HomeMy WebLinkAbout20073464.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
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, Doug Ochsner, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Doug Ochsner-Chair r:.
Tom Holton -Vice Chair
Paul Branham
Erich Ehrlich J
Bill Hall `. s
Robert Grand _<
Mark Lawley
Roy Spitzer
Also Present: Brad Mueller, Chris Gathman, Roger Caruso,Michelle Martin,Jacqueline Hatch,Kim Ogle,Tom
Honn, Department of Planning Services;Don Carroll, Dave Bauer, Dave Snyder, Department of Public Works;
Pam Smith, Char Davis, Department of Health; Bruce Barker, County Attorney,and Kris Ranslem,Secretary.
The Chair asked if the Commissioners had any additions or corrections to the October 16, 2007 minutes.
Doug Ochsner commented that the last sentence in the third paragraph should be deleted as there were
individuals that were heard on the Consent Agenda.
Tom Holton moved to approve the amended minutes from the October 16, 2007 Weld County Planning
Commission meeting, seconded by Mark Lawley. Motion carried.
The Chair read the case into record.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1125
APPLICANT: Pioneer Communities Inc. & HP Farms LLC
PLANNER: Brad Mueller
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Sections 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 17, and 18, T2N, R64W of the 6th
P.M.;and Section 32,T3N, R64W of the 6t1 P.M.;and Sections 11,
12, 13, 14, and 15, T2N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone application from A(Agricultural)Zone District to a
PUD (Planned Unit Development) for 9,455 residential dwelling
units, 1 commercial planning area, 7 school planning areas(for 10
planned schools), 12 park planning areas, 2 public facilities
planning areas, and various agricultural and open space planning
areas
LOCATION: In the vicinity of CR 22 and CR 49.
The Chair stated that this case was continued from October 16, 2007 and asked only those Commissioners
that were at that meeting to participate in this discussion.
Brad Mueller, Department of Planning Services, handed out a packet of information to the Board. Mr.Mueller
gave a brief overview of the previous hearing for those in the audience who were not in attendance. He stated
that the application is located to the northeast of the Denver Metro Area and the site is approximately 5,000
acres in size. The plan that the board is looking at right now is the proposed land use plan and consists of a
variety of Zone Districts. He added that approximately a year ago an application was submitted as a sketch
plan and since that time there have been significant changes to the plan made by the applicant to address
concerns that were administratively identified at that time,to the allocation of density throughout the site,to the
number of access points along County Road 49, and to the location in number of schools. The application
before the Commission today was submitted in May of 2007 and has been under review since that time. At
build-out, if approved, the application will allow for up to 9,455 dwelling units and the population that it could
(AmenA44,) tnw aeo 7 Q>DG77I— 3c/(o'
sustain is approximately 23,000 people. Mr. Mueller stated that the recommendation from planning staff was
approval with a long list of conditions that are spelled out in the staff report. If approved,they recommend as
conditions that all referral comments be addressed, the zoning plat be revised per the specifics of the staff
report,the various plat notes identified in the staff report be added to the zoning document,the Development
Commitments be added (which are the requirements for various offsite improvements and dedication of
schools and parks,etc.),the Development Standards be revised as indicated in the packet,and that items be
addressed with the final plat.
Mr. Mueller reminded the Board that at the previous hearing Public Works expressed concern and a
recommendation of denial based on lack of information regarding offsite improvements. It is Mr. Mueller's
understanding that Public Works is no longer recommending denial based on the discussions that they have
had since then.
Mr. Mueller commented that the memo that was handed out to the board deals specifically with the two items
that the Planning Commission asked Planning Staff to address and work with the applicant on. The cover
memo identifies those two items, namely the Development Commitments related to the offsite road
improvements and discussions with the Fire Districts about both land dedication and the concern that was
expressed by both the Districts and some members of the Planning Commission about the amount of revenue
and support for the site. He continued to add that the second document, which is the Development
Commitments, is fundamentally the same as you found in the original staff report,with the addition of Number
11, which is the dedication of off-site transportation improvements. This is the attempt by staff and the
applicant to address the concern that the Commissioners indicated about the amount of specificity in regard to
the improvements that are proposed and 1)who would be responsible for those various improvements, 2)
when those improvements would need to happen, and 3) a basic description of what those improvements
needed to be.
Mr. Mueller continued to add that included in the handout is a letter dated November 6, 2007 from Ireland
Stapleton on behalf of the Hudson Fire Department and also in conjunction with the Southeast Weld Fire
District. This letter addresses two issues: 1)land dedication, and,2)proposal for a condition of approval that
would address the capital expenses and contributions for capital for the site. Mr. Mueller added that in the
handout are also two letters from the public that were received.
Mr. Mueller apologized to the Board for the late timing of these documents as they have been working virtually
everyday up until today to finalize this, and this represents their greatest and final attempt to address the
concerns.
Mr. Mueller directed their attention to the Development of Commitments and started with Number 11,which is
the Off-Site Transportation Improvements. He added that if they recall from the first hearing,the condition of
approval that was proposed at that time was to translate Table 9 of the Traffic Study into a series of
commitments. Mr. Mueller showed them a slide of the Table 9 that lists a number of improvements and
possible triggers and ties to various levels of developments. He added that what they have done is translated
this table into the list that the board has in front of them now. Mr. Mueller indicated that Dave Bauer with
Public Works is going to go through each of those in order to show where they are on the map.
David Bauer, Department of Public Works, stated that they have been working the last two weeks trying to
flesh out the Table 9 from the traffic study to give a little more assurance to the County regarding some
thirteen road improvements. Mr. Bauer said that for each improvement listed they have identified a trigger
which in some cases has been a number of dwelling units. Mr. Bauer continued to address each of the listed
improvements A-M and mentioned that on each item there are specifics about what that construction project
is and the triggers involved in that process.
Commissioner Holton asked Mr. Bauer if the applicant has provided answers to all their questions. Mr. Bauer
replied that they have and this provides them adequate assurance that they build until something is needed,
and there is commitment there that they will provide the funding to make sure that it occurs.
Commissioner Holton asked Bruce Barker, County Attorney, if he is in agreement with the language. Mr.
Barker said that he is in agreement.
Mr.Mueller continued to move onto the Fire Department topic. He drew the Board's attention to the proposed
condition of approval dealing with the various financial support for the Fire District and for the necessary
capital improvements (both the fire station and equipment)that would allow the development to be properly
serviced especially in the early phases of the development. The Hudson Fire Protection District and the
Southeast Weld Fire District are requesting that the condition be substituted from the conditions of approval in
the staff report, which currently read "prior to recordation of the plat, the applicant address the various
concerns of the Fire District", and substitute that with a new Condition of Approval"1.R"which has to do with
the requirement that an intergovernmental agreement be put into place between the two Fire Districts and the
Pioneer Metropolitan Districts. The idea is that the Fire Districts and the Developer would need to formalize a
commitment prior to the recordation of the plat, based on these fundamental items which are listed in the
condition of approval. However, because there are still ongoing talks between the Fire District and the
Developer, and because they have not had the time yet to go to the Fire Districts with this idea,the specifics of
the IGA are not laid out here. Therefore,the request of the Fire Districts is to accept this condition of approval
as written here for'R', which would allow for and require that the IGA be finalized before recordation of the
plat.
Commissioner Grand mentioned that he noticed the two Fire Chiefs are here and asked if it would be proper
to ask them. Mr. Mueller indicated that they are available and would like to hear from them.
Thomas Beach, Fire Chief,Southeast Weld Fire Protection District,34755 CR 10, Keenesburg,Colorado. Mr.
Beach commented that he hasn't had the opportunity to take a look at what Mr. Mueller is referring to that he
had only just discussed it with his attorney. He indicated that what they are wanting is some type of staging
area where they are actually going to say where they are going to start their build. He further added that they
either need to start in Hudson or Southeast Weld so that he can properly give Chief Blackston mutual aide or
in return receive mutual aide from the Hudson Fire District. Chief Beach commented that the other item of
discussion that is still on the table is the access road from Keenesburg,which is going to give them the best
access up to that area. He added that other than that it will have to be trigger points that set this off to decide
exactly when the monies are available that have been discussed. Chief Beach indicated that the majority of
the housing is in the Southeast Weld Fire District.
Mr. Beach referred to the letter from the Hudson Fire District's Attorney and commented that it does
document a lot of what Southeast Weld's requirements are, but there are some other ones that are in this
other letter that he sent and the board does have. Mr. Beach expressed that he wants the Board to realize
that some of this is still active and not null and void. Mr. Beach indicated that as far as dealing with these
gentlemen (the applicant)there are no issues, as they will be able to work through it.
Johnny Blackston, Fire Chief,Hudson Fire Department, 702 Cedar Street, Hudson,Colorado. Chief Blackston
stated that he has the same concerns as what Chief Beach has mentioned. He added that with regard to
access and where they are going to put fire stations, he believes that at the end of this, if it is approved with
these many homes, they are going to need more than just one fire station to handle it. Chief Blackston
commented that they are in agreement that they need at least 1 '/ acres dedicated to a fire station for both
districts, and he also wishes to continue discussion with the developers on this.
Commissioner Lawley asked if they are comfortable that these issues can be resolved in a joint IGA between
Hudson and Southeast Weld and the developer. Chief Blackston replied that he believes they can and
commented that they all have been meeting and would like to see more discussion.
Commissioner Ochsner thanked Chief Beach and Chief Blackston for coming in and addressing these
concerns, as the Board understands that these issues are very important.
Mr. Mueller mentioned that he wanted to continue to talk about the potential replacement of the Development
Commitment#7. He said that it states that the Developers would dedicate a minimum of 1 '/2 acre site for a
fire station within a portion of the PUD lying within the Hudson Fire Protection District as mutually agreed upon
by the County and the Hudson Fire District,and that such site shall be dedicated at the time of platting or site
review of the 500th residential unit within the Fire District area. Mr. Mueller stated that this potential
replacement for Development Commitment#7 on the new list that the board received could be replaced with
both that and a parallel one for the Southeast Weld Fire District.
Jack Reutzel, 9145 East Kenyon Av, Suite 200, Denver Colorado. Mr. Reutzel commented that when the
public hearing was closed at the last meeting the Board asked them to go back to work on a couple of issues.
He added that they have spent a great deal of time and effort with the County Staff and with the staff of the
various Fire Districts to present to the Board what they would believe to be appropriate resolutions to moving
this forward. Mr. Reutzel expressed to the Board that they have appreciated the work that has been done by
Public Works and the Fire Districts. Mr. Reutzel stated that the conditions proposed by Public Works are
perfectly fine with them as drafted. The conditions in the Stapleton(Fire District)letter with regard to a new
letter'R"regarding the IGA and the commitment for at least 11/2 acres per District is also acceptable to them.
He said that Mr. Mueller had asked him to draft a letter to the Board explaining what they find acceptable and
also what they may have issues with in regard to the list of conditions of approval. Mr. Reutzel handed out this
memo.
Mr. Reutzel stated that the staff report has a series of conditions that have multiple parts. He stated that they
accept the majority of those conditions. However,on Condition 2.N.with regard to a design solution for a trail
connection across County Road 49,they believe that it is premature and would like the ability to have further
discussions about alternative crossings at the time of final plat.
Commissioner Ochsner referred back to Conditions 1.W & 1.X and stated that it says "the plat shall be
submitted to the Department of Planning Services'for recording within thirty(30)days". Mr. Ochsner asked if
they are wanting to change that. Mr. Reutzel commented that due to the size of the project they would prefer
to see ninety(90)days. He added that with regard to Condition 1.X which has to do with"should the plat not
be recorded in the required thirty(30) days from the date of Board of County Commissioners resolution a
$50.00 recording continuance charge may be added" he said that with the amount of conditions they are
simply not going to be able to get this done within thirty(30)days,therefore they would like to request ninety
(90) days.
Commissioner Ochsner asked staff if they have any comment on that request. Mr. Mueller commented that
they would agree that it is reasonable in this case.
Mr. Reutzel continued to Condition 3 which has to do with the plat notes. He stated that Condition 3.DD has
been revised by the applicant and the County Attorney and they agree with the language that the Attorney's
office has proposed. Mr. Barker handed out two development assurances that Pioneer has asked for with
respect to two different issues 1)Section 27-8-50 requires that within thirty(30)days after a change of zone
application has been approved and the plat is recorded that you then need to get your final plan application in.
He added that in this instance it makes no sense to have that requirement mainly because they are going to
be coming in with several different final plans. Mr. Barker commented that the language in assurance #1
waives that requirement. 2)Pioneer wanted to be rest assured that there would be no time where the County
itself would step in and change or amend the Change of Zone. Mr. Barker added that we don't have the ability
to do that on our own anyway. Mr. Barker stated that he believes these assurances are reasonable.
Commissioner Ochsner clarified if they are replacing DD with the two paragraphs submitted by Mr. Barker.
Mr. Mueller stated that was correct.
Commissioner Ochsner asked Mr. Reutzel with regard to Condition 2.N if they are requesting something
different. Mr. Reutzel indicated that they are asking for consideration to modify it to say only"Revise the Trail
Plan in the application submittal plat to show a dedicated east-west trail connection between the main north-
south trails shown on both the west side of County Road 49 and the east side". He added that they are
requesting to strike the rest of the paragraph.
Mr. Mueller stated that this is a point that they and the applicant disagree upon. He commented that Public
Works in particular feels that the knowledge that we have to date indicates that a grade-separated crossing
would be appropriate to facilitate the volume of pedestrian traffic that we want to encourage in this area.
Commissioner Ochsner asked Public Health if they have any information they would like to present. Pam
Smith, Department of Public Health, commented that they have done extensive reviews on this application.
She added that there were some things that were reviewed in the sketch plan that she made comment on that
she had approved, however they were not submitted in the change of zone application for her to consider.
Therefore she had submitted comments that she expected the same sort of detail be submitted during the
final plan application for them to review.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this with regard to the
information that has been presented today.
Keith Messenger, 8053 CR 51, Keenesburg, Colorado. Mr. Messenger stated that his first concern was on
who gave them the right to go this far. He added that they live in a small community and commented that they
are going to take that community and throw it all away. Mr. Messenger said his second concern is where they
are going to get the water for 10,000 homes and further asked where the WalMarts, Safeways, Police
Departments and lights are going to be. He expressed that he just found this out two days ago and is very
upset about the proposal.
Mr. Ochsner stated that there have been informational meetings that have taken place. Mr.Messenger asked
when the application was sent to the homeowners and where was it posted. Mr. Ochsner stated that notice
has been sent out and everything has legally been taken care of. Mr. Messenger reiterated his question of
where they are going to get water. Mr. Mueller commented that he would be happy to give a quick summary
after public testimony about some of the outstanding questions.
Ellen Swieter, 25027 CR 18, Keenesburg,Colorado. Ms.Swieter commented that she wanted clarification on
the concerns from Public Works that now Pioneer Communities is going to pay for that. Mr. Mueller stated
that the Development Commitments are commitments that are required of the development and the way that
these are set up requires that the specific development be constructed at the sole cost of the developer or
their successors prior to any additional platting.
Ms. Swieter commented that with regard to the Fire Departments, it seems that the Keenesburg Parkway
Road is still a question because if she understands correctly it would be the 1000th unit before that would be
constructed. Therefore, that is a major concern of access of how they are going to get out there until that
1000"'unit is built. She further asked if the Fire Department is going to have the 1 Y acres donated or paid for
so there is a new existing Fire Department in the community at the get-go.
Ms.Swieter also commented that as a point of reference at the last meeting the Pioneer's website was given
out and it was said that they could seek whatever information they needed for points of clarification. However,
it is not a site for information. There is a contact phone number for Gina Canzeneta,which she has called 10
times in the past two weeks, and she has not returned one of her phone calls. She added that her property
taxes just went down and the reason they went down is because her property value went down. The reason
they went down is because of the number of foreclosures in Colorado. She charged the Commissioners to
consider if this is in the best interest of Weld County considering the housing market.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Mr. Mueller addressed the concerns from the public. He reminded the public that following this hearing there
will be a hearing,yet to be scheduled,with the Board of County Commissioners,who will make a final decision
on this. He added that they recognize there are individuals who haven't been involved in the process and
aren't aware of all the various details that have been talked about in the previous hearings, and would be
happy to make the staff report available upon request. Included in the report is information regarding the
school service levels,where the water is coming from, and the various traffic reports. Mr. Mueller added that
the application was properly noticed, and he showed the Commission and public the slides that were provided
of where the signs were posted. He further added that something that was done extraordinary to this process
was that a press release was sent out to area newspapers, in addition to the legal normal notification in the
Fort Lupton Press.
Commissioner Ochsner asked Mr. Reutzel about providing contact information. Mr. Reutzel apologized for
the problem with their website and said that he had been advised that it is being updated and will get the lady a
contact that will answer the phone and will do a better job as they move forward.
Commissioner Holton asked how many meetings they have had on this and when it all started. Mr. Reutzel
replied that it has been 2'/to 3 years and they have had 38 meetings either in Keenesburg, Hudson, before
Chamber of Commerces, Fire Districts, Stakeholder meetings, School District representatives, Planning
Commissions of Hudson, and Town Council of Keenesburg.
Chris Paulson, CEO of Pioneer Communities, stated that before they even came to the Weld County Planning
Commission to change the Comprehensive Plan, they went out and had people from their staff look at every
neighboring property and sent them a personal invitation and hosted a meeting in Hudson to have a
discussion with their neighbors. He added that they want to continue that dialogue. Mr. Paulson commented
that rather than having a stealth process, he thinks that they have been bending over backwards the past 2'/
years to have a public dialogue.
Commissioner Lawley referenced to the fire station locations being in a separate part in this document and
asked if they can be consolidated. Mr. Mueller said that to combine the two would probably be appropriate.
Mr. Mueller summarized the proposed amendments to the conditions of approval and Development
Standards. He stated that Condition 1.W&1.X be amended to ninety(90)days, Condition 3.DD be replaced
with Mr. Barkers two (2) points of conditions as presented, Condition 4 replacing all Development
Commitments with the newly-handed out Development Commitments and further replacing Development
Commitment#7 with the two-point condition provided in the handout,and Condition 1.R to combine it with the
new language provided by the Fire District Letter. Mr.Mueller added that it is staffs recommendation that we
do not change Condition 2.N regarding the grade-separated crossing.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if they wish to pull out any of those separately and vote
on them. Commissioner Lawley stated that he would like to pull Condition 2.N out and vote it on separately.
Commissioner Ochsner concurred with Mr. Lawley.
Robert Grand moved to amend the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards as per staff's
recommendations. Bill Hall seconded the motion. Motion carried
Commissioner Lawley commented that with regards to Condition 2.N, he is inclined to stick with staffs
recommendation. He added that he understands the developer's concerns; however he believes they need to
take the recommendation of staff, as they have an interest in it.
The Chair commented that he would entertain a motion if somebody wants to change it. If not, it will be left as
is. No one wished to make a motion.
The Chair asked the applicant if he read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if he is in agreement with those. Mr. Reutzel replied that they are in agreement.
Commissioner Holton expressed that he is in favor of approving the application and commented that he thinks
the staff and the applicant went back and did what the Board had asked them to do and everything is taken
care of.
Bill Hall moved that Case PZ-1125 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. Mark Lawley seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, absent; Erich Ehrlich, abstain; Robert Grand, yes with comment; Bill Hall, yes; Mark Lawley,
yes; Roy Spitzer, abstain;Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried.
Robert Grand commented that he would like to thank the staff, the County Attorney, Public Works, the Fire
Chiefs, and the applicant for putting a lot of time and effort in the last two weeks.
The Chair called a recess at 2:48 p.m.
The Chair called the meeting back to order at 2:55 p.m.
The Chair read the case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1621
APPLICANT: Mary Lee Hardy
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Block 53, Minor resubdivision of the Amended Plat of the Town
of Barnesville, located in part of the NE4 of Section 18, T6N,
R63W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for
a Home Business (parking of 3 semi trucks and 4 trailers) in the
A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 61.5 and approximately 1,100 feet
north of State Highway 392.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, stated that this application is a Use by Special Review
Permit for a home business for parking of 3 semi trucks and 4 trailers in the Agricultural Zone District.
The site is located in Block 53 of a minor resubdivision of the amended plat of the Town of Barnesville. It
is approximately 1,100 feet north of State Highway 392.
The site is currently in violation (VI-0700019)for operating a commercial business in the Agricultural Zone
District without a Special Use Permit. If this application is approved and the plat is recorded the property
will be in compliance. If denied, use of the commercial water tap shall cease, otherwise, the violation case
will proceed accordingly. In the event of a denial, the Department of Planning Services recommends that
this case be forwarded to the County Attorney's Office with a delay in legal action of 30 days.
Eight referral agencies reviewed this case, six referral agencies responded and included conditions that
have been addressed through development standards and conditions of approval.
The USR-1621 site is located on a portion of Block 53, Minor Resubdivision of the Amended Plat of the
Town of Barnsville. The total area of the property is 5 acres.
The property is adjacent to single family residences on rural residential parcels to the north, east and south.
Vacant land is located immediately to the west.
Because this site is located within an unincorporated townsite,the business is required to meet the criteria of a
Home Business per Section 23-1-90. These criteria are:
1) The use is conducted primarily within a dwelling unit or accessory structure and principally carried
on by the family resident therein and
2) Such use is clearly incidental and secondary to the principal permitted use and shall not change the
character thereof.
The Department of Planning Services is recommending that semis and trailers associated with this
business be located within an enclosed building to meet the home business definition. Attached
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards will ensure that the proposed use is compatible with
the surrounding area.
The Department of Planning Services did not receive a referral response from the Division of Water
Resources regarding the use of the existing well for employees. However, I did speak with Mr. Nettles of
the Greeley Division of Water Resources Office and he indicated that use of the bathroom in the existing
residence on site was acceptable for employee use provided it was not open to the general public. We
added this provision to development standard #13 in the staff comments.
The Planning Department received three (3)letters of support from neighboring property owners
were submitted with the application. These property owners are located to the southeast, to the
east, and directly to the south of the site.
There is an additional memo submitted by Dave Snyder with Public Works.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached
development standards and conditions of approval.
Mary Hardy, 33726 CR 61.5, Gill, Colorado. Mrs. Hardy stated that when they bought the property
they asked if there were any convenances and were told no. She added that when they had
parked their trucks and trailers there they found out that they were in violation with the Weld
County Code and apologized for that as that was not their intent at all. She added that they had
just received from Dave Snyder a request to apply dust suppression on the road in front of the
property. She commented that they use less than 10% of that road and added that there is oil
development to the north of them and use that road much more often. Mrs. Hardy expressed her
concern with the dust issues and mentioned that the oil and gas development should contribute as
well.
Mrs. Hardy said that for the water and sewer issues all their drivers do is come in and park their
cars next to their shop, get into the trucks, and leave the area. They come back at night, get in
their vehicles and then leave. They have stressed the importance to all of their drivers to drive
slowly and no jake braking.
Mrs Hardy said that as far as building a building or putting up a fence she does not feel that it is
necessary. She commented that if they construct a building on their property it would not be to
scale to surrounding properties and that their neighbors are very important to them. She added
that their trucks are clean and mentioned that their neighbors have indicated to them that they
would rather look over them than through a fence when they can't see anything.
Commissioner Ehrilich asked to clarify if the neighbors and the applicants are not in agreement
with the Planning Department in terms of enclosing the business within a building. Mrs. Hardy
said that was correct as that building will have to be so large and they don't wish to do that to their
neighbors.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Dave Snyder, Department of Public Works, commented that based on latest traffic counts and also that the
State classifies semi trucks as three (3)times the amount of trips, dust suppressant is required on County
Road 61.5. He added that with their truck traffic and their vehicle traffic it would come up to about 24 trips a
day. He also added that County Road 61.5 is a local gravel road and that is why they are asking for dust
suppressant.
Commissioner Ehrlich commented that the applicant stated that there is an oil company to the north of them
and asked if there is a dust abatement program right now and who that oil company might be. Mr. Snyder
replied that he thinks that they are just drilling wells and that there is no actual oil company.
Commissioner Spitzer asked with regard to dust suppression, how large of an area would that need to be
applied and how long. Mr.Snyder said that it would be 1100 feet from their entrance to the State Highway and
applied twice a year.
Commissioner Holton mentioned that usually we ask for 300 feet and asked why are we making them do an
extra amount. Mr. Snyder replied that it's due to the impact of the adjacent owners but they could possibly
shorten the distance to in front of the residences.
Commissioner Ehrlich commented that he was wondering if the oil company and the applicant could come into
an agreement as far as applying the dust suppression.
Mr.Gathman said that he researched and noted that he didn't find any Special Use Permits out there for an oil
and gas related use.
The Chair asked if the Health Department had anything to add. Char Davis,Department of Health,stated that
there is a memo dated September 13, 2007 which states on Number 9 that a permanent adequate water
supply shall be provided for drinking and sanitary purposes and supplemental bottled water will be supplied for
drivers. Mrs. Davis asked to include that as Number 13 in the Development Standards and renumber
accordingly.
Commissioner Ochsner summarized that one of the big issues here is whether or not to require a building.
Commissioner Spitzer mentioned that there may be alternatives such as screening(hedge row or bushes).
Mr. Gathman indicated that they have had extensive discussions on this issue. He added that at a minimum
possibly opaque screening should be installed. Staffs' recommendation is that it should be in an enclosed
building, however it is something that can be looked at. He added that if you are looking at screening, we
could recommend some kind of opaque screening material versus a landscaping material.
Commissioner Spitzer asked what the zoning is out there currently. Mr.Gathman replied that it is Agricultural
and is one of the old townsites.
Commissioner Holton recalled an issue on County Road 22 where the Board had approved a trucking
company just west of County Road 49 and County Road 22 in which they had a lot more trucks and he doesn't
recall requiring them to have indoor storage or fencing. Mr. Gathman commented that one of the issues that
you run into is that whenever you are in a subdivision or in a platted townsite, which is what Barnesville is
considered, you have a stricter standard as you fall under the home business standard. Therefore if they
weren't in a subdivision the technical requirement for a home business would not be there. However, because
they are in Barnesville that is why it is stricter. Commissioner Holton said that it seems wrong to hold one to a
different standard. Mr. Gathman commented that he understands that, however as staff their hands are
somewhat tied based on the home business definition and they are trying to be consistent in how they apply
these home business applications.
Tom Holton made a motion to delete 1.6 on page 4 of the Conditions of Approval,seconded by Robert Grand.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, absent; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes;
Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Holton asked about 1.C and what is specifically required for the existing building if they are
going to change oil in there. Are they going to have to get a Change of Use on that? Mr. Gathman said that
his understanding in talking with the Plans Examiner is that it is essentially a tracking type of a permit and is
just basically verifying that there maybe some work going on there such as changing oil because originally it
was just for personal storage. Mr. Gathman mentioned that he is not sure if they have to go out there and
inspect as it sounded more like it was a tracking mechanism, however he can get the building official to come
in and verify. Commissioner Holton said that he would like to find that out and also how much it would cost.
Commissioner Ochsner commented that while they are waiting for the building official we could move onto the
next items.
Roy Spitzer moved to delete the last sentence in 2.A, page 3 of the Conditions of Approval,seconded by Tom
Holton.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, absent; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes;
Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Commissioners had a lengthy discussion regarding the dust abatement program and encouraged the
applicant to reach an agreement with the oil company to apply the dust suppressant.
The Chair recognized that the Building Official was here and asked him to refer to Commissioner Holton's
question regarding the existing building and what would be required for inspections and cost.
Roger Vigil, Building Official, stated that with regard to fees of a change of use, they have calculated an
estimate based on the warehouse interior finish at $30.87 per square foot. Therefore a 1200 square foot
building would be approximately$460.00. Mr.Vigil added that since the building is already built they are just
trying to cover the cost of the inspections as it may involve a half a dozen or more inspections.
The Chair moved the attention back to the dust suppression issue.
Commissioner Lawley made a motion that the applicant provide dust control within 300 feet on each side of
the residences(total of 3 homes or 900 feet)per staffs'recommendation,seconded by Commissioner Ehrlich.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, absent; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand, no; Bill Hall, no; Mark Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes;
Tom Holton, no; Doug Ochsner, no. Motion failed.
Mr.Gathman clarified that this is a proposed addition to the staff recommendation,therefore right now there is
no standard in there.
Commissioner Lawley made a motion to accept the staff recommendation for dust abatement, seconded by
Commissioner Ehrlich.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, absent; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand, no; Bill Hall, no; Mark Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes;
Tom Holton, no; Doug Ochsner, no. Motion failed.
Tom Holton moved to delete 2.C, page 3 of the Conditions of Approval, seconded by Robert Grand.
Motion carried.
Roy Spitzer moved to add a new Number 13 in the Development Standards to read "that a permanent
adequate water supply shall be provided for drinking and sanitary purposes and supplemental bottled
water will be supplied for drivers", as per the Health Department's recommendation. Mark Lawley
seconded the motion. Motion carried.
The Chair asked the applicants if they read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are agreement with those. The applicants replied that they are in agreement.
Roy Spitzer moved that Case USR-1621, 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, Mark Lawley seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, absent; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes;
Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1623
APPLICANT: Jacob&Wendy Simmons c/o Philip Brink
PLANNER: Roger Caruso
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2923; Part of the NE4 of Section 20, T6N, R64W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for a
Veterinary Clinic or hospitals in the(A)Agricultural Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Highway 392 and west of and
adjacent to CR 53.
Roger Caruso, Department of Planning Services, stated that the request before the board is a Site
Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Veterinary Clinic or hospitals in the
Agricultural Zone District.
The sign announcing the Planning Commission hearing was posted October 24, 2007 by Planning Staff.
The site is located south of and adjacent to State Highway 392 and west of and adjacent to County Road
53.
The surrounding property to the north, south, east and west are primarily single family homes with
agricultural use. There are twelve (12) property owners within 500 feet of the property in question and the
closest home is roughly 600 feet to the northwest. The Department of Planning Services has received
four letters from surrounding property owners requesting denial of the application. The memo and
attachments provided to the Planning Commission include nine letters of support from surrounding
property owners recommending approval of the application.
The property is currently in violation due to the operation of a Veterinary Clinic without the appropriate
Special Use Permit. The violation has not yet been presented to the Board of County Commissioners
through a Violation hearing; approval of this Use by Special Review will remediate the violation.
The subject property does not lie within the three mile referral area of any municipality.
Fifteen referral agencies reviewed this case, ten responded favorably or included conditions that have
been addressed through development standards and conditions of approval.
The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of this application along with the
conditions of approval and development standards.
Commissioner Ehrlich asked about the picture in the slide presentation and if the house on the right was a
separate residence. Mr. Caruso replied that was correct.
Phil Brink, 1304 Centauer Village Dr, Ste B, Lafayette, Colorado. Mr. Brink represents the applicant and
stated that Doctors Jake and Wendy Simmons operate a veterinary clinic and started from scratch. He
added that this business started out purely as ambulatory where they would go to the location of the
horses and provide care, however it has become necessary over time as their business has grown to have
some horses there that they can keep track of and watch more closely.
Commissioner Ehrlich asked if the applicants share the access coming off of County Road 53 with the
neighbor to the north. Mr. Simmons replied that the access off of County Road 53 is their private road and
the neighbor to the north accesses their property off of State Highway 392.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Ron Farmer,25620 Hwy 392, Greeley, Colorado. Mr. Farmer commented that him and his wife are the ones
who live in the white house to the north that they have referenced to and they opposed this because they feel it
is too close to the front of their house. He added that they didn't have the opportunity to oppose this in the
beginning as it was just built with no one's knowledge. Mr. Farmer expressed problems of conflict with their
neighbors and commented that he would like to get along with the neighbors. He added that they would
support the Vet Clinic if they in turn would respect their land. Mr. Farmer stated that he does not know what
they have applied for with regard to the hours of operation and further added that he has pictures showing
vehicles coming at dawn and at dark.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
Commissioner Ochsner stated that in the application the hours of operation are from 7:00 am to 5:30 pm
Monday through Saturday. Mr.Simmons commented that their hours of operation are generally from 8:00 am
to 5:00 pm, although they offer a 24 hour emergency service. He added that their staff is equipped with
emergency situations that might arise at any hour during the night and weekends. Mrs.Simmons added that
they don't have that many emergencies that come in after hours, however on average they might have 2 to 3
emergencies after hours Monday through Sunday. She commented that if that does happen they shut their
doors to their building to eliminate any outdoor elements.
Commissioner Ochsner commented to Mr. Farmer that as a Board they have to look at land use issues only
and expressed to the applicant and Mr. Farmer that they should try to work on mending fences between
themselves.
Commissioner Spitzer asked about the hours and how does that affect the emergencies. Mr.Caruso replied
that the hours as stated in the application, except for emergencies, are from 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday
through Saturday. He added that for emergencies staff will take that as a case by case basis and if there are
complaints of excessive emergencies staff can tell them to amend their USR.
Commissioner Ehrlich asked about lighting on the premise. Mr.Caruso replied that Condition 1.F talks about
the lighting and in talking with the applicant lights would go off at the end of the business day(5:30 p.m.)
except for emergencies. He also added that when he performed a site inspection there would be no direct
flow of light from there.
Mr. Simmons briefly explained the type of lighting outside the building. He said that his neighbors house is
north of his private road and when vehicles come in most of the lights will be projected straight west and then
turn south into their parking lot. He added that at that point there are three (3)lights on their building which
one is on the west side of the building and then 2 motion lights on the other building. Mrs. Simmons
commented that with regard to the motion lights, in order for them to come on you have to walk directly
underneath the overhang and are protected by an eave.
Mr. Caruso commented that with the lighting plan, staff can require shields on the lights to where it will direct
the lighting downward.
Dave Snyder, Department of Public Works, recommended that dust suppression be applied in front of the
residences on the road to State Highway 392.
Roy Spitzer moved to add Development Standard#15 and renumber accordingly to read"the applicant shall
supply dust suppression within 300 feet of the adjacent residences between State Highway 392 and County
Road 66". Robert Grand seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, absent; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes;
Tom Holton, no; Doug Ochsner, no. Motion carried.
The Chair asked the applicants if they read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are agreement with those. The applicants replied that they are in agreement.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1623, 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, Bill Hall seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, absent; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes;
Tom Holton, yes with comment; Doug Ochsner, yes with comment. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Holton commented that he would like to see the applicant and Mr. Farmer get together
before the Board of County Commissioners hearing to see if they can straighten out their personal
conflicts.
Commissioner Ochsner reiterated Mr. Holton's comments.
The Chair took a recess at 4:32 p.m.
The Chair called the meeting back to order at 4:44 p.m.
Weld County Code Changes
Staff: Brad Mueller, Kim Ogle and Bruce Barker
Items: Appendix 23-F
Brad Mueller, Department of Planning Services, commented that at the meeting on October 2, 2007 staff
had presented a packet of code changes to the Board. He added that what resulted from that hearing
was that the Commission recommended approval with some changes and also excluded Appendix 23-F.
Mr. Mueller also mentioned that there were a number of items that the Board had asked staff to do
additional research on, and he handed out a memo going over these.
Mr. Mueller started with the approval of Federal and State permits, as Commissioner Ochsner had asked
about the applicability of a code change that is being proposed relative to mining, specifically mining that
applies to in-situ mining and requiring that all State and Federal approvals be in place prior to submittal of
a Use by Special Review. He indicated that the question was if the rule should apply to all Use by Special
Reviews. In reviewing the current code, staff does not recommend that we make that change at this time
as it would broaden the Code fairly significantly. Furthermore, in practice, those types of other permitting
requirements can and are suggested by the referral agencies. Mr. Mueller stated that staff is comfortable
that that system is working and would try to avoid expanding the code when possible.
Mr. Mueller said that the next question that came up deals with the requirements for Surface Use
Agreements and the timing of those and whether there was an adequate level of fairness in requiring that
those Surface Use Agreements be provided at the time of submittal of an application. Mr. Mueller
commented that staff understood and heard from the Commission clearly that on an ongoing basis they
need to continue to use discretion in which of the two clauses are applied. He added that the clauses are
that either there is a complete Surface Use Agreement, or that there is written evidence given to staff that
there has been an attempt to address any concerns that the Mineral Rights owners' might have. Those
two options seem to balance what the State Code is telling staff what they need to do in terms of providing
for the rights of Mineral Owners, while at the same time being practical and sensitive to the needs of the
Surface Owner. He added that they were really unable to come up with any way to modify the language
that would do anything different than what those two provisions in the current code allow for. Mr. Mueller
mentioned that they are open to discussion on that or researching that some more to understand what
problem needs to be solved with that.
Mr. Mueller continued with the last item which is the open space requirements that the Commissioners
had asked staff to look into. He stated that this is a fairly large topic and commented that this concept of
open space, non-urban densities, and how rural subdivisions are defined and talked about is the subject of
discussion in the context of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Mueller said that the current code says in the
requirement for PUD's there needs to be a 15% common open space (set-aside). The philosophy of
having open space is consistent with codes throughout the state and country and it allows buffering in the
non-urban types of development. He added that much of the concern that was expressed at the hearing
where we talked about this item had to do with the quality of the open space and whether it was functional,
maintainable, useful, etc. He commented that those are very legitimate concerns and the code has
language right now that says that it is suppose to meet those criteria. To the degree that there are
concerns that that is not happening, that is something that we all can commit to a higher level of scrutiny
as we see these applications come forward.
Commissioner Holton asked if we view detention ponds and retention ponds as open space. Mr. Ogle
replied that presently they don't view it as open space, rather we consider it as a usable space for
developments as a matter of doing business for providing for detention of flows. However, if there is a big
pond with a berm around it that has a usable space within the pond then they will recognize that as open
space.
Mr. Mueller concluded by saying that was all that he had to present as a follow-up to the last meeting and
hoped that it addressed all the concerns that the Board had.
Mr. Ogle followed up from the October 2, 2007 meeting as Commissioner Branham had directed staff to
consult Union Pacific Railroad for their input or comments on the proposed Appendix 23-F. He said that
Mr. Barker had contacted a representative with Union Pacific Railroad and they in turn provided comments
back to staff.
Mr. Ogle directed their attention to the Appendix 23-F document and commented that this is a document
that was prepared by the legal staff of Union Pacific in response to staffs' comments of the code changes.
He said that what staff did is take the documents from here and stick it into our original document to
make sure that all the issues that they addressed here which deal only with freight yard criteria that was
already addressed in our code. There are four areas where there is a separate call out. Starting on Page
4 of staff comments, it talks about general layout and design for freight yards. He added that they
specifically called that out into their original document. Mr. Ogle referred to Page 18, under the topic of
illumination and lighting in which they had specific criteria which they thought was applicable to railyards.
He continued on to Page 21 which deals with lighting that accents building features and creates visual
interest. Not only are we talking overhead service and security lights but also adding an accent to a
building or structure. He continued on to Page 41 where there are comments regarding the setbacks and
they feel that the 100 feet of right-of-way is a little bit more extensive than what a commercial and
industrial zoned district is going to call for, however that is criteria that they want to set in. Mr. Ogle
commented that an issue that Commissioner Hall had mentioned was that it was a little unclear where the
Commercial standards stood and the Industrial standards as well. Therefore, staff went through and split
out Commercial standards from Industrial standards in each of the topics.
Mr. Ogle commented that he hopes this addresses the Commissioners concerns and apologized for the
late arrival of this document. He added that Attorney Barker had to call the applicant and asked them to
send their comments forward which came in late afternoon on Friday of last week. Mr. Ogle commented
that staff worked on it over the weekend and on Monday to put these items together.
Commissioner Hall thanked staff and Attorney Barker for their extra effort that they put into this and
commented that our indications of cooperation with them are going to behoove our opportunity to have
that facility here.
Mr. Ogle introduced Tom Parko, the Planning Director of the City of Fort Lupton. Mr. Parko commented
that Fort Lupton really supports the Commercial and Industrial Design Standards. He added that Mr. Ogle
and himself have been working on this for several months and the overall intended goal of the standards
is to provide a continuity with standards for the area. Mr. Parko expressed to the Commissioners that
Fort Lupton is happy and feels that it is a good step forward with relations in the area and making sure that
development is done in the right way.
Commissioner Ochsner asked that since they have just seen these documents if it is something that the
Board feels they can approve. Commissioner Holton stated that he is prepared to vote on it today as they
have looked through it and have received answers to their questions that they asked for.
Robert Grand moved that the amended Appendix 23-F as per staff recommendation, be forwarded to the
Board of County Commissioners along with the Planning Commission's 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, absent; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes;
Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Holton wanted to thank Mr. Parko for coming to the meeting and giving his input as it is
unusual that they get that from cities.
The Chair introduced the last item on the agenda.
Planning Commission Hearing Dates
Presented by Brad Mueller
Mr. Mueller commented that January 1, 2008, would normally have been the first Tuesday of the month;
however it is a holiday, and due to that we are suggesting January 8, 2008, instead.
Tom Holton made a motion to approve the 2008 Planning Hearing Dates,seconded by Mark Lawley. Motion
carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 5:14 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, ^
n dj uU i UYh
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
Hello