HomeMy WebLinkAbout20022874.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, September 17, 2002
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2002, in the Weld County
Public Health/Planning Building, (Room 210), 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was
called to order by Chair, Michael Miller , at 1:35p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller '
Bryant Gimlin Absent ,
James Rohn I I " ' E.:.
Fred Walker - ur
John Folsom L
Stephan Mokray
Cathy Clamp p
Bernard Ruesgen
Bruce Fitzgerald Absent
Also Present:Peter Schei,Carla Angeli,Kim Ogle,Pam Smith,Chris Gathman,Don Carroll,Sheri Lockman,
Monica Mika
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on September 3,
2002, was approved as read.
CASE NUMBER: CZ-1013
APPLICANT: Charles Greenman
PLANNER: Monica Daniels-Mika
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part SW4 NW4 of Section 30, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from R-1 to A(Agricultural).
LOCATION: 13518 WCR 1.
Monica Mika, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting an indefinite continuance. The
applicants are seeking an alternative application process.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1011
APPLICANT: Doug Tiefel/River Runs Through It, LLC-Pelican Shores
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the E2 of Section 36, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to PUD for 40 lots with R-1 (Low
Density Residential) Zone Uses along with 193 acres of open space
consisting of a river corridor and two private recreational lakes.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to WCR 26 and west of and adjacent to WCR 13.
Sheri Lockman,Department of Planning Services,read a letter requesting an indefinite continuance. There
are many issues that need to be addressed prior.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1392
APPLICANT: Tri State Generation&Transmission
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parts of Sections 5,6, 7&18, T2N, R67W; Parts of Sections
1,12,13,14,23,24,25,26,35 & 36, T2N, R68W; Parts of Sections
1,2,11,12,13,14,23, 24, 25 & 26, T1N, R68W; Parts of Sections 30,31, T3N,
R67W; Parts of Sections 25,36, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Major Facility
of a Public Utility (a 13.2 mile 115 kV transmission line and two new switching
Page -1-
2002-2874
�.r,�.�:t C. z,nh lO/28/; Y)
stations) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: Commencing South of WCR 6 at the Proposed Erie Switching Station (SE 932),
north to WCR 6,west to the WCR 6&WCR 11 intersection, north on WCR 11 to
WCR 12; From Dacono Substation (NCU-329) north on WCR 11 to WCR 20.5;
east on WCR 20.5 past Rinn Valley Substation to WCR 13; north on WCR 13 &
northeasterly on Firestone Trail to WCR 26; west on WCR 26 to WCR 13; north
on WCR 13 to Del Camino Substation and Proposed Del Camino Switching
Station.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, indicated that staff had received a fax yesterday requesting a
continuance of 30 days from the applicant. The applicant will continue meeting with the land owners in the
southern part of the County. The Planning Commission hearing date that is being requested is October 15,
2002. The Pre Advertisement will be scheduled for October 30, 2002.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Morrison about the time limit and if this was a compromise. Mr. Morrison indicated
that it can be a continuance as long as the applicant is agreeable to it.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1398
APPLICANT: Rodney and Susan Cole
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-3159; part of the NW4 of Section 1, T1 N, R64W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for a Use by Right
in the Industrial Zone District (parking of vehicles & trailers) as a use by
special review in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to WCR 59; '/2 mile north of Highway 52.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, read into the record a letter requesting an indefinite
continuance. The issues is staff and Weld County is looking at revising the Agricultural Zone District
regulations to allow this use as a use by right.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1390
APPLICANT: Anthony Navarro
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tracts B &C of SE-745; part of the SW4 of Section 14, T5N, R65W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Special Use Permit for a Commercial Recreational Facility(Paintball Park)
in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Hwy 34; approximately % mile west of WCR 47.
Chris Gathman,Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1390,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.
Stephan Mokray asked about a paint ball operation on 18 Street and if there are issues with it. Mr.Gathman
stated that the neighboring property owners should address those issues. There were some phone calls that
dealt with issues of trespassing but the Weld County Sheriffs Department did not indicate any concerns. This
site is different because of lack of screening. This facility is in a wide open area,there are no trees. It is the
same owner for both properties. Mr. Ruesgen asked about parking and access of emergency service given
with proximity to flood that it be paved with a hard surface. Don Carroll, Public Works, referred to off street
parking conditions that address the access drive shall be gravel with the options of asphalt or concrete. It
shall be graded and drained to provide all weather access to the site. Mr. Ruesgen indicated he was
referring to a letter from the City of Greeley stating that the number of participants on the site it should be
a paved surface. Mr.Carroll stated that if gravel is placed correctly it will carry the weight of the equipment.
Mr. Mokray asked about the access and the number of people if this would be a problem. Mr.Carroll stated
that the referral from CDOT stated that the permit will be sufficient and the volume is fine. CDOT is stating
that nothing needs to be added for this proposal. Mr. Rohn asked why the parking lot is ADA approved and
the rest of the facility is not. Mr. Carroll stated that the item is in the off street parking. It is something that
the applicant needs to address with provisions on site to accommodate some areas for the ADA to park in.
Mr. Miller indicated that a company he was associated with has drilled wells in the area and has had no
Page -2-
problems. Mr. Miller asked about the neighbor fence and if it is on the applicants property. Mr. Gathman
stated he was not sure who's property the fence was located on. Mr. Miller asked why landscaping and
screening were being required if no structures were being built on the site. Mr.Gathman stated the screening
and landscaping were for the surrounding neighbors mitigation and to address impacts. Mr. Miller asked
about the ISDS permit and if it were prior to the construction of the pole barn. Char Davis, Weld County
Department of Health and Environment, stated that regulations require that if this is a place for people to
congregate there is a need for hand washing facilities. Ms.Davis indicated that port a potties were originally
approved due to the flood plain issues. Mr. Miller indicated that since the pole barn will be in phase two the
use of port a potties will be allowed until construction. Ms. Davis stated that this was correct. Mr. Rohn
asked about wetlands. Mr. Gathman stated that there may be some potential wetlands and they were
addressed through the Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps of Engineers stated that the applicant would
have to remove any fill that was placed on the facility. There is a development standard that addresses the
issues of structures and if any are constructed a 404 permit will have to be applied for. At that time it will
be addressed by The Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Folsom asked about the possible commercial mineral
deposits under the land. Mr. Gathman stated that there has not been any review of this. No permanent
structures with the exception of the pole building,will be on the property. Mr. Folsom asked about the excel
or decel lanes or turn lanes. These might be necessary with the number of people that might be participating
and watching. Mr. Gathman stated that CDOT is not requiring any additional improvements. It is close to
the intersection with Business 34 and there is a excel lane but it does not go all the way to the entrance for
this facility. Mr. Folsom asked about the basis for the increase in sign size. Mr. Gathman stated that they
are trying to be consistent with other cases that have similar commercial uses that have come through the
special use permit process. One of the factors is that the amount of speed that is on Hwy 34 would warrant
a larger sign. Mr. Folsom asked if the other site will remain open. Mr. Gathman indicated it would remain
open. Mr. Folsom asked about the site looking like a junkyard and is there any basis for this complaint. Mr.
Gathman indicated that there is no violations due to the fact that there is a pending special use permit. Ms.
Clamp asked about the maximum number of players versus the maximum number of people attending. Mr.
Gathman stated it was based off of the numbers of participants per the number provided in the application.
There would be more people if the spectators were included.
Char Davis,Weld County Health and Environment,spoke about that the septic system and the issues with
portable toilets. They are usually allowed for a temporary use of up to 6 months or less. Ms. Davis would
like to see a campground like facility. This could go on for three years until the pole barn is built to require
a permanent facility. Mr. Morrison addressed Mr. Folsom's concerns on the commercial mineral deposits.
The statute includes if the use does not permit erection of permanent structures upon or otherwise
permanently preclude the extraction of commercial mineral deposits by an extractor from lands subject to
said use the provision does not apply. The issue is permanency and can it be extracted at a later time
having had this use. This would be a factor in why to not require permanent structures. Mr. Miller has
evaluated this property for commercial mineral deposits and under today's standards it does not meet the
standard for a commercial mineral deposit, however the standards are changing every year. Mr. Morrison
asked if this was done previously. Mr. Miller indicate that one of his companies does oil field service work
and the cuttings from the drilling operations was evaluated. Mr.Morrison asked for clarification that this was
done unrelated to this case. Mr. Miller indicated that he has additional information about this property
because of a past business relationship not with the applicant or owner. Mr.Carroll added that CDOT stated
that there is a right turn lane to exit onto E 181h St. When going east there is a painted medium all the way
to Kersey that could be used for staging of a left turn slot.
Anthony Navarro, applicant, provided clarification with regard to the project. The existing operation to the
west of the site has not had any complaints for the four years it has been in operation. There has been no
trespassing. There was an event with 150 participants and lasted 26 hours held recently. The ground was
left cleaner than it was found. The fence that is in question is located on the neighbors property according
to the engineering done for the flood hazard permit. The wetlands are an acre and are located in the center
of the site. The applicant has a concern regarding installation of a septic vault. The issue is stuck in
between environmental and safety concerns. Hensel Phelps has placed several in the Estes Park area and
stated issues with the smell and they attract flies. The current location has had portable toilets and there has
never been an issue. In fact, a company was fired because of insufficient maintenance according to their
policy. The portable toilets are brand new and once a structure is built the portable toilets will be
camouflaged. Hensel Phelps indicated that a chemical toilet is cleaner and more sanitary than a septic vault.
They are considered to be better for the environment. There will be nothing that enters the ground. They
are staked down and not located in the floodway. The bunkers are hollow plastic tubes which are anchored
to the ground or buried three to four feet in the ground. The site is not finished and is currently unsightly but
Page -3-
it is also in a construction phase. The site will be maintained once it is completed. There has been some
concern expressed with regard to kids. Demographics show that kids are playing paint ball. Most likely the
kids will ask to be involved. It has been indicated that paint ball will be an Olympic sport. The jerseys that
are warn are bright colored and are similar to those warn by motor cross. The masks are flourescent colored.
Statistically paint ball is safer than golf. The guns are not loud and the paint balls only fly 150 feet. The area
is located far enough from the highway that it would not reach the highway even if shot in the direction. The
facility will be kept clean and any of the neighbors are welcome on the site at any time. There is a very large
corporate clientele from the front range and the facility must be kept clean in order for them to return.
Cathy Clamp asked about the tournament on the existing facility and how many spectators were present.
Mr. Navarro stated that approximately 10-15%over the number of participants were spectators. Ms.Clamp
questioned the parking spaces. Mr. Navarro stated that the parking area on site is about 3-4 acres. Mr.
Carroll stated that the plat drawing was scaled out and determined the parking area to be 3.2 acres. It was
calculated that one acre will accommodate approximately 100 parking vehicles. The parking lot at Public
Works was used as an example with one acre measured out and the parking spaces counted. If there are
three acres then there is the possibility of 200-250 vehicles that can be accommodated. Ms. Clamp asked
for clarification with regard to curbing, lines for spaces and curb stops and if it was for the entire 3 acres or
for the number that is proposed. Mr. Carroll indicated that the number was determined with the one space
for three people. The memo that Public Works has done states that there will be a curb stop where needed.
The 83 spaces that are asked for can be accommodated as well as an overflow area. Ms. Clamp asked
about the plastic bunkers and their height. Mr. Navarro indicated that they are 10 feet in height. Mr.Walker
asked about the offset from the highway being 300 feet and what the offset from the north is. Mr. Navarro
indicated that the course on the north was approximately 1/4 mile from the nearest home. Mr.Walker asked
if there were cattle in the pasture to the north. Mr. Navarro stated that there were cattle and typically when
noise was heard they go to the other end of the pasture. Mr.Walker asked how close the course was to the
north property line. Mr. Navarro stated it would be around 10 feet away. Mr.Walker indicated that the cattle
would be in range if they were there. The applicant stated that there is a safety meeting every morning that
details what can and cannot be done on the course. There are guidelines that must be met and the facility
will call the authorities if need be. Mr.Walker asked if staff was going to be present at all times. Mr. Navarro
indicated that there are typically three staff people but they are not standing on the fence line monitoring it
on a constant basis. Mr. Ruesgen asked about the logic in beginning construction without the permit being
finished. Mr. Navarro indicated that they were under the assumption that with it being private property and
improvements can be made on private property that they could begin and also do the USR process. Mr.
Ruesgen asked about the time line for the pole barn. Mr. Navarro indicated that it will be based more on the
financial aspect. The pole barn will be a moveable structure. The purpose of the building is a staging area.
Participants can use this area for loading and out of the elements. Mr. Ruesgen stated that the concern is
the fact there will be no structure therefore triggering the lack of need for sanitary facilities. Mr. Navarro
indicated that they are planning on building a home on the lot and there will be a water tap that will provide
those facilities. Mr. Rohn asked about the length of usage for this site. Mr. Navarro indicated that there is
no time frame to close either of the sites. There are two types of players the ones that use camouflage and
like to hide in the trees and the tournament players that like the inflatable tubes. The tournament player is
more legitimate as a sport and this is what is being requested for this site. Mr. Folsom asked about alcohol
on the site. Mr. Navarro stated that absolutely no alcohol would be permitted on the site from either
participants or spectators. This was against the insurance regulations. Mr. Walker asked for clarification
on the location of the courses. Mr.Navarro indicated where the courses will be. There is netting surrounding
the courses so spectators can get close. The netting is 12 foot in height with the poles being 16 feet high.
The netting will be break away. The netting will be broken down when the facility is not in use. Mr. Mokray
asked if there was anything different from the two facilities. Mr. Navarro stated it was more wide open with
little changes. Ms.Clamp asked about the wetlands and what is the mitigation plan. Mr. Navarro indicated
that there is an existing dirt road that will be utilized. The participants will be guided to walk in that direction
by a rope fence with ribbon attached to it. Ms. Clamp asked about the environmental aspect of the paint
balls. Mr. Navarro stated the paint balls are 92% water and the remainder is a vegetable dye. They are
actually edible. At the existing site there has been an increase in the wildlife due to the paint balls being a
type of food. Mr. Navarro added information with regard to the access. The client will come arrive typically
within the course of one hour, 730-830 am, and they leave at one time. There will be no constant traffic.
This will also be done at a time when there is 80% less traffic on the roads. It will not be at peak travel times.
The access is not a blind area. Mr. Gathman asked about the parking area and the building location being
different that what was submitted. Mr. Navarro indicated it was the exact same amount of area coverage
just in a different configuration. Mr.Gathman asked about the location of the parking and if it had changed.
Mr. Navarro indicated it is still located in the three acre area the Mr . Carroll was discussing. Mr. Folsom
Page -4-
asked if the contestants pay a fee and where is it collected. Mr.Navarro stated it was after they had parked.
Mr. Ruesgen questioned the area indicated with the new orientation of the courses. It is the same amount
of space for a play. Mr. Navarro indicated that the course area will be the same the number of courses may
change in order to accommodate the participants. Mr. Miller asked if this would alter the application if more
than three fields were set up. Mr. Gathman stated that the map that has been submitted will be the one that
is recorded. The plat will delineate where the playing fields are and where the parking is located. The site
must abide by what the map looks like. Mr. Navarro asked if there was a way to draw a building envelope
that covers the whole area and not specifically note the number of courses. Mr. Navarro indicated that the
land layout plays a large role in the design of the site. The area that is below will be parking,the wetlands
are in the center and the playing fields will be on the north end. Mr. Navarro indicated that this could be
delineated before the case went before the Board of County Commissioners. M r. Walker a sked for
clarification on the playing fields. Mr. Navarro indicated that a playing field will be located close to the
property line on the east side. Mr.Walker stated that the activities have been concentrated in the north east
corner of the property. Mr.Navarro indicated that it was placed there due to the highway,parking and sound.
Mr.Walker stated that by concentrating it there it affects the other land owners. The applicant is considering
all the possible issues except those of the property owners. Mr. Navarro indicated that there was no
residence in the area within approximately 1/4 mile and this affords the best area to have the playing fields
located for all the reasons. Mr.Walker stated that the cows can only be able to graze on the pasture ground
from sunup to ten in the morning and after six in the evening if the fields are being used. The cattle will shy
away from the activity. That is an impact itself. Mr. Walker feels as though the setbacks from the other
property owners was ignored. Mr. Navarro stated that weekday hours are not typically being utilized and
there are some weekends that are not utilized.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Susan Johnson, neighbor, stated concerns with kids. The quality of life and her view being disrupted. Her
family is being forced to look at this because there is no choice involved. If there is earplugs there must be
some type of noise associated with the facility. The kids enjoy the wild turkeys and cows grazing. This is
not the quality of life when house was built. Mr. Rohn asked about the distance to the back porch. Ms.
Johnson indicated it was maybe a couple hundred yards.
Nancy Carlson,neighbor,stated opposition. Some of the major concerns are with people in camouflage and
carrying guns that look like machine guns and shooting at each other. The neighbors want the netting so
that it cannot be seen through. This is located on a main entrance into and out of Greeley. There has been
talk about how Greeley wants to be perceived and having this at the entrance does not give the perception
that is intended. Is the playing fields 150 feet away from the surrounding properties. The noise levels and
safety issues are of a concern. Are dogs allowed at the facility? There are questions concerning the dust,
parking,property value and the sign is far to large for the area. The quality of life for the surrounding owners
is being disrupted. Finally,who is going to monitor the facility and who are problems reported to. Mr. Miller
indicated that there are development standards associated with the proposal and if there any of those were
being violated staff would be contacted and a violation would be initiated. This could result in the revocation
of the permit. Ms. Clamp asked how far the house was away on the east.
Mike Green, neighbor, stated it was approximately 200-250 feet from east. Mr. Rohn indicated that the
location of the homes from the paint ball fields was approximately 300 feet. Mr. Green stated his concerns
with the view of what is out there. The second concern is trash from the facility. Third, is noise from the
people and from 250 people. Finally, the livestock in pasture is of concern. Mr. Green has signed up for
a wildlife enhancement program on his farm. The traffic entering and exiting the site in a short period of time
is another concern. The wetlands and the quality of the water. Is the site large enough with the parking and
the amount of people that will be attending? Why is the setback different for the state highway then it is for
the surrounding property owners?
Ed Carlson, neighbor, stated concerns with the facility being next door to house. The main issues are the
trash, noise and property value. There are plenty of sites that are located no where near residential homes.
The zoning laws are established to protect the surrounding area from things of this nature.
Sheryl Lookhart, neighbor that leases the pasture to the north for cattle,stated concerns. The surrounding
property owners do not want to be held liable for someone getting hurt on their private property. The wildlife
is basically non existent. When the paint ball fields are in use there is a line of cars 1/2 mile long. The
existing site is an eyesore not the nice river bottom that it used to be.
Page -5-
Tom Meyer, neighbor to the south, stated concerns with the traffic. If everyone arrives at one time it will be
congested. Property values is another concern. Is the netting strong enough to stop the paint balls.
Larry Johnson, neighbor, stated that there would be a better location for the facility. This facility is in the
open and can be seen from the road with not landscaping around it. While the other site is surrounded by
trees and is difficult to recognize. The number of cars trying to turn into the area will cause congestion. The
issue of setback from the surrounding property owners needs to be addressed. Mr. Johnson would like to
see mature landscaping planted. If this application were to be approved, there are some conditions that
would be requested including mature landscaping, fence so that people cannot look into the property, no
overnight camping and no usage on Sundays. Parking is another issues and where the location of the home
will be located. This is not the right area for this to be located in.
The Chair closed public portion.
Anthony Navarro, applicant, addressed some of concerns. First camouflage is not warn, the jerseys are
brightly colored as well as the guns. Paint ball is a modern version of tag. There is no audible protection
for the ears it is physical protection of the ear. The issue of property value has been brought up. This site
contains an oil well, oil storage facility, highway and it is not prime real estate property. The site will be
monitored by employees and there has never been any issues. The trash for the site is handled by BFI. The
responsibility is placed back on the clients. There have been instances where people were chased off the
ground because of trespassing. There are people that shoot real guns under the bridge that was mentioned
by Ms.Lookhart. There has been use of private land for paint ball games in this area with the individual land
owners giving permission. The wildlife is still at the location,they have not disappeared. The netting is APL
approved netting to hold a paint ball. There are insurance regulations for the netting. The netting is replaced
every year.
James Rohn questioned the noise from the gun and what is used. Mr. Navarro indicated it was CO2. A paint
ball gun is approximately 99-101 decibels of sound. Mr. Mokray questioned the issues of camping. Mr.
Navarro indicated that the camping is for tournaments that are held in the woods and use the camouflage
that was mentioned. That is held primarily at the existing site. The parking will always be done on the land
and the Commissioners are contacted 6 months in advance of the tournament. This was done for the last
tournament that was held. There is no overnight camping anticipated on this site at this time. Mr. Ruesgen
asked for clarification on the use of camouflage. Mr. Navarro indicated that tournament players typically do
not like it. They wear bright colors. The tournament players wear the bright colors, masks, colored guns
while the new comers wear the camouflage. Typically it is the recreational players wearing the camouflage.
Mr. Navarro indicated that this field is to encourage the tournament type play. The tournament type is more
spectator friendly and commercial friendly. The other will be available for the recreational player. Mr.
Walker asked about the acreage on the other site and how many were allowed.Mr.Navarro indicated it was
26-28 acres and 50 was the maximum allowed. The special event permit will be asked for when needed with
a maximum requested of 200. Mr. Mokray asked about acres for this site. Mr. Navarro indicated it was
slightly over 10. Ms. Clamp asked about intent to have camping at the site if a special event permit was
requested. Mr. Navarro stated that there will be no need for camping at this site as of right now. If a larger
number was needed a temporary assembly permit would be applied for through the appropriate process.
Ms. Clamp asked where the participants came from. Mr. Navarro indicated they came from throughout the
country.
James Rohn moved to delete development standard#9 and#15 due to duplicity. Also correct#2A& C to
read 18'" Street. Stephan Mokray seconded. Motion carried.
Chris Gathman questioned the location of the fields designated on the site map versus what will actually
occur. Mr. Navarro indicated he would like to have room for a couple additional paintball fields. A map will
be needed that shows exactly where the courses will be placed and the parking. This map will need to
include all the building locations. Mr. Miller asked if the recommendation would be to place it as a condition
of approval prior to scheduling the Board of County Commissioners. Mr.Gathman stated it was going to be
up to the Planning Commission due to the changes. Planning Commission could determine if they wanted
to see the plan again or send it to the Commissioners without review. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Navarro for
clarification on location of parking, course location and area. The river bottom area is reserved for the
courses. Mr. Gathman asked about the areas that were mentioned and if they were to be fenced off also.
Mr. Navarro indicated that the play areas will be fenced off. Mr. Miller asked if the case was able to proceed
and have the updated map submitted to the Planning Department within 10 days before it can proceed. Mr.
Page -6-
Morrison stated that there is some difference between changing it after the Planning Commission versus
bringing the issue up now. The Planning Commission can suggest modifications. Mr. Morrison indicated
that as long as it is still the same basic application a motion to condition a map that is modified and is
indicated in the presentation before the Commissioners,if acceptable. Ms.Clamp asked about the screening
the facility with a fence. Mr. Navarro indicated that they will try and work with the neighbors on anything they
could but some of this is based on finances. The applicant is already looking at screening though it is not
required. The applicant likes the screening idea because it makes the fields look better. Mr.Gathman stated
that any fence in the floodway would require a Flood Hazard Permit. Mr. Mokray asked about the conditions
for camping. Mr. Gathman stated that there was not a specific determination rom the applicant rather there
was going to be camping or not. A development standard could be inserted to address this. Mr. Morrison
stated the camping needs to be addressed by the fact that a group assembly would be needed to be applied
for through the Commissioners. Ms.Clamp asked about the process for assembly permit and if notice must
be given to the neighbors. Mr. Morrison stated that there is no notice. The application must be submitted
more than 30 days in advance. Mr. Rohn asked how may times a year will there be events that would
include campers. This type of event would typically be held at the other venue but if there was a tournament
of substantial size it may be once a year. Mr. Walker has concerns with the intensity of the use of this
application. The other site is 28 acres and has had a maximum of 150 people. This site is for 10 acres and
250 people. This style of play at the new location will lend itself to more spectator observance. It would be
favorable to consider something less in numbers as well as minimum setbacks from all property lines of 300
feet.
John Folsom asked if there was any reason that this type of play could not be incorporated onto the existing
site that contains 26 acres. It would be more practical because of the size and the screening that is existing.
James Rohn moved to have an accurate site map be submitted before scheduling the Board of County
Commissioners. It will be located under Condition of Approval as#1 B. John Folsom seconded. Mr.Walker
asked if an amendment to the motion could be made that included the area would be no larger than what
is delineated currently. Mr. Morrison stated it would work better to take that as a separate issue because
it would not preclude amending adding the additional offsets from the property lines. It was agreed upon to
limit the motion to the addition of Condition of Approval #1 B.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; F red Walker, yes; James Rohn, yes; Bernie
Ruesgen, yes; Cathy Clamp, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Stephan Mokray moved to eliminate all camping. The major concerns are the noise and privacy of the
surrounding property owners. James Rohn seconded. This would create development standard #31 and
renumber.
Fred Walker moved to have a 300 foot buffer from all property lines. James Ruesgen seconded. Mr.Carroll
indicated that there would not be enough room for the field. Mr. Walker stated that it should be respected
and he will not amend. It could either be a development standard or condition of approval
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, no; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,no; Fred Walker,yes;James Rohn, no; Bernie Ruesgen,
yes; Cathy Clamp, no. Motion failed. Mr. Miller indicated that would not leave enough room to build fields.
Fred Walker moved that the playing fields will be no less than 200 feet from property lines. Bernie Ruesgen
seconded. Ms. Clamp asked if the wetlands are protected by the Corps of Engineers. Mr. Gathman stated
that there has not been anything mentioned that specifically protects the area. It would need to be addressed
by the Corps of Engineers. Mr. Folsom stated the minimum size the Corps recognized 2 acres. Mr.
Gathman stated it was difficult to determine how large the wetlands are with such a dry year on record. Ms.
Clamp asked Mr.Walker if a provision for Corps of Engineer approval be added. Mr. Miller stated that if the
boundaries are pulled in 200 feet on all sides it eliminates the use. Mr.Walker indicated that what is good
for the highway should be good for the property owners.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,no;Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller, no; Fred Walker,yes; James Rohn, no; Bernie Ruesgen,
yes; Cathy Clamp, no. Motion failed.
Page -7-
James Rohn moved the setback on all sides including highway 100 feet. Cathy Clamp seconded. Mr.
Walker moved amend the motion that the setback be 150 feet from all property lines. Stephan Mokray
seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,no; Fred Walker,yes;James Rohn,no; Bernie Ruesgen,
yes; Cathy Clamp, no. Motion carried.
Vote on the amended motion:
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes;Michael Miller,no; Fred Walker,yes;James Rohn,no;Bernie Ruesgen,
yes; Cathy Clamp, no. Motion carried. This would be development standard #32
Cathy Clamp has a conflict with regard to the number of players versus those in attendance. Ms. Clamp
moved to change players to people. Fred Walker seconded. Mr. Miller stated that it would be tough track
the number. Mr. Miller asked Mr.Carroll about the parking if the numbers were changed. Mr. Carroll stated
he scaled it out and there is some additional parking areas available. A parking scheme was requested to
show how the configuration will be. Ms. Clamp asked how many parking spaces is the maximum number
that could be accommodate in the area. Mr.Gathman indicated that there is a specific standard in the code.
An estimate of three per car was utilized.
Cathy Clamp moved to change 2B4 to stated "to accommodate a total 300 people," and three lines down
to state"a total of 100 parking spaces." James Rohn seconded
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,no; Michael Miller,yes; Fred Walker,no;James Rohn,yes;Bernie Ruesgen,
yes; Cathy Clamp, yes. Motion carried.
Mr. Navarro indicated that if 150 feet setbacks were required there would be no place for the playing field.
The topography map show the limitation on the land.
Michael Miller feels this is an inappropriate use in the area. The biggest issue is with the access and the
intensity. There will be a number of people in area and the number of people will affect the wildlife and the
people in the area.
James Rohn stated that a safety issue with the highway and with the curve is of concern.
John Folsom stated that the landscaping would not be sufficient to conceal from the view of the neighbors.
Cathy Clamp stated that the way property is structured it could work with a smaller area and the original
number of people submitted.
Stephan Mokray stated there is too much on a small piece of ground.
James Rohn moved that Case USR-1390,along with the amendments,be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning
Commissions recommendation of denial. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Fred Walker, yes; James Rohn, yes; Bernie
Ruesgen, yes; Cathy Clamp, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Fred Walker commented that the intensity for this piece of land is to great. There can be an appropriate use
of this land if it was scaled back.
Cathy Clamp commented that the initial numbers that were proposed might be better suited for this site.
Page -8-
John Folsom commented that traffic is a concern.
Stephan Mokray commented that he did not believe it was compatible.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-613
APPLICANT: Cattail Creek Group, LLC
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot C of RE-2637; being part of the SW4 of Section 9, T6N, R66W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to PUD for 8 lots with Estate Zone
Uses and 1 lot with Agricultural Zone Uses along with 30.13 acres of open
space.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to WCR 70 and approximately 800 feet east of WCR
29.
Michael Miller excused himself due to a conflict of interest. Cathy Clamp will assume duties as Chair.
Sheri Lockman,Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-613,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.
John Folsom asked if the Weld County Code calls for development to have larger than one acre lots. Ms.
Lockman stated that the PUD process allows for a variance to the bulk requirements including lot size. They
are within the lines of the code. Mr. Rohn questioned the safety of the septic systems with regard to possible
flooding. Pam Smith,Weld County Department of Health and Environment,stated that the preliminary perk
report was conducted by Northern Colorado Geotech, indicated that ground water conditions range between
three and nine feet. Three feet was located in the 30 acre opens space close to the existing ditch. All the
other tests were done where the lots are located and range between eight to nine feet. They fall within the
guidelines that are required. There are primary and secondary envelopes on each lots for the septic system.
The closest lot is 220 feet from the creek. Mr. Rohn asked if flooding would contaminate those systems.
Ms. Smith indicated that the soil is described as a silty clay sand. Ground water conditions and septic
location requirements state that there must be a four foot vertical separation to ground water. A 100 foot
horizontal setback to any surface regardless if it is a well, stream, pond or irrigation ditch is also required.
Mr. Rohn questioned if they could be placed in a high water area. Ms. Smith indicated that you can put a
system in a flood plain but not in a floodway.
Ann Johnson, representative for the applicant, provided clarification with regard to the project. Surrounding
land uses are agricultural and rural residential. Lot sizes within a mile radius range from one to more than
100 acres in size. These lots were created through recorded exemption and subdivision processes. Some
lots were created prior to zoning. The one acre estate zone lots will access off of County Road 70. The
common open space is accessible to all lots. The entrance will be enhanced by a common mail and a school
bus station pull off. The 121 acre agricultural lot includes a five acre building envelope. A center pivot
irrigation system will be retained on this due to the productivity of the land. The envelope is accessed
through an existing access on County Road 70. This subdivision will be governed with architectural controls
through covenants. There will also be a Homeowners Association (HOA). The covenants are required at
the final plat submittal stage and will be reviewed by County staff. The HOA covenants will specify the
ownership, use,maintenance and distribution of the water to irrigate the common open space. The applicant
has worked with all the referral agencies prior to the submittal of this application. Weld County Public Works
has agreed to the proportional share calculation for improving County Road 70 as proposed by Matt Delich,
Traffic Engineer. The applicant will pave the internal road to county standards. The applicant has worked
with North Weld County Water District to ensure improvement of the water line to the subdivision to an 8
inch line. The applicant has been in verbal discussions with Tomas Oil and Operating Company. The
Company is considering capping some of the wells and not furthering operations. The applicant mailed to
surrounding property owners a rendering of the site. The applicant is retaining a large portion of the property
for agricultural use. The Right to Farm will be placed on plats, covenants and can be placed on any sales
literature for the lots.
James Rohn questioned the non potable water for the open space and some of the houses through Woods
Lake. How is the water going to be split off and where is the ditch to deliver it. Ms. Johnson indicated that
Page -9-
the applicant would be better suited to answer those questions.
George DuBard, applicant, provided clarification with regard to the ditch. There is a new concrete ditch and
a center pivot on the west lot which will continue to be agriculture. The ditch is the only way to get water to
the property. The current leasee who farms the property would prefer not to flood irrigate the smaller lot due
to the difficulty. Additional water will be forced down the east lateral concrete ditch through new culverts
that are located under the road to the property. The water will then go down each property line. It will be
evenly distributed across the open space. Mr. Rohn asked if there would be a headgate or some way to
ensure the water will be delivered at the same time. Mr.DuBard indicated that the ditch company will deliver
the water to the gate. 20 shares of Woods Lake stock along with 1/2 share Larimer Weld has been allocated
to this property.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Michael Miller, neighbor to the west, began his presentation in opposition of the project.
Lee Morrison, Weld County Attorney, interjected that this puts Mr. Miller in a difficult position. He has
stepped down from the Planning Commission but was actively involved in the earlier meeting. Mr. Morrison
can not keep Mr. Miller from testifying. He would like Mr. Miller to think about the possibility of another way
to get the information across to the Planning Commission without speaking himself. The fact that he is a
member of the Planning Commission changes the weight to which the testimony might be given by members
of the Planning Commission. Mr. Miller indicated that he specifically addressed the issue with Ms. Mika,
Director of Planning, and she stated that it would not be a problem. The entire presentation has been
prepared by him and no one else,therefor it would not be familiar to any other member of the audience. It
would handicap the presentation to have someone else attempt to give it. Mr. Morrison stated he would not
preclude him from giving the presentation. This was not an issue that Department of Planning Services was
authorized to give advice on, it is a legal issue. Mr. Morrison does not think it is a good idea. Mr. Miller
indicated it has been done numerous times in the past by members. Mr. Morrison stated he did not recall
it being done in front of the same governing body on quasi judicial issues. It is different on a legislative
issue. It has happened in front of the Commissioners but not in front of the same body on a quasi judicial
matter. Mr. Miller asked if it was legal or not legal. He does not want to compromise the case because of
his position on the Planning Commission. Mr. Morrison indicated that he runs the risk because he is a
member of the Planning Commission. It is less of an issue if it is done before the Board of County
Commissioners. Mr. Miller indicated that if this was going to compromise the case he would ask for a
continuance to prepare another member of the surrounding property owners appropriately. Mr. Morrison
stated he would have less issue if this was being done before the Commissioners.
Cathy Clamp asked if there was anyone on the Planning Commission that would like to address the issue.
Fed Walker indicated that a similar case happened to him when he was chairman. He stepped down and
did not speak as a part of the public portion. He did then go to the Commissioners and speak in the public
portion.
Michael Miller indicated that he has done the entire presentation and represents an entire group of people,
so it could not be properly represented. Mr.Walker indicated that Mr. Miller did not ask the appropriate body
whether the testimony should be heard. It is not the Planning Departments decision it is more a legal issue.
Mr.Walker indicated that this makes the Planning Commission look somewhat tainted. Mr. Ruesgen stated
it was not really a legal issue but more of an ethical issue. The Planning Commission members attach value
to Mr.Millers role as chairman. Mr.Ruesgen indicated that even though the presentation was drafted by Mr.,
Miller, honest comments from the surrounding property owners would carry as much value and weight with
the Planning Commission. Ms. Clamp stated that she does not necessarily agree that it is a conflict to
provide testimony but it does give the appearance to the public that it could be tainted. It would be cause
for either side to obtain legal action if the case were to pass or fail.
Mr. Miller indicated he went to who he thought would be an authority on the subject. If it would have been
identified as a possible problem another property owner would have been prepared to give the presentation.
If it is an issue a continuance will be requested to the next meeting so that someone else can present the
information. There are a number of significant issues that someone else could not present appropriately
without preparation. Mr. Walker stated it was the applicants right to ask for a continuance not the public.
Mr. Morrison indicated that either side can ask.
Page -10-
Sheri Lockman indicated that the applicant has asked for a pre-advertisement hearing and it is scheduled
for two weeks from now. If the case were to be continued this hearing would not occur.
Fred Walker indicated that Planning Commission should ask the applicant if they would agree to a
continuance.
Ms. Clamp asked for clarification with regard to procedure in public comment. Mr. Morrison indicated that
this will not preclude public comment if the applicants comments are asked for with regard to a continuance.
Public comment will be heard either now or at the continued time. Mr. Rohn asked if it was possible to table
the case and come back to it. This would give Mr. Miller some time to prepare someone else with his
presentation.
George DuBard, applicant, indicated he would prefer not to continue. This has a prescheduled Board of
County Commissioners meeting and efforts have been made for this meeting. The surrounding property
owners that Mr.Miller represents are present and can express their views.The undue influence of this aspect
has already occurred just because of Mr. Miller stepping to the podium. Mr. Folsom asked if there was any
objection to Mr. Miller making his presentation. Mr. DuBard stated he does not feel that it is ethical.
Stephan Mokray stated that in all fairness this should be continued. This is a surprise to Mr. Miller and the
surrounding property owners that were expecting the presentation. Mr. Folsom would like to hear all the
testimony from the surrounding property owners.
Ann Johnson, representative, indicated that this is the second continuance for this case. The first
continuance was due to the Department of Planning service error. The applicant would prefer to go ahead.
Sheri Lockman stated the hearing could take place October 1,2002 meeting. Ms.Clamp asked if this would
throw off the pre advertised process. Mr. Walker suggested a five minute recess because this is such a
surprise to both sides. Let the applicant and surrounding property owners discuss this amongst themselves
and determine the best way to proceed. This has put both sides in an uncomfortable situation. Ms.Clamp
indicated that a motion is on the table and must be addressed first. Mr. Ruesgen stated that the applicant
would like to continue and does not want a continuance. The surrounding property owners are not prepared
to present in the format that they feel is appropriate. The applicant is ready to go.
Mr. Ruesgen stated that the surrounding property owners were aware of the fact that they could speak,
indicated by the numbers that are present. The fact is that they picked a vehicle to carry the message
forward rather than individually. Mr. Ruesgen added that every property owner that is present can articulate
their issues appropriately to the Planning Commission.
Stephan Mokray moved to continue the case to October 1, 2002. James Rohn seconded. Motion failed
The meeting continued with the public portion.
Lee Morrison indicated that Planning Commission is not precluded from tabling this case and moving on to
the next case then coming back to it.
James Rohn moved to table this case and move on to the next case then come back. Stephan Mokray
seconded. Motion carried.
The meeting reconvened for this case.
Michael Miller, neighbor, stated that the issue as to wether he can address this court has not been resolved
and get around any appearance of conflict of interest. Mr. Pat McNair will be making the presentation. Mr.
Miller asked for clarification as to whether he can speak without tainting the testimony as an individual land
owner as opposed to a representative of a group. Mr. Morrison stated the testimony raises the questions.
It was not said that testimony could not be given but it does raise questions that could affect the outcome
of the proceedings. It is ultimately up to Mr. Miller but from Mr. Morrison standpoint it is recommended to
not be done in either capacity. Mr. Miller stated that at no point when the position of Chair for the Weld
County Planning Commission was accepted did he give up his constitutional right to represent himself as
a land owner. That is what is being asked of him. In the event testimony is given and the application was
denied the applicant would have the opportunity to pursue legal action on the basis of a conflict of interest
or try to get the decision overturned. The same holds true if testimony is not allowed.
Page -11-
Mr. Pat McNair, neighbor, gave the presentation that addressed concerns with the proposed case. Mr.
McNair indicated that the surrounding property owners asked Mr. Miller to give the presentation to prevent
being repetitive, for clarification and to save time. The first issues are the incompatibility. There may be
one lot in the area that is 1+ acres but the majority are all five to 200 acres and agricultural in nature. One
acre lots with no irrigation water are unmanageable. There is a wildlife refuge being created to the north that
will be affected. The encroachment onto the neighboring creek and farms is not preventable. There is no
row housing or any modular type residential unit in this area. These are representative of what the proposal
is bringing. The property is close to the neighbor on the west and there is no screening. The applicant stated
that there is a large buffer between residential uses, adjacent property owners and existing irrigation. The
proposed cluster configuration serves to buffer the estate lots from the adjacent properties but there is no
buffering from this proposal. There is no provision for style of home. The style will be selected by the
individual home owner. There are no limitations with regard to the style of homes that can be selected. The
north border has no significant buffer from the south end of the Miller or the adjoining McNair property. The
adjacent property line is south of the slough and there have been no provisions stated to keep people out
of the slough. This property does not own to the creek,the property line is within the boundary of the creek.
The property does not have uses or benefits of the Cattail Creek. There are three owners of that creek. It
could create a trespass issue with the increased amount of children, dogs and adults. There are issues
regarding safety. The intersection at County Road 31 and County Road 70 is unsafe. There is poor visibility
to the north. Traffic speeds on County Road 31 are excessive. There is no way to improve the intersection.
Finally,the acceleration from gravel to pavement is poor. The creek to the north is filled with trash and dead
trees. The creek is unsafe for children and adults. It would take a significant amount of cleaning and bank
repair to make is safe. The silt is extremely dangerous. Mr. McNair indicated that he has farm equipment
stored on his property and has issues with the trespassing and liability. There is a warmwater slough on the
north property line. It is full of silt and mud. It is difficult to cross without getting stuck in the mud. There
are numerous hazards in the area.There is a farm to the east. This farm contains a tail pond that has muddy
banks. There is farm equipment stored in remote locations that does not provide for supervision. The
property has had an excellent history of crop production. Irrigation is provided by a concrete ditch. The use
of the ditch to irrigate is compromised by the location of the homes. The property had historic water rights.
There is no provision for irrigation of the one acre lots. 20 shares is not adequate water for that parcel and
there is no ownership of water per homeowner. Additional water will be needed to water the proposed open
space. There is one positive aspect and that is a profit to an owner who will no longer be a part of the
neighborhood. The negative aspects are the incompatibility with the surrounding land uses. The increase
danger at County Road 31 and County Road 70. The possibility of liability onto adjacent landowners. It
removes prime farm ground from production. It promotes trespassing onto neighboring lands. This proposal
changes the character of the area. There will be an increase in traffic. It creates unmanageable open space.
Finally, there are no covenants to review. The surrounding property owners are encouraging denial. If the
case is approved there are suggestions for standards. The property owners would like to see County Road
70 paved. The interior road be paved,adequate irrigation water,fence perimeter, buffer on north and west,
indemnify adjacent landowners against liability. Additionally, standardized building styles, limitation of
accessory buildings, irrigation manager and improve the intersection of County Road 70 and 31 would be
recommended.
Mr.McNair provided additional information on the issues he specifically has. This proposal is for pure profit.
It lends nothing to the neighborhood just depletes from it. The applicant did not approach any of the
surrounding neighbors until there was known opposition. There have been misrepresentation to the
neighbors. There is a great deal of concern for traffic and there is no need to increase the flow. There are
90 signatures on a petition stating the opposition to this project. The largest concern is the non compatibility
with the surrounding neighborhood. If it were a bunch of nice tract homes it would be less of a problem. A
set of row homes is not acceptable.
James Rohn asked about the flood zone area. Has there has been flood waters. Mr. McNair indicated he
has seen water over the banks. The ditch is 15 or 20 feet deep and 25 feet wide. There have also been
times in which the water has been within one foot of spilling over. It has occurred a few times in the past.
Fred Walker asked about safety at County Road 31 and 70. Had the people in the community gone to the
county prior to this and expressed concerns? Mr. McNair indicated that the people he spoke with were not
even aware of the proposal. Mr.Walker indicated that if the community was concerned with the safety of the
intersection it would have done something prior to now. Mr. McNair indicated that he drives it on a daily
basis and when you add traffic there is an increase in the potential risk. Mr. Ruesgen asked if there is an
increase in the potential for a fatality or the awareness that the intersection is hazardous and people will be
Page -12-
more careful. No one can answer that. Mr. Ruesgen asked about the additions having no buffer and what
are they to buffer from. Mr. McNair stated that his property is approximately 200 feet from the subdivision
and he does not want to look at that. He shoots into a bank to site in his gun and will continue to do that.
Mr.Ruesgen asked about the lack of buffer from the creek and there being no concern. Mr.McNair indicated
that they are not increasing the number of children in the neighborhood. A fence would be an acceptable
alternative. Mr. Ruesgen asked about the concern for kids with the existing attractive nuisances. How are
they kept at bay now. Mr. McNair stated that of the 90 that signed they do not all live on the creek and are
not adjacent to his property. Mr. Ruesgen asked if there were any children on the adjacent properties. Mr.
McNair stated that there were none at this time but were in earlier years and those children were all over the
creek. Mr. Ruesgen questioned the lack of covenants and if there were existing covenants on the existing
homes in the area. Mr. McNair indicated they are in the agricultural zone district not a subdivision. Mr.
Ruesgen asked for expansion on the statement concerning the incompatible use to change the character
of the community. Mr. McNair stated the existing homes are located on larger tracts. Ms. Clamp indicated
that the applicant will have the right to farm statement in the covenants and on sales literature. The
provisions in the right to farm indicate that whatever is out there has the right to exist and the incoming land
owner have to respect those right. Mr. McNair indicated that the concern was for the liability of trespassers.
Ms.Clamp asked about the wildlife refuge and if it has governmental protection. Mr. McNair indicated it was
Mr. Millers project and he would be better suited to answer those questions.
Barbara Krusick, neighbor, addressed safety concerns that Mr.Walker had. The corner is obstructed by hill
according to the topography. Exiting a gravel road onto a paved road is difficult and dangerous. The road
is maintained and there will be an increase in cars with the traffic. There will also be an increase of traffic
on County Road 29 and County Road 70, which are gravel. The open space has had water from the creek
but it cannot be relied upon. There is a concern for the septic systems because of that water. With the
addition of eight septic systems in an area where the water level is eight to nine feet can cause severe
problems for those down the creek. The area that the homes will be located is prime agricultural ground not
a suitable site for a subdivision. The homes will be in the lower part of the area. The applicant was not
proactive due to the fact that none of the surrounding neighbors were informed of this. The plan was
submitted without any consultation with the neighbors. Ms.Krusicks water comes from County Road 31 and
the neighbors work together with regard to a watering schedule. The water pressure is lousy. North Weld
Water has been contacted and there is no indication of increasing the water line to an eight inch line.
James Rohn indicated that in the application they are willing to pave part of County Road 70. Ms. Krusick
indicated that hard surface was mention, but she is not sure what that means. Since the development sits
in a bottom the need for pavement increases. The site should be paved with curb and gutters due to the low
lying ground and moisture.
Peter Schei, Department of Public Works, indicated that the interior road will be paved. A roadway
stabilization project will be done along the entire section of County Road 70. There is a proportional
agreement with the applicant for that process. This would be an improvements agreement at the time of final
plat. Ms. Clamp questioned the posted speed limits on County Road 70 and 31. Ms. Krusick indicated that
it is 55 mph. The actual speed is around 70+ mph.
Cathy Clamp asked about provisions for a bus pullout and if excel and decel lanes are intended. Mr. Schei
stated excel/decal lanes were not considered along County Road 70.There is a pull off on the north side of
the road onto gravel. Public Works did not feel it was appropriate. The road based stabilization consists of
mixing the gravel with a chemical compound. Ms.Clamp indicated that the chemical used will decrease the
dust content of the road. Mr. Schei stated that the vehicle count needs to be at a certain level and this road
would be beyond 200 vehicles per day. Mrs. Krusick indicated that the stabilization does not cut it. There
is a culvert on County Road 70 that has been washed out several times. It would not be safe for the school
bus to utilize the shoulder because it is not safe.
James Rohn asked about the bus pull off and what was going to be done with the ditch on the north side of
the road. Mr. Rohn indicated his concern for the safety of the children. Mr. Schei stated that the smaller
ditch is a run off into the barrow ditch. This would be taken into consideration when the culvert was installed.
The bus pullout will be parallel to the road. Mr. Morrison indicated that the plans for the pullout will be seen
before the final plat is recorded. Mr.Schei added that road plans and improvement agreements will be seen
as well.
Deborah Page,adjacent neighbor, stated several concerns. The main concern is the 20 shares of water that
Page -13-
is to be allotted to the 30 acres of open space. There is not a guaranteed delivery of water without a
supporting ditch company. The only thing guaranteed is seepage and runoff of what is in the lake in the
spring. Ms. Page has 10 shares of water for 10 acres and has lost the hay crop on her property. The 20
shares is not enough to support 30 acres of open space unless other shares are allotted. The applicant
indicated that shares of Larimer Weld water was to be allocated. The same thing has been presented to the
Page's and they have not seen it in two years. North Weld has purchased enough shares in Colorado Big
Thompson and North Poudre to handle the work load as it stands now without the additional residences. This
cluster development is not compatible with the surrounding neighbors. The neighbors that are directly
impacted have larger than one acre lots. They were told that it would be at least 10 years before the county
would exempt anything off. To change from agricultural use to PUD to get to what the applicant wants to
do is not fair to the surrounding property owners. The desire for large lots is why people purchased out there.
They have no desire for small one acre lots. If the applicant would place one home per five to six acres it
would be more acceptable to the surrounding property owners. The land is sandy and with the addition of
the septic systems it will silt. There has been flood water half way up the proposed site. At what point is
there going to be a limit on taking farm ground out of production for subdivisions? The prime associate from
Cattail Creek, LLC has not followed through on numerous dealings.
Gene Oblander, neighbor, has pros and cons on the application. Those that own large parcels hope to
someday capitalize on those parcels for future development. The growth is coming and there is nothing that
can be done. There are desirable things about the proposal but there are negative aspects. The main issue
is if this development is allowed will the subsequent developments be held to stricter regulations. If this is
the case then denial is recommended. M r. O blander would b e a gitated if he w ere held to a higher
expectation than this development should he decide to come in. This area is desirable for development and
there is nothing that can be done. Mr. Oblander does not like the neighbor against neighbor that this type
of application brings. The water is another issue. Mr. Oblander has some of the same water and was not
able to farm this year. Many of the farmers did not want to flood irrigate this year. This year was a difficult
year for all concerned and actually promotes development. How are the eight homeowners going to manage
the 30 acres? The homeowners will have problems with the open space. There is a serious question as to
how well this will be developed since the applicant has already left the area.
Bill Krusick,neighbor, stated concerns with development. It seemed as though the development was slipped
in the back door. It was two weeks ago that the surrounding property owners found out about the
development. The sign was not posted on County Road 70. The concerns for North Weld Water was
addressed. North Weld Water has been made aware of the problems. North Weld indicates that there are
301bs of pressure at his meter and that means nothing. The present water pressure is horrible. There has
been no interaction with the neighbors.
Stephan Mokray asked about the sign posting. Ms. Lockman indicated the sign was posted on August 1,
2002. Ms. Lockman indicated that staff has no way of knowing how long those signs stay up. It was also
notified through the Greeley Tribune as well as the Farmer& Miner, from Frederick.
Vicki Milling, neighbor, indicated concerns with the water situation. The application is on ground that has
been flood irrigated and has been productive for the twelve years they have been there. The one acre lots
are in a row house configuration and this is incompatible with the surrounding area. The amount of water
is far to small for the amount of open space. The water is questionable since there are no supporting ditch
rights for delivery. The open space will not be a productive agricultural crop with the limited amount of water.
There are only limited sources of water for that area, Larimer/Weld is early water from the river and divide
canal can be delivered to Woods Lake where it can be stored. Neither one has been offered.
Fred Walker asked about the total ownership of Woods Lake. Will the 20 shares in the application have
rights to water from Wooster Lake. Ms. Milling stated that there has to be a way to get the water there to
transport it to Woods Lake. This is where the Larimer/Weld Ditch Companies come into play because it is
their ditches that need to be used in order to move the water. If there is no carrying right then the only thing
that is available is seep from the lake.
Rueben Hergiert, neighbor, stared concerns with the water. Mr.Shepardson sold all of his divide canal water
so there is no water from that source. Ms. Clamp asked what it would take to get the water delivered. Mr.
Hergiert indicated that the water would not be delivered by a ditch rider separating such small amounts.
Pam Smith, Weld County Department of Health and Environment, indicated that the preliminary perk tests
Page -14-
submitted with the sketch plan were dated July 26 2001. Which was optimal due to the ditch running and
a semi normal year. Three perk tests were done. The tests were done on lot 8, 4, and 1. Another boring
hole was done by the seepage ditch and it had groundwater at 3 feet. The perk holes that were done had
a rate of 45 minutes per inch. On lot 4 groundwater was at 8.7 feet, lot 1 it was at 8.5 feet and lot 8 was at
9 feet. The perk rates range from 12 minutes to 45 minutes per inch. Those rates are well within the range
that is required for septic permits with out any engineering. The groundwater must be at 8 feet or deeper.
The perk rate must be between 5 and 50 minutes per inch. There will be conventional septic systems just
like the surrounding neighbors. The slope is approximately 1%to the east so there is no slope towards the
ditch. The edge of the 100 year flood plain elevation is about 200 feet from lot line for lot eight which is the
closest to the ditch. The septic systems will be well out of any flood area and they will be conventional
systems. There are septic envelopes designated on all lots. The septic envelopes are approximately 2200
square feet which is the average septic system permit that is written for conventional systems for a three
bedroom home or right around 1200 square feet. Each envelope is large enough to handle what is expected.
The applicant is well within the requirements. As far as contamination to the creek, the systems only need
to be 100 feet from the ditch. This is according to septic regulations. Mr. Rohn asked for clarification with
regard to the 1% slope. The slope goes from where the lots are located towards the ditch.
The acting Chair closed the Public Portion.
George DuBard, applicant, provided clarification with regard to the project. Cattail Creek, LLC consists of
four partners with Mr.Shepardson not being the majority shareholder. The cluster design is what the county
is asking for instead of having the housing scattered. There will not be any starter homes or any modular.
The homes will be 350-500 thousand dollars custom to semi custom homes. The architectural style will be
controlled by the covenants and the architectural control committee. The covenants have not been seen
by anyone because they are not done. They are presently 40 pages and he is still adding to them. There
are several models that are being utilized as reference. Cattail Creek, LLC will deed to the HOA 1/2 share
of Larimer Weld. Concerning the higher expectations for future development that is going to happen
irregardless. Trespassing is something that kids learn about when they move to the country. The ditch rider
will be releasing a larger amount of water down the ditch with the additional shares. This will make it easier
on him to separate the water. The 8 inch water line is on file with North Weld Water. There is 140 thousand
dollars set aside to improve the water line. There will be a mile of 8 inch line and a quarter of a mile going
into the property. There will also be the a ddition of two fire hydrants along the road. Cattail Creek
Partnership will still be the largest property owner on the section including the large agricultural lot that will
not be sold. The covenants have many specifics including but not limited to the number of cars that can be
visible from the outside of the property.
James Rohn asked about water from Wood Lake to the development. Mr. DuBard indicated that the ditch
rider sends the water down a lateral and it is then split. Mr. Rohn asked where the water enters the property
and if the water will be for the open space alone. Mr. DuBard indicated it is for the open space. Ms. Clamp
asked about the water for the homeowners with the acreage and their outside landscape watering. Mr.
DuBard indicated that they have the right to use some of the water but first need to determine how to retain
it. The HOA will need to determine how to deal with the water and the delivery of that water. Ms. Clamp
asked if any of the water from North Weld was allocated for exterior watering of the landscaping. Mr.
DuBard stated that the water supply is substantial and this increases the amount of water in the area. Mr.
Rohn asked for clarification with regard to the water for the individual residences. Mr.DuBard indicated that
the homeowner cannot impede where the water is going and it cannot be stored on the individual property.
Ms. Clamp asked what the calculation for 20 shares is in acre feet. Mr. DuBard indicated it was
approximately 1.5-2 acres per share on a typical year. Woods Lake shares are expensive because of the
improvements. If Woods Lake does not fill up from early water those shares are not worth anything but if
it does it will be beneficial. There will be the additional '/,share of Larimer/Weld water included with this.
Ann Johnson, representative, provided clarification with regard to the project. The large lot will be
agriculture in nature with one building site. There are the subdivision lots with the large common area. This
common open space will contain native species of grasses and the irrigation will maintain it. The species
of grasses will need to be specified at time of final plat. This will depend on soil type and the water available
for it. Ms. Clamp asked Mr. Ogle if the proposed landscape plan has been review or something similar and
is the amount of water provided adequate for the final build out. Mr. Ogle indicated should the applicant
propose a zeroscape type of material the amount of water that is required is limited and it would be able to
survive. The area around the homes themselves have water and can be irrigated by their individual water
Page -15-
tap on the parcel. A specific type of native grass is being asked for and it will be reviewed prior to the
recording of the final plan. The noxious weeds will need to be addressed and mitigated.
Fred Walker asked if the covenants will be finalized prior to the Commissioners meeting. Ms. Johnson
indicated that final covenants will be submitted with the final plat application.
Fred Walker indicated that a perimeter fence around the application along the creek area would be a good
idea. This to help mitigate some of the issues and concerns from the surrounding neighbors. The fence
would be requested to be on at least 3 sides the north, south and east. Ms. Lockman indicated that the
fence could not be located in the floodplain, it may need to be pulled back. M r. Rohn asked if the
homeowners could be required to have fencing on the back of their individual properties. Mr.Walker brought
up the idea of asking the applicant to come up with covenants to be given to the land owners so they could
have an idea of what issues are addressed in them. It might assist in dealing with some of the concern.
James Rohn asked Ms. Lockman about the fence and if it could be required and placed in the Conditions
of Approval. Ms.Lockman indicated it would be the Planning Commissions call but the ditch company would
need to approve it and it could not be located in a flood plain. Mr. Rohn asked if the fence could be placed
at the back of the properties. Ms. Lockman stated that it could be inserted into the covenants. Mr. Ruesgen
stated that it should be parents using good judgement watching their children.
Cathy Clamp asked the applicant about the fencing of the individual lots. Mr. DuBard indicated that the
covenants do not contain anything at the present time with regard to fencing but those covenants can be
adjusted to address any concerns. The type of fence proposed for the are is a three rail fence dowled in to
each post. Woven wire can be placed on that fence. It can be placed on individual lots as well as the
perimeter on the bottom towards the creek. Ms.Clamp asked what is proposed in the covenants to address
the area around the open space to protect the homeowners or surrounding property owners. Mr. DuBard
indicated that the HOA will be responsible for the open space. Vehicles are not allowed on the area unless
farm type duties are being done. Three out of the eight people will be majority responsible for the open
space. Ms. Clamp asked if the open space was going to be zeroscape or crop. Mr. DuBard indicated that
the open space will be native grasses that are approved by the County. The HOA will take care of the area.
Mr. Walker asked Mr. Morrison about a waiver of liability that was requested by the surrounding property
owners. Mr. Morrison stated that the HOA can be required to contain provisions for insurance in the
covenants. It would not be affective for the HOA to sign a disclaimer for the surrounding property owners
liability.
Sheri Lockman indicated that the fence could also stop a parent from getting to a child that is already in the
water. Staff would request that if a fence was placed along the ditch it would be a 42 inch, out of the flood
plain, 8 inch square so the water would pass through and the railing be in the outside. Mr.Walker stated that
if the fence was moved from the flood plain it would make the open space less useable, a better location
would be at the back of the lot lines. Mr. Rohn indicated that requiring a fence at the back of the lot lines
was the most that could be done to protect the children. Mr.Walker indicated that he would like to leave it
up to staff and the applicant with regard to where the fence should be located. The opportunity for further
input would be left open if no set requirement was made.
Fred Walker moved that Case PZ-613, along with the addition of Condition of Approval 1A, be forwarded
to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards
with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. John Folsom seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes;Fred Walker,yes;James Rohn,no;Bernie Ruesgen,yes;Cathy Clamp,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Cathy Clamp commented that clustering development is the way the County is trying to leave as much open
space as possible in future developments. It is intended for a conservation buffer and is something that most
people prefer so roads are not located all over the parcels. There is still the opportunity to bring concerns
before the Board of County Commissioners. The applicant needs to speak with the surrounding property
owners and address some simple issues. Getting a draft form of covenants and distributing them to the
surrounding property owners would possibly alleviate some of the concerns brought forth today.
Page -16-
fir - l7- ooz)
James Rohn commented that this does not meet with the existing properties. Most of the surrounding
properties are on hills and this is located in the flood plain. This is not a safe way to build a home.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1400
APPLICANT: Cordell &Crystal Dye
PLANNER: Carla Angeli -
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-1209; part of the SW4 of Section 22, T4N, R64W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a dog
kennel (not to exceed 150 dogs) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to WCR 55 and 1/2 mile south of WCR 44.
Carla Angeli,Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1400,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.
Crystal Dye, applicant, provided additional information with regard to the project. Some of the dogs are
donated to assist the blind, Guiding Eyes,assistance dogs and Search and Rescue. All that is done with the
kennel is for the love of the dogs. Ms. Dye was under the impression that since she was licensed through
PACFA she would not need to pursue a permit. If this would have been known different arrangements would
have been made. The septic system was placed in at the same time to serve a livestock facility. It was
designed for more of a wastewater facility. The solid waste is picked up and the kennel is cleaned as needed
with mopping or with pressure washer. There is no excessive use of water and the dogs do not want for
anything.
Bernie Ruesen asked about the solid waste disposal. Ms.Dye indicated that the waste is double bagged in
plastic and paper and is disposed of in a BFI trash container where it is taken to the landfill.
Stephan Mokray asked about the breed of dog and if they were the suggested breed for the programs
mentioned. Ms. Dye indicated that they were the preferred breed.
James Rohn asked Char Davis,Weld County Health and Environment,if the disposal method was adequate.
Ms. Davis indicated that on a site visit the location is a clean facility and there is no problems. Mr. Rohn
asked about the dogs that were not given to charity or away, the ones with disabilities. Ms. Dye indicated
she keeps them. Any dogs that have a physical problem that would restrict them from having a normal life
anywhere else are kept.
Cathy Clamp asked about the difference between 3 and 30 gallons of water per dog in the application. Ms.
Davis indicated that this standard is a regulation from the state. The County does not contain any
regulations. Ms. Clamp asked if this was something that was abnormally high and if it was something that
could come down. Pam Smith stated that when it relates to the septic system regulations the county is
required to be as stringent as the state code. They can be more stringent but not more lenient. The state
code guidelines for septic systems is 30 gallons per dog per kennel. It does not make a distinction between
a full service kennel where there is boarding and grooming and bedding being washed versus greyhounds.
Ms.Clamp asked if the amount of water goes to the capacity or is this available water. Ms.Smith indicated
it was for design capacity. There is a letter included in the packet that was addressed to Ms. Dye that
outlines the septic system and the steps that can be done to make the system legal. One of the options was
to submit an alternate engineered design for the septic system for less than 30 gallons per dog. This can
be submitted and taken to the Board of Health for approval. This would be an alternative to the state code
requirements. Ms. Clamp asked Mr. Morrison if this could proceed with the variance alternative. Mr.
Morrison indicated it could as long as it is conditioned on meeting the 30 gallon standard of obtaining an
approval from the Board of Health.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Fred Walker asked if the 30 gallon issue was addressed in the development standards. Ms.Smith indicated
that Condition of Approval 1G is a standard and applies to this. The use will have to be justified because
the applicant wants less than 30 gallons per dog. Ms. Clamp asked if language would need to be added
= EXHIBIT
Page -17-
Mr. Morrison indicated the concerns are covered in the existing language.
Crystal Dye stated concerns with the septic system and the permitting of it. There h as been issues
concerning the Weld County Health Department and the system. An engineer was hired to do the study for
usage and 2.9 gallons were found to be used per dog. The same result has come from the State Agriculture
Department. The 30 gallons per dog seems to be a typo because there is no way to get 30 gallons used on
a dog in one day. Ms. Clamp asked if this was within the Planning Commission ability to change or are the
state regulations required. Mr. Morrison stated that the Planning Commission is limited to them but the
Board of Health is not. Ms. Clamp indicated that the variance is not something that the Planning
Commission can do anything about. The natural process is to go through the Board of Health. Ms. Dye
wants specifics from the Board of Health. Mr. Morrison indicted that even though staff has to deny the
request the Board of Health can approve it.
James Rohn moved that Case USR-1400, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation
of approval. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes;Fred Walker,yes;James Rown,yes;Bernie Ruesgen,yes;Cathy Clamp,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 7:45 pm
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Page -18-
Hello