HomeMy WebLinkAbout20070432.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday, February 6,2007, in the Weld
County Department of Planning Services, Hearing Room, 918 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting
was called to order by Chair, Chad Auer, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Chad Auer- Chair r.
Doug Ochsner-Vice Chair -
Paul Branham
Erich Ehrlich
Bruce Fitzgerald
Tom Holton
Mark Lawley
Roy Spitzer
James Welch
Also Present: Bruce Barker, Kim Ogle, Brad Mueller, Jacqueline Hatch, Chris Gathman, Hannah Hippely,
Wendi Inloes, Don Carroll, Jesse Hein, Pam Smith, Char Davis, Troy Swain, and Donita May.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held January 16, 2007,
was approved as read. Bruce Fitzgerald motioned to approve the minutes. Motion seconded by Tom Holton.
CONTINUED ITEMS
1. CASE NUMBER: USR-1590
APPLICANT: Contreras Farms Inc
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-3515; located in a portion of the W2SW4 and all of
the E2SW4 and of Section 19, T7N, R63W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for
an agricultural service establishment primarily engaged in
performing agricultural, animal husbandry or horticultural
services on a fee or contract basis including a livestock
confinement operation (a calf raising operation for up to 5,000
head) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to C R78; east of and adjacent to the
intersection of CR 61 and CR 78.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, said they were originally recommending this case be
continued indefinitely, but would now like to reschedule it to the April 3, 2007 hearing date. The
applicant's have provided Troy Swain, Environmental Health, with some information they requested, but
the applicant still needs more time to provide all of the information requested.
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 public portion of the hearing was closed.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that Case USR-1590, be continued to the April 3, 2007 hearing date. Roy Spitzer
seconded the motion. Motion carried.
(inks-itunit ate r73 -tv'- 2007-0432
2. CASE NUMBER: USR-1586
APPLICANT: Justin & Wendy Markwardt
PLANNER: Hannah Hippely
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-1758; Pt SE4 of Section 34, T6N, R66W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for
a use permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use, or a Use
by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone District
(Outdoor Storage of Recreational Vehicles, Boats, Trailers, and
Mini Warehousing for personal/household storage) in the A
(Agricultural) Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to F Street; approx 3/4 mile east of N. 59th
Ave.
Hannah Hippely, Department of Planning Services, said this case was continued from last month as the
applicant was trying to address water and sewer concerns which had not been resolved to date due to the
recent weather. The applicant was requesting a continuance to the March 6, 2007 hearing date.
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 public portion of the hearing was closed.
Tom Holton moved that Case USR-1586 be continued to the March 6, 2007 hearing date. Bruce Fitzgerald
seconded the motion. Motion carried.
CONSENT ITEMS
3. CASE NUMBER: CZ-1135
APPLICANT: Jason and Lisa Slater
PLANNER: Hannah Hippely
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 12, Black Hollow Acres, First Filing, Section 33, TBN, R67W
of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to E (Estate).
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 86 and approximately 1/4 mile west
of CR 19.
Hannah Hippely, Department of Planning Services, asked that Case CZ-1135 remain on the consent agenda.
The Chair asked the applicants if that was also their wish and they replied it was.
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 public portion of the hearing was closed.
4. CASE NUMBER: RS-1136
APPLICANT: Jason & Lisa Slater
PLANNER: Hannah Hippely
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 12, Black Hollow Acres, 151 Filing, Section 33, T8N, R67W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Resubdivision for the creation of an additional lot.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 86; approximately 1/4 mile west of
CR 19.
Hannah Hippely, Department of Planning Services,asked that Case RS-1136 remain on the consent agenda.
The Chair asked the applicants if that was also their wish and they replied it was.
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 public portion of the hearing was closed.
2
5. CASE NUMBER: USR-1595
APPLICANT: Garrett & Carla Devries
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NW4 of Section 31, T6N, R63W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development and Special Review Permit for an
Agricultural Service Establishment primarily engaged in
performing agricultural, animal husbandry, or horticultural
services on a fee or contract basis including Livestock
Confinements Operations (a dairy operation for a total of 10,000
head of cattle including milking cows, dry cows, heifers and
calves) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 61; south of and adjacent to CR 64.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services,asked that Case USR-1595 remain on the consent agenda.
The applicant's representative, Cody Hollingsworth, confirmed they would like it to remain on the consent
agenda.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Dan Casper, Anadarko, presented a letter of objection to the Planning Commissioners and asked it be
part of the record. The Chair said it was a part of the record.
The public portion of the hearing was closed.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that Cases CZ-1135, RS-1136 and USR-1595 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. Tom Holton seconded the motion. Motion carried.
HEARING ITEMS
6. CASE NUMBER: USR-1592
APPLICANT: Public Service Company
PLANNER: Hannah Hippely
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt of the E2SE4 of Section 1, T7N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Use by Special Review
for a Major Facility of a Public Utility (Electric Substation) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 84; 1/4 mile west of CR 37.
Hannah Hippely, Department of Planning Services, said USR-1592 was an application made on behalf of
the Public Service Company of Colorado for a Site Specific Development Plan and a Use By Special
Review for a Major Facility of a Public Utility(Electric Substation) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
The applicant's original substation was constructed in the early 1950s and now needs updating. This use
by special review permit would, if approved, bring the facility into compliance with the Weld County Code.
The site is located north-east of Ault, more specifically north of and adjacent to CR 84 and approximately
1/4 mile west of CR 37.
Except for the property to the south which is a residential PUD, the surrounding property is zoned
agricultural.
3
The sign announcing this Planning Commission meeting was posted by staff January 25`h, 2007.
Seven referral agencies reviewed this proposal. All either stated that they did not have a conflict with the
use or expressed concerns that have been addressed through the Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards.
Planning Staff is recommending the approval of this application.
Doug Ochsner asked Ms. Hippely if the Planning Commission was the last voice for this case. She replied
they were. Erich Ehrlich asked about the dates of the PUD just south of the area. Ms. Hippely said the
PUD in question was Stark Farms and there were no house at this time. Don Carroll, Department of
Public Works, replied the PUD was about three years old. Roy Spitzer asked if there were additional
homes in the area. Ms. Hippely said the homes in the area would have been constructed after the public
utility facility, so they would have been aware of its existence. Tom Holton asked if all the entrances to
Stark Farms were on the east side of property. Ms. Hippely said they were on CR 37. Doug Ochsner
asked if the land size at the current substation would be increased. Ms. Hippely replied it would be
increased. Erich Ehrlich asked about the height difference between the current and proposed towers. Ms.
Hippely replied she thought the towers would not be taller, but that might be a better question for the
applicant.
Jim McClung, 550 Fifteenth St, Ste 700, Denver, CO, the contract representative for Public Service, said
they had reviewed staff comments and concurred with all staff recommendations. Mr. McClung said the
height would be regulated by existing poles on CR 84 and if there was an increase it would only be to bring
them up to Code and/or for clearance and safety issues. Tom Holton asked about the decommissioned
area and what would go there. Mr. McClung said nothing was going there that he was aware of and
deferred to Michael Diehl.
Michael Diehl, 550 Fifteenth St, Ste 700, Denver, CO, representing Public Service, said they were taking
two very small capacity transformers and replacing them with two larger capacity transformers; more land
was required for the expansion; that they do need to keep the existing substation in service but will switch
it over at some point; and that ultimately there would be only two transformers at the substation, but they
would be of larger capacity than the existing transformers.
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 public portion of the hearing was closed.
The Chair asked the applicant's representative if they agreed with the Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval. Mr. McClung replied they agreed with the Development Standards and Conditions
of Approval.
Paul Branham moved that Case USR-1592, be approved by the Planning Commission along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Erich Ehrlich seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer,
yes; James Welch, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes.
7. CASE NUMBER: USR-1593
APPLICANT: Leslie Pickering Adams
PLANNER: Hannah Hippely
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: S2NW4 of Section 18, T6N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for
a use permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use or a Use
by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone District
(outdoor storage of recreational vehicles, boats, trailers, and
4
enclosed storage for personal/household items) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 68.5; west of and adjacent to CR 13.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked to be recused as he is related to the applicant.
Hannah Hippely, Department of Planning Services, said USR-1593 is an application by Leslie Adams for a
Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a use permitted as a Use by Right, and
Accessory Use, or a Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone districts (Outdoor
Storage of Recreational Vehicles, Boats, Trailers,and Enclosed Storage for personal/household items) in
the A(Agricultural)Zone
The property is located on the Weld County- Larimer County Border just north and east of Windsor.
It is, north of and adjacent to CR 68.5 and west of and adjacent to CR 13.
The surrounding properties are all zoned agricultural. Four rural residences are adjacent to the site; three
just north of the site across the Greeley#2 Canal and one to the South across CR 68.5. Uses by special
review in the immediate area include CUP-17 for a gravel pit to the south, USR-845 for a 600 head dairy
to the east.
The sign announcing this Planning Commission meeting was posted by staff January 25th, 2007.
Fourteen referral agencies reviewed this proposal. Eleven responded and either stated that they did not
have a conflict with the use or expressed concerns that staff has attempted to address through the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Two letters from surrounding property owners in opposition to this proposal have been received.
Expressed in the letters is the belief that a business does not belong in this area due to its rural and/or
residential nature. They are concerned that the property will not be maintained and become an aesthetic
nuisance. Concerns were also expressed regarding possible light pollution and decreased neighborhood
safety and security.
Planning Staff is recommending the denial of this application due to its inconsistency with Section 22-2-
110C.1 which calls for proposals in the UGB to meet a set of criteria. If all of the criteria are met the
County may consider a land use development within an UGB. This proposal does not meet all of the
criteria. This proposal is also inconsistent with Section 22-2-170C.2. which states that new commercial
development should demonstrate compatibility with surrounding and use in terms of general use, building
height, density, traffic, dust, and noise. This application proposes a commercial use in what is currently a
rural setting.
Tom Holton asked if we had an IGA with Windsor. Ms. Hippely replied that we did not. Paul Branham
inquired if the dairy that was mentioned was an existing dairy. Ms. Hippely replied that it was.
The applicant, Leslie Pickering Adams, stepped forward and said: she had owned the property at 6109 CR
68.5 since1986; the site was approximately eight acres in size, but only four acres would be used for the
storage business;there was one residence on the property;they were in compliance with all of the Code with
the exception of Chapter 22,which was the sole reason for the recommendation of denial;quoted the County
Code; said the proposed use was commercial and would not be permitted by the Town of Windsor; went to
Windsor Planning to speak to them but were not given any consideration by them and they were then directed
to Weld County; likes to think she has some say in how to use her land; asked for approval and emphasized
that a small recreational vehicle storage lot was a needed service and compatible with the area, which
presently included residences, farming, ranching, tree farms, gravel extraction, a flood plain, a dairy farm, a
landscape business and a kennel; they would not be intrusive to the residential neighborhood; a four lane
arterial was also proposed along the west boundary of her property;this would be a small scale business that
would be landscaped, screened and aesthetically pleasing;they run another recreational vehicle storage lot in
the Brighton area; this would provide a service for residents in the area as the majority of HOA's (Home
Owner's Associations)do not allow recreational vehicle parking;they would not allow cars,semi trailers or junk
to be stored; there would be lighting at the entrance only as no night access to the site would be allowed;
5
increased traffic would be extremely minimal,two to seven trips on weekdays,slightly more on weekends;and
closed by asking for approval and cited Section 22-2-110 of the Weld County Code.
Erich Ehrlich inquired about CR 13, the planned four lane arterial, and where she got her information. Ms.
Pickering Adams replied that it came from Windsor and the Weld County Planning Department in their packet.
She added they sit up on a plateau and the property was not visible from CR 68.5. Tom Holton asked about
their agreement with Greeley#2 Ditch Company and if they would be providing dump facilities for RV's or if
they had plans to build a road to the canal and allow customers to dump there. Ms. Pickering Adams said
they had reached agreement with the ditch company, that they would not be providing dumping facilities on
their site and had no plans whatsoever to build a road to access the canal for dumping.
Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, said CR 13 was designated as a strategic roadway from CR 2 north
to State 14 and improvements would be driven by future development. Tom Holton asked where the entrance
to the storage site would be. Ms. Pickering Adams replied the entrance to the property would be at CR 68.5
but the actual entrance to the storage area would be 500 to 600 feet off road before they entered the gate on
site. Doug Ochsner asked about lighting and wanted more clarification. Mr.Adams,the applicant's husband,
said it would be basically just a yard light and would not be illuminated twenty four hours a day, only during
business hours and that there would be a six foot chain link fence with barbed wire as well as a caretaker
living on the premises.Mr. Ochsner asked about signage plans. Ms. Pickering Adams said they did not put up
a sign in Brighton and may not need one here either, but would follow County guidelines if they did decide at
some point they required signage. Mr. Holton asked about the January 4,2007 meeting with Windsor when
they said that according to the Windsor Comprehensive Plan, this area would be open space. Mr. Adams
replied that was their impression. Mark Lawley asked how far they were from Windsor town limits. Ms.
Pickering Adams said maybe half a mile. Paul Branham suggested a third of a mile from Windsor.
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 public portion of the hearing was closed.
Doug Ochsner said he had driven past the property that morning and the location was interesting as there was
a little bit of everything in the area, including the dairy, a gravel pit, a huge subdivision, and that residences
were definitely coming. Tom Holton asked about the status of the gravel pits. Don Carroll, Public Works
Department, said the pits were on the Larimer County side,that the life of a gravel pit was usually twenty years
and those have been there five to eight years or so and were about half mined out. Erich Ehrlich mentioned
there were LaFarge and Hall Irwin pits in the area. Ms. Pickering Adams pointed out other gravel pits in the
area,which were in Larimer County,and said one has been operating ten to twelve years and another has not
even begun production yet. Mr. Ochsner asked about entrance proximity to CR 68.5 and if trailers and boats
could be parked along CR 68.5. Ms. Pickering Adams said from CR 68.5, they travel down a long lane until
they get to the gate further in on the property;that additional screening would be added to the property and the
property would be well maintained; that they would only accept vehicles for storage that were properly
maintained,as they were not interested in or willing to store junk;and that vehicles could be parked along CR
68.5. Mr. Holton asked if actual storage was elevated above the entrance and if surrounding houses were
higher. Ms. Pickering Adams replied in the affirmative to both.
Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, said they wanted designated on the plat as a reserve, future
setbacks for structures and future rights of way for CR 13 and CR 68.5, as set forth in items H. 8. and H.9.,
page six.
The Chair asked the applicant if she had read and was in agreement with the Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval. Ms. Pickering Adams replied that she was in agreement.
Tom Holton expressed concerns for the visual including screening along the canal and questioned if they
should they require more screening. Doug Ochsner said his main concern was for adequate screening and
wanted the best effort by the applicant at screening. Ms. Hippely said Planning had asked for a landscape and
screening plan but did not have a final plan from the applicants but they could suggest adding opaque fencing.
Mr. Ochsner said that since none of the opponents were present at the hearing, they could only go by the
concerns stated in their letters. Paul Branham said he was sure the applicants were conscientious,
professional and capable, and would produce a quality site but it was in close proximity to Windsor and was
not compatible with their potential growth, and for that reason, he concurred with Planning Staff's
6
recommendation for denial. Mr. Holton said he sided with the applicant due to the nature of the other
businesses in the area; Weld County does not have an IGA with Windsor; there was a need for such a
business in the area; and he felt the business was compatible with the surrounding area. Roy Spitzer asked
about personal property rights in the Town of Windsor's growth management area;expressed concern about
encroachment on people's property rights; cited the gravel pit and dairy and questioned why this application
was any different; expressed an interest in knowing what other area property owners wanted to see for the
area; and said he was in favor of approving the application. Erich Ehrlich said: it would be nice to get input
from towns affected in these instances;the dairy would most probably not exist in five years due to the Cattail
annexation;the CR 15 corridor had been pretty much sold to developers for subdivisions;that gravel pits were
in their future;this was a viable business;that we should look at the vision of the land as it would be drastically
different five years from now;and that there were subdivisions to the east and a floodplain to the west. James
Welch said this was difficult for him as well, as he was not a huge fan of growth boundaries;that we have the
Code for a reason; that we need to respect the Urban Growth Boundary area; and he would like to approve
this application but could not if he were to follow the Code. Tom Holton asked Bruce Barker about an
IGA/UGB (Inter-Governmental Agreement/Urban Growth Boundary)with Windsor. Mr. Barker said:the IGA
spells out very specific things procedurally and substantively;there must be an annexation agreement prior to
going before County; that private property rights are the same but could depend on how the County or
municipality affects things; property owners can't do exactly what they want on their property as they must
comply with the laws;we must look at what the Comprehensive Plan says and what it details there;and it was
up to the Planning Commission to determine compatibility.
Mr. Holton added it looks like they have taken private property rights and made it open space. Mr. Barker
replied that comes up with every municipality and the Board of County Commissioners have asked the
municipalities how much input their residents have been given. We don't know in this instance, since no one
from Windsor was in attendance. Mr. Ochsner asked if the Comprehensive Plan carried any weight in the
area. Mr. Barker responded that within this half mile area, because there was no IGA, there was not much
weight given to the Comprehensive Plan by virtue of proximity. Mr. Ehrlich asked how a growing region could
work together so that applications like this could be combated in the future. Mr. Barker said this area was an
urbanizing area and as a result, the Board of County Commissioners had been considering the idea of
proposing that sub-areas of the County be dealt with differently,but because these were different jurisdictions
there would always be differences, but the goal was to make it seamless.
Mark Lawley said he agreed with Mr. Holton regarding individual property rights and that this request would
probably not be a huge conflict in the area.
Roy Spitzer moved that Case USR-1593, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, no; Erich Ehrlich, no;Tom Holton,yes; Mark Lawley,yes;Roy Spitzer,yes;James Welch,no; Doug
Ochsner, no. Motion failed.
Ms. Hippely asked the Planning Commissioners to cite their reason for their vote.
James Welch moved that Case USR-1593, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
denial. Paul Branham seconded the motion.
Paul Branham commented that he aggress with the Urban Growth Boundary area and future compatibility.
Erich Ehrlich sited Section 23-2-220 A.4. of the County Code in his decision.
Tom Holton citied Section 22-1-120 A. in his decision.
Mark Lawley cited Section 22-1-120 A. in his decision.
Roy Spitzer cited Section 22-2-110.C.1. and UGB 3.1.3 in his decision.
7
James Welch cited Section 22-1-120 A. and hoped the Board of County Commissioners and the Town of
Windsor would consider the rights of private property owners.
Doug Ochsner cited Section 22-2-110 C.1. in his decision.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes;Tom Holton, no; Mark Lawley,no; Roy Spitzer,no;James Welch,yes; Doug
Ochsner, yes. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 3:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
AAA
Donita May
Secretary
8
Hello