HomeMy WebLinkAbout20083002.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
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 1:34 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Doug Ochsner
Tom Holton
rr
Nick Berryman - r—
Paul Branham
Erich Ehrlich 6.: a- r>CD
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Mark Lawley 4:': c5 rl�
Roy Spitzer w `
Also Present:Chris Gathman, Kim Ogle, Brad Mueller, Department of Planning Services; Dave Snyder, Don
Dunker, Department of Public Works; Lauren Light, Troy Swain, Department of Health; Cyndy Giauque,
County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Robert Grand moved to approve the October 21,2008 Weld County Planning Commission minutes,seconded
by Bill Hall. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1651
APPLICANT: Jay&Sherrie Woods
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SW4SE4 of Section 36, T6N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for any use permitted as
a Use by Right, an ACCESSORY USE, or a Use by Special Review in the
COMMERCIAL or Industrial Zone Districts, (Lawn Tree and Care Business)
provided that the property is not a Lot in an approved or recorded subdivision plat or
lots parts of a map or plan filed prior to adoption of any regulations controlling
subdivision and One (1) SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT per LOT other than
those permitted under Section 23-3-20.A(addition of future single-family home)in
the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to"F"Street and 1/8 mile west of"C"Street.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services,commented that staff is requesting that this case be continued out six(6)
months to the May 5, 2009 Planning Commission hearing. The applicant is having some health concerns at
this time. He added that staff cannot recommend an indefinite continuance as it is a land use violation so it
still needs to be kept open.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Robert Grand moved to continue case USR-1651 to the May 5, 2009 Planning Commission meeting,
seconded by Roy Spitzer.
The Chair read the first item on the Consent Agenda.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1671
APPLICANT: Weld County
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part NE4 of Section 33,T6N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for Open Pit
Mining and Materials Processing(dry mining), subject to the provisions of Article
IV, Division 4 of this Chapter in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
>nnuAAlet. W Il—to-20C g 2008-3002
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to 59`"Ave and approximately 1/4 mile south of O Street.
The Chair asked Mr. Gathman if he wishes for this case to remain on consent. Mr.Gathman stated that staff
has received one letter of concern in regard to prairie dogs. He added that staff has not received any phone
calls or any other correspondence from surrounding property owners. Unless there are people in the audience
who object, staff recommends it stays on consent.
The Chair asked if the applicant was available and if they wish for this case to remain on consent. Dave
Bauer, Public Works, stated that he wishes for this case to remain on consent.
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 if any of the Planning Commissioners wished to pull this item from consent. No one wished
to speak.
The Chair read the next case on the Consent Agenda into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1659
APPLICANT: DeRoy&Cathy Turley
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for one(1)Single-
Family Dwelling Unit Per Lot other than those permitted under Section 23-3-20.A
(Section 23-3-40.L)and any use permitted as a Use by Right,An Accessory
Use, or a Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts,
provided that the property is not a Lot in an approved or recorded subdivision
plat or lots parts of a map or plan filed prior to adoption of any regulations
controlling subdivisions(Section 23-3-40.R)(Tank Repair,Agricultural Millwork
and a second single family dwelling unit).
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SE4 NE4 Section 22,T6N, R62W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: Approximately 1/2 mile south of CR 68; East of and adjacent to CR 79.75.
The Chair asked Mr. Ogle if he wishes for this case to remain on consent. Kim Ogle, Planning Services,
stated that staff does wish for this item to remain on consent. He added that they received one letter in
support from an adjacent property owner.
The Chair asked if the applicant was here and if they wish for this to remain on consent. Mr. Ogle indicated
that they are here and wish for this case to remain on consent.
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 Planning Commissioners if they wish to pull this case from the consent agenda. No
one wished to speak.
The Chair read the third case on the consent agenda into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1670
APPLICANT: Northern Colorado Disposal
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Solid
Waste Disposal Site and Facility(Recycling FacilityfTransfer Station)in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-449, Section 33,T6N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,
Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 64(O Street)and west of and adjacent to 59`h Ave.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, stated that this case was listed on consent. He added that there was a
community meeting in early October with surrounding property owners and they received positive feedback.
He indicated that there are representatives from the City of Greeley and believes that they may want to
discuss some issues on this case.
2
The Chair asked if the applicant was present and if they wish for this case to remain on consent. The
applicant indicated that they do wish for this case to remain on consent.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Jana Easley, Planning Manager for the City of Greeley, 1100 10th St, Suite 202, Greeley. Ms. Easley
expressed appreciation for the opportunity to comment on cases within their long range growth boundary. She
added that in this case they are requesting some additional items such as landscape screening,a certain type
of fencing and some upgrades to the exterior building materials. She commented that they are requesting that
this case be pulled from the Consent Agenda to discuss these issues more in depth.
Ms. Easley indicated that the applicant did come to Greeley and visit with them earlier in the year. She added
that there are in agreement for most of the items but would like the opportunity to further solidify some of the
City's request as it relates to this site.
The Chair asked the Planning Commissioners if they would like to pull this item from the consent agenda.
Commissioner Grand asked that since the agreement has almost been reached, can we leave it in the hands
of staff to work out with the applicant and the City of Greeley.
Mr. Gathman commented that there are a couple of conditions of approval for this case already. One is a
requirement for a landscaping and screening plan. There is another condition that the applicant must attempt
to address the requirements of the City of Greeley in their referral. From a planning staff standpoint we can
deal with it either way. He added that there have already been considerable discussions between the
applicant and the City of Greeley on these issues. He asked the Commissioners to keep in mind that this is
located in the urban growth boundary for the City of Greeley. The City of Greeley did annex 59th Avenue and
now the proposed site is fairly close to the boundaries of the City of Greeley.
Commissioner Lawley asked if the applicant and the City are working on this or if they have they come to
some kind of an agreement. If so, he would support a continuation to let them work out the details and bring it
back to us. If not, then he would support a hearing. Mr. Gathman commented that with this case it is time
sensitive. It is scheduled with the Board of County Commissioners next Wednesday, November 121h. If we
continue the case we are looking at least a couple of weeks out. He commented that the applicant and the
City of Greeley have had some discussion on these issues. He mentioned that in talking with both the
applicant and the City of Greeley he is confident that they can reach an agreement.
Commissioner Spitzer asked Mr. Gathman if he recommends hearing the case today. Mr. Gathman replied
that he would recommend hearing the case today so that it can be resolved prior to the Board of County
Commissioners hearing next week.
The Chair asked Ms. Easley if they have read the development standards for the case. Ms.Easley stated that
they have read through them. She added that comments were provided from their administrative review team
to the applicant. The response to comments on several of the items was simply stated as"Noted",which to
them didn't really say yes or no to the requested action. Therefore they are seeking a resolution to those
questions and proposed requirements, rather than just a statement of"Noted". Ms.Easley indicated that they
are just a little unclear as to whether or not the applicant has agreed to these items.
The Chair asked if the Planning Commissioners wish to pull this item from consent. Commissioner Spitzer
and Commissioner Grand wished to pull this case from the consent agenda to be heard.
Mark Lawley moved that the Consent Agenda which includes Case USR-1671 and USR-1659, 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 Roy Spitzer.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, yes; Paul Branham, absent; Erich Ehrlich, absent; Robert Grand,yes; Bill Hall,yes; Mark Lawley,
yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, absent. Motion carried unanimously.
3
The Chair called a recess at 1:52 pm for staff to prepare for the hearing.
The Chair called the meeting back to order at 1:57 p.m. and read the case back into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1670
APPLICANT: Northern Colorado Disposal
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Solid
Waste Disposal Site and Facility(Recycling Facility/Transfer Station)in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-449, Section 33,T6N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,
Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 64(O Street)and west of and adjacent to 59th Ave.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, commented that this is a Site Specific Development Plan and Special
Review Permit for a Solid Waste Disposal Site and Facility(Recycling Facility/Transfer Station)for
Northern Colorado Disposal in the Agricultural Zone District.
The site is located south of and adjacent to O Street and west of and adjacent to 59th Avenue.
The applicant is proposing a building where the majority of the recycling would be. They would also have
an area for the public to bring their trash which would be sorted by Northern Colorado Disposal.
There is a requirement for a future right-of-way to be dedicated for 0 Street as well as for 59th Avenue.
The applicant is proposing to place a fence 10 feet inside the edge of the future right-of-way. In addition,
the applicant would have some landscaping in the 10 feet between the fence and the edge of right-of-way
for both O Street and 59th Avenue.
According to the referral comments from the City of Greeley, they would like to see opaque screening
along the boundary of the facility. Mr. Gathman indicated that he understands the preferred material
would be vinyl or possibly cedar. There was some discussion of requiring less opaque screening if the
applicant agrees to put in conifers, pines, spruces, etc versus a deciduous type material. He commented
that this addresses the specifics on the landscaping issues.
Mr. Gathman noted that there is a proposed condition of approval from Public Works dealing with road
improvements. He added that Mr. Snyder from Public Works can address that specifically.
The Chair asked Pubic Works for their comments.
David Snyder, Public Works, commented that this site is on O Street and 59th Avenue. He added that they
are accessing via a paved entrance and then onto a gravel area inside.
There is stacking for four tracks on their property so they will not have any back up on the County Roads.
The traffic impact will be very minimal. The last count for O Street was 2700 ADT. He concluded that
they have no concerns with this application.
The Chair clarified if Public Works wishes to make this addition as a Development Standard. Mr. Snyder
replied yes.
The Chair asked Public Health if they had any comments.
Troy Swain, Environmental Health, commented that they recommended approval. He added that their
comments are reflected in Development Standards 6-25.
Mr. Swain stated that the applicant will be submitting an Operations Plan which is required by the State
Solid Waste Rules. He added that the Health Department did go with the option of having the applicant
submit the plan to the State Health Department for their approval and it will be required to be approved by
the State Health Department as well as by Weld County Health Department prior to recording the plat.
4
The Chair asked if the applicant would like to make any comments.
David Peek, Drexell Barrel, 6513 W 4'"Street, representing Northern Colorado Disposal. Mr. Peek
referred to the additional development standard from Public Works. He commented that he was not
aware of the addition until about 11:45 this morning and added that they are not clear of the details on how
that is going to work out financially in the short or long term. The statement doesn't really say anything
about how the applicant's percentage will be contributed whether it is based on the number of trucks
through the intersection or by contiguous acres and how the applicant would have to pay for that once the
intersection is improved. Mr. Peek commented that this is new to them and it makes them somewhat
uncomfortable adding this as a requirement of approval without some details. He added that the applicant
isn't afraid to pay his fair share but wants to make sure that he is not committing himself to something in
the future that would be excessive for him.
Mr. Peek submitted the list of requests with regard to the landscaping and building materials from the City
of Greeley. He said that Item 1 was that the building setback be pushed back from 20 feet to 25 feet. Mr.
Peek stated that the applicant is in agreement with that.
Item 2 is that the exterior building materials should be a mix of materials as suggested and added that the
applicant is in agreement with that based on the other options the City of Greeley presented for screening.
Mr. Peek commented that the City of Greeley has indicated that if the applicant can fix up the building
they will allow a non-opaque fence with some landscaping. He read from their letter which states that the
type of screening could vary depending on the manner that the building exterior is treated. The City of
Greeley would like to see improved facade utilizing open vinyl, plasticized, chain link fence, dark brown in
color. He added that if the applicant chose not to do the upgrades on the exterior building then they would
like to see a standard opaque fence such as a vinyl or cedar fence.
Mr. Peek continued to state that in all cases the City of Greeley has asked the applicant to utilize a buffer
yard and substitute some deciduous trees and shrubs with evergreens. Finally, the City has requested
that the applicant would work within the city's standards for a buffer yard B which is listed in their letter.
Mr. Peek indicated that the applicant agrees with all of the items listed and would be willing to work with
the City of Greeley and the County to finalize both building elevations and fencing and buffer yard that
would be in agreement with all three entities involved.
Commissioner Lawley asked if there is a development standard included to address this issue. Mr.
Gathman stated that there is a development standard which talks about some of those issues but not
specifically. He added that if the applicant is agreeable to it they could include that as a condition of
approval.
The Chair asked Mr. Gathman to work on the language for this while they discuss the maintenance
contract from Public Works.
Commissioner Holton said that the applicant has made comments about not being comfortable with this
contract being open ended. He asked Mr. Snyder if they would be willing to change the language so that it
will be like most of the other maintenance contracts that they see. Don Dunker, Public Works,
commented that the applicant will only be required for their proportionate share. Right now the applicant
estimates 22 trips per day; therefore it would be 22/2700 would be their proportionate share. He added
that before the intersection would be upgraded new counts would be taken and their proportionate share
would be determined by that number. Mr. Holton asked if we could include language in the development
standard so that it would state"their proportionate share". Mr. Dunker replied that it is currently stated in
the last sentence but he could change it for better clarification.
Mr. Snyder read the amended development standard "The applicant shall submit an improvements
agreement that addresses the timing and scope of the applicant's participation for paying the costs of the
improvements to the intersection of Weld County Road 64 and 59tn Avenue based upon the applicant's
proportional share of current traffic counts taken at the time of intersection upgrades."
Mr. Gathman read the amended condition of approval "The applicant shall provide evidence to the
5
Department of Planning Services that they have addressed or made a good faith effort to address the
requirements/conditions of the City of Greeley as stated in Exhibit 12 submitted at the November 4, 2008
Planning Commission Hearing."
The Chair asked Ms. Easley if they are comfortable with the amended conditions of approval. Ms. Easley
said that she believes that it is a good solution to it.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
The Chair asked Mr. Peek if the applicant is in agreement with amended development standard from
Public Works and the amended condition of approval from the Planning Department. Mr. Peek asked if
Public Works could give a general idea of the costs that it would be at the time and when the intersection
is proposed for improvement. Mr. Snyder commented that it is difficult to answer. There are no plans yet
therefore they are not sure how much the improvements would be. Mr. Dunker added that it would
depend on what improvements would be made at the intersection however he couldn't' give an amount at
this time. He added that there is nothing scheduled at this time.
Mr. Peek asked Mr. Dunker if this agreement has a sunset on it, such as a 10 year agreement. Mr.
Dunker replied that it does not have a sunset on it but it is something that could be discussed.
Commissioner Lawley asked how come there isn't a timeline on this agreement like most public
improvement agreements. Mr. Dunker replied that there are some intersections they have no idea on
when they need to improve them. With more traffic and businesses that come in and use this they are
seeing a need to have something.
Commissioner Lawley asked how you can encumber the applicant for doing an improvement that might be
done in 30 years. He added that he is concerned with how the applicant plans for it and asked that it be
consistent with the time frame on other public improvements agreements. Mr. Dunker replied that they
would be willing to place a sunset on the agreement and added that the other agreements that they have
are at 10 years. Mr. Peek commented that the applicant would be agreeable to that. He asked if the
agreement would be transferable to the City of Greeley if it became annexed. Mr. Holton commented that
it would depend on the terms of the annexation agreement. Mr. Dunker stated that they would add "to
expire within 10 years after Board of County Commissioner approval" at the end of the sentence.
Mr. Peek said that with regard to the items requested from the City of Greeley the applicant agrees with
the amended language as presented by Mr. Gathman.
Robert Grand moved to add Condition of Approval 1.K and re-letter accordingly to read "The applicant
shall provide evidence to the Department of Planning Services that they have addressed or made a good
faith effort to address the requirements/conditions of the City of Greeley as stated in Exhibit 12 submitted
at the November 4, 2008 Planning Commission hearing." Mark Lawley seconded the motion. Motion
carried unanimously.
Robert Grand moved to add Development Standard #37 to read "The applicant shall submit an
improvements agreement that addresses the timing and scope of the applicant's participation in paying
the costs of improvements to the intersection of Weld County Road 64 and 59th Avenue based upon the
applicant's proportional share of current traffic counts taken at the time of intersection upgrades. The
agreement shall expire 10 years after the Board of County Commissioner approval if intersection
upgrades have not been constructed." Nick Berryman seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Mark Lawley moved that Case USR-1671 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; Paul Branham, absent; Erich Ehrlich, absent; Robert Grand,yes; Bill Hall, yes; Mark Lawley,
yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, absent. Motion carried unanimously.
6
The Chair asked for any new business.
Brad Mueller, Planning Services, commented that he has some items to discuss. He stated that the first
item is for you to consider and adopt the Planning Commission hearing dates for 2009. He added that
there are no exceptions provided for in this next year so it is the typical 151 and 3r°Tuesdays of the month
at the regularly scheduled times.
Robert Grand moved to approve the 2009 Planning Commission hearing dates as presented, seconded
by Bill Hall. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Mueller commented that today was previously scheduled for a retreat. However because today was
scheduled for a joint luncheon with the Board of County Commissioners we have postponed that retreat.
He asked direction if they want to try and fit in another retreat this calendar year and also if they are still
interested in having the quarterly retreats next year.
Commissioner Lawley commented that he would support starting the retreats over after the first of the
year. The Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Lawley. Mr. Mueller commented that he would bring
some potential dates for retreats at an upcoming meeting.
Mr. Mueller invited the Planning Commissioners to the annual holiday luncheon. It is scheduled on
December 2nd at 11:30 a.m. at The Harvest in St. Michael's square. Additional information will be sent.
Mr. Mueller handed out some detailed information on the upcoming Summit scheduled in December. He
commented that the speakers should be outstanding. Commissioner Lawley asked if this is similar to the
"Your Town"workshop which was held in Windsor. Mr. Mueller replied that it is the same model that will
be followed. Mr. Lawley expressed that he felt it was a good process. Mr. Mueller asked that they let him
know him know in the next couple of weeks if they will be attending. Commissioner Holton and
Commissioner Grand indicated that they would attend.
Tom Honn, Planning Director, commented that there is a small fee which covers the cost. He added that
it is their intent that they would cover that cost for those from the Planning Commission who plan to attend.
Meeting adjourned at 2:52 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
7
Hello