HomeMy WebLinkAbout20042413.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Bruce Fitzgerald that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County
Planning Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1000
APPLICANT: Stenerson, Olson & Lowry Development
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: W2 W2 NE4 of Section 30, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from (R-1) Residential to PUD (Nesting Crane Ranch)
for nine (9) lots with Estate (E) uses (33 acres)and three (3) non-
residential outlots (6.26 acres)for open space
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Hwy 66 and approximately '% mile east of
CR 1.
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 27-5-30
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. The proposal is
consistent with the aforementioned documents as follows:
1. Section 22-2-60.C(A. Goal 3)—Provide mechanism for the division of land which
is agriculturally zoned. Options for division shall be provided to ensure the
continuation of agricultural production and accommodate low intensity
development. Urban-scale residential, commercial and industrial development
will be discouraged in areas where adequate services and infrastructure are not
currently available or reasonably obtainable. The applicant is proposing a low
density residential development 9 lots on 39.64 acres. The minimum lot size is
2.5 acres with an overall density of one septic system per 4.4 acres does meet
the current Department of Public Health's policy.
2. Section 22-2-60.D (A. Goal 4) — Conversion of agricultural land to nonurban
residential, commercial, and industrial uses will be accommodated when the
subject site is in an area that can support such development. Such development
shall attempt to be compatible with the region. This goal is intended to address
conversion of agricultural land to nonurban uses. Once converted, this land is
less conducive to agricultural production. The proposed PUD will be serviced by
Longs Peak Water District for potable water and fire protection requirements.
Individual sewer disposal systems will handle the effluent flow. The surrounding
property consists of primarily single family homes to the east. Agricultural uses
are in practice to the north and south of the site and Seemore Heights
subdivision is located to the west of the site. The majority of the property is level
and is currently not farmed and consists of long grass.
EXHIBIT
oco2004-2413
Resolution PZ-1000
Stenerson
Page 2
a 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 proposal includes 6.26 acres of open space located at the access to
the subdivision.
4. 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. The site is primarily level with no significant natural features.
5. Section 22-2-210.F. 1. (PUD.Policy 6.1.) -- The development should provide for
perpetual maintenance of all commonly shared land and facilities. The County
should not bear the expense or responsibility of maintenance for any commonly
shared land or facilities within the Planned Unit Development. Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards ensure that any future work required to
maintain the open space shall be at the expense of the Homeowners
Association.
6. 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 proposed PUD will be serviced by Longs Peak Water District
for potable water and fire protection requirements. Individual sewer disposal
systems will handle the effluent flow. St. Vrain Sanitation District in their referral
dated May 20, 2004 stated that at this time there is no public sanitation available
but the site does lie with the 208 boundary and is projected to be served by the
St. Vrain Sanitation District in the future.
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 is proposing to utilize an existing
easement in the Seemore subdivision to the west for emergency access to the site. In a
letter dated June 7, 2004 the Weld County Department of Public Works has
recommended that the internal roadway be paved. The applicant is proposing to utilize
an existing easement in the Seemore subdivision to the west for emergency access to
the site.
Section 27-2-40, Bulk requirements — The applicant has chosen to adhere to the bulk
requirements of the E (Estate)Zone District.
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 27-2-220 of the Weld County Code.
Resolution PZ-1000
Stenerson
Page 3
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 currently influenced
by an Inter-Governmental Agreement with the City of Longmont but the application
process was submitted to the County prior to the IGA being established. The site is also
located within the three mile referral areas for the Town of Mead and Boulder County.
The City of Longmont in their referral dated May 26, 2004 object to this application being
processed through the County and request that the applicant work with the City of
Longmont for annexation. The City of Longmont stated that their concerns relate to the
lack of and the design of the open space, wildlife protection, lack of a public sewer facility
at this time, and the application being urban scale in nature. The City of Longmont's
boundary is currently approximately two (2) miles from the site. The Town of Mead in
their referral dated May 14, 2004 also object to this application being considered for
approval as an unincorporated subdivision and they would like the developer to petition to
annex into the Town of Mead. The Town of Mead is currently approximately two and half
(2 %]) miles from the site. Boulder County did not respond to the referral request.
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 II the Weld County Code. The proposed PUD will be serviced by
Longs Peak Water District for potable water and fire protection requirements. Individual
sewer disposal systems will handle the effluent flow. The Weld County Attorneys 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 June 3, 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 Public
Works Department has responded to the referral at this time.
F. Section 27-6-120.6.f - 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 Department of Planning Services shall require an
Improvements Agreement in accordance with Section 27-6-120.6.f of the Weld County
Code for improvements to Nesting Crane Ranch PUD and all on-site improvements.
The Weld County Public Works Department has reviewed the proposal and has
determined that the internal road right-of-way shall be sixty (60) feet in width including
cul-de-sacs with a sixty-five (65) foot radius, and dedicated to the public. The typical
roadway section of the interior roadway shall be shown as two 12-foot paved lanes with
4-foot gravel shoulders on the change of zone plat. The cul-de-sac edge of roadway
radius shall be fifty (50) feet. Stop signs and street names will be required at all
intersections.
Resolution PZ-1000
Stenerson
Page 4
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 site does not lie within any
overlay districts and no commercial mineral deposits have been noted. The Weld County
Department of Public Works stated that the final drainage report by Kenneth Armfield
P.E. dated April 22, 2004 in its initial form is acceptable. The report must be updated to
reflect the 9 lots proposed.
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.
This approval recommendation is based upon compliance with Chapter 27 requirements.
The Change of Zone from (R-1) Residential to PUD for nine (9) lots with Estate Zone Uses along with
three (3) non-residential outlots (6.26 acres) of open space is conditional upon the following:
1. Prior to scheduling the Board of County Commissioners hearing:
A. The applicant shall contact the Department of Public Works to determine if the
emergency access location identified as Eastland Road within the Seemore Heights
subdivision is an acceptable secondary access route for emergency access only. Written
evidence of acceptance by the Seemore Heights subdivision Home Owners Association,
the Mountain View Fire Protection District and the Department of Public Works shall be
provided to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
B. The applicant shall submit written evidence form the Division of Water Resources that an
adequate water source has been provided that will not damage / compromise existing
water rights. (Department of Planning Services)
2. Prior to recording the Change of Zone plat:
A. The applicant shall provide the Department of Public Works with written documentation
verifying that the roadway layout is acceptable to appropriate referral agencies, especially
the fire department of jurisdiction. (Department of Planning Services)
B. The applicant shall address the requirements (concerns) of Department of Public Works,
as stated in the referral response dated June 7, 2004. Evidence of such shall be
submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of
Planning Services)
C. The applicant shall attempt to meet with the Weld County Sheriff's Office to discuss
security and traffic concerns. (Department of Planning Services)
D. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements (concerns) of the Mountain View
Fire Protection District, as stated in the referral response dated May 27, 2004. Evidence
of such shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning
Services. (Department of Planning Services)
E. The applicant shall be required to submit a re-vegetation plan of all disturbed areas
disturbed areas during construction. The plan shall include information regarding plant
type, installation methods and maintenance. (Department of Planning Services)
Resolution PZ-1000
Stenerson
Page 5
F. The applicant shall provide written evidence to the Department of Planning Services from
the school district and post office that the proposed mailbox location and bus shelter
meets their design standards and delivery requirements. Further, evidence shall be
provided that the facility meets the intent of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for
access. (Department of Planning Services)
G. The applicant shall provide to the Department of Planning Services additional detail to the
relationship of the bus pull-out, mail box location and point of ingress and egress for the
development. (Department of Planning Services)
H. The applicant shall provide the Department of Planning Services with a sign plan that
conforms with Section 23-4-80.A of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning
Services)
The applicant shall provide to the Department of Planning Services additional information
pertaining to the entry sign and plant materials, including common, botanical and species
names, size at installation and any additional information deemed necessary by
Landscape Architect, if any. (Department of Planning Services)
J. The applicant shall provide written and graphic evidence to the Department of Planning
Services that the location of residential lots located immediately adjacent to the fifty (50)
foot utility easement are able to meet setbacks for structures and septic systems.
(Department of Planning Services)
K. The applicant shall address the issue of the turf / native and seed grasses in all open
space areas. (Department of Planning Services)
L. The applicant shall provide to the Department of Planning Services evidence of the non-
potable water source and delivery for irrigation for proposed plant materials, if any.
(Department of Planning Services)
M. The applicant shall address the requirements (concerns) of Weld County Department of
Planning Services, as stated in the referral response dated May 3, 2004. Evidence of
such shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Planning Services)
N. The applicant shall submit written evidence to the Department of Planning Services how
the landscaping material located in the three non-buildable open space parcels will be
irrigated. (Department of Planning Services)
O. The applicant shall contact the Colorado Department of Transportation to verify future
right-of-way of Highway 66 evidence shall be provided to the Department of Planning
Services that the future right-of-way has been incorporated into the design. Should
additional right-of-way be required, the open space requirement of 15% may not
be met. Changes to the open space layout may be required. (Department of Planning
Services)
P. The applicant shall identify a road name for the proposed development and provide
written evidence from all applicable service agencies shall be submitted to the
Department of Planning Services that the proposed name is in compliance with their
identification/naming protocol. (Department of Planning Services)
Resolution PZ-1000
Stenerson
Page 6
Q. Tthe applicant shall address the requirements of Weld County Sheriffs office as stated in
the referral response dated May 7, 2004. Evidence of such shall be submitted in writing
to the Weld County Department of Planning Services.
R. The plat shall be amended to include the following:
1. All pages of the plat shall be labeled PZ-1000. (Department of Planning Services)
2. The applicant shall adhere to the plat requirements in preparation of the Change
of Zone plat. The vicinity map shall be delineated at a scale of 1"-2000' and the
Site Plan shall be delineated at a scale of 1"-100' or 1"-200'. (Department of
Planning Services)
3. All references to "outlot" shall be deleted from the Plat. (Department of Planning
Services)
4. The applicant shall provide an Open Space / Landscape Plan per Section 24-3-
50.G of the Weld County Code. (Depart of Planning Services)
5. The applicant shall delineate a Landscape legend and provide additional
information regarding the proposed plant material species. At a minimum, the
applicant shall identify existing on-site plant material delineated with a single dot
in the center of the circle and proposed additional plant material with a "+" in the
middle of each circle. (Department of Planning Services)
6. Intersection sight distance triangles at the development entrance will be required.
All landscaping within the triangles must be less then 3 % feet in height a
maturity. (Department of Public Works)
7. The Change of Zone plat must show the required easements extending to
Eastland Road in the Seemore Heights subdivision for the proposed
development emergency access. (Department of Planning Services)
8. Primary and secondary septic envelopes shall be placed on each lot. All septic
system envelopes must meet all setbacks, including the 100-foot setback to any
well
9. Language for the preservation and/or protection of the absorption field envelopes
shall be placed in the development covenants. The covenants shall state that
activities such as permanent landscaping, structures, dirt mounds or other items
are expressly prohibited in the absorption field site.
3. The Change of Zone is conditional upon the following and that each shall be placed on the
Change of Zone plat as notes prior to recording:
A. The site specific development plan is for a Change of Zone from (R-1) Residential to
PUD for nine (9) lots with Estate Zone Uses along with three (3) non-residential outlots
(6.26 acres) of open space as indicated in the application materials on file in the
Department of Planning Services and subject and governed by the Conditions of
Approval stated hereon and all applicable Weld County Regulations. (Department of
Planning Services)
Resolution PZ-1000
Stenerson
Page 7
B. Water service shall be obtained from the Longs Peak Water District. (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
C. 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)
D. 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)
E. Language for the preservation and/or protection of the absorption field envelopes shall be
placed in the development covenants. The covenants shall state that activities such as
permanent landscaping structures, dirt mounds or other items are expressly prohibited in
the absorption fields.
F. During development of the site, all land disturbances shall be conducted so that nuisance
conditions are not created. If dust emissions create nuisance conditions, at the request
of the Weld County Health Department, a fugitive dust control plan must be submitted.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
G. In accordance with the Regulations of the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission any
development that disturbs more than 5 acres of land must incorporate all available and
practical methods which are technologically feasible and economically reasonable in
order to minimize dust emissions. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
H. If land development creates more than a 25 acre contiguous disturbance, or exceeds 6
months in duration, the responsible party shall prepare a fugitive dust control plan, submit
an air pollution emissions notice, and apply for a permit from the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
The Home Owners Association shall be responsible for replacing all dead or dying plant
material in the open space areas. (Department of Planning Services) A Home Owner's
Association 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)
J. Weld County's Right to Farm as delineated on this plat shall be recognized at all times.
(Department of Planning Services & Department of Public Health and Environment)
K. Stop signs and street name signs will be required at all intersections. (Departments of
Planning Services and Public Works)
Resolution PZ-1000
Stenerson
Page 8
L. All signs including entrance signs shall require building permits. Signs shall adhere to
Section 23-4-80 of the Weld County Code. These requirements shall apply to all
temporary and permanent signs. (Department of Planning Services)
M. Installation of utilities shall comply with Section 24-9-10 of the Weld County Code.
(Department of Planning Services)
N. Building permits shall be obtained prior to the construction of any building or structure.
Building permits are also required for signs and structures such as bus shelters if
provided. (Department of Building Inspection)
O. Activities such as permanent landscaping, structures, dirt mounds or other items are
expressly prohibited in the septic absorption field site. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
P. A plan review is required for each building except for buildings that meet the definition of
Ag Exempt buildings. Plans shall bear the wet stamp of a Colorado registered architect
or engineer. Two complete sets of plans are required when applying for each permit.
(Department of Building Inspection)
Q. 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 Building
Code, 2003 International Residential Code, 2003 International Mechanical Code, 2003
International Plumbing Code, 2002 National Electrical Code and Chapter 29 of the Weld
County Code. (Department of Building Inspection)
R. Each building will require an engineered foundation based on a site-specific geotechnical
report or an open hole inspection performed by a Colorado registered engineer.
Engineered foundations shall be designed by a Colorado registered engineer.
(Department of Building Inspection)
S. Each septic system will require engineered septic systems due to poor soils and/or
shallow bedrock conditions. (Department of Health and Environment)
T. Building height, wall and opening protection and separation of buildings with mixed uses
shall be in accordance with the Building and / or Residential Code in effect at the time of
permit application. Setback and offset distances shall be determined by the Weld County
Code. (Department of Building Inspection)
U. Building height shall be measured in accordance with the applicable 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. Off-set and setback requirements are measured to the
farthest projection from the building. (Depart of Building Inspection)
V. The property owner shall be responsible for compiling with the Performance Standards of
Chapter 27, Article II and Article VIII, of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning
Services)
Resolution PZ-1000
Stenerson
Page 9
W. Personnel from 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)
X. The site shall maintain compliance at all times with the requirements of the Weld County
Departments of Public Works, Public Health and the Environment, and Planning
Services, and adopted Weld County Code and Policies. (Department of Planning
Services)
Y. 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)
Z. 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 two (2) 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 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)
AA. The PUD Final Plan shall comply with all regulations and requirements of Chapter 27 of
the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
4. 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)
5. At the time of Final Plan submission:
A. The Final Plat approval shall be reviewed by Board of County Commissioners and
Planning Commission.
B. Easements shall be shown in accordance with County standards and/or Utility Board
recommendations, and dimensioned on the final plat. (Department of Planning Services)
C. The applicant shall submit an on-site (private) Improvements Agreement with the final
plat application that addresses all improvements associated with this development, per
compliance with Section 24-9-10 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning
Services)
D. The applicant shall submit a final Landscape Plan which addresses all issues listed on
the memorandum dated May 3, 2004 from Weld County Department of Planning
Services. (Department of Planning Services)
Resolution PZ-1000
Stenerson
Page 10
E. The applicant shall provide written documentation to the Department of Planning
Services that the bus pullout area satisfies both Public Works and the School District.
The right-of-way will be dedicated on the Final Plat. (Departments of Planning Services)
F. Evidence shall be provided to Weld County Department of Planning Services from the
applicable Post Office stating that the proposed mailbox location meets their design
standards and delivery requirements. Should a single pedestal mail box not be the
preferred standard, written evidence from the applicable Post Office shall be provided
stating the contrary. (Department of Planning Services)
G. Additional information shall be submitted regarding the Bus Shelter. The information shall
include setbacks, road right-of-way encroachment, type of construction and foundation.
(Department of Planning Services)
H. The applicant shall submit a time frame for construction in accordance to Section 27-2-
200 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
Upon approval of an access location the applicant shall submit a request to a Weld
County Building Technician for lot addresses. The subdivision street name and lot
addresses shall be submitted to the Mountain View Fire Protection District, the Weld
County Sheriffs Office, Ambulance provider, and the Post Office for review. Written
evidence of approval shall be submitted to the Weld County Department of Planning
Services. (Department of Planning Services)
J. The applicant shall address the requirements of Weld County School District RE-1J St.
Vrain Valley as stated in the referral response dated May 26, 2004. Evidence of such
shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Planning Services)
K. Prior to the submittal of the final plan the applicant shall verify with the St. Vrain
Sanitation District to determine the location of the nearest sanitary sewer line. In
accordance with the Weld County Code, if a sewer line exists within four hundred (400)
feet of the property line and the sewer provider is willing to serve the proposed structure,
a septic permit cannot be granted by the Weld County Department of Public Health and
Environment. Evidence of such shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County
Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
L. The applicant shall submit covenants for Nesting Crane Ranch PUD. The covenants shall
be approved by the Weld County Attorney's Office prior to recording the final plat.
(Departments of Public Health and Environment and Planning Services)
M. Finalized covenants and the appropriate recording fee (currently $6 per page) shall be
submitted to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning
Services)
N. The applicant shall provide the Department of Public Works with a pavement design
prepared by a professional engineer. (Department of Public Works)
O. Intersection sight distance triangles at the development entrance will be required. All
landscaping within the triangles must be less then 3 '/% feet in height a maturity.
(Department of Public Works)
Resolution PZ-1000
Stenerson
Page 11
P. The applicant shall submit to Public Works a stamped, signed and dated final plat
drawings and roadway/ construction and grading plan drawings for review. Construction
details must be included. The applicant shall prepare a construction detail for typical lot
grading with respect to drainage. Front, rear and side slopes around building envelopes
must be addressed. In addition, drainage from rear and side lot line swales shall be
considered. Building envelopes must be planned to avoid storm water flows, while taking
into account adjacent drainage mitigation. (Department of Public Works)
Q. The applicant shall submit to the Department of Public Works a final drainage report to
Public Works stamped, signed and dated by a professional engineer licensed in the State
of Colorado. The final drainage report shall include a flood hazard review documenting
any FEMA defined floodways. The engineer shall reference the specific map panel
number, including date. The development site shall be located on the copy of the FEMA
map. (Department of Public Works)
R. The applicant shall submit to the Department of Public Works a final drainage
construction and erosion control plans (conforming with the drainage report) stamped,
signed and dated by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado.
S. 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). (Dept. of Planning Services)
6. Prior to construction:
A. Stop signs and street name signs will be required at all intersections. (Departments of
Planning Services and Public Works)
Motion seconded by Bryant Gimlin
r
Resolution PZ-1000
Stenerson
Page 12
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Michael Miller
John Folsom
Bryant Gimlin
Stephen Mokray
Bruce Fitzgerald
James Rohn
Tonya Strobel
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 June 15, 2004.
Dated the 15th of June, 2004.
etLI.C 1--:1 Mae t L
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
( - /5'_. O,-'x/
Strobel, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Doug Ochsner commented that he is hugely concerned with IGA and their ability to take away property
rights from the land owners he does compliment the Town of Hudson for keeping the boundary within the
Ys mile service area.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1000
APPLICANT: Stenerson, Olson & Lowry Development
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: W2 W2 NE4 of Section 30, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from (R-1) Residential to PUD (Nesting Crane Ranch)
for nine (9) lots with Estate (E) uses (33 acres)and three (3) non-
residential outlots (6.26 acres)for open space
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Hwy 66 and approximately ''/3 mile east of
CR 1.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-1000, 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. Staff is
requesting the following changes to the comments: addition of 2Q to prior to recording the plat that states
the applicant shall address the requirements of Weld County Sheriffs office as stated in the referral
response dated May 7, 2004. Evidence of such shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County
Department of Planning Services.
James Rohn asked when the application was submitted and when did the Longmont IGA become
affective? Ms. Hatch indicated the Longmont IGA was established in October 2002 and the Sketch Plan,
which is the first stage, was submitted in February 2002. Mr. Rohn asked if the Division of Wildlife had
responded. Ms. Hatch indicated they had not.
Stephen Mokray asked Ms. Hatch where Mead was located in reference to this proposal. Ms. Hatch
indicated it was 2 '/z miles from the site east on Hwy 66, Longmont is 2 miles south.
Bryant Gimlin asked Mr. Barker about the IGA with Longmont and how this interacts with the application.
Mr. Barker stated that in 1997 the first Frederick, Firestone and Dacono IGA was established. There were
a number of cases that were PUD Sketch Plans that were submitted prior to that date. The Board of
County Commissioners made the determination that the Sketch Plan, in accordance with the State Law
was what began the process for the PUD. This was the time in which is was considered submitted
therefor not subject to the agreement that came into affect after the Sketch Plan submittal date. This has
been consistent throughout the IGA's. The same rule applies to every IGA adopted.
John Folsom spoke of a possible conflict in the code with the adjacency of the Seemore subdivision. The
Longmont letter indicates the subdivision would not be considered non urban if it were adjacent to an
existing subdivision. Mr. Folsom questioned if this reference would not allow the subdivision to be
constructed? Ms. Hatch stated that having an existing subdivision adjacent to this proposal makes it meet
urban scale. The applicant is proposing to meet urban scale and pave the access. Mr. Folsom asked
why there was not a referral to CDOT? Ms. Hatch indicated the applicant has submitted a access permit
with the application which means they have contacted CDOT and there were no concerns. Mr. Folsom
asked if this property encroaches on the area for the expanded Union Reservoir? Ms. Hatch stated it
does not.
James Rohn asked if there were repetitive conditions that could be combined. Mr. Gimlin added that
Conditions 3 H &Y could all be combined and Condition 31 could be combined with the new Condition 3Y..
Ms. Hatch indicated they could all be combined into one statement.
Michael Miller asked about contiguity with the adjacent subdivision they must meet urban standards, but is
it acceptable to be on septic system? His understanding is that urban standards require City sewer. Mr.
Barker stated there was a change to the definition of urban which took out the requirement of public
sewer. The definitions allows for PUD to have septic system and still be considered an urban use. It is no
longer a requirement to have public services. Ms. Hatch read the urban scale development definition for .
PUD from the code.
S
John Folsom quoted from Section 27-1-10.b"the PUD zone district is not intended to be used to
circumvent or distort the policies and objectives of Chapters 22, 23, 24&26 of this code." Mr. Folsoms
concern is the only reason this is being applied for under a PUD is to get away from the adjacency issue,
otherwise the application would have been under the minor subdivision.
Mike McDunna, representative, indicated they would like the Final plat reviewed administratively.
Michael Miller asked about not using any of the available irrigation but to use treated water, why? Wayne
Wentworth, engineer for the project, indicated the main reason is that the land is sloped north and south,
and the location of the ditch would only allow for a small portion of property to be served without having a
pump system. The site needs a dual system to be able to irrigate in its entirety. Mr. Miller asked why a
dual system was not integrated into the design? Mr. Miller added it is difficult to maintain lots of that size
without irrigation. Mr. Wentworth indicated the majority of the lots will be native grasses while the areas
around the homes will be landscaped. Mr. Mokray asked how much irrigation water is with the ground.
Mr. Wentworth indicated five shares of Starboard Ditch. Mr. Jeff Olson, applicant, indicated they own five
shares and are the last down stream user of the ditch and it is a dry ditch. The property owner to the east
has vacated the ditch. Mr. Miller asked about the upstream users? Mr. Barker stated that it depends
upon the relationship and rights to the ditch. The agreements done by owners when the ditch was put
together plays a large role. Mr. Miller indicated his concern with five acres of land that will not all be
maintained, if this is the case the ground will be overgrown with weeds. Mr. Wentworth stated the area
around the house will be sod but the remainder will not be sodded. Mr. Miller asked if livestock was
allowed. Mr.Wentoworth indicated there would be no livestock. Mr. Mokray asked if the five shares were
initially used on the property? Mr. Wentworth indicated that in the two years he has been associated with
the project it has not been used. Mr. Mokray indicated if there is no irrigation water the area will be a
weed bed and with the pressure on municipal water supply that is not a good plan. Mr. Wentworth added
that there are subdivisions with dual systems but in the last few years developers have moved away
because of maintenance cost and the cost of installation.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Joe Knight, neighbor to the east, indicated his concerns were that he wanted to maintain a rural area.
Traffic is a huge concern and adding nine more homes would make it worse. The Starboard Ditch is a
lateral off of Highland Ditch Company. The five shares that came with the property could be Big
Thompson water. The ditch has not been abandoned it fades out. There is no way to deliver the water to
the property unless something is constructed. Mr. Knight does not want to see a subdivision in the area.
Guy Dinger, mother in law owns property to west, indicated his concern with the increase in traffic. The
proposed water pipeline to this site will be located in the easement known as Easement Road in the
Seemore Heights Subdivision which was vacated. The easement is a concern because this is a back
access to their properties. The neighbor has been paying taxes on that easement for years. There is a
concern over livestock issues and the possible complaints associated with this. Mr. Dinger asked how the
water will drain from the properties without coming onto the adjacent properties? The land has been
irrigated prior to this proposal. Mr. Dinger would not like to see any more homes behind them. Mr. Miller
asked where the water goes at this point? Mr. Dinger indicated to the water goes to the east and the
south.
Bob Sweeney, neighbor to the south, would like to see the design of the property. Mr. Sweeney does not
have any issues but would like to see where the open space is and how the drainage for the site will be
designed.
The Chair closed the public portion.
Wayne Wentworth added that there is a high spot and everything flows to the south from the highs spot, to
the north there is a low area where water congregates and moves across to Elmore Road in the Seemore
Heights Subdivision. In the drainage report submitted they are proposing a detention basin on the north
and either getting an easement for a pipe or an open flow to the barrow pit at Elmore Road where it ends
up at this point.
Michael Miller asked if Public Works has reviewed the drainage plan and if it is appropriate? Mr. Shei
stated the plan has been reviewed and they see no concerns. The developer is not permitted to have any
drainage release from the development that is greater than the historical five year level. This proposal is
to not increase. The concern from Public Works standpoint is will there be any impact to adjacent owners
and there is none in this case. Mr. Miller asked about the five shares and if there were any other water
rights associated or were these just carrying rights? Mr. Olson added that his understanding is there are
two different water rights that came with the property, one was with Big Thompson which were five share
and there were additional shares from the Starboard Ditch.
Michael Miller asked if the covenants prohibit animals on property?. Mr. Olson indicated they will allow
equestrian uses only. Mr. Olson added that he is in agreement with the surrounding owners that there not
be a large number of homes. The current zoning allows for several more homes and this is not the intent
of the developer. The Estate Zone will allow for a limited number of homes. Mr. Olson added that the
nine lots is a better plan for the 39 acres.
James Rohn moved to delete 3H and combine 31 &3Y together and re-letter. Stephen Mokray seconded.
Motion carried.
James Rohn moved to accept staffs recommendations to add a new 2.Q and re-number. Chad Auer
seconded. Motion carried.
Michael Miller indicated his concern with the Final Plan being done administratively. Mr. Rohn indicated
his concern that the premis that adjacency means urban and based on urban Planning Commission has
looked at sewer system as being a line and not a septic system. Even though the wording may not be in
place, Planning Commission has been going on the assumption that this was the criteria. Mr. Rohn does
not believe that this should go forward without being considered as an urban development. Mr. Ochsner
stated the code states a sewer system and a septic systems are a sewer system.
John Folsom asked Mr. Barker how a septic system is considered a sewer system. Mr. Barker stated the
intent was to allow septic, the way it was written was so it took out the requirement of public sewer system.
There was concurrence among staff and Board of County Commissioners that meant that septic systems
could be allowed. Mr. Rohn still believes that with the advice of staff Planning Commission has gone on
for the last six month believing that sewer is a sewer line. The Planning Commission needs to stay
consistent. Mr. Miller asked for examples. Mr. Rohn stated there was one off Hwy 52 and possibly Jeff
Stamps case. (MZ-1017)?
Stephen Mokray asked about a plot plan showing the layout of property and is there dual septic
envelopes. Ms. Hatch stated there is a drawing in the map section of the staff comments. The Health
Department has not requested septic envelopes on the lots.
Pam Smith, Health Department, stated the smallest lot is 2 '/a acres. The preliminary information on the
septic system indicated they will be engineered. The envelopes were not required because of the lot sizes
and there was not comments about livestock being on site. Ms. Smith wants to add language in the
conditions that will address the envelopes on the lots to protect the area for the septic and animals.
Pam Smith indicated that the Point Subdivision is one of those that were large scale development with
septic systems that was approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
Bryant Gimlin wants to see the Final Plan because of there not being any information provided on the final
concept of how this will look.
Doug Ochsner added that he has no problem with the development but he would like to see the water
issue looked at more closely.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Barker to address the issue of the Final Plan coming to Planning Commission
instead of staff alone? Mr. Barker indicated that if the request is stated and is made one of the Conditions
or Standards it could come back. Ms. Hatch stated that the note for administrative approval is in 2H. Mr.
Miller asked if the sentence was deleted would it come back to the Planning Commission automatically?
Mr, Barker stated that it would be better to make certain that Planning Commission is instructing that it
come back. Mr. Barker suggested adding language to 5A.
Pam Smith suggested adding language for the septic envelopes to 2Q8. The language will consist of:
2.R. 8. Primary and secondary septic envelopes shall be placed on each lot. All septic system
envelopes must meet all setbacks, including the 100-foot setback to any well.
9. Language for the preservation and/or protection of the absorption field envelopes shall be
placed in the development covenants. The covenants shall state that activities such as
permanent landscaping, structures, dirt mounds or other items are expressly prohibited in
the absorption field site.
Pam Smith suggested adding the same language under 3D to keep the same comments all together and
re-number.
Bryant Gimlin moved to incorporate the language 2Q8 and 3D from Health Department. Tonya Strobel
seconded. Motion carried.
James Rohn would like to see the language from Mr. Barker added. The language consisted of"the Final
Plat approval shall be reviewed by Board of County Commissioners and Planning Commission.
James Rohn moved to accept the language from Mr. Barker and place in 5A. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded.
Motion carried.
Bryant moved to delete the last two sentences from 2H. Chad Auer seconded. Motion carried
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that Case PZ-1000, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the amended 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, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tonya
Strobel, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 4:30pm
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello