HomeMy WebLinkAbout20033218.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by John Folsom,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: SCH-24
APPLICANT: Olando LLC do Tammy Ellerman & Ed Orr
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B RE-2016; being part of the SE4 of Section 16, T6N, R64W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Review of a Previously Denied Application for Land Use (Change of Zone
PZ-547), and request for a Substantial Change Determination.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Hwy 392 and Y mile east of CR 53.
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
1. It is the opinion of the Planning Commission 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 May 16, 2001 denied Change
of Zone Z-547 on the subject property for the following reasons:
A. Section 27-6-120..5.c—The proposal is not 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 Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code.
The proposed uses are inconsistent with agricultural uses in the neighborhood,
specifically including a 5,000-head dairy and
B. Section 27-6-120.5.d — The applicant has not demonstrated that adequate public
water will be available to the site to serve the uses permitted within the proposed
Planned Unit Development in compliance with the Performance Standards in Section
27-2-10 of the Weld County Code. In addition,there does not appear to be adequate
provisions made for the irrigation and maintenance of the common open space.
C. Section 27-2-50 Circulation — This performance standard provides that:
"Development within a Planned Unit Development Zone District shall be designed
and constructed to include adequate, safe and convenient arrangements for
pedestrian and vehicular circulation,off-street parking and loading space.Pedestrian
and vehicular circulation shall relate to the circulation system external to a PUD Zone
District." The-direct access onto State Highway 392 does not provide a safe and
convenient arrangement relating to the external road.An access onto a County road
would provide a more safe and convenient access.
D. Section 22-2-60.A.2 of the Weld County Code discourages conversion of prime
farmground to non-agriculture related uses. There is evidence that the parcel has
been productive in the past and that a portion has been designated as prime
farmground.
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:
r
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)
2003-3218
Resolution SCH-24
Olando LLC
Page 2
The applicant originally proposed to create a Planned Unit Development with six (6) Estate Lots of
approximately four (4) acre each and one Agricultural lot of 33.86 acres. The new proposal is to
create a nine (9) lot Minor Subdivision. The lots range in size from 5.05 acres to 15.40 acres.
The new proposal has the following changes:
A. The applicant has increased the number of residential lots from seven(7)to nine(9).
1) Staff has determined that the proposed increase in the number of lots is not a
substantial change.
B. The road has been moved to the east.
A. Staff has determined that the movement of the road has not substantially
changed the provision for a safe and convenient arrangement relating to the
external road.
3. Open space has been deleted.
1. The original application indicated that the Homeowner's association would be
able to lease water from the applicant for irrigation of the lots and open space.
The Board of County Commissioners included in the reasons for denial the fact
that their did not appear to be adequate provisions made for the irrigation and
maintenance of the common open space. The new proposal does not include
open space and irrigation water is not addressed. Staff does believe that this is
a substantial change from the original application and does directly address one
of the reasons for denial.
4. Increased lot sizes.
1. The application indicates that the large individual lot sizes will provide an
opportunity for buffering and screening from the adjacent land uses. Staff does
not feel that the opportunity for buffering and screening has substantially
changed nor do we feel that this would assist in the compatibility of the site with
the surrounding properties, specifically the 5,000-head dairy.
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)
The original application was for a Planned Unit Development. The new proposal is for a Minor
Subdivision.Although the applications are similar they do follow a different set of criteria.Staff agrees
that this is a substantial change.
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 ?
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.
Resolution SCH-24
Olando LLC
Page 3
Motion seconded by Bruce Fitzgerald
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Michael Miller
John Folsom
Bryant Gimlin
Stephen Mokray
Bruce Fitzgerald
James Rohn
Tim Tracy
Doug Ochsner
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this
case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I,Voneen Macklin, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution, is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County,
Colorado, adopted on November 4, 2003.
Dated the 4'"of November, 2003.
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello