HomeMy WebLinkAbout20060818.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, February 7, 2006
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2006, in the Weld County
Department of Planning Services, Hearing Room,918101h Street,Greeley,Colorado. The meeting was called
to order by Chair, Bruce Fitzgerald, at 1:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller Absent
Erich Ehrlich
Roy Spitzer
James Welch
Bruce Fitzgerald
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
Tom Holton
Paul Branham
Also Present: Sheri Lockman, Chris Gathman, Pam Smith, Don Carroll, Peter Schei, Drew Scheltinga, Brian
Kim Ogle, Brad Mueller, Jesse , Char Davis
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on January 17,2006,
was approved as read.
The following cases are on the Consent Agenda:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1541
APPLICANT: Great Western Oil & Gas Company
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part SE4 of Section 26, T6N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for oil &
gas production facilities in the I-1 (Industrial)Zone District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 23 and 1/2 mile south of CR 66.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1539
APPLICANT: Keith & Shirley Ashbaugh
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW4 of Section 15, T7N, R59W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
Mineral Resource Development (Gravel Mining) in the A(Agricultural)
Zone District
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 115; Approximately 3/4 mile north of CR 80.
Chad Auer moved to approve the consent agenda as amended. Doug Ochsner seconded. Motion
approved.
The following case will be removed from the Consent Agenda and Heard:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1534
APPLICANT: Duke Energy Field Services
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part N2N2SW4 of Section 29, T5N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
mineral resource development facility including an oil and gas support
and service facility(gas processing facility) in the A (Agricultural)Zone
C
c42-w ; u� � 3 i3-�2�c�lz 2006-0818
District
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Two Rivers Parkway and approximately 1/2 mile
north of 49th Street.
Larry Kamerzell, neighbor, indicated his concerns on proposal. Mr. Kammerzell had done a lease but the
lease was for a valve site not a compressor station. If the site was not used for two or more years then
the lease would become null and void and it has not been used. Mr. Kamerzell wrote a letter to the
applicant to negotiate a new lease but did not receive a reply. The concern is there was a motor installed
for a valve site that was to be less than 100 horsepower, but this was not the case. The motor makes a
large amount of noise and is disruptive.
Mr. Morrison provided clarification on the process. The Planning Commission can not address the
contractual issues, those need to be addressed with the applicant.
Doug Ochsner requested this be taken off consent. James Welch and Tom Holton also requested this be
removed.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1534, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending
approval of the application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Tim Clancy, representative for Duke Energy, indicated he was aware of the letter but was not aware of the
issue of noise, screening and the proximity to the home. The applicant would like to request a
continuance to March 7, 2006 to clarify the issues brought forward today.
Mr. Gathman indicated that there was no need to re-advertise.
Roy Spitzer moved to continue the case. Doug Ochsner seconded. Motion carried.
The following cases will be heard:
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1090
APPLICANT: Ridgeview Farms, LLC
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part NE4 of Section 23, T6N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agriculture)to PUD (Planned Unit Development)
for 24 Residential lots and 9.7 acres of open space.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Highway 392 and west of and adjacent to
CR 35.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-1090, reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Ms. Lockman indicated
Ridgeview Farms, LLC c/o Bradley Keirnes, has applied for a Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to
PUD (Planned Unit Development)for 24 residential lots and 9.7 acres of open space. The sign
announcing the Planning Commission hearing was posted January 20 by Planning Staff. The site is
located South of and adjacent to State Highway 392 &west of and adjacent to County Road 35.
Surrounding properties to the west and east are agricultural in nature. Highway 392 and Pinnacle Park
Subdivision are to the north. Sonny View Estates lies to the south. Seventeen referral agencies reviewed
this case, twelve responded favorably or included conditions that have been addressed through
development standards and conditions of approval. The City of Greeley stated that the applicants request
for a waiver from curb gutter and sidewalk should be denied. They also requested that connectivity with
future subdivisions be considered and an adequate buffer between the lots and roadways be established.
A copy of a petition from the surrounding property owners has been distributed to the Planning
Commission members. Mr. Danny Hart submitted the petition to our office and he did ask that the
Planning Commission be told that all but one of the signatures was taken from within one mile of the site
and that he only asked for one person to sign at each residence. An updated plat for the subdivision was
also distributed. Staff has not had adequate time to review this plat. Also you were given a preliminary
easement agreement for the Ogilvy Ditch. The Department of Planning Services is recommending denial
of PZ-1090. The subdivision is located outside of any defined urban areas such as intergovernmental
agreement areas, urban growth boundary areas, the 1-25 Mixed Use Development area or urban growth
nodes. The Weld County Code does not support subdivisions above 9 lots outside of these defined urban
areas. Further, the application is not proposing urban type services such as curb, gutter and sidewalk and
public sewer. Planning Staff also has concerns with the amount and design of the open space. The
fifteen-percent common open space includes the future road rights-of-way. Further, the applicant has
designed a trail system that leads onto the interior roadway, but the interior roadway is not proposed to
have any sidewalks for pedestrian travel.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the closest municipality. Ms. Lockman stated it was approximately 1/2 mile to
the south and it was the City of Greeley.
Doug Ochsner asked if services were available within the %: mile requirement. Ms. Lockman stated the
sewer lines were north to O Street and one line runs to the old Monfort building on CR 66.
Doug Ochsner asked about the concerns with the trails. Ms. Lockman indicated the trail system utilizes
the internal roadways. There is no sidewalk or trail, it will be in the road right-of-way.
Robb Casseday, applicant representative, provided clarification on the proposal with a PowerPoint
presentation. The applicant feels as though the obstacles can be dealt with. The proposal will be Estate
lots with upper scale homes and will be gated. The density is 2.5 acres per residence with the open space
being the required 15%. The neighboring subdivisions have densities of 1.5 acres (Sony View)and 2.5
acres (Pinnacle). There will be a perimeter trail as part of open space. The trail is included for walking
biking, hiking and being able to enjoy the water way. The adjacent subdivisions do not have curb and
gutter or sidewalk. City of Greeley does have conceptual plans to extend sewer lines. There are sewer
lines proposed to the Spanish Colony but the time frame is not determined. City limits of Greeley are
within '/�mile. The City of Greeley is positive with regards to the annexations to the north side of town.
Should the properties around Seeley Lake be annexed those would be done first due to density. City
development is not favorable to the larger size lots. This proposal is a compromise between the City and
the County. The size of lots is adequate for septic systems. This subdivision will have positive aspects to
the county. The site is located within the Eaton School District and Eaton Fire District. The perimeter of
the site will be fenced and berming will be along the traffic corridors. This will be gated for motorized
traffic only. The conditions from the referral agencies have been addressed by the Department of
Planning Services staff. There is an agreement with Cache La Poudre Irrigation and in process for an
Olgivy Ditch Company agreement. The plat addresses the setback for the CR 35 right-of-way as well as a
landscape buffer for CR 35 and Hwy 392. This proposal is consistent with Chapter 27 of the Weld County
Code. The trail will surround the proposal and will utilize the internal streets so as not to be a safety
hazard on the Olgivy Ditch. Elizabeth Relford, continued by addressing the issues of the code and how
this proposal adheres to those criteria. Ms. Relford, representative for the applicant, stated she will be
talking about how Ridgeview Farms is Code compliant. The staff report quotes Section 27-6-120.B.6.a as
being criteria for this proposal. The staff report states Ridgeview Farms has some inconsistencies with
the requirements. The Comprehensive Plan is what most of the sections are focused on. The applicant is
going with the estate zoning. The bulk requirements for the estate zone district are being complied with.
The proposal is also in compliance with Chapter 24, Subdivisions and the MUD section does not apply to
this subdivision. The comprehensive plan will be the first topic. Ms. Relford discussed the location of the
subdivision in relationship to Greeley. Section 22-2-190 talks about urban residential uses being
encouraged when the subject site is located inside an IGA. There are many criteria, one being an IGA
area, UGB area, MUD area, urban growth node or where adequate infrastructure and services are
currently available or reasonable obtainable. Ridgeview Farms can articulate that current infrastructure is
available and reasonably obtainable. Even though there is no approved IGA for this area this site is
located within an urban growth boundary. Section 22-2-190.B.1 states that the county should encourage a
compact form of development by directing residential growth to urban growth boundary areas and to those
areas where urban services are currently available or reasonable obtainable. When you visually look at
this map you will agree that the location of this proposal would classify as compacting urban development
and directing growth. This is not an isolated subdivision that is being requested in a remote area of Weld
County where nothing else exists. There are existing services in both subdivisions and this proposal is
asking to utilize those. Ridgeview Farms actually complies with the Comprehensive Plan by locating to
areas where urban services are currently available and encouraging compact urban development. A map
of Greeley's Urban Growth boundary was presented. With no agreement between Weld County and
Greeley the boundary cannot be recognized. Greeley does recognize the boundary. As a result of this the
developer has been working with Greeley to address their referral comments and comply with their
concerns regarding future development of roadways adjacent to Ridgeview Farms. Greeley is saying that
in the long range Greeley will probably absorb and they want to have some type of similar design
standards to what is already there. Since the site does exist in an Urban Growth Boundary it is an urban
scale development with urban scale services essentially it would comply with the City of Greeley's
Comprehensive Plan. Section 22-2-190.C.1 states the County should encourage an efficient form of
urban residential development by directing urban residential growth to those areas where urban services
and infrastructure are currently available or reasonably obtainable. An aerial map has been provided
showing how this proposal will fit with the existing developments that are already there. This will be a
natural continuation. This subdivision will only add 24 lots to the existing 90 lots that are in the two
existing subdivisions. The county definition of urban scale development probably applies to Pinnacle Park
and Sonny View Estates and that implies that those urban services existed. Ridgeview Farms would then
be able to utilize the existing services. Ridgeview Farms is asking for the same consideration for sanitary
sewer that has been approved for two existing subdivisions being septic systems. This would be on a
smaller number of lots. Those have been reviewed and approved by the Health department. Ridgeview
Farms is currently zoned agricultural with R-1 to the north and south. Section 22-2-60 and Section 22-2-
210 talk about the conversion of agricultural land to urban scale residential, commercial/Industrial uses to
be considered when the site is located inside an approved IGA, UGB, MUD, urban development node or
where adequate services are currently available or reasonable obtainable. The reasonable obtainable is
another criteria to allow development at an urban scale to occur. Ridgeview Farms is a perfect example
of a subdivision that complies with that code section. In the packet staff explained the intent of this goal in
the Comprehensive Plan. They stated that the goal is intended to address the conversion of agricultural
lands to minimize the incompatibilities that occur between uses in the agricultural zone district and other
zone districts that allow urban uses. In addition the goal is expected to contribute to minimizing the cost to
county taxpayers for the addition of services in rural areas for uses that require services on an urban scale
level. This property is surrounded by R-1 zoning it is not surrounded by other agricultural zone properties
on an isolated site, therefore it is more compatible to the surrounding uses. Since the services already
exist due the other subdivisions in the area the costs related to construction of the site is minimal. This
does not create the need for additional public services in a rural area. This is not an isolated area where
new services will need to be brought in. The services are already there. Ridgeview Farms is consistent
with Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code by complying with the following sections:
2-2-70.A—Population and economic growth will create a demand for conversion of land to urban uses.
The urban development goals and policies are designed to plan for this anticipated growth by directing
urban growth uses to where urban services exist or can be provided.
22-2-60.C.2—Availability of services such as electricity, telephone, water, natural gas, sewer, sheriff and
fire protection will determine the intensity of the development allowed.
22-2-60.C.3.b—Availability, location and accessibility to existing infrastructure and utilities.
22-2-60.C.3.d—Consideration of existing improvements or structures.
22-2-90.6—Locations where urban development can occur should be encouraged to develop as urban.
Section 27-1-10.A.8 Encourage flexibility and variety in development while promoting the most efficient
use of the land. This subdivision represents smart efficient planning by utilizing the urban services that
currently exist rather than creating new services that could potentially affect county taxpayers. Ridgeview
Farms is compatible with the existing housing. It is an asset to Weld County. Weld County
Comprehensive Plan limits on urban scale development in the county do not exist to prohibit the
development but to allow projects such as Ridgeview Farms to be reasonably planned and developed
where and when they make sense.
Robb Casseday continued with the conditions of approval regarding the agreement with the mineral lease
owner. There is an agreement currently in process with the mineral lease owner and it is very close. It will
include an offsite drilling location. Condition B addresses an access road to the ditches off of CR 35 and
those are separate from the subdivision. This access road can also be used as a walking trail. Condition
C addresses an agreement with the Olgivy Ditch and this is in process and will be done prior to the Board
of County Commissioners. Condition D addresses an agreement with Duke Energy dealing with the
relocation of a gas line. The applicant has provided them with a 20 foot exclusive easement this parallels
the#2 ditch and Hwy 392. This agreement is waiting for final approval. Condition E addresses the 15%
open space being addressed on the plat. This has been done and is exclusive of the detention. This is
the right time for an approval. This is the right place for urban scale development the amenities are
adequate. The development will be of high quality and an asset. There are couple of variances that will
be needed, those being the sewer requirement and the curb, gutter and sidewalk. The applicant has met
the 2.5 acres per lot for septic systems. The lack of curb, gutter and sidewalks will enhance the rural
nature of this development. The subdivision meets the intent of the code and would be an asset to the
area.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if the 15 % open space included the use of the street. Mr. Casseday indicated it
does not. Mr. Fitzgerald asked about the time frame for annexation into Greeley. Mr. Casseday indicated
the city would concentrate on the Seeley Lake area and then shift north. Mr. Fitzgerald asked about the
sewer line and the incorporation of that. Mr. Casseday stated the drainage basin is a low spot, therefore a
natural place for the construction. The line would pick up all three subdivision in the future.
Chad Auer added that the applicant would like to have Planning Commission believe that the sidewalks
take away from the rural character but then want to be considered urban. Mr. Auer believes the sidewalks
are for pedestrian safety. Mr. Casseday indicated the applicant is not strongly for or against sidewalks but
feels they are not needed in this few of lots. In a nine lot subdivision with a cul-de-sac there are no
sidewalks and this is nothing more than three cul-de-sacs dispersed out. Ms. Relford added that they
would like to stay consistent with what is out there and would rather have this be rural but have to be
urban according to county code. Mr. Auer indicated the applicant stated that adding sites does not impact
current services since those exist. There will be additional need for services and it will increase. Mr.
Casseday stated that was correct, there will be an impact to water. North Weld Water District will supply
the water and there will be upgrading of lines to bring services to this subdivision so as not to take away
from the exiting subdivisions. There will be impacts to certain services and there are associated fees for
those.
Doug Ochsner asked if the streets width is an adequate size for walking or riding and with a gated
community are those streets deemed public or private streets and who maintains. Mr. Scheltinga, Public
Works, stated the county does not maintain a private street. The streets will be twelve foot paved lanes
with four foot gravel shoulders. This is the normal size and is adequate for pedestrian safety. The
Department of Public Works is not objecting to variance for deletion of curb and gutter since the streets
will not connect to another development.
Lee Morrison questioned the designation of a fully gated community and the streets being not technically
public and will be privately maintained. Mr. Casseday stated they will be dedicated but maintained by the
HOA. Mr. Morrison asked how those can be classified as public streets when the general public is not
able to utilize them. Mr. Casseday indicated that this designation could change down the road and this
could become a non gated community. All the installation and maintenance will be at the developer's
expense. Mr. Morrison stated that from a legal standpoint the concept of having a gate on a road that is
private and the public not being able to use is an issue. This issue needs to be resolved before final plan.
Mr. Scheltinga stated that most all subdivision have-public right-of-way for drainage and things could
change. Mr. Casseday indicated that Lighthouse Cove is gated and a Weld County subdivision.
Tom Holton asked if there was a time frame for annexation into Greeley. Mr. Casseday stated there was
not, the proposal is included in the 20 year growth plan boundary. The shorter range boundaries will need
to change before this annexation could happen. The City has been referred to but there would be far to
much that would need to happen. Mr. Holton stated that they may not have sewer to them in the next 20
years. Mr. Casseday stated they are within 20 years and there are things planned but no time frames.
Mr. Holton asked how the city would annex Seeley Lake. Ms. Lockman stated the city would need to go to
each owner or surround the area and force annexation. Ms. Lockman stated that the annexation would be
in the long range area.
Bruce Fitzgerald stated that when a property is annexed it then goes under the Greeley sewer district. Ms.
Lockman stated it is common to annex when sewer is available or not annex if sewer were not available.
Erich Ehrlich asked questions about the septic system and the water levels. Pam Smith, Department of
Public Health, indicated the perk rate was done in irrigation season and groundwater was found at 51/4
feet to 6 feet. This would be worse along the existing ditches. There was an area of high perk rate but
most sites will be conventional septic systems. The septic systems can be designed around this.
Tom Holton asked the average lot size of Pinnacle and the homes around Seeley Lake. Ms. Lockman
states staff would need to pull the plats for that information.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Danny Hart, representative for the neighbors in Pinnacle Park. The neighbors have concerns with traffic and
the number of accidents at CR 35&Hwy 392. Another concern is the deepness of the Olgivy Ditch. Pinnacle
Park is considered agricultural with animals and they do not want the neighbors complaining about the smell.
Eaton schools are overcrowded and will this development cause the taxes to increase. There is a vast
majority of surrounding property owners that are against this proposal. The neighbors are concerned with the
amount of open space that is being lost to development.
The Chair closed public portion
Robb Casseday stated that the petition addresses something new and it is normal for residences to not want
any additional development in their area. There are others who would like to have the same thing with the
rural setting. This subdivision will not block the views and will not create hardship on their property. This will
increase the value. This parcel is difficult to farm and placing this in residences on this ground will not take
away from Weld County but will enhance it. The applicant agrees there will be an increase in traffic on Hwy
392 and the fee associated with this will address those increases.The neighborhoods can enhance each other
and increase value.
Paul Branham addressed the traffic concern by indicating the applicant has agreed to help with left turn lane
construction and pay 29%of that cost. Mr.Casseday indicated that was correct and the applicant has done a
traffic report.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the variance requests. Mr. Casseday stated the subdivision would like the
variances to address septic, curb, gutter and sidewalks. Mr. Fitzgerald asked Ms. Smith about the Health
Departments position on the septic tanks. Ms. Smith quoted parts of Section 27-2-190 of the Weld County
code that pertains to the sewer systems. The Commissioners left that area vague with sewer services to allow
for these kinds of developments. This fits within that scale and is in close proximity to two existing
subdivisions with the same conditions. The quoted criteria allows for the latitude. Ms. Smith stated that if
sewer goes in within 400 feet they are required to connect once the systems fail. There have been some
systems in Seeley Lake that have failed but not many. New septic systems are more difficult especially when
land needs to be dedicated. There is a high cost to replace so the owners may want the connection.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked for clarification on the septic systems. Ms. Lockman stated that if the proposal is
approved this would allow for septic systems. Mr. Fitzgerald asked about the curb and gutter variance. Ms.
Lockman stated that was addressed in the conditions of approval.
Paul Branhan indicated this is a gated subdivision with no connectivity with other roadways. For the City of
Greeley to request curb/gutter and sidewalks is not reasonable, since there are developments in Greeley that
do not have these. Mr. Branham would agree to the variance since this is consistent with what is in the area.
Chad Auer asked about the developments within Greeley that do not have the curb/gutter and how old they
are. Mr. Branham indicated Pine Ridge is a new development within the last five years. Mr.Auer stated there
is rational in having sidewalks for public safety and Greeley may be thinking long term. Mr. Branham agrees
but not in a gated subdivision where there is little traffic.
James Welch asked Mr. Morrison if the roads were subject to the rules or standards. Mr. Morrison stated the
roads are subject to the county design standards. The design process is for the benefit of the future
purchasers to insure quality of the development.
Doug Ochsner moved to delete the sentence"Curb/Gutter and sidewalk are required"from condition 2.A.9
James Welch seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; James Welch, yes; Chad Auer, no; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner indicated the applicant has shown they meet the requirements of Section 27-2-190 for urban
services. This is urban area with urban scale with the surrounding area.
Chad Auer indicated he agrees with the urban nature. Mr. Auer added that before the two existing
subdivisions were created there were those who were opposed to influx of residences. The nature of the
county is growth and the developers have shown they will work with the neighbors.
James Welch stated this development fits with the area and there is existing urban scale to north and south.
The only concern was for the intersection of Hwy 392 and CR 35. That has been addressed by the applicant
and their willingness to help upgrade the intersection.
Roy Spitzer stated the development is compatible with the existing developments. There is still a concern
regarding the ditch and the safety of it.
Robb Casseday agrees with the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval.
Paul Branham moved that Case PZ-1090, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Doug Ochsner seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; James Welch, yes; Chad Auer, no; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1540
APPLICANT: John Montera
PLANNER: Brad Mueller
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B and part of Lot D of RE-3961; being part of the SE4 of Section 10,
T6N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Public
and Quasi-public building including a Church in the Agricultural Zone
District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 70; west of and adjacent to CR 33.
Brad Mueller, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1540,reading the recommendation and
comments into the record.The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the application
along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Mr. Mueller requests a deletion on a
portion of Development Standard #19 stating " including the large indoor riding area" and the third
sentence in Development Standard#20.
Robb Casseday, representative for applicant, provided clarification of the proposal. The site will become a
church site with a building. Presently the parishners are meeting in the existing roping arena. This will
allow them to build a church with parking off of CR 33; this application will also allow room for expansion.
Doug Ochsner asked if the area is for private use and how that works with the church members. Mr.
Casseday stated Mr. Montera lives on another parcel and that is his facility. The church has had events
for one day and has applied for the appropriate permits through the county. Mr. Hoff, representative for
Mr. Montera, indicated the church uses the arena as a favor and now they need their own facility. The
roping arena is used by Mr. Montera personally. There have been some major events during the year but
that has been all it was utilized for except services. Mr. Mueller indicated the site is under violation at this
time for the church but this application will remedy the violation. Development Standards#3 addresses
the use of the arena for church activities and requiring the adequate permits through the county.
Paul Branham questioned the number of events only being six per year. Mr. Mueller stated there could
only be six events pre year and if they want to amend that it would need to be 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.
Robb Casseday indicated they would like to be able to have twelve events per year.
Paul Casseday moved to amend Development Standards #3 from six times a year to twelve times a year.
Paul moved to approve the above referenced language. Chad Auer seconded. Motion carried.
Tom Holton moved to amend Development Standards #19 and #20 according to staff recommendations.
Erich Ehrlich seconded. Motion carried.
Robb Casseday agrees to the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval.
Chad Auer moved that Case USR-1540, 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. Roy
Spitzer, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; James Welch, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1102
APPLICANT: Trinity Properties LP
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Section 7, T6N, R63W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from Agriculture to PUD for 17residential lots, 2 non-
residential agricultural outlots and .8 acres of open space along with oil &
gas production. (Deer Meadows)
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 70 approximately 1/2 mile east of CR 61.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-1102, reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Trinity Properties LP c/o
Ed Flynn has applied for a Change of Zone from Agricultural to PUD for 17 residential lots, 2 non-
residential agricultural outlots and .8 acres of open space along with oil and gas production. The sign
announcing the Planning Commission hearing was posted January 6 by Planning Staff. The site is located
north of and adjacent to County Road 70 & approximately% mile east of County Road 61. Surrounding
properties are a agricultural in nature and Barnsville is adjacent to the site along the north edge of the
property. 16 referral agencies reviewed this case, 12 responded favorably or included conditions that
have been addressed through development standards and conditions of approval. Deer Meadows is a
cluster PUD. As such 2/3 of the total area of the property must be reserved for forty(40)years for
agricultural purposes. And the density of the PUD can not exceed two (2) residential units for each thirty-
five (35) acres. The applicant has included enough acreage to attain 17 residential lots. Although this does
exceed the 9 lots normally allowed in a non-urban area, it is Planning Staffs interpretation of the code that
the number of residential lots allowed in a cluster PUD is entirely computed by the acreage in the
subdivision. The proposed PUD will be serviced by individual wells and individual sewage disposal
systems. There is a pending augmentation Plan for the irrigation wells. The Final Plan application is
required to include the well permits for the 19 proposed wells and the water court decrees for the
Augmentation Plan to replace depletions from the wells.
Ann Johnson, representative for applicant, provided clarification on the proposal. The project location is north
of and adjacent to Weld County Road (WCR) 70 and west of and adjacent to the right of way for WCR 63.
The site is not located adjacent to a municipality or other PUD's, subdivisions, municipal boundaries or an
urban growth corridor or boundary. The property is located in close proximity of Barnesville,6 miles southeast
of Galeton, 4 miles northeast of Gill, and 8 miles northeast of Kersey. This project is not a standard PUD. It
follows Cluster provisions. This project follows the definition of Non Urban Scale Development which includes,
"land used or capable of being used for agricultural purposes and including development which combines
clustered residential uses and agricultural uses in a manner that the agricultural lands are suitable for farming
and ranching operations for the next 40 years." This project follows the Cluster provision of Article X,Chapter
27 as well as the standard PUD process of Chapter 27 in that a minimum of 2/3 of the property acreage will be
reserved for a minimum of 40 years. (66.7% or 202.6 acres in Outlots A and B). Proposed agricultural
conservation easement for a minimum of 40 years. Agricultural buildings are permitted as necessary.
Intended use as pasture, a potential indoor/outdoor arena and to preserve the site's natural features. There
are some very severe areas with a gully in the middle and the terrain needs to be preserved. There will be 17
Estate/residential Lots clustered around the existing site which equates to 28.8% of the site. The lots will
range in size between 3.2—10.2 acres with auxiliary quarters as defined in Section 23-1-90. The right-of-way
and open space tracts equate to 13.4 acres or 4.41%of the site and the outlots will be utilized for the bus stop
location, signage, mail kiosk,water storage tank. The applicant has worked with referral agencies including
the Kersey School District, the Galeton Fire Protection Distirct, Post Office, Sheriff, Weld County Public
Works, Planning and Environmental Health to mitigate concerns prior to this hearing. This proposal meets
and exceeds portions of the review and approval criteria for a Cluster Non Urban PUD Change of Zone in the
Weld County Code. The applicant is asking for a favorable recommendation to the BCC and staff approval of
final plat.
Doug Ochsner asked where nearest residences were located. Ms. Johnson stated there are homes on CR
61.5 and CR 70, which is next to the west property line.
James Welch asked about a railroad right-of-way spur that was to be on the site. Todd Hodges,
representative for the applicant, indicated that was no longer there and it was not in the title work.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Joyce Johnson, neighbor, indicated her concerns. She lives 1/10 mile west and there are also two other
residences within Y mile. They have some concerns which are:an increase in population and the fact it would
either double or triple the residences in the area. Domestic water is another concern,what effect will these
wells have on their wells. There is wildlife habitat and specific movement patterns in the area. The dust and
traffic on the gravel road to Hwy 392 is a concern. There has been some drilling of wells in the area. A large
concern would be impacts from the septic systems. Do not want neighbors from the city complaining about
noises and smells.
Don Magnuson, representative of Cache La Poudre irrigation and the Lower Poudre Augmentation Company,
indicated their issues. The applicant is putting a plan together for well augmentation identified as recharge
and the land owners have been cooperative. The agreement is not completed but is very close. The recharge
will be applied to the augmentation for wells and the Lower Poudre. The agreement is approved in concept
but needs to be finished. There are also some easement that need to be finalized. Platting of easements will
address the concerns.
Tom Holton asked for clarification on the recharge pit. Mr. Magnuson stated the pond will detain the water and
it will percolate back to the aquifer. This will replace what is being pumped from the site. There are two ponds
slated for this site. They will augment the domestic wells first and then the capicty wells second. Mr. Holton
asked where the ponds will be located. Mr. Magnuson stated they will be on the south and west portion of the
property. The ponds are existing but need some clean up. Mr. Holton asked if this would be seasonal or year
around. Mr. Magnuson stated it would be seasonal.
Paul Branham asked if there is a chance the wells will have impact on the Johnson wells or will the recharge
take care of that. Mr. Magnuson stated there should be no impact on the wells. The augmentation wells will
be 100 feet deep which makes it easier to replace depletion.
Mary Beth Sobel,attorney for Anadarko,added they submitted their objections in letter format that have been
given to the Planning Commission members. The only objection to this is due to the oil and gas interests.
The oil and gas lease to the property is a past agreement. There are four wells on site in the quarter sections
in the south east quarter. Anadarko would like to have the agreements finalized before approval of the final
plan. There have been three drafts done. Ms. Lockman stated there could be a Development Standard
added indicating the applicants attempt to comply with the concerns but since the applicant has already placed
the 400 foot and 800 foot boxes on the plat for building it was not added. Department of Planning Services
wants to see the agreements prior to scheduling the final so those agreements can be reviewed prior to the
final. A condition should be added at prior to submittal an agreement should be reached or that it is included
in the final plan submission. The agreement should be submitted to Department of Planning Services staff for
review.
Brian Tooley, attorney for United States Exploration Inc., provided issues for the proposal. The applicant has
worked in good faith but some material issues need to be done. Their request is that any final application be
contingent upon an agreement. The agreement should not be difficult. The roads in the area will need to be
able to handle heavy loads and maintaining them as gravel would be accepted.
The Chair closed public portion.
Annie Best Johnson, provided clarification. The Division of Wildlife provided a referral indicating the wildlife
would be free flowing. The applicants have worked with agencies for weed managements, lot management
and will maintain good conservation techniques. The Right to Farm Act will be on the plat and it deals with the
smells and such associated with farming and agricultural areas. The dust will be addressed with suppression
in a proportionate share agreement. The notices were done correctly. There are also Conditions of Approval
A&B that will be deleted as well as 1C. Mr. Brent Cohen will address the Oil and Gas leases. Brent Cohen,
attorney for the applicant, provided clarification on the oil agreements. They are being worked on and there
are small things that need to be resolved. Those issues will be easy to resolve. The outlot B be will be for
mineral development by virtue of the conservation easement. Mr. Cohen asked that Ms.Lockman restate the
Conditions of Approval addressing the desire for the agreements to be given to staff prior to the final plan for
review purposes. Mr.Cohen recommends there be an"or" added to be consistent with the PUD ordinances.
The statement could say"....or shall provide written evidence that an adequate attempt has been made to
mitigate the concerns of the mineral owners of the property." Ms. Lockman agrees but would not support staff
approval at final without the agreements. Mr. Cohen states that if there is no written agreement staff will
decide rather an adequate attempt has been made. Mr. Cohen stated that he is comfortable in having the
agreements resolved. Mr. Cohen added that there is no paving to the site and paving internally could cause
problems with maintenance due to the heavy loads of the oil and gas trucks that will be using the roadway.
The southern most portion of the site has been drilled. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if the request was to not have the
internal roadway paved. Mr. Cohen indicated that was correct.
Tom Holton asked where the language for the oil and gas was located. Mr. Cohen stated it is in the PUD
ordinance Section 27-5-30.H.
Anne Best Johnson continued with the list of Conditions of Approval that are being asked to be amended. The
applicant would like Public Works to approve the addition of a proportionate share of dust suppressant on
page 4 item F and page item I the way written it alludes to the applicant being solely responsible and not a
proportionate share of their impact on the road. Mr. Ochsner asked what that share was. Mr.Schei stated it
has not been currently worked out. It will be done before the Board of County Commissioners hearing but it is
typically referred to the final plat. If the change of zone is not approved there will be no need for an offsite
agreement. The proportionate share is a standard request. Change of Zone plat note item 3U on page 7
implies Oil and Gas operators will determine the fencing and the applicant would like this removed. The
standard should not be the responsibility of the applicant if the operators do not believe it is in their best
interest to fence. Would like this removed.
Forrest Leaf, engineering, addressed the wells and water levels. The wells are drilled 200 feet and are not in
an alluvial aquifer but deeper. This is a better quality of water. Once this plan is approved by the State
Engineer or by decree by water court the well permits will be issued. At that time the State engineer will
require that all wells within 600 feet be identified. It will also require identification of any impact on those wells.
The wells will be protected by the State regulations.
Andy Jones, attorney for the applicant, provided clarification on the legal issues on the water supply. The
process indicates that there is a need to have wells and also be able to replace the water utilized with the
same amount of water. Therefore,they will provide recharge water to be put into ponds that will percolate to
the aquifer to balance out the depletion. Presently there is a pending case which will be heard in August of
this year. Normally cases are settled out of court and this is anticipated. In worst case they will have court
and get a decree for the augmentation plan by mid October. This decree will indicate how many wells will be
on the site. The applicant would like to continue with the final plat submittal during this process but the
conditions require well permits to be issued prior to the submittal of the final plat. The applicant would like to
resolve the water issues then record. That would be the modification requested.
Ms. Lockman stated that there is no detriment in moving this (Condition 6.A)to Prior to Recording 7.H.
Anne Best Johnson continued with concerns regarding the applicability of Condition 6B. Pam Smith,
Department of Public Health,stated that the standard in the code what implies that there must be a community
water source. The first sentence is not applicable since they are planning individual wells. Ms. Johnson
continued with the request to remove the requirement for the internal paved roadway and all its references.
The applicant would like gravel. The references are located on page 3 item B; page 5 item D1, page 9 item
6K,and any other reference to paving. Requiring an internal paved road does not reflect the area they defeat
the rural nature. The gravel roads will be improved to county standards. Furthermore, the Weld County
Roads providing access to the site are to be constructed by the applicants and will be in gravel. These
conditions discourage Cluster because the intent of the Cluster Article was to be Non Urban with the benefit to
the County of preserving Agricultural Land or special site features. The trade-off in preserving this
features/property is the increased density. The PUD process expresses the desire of the County to evaluate
development proposals in a process that encourages flexibility and variety. (22-1-50.D.3.f) Consider the
design of roads with adjacent land uses. (Transportation, T.Goal 3). Standards for development of Non
Urban Scale developments:Weld County Public Works approved an internal gravel road on January 6,2006.
The width, depth of the roadway will be designed to meet the Weld County Public Works standards and
regulations and meets the criteria for the Cluster Development Plan. The internal roadway is proposed to be
maintained by the Homeowner's Association. The internal roadway is proposed to be gravel based on the
"rural"nature of this development,access from an existing county road that is gravel and the fact that this is a
"non-urban"type development based on the Cluster PUD criteria similar to a Minor Subdivision. The access is
from an existing county road that is gravel and the applicants are constructing the gravel road.
Paul Branham questions the internal paving and rather it could be removed. Ms. Lockman indicated it could
be.
Peter Schei stated there can be a paving waiver but the PUD criteria require paving on the internal roadway.
Dust suppression will be in the vicinity due to the use of heavy equipment on internal roadways. Typically the
roads to well heads are not built for this so they will need to be modified. This heavy equipment needs a
transport permit from Public Works and this is monitored. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if the county assesses a fee to
move equipment.
Roy Spitzer added that a paved road will need more maintenance than gravel and will the HOA handle this.
Mr. Schei stated that the HOA may have difficulties maintaining the gravel road due to the heavy equipment
use.
Erich Ehrlich stated that this request is for a change of zone from agricultural to PUD but it seems like there is
mixed uses on the land including mining, oil and gas drilling, residences, pasture and a potential arena. Mr.
Hodges stated that the outlots are under conservation easements for 40 years and the uses are consistent
with the code to preserve for future ranching. The mining would not occur for hard rock. The oil and gas is
standard with other developments, since this is a large site there will be several drill sites accommodated. The
uses on the lots are estate type so they kept the lots larger and spread them out over property. The arena is a
possibility but not certain but would fit in the area. Outlot A will be maintained by the HOA and outlot B will
remain the property owners.
Erich Ehrlich has been excused for a prior commitment.
Tom Holton asked for clarification on the internal dust problems. Mr. Schei stated that the internal roadway
will not be covered by the proportionate share but the external is proposed for an offsite improvements
agreement. The internal road is the Homeowners Associations responsibility. If gravel is approved for the
internal roadway the HOA covenants will need to address the dust suppression and maintenance.
Todd Hodges stated if gravel was approved they will add dust mitigation to the covenants and it will be
submitted as part of the onsite improvements agreements.
First issue page 3 dealing with the internal roadway.
Roy Spitzer indicated it seems logical to have gravel but the maintenance is a concern. Mr. Spitzer asked if
there was a point in which the county would take over the road. Mr. Schei stated the roadway would need to
be built to county standards before they would take it.
Doug Ochsner agrees that gravel would be adequate especially if there was suppressant. All were in
agreement.
Sheri Lockman suggested the following language"the internal roadway right-of-way shall be 60 feet in
width. A typical section of interior roadway shall be 26 foot wide gravel road with four foot aggregate base
course on the final plat." This would be placed on page 5 as D 1. Staff would also like to strike page 9
items 6 K. Staff indicated they would amend their recommendations in the comments.
Doug Ochsner moved to approve the suggested language and above referenced amendments. Tom
Holton seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer,yes;James Welch,yes;Chad Auer,yes;Tom Holton,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;
Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Second would be the internal dust abatement issue.
Paul Branham indicated he believes the Planning Commission should address dust abatement. Ms.
Lockman indicated that on page 10 item T, staff has asked for the covenants to be addressed. The
language could be added as item T 8. The language would need to include dust abatement and
maintenance of the interior roadway.
Tom Holton moved to add T.8 language that addresses dust abatement and maintenance of the internal
roadway. Chad Auer seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer,yes;James Welch,yes;Chad Auer,yes;Tom Holton,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes;Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;
Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Fitzgerald moved on to external dust control and the applicant's proportionate share. Mr.Auer asked what
that share would be. Mr. Schei indicated that the proportionate share has been the typical language. Mr.
Fizterald asked whether the equation for the proportionate share included from the entrance to a main
roadway. Mr. Schei stated that was correct and the traffic count will be utilized to determine the share. In the
improvements agreement there will be long term criteria for the dust suppression. Page 9 Item I addresses
the dust suppression on the frontage roadway from Hwy 392 to the entrance. The applicant would like to
make this a proportionate share and not be responsible for the entire cost. Mr.Schei stated vehicle trips and
concerns for dust by the homeowners. Dust suppression will still need to be done in front of the existing
structures due to the increase that this development will cause. Mr.Auer again asked what the proportionate
share would be. Mr. Schei stated it would be 100%. Mr. Welch stated a neighbor was on CR 70 and the
condition does not address that area. Mr.Schei stated it could and language should be added to include CR
70 in the dust abatement. The sentence should be amended to read " adjacent any existing or future
homes between state Highway 392 and the main entrance to the property,also along CR 70 to the west of the
property." Mr. Morrison asked if this was specific to residences and not a general application. Mr. Schei
stated it was.
Doug Ochsner indicated his concern regarding future structures. The applicant should not be responsible for
the entire dust abatement for future structures. Mr.Schei stated dust abatement should be limited to the term
of the agreement be it five or ten years. Mr. Hodges proposed that the language be flexible so that the
applicant will submit a dust abatement plant that will review the traffic count and work with Public Works
directly and have it finished at the final plat. Mr. Hodges recommended removing page 9 Item I fourth
sentence and readdressing. The offsite improvements agreement will include portions of CR 70 and CR 61.5
to Hwy 392.
Peter Schei proposed the following language. "The applicant will be required to apply dust suppression
chemicals to adjacent county roadways and in front of impacted existing homes along the proposed traffic
route. This could include an offsite improvements agreement for a term that would include any future
developments for that term." This recommended language would be for page 9 Item I.
Chad Auer moved to delete page 9 item I and replace with the above language. Doug Ochsner seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer,yes;James Welch,yes;Chad Auer,yes;Tom Holton,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes;Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;
Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Doug Ochsner indicated that the applicant would like Item 6 A on page 8 to be deleted and moved to 7 H.
This addresses the water augmentation. Ms. Johnson indicated Conditions 6A and 6C are related and
should both be moved. Ms. Lockman would like to remove the word "draft"from 6C. These would be
moved to 7H.
Chad Auer moved to move 6A and 6C to 7H and amend 6C to delete the word draft.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer,yes;James Welch,yes; Chad Auer,yes;Tom Holton,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;
Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Roy Spitzer moved to delete 6B. Doug Ochsner seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer,yes;James Welch,yes; Chad Auer,yes;Tom Holton,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes;Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;
Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Paul Branham moved to delete 1C and add 7J. The language will consist of"The applicant must have in
place with Anadarko Entities and their leasees an agreement for the compatible development for the
surface estate and oil and gas estates or they shall provide evidence of an attempt to reach such
agreement." Chad seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer,yes;James Welch,yes;Chad Auer,yes;Tom Holton,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes;Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;
Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The next issue was regarding fencing of the oil and gas facilities.
Sheri Lockman stated that the sheriff department had asks for fencing. The applicant would like this
removed. Ms. Johnson stated that the Anadarko representative was the one who requested that be
removed. Ms. Sobel, representative for Anadarko, stated they understood the responsibility was being
shifted from the applicant to the oil companies. This is a safety issue that is important due to the
residences in the area. The oil companies would be objecting to the cost being absorbed by the oil
companies. Ms. Johnson indicated it would not be a shift of responsibility it is taking the responsibility
away from the applicant to put fencing where the oil and gas companies may not want them. The fencing
is better determined by the oil and gas companies and the applicant in their agreement rather than a
requirement. Mr. Morrison stated that if the condition is deleted and the record relays that the deletion is
not being done so as not to include fencing but to show the issue will be addressed by the oil and gas
companies and the applicant in their agreement it should be addressed. The Oil and Gas Commission
may not require fencing at all times. If no agreement was reached it will be brought back at the Board of
County Commissioners hearing. This can be better addressed in an agreement rather than a permit. Mr.
Auer stated his concerns that deletion of the condition would make neither property responsible for
fencing.
Brent Cohen added the principal concern for the provision is the applicant is fencing something they do not
have the right to fence. The request is to let the applicant address this with the oil company. Mr. Fitzgerald
asked if the intent is to make this a part of the agreement with the oil and gas company. Mr. Cohen stated it
will be addressed with the understanding that the oil company may not want fencing.
Paul Branham suggested deleting 3U and add language that would make sure the issue was addressed in an
agreement. Mr. Ochsner indicated that would be repetitive since there is a condition that the oil and gas
companies concerns need to be addressed. Mr. Auer thinks this would cause a safety concern.
Paul Branham moved to amend 3U to state that"It is recommended that Oil and Gas structures within outlot A
be fenced to avoid tampering. Roy Spitzer seconded
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer,yes;James Welch,yes; Chad Auer, no;Tom Holton,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;
Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Johnson asked that items on page 4 item 1 A and 1B and page 5 item B be deleted due to having been
addressed.
Chad Auer moved to delete 1A and 1B and 2B. Doug Ochsner seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer,yes;James Welch,yes;Chad Auer,yes;Tom Holton,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes;Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;
Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Todd Hodges indicated he is in agreement with the amended Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards as amended.
Doug Ochsner indicated it was a good proposal and the applicant has worked with the appropriate parties.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case PZ-1102,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. Roy
Spitzer,yes;James Welch,yes;Chad Auer,yes;Tom Holton,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes;Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;
Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Chad Auer commented he is in agreement with everything except the fencing of oil and gas structures. He
believes it should still be put up for safety reasons.
Meeting adjourned at
Respectfully submitted
\jCA1a (._,
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello