The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About951346.tiffRESOLUTION RE: ACTION OF BOARD CONCERNING MINOR SUBDIVISION FINAL PLAT (WHITETAIL #1) - IVAR AND DONNA LARSON WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS, pursuant to Supplemental Final Order and Judgment issued by Judge John J. Althoff concerning Case No. 94 -CV -172, the Board of County Commissioners held a public meeting on the 28th day of June, 1995, at the hour of 9:00 a.m. in the Chambers of the Board for the purpose of reconsidering the application of Ivar and Donna Larson, 925 North County Road, Route 1, Berthoud, Colorado 80513, for a Minor Subdivision Final Plat (Whitetail #1) on the following described real estate, to -wit: Part of the E'% of Section 14, Township 4 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado WHEREAS, at said hearing on June 28, 1995, Donna Larson, applicant, and John Chilson, Attorney representing said applicant, were present, and WHEREAS, the abovementioned Court Order provides instructions for review of said Minor Subdivision Final Plat, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners reviewed the existing record on this matter, including but not limited to, the transcript of the previous hearing concluded on March 16, 1994, Planning Commission Resolution for Recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners, the original Resolution of Denial approved by the Board of County Commissioners on March 16, 1994, and, having been fully informed, finds that this request shall be denied for the following reasons: 1. Weld County does not have the funding to bring Weld County Road 46 up to the necessary standards, and Weld County Road 46 is not currently adequate in functional classification, width, and structural capacity to meet the traffic requirements of the subdivision. Furthermore, the applicants have indicated that they are unwilling to contribute toward the upgrade of Weld County Road 46 to meet the increased traffic generated by the minor subdivision. It is the opinion of the Board of County Commissioners that the applicant has not shown compliance with Section 4.5.16.7 of the Weld County Subdivision Ordinance. 951346 PL0942 cc_ : Pt 645 = u-,-scn; phi/son RECONSIDER MINOR SUBDIVISION - WHITETAIL #1 PAGE 2 2. It is the opinion of the Board of County Commissioners that the applicant has not shown compliance with Section 4.5.16.16 of the Weld County Subdivision Ordinance, specifically, the Minor Subdivision will cause an unreasonable burden on the ability of local governments or districts to provide fire and police protection or other services. 3. That the applicant has failed to show that the proposed uses of the Minor Subdivision will be compatible with the soil or topographic conditions presenting hazards or requiring special precautions, pursuant to Section 4.5.16.5 of the Weld County Subdivision Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the application of Ivar and Donna Larson for a Minor Subdivision Final Plat (Whitetail #1) on the hereinabove described parcel of land be, and hereby is, denied. The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 28th day of June, A.D., 1995. ,447 Clerk to the Board Deputy Cle o the Board APPROVED AS TO FORM: 2/? County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ELD COUNTY,GOLORADO Dale C Hall, Chairmar /44 fa J Barbary J. Kirkmeyer, Tem -/George E!Baxter Constance AuebEep' �L. Harbert( //l// W. �" I4WLLQ 951346 PL0942 CASE REVIEW: WHITETAIL 1 and WHITETAIL 2 LOCATION: Approximately 2.5 miles southwest of Johnstown city limits on Weld County Road 46. CURRENT ZONING: AGRICULTURE HISTORY: Submitted to Planning on November 11, 1993 Utility Board Meeting December 16, 1993 Planning Commission December 21, 1993 (unanimously denied) Board of County Commissioners February 23, 1994 coot---. March 9, 1993 and -- continued to March 16, 1994 (unanimously denied) WHITETAIL 1 NUMBER OF PARCELS 6 AVERAGE SIZE 14.5 TOTAL ACRES 86.92 UTILITIES TO SITE: WATER SEWER GAS SCHOOL FIRE TOTAL ACRES 192 WHITETAIL 2 NUMBER OF PARCELS AVERAGE SIZE 6 16.4 TOTAL ACRES 105.31 LITTLE THOMPSON WATER DISTRICT INDIVIDUAL SEPTIC DISPOSAL SYSTEMS PROPANE JOHNSTOWN RE -J5 JOHNSTOWN FIRE DISTRICT REFERRAL RESPONSES FROM: COLORADO OIL AND GAS COMMISSION COLORADO DIVISION OF WILDLIFE TOWN OF JOHNSTOWN WELD COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE WELD COUNTY EXTENSION JOHNSTOWN FIRE DISTRICT WELD COUNTY HEALTH DEPT WELD COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS WELD COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE GERRITY OIL AND GAS OFFICE OF STATE ENGINEER COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 951 346 951347 INDEX WHITETAIL, I and II Summary Transcript Written Record - Planning Commission Resolution Soils - Maps Letters WHITETAIL I AND II Weld County Subdivision Ordinance (December 15, 1992) The relevant Sections of the Weld County Subdivision Ordinance and Hearing Transcripts follow: 4.5.16.5 SOILS COMPATIBILITY - That all areas of the minor subdivision which may involve soil or topographical conditions presenting hazards or requiring special precautions have been identified by the subdivider and that the proposed uses of these are compatible with such conditions; Soils and Compatibility Transcript p15 (L1-7&13) Soils p28 (L11-19) Special Precautions p29 (L14-18) Soils p65 (L22-25) Special Precautions p71 (L8-15) Soils p72 (L8-11) Topography p74 (L15-19) Soils pill (L9-15) cont p112 (L1-3) Soils 4.5.16.16 - That the minor will not cause an unreasonable burden on the ability of local governments or districts to provide fire and police protection or other services. Ability to Provide Services Transcript p96 (L2-25) cont. p97 (Ll) Future Service Needs p103 (L24-25) cont. p104 (L1-6) Need for Services p104 (L15-19) Traffic concerns P115(L15-25) cont. p116(L1-25) cont 117(1-6) Road Concerns p118 (L9-15) cont. (L22-25) Road Concerns p120 (Ll-3) Road Concerns p124(L3-18) Road Concerns p134 (L16-23) Road Traffic Concerns p135 (L15-22) Road Traffic Concerns Letters County Attorney's Office (November 30, 1994) Exhibit 32, p388 Public Works (March 16, 1994) p45 Public Works (December 16, 1994) p150 Exhibit 37, p407 BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Moved by Bud Clemons 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: S-349 and S-350 NAME: Ivar and Donna Larson ADDRESS: 925 N. County Road, Route 1, Berthoud, CO 80513 REQUEST: Minor Subdivision Final Plat (Whitetail !/1 and Whitetail 42). 'A w LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the E2 of Section 14, T4N, R68W of the 6th P.H., Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: Approximately 2 1/2 miles southwest of Johnstown City limits. be recommended unfavorably to the Board of County Commissioners. 1. It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services' staff that the applicants have not shown compliance with Section 4.5.9 of the Weld County Subdivision Ordinance as follows: The proposed Minor Subdivision Final Plat is not consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan and is not compatible with the surrounding area of rural residences and agricultural uses. This property is zoned A (Agricultural). The Agricultural zone district was established to maintain and preserve the agricultural base of the County. This proposal will take 191 acres of farm land out of production. The Comprehensive Plan attempts to minimize the incompatibilities that occur between agricultural and urban uses, and this request will not only increase incompatible uses, but it will make current farming practices in the area far more difficult. The Comprehensive Plan discourages the conversion of agricultural land to urban uses. This policy is intended to promote the use of agricultural land and to support a phased growth plan in the County. While low density single-family residential developments have been permitted in the area it is not a policy which is encouraged by the Comprehensive plan. 000183 RESOLUTION, S-349 Ivar and Donna Larson Page 2 The potential for increased interference with the neighboring rura. uses is probable. Additionally, maximum efficiency and economy cannot be achieved because the cost of this development will be far greater for the general public than any revenues generated by this development. The Weld County Comprehensive Plan encourages minimizing the costs to taxpayers but providing additional public services in rural areas for uses that require services on an urban level. Police and fire protection as well as public road maintenance provided to non -urban areas becomes increasingly less cost effective as rural areas continue to be subdivided. There are four soil types located on this site three of which are identified as prime farmland if irrigated with adequate water. Two of these soils, Nunn Clay Loam 1-3X slope, and Weld Loam 3-5X slope are considered to have high potential for dry crop land as well. These soils have been further classified as "farmlands of statewide importance." (U.S. Department of Agricultural Soil Conservation Service) September 7, 1993. It is not the policy of the Comprehensive Plan to convert these farmlands into urban uses. These lands are more than adequate for farm production. The current general use of the surrounding area is agricultural. The Centennial Farm is located close to this site. The scale and density of this proposal far exceeds the current nature of the area. Based on census data this site will generate 34 additional people in this area. With an increase in density, noise levels, and traffic generated, the general overall appearance of this area will change from rural to urban. The applicants are proposing to subdivide 191 acres of farmland into 12 acreages with an average lot size of 15 acres, more or less. However, in a previous application (Mountain View) the applicants stated the difficulties they were having in farming their 25 acre farm. Staff is concerned with this contradiction, if they are not able to adequately farm their small farm then how will the owner of Whitetail lots be able to farm similar size lots. This proposal does not encourage the preservation of agricultural uses in Weld County. coal e.4 I I I. I I I I I I I I I I I I I RESOLUTION, S-349 Ivar and Donna Larson Page 2 Staff has received verbal opposition to this request and 11 letters of clarification. The surrounding property owners are concerned about preserving their rural lifestyle, the impact this development will have on their present farming practices, and the increase in density this subdivision will produce. This recommendation for denial is based, in part, upon a review of the application materials submitted by the applicant, other relevant information regarding the request, responses from referral entities, and several conversations with surrounding property owners in opposition to this request. Motion seconded by Ron Sommer. VOTE: For Passage Against Passage Bill O'Hare Shirley Camenisch Bud Clemons Ron Sommer Richard Kimmel The Chairman declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this case to the Board of County Commissioners for further proceedings. CERTIFICATION OF COPY I, Sharyn Ruff, Recording Secretary of the Weld County Planning Commission, co 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 December 21, 1993. Dated the 21s cember, 1993. haryn F. [tuff Secretary 000185 SOIL SURVEY OF WELD COUNTY SOUTHERN PART Sheet Number 13 Johnstown Quadrangle Weld Loam 3-5X slope Nunn Clay Loam 1-3% slope Colby Loam 5-9% slope Otero Sandy Loam 5-9X slope Prime Farmland USDA and SCS September 1980 Ce e a . Prime farmland is land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops, and is also available for these uses (the land could be cropland, pastureland, rangeland, forest land, or other land, but not urban built-up land or water). It hasthesoil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically produce sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed, including water management, according to acceptable farming methods. In general, prime farmlands have an adequate and dependable water supply from precipitation or irrigation, a favorable temperature and growing season, acceptable acidity or alkalinity, acceptable salt and sodium content, and few or no rocks. They are permeable to water and air. Prime farmlands are not excessively erodible or saturated with water for a long period of time, and they either do not flood frequently or are protected from flooding. Farmlands of Statewide Importance These categories of land, in addition to Prime and Unique Farmlands of National Importance, are of statewide importance for the production of food, feed, fiber, forage, and oilseed crops. Criteria for defining this land was determined by representatives of the Colorado State Experiment Station, the Colorado State Department of Agriculture, and the Colorado State Soil Conservation Board. Three categories of these land have been proposed for consideration as being Statewide Important Farmlands. 'XI/7e 3co 000168 UI NI 70. I U PIP 4I I. 4, 0 T4NI Q. I W C Q J I— ;j52 in... 1 3 e �]`•.` Y1 ••. ? . z .. r. :.MJ. : z T.3ff ' , -' in. • I - z •I.M.q•I Ia?sift. z O U T2N. Syr//sir : ,ar d; • :P %[M.' 'u0 ES is s • • I. L 1 i a___/ MJI • �\ �. IY 1 `. • • ... •• .uoll.otlo! i-- \its— far ••r.- 000367 .07 'II \CNTh r, 11 I II I I1 38 .. 0e • =. 1 3 5 17 leAnto • 1 EJ '-I •o ( it c-41 ° 9 �. '/ -1; I "• ••, • �• • • . ... I�`_„• :• . Firs, "': I. :, \ Corrfcl n. - • • F— :L .l. .� ...a..x •...,'t • -- _;_ �"_• t�F9—ip--:;.'71..."---L"6 ._ Z 9 I , !i6, ,r .i•a ,• ,,it _Ir • •_._ • �../.. _ i .rM°•�,F .:....i•, _ _ _ •f • � , — H . : U (� w.. i + QI'• :• - •I: • ! %• Y ' G/ •r•r•r • .r !� •n M ��9� L lir7T4NI f ., CC • ( •••�. •o •.1,' • I. 1 . "_--i .. �j�jrj��`r- -[��xj•[ . v==im.. .. 1. .` • •xx• i', • :;. ^•„ •• •.. 5 N I NI �'' •I'N. N •. CC N 1C , ' ( I • / `S • f 1 ••i' • I �..,�•I i• ^ • `` L If 1 N M " 16‘...1. N 7r- • ••rr • •. .rq II /:: :. ' • .i, - •'G - _•_ +! -. -...1;•. •'• •x - -' •'' I. i1•\•. L( • •C `.1 a r "• ',\•a .-• • 50L�. r�i • • /-*• • II • (;,��II mid, sin. • .l.'. J ., L.: �• ` .•, :f l\ , \ .. ..•n..�..xt p •i �iI t • / • • '�_-. •.IEFtste l NNJyy•n• _- •• .• .. , n • . I . .• • I ;J III �,.. •• d/PIOV�^MOS ••t �_ __....-.. 'r !✓m" •.. .; -; . , • . • • - p. y .. - 1 . ,, •y • • , • • i N • we it r INILL� —• . `1_ • r • . i } • _ •.� ../ • .1. 1l1l• :EMI '1 ( ,I ....f... 1 , • A C. .:: • 9 x _J II • PO 570 V ' • • t/ a y' .ore • 'I �',/, 'ie •�'" Y , •C • 0'1." : 'Y'.l •.-emu: •1l •{�•. II •I•.1 ••, n n 1 : �•a �.y-' 1 ,. , I ~II I n' c'Lx ,L7 .i " - • " 000127 T4 '. roti :� '�• 'le ii _ ..r +///) 1 7f ' -S L & 31,11- no' L_• r A:1 .r", I_ L \t I i -ti _ S .. 14(t.:;04 COLORADO • frlEf ORA(1DUili MAR 1 7 1993 Ill Chuck Cunliffe To Plnpnin5 � on. Marrh 1[_ 1493 From ❑row Srhelringa sub3.or Lyar and fnnna Larson Ag View Estates 41 & #2 S-333 & S-334 Section 4 of the Weld County Subdivision Ordinance allows for the creation of minor liubdivisions with less than 6 lots. Ag View Estates #1 & #2 have 6 lots each and a part of he same development. I can see no reason for separate applications except to avoid the axtra requirements of a normal subdivision submittal. My review and comments are for both ,;g View Estates #1 & 02. IICR 46 is a gravel county road with traffic counts varying from 92 to 126. A development of an additional 12 lots would generate between 75 and 100 cars a day. This would nearly Iouble the maintenance requirements of Weld County. The applicant should address the impact f additional traffic. The sketch plan indicates a 60' access, utility and irrigation easement serving the 12 lots. at should be a dedicated right-of-way with appropriate utility easements throughout the ubdivision as called for in the subdivision regulations. On the southern part of the, roadway, the sketch plan indicates a crooked alignment with no curves. The road needs to PIe designed to the geometric standards required by the subdivision ordinance. Irrigation ses are also indicated in the right-of-way. I do not recommend irrigation ditches be included in the road right-of-way. The portion of the road that serves lots #3, #4, #5 and #6 inAgView Estates #1 lies in a downstream drainage area of Schmidt Lake. Particular Uttention should be paid in the final design process to keep the road away from any drainage roblems and out of saturated soils. The typical cross section is adequate, but the minimum culvert size should be 18" as opposed to the 12" shown. There is no technical material upplied to back up the information supplied in the drainage report. Many general supplied are made that will require detailed engineering submittals if this project proceeds to final plating. •he supplemental storm drainage information dated March 8, 1993, under Sec. 10.11..1 indicates an overall off and on site review was completed by the Department of Army, Corps of Engineers. This information should be provided. e last page of the supplemental storm drainage information contains a sketch which indicates quite a bit of work is to be done on the Schmidt Lake dam and its drainage way. Une work includes rebuilding an emergency overflow, installing a head ate repairing derground drains, and additional work around the facility labeled detention\retention -pond. No information is supplied on Schmidt Lake or the off site area draining to it. I It• suspect work on these dams may be under the purview of the State Engineer's Office. etailed and extensive information on the proposed work must be supplied at the final plat ��!!!! stage. Ulinimal information was supplied for the sketch plan review. Therefore, other concerns may 'rise in future reviews that are not addressed in this memo. IS\pds:mchuckl cc: Commissioner Baxter S - 333 & S - 334 I 000045 I! IL 441 slug Wilk. IL COLORADO mEMORAIMUM Monica Daniels -Mika To Planning D.r. December 16. 1993 From Donald Carroll s"er.cr: Ivar and Donna Larson Whitetail Acres #1 & #2 S-333 & S-334 Final Plat I have reviewed the application, met with the applicant, -and have the final comments: 1. Geometric design standards. The curve radius' on Whitetail Lane --the proper radius for 30 mph speed limit should have a radius of 302'. There are four curves on this section of road that are less than 302'. 2. The applicant is showing two different radius' at the end of the cul- de-sac at Whitetail Lane. This needs to be a 50' minimum radius on both copies. 3. Weld County Road (WCR) 46 is a gravel county road with a traffic count varying from 92 to 126 vehicles per day. A development of the additional twelve (12) lots will generate 114 trips per day based on the "Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual". The additional traffic will put this road at about the 200 vehicle per day volume. The distance from the subdivision to the I-25 access road is about a half mile. A high percent of the traffic volume from the subdivision will use this section of the road. The applicant should be required to enter into a road improvements agreement with the BOCC. cc: Commissioner Baxter File S-333 & S-334 I • a3 Ci Weld County Planning 000150 I- I WPM I I I mt ORAADUf i Planning Department November 30, 1993 To Date Lee D. Morrison, Assistant County Attorney F em White Tail Acres it 1 & 2 - Ivar Larson, Developer Su b,e<C I reviewed the covenants which have been recorded with respect to the two minor subdivisions and they appear adequate from the County's standpoint. It should be noted that Section 4.02 allows the Board of County Commissioners to maintain the common elements and assess the costs against the property owner and, if necessary, collect those in a manner similar to a tax lien. This provision is found in the planned unit development statute, and it does not require the Board of County Commissioners to act but allows them the opportunity to do so. The covenants appear to have adequate provisions to provide for assessments of the maintenance of the common areas, including the roads, on a private basis. I should note that the covenants were reviewed on the basis of their effect on the County and my review is not intended to provide Mr. Larson legal advice. I do observe that the covenants appear to have been well researched and drafted. There is some question on the issue of an improvements agreement with respect to the internal improvements. Mr. Larson is of the impression that one is not required, but ordinarily one would be prepared for the internal improvements, particularly the road which, although it will not be accepted for maintenance by the County, still is inspected by the County Engineering Department for compliance with the County standards. LDM/gb:planning iop4gyig DEC 0 d 1993 • t J .Veld Tani_ T, Planning 000388 Hello