HomeMy WebLinkAbout20032463.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-23
APPLICANT: Cattail Creek Group, LLC
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot C of RE-2537; being part of SW4 Section 9, T6N, R66W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A review of a previously denied application for land use (Change of Zone
PZ-613), and request for a Substantial Change Determination.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 70 and approximately 800 feet east of CR 29.
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 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:
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.
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.
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.
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:
4. EXHIBIT
A. The applicant has increased the eight (8) Estate lots to four(4) acres.
B. The road has been moved to the east.
2003-2463 NO_
Resolution SCH-23
Cattail Creek
Page 2
C. Landscaping has been included in the open space between the lots and adjacent
home to the west.
D. 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.
Motion seconded by John Hutson
r
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
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 August 5, 2003.
Dated the 5th of August, 2003.L
CiYwQ �C-A(
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
' 5 CS
APPLICANT: Timothy& Lisa Brough
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-1911;being part of the SW4 of Section 6,T7N, R67W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Final Plat for a nine lot (9) Minor Subdivision (Pheasant Crest Estates).
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 84 and east of and adjacent to CR 13.
James Rohn would like to hear the case.
There was no other board member who wished to hear the case.
Bryant Gimlin moved to approve the consent Agenda. Stephen Mokrayseconded.Motion carried with James
Rohn voting no.
CASE NUMBER: SCH-23
APPLICANT: Cattail Creek Group, LLC
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot C of RE-2537;being part of SW4 Section 9,T6N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A review of a previously denied application for land use (Change of Zone
PZ-613), and request for a Substantial Change Determination.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 70 and approximately 800 feet east of CR 29.
Michael Miller removed himself due to his involvement in the case. Mr.Gimlin read the case into the record.
This case was requested to be heard by a member of the public. Patrick McNear
Sheri Lockman,Department of Planning Services stated,"Cattail Creek Group,LLC c/o George DuBard have
applied for A Review of a Previously Denied Application for Land Use, and request for a Substantial Change
Determination
Change of Zone PZ-613 was denied by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners on October 2,2002.
This proceeding today is not to rehear the original change of zone but rather to determine if the applicant has
met the criteria established to verify if a substantial change has occurred in order to reapply.
Pursuant to Chapter 2,Article II,Section 2-3-10 of the Weld County Code,the 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 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)
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 ?
The Department of Planning Services has determined that the submitted information does meet the intent of
a substantial change Per criteria 1 and 4.
Criteria 1. Is that the land-use application substantially changed? (e.g., substantial changes in lot size or
density, in internal or external roads,)
EXHIBIT
Page -2-
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 acres of open space. The new
proposal has the following changes:
The applicant has increased the eight (8) Estate lots to four(4)acres.
ii. The road has been moved to the east.
Landscaping has been included in the open space between the lots and adjacent
home to the west.
iv. Coal Bank Creek and the flood plain have been included in the residential lots
instead of the open space.
Criteria 4.States"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.
Planning staff reminded the commission and members of the audience that the hearing was not intended as
a rehearing of the change of zone. Also Planning Staffs recommendation of approval is in no way related to
a review of the change of zone. The only criteria staff reviewed is that which is related to the substantial
change. Many of the issues surrounding Cattail Creek are not relevant at the hearing and should be reserved
for the Change of Zone hearing if the applicants are granted the right to reapply."
James Rohn asked where the open space was on the map. Ms. Lockman indicated the area. Mr. Rohn
asked if lots 1-5 were in the flood plain and do the lots straddle the creek. Ms. Lockman stated that a small
portion was in the flood plain and they changed the lots because of the issues of having it in the open space
so it is now in the lots.
Anne Best Johnson, representative for the applicant, provided additional information on the substantial
change. Evidence will be provided to verify the substantial change. There only needs to be one criteria met
in order for a substantial change to be approved. Mrs.Johnson went over the new design of the development.
The lots size was increased, landscape buffer added, road and traffic issues were improved, building
envelopes are included and the open space was incorporated into the lots to increase the size of the lots. The
total amount of open space is 25.2 acres, this includes 7 acres of common open space which is the buffer
area and 18 acres that have been deemed non buildable on each lot. The irrigation water was determined
to be adequate for delivery and the amount was deemed adequate. Two of the four criteria for a substantial
change have been met. The applicant is requesting approval and if this is approved the change of zone is
the process that will be initiated. The information submitted exceeds the expectations of the sketch plan.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Patrick McNear,neighbor, indicated that the changes that have been made have not been substantial based
only on the lot size when the density was the issue for denial. The only change is in the size of the lots and
road location . The changes do not mitigate the issues from the Board of County Commissioners. The road
will only be another access point. The landscape buffer does not address the issue of the other adjoining land
owners. Another issue is Coalbank Creek is in the lots not in the open space. This does not mitigate the
attractive nuisance issue that was described in the previous hearing. There is no buffer protection for those
areas. The changes are minor and they fail to mitigate the Boards issues.
John Folsom asked Mr. Barker if the substantial change must be submitted based solely on the reasons for
denial from the Board of County Commissioners or can there be substantial changes in any aspect? Mr.
Barker stated it must be between the facts from the first application and the second application. The reasons
for denial by the commissioners are not crucial.
The Public portion closed.
James Rohn commented that the quotes from Sections 27-2-35, 27-2-70, 27-2-74 have not been met. Mr.
^ Gimlin asked about the criteria and that any one of the criteria needs to be met. There is not a need to have
to meet all four.
Page -3-
Hello