HomeMy WebLinkAbout971195.tiff RECEIVED MAR 2 5 1997
10
it �
1 Weld County Referral
CWi!cR d Gounitv Planning Dept. March 25, 1991
COLORADO MAR 2 8 1997
4; ,y ILO if
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Tom Francis (Hillcrest Estates) Case Number 5-425
Please Reply By April 17, 1997 Planner Shani L. Eastin
Project Change of Zone from (A)Agricultural to(E) Estate for a five (5) lot Minor Subdivision.
Legal Lot B of RE-1936, E2 of the NE4 of Section 25,T6N, R67W and W2 of the NW4 of
Section 30,T6N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location South of and adjacent to Weld County Road 66; east of and adjacent to Weld County
Road 23-1/2.
Parcel Number 0805-30-000060
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you
consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above I sted date so that we may give full
consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be deemed to be a
positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions regarding the application,
please call the Current Planner associated with the request.
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing(if applicable) May 6, 1997
U We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
U We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
jit See attached letter.
Comments:
Signature Date .. a7_ q
Agency
+Weld County Planning Dept. +1400 N.17th Ave.Greeley,CO.80631 +(970)353-6100 ext.3540 *970)352-6312 fax
EXHIBIT
19
971195 Z-SD to
mEmoRAnDum
WII'Re To Shani Eastin, Current Planner oats March 27, 1997
COLORADO From Don Carroll, Project Administrator Oce
Soni.cr 5-425, Tom Francis (Hillcrest Estates) Minor Subdivision
The Weld County Public Works Department has reviewed this proposal; the following comments are
recommended to be a part of any approval:
1. I have worked with the applicant on setting up the main access to the subdivision on the north/south
section line directly across from an existing access point. This is a good engineering practice to align
access points across from each other to control traffic at one location. If future expansion would occur to
the north, the intersection would already be in place. This access point accommodates lots 1 through 4.
Lot 5 will be accessed through an existing 25 foot access easement already in place with no lots having
a direct access to WCR 66.
2. The Windsor-Severance Fire Protection District is asking the applicant to install a 20 foot wide gravel
access road from the west end of the cul-de-sac to connect with WCR 23.5. This will serve as an
emergency access road, and will have a breakaway gate system for emergency use only. The gravel
easement should be a graded and drained all-weather type emergency access road.
3. Referring to the City of Greeley's memorandum on the proposed cul-de-sac seems to be quite long. The
subdivision regulations allow us to grant up to 1500 feet for a cul-de-sac. This cul-de-sac fits within the
perimeters of the Subdivision Regulations. The applicant needs to identify on the mylar a 65 foot radius
on the cul-de-sac section.
4. Referring to my memorandum dated November 26, 1996, Item No. 4, the applicant needs to place on the
mylar a typical cross-section for a minor subdivision identifying the 60 foot right-of-way, the width of the
road with adequate gravel depth, borrow pit ditches, and drainage culverts, if required. All road within
a minor subdivision should have a minimum of 18 feet in width and a minimum depth of four inches of
gravel base. The applicant may exceed these minimum requirements if applicable.
5. The applicant needs to place on the mylar the utility easements. These easement will include a 15 foot
utility perimeter easement and a 10 foot lot line easement on both sides. The easements will be addressed
by the Utility Board.
6. The existing 25 foot access easement on the east side of the minor subdivision is used to access two
existing homes and an agricultural access to Lot A. These parcels have been addressed in the past through
recorded exemptions or subdivision exemptions.
971135
Shani Eastin
March 27, 1997
Page 2
7. We have asked the applicant to dedicate 30 feet of right-of-way from the east side of WCR 23.5 and the
south side of WCR 66 in the curve section where Out Lot A is identified on the plat. This would allow us
in the future to straighten out the road and adjust the intersection if this area would ever develop.
cc: Commissioner Harbert
S-425 file
plant
971.195
r�k , 1 - Weld Coun
ty Referral
WI I .
C
March 25, 1997
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Tom Francis (Hillcrest Estates) Case Number S-425
Please Reply By April 17, 1997 Planner Shani L. Eastin
Project Change of Zone from (A)Agricultural to (E) Estate for a five(5) lot Minor Subdivision.
Legal Lot B of RE-1936, E2 of the NE4 of Section 25,T6N, R67W and W2 of the NW4 of
Section 30,T6N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location South of and adjacent to Weld County Road 66; east of and adjacent to Weld County
Road 23-1/2.
Parcel Number 0805-30-000060
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you
consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may give full
consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be deemed to be a
positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions regarding the application,
please call the Current Planner associated with the request.
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing(if applicable) May 6, 1997
U. We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
❑ See attached fetter. // ,p �> p
Comments: 7 � GCe"2 re!'- 1�'�'LCE-GLz.L�. L-C.e�GC.CC /1�ey — — (J�'
/2'Li�G�� t o -nt �—h-rZlfi''�U7 -C,c7-
/_Z7} --ILLij � _A li _..a.,_)- ' 7J
Signature cG_�//l Date 1/a{f/j ,
Agency i „, l 6' f `-'%l
L.
*Weld County Planning Dept. •1400 N.17th Ave.Greeley,CO.80631 11(970)353-6100 ext.3540 4(970)352-6312 f
EXHIBIT
/D
971.195 z -so&
rit7;3/4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Shani Eastin, W.C. Planning DATE: March 27, 19
C FROM: Trevor Jiricek, W.C. Health Department
COLORADO CASE NUMBER: S-425 NAME: Francis, Tom
APR 0 1. 1997
Environmental Protection Services has reviewed this proposal. We do not have any concerns as
submitted. However, we have the following comment:
The typical operational life of a septic system is 15 to 20 years. After this time period the lots would
likely be developed with out-buildings, corrals, etc. It has been the Department's experience that
after development there is not adequate area for replacement systems. Therefore, the Department
encourages the applicant to designate an appropriate area on the parcel for a replacement septic
system.
4
EXHIBIT
971.19'5 z-so6,
se-4C°
PRIMA
OIL & GAS COMPANY
Trinity Place
1801 Broadway, Suite 500
Denver, Colorado 80202
303-297-2300
March 31, 1997
Ms. Shani L. Eastin, Current Planner
Department of Planning Services
Weld County Administrative Offices
1400 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Dear Ms. Eastin:
Re: Case S-425
We have received a notice from your office regarding a hearing concerning the request
of Tom Francis (Hillcrest Estates) for a change of zoning in the E/2NE/4 of Section 25 T6N,
R67 W and the W/2NW/4 of Section 30, T6N, R66W. Could you provide us with a copy of
the complete application and plat? Thank you for your assistance.
Very truly yours,
)
Marlene Boyle
Contract Division Order Analyst
MB:mh
Weld County Planning Dept.
APR 0 1 1997
EXHIBIT
971/95 -Z
-SO(o
, OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
City Vl 1100 10TH STREET,GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 (970)350-9780 FAX(970)350-9800`
Greeley
April 24, 1997 AN 2 4 77
Shari Eastin
.�J
Weld County Department of Planning Services
1400 North 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Subject: Z-506 - Francis Change of Zone
Dear Shani:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this proposal to change the zone on a 36 acre
parcel from A (Agricultural) to E (Estate) located southeast of WCR 66 and WCR
23.5. The City of Greeley Planning Commission reviewed this proposal at their
regularly scheduled April 22 meeting. The Commission unanimously recommended
denial against the zone change for several reasons, including:
1. Density - This proposal is located approximately one mile north of our Long-
Range Expected Growth Area (LREGA), and, from the City's perspective,
should continue to have a rural density. Greeley's Planning Commission has
determined that residential density outside of our LREGA should not exceed 1
unit for every 20 acres. The current proposal, combined with the two previous
recorded exemptions and the subdivision exemption would create a total of 8
lots and a density of 1 unit for every 8 acres on this site.
2. Regional Plan - The recently adopted Northern Colorado Regional Planning
Study identifies this area as a community separator, which should be maintained
as open space. This allows for communities to maintain a sense of place and
provides a clear line of demarcation between communities. The Study also
discusses the importance of regional corridors which go through the region,
such as the Poudre River Trail and the Greeley #2 Ditch. The subject property
and the area around it combine the community separator and the regional
corridor to form a critical regional linkage (See Attached). Regional linkages
offer the opportunity to maximize the benefits of the separators and corridors.
EXHIBIT
(J {JJ
971.1.95 Z so4
Shani Eastin
April 24, 1997
page 2
3. Service Area - The location of a subdivision in an area far removed from public
services which does not conform to City standards, such as the one proposed, is
not appropriate. County developments such as these are hard to incorporate
into the framework of a municipality in the future. Service issues, particularly
relating to police and fire service are difficult when annexation is proposed.
4. Dairy Location - This site is approximately 3/4 miles from a proposed
significant dairy expansion at the intersection of WCR 66 and WCR 27. The
Greeley Planning Commission offered conditional approval for the dairy, but
noted that land use conflicts could arise when other types of development were
proposed for the area. Encroaching residential uses are likely to be negatively
impacted by the dairy.
The Planning Commission expressed concern during the meeting about several issues
(See Attached), including the applicants assertion at the time of the 1986 recorded
exemption that the land is prime agricultural land, that this recommendation for denial
on the zone change is consistent with their previous conditional recommendation for
the dairy expansion, and that this zone change is not consistent with the dairy
expansion.
Therefore, the City of Greeley recommends the change of zone from A (Agricultural)
to E (Estate) should be denied. Should any questions arise concerning this proposal or
this letter, contact me at 350-9786.
Sincerely,
Greg hompson
Planner II
enclosures
9'71.195
VIII. WELD COUNTY REFERRAL FOR A REZONE FROM A
(AGRICULTURAL) TO E (ESTATE)
Greg Thompson, Planner II, introduced the item as a Weld County Referral for a zone
change from A to E. The 36-acre parcel, which would be divided into five lots, is
southeast of Weld County Road 66 and Weld County Road 23' .
As background, Mr. Thompson advised that the property was part of a recorded
exemption which subdivided the land into three parcels in 1981. In August 1996 a
second recorded exemption was requested, which the City recommended for denial;
however, the County subsequently approved the proposal. Then, in December 1996,
a minor subdivision sketch plan was reviewed by the City. At that time there was
concern that rural densities outside the City's Long-Range Expected Growth Area
should not exceed one residence per 20 acres.
Mr. Thompson identified the key issue relative to Weld County Referrals as whether
the request complies with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Thompson advised
that the site would not be appropriate for residential development because of the
proposed density, because the Regional Plan identifies the area as a community
separator and a critical regional linkage, and because the four-to-eight acre parcels
would be difficult to incorporate into a community. Also, he noted that approval of
the request may also promote further subdivision and zone change requests in an area
without municipal level improvements. Additionally, he pointed out that sprawl is
promoted when development occurs outside city service areas.
Therefore, Mr. Thompson suggested that the Planning Commission recommend denial
of the request to the Weld County Planning Commission and to note that the density
for the proposal is too high for the location, the Regional Plan does not support this
development, and future incorporation of this type of development into communities is
difficult.
Commissioner Coan noted that typically the City Planning Commission only comments
regarding consistency of the proposal with the City's Comprehensive Plan and
questioned whether it would be possible to comment regarding its consistency with
Weld County's regulations. Ms. Safarik responded affirmatively. Commissioner
Coan then pointed out that the site is about three-quarters of a mile from a recently
approved dairy expansion and noted the possibility for land-use conflicts between the
dairy and a single-family neighborhood.
Commissioner Ewald questioned where the encroachment of development upon
agricultural lands would stop.
Planning Comm. Minutes 3 April 22, 1997
971.195
Commissioner Coan noted that the subject property had been identified by the owner
as "prime agricultural land" in a previous request. He therefore agreed with the
staffs recommendation that the project should not be supported and moved to accept
the Planning staffs recommendation for denial. Commissioner Ewald seconded the
motion.
Commissioner Hernandez commented that he believes the recommendation for denial
would be consistent with the previous staffs recommendation to approve the dairy
with the condition that its use be reevaluated in 20 years or when development
approaches. He noted that Weld County approved the expansion of the dairy without
the staff's recommended conditions. Ms. Safarik added that the only Planning
Commission recommendation supported by the Weld County Commissioners was that
the access be limited.
Commissioner de Besche asked that the staff's recommendation be forwarded to Weld
County, advising that the Planning Commission did not believe the request to be
consistent with the previously approved dairy. Mr. Thompson advised that he would
forward the comments from both Commissioners de Besche and Hernandez.
A vote was taken on the motion and carried 6-0 (Lockhart absent).
•
Planning Comm. Minutes 4 April 22, 1997
971195
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY
ITEM: Weld County Referral for a Zone Change from A
(Agricultural) to E (Estate)
PROJECT: Francis Weld County Referral
LOCATION: Southeast of Weld County Road 66 and Weld County Road
23'
APPLICANT: Tom Francis
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING DATE: April 22, 1997
PLANNING COMMISSION FUNCTION:
Review the proposal and determine compliance with the City of Greeley
Comprehensive Plan and make a recommendation to the Weld County Planning
Commission.
PROJECT OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND:
The applicant is proposing to change the zone on an existing 36-acre parcel from A
(Agricultural) to E (Estate) and intends to divide this property into five lots, with the
smallest parcel consisting of approximately four acres.
In December 1996, a minor subdivision sketch plan on this property was reviewed by
City staff. Comments at that time indicated that development outside of the City's
Long-Range Expected Growth Area (LREGA) should have a rural density which does
not exceed one residential unit per 20 acres (Attachment E). These were the same
comments put forth in August 1996 when the City staff recommended against a second
recorded exemption on this property (Attachment F). However, the August 1996
request to divide the property was approved by the County.
The property was originally subdivided in 1986, which utilized the combination of a
recorded exemption/subdivision exemption to create three separate parcels. With 62
acres and three parcels, from the City's perspective, this was an appropriate division,
particularly since two residences already existed. The current proposal is ultimately
designed to create a total of eight lots on the former 62-acre parcel. The key to this is
the zone change. Without an estate zone, the property cannot be developed for
residential uses.
971.195
As previously noted, the subject property is located outside the City's Long-Range
Expected Growth Area (LREGA, Attachment G). Therefore, by virtue of the intent
of Section 19-7 of the City Charter and the Weld County policy of referring land-use
proposals for review and comment to appropriate jurisdictions, the proposal is within
the purview of the Greeley Comprehensive Plan.
It is the practice of the City of Greeley Planning Commission to review Weld County
requests principally for conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan policies.
Specific design issues are addressed only to the degree necessary to ensure consistency
with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code.
SITE DATA:
Zone Change Site Size 36 Acres
Zoning of Subject Property Weld County A (Agricultural)
Surrounding Zoning Weld County A (Agricultural)
Proposed Zoning Weld County E (Estate)
Surrounding Land Uses North - Agricultural Production & Oil and
Gas Production
South - Railroad Tracks, Two Single-Family
Dwellings, Agricultural Production
East - Agricultural Production and Junk
Piles
West - Agricultural Production
Proposed Land Use Single-Family Residences
KEY ISSUE:
Does the request comply with the Greeley Comprehensive Plan?
ANALYSIS:
The City of Greeley's Comprehensive Plan does not directly address the issue of zone
changes, and ultimately subdivisions, located outside the LREGA. However, several
issues in regard to this proposal warrant discussion.
Planning Comm. Summary 2
971195
The location of this site, approximately one and one-half miles east of Windsor and
almost two miles north of Greeley's city limits (Attachment A) is not an appropriate
location for residential development to occur for several reasons:
Density
Planning Commission Resolution 7, 1985 (Attachment I), gave the Planning staff the
authority to review and respond to the County in regard to recorded exemptions. That
resolution spelled out appropriate density standards, depending on the location of the
exemption in relation to the "2010 Growth Ring." The Planning staff has
administratively determined that the "2010 Growth Ring" is synonymous with our
current LREGA. While a density standard has not formally been established for
minor subdivisions, utilizing the standard put forth in Resolution 7 is the most
appropriate. Therefore, the density appropriate for residential uses at this location is
one unit for every 20 acres.
Based on the density standard established with Resolution 7, the Planning staff
recommended against the 1996 recorded exemption that created one additional lot
which increased the density to one residential unit per every 15.5 acres. The current
proposal would double the number of lots, further increasing the density to one unit
per eight acres.
Regional Plan
The Northern Colorado Regional Planning Study, which was completed in May 1995,
incorporated several elements which are germane to this project.
A principal element of the Study is community separators and providing for open
space between individual communities. The intent of the separators is to keep open
space areas between communities. Not only is this a more cost-effective way to
develop, but helps provide a sense of place, and a line of demarcation between
communities. The subject area is located one and one-half miles east of Windsor and
two miles north of Greeley's city limits in an area, which would be ideal to maintain
as an area of open space, and is specifically identified in the plan as a community
separator (Attachment H).
The Study also identifies regional corridors which are associated with waterways and
allow for linkages between communities and regional resource areas. Two such
linkages are located near this site. The Poudre River and Poudre River Trail to the
south of this site offer one corridor, while the Greeley No. 2 canal to the north of this
site is another corridor opportunity. Since this area is already identified as a
Planning Comm. Summary 3
971195
community separator, connecting these two east-west corridors is a distinct possibility
through the subject area.
Another element of the Regional Study is "Critical Regional Linkages." These areas
afford the opportunity to maximize the benefits of the individual elements by placing
special emphasis on opportunities to link together the regional framework. The
subject site is identified by the Study as a Critical Regional Linkage, since good
opportunity currently exists to maintain a community separator between Windsor and
Greeley and also to link travel corridors.
Service Area
The Comprehensive Plan identifies an issue, Coordinated Development Standards,
relevant to this discussion.
The effects of growth on a community's perception of itself and on the cost
of providing governmental services often extends beyond the incorporated
city limits. . . Development that is inappropriately located or designed has
a similar effect on the perception of Greeley regardless of its location in
or outside of the city limits. In addition, as the city expands its
geographical base, developments approved under the authority of the
county are absorbed into the City of Greeley. If these developments are
not constructed in accordance with city land use, zoning, and public works'
improvement standards, conflicts may arise when the property is annexed.
These conflicts may include incompatible land uses; structures and land
uses that do not conform to city zoning standards; and street, sidewalk,
water, and sewer improvements that do not comply with city standards.
Admittedly, this site is two miles north of the existing city limits and outside of our
Long-Range Expected Growth Area, but the impact of this development, and
developments like it, are felt by our community. The location of a subdivision in an
area far removed from public services which does not conform to City standards is not
appropriate. Additionally, County developments, such as the one proposed, with four-
to-eight-acre parcels, are tough to incorporate when annexed. Recent and currently
proposed annexations have excluded lots which went through County subdivision or
exemption procedures and now exist as enclaves where service issues, particularly for
police and fire, are difficult to track for both the County and the City.
Several issues arise concerning this property. The density of the project is higher than
should be permitted, the Regional Plan identifies this area as a community separator
and a critical regional linkage, and if the proposed property were ever to be
Planning Comm. Summary 4
971195
incorporated into a community, the four-to-eight-acre parcels would be difficult to
incorporate into the framework of the City. Approval of this request may also
promote further subdivision and zone change requests in this area without municipal-
level improvements. Additionally, sprawl is promoted when development occurs
outside city service areas.
PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the preceding analysis, the Planning staff suggests that the Planning
Commission recommend denial to the Weld County Planning Commission for the
proposed zone change from A (Agricultural) to E (Estate), and to note that the density
for the proposal is too high in this location, the Regional Plan does not support this
development, and future incorporation of this type of development into communities is
difficult.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Vicinity Map
Attachment B - Applicant's Vicinity Map
Attachment C - Site Plan
Attachment D - Narrative
Attachment E - Staff Response to Minor Subdivision Sketch Plan
Attachment F - Staff Response to 1996 Recorded Exemption
Attachment G - LREGA
Attachment H - Regional Plan
Attachment I - Resolution 7
Planning Comm. Summary 5
9'71195
iii
6 I iachment H (
Regional Plan
•
_ �� '
.8 g) 11111 ' I"
I
.,t I 1 ® ill *t
1
IIIM
:< >a:..
r .„ ,,, .„, .„,- ,...,
i Ykr. .
4,,,,,„,,. .,,,,„,„,.....„„...„,,,,n_,,,,,„,„,
` 'elle tail it r:r�
47 m.
•
tM1' p rr RtP
r/ �
...._ . ,A
:A i _,. 4 .
..,
,,,,,:ik,,,..
, "f ..,,ta: . . -1.,5Alici,:::,-04'.4.A - -----
BSI4 . 4•74, . .__r_
4.
_ 4.; _ ii,
D 0 a sig...-6 jjyyyj'�'',,'�� w••. // a
y,� ems•
i Yoh+ )' =V «..ae Y 1� y. '• - '
H
1` :
Hello