HomeMy WebLinkAbout20012959 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 denial by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: Amended Z-522
APPLICANT: Lighthouse Cove/Don La Faver etal
ADDRESS: 2185 Pine Drop
Golden, Colorado 80401
REQUEST: To modify Condition of Approval 1.B. as stated in the previous resolution.
To change building height from 30 feet to 40 feet in the R-1 PUD zone
district.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lighthouse Cove PUD,recorded under reception numbers 2836059, being
part of the N2 of the NE4 of section 16, T2N, R68W of the 6'h P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to WCR 7 & approximately 1/4 mile north of WCR
20.5
be recommended unfavorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
1. Based on testimony,the information for the correct building height was available, and the applicant
should have been aware of the requirements he entered into.
Motion seconded by Bryant Gimlin.
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin
Cristie Nicklas
Stephan Mokray
John Folsom
Luis Llerena
Bruce Fitzgerald
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 September 18, 2001.
Dated the 18' of September, 2001.
Voneen Macklin
Secretary 2001-2959 p�45- -
Legal Description: Pt. of S2NW4 of Section 25,Township 1 North, Range 68 West of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado
Location: East of and adjacent to Weld County Road 11; approximately 1/4 mile
south of Weld County Road 6
Lauren Light, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1351, reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
James Wenfrow, provided more clarification with regards to fencing and security. Mr. Miller asked about
what type of security. Mr.Wenfrow indicated that there will a minimum of a 6 foot cedar fence and a camera
system. He will also ask the Building Department if a higher fence is allowed. Mr. Wenfrow indicated that
the police will not allow them to place cars on the ground until the property is fenced, road based, lighted
and a security system is installed.
Cristie Nicklas asked if the applicant had contracts with law enforcement agencies. Mr.Wenfrow indicated
that they do all the impounding for eight agencies on the north side of Denver. Mr.Wenfrow indicated that
they also provide service for Weld County Sheriff north to Weld County Roads 2,4,6,8 and south including
State Patrol.
Michael Miller asked Lauren Light if there were any conditions that addressed the type of fencing. Mrs.Light
stated that condition#2D requires the applicant to meet with Weld County Sheriffs Department addressing
security issues.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Luis Llerena asked the Weld County Health Dept. about the chemical possibilities that could effect the
property and the neighboring properties over the long term. Will it have an adverse effect on the prime farm
ground surrounding the said property. Char Davis responded that Conditions of Approval #2K (1),
Development Standard#7 and#9 that address those issues.
John Folsom moved that Case USR-1351, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation
of approval. Stephan 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; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes; Luis Llerena, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE#: AmZ-522
APPLICANT: Donald LaFaver
ADDRESS: 2185 Pine Drop Lane
Golden, CO 80401
REQUEST: Amendment to the Change of Zone from A (Agriculture) to PUD for
Lighthouse Cove PUD, recorded under reception numbers 2836059 and
2818049.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lighthouse Cove PUD, being a part of the N2 of the NE4 of Section 16,
T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to WCR 7&approximately 1/4 mile north of WCR 20
Y EXHIBIT
Monica Daniels-Mika Department of Planning Services presented Case AmZ-522, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending
approval of the application. •
Michael Miller asked what is the importance of raising the sign five feet. Mrs. Mika stated that the main
reason for this request was that the property is located within the flood plain causing the natural grade in the
site to be changed. Mrs.Mika added that the area is encompassed with large residential units and buildings.
Mrs. Mika stated that height will be monitored by Weld County Building Inspection.
John Folsom asked about clarification with regards to an amendment as to a request to the Board of
Adjustment for a variance. Mr. Morrison responded that it is no longer a part of zoning ordinance. Mr.
Folsom questioned the grade with regards to the height measurements. Mrs. Mika clarified as to how the
measurements were figured with regards to the grade on the area.
Michael Miller asked how the existing homes that exceed 35 feet get past the Building Inspections
Department. Mrs. Mika responded that there was some confusion on the building permit application when
the applications came in with regards to where measurements were taken from.
Luis Llerena asked for clarification with regards to the fill and calculation of the grade. Mrs.Mika stated that
the building height will be from the natural grade based on the lowest floor elevation of the structure. For
clarification the base floor elevation, the lowest floor of the habitable area.
Donald LaFaver,provided clarification with regards to the lot number and permit information. The applicants
for building permits were informed of two different building heights, Building Department stated 40 feet and
Zoning states 30 feet. Mr. LaFaver further described how the building heights were measured and the
difference in the way they were measured.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Jim Sirko, opposes the 40 foot building height but would encourage 35 feet. Mr. Sirko made significant
changes to his elevations in order to make his home meet the 30 foot building code requirement. Mr. Sirko
has issues with the fact that there is a builder that did not comply with the limitation and is asking for a
amendment.
Bryant Gimlin asked if there was any significant slope to the property. Mr.Sirko stated that the development
was relatively flat.
John Folsom asked for clarification on whether this approval was going to be for the existing homes and not
the ones being build. Mr. Mika clarified saying that this would effect all the lots in the subdivision.
Cristie Nicklas asked about acreage size. Mr LaFaver responded that they were generally%acres, some
up to 3/4 of an acre but the majority is a 1/4 in size.
Michael Miller asked Mrs. Mika if the request for amendment were do be denied and the Board of County
Commissioners concurred what would be done with the home that is 11 feet higher. Mrs. Mika stated that
the only option for that home is to go to the Board of Adjustments and ask for a hardship variance.
Monica Daniels Mika provided further clarification that if this amendment were to not pass there would be
approximately four homes that would have to go to the Board of Adjustments.
Luis Llerena asked if by approving this they were making a precedence for future applicants. Mr. Miller
clarified that if this was approved it would apply to this development only. Mr. Llerena asked for further
clarification of the height limitation. Mr. Morrison provided information with regards to the PUD process and
function the right process that should have been done.
Stephan asked Mr. Sirko about the pitch of the roof and if this was the cause of increase height. Mr. Sirko
responded with some clarification as to the living area height and then have to add the roof with a different
possible pitch.
Luis Llerena asked for clarification with regards to the developer and if he is representing the builders for
the other homes.
Seeing there was no others wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public portion of the hearing
Mr. LaFaver responded that at the minimum he would accept 35 feet. He further addresses some of the
other homeowner that have a home elevation of 41 feet while the rest of them are at 32-38 feet. Mr.
LaFaver further states that there is some deviation as to where the measurements are taken from.
John Folsom asked if the applicant would consider amending the application to include only the houses that
have been constructed or are under construction and eliminate this 40 feet elevation from the lots. Mr.
LaFaver responded that he would like to go to 35 feet elevation. This would allow for the effected
residences not to have to get variance.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the square footage allowed.Mr LaFaver stated that a two story it is 3600 sq.ft.
and a ranch is 3200 sf. with the largest being 6000s.f.
Monica Daniels Mika provided clarification with the building height being 35 feet.
Michael Miller stated that all the information was available and it is the responsibility of the builder to obtain
that information adhere to it. Mr. Miller totally opposes 40 feet.
Bryant Gimlin stated that he would be in favor of continuance with regards to the building height due to the
issue of building permit information being issued.
Luis Llerena stated that there needs to be a consistency with the requirements in regards to the 30 feet and
the builders need to be responsible for the regulations.
Cristie Nicklas asked if the 30 ft requirement is a note on the plat. Mrs. Mika stated that a note was on the
plat stating that there was no deviation requested with regards to the building height in the R1 Zone District.
Michael Miller asked to amend the application to a 35 foot standard. Mr LaFaver agreed.
John Folsom moved that Case AmZ-522, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the
Planning Commissions recommendation of denial. Bryant Gimlin 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;Cristie Nicklas,yes;Luis Llerena,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE#: Z-561
APPLICANT: Dave Hoskins/Dove Haven PUD
ADDRESS: 1511 WCR 40.5, Berthoud, CO 80513
REQUEST: A Change of Zone from the A(Agricultural)to Planned Unit Development
with E (Estate)Zone uses for Five Lots with 5.43 acres Open Space.
LEGAL: Lot B of Recorded Exemption 2954 being a part of the West Half of the
Northeast Quarter of Section 29,Township 4 North, Range 68 West of the
6'h Prime Meridian, Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to WCR 40.5 approximately one-half mile west of
WCR 5
Hello