HomeMy WebLinkAbout20031849.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
CORRECTED RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Bryant Gimlin, 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-594
APPLICANT: Todd Muckier, Debra Eberl & Eli Krebs
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A and B of RE-2695; being part W2 Section 29, T5N, R67W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Change of Zone from (A)Agricultural to PUD for seven (7) lots with (E)
Estate Uses and one (1) non-residential lot with Agricultural uses.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 54 and 1/2 mile East of WCR 15.
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 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 27-6-120.8.6.a The proposal is consistent with any intergovernmental agreement
in effect influencing the PUD and Chapters 19(Coordinated Planning Agreements), Chapter
22(Comprehensive Plan), Chapter 23(Zoning), Chapter 24(Subdivision)and Chapter 26
(Mixed Use Development) of the Weld County Code. The proposed site is not influenced
by an Inter-Governmental Agreement. However the site is within the three mile referral area
for the City of Greeley and the Towns of Johnstown and Milliken. The proposal is consistent
with the aforementioned documents as follows:
1) Section 22-3-50.8.1, P.Goal 2"Require adequate facilities and services to assure
the health, safety and general welfare of the present and future residents of the
County."The proposed PUD will be serviced by Little Thompson Water District and
Individual sewage disposal systems will handle the effluent flow. In a referral dated
May 20, 2003, Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment has
indicated that the application has satisfied Chapter 27 of the Weld County Code in
regard to water and sewer service.
2) Section 22-5-50.A, O.Goal 1 "Promote the location of park, recreation and open
space areas in floodplain, seep areas, wetlands geological fault areas and
nonproductive agricultural areas."The subdivision includes a large flood plain area
that the applicant has located open space and pasture area within. A Floodplain
Analysis Modeling Report was completed to ensure that the residential portion of
the subdivision will be outside of the floodplain area.
B. Section 27-6-120.6.6-The uses which would be allowed in the proposed PUD will conform
with the Performance Standards of the PUD Zone District contained in Article Il, Chapter 27
of the Weld County Code.
Section 27-2-20,Access standards—"All PUD developments will be served by an internally
a,, ,
paved road system according to County standards.An exception to paving may be granted F VINJ
by the Director of Public Works for residential PUDs of nine (9) lots or less located in m
nonurban areas as defined in Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code, when the PUD is not =
located within close proximity to other PUDS, subdivisions and municipal boundaries, and
when access to the PUD is not from a public road which is paved or will be paved within a . 1v
year of approval of the PUD." Section 27-2-190 states "urban scale developments are Ck
developments exceeding nine (9) lot and/or located in close proximity to existing PUDs, rn'abirgesed
subdivisions,municipal boundries or urban growth corridors and bundaries.All urban scale
°?aa3- if*9
Resolution PZ-594
Todd Muckier
Page 2
developments shall pave the internal road systems of the development." The development
is directly adjacent to Challenger Ranch and is therefore considered urban scale
development. In a referral dated April 28, 2003 the Department of Public Works indicated
that the internal roadway right-of-way should be 60-feet in width including cul-de-sacs with
a minimum 65-foot radius, and dedicated to the public. The typical roadway cross-section
should be two 12-foot paved lanes with 4-foot gravel shoulders. The cul-de-sac edge of
pavement radius should be 50-feet minimum.
Section 27-2-40,Bulk requirements—The application indicated that the seven(7)residential
lots shall adhere to the bulk requirements of the E (Estate) Zone District except four (4)
animal units will be allowed per lot and Outlots B, C and D shall adhere to the bulk
requirements of the A(Agricultural)Zone District except no residential structures shall be
allowed. Further,the applicant has requested that the setback of a two-hundred-feet radius
from any tank battery be amended for Lot 7 only to accommodate the existing home which
is set one-hundred eighty-nine (189)feet from a tank battery.
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 27-2-210 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 site is within
the three mile referral area for the City of Greeley and the Towns of Johnstown and Milliken.
In a referral response dated April 1, 2003, the Town of Milliken indicated no conflicts with
their interests. The Town of Johnstown did not respond to the referral request. The City of
Greeley recommended that the change of zone be denied based on the lack of urban-level
services, inadequate setbacks from oil and gas facilities and the length and gravel surface
of the access road.
D. Section 27-6-120.6.d-That the PUD Zone District shall be serviced by an adequate water
supply and sewage disposal system in compliance with the Performance Standards in Article
II the Weld County Code. The applicant has purchased taps from Little Thompson Water
District.
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.
In a referral dated April 28, 2003 the Weld County Department of Public Works has not
required improvements for County Road 54.
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.
Conditions of approval ensure that the applicant will complete an on-site (Private)
Improvements Agreement that addresses all improvements associated with this
development, per compliance with Section 24-9-10 of the Weld County Code prior to
recording the final plat.
G. Section 27-6-120.6.g - That there has been compliance with the applicable requirements
contained in Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code regarding overlay districts, commercial
mineral deposits, and soil conditions on the subject site.
Resolution PZ-594
Todd Muckier
Page 3
At this time outlot C is being mined.
The applicant has submitted a Floodplain Analysis Modeling Report. The report, dated
March 19,2003,by Weiland, Inc.shows the Effective Floodplain Boundary makes no major
changes to the FEMA boundary with respect to the adjacent proposed building lots.
However, the Department of Public Works has requested that the finished floor(or top of
foundation opening) elevation of structures be placed a minimum of one-foot above the
Regulatory Flood Datum.A condition has been included to require home owners to obtain
a Flood Hazard Development Permit to ensure the safety of residents and structures.
The septic permit(SP-9900562/SP-0100409)for the proposed Lot 7 indicates clayey soils
and high groundwater exist on the site. In fact, the system approved under permit
SP-0100409 is an engineered septic system. The Weld County Department of
Environmental Health and Environment has indicated that it is likely that other system in the
PUD will require engineered systems. Comments from the Colorado Geological Survey
during the sketch plan phase of this application also support that information.
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 i n the proposed z one district, a s described previously. The
applicant is requesting that the Final Plan be administratively reviewed. The Department of
Planning Services is in agreement with this request.
This approval recommendation is based upon compliance with Chapter 27 requirements.
The Change of Zone from A (Agricultural)to PUD for seven(7)lots with Estate Zone Uses and three
(3) non-residential outlots with Agricultural Uses is conditional upon the following:
1. Prior to recording the Change of Zone plat:
A. Lot 7 has been illegally subdivided from Lot B of Recorded Exemption 2695. The property
owners signature block on the change of zone plat shall include signatures from Lot 7 property
owners or a court ruling granting ownership of Lot 7 to the applicants. (Department of Planning
Services)
B. A final drainage report stamped, signed and dated by a professional engineer licensed in the
State of Colorado shall be submitted to the Weld County Department of Public Works for review
and approval. Evidence of approval shall be submitted the Department of Planning Services.
The report shall include the following:
1. The Lakota Lakes Ranch Preliminary Drainage Report, dated March 19, 2003, by
Weiland, Inc., in its initial form is acceptable. The report has not accounted for a large
off-site area north and east of the development. This area is north of County Road 54.
It appears the drainage report has assumed any and all drainage north of County Road
54 does not impact the development. (Rainfall generating less than the 100-storm may
possibly fill fields and cross over roadways.) The applicant shall address the large off-site
basin area in the final drainage report. (Department of Public Works)
2. The report must address the Greeley and Loveland Canal and Great Western Railroad,
which lie to the north and east of the development. These features shall be included with
the off-site drainage basin discussion /analysis. (Department of Public Works)
3. The Summary of Peak Flows Table (Table 1)does not show a significant increase in the
100-year storm historic vs. developed flows. Public Works will not require the applicant
to detain flows resulting from this proposed development based on calculated flow rates
and proximity to the Big Thompson River. The report must address the rationale for the
Resolution PZ-594
Todd Muckler
Page 4
proposed drainage swale at the back of the lots. (Department of Public Works)
4. The applicant shall address roadside drainage(Lakota Lakes Road)in the final drainage
report. (Department of Public Works)
5. Irrigation ditches must be included in the 100-year storm event. An assumption that a
ditch does not overtop (Hill and Brush Ditch) shall be supported by documented
computations and discussions.The engineer must consider the major storm event and the
condition of off-site flows both entering and leaving the development. No structure shall
be inundated during the major storm event. (Department of Public Works)
6. The final drainage report must include a discussion of the Floodplain Analysis Modeling
Report for Proposed L akota Lakes Ranch Development, dated M arch 1 9, 2 003, b y
Weiland, Inc. (Department of Public Works)
D. The Floodplain Analysis Modeling Report for Proposed Lakota Lakes Ranch Development,
dated March 19, 2003, by Weiland, Inc. is acceptable. The applicant shall re-evaluate the
finished floor elevation stated in the drainage report. The floodplain analysis report shows the
Effective Floodplain Boundary makes no major changes to the FEMA boundary with respect to
the adjacent proposed building lots. (Department of Public Works)
E. The floodplain analysis report details water surface elevations at river stations in Table 2. The
applicant shall address the different water surface elevations with respect to the various lots in
the development, and the proposed finished floor elevations (or top of foundation opening).
(Department of Public Works)
F. Building Permit BC-9901051 was issued for the construction of a single family residence at 7288
CR 54. The permit received final approval for all inspection items except final electrical. A new
building permit must be obtained to perform the final electrical inspection. The Certificate of
Occupancy for this residence will not be issued until the final plan has been recorded thereby
correcting the illegal subdivision. (Department of Building Inspection)
G. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements (concerns)of the City of Greeley , as
stated in the referral response dated April 15, 2003. Evidence of such shall be submitted in
writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services.(Department of Planning Services)
H. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements (concerns)of the Hill and Brush Ditch
Company, as stated in a letter dated February 26,2003. Evidence of such shall be submitted
in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning
Services)
I. The plat shall be amended as follows:
1) CR 15 should be shown as thirty feet of reserved right-of-way along the section line for
the full length of the development of the property, and additionally the CR 15 thirty feet
reserved right-of-way is not intended to provide any current benefit for the use of that
reservation by the public. (Department of Public Works)
2) CR 54 is classified by the County as a collector road and requires an 80-foot right-of-way.
The applicant shall verify the existing right-of-way. The documents creating the
right-of-way shall be noted on the change of zone plat. If the right-of-way cannot be
verified, a 40-foot right-of-way will be dedicated on the final plat. CR 54 is paved.
(Department of Public Works)
3) County Code requires that PUD developments pave internal roadways. This development
accesses a paved County road. (Department of Public Works)
4) The internal roadway shall be of curvilinear design, and not oblique segments. The
right-of-way shall parallel the roadway. (Department of Public Works)
Resolution PZ-594
Todd Muckier
Page 5
5) The applicant shall show a curve table including data, especially to describe the internal
roadway alignment. (Department of Public Works)
6) The internal roadway right-of-way shall be 60-feet in width including cul-de-sacs with a
minimum 65-foot radius, and dedicated to the public. The typical roadway cross-section
should 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 minimum. Stop
signs and street name signs will be required at all intersections. (Department of Public
Works)
7) The Hill and Brush Ditch shall be shown and labeled. (Department of Public Works)
8) Building envelops shall be indicated at the front of the lots(close to Lakota Lakes Road),
due to the flood hazard concern. (Department of Public Works)
9) The applicant shall designate two (2) septic system envelopes per residential lot.
Evidence of Department of Public Health and Environment approval shall be submitted
to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
10) The applicant has indicated that a bus/mail pull off will be at the entrance of the
subdivision. The plat shall indicate location. (Department of Planning Services)
J. The applicant shall submit two(2)paper copies of the plat for preliminary approval to the Weld
County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
2. The Change of Zone is conditional upon the following and that each shall be placed on the Change
of Zone plat as notes prior to recording:
A. The site specific development plan is for a Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to PUD for
seven (7) residential lots and three (3) non-residential outlots as indicated in the application
materials on file in the Department of Planning Services. Lot 1 through 7 will adhere to the uses
allowed in the E(Estate)Zone District.Outlots B,C and D will adhere to the uses allowed in the
A(Agricultural)Zone District except for no residential structures and no more than seventeen
animal units shall be allowed. Lot 7 shall have a setback of one-hundred eighty-nine feet from
any tank battery.The PUD will be subject to and governed by the Conditions of Approval stated
hereon and all applicable Weld County Regulations. (Department of Planning Services)
B. Building permits shall not be issued on lot one prior to the vacation of Corrected Amended USR-
672.
C. All landscaping within the site distance triangles shall be less than 31/4 feet in height at maturity.
(Department of Public Works)
D. 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)
D. Weld County's Right to Farm as delineated on this plat shall be recognized a t a II times.
(Department of Planning Services)
E. Basements will not be permitted within any structure. (Department of Public Works)
F. All structures shall complete a Flood Hazard Development permit and meet all required criteria
as if they were in an area designated as 100 year floodplain. (Department of Public Works and
Planning Services)
Resolution PZ-594
Todd Muckier
Page 6
G. Water service shall be obtained from the Little Thompson Water District.(Department of Public
Health and Environment)
H. This subdivision is not served by a municipal sanitary sewer system. Sewage disposal shall be
by septic systems designed in accordance with the regulations of the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division and the Weld County Code in
effect at the time of construction, repair, replacement, or modification of the system.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
I. 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)
J. 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)
K. 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 that are technologicallyfeasible and economically reasonable in order to minimize dust
emissions. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
L. If land development creates more than a 25-acre contiguous disturbance,or exceeds 6 months
in duration, the responsible party shall prepare a fugitive dust control p Ian, 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)
M. For the preservation and/or protection of the absorption field'areas'activities such as permanent
landscaping,structures,dirt mounds,animal husbandry activities,or other activities that would
interfere with the construction, maintenance, or function of the fields should be restricted over
the absorption field areas while in use. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
N. Building permits shall be obtained prior to the construction of any building or structure.
(Department of Building Inspection)
O. A plan review is required for each building. Plans shall bear the wet stamp of a Colorado
registered architect or engineer.Two complete sets of plans are required when applying foreach
permit. (Department of 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 Uniform Building Code; 1998
International Mechanical Code; 1997 International Plumbing Code; 2002 National Electrical
Code and Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code. (Department of 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. (Department of 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
occupancies,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 accordance with UBC Table 3-B and
Chapter 3. Setback and offset distances shall be determined by the Zoning Ordinance.
(Department of Building Inspection)
Resolution PZ-594
Todd Muckier
Page 7
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.
(Department of Building Inspection)
T. A portion of the property is located west of the Big Thompson River.This portion of the property
must be accessed from Lakota Lakes Ranch unless permission is granted by the owners of the
property to be crossed for emergency or maintenance needs.(Department of Planning Services)
U. Potential Purchasers are hereby notified that confined animal feeding operations are located
directly northeast and northwest of the site adjacent to County Road 54. Further, 1/2 mile west
of County Road 15 on County Road 56 lies a confined animal feeding operation permitted by
SUP-154 for 2850 head of cattle. Off-site impacts that may be encountered include noise from
trucks, tractors and equipment; dust from animal pens and odors from animal confinement,
silage, and manure. (Department of Planning Services)
V. No residential building permits shall be issued for outlots. (Department of Planning Services)
W. Installation of utilities shall comply with Section 24-9-10 of the Weld County Code. (Department
of Planning Services)
X. The property owner shall be responsible for complying with the Performance Standards of
Chapter 27, Article II and Article VIII, of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning
Services)
Y. Weld County personnel 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)
Z. 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)
AA. 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)
AB. The applicant shall comply with Section 27-8-50 Weld County Code, as follows: Failure to
submit a Planned Unit Development Final Plan-If a PUD Final Plan application is not submitted
within two (2)years of the date of the approval of the PUD Zone District, the Board of County
Commissioners shall require the landowner to appear before it and present evidence
substantiating that the PUD project has not been abandoned and that the applicant possesses
the willingness and ability to continue with the submission of the PUD Final Plan. The Board
may extend the date for the submission of the PUD Final Plan application and shall annually
require the applicant to demonstrate that the PUD has not been abandoned. If the Board
determines that conditions or statements made supporting the original approval of the PUD
Zone District have changed or that the landowner cannot implement the PUD Final Plan, the
Board of County Commissioners may, at a public hearing revoke the PUD Zone District and
order the recorded PUD Zone District reverted to the original Zone District. (Department of
Planning Services)
AC. The PUD Final Plan shall comply with all regulations and requirements of Chapter 27 of the
Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
Resolution PZ-594
Todd Muckier
Page 8
3. The Change of Zone plat map shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services'for recording
within thirty(30)days of approval by the Board of County Commissioners. With the Change of Zone
plat map, the applicant shall submit a digital file of all drawings associated with the Change of Zone
application. Acceptable CAD formats are.dwg, .dxf,and .dgn(Microstation); acceptable GIS formats
are .shp(Shape Files),Arclnfo Coverages and Arclnfo Export files format type is .e00. The preferred
format for Images is .tif(Group 4) ... (Group 6 is not acceptable). (Department of Planning Services)
4. At the time of Final Plan submission:
A. The applicant shall submit an on-site (Private) Improvements Agreement that addresses all
improvements associated with this development, per compliance with Section 24-9-10 of the
Weld County Code. (Departments of Planning Services and Public Works)
B. 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)
C. Easements shall be shown on the final plat in accordance with County standards and/or Utility
Board recommendations. (Department of Public Works)
D. Fire hydrants shall be shown on the final plat. (Department of Planning Services)
E. The applicant shall prepare a construction detail for typical lot grading with respect to drainage.
Front,rear and side slopes around building envelopes must be addressed. In addition,drainage
for rear and side lot line swales shall be considered. Building envelopes must be planned to
avoid storm water flows (especially from an overtopping ditch), while taking into account
adjacent drainage mitigation. (Department of Public Works)
F. The applicant should consider over-lot grading to improve the flooding safety factor for the
residential houses. (Department of Public Works)
G. Final drainage construction plans,conforming to the drainage report,shall be submitted with the
final plan application. (Department of Public Works)
H. The applicant shall submit covenants for review and approval. Finalized covenants and the
appropriate fee shall be submitted for recording with the final mylar plats. (Department of
Planning Services)
I. Language for the preservation and/or protection of the absorption field 'areas' shall be placed
in the development covenants. The covenants shall state that activities such as permanent
landscaping, structures, dirt mounds, animal husbandry activities, or other activities that would
interfere with the construction, maintenance, or function of the fields should be restricted over
the absorption field areas while in use.(Department of Public Health and Environment)
J. There shall be a notice in the covenants stating that potential purchaser are hereby notified that
confined animal feeding operations are located directly northeast and northwest of the site
adjacent to County Road 54. Further, 1/2 mile west of County Road 15 on County Road 56 lies
a confined animal feeding operation permitted by SUP-154 for 2850 head of cattle. Off site
impacts that may be encountered include noise from trucks, tractors and equipment; dust from
animal pens and odors from ani al confinement, silage, and manure.
K. All signs within the PUD shall comply with the approved sign standards. 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)
L. The applicant shall submit evidence to the Weld County Department of Planning Services with
the final plan application that all proposed street names and lot addresses have been submitted
to the Johnstown Fire Protection District, the Weld County Sheriff's Office, the Weld County
Ambulance Services Department and the Post Office for review and approval. Two sets of
Resolution PZ-594
Todd Muckier
Page 9
addresses have been created by Planning Services. The second set shall only be valid if the
Board of County Commissioners accepts proposed changes to the County addressing ordinance.
(Department of Planning Services
M. Weld County School District RE-5J and the applicable Post Office shall be contacted regarding
the bus/mail pullout. The applicant shall provide to the Public Works Department and the
Department of Planning Services written documentation indicating the School Districts and Post
Offices design standards and delivery requirements have been met. (Departments of Planning
Services and Public Works)
N. The applicant shall provide a pavement design prepared by a professional engineer.
(Department of Public Works)
O. The applicant shall provide roadway and grading plans along with construction details.
(Department of Public Works)
P. The applicant shall submit a set of sign standards as required by Section 27-6-90.E.1. of the
Weld County Code for review and approval. (Department of Planning Services)
Q. The applicant shall submit to the Weld County Department of Planning Services a signed copy
of an agreement with the properties mineral owners which stipulates that oil and gas activities
have been adequately incorporated into the design of the site or submit evidence that mineral
owners concerns have been mitigated. (Department of Planning Services)
5. Prior to recording the final plat:
A. The applicant shall submit evidence to the Department of Planning Services that the School
District has received a signed statement which states the applicants are willing to pay a cash in
lieu of land dedication fee of $750 per lot at the time of the issuance of residential building
permits. (Department of Planning Services)
B. The applicant shall enter into Improvements Agreements According to Policy Regarding
Collateral for Improvements. These agreements shall be approved by the Board of County
Commissioners. (Departments of Planning Services and Public Works)
C. The applicant shall submit a digital file of all drawings associated with the Final Plan application.
Acceptable CAD formats are .dwg, .dxf, and .dgn (Microstation); acceptable GIS formats are
.shp (Shape Files), Arclnfo Coverages and Arclnfo Export files format type is .e00. The
preferred format for Images is .tif(Group 4) ... (Group 6 is not acceptable). (Dept. of Planning
Services)
Motion seconded by Stephen Mokray
Resolution PZ-594
Todd Muckier
Page 10
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Michael Miller
John Folsom
John Hutson
Bryant Gimlin
Stephen Mokray
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, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
the above and foregoing resolution, is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld
County, Colorado, adopted on July 1, 2003.
Dated the 1st of July, 2003.
,v
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
The Chair called for Case USR-1431 to be heard and read the information into the record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1431
APPLICANT: Marlin Ness
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NE4 Section 21, T5N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for an RV Park,
Storage and Recreation Area in the Agricultural Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Highway 34 (28th Street Frontage Road) and
approximately%:mile east of 1"Avenue.
Mr.Rohn moved that Case USR-11431 be continued to August 5,2003,because some board members were
not fully prepared to hear the case. Mr. Folsom seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission. John Folsom,yes;Stephan
Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes;. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
The Chair then recommended to the Planning Commission that when they receive any materials,even those
requesting a continuance,that they read those materials and be fully prepared, regardless of whether it may
be continued or not.
The following is on the Hearing Agenda:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1429
APPLICANT: David &Annita Alvarez
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman/Michelle Katyryniuk
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-3025; being part of the NE4 of the NE4 of Section 29, T7N,
R65W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a church
childcare center and private school in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 78 and west of and adjacent to CR 41.
Michelle Katyryniuk, Department of Planning Services, David and Annita Alvarez have applied for a Site
Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a church, childcare center and private school in
the A(Agricultural)Zone District. The Department of Planning Services is requesting a continuance of USR-
1429 in order to allow the applicant additional time to notify the properties mineral owners in accordance with
Colorado Revised Statute, C.R.S. 24-65.5-103. Staff is requesting the case to be moved to September 2,
2003.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against the continuance of
USR-1429. No one wished to speak.
James Rohn moved that Case USR-1429, be continued to September 2, 2003. Stephen Mokray seconded
the motion. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
The Planning Commission members were advised to keep the materials from the two continued cases in order
to prepare for the upcoming hearings.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-594
APPLICANT: Todd Muckier, Debra Eberl & Eli Krebs
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A and B of RE-2695; being part W2 Section 29, T5N, R67W of the 6th
P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Change of Zone from (A) Agricultural to PUD for seven (7) lots with (E)
Estate Uses and one (1)non-residential lot with Agricultural uses.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 54 and Y mile East of WCR 15.
EXHIBIT
Page -3- 1 > .
Sheri Lockman,Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-594,reading the recommendation and
comments into the record.Todd Muckier, Debra Eberl and Eli Krebs have applied for a Change of Zone from
Agricultural to PUD for 7 lots with Estate Zone Uses and 3 non-residential outlots with agricultural uses.The
applicants have varied from the Estate Bulk Requirements for the 7 residential lots in that the lots will be
allowed 4 animal units and the existing home on Lot 7 shall have a setback of 189 feet from the existing tank
battery.
Lakota Lakes Ranch PUD is located South of and adjacent to CR 54 and east of and adjacent to CR 15. The
city of Greeley is approximately 1 mile northeast of the site.The town of Johnstown is approximately 2 miles
south of the site.
The site is currently being mined under 2n°Ammended Use by Special Review Permit 672. The majority of
the surrounding property is agricultural in nature with homes in close proximity. To the south of the site is
Challenger Ranch PUD.
Sixteen referral agencies reviewed this case,nine responded favorably or included conditions that have been
addressed through development standards and conditions of approval.The City of Greeley has recommended
denial based on inadequate services and insufficient setbacks from oil and gas wells, as well as the length
and gravel surface of the access road.
The Weld County Department of Public Works is requiring the access road to be paved. This is consistent
with the requirements for Challenger Ranch, the adjacent PUD.
One letter requesting denial of the PUD has been received from the attorney representing Albert Challenger,
who developed the property south of the site. The letter addresses many concerns, which, should the
commission wish, Planning Staff and the applicant will address individually.
The Weld County Department of Planning Services Staff has determined that the application has met the
criteria as listed in section 27-6-120 of the Weld County Code and therefore is recommending approval
This morning Planning Staff received a fax from KP Kauffman who is working with the applicant on a surface
use agreement. KP has agreed that the surface agreement can be done prior to the final plat submittal. I
spoke to Black Stone Minerals Company who had submitted a letter requesting an agreement prior to
approval of the Change of Zone.They have indicated that they will defer to the timing laid out by KP Kaufman.
Therefore Planning Staff has moved the required mineral agreement from "Prior to scheduling the Board of
County Commissioners hearing"to"4.P, "At time of Final Plan submission".
Concerns have been raised by the applicant regarding Condition of Approval 6.B on page 9. The mining
agreement was entered into by the previous owner.Planning Staff has required that the USR for gravel mining
be vacated on the property prior to recording the final plat.Application materials indicated that the operation
is in its final stages and reclamation will begin within the next few months.Because of the applicants concern
regarding this condition I spoke to Erica Crosby with the Divisions of Minerals and Geology this morning.Erica
indicated that at the applicants request she did a field check of the site on Friday. She stated that although
the mining is complete there are stock piles on site. Further the reclamation does not match the existing plan
and a new plan must be submitted.The Division considers this an active mining site as long as minerals are
being trucked from the site and reclamation is in process.They will not give final sign off until the landscaping
is fairly well established, According the Erica, this could be as much as 5 years.
Because of this new information and the vague information regarding the exact time line to remove the
stockpiles and complete reclamation. Planning Staff has added Condition of Approval 1.A which requires the
applicant to contact the operator of the mining operation to determine a time line to complete removal of
stockpiles on site and reclamation of the site. Coulson Excavating has given a letter stating that the
reclamation was scheduled to begin late summer and fall of 2003. However, no expected time lines for
completion were included.
Planning Staff does have some concerns regarding compatibility as long as trucks are actively removing
stockpiled material.
Page -4-
The Department of Planning Services' Staff Recommends that this request be approved.
Mr. Gimlin asked Ms. Lockman about the letter in regard to the amount of open space and whether it is less
than was originally planned? Ms. Lockman said the open space has not changed, it is still at roughly sixty
acres. Mr. Miller inquired whether the open space was available to all of the residents or just the owners of
the property? Ms. Lockman replied that she was under the impression that it was for use by the residents of
the property.
Mr. Miller then asked what Ms.Lockman planned to do with the applicant's letter to the mining company and
the time line information contained in it, as Mr. Miller felt that this was information the board needed before
they could render a decision in the case.
Mr. Folsom inquired about County Code requirements pertaining to subdivisions adjacent to each other. Ms.
Lockman replied that there is nothing that prohibits this in a PUD. Mr. Rohn asked how the Bracewell PUD,
PZ-552,which allowed active mining and which Planning staff recommended for denial, differs from this case,
which staff is recommending for approval?
Ms. Lockman said she did not recall the facts in PZ-552, but that in a PUD, one is allowed to mine.
Mr. Folsom inquired about lot sizes in this case in comparison to the lot sizes in the adjacent Challenger PUD.
Ms. Lockman replied that the lots in this case were smaller.
Mr.Tomm Honn, t601 Quail Hollow Drive, Ft. Collins, Colorado, representing the applicants, addressed the
board. Applicants are creating a seven lot subdivision, clustered to the northern portion of site, with open
space along the river. The area for development does not contain prime soils. The open space has natural
attributes, mineral resources, and natural hazards. Gravel mining is essentially completed, they are in the
process of removing final stockpiles and in late summer and fall will begin the final stages of reclamation. The
site is in a flood plain but the lots are not within the one hundred year flood plain. Mr. Honn had some
concerns about requiring a paved road rather than gravel, as in the Challenger development. He felt the
heavy truck traffic would impose unfair maintenance costs on the property owners. There is also a potential
for horses in this development, and for these reasons, the applicants desire gravel streets. Mr. Honn then
spoke to the CR 15 dedication and said they were suggesting a reserved right-of-way for the future be placed
on the plat. Finally, Mr. Honn addressed the timing of the application of the final plat due to the gravel
extraction. The applicant's are not opposed to abandoning the USR on the property,but are concerned that
the plat submittal will be delayed due to the gravel mining, which is out of their control. Mr. Honn felt it was
appropriate to establish some conditions on lot one, that it should not have a building permit issued until the
USR has been abandoned.
Mr. Miller asked for clarification of the lots and locations and access to the Challenger PUD. Mr. Honn said
the original RE had been vacated allowing the existing lots to be more even in size. Mr. Honn then explained
the access points from CR 54,down the site to the turn around,and the easement that can potentially connect
all of the road from CR 54 to CR 15 1/2 . Mr. Rohn inquired about page 5, condition #2 a, and why it is in
there? Ms. Lockman said lot seven was originally a subdivision exemption for financing purposes only. At
his death it was somehow transferred to his son and sold as a separate parcel. He will be required to sign
the plat as he does have ownership in this. The illegal lot will become lot seven at the completion of this
subdivision.
Todd Muckier,applicant,2216 24°'Avenue, Longmont,Colorado,80501,addressed the board. He said four
of the six proposed lots will be owned by family members and they look forward to future construction. Debra
Eberl, applicant, 2216 24°' Avenue, Longmont, Colorado, 80501, spoke about her intent to improve the
property and provide a nice place to live.
Mr. Miller expressed concern about four horses per lot,that he felt that was a lot of horses per lot, and what
exactly were they applying for? Ms. Lockman said the outlots would follow agricultural requirements and the
other lots estate requirements,and would abide by the bulk requirements of the estate zone district. Mr.Rohn
asked about the building envelopes on the flood plain, contained in page seven, numbers 3e and 3f,
specifically,how high are the building envelopes in elevation from the flood plain,and why are basements not
Page-5-
being allowed? Peter Schei,Public Works,saidthere is a high water table in that area,therefore basements
are not allowed. Mr. Schei said it is recommended that envelopes be placed towards the upper portions of
the lots as a safety requirement because of the flood zone. Mr. Rohn inquired again about elevation and how
much above the flood plain are the homes? The finished floor must be one foot above flood plain,according
to Mr. Miller.
Mr.Miller asked Mr.Schei about the landscaping within the site distance triangles(page 7,3b)and suggested
Mr. Schei might want to re-word that information.
Mr. Miller asked Mr. Muckier about access of out lot D. Mr. Muckier said he had contacted Mr. Betz, the
property owner,and that he was fine with them crossing the property to access out lot D,but that they did not
have a signed agreement with him stating that. Mr. Miller asked how access would be controlled with
reclamation issues and mining going on,as it presents a safety issue,particularly if this takes five more years
for them to clean this up? Mr.Muckier replied that Mr.Coulson said their development would not interfere with
his mining operation. Mr.Muckier said he would post notices in specific areas as well as construct temporary
fencing. Ms. Eberl spoke about dedicated easement along west boundary line as well as ingress and egress
through the property.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Gene Eberl, applicant's father, said he was committed to build in the subdivision. He spoke about weed
control,elevations of the homes to be built on slabs with no basements will be three feet above flood plain,and
that horses will follow the bulk requirements on each lot. There will be no random pasturing of horses,just -
those horses of the property owners.
Gerry McCrea, McCrea&Short Engineers, 1231 8t°Avenue,Greeley,Colorado,80631,said he has worked
on this property for eleven years beginning with Mr. Challenger and that he was very familiar with precedent
and procedures of this property and its development.The basic concepts have not changed all that much.
The road system serving the property remains the same, along the railroad and the hill along the Brush Ditch
and the accesses which were determined on the Challenger portion of the overall concept remain as well.
The farm fields is where these lots will be developed, not in the flood plain. The extension of CR 15 seems
to be questionable because there would be a river crossing and there are no roads to the south that would
be of particular value,so that would be a major undertaking for the County if it were to be enlarged for a major
collector arterial. He closed by saying that he felt the changes that had been made were all positive and still
fit within the framework that was originally approved on the Challenger PUD and the property to the north that
he owned at that time.
Robert Brown, 7360 CR 54, Greeley, Colorado, 80631, lives adjacent to this property to the east on CR 54.
Mr.Brown said he was very much in favor of this development and is excited to have homes in this area. The
area is much more pleasant since Mr. Muckier and Ms. Eberl took ownership of the property and he hoped
the Planning Commission would approve the application..
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing as there was no one else wishing to address the Planning
Commission. Mr.Miller then asked Peter Schei about Public Work's position on the right-of-way issue on CR
15. Mr. Schei replied that they had put in a general statement regarding CR 15; lot one in the northwest
corner of this development has an access back to the gravel mine, and it is important that this portion be
dedicated since it will be platted, and lot one will be adjacent to that section line. Further south a reservation
would be appropriate and it would be beneficial to any future concern to have that reservation go and extend
through out lot D south along entire section line for public access back there.
Mr. Miller questioned the need for public access. Mr.Morrison,County Attorney,said there was no obligation
to create and maintain a public access as a buildable lot is not being created back there. There may be
reasons to have the availability of the right-of-way for some time in the future, but access need not be
preserved across this proposed development.
T
Mr. Miller then inquired about the dedication on the north end and the reservation along the south end,why
do we need a dedication on that lot if we are not going to dedicate the whole thing? Mr. Folsom pointed out
Page -6-
that there isn't an easement agreement for the gravel mining so when gravel mining ends,the easement goes
away. Mr. Miller said he didn't understand why they needed to dedicate any portion of it if it's reserved? Mr.
Schei agreed,as did Mr. Rohn. Mr. Mokray asked what happens if the property sells in the future? Mr. Miller
responded that they don't need to do anything more than reserve the right of way. Mr. Miller then expressed
concern about the timing for the final plat and compatibility issues,and felt that it should be wrapped up before
it gets to final plat. Mr.Folsom asked Mr. Miller about compatibility. Mr. Miller said if he were the operator,
he would be concerned about encroachment of residents onto the mining site as that could cause huge liability
issues regarding water and equipment. Mr. Miller said lot one would be impacted the most, and didn't feel
personally, that it would take five years for the reclamation process to be completed. Mr. Gimlin responded
that the applicants said they were willing to wait on development of lot one and that most of the reclamation
activity on the west side is away from the lots and should be compatible. Certainly the owners, if they move
in, it will be at there own peril.
Mr.Miller asked Ms.Lockman about the animal units calculation and was the currently mined area figured into
calculating the total number of animal units? Ms. Lockman replied that lots one through seven shall adhere
to the uses allowed in the estate zone district and allow for one animal unit per acre, so most of the lots will
be allowed three animals. The two and a half acre lot will be allowed two animals. Out lots B, C,and D shall
adhere to the uses allowed in the agricultural zone district, except for no residential structures, and after
discussions with the applicant,they have agreed that no more than seventeen horses shall be allowed. The
seventeen horses allowed is the amount the seven estate lots add up to so that would give them that area to
run all seventeen of the horses on. The whole number of horses could be twice that,including the estate lots,
for a total of thirty four horses.
Mr.Gimlin wanted to discuss the issue of paving versus gravel. Mr. Rohn said he believed a paved road adds
to the value of property and would like to see the road paved. Mr.Gimlin said it should go to compatibility,and
agrees with the applicant about keeping it gravel,but how does that match up with the neighboring Challenger
PUD, and is their road paved? Ms. Lockman said paving was not required for the Challenger PUD, but two
subdivisions adjacent to each other become urban scale development but pavement was included in their
improvements agreement. Mr.Schei,Public Works,said the County will assume maintenance at some point.
Mr. Miller then said it only makes sense to pave internal roads.
Mr.Miller then asked Ms.Lockman if she had language she would like to read into the record regarding animal
units? Ms. Lockman said amend condition 3 A.to read:
3. The Change of Zone is conditional upon the following and that each shall be placed on the Change of
Zone plat as notes prior to recording:
A. The site specific development plan is for a Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to PUD for seven
(7)residential lots and three (3)non-residential outlots as indicated in the application materials
on file in the Department of Planning Services. Lot 1 through 7 will adhere to the uses allowed
in the E (Estate) Zone District. Outlots B, C and D will adhere to the uses allowed in the A
(Agricultural) Zone District except for no residential structures and no more than seventeen
animal units shall be allowed.Lot 7 shall have a setback of one-hundred eighty-nine feet from any
tank battery. The PUD will be subject to and governed by the Conditions of Approval stated
hereon and all applicable Weld County Regulations. (Department of Planning Services)
James Rohn moved that Case PZ-594, be amended and forwarded to 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;Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;James Rohn,yes; . Motion carried
unanimously, 5 to 0.
Peter Schei, Department of Public Works, suggested an amendment to item 3. B., page seven, to read:All
landscaping within the sight distance triangles shall be less than three and a half feet high at maturity. Bryant
Gimlin made a motion to approve the amendment and include the aforementioned language. Stephen Mokray
Page -7-
seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously, 5 to 0.
Peter Schei, Department of Public Works, suggested that item H. 1., page six, be stricken entirely and
replaced with this language: CR 15 should be shown as thirty feet of reserved right-of-way along the section
line for the full length of the development property,and additionally,the CR 15 thirty foot reserved right-of-way
is not intended to provide any current benefit for the use of that reservation by the public. It was moved by
Bryant Gimlin and seconded by Steven Mokray to amend item H. 1., page six, to include the language read
into the record by Peter Schei, Public Works. Motion carried unanimously, 5 to 0.
Mr.Folsom suggested that item 1.A.,page four,be deleted,as there was no impediment to developing these
lots while the reclamation continued. Mr. Miller said that statement itself is not necessary, but they do need
to make a statement saying lot one cannot be offered for sale until the reclamation is complete. Ms.Lockman
then suggested that they not limit the sale of the lot, but put a note on the plat saying: Building.permits shall
not be issued on lot one prior to the vacation of Corrected Amended USR-672. James Rohn motioned to
include language read into the record by Ms. Lockman. John Folsom seconded the motion. Motion carried
unanimously, 5 to O.
Ms. Lockman then suggested that this become item 3. B., page seven, be re-lettered, and that item 1.A. be
deleted. James Rohn amended his previous motion to reflect Ms. Lockman's suggestion that: Building
permits shall not be issued on lot one prior to the vacation of Corrected Amended USR-672. Bryant Gimlin
seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously, 5 to 0.
John Folsom moved to eliminate item 1. A., page four and also item 6. B., page eleven. James Rohn
seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously, 5 to 0.
Mr. Miller asked Ms.Lockman about page 8,item U., regarding notification of potential purchasers,and how
many potential purchasers would bother to read that? Ms. Lockman said there would be a note on the plat,
a standard way of informing the public that there are operations in the area. Mr. Miller suggested that item
U.,page eight be added to 5.1.,page 10 and add language that: There shall be a note in the covenants stating
that there are confined animal feeding operations in the area.
James Rohn made a motion that item U., page eight be added to 5. I.,page 10 and add language that: There
shall be a notice in the covenants stating that potential purchasers are hereby notified that confined animal
feeding operations are located directly northeast and northwest of the site adjacent to County Road 54.
Further,%mile west of County Road 15 on County Road 56 lies a confined animal feeding operation permitted
by SUP-154 for 2850 head of cattle. Off-site impacts that may be encountered include noise from trucks,
tractors and equipment; dust from animal pens and odors from animal confinement, silage, and manure.
Stephen Mokray seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously, 5 to 0.
James Rohn motioned to correct a typographical error on page eight, item X., to change compiling to
complying. John Folsom seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously, 5 to 0.
The Chair asked Mr. Muckier if he had an opportunity to read the development standards and conditions of
approval as amended, and are you in agreement with them? Mr. Muckier said he had and he was.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case PZ-594,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;James Rohn,yes,with comment,
that he feels this is a good use for the property remaining after the mining operation commences. Motion
carried unanimously, 5 to 0.
Page -8-
Hello