HomeMy WebLinkAbout20031861.tiff HEARING CERTIFICATION
DOCKET NO. 2003-62
RE: CHANGE OF ZONE, PZ #594, FROM THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT TO
THE PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) ZONE DISTRICT FOR SEVEN (7) LOTS
WITH E (ESTATE) ZONE USES AND ONE (1) NON-RESIDENTIAL LOT WITH A
(AGRICULTURAL) ZONE USES - TODD MUCKLER, DEBRA EBERL-MUCKLER AND
ELI KREBS
A public hearing was conducted on August 27, 2003, at 10:00 a.m., with the following present:
Commissioner David E. Long, Chair- EXCUSED
Commissioner Robert D. Masden, Pro-Tem
Commissioner M. J. Geile
Commissioner William H. Jerke
Commissioner Glenn Vaad
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Carol Harding
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 25,2003,and duly published July 31,2003,in the
South Weld Sun, a public hearing was conducted to consider the request of Todd Muckier, Debra
Eberl-Mucklerand Eli Krebs for Change of Zone,PZ#594,from the A(Agricultural)Zone District to
the PUD(Planned Unit Development)Zone District for seven(7)lots with E(Estate)Zone uses and
one(1)Non-residential lot with A(Agricultural)Zone uses. Lee Morrison,Assistant County Attorney,
made this a matter of record. Chair Pro-Tem Masden explained the options available to the
applicant with only four Commissioners present,and Thom Honn,applicant representative,stated
the applicant would like to proceed with the hearing. Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning
Services, presented a brief summary of the proposal and entered the favorable recommendation
of the Planning Commission into the record as written. She stated the Lakota Lakes Ranch Planned
Unit Development(PUD)is for seven lots with Estate Zone uses and three non-residential outlots
with Agricultural uses. She stated the property is currently being mined under Second Amended
Use by Special Review#672,the majority of the surrounding property is agricultural in nature with
homes in close proximity, and the Challenger Ranch PUD is to the south of this property. Ms.
Lockman showed pictures of the property,and showed the location of the existing house,which has
been referred to as being too close to the tank batteries. She stated of 16 referral agencies, nine
responded favorably or included concerns that have been addressed through the Conditions of
Approval;and the City of Greeley recommended denial based on inadequate services,insufficient
setbacks from the oil and gas well, and the length of the gravel surface of the access road. Ms.
Lockman stated the applicants are willing to pave this road to meet the concern. She stated the
Department of Public Works is requiring the pavement, which is consistent with the Challenger
Ranch PUD. Ms. Lockman stated one letter of opposition has been received,from Mr.Challenger's
2003-1861
A ,'GU PL1677
HEARING CERTIFICATION - TODD MUCKLER, DEBRA EBERL-MUCKLER AND ELI KREBS
(PZ #594)
PAGE 2
attorney. She stated she met with Mr. Challenger and his attorney last week to discuss the
concerns, and an e-mail was forwarded to the applicant addressing his concerns. She presented
the applicant's responses to those concerns, marked Exhibit G. Ms. Lockman stated because of
the concerns raised at the Planning Commission Hearing,the applicant agrees to limit the number
of animals on the outlots to 17. Staff recommended changing the language of Condition of Approval
#2.A to state that all 17 animals shall be restricted to Lot D, which was the intent of the applicant.
She also stated the applicant has requested that the Final Plan be administratively reviewed.
Responding to Commissioner Geile, Ms. Lockman stated the noxious weed plan, which was
required at the Sketch Plan phase,has been completed. Peter Schei, Department of Public Works,
stated the drainage report is not complete;however,he spoke to the engineer on August 26,2003,
who agreed it would be completed prior to recording.
Thom Honn, Planning Consultant,represented the applicant and stated this property was part of a
larger piece of ground owned by Albert Challenger,who sold it to Milt Forbes,the prior owner. Upon
the death of Mr. Forbes, the property was sold to the applicants. Mr. Honn stated this is a
continuation of Mr. Forbes'plans,and the initial concept held by Mr.Challenger for this property. He
stated this is similar to the subdivision on Mr. Challenger's 80 acres, and it allows for the
preservation of a natural area,allows lots to be clustered in non-prime agricultural land,creates a
very large open space, and provides a location for an urban or semi-urban resident to be able to
enjoy a country setting without being disruptive to prime agricultural land. Mr.Honn stated the goal
is to create seven lots along the northern portion of the parcel,and the southern edge of the lots is
the flood plain boundary and mining permit area, which covers 60 acres. He stated that Outlot D
is a pasture lot,and is along the river. Mr. Honn stated the front part of this property had previously
been farmed by a neighbor, with some limited produce. He stated the applicants have worked
through several issues with the Planning Commission,and are in agreement with all Conditions of
Approval,as well as the revision to clarify that the 17 horses will be on Outlot D. Mr. Honn clarified
there was a concern about things being placed in a 100-foot setback that is located adjacent to Mr.
Challenger's property, which had a building in place at the time the property was first sold to Mr.
Forbes. He stated the intent of the applicant is not to allow the construction of buildings or other
structures, although it would not prevent a pathway or internal private road the Homeowners'
Association might use for access to the open space,nor would it prevent the pasturing of animals,
or having a corral. Mr. Honn stated the intent has always been that the open space is to be
accessed by the residents of the seven lots, and it is not intended to be open to the public. The
open space will be owned by the Homeowners'Association,and it preserves the intent of the natural
area and use of that land by wildlife,although it does not prevent future connection to a regional path
or trail system. Mr. Honn also stated there is no intent to provide access between the Challenger
Ranch PUD and this PUD; however, a cul-de-sac of appropriate radius and dimension will be
installed at the end of the paved street in order to provide emergency access. Mr. Honn stated
should there ever be a need for public emergency access to the Challenger Ranch PUD if the
access to the East is obstructed,it would be allowed,and that can be added to the Covenants. Mr.
Honn further stated the applicant has no problem with restricting the 17 animal units to Outlot D;the
flood plain has been evaluated, and there has been no change or encroachment of the flood plain
on any existing lots as a result of the mining; an oil and gas agreement is in place; and an oil well
is on site with a separate tank battery on the property with appropriate setbacks per County
2003-1861
PL1677
HEARING CERTIFICATION - TODD MUCKLER, DEBRA EBERL-MUCKLER AND ELI KREBS
(PZ #594)
PAGE 3
standards. He also explained the existing house was built where the setback was not correct,
therefore,part of the application has a revision which reduces the setback for the existing structure
only,and the intent of the applicant is to meet the normal setbacks for future structures. He stated
there will be an agreement in place for the Final Plat submittal that will provide for all of the access
concerns for the oil and gas companies. Mr Honn stated no building will be permitted on Lot 1,
which currently has an access road used by the mining extraction company, and is currently
undergoing reclamation activity. Because the mining does not interfere with the other lots, the
subdivision will continue and Lot 1 will not have any building activity until the mining is done, the
reclamation complete, and the Use by Special Review for mining activity is vacated. Mr. Honn
reiterated the applicant has requested administrative review of the Final Plat.
Todd Muckier,applicant,stated he plans to live in this subdivision,and all seven lots are intended
for family members. Debbie Eberyl-Muckler,co-applicant,introduced herself,as did Eli Krebs,her
son,who is also a partial owner. Ms. Eberyl-Muckler stated this PUD has been many years in the
making,and they hope to have it culminate in a positive contribution to the community. Responding
to Commissioner Geile, Ms. Eberyl-Muckler stated the Quit Claim Deed dated October 31, 2002,
lists all three co-applicants as joint tenants,and Mr.Muckler stated an LLC was formed,consisting
of the three co-applicants,to marked the three lots which will not be inhabited by family members.
Responding to Commissioner Jerke, Mr. Honn stated the open space will be owned initially by the
LLC, and as the subdivision is developed, the large parcel, Lot C, will be deeded to the
Homeowners'Association,and Lot D,where the horse pasture is,will still be owned by the LLC to
allow them to maintain more management control,although it will be accessed by members of the
lots and the Homeowners'Association. He also stated there are easements,which will be shown
on the Final Plat, to allow the current owners to access Lot D through Lot C. Responding further
to Commissioner Jerke, Mr. Honn stated the entire mining process predates the current owners;
therefore,all water rights have been filed by the prior owner,so it is not a responsibility of the current
owner to deal with. The current operation does not intend to come back in and seal it for use as a
water storage site, however, that does not preclude it happening in the future. Mr. Honn stated
currently it is the old style, with a lake that will have to have its water rights filed with the State.
Responding to Commissioner Jerke, Mr. Schei stated Weld County Road 54 is classified as a
collector road,although 80 feet for a collector road may not be enough in the future,and currently,
the County standard is 80 feet of right-of-way for collector streets. Mr. Schei stated for a few other
arterial roads,the County is requiring 130 or 140 feet,and although Weld County Road 54 is not one
of the strategic corridors, it may be beneficial to look ahead, and ask the applicants whether they
are willing to increase that dedication. Mr. Morrison stated it is within the power of the Board to
designate more right-of-way; however, it would be more supportable if it is part of an overall plan
instead of being applied to one application. Commissioner Vaad stated the North Front Range NPO
has designated Road 402, also called 37th Street, as a regionally significant corridor. Mr. Honn
stated from a planning perspective, regional transportation circulation is one of his concerns and
the applicants do not have a major objection; however, setbacks are critical. He stated that along
the north side,there are predominantly two lots, and reserving a ten-foot area without dedicating
right-of-way at this time,would ensure the language for setback protection is from the edge of the
original 80-foot right-of-way,instead of from the edge of the additional reservation. Mr.Honn further
2003-1861
PL1677
HEARING CERTIFICATION - TODD MUCKLER, DEBRA EBERL-MUCKLER AND ELI KREBS
(PZ#594)
PAGE 4
stated the applicants would be comfortable doing that,to acknowledge that it is likely to occur and
the value is protected because of the setback relationship. Mr. Honn also stated the Department
of Public Works has strongly urged the applicants to maintain the setbacks as far north as possible,
even though the property is not actually in the flood plain. He stated the applicant does not have a
problem with the setback being pushed to the north end;however, if the issue with road alignment
starts to create a squeeze,they would hope staff could work on it with direction from the Board prior
to Final Plat submittal. Commissioner Vaad stated he would not support a request for dedication,
only reservation,and Chair Pro-Tem Masden asked staff to work with the applicant prior to Final Plat
submittal. Mr.Schei clarified that Public Works has made a comment suggesting that the building
envelopes be pushed to the north end of the lots; however, that would not include any additional
reservation for right-of-way for Weld County Road 54, because no alignments or interior roadway
would be changed. Mr. Schei stated language could be added to the resolution that at Final Plat,
an additional ten feet of reservation for right-of-way along Weld County Road 54 in addition to the
40 feet of right-of-way is currently being requested. Mr.Morrison recommended alternative language
since recent case law has shown even the word"reservation"has created a problem,that it state,
"Setbacks and building envelopes shall be determined as if the right-of-way were 50 feet wide from
the centerline." In this manner,the County is not suggesting the applicant is donating,dedicating,
or offering anything, it just states the County will start measuring the setback at a point 50 feet out.
Responding to Chair Pro-Tem Masden, Mr. Honn stated it is a good reasonable alternative
approach, and the intent is that this project not preclude an opportunity for Weld County Road 54
to become something larger if necessary; however,at the same time it does not take away from a
property use. He stated there are issues that need to be evaluated to know how they will fit when
measured in this manner, although he stated Lots 1 and 2 will be the only ones with direct effect.
Mr. Honn stated they need to look at access across Lot 1 to Lot 2, since it could be problematic,
although they can work with staff on it. Ms. Eberl-Muckler questioned whether the applicant is
responsible for moving existing utilities,and Mr.Morrison responded the utilities do not have to meet
setbacks,since the setbacks and building envelopes would apply only to structures or leach fields.
Mr. Schei clarified for Final Plat, 40 feet of right-of-way will be shown. Mr. Morrison stated the
current right-of-way is 60 feet,and the language he used takes care of both the ten that was already
there and the additional ten that was being requested,without using the word"reservation",since
the County would count it as if it were 50 feet, even if it is not 50 feet of right-of-way. For the plat
itself, both 10-foot increments are within the 50 feet.
Robert Brown,adjacent property owner,stated he is the closest neighbor to the east and he is very
excited about the development and feels it is the best use of this land. He said it is not prime
agricultural ground, and the project was started several years ago, then halted when Mr. Forbes
died. He stated he is looking forward to it being completed and he encouraged approval of the plan.
Chair Pro-tern Masden closed public testimony.
Responding to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Honn stated there is no conservation easement and the
PUD indicates what the use is on the open space parcel, and there is no intent to provide a
conservation easement. The conservation easement granted to the benefit of the County for a
Heron rookery on an adjacent property does not have anything to do with this 80-acre parcel. Mr.
2003-1861
PL1677
HEARING CERTIFICATION -TODD MUCKLER, DEBRA EBERL-MUCKLER AND ELI KREBS
(PZ#594)
PAGE 5
Honn stated the applicants goal with the open space is to be consistent with the neighboring
conservation easement. Mr. Honn further responded that Colson Excavating is the company
currently doing the gravel extraction.
Commissioner Vaad moved to approve the request of Todd Muckier, Debra Eberl-Muckler and Eli
Krebs for Change of Zone,PZ#594,from the A(Agricultural)Zone District to the PUD(Planned Unit
Development)Zone District for seven(7)lots with E(Estate)Zone uses and one(1)Non-residential
lot with A(Agricultural)Zone uses, based on the recommendations of the Planning staff and the
Planning Commission,with the Conditions of Approval as modified. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Jerke. Responding to Chair Pro-Tern Masden, Mr. Honn verified the applicant
agrees with both revisions discussed earlier,to restrict livestock use to Lot D,and language revised
by Mr. Morrison concerning the setback. The motion carried unanimously. There being no further
discussion, the hearing was completed at 11:30 a.m.
This Certification was approved on the 3rd day of September, 2003.
APPROVED:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
_ATTEST: d oo��%/u���� EXCUSED
�J David E. ong, Chair
Weld County Clerk to the Board (A
de
l� '`r�� � Robert asden, ro-
��Y. /t; Cat
r 1861 y •, - . the Board a u
M. J. Geile
Willia H. Jerk
DOCKET #2003-62
Glenn Vaad
2003-1861
PL1677
EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET
Case PZ #594 -Todd Muckier, Debra Eberl-Muckler, and Eli Krebs
Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description
A. Planning Staff Inventory of Item Submitted
B. Planning Commission Resolution of Recommendation
C. Planning Commission Summary of Hearing (07/01/2003)
D. Clerk to the Board Notice of Hearing
E. Colorado Division of Minerals Minerals Program Inspection
and Geology Report (06/08/2003)
F. Planning Staff Affidavit of Posting
G. Applicant Response to Challenger Questions
H.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
O.
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
U.
V.
ATTENDANCE RECORD
HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS ON THIS 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2003:
DOCKET#2003-62 - CHANGE OF ZONE, PZ#594 -TODD MUCKLER, DEBRA EBERL-MUCKLER, AND ELI KREBS
PLEASE legibly write or print your name and complete address.
NAME ADDRESS
John Doe 123 Nowhere Street, City, State, Zip
-) /( 4e.C. / 7e5 a»e��Or /7 7Ale 2PasYo2o}"Zarta/
_ .,ca,„,o F Ae- rl. - t/-4.‘d cS9`2/-p1 ®5_r 4p FiJe.i;-cr:u e"79 �93g
- i"_� Lzx} 7,11 /7Ja�J i4 f /z 1yr i2 Lilye. .7 /ZA de , etcej
-1 14" 22/&� %-A - C ✓✓ « <<
Viai . ln� /h9) (�«i,;1410 Ot TO. CP) RczC
4 , J .5 � rown 7360 LJC �2 s- v . ( 6� ns'�"oz.J ,� C' cs V. v� 3LI
52411/1/%7/Y / 1 11 I t t I r t 11
SHERI Lockman Challenger questions Page 2_,
HAVE TO PUT IN A CULDESAC (sp?)WE SPOKE TO HIM ONCE AND HE SAID HE WAS PLANNING
A CULDESAC. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT/EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT, MIGHT BE THE ONLY THE
ONLY POSSIBLE NEED FOR CROSSING ONTO CHALLENGER'S PROPERTY.
SHERI, WE, IN TURN, WOULD LIKE THE SAME INFORMATION. PLEASE ASK CHALLENGER IF HE
IS ALSO GOING TO INFORM HIS HOA THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO CROSS INTO
THE LAKOTA LAKES RANCH.
WE HAVE NO INTEREST OR NEED TO CROSS INTO CHALLENGER'S PUD. WE SEE NO
RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE THIS STIPULATION PART OF OUR COVENANTS.
CHALLENGER CAN PUT UP "NO TRESSPASSING" SIGNS AND THEY WILL BE
REGARDED.
> Fourth, at the hearing it was stated that there would be no random
pasturing of horses. I have explained that the Conditions of Approval as approved by the Planning
Commission do not restrict pasturing. Could you clarify your intent? Also, would you be willing to include
further clarification of your intent as a development standard or within the covenants?
THERE IS AN EXISTING PASURE AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT. AS STATED ABOVE, WE WILL
RETAIN AS MANY RIGHTS AS POSSIBLE IN RELATION TO THE USE OF OUR PROPERTY AS
WOULD OUR NEIGHBOR. WE WILL NOT VIOLATE ANY KNOWN EXISTING EASEMENTS OR
LIMITS, BUT WE WILL NOT WELCOME ANY REQUESTS TO PUT ADDITIONAL LIMITS ON
OURSELVES IN THIS REGARD.
ANYONE WHO PURCHASES A LOT WILL UNDERSTAND THAT THEY HAVE USE OF THEIR
ACREAGE ONLY- FOR LIMITED PASTURE/CORRAL USE AS WILL BE STATED IN THE
COVENANTS, IN LINE WITH COUNTY APPROVED GUIDELINES.
SHERI, SORRY FOR THIS ADDED WORK. PLEASE, LET ME KNOW HOW IT GOES, i.e. what
response you get.
Thank you,
Todd & Debra Eberl-Muckler
> I would appreciate a quick response so that the surrounding property
owner can determine whether his concerns are valid. Thank you for your
help.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' SIGN POSTING
CERTIFICATE
THE LAST DAY TO POST THE SIGN IS August 8, 2003 THE SIGN SHALL BE POSTED
ADJACENT TO AND VISIBLE FROM A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY.
IN THE EVENT THE PROPERTY BEING CONSIDERED FOR A SPECIAL REVIEW IS NOT
ADJACENT TO A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE DEPARTMENT
OF PLANNING SERVICES SHALL POST ONE SIGN IN THE MOST PROMINENT PLACE ON
THE PROPERTY AND POST A SECOND SIGN AT THE POINT AT WHICH THE DRIVEWAY
(ACCESS DRIVE) INTERSECTS A PUBLICALLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY.
I, VONEEN MACKLIN, HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE
SIGN WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY AT LEAST TEN DAYS BEFORE THE BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS HEARING FOR PZ-594 IN THE AGRICULTURAL ZONE DISTRICT.
Sheri Lockman
Name of Person Posting Sign
Signature of Person Posting Sign
STATE OF COLORADO
) ss.
COUNTY OF WELD ) r/4
The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to me thi day of / i( ( _ , 2003.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
IP
1 01O
y Public
My Commission Expires:
y
f
p
ATTENDANCE RECORD
HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS ON THIS 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2003:
DOCKET#2003-62 - CHANGE OF ZONE, PZ#594 -TODD MUCKLER, DEBRA EBERL-MUCKLER, AND ELI KREBS
PLEASE legibly write or print your name and complete address.
NAME ADDRESS
John Doe 123 Nowhere Street, City, State, Zip
rt iS8S /W7(.5 GO��ur7 .Ca!rat EFas 4‘ .�2.e.%.a/
�' > i/Z≥- ill
/ t/'fac/ i a/6 . y¢� ,9 Zap i-)/ (k . 61o5ei
7 ) l7 .z <<
07"1,5 C-, �{� / 0/ icui4 obt) r fc. w) R5 2C
/ .S gown 73 4 6 LAJ C P S" Ll Lc C in n s-IL o L-34-) Clem a c>U 3 �
1 i T411/n7/Y / 1 0 Ii Ii l l /
Hello