HomeMy WebLinkAbout20100817.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Department of
Planning Services, Hearing Room, 918 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by
Chair, Torn Holton, at 1:39 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Tom Holton -Chair
Mark Lawley-Vice Chair
Nick Berryman
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Roy Spitzer
Alexander Zauder
Jason Maxey
Also Present: Chris Gathman and Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services; Don Carroll and Heidi
Hansen, Department of Public Works; Lauren Light, Department of Health; Bruce Barker, County Attorney,
and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Robert Grand moved to approve the March 16, 2010 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, seconded
by Erich Ehrlich. Motion carried.
The Chair read the following case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1733
APPLICANT: Susan Maestas
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a
Kennel (up to 40 dogs) and an Animal Grooming Shop (dogs and cats) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 4, Block 43,Aristocrat Ranchettes Subdivision 2n°Filing, located in Part
SW4 of Section 27,T2N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Lamb Avenue and east of CR 31.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, commented that this USR is to correct a zoning violation under case
ZCV09-00283 for operating a kennel without the necessary Weld County Zoning permits. Should this
application be approved the violation will be dismissed. If denied the number of dogs shall be reduced and
shall not exceed four(4)dogs at any given time and all commercial activity shall be removed from the property
within 30 days or the violation case will proceed accordingly.
This use is located in an existing subdivision,Aristocrat Ranchettes. Single family residences on one(1)acre
lots are located to the north, south and east of the site. The application indicates outside customers coming to
the site will be by appointment only. Additionally,the Department of Planning Services is requiring dogs to be
kept indoors overnight. These and additional development standards and conditions of approval will ensure
that this use is compatible to adjacent uses in the area.
Ten referrals were sent out to outside agencies; six(6) referrals were received and indicated either no conflict
with their interests or included conditions that have been attached as conditions of approval or development
standards for this case.
This site is located within the three mile referral area of Ft. Lupton; however it is located outside of the
Intergovernmental Agreement boundary(IGA) per the coordinated planning agreement between Weld County
and Ft. Lupton. There was no referral response received from the City of Ft. Lupton on this case.
! 2010-0817
cYrvruv7 C¢�u7✓y �/ /�/— �4?i0
One letter of support has been received for this case. No phone calls have been received nor have any letters
of opposition been received for this case.
The applicant has indicated that the grooming facility will accept customers on an appointment basis only.
The application mentions those hours between 9 am to 3 pm.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached development
standards and conditions of approval.
Mr. Gathman indicated that there a couple of revisions to the staff report requested by Environmental Health.
He added that they would like to request removal of Development Standard #17 because they are not
connected to a private water supply.
In addition, staff would like to revise Condition of Approval 1.C by amending the second paragraph to a new
Condition of Approval 1.D and amend the first sentence to read"Alternately to option C above, the applicant
shall install an individual sewage disposal system for visitor, patrons and kennel and grooming sanitation
needs and shall e installed according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations."
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, commented that water is supplied by Aristocrat Ranchette Water Project
and indicated in their referral there is no concern with this business. There is an existing septic system for the
house sized for eight people. Ms. Light added that this system needs to be reviewed by an engineer to make
sure it is large enough for the business which includes the employees, grooming operation, kennel usage as
well as the patrons or to install a new septic system.
Dust abatement and waste handling plans are required. An updated license from the Department of
Agriculture is also required as those licenses are renewed every March. Noise is restricted to the commercial
level.
Roy Spitzer moved to delete Development Standard 17 and amend Condition of Approval 1.C and re-letter
accordingly as stated by staff, seconded by Mark Lawley. Motion carried.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, stated that the applicant is using the existing residential access from Lamb
Avenue. Lamb Avenue is classified as a local road and requires 60 feet of right-of-way which they currently
have. Public Works did not require a water quality feature for this case because the actual outdoor kennel
yards are for the applicant's personal animals; the grooming shop animals will not be in those kennels. The
site is not located in a FEMA floodplain.
Susan Maestas, 15169 Lamb Ave, commented that she has the renewed 2010 State licenses which are
required.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Benjamin Hansford, 15376 Caroline Ave, stated that he has known Sue Maestas for several years and added
that he is also a client of hers. Mr. Hansford commented that Ms. Maestas operates a very clean business
and she has never been a problem to anyone. She has been a wonderful neighbor.
The Chair asked the applicant if she has read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions
of Approval and if she is in agreement with those. The applicant replied that she is in agreement.
Mark Lawley moved that Case USR-1733 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval, seconded by Bill Hall.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, absent; Erich Ehrlich,yes; Robert Grand,yes; Bill Hall,yes;Alexander Zauder, yes; Jason Maxey,
yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Mark Lawley, Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
2
The Chair read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1724
APPLICANT: Cody& Rana Pickering
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Home
Business (parking of one semi truck and two trailers) in the A (Agricultural) Zone
District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 24 of Casagrande Estates Subdivision 1 st Addition in Section 17,T2N,R67W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Apache Road and North of CR 20.
Michelle Martin, Planning Services, stated that the applicant has applied for a Site Specific Development Plan
and Special Review Permit for A Home Business (parking of one semi truck and two trailers) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District
A sign announcing the Planning Commission hearing was posted March 15,2010 by planning staff. The site
is located west of and adjacent to Apache Road and north of County Road 20.
The surrounding properties to the north, south, east and west are zoned (A) Agricultural with single family
homes in close proximity. The closest home is approximately 200 feet to the east of this site. The property is
located within the three mile referral area for the City of Firestone and the Town of Frederick. The Weld
County Department of Planning Services has not received a referral from the City of Firestone and the Town
of Frederick. The surrounding area is residential in nature with the property located within Casagrande Estates
Subdivision. Staff believes that the conditions of approval and development standards will ensure that the use
will be compatible with the existing land uses.
Currently the property is in violation (ZCV09-00227)for the additional one semi truck and two trailers without
an approved and recorded Use by Special Review permit (USR).
Twelve referral agencies reviewed this case, seven (7)responded favorably or included conditions that have
been addressed through development standards and conditions of approval.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health,commented that since there are no employees there are no concerns with
water and septic. There is no maintenance to the truck done on site. The applicant has submitted a dust
abatement plan and has been approved by staff.
Don Carroll, Public Works, commented that Apache Road is a local paved road and well maintained. There
are two existing accesses to the property. One residential access goes to the garage and the secondary
access is to the outbuildings where the truck and trailers are parked. No additional accesses will be granted to
the property. No traffic study is required for this case. A water quality feature is required to capture run off
from the buildings, trucks and trailer.
Cody and Rana Pickering, 9131 Apache Rd, commented that they have a list of surrounding neighbors who
have signed it indicating that they are in support of his operation. In addition, the neighbors have indicated
that they feel that the screening of the semi and trailers are unnecessary. The applicants requested that the
screening requirement be removed and expressed that they keep the property very well maintained and
looking nice.
Commissioner Holton asked if screening is required on all sides. Ms. Martin commented that screening is
required from adjacent rights-of-way and surrounding properties. She added that the outbuilding primarily
screens it from the north side of the property; therefore screening would only be required from the west,south
and east sides.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Gary Harper, 9132 Apache Rd, commented that he lives directly east of the applicant's property and added
3
that the applicants have been excellent neighbors. Mr. Harper said that fencing the semi and trailers are not
necessary in his opinion.
Robert Grand moved to delete Condition of Approval 1.F, Condition of Approval 3 and Development Standard
17, seconded by Bill Hall. Motion carried.
The Chair asked the applicants if they have read through the amended Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicants replied that they are in
agreement.
Jason Maxey moved that Case USR-1724 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval, seconded by Robert Grand.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, absent; Erich Ehrlich,yes; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, yes with comment;Alexander Zauder,yes;
Jason Maxey, yes with comment; Roy Spitzer, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
Commissioner Hall commented that after reviewing the pictures of the area as well as the comments from the
surrounding neighbors he believes that the removal of the screening requirement is justified in this case.
Commissioner Maxey commented that the applicant's appear to keep their property very well maintained and
wished to commend them for doing so.
Tom Holton recused himself from this case.
Mark Lawley read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1719
APPLICANT: Mary Ann Plonka
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Use
Permitted as a Use by Right, Accessory Use, or Use by Special Review in the
Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts (RV, boat, and construction equipment
storage) in the A (Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B RE-3193; located in Part of the SW4 of Section 2,Ti N, R66W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Hwy 52 and approximately 1/2 mile west of CR 35
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, commented that this application is for RV, boat and construction
equipment storage. The applicants are also proposing to have a mobile or modular home for an office as an
accessory unit but it will also serve as a dwelling for employees on the site.
The surrounding properties to the north, south,west and east are predominately agricultural in rural residential
parcels. Development standards and conditions of approval will ensure compatibility with the adjacent
properties and the character of the area. There is one parcel zoned commercial and another parcel zoned
industrial that contains a batch plant facility approximately % miles to the west of this site. The property
immediately to the north across State Highway 52 has been annexed to the City of Ft. Lupton.
A Landscape and Screening Plan along with a Lighting Plan are required to address the visual impacts of this
use and to deal with compatibility with the existing and surrounding land uses in the area.
Eleven referrals were sent out; eight (8) referrals were received and either indicated no conflicts with their
interests or recommended conditions that have been attached as conditions of approval and/or development
standards.
This site is located within the three mile referral area of the City of Ft. Lupton; however it is outside of the
4
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) area.
Per Section 19-12-50.B of the Weld County Code regarding the Intergovernmental Agreement between Weld
County and Ft. Lupton states "To the extent legally possible the County will disapprove proposals for urban
development in areas of the municipal referral area outside the Urban Growth Area. In reviewing proposals for
Non-Urban Development in such areas, the County will apply its Comprehensive Plan and zoning and
subdivision ordinances and, where appropriate the RUA Plan."
Additionally, Section 19-12-40 states "Urban Development which is characterized by development density
typical to urbanized areas and requires support services such as central water and sewer systems, road
networks, park and recreation facilities and programs, storm drainage and other similar services which are
typically furnished by the Municipality."
In reviewing this use, staff determined that this proposed use will not be connected to central water and sewer
systems and lacks other elements consistent with the definition of urban development which would warrant a
recommendation of denial for this proposal based on noncompliance with the coordinated planning
agreement.
The City of Ft. Lupton did provide a referral on this case dated November 4, 2009 which states that the
proposed use falls within the majority of the City of Ft. Lupton's future employment area. Uses in the
employment area are generally defined as areas that will serve as important job centers, business parks, large
scale retail and other complimentary uses. The referral also states that the employment area uses must be
adequately buffered from less intense uses and comply with the City of Ft. Lupton design standards and
requests that the proposed storage area be screened and buffered by State Highway 52 and adjoining
residential and agricultural uses.
Conditions of approval have been attached requiring the applicant to attempt to address the conditions of
approval for the City of Ft. Lupton and also submit a landscape/screening plan for review and approval by the
Department of Planning Services should this application be approved.
Three letters and two phone calls from surrounding property owners have been received in regard to this case.
The first letter received in November 2009 indicated several objections concerning the reduction of property
values, lack of water to support the project, pollution from runoff and emissions, lack of demonstration of need
for this particular type of use, compatibility, and that the property to the north is higher in elevation so there is
no way to screen this use from the neighboring property, and traffic safety.
The second letter of objection argues that the proposed use that is in the Tier 1 area defined in the Ft. Lupton
Comprehensive Plan is not compatible with nor an allowed use. Additionally, this letter also mentions the
higher elevation of the northern property and the difficulty of screening the use from this property.
An additional letter was received yesterday and was handed out to the Planning Commission which indicates
the concern for traffic safety and the inability to effectively screen the use from the property to the north.
It should be noted that the applicant has an approved access permit from the Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT). Additionally,the applicant has a well permitted for commercial livestock and domestic
animal watering and irrigation not to exceed 7.8 acre feet annually. The Division of Water Resources
indicated no objections to this use provided that the well is still operated under the parameters of their
approved well permit.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached development
standards and conditions of approval.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, commented that the applicant has a commercial well permit. There is an
existing septic system sized for six (6) people. It was evaluated in 2008 by an engineer and the engineer
indicated that if the septic system was upgraded then it would be appropriate for the storage sites. The Board
of Health approved it. The applicant will have an option of either having this existing septic system evaluated
or have a new septic system installed. There is no RV wash site or dump station. Dust abatement and waste
5
handling plans are required.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, commented that the access is from State Highway 52; therefore CDOT has
jurisdiction over the access. It is an existing shared access with the neighbors; therefore staff is asking for
paving up to the office building because of the larger vehicles that will be coming into the site. The rest of the
parking area will be gravel or recycled asphalt. A water quality feature is required on the far south part of the
property. The site is not located in a FEMA floodplain.
Mary Ann Plonka, 16230 Hwy 52, commented that Lynette Mount, her daughter, is here to assist her. She
added that she lives on approximately 29 acres of dryland. Ms. Plonka stated that this property is in between
Highway 85 and 1-76 and therefore felt that this would be a good site for an RV storage area. There are a
couple of businesses to the west of them and also another business located to the east of them approximately
5 miles.
Ms. Mount added that they just received some more information about where people can dump their waste.
With regard to dust control they have talked to A&W and Envirotech about controlling the dust in that area and
both have said that magnesium chloride or water can be applied.
Commission Maxey asked the applicants to explain more of what the construction storage will consist of. Ms.
Mount said that they are expecting 4 wheel drive trucks, trailers, bobcats and other smaller type equipment.
She added that there will be restrictions placed on the size.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Thomas Oldenburg, 8201 South Park Lane, Littleton CO, commented that he is speaking on behalf of the
neighbor to the north who has been annexed into the City of Ft. Lupton. This property is a PUD and is zoned
for several hundred single family units.
Mr. Oldenburg referred to the City of Ft. Lupton's Comprehensive Plan and the site plan which was submitted
by the applicant. Regarding Ft. Lupton's Comprehensive Plan, this plan shows two different types of
employment. Tier 1 Employment Area allows up to I-1 zoning and I-1 does not allow outside storage. Tier 2
Employment Area does allow outside storage.
Mr. Oldenburg noted that the applicants mentioned buffering along Highway 52 and he referred to the site plan
where it indicates the fence up directly to the existing right-of-way. The plan shows an additional 50 foot of
right-of-way needed and when you take that away you are right at the asphalt of where to park the RVs so
there is really no buffer shown on the plan.
This property is along Highway 52 east of Ft. Lupton which is the gateway entrance to Ft. Lupton. Mr.
Oldenburg expressed concern with having outdoor storage to the gateway entrance.
Mr. Oldenburg said that there needs to be more work on the plan and offered some suggestions.
Commissioner Maxey asked how many lots will potentially be in the subdivision. Mr.Oldenburg said that there
are 137 acres and zoning allows for half of the lots to be 6,000 square foot lots and the remainder to be 8,000
square foot lots. Mr. Maxey asked if it will be covenant controlled. Mr. Oldenburg believed that it would be.
Mr. Maxey commented that since this subdivision might restrict these outdoor items this use might make
sense to accommodate that growth. Mr. Oldenburg said that it is possible but doesn't believe that this is a
good place along Highway 52 for outside storage.
Mayvis Brown, 16317 Hwy 52, stated that she is part owner of the north property. She said that the entrance
to the proposed storage is in the middle of two hills and added that she had an accident there. Ms. Brown
expressed her concern with the big vehicles going into the entrance because it makes it very dangerous.
Commissioner Ehrlich asked what Ft. Lupton allows in its I-1 zoning. Mr. Gathman said that schools, public
recreation, banks, office buildings, medical & dental clinic, restaurants, retail businesses, services, gas
stations, public utility facilities, building supply yards, auto/truck trailer and farm equipment sales services &
6
repairs, etc. are allowed.
Mr. Gathman recommended adding Condition of Approval 1.A.14 to read "The fence shall be delineated a
minimum of 75 feet from the centerline of State Highway 52" as requested by CDOT.
Roy Spitzer moved to add Condition of Approval 1.A.14 as stated by staff,seconded by Robert Grand. Motion
carried.
Ms. Mount referred to the comments regarding the entrance aesthetics. She is a graphic designer and agrees
that some of the businesses along Highway 52 are not appealing. Ms. Mount expressed that they are more
than happy to work with the City of Ft. Lupton in regard to fencing and landscaping.
The Chair asked the applicants if they have read through the amended Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicants replied that they are in
agreement.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1719 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval, seconded by Roy Spitzer.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, absent; Erich Ehrlich,yes; Robert Grand,yes; Bill Hall, yes;Alexander Zauder,yes; Jason Maxey,
yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Ehrlich cited Section 23-2-220.A.4.
Meeting adjourned at 3:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, Q ,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
7
Hello