HomeMy WebLinkAbout20022537.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, September 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 1:30p.m. �#
ROLL CALL ''' 0 ^'
n
Michael Miller C'
Bryant Gimlin ;"71 - .. Q
James Rohn
Fred Walker Absent
John Folsom Absent C) w
Stephan Mokray c�
Cathy Clamp Absent r=
Bernard Ruesgen
Bruce Fitzgerald
Also Present: Pam Smith, Char Davis, Peter Schei, Drew Scheltinga, Don Carroll, Robert Anderson, Lauren
Light, Sheri Lockman, Kim Ogle, Monica Mika, Wendi Inloes, Bethany Salzman, Chris Gathman
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on,August 20,2002,
was approved as read.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1393
APPLICANT: Beau Rappell and Jed Rappell
PLANNER: Lauren Light
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-2060; part of the S2 SW4 of Section 10,T6N, R64W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a
commercial roping arena (indoor/outdoor) in the A (Agricultural) Zone
District.
LOCATION: East and adjacent to WCR 55; north and adjacent to WCR 70.
Lauren Light, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting an indefinite continuance. There
is some issues with an existing building and a second dwelling on the site.
Stephan Mokray moved to indefinitely continue USR-1393. Bryant Gimlin seconded. Motion Carried
CASE NUMBER: USR-1389
APPLICANT: Michael Dean & Marjorie L. Greckel
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW4 of Section 8, T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a
business permitted as a use by right or accessory use in the Commercial
Zone District (Storage of recreational vehicles, campers, boats, trailers,
construction trailers and modulars) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to WCR 15; '1/2 mile south of WCR 24.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting continuance based on a letter
of referral from Firestone. The Town of Firestone is requiring the applicant annex into the town.
Bryant Gimlin asked if this an indefinite continuance. Ms. Lockman indicated it would until the formal letter
1., i. Drat Page -1-
q(_ it,, 2002-2537
from the Town of Firestone was received.
Bryant Gimlin moved to indefinitely continue USR-1389. Stephan Mokray seconded. Motion Carried.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1397
APPLICANT: Luisa Ramos & Eileen Scarzello
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-1162; being part SW4 SW4 of Section 14, T6N, R66W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a
business permitted as a use by right or accessory use in the Commercial
Zone District(Landscaping Materials Yard along with Snow Plowing,Tree
Service and Firewood Businesses) in the A (Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to WCR 33; 1/4 mile north of Highway 392
Sheri Lockman,Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1397,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.
James Rohn asked whether the language that states the use associated with the property is not
transferrable is new or standard language. Ms. Lockman indicated it was traditional on sites such as this
one. Most of the use is mobile and not associated with a building. The site began as a violation with
concerns of it becoming a non conforming use. Mr. Rohn asked for clarification with regard to the vested
property rights. Mr. Morrison stated a vested rights intent is not to make the property more valuable but it
deals with State Law. The law states if an applicant goes through a land use process,obtains approval and
follows all the conditions they gain some protections that the legislature deemed appropriate. This is in
addition to those known as common law. Basically there is a period of time in which the applicant is
protected from local government changing their mind. If local government changes their mind then the
applicant can be reimbursed for some of the cost. Vested right statute is written so that the applicant must
comply with all terms of the permit.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
William H Southard, stated his concerns with the road access easement to the north of the applicants lot
which goes along the south side of the applicants property. There is a tail ditch that recycles the water to the
pond. This is located at the south end of the property. The lateral ditch was redone and an agreement was
made so there was access to the tail ditch pond for maintenance and farm purposes. Mr. Southard endorses
the application.
Michael Miller asked for clarification as to which property the access road was located on. Mr. Southard
indicated he believed it was the applicants and the applicant believed it was Mr. Southards. Ms. Lockman
indicated that the applicant has intentions on locating the pins for the purpose of constructing a fence. The
applicant does not want to restrict Mr. Southard from the tail ditch pond. Mr. Miller asked if there would be
a need for an easement if the access was located on the applicants property. Ms. Lockman indicated that
the easement may already exist and there will be no change. Mr. Miller asked if there was an easement that
was recorded. Mr. Southard indicated he is not certain if the easement has been recorded.
Butch Caton, neighbor to the south and east, opposes this mostly because of the noise. The main reason
for the opposition is that his land was purchased because it was adjacent to Pinnacle Park which is a quiet
subdivision. The operation began small and has progressively increased. Mr. Canton expressed concerns
regarding blowing trash, excessive hours of operation dust, and truck deliveries all day long. The amount of
noise is enough to keep the children from going outside. Mr. Miller asked what was generating the noise. Mr.
Caton indicated it was trucks entering and leaving, skid loaders being operated, power washers and
maintenance. The traffic is non stop. The traffic from the employees fueling the trucks which is located next
to his back yard.
James Rohn stated that there are conditions that address some of the issues with regard to dust, hours of
Page -2-
operation and noise. Mr. Caton stated that there will be a large sign in front of property. This will decrease
the value of the property by 10%. Mr. Miller stated that there are limitation in the size of the sign.
Michael Miller asked Ms.Lockman if there were conditions addressing buffering and screening. Ms.Lockman
indicated that the applicant has discussed erecting a fence at a minimum 6'. This will be addressed through
the landscape/screening plan.
Chair closed public portion.
Lois Ramos, Eileen Scarzello,applicants,the son-in-law,Mr.Scarzello will be representing the applicant. Mr.
Scarzello stated that as far as the noise is concerned the operation begins at 7:30am with the employees
arriving at 7:00am to 7:10am. There is limited Saturday work and the shop will closed anywhere from 2:00pm
to 6:00pm. The applicant is a new property owner and there is work to be done on the property. There are
separate areas for the business and pleasure. The applicants children ride four wheelers in a separate field.
The weeds are left at approximately 2-3 inches to assist in the elimination of the dust. The applicant has also
purchased and spread recycled crushed asphalt on the access roads to the business. There are 9 trucks for
the business, 17 employees which is seasonal. The amount of employees will decrease in the winter time.
The applicant is in favor of using the north access to limit the dust that is affecting the neighbors. Mr. Miller
asked if the four wheelers generate dust. Mr.Scarzello stated that in the winter months they generate more.
The prevailing winds come from the north and west so the dust will be blowing away from any residence. The
employees will enter at the north access pull around,tank and exit at the south access thereby eliminating half
of the dust. The recycled asphalt is to a four inch depth on the driveway decreasing the dust immensely. With
the weather being dry the last few months the dust has been much worse. The recycled asphalt will be placed
where the trucks will park further eliminating the dust. Mr. Miller asked Ms. Lockman if there were any
conditions for the paving of the driveways. Ms. Lockman indicated that staff was not going to allow them to
use the north access because it was thought to be on the neighbors property. The south access is where the
recycled asphalt is being placed. Mr.Carroll,Weld County Department of Public Works, indicated that there
is a development standard addressing the off street parking and access drives. Mr. Carroll indicated, on a
site visit, that there is one main access which is referred to as the south access. The access has been
resurfaced with recycled material and this does help hold the dust down. Mr. Scarzello stated that the
employees are out of the yard by 8:00am. There are deliveries including 3-5 truckloads a year for mulch and
the same for compost. The trees are delivered once or twice a year depending on workload. There are other
normal deliveries and all but routine maintenance is done off site. The small maintenance is done on site.
Mr. Miller asked about the impact on the neighbors. Mr. Scarzello indicated that they are willing to do some
landscaping including trees and fencing for screening purposes. The applicant would be willing to put a 8'
fence if the county will allow. The property pins are to be determined and the applicant does not want to block
Mr. Southard from being able to maintain the tail ditch pond. Mr. Miller asked how the access was going to
be dealt with if it was in fact on Mr. Southards property. Ms. Lockman indicated that intent was to have the
applicant use the access located on the property. Acondition would need to be added if Planning Commission
allows the applicant to use the north access and it is located on Mr.Southards property. The language could
consist of"Should the north access be located upon the adjacent property the applicant shall enter into an
access agreement allowing the use of the north access or use the existing residential access."
James Rohn asked if firewood was sold in the winter. Mr. Scarzello indicated that it was something that was
being considered and they wanted to put it in the application now. It is not certain that this will happen in the
next few years but if it is included in the application then they are covered. There are two types of licenses
from the City of Greeley. There is a tree trimming and a shrub trimming. If the shrub trimming is obtained
there will be no storage of firewood, whereas the tree trimming will entail more equipment and the need for
storage. This is basically to keep some of the employees busy in the winter time. It will be kept in the far
southeast corner of the property. Mr. Rohn indicated that the applicant is not to sale anything retail from this
property. Mr. Scarzello indicated that it will be sold then delivered to the location. There will be no clients on
site.
Bernie Ruesgen asked how close the south access is to the neighbor. Mr. Scarzello indicated it was
approximately 30-50 feet. The applicant is willing to fence the south side of the property with a privacy fence.
The applicant would be interested in it being 8' high if the county would allow this. Mr. Ruesgen stated his
concern with using the south entrance there would be a substantial amount of truck traffic noise that an 8'
Page -3-
fence would not be able to eliminate. Mr. Scarzello indicated that there are trees located on that side of the
property. The applicant has found the two property pins on south but nothing on the north. Mr. Scarzello
indicated that they are in an agreement with Mr. Southard to install a pipe type fence to eliminate the
trespassing issues that are occurring now.
Michael Miller asked Ms. Lockman about the language regarding the access and where would it be inserted.
Ms. Lockman indicated it could be inserted in Prior to Recording the Plat in G and renumber. If the language
is approved it will also affect H 3. Ms. Lockman indicated the language would become 11 and renumber
accordingly.
James Rohn moved to add language regarding access to 11 consisting of: "Should the north access be
located upon the adjacent property the applicant shall enter into an access agreement allowing the use of the
north access or use the existing residential access and renumber, and delete H 3. Bruce Fitzgerald
seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Stephan
Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James Rohn, yes; Bernie
Ruesgen, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
James Rohn moved that Case USR-1397, 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 approval. Bryant Gimlin seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Stephan
Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James Rohn, yes; Bernie
Ruesgen, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: CZ-603
APPLICANT: Don & Lisa Buxman
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the W2 SW4 of Section 21, T6N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to E (Estate) for an 8-lot minor
subdivision.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to WCR 29; approximately 1/4 mile north of WCR 66.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services presented CZ-603, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record.The Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of the application.
Stephan Mokray asked where the oil well is located at. Mr. Gathman indicated it at the northwest corner of
the site.
Bryant Gimlin asked about the dairy size. Mr. Gathman indicated that the applicant is doing an Amended
Recorded Exemption along with this application. With the addition of land the applicant can have an increased
number of animal units as a use by right. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if Lot 1 was buildable and whether a building
envelope had been designated for that lot. Mr.Gathman indicated that building envelopes are defined on all
the lots. Mr.Fitzgerald questioned if the applicant also own the dairy. Mr.Gathman indicated that they do own
the adjacent dairy.
Michael Miller asked for clarification with regard to the estate zoning and the size of lots. Mr.Gathman stated
this is a minor subdivision unlike a PUD which means the requirements need to be met unless a variance is
requested. Another issue is the applicant is proposing septic systems which are allowed under Estate zoning.
If the applicant falls under the 2 ''A acre requirements they would fall under the R-1 single family residence
zoning requirements which will demand public sewer and public water.
Bernie Ruesgen asked if there was another feeding operation close by. Mr. Gathman indicated there is one
in close proximity that is not owned by the applicant near Highway 392.
Page -4-
Rob Cassidy, representative from AgPro Environmental Services, provided some clarification with regard to
the site. The site is suited for development. It is presently zoned agriculture and the applicant would like to
develop the property due to the fact it is difficult to farm. Mr.Cassidy stated that there are several reason that
the site would be better suited for development. The property to the north is completely dormant with no
agriculture. There is some agriculture around the site. The site itself has some slope and terrain to it. Soil
conditions and other factors have made this site difficult to farm. It is cut off from other farm properties
because of a drainage ditch. There is a drainage swale that comes from the north down the east side of the
property. It cuts 25 acres off the total 80 acres. It is now farmed in corn. This property is not one of the prime
agricultural lots for Weld County. Another issue is the proximity to the existing dairy. The same owners have
both properties. This dairy has no intention for expansion and is a small dairy. This dairy has 400-450 head
on it right now. The Buxmans have intentions on phasing out the dairy. The dairy issue will become less of
an factor as time goes on. The dairy is not going to be able to co-exist with the future plans for the City of
Greeley for development of single family homes in this area. There are some issues that will need to be
addressed regarding the request for a 30 feet easement. The site should not be impacted largely. The 2 %
acres will be maintained when the lots are reconfigured to address the 30 foot easement requirement. With
the Buxmans owning both the dairy and this site it will cause them to maintain the dairy better so the lots will
be more desirable for sale. The odor and fly issues will be aggressively maintained. The developer has
agreed to assist with the paving of County Road 29 from south of the subdivision. There has been several
developments within a mile and half diameter. There are seventeen residential sites, 1/3 of those sites have
been approved through the recorded exemption process and built within last 10yrs. Mr. Miller asked if those
sites were single residences or subdivisions. Mr. Cassidy indicated they were single family residences on
farm acreage or recorded exemptions.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the city limits of Greeley. Mr.Cassidy indicated it was within the 3/4 mile radius
and to the edge of Poudre Ridge. The development is to the east. Mr. Ruesgen asked how many residences
are attached to active farms. Mr. Cassidy stated all but five are associated with active farms.
Don Buxman,owner,provided more information on this property as being a non productive piece of property.
This ground is an isolated piece of ground because of drainage ditch. The rows are short and it runs of very
steep. Mr. Buxmans father resides at the dairy and the intention is to not expand dairy. The dairy will not be
sold but will be phased out of production. The applicant would like to see nice lots to keep in with the
neighborhood. The lots will be smaller acreage with the possibility of 4H livestock opportunities.
Jerry Hartquist, builder of homes, provided information on the demand for this type of construction. Mr.
Hartquist builds estate lot homes. It is very difficult to find estate lots with a good location and they are in high
demand. The proximity of this location is desirable for the housing market. This type of construction typically
brings 350 thousand dollars. The dairy does not hinder this development because the winds blow from
northwest and the dairy sits to the southeast of the property. Often times people that are looking for this type
of lot are aware of the agricultural operation surrounding them and are willing to accept those situations.
Michael Miller asked how far from dairy to closest home site. Mr. Cassidy stated it was approximately 450
feet to the property line. South of the detention ponds is the dairy. The detention ponds service the dairy and
property around the dairy. Mr. Rohn asked about the water for the pasture area and it not being made
available. Mr.Cassidy stated that the original proposal was to take water from the detention ponds and there
were issues with the State Engineers Office about the research needed for water right data and this is a tail
end of several agriculture properties. The new proposal is to take water from the property to the east and
pump it to this site for use. This will provide irrigation to the 8 lots. Mr. Rohn asked if there was going to be
a designation of a share for this property. Mr. Cassidy indicated that would be something that needs to be
worked out with the State Engineer but the applicant will designate specific shares for this property. Mr.Gimlin
asked if the property is marketable with the dairy and the lack of water.Mr.Cassidy stated that even the winds
will have no barring. Mr. Rohn stated he would feel more comfortable if there were non potable water
available for the homeowners for the landscaping. Mr. Mokray asked about the property and location from
the dairy. Mr. Buxman stated it was not quite 1/4 mile. Mr. Cassidy stated 1500 feet to the closest residence
that could be built. Mr. Mokray asked about the irrigation ditch on the east side. Mr. Cassidy stated it was
tail water from all the properties to the north. The ditch is approximately 18 inched deep and a few feet wide.
Mr. Rohn asked if there was water in the tail water ditch. Mr.Cassidy indicated that if the farmers are irrigating
there is water in it. Mr.Rohn asked where the water goes. Mr.Cassidy indicated it goes through the detention
Page -5-
pond and eventually to the river. Mr. Mokray asked if irrigation was proposed for these properties. Mr.
Cassidy indicated they will. The applicant is proposing to provided water from the irrigation field for this
subdivision. The water will go through a pipe system to the site. Mr. Cassidy indicated that the HOA will
control the water that is available for irrigation. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Gathman if there was a need for a
condition of approval or development standard that will address the water issue. Mr. Gathman stated that
Condition 1A deals with the State Engineer Division of Water Resources and requires that the applicant get
evidence from them that the water supply can be provided without causing injury t the existing water rights.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Rod Cassidy addressed concern with the Development Standard dealing with the dedication to right of way
for the City of Greeley. The City's 20 year growth pattern is to make County Road 29 a major arterial. This
will require some lot line adjustments. Mr. Miller asked if this was part of the Two Rivers Parkway proposal.
Mr.Scheltinga,Weld County Department of Public Works, indicated it was not, it is in Greeleys planning area
of interest. The County transportation plan does not call it an arterial, however,when adjacent to boundaries
the county will honor the City's request. The City would like the right of way be dedicated based on their future
planning. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Morrison,Weld County Attorney,what the county position is on and if there is
no flexibility with this. Mr. Morrison stated that Planning Commission does not have authority to require
dedication unless it is directly related to the impacts of this development. It would be considered dedicated
without compensation. The applicant is willing to reserve the land and that is more typical of what the County
does. The applicant will hold it for Greeley for the possible future purchase. Mr. Morrison does not feel it is
appropriate for the applicant to dedicate but would prefer the applicant to reserve. Mr. Miller asked if it would
be more appropriate to change the language to reserve adverse to dedicate. Mr. Gathman indicated it would
be in 2A 2. Mr. Miller asked if the Planning Commission needed to prepare for the possibility that the applicant
would remove the easements which would make the lots smaller than the required 2 1/2 acres. Mr. Morrison
stated that typically acreage descriptions do not exclude the easements. Until the road is built the lot is not
encumbered for things like the consideration of septic systems. Mr. Miller indicated that this would be
addressed in Condition 2 A 9. Mr. Cassidy stated that the homeowners will maintain the 30 foot strip. Mr.
Mokray asked how the homeowner was going to be protected from and future surprises with regard to this
30 foot right of way strip. Mr. Cassidy indicated it will be noted on the plat once a lot is purchased. Mr.
Morrison asked what happen if less than 2.5 acres. Ms.Smith,Weld County Department of Public Health and
Environment, stated that they have met the overall density for septic systems. The applicant is proposing to
be on North Weld Water and could go down to one acre and still meet county requirements. Mr. Morrison
indicated that the artificial 2 1/2 acres for zoning needs to be evaluated as to whether it is a healthy and safe
use of those properties. Mr. Miller asked if septic envelopes on lots and if setbacks would change if 30 feet
were taken away. Ms. Smith indicated that the lots would not be impacted with the 30 foot easement.
Bryant Gimlin moved change wording in 2A2 from "dedicated" to "reserved" and 2A9 from "dedication" to
"reservation." Mr. Miller indicated that condition 2A9 requires lots will need to be redesigned so that when
the 30 feet is taken from them they will still maintain the 2 %acre requirement.
Bryant Gimlin moved to delete 2A9 and change wording in 2A2 from"dedicated"to"reserved." James Rohn
seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Stephan
Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James Rohn, yes; Bernie
Ruesgen, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Bryant Gimlin indicated that the language in Condition of Approval 4C needs to be revised. Mr. Miller stated
that 4C would be deleted and the language in 1A would address the proposed irrigation water issues. Mr.
Gimlin stated his concern is that the HOA should own the water or shares that will be associated with the
subdivision. Mr. Gathman stated the language on the covenants should be kept because it addresses other
issues besides water. The third sentence can be removed. The water issue can be address by having the
applicant submit evidence of ownership of water shares prior to recording to plat. Mr. Morrison stated the
control and water issues need to be addressed. Mr. Morrison suggested that language be in Prior to
Recording the plat and state "the applicant shall provide evidence of dedication of irrigation water for the
Page -6-
benefit of the Homeowners Association." Mr. Gathman stated it could be added in as #5. Mr. Gathman
indicated that the water will be available for the individual lots. This will be inserted as item 4P.
Steve Mokray asked about the dairy operation and the lack of control because of a use by right and not a
special use. The flies,dust and odors will be an issue with the neighbors. Mr. Gathman indicated that there
is the Right to Farm Covenant which is on the plat and notifies the potential owner that there may be issues
with the agricultural based business. Ms. Smith stated that Condition of Approval 3K addresses some of
those issues along with the Right To Farm covenants. The Health Department inspects complaints,evaluates
and makes recommendations to the operations if a violation is present. Mr. Mokray is worried about the
enforcement of the controls. Ms. Smith indicted the nuisance complaints are investigated by the Health
Department. The Health Department will work with operators on ways to control dust and other possible
complaint issues. The Health Department can require a dust abatement plan for review and approval. If the
operation have a plan and are not using it they can be required to. Mr. Morrison indicated the dairy is not part
of this application. Mr. Mokray is looking out for new homeowners. Mr. Morrison stated that there are
performance standards that intend to avoid nuisance conditions at the same time there is State law. The law
states that the operation must abide with normal good farming practices. Mr. Miller stated the dairy is not
subject to CAFO and there are no specific conditions with this dairy. Mr.Morrison stated there is not the same
detail as with other application but all dairies of any size are subject to State regulations. All are subject to
no discharge rules and things of that nature. Performance standards are also in place. Mr. Miller asked if
there was a new defense opened by the dairy being there with a subdivision. Meaning what is a definition of
the nuisance to one person may not be to another and county agencies. Mr. Morrison stated that is a factor
but not a determining one. The dairy can be a nuisance regardless if this application gets approved. It has
to operate in the guidelines in place. The Right To Farm legislation is in place to make potential buyers aware
of the possibility. The dairy has to do things consistent with the industry. Mr. Gimlin stated the applicant has
indicated it was a small dairy and will not expand. Mr. Gimlin does not see this as incompatible.
Bryant Gimlin moved to add item P language consisting of"the applicant shall provide evidence of dedication
of irrigation water for the benefit of the Homeowners Association." Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. Motion
carried.
Bryant Gimlin moved to remove third sentence in 4C. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. Motion carried.
Bryant Gimlin moved to sent Case CZ-603 to Board of County Commissioner with a recommendation of
approval. There was no second. Motion failed
Stephan Mokray moved that Case CZ-603, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
denial. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded motion.
Lee Morrison asked if that included reference to the staff comments. Mr.Mokray indicated it was incorporated
into the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Stephan
Mokray,yes;Michael Miller,no;Bryant Gimlin,no; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;James Rohn,yes; Bernie Ruesgen,
yes. Motion carried.
Bryant Gimlin commented that he does not believe there is a compatibility problem with this. The dairy and
the estate zone would work together in this instance. It would be consistent with Chapter 22 of the Weld
County Code.
Michael Miller comment that he also feels that the issues with the dairy have been addressed up front. The
long range plan for the dairy is to phase it out. This offers and opportunity to people to purchase lots that
livestock can be on.
PLANNER: Robert Anderson
Page -7-
REQUEST: Weld County Code Changes to Chapters 23, 24, 27, and 29.
Robert Anderson, Department of Planning Services presented County Code Changes for 2002-2003 year
to correct grammatical, content errors and several new sections. Mr. Anderson advised the Planning
Commission they had received the proposed code changes Case#2002-XX for review and consideration
previously on August 6th 2002, after several BCC work sessions .
"The submitted changes occur in multiple chapters of the Weld County Code and as a whole update and
simplify existing policies and procedures or correct typographical errors. Items 6, 7, 11, 16, 19, 26, 27, 34,
36, contain new concepts or proposals."
Robert Anderson referred to the Summary of the Proposed Changes and respectfully suggested using the
summary as a discussion guide, making recommended changes or corrections and then voting on the
changes as a whole rather than individually. He subsequently advised the Planning Commission members
that distributed with the PC packets was a memorandum from lead planner Kim Ogle providing additional
information regarding item#34. At the time of discussion, if questions arise Mr.Ogle will discuss this item.
Robert added two additional changes to the proposed Change Memorandum distributed on August 6th. The
first was to strike # 40 in its entirety. It was determined at the BCC work sessions that additional staff
preparation/research was required to complete this submission. The second was the deletion of the word
gravel in Chapter 23, Division 6,Article IV,Supplemental District Regulations,Section 23-4-20.c.regarding
off street parking spaces (page 23-121). This resolves a discrepancy with Section 23-3-350 Design
Standards which requires sufficient screened,off street, paved, parking areas in the industrial zone district,
the deletion of the word would not exclude the use of gravel but would establish the minimum standard to
which an exception could be granted (or recommended by the Planning Commission and granted by the
Board of County Commissioners, rather than a conflicting standard which is not consistent with other parts
of the code. This requested change is a joint request from the Department of Planning Services and
Department of Public Works to resolve a frequently misinterpreted section of the code.
Michael Miller suggested starting at the beginning and if the members of the Planning Commission has
comments they will stop and question at that time.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked for clarification on the process since he was not present at the last meeting to
receive the packet. Mr. Morrison indicated this was a legislative function so he is able to participate.
Mr. Anderson proceeded with the following Summary:
23-3-20.T. Uses by Right/Animal Boarding and Training Facilities- Amend Definition
23-3-40.B.10. Uses by Special Review-Amend Definition by deletion of trips per day
23-2-50.D.2. Correction of Map dimensions (24X36 V 8.5X11)
24-5-10 Correction of typographic error(3)V (2)
23-3-440 Correction of typographic error(8)V (80)
23-3-40 Addition of Semi-Trailers & Cargo Containers as a USR, re-letter
Bruce Fitzgerald asked for clarification with regard to this change. Mr. Fitzgerald rented a storage trailer for
a temporary during construction. It was on the property. Mr. Anderson indicated that would be in the
construction area that will be addressed later. Mr. Miller asked if there was any situation in which a person
could keep a cargo container on their property for an extended period of time. Mr. Anderson indicted that
they could not. Mr. Ruesgen asked if a railcar constituted a cargo container. Mr.Anderson stated that the
intent was to include cargo containers and railcars. It is in the definition of commercial vehicles. There is
nothing that can be done to make these a permanent use. They will always be temporary.
23-4-160 Additional of Semi-Trailers to MOBILE HOME permitting section
23-4-190 Addition of Manufactured Structure to Temporary Accessory Use as an Office
23-1-90 Addition of property owner or tenant link to vehicles in Non Commercial Junkyard
Page-8-
Michael Miller asked if at this point the county could go back to the owner of the vehicle not just the property
owner. Mr. Fitzgerald asked what would happen if it was a family member. Mr.Anderson indicated that junk
is junk. Mr. Ruesgen stated that if he is living there and has his vehicle in the back it would need to go.
Bethany Salzman,Zoning Compliance officer, provided clarification with regard to the intent. It is intended
to avoid salvage yards, having someone else store derelict vehicles on someone else property. Anyone
living on the site or the owner could keep the derelict vehicles as long as they are screened from adjacent
properties and rights of way.
23-1-90 Delete Semi-Trailers from definition of STRUCTURE
23-1-90 Add Definition -COMMERCIAL VEHICLE
23-1-90 Amend Definition of MOBILE HOME by deletion of"required utilities"language
23-3-30.A Addition of language - exempting converted, dismantled, modified, altered or
refurbished Mobile Home as Accessory/Ag Exempt Structure
23-3-30.B Addition of language - exempting converted, dismantled, modified, altered or
refurbished Mobile Home as Accessory/Ag Exempt Building
29-3-100 Remove existing Definition MANUFACTURED STRUCTURE and replace
27-2-170 Delete Public Water Systems replace w/PUD's, add "including wells"
23-1-90 Add Definitions- CONSTRUCTION TRAILER & SALES TRAILER
Robert Anderson requested the deletion of the last sentence in #16 change (as discussed at BCC work
session).
27-2-20 Replaced Director of DPS with DPW regarding Paving Waiver and correct five(5)
with nine (9) lots in Access Standards
Append 24 Design Guidelines for New Road Construction(Pavement Type Column Replace
the word Gravel with Asphalt (Pavement) in (Section Line Roads & Rural
Subdivisions Rows)
29-1-20 Add Definition MANUFACTURED STRUCTURE
24-1-40 Correction to Non Urban Scale Development- Nine (9)V five (5)
26-2-60.B.1. Addition of ¶ d. Those uses which were legally created prior to the PUD
requirement and located on a single legally created lot.
24-8-70 Amend language to require Survey of both lots of a Recorded Exemption
Append 26 Add PUD Plat Certificates
23-4-130, Amend Supplemental District Regulations - Mobile Homes to 170, 190 & 220
Update Mobile Home Permit application process/requirements
Robert Anderson discussed the proposed changes to Mobile Home section as written and recommended
by Wendi Inloes. The notification process to Surrounding Property Owners (SPO) becomes a function of
the Planning Department. While the applicant must provide the SPO list they are relieved of the actual 70%
signature survey process.
This process is similar to a referral request and changes the 70% "in favor of signatures(which are chosen
by the applicant, difficult to verify and may omit 30%of SPO's)to a 30% or more "object to"the applicants
proposal and everyone is notified.
Michael Miller asked about taking the process away from meeting people to mail. Mr.Anderson replied"The
approach is that all are notified and the current 70%is the applicant picking and choosing who the know will
approve the application."
James Rohn stated he would like to see the ratio for denial higher than 30%. Mr. Anderson indicated that
staff used the opposite of the 70% acceptance rate. Mr. Fitzgerald stated he could not think of a place in
the county in which 30-40 properties would be affected by the mailing. There may only be 6-8 neighbors
affected. Mr. Anderson indicated that all mobile homes in the county are considered temporary.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Morrison if wanted to propose change to suggested adoption procedure. Mr.
Morrison stated that it was up to Planning Commission to decide if they wanted to accept staffs
recommendation or make specific changes included in the final motion. Mr. Miller stated that there will not
Page -9-
be a substantial amount of changes but if a motion was placed on the table now it would be voted on.
James Rohn moved to change 30 % in opposition to 40%. No second.
NEC Adopt 2002 National Electrical Code with amendments
Jeff Reif, Department of Planning Services, stated that the NEC changed the format slightly and this will
conform to this format.
23-1-90 Add Definition -COMMERCIAL TOWER
23-4-800 Addition of new Section COMMERCIAL TOWERS (Promotes Co-Location &
Stealth Towers, reduces visual impact of Towers, Tower height will be limited by
setback not a specific minimum height, IE. 70',)
Chapter 23 Correct Section Definitions and references to Towers to comply with new section
23-4-80
Michael Miller asked for clarification with regard to an applicant putting a commercial tower on a property
and not having to go through the planning commission process. It would be a use by right. Mr.Anderson
indicated that if the tower was under 70 feet and only for co-location. Mr. Miller asked if the applicant
needed to got through the Planning Commission for co-location now. Mr. Anderson stated that if it is
considered a substantial change that would require an amendment to the USR. The possibility of co-location
will need to be at least explored by the applicant. This regulation promotes co-location, discourages tower
farms. These refer to commercial towers specifically.
Chapter 24, Article V, Resubdivisions Section - Repeal and reenact entire section (no major changes-
section rewritten to be more user friendly)
23-2-260.D.4.a. Correction of Vicinity Map scale (2000'V 600')
Chapter 24, Article VIII, Exemptions Section - Repeal and reenact entire section (no major changes-
section rewritten to be more user friendly)
Add th requirement of a Port-a-Potty to all Building Permit Applications
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about doing a detached garage and if a port a pot. Ms. Mika indicated that adequate
restroom facilities have to be provided where people work or congregate. If you chose not to make the
residential bathroom available then a port a potty would be required if you contracted out for the construction
of the garage. Mr. Fitzgerald indicated that he built it himself. Ms. Mika stated that this is aimed at
construction sites in which facilities are not available.
Delete Weld County Transportation Plan Map#3 Comprehensive Plan
Reference all Transportation issues to Roadway Classification Plan
Sec 23-2-40.E. Adopt Electronic Zoning Layer as Official Zoning Map of Weld County
lyear updates (Change 23-2-40.E. from 5 to 1 year)
Chapter 24, Article VI Conformance requirements - Add new section Sec. 24-6-60. Location/Site
Improvements Certificate
24-1-40 Definitions Add Definition - Obsolete Subdivision (Discuss use of the word Obsolete)
Mr. Anderson stated that in a work session the BCC is requesting a different word other than "Obsolete."
There have been six alternatives suggested. Mr. Fitzgerald asked for definitions for archaic. Mr.Anderson
stated that Deerfield and Camfield are examples of obsolete.
23-3-330.D. Add#5 Oil and Gas Support and Service
29-3-20.B.13 Allow Water for Ag Exempt Buildings
Bernie Ruesgen asked if this applied to commercial operations like pork or poultry. A lot of operations install
car wash type facilities so the employees can was before entrance and exit of the facility so not to
contaminate the livestock. Mr. Anderson indicated that would be a condition of approval required by the
Health Department. It is more for the smaller agricultural type business.
Page -10-
23-3-20 110 permit Borrow Pit allowance
Mr. Morrison indicated that one version does not limit the total extraction, it relies on being eligible for a 110
permit. It could involve a substantial amount of hauling and possible damage to the roads. The other side
includes the addition of a duration in the first alternative and limit volume. There would be enforcement
issues because they are not under a permit,just trying to determine if the threshold has been met to require
a permit. One way to address is to use the second option but require that there be an improvements
agreement for offsite county roads. The applicant would need to enter into an agreement with the County
for any off site improvements or maintenance of county roadways.
Mr. Miller indicated that this does not involve crushing, screening or other processing. It is very rare that
material is used on any public road project that the material is not screened. Mr. Morrison stated that the
current exception is if it is used on a public road project, a special use permit is not required. This is a new
exception independent of the public road exception. Commissioner Long described it as it is particularly
common in the northeast part of the county where hauling distances are longer. If it is related to roads it is
included in the existing exception.
23-4-340 &350 Add Industrial Zone District(Landscape) Performance Standards
Michael Miller stated he does not like the language consisting of "no more than 30 days a year." The
language would remain and the highlighted would be added to the paragraph. Mr. Miller suggest option 2
because it is in addition not substituting. Mr. Miller stated that option 2 does not limit the yards of material.
25thousand yards of material in a mining operation is substantial especially to the surrounding property
owners. Mr. Morrison stated that 25thousand cubic yards is typically 2 acres of disturbed area, there could
be 4 or 5 years of disturbance under a 110 permit and the potential for a second permit next to it. There is
the potential for disturbance. A way to partially deal with this is to have a road improvement agreement. Mr.
Miller stated that the second addition to the paragraph is directed at rancher who wants to dig a hold and
provide gravel on a limited basis. Mr. Morrison stated that option B could be 5 times the amount. Mr. Miller
thinks that in option 1 with the reference to 30 days and limit the amount to no more than 5 thousand yards
of material a year. It is considered a commercial operation if 25 thousand yards of material are removed in
a year. Mr. Morrison stated it is commercial to get 110 permit but if it is a side business or a main on is the
determining factor. Mr. Miller stated that if this is aimed at a rancher that wants to dig out of his pit for his
purpose than it should be limited. Mr.Morrison stated that if they are doing it on their own property they would
be exempt but not if they were to provide it to their neighbors. Mr. Fitzgerald suggested proposing a third
option. Mr. Miller stated that if material is being removed permits from the Division of Minerals and Geology
will be required. The 110 permit is limited to 10 acres or less with regard to amount of disturbance. The
operation can go for some duration. The operation could last for an extended period of time and only affect
10 acres but be 60 feet deep.
Robert Anderson indicated that a sentence be added to option 2 that states"an improvements agreement is
determined by the Department of Public Works maybe required prior to the commencement of operations."
The issue is on the public rights of way and this should cover this. Mr. Miller suggest adding the language
proposed and the limiting of material to 5 thousand cubic yards a year to option 2.
James Rohn moved to amend option 2 and included in the resolution. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. Motion
carried.
Mr.Morrison indicated that the term"obsolete"subdivision needs to be modified. Mr. Morrison indicated that
"obsolete" subdivision means something within the law. It means one that is not up to current standards in
terms of design or conditions.
Monica Mika stated the BCC wanted a different term. The concern is that obsolete was derogatory and they
did not want it to apply uniformly. The Pre 1972 was deemed because the majority of the subdivisions this
describes were done prior to 1972. Mr.Morrison stated that the only issue is that subdivisions created in 1982
could not be up to standards or conditions. Mr.Miller believes that obsolete is the shortest and most accurate
way to describe a subdivision. Mr. Fitzgerald stated the subdivision was basically not up to current code.
There would be no need for anything other than "not up to current code." Mr. Morrison stated the talk was
Page -11-
subdivisions being out of variance technically. Mr. Morrison indicated that the word obsolete is a description
that other county governments would understand and is accepted. There are other connotations that could
go along with the other words suggested.
James Rohn moved that Weld County Code Changes, 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. Stephan
Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James Rohn, yes; Bernie
Ruesgen, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 5:00pm
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Page -12-
Hello