HomeMy WebLinkAbout20061226 SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, April 18, 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, Bruce
Fitzgerald, at 1:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bruce Fitzgerald
Tom Holton
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
James Welch Absent
Roy Spitzer
Erich Ehrlich
Paul Branham
Also Present: Bruce Barker, Brad Mueller, Kim Ogle, Sheri Lockman, Chris Gathman, Jacqueline Hatch,
David Bauer, Peter Schei, Drew Scheltinga, Donald Carroll, Pam Smith, Char Davis.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on April 4,2006,was
approved as read.
Consent items:
1. CASE NUMBER: USR-1548
APPLICANT: Artistic Fire LLC
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NW4 of Section 8, TIN, R61W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for
a Use by Right, Accessory Use or Use by Special Review in the
Commercial or Industrial Zone District (Display Fireworks
Storage) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 87; 0.5 mile south of SH 52.
The Chair asked if the applicant was present and if he wished to remain on the consent agenda. The
applicant confirmed that that he did.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
2. CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1476
APPLICANT: Fusaro LLC
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 4 of Althen Boyer Subdivision, part SW4 Section 23, Ti N,
R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for
a business (commercial junkyard or salvage yard, the leasing
and sales of vehicles and equipment, and vehicle service/repair)
in the C-3 (Commercial)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 9 and north of CR 6.
The Chair asked if the applicant was present and if he wished to remain on the consent agenda. The
q
%tai�>�_ `172---)(. 2006-1226
applicant's attorney confirmed that he did.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
3. CASE NUMBER: MF-1069
APPLICANT: David & Susanne Schwind
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-2651; being part NW4 of Section 4, T3N, R68W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Minor Subdivision Final Plat for four(4) residential lots, The
Highlands, with Estate Zoning.
The Chair asked if the applicants were present and if they wished to remain on the consent agenda. The
applicant's confirmed that they did.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Mike Miller moved that Cases USR-1548,AmUSR-1476 and MF-1069, 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; Michael Miller, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes;
Paul Branham, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
A short recess was called due to technical difficulties with technical equipment. Meeting reconvened at 1:50
p.m.
Specific time for public input has been set aside for discussion on the following items:
4. CASE NUMBER: PZ-1082
APPLICANT: Kiteley Farms, LLLP
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-843; Pt NW4 of Section 27, T3N, R68W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agriculture)to PUD (Planned Unit
Development)for 429 residential lots, open space and continuing
oil and gas production (Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake)
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Highway 66 and east of and adjacent to
CR 7.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services. This case was continued from the March 7,2006 Planning
Commission hearing date at the request of the applicant with the support of planning staff to allow the
applicant additional time to address concerns raised by referral agencies
Kiteley Farms, LLLP do Jerry Eckelberger, Longs Peak Investors, LLC have applied for a Change of Zone
from Agricultural to PUD for 429 residential lots, open space and continuing oil and gas production.
The signs announcing the Planning Commission hearing were posted March 31,2006 by Planning Staff and
are evidenced by photograph and affidavit.
The proposed Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake PUD is located south of and adjacent to State Highway 66 and
east of and adjacent to County Road 7. The Town of Mead has annexed properties to the east, west and
north. Liberty Ranch is to the west and Mead Crossing is planned to the east. Liberty Ranch is presently
under construction.
2
The site has two(2)existing homes without buildings which are to be retained within one lot.The remainder of
the site is undeveloped with the Highland Ditch following the north and east boundaries of the site.
On the 1-25 Mixed Use Development Area Structural Plan, Map 2.1,the site is designated as residential with
limiting site factors adjacent to Foster Reservoir.
The proposed PUD will be serviced by Longs Peak Water District for potable and non-potable water. St.Vrain
Sanitation District will handle the effluent flow.
The site is located within the three mile referral area of the Towns of Mead and Frederick and the City of
Longmont. The Town of Mead is opposed to this development being approved as an unincorporated project
and wants the applicant to petition for annexation. Mead further asks that the applicant complete an access
permit for access onto County Road 7 which is within the Town limits.The applicant is required to complete an
access permit with the Town or show an adequate attempt has been made prior to scheduling the Board of
County Commissioners change of zone hearing. The Town of Frederick and the City of Longmont indicated
no conflicts with the proposal.
The applicant is proposing a Metropolitan District be established which will be responsible for maintenance of
the facilities,taxes and insurance. Also, Kiteley Ranch is proposed to be a member of the Southwestern Weld
County Law Enforcement District and shall be taxed accordingly.
The applicant has proposed to set their own unique standards with respect to certain bulk requirements rather
than follow the default requirements as set out in the Weld County Code. The variances include minimum
setbacks,which are outlined on the plat and are equivalent to those proposed for the recently approved Adler
Estates. Also the storage of vehicles or recreational vehicles shall only be allowed inside garages that are a
part of the principle use structure. Livestock will be prohibited, household pets will be limited to two(2)and
two (2)entry signs of thirty-two (32)square feet will be allowed, one at each entrance.
The applicant has also requested a two hundred (200)foot setback from oil and gas production facilities,and
a one hundred fifty(150)foot setback from oil and gas wells and separator units. Staff does not support this
request. The applicant does not have a finalized agreement with Kerr-McGee specifying the lesser setback.
Staff comments support the three hundred fifty(350)foot setback that is set by Code in the R-1 Residential
District.
The original plat also included a variance to the minimum lot size. The newly submitted plat indicates that the
lots will follow the R-1 Residential standard minimum lot size of six thousand (6,000)square feet. Staff is in
support of this request. Condition of Approval 3.C needs to be deleted by the Planning Commission.
Twenty-four(24)referral agencies reviewed this case,four(4)referral agencies did not respond,nineteen(19)
responded favorably or included conditions that have been addressed through development standards and
conditions of approval. One (1) referral agency (Mead) requested that the applicants annex into their
municipality and complete an access permit with the Town.
No letters have been received from surrounding property owners.
The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of PZ-1082 for Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake
PUD with the attached conditions of approval and development standards.
The applicants have submitted responses to staff comments. The Departments of Public Works and Planning
Services completed a preliminary review of the submittal. Two(2)of the twelve (12) items required prior to
scheduling the Board of County Commissioners hearing have been adequately addressed. Staff agrees that
conditions 1A.8 and 1.6 can be removed. These conditions are in regard to obtaining an agreement for
relocation of a neighbors ditch and amending the plat to show existing oil and gas gathering lines. The
remaining ten (10) items have not been addressed to the satisfaction of County staff.
The applicant has also adequately addressed items 2A and 2.D.3,4 and 6 regarding requested plat changes.
3
The Weld County Department of Public Works has asked that one additional condition be added. Staff asks
that the following Condition be included as 6.L: "the final plat application materials shall include a detailed final
engineering geology/geotechnical report that addresses the limitations of construction due to groundwater and
soil conditions identified in the Subsurface Exploration Program Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations
report by Ground Engineering Consultants, dated November 22, 2004."
The applicant has ten(10)outstanding items that are required to be addressed prior to scheduling their Board
of County Commissioners hearing. Prior to hearing the entire case, we ask that you consider if you can
comfortably give a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners without a resolution to these ten
(10) issues. County staff did feel comfortable proceeding today with the items to be addressed prior to the
Board of County Commissioner's hearing, however the applicant's first attempt at addressing the issues has
been inadequate. I have asked the applicant to be prepared to address the commission regarding why they
believe that resolution of these outstanding issues is not essential for your recommendation.
At this time I would like to ask Pam Smith, Department of Public Health and Environment and Drew Scheltinga
with the Department of Public Works to address the Planning Commission.
Pam Smith, Department of Public Health and Environment, said this application is for approximately four
hundred twenty-seven (427) homes to be served by Longs Peak Water District for potable and non-
potable water. St. Vrain Sanitation District will handle the effluent flow. There is some discrepancy
between resolution numbering and item "O"should instead be a "Q" in the Change of Zone plat note. Ms.
Smith had originally requested that the applicants provide two permanent restroom facilities, one at the
pool/tot lot park and the 1.42 acre part in the north park entrance. As of Friday, April 14, 2006, the
Department of Public Health and Environment learned that the applicant had changed their mind. There is
also no restroom facility noted in the north entrance park on the Corrected Site Plan, sheet 4. Therefore
the Department of Public Health and Environment requests that Change of Zone Plat note"Q" be
amended to read:
1. Permanent restroom and handwashing facilities shall be provided within the pool/tot lot park and the
1.42 acre park in the north entrance.
Ms. Smith continued that during an inspection of the property on April 17, 2006, the Department of Public
Health and Environment found two residences on the property(a correction of the addresses from the
original Change of Zone comments). Residences at 13844 and 13812 have undocumented septic
systems. In a conversation with the applicant, the Department of Public Health and Environment learned
that these houses will be connected to St. Vrain sewer during Phase II of the development. This phase
will be started in approximately three to four years. Therefore, both undocumented septic systems that
will remain in use must be permitted and evaluated for accuracy. As a result of this information Ms. Smith
asked that a condition 6.M be added to page fourteen under"at time of Final Plan submission"which
should read:
All septic systems located on the property shall have appropriate permits from the Weld County
Department of Public Health and Environment. The Environmental Health Division of the Department of
Public Health and Environment was unable to locate a septic permit for 13844 CR 7. Any existing septic
system(s)which is not currently permitted through the Weld County Department of Public Health and
Environment will require and I.S.D.S. Evaluation prior to the issuance of the required septic permit(s). In
the event the system(s) is found to be inadequate, the system(s) must be brought into compliance with
current I.S.D.S. regulations.
Mr. Miller asked Ms. Smith if the applicant was initially providing restroom and handwashing facilities in
both places and then changed that to one but the Department of Public Health and Environment is now
asking for two. Ms. Smith replied that was correct and that the Department of Public Health and
Environment wants restrooms in both locations. The applicant is still planning to provide facilities at the
pool/tot lot because there is plumbing available in that area, but would not provide facilities at the north
entrance as was agreed upon in a conversation.
Drew Scheltinga, Department of Public Works, said that normally with projects of this scale, they try to get
every one of the major issues resolved prior to the Planning Commission hearing, whether that be actual
4
written agreements or part proposals by the applicant, so the Planning Commission can determine
whether the application is adequate and addresses the impacts of development. The Department of
Public Works conducted a Sketch Plan Review in January, 2005 in which they identified major issues. A
Change of Zone Review was made on February 9, 2006 and since then they have had several meetings
with the applicant and have received additional material from them. There was a second review April 4,
2006 that led to the administrative recommendations where twelve items were identified that needed to be
addressed that could be contingencies. Two issues were required to be addressed at Final Plat, two
issues that have been resolved, there are two issues where Public Works has been provided
supplementary information very recently by the applicant and has not had the opportunity to discuss it with
the applicant. Mr. Scheltinga said he does not agree with some of the information as it is not adequate to
address the issue at present. There is one issue that is a Code variance and five others that are in the
process of adjustment by the applicant. Mr. Scheltinga wanted to be sure the Planning Commission did
not get the impression that Public Works staff did not feel this information was important and forward the
application on to the Board of County Commissioners too quickly. This case could be heard today but Mr.
Scheltinga recommended going over those twelve items briefly so that those items could be made
contingent upon scheduling the Change of Zone hearing before the Board of County Commissioners.
The Chair suggested that Mr. Scheltinga go through each issue point by point.
Mr. Scheltinga addressed Department of Public Works concerns on page nine: item 1.A.1., not all had
been adequately addressed; item 1.A.2., not complete at this time; item 1.A.3., applicant has submitted
proposals but there was no resolution at this time; item 1.A.4., not complete at this time; item 1.A.5.,
applicant had submitted information and materials but problem had not been resolved; item 1.A.6.,
completed; item 1.A.7., in process but not resolved; item 1.A.8., completed; item 1.A.9., not complete as
this time. Page ten: item 2.D.1., connectivity at issue which is supported by the Public Works Department
and should be added as a variance, but the applicant disagrees; at time of Final Plat a letter of map
amendment from FEMA to change the flood plain; final improvements agreement for construction on and
off site; and groundwater and soils problems require additional engineering.
Mr. Holton asked Mr. Scheltinga about 1.A.3. regarding future widening of Hwy 66 and referral from CDOT
that the ditch is a historical feature and any widening should be to the north. Mr. Scheltinga said there
would be no problems as far as he was concerned, but the ditch board needed to agree.
The Chair asked Mr. Barker, County Attorney, for advice as to completeness of the application. Mr.
Barker suggested they wait to hear from the applicant.
Jerry Eckelburger, Longs Peak Investors LLC, 7120 E. Orchard Road, Ste. 450, Englewood, CO 80111,
was accompanied by Josh Roland of Land Architects and said there were Longs Peak investors present
as well as the Kiteleys. Mr. Eckelburger said there are two existing homes with the two separate septic
systems and if they are found to be working improperly, they will hook them into the new water and sewer
system in the first phase of the development. He then addressed what he said were the two major issues
to be resolved; the restroom facilities and interconnectivity with Mead Crossing. Mr. Eckelburger said this
is a 429 lot community and it does not make sense to connect with Mead Crossing,which is zoned light
industrial commercial and could present a safety factor for homes with young children. They have two
accesses on CR 7 and have provided for interconnectivity to the south at the Anderson property. The
restroom facilities are needed at the pool area and clubhouse but not close to the entry of the
development due to proximity to Hwy 66 and CR 7 and he saw a maintenance issue for the HOA
(Homeowners Association) long after they are gone. Mr. Eckelburger asked the Planning Commission to
let them go forward with the application. They applied in September, 2005 and it languished on staff desks
for a couple of months and then got moving. In February they met with Planning and Public Works, at
which time they were given a list of nine items to comply with. He thinks they have complied with the
items on the list but other items have subsequently been added. It was their understanding if they
complied with those nine items from Peter Schei, Public Works Department, that would be sufficient for
this hearing. Mr. Eckelburger read the nine items to the audience, defended his position, and said he
believed they had done what they were requested to do. He said he felt they had met the conditions for
this hearing and the rest of the conditions would be resolved prior to the Board of County Commissioner's
Hearing.
5
Josh Roland, Land Architects, 9137 S. Ridgeline Blvd., Highlands Ranch, CO 80126, gave an overview of
the project. He said Hwy 66 was north of their project and CR 7 was to the south and both provide great
access to their project. The Mud planning area includes their proposed development and the Kitley Ranch
PUD had been prepared following the MUD guidelines and they feel was consistent both in the goals of
the MUD and the framework. The applicant would make a donation to the school mitigation impact fund
of the St. Vrain Valley School District. There would be two Mountain View Fire District stations within a
two mile, five minute response time, of their development. Residents of Kitley Ranch would also be
providing tax dollars to support the future development of the Southwest Weld County Law Enforcement
Authority District. They would also be contributing to the improvements of the intersection at CR 7 and
Hwy 66. They have had countless meetings with Terry Enright from Kerr-McGee regarding the surface
use agreements they were proposing today which included the two hundred (200)foot residential setbacks
from oil and gas tanks and the one hundred fifty(150)foot residential setbacks from other minor facilities
such as the well heads and separator units. These conditions were called out in the guidelines for the
Colorado Oil and Gas Commission. Mr. Roland then spoke about amenities the residents would have;
their proximity to Foster Lake, the trails within the development, the community pool park and cabana, the
tot/lot, a picnic shelter, the shade park, tree lined boulevards, and other passive recreation areas. The
single family residences consist of four hundred twenty-nine (429) homes as well as the Kitely homeplace
which would be preserved as part of the project and help maintain the rural feel of the area. Lot sizes
range from sixty-eight(68)feet wide by one hundred ten (110)feet deep for the largest, to fifty-seven (57)
feet wide by one hundred ten (110)feet deep for the smallest and would be intermingled in the
development to provide a more varied streetscape and street appeal. The Highland Ditch Company
Board had also recognized the need to improve their ditch crossing at Hwy 66 and have agreed with the
applicant's efforts to do so. Mr. Roland then outlined the right-of-ways, roadway improvements, detached
sidewalks, tree lined boulevards and landscape median at the entrance. The oil and gas surface
agreement with Kerr-McGee was nearly complete and they would provide that signed contract as part of
their submittal for the Board of County Commission hearing. Currently their smallest lot would be six
thousand two hundred seventy(6270)feet but they would like to reserve the right to use the six thousand
(6000) square feet minimum called out in the PUD to allow flexibility for their builders. They have
proposed a seven and one half(7-1/2)foot side yard setback and will maintain a five (5)foot clear zone
for utilities. They have requested that outdoor household pets for the residents be limited to two (2).
Carports and parking areas, not a part of the principle garage or driveway area, would be prohibited.
Lastly they would like to be allowed some flexibility in their entrance signage beyond the county
requirement of thirty-two (32) square feet.
Mr. Miller asked about the park near the entrance and the applicant's rationale for not putting restroom
facilities by the entrance. Mr. Roland said unwanted public foot traffic and public safety were major
concerns. Mr. Miller said he saw a need and did not agree with Mr. Roland's rationale. Mr. Roland said
they don't think, as builders and developers, that this was something that was needed or desirable but if
the Planning Commission thought this was necessary, they can live with restroom facilities being added at
the entrance.
Mr. Miller asked Ms. Lockman about the three hundred fifty(350)foot residential setbacks for oil and gas
facilities called out in the Code. Ms. Lockman responded that staff has in the past adhered to that
requirement. However the Board has approved a two hundred (200)foot setback at Adler Estates. If the
applicant got a signed agreement from Kerr-McGee specifying lesser setbacks, staff would agree to two
hundred (200)feet but that would still encroach into the lots, so the applicant is asking for even less than
the Board of County Commissioners have approved in the past.
Mr. Eckelburger said they do not have a signed agreement with Kerr—McGee but were confidant it would
be signed. Mr. Miller inquired how many proposed wells would be placed on the site and the site's square
footage. Mr. Eckelburger replied there were two at the present time and up to three more in the future.
Mr. Roland responded the site would contain five well heads with five separator units, two oil tanks and
one water tank. Flow lines run to the east in the open space,with one collection line in and out of the
area.
Mr. Miller then inquired about connectivity to the development to the east that staff was requesting. Mr.
Roland replied that a lot would have to be eliminated to satisfy connectivity. Mr. Miller asked Ms. Lockman
if zoning was light industrial and commercial there could potentially be a strip mall or convenience store in
6
the area. Ms. Lockman said she believed so. Mr. Eckelburger said they have allowed for interconnectivity
in the residential area to the south but he did not see a need to do so for the light industrial/commercial
area and did not think it was appropriate. Mr. Miller then outlined the convoluted route the residents would
have to take to get in and out of the development to the commercial areas. Mr. Eckelburger said Centex
would have a development in the future and residents could use their access. He concluded by saying
that connectivity from residential to residential was appropriate but he did not think the Code called for
connectivity between residential and commercial.
Mr. Holton asked what the applicant has on paper in the way of agreements with the Highland Ditch
Company. Mr. Eckelburger responded that they have met with the Highland Ditch Board and they were
agreeable to the recreation trail of the development and their maintenance easement being one and the
same. Regarding erosion there was some erosion prevention on the north side but something may need
to be done in the future. Mr. Roland said Highland Ditch was agreeable to the sixty foot setback off the
center line of the ditch and they have provided adequate room for their maintenance of the ditch. Highland
Ditch was also very amenable to the shared access road and recreation trail.
Mr. Holton requested more detail and specifics because he felt many of the issues had not been
adequately addressed with Highland Ditch, CR 7 and the Town of Mead, and Kerr-McGee. Mr.
Eckelburger said again that they have done what they were asked to do by staff and would like this
application to move forward. They would meet the remaining conditions prior to the Board of County
Commissioner's hearing and added they would not have be here today if they thought they could not settle
the remaining issues prior to the Board of County Commissioner's hearing.
Mr. Auer echoed Mr. Holton's concerns and cited their responsibility to pass along complete
recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners and added that it was difficult to make an
informed decision without more concrete information from the various entities involved. He asked the
applicant about access permits and payment for road paving with the Town of Mead. Mr. Eckelburger
responded that staff should have that information and that before he came to Weld County with this
application he had consulted with the Town of Mead. They have worked with Centex, CDOT, Mead and
the Adler property and have agreements for the improvements on CR 7 and Hwy 66 intersection. Mead
has indicated that access points were fine with them and they would pursue access permits with Mead
prior to the Board hearing. Mr. Eckelburger reiterated how hard they had Worked to meet staff
recommendations, how much money they had spent to get to this point, and that they would meet all
conditions prior to the Board hearing. Mr. Auer said he sympathized with the applicant's dilemma and was
not defending Mead's approach.
Ms. Lockman said there were some deletions and one addition that needed to be addressed.
Mr. Ochsner asked staff for clarification on the MUD process and if staff had final approval on these
stipulations. If those conditions were not completed, then what happens. Ms. Lockman replied that the
most outstanding issues must be satisfied prior to the Board hearing. If the applicant did not meet what
staff felt was adequate, staff would inform the Board. The Board could amend the application again or
approve it as the applicants like. Staff would still have another opportunity to refute all of this information
and the applicant would still have to go through the final plating process so there were a lot of conditions
that could be brought up at that point. Mr. Ochsner asked who the"we" referred to, was it staff or the
Planning Commission, and if all of the agreements must be met prior to sending the application to the
Board. Ms. Lockman said the Planning Commission would only hear this application again if they were to
continue it and also if conditions were not met, the Board of County Commissioners would be informed as
to what had not been met and why. Mr. Eckelburger thanked the Planning Commission for their time and
said the conditions would be met prior to the application being scheduled before the Board.
Mr. Holton said there were too many unanswered questions and the Planning Commission is the sounding
board for the County Commissioners, so he wanted those questions answered prior to that, even though
he likes the overall project. Mr. Eckelburger said he understood that if they did not meet the conditions
they would not get before the Board and that the Planning Commission had fulfilled their obligations.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
7
Ms. Lockman then presented the following changes to the application:
Delete Condition of Approval 3.C regarding minimum lot size. The applicant has requested to follow the R-1
Residential Zone District standard minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. (Page 11)
Delete Condition of Approval 1.A.8 which states"The applicant shall provide an agreement with the owner of
the property to the south (Anderson) for the relocation of the irrigation ditch." (Page 9)
Delete Condition of Approval 1.B which states "The plats shall be amended to show any gathering line
easements for the existing oil and gas structures along with proposed relocation if necessary." (Page 9)
Delete Condition of Approval 2.A which states "All sheets of the Change of Zone plat shall be labeled PZ-
1082." (Page 10)
Delete Condition of Approval 2.D.3 which states "Amended MUD Structural Land Use Map 2.1, dated April
2006 shows plans for a trail connection along Foster Reservoir. A trail shall be established along the
southeastern edge of the property connecting to Pioneer Drive. The trail shall also include a linkage to the
property to the south for the planned future regional trail system."
Delete Condition of Approval 2.D.4 which states"A link from the trail adjacent to County Road 7 to the south
end of Silent Point"shall be added.
Delete Condition of Approval 2.D.6 which states""Weld County's Right to Farm"as provided in Appendix 22-E
of the Weld County Code shall be delineated on the plat.
Add Condition of Approval 6.L at the request of the Weld County Department of Public Works(page 14).The
Condition shall state "The final plat application materials shall include a detailed final engineering
geology/geotechnical report that addresses the limitations of construction due to groundwater and soil
conditions identified in the Subsurface Exploration Program Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations
report by Ground Engineering Consultants, dated November 22, 2004." (Page 14)
Mike Miller motioned to accept the changes, deletions and additions recommended by staff. Roy Spitzer
seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes;
Paul Branham, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Pam Smith, Department of Public Health and Environment, asked that item O. page 11, be amended to
read, "Permanent restroom and handwashing facilities shall be provided within the pool, tot/lot park and
the 1.42 acre park at the north entrance." On page 14, please add condition item M.6. under"At time of
Final Plan submission", M.6. "All septic systems located on the property shall have appropriate permits
from the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment. The Environmental Health Division
of the Department of Public Health and Environment was unable to locate a septic permit for 13844 CR 7.
Any existing septic system(s)which is not currently permitted through the Weld County Department of
Public Health and Environment will require and I.S.D.S. Evaluation prior to the issuance of the required
septic permit(s). In the event the system(s) is found to be inadequate, the system(s) must be brought into
compliance with current I.S.D.S. regulations."
Mike Miller motioned to accept the amendment recommended by Ms. Smith. Chad Auer seconded the
motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes;
Paul Branham, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Scheltinga, Public Works, suggested leaving the conditions at different stages as they work toward
8
resolution of the remaining issues. The Chair said he would like to discuss the connectivity to the east
further. Mr. Auer said connectivity helps remove the burden from the major arterials and agreed with the
recommendation. Mr. Miller said the area is somewhat developed now with the storage units and did not
see any benefit for people using the light commercial area to cut across the subdivision to get to CR 7. It
would be quicker for them to access Hwy 66, so he supported connectivity.
Mr. Ehrlich asked Mr. Scheltinga to comment, if he could, about a timetable for the improvements on 1-25
and Hwy 66. Mr. Scheltinga responded that he and the applicant had met with CDOT and discussed the
issue of widening Hwy 66 and I-25 as well as the ditch issues, but there was no set schedule for the
improvements to Hwy 66, however the widening of 1-25 was imminent.
Mr. Branham said he agreed with the connectivity recommendation due to the commercial aspect and
supported it from the standpoint of public safety.
Mr. Holton asked if there was to be a trail that connected the subdivision to the commercial area. Ms.
Lockman said staff had requested a pedestrian path to the area. Mr. Holton then said he could
understand the connection from the standpoint of safety, but agreed with the applicant that connection to
the commercial areas was unnecessary.
Mr. Miller asked if there were any variances requested by the applicant.
The Chair asked the applicants back to address the materials dated April 14, 2006. Mr. Roland said they
were proposing the framework for the PUD proposal and they did have a few minor tweaks to Ms.
Lockman's report. Mr. Roland said the first item in Ms. Lockman's report used the smallest lot size
proposed, as the minimum lot size (6270 square feet)but they wanted that to read six thousand (6000)
square feet instead. Item two discussed their requested oil and gas setbacks, which, until the applicants
have a signed agreement, staff was recommending remain at three hundred fifty(350)feet. Mr.
Eckelburger brought up again the Adler setbacks and said they will obtain a signed agreement with Kerr-
McGee, and at that time it should become apparent that the setbacks they were requesting would be
acceptable to staff and the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
Mr. Branham asked Ms. Lockman if they had agreed to a minimum two hundred (200) and one hundred
fifty(150)foot setbacks for the Adler subdivision. Ms. Lockman responded that the minimum staff would
be willing to accept was a two hundred (200)foot setback. Beyond that, the Planning Commission or the
Board of County Commissioners would need to make the final decision.
Mr. Roland said item three concerns the current sign ordinance of a maximum thirty-two (32)square foot
area for a sign and they would like a variance for entry monumentation. They want a column and low
walls to complement the entry and their proposal was consistent with the entry. Mr. Auer asked Ms.
Lockman if the Planning Commission was to consider this variance now. Ms. Lockman replied that the
way staff comments were written now, the applicant would be allowed one sign of thirty-two (32)square
feet at each entrance. Planning has allowed the applicants two signs. If the applicants want a variance
they need to provide Planning with more specific information as to how big those signs will be. The Chair
asked for clarification from applicant regarding the signs. Mr. Roland said that with little add-ons and
plantings, the signs could go over the thirty-two (32) square feet allowed. Mr. Miller said they can't act on
this request until something is submitted. Mr. Holton asked about sign variances for Melody Homes. Ms.
Lockman said she did not know about Melody Homes but the biggest issue with the signs in this case was
that they were in the median and whether they meet the required ten (10)foot setback from the road was
not of real concern. The major concern was that the signs are in a future road right-of-way as well as a
twenty-five (25)foot utility easement, so they will have to be moved. Planning needs a concrete idea of
size because they may impede site distance triangles etc. Mr. Eckelburger said they would live with the
thirty-two (32)square foot requirement for two signs, one at each entrance. Mr. Branham said the
discussion was different from the written request in that the Sheriffs Department requested a sign at each
entry, and that is completely different from what he had heard discussed. Ms. Lockman said the Sheriffs
Department request was standard and not really an issue.
Mr. Miller asked about two other variances; one from lot lines and car ports, and the other concerning
animal units. Ms. Lockman replied that setbacks were the same as was approved for the Adler
9
subdivision. She asked for clarification from the applicant concerning animal units. Mr. Eckelburger said
they would request that outdoor pets be limited to two per house. Ms. Lockman said that the note would
need to be amended. Mr. Miller said he felt that was a pretty vague regulation they were asking be added
as it was all subject to interpretation.
Mr. Miller said he hated to say it, but he told them so. Back when they heard Adler Estates, they started
setting variances from standards and now they have applicant's coming in saying they did it for Adler
Estates and we want the same things. He said that each application should be considered on its own
standards and merits and not compared to a previous application. We opened a can of worms when we
approved placing homes closer to lot lines and we need to adhere to the requirements in the County Code
as they were established for a reason. As lots were getting smaller, houses were closer together and we
were degrading the quality of the developments. At some point we need to draw the line, say enough is
enough, and stick to the Code. We have previously accepted decreased setbacks in other applications
and now everyone wants them. There is a reason houses in the community are located where they are in
proximity to the wells. We established a precedent we shouldn't have. Lastly, restricting domestic pets
would be difficult to enforce and we would be counting ferrets and rabbits, cats and dogs.
The Chair asked Mr. Barker how to proceed- do they consider each issue or vote in totality. Mr. Barker
replied that on page eleven, the items in C., E., G., and H could be changed to "as requested" and then
each becomes part of their application. The Chair asked if they did that would the applicant's request then
be compatible with the County standards. Mr. Barker replied that Mr. Miller had a good point as it was
somewhat of a variance from Code standards but was unique to this PUD.
Mr. Spitzer asked if each issue should be reviewed one at a time.
The Chair asked for discussion regarding oil and gas setbacks.
Mr. Ochsner said that until they had a signed agreement from Kerr-McGee they don't have any concrete
information to evaluate. Mr. Miller supported the Code standards of three hundred fifty(350)feet. Mr.
Spitzer cited industry standards and wants an agreement with Kerr-McGee. Mr. Auer agreed with Mr.
Miller regarding the three hundred fifty(350)foot setbacks and we must leave them as written. Mr.
Branham also agreed setbacks should be left at three hundred fifty(350)for issues of public safety and a
letter from Kerr-McGee lowering the number would not affect his opinion. Mr. Spitzer asked Ms.
Lockman for setback recommendations in the Code. She replied the Code stipulates three hundred fifty
(350)foot setbacks from oil and gas production facilities in the R-1 zone district. The Chair agreed with
the Code setbacks as well and said they would only be changed if a motion was made. There was none
presented.
Mr. Eckelburger asked for clarification regarding the three hundred fifty(350)foot setbacks that stand until
and unless they get a letter from Kerr-McGee saying two hundred fifty(250)feet is acceptable. He once
again cited the inequity between their application and what Adler Estates was granted and the hardship
this would cause them if they were not given the same concessions. Mr. Barker, County Attorney, said
three hundred fifty feet has been in the Code since 1999 and the applicant is free to lobby the Board of
County Commissioners for a change to the Code, but that is the Code standard. A variance was made for
Adler PUD, but that does not mean Planning Commission needs to do this for every PUD that comes
along. Mr. Miller said the Oil and Gas Commission looks at whether that was an adequate zone for
maintenance and repair of the well head and tank batteries after installation. These zones were
established to provide adequate access and work areas for equipment maintenance. Mr. Eckelburger
disagreed and said that he knew from sitting on the board of a public oil and gas company and conferring
with Kerr-McGee, they do consider two hundred (250)feet to be a safety zone, and the last thing they
want to do is set them up for a lawsuit. We also would not do anything that was unsafe for our residents.
Mr. Barker interjected and said it was not proper for the applicant to come back and argue with the
Planning Commission after they have already made a decision.
The Chair asked for discussion regarding animal units. Mr. Miller said the wording was fine. Mr. Holton
asked why they were even considering this. Ms. Lockman responded that was already in the Code as to
specifics, that the applicant was just instituting further limitations. Mr. Branham did not agree that they
should be addressing the household pet issue at all. Ms. Lockman said this could go in the applicant's
10
covenants and that would be an option. Mr. Miller asked about amending the setbacks from lot lines. Ms.
Lockman replied that page eleven (11), item B. and page three (3) of the Change of Zone plat shows the
setbacks the applicant wished to call out. Ms. Lockman said Planning was agreeable with the setbacks
due to the Adler precedent per the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Auer asked if that was in there
and the justification for it was because we did it for Adler. Ms. Lockman said it was deemed to be
adequate by the Board of County Commissioners through a different process and a different subdivision.
Mr. Miller asked if the Code defined the setbacks relative to the height of the structure. Ms. Lockman
replied that in R-1 the minimum setback would be twenty(20)feet, off-set would be five (5)feet or one (1)
foot for each three (3)feet of building height, whichever is greater. Mr. Miller said he felt that regulation
was created for a purpose and to establish a standard, and because they had been lax in the past, they
were now in an awkward position, but decisions should be based on the Code, not based on applicant
requests.
Chad Auer motioned to remove item 3.B., page 11. Mike Miller seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, no; Michael Miller,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes;Tom Holton, no;Chad Auer,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes;Paul
Branham, no; Bruce Fitzgerald, no. Motion tied.
Mr. Branham commented that he felt this was a real challenge for them. On the one hand he saw the privacy
and noise issues with homes so close together but at the same time he was not sure that another two and a
half(2-1/2) feet would make much difference. Also considering that the Board of County Commissioners
approved Adler Estates, a precedent had been set.
The Chair asked the applicant if he agreed with the amended Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval. Mr. Eckelburger replied that three hundred fifty(350)feet was for churches and schools and
things of that nature, but the precedent was important. If you allowed one developer to do it and not
another, then it punishes them in terms of making this a financially viable project. If this was safe for Adler
Estates, then it was safe for them, and he wanted to hear from staff, as he understood that once they
received the letter from Kerr-McGee, that was acceptable. The Chair reminded Mr. Eckelburger this had
been addressed and there was no motion made by the Planning Commission. Ms. Lockman said staff
agreed that since the Board of County Commissioners did make those waivers for Adler Estates, which
have been withdrawn and are no longer an issue, that they would support this applicant's request but they
have never seen the agreement. Planning Staff becomes the representative for the Planning Commission
from this point on. If Planning Commission should not support varying from the standard setback, staff
will not support the variance. Mr. Eckelburger said they agree with all but the three hundred fifty(350)foot
setback requirement.
The Chair asked the Commission for any final discussion of this application.
Mr. Ehrlich said he felt like he had been in a Las Vegas poker match for the past four hours and he
doesn't know what cards are held out there and he doesn't know what cards had been dealt. The only
thing he did know was that as a new member on the Planning Commission he would always default back
to the County Code. We can't look at past applications. We need to look at this specific application. The
Highland Ditch issue was a concern. We cannot keep putting in residential areas without having a better
idea of the transportation impacts. He felt that perhaps CDOT needed to become more involved. Other
than the application, he felt they had a good presentation and felt a lot of young families would benefit
from the community but he would continue to follow the County Code because as a Planning
Commissioner, he was accountable to the public for the decisions they made. The County Code was up
for review in 2006 and he invited the applicant to join a task force with him and revisit the Code if
necessary. Mr. Ehrlich closed by saying he was holding all aces but he thought he just threw them all
away, so he was going to fold.
Mr. Auer agreed with Mr. Ehrlich and added that he was not comfortable in moving forward with
incomplete information. The applicants and staff have worked hard on this issue. This particular
development is in the MUD we know there was a lack of congruence in the area. Municipalities will
ultimately deliver services to these developments, and he preferred to see development happen within the
municipalities. Regarding connectivity and the increased traffic on Hwy 66, CDOT seemed to be reluctant
11
or slow to put in traffic lights or make improvements. There were still too many issues needing resolution.
Mr. Branham said there were many issues yet to be resolved, particularly regarding the Highland Ditch.
He was however, inclined to approve the applications with the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval, but with a word of caution to the staff that he would like them to present future projects that are
better prepared.
Mr. Ochsner agreed with Mr. Branham and added that their job was to address topics in progress. They
do not need to see an absolute final plan every time. It was their job to put in conditions if needed and
then it was staffs responsibility to work with the applicant to guarantee them. This property is in the MUD
and is the goal of the County to develop this property and to force them into a town is against the Code.
The development was in the county and he felt that was where the development should remain.
Mr. Miller said staff is capable but questioned Highland Ditch allowing an adjacent trail. He had never
heard of anything similar, was surprised that they would agree to that, and wanted to see something in
writing. Mr. Miller was not happy with the county development being based on the applicant's complaint
they can't compete if lot sizes are reduced. We needed to look to the future—not just the profit. We
needed to follow the Code, draw a line in the sand, and hold everyone to the standards, or the Code was
meaningless. If we don't take a stand, developers will push us to that point. Mr. Miller said it was a good
plan with the amendments they had made and trusted staff to follow through on the application.
Mr. Holton said he agreed with Mr. Miller on some things, but that some needed to be tempered. He felt
the market should drive the lot size. If the lots were too small and the houses too close, people would not
buy them. He also would like to see the Board of County Commissioners look more closely at the oil &
gas setbacks.
Mr. Spitzer said he supports staff recommendations and felt most of the issues could be resolved and
trusts the developer would meet those requirements. Mr. Spitzer agreed with Mr. Holton regarding the oil
and gas setbacks and they should ensure safety rather than be concerned with how much land could be
developed. He felt they would see more and more conflicts with the oil and gas issues due to the nature of
the area. Affordable housing would continue to be an issue. They must look to the Code for guidance
when considering variances but there were places for exception.
The Chair said there were fifteen (15) pages of development standards and conditions of approval, but
what staff had handed them was a good document and he would support it.
Mike Miller moved that Case PZ-1082, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes;Tom Holton,yes;Chad Auer,no;Doug Ochsner,yes;Paul
Branham, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried.
5. CASE NUMBER: PZ-1110
APPLICANT: Charles and Theresa Hellmer
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-3492; part E2NE4 Section 30, T3N, R68W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Change of Zone from the R-1 (Low Density Residential)Zone
District to PUD to allow for storage of landscaping equipment and
materials along with uses by right in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 3 and approximately 1/4 mile south
of Highway 66.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services. Charles &Theresa Hellmer have applied for a change
12
of zone application from R-1(Low Density Residential)to PUD to allow storage of landscaping equipment
and materials along with uses by right in the A(Agricultural)Zone district.
The site is located west of and adjacent to County Road 3 and approximately % mile south of State
Highway 66. The site has an existing single-family residence and outbuilding on the property.
There is a single-family residence located to the north of the site and single family residences (4 single
family)are located to the south of the site (on the east side of County Road 3). Pasture land is
immediately surrounding the site to the south and west and agricultural land is located immediately to the
east across County Road 3.
This application is partly to address a zoning violation (VI-0500102)for having a landscaping business
staging/storage area on site without proper land use permits. Landscaping businesses are not listed as
being allowed under R-1 zoning (either as a use by right nor as a USR) and therefore requires the property
to be rezoned. The applicants have submitted both change of zone application materials along with site
plan review materials to facilitate the ability of the Planning Commission and BOCC to review the specifics
of the proposed landscaping business. Planning staff has conditioned this application to specify that a
change of zone approval would also constitute a site plan review approval.
The property and surrounding area (in section 30 to the west of County Road 3)was zoned R-1
Residential in 1981.
Thirteen referral agencies reviewed this case, twelve referral agencies have responded and conditions of
approval and development standards are attached that address comments/conditions outlined in the
referral responses.
A letter of opposition was received in October, 2005 from Lenna Thompson and Robert& Rae
Rives expressing concerns with allowing Agricultural uses on the property. They are concerned
that the applicants will be bringing in goats to the property and are concerned that it is not
compatible with the area (flies, manure...). Agricultural zoning would allow up to 100 goats (40
goats per acre on 2.5 acres)on the property while existing R-1 (low density residential)zoning
would allow 10 goats.
This property is located within the IGA boundary for the City of Longmont. The City of Longmont
in their Notice of Inquiry dated August 19, 2005, indicated that the applicants could proceed
through the USR application process (no plans to annex). The City of Longmont, in their referral
letter dated September 20, 2005, indicated that future development on the site should require
public sewer. Uses under the A(Agricultural)Zone District are not required to have public
sanitary sewer service.
The landscaping business leases space from the property owner, the business is not operated by
the property owner. Businesses of this nature are not allowed under R-1 zoning under the Weld
County Code. Additionally, businesses of this type are not allowed under E (Estate)zoning (the
next residential zoning classification).
Additionally, rezoning to allow agricultural uses on the property will allow for additional uses that
are not allowed under existing R-1 (Low Density Residential)Zoning. Uses such as cargo
containers, mobile homes, additional animal units, would be allowed under A(Agricultural)zoning
which could have potential adverse impacts on neighboring properties.
It is a distinct possibility that property owners in the area purchased their properties with the
knowledge that the existing zoning did not allow these proposed uses.
For these reasons the Weld County Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of
this application.
The Chair, Mr. Fitzgerald, asked Mr. Gathman if he had seen any USR's on that road and if there
were any goats on the applicant's property. Mr. Gathman said the only one he was aware of was
13
the USR for the Docheff Dairy and that he had not seen any goats. Mr. Holton asked about the
two Change of Zones in the area. Mr. Gathman said one was a change from R-1 Residential to
Agricultural and the other was from PUD to Estate and Commercial. In the instance when the
property was rezoned to Agricultural, it was to allow an existing agricultural use (greenhouse)on
the property and it was a larger parcel (approximately 17.5 acres).
Charles and Theresa Hellmer, 13775 CR 3, Longmont CO 80504, said at the time of purchase,
the landscape business had been operating for six months. Mr. Hellmer said they had owned the
property for two years before being notified of a violation. He said they were trying to improve the
aesthetics of the property and the neighborhood. There were thirteen (13) properties in the area
of which he believes five (5)were commercial. He works for a goat dairy and would like to keep
kids on his property—but has found that is not economically feasible to bring animals to the
property. Mr. Hellmer would like to maintain the agricultural use of the property for small crops and
flowers. He said his business was clean and had a low impact on the area and he was willing to
work with his neighbors to minimize effects. Mr. Hellmer said he has improved the property;
trailers will be on the back of the property, a restroom facility for the workers is in their garage, and
no chemicals or gasoline storage was on site. A normal day had two vehicle traffic, as the
workers carpool. Mrs. Hellmer said they had consulted with Lauren Light and AGPRO and were
not aware the property was in violation. Mrs. Hellmer said the Greenman property in the area
included five R-1 homes for agricultural and they, the Hellmers, would like to continue and
improve upon what they were presently doing.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application.
Jim Buck, 13538 CR 3, Longmont CO 80504, said the neighborhood has been residential for approximately
eighteen years and was steady, stable and aesthetically pleasing. The Hellmer property is the most visible
property on the road. Mr. Buck said he sees things loaded on site but couldn't speak to whether they were
chemicals,the restroom facility was new to him,trash pick-up was weekly and was problematic, and that the
Hellmers also do winter snow removal as well as landscaping,and he often saw trailers piled with branches.
Mr. Buck felt the value of many should outweigh the value of one. The residents take pride in their property
and he presented signatures on a petition against this application. Mr. Buck maintained the Hellmers cleaned
the property in February because the Planning Department had scheduled a site visit. He would like the
proper channels followed with land use. Please follow the Code—don't plead ignorance after the fact.
Mr. Holton asked Mr. Buck how long he had been a resident and how long this operation had been there. Mr.
Buck replied eighteen years and that he believed the previous owners had a workshop until 2001, and the
Hellmers purchased the property in 2003.
Renee Crane, 13888 CR 3, Longmont CO 80504, resided on the east side of CR 3 and the southwest corner
of Hwy 66,and expressed her understanding that the west is residential,the east is agricultural and asked that
the area not be patch-worked rezoned as that will affect land values. We chose a rural,agricultural area and
would like it to be consistently zoned.
George Coburn, 13853 CR 3, Longmont CO 80504, and the Hellmer's neighbor to the north, opposed the
change due to a lack of privacy and that his home was recently burglarized. He said; the employee numbers
vary season to season, chain saw use is erratic, their large equipment is noisy, that a commercial operation
had no place in a residential neighborhood, and that he had also witnessed employees relieve themselves
outdoors. Mr. Coburn cited a general loss of privacy and asked for rejection of the application.
Rae Rives, 802 Mountain View, Lyons CO, did the recorded exemption for previous owners. She said
Turfmasters had grown considerably since she sold the property and a contract was in place at time of sale.
The sales flyer listed the property as R-1 and she did not know that zoning was incorrect when she sold it.
She would like to build a house on the eleven(11)acres adjacent to the site and the present business negates
that desire. Ms. Rives would like to see the business cease.
Gail Felton, 1105 CR 28, Longmont CO 80504, owns two properties on CR 3 in close proximity to the
Hellmer's property, and said the agricultural/residential feel of the area is lost with the addition of a business
14
and she would like to maintain the country feel. Ms. Felton is afraid that if one business comes in, more will
follow.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Theresa Hellmer, one of the applicants, stepped forward to address the concerns. She asked the neighbors
why the business wasn't stopped prior to their lease of the property. The Chair said that was not appropriate
at this time and that she needed to direct her comments to the Planning Commission. Ms. Hellmer said they
have met with Pam Smith, Environmental Health Department,and Peter Schei,Department of Public Works,
regarding their concerns. Ms. Hellmer said she and her husband do not consider this a commercial business
as they are leasing the land; she expressed her surprise at the public urination and said that would stop;there
were four trucks that left daily and only two employee vehicles were on the property during the day; trash
would be in the dumpsters; their vehicles were moved back as a requirement of the development standards;
there was no reason to believe that the neighbor's break-in had anything to do with their business;there were
no employees on site on weekends; they do not allow landscape refuse to pile up; they have cleared the
property considerably since their purchase; and she denied cleaning the property only for the site visit. Ms.
Hellmer said Turfmasters has applied magnesium chloride to the street and they are willing to fence the
building. Ms. Hellmer pointed out the adjacent land areas and which were agricultural,open space,residential
or annexed, including at the end of Hwy 66 where there was a lot of vehicle storage,a cattle business,a horse
business and other businesses with junk in general. She said they felt their building was nicer than many of
the other businesses she had just pointed out and she apologized to her neighbors but asked why they didn't
say anything before. Ms. Hellmer closed by saying that she had been told by someone,just that week, that
the neighbors allowed the business to continue because they had empathy for Ms. Thompson, the previous
resident. Noble, she agreed, but the business was the selling point for them.
Pam Smith, Department of Public Health and Environment, said item 3.A., page four(4)could be deleted as
the septic was adequate.
The Chair asked the applicants if they had read and agree with the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval. They replied they were in agreement.
Mike Miller motioned to delete item 3.A., page four. Tom Holton Seconded the motion. Motion carried.
Mr.Auer asked Mr. Barker if this would be considered "spot zoning"if they were to change this, because the
surrounding areas were R-1. Mr. Barker said the term "spot zoning"was used in the sixties, seventies and
eighties. As time went by and the concept of a PUD developed,"spot zoning"had gone away with the onset of
the PUD because in essence it allowed for "spot zoning". That being said, the PUD is in essence a "spot
zoning"concept that is allowed. The net effect could be the same but with a PUD it is a mechanism whereby it
is allowed.
Mr.Gathman replied that at the time of the original violation the property was originally zoned R-1. There was
a specific process to go through to rectify the violation so you did not have the option of applying for a special
use permit. A PUD was the only option because it allowed more flexibility. Mr.Branham asked if the PUD had
to be in the agricultural zone and if the applicants could have applied for that. Mr. Gathman replied that it did
not as there are many uses allowed within the PUD and they could have requested that. Mr. Miller asked if
this was approved as a PUD and the landscaping business left,could another business move in and operate
under the same PUD. Mr. Gathman said that presently if they operate under the conditions of the PUD, it is
not specific to this one owner and this one use and that would be an option for the owner. Mr. Ochsner
did not understand the reasons for staff denial and asked for more clarification. Mr. Gathman said the major
issue is that the area is zoned R-1 residential and we have applications for two uses, one for a commercial
landscaping business that under existing R-1 zoning would not be allowed at all,either as a use by right or a
use by special review. The other was a proposal for agricultural uses and we were not exactly sure what
those future uses could be, they were basically uses by right and accessory uses in the agricultural zone
district which could raise issues of compatibility with existing R-1 uses.
Mr. Ochsner said he disagrees as this was a low density rural area and he did not feel they were asking for
anything unreasonable as that is a rural,agricultural area with farms and businesses with ten times more junk
than the applicant has on site. Mr. Ochsner said the applicants were not asking for anything out of the
15
ordinary and that he felt a landscape business suited the area.
The Chair asked for comments.
Mr. Miller agreed with Mr. Ochsner regarding compatibility but did take issue with the restroom facilities and
also that it would be more of an eyesore to fence or screen the business because of its close proximity to the
road. Mr. Miller also thought that it was a reach to change the zoning to allow the commercial business. He
was not sure whether he could support it or not but was leaning against support.
Mr. Branham said he sympathized with the Hellmers because they bought the property thinking they had an
existing business they could make money on and that it was a legal enterprise, when in fact it was there in
violation. The fact is that it has been a successful, growing business and it creates noise, traffic and other
concerns. It should not be in the R-1 area and to change the zoning to agricultural does not diminish the
existing problems, so he would have to agree with staff recommendation for denial.
Mr.Auer asked Mr.Gathman if the zoning was changed to agricultural would the use carry with the property if
it were to change hands, so the new owner would have access to all the things under the purview of
agricultural zoning. Mr. Gathman replied that was correct.
Mr. Ochsner pointed out regarding the agricultural zoning,the property was only 2.5 acres and inconsequential
if you were talking animal units, so he did not see that as a hindrance, if animal units were the main worry.
Mr. Fitzgerald said the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval boxed this thing in pretty well,
except for the next landowner, and did not feel it was compatible with the neighborhood.
Mike Miller moved that Case PZ-1110, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
denial. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner, no;
Paul Branham, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried.
Tom Holton commented that he would like to reference Chapter 22, Section 23-2-228, item 3. of the County
Code.
•
Doug Ocshner commented that he would like to reference Section 22-2-190,regarding compatibility and said
he felt it was extremely compatible with the area.
Roy Spitzer commented that on the surface it appeared to be compatible but it was not compatible with its
present zoning, that screening would be more of an eyesore than what presently exists, and wished the
building had been designed with restroom and handwashing facilities for the employees.
Erich Ehrlich commented and referenced the County Code, Section 22-2-110.
Mike Miller commented that it was not compatible with the existing or future development of the area.
Meeting adjourned at 5:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Donita
Secretary
16
Hello