HomeMy WebLinkAbout20102203.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, September 7, 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, Tom Holton, at 1:30 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 >
C.::
Also Present: Chris Gathman, Michelle Martin, and Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services; Don Carroll,
Heidi Hansen, and Janet Carter, Department of Public Works; Lauren Light and Mary Evett, Department of
Health; Bruce Barker, County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Robert Grand moved to approve the August 3,2010 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, seconded
by Nick Berryman. Motion carried.
The Chair announced that there is a change in the agenda. Kim Ogle, Planning Services, commented that
staff has received a letter from the applicant's consultant for USR-1746 requesting a continuance until the
October 5, 2010 Planning Commission. Staff is in support of this request given the circumstances.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against the continuation of
this application until October 5, 2010. No one wished to speak.
Roy Spitzer moved to continued Case USR-1746 to the October 5, 2010 Planning Commission meeting,
seconded by Erich Ehrlich.
The Chair read the following case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1749
APPLICANT: Robert& Gladys Suden, do NE Colorado Cellular, Inc. dba Viaero Wireless
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a
Telecommunication Antenna Tower(195 foot wireless communication tower
and related accessory buildings/structures) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B RE-1607; located in Part NE4 of Section 34,T5N, R64W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 52; West of and adjacent to CR 57.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, commented that this application is for a 195 foot self-supported wireless
communication tower and related accessory buildings and structures in the Agricultural Zone District.
The surrounding area is rural and agricultural in nature. The nearest residences are located approximately
950 to 1000 feet southeast of this site. Other residences are located '/mile to the south and west of the tower
site. Additionally, there are three (3) mobile homes that appear to be accessory to the farm that are
approximately 300 feet to the east of the tower site, across County Road 57. No phone calls or
correspondence from adjacent property owners or other parties have been received in regard to this case.
Eleven referrals were sent out for comment; eight referrals were received and either indicated no concerns or
C onvn ti.nlCe.,c•i,,.�-1., 9--02°—.24)/(3 2010-2203 1
are addressed through the conditions of approval and/or development standards. No referral comments were
received from the Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communication Commission and the Platte Valley
Fire Protection District.
The site is located within the three mile referral for the Town of Kersey. The Town of Kersey indicated no
conflict with their interests.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached development
standards and conditions of approval.
Rick Baily, Viaero Wireless, Ft. Morgan CO, commented that they are trying to better enhance the
telecommunications in rural Weld County.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Mr. Gathman stated that Development Standard 14 needs to be amended to read"All building plans shall be
submitted to the Platte Valley Fire Protection District for review and approval prior to issue of building permits".
Mark Lawley moved to amend Development Standard 14 as requested, seconded by Robert Grand. Motion
carried.
The Chair asked the applicant if they read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1749 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 Erich Ehrlich.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman,yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, absent;AlexanderZauder,yes; Jason Maxey,
yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1218
APPLICANT: Gail & Charles Schnuerle
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Amended Use by Special Review Permit
for one(1) Single Family Dwelling Unit(manager/caretaker's residence) per lot
other than those permitted under Section 23-3-20.A of the Weld County Code
and an ongoing Home Business(storage units and RV parking) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A RE-1401; Part E2NE4 of Section 12,T5N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,Weld
County, Colorado.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to 95th Avenue; south of Business Route State Hwy 34
(Tenth Street).
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, stated that this application was originally approved on May 12, 1999 for a 180
unit indoor storage facility. This amendment seeks to add outdoor vehicle storage and to convert one
outbuilding into a caretaker's residence and office.
The site is located within the three mile referral area for the Towns of Evans, Milliken,Windsor and the City of
Greeley. The City of Greeley responded indicating concerns of compliance with water delivery. This has been
addressed through Condition of Approval 1.E. The Towns of Evans, Milliken, and Windsor did not return a
referral.
There are four parcels within 500 feet of the property and one residence in close proximity to the northeast.
There have been no comments received from surrounding property owners.
2
Surrounding property is primarily agricultural in nature with one home in close proximity. The property is
surrounded by the City of Greeley and is considered an enclave.
Thirteen referral agencies reviewed the case; four offered comments, some with specific conditions and have
been incorporated into the conditions of approval and development standards. No letters or phone calls have
been received.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached conditions of
approval and development standards.
Mr. Ogle added that Condition of Approval I.C has been met to the satisfaction of Environmental Health and
can be deleted.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, commented that the applicant may be requesting a waiver from the water quality
feature that is required. She added that a new mini storage site would require a full detention and drainage
design; however Section 8-11-30.17 of the Weld County Code states that no stormwater detention shall be
required for redevelopment of a commercial and industrial site where the change of use does not increase the
imperviousness of the site; however, water quality shall be required.
Mark Lawley moved to delete Condition of Approval 1.C, seconded by Erich Ehrlich. Motion carried.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, commented that the water is provided by the City of Greeley. There are
two septic permits for this property. One system is sized for the existing home,which was upgraded in 1999,
and it allows for 180 storage units. There is another permit for the manager/caretaker's residence and Ms.
Light stated that she will be performing the final inspection tomorrow on that system. No Dust Abatement Plan
is required because there is a development standard in the original USR which requires a dust suppressant if
needed. A Waste Handling Plan is required.
Julie Cozad,Tetra Tech, 1900 S Sunset Street, Suite 1 F, Longmont CO, stated that she is the representative
for the applicants, Gail and Chuck Schnuerle. Ms. Cozad stated that the original USR was approved on May
12, 1999 and at that time they built the first few units and a couple of years later they built the remaining three
units. A new septic system was installed for a customer restroom. In addition, they planted the majority of the
landscaping as well. They had received approval of the drainage on the property in 1999. At that time a
Drainage Statement was required and the drainage was all put into place according to the plans.
Ms. Cozad stated that the mature deciduous trees that are on the property provide an appropriate screen from
the RVs. In addition, the property has some elevation differences. She added that currently the properties
around the Schnuerle property are farm fields.
With regard to the drainage issue, Ms. Cozad understands from a previous discussion prior to the meeting
that she believes the water quality feature is reasonable and will meet with the Public Works staff prior to
Board of County Commissioners hearing.
Ms. Cozad believes that there is adequate landscaping and screening at this point. She offered a suggestion
that in the future additional screening may be required if there is a complaint from an adjacent property owner
or if the properties that are adjacent develop.
Mr. Ogle added that the Code requires screening of outside storage from adjacent properties and public
rights-of-way; however staff has not received any complaints on this property.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Commissioner Grand said that the applicant stated that they would provide additional screening if there are
any complaints and asked if the language can be revised in the development standards.
Mr. Ogle suggested adding a Development Standard stating"Should a complaint be received,staff will review
and determine the validity of the complaint. If the complaint is valid, the property owner must construct an
3
opaque fence within sixty (60) days to screen the outside storage of vehicles from adjacent properties and
public rights-of-way."
Robert Grand moved to add Development Standard 25 as stated by staff and renumber accordingly,seconded
by Alexander Zauder. Motion carried.
Jason Maxey moved to delete Condition of Approval 1.A, seconded by Robert Grand. Motion carried.
The Chair asked the applicant if they read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Robert Grand moved that Case Am USR-1218 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 Nick Berryman.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman,yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand,yes; Bill Hall, absent;Alexander Zauder,yes; Jason Maxey,
yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1748
APPLICANT: Russell& Patricia Compton
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a
Kennel (to accommodate 25 dogs and 3 cats) in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A RE-4021 being part of NW4 of Section 9, T3N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of CR 36 and approximately 1/2 mile east of CR 29.
Michelle Martin, Planning Services, commented that the applicant has applied for a Site Specific Development
Plan and a Special Review Permit for a kennel (to accommodate 25 dogs and 3 cats), in the A(Agricultural)
Zone District.
The surrounding property to the north, south, east and west are zoned agricultural with single family homes in
the area. The property is located within the three mile referral area for the Towns of Gilcrest and Platteville.
Both towns indicated in their referrals no conflicts with the proposed development. No comments have been
received from the surrounding property owners and the applicants have indicated they will continue to house
their dogs at night. Therefore, given the minimal impact of the proposed use 25 dogs and 3 cats, the use will
be compatible with the surrounding land uses.
Currently, the property is in violation (ZCV10-00023) for the additional household pets without an approved
and recorded Use by Special Review permit(USR).
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, stated that water is supplied by Central Weld County Water District and
added that they are fine with the use of the tap for the kennel business. The existing septic at the house is
sized for six (6) people so if they use that for clients or the kennel and it exceeds six(6) people then it would
need to be reviewed by an engineer. Ms. Light stated that she included it in the development standards rather
than a condition of approval because right now there are not a lot of people coming in and out of their facility;
therefore this will just put them on notice.
The applicant did submit a PACFA license from the Department of Agriculture. In addition,the applicant has
also submitted Dust Abatement and Waste Handling Plans. Noise is restricted to the non-specified level. Ms.
Light stated that there are no concerns with this request.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, stated that the applicant is using the existing access from County Road 36,
which is a local,gravel road. The applicant has also identified an existing low, grassy point that they will utilize
for their water quality feature.
Patricia Compton stated that they will have 25 or less adult dogs on the property and added that they raise
4
Golden Retriever dogs. She added that they are working with everyone to keep it in compliance.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
The Chair asked the applicant if they read through the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval
and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1748 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, seconded by Alexander Zauder.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall,absent;Alexander Zauder,yes; Jason Maxey,
yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously
The Chair called a recess at 2:18 pm and reconvened the meeting at 2:23 pm.
Erich Ehrlich left the meeting at 2:19 pm.
The Chair read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1754
APPLICANT: Kevin& Heather Willard do Kyle Ostrand
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a
Recreational Facility with uses similar to those seen at guest farms and
fairgrounds in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B RE-2164; Section 36,T2N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to 1-76; East of and adjacent to CR 47(N. Oak Street)
and South of and adjacent to CR 16 Section Line.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, commented that this proposal will be located on approximately 248 acres in the
agricultural zone district. The applicants are proposing an agri-tourism facility that addresses the importance
of cultural and heritage tourism and recreation through local, regional and agricultural economies including
events on site such as a corn maze, county fairs, and farm implement museums, etc.
The proposal seeks to operate July 1 through October 31 of any given year. During the period of July 1
through mid-September of any given year the facility is scheduled to operate during weekends only and from
mid-September through October 31 the facility will operate Thursday through Sunday with additional hours by
appointment only on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
The site is located within the three mile referral area for the Towns of Hudson and Keenesburg. The proposed
site is located within the Intergovernmental Agreement area for the Town of Hudson. The Town of Hudson in
their referral dated August 19, 2010 reviewed the proposal and were in support of the request with concerns of
traffic management at the intersection of State Highway 52, the west bound off-ramp and the 1-76 Frontage
Road. The Town cites poor sight distance and conflicting turning movements at this intersection. Further
stating all the development that contributes traffic to an already bad intersection should be responsible for
participating in the solution. The Town also provided a comment from the Hudson Correctional facility which is
north of the proposed facility, specific to the utilization of air space and over flight of the proposed helicopter
ride near the facility. The Town of Keenesburg in their referral dated August 10,2010 indicated no conflict with
their interests.
The surrounding land uses include a variety of agricultural activity. Directly west of the property is an egg farm
that houses 1.6 million laying chickens (Sparboe Farms under 3r° USR-655). Adjacent properties in all
directions are farmed for alfalfa hay, grain crops and several produce crops. Northwest of the proposed corn
maze is a long-term correction facility within the corporate limits of the Town of Hudson. South of the
interstate is an industrial/manufacturing facility. Southeast is a natural gas power plant (Rocky Mountain
Energy Center permitted under USR-1339). There are three(3)single family residences in the near vicinity.
5
Primary access is from State Highway 52 to County Road 12.5 which is under the jurisdiction of Weld County
and the Town of Hudson. This road intersects the 1-76 Frontage Road, approximately 1600 feet from the
intersection of State Highway 52 and the fly over of 1-76. Turning onto the Frontage Road and traveling 1300
feet to the point of ingress and egress to the corn maze. The applicant has submitted a Traffic Control Plan
which is under review by CDOT, the Town of Hudson,the Hudson Correctional Facility and Sparboe Farms to
determine the potential impact to each facility, if any. Staff has a recent email that CDOT is unable to approval
or deny the proposed Traffic Plan because the person is in the field today.
Eighteen referral agencies reviewed the case; seven referral agencies offered comments, some with specific
conditions and have been incorporated into the staff report. No letters or telephone calls have been received.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached conditions of
approval and development standards.
Commissioner Grand clarified if the access will be closed from Highway 52. Mr. Ogle replied that was correct
and added that traffic would go down State Highway 52 to County Road 12.5 to enter and exit the facility.
Commissioner Maxey asked if it is a temporary or permanent closure. Mr. Ogle said that it is a temporary
closure that happens only during hours of operation when the corn maze is open.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health,commented that since this is a temporary event of six months or less,the
applicant is allowed to use portable toilets and bottled water.The applicant has submitted Dust Abatement and
Waste Handling Plans. Noise is restricted to the commercial level. Ms. Light commended the applicant in
addressing all of the questions and concerns prior to this meeting.
Ms. Light stated that Development Standard 15 may be deleted as it is a duplicate of Development Standard
14.
Robert Grand moved to delete Development Standard 15 and renumber accordingly, seconded by Nick
Berryman. Motion carried.
Don Carroll, Public Works, commented that the access is from the 1-76 Frontage Road onto County Road 47
(Oak Street). The Town of Hudson does have jurisdiction over that segment of road. CDOT, Hudson and
Weld County are currently reviewing that intersection. Mr. Carroll stated that no staging or parking of vehicles
on the County Road is allowed and added that the on-site parking does appear to be adequate. A stop sign
has been requested at the intersection. There is a portion of the site that is located in a floodplain; however no
events are proposed in the floodplain area. No drainage report was required; however a water quality feature
is requested for the parking area.
Janet Carter, Public Works, commented they received a traffic study from the applicant. The applicant is
proposing 346 trips per day in and out for a non-peak weekday. During their peak season which is right
around Halloween, the traffic will increase and they are estimating 2,300 trips per day in and out of the facility.
On a standard weekend the estimate is 470 trips per day. Ms. Carter stated that she received a revised
Traffic Plan based off of CDOT's comments earlier today. It is appropriate in the view of Weld County and she
is in the process of approvingit; however it is just a matter of getting all the proper paperwork completed. .
Kyle Ostrand stated that the landowners currently live on the property and have a hay farm operation. He
added that the landowners have decided to create something to supplement their current farm income. Mr.
Ostrand said that they are in the process of working through all the details of the plan. The traffic has been
one of the biggest obstacles of the process and is currently in discussion. The traffic study that was prepared
included large projected numbers since this is the first year of operation and they are unsure of what to expect.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Roy Fronczyk, Hudson Town Planner, stated that they have had a lot of discussion about the project
throughout the last few months. The applicant has come in a number of times and described what he wants to
do. They support the project; however the traffic is still a concern.
6
The traffic study talked about 85%of the traffic coming from the west; however they believe it will come from
the east. Therefore, the Frontage Road is an issue and is currently under discussion. Mr. Fronczyk indicated
that they prefer to have the access route from the Frontage Road to County Road 43.5 instead of going to
County Road 12.5.
The traffic plan talks about message boards which will direct traffic to the site. Mr. Fronczyk asked if the
barricades and message boards will be taken off site and placed somewhere else. In addition, he asked if
there will be advanced public notice of the closures. Mr. Fronczyk referred to Condition of Approval 2 and
stated that he feels the evidence of an approved Access Permit from CDOT and an approved Traffic Control
Plan should be addressed now and not next year.
Commissioner Holton asked Ms. Carter if there is a plan in place. Ms. Carter said that CDOT, the Town of
Hudson, Weld County Planning Department and the applicant have been trading emails back and forth
reviewing these plans. What is being proposed at this point is a"soft"close which means that it is closed for
travelers passing through an area; however local traffic may access. The barricades are offset and posted
that local traffic only may access. Currently, discussion is in place with CDOT on how soft or hard they want
that closure to be.
Commissioner Grand asked Ms. Carter if she is comfortable that the discussion of the group is marching in a
direction that everyone will approve. Ms. Carter replied yes and stressed that this is a very temporary
condition. She added that the applicant had estimated higher numbers in hopes that their business will do
well, but as they go from year to year we will see changes within that traffic control. In addition, CDOT is
requiring the applicant to submit an access permit each year until they can determine what the traffic is truly
going to be at this facility.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
Commissioner Lawley asked about the temporary signage. Ms. Carter said that it is part of the traffic control
plan and added that the signs will be stored off site when the facility is not in operation.
The Chair asked the applicant if they read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1754 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 Jason Maxey.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, yes; Erich Ehrlich, absent; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, absent; Alexander Zauder, yes; Jason
Maxey, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair read the following case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1744
APPLICANT: Guadalupe, Rose and Jose Chavez
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a
Commercial Junkyard or Salvage Yard in the 1-3 (Industrial)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part N2 NE4 NW4 and Part N2 NW4 NE4 all in Section 31, T1 N, R66W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 4 and west of and adjacent to State Hwy 85.
Michelle Martin, Planning Services, commented that the applicant has applied for a Site Specific Development
Plan and Special Review Permit for a commercial junkyard or salvage yard in the 1-3(Industrial)Zone District
Currently, the property is in violation (VI01-00259) for the operation of a commercial business without the
necessary land use permits. This violation was turned in by an adjacent municipality and surrounding property
owners.
7
The surrounding property to the south and west are zoned agricultural. The property to the north and east are
zoned industrial. The property is located within the three mile referral area for the cities of Brighton and Fort
Lupton and Adams County. The City of Fort Lupton indicated in their referral dated April 27, 2010 that they
have no conflicts with the proposed development. The City of Brighton and Adams County did not respond to
the referral request. No comments have been received from the surrounding property owners and the
applicants have indicated they will continue to screen the property from public rights-of-way and surrounding
adjacent property owners. Therefore, the impact of the proposed use will be compatible with the surrounding
land uses.
Sixteen referral agencies reviewed this case, ten responded favorably or are included conditions that have
been addressed through development standards and conditions of approval. No comments were received
from:
West Adams Soil Conservation District
Weld County Sheriff's Office
Weld County Landscape referral
Adams County
City of Brighton
Weld County School District RE-27-J
The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of this application along with the attached
conditions of approval and development standards.
Mary Evett, Environmental Health, stated that there is an existing septic system for employees and customers.
The septic system was evaluated by an engineer and was found to be adequately sized for five(5)employees
and ten(10)customers. The applicant has received approval from the Colorado Division of Water Resources
for a commercial use of the existing well which is limited to drinking and sanitary purposes only. The applicant
indicated that there are no floor drains in the building; therefore Development Standard 15 may be deleted.
Condition of Approval#2 addresses a permit that the applicant needs to submit to the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment for stormwater discharges. She added that the applicant has submitted a
permit application on August 12, 2010; however staff has not received approval for that permit yet.
Mark Lawley moved to delete Development Standard 15, seconded by Roy Spitzer. Motion carried.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, commented that the access is from Highway 85. A full drainage design and
detention of their stormwater is required and the applicants have been very good in supplying a full detention
report.
Tim Young peter, Mountain West Commercial, introduced Andy Le, Operator of the Auto Line LLC,and Dave
Moore,Auto Recycling Consultant. The request is for an auto recycling yard in the 1-3 Industrial Zone District,
which is compatible with the current zoning.The property will be used as an auto salvage yard for import cars
and light trucks, particularly high end, late model cars.
Mr. Youngpeter expressed that they would like to request that they continue to work with the Planning
Department in regard to the landscaping requirement because they have issues with a very tight access
easement that goes directly to the south of the property for Ready Mix. He added that the State will not give
them any more water than is required for sanitary purposes; therefore they will not be able to maintain the
landscaping. Mr. Youngpeter requested that the landscaping requirement be waived.
Commissioner Grand asked how the applicant could handle the landscaping without water. Ms. Martin said
that the Code addresses that it does not have to be living matter but rather it can be landscape or decorative
rock.
Mr. Grand asked the applicant what they might be proposing for landscaping. Mr. Youngpeter said that they
haven't thought of an alternative other than to enhance the area by putting up more permanent fencing. Mr.
Grand asked staff if that would qualify. Ms. Martin said that it wouldn't meet the intent of the Code. She
added that there is existing fencing along the perimeter of the facility. She added that some of the fencing is
8
fabric; however they indicated that they will be replacing it with red metal slats.
Commissioner Holton encouraged the staff and the applicant to work out the landscaping issue prior to the
Board of County Commissioner hearing.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Robert Baumgartner, owner of the property to the north and west of the site. He stated that he hasn't seen
any improvement to the property. His main concern is the water runoff. The water coming off of this subject
site runs onto his property and floods his septic system. He said that his biggest concern is the runoff from
this property which has oil and other contaminants.
Mr. Youngpeter said that through the application process the drainage was addressed and approved.
Historically, the grades of the property do run across Mr. Baumgartner's property. Presently, it is not retaining
any kind of oil or fuel or spillage. Currently, they are proposing to not only retain that water for a historic
controlled flow onto Mr. Baumgartner's property but it will also go through a cleaning process so that the water
that will be exiting the property will comply with the State Water Quality standards. They propose that it
would come out of the northwest corner of the property and be discharged through a pipe and controlled to the
historic flow.
Ms. Hansen said that the applicant will be detaining the 100 year runoff at the 5 year historic rate so the
neighbor should see far less water than he does now. In addition, there will also be a sand/oil interceptor
which will keep any contaminants onsite.
David Moore commented that as a result of the Stormwater Discharge Permit they are required to take two(2)
samples per year and send them in for analysis.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions
of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1744 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 Alexander Zauder.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, yes; Erich Ehrlich, absent; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, absent; Alexander Zauder, yes; Jason
Maxey, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair called a recess at 3:30 pm and reconvened the meeting at 3:41 pm.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1153
APPLICANT: Country Meadows Estates LLC
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Change of Zone from the A(Agricultural)Zone District to the PUD (Planned
Unit Development)for nine (9) residential lots with (E) Estate Zone uses along
with .78 acres of open space-Country Meadow Estates.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B AmRE-4571; Part of the N2SE4 of Section 7,T4N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 3; 1/4 mile north of CR 46.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services,commented that nineteen referral agencies reviewed this case;ten referral
agencies offered comments which have been included in the conditions of approval.
The site is located within the three mile referral of the Towns of Berthoud and Johnstown as well as Larimer
County. The Town of Berthoud and Larimer County indicated no conflicts with their interest and no referral
comments have been received from Johnstown in regard to this application.
The site is located in an agricultural area. There is an existing subdivision located '/.mile west of this site and
another platted subdivision is located % mile to the north and east of this site.
9
A letter was received from an adjacent property owner mentioning a number of concerns in regard to this
development such as what road improvements would be required,dust abatement concerns,questions about
noxious weeds, drainage and detention and the potential for mosquitoes, and the location of waste in
proximity to the access road and detention pond proposed for this site.
Conditions of approval are attached which address a number of these concerns outlined in this letter. Per the
Department of Public Works, the applicant will be required to contribute their proportional share to dust
abatement should vehicle trips exceed 200 vehicles on the County Road. A weed management plan will be
required to be submitted with the final plat application. According to the Public Works drainage referral the
applicant is proposing either a detention pond or water quality feature which would not hold water on a
permanent basis; therefore that would address the concerns with mosquitoes. Staff understands in talking
with the property owner that there was an old silage pit in proximity of the proposed detention/water quality
feature area and access into the site so that may refer to the waste outlined in a couple of the letters received.
Staff has also received three additional letters from surrounding property owners. Items indicated in these
letters deal with the PUD creating precedence in regard to lot size. The lots as proposed meet the density
requirements for public water and septic which is 2.5 acres per the Health Department policy. Another
comment was in regard to a buried irrigation pipe along the western edge of the property. A 20 foot drainage
and utility easement has been indicated on the Change of Zone Plat. The property owner to the south is
requesting a 50 foot easement to allow sufficient room for access and excavation purposes to maintain this
irrigation pipe. Typically, easements are not shown until the final plat stage and can be addressed through a
condition or at the final plat stage.
According to the property owner to the north of the site they maintain the drainage ditch and request that the
access to the ditch remain open for maintenance purposes.
There was an existing farm road to the north of the proposed PUD at the west end and is a private farm road
and shall not be accessible to lots in the PUD.
In regard to water requirements, the applicant will be using Little Thompson Water and individual septic
systems for this development. The applicant is not requesting any waivers from the Estate Zone District
requirements so the proposed eight residential lots shall adhere to all requirements of the Estate Zone District
outlined in the Weld County Code.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this case.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, commented that Little Thompson Water District has provided a letter of
commitment which expires March 31, 2011. A note on the plat and in the covenants regarding protection of
the septic systems from people planning trees or putting structures on them is required. In addition three(3)
notes will be placed on the plat which specifically addresses dust. Staff has no concerns with this request.
Don Carroll, Public Works, commented that the access is from County Road 3 which is a local, gravel road.
The applicant has indicated that they will have a tracking pad during construction. The applicant will need to
acquire a Weld County Access Permit. A traffic study was not required at this time; however if the PUD does
trigger additional traffic over 200 then the applicant will be required to pay their proportional share. A
Preliminary Drainage Report was submitted and it is adequate; however more work is required at the final plat
stage. The subdivision is not located in a 100 year floodplain. An Improvements Agreement will be requested
prior to recording the plat.
Betty Trott, co-owner of Country Meadow Estates, stated that they purchased the property in 2006 because of
the beauty of the location. It was their intention to retire there as well as to give building sites to family
members. She reiterated that it is not planned for a money making subdivision.
Ms. Trott indicated that the drainage ditch is not a part of the proposed subdivision; however they will talk to
Mr. Ritter regarding the access to the ditch.
With regard to the issue of toxic waste,when they first purchased the property they met with the Johnstones
10
and were told of toxic waste being buried on the property. She added that they talked to the farmer at that
time and he knew nothing of anything being buried. This farmer also talked to his father who had also farmed
this property and he knew nothing about it. Ms. Trott talked with the another farmer who farmed the property
from 1995 to 1999 and stated that they did not use anything toxic and he did not know of anything being buried
there.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Tim Gibson stated that he lives and farms the 70 acres south of the Trott's property. He is concerned with the
pipeline that feeds his property. He added that the 20 foot easement width wouldn't give him enough room to
pile dirt if he needed to excavate the 10 inch buried line to maintain it.
Commissioner Spitzer inquired how deep the line is buried. Mr. Gibson replied that it is estimated to be 6 to 8
feet at the deepest point.
Commissioner Grand asked Mr. Gibson what would be an adequate size for the easement. In response, Mr.
Gibson indicated that he serves on the Handy Ditch Board and he added that they typically require a 50 foot
easement from the centerline of a pipe or ditch for maintenance.
Mr. Gibson stated that when that property was an irrigated farm the farmer would pull a ditch along there to
carry any excess water or drainage to the east and drain it off so it wouldn't run across his farm to the south as
he does not have any way of handling that excess water. Therefore he is concerned that when this
development occurs what will be used to control the flow off that property onto his property.
Bruce Johnstone expressed concerned with the alleged toxic dump. He was present when a statement was
made to be sure that no animals grazed in the southeast portion of the site. He added that he personally
observed material on the ground. He stated that there was a pipeline which needed to go in and now has
been moved up north and suggested that somebody might want to check with Xcel Energy why it was moved.
Mark (last name was inaudible) stated that he did the drainage design for the Trott property. With regard to
the concern of the property owner to the south, in the drainage design a proposed swale is to go along the
southern boundary to take any drainage that comes across.
Ms.Trott said that their attorney has papers that are ready to be recorded that would grant a 20 foot easement
for Mr. Gibson to access to his water line.
In response to Mr. Johnstone's inquiry regarding the movement of the Xcel Energy pipeline, Ms.Trott stated
that initially Xcel came to them and said that they were going to put the line along the south boundary of the
property. However, Xcel Energy stated that they were unaware of the subdivision in process; therefore after
explanation of the proposed subdivision including the location of the detention pond they decided to moved the
pipeline to the northern portion of their property.
Commissioner Maxey asked if the irrigation pipeline is 10 foot off of the property line. Ms. Trott replied that
she does not know.
Jim Trott, 3654 E 151st Ave, stated that according to the previous farmer the pipeline is 10 foot off the
property. In addition,their attorney told them that by chance if the pipeline is off the property line by 50 feet the
pipeline may need to be relocated.
Commissioner Berryman asked if there are any plans to have an environmental assessment survey on the
property to clear up the question regarding potential toxic waste. Ms. Trott stated she doesn't see the
necessity since she has nothing to back the statement up.
Commissioner Grand asked staff what happens if the pipeline turns out to be 50 feet away from the property
line. Mr. Carroll suggested that when this plat is presented to the Utility Board the best way to handle this
would be to expose that line and find the exact point.
Mr. Gathman said that he understands in talking with the property owner that they are the mineral interest
11
owners of the property; therefore Condition of Approval 1.C may be deleted.
Mark Lawley moved to delete Condition of Approval 1.C as recommended, seconded by Roy Spitzer. Motion
carried.
The Chair asked the applicant if they read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Mark Lawley moved that Case PZ-1153 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, yes; Erich Ehrlich, absent; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, absent; Alexander Zauder, yes; Jason
Maxey, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1150
APPLICANT: Sherry Wigaard&Velois Smith
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Change of Zone from the A(Agricultural)Zone District to the PUD (Planned
Unit Development)for eight(8) residential lots with (E) Estate Zone uses along
with four outlots(Outlot A-for central water system appurtenances&
distribution and emergency access; Outlot B-existing gas well production
facility; Outlot C-entry sign; and Outlot D-school bus shelter& mail kiosk)-
Wigaard Smith PUD.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B RE-4833; located in the N2NE4 of Section 28, T1 N, R64W of the 6th
P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 55 and approximately 685 feet south of the
intersection of CR 55 and CR 6.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, commented that thirteen referral agencies reviewed this case and nine
referral agencies offered comments which have been incorporated into the conditions of approval.
This site is located within the three mile referral area of Adams County. No referral comments have been
received from Adams County in regard to this case.
This proposed PUD is located immediately to the east of the Wildlife Conservation Center permitted under
USR-1253. This facility is for a Wildlife Sanctuary for surplus confiscated and abused wildlife lions, tigers,
bears, etc. This facility is completely fenced. A letter was received from the Wildlife Sanctuary director
expressing concerns with having residential lots located immediately adjacent to a tiger's sanctuary. The
director expressed concerns about people living in close proximity and disturbing the animals and therefore
indicated that the PUD is an incompatible use. Mr. Gathman said that he understands that the applicant has
met with the director of the Wildlife Sanctuary and has attempted to address and mitigate these concerns. He
added that they are working on an agreement in providing additional screening along the boundary of the
Wildlife facility adjacent to the PUD and possibly allowing the facility director to sit on the PUD Homeowners
Association.
The applicant is proposing a central water system utilizing an existing well as well as a proposed new well.
According to the Division of Water Resources referral response it offered the opinion that the proposed water
supply is adequate and could be provided without causing injury to decreed water rights provided the existing
well under Permit Number 180126 is re-permitted according to the decree in Water Court Case 2006-CW181.
Additionally, under Section 27-2-170 of the Weld County Code it states that water systems including wells
which rely upon Denver basin aquifers shall also acquire and incorporate into a permanent supply plan
alternative renewable water sources to ensure adequate water supplies for the future. The proposed water
system would use two existing wells that do rely on the Denver basin aquifers; therefore the Department of
Planning Services is requiring the applicant to address the criteria outlined in Section 27-2-170 as a condition
of approval prior to recording the Change of Zone Plat for this application.
The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of this request provided that the alternative
12
water source and that the surrounding property owner comments can be addressed.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, stated that there will be a private central water system. She added that
the State will probably classify this as a public water system because it could serve over 25 or more people
per day. Ms. Light requested moving Condition of Approval 1.B to Condition of Approval 5.P as this would give
the applicant time between the Change of Zone and Final Plat to do some engineering. She added that the
State will require engineering of that water system and it doesn't make sense to place the condition prior to
recording the Change of Zone plat. Staff has no concerns with this request.
Mark Lawley made a motion to move Condition of Approval 1.8 to Condition of Approval 5.P, seconded by
Robert Grand. Motion carried.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, stated that the access is from County Road 55 which is a collector road and
requires 80 feet right-of-way; currently there is 60 feet of right-of-way. The internal roadway will need to be
privately maintained by the HOA. A Change of Zone Drainage Report was submitted and was acceptable.
She added that there are additional items which will be required at the time of Final Plat submittal such as
construction plans, Improvements Agreement,easements,etc. Ms. Hansen stated that there are no concerns
at this time.
Cliff McCissack, JCM Development, 8300 Garland Dr, represents the applicants Sherry Wigaard and Velois
Smith. Mr. McCissack stated that they agree to the staff recommendations.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Pat Craig, Executive Director of Wildlife Sanctuary, said that they are extremely concerned about this
proposed subdivision. He said that this facility was moved to this part of the county 16 years ago because of
the remote location. He added that their number one goal is for the animals'welfare. The animals are not in
typical cages; rather they are in large acreage habitats. These are all rescued animals that were taken from
abusive or illegal situations. Adjacent to the proposed subdivision is a 20 acre tiger habitat, wolf and bear
habitats. Obviously, there is a great attraction for these animals so the problem is that anytime people get in
the near proximity of the habitats it becomes entertainment for them and they want to come over and stand at
the fence. He added that they have had a number of issues with properties in this area where people want to
ride their ATVs along the fence and it disturbs the animals. Therefore, proposing to have people's backyards
right up against a habitat that has 10 tigers in it was not something that they expected to be up against.
Mr. Craig commented that they are great friends with Sherry Wigaard and Velois Smith and would like to see
some sort of a resolution to it. He added that they have discussed at this point some legal binding document
where the people that move in there have to sign something that says they realize they are moving next to a
large wildlife sanctuary. He said that they are concerned that in the future with people moving in that this could
create a problem and then they will want to relocate the sanctuary; however it would cost millions of dollars to
move this facility.
Commissioner Grand inquired if an easement along the property line would help. Mr. Craig said that there is a
lot of concern with the attraction and so besides the screening he believes that an easement would help with
not allowing people to get that close to the fenced area.
Commissioner Holton expressed that we may need to take the Right to Farm Statement a little further and
expand that. He feels that a buffer can be established and worked out for better security.
Bruce Barker, County Attorney, said that in this instance the USR needs to take into consideration
compatibility and those properties that are surrounding it. It is the responsibility of the property owner to take
whatever steps necessary to deal with that. He added that it is not fair to saddle this applicant with respect to
future uses. He said that he doesn't see it as a Right-to-Farm but more of a right to own property and deal
with it effectively. He added that those uses that come in secondly, after the fact, have an obligation to make
certain to protect themselves and do the things to make it so that their use is compatible.
Mr. McCissack commented that they have talked about some additional solid privacy fencing between the
facility and the proposed subdivision. It would also be a possibility of having a no use of motor vehicle type
13
easement that would be immediately adjacent to the common property line. He added that perhaps an
additional outlot could be placed there with language on the plat that no motorized vehicles would be allowed
in that area and it would be maintained by the Homeowners Association who would also have the
responsibility to police that.
Mr. Grand asked about the dogs as well. Mr. McCissack said that if there is some buffering on that west side
that might help mitigate that problem.
Sherry Wigaard commented that she moved out just after the facility started construction. She added that
because it is a rural area ATVs will be out there. She stated that she has asked Mr. Craig to serve on the
HOA to ensure that he has some control. She expressed that the wildlife sanctuary is a great facility and
believes that they can work something out.
The Chair asked the applicant if they read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Mark Lawley moved that Case PZ-1153 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, yes with comment; Erich Ehrlich, absent; Robert Grand, yes with comment; Bill Hall, absent;
Alexander Zauder, yes; Jason Maxey, yes with comment; Roy Spitzer, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Maxey commented that it sounds like the applicants and Mr. Craig are on good terms and
encouraged them to continue working together because this is a unique situation.
Commissioner Grand reiterated Mr. Maxey's comments and added that they strive to reach a satisfactory
agreement.
Commissioner Berryman suggested having a tentative agreement prior to the Board of County Commissioner
hearing.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss. Mr. Grand
requested a report on the number of violations and the source of the violation according to Planning
Commission districts over the last 12 months for the next Planning Commission meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 4:55 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
14
Hello