stop signs,
speed bumps and warning signs will be placed on both sides of Leola Way, which is the street
which crosses the path. Mr.Clift reviewed the history of the area,including Gilbaugh's Appaloosa
Acres,and stated this lot has always been zoned agricultural,since the designation of open space
in 1973 when this was originally platted, is different than what is currently defined. He stated the
gross density per lot of this application is 2.6 and 2.7 acres; it is not considered prime farmland
since there is no availability of a consistent water supply as required in Section 23-1-90;and the soil
is not designated as prime. Mr.Clift stated the application is fora low-density,clustered PUD of 22
one-acre lots, with 35 acres of open space, pursuant to Section 22-2-70.B and C. He stated
2004-1020
PL1245
HEARING CERTIFICATION -WAKE, LLLP (PZ#1020)
PAGE 3
•
Section 22-1-50.D.3.a.2 conversion of agricultural lands to non-urban uses will be accommodated
only in areas that can support such developments with adequate facilities and services,therefore,
low density is allowed where appropriate, and encourages techniques and incentives such as
clustering. Mr. Clift also referenced Section 22-1-50.d.3.d.1,which includes the statement,"or in
areas where appropriate services are currently available or reasonably obtainable." He reiterated
the services that will be provided, and further reviewed Sections 22-2-260b.a.2, and
22-2-190.CR.GOAL3. He stated flexibility is provided,pursuant to Section 22-2-200 and 27-1-10.A,
creating a unique type of PUD with clustering of lots and 35 acres of open space being used as a
buffer zone to minimize its effect on the neighbors. Mr. Clift discussed buffering and screening,
pursuant to Section 27-2-30,and stated the back of the homes will be placed a distance of at least
100 feet from the front of the homes in Gilbaugh's Acres. He stated the innovative design of the
PUD meets the requirements of Section 27-2-70, providing basic compatibility to the adjoining
subdivision. Mr. Clift stated there are 26 residences within 500 feet of the property, and over 116
within a mile;therefore,the density is already existent in the surrounding area. Mr.Clift summarized
that the application is compatible with existing surrounding uses and density;there is no interference
with existing farmground;the Town of Eaton's growth is to the south and east;there is no Overlay
District; mineral rights are owned,although there are no commercial mineral deposits;and the soils
are suitable to the request. Responding to the letters opposing the zone change, he stated the
water line will be looped down across Appy Road to Weld County Road 41;however,on August 7,
2000,the Gilbaugh's sold the property to J. Dale Moody,with a nonexclusive utility easement across
Appy Road and Appaloosa Lane. On October 1, 2001, Mr. Moody conveyed Lot 15-C to Wake,
LLLP;and on September 9,2002,Gilbaugh's quit claimed their interest in Appy Road and Appaloosa
Lane to the Gilbaugh Homeowners'Association. Mr.Clift stated the underlying easements are still
in effect.
Chrysten Heinz, attorney for the applicant, discussed the issue of easements. She stated the
residents of this PUD will not use the bridle path,which is completely located on Lot 15-C, which
is the servient easement. She discussed the dichotomy of interests on the easement,and stated
the servient owner can use the easement; however, there are currently three houses that have
horses and use the bridle path. Ms. Heinz stated that,to guard against unreasonable interference
with the use of the bridle path, access will only intersect across Leola Way, which will have stop
signs, speed bumps and warning signs for the safety of those using the path. She stated the
specific easement granted in Mr.Moody's deed does carry forward with the second deed to Wake,
LLLP, even though it is not specifically described. Responding to Commissioner Geile and Mr.
Morrison, Ms. Heinz stated the general utility easement was transferred in 2000, and the second
objection, beyond the applicant making use of the bridle path, was that the Homeowners'
Association would object to any utility easements across any portion of the existing PUD. Therefore,
the fact that there is already a utility easement in favor of the applicant,does not require him to have
permission from the Homeowners'Association in order to install utilities. Ms. Heinz further stated
there is no issue regarding the relationship of the bridle path and utility easement, and the
Homeowners' Association is only against the new PUD making use of the bridle path. She
reiterated they will not be making use of it,other than to simply cross it for access off Weld County
Road 41. Responding to Commissioner Geile, Ms. Heinz stated the law states a person cannot
interfere with the use of an easement to hinder them from using the easement. For instance, a
locking gate cannot be installed; however, in the event of safety issues, the Homeowners'
2004-1020
PL1245
HEARING CERTIFICATION -WAKE, LLLP (PZ#1020)
PAGE 4
Association would say the applicant is interfering with the easement and it is no longer safe to use
the bridle path. The applicant has mitigated those potential safety hazards by the placement of stop
signs,speed bumps and warning signs. Ms.Heinz further stated if the utilities block the bridle path
that would unreasonably interfere; however, there is no anticipation of that occurring.
Responding to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Clift stated the open space will be irrigated with drip
irrigation pipes, from a North Weld Water District tap, and that the site has two shares of
Larimer/Weld and one share of the Farr lateral ditch. He stated flood irrigation will support some
landscaping; however,the drip system will be best,and the water district indicated very little water
will be used from the tap. Responding further, Mr. Clift stated the Homeowners'Association will
ensure the homes are 1,400 to 1,800 square foot ranch style homes with a country style porch,and
pitched roofs. He stated there may be a few two story homes, although ranch style is preferred.
Responding to Commissioner Geile,he stated the Covenants will limit outbuildings to 12 foot by24
foot; homes will be compatible to the area; the Homeowners' Association will own and be
responsible for the open space; the number of livestock will be limited; and residents will not use
the bridle path. Mr. Clift stated he has not determined what type of fence to install without
discussing it with the Gilbaugh Homeowners'Association. Responding to CommissionerJerke,Mr.
Clift stated he will add a provision to the Covenants that this remains open space;however,platting
it as open space should be sufficient. Mr.Clift reiterated Wake,LLLP is the deed holder of the bridle
path; however,the Gilbaugh Homeowners Association has an easement for a twelve-foot path all
the way around, and the easement continues with the Change of Zone. Responding to Chair
Masden, Mr.Clift stated residents will have access to the open space for use,and he reiterated the
Homeowners'Association will be responsible for maintenance and irrigation. He also stated the
Covenants will not allow4-H projects,and the Homeowners'Association will own 100 percent of the
mineral rights. Responding to Commissioner Long, Mr.Clift stated if necessary,the Homeowners'
Association may require the septic systems to be pumped every two years, at the expense of the
Association.
Dan Foster, representing Appaloosa Acres Homeowners Association, stated there are petitions
opposing this development in the file. He stated Ivan Gilbaugh stated this space would not be
developed, but would always remain open space and bridle path; therefore, he believed it to be
uniquely protected from development. Mr. Foster stated this is a great area to live in; and it was
productive farmland until the water was sold. He stated the bridle path is an easement that was
platted in 1973,and a developer cannot change the use of the bridle path by putting a road across
it because that would be a change in use. He stated the Homeowners'Association carries liability
insurance which would be cancelled with a road across the bridle path. Mr. Foster stated that any
resident desiring horses may have them, although there are currently only three who own horses.
When the Covenants and plat were recorded, 15 owners had vested rights in the bridle path and,
as a vested right, no change can be made to the placement, use, or additional parties using the
bridle path. He stated the applicant originally requested access to the bridle path, although that
request has been withdrawn. Mr. Foster stated neither the Gilbaughs or their successors have the
right to authorize other parties to utilize the bridle path,and any change in the location or use of the
bridle path requires the unanimous written consent of each owner of lots in Appaloosa Acres. Mr.
Foster stated this area is outside an Urban Growth Boundary area and this is an urban scale
development. He stated Weld County Road 74 is already heavily traveled, and it is dangerous to
2004-1020
PL1245
HEARING CERTIFICATION -WAKE, LLLP (PZ#1020)
PAGE 5
enter from Weld County Road 41. He stated the increased traffic would greatly increase the danger
at the surrounding intersections,and the propertyowners in the new development will be using Appy
Road,which is a private road,to access the back of their lots into the open space. Mr. Foster also
indicated concern with the open space being properly maintained; and stated the front entrances
of properties in Appaloosa Acres face this development, and will be looking into the back yards of
the proposed homes. He discussed the poor drainage at the south end of the property,which would
create a health hazard through standing water and insects;property values will decrease;theirview
will change from a beautiful sunrise to storage sheds,vehicles,and recreational vehicles typically
found in back yards. Mr. Foster stated this situation is unique and the applicant is trying to change
the rules,which would drastically change the current way of life; therefore, he requests denial of
the proposal.
Jackie Johnson,attorneyforthe Gilbaugh Homeowners'Association,stated that,if the bridle path
constitutes an easement,it is true there are balanced interests between users of the easement,and
neither party can exclude the other. She stated the use of the easement,a designated bridle path,
would be unreasonably interfered with by having the access to 22 homes cross the path. Whether
there are three users or every resident uses the path,serious consideration needs to be given since
having access to 22 homes is a significant and unreasonable interference with the use of the path.
Ms. Johnson stated that in the various replats of the PUD, efforts were made to avoid any traffic
crossing the easement. She stated that one agricultural residence does not pose the same
question as 22 homes. She stated the Board's concern should be for the health,safety and welfare
of citizens of Weld County,and that,to say the installation of a stop sign and speed bump will satisfy
those concerns, is doubtful with that number of residents. Ms. Johnson also discussed the status
of the application. She stated in 1973,this property was zoned AUD, although the plat says PUD.
She stated a PUD is a special zoning category that may include a mixture of various uses,including
residential and commercial. Since the zoning is already in place, therefore,the Board should not
approve another PUD inside the existing one. She stated the agricultural section was supposed to
be open space, and she questions the zoning. Ms. Johnson stated that the main reason this
request should be denied is the easement issue. She stated the kind of access 22 homes will
require across the easement,which originally was one person's access to farm the land,definitely
constitutes unreasonable interference. Responding to Commissioner Geile, Ms. Johnson stated
the one lot has had access off Weld County Road 74; however, the right to have access was
defined by the need for access; and the access to the interior lot has existed historically, it is the
increase that creates the problem. Responding to Chair Masden, Ms. Johnson stated her
understanding is that the interior lot was designated on the plat as open space. Mr. Morrison stated
he did not find anything separate from the plat that was recorded in 1973;although currently with the
PUD process,the developer is required to designate whether they are reserving the right to future
development on outlots or other tracks. If not,it is assumed by the homeowners that the developer
does not retain that right. The problem with this parcel, he stated, is that it was shown as open
space on the plat, although it was basically held in private ownership, and nothing indicated a
reserved right to develop. Mr. Morrison stated nothing occurred to limit the right to future
development, and no other limitations were placed on the right to develop the parcel. Therefore,
homeowners understandably looked at the record and said it will stay this way; although that was
true only as long as the Gilbaughs maintained it that way. After further discussion regarding the
easement and its use, Ms.Johnson stated that Mr. Foster was told that the interior would be unable
•
2004-1020
PL1245
HEARING CERTIFICATION - WAKE, LLLP (PZ #1020)
PAGE 6
to be developed, although she has not seen anything in writing to that effect.
Joanne Gilbaugh she is not here to litigate what her husband, Ivan,said;however,one cannot look
at that parcel and decide it will never be developed. She stated development will happen,and the
best thing to do is make it as pleasant as possible for everyone; and she feels open space with
clustered housing seems to be the best way. She stated it is painful to describe the land as not
being prime farmland,since it was when they owned it;however,the owners had the right to sell the
water, which effectively destroyed the prime farm ground. Ms. Gilbaugh stated the back sides of
acreages are not pleasant, and the suggestion was made to turn the acreages around to face
outside,thereby allowing the neighbors to look at landscaped front yards instead of back yards. She
stated the bridle path was originally used as a farm road, and it made sense to move it when the
PUD was replatted. Therefore, an easement for access on Appy Road was done to allow
Mr.Moody to access his farmground. Responding to Commissioner Geile,Ms.Gilbaugh stated that
her husband was a successful real estate broker, and she feels it highly unlikely he would have
promised in perpetuity that the land would not be developed. She feels he may have said he had
no plans to develop, and the property was used as a farm until it sold.
Chair Masden closed public testimony and called a short recess.
(Recess)
Upon reconvening, Mr. Clift responded to Chair Masden that he agrees with the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards. He rebutted the concerns raised and reiterated the definition
of open space in 1973 is not the same as is used currently;and that the open space shown on the
original plat is not open space as it is known today. He stated it is shown as agricultural on three
different plats. He stated he can provide more buffering by placing more trees and shrubs between
the lots, and the Gilbaugh Covenants pertain to Lots 1 through 14, although there are 18 lots. No
amendment to the Covenants has been recorded,therefore, only 14 lots can use the bridle path.
He also stated nothing in the Covenants refers to the open space,it only says the bridle path cannot
be built upon or fenced in. Commissioner Jerke stated most of the concern of neighbors could be
mitigated by changing the front and back yards,with a road looping around them,and if approved
today, suggested Mr. Clift consider a different layout prior to Final Plan. Paul Clift, co-applicant
stated the intention for the subdivision is to back up to open space,and decorative backs or fronts
could be applied with landscaping requirements,and Mr.Clifford Clift stated they will be amenable
to whatever needs to be done.
Mr.Schei stated Condition of Approval#3.A and#3.C can be deleted,since the requirements have
been met,and he suggested moving#3.B to#5.T. The Board concurred. Mr. Morrison responded
to earlier questions of the Board concerning the easement crossing issue,stating the Board should
consider it in a realm with the most familiarity,which would be compatibility. He stated the Board
cannot finally resolve whether or not a burden is placed on the easement as to whether the road
crossing impairs the use of the easement; however,the easement can be considered to be one of
the attributes of the neighborhood. Therefore, the Board can evaluate it from a health and safety
standpoint,as well as a compatibility standpoint,and determine whether putting a road across the
easement fits within the criteria the Board is charged with considering when making the zoning
2004-1020
PL1245
HEARING CERTIFICATION -WAKE, LLLP (PZ#1020)
PAGE 7
decision. Mr. Morrison suggested the Board use the same criteria always used in its findings and,
specifically, to consider that criteria in relationship to the bridle path. He stated basically, the two
sides concur that the issue is the impairment; however, they disagree as to the effect of the road
on the easement itself, therefore, it will be up to the Court to decide. He stated the Board always
has to consider the effect of the development itself on land uses already existing. Commissioner
Jerke requested a requirement for the developer with respect to an equestrian sign being installed;
however, Mr. Schei stated that type of closer detail would be added at Final Plat. By waiting until
then,the residents of the area may have suggestions relevant to that crossing. Mr.Morrison stated
Commissioner Geile had earlier questioned whether the Covenants restrict the use of the
agricultural lot; however, he found no reference to that particular lot. He stated the Covenants do
mention the bridle path, but do not otherwise include that lot; therefore, there are no restrictions.
Responding to Chair Masden, Mr. Clift stated he agrees with all the changes as discussed.
Commissioner Geile stated this is a very complex case and he appreciates counsel from both
sides. He stated another authority may have to resolve the easement issue. He also stated those
individuals who have purchased property on Weld County Road 41, now known as Appaloosa
Acres,desire to keep the area as continued open space,particularly the bridle path. Having heard
the testimony presented by both sides of the issue, indicates there is nothing that takes away from
the ability or opportunity to use that bridle path for enjoyment. Commissioner Geile referenced
Section 27-6-120.D.5,stating it is outside the Urban Growth Boundary area of Eaton,and the Town
not responding to the referral could be construed to mean that approval was expected;however,this
area was developed with a total of 18 lots contiguous to each other,which can be construed to be
an urban area. He stated previous action in the entire area,as well as this particular application has
created precedence as it relates to whether the area is urban or non-urban. He stated the uses
permitted will be compatible,because of the number of homes that have been developed;testimony
has shown a lot of development in the area since the early 1970's, indicating the area has been
moving, and will continue to move towards urban; public water is adequate; street and highway
facilities providing access are adequate;the applicant has testified that improvements will be made
on Weld County Road 74 to ensure the safety elements are addressed; overlay districts and
commercial mineral leases have been dealt with; and he sees no inconsistency in what is being
proposed and what has already occurred in the surrounding area. Commissioner Geile stated the
only remaining issue is the easement;however,through Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards, the applicant can maintain the safety of the users of the bridal path, until the Court
decides the easement issue. Commissioner Geile stated he also feels it appropriate, as
Commission Jerke suggested, to turn the lots around. Therefore, he will be in support of the
application.
Commissioner Vaad stated he is not in support of the application, and his biggest issue is based
on Section 27-2-190. He stated this application is clearly an urban scale development, which is
more than double the nine which is the dividing point between urban and non-urban. Using the Town
of Mead in his district, he discussed the difficulties for the Board to respond to the needs of the
Town and how it wants to develop versus protecting the rights of the constituents that do not live in
incorporated areas. He reiterated this is clearly an urban scale development,and during the recent
Comprehensive Plan revisions, much discussion took place determining what would be allowed,
and the Board's desire not to allow clustering around intersections,which might end up with nine
2004-1020
PL1245
HEARING CERTIFICATION - WAKE, LLLP (PZ#1020)
PAGE 8
lots in each corner, for a total of 36 homes. Commissioner Vaad stated his second issue is the
easement and use of the bridle path, which has to be settled in a Court; however, as a practical
matter, how the appropriate parties work out who gets the use and control of the bridle path,is not
going to bring peace into the neighborhood.
CommissionerJerke stated he is in agreement with Commissioner Geile,and stated the applicant
has demonstrated a willingness to work with the neighbors. Commissioner Jerke stated the
proposal is compatible,which goes back to a 30-year history of the Gilbaugh's PUD,and the urban
level of development and marriage between that use and land which had traditionally been
agricultural. He stated this is a further extension of that use in an area that is clearly developing,and
the applicant is willing to work with the idea of turning the subdivision around to mitigate the negative
effect on the property owners of Appaloosa Acres. Commissioner Jerke also stated the applicant
has the ability to control future development with respect to mineral rights; and that with proper
signage and recorded easement,as well as a designated trail,there is every reason to believe there
can be a safe and dedicated bridle path around the subdivision. Commissioner Jerke stated he
does not believe Mr.Gilbaugh would throw away all future development potential on a 60-acre parcel
in order to provide open space in perpetuity,and the use of the open space has clearly changed and
evolved over the past 30 years.
Commissioner Long stated he is in support of the application, and he agrees with the comments
made by Commissioners Geile and Jerke. He discussed his struggle with urban versus non-urban
uses,and he said that one of the aims,when rewriting the Comprehensive Plan,was to be flexible
and allow creativity in development of subdivisions. He stated the term, "or reasonable and
obtainable"was included in several places to allow for that flexibility. Commissioner Long stated
this application displays a creative use for this PUD.
Chair Masden stated he agrees this is a very complex issue, and that 30 years ago, open space
was considered to be farmground; however, it does not currently have the same meaning. He
stated he agrees with Commissioner Vaad on the issues and discussions during rewriting the
Comprehensive Plan,and would be in total agreement if it were a stand-alone development PUD;
however,he does find there is compatibilitywith what has already occurred in the 18 lot subdivision.
He further stated the entire area is becoming more and more urbanized, and he feels this is the
highest and best use of the property,especially with engineered septic system on the lots,and two
septic envelopes allowed for each lot.
Commissioner Geile moved to approve the request of Wake, LLLP for a Change of Zone#1020
from the A(Agricultural)Zone District to the PUD(Planned Unit Development)Zone District for 22
residential lots and 35 acres of common open space, based on the recommendations of the
Planning staff and the Planning Commission,with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards as modified. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Long. Responding to
Commissioner Jerke, Mr.Ogle stated the final plat application would not be approved by staff,it will
be heard by the Board of Commissioners. On a call for the vote,the motion carried four to one,with
Commissioner Vaad against.
There being no further discussion, the hearing was completed at 4:00 p.m.
2004-1020
PL1245
HEARING CERTIFICATION - WAKE, LLLP (PZ#1020)
PAGE 9
This Certification was approved on the 26th day of April 2004.
APPROVED:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
� WLDCOUNT�CQLORADO
fit'-l•' ' j .. ,el R6
Nd, X40
c`� "' t�j Robert D. Masden, Chair
1861 (� „A
�� ;; ,�( Jerk to the Bard
�� William H erke, Pro-Tern
Deputy Clerk to the Board -.1/44
. Geile ,Q
TAPE #2004-19
Da id . Long
DOCKET#2004-37 w
Glenn Vaa
2004-1020
PL1245
EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET
Case PZ#1020 -WAKE, LLLP, C/O CLIFFORD CLIFT AND PAUL CLIFT
Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description
A. Planning Staff Inventory of Items Submitted
B. Planning Commission Resolution of Recommendation
C. Planning Commission Summary of Hearing (Minutes 02/03/2004)
D. Clerk to the Board Notice of Hearing
E. Applicant Waiver of 45 Day Notice (02/19/2004)
Letter re: Appaloosa Acres Covenants
F. Witwer, Oldenburg, Berry& Johnson dated 4/6/04
G. Diane Druitt Letter of Opposition dated 4/13/04
H. Kurt & Elaine Peterson Letter of Opposition dated 4/13/04
I. Chrysten Hinze, Attorney Letter re: Lot 15C & Bridge path, rec'd
4/16/04
J. Karon & Michael Long Letter of Opposition dated 4/19/04
K. lim Thnmpsnn I attar of flppnsitinn riatari 4/1Q/n4
L. Planning Staff Affidavit of posting
M. Clifford Clift Deed
N. Clifford Clift CD and Printout of Presentation
O.
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
U.
V.
ATTENDANCE RECORD
HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS ON THIS 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2004:
DOCKET#2004-41 - HCP VENTURES, LLLP/FLOYD WINSLOW
DOCKET#2004-37 -WAKE, LLLP, CIO CLIFFORD CLIFT AND PAUL CLIFT
PLEASE legibly write or print your name and complete address.
NAME ADDRESS
John Doe 123 Nowhere Street, City, State, Zip
It Lai).-c Y neCWssJ 'se\S\ �,pP'' Eaa�o� css . 44:WS
Kitt Koren» 36285 A13qj Roan cairn Co Arsb is
_y L xni� /�iib,-.�./.-r1 ,2 02.E ,-'c R 75' ��,,fi,-�.� co �Po//3
//nn T/fown ear! (/,{' -7-nn bi c,'7 S3 II1..reNCS G G $oCy3
tm a;. 5 1G4 Sc) wci2 i Ktenn6c-ry fo6V3
Fitt.I t }6 S Z to 0 30 wc.A /S /17ZtV4si3'us< c o & '3
CPk/9'714k_ c,042L a6,sa1 waft i8, if* it ,ca . co . Roc, 1/4/3
A4/17 wet 2G'5o V hide Arpvriad Co POI`/9
;`cc \o, o y5ovn 1\1' • 'inn) ()C\) ( 40 O10
_ fosTet 36321 AWL , o @/14%)
p
3432? 4 , a2Le .
/WS s 6/7A-,vo Ave fag- 44omA✓, Ce ,c'06 z/
11 /�6JCF�y l/og M,4eLe1t,c/ 57 DA-to 20 5745/7
4-'w c r ( / clizz �A
93 6 / R/ 't` ,6/>,611- ter ) SO Zed/
Hello