HomeMy WebLinkAbout20032464.tiff INVENTORY OF ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
Applicant Cattail Creek Group, LLC c/o Case Number SCH-23
George DuBard
Submitted or Prepared
Prior to At
Hearing Hearing
1 Staff Comments X
Department of Planning Services Field Check Form
Resolutions for PZ-613
Letter to Applicant
Affadavit of sign posting
Legal Notifications
2 Application X
Maps
Deed
Surrounding Property/Mineral Owners
Utilities
3 Referral List X
Referrals without comment
Town of Eaton, received 6/12/2003
Town of Severance, received 6/27/2003
West Greeley Soil Conservation District, received 6/25/2003
4 Referrals with comments X
Eaton School District, received 6/25/2003
Weld County Department of Public Works, received 7/9/2003
Weld County Department of Building Inspection, received 7/7/2003
Colorado Division of Wildlife, received 6/20/2003
Weld County Department of Zoning Compliance, received 6/10/2003
City of Greeley, received 6/22/2003
Weld County Sheriff's Office, received 7/15/2003
Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment, received 7/21/2003
5 PC Exhibits
6 overhead projector slides
Cattail Creek P.U.D. Map"Before"v."Substantial Change"
6 Planning Commission Resolution
� EXHIBIT
2003-2464
I hereby certify that the 5 items identified herein were submitted to the Department of Planning Services at or prior to the scheduled
Board of County Commissioners hearing.
t l i /1(16
Sheri Lockman fi' Planner II
ress."
r'� n
r ‘iistt*6
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
WC SUBSTANTIAL DETERMINATION
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
COLORADO
Case#: SCH-23 Hearing Date: August 5, 2003
Applicant: Cattail Creek Group, LLC c/o George DuBard
Address: 304 Immigrant Trail, Windsor, Colorado 80550
Request: A Review of a Previously Denied Application for Land Use (Change of Zone PZ-613), and
request for a Substantial Change Determination
Legal Description: Lot C of RE-2637,being part of SW4 of Section 9,T6N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado
Location: North of and adjacent to County Road 70 and approximately 800 feet east of County Road
29
Parcel#: 0805 09 000055 Parcel Size: +/- 161.34 acres
1. It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Service's staff that the applicant has demonstrated that
a substantial change has occurred and recommends approval of the applicant's request.
2. The Weld County Board of County Commissioner's Resolution dated October 2,2002 denied Change
of Zone PZ-613 on the subject property for the following reasons:
A. Section 27-6-120.D.5.b—The uses which would be allowed on the subject property will not
conform to the following Performance Standards:
1) Section 27-2-30 Buffering and screening — The uses and buildings or structures
within the Planned Unit Development will not be adequately buffered and screened
to make their appearance and operation harmonious with the surrounding uses.
2) Section 27-2-35 Buffer zone or area—There is not an adequate buffer zone or buffer
area, also referred to as a transition zone, between the proposed site and
surrounding uses.
3) Section 27-2-70 Compatibility—The density,design,and location of land uses within
the Planned Unit Development are not compatible with surrounding uses.
4) Section 27-2-74 Conservation area—The proposed use will could attract persons to
the steep slopes and riparian areas of Coalbank Creek which could alter the integrity
and character of the area.
B. Section 27-6-120.D.5.c—The development, as designed,would not be compatible with the
existing or future development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing Zone
District and with the future development as projected by the Comprehensive Plan or master
plans of affected municipalities.
1 EXHIBIT
1 1
3. Pursuant to Chapter 2, Article II, Section 2-3-10 of the Weld County Code, the Board of County
Commissioners shall consider the applicant's request for a Hearing of Substantial Change and
whether within the concept of a new application, the facts and circumstances of which are
substantially changed from the initial application:
Criteria 1. --Has the land-use application substantially changed? (e.g., substantial changes in lot
size or density, in internal or external roads, or, in the case of a rezoning, in the uses proposed)
The applicant originally proposed to create a Planned Unit Development with eight(8)one acre Estate
lots and one(1)one-hundred twenty-one acre Agricultural lot along with 30.13 acres of open space.
The new proposal has the following changes:
1) The applicant has increased the eight(8) Estate lots to four(4)acres.
2) The road has been moved to the east.
3) Landscaping has been included in the open space between the lots and adjacent
home to the west.
4) Coal Bank Creek and the flood plain have been included in the residential lots
instead of the open space.
Criteria 2.—Have the surrounding land-uses substantially changed? (e.g.,has the adjacent land use
changed during the period of time since the last application such that what would be compatible with
the adjacent use has changed)
Criteria 3. — Have applicable provisions of the law substantially changed? (e.g., the applicant is
proposing using a different procedure so a different set of criteria apply or the applicable ordinance
has been amended by the Board so the criteria have substantially changed)
�-. Criteria 4. — Within the concept of rehearing the previously denied application, is there newly
discovered evidence that the applicant could not have discovered with diligent effort at the time of the
original application ?
At the Board of County Commissioners hearing,allegations were made that the applicant was taking
irrigation water illegally. The applicant did not have a chance to respond because the allegations
were made during the last step of the change of zone process.
4. Weld County Planning Staff has determined that the submitted information does meet the intent of
a substantial change as outlined in Chapter 2,Article II,Section 2-3-10 of the Weld County Code and
therefore should be allowed to submit the application discussed in the Substantial Change. Further,
Staff would recommend that the applicant proceed to the Change of Zone phase.
/",
2
V. ^County Planning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
•
0CT 18 2002
RESOLUTION RECEIVED
RE: ACTION OF THE BOARD CONCERNING CHANGE OF ZONE #613 FROM A
(AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT TO PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT)
ZONE DISTRICT FOR EIGHT (8) LOTS WITH E (ESTATE) ZONE USES AND ONE (1)
LOT WITH A(AGRICULTURAL)ZONE USES, ALONG WITH 30.13 ACRES OF OPEN
SPACE - CATTAIL CREEK GROUP, LLC
WHEREAS,the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to
Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of
administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the 2nd day of October, 2002, at 10:00 a.m.
for the purpose of hearing the application of Cattail Creek Group, LLC, do George DuBard,
P.O. Box 68, Windsor, Colorado 80550, requesting a Change of Zone from the A (Agricultural)
Zone District to a PUD (Planned Unit Development) Zone District for eight (8) lots with E
(Estate)Zone uses and one (1) lot with A (Agricultural) Zone uses, along with 30.13 acres of
open space, for a parcel of land located on the following described real estate, to-wit:
Lot C of Recorded Exemption #2637; being part of
the SW1/4 of Section 9, Township 6 North, Range
66 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado
WHEREAS, the applicant was represented by Todd Hodges, Todd Hodges Design,
LLC, 2412 Denby Court, Fort Collins, Colorado 80526, and
WHEREAS, Section 27-6-120 of the Weld County Code provides standards for review
of said Change of Zone, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners heard all the testimony and
statements of those present, studied the request of the applicant and the recommendations of
the Weld County Planning Commission and, having been fully informed, finds that this request
shall be denied for the following reasons:
1. Section 27-6-120.D.5.b- The uses which would be allowed on the subject
property will not conform to the following Performance Standards:
a) Section 27-2-30 Buffering and screening -The uses and buildings or
structures within the Planned Unit Development will not be adequately
buffered and screened to make their appearance and operation
harmonious with the surrounding uses.
b) Section 27-2-35 Buffer zone or area -There is not an adequate buffer
zone or buffer area, also referred to as a transition zone, between the
proposed site and surrounding uses.
c) Section 27-2-70 Compatibility-The density, design, and location of land
uses within the Planned Unit Development are not compatible with
surrounding uses.
//��
2002-2621
PL1628
t�6 /°4492, /:of PA.
CHANGE OF ZONE#613 FROM A(AGRICULTURAL) TO PUD - CATTAIL CREEK GROUP,
LLC, C/O GEORGE DUBARD
PAGE 2
d) Section 27-2-74 Conservation area -The proposed use will could attract
persons to the steep slopes and riparian areas of Coalbank Creek which
could alter the integrity and character of the area.
2. Section 27-6-120.D.5.c-The development, as designed, would not be
compatible with the existing or future development of the surrounding.area as
permitted by the existing Zone District and with the future development as
projected by the Comprehensive Plan or master plans of affected municipalities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Weld County, Colorado, that the application of Cattail Creek Group, LLC, do George DuBard,
for a Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to a PUD (Planned Unit Development) Zone District
on the above referenced parcel of land be, and hereby is, denied.
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted
by the following vote on the 2nd day of October, A.D., 2002.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
j��/ WEkD COUN �LORADO
� nte//del /
ATTEST: '•r' f . �� �K (/
n Vaaa—Chair
Weld County Clerk to th=�iio- �';;`� '� �► $
f`-til 9a
David E. L g, Pro-
jl
BY:
Deputy Clerk to the Bob
M. J. Geile
R DAS __ : SI
: xn
ntyey
Date of signature: jO/15
2002-2621
PL1628
Wt1u County Planning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
HEARING CERTIFICATION OCT 1 8 2002
DOCKET NO. 2002-71 RECEIVED
RE: CHANGE OF ZONE #613 FROM THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT TO PUD
(PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) ZONE DISTRICT FOR EIGHT (8) LOTS WITH
E (ESTATE) ZONE USES AND ONE (1) LOT WITH A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE USES,
ALONG WITH 30.13 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE -CATTAIL CREEK GROUP, LLC
A public hearing was conducted on October 2, 2002, at 10:00 a.m., with the following present:
Commissioner Glenn Vaad, Chair
Commissioner David D. Long, Pro-Tern
Commissioner M. J. Geile
Commissioner William H. Jerke
Commissioner Robert D. Masden
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Esther Gesick
Assistant County Attorney, Lee Morrison
Planning Department representative, Sheri Lockman
Health Department representative, Pam Smith
Public Works representative, Peter Schei
Court Reporter, Jane Escobar, Wilson George Court Reporters, Inc.
The following business was transacted:
I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated September 13, 2002, and duly published
September 18, 2002, in the Tri-Town Farmer and Miner, a public hearing was conducted to
consider the request of Cattail Creek Group, LLC, for Change of Zone #613 from the
A(Agricultural)Zone District to the PUD(Planned Unit Development)Zone District for eight(8)lots
with E (Estate)Zone uses and one (1)lot with A (Agricultural)Zone uses, along with 30.13 acres
of open space. Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney, made this a matter of record. 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. Ms.
Lockman gave a brief description of the location of the site and surrounding uses. She stated the
property is designated as Prime" farmland, with a small portion on the east side within the
100-Year Flood Plane,which will be in the open space. Ms. Lockman stated 14 referral agencies
reviewed this proposal, and ten responded favorably or provided comments that have been
incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. She stated although the Sheriffs Office did not
respond, the applicant has provided evidence that they have addressed the Sheriff's concern
expressed at the Sketch Plan phase. She further stated the Division of Wildlife submitted a late
referral with recommendations, the City of Greeley recommends denial based on the overall
density, and various letters and petitions of opposition have been received from surrounding
property owners. Ms. Lockman stated the applicant does have an agreement with the North Weld
County Water District to service the homes and lawns, and the Agreement Includes a fee of
$140,000 for off-site improvements to ensure adequate water for the applicant and the
neighborhood. She further stated irrigation for the open space will be from 20 shares of Woods
Lake Mutual and one-half share of Larimer Weld water, which should be adequate for drought
tolerant grasses. Ms. Lockman staled the Department of Public Works is requiring the internal
2002-2644
f : 6?, �Ga_7> PL1628
t-�+-r' ?,nom,
HEARING CERTIFICATION - CATTAIL CREEK GROUP, LLC (COZ#613)
PAGE 2
road to be paved and that the applicant proportionately share the cost of improving Weld County
Road 70 from the westernmost access east to Weld County Road 31. She stated there will be a
bus pull-up at the entrance of the subdivision. The Weld County Department of Public Health and
Environment has reviewed and approved the septic plans,which exceed the setback requirements,
and Lots 1 through 8 will only be allowed one animal unit each. She further stated the applicant
has requested an administrative review of the Final Plan, which wilt need to be included in the
motion if the Board concurs. Responding to Commissioner Geile, Ms. Lockman stated this will be
a Planned Unit Development with E(Estate)Zone uses,which only allows one animal unit per acre_
Peter Schei, Department of Public Works, stated there is an agreement with the applicant for
sharing the proportional costs of improving Weld County Road 70, and staff is also requesting the
applicant pave the internal road, which is consistent with similar developments in the area.
Responding to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Schei stated Condition of Approval #2.1 requires the
Homeowners'Association to maintain the internal road for one year, at which time the County can
accept it for maintenance if built to County standards. Mr. Morrison stated the language is also
appropriate if paving is not required, because then the maintenance will remain the responsibility
of the Homeowners' Association. Responding to Commissioner Jerke, Mr. Schei stated the
development will be accessed from Weld County Road 70. Mr. Morrison stated although Weld
County Road 70 is gravel,paving the internal road helps mitigate future dust complaints. Mr. Schei
stated upon review,staff felt it would be inappropriate to require the applicant to pave Weld County
Road 70, rather, they are requiring road stabilization for one mile of Weld County Road 70.
Commissioner Jerke commented the stabilization will still be a significant cost. Responding to
Commissioner Long, Mr. Schei reviewed the traffic counts for Weld County Road 70. He further
stated the deep road stabilization is a one-time cost and should last fora significant amount of time.
Pam Smith, Department of Public Health and Environment, stated the percolation tests were
conducted during the middle of a wetter summer in 2001 and the irrigation season. She stated the
percolation rates were all within the State and County guidelines on all of the buildable lots, and
will be acceptable for conventional septic systems. Ms. Smith stated the septic envelopes are 100
feet from the flood plain boundary, and each lot has two septic envelopes,which are 2,200 square
feet in size. Responding to Commissioner Jerke, Ms. Smith stated Conditions#2.E through#2.G
are based on State Air Quality requirements. Mr. Morrison added the State requirements pertain
to the construction phase.
Anne Best Johnson, Todd Hodges Design, LLC, represented George DuBard, Manager for the
Cattail Creek Group, LLC. She reviewed the location of the site and the surrounding uses. She
stated most of the lots in the area have been created through the Subdivision and Recorded
Exemption processes. Ms. Johnson stated the applicant met with the current oil and gas owner,
Thomas Oil and Gas Operating Company, which was not a Condition of Approval; however,they
determined the development will not adversely affect the current or future mineral operations. Ms.
Johnson stated the property includes a 120-acre agricultural lot which will remain in agricultural
production using a pivot sprinkler,with a 5-acre building envelope using the current access from
Weld County Road 70. The proposed development has eight lots which have been clustered on
the eastern portion of the site,which is the least agriculturally productive land. Ms.Johnson stated
the development will be accessed by a paved internal road extending from Weld County Road 70,
and there will be a common mail and school delivery station complying with the School District's
requests. She stated the site will also have common open space which will be accessible to each
of the lots, and it will be planted in drought grasses approved by the NRCS. Ms. Johnson stated
2002-2644
PL1628
HEARING CERTIFICATION -CATTAIL CREEK GROUP, LLC (COZ#613)
PAGE 3
a strip of land on the eastern side of the open space is in the flood plain. The Homeowners'
Association will be responsible for maintenance and irrigation,and the amount of water delivery will
not change as a result of this application. She stated the North Weld County Water District has
indicated it has the capacity,willingness, and ability to serve this development, and the water will
also be available for irrigating the one-acre lots. Ms. Johnson stated the clustered formation will
help protect the local habitat, the Covenants are currently under review, and the applicant has
agreed to pay the proportional cost of improving Weld County Road 70 with deep stabilization and
pave the internal road. She stated the Health Department has reviewed and approved the
percolation rates,and improvements will be made to the water line,which will be available to others
in the area, and constructed at the expense of the applicant. She further stated they are currently
working with the Eaton Fire Protection District to meet its standards,and appropriate notices were
sent to the mineral and surrounding property owners. Responding to Chair Wad, Ms. Johnson
clarified the name of this development changed from the Shepardson PUD to the Cattail Creek
PUD between the Sketch Plan and Change of Zone application. In response to Commissioner
Geile, Ms. Johnson stated the ownership remains the same. She displayed a map of the
surrounding parcels which are less than five acres in size, within three miles of the proposal, and
reiterated there will be one internal road, rather than multiple accesses, and it is compatible with
the surrounding agricultural area because they will be retaining a large agricultural parcel under
irrigation. She further stated the Right to Farm Covenant will be placed on all plats, in the
Covenants, and on all sales literature for the individual lots.
Responding to Commissioner Geile, Ms. Johnson explained the General Warranty Deed, dated
May, 2002, is between John and Deborah Shepardson and Cattail Creek Group, LLC; however,
the Shepardsons are still involved. George DuBard,Managing partner,stated he owns 24 percent,
the Shepardsons own less than 50 percent, and there are two other partners. He stated the
Shepardsons sold the land while retaining interest in the LLC. In response to Co mm issioner Jerke,
Ms.Johnson stated water is available for irrigation,and they have a couple of options for vegetation
which will help restrict noxious weeds. She further stated this is not a formal cluster PUD
application; however, it does follow some of the same principals.
Michael Miller, surrounding property owner, stated he represents 173 people who have signed a
petition of opposition. He displayed a Power Point Presentation, marked Exhibit BB, which he
reviewed for the record. Mr. Miller stated 80 percent of the petitioners live within 1.5 miles of the
development,and 20 percent of the signatures represent people who own property or work within
1.5 miles. He stated a portion of his presentation was not made available to the Planning
Commission due to a concern regarding a conflict of interest in relation to his position as a Planning
Commissioner. Mr. Miller stated the field is served by a new concrete ditch which provides water
for the pivot sprinkler, however, the homes will be situated east of the ditch, separating the open
space from the ditch. He stated the area designated for open space is 30 acres of prime farmland
which should remain in agricultural production.
Debra Page, surrounding property owner, stated she lives directly west of the proposed
development and this will damage their prime views of the field to the east and the creek. She
stated they purchased their land from Mr.Shepardson,who indicated the remainder of the property
could not be developed for at least ten years subsequent to a recent Recorded Exemption. She
stated they value the rural lifestyle, and the proposed one-acre lots are not consistent with the
current rural setting. Ms.Page stated the eight homes could potentially produce 30 to 50 residents,
the homes will be located 50 feet from her eastern windows,which will disrupt her view, and she
2002-2644
PL1628
HEARING CERTIFICATION - CATTAIL CREEK GROUP, LLC (COZ#613)
PAGE 4
expressed concern with conflicts during the construction phase. She further stated the applicant
has not proposed a buffer for her property, and the internal road will be adjacent to the property
line. Responding to Commissioner Geile, Ms. Page stated they purchased their property from Mr.
Shepardson who indicated the land to the west would continue to be farmed; however, she does
not have a written statement. She stated they own the 10-acre island lot which is surrounded by
the proposed site.
Mike Page, surrounding property owner, stated the promises made by Mr. Shepardson have not
been kepi, so he sees no reason to believe statements made regarding this development will be
completed.
Mr. Miller stated he owns the property to the north, and he expressed concern with their inability
to fence the slew because it is located within the flood plain. He stated none of the waterways are
owned by the applicant and access to the open space will be limited. He expressed concem with
the potential for trespassing by new children living in the area, He stated there are various
attractive nuisances in the area, and surrounding property owners will be liable if there is an injury
or death. Mr. Miller stated there is no other way to mitigate these issues,than to deny the proposal.
He stated he intends to use his property for a wildlife refuge and eight new residences will not be
compatible with the area.
Bath Perusek,surrounding property owner,stated the approach to the intersection of Weld County
Roads 31 and 70 is very hazardous. She reviewed the various traffic routes in the area, and
expressed concem with new residents complaining about dusty roads. She stated dust abatement
is not very effective and she feels the additional traffic on the dirt roads will ruin their quality of life.
Bill Perusek,surrounding property owner,stated the application is not compatible with surrounding
agricultural uses. He stated many of the current residents enjoy riding horses along the rural
roads, and the additional traffic will hinder those uses. He stated the proposed use is contrary to
the historical uses in the area, one-acre lots are not large enough for livestock, and the livestock
cannot be kept on the open space.
Mr. Miller stated the intersection of Weld County Roads 392 and 31 is very busy. He stated an
average of 1,000 cars turn left or right from Road 31 onto Road 392. He stated there have been
five deaths at this intersection and numerous more accidents, yet there are no improvements
planned for this intersection. He further stated children will likely be attracted to the creek, tail
water ponds, and oil and gas tank batteries, which are all very dangerous. Mr. Miler stated the
domestic water issue has been addressed with a commitment for a new water line; however, he
reviewed the water available for irrigation of the open space and indicated the amounts are not
adequate.
Vicki Mill, surrounding property owner, stated she lives directly across the road to the west. Ms.
Mill stated she is the Secretary treasurer of Woods Lake Mutual,and explained the 20 shares will
only be good for seep water, not early or storage water. She stated due to the drought this year,
Woods Lake Mutual only delivered six-tenths of a share, which is not enough to irrigate 30 acres
of open space. She further stated the half share of Larimer Weld water will only service
approximately five acres. Ms. Mill requested the proposal be denied because there is no lateral to
carry water to the site for irrigation of the open space. Responding to Commissioner Jerke, Ms.
Mill stated on an average year,they would be able to deliver 20 acre feet of water, and explained
2002-2644
PL162S
HEARING CERTIFICATION - CATTAIL CREEK GROUP, LLC (COZ#613)
PAGE 5
the share holders receive seep water that comes into Woods Lake, proportionate to the amount
of shares they hold.
Ruben Hergert, surrounding property owner, stated he farms 237 acres south of the proposed
development,and he has been president of the Woods Lake Mutual Water and Irrigation Company
since it started. He stated there is no way the Woods Lake system can deliver water to this
development. He indicated the location of an old ditch, which has since been removed to
accommodate the pivot sprinkler. Mr. Hergert reviewed the necessary route to provide water to
this site and explained the Cattail Group has no rights to the overflow water from Meyers Lake. He
stated the applicant has created two points of diversion using tail water from two other farms,which
is not consistent with Colorado water law. He further stated the half share of Larimer Weld water
will also be difficult to deliver. He stated the applicant has no ownership of stored water rights to
contribute to the Woods Lake Mutual Company, and the applicant has also entered into a Dry-up
Covenant,which places further restrictions on the farm and he requested the proposal be denied.
Responding to Commissioner Jerke, Pat McNear,Scott Realty Company,stated the old ditch was
removed to accommodate the pivot sprinkler,and the applicant has illegally diverted water he does
not own to irrigate the 40 acres of the proposed development. He further stated the agricultural
portion does decreed water; however, it does not have any ownership in stored water rights. He
submitted a letter of opposition, marked Exhibit II, which he read for the record. He stated the
applicant intends to sell each lot for $150,000, with custom homes ranging from $350,000 to
$500,000. Mr. McNear stated the real estate market in this area will not support those prices, and
he proposed that larger lots,created through the Recorded Exemption process,are more desirable.
He stated Farm Credit Services has indicated the location does not suit this project,market will not
support the proposed prices,and there is already an adequate supply of improved and unimproved
properties in the area to supply the market. He commented that covenants are difficult to enforce,
and the developer does not have a history of completing a development of this nature. Responding
to Commissioner Geile, Mr. McNear stated there is an adequate supply of unimproved lots in this
rural sector, and the anticipated sale amounts will not cover the purchase price.
Chair Vaad recessed the hearing until 1:30 p.m. Upon reconvening, Mr. Miller stated Coalbank
Creek originates 15 miles to the north through seepage. He explained the State owns the water,
various people have rights to use it for irrigation, and use is limited to those who own decreed
rights. He reviewed the water routes and stated the property owner does not have rights to the
water currently being diverted to the proposed site.
Harlan Simonson, surrounding property owner, stated he purchased a neighboring farm in
November and the primary source of water is from the Woods Lake system. He stated due to the
illegal diversion by the applicant, his farm was short of water this past summer, and he plans to
take action to ensure this diversion activity ceases.
Joe Hoff,surrounding property owner,stated the water allotment changes every year based on the
Big T Project, and next year's allotment will only be 30 percent, compared to 70 percent received
this year. He stated an average residence in this area uses approximately 100,000 gallons per
year,with no livestock, and a moderate yard. Mr. Hoff stated surcharges will be assessed for any
usage more than 100,000, and it is unlikely the amount of public water will be adequate for one-
acre lots with livestock.
r
2002-2644
PL1628
HEARING CERTIFICATION -CATTAIL CREEK GROUP, LLC (COZ#613)
PAGE 6
Mr. Miller stated it is unlikely the lots will sell at the proposed prices, which will result in
unmaintained vacant lots. He stated the use is incompatible, it will increase the local traffic
hazards, and it will impose unreasonable liabilities upon the surrounding property owners. He
further stated the development will remove prime agricultural land from production, it will change
the character of the community, and it will create unmanageable open space. He stated the
Covenants have not been available for review, and there are 173 area residents opposed to the
proposal with valid concerns. Mr. Miller displayed a list of suggested conditions if this proposal is
approved. Responding to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Miller stated this is a prime piece of farmland,
which has been farmed profitably with irrigation in the past. He stated the residents in this area
value the sense of community and current lifestyle in the area and they are opposed to eight
houses located right next door to each other, which is incompatible with the area. He stated this
will have a negative impact on the neighborhood and only profit a small group of people. In
response to Commissioner Jerke, Mr. Miller stated he has a decree from 1800 for Coalbank Creek,
which is sufficient to irrigate his property. He further stated it would be more preferable to develop
the land with five or six, 5-acre lots, which are more spread out; however, there would still be
significant concerns regarding water,traffic, etcetera, In response to Commissioner Masden, Mr.
Miller stated until last year the subject property had adequate water; however, the owner sold 95
shares for$0.5 Million, so the property is no longer irrigated.
Responding to Commissioner Jerke, Ms. Page returned to state she owns 10 shares of Woods
Lake and 10 shares of the lateral used to run the water. She explained Mr. Shepardson also
promised them Larimer/Weld water; however, it was never delivered. Mr. McNear responded to
Commissioner Jerke by stating Mr. Shepardson has no late-season rights, Cattail Group only
receives a small amount of seepage, and the delivery is not guaranteed, rather it depends on
availability. He further stated it is not feasible to deliver the 0.5 share of Larimer/Weld water.
There being no further comments, Chair Vaad closed public testimony.
Ms.Johnson reiterated the applicant will pave the internal road, the Homeowners'Association will
maintain the road for one year and request the County to accept maintenance after that. She
stated Weld County Road 70 will be improved with deep stabilization,they will continue agricultural
production using the pivot sprinkler system, and they are providing an upgraded water line, with
hydrants,for use by others in the area. She clarified that Coalbank Creek is not located on the
applicant's property,and the water designated for the property will be used specifically for the open
space. Responding to Commissioner Jerke, Mr. DuBard stated the water for the sprinkler system
is adequate, the unneeded water was sold, and 20 shares of Woods Lake water was retained, in
conjunction with the 0.5 share of Larimer/Weld water, which will be deeded to the Homeowners'
Association. He further stated the Homeowners'Association will receive the same amount of water
received in the past 10 years, based on availability. He further stated they also have shares of the
east lateral to transfer the water to the site. In response to Commissioner Celle, Mr. DuBard stated
the open space will be planted in native grasses, maintained by the Homeowners' Association.
Responding to Chair Vaad, Mr. DuBard explained it is their intension to run 20 shares of Woods
Lake down the east lateral into the concrete ditch, and then through each of the ditches located on
the southern side of each home leading under the road to the open space.
In response to Commissioner Long, Drew Scheltinga, Department of Public Works, stated the
traffic counts on Weld County Road 70, between Roads 29 and 31,averages 89 vehicles per day,
and the proposed homes will generate less than 90 trips per day. He stated they anticipate 60
percent will go east to Road 31 and then north or south. In response to Chair Vaad, Mr. Morrison
2002-2644
PL1628
HEARING CERTIFICATION- CATTAIL CREEK GROUP, LLC (COZ#613)
PAGE 7
stated the surrounding property owners may be liable for the attractive nuisances,and they will also
need to take reasonable steps to help prevent trespassing, He stated the Board does not have the
ability to shift liability from one party to another. He further stated it is difficult to require provisions
and assurances of indemnification when there are multiple homeowners. (Switched to Tape
#2002-34.) Responding to Chair Vaad, Ms. Lockman stated a fence along the slew, within the
floodplain, would be allowed; however, it would still require a flood hazard permit. Commissioner
Jerke stated if this is approved,he does not support the addition of the conditions requested by the
surrounding property owners because most are not reasonable or practical for the Board to
enforce.
In response to Chair Vaad, Mr. Morrison stated marketability of the lots is not a criterion for
consideration. Chair Vaad commented if the subdivision is not completed and the lots remain
vacant, there may be some concern for the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood. Mr.
Morrison stated the developer will be required to provide collateral to ensure services are available
if the lots are sold. He further stated the quality of the residences will be tied to the Estate Zone
standards. Ms. Lockman reviewed the Estate Zone bulk requirements, and stated the average
home will be 1,740 square feet. Responding to Chair Vaad, George DuBard stated he has
reviewed and agrees with the Conditions of Approval.
Commissioner Geile expressed concern with the issue of private property rights and the many
residents opposed to this development who may want to develop their own land in the future. He
also expressed concern with the illegal diversion boxes and the additional restrictions on the land
due to Dry-up Covenants. He stated if this proposal is approved there could be misrepresentation
of the parcel as prime farmland with ample water,which does not appear to be true. He stated this
proposal would have been better presented using cluster zoning, with the remaining agricultural
land under a conservation easement.
Commissioner Jerke stated although it may make sense to do a cluster development, there are
incompatibility issues with this location. He stated it does not appear the development will create
a significant increase in traffic; however, the proposed use of the open space has been vague and
his primary concern is with incompatibility.
Commissioner Long stated this would not create a great burden on the traffic,and the maintenance
would be turned over to the County after one year; however, the proposal appears to be
incompatible with the existing and planned uses in the area.
Commissioner Masden stated the future residents would have to take responsibility for the water
and maintenance issues, and this would impact the private property rights of the surrounding
neighbors and land uses in the area.
Chair Vaad stated there are many lots in the area that are five acres or less, as well as several
subdivisions within a three-mile radius. He stated it appears five-acre sites would be less of a
problem for the neighbors,and he expressed concern with developing a site without regard for the
neighbors. He also expressed concern with the practicality of getting water to the open space.
Commissioner Long moved to deny the request of Cattail Creek Group, LLC,for Change of Zone
#613 from the A(Agricultural)Zone District to the PUD (Planned Unit Development)Zone District
for eight (8) lots with E (Estate)Zone uses and one (1)lot with A (Agricultural)Zone uses, along
2002-2644
PL1628
HEARING CERTIFICATION - CATTAIL CREEK GROUP, LLC (COZ#613)
PAGE 8
with 30.13 acres of open space. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Geile. Each
concurred that the proposal is not in conformance with Sections 27-2-30, 27-2-35, 27-2-70, and
27-2-74 regarding buffering and screening, buffer zones, compatibility, and conservation area.
There being no further discussion,the motion carried unanimously,and the hearing was completed
at 2:45 p.m.
This Certification was approved on the 7th day of October 2002.
APPROVED:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
���� WELD COON COLORADO
�kr ~' i �. � (h
ATTEST: � / . � ' �` ' 'u., ``=Th
�at •n Vaal
Weld County Clerk to the':;a • 4e :�.e 1 \ c
BY: &C��// tV 4% T A4 •Dam E. g, Pro-Te
-7 �Q,. Ill J F A ti
Deputy Clerk to the Board
M. J. eile
TAPE#2002-33 and#2002-34 1171 47
li J rke
DOCKET#2002-71 \\\L__
Robert D. Masden
2002-2644
PL1628
BEFORE Thy WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNINv, :;OMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Fred Walker,along with the addition of Condition of Approval 1 A, 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-613
APPLICANT: Cattail Creek Group, LLC
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman - -
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot C of RE-2637; being part of the SW4 of Section 9,T6N, R66W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to PUD for 8 lots with Estate Zone
Uses and 1 lot with Agricultural Zone Uses along with 30.13 acres of open
space.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to WCR 70 and approximately 800 feet east of WCR
29.
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THAT THIS REQUEST BE APPROVED FOR THE
FOLLOWING REASONS:
1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 26-5-30 of
the Weld County Code.
2. The submitted materials are in compliance with Section 27.6.120 of the Weld County Code as
follows:
A. Section 27-6-120.B.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 22-2-190.D.2.b, 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 v,ould be designed
and located to be easily accessible to all the residents of the project and usable for
open space and recreation...."
The application indicated 30.13 acres of open space surroundinc Lots 1 thru 8.
Twenty(20) shares of Woods Lake Mutual has been allocate-"'.:::: arigate the .pe'
space.
2) Section 22-3-50.B.1, P.Goal 2"Require adequate facilities and services to assure
the health, safety and general welfare of the present and future usidents of the
County." The proposed PUD will be serviced by North Weld County Water District
for potable water and fire protection requirements. Individual sewage disposal
systems will handle the effluent flow.
B. Section 27-6-120.6.b-The uses which would be allowed in the proposed PUD will conform
with the Performance Standards of the PUD Zone District contained in Article II, Chapter
27 of the Weld County Code.
Section 27-2-20, Access standards —The applicant has proposed that the lots be served
by an internal gravel roadway. The Weld County Department of Public Works has
recommended that the internal roadway be paved.
Resolution PZ-613
Cattail Creek LLC
Page 2
Section 27-2-40, Bulk requirements — The applicant has chosen to adhere to the bulk
requirements of the A(Agricultural)zone district for Lot 9. Lots 1 through 8 shall adhere to
the bulk requirement of the E (Estate)zone district except for minimum lot size which will
be one (1) acre.
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.
C. Section 27-6-120.6.c-That the uses which would be permitted shall be compatible with the
existing or future development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing Zoning,
and with the future development as projected by Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code or
master plans of affected municipalities.
The proposed site is not influenced by an Inter-Governmental Agreement. The City of
Greeley indicated in a referral dated July 26,2002 that the proposed PUD does not comply
with the policies and intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan and Resolution 7, 1985.
Further,the City has requested that should the PUD be approved that they recommend that
the interior roadway along with Weld County Road 70 be paved. They are also asking for
60 feet of right-of-way be reserved on Weld County Road 70.
D. Section 27-6-120.6.d-That the PUD Zone District shall be serviced by an adequate water
supply s,n: sewage disposal system in compliance with the Performance Standards in
Article II the Weld County Code.The proposed PUD will be serviced by North Weld County
Water District for potable water and fire protection requirements. The Weld County
Attar:,cy's Office has approved the water agreeme.it between North Weld and the applicant.
Individual sewage disposal systems will handle the effluent flow. The Weld County
Department of Public Health and Environment has indicated in a referral response dated
August 7, 2002 that the application has satisfied Chapter 27 of the Weld County Code in
regard to water and sewer servicc.
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 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 final plat. The cul-de-sac edge of pa 'ement radius shall be fifty (50) feet. Further,
Public Works has required the applicant enter into an agreement with the County to
proportionately share the cost of improving Weld County Road 70 from the western most
access road, easterly to paved Wald County Road 31. The cost will be based on a
proportion of the traffic generated by the development to the existing traffic.
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 Weld County Public Works Department and 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 Cattail Creek PUD and all on-site improvements along
with a proportional share of the cost to improve Weld County Road 70.
C. Section 27-6-120.6.g - That there has been compliance with the applicable recuirements
contsired in Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code regarding overlay districts, commercial
•
•
' Resolution PZ-613
Cattail Creek LLC
Page 3 •
mineral deposits, and soil conditions on the subject site.
The Weld County Department of Public Works stated that a final drainage report and
construction plans, conforming to the drainage report, shall be approved prior to recording
final plat. Further, Public Works has required that the drainage report document and review
FEMA maps to determine if flood hazards exist.
H. Section 27-6-120.6.h-Consistency exists between the proposed zone district(s), uses,the
specific or conceptual development guide. -
The submitted Specific Development Guide does accurately reflect the performance
standards and allowed uses described in the proposed zone district, as described
previously. The applicant is requesting that the Final Plan be administratively reviewed.
The Department of Planning Services' staff concurs with this request.
•
This approval recommendation is based upon compliance with Chapter 27 requirements.
The Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to PUD for 8 lots with Estate Zone Uses and 1 lot with Agricultural
Zone Uses along with 30.13 acres of open space is conditional upon the following:
3. Prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing:
A. If Coal Bank Creek is associated with a ditch company, the applicant s: alt submit an
agreement with the ditch company stipulating that the ditch activities have been adequately
incorporated into the design fo the site or show evidence that an adequate attempt has
-een made t mitigate the concerns of the ditch owners.
^ 4. Prior to recording the Change of Zone plat:
A. The plat shall be amended to include the following:
1) All pages of the plat shall be labeled PZ-613. (Department of Planning Services)
2) The Change of Zone plat sheets shall be renumbered in successive order with
sheet tote' giv>n. (Department of Public Works)
3) The approved accesses to the 5-acre building envelope on Lot 9 shall be shown
on the Change of Zone plat. (Department of Public Works)
4.) The applicant shall show on the Change of Zone plat a typical roadv,,ay section
meeting PUD criteria. The internal roadway right-of-way shall be 60-feet in width
including cul-de-sacs with a 65-foot radius,and dedicated to the public. The typical •
roadway section of 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
pavement radius shall be 50-feet. Evidence of Weld County Department of Public
Works approval shall be submitted to the Weld County Department of Planning
Services. (Department of Public Works)
5) The typical roadway cross-section shown on Sheet 2 (Rezoning Plat) must be
corrected to match that on Sheet 5. (Department of Public Works)
6) The Pavement Section on Sheet 5 shall show the required asphalt depth.
(Department of Public Works)
5. 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:
Resolution PZ-613
Cattail Creek LLC
Page 4
A. The site specific development plan is for a Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to PUD for
eight(8) lots with Estate Zone Uses except for minimum lot size which will be one (1) acre
and one (1) lot with Agricultural Zone Uses along with 30.13 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)
B. Water service shall be obtained from the North Weld County 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 anc Environment)
D. Preservation and/or protection of the absorption field envelopes shall require that
permanent landscaping, structures, dirt mounds or other items are expressly prohibited in
the absorption field site. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
E. 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)
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 induration, 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)
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. Open space restrictions are permanent. (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)
K. Stop signs and street name signs will be required at all intersections.(Department of Public
Works)
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)
•
Resolution PZ-613
Cattail Creek LLC
Page 5
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 Inspection)
O. 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.
(Building Inspection)
P. Buildings shall conform to the requirements of the codes adopted by Weld County at the
time of permit application. Current adopted codes include the 1997 UBC, 1998 IMC, 1997
IPC, 1999 NEC and Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code. (Building Inspection)
Q. Each building will require an engineered foundation based on a site-specific geotechnical
report or an open hole inspection performed by a Colorado registered engineer.
Engineered foundations shall be designed by a Colorado registered engineer. (Building
Inspection)
R. Building height shall be limited to the maximum height allowed per UBC Table 5-B. Wall
and opening protection and limitations shall be in accordance with UBC Table 5-A. (For
residential ncc'ipancies, walls shall be protected with one-hour fire resistive construction
within three feet of property lines and openings are not permitted within three feet of
property lines) Separation of buildings of mixed occupancy classifications shall be in
accorder.:,,with UBC Table 3-B ant' hapter 3. Setback and offset distances shall be
determined by the Zoning Ordinance. (Building Inspection)
S. Building height shall be measured in accordance with the 1997 Uniform 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 27 of the Weld County Code. Building height shall be measured in accordance
with Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code in order to determine compliance with offset and
setback requirements. Offset and setback requirements are measured to the farthest
projection from the building. (Building Inspection)
T. A Flood Hazard Development Plan shall be submitted for buildings constructed within the
100-year flood plain. (Building Inspection)
U. The property owner shall be responsible`or compiling with the Performance Standards of
Chapter 27, Article II and Article VIII, of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning
Services)
V. Personnel from the Weld County Departments of Public Health and Environment, Planning
Services' and Public Works 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)
W. 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)
X. 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)
Resolution PZ-613
Cattail Creek LLC
Page 6
Y. 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 ROD 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)
Z. The PUD Final Plan shall comply with all regulations and requirements of Chapter 27 of the
Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
6. 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 (Microsistion);
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 acccr.+oble).
(Department of Planning Services)
7. At the time of Final Plan submission:
A. Weld County Road 70 is classified by the County as a local road and requires a 60-foot
right-of-way. This right-of-way shall be shown on the final plat. The existing 60-foot
right-of-way shall be verified by the applicant and the documents creating the right-of-way
noted on the final plat. If the right-of-way cannot be verified, it will be dedicated on the final
plat. (Department of Public Works)
B. The applicant will be required to enter into an agreement with the County to proportionately
share the cost of improving Weld County Road 70 from the western most access road,
•
easterly to paved Weld County Road 31. The cost will be based on a proportion of the
traffic generated by the development to the existing traffic. This agreement shall be
submitted with the final plat materials. (Department of Public Works)
C. The applicant shall provide a pavement design prepared by a professional engineer along
with the final plat submittal. (Department of Public Works)
D. Roadway and grading plans along with construction details will be required for the final plat.
(Department of Public Works)
E. Easements shall be shown in accordance with County standards and/or Utility Board
recommendations, and dimensioned on the final plat. (Department of Public Works)
F. 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)
G. A final drainage report stamped, signed and dated by a professional engineer licensed in
the State of Colorado along with construction plans,conforming to the drainage report shall
be submitted with the final plat application for approval prior to recording the final plat. The
report shall address all issues indicated In the"veld :ounty Department of Public
Resolution PZ-613
Cattail Creek LLC
Page 7
referral response dated July 31, 2002. (Department of Public Works)
i-. H. The applicant shall show and name all irrigation systems in the development on the final
plat, including ditch easements. Any increased drainage into an irrigation system shall be
corroborated with the appropriate owner. The applicant shall provide a confirmation letter
from the ditch owner addressing these issues along with the final plat application.
(Department of Public Works)
I. The applicant shall submit a final Landscape Plan which addresses alLissuers listed on the
memorandum dated August 9 , 2002 from Kim Ogle, Planner III. (Department of Planning
Services)
J. Intersection sight distance triangles at the development entrance will be required. All
landscaping within the triangles must be less than 3feet in height at maturity,and noted on
the Landscape Plan. The bus shelter and mailbox kiosk must be place outside the
intersection sight distance triangles. (Department of Public Works)
K. The Weld County Department of Public Works has indicated that additional right-of-way
shall be required adjacent to the bus pullout area equivalent to the width of the pullout lane.
Eaton RE-2 School District has indicated that an eighty (80) foot by fifteen (15) foot bus
pullout shall be required.The applicant shall indicate on the plat a bus pullout area that will
satisfy both Public Works and the School District. The right-of-way will be dedicated on the
final plat. (Departments of Planning Services and Public Works)
L. Evidence shall be provided to Weld County Department of Planning Services from the
applicable Post Office stating that the proposed mail box location meets their design
standards and delivery requiremc-rtts. Shy:ld a single pedestal malt box not be the
preferred standard, written evidence from the applicable Post Office shall be provided
stating the contrary. (Department of Planning Services)
M. 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 Building Inspection)
N. 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)
O. Upon approval of an access location for the building envelope on Lot 9,the applicant shall
submit a request to a Weld County Building Technician for a lot address. The subdivision
street name and lot addresses shall be submitted to the Eaton Fire Protection District, the
Weld County Sheriff's Office and the Post Office for review. Written evidence of approval
shall be submitted to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department cif
Planning Services)
P. Irrigation water will be deeded to the Homeowners Association prior to recording the final
plat Written evidence shall be submitted to the Weld County Department of Planning
Services. (Department of Planning Services)
Q. The applicant shall submit development covenants for Cattail Creek PUD.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. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
R. 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 Exportfiles format type
is GG. The preferect ` :mat for (maces is (Group A' .. (Croup 6 'a not acceptable).
• Resolution PZ-613
Cattail Creek LLC
Page 8
(Dept. of Planning Services)
8. Prior to construction:
A. Stop signs and street name signs will be required at all intersections.(Department of Public
Works)
9. Prior to the release of any building permits:
A. Complete plans for the site shall be submitted for review by the Eaton Fire Protection
District. (Department of Planning Services)
•
Motion seconded by John Folsom
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Fred Walker
John Folsom
Cathy Clamp
Bryant Gimlin
Steph in Mcki ay
Bruce Fitzgerald
James Rohn
Bernard Ruesgen
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, R€:cording 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 September 17, 2002.
Dated the 171h of September, 2002.
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
r�
CASE NUMBER: PZ-613
APPLICANT: Cattail Creek Group, LLC
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot C of RE-2637; being part of the SW4 of Section 9, T6N, R66W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Cadn.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A (,=,gricultural) to PUD for 8 lots with Estate Zone
Uses and 1 lot with Agricultural Zone Uses along with 30.13 acres of open
space.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to WCR 70 and approximately 800 feet east of WCR
29.
Michael Miller excused himself due to a conflict of interest. Cathy Clamp will assume duties as Chair. •
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-613, 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.
John Folsom asked if the Weld County Code calls for development to have larger than one acre lots. Ms.
Lockman stated that the PUD process allows for a variance to the bulk requirements including lot size. They
are within the lines of the code. Mr. Rohn questioned the safety of the septic systems with regard to possible
flooding. Pam Smith,Weld County Department of Health and Environment,stated that the preliminary perk
report was conducted by Northern Colorado Geotech,indicated that ground water conditions range between
i" three and nine feet. Three feet was located in the 30 acre opens space close to the existing ditch. All the
other tests were done where the lots are located and range between eight to nine feet. They fall within the
Page -5-
• guidelines that are required. nere are primary and secondary envelopes un each lots for the septic system.
The closest lot is 220 feet from the creek. Mr. Rohn asked if flooding would contaminate those systems.
Ms. Smith indicated that the soil is described as a silty clay sand. Ground water conditions and septic
location requirements state that there must be a four foot vertical separation to ground water. A 100 foot
horizontal setback to any surface regardless if it is a well, stream, pond or irrigation ditch is also required.
Mr. Rohn questioned if they could be placed in a high water area. Ms. Smith indicated that you can put a
system in a flood plain but not in a floodway.
Ann Johnson, representative for the applicant,provided clarification with regard to the project. Surrounding
land uses are agricultural and rural residential. Lot sizes within a mile radius range from one to more than
100 acres in size. These lots were created through recorded exemption and subdivision processes. Some
lots were created prior to zoning. The one acre estate zone lots will access off of County Road 70. The
common open space is accessible to all lots. The entrance will be enhanced by a common mail and a
school bus station pull off. The 121 acre agricultural lot includes a five acre building envelope. A center
pivot irrigation system will be retained on this due to the productivity of the land. The envelope is accessed
through an existing access on County Road 70. This subdivision will be governed with architectural controls
through covenants. There will also be a Homeowners Association (HOA). The covenants are required at
the final plat submittal stage and will be reviewed by County staff. The HOA covenants will specify the
ownership,use, maintenance and distribution of the water to irrigate the common open space. The applicant
has worked with all the referral agencies prior to the submittal of this application. Weld County Public Works
has agreed to the proportional share calculation for improving County Road 70 as proposed by Matt Delich,
Traffic Engineer. The applicant will pave the internal road to county standards. The applicant has worked
with North Weld County Water District to ensure improvement of the water line to the subdivision to an 8
inch line. The applicant has been in verbal discussions with Tomas Oil and Operating Company. The
Company is considering capping some of the wells and not furthcri 'd operations. The applicant mailed to
surrounding property owners a rendering of the site. The applicant is retaining a large portion of the property
for agricultural use. The Right to Farm will be placed or plats, cc i,-ants and can be placed on any sales
literature for the lots.
Jame, Rohn questioned the non potable water°.,r the open sps•c:and some of the houses !:rough Woods
Lake. How is the water going to be split off and where is the ditch to deliver it. Ms. Johnson indicated that
the applicant would be better suited to answer those questions.
George DuBard, applicant, provided clarificaticnn.vith regard to the ditch. There is a new concrete ditch and
a center pivot on the west lot which will continue to be agriculture. The ditch is the only way to get water to
the property. The current leasee who farms the property would prefer not to flood irrigate the smaller lot due
to the difficulty. Additional water will be forced down the oast lateral concrete ditch through new culverts
that are located under the road to the property. The water will then go down each property line. It will be
evenly d:.trib,.,ted across the open space. Mr. Rohn asked if there would be a headgate or srn:n. way to
ensure the water will be delivered at the same time. Mr.DuBard indicated that the ditch col npany,will deiiver
the water to the gate. 20 shares of Woods Lake stock along with'A share Larimer Weld has been allocated
to this property.
The Chair anked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this -:.n''c-.tion.
Michael Miller, neighbor to the west, began his presentation in opposition of the project.
Lee Morrison,Weld County Attorney, interjected that this puts Mr.Miller in a difficult position."He has stepped
down from the Planning Commission but was actively involved in the earlier meeting. Mr. Morrison aan not
keep Mr. Miller from testifying. He would like Mr. Miller to think about the possibility of another way to get the
information across to the Planning Commission without speaking himself. The fact that he is a member of
the Planning Commission changes the weight to which the testimony might be given by members of the
Planning Commission. Mr. Miller indicated that he specifically addressed the issue with Ms. Mika, Director
of Planning,and she stated that it would not be a problem. The entire presentation has been prepared by him
and no one else,therefor it would not be familiar to any other member of the audience. It would handicap the
presentation to have someone else attempt to give it. Mr. Morrison stated he would not preclude him from
giving the presentation. This was not an issue that Department of Planning Services was authorized to give
,-- advice on, it is a legal issue. Mr. Morrison does not think it is a good idea. Mr. Miller indicated it has been
done numerous times in the past by members. Mr. Morrison stated he did not recall it being done in front of
Page -6-
•
the same governing body on quasi judicial issues. It is different on a legislative issue. It has happened in front
of the Commissioners but not in front of the same body on a quasi judicial matter. Mr. Miller asked if it was
legal or not legal. He does not want to compromise the case because of his position on the Planning
Commission. Mr. Morrison indicated that he runs the risk because he is a member of the Planning
Commission. It is less of an issue if it is done before the Board of County Commissioners. Mr.Miller indicated
that if this was going to compromise the case he would ask for a continuance to prepare another member of
the surrounding property owners appropriately. Mr.Morrison stated he would have less issue if this was being
done before the Commissioners.
Cathy Clamp asked if there was anyone on the Planning Commission that would like to address the issue.
Fed Walker indicated that a similar case happened to him when he was chairman. He stepped down and did -
not speak as a part of the public portion. He did then go to the Commissioners and speakin the public
portion.
Michael Miller indicated that he has done the entire presentation and represents an entire group of people,
so it could not be properly represented. Mr.Walker indicated that Mr. Miller did not ask the appropriate body
whether the testimony should be heard. It is not the Planning Departments decision it is more a legal issue.
Mr. Walker indicated that this makes the Planning Commission look somewhat tainted. Mr. Ruesgen stated
it was not really a legal issue but more of an ethical issue. The Planning Commission members attach value
to Mr. Millers role as chairman. Mr. Ruesgen indicated that even though the presentation was drafted by Mr.,
Miller, honest comments from the surrounding property owners would carry as much value and weight with
the Planning Commission. Ms.Clamp stated that she does not necessarily agree that it is a conflict to provide
testimony but it does give the appearance to the public that it could be tainted. It would be cause for either
;side to obtain legal action if the case were to pass or fail.
^.^,r. Miller indicated he went to who he thought would be an authority on the subject. If it would have been
identified as a possible problem another property owner would have been prepared to give the presentation.
If it is an issue a continuance will be requested to the next meeting so that someone else can present the
information. There are a number of significant issues that someone else could not present appropriately
without preparation. Mr,Walker stated it was the applicants right to ask for a continuance not the puolic. Mr.
.- Morrison indicated that either side can ask.
Sheri Lockman indicated that the applicant has asked for a pre-advertisement hearing and it is scheduled for
two weeks from ncw. If the case were to be continued this hearing would not occur.
Fred Walker indicated that Planning Commission should ask the applicant if they would agree to a
continuance.
Ms.Clamp asked forclerihui-`: with regard to procedure in public comment. Mr.Morrison indicated that this
will not preclude public comment if the applicants comments are asked for with i egard to a continuance.Fublic
comment will be heard either now or at the continued time. Mr. Rohn asked if it was possible to table the
case and come back to it. This would give Mr. Miller some time to prepare someone else with his
presentation.
George DuBard, applicant, indicated he would prefer not to continue. This has a prescheduled Board of
County Commissioners meeting and efforts have been made for this meeting. The surrounding property
owners that Mr. Miller represents are present and can express their views. The undue influence of this
aspect has already occurred:ust because of Mr. Miller stepping to the podium. Mr. Folsom asked if there
was any objection to Mr. Miller making his presentation. Mr. DuBard stated he does not feel that it is ethical.
Stephan Mokray stated that in all fairness this should be continued. This is a surprise to Mr. Miller and the
surrounding property owners that were expecting the presentation. Mr. Folsom would like to hear all the
testimony from the surrounding property owners.
Ann Johnson, representative, indicated that this is the second continuance for this case. The first
continuance was due to the Department of Planning service error. The applicant would prefer to go ahead.
�-�
Sheri Lockman stated the hearing could take place October 1,2002 meeting. Ms.Clamp asked if this would
throw off the pre advertised process. Mr. Walker suggested a five minute recess because this is such a
Page -7-
surprise to both sides. Let the applicant and surrounding property owners(Discuss this amongst themselves
• and determine the best way to proceed. This has put both sides in an uncomfortable situation. Ms. Clamp
indicated that a motion is on the table and must be addressed first. Mr. Ruesgen stated that the applicant
would like to continue and does not want a continuance. The surrounding property owners are not prepared
to present in the format that they feel is appropriate. The applicant is ready to go.
Mr. Ruesgen stated that the surrounding property owners were aware of the fact that they could speak,
indicated by the numbers that are present. The fact is that they picked a vehicle to carry the message
forward rather than individually. Mr. Ruesgen added that every property owner that is present can articulate
their issues appropriately to the Planning Commission.
Stephan Mokray moved to continue the case to October 1, 2002. James Rohn seconded. Motion failed -_
The meeting continued with the public portion.
Lee Morrison indicated that Planning Commission is not precluded from tabling this case and moving on to
the next case then coming back to it.
James Rohn moved to table this case and move on to the next case then come back. Stephan Mokray
seconded. Motion carried.
The meeting reconvened for this case.
Michael Miller, neighbor, stated that the issue as to wether he can address this court has not been resolved
and get around any appearance of conflict of interest. Mr. Pat McNair will be making the presentation. Mr.
Miller asked for clarification as to whether he can speak without tainting the testimony as an individual land
owner as opposed tc a representative of a group. Mr. Morrison stated the testimony raises the questions.
It was not said that testimony could not be given but it does raise questions that could affect the outcome
of the proceedings. It is ultimately up to Mr. Miller but from Mr. Morrison standpoint it is recommended to
not be done r either capacity. Mr. Miller stated that at ro point when the position of Chair for the Weld
County Planning Commission was accepted did he give up his constitutional right to represent himself as
a land owner. That is what is being asked of him. In the event testimony is given and the application was
denied the applicant would have the opportunity to pursue legal action on the basis of a conflict of interest
or try to get the decision overturned. The same holds true if testimony is not allowed.
Mr. Pat McNair, neighbor, gave the presentation that addressed concerns with the proposed case. Mr.
McNair indicated that the surrounding property owners asked Mr. Miller to give the presentation to prevent
being repetitive,for clarification and to save time. The first issues are the incompatibility. There may be one
lot in the area that is 1+ acres hut the majority are all five to 20n acres and agricultural in nature. One acre
lots with no irrigation water are unmanageable.There is a wildlife refuge being created to the north that will
be affected. The encroachment onto the neighboring creek and farms is not preventable. There is no row
housing or any modular type residential unit in this area. These are representative of what the proposal is
bringing. The property is close to the neighbor on the west and there is no screening. The applicant stated
that there is a large buffer between residential uses, adjacent property owners and existing irrigation. The
proposed cluster configuration serves to buffer the estate lots from the adjacent properties but there is no
buffering from this proposal. There is no provision for style of home. The style will be selected by the
individual home owner. There are no limitations with regard to the style of homes that can be selected. The
north border has no significant buffer from the south end of the Miller or the adjoining McNair property. The
adjacent property line is south of the slough and there have been no provisions stated to keep people out
of the slough. This property does not own to the creek,the property line is within the boundary of the creek.
The property does not have uses or benefits of the Cattail Creek. There are three owners of that creek. It
could create a trespass issue with the increased amount of children, dogs and adults. There are issues
regarding safety. The intersection at County Road 31 and County Road 70 is unsafe. There is poor visibility
to the north. Traffic speeds on County Road 31 are excessive. There is no way to improve the intersection.
Finally,the acceleration from gravel to pavement is poor. The creek to the north is filled with trash and dead
trees. The creek is unsafe for children and adults. It would take a significant amount of cleaning and bank
repair to make is safe. The silt is extremely dangerous. Mr. McNair indicated that he has farm equipment
stored on his property and has issues with the trespassing and liability. There is a warmwater slough on the
north property line. It is full of silt and mud. It is difficult to cross without getting stuck in the mud. There are
Page -3-
numerous hazards in the area. There is a farm to the east. This farm contains a tail pond that has muddy
banks. There is farm equipment stored in remote locations that does not provide for supervision. The
property has had an excellent history of crop production. Irrigation is provided by a concrete ditch. The use
of the ditch to irrigate is compromised by the location of the homes. The property had historic water rights.
There is no provision for irrigation of the one acre lots. 20 shares is not adequate water for that parcel and
there is no ownership of water per homeowner. Additional water will be needed to water the proposed open
space. There is one positive aspect and that is a profit to an owner who will no longer be a part of the
neighborhood. The negative aspects are the incompatability with the surrounding land uses. The increase
danger at County Road 31 and County Road 70. The possibility of liability onto adjacent landowners. It
removes prime farm ground from production. It promotes trespassing onto neighboring lands. This proposal
changes the character of the area. There will be an increase in traffic. It creates unman4geable open
space. Finally,there are no covenants to review.The surrounding property owners are encouraging denial.
If the case is approved there are suggestions for standards. The property owners would like to see County
Road 70 paved. The interior road be paved, adequate irrigation water,fence perimeter, buffer on north and
west, indemnify adjacent landowners against liability. Additionally, standardized building styles, limitation
of accessory buildings, irrigation manager and improve the intersection of County Road 70 and 31 would
be recommended.
Mr. McNair provided additional information on the issues he specifically has. This proposal is for pure profit.
It lends nothing to the neighborhood just depletes from it. The applicant did not approach any of the
surrounding neighbors until there was known opposition. There have been misrepresentation to the
neighbors. There is a great deal of concern for traffic and there is no need to increase the flow. There are
90 signatures on a petition stating the opposition to this project. The largest concern is the non compatibility
with the surrounding neighborhood. If it were a bunch of nice tract homes it would be less of a problem.
A set of row homes is not acceptable.
James Rohn asked about the flood zone area. Has there has been flood waters. Mr. McNair indicated he
has seen water over the banks. The ditch is 15 or 20 feet deep and 25 feet wide. There have also been
times in which the water has been within one foot of spilling over. It has occurred a few times in the past.
Fred Walker asked about safety at County Road 31 and 70. Had the people in the community gone to the
county prior to this and expressed concerns? Mr. McNair indicated that the people he spoke with were not
even aware of the proposal. Mr. Walker indicated that if the community was concerned with the safety of
the intersection it would have done something iniorto now. Mr. McNair indicated that he drives it on a daily
basis and when you add traffic there is an increase in the potential risk. Mr. Ruesgen asked if there is an
increase in the potential for a fatality or the awareness that the intersection is hazardous and people will be
more careful. No one can answer that. Mr. Ruesgen asked about the additions having no buffer and what
are they to buffer from. Mr. McNair stated that his property is approximately 200 feet from the subdivision
and doe.; not want to look at that. He shoots into a bank to site in his gun and will contir'z ,o do that.
Mr. Ruesgen asked about the lack of buffer from the creek and there being no concern. Mr. McNair
indicated that they are not increasing the number of children in the neighborhood. A fence would be an
acceptable alternative. Mr.Ruesgen asked about the concern for kids with the existing attractive nuisances.
How are they kept at bay now. Mr. McNair stated that of the 90 that signed they do not all live on the creek
and are not adjacent to his property. Mr. Ruesgen asked if there were any children onthe adjacent
properties. Mr. McNair stated that there were none at this time but were in earlier years and thoce children
were all over the creek. Mr. Ruesgen questioned the lack of covenants and if there were existing covenants
on the existing homes in the area. Mr. McNair indicated they are in the agricultural zone district not a
subdivision. Mr.Ruesgen asked for expansion on the statement concerning the incompatible use to change
the character of the community. Mr. McNair stated the existing nomes are located on larger tracts. Ms.
Clamp indicated that the applicant will have the right to farm statement in the covenants and on sales
literature. The provisions in the right to farm indicate that whatever is out there has the right to exist and the
incoming land owner have to respect those right. Mr. McNair indicated that the concern was for the liability
of trespassers. Ms.Clamp asked about the wildlife refuge and if it has governmental protection. Mr.McNair
indicated it was Mr. Millers project and he would be better suited to answer those questions.
Barbara Krusick,neighbor,addressed safety concerns that Mr.Walker had. The corner is obstructed by hill
according to the topography. Exiting a gravel road onto a paved road is difficult and dangerous. The road
is maintained and there will be an increase in cars with the traffic. There will also be an increase of traffic
on County Road 29 and County Road 70,which are gravel. The open space has had water from the creek
Page -9-
but it cannot be relied upon. I here is a concern for the septic systems because of that water. With the
addition of eight septic systems in an area where the water level is eight to nine feet can cause severe
problems for those down the creek. The area that the homes will be located is prime agricultural ground not
a suitable site for a subdivision. The homes will be in the lower part of the area. The applicant was not
r. proactive due to the fact that none of the surrounding neighbors were informed of this. The plan was
submitted without any consultation with the neighbors. Ms.Krusicks water comes from County Road 31 and
the neighbors work together with regard to a watering schedule. The water pressure is lousy. North Weld
Water has been contacted and there is no indication of increasing the water line to an eight inch line.
James Rohn indicated that in the application they are willing to pave part of County Road 70. Ms. Krusick
indicated that hard surface was mention, but she is not sure what that means. Since the development sits
in a bottom the need for pavement increases. The site should be paved with curb and--gutters due to the
low lying ground and moisture.
Peter Schei, Department of Public Works, indicated that the interior road will be paved. A roadway
stabilization project will be done along the entire section of County Road 70. There is a proportional
agreement with the applicant for that process. This would be an improvements agreement at the time of
final plat. Ms. Clamp questioned the posted speed limits on County Road 70 and 31. Ms. Krusick indicated
that it is 55 mph. The actual speed is around 70+ mph.
Cathy Clamp asked about provisions for a bus pullout and if excel and decel lanes are intended. Mr. Schei
stated excel/decal lanes were not considered along County Road 70. There is a pull off on the north side
of the road onto gravel. Public Works did not feel it was appropriate. The road based stabilization consists
of mixing the gravel with a chemical compound. Ms. Clamp indicated that the chemical used will decrease
the dust content of the road. Mr. Schei stated that the vehicle count needs to be at a certain level =9nd this
road would be beyond 200 vehicles per day. Mrs. Krusick indicated that the stabilization does not cut it.
There is a culvert on County Road 70 that has been washed out several times. It woulr not be s-,t. Tor the
school bus to utilize the shoulder because it is not safe.
James Rohn asked .3nout the bus pall off and what was going to be done with the ditch on the north side
of the road. Mr. Rohn indicated his concern for the safety of the children. Mr. Schei stated that the smaller
ditch is a run off into the barrow ditch. This would be taken into consideration when the culvert was installed.
The bus pullout will be parallel to the road. Mr. Morrison indicated that the plans for the pullout will be seen
before the final plat is recorded. Mr.Schei added that road plans and improvement agreements will be seen
as well.
Deborah Page, adjacent neighbor, stated several concerns. The main concern is the 20 shares of water
that is to be allotted to the 30 acres of open space. There is not a guaranteed delivery of water without a
supporting ditch compare. The only thing guaranteed is seepage and runoff of what is in the lake in the
spring. Ms. Page has 1i: shares of water for 10 acres and has lost the hay crop on her property. The 20
shares is not enough to support 30 acres of open space unless other shares are allotted. The applicant
indicated that shares of Larimer Weld water was to be allocated. The same thing has been presented to
the Page's and they have not seen it in two years. North Weld has purchased enough shares in Colorado
Big Thompson and Norte Poudre to handle the work load as it stands now without the additional residences.
This cluster development is not compatible with the surrounding neighbors. The neighbors that are directly
impacted have larger than one acre lots. They were told that it would be at least 10 years before the county
would exempt anything off. To change from agricultural use to PUD to get to what the applicant wants to
do is not fair to the surrounding property owners. The desire for large lots is why people purchased out
there. They have no desire for small one acre lots. If the applicant would place one home per five to six
acres it would be more acceptable to the surrounding property owners. The land is sandy and with the
addition of the septic systems it will silt. There has been flood water half way up the proposed site. At what
point is there going to be a limit on taking farm ground out of production for subdivisions? The prime
associate from Cattail Creek, LLC has not followed through on numerous dealings.
Gene Oblander, neighbor, has pros and cons on the application. Those that own large parcels hope to
someday capitalize on those parcels for future development. The growth is coming and there is nothing that
can be done. There are desirable things about the proposal but there are negative aspects. The main issue
is if this development is allowed will the subsequent developments be held to stricter regulations. If this is
the case then denial is recommended. Mr. Oblander would be agitated if he were held to a higher
Page -10-
expectation than this development should he decide to come in. This area is desirable for development and
there is nothing that can be done. Mr. Oblander does not like the neighbor against neighbor that this type
of application brings. The water is another issue. Mr. Oblander has some of the same water and was not
able to farm this year. Many of the farmers did not want to flood irrigate this year. This year was a difficult
year for all concerned and actually promotes development. How are the eight homeowners going to
manage the 30 acres? The homeowners will have problems with the open space. There is a serious
question as to how well this will be developed since the applicant has already left the area.
Bill Krusick, neighbor, stated concerns with development. It seemed as though the development was
slipped in the back door. It was two weeks ago that the surrounding property owners found out about the
development. The sign was not posted on County Road 70. The concerns for North Weld Water was
addressed. North Weld Water has been made aware of the problems. North Weld indicates#hat there are
301bs of pressure at his meter and that means nothing. The present water pressure is horrible. There has
been no interaction with the neighbors.
Stephan Mokray asked about the sign posting. Ms. Lockman indicated the sign was posted on August 1,
2002. Ms. Lockman indicated that staff has no way of knowing how long those signs stay up. It was also
notified through the Greeley Tribune as well as the Farmer & Miner, from Frederick.
Vicki Milling, neighbor, indicated concerns with the water situation. The application is on ground that has
been flood irrigated and has been productive for the twelve years they have been there. The one acre lots
are in a row house configuration and this is incompatible with the surrounding area. The amount of water
is far to small for the amount of open space. The water is questionable since there are no supporting ditch
rights for delivery. The open space will not be a productive agricultural crop with the limited amount of water.
There are only limited source of water for that area, Larimer/Weld is early water from the river and divide
canal can be delivered to Woods Lake where it can be stored. Neither one has been offered.
Fred Walker asked about the total ownership of Woods Lake. Will the 20 shares in the application have
rights to water from Wooster Lake. Ms. Milling stated that there has to be a way to get the water there to
transport i; to Woods Lake. This is where the Larime;'Weld Ditch Companies come into play because it is
their ditches that need to be used in order to move the water. If there is no carrying right then the only thing
that is available is seep from the lake.
Rueben Hergiert, neighbor, stared concerns with the water. Mr. Shepardson sold all of his divide canal
water so there is no water from that source. Ms. Clamp asked what it would take to get the water delivered.
Mr. Hergiert indicated that the water would not be delivered by a ditch rider separating such small amounts.
Pam Smith,Weld County Department of Health and Envir-:vnent, indicated that the preliminary perk tests
submitted with the sketch plan were dated July 26 2001. Which was optimal due to the ditch running and
a semi normal year. Three perk tests were done. The tests were done on lot 8, 4, and 1. Another boring
hole was done by the seepage ditch and it had groundwater at 3 feet. The perk holes that were done had
a rate of 45 minutes per inch. On lot 4 groundwater was at 8.7 feet, lot 1 it was at 8.5 feet and lot 8 was at
9 feet. the perk rates range from 12 minutes to 45 minutes per inch. Those rates are well within the range
that is required for aeptic permits with out any engineering. The groundwater must be at 8 feet or deeper.
The perk rate must be between 5 and 50 minutes per inch. There will be conventional septic systems just
like the surrounding neighbors. The slope is approximately 1%to the east so there is no slope towards the
ditch The edge of the 100 year flood plain elevation is about 200 feet from lot line for lot eight which is the
closest to the ditch. The septic systems will be well out of any flood area and they will be conventional
systems. There are septic envelopes designated on all lots. The septic envelopes are approximately 2200
square feet which is the average septic system permit that is written for conventional systems for a three
bedroom home or right around 1200 square feet. Each envelope is large enough to handle what is
expected. The applicant is well within the requirements. As far as contamination to the creek, the systems
only need to be 100 feet from the ditch. This is according to septic regulations. Mr. Rohn asked for
clarification with regard to the 1% slope. The slope goes from where the lots are located towards the ditch.
The acting Chair closed the Public Portion.
George DuBard, applicant, provided clarification with regard to the project. Cattail Creek, LLC consists of
?age -_1-
four partners with Mr.Shepardson not being the majority shareholder. The cluster design is what the county
is asking for instead of having the housing scattered. There will not be any starter homes or any modular.
The homes will be 350-500 thousand dollars custom to semi custom homes. The architectural style will be
controlled by the covenants and the architectural control committee. The covenants have not been seen
by anyone because they are not done. They are presently 40 pages and he is still adding to them. There
are several models that are being utilized as reference. Cattail Creek, LLC will deed to the HOA 1/2 share
of Larimer Weld. Concerning the higher expectations for future development that is going to happen
irregardless. Trespassing is something that kids learn about when they move to the country. The ditch rider
will be releasing a larger amount of water down the ditch with the additional shares. This will make it easier
on him to separate the water. The 8 inch water line is on file with North Weld Water. There is 140 thousand
dollars set aside to improve the water line. There will be a mile of 8 inch line and a quarterbf a mile going
into the property. There will also be the addition of two fire hydrants along the road. ,Cattail Creek
Partnership will still be the largest property owner on the section including the large agricultural lot that will
not be sold. The covenants have many specifics including but not limited to the number of cars that can be
visible from the outside of the property.
James Rohn asked about water from Wood Lake to the development. Mr. DuBard indicated that the ditch
rider sends the water down a lateral and it is then split. Mr. Rohn asked where the water enters the property
and if the water will be for the open space alone. Mr. DuBard indicated it is for the open space. Ms. Clamp
asked about the water for the homeowners with the acreage and their outside landscape watering. Mr.
DuBard indicated that they have the right to use some of the water but first need to determine how to retain
it. The HOA will need to determine how to deal with the water and the delivery of that water. Ms. Clamp
asked if any of the water from North Weld was allocated for exterior watering of the landscaping. Mr.
DuBard stated that the water supply is substantial and this increases the amount of water in the area. Mr.
Rohn asked for clarification with regard to the water for the individual residences. Mr. DuBard indicated that
the homeowner cannot impede where the water is going and it cannot be stored on the individual property.
Ms. Clamp asked what the calculation for 20 shares is ir. .5cre feet. Mr. DuBard indicated it was
approximately 1.5-2 acres per share on a typical year. Woods Lake shares are expensive because of the
improvements. If Woods Lake does not fill up from early water those shares are not worth anything but if
it does it will be beneficial. There will be the additional % snare of Larimer/Weld water i„cluded with this.
^
Ann Johnson, representative, provided clarification with regard to the project. The large lot will be
agriculture in nature with one building site. 'there are the subdivision lots with the large common area. This
common open space will contain native species of grasses and the irrigation will maintain it. The species
of grasses will need to be specified at time of final plat. This will:Depend on soil type and the water available
for it, Ms. Clamp asked Mr. Ogle if the proposed landscape plan has been review or something similar and
is the amount of water provided adequate for the final build out. Mr. Ogle indicated should the applicant
proj.,se a zeroscape type of material the amount of water that is required is limited and it wrula be able tc
survive. The area around the homes themselves have water and can be irrigated by their individual water
tap on the parcel. A specific type of native grass is being asked for and it will be reviewed prior to the
recording of the final plan. The noxious weeds will need to be addressed and mitigated.
Fred Walker asked if the covenants will be finalized prior to the Commissioners meeting_ Ms, Johnson
indicated that final covenants will be submitted with the final plat application.
Fred Walker indicated that a perimeter fence around the application along the creek area would be a good
idea. This to help mitigate some of the issues and concerns from the surrounding neighbors. The fence
would be requested to be on at least 3 sides the north, south and east. Ms. Lockman indicated that the
fence could not be located in the floodplain, it may need to be pulled back. Mr. Rohn asked if the
homeowners could be required to have fencing on the back of their individual properties. Mr. Walker
brought up the idea of asking the applicant to come up with covenants to be given to the land owners so they
could have an idea of what issues are addressed in them. It might assist in dealing with some of the
concern.
James Rohn asked Ms. Lockman about the fence and if it could be required and placed in the Conditions
of Approval. Ms.Lockman indicated it would be the Planning Commissions call but the ditch company would
^ need to approve it and it could not be located in a flood plain. Mr. Rohn asked if the fence could be placed
at the back of the properties. Ms. Lockman stated that it could be inserted into the covenants. Mr. Ruesgen
Page -12-
stated that it should be parents using good judgement watching their children.
Cathy Clamp asked the applicant about the fencing of the individual lots. Mr. DuBard indicated that the
covenants do not contain anything at the present time with regard to fencing but those covenants can be
adjusted to address any concerns. The type of fence proposed for the are is a three rail fence dowled in to
each post. Woven wire can be placed on that fence. It can be placed on individual lots as well as the
perimeter on the bottom towards the creek. Ms.Clamp asked what is proposed in the covenants to address
the area around the open space to protect the homeowners or surrounding property owners. Mr. DuBard
indicated that the HOA will be responsible for the open space. Vehicles are not allowed on the area unless
farm type duties are being done. Three out of the eight people will be majority responsible for the open
space. Ms. Clamp asked if the open space was going to be zeroscape or crop. Mr. DuBardindicated that
the open space will be native grasses that are approved by the County. The HOA will take cafe of the area.
Mr. Walker asked Mr. Morrison about a waiver of liability that was requested by the surrounding property
owners. Mr. Morrison stated that the HOA can be required to contain provisions for insurance in the
covenants. It would not be affective for the HOA to sign a disclaimer for the surrounding property owners
liability.
Sheri Lockman indicated that the fence could also stop a parent from getting to a child that is already in the
water. Staff would request that if a fence was placed along the ditch it would be a 42 inch, out of the flood
plain, 8 inch square so the water would pass through and the railing be in the outside. Mr. Walker stated
that if the fence was moved from the flood plain it would make the open space less useable, a better
location would be at the back of the lot lines. Mr. Rohn indicated that requiring a fence at the back of the
lot lines was the most that could be done to protect the children. Mr.Walker indicated that he would like to
leave it up to staff and the applicant with regard to where the fence should be located. The opportunity for
further input would be left open if no set requirement was made.
==r;d Walker moved that Case PZ-613, along with the addition of Condition of Approval 1A, be forward,.d o
the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with
the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. John Folsom 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; Fred Walker,yes;James Rohn, no; Bernie Ruesgen, yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Cathy Clamp commented that clustering development is the way the County is trying to leave as much open
so,3ce as possible in future developments. It is intended for a conservation buffer and is something that
most people prefer so roads are not located all over the parcels. There is still the opportunity to bring
concerns before the Board of County Commissioners. The applicant needs to speak with the surrounding
nrcperty owners and address nome simple issue:, Getting a draft form of covenants and distributing thevi
to the surrounding property owners would possibly alleviate some of the concerns brought forth today.
James Rohn commented that this does not meet with the existing properties. Most of the surrounding
properties are on hills and this is located in the flood plain. This is not a safe way to build a home.
Page
Kit iii;oNs
DEPARTMENT PLANNING SERVICES
PHONE (9(970) 353-6103-610 0, EXT.3540
FAX (970) 304-6498
' 1555 N. 17TH AVENUE
WI`Dc. GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
COLORADO
June 9, 2003
Cattail Creek Group, LLC
do Todd Hodges Design, LLC
1269 North Cleveland Avenue
Loveland,CO 80537
Subject: SCH-23- Request for a review of a previously denied application for land use (Change of Zone PZ-613),
and request for a Substantial Change Determination on a parcel of land described as Lot C of RE-2537;
being part SW4 Section 9,T6N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
Dear Applicants:
Your application and related materials for the request described above are being processed. I have scheduled a meeting
with the Weld County Planning Commission for August 5,2003,at 1:30 p.m. This meeting will take place in Room 210,
Weld County Planning Department, 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. It is recommended that you and/or a
representative be in attendance to answer any questions the Planning Commission members may have.
It is the applicant's responsibility to comply with state statutes regarding notice to mineral estate owners. Colorado
Revised Statute,C.R.S.24-65.5-103 (adopted as part of H.B.01-1088)requires notification of all mineral estate owners
30 days prior to any public hearing. The applicant shall provide the Weld County Planning Department with written
certification indicating the above requirements have been met.
It is the policy of Weld County to refer an application to any town or municipality lying within three miles of the property
or if the property is located within the comprehensive planning area of a town or municipality. Therefore, our office has
forwarded a copy of the submitted materials to the Eaton,Greeley,and Severance Planning Commission for their review
and comments. Please call Eaton at(970)454-3338,Greeley at(970)350-9780 and Severance at(970)686-1218 for
further details regarding the date,time, and place of this meeting. It is recommended that you and/or a representative
be in attendance at the Eaton, Greeley, and Severance Planning Commission meeting to answer any questions the
Commission members may have with respect to your application.
A representative from the Department of Planning Services will be out to the property a minimum of ten days prior to the
hearing to post a sign adjacent to and visible from a publicly maintained road right-of-way which identifies the hearing
time, date, and location. In the event the property is not adjacent to a publicly maintained road right-of-way,one sign
will be posted in the most prominent place on the property and a second sign posted at the point at which the driveway
(access drive) intersects a publicly maintained road right-of-way.
The Department of Planning Services'staff will make a recommendation concerning this application to the Weld County
Planning Commission. This recommendation will be available twenty-four(24)hours before the scheduled hearing. It
is the responsibility of the applicant to call the Department of Planning Services'office before the Planning Commission
hearing to make arrangements to obtain the recommendation.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please call.
A
lly,
ean ���
Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION SIGN POSTING CERTIFICATE
I 4 f 2
THE LAST DAY TO POST THE SIGN IS: LLI __())/ ,20 03. THE SIGN SHALL BE
POSTED ADJACENT TO AN VISIBLE.FR�A PUBLICLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. IN THE
EVENT THE PROPERTY BEING CONSIDERED FOR ASPECIAL REVIEW OR CHANGE OF ZONE IS NOT .
ADJACENT TO A PUBLICLY 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
PUBLICLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY.
I HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY THT THE SIGN WAS POSTED ON THE
PROPERTY AT LEAST 10 DAYS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING FOR
CASE52. �,?.3 . THE SIGN WAS POSTED BY:
6ber/ Lock1
NAME OF PERSON POSTING SIGN
SIGNATUR OR PERSON POSTING SIGN
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss.
COUNTY OF WELD )
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO ME THIS / DAY OF _LW1 , 20C3
• �.._.. .4)
jq uLtw Ai NOTARY PUBLIC
•
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: / 04e
THIS FORM SHALL BE PLACED IN THE APPROPRIATE FILE FOR THE ABOVE CASE.
asnilliilli
f @ f -. "L'Alak:gailli
••. . .- _- - .-
-aok-r'k • -"- -.-i. •.der
N , a . -W. .tom• a.,Aa'
•
• f . _.
P r
3E:N" 101611
a.
46. ills e
a
'• let.
_ e l •. .f - �. 4i
S
.._
....
..
_.... . ai_ .. �:. .
, .. ..,,:.. , ,,.... ..,,,,,. ....„.
. i r. �.
l�.--r " ...... .
fir'
f
_M im i " ''� '.,._
_.. +
p•
•1
,
•
•
•
•
•
t, `4t
,
•
•
1} ��
•
t v
T3t
. -
k
r• • t , ..A. , . f d 1. •
)
M 4 . t .4S..4 . tiff qa'7
Gry j`'. • � � � ,� a r,. . .P•
'• .�
00 • • 1....:—
'S 'l,
. — - . i — :1 Jar { J � -•L
sa i_.; i
. . p ,`TM .
•
, � Hr f,• � Y7t//j1i• ,� � Y
�� , I 1 -
FIELD CHECK inspection date: July 19, 2003
CASE NUMBER: SCH-23
APPLICANT: Cattail Creek Group, LLC do George DuBard
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot C of RE-2637, being part of SW4 of Section 9, T6N, R66W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to County Road 70 and approximately 800 feet east of County
Road 29
Zonina Land Use
N A (Agricultural) N Agricultural / Residential
E A (Agricultural) E Agricultural / Residential
S A (Agricultural) S Agricultural / Residential
W A (Agricultural) W Agricultural / Residential
r
COMMENTS: The site has changed very little since the Chang of Zone
was done. Surrounding properties are all agricultural in
nature with homes in close proximity. There is still a pivot
sprinkler on the ag lot.
hh,
, heri Lockman , Planner II
Hello