HomeMy WebLinkAbout20070122.tiff .SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld County
Conference Room, 4209 CR 24.5, Longmont, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Chad
Auer, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT �2
Chad Auer- Chair -
Doug Ochsner-Vice Chair
Paul Branham
Erich Ehrlich
Bruce Fitzgerald :':`
Tom Holton
Roy Spitzer
James Welch
Mark Lawley
Also Present: Bruce Barker, Don Carroll,Jesse Hein,Trevor Jiricek,Char Davis, Pam Smith,Chris Gathman,
Jacqueline Hatch, Donita May.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on November 21,
2006, was approved as read.
1. CASE NUMBER: USR-1580
APPLICANT: Justin &Andrea Davis
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part SW4 of Section 32, T12N, R60W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for
a home business (manufacturing steel frames for steel washers)
in the A (Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 99 and approx. 3/4 mile south of CR
136.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, said the applicant was unable to provide sufficient
notification due to illness and requested a continuance to the January 2,2007 Planning Commission hearing.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case USR-1580, be continued to the January 2, 2007 Planning Commission
hearing date. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the motion.
Motion carried.
2. CASE NUMBER: CZ-1132
APPLICANT: Front Range Village LLC
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SE4 SE4 SW4 of Section 7, T3N, R66W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from R-5 (Mobile Home Residential)Zone
District to C-3 (Business Commercial)Zone District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to SH 85 and north of and adjacent to CR
34.
(ityryLnu"' P` +-C�'LGI /e"72O7 2007-0122 1
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning, said Front Range Village LLC c/o Larry Carroll with the Carroll
Group, had applied for a Change of Zone from the R-5 (Mobile Home Residential) Zone District to C-3
(Business Commercial)Zone District.
The sign announcing the planning commission hearing was posted on December 4, 2006 by staff.
The site is located west of and adjacent to State Highway 85 and north of and adjacent to CR 34.
The surrounding property to the east and west is zoned agricultural. Union Pacific Railroad is located east of
SH 85. The property to the south is located with the Town of Platteville and currently being farmed. The
property to the north is zoned C-3 and is being utilized for commercial uses(Z-124 in 1976 and Z-76 in 1966).
No letters had been received from surrounding property owners.
The site is located within the Intergovernmental Agreement Area with the Town of Platteville and the three mile
referral area of the Towns of Gilcrest and Milliken. The Town of Platteville originally noted on the Notice of
Inquiry form dated April 13,2006 that Platteville desires to see the property developed through the Town. In a
follow up letter dated July 3, 2006 it was the Town's desire for the property to develop through Weld County.
The Town of Platteville in their referral dated November 20, 2006 stated they had no concerns with this
application. The Towns of Gilcrest and Milliken in their referrals dated October 31, 2006 and October 23,
2006 state that the property was not located within their Planning Areas and or their Urban Growth Boundary
and had no conflicts with this application. The site currently has four mobile homes,three RV's,one stick built
home that is vacant, a few outbuildings and some derelict vehicles. Conditions of approval require that the
existing improvements on site be removed from the site prior to recording the plat.
A Site Plan Review application will be required for any commercial use that is proposed on the site. Items
addressed through the Site Plan Review application include, but are not limited to, number of employees,
building construction,signage, landscape treatment,drainage,parking,outside storage,loading service areas
and environmental criteria. The Site Plan Review will further ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses.
The site is currently utilizing Central Weld County Water District and Individual Sewage Disposal Systems.
The existing septic systems on site will need to be properly abandoned
The site is accessed from County Road 34 and the frontage road along the West side of State Highway 85. In
the referral from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)dated October 23, 2006 states that the
proximity of the frontage road to State Highway 85 is too close and increasing traffic to the frontage road
proposes a safety risk. CDOT would rather see this frontage road go away completely, and access to the
development come by way of County Road 34. The applicant is being required to submit evidence that all
CDOT requirements and concerns will be addressed prior to recording the plat.
Fourteen referral agencies reviewed this case,six referral agencies had no comments,five referral agencies
included conditions that have been attempted to be addressed through the development standards and
conditions of approval. No comments were received from the Weld County Sheriff's Office, Platte Valley Soil
Conservation District, and the Central Weld County Water District.
The Weld County Department of Planning Services was recommending this application be approved.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if the site plan review would be an administrative task. Ms. Hatch said that it would.
Larry Carroll,the owner's agent, 132 North Fourth Av, Brighton, CO, said they currently held an active septic
permit and were in the process of updating it; abandonment of all of the improvements may not ultimately
happen as they wanted to use one of the existing mobile homes for a caretaker's residence. Chad Auer
asked if this would require a change in language. Ms. Hatch said the applicant was allowed to keep one
mobile home on the property for a caretaker in addition to the stick built building which could be utilized as
office space.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak. Public portion of the hearing was closed.
2
Pam Smith, Environmental Health Department,said page six, items twelve and eighteen were duplicates and
asked that item eighteen be removed.
Bruce Fitzgerald motioned to remove item eighteen from the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval. Roy Spitzer seconded. Motion carried.
Paul Branham asked Ms. Hatch if page four, item 1A., needed to be amended to include the new language.
Ms. Hatch replied it should be changed to reflect that"the applicant shall provide evidence to the Department
of Planning Services that all mobiles homes,except one,the RV's,and vehicles on site have been removed."
Paul Branham motioned to amend page four, item I.A.to the language Ms. Hatch provided. Bruce Fitzgerald
seconded. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner asked Ms. Hatch for clarification on whether this application would go before the Board of
County Commissioners. Ms. Hatch responded the Board of County Commissioners does not review SPR's,
they are reviewed administratively.
Roy Spitzer asked Pam Smith, Environmental Health Department,about the abandonment of existing septic
systems and what was involved. Ms. Smith replied they did not know how many septic systems were
presently on the site but she did not believe it had been an active mobile home park and that all septic
systems needed to be properly abandoned. The applicants could attach the one home allowed to a new
septic system. Ms.Smith referred to condition number nineteen which said that all septic systems located on
the property shall be properly abandoned in accordance with Section 30-7-70. She said they could add
language regarding whether the septic system stays, but she has not had a conversation with the applicant as
to what the proposed plan is for the property.
Doug Ochsner asked what her preferences were regarding the property. Ms.Smith said she preferred that all
existing septic systems be abandoned and that a new system be installed for the mobile home and the stick
built building,but it could be allowed to operate on the existing septic system if it were found to be operational.
The Chair asked Mr. Carroll if he was in agreement with the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval. Mr. Carroll said he could not agree as he had not received a packet. The Chair outlined the two
changes for Mr. Carroll. Mr. Carroll then agreed to the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval
and said it was the owner's intent to put in a new system.
Roy Spitzer moved that Case CZ-1132, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
amendments to the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval 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, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Roy Spitzer,
yes; James Welch, yes; Chad Auer, yes.
Motion carried.
3. CASE NUMBER: USR-1585
APPLICANT: Union Pacific Railroad Company
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of E2 E2 SW4 of Section 7, T3N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for
a Use by Right, an accessory use, or a Use by Special Review in
the Commercial or Industrial Zone District(Vehicle sales
establishments) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
3
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to SH 85, approximately 1/4 mile north of
CR 34.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services,said Union Pacific Railroad Company c/o Gregg Larsen
for Darrel and Christina Felton, ATM Auto Sales, have applied for a Site Specific Development Plan and a
Special Review Permit for a Use by Right,an accessory use,or a Use by Special Review in the Commercial or
Industrial Zone District(Vehicle Sales Establishment) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
The sign announcing the planning commission hearing was posted on December 4, 2006 by staff.
The site is located east of and adjacent to SH 85 and approximately % mile north of CR 34 located within
railroad right-of-way.
The surrounding properties to the north, west and east are agricultural in nature with few homes in close
proximity. The property to the south is currently zoned C-3 and has an approved Site Plan Review,SPR-264,
on-site for truck sales, parts and accessories. The Union Pacific Railroad runs along the eastern edge of the
property. The applicant is proposing an on-site septic system and the water will be provided by an individual
well(septic permit SP-9600314,commercial well permit 198105). The development standards and conditions
of approval will ensure compatibility with adjacent properties.
The site is currently in violation (VI-0600029)due to the operation of an auto sales yard without the necessary
Weld County Land Use permit. This violation has not yet been presented to the Board of County
Commissioners through the violation process. If this application is approved by the Board of County
Commissioners the violation will be corrected. If this application is denied, the business and all outdoor
storage shall be removed within 30 (thirty) days of denial or the violation case will be scheduled before the
Board of County Commissioners to proceed though the Violation Hearing process accordingly.
No letters have been received from surrounding property owners.
The subject property is within the three-mile referral area for the Towns of Gilcrest, Milliken and Platteville.
The Town of Gilcrest in their referral dated October 30,2006 states that the subject property is located outside
their urban growth boundary and finds no conflicts with their interests. The Town of Platteville in their referral
dated October 10, 2006 also indicated no conflicts with their interests. The Town of Milliken in their referral
dated October 11,2006 state that the property is a very visible area and it should be landscaped appropriately
to buffer visual impacts. The Department of Planning Services has determined that the Town's concerns have
been addressed through the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Thirteen referral agencies reviewed this case, four referral agencies had no comments, seven referral
agencies included conditions that have been attempted to be addressed through the Development Standards
and Conditions of Approval. No comments were received from the Weld County Sheriffs Office and the Union
Pacific Railroad
The Weld County Department of Planning Services was recommending this application be approved.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked how long the property had been used as a car lot. Ms. Hatch said she did not know
but there was an existing SPR for the property that included the yellow building to the south and that this USR
included the property to the north with the car sales lot.
Tom Holton asked about a development standard in the application regarding signage, specifically the
banners that were presently on site. Ms. Hatch replied the applicant would have to provide a detailed signage
plan, specifically addressing the banners but would have to follow County signage requirements. Ms. Hatch
then informed the Planning Commission that the applicant had not received a packet prior to this hearing.
Darrell Felton, owner, 1105 CR 28, Platteville,CO,said this was the fourth business on this property;the third
car lot on the property;was at this location three years before he knew he was in violation;and he had been at
this location for four years.
Bruce Fitzgerald inquired how long there had been commercial endeavors on the property. Mr. Felton replied
4
it had been a long time,that he had a deal with the railroad for a twenty year paid lease and he has been there
four years.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak. Public portion was closed.
Doug Ochsner asked if there was anyone present representing the railroad. Mr. Felton said he was
representing them. Mr.Ochsner said he would put the fault on the railroad and wished they had been present
to explain why they had allowed this lease. Ms. Hatch said the railroad responded in support of the
application and there was a lease agreement in the application but there was no communication beyond that.
Bruce Barker, County Attorney, said the railroad, in the past, thought they were exempt from requiring their
lessees to go through the planning process.
The Chair asked the applicant if he was in agreement with the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval. It was noted, for the record, that the applicant had not had a chance to read and review the
information as he not received a copy of the packet.The Chair called for a ten minute recess so the applicant,
Mr. Felton, could consult with Ms. Hatch regarding his application.
Meeting reconvened at 2:15 p.m.
Mr. Felton said he would like to have the landscaping and screening requirement removed, and asked for
more specific clarification regarding screening requirements.
Ms. Hatch said page four, items 1A and 1B were what Mr. Felton was objecting to.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked Mr. Felton what he was offering as a substitute to the screening requirement. Mr.
Felton said they had a security fence but screening made no sense because if customers couldn't see the
cars, they wouldn't buy them. Ms. Hatch said it was an effort at landscaping and screening, and suggested
decorative rock in the display areas where water was not available, and some landscaping around the
building. The Chair said this requirement was in the Code. Doug Ochsner asked Ms. Hatch if the applicant
could provide a landscape plan,which staff could then approve or suggest changes to. Tom Holton asked if
staff was requiring screening that would block the view of the applicant's vehicles. She replied that typically
they would ask for screening on the north, south and east sides,but the railroad would not allow screening or
solid fencing on the railroad line and Planning would not be asking for that in this situation.
The Chair asked the applicant again if he agreed with the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval.
Mr. Felton said that he was in agreement except for the landscaping plan and screening addressed earlier.
The Chair reminded Mr. Felton that the Planning Commission was only making a recommendation today to
the Board of County Commissioners, and that he would have further opportunity to present his objections
when his case was heard by them.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that Case USR-1585, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval 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, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Roy Spitzer,
yes; James Welch, yes; Chad Auer, yes.
Motion carried.
Paul Branham left at 2:22 p.m.
5
4. CASE NUMBER: USR-1582
APPLICANT: City of Aurora
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: N2 SW4; S2 SW4; part SE4 of Section 13, Ti N, R67W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado and Lot B of RE-1231, part N2
NW4; Lot A of RE-1231 part NW4 NW4 of Section 24, Ti N,
R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
Major Facility of a Public Utility(Water Resource Project-
Aquifer, Recharge and Recovery) in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District.
LOCATION: North and south of CR 8 and east of and adjacent to CR 23.
The City of Aurora — Prairie Waters Project c/o Mark Pifher with the City of Aurora have applied for a Site
Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Major Facility of a Public Utility (Water
Resource Project—Aquifer, Recharge and Recovery) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
The sign announcing the planning commission hearing was posted on December 8, 2006 by staff.
The site is located north and south of CR 8 and east of and adjacent to CR 23 and comprises of approximately
393 acres.
The source of the water for the project is the water rights already owned by the City of Aurora that will be
diverted from the South Platte River through a series of alluvial wells. The water will then be piped to isolated
Aquifer Recharge and Recovery(ARR)sites. This application is just for the ARR sites.
The City of Aurora has already filed such an application in water court(06CW 104). The water court may not
approve the Prairie Waters Project operational plan unless Aurora proves that its plan will not cause injury to
other vested water rights owners.
The site does include a caretaker that will reside on site and four part time employees on a daily basis. The
applicant has applied for a commercial well. Evidence of a commercial well is required to be submitted as a
Condition of Approval prior to recording the mylar.
The surrounding properties are predominantly agricultural uses in the area. Riverbend Gravel Pit AMUSR-
1259 is proposed on the surrounding land. USR-1243 for gravel mining is located on the property and will
need to be vacated prior to recording the plat. The proposed Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards will minimize negative impacts on the surrounding area.
No letters have been received from surrounding property owners.
The subject property lies within the three-mile referral area of the Cities of Brighton and Fort Lupton. The City
of Brighton in their referral dated October 31,2006 mentioned two items: the first item being future dedication
of road right-of-way for County Road 2; and the second being that any work within the city limits is subject to
approval by the city and must comply with all city regulations. This Use by Special Review is for the water
storage facility only and does not include the pipe line. The applicant is required as a Condition of Approval to
address the concerns/requirements of the City of Brighton prior to recording the plat. The City of Fort Lupton
in their referral dated October 26, 2006 state that while the project does not conflicts with the city's
comprehensive plan the city has filed an objection in Water District Court concerning impacts to future wells
and down stream contamination.
Prior to operation the applicant shall submit to the Department of Planning Services a copy of any well
permit issued by the State Engineer following the procedures set forth in C.R.S.37-90-137. Pursuant to this
section, before issuing the permit, the State Engineer must find that hydrological and geologic facts
substantiate a finding that the proposed well will not materially injure the vested water rights of others.
6
And as development standards to be placed on the plat:
#3-Prior to entry of a water court decree,Aurora shall only operate the well[s] if it first receives an approved
37-92-308(4)substitute water supply plan from the State Engineer; provided,however that pursuant to State
Engineer rules,Aurora may operate the wells for well testing purposes, if it immediately returns the test water
to the river, without getting a substitute water supply plan.
#4 - Copies of the Water Court decree and all well permits issued shall be submitted to the Department of
Planning Services.
Twenty three referral agencies reviewed this case, four referral agencies had no comments, ten referral
agencies included conditions that have been attempted to be addressed through the Development Standards
and Conditions of Approval.
This case is classified as major facility of a public utility and therefore does not get forwarded to the Board of
County Commissioners for final determination per Section 23-2-300 of the Weld County Code.
The Weld County Department of Planning Services was recommending that this application be approved.
Roy Spitzer and Tom Holton recused themselves from the next case citing conflicts of interest.
Chad Auer asked about any objections from referral agencies. Ms. Hatch replied here was one from Fort
Lupton and the Health Department was asking for a new condition to be added prior to operation. Ms. Hatch
then read the condition into the record. "The applicant shall provide a monitoring and reporting plan for review
and approval to the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment. The intent of the plan should
be to quantify accumulations of indicator parameters. At a minimum, the plan should include the routine
sampling of the RCRA TCLP parameters, or other appropriate parameters, on an agreed upon frequency.
Each report and data interpretation shall be provided the WCDPHE." Mr.Auer then asked if it was added as
item 3B., page 9, as prior to operation. Ms. Hatch said that was correct.
Dana Ehlen,6835 East Edgewood Way, Highlands Ranch, CO,acting Director of Aurora Water,outlined the
project: extremely important for the citizens of Aurora; have a good reputation for working with communities;
project was critical due to drought of 2002; looked at fifty four alternatives but this was most expedient way to
obtain water; project uses conservation water; described what the site would look like as the project
progressed; sustainable, natural purification system; no impact on wetlands; worked with all regulatory
agencies to ensure they have met all guidelines;and would complement the agricultural and rural nature of the
area.
Mark Pifher, 18825 St Andrews Dr, Monument CO, Deputy Director of Aurora Water, talked about project
components; aquifer recharging area;advanced water treatment plant next to City of Aurora treatment plant;
extends through three counties; multi-barrier approach to water purification; general site location; area will
remain open space in nature; ponds will take up sixty three acres total; environmentally sound; wave of the
future in western water development; found all Department of Planning Conditions to be acceptable.
Mr. Ehlen stepped up to speak about various agency support for their project; designed as a drought relief
project for Aurora; excess water would be made available for agricultural uses.
Chad Auer asked about the objection from Fort Lupton regarding downstream contamination and adverse
effects on future wells. Mr. Pifher responded that Water Court would monitor and impose conditions and they
would certainly abide by those;they had retained a consulting firm to determine impacts on water quality and
found none; no water quality standards would be violated.
Doug Ochsner asked how much water this procedure could expect to process. Mr. Ehlen replied ten thousand
acre feet by 2010 and twelve thousand acre feet by 2015. Mr. Ochsner asked if they had worked with the
Lupton Bottom Ditch to gain their approval. Mr. Pifher said they had, and would work with them on ditch
modification, if necessary, at their own expense. Ms. Hatch emphasized a Condition of Approval, page six,
item E., which supported that. Chad Auer asked what was in this for Weld County. Mr. Pifher replied this
would be a shared water conservancy and they would lease supplies at least for the short term.
7
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak. Public portion closed.
Bruce Fitzgerald said he liked the project and lived in close proximity.
Doug Ochsner moved to add item 3.B., to page nine, per the December 19, 2006, WCDPHE memo. Bruce
Fitzgerald seconded. Motion carried.
The Chair asked the applicant's representative if they had read the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval. Mr. Ehlen said they had read the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval and were in
agreement.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that Case USR-1582, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the amended Development Standards and Conditions of Approval with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval. Doug Ochsner seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Erich
Ehrlich,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes; Mark Lawley,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes;James Welch,yes;Chad Auer,yes.
Motion carried unanimously.
Doug Ochsner said he supported the project one hundred percent, but was a bit uneasy passing this
application without the approval of the Board of County Commissioners.
Meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Donita May
Secretary
8
Hello