HomeMy WebLinkAbout20023201 SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, December 3, 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 1:40 p.m.
ROLL CALL73
Michael Miller n 7
Bryant Gimlin Absent ) —
James Rohn ti
Fred Walker '
John Folsom lJ : -+
Stephan Mokray r9 —`
Cathy Clamp w
Bernard Ruesgen
Bruce Fitzgerald
Also Present: Don Carroll, Lance Unverzagt, Wendi Inloes, Monica Mika, Kim Ogle, Sheri Lockman, Chris
Gathman
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on November 5,
2002, was approved as read.
CASE NUMBER: MZ-629
APPLICANT: Dallas and Marjorie Schneider
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B RE-2293 being part of the NE4 of Section 30, T2N, R68W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Minor Subdivision Change of Zone from (A) Agricultural to (E) Estate for
nine (9) residential lots.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to 16-1/2; approximately 3/4 mile east of WCR 1.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services read a letter requesting a continuance to December 17, 2002
for the applicant to provide items to staff.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1399
APPLICANT: Ronald and Jaime Sisneros
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-1822; being part of the S2 SW4 of Section 9, Ti N, R66W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for
one single-family dwelling unit other than that permitted by Section 23-3-
20.A in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to WCR 10; approximately 1/3 mile east of WCR 29.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1399,reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Michael Miller asked about the building department referral and the historical permit for another home on
this property. Ms. Lockman indicated it is not on this site.
Jaime Sisneros, applicant, provided additional information on the project. They would like to build a new
home on the parcel and utilize the small one for a rental and possibly in the future for elderly parents. There
GJ Page -1-
vYt9u � 2002-3201
/2-/6- 7oa�
is a demand for affordable housing. The home is being rented out at this time and will continue to be; the
family that lives there will stay. The house is close to the road. This home will continue to enhance the
agricultural area due to the fact it houses workers in the area affordably. There will be only two homes on
the site. A possible future use will be housing for aging parents. There is no intention to make living as
landlords,but it is still a useable residence. This will leave 85%of the land for originally intended agricultural
uses.
Ron Sisneros, applicant, added that one of the major issues is that society has turned into a throw away
society. The house could continue to be used to the best benefit to the county. The rental property is
identified as commercial. This is not going to make a large amount of money for anyone. It is a place for
someone to live affordably. There will be no more land used for the building of the new house. The older
home will still be there rather it is lived in or not. The only thing changing on the lot is the addition of the new
home. It will be located on the high part of the land that will not be irrigated. This will leave the majority of
the land for irrigation and agricultural purposes. Ms. Sisneros added that the school districts referral
indicating the addition of a student is somewhat misleading. The child already attends the school system.
James Rohn asked about the acreage and the building envelope. Mr. Sisneros indicated that the lot is
100x150 size of lot for the new home. The existing home and building is approximately one acre.
Fred Walker asked Ms. Lockman about the history on the land. Ms. Lockman indicated it was a recorded
exemption and they can apply to subdivide again in February 22, 2006. At the time they could keep the
home as well as a second home if the recorded exemption is approved.
James Rohn indicated that at some point in the future a family member will reside there, so the rental is a
mute point. Ms. Lockman indicated that staff looks at what it is used for now not in the future. Staff has no
promise of what the use will be in the future. Staff has consistently not supported rental properties. Ms.
Lockman indicated that staff does support them under other circumstances. Mr. Rohn indicated that this
is a small acreage and there will not be much agriculture. Ms. Lockman indicated they will be limited to 4
animals.
Cathy Clamp asked about the concerns for the well not being acceptable for the time period of 100 years
and if it will be sufficient for two homes. Ms. Sisneros indicated that they had to go back to water resources
and determine if it is good for two homes. The Department of Water Resources indicated that it would not
be a problem. The output was more than twice what was going to be needed. Ms. Sisneros indicated that
the well has previously served a family of five. Mr. Sisneros indicated that in the code there is a policy for
utilization of existing housing.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
James Rohn asked about the referral from Ft. Lupton with regard to impact on road impacts and fire district
and if it is necessary. Ms. Lockman indicated that if they were to subdivide further they would be required
to submit the fees to the school district and the requirement is consistent with anyone adding a residence.
Mr. Morrison added that if the road impact fee ordinance covers the whole county it would apply here. It will
be collected at building permit stage unless the permit is applied for in the next three weeks. It will be
subject to the road impact fees.
Cathy Clamp asked if the USR was approved will it preclude the future recorded exemption possibility. Ms.
Lockman indicated that staff would support the recorded exemption. Ms. Lockman stated that staff would
like to see the homes placed on individual lots through the recorded exemption process not split the property
further.The applicant would need to go through a full subdivision process to be eligible to do more than the
two lots. Mr. Morrison added that land could not be taken from this USR without it being a substantial
change.
Fred Walker asked about the intent of the applicant wanting to keep it as one with two homes on it. If the
land is split in 2006 there will still be the rental use. The rental is not a valid reason for denial. Mr. Walker
asked Ms. Lockman why it would be better to split the parcel. Ms. Lockman indicated that staff does not
Page -2-
supprot rentals on agricultural property that do affect wells unless the use is related to agriculture. The uses
that are more compelling include medical hardships,family members and accessory to the farm. Mr.Walker
indicated that the applicant has an existing home and they are building another. They are trying to utilize
the property to the highest and best use. The well should yield more than enough for two homes.
James Rohn commented that the question is making money. Ms. Lockman indicated that they are trading
off the agricultural use for the rental. Mr. Rohn stated that this is such a small acreage it is not a productive
agricultural use other than pasture.
John Folsom asked about provision in code for commercial/industrial uses on agriculture land and is a rental
considered a commercial use. Ms. Lockman indicated it would be considered a commercial use the one
change is that once you have a home it is always a home. Ms. Lockman indicated that this residence is the
first single family residence on the land so it is a use by right to do with as the owner choses.
Michael Miller commented that there is no compelling reason to deny. The applicant is not going out to
make money and build an apartment complex.
Cathy Clamp added that the original use by right should not be removed.
Stephan Mokray moved that Case USR-1399, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Cathy Clamp 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; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James
Rohn, yes; Bernie Ruesgen, yes; Cathy Clamp, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1404
APPLICANT: Bayo Alarape and Karen Crowe
PLANNER: Wendi Inloes
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NE4 of Section 20, Ti N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a
single family dwelling unit(other than those permitted under Section 23-3-
20.A) in the Agricultural Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 8; approximately 1/2 mile west of WCR 41.
Wendi Inloes, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1404, 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.
Cathy Clamp asked. Char Davis, Health Department, about development standard #9 requirement for
adequate water supply and if this was needed since there is proof of a well permit. Ms.Davis indicated that
the standards are just that a standard, but the water that is available is adequate for both homes.
Karen Crowe,applicant, indicated that the additional modular will be used for family members who will care
for the land and the children. The property was purchased with the intention of placing two homes on site.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Vince Aberly,neighbor,is in favor of the project. He is closest to the property. They are a welcome addition
to the area and the community. They have maintained the home nicely and continue to add to it.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
John Folsom asked Don Carroll, Public Works, about the access and if there were any problems with the
additional driveway. Mr. Carroll stated that the access is existing and there is not need for another one. In
Page -3-
Development Standards#10 there needs to be some modification to the language. The language will consist
of"direct access from the public road shall be limited to one access per residential unit."
John Folsom commented that the future residence in this situation could go to a rental.
Bernie Ruesgen moved that Case USR-1404, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. James Rohn 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; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James
Rohn, yes; Bernie Ruesgen, yes; Cathy Clamp, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1394
APPLICANT: Northern Colorado Constructors Inc.
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 3,4, &5(Lupton Meadows Subdivision; part of the E2 SE4 of Section
24, T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for a Mineral
Resource Development Facility (dry open pit mining for sand and gravel).
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to WCR 18; east of and adjacent to WCR 25.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1394,reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approved of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the surrounding areas and the gravel sites. Was there a plan to re pave
County Road 18. Mr.Carroll indicated that it was an overlay on County Road 18. Mr. Fitzgerald asked about
the acceleration lane on Hwy 85 going south, if it was paid for by some of the other applicants. Mr. Carroll
indicated CDOT is requiring some improvements from the applicant. Once additional traffic is added to the
roadway additional requirements are necessary. The CDOT letter refers to the left turn slot being extended,
and the acceleration lane extended. There is also talk of a free right turn lane. Mr. Carroll added that
appropriate signage will be in place once these are established. The applicant will bear some of the cost with
CDOT.
John Folsom commented that the southbound acceleration lane and the northbound left turn lane on Hwy
18 need to be widened. They are just a shoulder with a stripe on them. Mr. Carroll indicated that the
applicant will need to work with the state on the system. Things will be taken into consideration for the safety
of the highway.
James Rohn asked for clarification on the standards in which the applicant is asked to address the
recommendations. Mr. Gathman indicated that since some of the referral agencies are not part of the
county, staff cannot make the applicant address the concerns. They have to show written evidence that
there has been an attempt. Mr.Rohn asked for clarification with regard to Development Standard#10
and if they could not be combined. Ms. Davis stated that there is a need to have facilities for the employees
but also have port a potties located in various areas on the site for use.
Cathy Clamp asked Mr. Carroll about the bridge on Country Road 18 and what the haul route was going to
be . Is the plan to come out on CR 18 and if so is there plans to upgrade some of the smaller wooden
bridges that are located on that stretch of road. Mr. Carroll stated that the haul route that is being set up is
to exit on CR 25 going south to CR 18 then to the east to Hwy 85. 90%of the traffic will go to Hwy 85. The
bridges on the stretch are legal bridges, nothing is posted. 10%will go back to the west and disburse. Ms.
Clamp indicated that there was a wooden bridge at the bottom of the hill below Sand Hill Creek. Ms. Clamp
stated she believed there was a posted bridge going west and this is a narrow stretch. Mr. Carroll will look
into this and determine if there is a need for posting.
Page -4-
Bruce Fitzgerald asked Mr. Carroll about the curve before hwy 85 on CR 18,which gets cut short by almost
everyone. Is there any plans to straighten it out or what would compel the county to do so. Mr. Carroll
indicated that there are no plans for it, and there would need to be numerous accidents. It would need to
be taken on as a safety project. Mr. Carroll indicated that the speed limit should be posted for the curve.
Mr. Folsom added that the limit is posted at 35mph and it might be considered to reduce to 25mph.
Cathy Clamp asked Mr. Gathman about the landscape plan and will it include directional lighting or should
there be an additional provision. Mr. Gathman indicated that a provision could be added. There is a
provision in the commercial/industrial section of the Weld County Code.
Michael Miller asked about the draw running north to east and if it was a historical drainage. Mr. Gathman
stated it looks like a historical drainage and they are looking into the north end because of the wetlands. The
Army Corps of Engineers indicated it was not jurisdictional.
Ken Rollin, representative for the applicant, provided some additional information on the project. The
applicant has a state reclamation permit. The reclamation permit has been approved by the State Geology
and Mining. Through that process all the neighbors have been notified and responses have been received
from them regarding the wells. There is a weed control plan in place with Ron Broda. There will be very little
hauling to the west with the majority going east. Ms. Clamp indicated that the concern is to go to CR 18 to
the east approaching Hwy 85. Mr. Rollin indicted that the only thing besides the curve, going to the east,
is the bridge. The bridge was built to get above flood level. Other than that it is in the river bottom which
is flat. The drainage through the property is an old oxbow. The only natural drainage is at the far west edge.
They are mining one hundred feet from that. Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District ditch to the
south has been addressed and a written agreement is being worked on. The applicant stated that by the
State permit they have to stay 200 feet away from the ditch. The applicant is currently working with all the
mineral interests in the area. It does not appear that there is anything that will hold that process up.
Cathy Clamp asked about the haul route and concern with safety and the bridges and curve onto Hwy 85.
Directly from CR 25 onto CR 18 there is a steep downgrade at the bottom there is a wooden bridge. That
is the concern. The S curve onto hwy 85 is another issue. The roadway on CR 18 is narrow and there are
no shoulders. Will training of the divers be done? Mr. Rollin indicted that there will be contract drivers so
there will be no training possibilities. There will be signs posted to make them aware of the hazards. Mr.
Rollin clarified the haul route with regard to where the bridges and the hills are located.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the drivers being contracted and the hauling going east. Mr. Rollin indicted
that there will be designated routes for the drivers to take and it will be controlled. This has been done in
the past because of the safety reasons.
John Folsom asked about the letters from the neighbors and the water level. Will any monitoring wells be
done to control or determine the ground water level. Mr. Rollin indicted that there will be a monitoring
program once the permit is approved. There are monitoring wells in other areas of the site but this area was
wet when the wells were initiated. They will be installed and Mr. Eyhart well will be monitored for quality and
water level. There will be written assurances that mitigation will be done should any problems arise. The
applicant is bound by this because of the state permit.
Michael Miller asked Mr.Gathman if there was anything in the standards for the monitoring of the wells. Mr.
Gathman indicted that language can be prepared.
James Rohn asked about covering the gravel trucks. Mr. Rollin indicated that it is state law.
Cathy Clamp asked about the tree nursery and the dewatering on the site. Mr. Rollin indicated that it must
be done on the site because of the nature of the gravel. It is mostly sand near the river. A dry pit will
produce too much sand.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Robert Eyrhart, neighbor, stated that there is a wooden bridge on CR 18 and CR 25. The bridge was
Page -5-
condemned at one time but it was fixed. The gravel trucks will be very hard on the bridge. There is a safety
issue with regard to the speed limit. It is 55 mph on a narrow two lane road. Mr. Eyrhart recommends the
route entrance be directly on CR 18. The traffic is already extreme with the number of gravel trucks in the
area turning onto Hwy 85. The acceleration lane helped a great deal but there has been nothing done to
CR18. Turning left onto Hwy 85 is a nightmare and very dangerous. The bridge on CR 25 is approximately
16 foot wide. There is not way to pull up to the stop sign at the bridge and have a truck enter. There is not
enough room. The bridge on CR 18 and CR 25 is dangerous and too small. The water issue has been
addressed and it being in writing form is beneficial. The dewatering has got to harm or dry out the wells in
the area. There are three wells located on his property. The water quality and the traffic are the major
concern. Mr. Eyrhart would like to see the hours of operation not be in the evening. Currently there is work
being done at the site. The noise and the air quality will diminish. The currently used road comes directly
towards the house and the dirt from the trucks is tremendous. The plan for reducing the speed limit should
be strongly considered on CR 25 and CR 18.
Michael Miller asked where Mr. Eyrhart's home was located. Mr. Eyrhart indicted he is adjacent to the area.
The mining operation is beginning closest to his home. The mining will move towards the southeast which
will be beneficial in maybe five years.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked for clarification with regard to the dirt blowing from the trucks. Mr. Eyrhart indicated
that a road is built on the western edge of the property going north and south. The roads in the area are
unsafe with the speed limit and the curves.
Cathy Clamp asked for clarification with regard to the misdirected traffic impact he is experiencing. Mr.
Eyrhart indicated that delivery semi trucks come to his home looking to deliver. His driveway is 1/4 mile long
and there is no place to turn around except for his back yard. This presents a danger for him and his
children.
The Chair closed public portion.
Don Carroll stated that the bridge on CR 25 is 24 feet and is a legal bridge. It should handle the traffic. The
pit to the north has been operating since the 70's. There have been numerous legal loads on the bridge.
John Folsom asked about the trucks turning onto CR 25 and whether there would be a problem. Mr.Carroll
indicated it was located north of CR 18 across the canal on CR 25.
Chris Gathman indicted language for the lighting. The language would consist of"Sources of light shall be
shielded so beams or rays of light will not shine directly onto adjacent properties. Neither the direct nor
reflected light from any light source may create a traffic hazard to operators of motor vehicles on public
streets." This would be Development Standard #28.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about a possible motion to reduce speed on CR 18. Mr. Morrison indicated that the
Commissioners have the authority to post speeds. It can be included as a separate matter or
recommendation to be considered. It does not fit within this resolution. Mr. Fitzgerald asked how that would
be done? Mr. Morrison stated it can be included in the discussion on the decision or it can be included at
the end of the meeting under any other business. It is more to the point to put it in the discussion for the
permit but indicated that it is understood it is not part of the permit.
Cathy Clamp asked Mr.Carroll about the haul route and the left onto hwy 85 and whether the accel lane onto
northbound hwy 85 is adequate. Mr. Carroll stated this would be a CDOT call but a recommendation could
be made. Mr.Fitzgerald added that on north hwy 85 access plan there is an interchange on CR 18 proposed.
An overpass and exchange is planned.
James Rohn asked about the prairie dogs. Mr.Gathman stated that the Division of Wildlife did not express
any concerns. Mr. Morrison stated that there have been efforts to put them as threatened but it has not
succeeded..
Don Carroll indicated that the Hwy 85 Corridor plan indicates the eliminating curb cuts and deceleration lanes
Page -6-
on CR 18.They are also working on light at CR 6 and Hwy 85. Ms. Clamp asked if there was any other haul
route to provide easier access to northbound traffic. Mr. Carroll stated that objective is to get it from the pit
entrance to a paved road to the nearest interstate area. 90%of the product is going to the Denver market.
James Rohn asked about the noxious weeds and what was done. Mr. Gathman indicated that they have
worked with Ron Broda on a plan and there is a condition that the applicant has to attempt to address the
conditions of the soil conservation district. The site was unproductive ground.
Michael Miller asked about work going on now. Chris Zadel, applicant, indicated that they have been
stripping top soil for personal use. They have also used some gravel for personal driveways.
Cathy Clamp asked to insert Prior to Scheduling the Board of County Commissioners Hearing:item 1C"The
applicant shall submit a water impact plan to the Weld County Department of Planning Services showing
the location of proposed monitoring wells and plans to mitigate." Mr. Miller asked Mr. Morrison if a water
impact plan has ever been requested before. Mr. Morrison stated that requirements have been made for
a monitoring plan that will address the impacts. The option of an agreement should be left so that a private
agreement can be established.
Michael Miller suggested the following language for 1C "The applicant shall either submit to the Weld
County Department of Planning Services a copy of an agreement with neighboring property owners
stipulating that monitoring wells will be installed and monitored and that potential impacts to adjacent wells
will be adequately mitigated or show evidence that an adequate attempt has been made to mitigate property
owners concerns in regards to well impacts."
Cathy Clamp moved to approve the above language. James Rohn seconded. Motion carried.
Michael Miller asked if the lighting is in the code. Mr. Morrison stated it was part of the code but not in that
section. The lightening would not be one of them. It would be better to place it into the permit itself.
Cathy Clamp moved to add Development Standard #28. Stephan Moray seconded. Motion carried.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that Case USR-1394, 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 Moray 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; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James
Rohn, yes; Bernie Ruesgen, yes; Cathy Clamp, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Bruce Fitzgerald commented that the speed limit be reduced east of CR 25 towards hwy 85 to 25 mph.
Meeting adjourned at 3:35pm
Respectfully submitted
�l 11 -1 U ) 't ( k
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Page -7-
Hello