HomeMy WebLinkAbout20081842.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld County
Conference Room, 4209 CR 24.5, Longmont, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Doug
Ochsner, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Doug Ochsner- Chair
Tom Holton -Vice Chair -
Nick Berryman
Paul Branham
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand
Bill Hall --
Mark Lawley
Roy Spitzer
Also Present:Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services;Don Dunker, Department of Public Works;
Troy Swain, Department of Health; Cyndy Giauque, County Attorney(via phone).
Robert Grand moved to approve the August 5, 2008 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, seconded
by Bill Hall. Motion carried.
The Chair read the case into record.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1356
APPLICANT: Marvin &Sandra Mae Te Velde Family Trust
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Amended Use by Special Review Permit for
a Livestock Confinement Operation(5,000-head dairy including milking cows,dry
cows,heifers,and calves and nine additional mobile homes as accessories to the
farm)in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt N2 of the SW4 and Lot B of RE-2098 Pt of the S2 of the N2 of Section 28,T2N,
R67W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 17 and approximately Y, mile south of CR 18.
The Chair asked Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services, if she wishes for this case to remain
on the Consent Agenda. Ms. Hatch replied that she does wish for this case to remain on Consent, as well
as does the applicant. She added that she would like to request one change to the resolution. According
to a letter received from Kerr McGee, she would like to request a new Condition of Approval 1.J be added
and renumber accordingly. The new Condition of Approval 1.J would state"The applicant shall address
the requirements/concerns of Kerr McGee as stated in the referral response dated August 14, 2008.
Evidence of such shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services".
Ms. Hatch commented that the applicant is in receipt of this request and still wishes for this case to remain
on the Consent Agenda.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if they wish to accept or deny this new condition of
approval.
Tom Holton moved to add a new Condition of Approval 1.J and renumber accordingly as per staff
recommendations, seconded by Roy Spitzer. Motion carried unanimously.
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 read the next case into record.
�[;�owuau7i� C >vj 7
3 �ooP 3008'— l� &!
CASE NUMBER: CZ-1146
APPLICANT: Twenty-four Applicants(Twenty-five parcels)c/o Kapsak Law Firm
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
REQUEST: Change of Zone from R-1 (Residential) Zone District to A (Agricultural) Zone
District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A&B of RE-284 Pt of NW4,Lot A RE-2008 Pt SW4,Lot A RE-3841 Pt SW4,
Lot A RE-633 Pt SW4, Lot A&B of RE-3492 Pt E2 NE4, Parcel 1 and 2 AmSE-
638 Pt E2 NE4,2 parcels located in Pt NE4 NE4,2 parcels located in Pt E2 NE4,
11 parcels located in Pt of the NW4, 1 parcel located in Pt NE4 NW4, all being
part of Section 30,T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,Colorado.
LOCATION: Twenty-five parcels generally located South of State Highway 66, East of CR 1,
and west of CR 3.
The Chair asked Ms. Hatch, Department of Planning Services, if she wishes for this case to remain on the
Consent Agenda. Ms. Hatch replied that she does wish for this case to remain on the Consent Agenda. She
gave a brief overview of the case.
Ms. Hatch commented that this case includes twenty-five parcels that are requesting to be changed from the
R-1 Zone District to the Agricultural Zone District. A little background shows that in 1963 all the lands within
this Section 30 were rezoned from Agricultural to Transitional by resolution. Later during the Comprehensive
Re-districting for the County completed during the adoption of the first zoning ordinance the parcels that have
residential structures were reclassified from Transitional to Low-Density Residential. Some parcels may have
had the Estate classification; however both the Transitional and the Estate Zoned District were eliminated by
this action. The Estate classification was brought back by name only in 1992. However the standards were
not the same as in 1981. Thus, a modification to the existing zone district designation was not appropriate.
Many of the lands associated with this area have for several years had livestock on site and numerous
reflections of an Agricultural Zoned District.
These numbers were not in compliance with the R-1 Zone District as each lot is only limited to two animal
units per the code. There are three parcels in the last five years that have completed a Change of Zone
application in this area. The Schaal property changed from R-1 to Agricultural in 2002, the Greenman
changed from R-1 to Neighborhood Commercial and Estate in 2003, and the Nesting Crane PUD was
approved for PUD with Estate Zoning in 2005. All the remaining lands in Section 30 are either zoned R-1 or
are a part of the Seemore Heights Subdivision. The twenty-five lots proposed today are not a part of Seemore
Heights Subdivision; they are legally created lots that have R-1 zoning and are wishing to change to
Agricultural Zoning. Staff is in support of this application and wishes for this case to remain on the Consent
Agenda.
The Chair asked if any of the applicants were at the meeting who wished to speak for this case remaining on
the Consent Agenda. No one wished to speak.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Dan Schneider, 13581 Elmore Rd,Seemore Heights Subdivision. Mr.Schneider stated that he is opposed to
the zoning of Agricultural. On the east side of their subdivision is Nesting Crane Ranch. There are nine
homes on that side, there is twenty-nine on his street, five of which want to switch. However that leaves
twenty-four that will be affected by the Change of Zone. He can understand some of the area within the
Section that would want to change to Ag. However the whole section that is currently zoned R-1 and wants to
change to Ag would be a big impact on their subdivision as they are right in the middle of it. He doesn't
believe it makes sense to have nine lots in one subdivision,twenty-four lots in another and put five homes in
the middle of it zoned Ag. Rules and regulations are different from R-1 to Ag. He brought some pictures of his
concerns to give an example of what he is referring to. Some of his concerns were with the possibility of
outbuildings, fencing, etc that would not be compatible with the area.
Mary Rosenburg, 13617 Elmore Rd. She is a real estate broker and has lived in the area for 17 years. Her
concern is that they have a Dead End Street. She added that their street is 90%residential in the subdivision.
There are a few lots at the entrance of her street that make the appearance of their street not as acceptable
as one would like upon driving in. Thus, it does decrease the value of the homes along that street. To change
the zoning to agricultural allows them a little more freedom to add items to their property, thus again
decreasing the values of homes along their street. She is very much against the Agricultural zoning change
2
on Elmore Road because it does devalue what they have.
Frank Flores, 1316 CR 1. [Most of his testimony was inaudible] He stated that nothing is different than what
was going on in 1963. They are trying to do everything they can to do what is appropriate with the zoning in
that area and comply with Weld County code.
Since there was no further testimony, the Chair closed the public portion of this case.
The Chair asked the Planning Commissioners if they wish for this case to remain on the Consent Agenda or if
they wish to pull this case and let it be heard.
Robert Grand made a comment that the lots were not contiguous and was this application really correcting a
problem. Commissioner Spitzer indicated that he wished to hear this case as well as Commissioner Hall.
The Chair stated that this case will be pulled off of the Consent Agenda and will be heard. However, before
hearing this case there needs to be a motion to accept the amended Consent Agenda.
Mark Lawley moved to accept the amended Consent Agenda, including Case AmUSR-1356, and forward 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. Motion
carried unanimously.
The Chair asked to take a five minute recess to contact the County Attorney.
The Chair then continued with reading Case CZ-1146 back into record.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services, read into record the names of the twenty-four applicants.
Daniel Kapsak, Kapsak Law Firm, represents the following twenty-four applicants: Earl Bergland, Richard&
Linda Chinn, George & Carol Coburn, John & Jackie Docheff, Justin Docheff, Rita Ann Ellis, Francisco &
Gloria Flores, Robert&Barnetta Greenwalk, Barton Grubbs, Dennis&Julie Heil, Charles&Teresa Hellmer,
Miguel Jaime,William&Sally Ann Jesser,George&Ricque Johnson, Dennis&Tammy Madewell, James&
Shirley Martin, Preston&Bonita McCollum, D.William &Inez Prather, Robert&Rae Rives, Richard&Susan
Schneider, Joe & Kimberly Knight, Alan & Cathy Dawn Whittern, Bryon & Ruth Yost and William Jesser,
Benny&Laurie Scearce. These applicants applied for a Change of Zone from Residential(R-1)Zone District
to A(Agricultural)Zone District for twenty-five (25) properties.
The sign announcing the Planning Commission hearing was posted on August 1, 2008 by staff.
The twenty-five(25)parcels are generally located south of State Highway 66,east of County Road 1,and west
of County Road 3.
The site is located within the Intergovernmental Agreement Area for the City of Longmont and is utilizing Left
Hand Water District and Individual Sewage Disposal Systems. The City of Longmont in their referral dated
June 26, 2008 state that they have no concerns with the zoning change from R-1 (Residential) to A
(Agricultural) but do have concerns about possible additional septic systems and potential effects on water
quality in the area. The City of Longmont is requesting that no new septic systems be installed. The applicant
has responded to the City of Longmont's concerns in a letter dated July 3, 2008 in which they state that if the
existing systems need to be repaired or replaced and public sewer is located within 400 feet of the property
the property owner will need to connect into the public system. A Development Standard has been placed on
the plat outlining this requirement.
The properties are also located with the three mile referral area for the Town of Mead and the Town of
Firestone. The Town of Mead in their referral dated May 28, 2008 state that they have reviewed the request
and find no conflicts with their interest and that the area is located in the Longmont Planning Area. No
comments were received from the Town of Firestone.
The surrounding property is agricultural in nature.
3
Thirteen referral agencies reviewed this case, four referral agencies had no comments, and six referral
agencies included conditions that have been attempted to be addressed through the development standards
and conditions of approval. No comments were received from the Weld County Sheriff's Office, Boulder
County, and the Town of Firestone.
The Weld County Department of Planning Services is recommending that this application be approved at this
time.
Commissioner Lawley asked what the lot sizes are from the smallest to largest. Ms. Hatch replied that the
smallest lot is approximately 1 acre and those are the ones that are actually between the Seemore Heights
Subdivision and the Nesting Crane Subdivision that are not part of any subdivision. The largest lot is
approximately 70 acres in size.
Commissioner Lawley asked how many animal units would be allowed if this is turned into Ag zoning. Ms.
Hatch replied that the R-1 district allows 2 animal units per lot and the Agricultural Zone District allows 4
animal units per acre. The big difference in the Ag Zone District is that Home Businesses are allowed and are
not permitted in the R-1 District.
Commissioner Berryman referenced the one member of the audience who objected to this application. He
mentioned the building of large structures and asked if there are any requirements or restrictions in place for
that. Ms. Hatch replied that in subdivisions, there is a 4% rule which states that if you build accessory
structures that exceed 4 percent of your lot then you would need to apply for a Use by Special Review. In the
Agricultural Zone District,you don't have that requirement. These lots that are zoned R-1 that are not a part of
the subdivision would not fall under that requirement.
Commissioner Berryman clarified that the applicants are essentially trying to correct their zoning. Ms. Hatch
agreed.
Commissioner Grand asked if we are spot zoning the center piece for Agricultural in the midst of the existing
R-1 properties. Ms. Hatch commented that the entire Section 30 is Zoned R-1. Some of the lots are within a
subdivision and some are not.
Commissioner Holton mentioned that it was commented that this zoning went back to 1963. He asked if that
whole section was changed back in 1963. Ms. Hatch replied that it was changed in 1963.
Commissioner Branham commented that earlier in the public input, Mr. Schneider passed out pictures of
locations. Mr. Branham asked if those locations were all outside of the applicants. He further asked if the
zoning on those properties would be changed as well. Ms. Hatch stated that some of those are part of the
subdivision which are not part of this application. Mr. Branham clarified that the ones that are there that are in
the subdivision would not be affected by this Change of Zone. Ms. Hatch stated that they would be affected
just because they are neighbors but their Zoning Designation would not be changed.
The Chair asked the representative of the applicant if they would like to make any comments.
Jennipher Jobe, Kapsak Law Firm. She stated that the misconception is that Seemore Heights is trying to say
that they are all Residential. She indicated that if you look at these lots they are attached to the front parcels
and these back parcels are awfully large. They did have one person drop out of Section 30 because he was
land locked and he was in Seemore Heights and had to go through a different type of process. But he is also
agricultural. So these smaller lots may be residential but they have attached larger lots where a lot of people
have Ag farms and have animals. Therefore it is not all residential even though it appears so on paper.
Also, they have gone through a very significant process in working in conjunction with Ms. Hatch with
complying with everything that has been requested from them. As early as last year these people didn't think
they were Agricultural. She presented a Certificate of Occupancy dated August of 2007 that says their zoning
district was Agricultural. These applicants are just trying to get back into compliance when they were thrown
out without their knowledge of it. She added that they are not going to change anything;they just want to be
legal.
4
Commissioner Hall understood that in Seemore Heights the parcels behind them are a different legal
description. Ms. Jobe stated that it is all one lot.
Commissioner Holton asked Ms. Hatch to give some further clarification on these parcels with relation to
Seemore Heights. Ms. Hatch indicated that these lots are located west of Seemore Heights. Some of them
are deeded with the front lot that is within the Seemore Heights subdivision; some of them are not. To utilize
those lots in the west half you need to get access as they are all land locked. To get access they need to
come into Seemore Heights, hence coming into Seemore Heights you need to do a PUD to get access
because now you are changing the Seemore Heights subdivision lots. So they are not easily defined lots. Ms.
Hatch added that part of the Change of Zone to Ag out there is to clean up these twenty-five lots.
The Chair asked for comments from Public Works. Don Dunker, Public Works stated that County Road 1 is a
major paved arterial road and they require 140 foot of right-of-way at full build out. There is currently 60 foot of
right-of-way. In 2007, County Road 1 between State Highway 66 and County Road 28 shows 5,433 Average
Daily Traffic(ADT). It is maintained by Weld County. CDOT has jurisdiction over State Highway 66. In 2007,
ADT traffic counts were 17,400. County Road 3 is a local gravel road with 60 foot of right-of-way. Elmore
Road is a local paved road with 60 foot of right-of-way. This roadway is maintained by Weld County as well.
The applicant shall use existing accesses and all properties that access County Road 1 shall justify all second
accesses per lot in writing plus update the Weld County Road Access sheet provided by Public Works. Mr.
Dunker said that it is because many of those lots have two accesses and with the ADT amounts they feel it is
an unsafe condition with that many accesses. They would like to see one(1)access per lot. He added that
parcel 20 shall provide an access permit for State Highway 66 for CDOT. Mr.Dunker concluded that this area
is not in a FEMA floodplain.
Troy Swain, Public Health, stated that all the lots are on a public water supply and they all have septic
systems. All of items identified in the Department of Health's referral have been addressed. Therefore,they
have no concerns with the proposal.
Commissioner Berryman commented that he was reading through the City of Longmont's referral and they
expressed some concerns switching to the Agricultural zoning as that would change the septic requirements.
He asked for Mr. Swain to shed more light on that and whether that has been addressed.
Mr. Swain stated that there is a Development Standard which states that if they are within 400 feet of the
sewer line and they would need to repair or install a system they would be required to hook up to the sewer
unless they can't be served.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Frank Flores, 13168 CR 1. Mr. Torrez commented that if you could imagine this area prior to 1963 the only
thing that has changed is the subdivisions that came in. Prior to that it was all Agricultural. Mr. Flores state
that they intend to get it back to what it was. He added that in trying to work together everybody was given the
opportunity in the R-1 Zone to opt in or stay the way they were.
Cathy Whittern, 13876 Elmore Rd. Ms.Whittern commented that she thought she was zoned Ag all the time.
She added that they did not apply for Residential because they didn't have a sewer line down their street. She
further added that they wish to comply with the County regulations.
Dan Schneider, 13581 Elmore Rd,Seemore Heights Subdivision. He clarified where the subdivisions are laid
according to his pictures that he presented in earlier testimony. He doesn't believe that turning this area into
Ag designation would help anybody. He doesn't agree with changing the zone to the five lots in the middle of
their subdivision as it would not be compatible.
Mr. Ocshner asked when Seemore Heights was developed. Ms. Hatch stated that Seemore Heights was
developed in 1963.
Earl Bergland, 13930 Elmore Rd. Mr. Berglund commented that quite a few people would like the Ag zoning
but then they will pay the money to get the Ag zoning. Just because there are twenty-five people from this list
doesn't mean that there aren't another 10 or 20 that wouldn't have signed up for it. He stated that he knows
5
two or three people that would be happy to have the Ag zoning. He has lived on Elmore Road since 1978.
Bill Jesser, 13580 CR 1. He referred to the road widening and commented that if the road is widened as
stated by Public Works, it will be eight feet into his living room. He commented that it doesn't make any
sense. For most of them they have been out there from 12-30 years. They all have had families out there and
have raised livestock.
As there was no further public input, the Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Commissioner Holton asked Mr. Dunker about the reference of the 8 feet into Mr. Jesser's living room. Mr.
Dunker commented that he would have to scale it, but it could be possible. He added that they would probably
try to shift the road widening and commented that this road is not in the 5 or 10 year plan. Mr. Dunker further
added that right now it is a road reservation and not a dedication. He indicated that the road way is not going
through anytime soon. Public Works is reserving the area so that no more buildings are built within that area.
If they are already built, it is an imaginary line that goes through there. However they would try to move the
lines to the outside to miss those types of things and maintain setbacks.
The Chair clarified that when the road is designed to be widened each of the applicants will be notified and all
negotiations will happen at that point.
The Chair asked the applicant to address any of the concerns that were raised in the public comments.
Jennipher Jobe, commented that her office received many phone calls from many people who did want to join
Section 30, however they were too late or it was too expensive for them. She asked the Planning
Commissioners to take into consideration that the applicants are trying to comply with where they are at.
Commissioner Ochsner asked if most of these parcels were divided before 1963. Ms. Hatch stated they were
divided prior to 1972.
The Chair asked Ms. Hatch if she had any changes she would like to make to the Conditions of Approval or
the Development Standards. Ms. Hatch replied no.
Commissioner Grand expressed that he is sympathetic with the majority of the people with the problem.
However, he believes that the Planning Commission should consider the individual's rights also and he is
having a hard time not focusing on those five in the middle of the individual smaller lots and the impact that
has on the residential pieces there. He stated that he is having a hard time overcoming that as being a major
problem.
Commissioner Berryman commented that from a Code standpoint this seems to be more of an issue of
compatibility of use. He added that the majority of the applicants seem to be fine with most of the
requirements not changing significantly and any of the concerns through the referral process have been
addressed. He can see that there might be some argument for the enclave that Commissioner Grand referred
to.
Commissioner Branham stated that he believes it's clear that the current use of those twenty-five lots is Ag
and has been Ag since maybe 1963. He believes the application here today is to change the zoning and bring
it into compliance with the use. He thinks to deny this application would not be appropriate. He is in support
of this application.
Commissioner Holton commented that he agrees with Commissioner Branham to bring the zoning into
compliance as the use has been there since 1963.
Commissioner Grand commented that he doesn't disagree with the Commissioner's comments. However,the
lots that are approximately 1 acre in size, he feels is a questionable Agricultural zoning size. Commissioner
Holton responded that with public water there can be Recorded Exemption (RE)lots that size within the Ag
Zone District.
The Chair asked the representative, Ms.Jobe, if the applicants have read through the Development Standards
6
and Conditions of Approval and if they are agreement with those. Ms.Jobe replied that the applicants are in
agreement.
Commissioner Spitzer referred to the letter received by the applicants from the County dealing with
inappropriate uses in accordance to the zoning. He asked what sort of violations were noted in the letter. Ms.
Hatch commented that there zoning violations for the number of animal units exceeding the lot size as well as
some home businesses in operation.
Commissioner Holton asked if this would become an Agricultural Subdivision. Ms. Hatch responded that it
would not and added that this is a straight Change of Zone.
Bill Hall moved that Case CZ-1146, 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 Paul Branham.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, yes; Paul Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich,absent; Robert Grand,no with comment;Bill Hall,yes;Mark
Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried.
Commissioner Grand expressed that he thinks they are fixing the problem that was caused in the past not by
the current residents at the expense of some of the other residents.
The Chair called a five minute recess.
The Chair asked the public if there were other items of business that they would like to discuss. No one
wished to speak.
The Chair asked if there was any new business to discuss. No one had any further business to discuss.
Meeting adjourned at 2:41 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, &41V
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
7
Hello