HomeMy WebLinkAbout20032983 HEARING CERTIFICATION
DOCKET NO. 2003-80
RE: CHANGE OF ZONE #1027 FROM THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT TO THE
PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) ZONE DISTRICT FOR NINE (9) LOTS WITH
E (ESTATE) ZONE USES, ALONG WITH 3.68 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE -
FARFRUMWURKIN, LLLP
A public hearing was conducted on November 19, 2003, at 10:00 a.m.,with the following present:
Commissioner David E. Long, Chair - EXCUSED
Commissioner Robert D. Masden, Pro-Tern
Commissioner M. J. Geile
Commissioner William H. Jerke
Commissioner Glenn Vaad
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Esther Gesick
Assistant County Attorney, Lee Morrison
Planning Department representative, Monica Mika
Health Department representative, Pam Smith
Public Works representative, Peter Schei
The following business was transacted:
I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated October 24, 2003, and duly published October 30,
2003, in the South Weld Sun, a public hearing was conducted to consider the request of
Farfrumwurkin, LLLP,for Change of Zone#1027 from the A(Agricultural)Zone District to the PUD
(Planned Unit Development)Zone District for nine (9) lots with E (Estate)Zone Uses, along with
3.68 acres of open space. Lee Morrison,Assistant County Attorney, made this a matter of record.
Chair Pro-Tem Masden advised the applicant's representative, Robb Casseday of
AGPROfessionals,LLC,that he has the option of continuing this matter to a date when the full board
will be present. However, if he decides to proceed today, it will require three affirmative votes, or
in the case ofa tie vote, Commissioner Long will listen to the record and make the determining vote.
Mr. Casseday indicated he would like to proceed today.
Monica Mika, Department of Planning Services, presented a brief summary of the proposal and
entered the unfavorable recommendation of the Planning Commission into the record as written.
She stated the applicant purchased the property on August 19, 2002, applied for a Recorded
Exemption on November 15,2002,and applied for this Change of Zone on November 18,2003. She
stated Recorded Exemption #3474 was approved by staff on December 20, 2002, with a note
indicating that further approval of a Recorded Exemption in conjunction with a subdivision creates
an urban-scale density. On January 10,2003,staff provided Sketch Plan comments to the applicant
reiterating concerns of pursuing an urban-scale development in a non-urban area. She stated in
the Spring of 2003,the applicant also applied for two mining permits to occur on Lot B of Recorded
Exemption #3474. Ms. Mika stated the site is surrounded by several subdivisions; however, the
Planning Commission expressed concern with compatibility issues because many of the existing
subdivisions were platted decades ago, and there is a substantial difference in the lot sizes. She
2003-2983
PL1690
HEARING CERTIFICATION - FARFRUMWURKIN, LLLP (PZ #1027)
PAGE 2
stated the site does lay outside of the geological hazard area and she reviewed photographs of the
site and surrounding area. She stated this subdivision is divided by two different irrigation
companies,and she submitted copies of the draft agreements,marked Exhibits J and K,which are
in place with the Lower Boulder Ditch Company and the Boulder/Weld County Ditch Company. Ms.
Mika stated the Planning Commission expressed concern regarding incompatibilities because the
subdivision is located in an area where urban infrastructure, such as municipal sewer, is not
available. Ms. Mika stated the Town of Erie indicated this proposal is not consistent with its
Comprehensive Plan,and she cited various sections of the Weld County Code which indicate this
proposal is not an efficient development and exceeds the definition of non-urban scale. She stated
the applicant is suggesting this development will maintain the agricultural way of life by providing
outlots which will be farmed in the future; however, there is currently no access. Ms. Mika stated
pursuant to the definitions in the Weld County Code, the application is proposing an urban
development in a non-urban area,and she submitted referral responses from the Departments of
Public Works and Building Inspection, marked Exhibits H and M.
In response to Commissioner Jerke, Ms. Mika indicated the area north of the ditch is designated as
an agricultural outlot to be retained by the applicant, and the open space will be owned and
maintained by the Homeowners'Association. Responding to Commissioner Geile,Ms.Mika stated
non-urban scale Planned Unit Developments are allowed in non-urban areas. She explained the
applicant created an additional lot through the Recorded Exemption process,and the additional nine
lots in the proposed Planned Unit Development classifies the development as urban-scale. She
further stated this development is not within the Saint Vrain Sanitation District, nor is it in an area that
can be serviced by the Town of Erie; however, it can be serviced by the Left Hand Water District.
In response to Commissioners Masden and Jerke,Ms. Mika stated once the Recorded Exemption
was approved,the applicant received approval from the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology
for temporary 110 and 111 mining permits to extract gravel on Lot B for a period of six months.
Pam Smith, Department of Public Health and Environment,stated the development is proposed to
be serviced by the Left Hand Water District and septic systems. She stated the sites do appear to
be suitable for conventional septic systems; however,staff has requested the applicant designate
primary and secondary septic envelopes due to unusual lot configurations which are further
impacted by the irrigation ditches and retention ponds.
Peter Schei, Department of Public Works,stated the development is located at the intersection of
Highway 52 and Weld County Road 3.25. He stated Weld County has an ongoing improvement
project located adjacent to the proposed development and has purchased right-of-way from the
applicant. He requested the applicant address the maintenance of the gated,interior road,as well
as the ability to build full-depth basements due to the groundwater level. In response to
CommissionerJerke, Mr.Schei stated the request from the Colorado Department of Transportation
(CDOT)for 100 feet of right-of-way north of the centerline of Highway 52 needs to be addressed by
the applicant. He further stated Filly Lane will be paved, the necessary right-of-way has been
acquired from the applicant for Weld County Road 3.25, and the bridge over the Lower Boulder
Ditch is being replaced.
In response to Commissioner Masden, Ms. Mika stated staff did not receive the information
regarding the retention pond configuration until last week, so staff has not had the opportunity to
address whether the lots and retention ponds will be impacted by the additional 50 feet of
2003-2983
PL1690
HEARING CERTIFICATION - FARFRUMWURKIN, LLLP (PZ #1027)
PAGE 3
right-of-way requested by CDOT. She further stated staff only considers the buildable lots when
determining whether a development is urban or non-urban. In response to Commissioners Jerke
and Geile, Ms. Mika indicated the lot boundaries of the Recorded Exemption and reviewed the lot
sizes of the proposed development.
Mr. Casseday indicated the locations of the 100-foot setback requirement from the centerline of
Highway 52,the 50-foot reservation of future use by CDOT,and the existing right-of-way. He stated
there is an easement for a water line which runs through the open space; however, it does not
create two separate lots. He stated there will be retention and detention ponds in the open space,
as well as detention ponds on Lots 7 and 1, and the entire site slopes from the southeast to the
northwest. Mr. Casseday stated all of the detention ponds are outside of the 100-foot right-of-way
setback required by CDOT. He stated this development proposes a gated community with a
cul-de-sac access, berming along Highway 52,a landscaped entrance,a school bus pull out, and
a mail stop. He further stated the applicant will comply with the requirements of the Mountain View
Fire Protection District. He stated the applicant concurs that the outlots are not large enough for
farming, therefore, the applicant would like to designate them as Tracts A and B to provide view
corridors and allow for other agricultural uses. Mr. Casseday stated the Planning Commission's
recommendation for denial is based solely on the creation of an urban-scale development as a
result of the Recorded Exemption process. He stated that Bruce Barker,County Attorney,indicated
the simultaneous applications for a Recorded Exemption and Planned Unit Development give the
indication of an intent to evade the Subdivision process. Mr.Casseday stated Lot A has outstanding
view corridors,access to major transportation corridors,and it is uniquely confined by two canals.
He stated Lot B is better suited for limited gravel recovery,and mining has commenced under State
110 and 111 permits. He stated it seemed practical to divide the property through the Recorded
Exemption process to eliminate the burden on the Homeowners'Association for maintenance of
large areas of open space in Lot B. He confirmed Lot B is in no way related to this application,
rather it can be used for other agricultural uses. He further stated pursuant to the Sketch Plan
review,they modified the proposal to reduce the lots so they do not cross the ditch,which increased
the size of the tract north of the canal. Mr. Casseday stated the draft agreements with the ditch
companies include language which states access will be allowed for maintenance and mowing of
the tract north of the ditch. The tract south of the Lower Boulder Ditch is an easement to the North
Colorado Conservancy District, and it will also have access for maintenance by the District.
Lauren Light,AGPROfessionals, LLC,stated the Weld County Code does not require the adjacent
Recorded Exemption lot to be part of the subdivision request, and there are many instances
throughout the Countywere nine-lot subdivisions and Recorded Exemptions exist side-by-side. She
stated the two applications were submitted under the same applicant's name because they did not
believe the concurrent review would circumvent the Subdivision regulations. Ms. Light read
Section 24-8-40.K.2 for the record and stated the applicant has not sold either of the Recorded
Exemption lots. She further stated that unlike a Recorded Exemption,the request for a Planned Unit
Development requires the applicant to follow the Subdivision regulations. Ms. Light stated Lot B has
been left as a 100-acre parcel which will accommodate A(Agricultural)Zone uses. She stated by
keeping all of the subdivision lots on Lot A of the Recorded Exemption,they achieve the concept of
clustering and it does meet the definition of a non-urban development. She stated Section 22-2-60
does allow urban-scale development in areas where adequate services are currently available or
reasonably attainable. The Weld County Code does not require urban infrastructure;however,the
applicant is required to demonstrate that adequate sanitary sewage and public water systems are
2003-2983
PL1690
HEARING CERTIFICATION - FARFRUMWURKIN, LLLP (PZ #1027)
PAGE 4
currently available or reasonably attainable. She stated this development does meet the minimum
one-acre lot size for public water and sewer, and they will show septic envelopes on the plat. Ms.
Light stated the Code makes provisions for urban-scale development not located in an
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) area or adjacent to urban development, and she reviewed
various other subdivisions in the area. She stated there is no IGA between Weld County and the
Town of Erie,and the Towns of Frederick and Dacono indicated no objections to this proposal. She
stated this request meets the requirements fora non-urban scale development and clustering. She
further stated the intent of a Planned Unit Development is to allow flexibility, and the proposal will
establish a view corridor. Ms. Light stated Lot B of the Recorded Exemption should not be included
in determining whether this proposal is urban or non-urban. She stated the proposed nine-lot
subdivision meets the requirements of a non-urban scale development, the Code does allow for
septic systems and public water on one-acre lots, and it is compatible with the surrounding area.
Mr. Casseday stated this subdivision was designed with the best planning management practices
in mind,there was no intent to evade the Subdivision process, and they feel this will be an efficient
use of the land. He stated the Planned Unit Development and Recorded Exemption applications
were submitted simultaneously in the same applicant's name, and the changes made were in
response to staff comments in the Sketch Plan review. Mr. Casseday stated this request is in
compliance with the Planned Unit Development regulations,and all the required documentation is
in the draft form and will be finalized for the final plat. He stated the referral agencies responded
favorably to this request,the area along Highway 52 is changing regarding development adjacent
to municipalities,the proposal meets the requirements of a non-urban development,as well as the
intent of the Weld County land use regulations,and it should be approved with nine lots. He stated
if the Board does not agree that this development is non-urban, then the applicant requests the
Board approve a nine-lot urban-scale Planned Unit Development,along with the adjacent Recorded
Exemption lot, in a non-urban area.
In response to Commissioner Jerke,Mr.Casseday stated there is a 25-foot easement on each side
of the center line of the northern ditch, which will be noted on the plat. Responding further to
Commissioner Jerke, Ms. Mika stated the agricultural outlot to the north is identified for a view
corridor, and it can only be accessed through Lot B of the Recorded Exemption because there is
no access from this subdivision or Weld County Road 3. Mr. Casseday stated the ditch company
presently has an access to maintain the ditch,and they have an agreement with the Ditch Company
to allow combined access for maintenance and mowing. Mr. Morrison stated the access does not
make the outlot available for residential development. Responding further to CommissionerJerke,
Mr.Morrison stated the agricultural outlot will be assessed to the Homeowners'Association and the
value will be disbursed among the lots. He stated the assessment classification does not change
the zoning or approved use. Mr. Casseday clarified the agricultural outlot to the north, as well as
the open space to the south will be owned, maintained, and controlled by the Homeowners'
Association. Commissioner Geile commented cluster zoning typically allows for two lots per
35-acre parcel,with the condition that a conservation easement be established for 40 years. Ms.
Light stated the area north of the ditch does not have public water, and her reference to clustering
is design related. Commissioner Geile commented the remaining Recorded Exemption lot could
be further subdivided in ten years. In response to Commissioner Jerke, Mr. Casseday stated Filly
Lane will be raised to divert water from Lots 8 and 9 and the open space. He further stated there
is a high spot between Lots 3 and 4 from which point water will flow to the two detention ponds in
the northeast and southeast corners.
2003-2983
PL1690
HEARING CERTIFICATION - FARFRUMWURKIN, LLLP (PZ #1027)
PAGE 5
Mike Shaw, surrounding property owner to the northeast, expressed concern that the proposed
development will interrupt his historical and adjudicated water right that originates on the subject
property. He stated they want to ensure the water right does not dry up, and he also expressed
concern with Lot B being further developed in the future. Mr. Shaw requested a signed
acknowledgment of the water right and continued flow. In response to Commissioner Geile, Mr.
Shaw stated a portion of Lot B is swampy, but part of it was farmed in the past. Responding to
Commissioner Jerke,Mr. Shaw indicated the water appears to be ground water that surfaces in the
southern portion of the site,collects at the old railway,and then flows south. He stated the Boulder
Ditch is seasonal and was shut off near the first of July; however, his water right is year round.
There being no further comments, Chair Pro-Tem Masden closed public testimony.
Mr. Casseday stated the water flow referred to by Mr. Shaw is located on the property to the north,
which is not part of this application. He stated the Army Corp of Engineers has investigated the
water flow and designated it as nonjurisdictional. He further stated the drought has changed the
water on this site; however, he reiterated that Lot B of the Recorded Exemption is not part of this
application and should not be part of the decision for a Planned Unit Development on Lot A. He
stated this is a viable project,and the applicant is willing to make the necessary accommodations
to make it work. He stated the applicant rejected staff's proposal to reduce the application to eight
lots because they feel the nine lots are allowed. He further stated the overall density is 2.5 acres
per lot,although the lots are small. Mr. Casseday stated larger lots are harder to maintain,and the
proposed one-acre lots are still within the requirements of a Planned Unit Development. In response
to Commissioner Vaad, Mr. Casseday stated the land that is left after a mining project is viable for
development, and the Town of Frederick has expressed interest in bringing infrastructure to the
area. Ms. Light added any future use on Lot B, other than a Use by Right, would be subject to
review by the Board of Commissioners.
Responding to CommissionerJerke,Ms.Smith stated her Sketch Plan comments indicate the perk
tests were done in the fall of a drought year; however, the septic systems will be designed for
site-specific conditions at the time of installation. She stated there is a 100-foot setback to the ditch,
so she has requested the applicant designate septic envelopes on the plat. Ms. Smith stated after
review of the latest drainage plan, she is uncertain whether Lot 7 will be buildable due to limited
space remaining due to the 25-foot setback from the detention area and ditch setbacks. She stated
the remaining lots are suitable for septic systems. Commissioner Jerke commented there is an
enhanced septic system that could be considered in this case,although the policy has not yet been
adopted by the Board. In response to Commissioner Masden, Ms. Smith stated engineered
systems may be required if mandated by site-specific conditions. She stated the Board also has
the option of adding a Condition of Approval to allow for an enhanced system, if necessary.
Commissioner Jerke stated that is not necessary at the Change of Zone phase; however, he
proposed the applicant be directed to explore all reasonable options. Responding to Commissioner
Jerke, Ms. Mika stated the lot lines can be modified accordingly prior to the Final Plan.
Commissioner Jerke moved to approve the request of Farfrumwurkin, LLLP, for Change of
Zone#1027 from the A(Agricultural)Zone District to the PUD (Planned Unit Development)Zone
District for nine (9) lots with E (Estate)Zone Uses, along with 3.68 acres of open space, based on
the recommendations of the Planning staff and the Planning Commission, with the Conditions of
Approval as entered into the record. He stated any future use on Lot B of the Recorded Exemption
will require a separate review under a different application and the water issues expressed by Mr.
2003-2983
PL1690
HEARING CERTIFICATION - FARFRUMWURKIN, LLLP (PZ #1027)
PAGE 6
Shaw will be addressed at that time. He stated the health risks can be addressed further as the
Planned Unit Development progresses,and there are adequate transportation services. He further
stated this is a small parcel located between two ditches with no real agricultural potential, so this
development appears to be the highest and best use for the site.
Commissioner Geile stated in the past the Board has consistently interpreted a Recorded
Exemption,in addition to nine lots,as urban development. He stated the applicant could have done
larger lots and made the development work. He further stated the surrounding subdivisions were
approved long ago with lots averaging 1.2 acres, and he is concerned with compatibility.
Commissioner Geile expressed concern with the agricultural outlot,as well as the potential forfuture
development of Lot B with a similar density. He stated this proposal may be better suited for the
area once municipalities extend into the area.
Commissioner Vaad commented 2.5-acre lots are difficult for many people to maintain, so nice
homes on 1.2-acre lots makes more sense. However, as the Town of Erie or other municipalities
grow into this area, they may classify the area as low density, and he expressed concern with the
potential use of Lot B of the Recorded Exemption, which is related to this site.
Commissioner Masden stated the use of this site is hindered because it is located between two
ditches,and the outlot is separated by one of the ditches. He stated there are positives with building
nice homes on smaller lots that are easier to maintain; however, he expressed concern regarding
the applicant's late submittal of information, and the septic issues still need to be considered,
therefore, he cannot support.
Commissioner Jerke questioned whether the Board would support the proposal if the applicant
eliminated one lot. There being no second, the motion failed.
Commissioner Geile stated approval of this case would not be consistent with past findings
regarding the determination of urban versus non-urban development. Based on that finding and his
previous comments, Commissioner Geile moved to deny the request of Farfrumwurkin, LLLP,for
Change of Zone #1027 from the A (Agricultural) Zone District to the PUD (Planned Unit
Development)Zone District for nine (9) lots with E (Estate) Zone Uses, along with 3.68 acres of
open space. Commissioner Vaad seconded the motion,and stated he feels this is an urban-scale
development without the appropriate urban services. There being no further discussion,the motion
carried with Commissioner Jerke opposed, and the hearing was completed at 6:00 p.m.
2003-2983
PL1690
HEARING CERTIFICATION - FARFRUMWURKIN, LLLP (PZ #1027)
PAGE 7
This Certification was approved on the 24th day of November 2003.
APPROVED:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST: ge# -✓1 1/ ���;, EXCUSED
®
F� \'l David E. Long, Chair
Weld County Clerk to B
4 `Q s EXCUSED ATE OF AP O AL
Robert asden, Pro-Tem
BY:
Deputy Clerk to the : (I j°(>F adt,i
��...I M. J. Geile
TAPE #2003-45
William H. Jerke
DOCKET#2003-80 EXCUSED DATE OF APPROVAL
Glenn Vaad
2003-2983
PL1690
EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET
Case PZ #1027 - FARFRUMWURKIN, LLLP
Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description
A. Planning Staff Inventory of Item Submitted
B. Planning Commission Resolution of Recommendation
C. Planning Commission Summary of Hearing (Minutes 09/16/2003)
D. Clerk to the Board Notice of Hearing
E. Applicant Letter requesting to proceed (10/02/2003)
F. Bernard, Lyons, Gaddis, and Kahn Letter re: Concerns of Consolidated Lower
Boulder Reservoir and Ditch Company
received 10/23/2003
G. Applicant Updated Drainage Report received
11/04/2003
H. Public Works Staff Referral Response received 11/14/2003
I. EnCana Energy Resources, Inc. Surface Use Agreement received
11/17/2003
J. Planning Staff Draft Ditch Access Agreement between
Applicant and Boulder and Weld County
Ditch Company received 11/19/2003
K. Planning Staff Draft Ditch Access Agreement between
Applicant and Lower Boulder Ditch
Company received 11/19/2003
L. Public Works Staff Referral Response received 11/14/2003
(Duplicate of Exhibit H)
M. Planning Staff Referral Response from Department of
Building Inspections dated 11/19/2003
N. Applicant Five overhead transparencies
Q. Mike and Virginia Shaw Letter of Concern re: Hauck Seepage and
Hauck Pipeline dated 11/19/2003
P.
Q.
r
ATTENDANCE RECORD
HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS ON THIS 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2003:
DOCKET#2003-86 - PERMAGREEN PRODUCTS COMPANY, CIO ROXY VENDENA
DOCKET#2003-82 - HALL-IRWIN CORPORATION
DOCKET#2003-80_ FARFRUMWURKIN, LLLP, C/O JON FILE
PLEASE legibly write or print your name and complete address.
NAME ADDRESS
John Doe 123 Nowhere Street, City, State, Zip
422 nusYAt 4--r /0/5) S„ Ax=aDy f'c- (! _ Ilk SO RSFa 3/9
to-VP Ptcn
`F'mSi LEAr 2601 (-v, 10 {±` Si., 50r,-& j&j Qz1 &/E/ C6 SoG34.--
HanderS (96o St Stu tsc_i: SY. alidle (- r, i- L / vi (to) En 531
t r ( rkZ HO OA St I ,SAce?-0' 9 trcd cit CO S0
(J/m 47cfJJ4J a ,3,72., f 6h /e ms Cc? Ch43�
o'-\"`St--LS
-13lc' vsep\ \ \ oUt\aA'c et 8nv- o �-
tr )(Al S Yom tZ -i LO-r-r•,nd-cc*-Co Po St 2--
f JCR 8ro n a375oi WC'P �s' 6rnl4r ?ae
/{'ta✓k 1.4 el Ettr -er7 2-742_9 </c,4 G/ 74 6-rp,e4y Co S?-7% 3/
Hello