HomeMy WebLinkAbout20050849.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld County
Conference Room, 4209 CR 24.5, Longmont, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by interim Chair,
Michael Miller, at 1:40 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Michael Miller
Bruce Fitzgerald
Tom Holton
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
James Welch -
Roy Spitzer
Erich Ehrlich
Paul Branham
Also Present: Bruce Barker, County Attorney; Monica Mika, Director of Planning; Kim Ogle, Sheri
Lockman, Chris Gathman, Planners; Bethany Salzman, Compliance Officer; Peter Schei, Public Works;
Trevor Jiricek, Environmental Health.
In the absence of the Chair and the Vice Chair,Tom Holton motioned to elect Mike Miller to chair the meeting.
Roy Spitzer seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on October 18,2005,
was approved as read.
HEARING ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED
1. CASE NUMBER: 2005-XX
APPLICANT: Benson Farms LLC
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part E2 of Section 23 and the SW4 of Section 24 all in T3N,
R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Petition to amend the Mixed Use Development Area of
Unincorporated Weld County. Changes to Chapter 22
(Comprehensive Plan) and Chapter 26 (Mixed Use Development
Plan Structural Land Use Map 2.1) land use designation
modification.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Hwy 66; east of and adjacent to
CR 9.5.
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning, said Benson Farms Limited Liability Company have applied for a
Petition to amend the Mixed Use Development Area of Unincorporated Weld County. Changes to Chapter
22 (Comprehensive Plan) and Chapter 26 (Mixed Use Development Plan Structural Land Use Map 2.1)
land use designation modification. The applicant is requesting a continuance of 2005-XX to December 20,
2005 in order to modify their application.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against the continuance. As
there was no one, the public portion of the hearing was closed.
Doug Oschner moved that Case 2000-XX, be continued to the December 20, 2005 hearing date. Erich
Ehrlich seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
2005-0849
2. CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1259
APPLICANT: Riverbend do Eric Reckentine with LaFarge West Inc
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: N2 Section 13; NE4 NW4 Section 12; W 30 acres W2 SE4
Section 1; SE4 NW4 Section 12; E 30 acres SW4 SE4 Section
12; S2 of E 60 acres SW4 Section 12; W4 SW4 SE4 Section 12;
NW4 SE4 Section 12; E 30 acres NE4 SW4 Section 12; Pt N2
NE4 Section 24; E2 SE4 Section 12 of T1 N, R67W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado, and W2 NW4 Section 18; W2
SW4 Section 18; Lot A and B of RE-2347 Pt NW4 Section 19;
Lots 1 and 2 SW4 Section 19; Pt W2 SE4 Section 19; Pt NW4
SE4 Section 19; W2 SW4 Section 7 of T1 N, R66W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, CO.
REQUEST: An amended Site Specific Development Plan and a Special
Review Permit for a Mineral Resource Development facility
including a Concrete and Asphalt Batch Plant, Concrete Casting
Facility, Recycling Plant, Materials Blending, Import of Materials
and Gravel Mining in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Hwy 52; East of and adjacent to
CR 23; North of and adjacent to CR 6; and West of and adjacent
to State Highway 85.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services, said they had received a letter from Eric Reckentine
and LaFarge West requesting a continuance to allow the applicant time to revise the maps and
documents to reflect modifications to the permit boundary. Staff is requesting this case be continued
indefinitely.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against the continuance. As
there was no one, the public portion of the hearing was closed.
Doug Oschner moved that Case AmUSR-1259, be continued indefinitely. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
CONSENT ITEMS
3. CASE NUMBER: PZ-1085
APPLICANT: Twin View Estates LLC
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2953; part of the SW4 of Section 5, T4N, R68W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Planned Unit Development Change of Zone for nine (9) lots with
Estate uses, one (1) common open space outlot(11 acres) (Twin
View Estates PUD).
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 3 and north of and adjacent to CR 48.
Lauren Light, AGPROfessionals, representing the applicant, said they wish to remain on the consent
agenda.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against the case remaining
on the consent agenda. As there was no one, the public portion of the hearing was closed.
2
4. CASE NUMBER: USR-1530
•APPLICANT: James & Gail Sutton
PLANNER: Wendi Inloes
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 2, Block 2, Carmacar Ranchettes; located in part of the E2 of
Section 5, Ti N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Use by Special Review Permit and Site Specific Development
Plan for an Office incidental to the operation of the Uses Allowed
by Right as listed in Section 23-3-20
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Aspen Avenue and north of and
adjacent to Mountain View Street(North of CR 12; west of and
adjacent to CR 5).
James Sutton, the applicant, said he wished to remain on the consent agenda.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against the case remaining
on the consent agenda. As there was no one, the public portion of the hearing was closed.
Doug Oschner moved that Case PZ-1085 and Case USR-1530, be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning
Commission's recommendation of approval. Tom Holton seconded the motion. Motion carried
unanimously.
HEARING ITEMS
Specific time for public input has been set aside for discussion on the following items:
5. CASE: Code Changes/Submittal Dates & Planning Commission Hearing
Dates For 2006
SECTIONS: Appendix 22-E-Weld County Right to Farm, Section 22-1-50—
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Procedure, Section 23-1-90
Definitions, Section 23-3-30 Accessory Uses, Section 23-3-40
Uses by Special Review, Section 23-3-110.C.8 R-1 Zone District,
Section 23-3-420.G —Accessory Uses, Section 23-4-160
Temporary storage of Mobile Homes, Section 23-4-165
Temporary storage of semi trailers, Section 23-4-250 Permit
requirements, Section 23-4-260 Delegation of authority, Section
23-4-280 Permit requirements, Section 23-4-290 Delegation of
authority Replace Sign Code Chapter 23, Article IV, Division 2,
Section 23-4-70 Preamble, Section 23-4-80 General
Requirements, Table 1, 2, 3, Section 24-3-50.0 Minor
Subdivision, Section 24-4-40.D.6 Major Subdivision, Section 24-
5-30.B.3 Resubdivision change to lot lines, Section 24-4-40.D.6
Resubdivision redesign, Add as Section 24-8-50.L, Section 24-7-
20-A-1 Streets, Appendix 24-E- Roadway Cross Sections Section
24-8-50 Submittal Requirements, Section 27-8-40—Changes to
PUD final plan, Section 29-3-170 Approval and issuance of
permit, Section 29-3-280 Certificate of occupancy, Section 3307
Protection of adjoining property, Additional Changes: Replace
Section 23-2-260.B.11, Add Section 23-2-260.D.5.c.13, Replace
Section 23-2-160.L, Section 27-6-90 will be replaces with Section
27-6-90, Add Section 14-3-50.AA, Add Section 24-3-60.U.21,
Add Section 24-4-40.D.7, Add Section 24-4-40.D.3.z, Update
various section , Section 29-3-120
3
PLANNERS: Monica Mika, Kim Ogle, Sheri Lockman, Chris Gathman,
Bethany Salzman, Peter Schei, Roger Vigil, Bruce Barker
Monica Mika, Director of Planning Services,said every year it is the responsibility of the Planning Department
to approve hearing dockets for the upcoming year. Ms. Mika presented the hearing dates for the year 2006
and pointed out that on October 17, 2006, due to the booking of the hearing room for the election, they may
not be able to hold the scheduled hearing in the South Weld office. February 21, 2006 has been set aside
solely for the presentation of one specific case, the Pioneer application. She is recommending the schedule
be approved.
The Chair asked for discussion or a motion. Tom Holton moved that Submittal Dates & Planning
Commission Hearing Dates for 2006, be approved. Doug Oschner seconded the motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Mika suggested approving changes chapter by chapter, and then presented the changes to Chapter
22, the Right to Farm Covenant. Ms. Mika said the intent is to address the idea of visual disparity between
urban and agricultural areas, to define visual blight and identify what it might look like in each area. The
new language in the second paragraph addresses the visual disparity and Ms. Mika would like that
component added to Chapter 22.
The Chair said there is a fine line between accumulated farm equipment and a junkyard and asked what
in the code addresses trash accumulation on property that is not agriculturally related. Ms. Mika
suggested that items not related to the uses of the property would constitute a problem and are looked at
on a case by case basis. She then mentioned that screening was an alternative as well as the option of
flexibility to allow for certain things in the agricultural areas as opposed to urban areas. Doug Oschner
asked for a definition of an agricultural farm, is it based on acreage, and how is that determined. Ms. Mika
said that presently there is no specific definition, and there are certain older subdivisions that have the
same rights as larger agricultural areas.
Doug Oschner moved that the changes to Chapter 22 be approved. Erich Ehrlich seconded the motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, presented Chapter 23 regarding cargo containers and
semi trailer storage containers. He said the issue is they are different and require different permits and
they are trying to clarify the difference between these containers and the storage of them in rural areas
and urban areas. The first change in Chapter 23, page 4, is the definition of a cargo container.
The Chair asked about the difference between a cargo container and a semi container. Mr. Gathman said
a cargo container does not have wheels, a semi container does. The cargo container requires a building
permit but not a license. The semi container does not require a building permit but must be licensed.
Paul Branham asked about the verbage and if a container must be metal. Mr. Gathman replied that you
want the container to be permanent, and metal is more permanent than wood or something else. Tom
Holton asked what in particular they were trying to accomplish with this change. Mr. Gathman said
basically it is a way to regulate the number of cargo containers on a parcel, allowing one (1) per parcel as
a use by right.
The Chair asked if a cargo container required a building permit. Mr. Gathman said it would, specifically in
the Agricultural Zone District, but this does not address high intensity residential areas. Mr. Holton asked
what the building permit fee would be for a cargo container. Roger Vigil, Chief Building Official, said the
fee is based on a storage building, the same as any metal building, but does not include the foundation in
the fee. For instance, a one thousand (1000)square foot building would be five hundred fifty(550) dollars.
Mr. Holton asked if this is approved, does that mean the building department will have to go out and
conduct inspections on these containers. Mr. Vigil replied that they would. The Chair asked about
setbacks from property lines. Mr. Vigil said those would be adhered to, but said he felt most containers
would be out in the middle of the property, not necessarily near the dwelling. The Chair asked about
containers already in place and will they need to obtain a permit. Mr. Gathman's response was inaudible.
Mr. Holton asked for clarification that there would be one (1) container per parcel no matter the number of
acres. Mr. Gathman said that was correct. Mr. Gathman then addressed page 5 and the definition of
4
semi-trailers, that they are not structures so do not require permits, but do need to be licensed. He said
page 6 outlines cargo containers as an accessory use in the Agricultural Zone District. Cargo containers
are for storage only; they are not to be used as dwellings; they need to remain transportable; they shall be
maintained and not allowed to come into disrepair; signage of any kind may not be placed on them; they
are based on use and once the storage use ends they must be removed. We are proposing to allow up to
two (2) semi-trailers in the Agricultural Zone District if not in a subdivision or unincorporated town sites. In
areas that are incorporated town sites or subdivisions, we are proposing to allow one (1) semi-trailer as
temporary accessory storage and the permitting process would be similar to that for a mobile home where
they must justify use of the trailer for storage. An applicant proposing more than one (1)semi-trailer would
require a use by special review. Mr. Branham asked what temporary meant. Mr. Gathman replied that it
was six (6) months, but they can request extensions from the Board of County Commissioners up to a
period of eighteen (18) months. The Chair asked about the use of the word "temporary"on page 8, item
L. and suggested perhaps it should be stricken. Mr. Gathman agreed to strike "temporary'on page 8,
item L. The Chair asked about the permitting process for semi-trailers. Mr. Gathman responded that page
20, Section 23-4-900 addresses specific permitting requirements.
Bethany Salzman, Compliance Officer, said the specific area of the code she had been asked to address
dealt with the parking and operation of commercial vehicles on private property in the Agricultural Zone
District. Page 8, item M., allows for one (1) commercial vehicle without permits as long as it is not in a
subdivision or incorporated town. If it is located in one of those areas, the owner will need to apply for a
permit, at which time surrounding property owners will also be notified as part of the process. The
commercial definition on page 8 did not change noticeably. Ms. Salzman then gave an overview of
Sections 23-3-110 and 23-3-420. Mr. Welch asked how many semi-trailers are allowed. She replied that
agricultural purposes are not as limited as other uses, and that the code changes are trying to make
requirements more lenient. In her position, she operates on a complaint basis and at this point in time,
regulates only those she receives complaints on. Mr. Holton suggested they make some changes in the
language. As it is now, it allows only for personal use and he knows of numerous farmers that use their
semi-trailers to make a living in the off season, thus changing the circumstances. Mr. Holton suggested
this was a huge grey area. The Chair said one way to address it would be to designate one (1)
commercial vehicle for every two (2)to ten (10)acres, more, if they owned more land. Ms. Salzman said
she would welcome any proposed language. Bruce Barker, County Attorney, asked Ms. Salzman about
the use by right. She replied that if you grow or raise something on site, the use of the semi is okay, but it
becomes commercial if you are hauling something to other places. Mr. Barker said he didn't see
neighbors hauling various things for each other as a violation of the code. Mr. Holton asked about future
effects if passed at this point. The Chair said that is why the code is changed regularly to address
changes and needs as they are required.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning, addressed the sign code saying they have proposed a new
format to make it easier for the public to understand and that sizes and numbers of signs have not
changed much. The Chair asked what the most significant change was. Ms. Lockman replied that there
were two: additional signs for increased road frontage; and zone lots, where there would be one (1)sign
per use rather than one (1) sign per lot. Mr. Welch asked for clarification on page 17, item D., concerning
sizes of signs. Ms. Lockman said Appendix 23-D addressed that. Mr. Oschner inquired about placement
of the sometimes numerous development signs. Ms. Lockman said sign complaints will be on a case by
case basis and that the county will not be out actively looking for violations. Mr. Oschner said he would
like to see the county sign code changed. Ms. Mika responded that signs and their placement always
spark a passionate discussion. The Chair said it was discussed at length several years ago. Mr. Ehrlich
inquired about page 13 and the time frame of political sign removal. Ms. Lockman said it has been
changed many times.
The Chair reminded the commission members that they needed to make a motion to amend page 8, item
L.
Tom Holton moved that the word"temporary"be stricken from page 8, item L. Doug Oschner seconded the
motion. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against changes to the code. As
there were none, the public portion of the hearing was closed.
5
Doug Oschner moved that Chapter 23,with amendments submitted by the staff,be approved. Paul Branham
seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer,yes;James Welch,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes;Tom Holton,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes;
Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Tom Holton commented that he would like to see the size of the parcel figure into the number of commercial
semi-trailers permitted in the Agricultural Zone District.
Ms. Mika, Director of Planning, reviewed Chapter 24, page 26, which proposes an affidavit of lien holders
and anyone with a legal interest in a subdivision. It was determined the best way to do this was through a
list of names and addresses of property owners and to include them in the submittal requirements for
subdivisions. Bruce Barker, County Attorney, gave an example of a parcel where there is a mortgage on
that parcel and a deed of trust and it is then subdivided where each legal description becomes different.
They want to make certain that a lien holder is notified and understands the property is being subdivided
and that in fact legal descriptions are being changed and this provides a measure of protection for the lien
holder. Mr. Barker said the lien holder could hold up the process but could probably not stop the process,
and this served to notify them of impending changes as well as give them the opportunity to protect their
interests.
The Chair asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the changes to Chapter 24 of
the county code. As there were none, the public portion was closed.
Mr. Branham asked about the number of sub-section deletions and if they are addressed elsewhere. Ms.
Lockman said they were.
Peter Schei, Public Works, presented road changes in Appendix 24. His presentation was inaudible.
Doug Oschner moved that the amendments to Chapter 24 be approved. Tom Holton seconded the
motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Mika reviewed Chapter 27 and said there is one change in Section 27-8-40 to incorporate the PUD
signage into the new sign code presented by Ms. Lockman. On page 29, item D., there is a new sentence
at the end that should have"or fifteen (15)"stricken.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against changes to the code. As
there were none, the public portion of the hearing was closed.
Doug Oschner moved that Chapter 27, with the deletion and the amendments submitted by the staff, be
approved. James Welch seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Roger Vigil, Chief Building Official, reviewed Chapter 29 regarding the International Building Code,saying that
the changes they were requesting gives building inspectors an extra tool to use. The Chair asked if this was
designed to protect neighbors during construction and if notification of digging needed to be provided to the
neighbors. Mr.Vigil said this was instituted to control water run-off and that neighbors need not be given prior
notification of digging. Mr. Vigil said the second part addresses the plot plan and the need to have enough
room for the well,septic,etc. Mr. Barker said storm water changes require the county to enforce storm water
regulations in what are called the MS-4 areas and those deal with population centers surrounding Longmont,
Evans,Greeley and Erie. Mr. Barker said the Commissioners have done two things: the first is regulating the
MS-4 areas;the second applies to post-construction,where the plot plan provided to the Building Department
must have evidence that they are using "Best Management Practices"; any properties with a State permit
where more than one(1)acre is disturbed will need the storm water permit and must prove that they are using
"Best Management Practices as well, and this will be overseen by the Environmental Health Department.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against changes to the code. As
there were none, the public portion of the hearing was closed.
6
Doug Oschner moved that Chapter 29, with amendments submitted by the staff, be approved. Erich Elrlich
seconded the motion.
The Chair then introduced proposed amendments to the code he would like to see considered. The first
one is in Section 22-2-210.D.2 (PUD POLICY 4.2)where he would like to delete the final sentence, which
now reads, "Some Planned Unit Developments may not require common open space depending on their
type, density, or other factors"and replace with "All Planned Unit Developments shall provide a minimum
of ten percent (10%) common open space." The Chair said the reason he is requesting this change is
that while most PUD's are created in rural areas, the PUD is a community in itself. They usually consist of
eight (8)or nine (9) lots and these small communities need a common area where children and all
residents can gather and play within the community without creating a burden on surrounding landowners.
This requirement was recently eliminated and he feels that this lowers the quality of the developments in
the county at a time when standards should be raided rather than lowered.
Mr. Welch said he knows this is a contentious topic but does not feel a common open space needs to be
mandatory. Ms. Mika reviewed the PUD benchmarks which designate that the amount and type of
common open space provided in a PUD Zone District shall be proportional to the intensity of the zone
districts called for in the PUD or uses specified in the application, unless specifically delineated in Chapter
26. Ms. Lockman commented that fifteen percent(15%)open space is required in major subdivisions and
urban areas. Mr. Miller said his intent was, as an example, to create a three (3) acre open space in a
thirty(30)acre subdivision that was not necessarily contiguous. Ms. Mika replied that when the Code was
modified, the findings were that designs for these minor subdivisions were such that the open space was
really only for the entry way to the neighborhood and the trails may or may not have been maintained.
Mr. Spitzer said something about flexibility, open space and signage that was inaudible. Ms. Mika said
there is a difference between having a regulation that says "sometimes" and one that says"all PUD's shall
require". Mr. Spitzer said, if he understood correctly, urban scale developments require a fifteen percent
(15%)open space for all nine (9) lot minor subdivisions, and would then need to be amended to say"not
all Planned Unit Developments", but rather"all minor subdivisions". Ms. Mika said that the way this was
written, all PUD's shall provide a minimum of ten percent(10%)open space still would be okay in the
MUD which has a higher benchmark. Another compromise might be to say that PUD's in certain areas
need open space and PUD's in other areas do not. The Chair reaffirmed the need for open space areas
to serve the needs of the residents. Mr. Oschner said he understands the need for common open space
but doesn't agree with requirements for all PUD's, as not everyone setting up a subdivision can afford the
burden of maintenance of the open space. Ms. Mika then addressed retention ponds and said they are
not always considered open space as it depends on where they are located especially if there primary
function is retention. Ms. Mika recommends not changing this. Mr. Branham said he supports ten percent
(10%)common open space for all PUD's but asked if it was appropriate to suggest this change at this
time. Mr. Barker responded that it was okay, as it will be published prior to the Board of County
Commissioner's hearing and they fully expected the Planning Commission to have additions they would
like to see implemented.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against changes to the code. As
there were none, the public portion of the hearing was closed.
Paul Branham moved to amend Section 22-2-210.D.and add the statement"All Planned Unit Developments
shall provide a minimum ten percent(10%)common open space". Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, yes; James Welch, no; Michael Miller, yes; Erich Ehrlich, no; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, no;
Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried 4-3.
Mr. Spitzer had a comment that was inaudible. Mr.Oschner commented that he does not think this is needed
at this point and is potentially more detrimental to the subdivisions or the PUD than it is beneficial. Mr.Welch
commented that he agrees with Commissioner Oschner and that making this a requirement could cause
hardship in some cases. Mr. Holton commented that he didn't think the retention pond should have to be
counted as part of the open space unless they wanted it to count as part of that ten percent (10%).
7
The Chair then proposed a change to sound limitations in the Agricultural Zone District to read, "All
stationary or semi-stationary equipment used in the Agricultural Zone District shall comply with the noise
levels applicable to the Commercial Zone District." Currently there are no provisions for limitations in the
Agricultural Zone District and he felt that was a reasonable addition to the code in that area as the county
is becoming more urbanized and he wants to prevent it becoming a larger issue in the future. Mr.
Oschner asked if the noise was to be measured from the noise source or property line. The Chair replied
that it would be measured from the property line. Trevor Jiricek, Department of Environmental Health, said
per state statute, you would measure twenty-five (25)feet from the property line. Mr. Barker said noise
levels from 7 am to 7pm allowed sixty(60)decibels and from 7pm to 7am fifty-five (55)decibels.
Definitions by state statute are different from our Commercial Zone District so you could make it more
restrictive per state statute but need to spell out the Commercial Zone District as defined in Section 25-12-
102. Mr. Holton asked what sixty-five (65)decibels would sound like. Mr. Jiricek said a vacuum cleaner is
an example of sixty-five (65)decibels. Mr. Holton asked who would enforce noise levels. Mr. Barker
responded that things would remain basically the same,just become stricter in the Agricultural Zone
District for those activities deemed commercial. Mr. Jiricek answered a question about a water pump in
the Agricultural Zone District and said standards do not presently apply, but would change with this
amendment. The Chair said the intent is to eliminate this kind of problem because presently there are no
provisions other than hiring an attorney and suing. Ms. Mika asked how this could be enforced with
mineral extraction etc. The Chair said there was no way at present. Ms. Mika said they are addressed in
the Use by Special Review permit process. Mr. Ehrlich asked if using commercial equipment in the
Agricultural Zone District would constitute a violation. The Chair said it would be an agricultural use but he
wants the commercial noise standard added. Mr. Holton asked about tractors excluding harvest and
should they be muffled, Mr. Oschner replied that was addressed in the right to farm clause. Mr. Branham
said he agrees with the proposed amendment but knows from experience that decibel readings are not
always appropriate for commercial use. He suggested that it might be worthwhile to have staff examine
this and come back with recommendations at a later date. Ms. Mika agreed that would be appropriate. It
was decided that staff address this issue with the Board of County Commissioners and make a
recommendation available to the Planning Commission at a future date.
6. CASE NUMBER: PZ-545
APPLICANT: Bret Larimer
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of AmRE-1452; Pt SW4 of Section 4, T6N, R66W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from Agriculture to PUD- Estate for 38
residential developments with 26 acres more or less of open
space located outside of an IGA or UGB; North of the Town of
Windsor
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to SH 257 and %mile south of CR 74.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning. This case is PZ-545,a Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to PUD with
Estate uses for thirty-eight(38)residential Lots and 25.55 acres of Common Open Space(Falcon Ridge PUD)
located outside of an Intergovernmental Agreement Area and an Urban Growth Boundary Area,utilizing water
from North Weld County Water District and individual septic systems. The applicant is Bret Larimer,
representing WIPO, LLC.
The property is located 0.25 mile north of CR 72;east of and adjacent to State Hwy 257. The property slopes
west to east away from SH 257,a two lane State Highway with a posted speed of 65 mph at this location. The
Windsor Reservoir & Canal Company (Springer Ditch) lies along the eastern edge of this proposed
development.
Predominate land use is agricultural with residential subdivision development in the immediate vicinity. The
property is north of the corporate city limits and contiguous with the Town of Windsor's corporate limits along
the western property line all located within the Town's Growth Management Area. This planning area,
although recognized by the Town, is not recognized by Weld County.
The Windsor Assembly of God church facility is located adjacent to the south,Moriah Estates PUD(24 lots on
8
septic) is to the east; North Shores at Windsor PUD (43 lots on septic) is to the south and undeveloped
annexed property is to the west. Lands north of this proposed development remain in agricultural production.
Eighteen referral agencies reviewed this case, with twelve referral agencies responding. All responding
agencies have included conditions of approval and/or recommendations that have been addressed in the
development standards and conditions of approval.
As previously stated, the sites does not lay within an Intergovernmental Agreement Area or Urban Growth
Boundary Area, but does lie within the three mile referral radius of the Towns of Windsor and Severance. The
Town of Windsor returned a referral stating they recommend denial of the application, as the proposal is not
consistent with the Town of Windsor Estate Residential(E-1)zoning district which requires a minimum lot size
of two and one-half (2 1/2) acres when individual sewage disposal (septic) systems are authorized and
approved by the town. Further, given that the subject property is contiguous with the town's corporate limits
along the western property line,the property appears to be eligible for annexation to the town. Therefore,the
town requests that the Weld County Department of Planning Services refer the applicant to Windsor for
annexation and development through the town's processes. The Town of Severance did not respond to this
proposal.
The sign noting this hearing date and location was posted by Planning Services staff. There have been no
letters received from surrounding property owners prior to the Planning Commission hearing. There were
three telephone inquiries from surrounding property owners prior to the Planning Commission hearing,with no
individual review of the case.
The Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of this case as the submitted materials are not
in compliance with the Weld County Code.
Bret Larimer and Julie Sullivan, representing WIPO, LLC, 1600 W Horsetooth Rd, Fort Collins, CO. 80526,
requested a recommendation of approval from the Board of County Commissioners on the proposed Falcon
Ridge PUD. They believed this application met all the conditions and requirements of a PUD as per Section
27-6-120 of the Weld County Code. The original application was for forty-eight(48)lots,now reduced to thirty-
eight(38)residential lots. Concerns have been met and plans have been modified. Street maintenance has
been reduced by the elimination of two cul-de-sacs and reduced overall pavement area; open spaces have
been increased;and drainage patterns and stormwater retention has been addressed. They are asking for a
change of zone from ag to PUD. The property is no longer productive farmland as alfalfa is the only crop that
will grow; there is no irrigation water; it is surrounded by existing Planned Unit Developments and proposed
PUD's;and therefore the only alternative is a PUD due to development in the area. This property is poised for
development and is consistent with surrounding PUD's. They are limited to being a non-urban scale
development because it lays outside of an Urban Growth Boundary. By definition they are precluded from
non-urban scale development because they are adjacent to other PUD's. The only alternative they have is
urban scale development because they are in close proximity to existing PUD's, multiple boundaries,
municipal boundaries, or urban growth corridors. They are actually located in the Severance UGB, and in
close proximity to other similar subdivisions in the area, namely Moriah Estates, Shiloh, North Shores at
Windsor PUD,and the Windsor Assembly of God Church PUD.They(Windsor Assembly of God Church)felt
the subdivision would be a valuable asset to Weld County and have met the Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval. The applicant's have demonstrated compatibility with surrounding subdivisions and
will provide for strict covenants to warrant property value similar to contiguous PUD's. The applicant's asked
for a recommendation of approval from the Planning Commission.
The presiding Chair, Michael Miller, said there is one glaring difference in the lack of compatibility with the
septic standards required for two and a half (2-1/2) acres, which the existing subdivisions have, and he
wondered why they had abandoned this plan. Mr. Larimer said they have consulted with an engineer who has
developed a superior waste system plan for Falcon Ridge with many enhancements: septic systems designed
by a licensed soil engineer; effluent filters; over-size septic tanks; absorption trench drain fields; alternating
drain fields; monitoring ports; and a management plan and program to educate the homeowners about the
system. They also plan a Homeowner's Association to monitor and maintain the systems as a group rather
than individually. They will have continuously monitored systems and presently have conditional approval of
the Environmental Health Department based on their plan. Public sewers are not a feasible solution to this
development. They are surrounded by developments on septic systems.
9
The Chair asked if it would have been easier to reduce the number of lots rather than go through all of this.
Mr. Larimer said their systems are spread out and they are not harming the environment any more than
anyone else, and if the Environmental Health Department had given approval, then he does not understand
why the Planning Commission would have any problem with this development. They are proposing thirty eight
percent (38%)open space that surrounds and connects the community.
Mr. Oschner asked for more clarification regarding the open space maintenance. Mr. Larimer said they are
offering a large open space in the middle of the community, which gives the ability for connecting jogging
paths,trails etc.They will plant native grass to maintain the integrity of the community. There is a huge buffer
zone between the homes and Hwy 257.
Mr. Ehrlich asked about a ditch or a canal in the development. Mr. Larimer said setback is more than one
hundred (100)feet at the back of the homes.
The Chair asked if open space will be irrigated. Mr. Larimer said there is not enough water attached to the
land at present to allow for irrigation.
Mr. Holton asked if Severance had any interest in annexing the development. Mr. Larimer said they had
spoken to Severance, been welcomed by them with open arms specific to septic etc. but weren't able to get
contiguity.
Mr. Branham said documents he has in his possession contradict what Mr. Larimer said the Environmental
Health Department is recommending. Mr. Larimer cited a memorandum dated October 10, 2005,from Pam
Smith, Environmental Health Department, in which they have agreed to all of the conditions and are just
waiting on one report. Mr.Jiricek said this is still good reliable data from 2004 and the Environmental Health
Department is recommending approval due to the enhancements the applicant has presented regarding
effective density. These are higher maintenance systems that will become the responsibility of the
homeowners and that is about the only thing they have issue with. Mr.Larimer suggests fee collection through
the HOA for system maintenance and it will be monitored by the HOA to assure that this is done.
Mr. Branham said maintenance requirements are above and beyond regular maintenance and asked how
those would be managed. Mr. Larimer said that was true and would be managed through the HOA.
Mr. Holton asked if the HOA would hire a consulting firm. Mr. Larimer replied that a professional soils
engineer from one firm would handle all the systems including monitoring,maintenance and repair. The Chair
asked who would make sure this is followed through. Mr. Larimer said the HOA will follow through. Mr.
Barker said it is only enforceable by the HOA at the time and if the homeowners felt the fee was too high,they
could stop maintenance.
Mr. Holton asked if Environmental Health could come in and ask for replacement of the sewer system. He
said these systems are basically little waste water treatment plants and he is confident that original
homeowners will be educated but is concerned about maintenance when homes eventually change hands.
Mr. Larimer said they are trying to make a nice development with systems that are superior to traditional septic
systems.
The Chair asked about system monitoring going back to the homeowner. Mr. Jiricek responded that
Environmental Health does not want to be involved with policing the systems, so yes,the homeowners will be
responsible for maintenance.
Mr. Holton inquired about the efficiency of these systems versus traditional systems. Mr. Jiricek said it
depends on which options you pick, but could be from twenty-five percent (25%) to one hundred percent
(100%)more efficient, but are looking for at least thirty-three percent(33%)efficiency. These systems require
active maintenance as opposed to traditional septic systems that require maintenance and pumping every few
years.
Mr. Ehrlich asked about monitoring the water table so homeowners in the northwest corner don't have
problems. Mr.Jiricek said there are state standards that will oversee this. Mr. Larimer said each system will
10
be constructed per the requirements of the specific lot.
Mr. Oschner asked if they would see this case again. Mr. Ogle said it would go before the Board of County
Commissioners for the final plan, as they are presently looking only at the Change of Zone.
Mr. Ehrlich asked if Windsor wants this subdivision so that it can be on their sewer system. Mr. Holton asked if
the chunk by the church was annexed by Windsor. Mr. Larimer said no.
Mr. Ehrlich asked Mr.Ogle about Moriah Estates and Shilo and their septic densities per acre. Mr.Ogle said
both are above the 2.5 acres.
Mr. Spitzer asked if Moriah, Shilo or Northshore had been annexed by Windsor. Mr. Ogle said they had not.
Mr.Spitzer inquired about a letter from Scott Ballstadt,Windsor Planning,dated October 7,2005. Mr.Larimer
responded regarding the annexation and said some distances are incorrect.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this application. As there
were none, the public portion of the hearing was closed.
The applicant submitted into evidence,a letter from the Pastor at the Windsor Assembly of God Church which
lent his support to the applicant's application.
The Chair asked the applicant if he had read the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards and was
in agreement. Mr. Larimer said yes.
Mr. Ehrlich said he resides in that area and thinks it is a great development but still has issue with the HOA
maintenance of the septic systems that could go back on the Environmental Health Department.
Mr. Holton asked Mr. Barker how that affects the county legally. Mr. Barker said the homeowners would be
responsible for the bill.
Mr. Spitzer said he has great faith in septic systems and with proper maintenance they are fine, but that if he
had a chance to hook up to a sewer line, he would, no matter what the tap fee.
The Chair said septic concerns come down to money. The applicants originally planned for twenty-eight(28)
lots and are now at thirty-eight (38) lots, which could cause serious problems down the road, and again
referred to the letter from Windsor and Scott Ballstadt. The Chair said he does not feel comfortable saddling
thirty-eight homeowners with thirty-eight high maintenance treatment plants. He is also concerned that
twenty-eight acres of unirrigated ground will probably become twenty-eight acres of weeds and thus limit the
useability of the open space for the homeowners. For those reasons, he does not support approval.
Mr. Oschner referred to Section 22-2-110.D. of the code regarding urban development adjacent to existing
municipalities, saying this area is as urban as they will get in these rural areas. Mr. Oschner feels estate
requirements have been met and the septic systems satisfy him as well. But the intent of estate zoning is just
that and the gross density concerns him as well as the fact that native grasses are tough to grow on dry land
and the area needs to be irrigated.
The Chair said urban development next to similar developments is done so that services such as domestic
water and sewer can be provided and said he felt too many corners were being cut.
Mr. Holton asked about sewer system failure. Mr. Jiricek said this is no worse than regular systems. Mr.
Holton would like to see the open space larger, and asked at what point does technology get better and the
Environmental Health Department and the code take that into consideration. The Chair said he felt they had
addressed that today.
Mr. Spitzer said he feels the way the system is set up, if the HOA decides to bail and the engineer is no longer
in business, what will the consequences be. The Chair said neighboring developments have abided by the
2.5 acres per system and this development is coming in under that.
11
Mr. Ehrlich inquired if the septic system could get compromised if close to a lake. Mr. Jiricek said it should
not, as the system must meet a specific set of criteria.
Mr. Branham said the county policy of septic on 2.5 acres is acceptable and does not want to lower those
standards.
Mr. Welch said he is not concerned about the near future but is concerned about the sustainability twenty
years from now.
Paul Branham moved that Case PZ-545, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
denial. Doug Oschner seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer,yes;James Welch,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes;Tom Holton,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes;
Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Doug Oschner commented his denial vote was based on density.
Erich Ehrlich commented that he agreed with Mr. Oschner in recommending denial.
Meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Donita May L\J
Secretary
•
12
2006 PLANNING COMMISSION
HEARING DATES
January February March
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
29 30 31 26 27 28 26 27 28 29 30 31
April May June
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 30
30
July August September
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
30 31
October November December
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 1 2
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
29 30 31 26 27 28 29 30 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Red - North Hearings and BOA
Blue - South Hearings
Black- County Holidays
(fatsr ,t-t irn
/0 -ac-03—
2006 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING SUBMITTAL DEADLINES
SCHEDULED HEARING SUBMITTAL DEADLINE
Tuesday: January 3, North Thursday: November 3 Before noon
Tuesday: January 17, South Thursday: November 17 Before noon
Tuesday: February 7, North Thursday: December 8 Before noon
Tuesday: February 21, South Thursday: December 22 Before noon
Tuesday: March 7, North Thursday: January 5 Before noon
Tuesday: March 21, South Thursday: January 19 Before noon
Tuesday: April 4, North Thursday: February 2 Before noon
Tuesday: April 18, South Thursday: February 16 Before noon
Tuesday: May 2, North Thursday: March 16 Before noon
Tuesday: May 16, South Thursday: March 30 Before noon
Tuesday: June 6, North Thursday: April 6 Before noon
Tuesday: June 20, South Thursday: April 20 Before noon
Thursday: July 6, North Thursday: May 4 Before noon
Tuesday: July 18, South Thursday: May 18 Before noon
Tuesday: August 1, North Thursday: June 1 Before noon
Tuesday: August 15, South Thursday: June 15 Before noon
Tuesday September 5, North Thursday: July 6 Before noon
Tuesday: September 19, South Thursday: July 20 Before noon
Tuesday: October 3, North Thursday: August 3 Before noon
Tuesday: October 17, South Thursday: August 17 Before noon
Tuesday: November 7, North Thursday: September 7 Before noon
Tuesday: November 21, South Thursday: September 21 Before noon
Tuesday: December 5, North Thursday: October 5 Before noon
Tuesday: December 19, South Thursday: October 19 Before noon
Planning Commission hearings are held on the 1s`and 3r°Tuesdays of each month, with Board of Adjustment also take
place at the 1s`Tuesday. The first hearing of the month will take place at 918 101h Street, Greeley, and the second hearing
of the month will take place at 4209 CR 24.5, Longmont.
In order to allow ease of citizen input, land use applications will be assigned a hearing date based upon the application
site location.
In order to obtain the most appropriate hearing location, a two week delay may result.
Requesting a hearing venue will only be considered under unique circumstances and rests with the discretion of the Weld
County staff.
Hello