HomeMy WebLinkAbout20062825 SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, October 3, 2006
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2006, in the Weld County
Department of Planning Services, Hearing Room,918 10th Street,Greeley,Colorado. The meeting was called
to order by Chair, Chad Auer, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Erich Ehrlich
Roy Spitzer
James Welch
Bruce Fitzgerald
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner Absent
Tom Holton
Paul Branham
Also Present: Chris Gathman, Brad Mueller, Don Carroll, Char Davis, Jesse Hein, Pam Smith
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on,September 19,
2006,was approved as read with corrections.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1573
APPLICANT: Cedar Creek Wind Energy LLC
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt NW4NW4 of Section 2, T10N, R60W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
mineral resource development facility(concrete batch plant) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 122 and east of CR 105.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1573, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending
approval of the application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. The
operation is proposed to last for seven months.
Nelson Teague, representative for applicant added that he is available for questions as are others in his
party.
James Welch asked if the material will be delivered all at once and if the stockpile locations were correct.
Mr. Doug Keller, Business Manager for Pine Bluffs Gravel, indicated they will be three types of materials
used. The concrete powder will be delivered from Fort Collins daily, approximately 11 semis's a day; the
gravel will be delivered from the east with 60-90 day intervals and water will be brought daily. The stock
pile locations as indicated are correct.
Don Carroll asked when the hauling will begin. Mr. Danny Soul from Mortenson Company indicated it was
contingent upon agreements but the projected date is November 1, 2006.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Mr. Teague indicated the applicant agrees with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Paul Branham moved that Case USR-1573, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
1
1 0iea c.ctiut 10 l!n-Zee to
cbc �ozs'
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Erich Ehrlich seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Mark
Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; James Welch, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Tom Holton, yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: 2AmUSR-726
APPLICANT: Ralph Nix Produce Inc
PLANNER: Brad Mueller
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-850; Pt SE4 of Section 14, T4N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a use
Permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use, or a Use by Special
Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone District (for Onion Storage
and Processing Facility, Lawn Mower Warehouse, Fencing
Manufacturing Facility, Offices, Warehousing and Transfer Facilities), Oil
and Gas Storage Facilities, and Agricultural Service establishments
primarily engaged in performing agricultural animal husbandry or
horticultural services on a fee or contract basis including: sorting,
grading and packing fruits and vegetables; crop dusting or spraying
operations facilities; grain and feed sales; seed production, processing,
storage, mixing, blending and sales; and, farm equipment sales, repair
and installation facilities, in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 35; north of and adjacent to CR 44.
Brad Mueller, Department of Planning Services presented Case 2Am USR-726, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending
approval of the application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Tom Holton asked for clarification on the oil and gas storage. Mr. Mueller stated that was presently a
possible use, there is no definite user. The USR would have to be amended should the storage be
outside.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked for the date of the original USR. Ms. Tiffany Johnson indicated it was 1984.
James Welch asked for clarification on the parking spaces for the site; curb stops and the how that was
determined. Mr. Mueller stated there was a condition of approval that the number of spaces must meet
the code requirements.
Tiffany Johnson, Landmark Engineering, representative for the applicant, provided clarification on the
proposal. The primary use is the existing single family residence and the storage of Mack Equipment.
The northerly existing 11,000 square foot building will be used for Mack's indoor storage. The southerly
building does not have a lease agreement therefore the reasoning for such a large list of possibilities.
There will be no outdoor storage on this site. The existing home will be for the one full time employee on
site. Any additional users will be required to go through the site plan review process. The applicant is
requesting the parking be evaluated so the spaces can be added when the uses become apparent. They
would also like to add to the list of possible uses the indoor storage of outdoor recreational equipment.
Mr. Mueller stated the option of warehouse would covers that request. Ms. Johnson indicated the site
lighting is wall mounted with some outdoor security lighting on poles. They will amend the site plan to
include what is existing. There are presently no plans for outdoor signage but that will be amended when
it is proposed.
Char Davis, Department of Public Health and Environment, requested the deletion of Development Standard
#12 as it is a duplicate.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
2
Janet Crusman, her parents live directly across the street,and they are concerned with the possible storage of
oil and gas facilities,along with the traffic. This is agricultural zoned but these uses are not agricultural. They
do not approve of this.
Randall Meyers,son-in-law of Carlson's who live across the street,indicated the concerns with the lighting as
well as the aesthetic of the area. Traffic is also a major concern. CR 44 is 55 mph and the trucks speed all
the time. With the additional uses it will increase an already dangerous area.
Roy Spitzer asked what the concerns were. Mr. Meyers stated it was mostly with the storage of the oil and
gas facilities. This facility is approximately 100 feet away from the home. This will increase the lighting and
traffic in the area.
Chair closed public portion.
Brad Mueller added the Agricultural Zone District is not limited to agricultural uses only; there can be a wide
variety. Public Works can address the traffic concerns. With regards to aesthetics;there will be a screening
plan;lighting will be addressed prior to Board of County Commissioners. The oil and gas storage is one of the
possible uses.
Don Carroll, Public Works,added that CR 44 at Hwy 85 is a collector status; it is the main cutoff between CR
84 and CR 49 and they are both paved. The count on 6-2-06 was 1185 vehicles in 72 hours. Other counts
were between 900-1000 in 2002-2003. This is a busy area.
Tom Holton asked for clarification on the oil and gas storage and whether it will be pipes outside. Mr.Mueller
stated that if this be the case they will need to come back through the process as a substantial change to the
USR.
James Welch asked about screening and the lighting. Mr. Mueller stated the screening will consist of a
softening effect with landscaping. Lighting will not be allowed to trespass onto adjacent properties.
Roy Spitzer indicated that should oil and gas storage be a use there are concrete floors and this would not be
adversely affected. Mr. Mueller indicated he was not aware of the requirements of the building code. The
zoning definition of an oil and gas storage facility was read. Mr.Spitzer indicated his concern was for waste or
spillage but the concrete floor would deflect this. Ms. Davis added there was no expectation of large quantities
of oil beyond normal equipment.
Tiffany Johnson added that there is no end leases so the applicant included everything possible. They are
willing to remove the oil and gas option and all language associated with this. Ms Johnson added that
economically agricultural is a difficult business so using this existing warehouse would be to the benefit of
everyone including the county. This may also bring a few jobs to the area.
Tom Holton asked about the final decision on the parking. Mr.Mueller stated the applicant is agreeable to the
number of spaces and that they would like to phase in the spaces when the uses are put in. The total number
of spaces will be 57 spaces for current size.
James Welch moved to delete Development Standards #12 and renumber. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded.
Motion carried.
James Welch moved to delete any reference to the oil and gas facilities from the application. Roy Spitzer
seconded. Motion carried.
Tiffany Johnson, representative for the applicant is in agreement with the Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that Case 2AmUSR-716, 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.
3
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Mark
Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; James Welch, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Tom Holton, yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Chad Auer added that this case will also be heard at the Board of County Commissioners so there is
another opportunity to voice concerns.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1114
APPLICANT: Pyrenees Properties LLC
PLANNER: Brad Mueller
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot C of RE-3058, Pt of Section 15, T7N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from Agricultural to PUD for 8 residential lots with Estate
Zone District uses, 1 residential lot with Agricultural Zone District uses, and 1 outlot (Frederick PUD)
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 80; %2 mile east of CR 19.
Brad Mueller, Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-1114, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record.The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the application
along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Staff has requested an addition to the
Conditions of Approval. The language consists of the following"Auxiliary quarters will be allowed on all lots
and with the exception of the minimum lot size must meet all requirements of the Weld County Code Section
23-1-90 as amended."
Paul Branham asked if those quarters will be on all lots regardless of the less than 2.5 acre minimum lot size.
Mr. Mueller stated the PUD standards are not required to match those of the Weld County Code and in this
case the applicants are asking that a different standard be applied for this subdivision specifically less than 2.
5 acres. Mr. Branham indicated that would be two residences on one lot. Ms. Smith, Department of Public
Health and Environment, added there would not be separate structures. It would be more like an additional
bedroom or mother-in-law quarters something with a possible adjacent wall. The auxiliary quarters would
require a larger septic system but would be treated as an additional bedroom. Mr. Mueller added auxiliary
quarters will be an enlargement of the primary structure. The Estate Zone District is still trying to preserver the
agricultural, rural appeal of the area. The Planning Commission needs to determine if the acreages that are
proposed still allow the intent to be preserved or whether it is important when the lots have been clustered.
Staff did not express concern with the minimum lot size in correlation to the auxiliary quarters.
Pam Smith, Department of Public Health and Environment, reviewed her comments with regards to the
engineering report and the water levels. These levels, relative to the proposed building envelope for Lot 9
could cause some problems. Department of Public Health and Environment is not recommending denial but
would like to have that building envelope removed to alleviate any potential problems. Mr. Spitzer indicated
there was a report done at a later date and this information was provided to Ms. Smith. After review, Ms.
Smith still indicated there are potential problems. The new report had few bore samples which helps but there
is still a significant concern for the groundwater in the area and there will be a need for engineered septic
systems.
Anne Johnson, Todd Hodges Design, provided clarification on the application. The applicant has already
agreed to drop that building envelope. The applicant would like to change the name of the subdivision to
Hollis Crossing Estates with the internal road being named Sonny Miller. There will be no building on lots 6-8
and Lot 9 is an agricultural outlot. There are 8 SF Lots ranging 2.1 —8.4 acres each with Auxiliary Quarters.
Flood Plain in Lots 6,7 and 8 have been designated as"Non Buildable" Lot sizes are 5.3,5.5 and 8.4 for 6,7,
8 respectively. Designating less than half of each lot as"Non Buildable"does not affect the use of the lots.
Lot 9 is a 116+/-acre agricultural parcel with Auxiliary Quarters. Building Envelopes have been solidified as
north of Lot 5&modified around future drill site. The agricultural access proposed just west of lot 3 has been
granted. There is an existing farm road through Building envelopes to Lot 9. The applicant has worked with
referral agencies and Planning Staff to mitigate concerns prior to this hearing. Such as: the Post Office:
Location and Construction Standards; School bus system and delivery; Town of Severance: Access, Plan;
Windsor/Severance Fire Protection District: Necessary Standards and Weld County Department of Public
4
Works. This proposal meets and exceeds portions of the review and approval criteria for a PUD Change of
Zone in the Weld County Code. We therefore request that the PC forward this request for a favorable
recommendation to the BCC and support for staff review of the Final Plat.
Erich Ehrlich asked about the request from RE-4 with regards to cash in lieu. Ms. Johnson stated that was
difficult for the applicant but they are willing to adhere to this.
Tom Holton asked for clarification on Lot 9. Ms.Johnson stated there will be one building envelope which is
north of lot 5 and it will be sold as a large agricultural lot or it will be retained. Mr. Holton asked why there was
a need to have a building envelope for Lot 9. Mr. Mueller stated that the goal is to preserve contiguous
agricultural land as much as possible. This preserves that ability as opposed to placing the envelope out in
the middle. The applicant volunteered the location. The non urban area criteria requests the designation of
lands that can be used for agricultural related purposes.
Paul Branham added that in the application there is reference to subdivide Lot 9 in the future;what is the time
frame for this. Ms.Johnson stated there is no time frame but the applicant would like to keep that as a viable
option. Mr. Branham added that Lot 9 is designated to be agricultural for 40 years so is there a time frame
from approval to when the applicant can submit to divide Lot 9. Mr. Mueller noted that the difference in the
language is"shall not be developed for a cluster PUD"versus"suitable for farming and ranching for the next
40 years." The applicant could argue the area is suitable for that but they would still need to go through the
complete process. The application may suggest the development but it may not be supported at the time of
the request. Mr. Fitzgerald added the next application may not even be with the county it could be annexed
into Severance by then.
Tom Holton asked why the need to have a building envelope on Lot 9 that seems restrictive to whomever
owns Lot 9. Mr. Mueller stated there were some areas that will not be allowed for residences because of
accesses. The envelope was proposed by the applicant and there is other supporting language to preserve
agricultural lands. The Planning Commission can indicate the envelope does not need to be shown. Mr.
Holton preferred not to have it designated on the plat. This is for the private property owners and they will
need to come in and get permits to build the residence or septic systems. Mr. Mueller indicated that there is a
condition that asks for two septic systems envelopes on each lot so those would be reviewed by Department
of Public Health and Environment. There is a plat note addressing the septic envelopes and language for
protection of the absorption fields.
Anne Best Johnson added they would be happy to drop the building envelope for Lot 9 knowing the protection
of the septic envelopes will be covered by the same set of covenants.
Chad Auer clarified Condition 2.A.2 for the two envelopes on each lot. Ms.Smith stated the condition could be
amended to designate the envelopes on lots 1-8. Mr. Holton added that the building envelope on Lot 9 seems
restrictive to one area. Ms. Smith indicated it was fine with her to take the envelope off Lot 9. The intent was
for possible future development and the security of the location. Mr. Holton stated the plat notes will control
the location of buildings on Lot 9. Ms. Smith stated the amendment to lots 1-8 would be acceptable since Lot
9 has plenty of area for building and septic systems. Mr. Mueller added the intent was to protect the viability of
the development of Lot 9 in the future.
Anne Best Johnson stated if the building envelope was dropped it would alleviate the overlap of the drilling
envelope and eliminate the prior to scheduling condition.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Mark Zegray, neighbor, indicated his concerns, specifically the road access being directly across from his
driveway. This means lights would shine directly into the house. There are also mailboxes on side of road. It
would be better to shift the road over so there would be no cluster affect. Mr.Zigray asked who takes care of
the non buildable lots; is there water available to irrigate the agricultural outlot;are auxiliary quarters the same
as duplexes, if so that would be 18 instead of 9;and with regards to the administrative final plan the neighbors
know nothing of this new suggestion. Another question is whether Severance will annex this and this process
is a way to avoid paving the streets and roadways?
5
Chad Auer added there will be another public hearing process;which is the Board of County Commissioners.
They will make the final decision and that hearing has a public portion.
The Chair closed public portion.
Pam Smith added the updated report provided to her by Commissioner Spitzer is not as extensive as other.
There were borings in two locations which indicated the areas were suitable but still moist. There are still
some areas that are be good for systems and others that will need engineered systems.
Roy Spitzer asked if the site was farmed at the time of the time of the study,which could account for the lack
of ground water. Mr. Mueller stated that was his impression.
Chad Auer indicated staff has proposed language for Condition 3.FF.
Brad Mueller indicated the requested changes:2.A.2-amend the language to state lots 1-8;2.3.C-amend the
language to reflect two 12 foot gravel lanes;3.F-amend the language to state lots 1-8;addition of Condition of
Approval FF that states"Auxiliary quarters will be allowed on all lots and with the exception of the minimum lot
size must meet all requirements of the Weld County Code Section 23-1-90 as amended."
Bruce Fitzgerald asked for clarification on the auxiliary quarters. Mr. Mueller stated it was similar to a mother-
in-law quarter. The definition was read from the code. The unit can not be sold separately nor used as a
rental. The family unit definition was also read.
Tom Holton asked for clarification on the internal roadway. Jesse Hein,Public Works,indicated that Mr. Frank
Hempen has granted the gravel variance for the internal roadway. They would like to keep the width of the
road way to two 12-foot lanes and 4-foot shoulders in case they want to pave in the future. Condition 2.A.3.C
would need to be amended to reflect the gravel roadway.
Tom Holton stated that Lot 9 should not have the building envelope and future development will take what is
needed into consideration when they develop. Mr. Fitzgerald stated that the lot will be sold and that
information should be included as part of the lot.
Erich Ehrlich asked if this was submitted as the best use of the design for the lots with the floodplain and with
the 116 acres attached off of Lot 9. Was this the best way or did staff suggest something else. This looks like
future development. It may become more of a densely populated area in the future and Severance may take
Lot 9. Mr. Mueller stated it was reasonable to expect the future development. This achieves some of the
cluster goals: it maintain agricultural space; large lot housing options for future and this design was what was
submitted. There were no modifications; it is slightly different than the sketch plan. This complies with the
sketch plan and is what is proposed. Mr. Ehrlich indicated the drill window could have affected the lot layout.
Mr. Mueller stated that that could have been the case.
Mark Lawley added that both positions are understandable. Mr. Lawley asked for clarification on the
administrative review process. Mr. Mueller stated that Planning Commission has the ability to grant this
request to have staff review the final plan. The Board of County Commissioners will have the final say on the
request.
Paul Branham added he agrees with Mr. Holton on Lot 9 and removing the envelope. The purchaser should
have the option of where to build.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked the applicant if the intent was to have the building envelope for that lot or prefer not to
have. Todd Hodges added that the applicant would be happy to drop the building envelope on the south side.
In doing this it will remove the first condition. Lot 9 will be part of the HOA and a part of the subdivision. The
access location was determined by referrals; the access was requested to be lined up with the existing
driveway. The area has been replanted in corn; the building envelope will be dropped and this will remove
Condition of Approval 1.A.
Tom Holton moved to amend 3.C to reflect the gravel not paving. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. Motion carried.
6
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to amend 2.A.2 to reflect lots 1-8. Roy Spitzer seconded. Motion carried.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to amend 3.F to reflect lots 1-8. Roy Spitzer seconded. Motion carried.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to add Condition of Approval to state"Auxiliary quarters will be allowed on all lots and
with the exception of the minimum lot size must meet all requirements of the Weld County Code Section 23-1-
90 as amended." James Welch seconded. Motion carried.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to delete 1.A. Tom Holton seconded. Motion carried.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to add 2.F to state "Eliminate all building envelopes from Lot 9." Erich Ehrlich
seconded. Motion carried.
Tom Holton moved to accept the deletion of the first sentence in Condition 3.A and the phrase"however,the
building envelope for Lot 9 must be shown adjacent to the internal roadway." Bruce Fitzgerald seconded.
Motion carried.
Anne Best Johnson indicated the applicant is in agreement with staff Development Standards and Conditions
of Approval.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that Case PZ-1114, 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. Mark
Lawley,yes; Roy Spitzer,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes;James Welch,yes;Chad Auer,yes;Tom Holton,yes;Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 4:00pm
Respectfully submitted
L
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
7
Hello