HomeMy WebLinkAbout20052689 SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, September 6, 2005
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2005, in the Weld County
Department of Planning Services, Hearing Room,918 10th Street,Greeley,Colorado. The meeting was called
to order by Chair, Bruce Fitzgerald, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Erich Ehrlich
Roy Spitzer
James Welch Absent
Bruce Fitzgerald
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner Absent
Tom Holton
Also Present: Kim Ogle, Sheri Lockman,Chris Gathman, Pam Smith, Don Carroll,Char Davis, Robert Jacobs
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on,August 16,2005,
was approved as read.
The following items are on the Consent Agenda:
CASE: MF-1060
APPLICANT: Harkless (Faith Estates)
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2641; part of the SE4 of Section 13, T6N, R66W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Minor Subdivision Final Plat for nine (9) estate zoned residential lots.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 37; approximately 1/8 mile north of State
Hwy 392.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1093
APPLICANT: Terra Firma Ventures LLC
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-3840 Pt NW4 of Section 5, T7N, R67W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Change of Zone from Agriculture to PUD for nine (9) lots with Estate
Zone uses.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 15 and south of and adjacent to CR 86.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1517
APPLICANT: Petro-Canada Resources Inc.
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part NW4 & Part SW4 of Section 18, T4N, R64W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Mineral
Resource Development Facility including Oil and Gas Support Services
(Land Treatment Facility).
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 46; 800 feet east of CR 49.
Michael Miller moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Chad Auer seconded. Motion carried.
The following items will be heard:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1520
APPLICANT: Mike Johnson
&went Qiuidz. 4 Ar--2OOS 4'dO S-- A687
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-3886; Pt of the SE4 of Section 28, T9N, R66W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Use
Permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use or a Use by Special
Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone District (storage units) in the
A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 100; east of and adjacent to CR 29 1/2.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1520, 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.
Michael Miller asked if this site was adjacent to the city limits. Ms. Lockman stated it was on two sides but
there is no IGA with the Town of Nunn but the applicant can be asked rather he has been in contact with
them.
Erich Ehrlich asked if the access was off CR 100 and rather the traffic was in a horse shoe configuration.
Mr. Carroll stated it was an in and out off of CR 100 as the main access point.
Chad Auer asked if there were any objecting homeowners in area. Ms. Lockman stated there were and
they are present.
Jackie Johnson, representative for the applicant, provided additional clarification on the project and is
available for questions.
Michael Miller asked if there was any consideration into annexing into Nunn. Ms Johnson stated the
applicant has researched the idea and there is no reason to do so but will when water becomes available.
There is nothing advantageous to annexing at this time.
Tom Holton asked if for clarification on the units. Ms. Johnson stated there will be separate units.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Tina & Ryan Wardlow, neighbor to east, indicated their concerns with the property taxes and resale value of
the homes in area. There is also a concern what kind of items will be stored on site. Will there be storage
sheds with RV's, boats and other equipment. There is also a question on the lighting of the area. Ms.
Wardlow is concerned with the loss of her view of the mountains. Mr.Wardlow added that there have been
businesses in the area that have not been successful. The question is what happens if this is not successful
and what will be left on site. Traffic is a concern and there should be dust abatement on CR 100. The
neighbors do not want this site to become a site for additional crime,meth labs or any security risk since there
is no police in the area. This seems to be more of an opportunity to store junk in the area. This does not
seem advantageous to Nunn since there are storage units going out of business in Pierce. The Wardlows
would also like to see the posted speed limit decrease and there be a security fence around the site. Another
concern is the debris blowing off the site.
Kim Jennings, neighbor indicated she has the same concerns as the adjacent neighbors. Ms.Jennings has
small children and the traffic is bad enough. CR 29 is owned by railroad so she is not sure what that will do to
the application. CR 100 is a washboard and this is not a good location for a business of this type.
Jackie Johnson added that the applicant will have a home on the property adjacent to this so the area will be
maintained. Many of the concerns have been addressed in the Development Standard or Conditions of
Approval. The applicant does not anticipate high volume.The landscaping,traffic pattern and other concerns
have been addressed by the staff.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the traffic flow based on units. Ms. Johnson stated there will be 150 units in
three buildings. Mr. Fitzgerald asked about the number of trips anticipated in a month. Ms.Johnson indicated
she was not aware of any studies. Mike Johnson, applicant indicated he does not know the number of trips
per day. The average trips maybe five cars a day at the most. The units will be fenced with lights on the
buildings alone. The gate will be locked since this will not be open 24 hours a day. The operation has specific
hours that will be adhered to. There will be someone on site at all times.
Michael Miller asked if there was electricity in the units. Mr.Johnson stated there was outside electricity but
the units will not have electricity. Mr. Johnson added there will be no outside storage.
Chad Auer asked if Nunn was contacted regarding annexation. Mr.Johnson went to a meeting and it would
take $40,000 to extend water and sewer lines to the area. He will be more than willing to annex once the
water lines become available. There was no benefit to annex at this time.
Michael Miller asked Ms. Lockman about law enforcement. Ms. Lockman stated the Weld County Sheriff
Department services the area.
Tom Holton asked if there were two lots. Mr. Johnson indicated there was a north and south lot. His home
will be on the north lot and the storage units will be on the south.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about CR 29 '/%, Mr. Carroll stated this is not open nor is it maintained by Weld
County. The County maintains CR 100 and CR 31. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if there was a traffic study. Mr.
Carroll stated there are 700-900 vehicle trips that go west on CR 100 but there has been no study for the
eastbound traffic. Mr. Fitzgerald asked about dust abatement. Mr. Carroll stated there was no dust
abatement but it could be warranted. Typically the County asks for 300 feet for magnesium chloride from the
entrance. . Counts versus impacts- Planning Commission could warrant dust control of 300 feet.
Michael Miller asked about the lighting for security purposes. Ms. Lockman stated the Sheriff Department
would do a walk through for security check. This can be done before the site is opened up which is good for
security. Mr. Miller stated that there is no lighting in the drive, gate or parking area. Mr. Fitzgerald asked
about fencing. Ms. Lockman stated this would be clarified before the Board of County Commissioners so it
could be reviewed.
Char Davis added she would like to remove Development Standard#8. Mr. Miller asked for the reasoning on
this removal. Ms. Lockman stated there will be screened trash areas. This Development Standard is
addressing hazardous chemicals.
Michael Miller moved to delete Development Standard #8. Chad Auer seconded. Motion carried.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the lighting. Mr.Johnson stated there will be lighting at the gate and the parking
area. They are both approximately 35 feet from the residence. The gate will be locked and it will be a chain
link fence. The gate may be an automatic gate with the electricity shut off at a certain time.
Mike Johnson agrees with the Development Standard and conditions.
Michael Miller stated that the economics of the business is not something the Planning Commission can
review. They must review the land use only.
Tom Holton asked if dust control would be needed on CR 100. Mr. Carroll stated there could be language
added to the standards.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the trips per day. Mr. Carroll stated there are no specific studies for this type of
operation but 10-20 would be significant at this location.
Lee Morrison asked if there was an impact fee for this type of storage. Ms. Lockman stated that mini
warehouses are assed at$333 per 1000 square feet. Mr. Carroll added the warehousing is calculated at 1.9
trips per day per unit. Mr. Miller would like to see dust control at least to the gate.
Don Carroll added that language could be added consisting of the following "the applicant shall apply dust
control chemical(Magnesium Chloride or Calcium Chloride)on Weld County road 100 haul route between the
railroad and the main entrance no less than twice a year or as needed, as directed by the Department of
Public Works." Ms. Lockman suggests this be Development Standard #5 and renumber.
Michael Miller moved to add the prior Development Standard #5. Roy Spitzer seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes; Michael Miller, yes; Chad Auer,yes;Tom Holton,yes, Bruce Fitzgerald,yes.
Motion carried unanimously
Michael Miller asked Ms. Davis about the restroom facilities. Ms. Davis indicated the application stated there
will be restrooms in the office.
Mike Johnson agrees with the amended Development Standard and Conditions.
Michael Miller moved that Case USR-1520, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Chad Auer seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Tom Holton, yes, Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1521
APPLICANT: Ruth Bucy
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 27-33, Block 24, Townsite of Camfield; Part E2 of Section 18, T7N,
R64W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a
kennel for up to 14 Schipperke dogs in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 51 and approximately ''/Y mile south of CR
82.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1521, 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.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the building the dogs will be housed in at night. Mr. Gathman stated it was
in an existing garage and a Development Standard indicated daylight hours.
Michael Miller asked if there have been any complaints from the noise. Mr. Gathman stated he was not
aware of any. This application is to address a zoning violation.
Ruth Bucy, applicant, provided additional information with regard to the proposal. Ms. Bucy indicated this
is a hobby and not a commercial operation. She raises the dogs and shows them. Ms. Bucy raises
approximately one litter a year. The animals are in the back section of the garage at night. They are let
out in the mornings but not earlier than the bus since they do bark at the bus. She has indicated she will
be purchasing some bark collars in an attempt to mitigate the problem. There are approximately 4-5
animals that can get in and out of the garage, while she is at work. Ms. Bucy does understand that the
main concern is the noise and she is trying to mitigate this. She would like to continue her hobby and
intends to be well under ten animals.
Bruce Fitzgerald pointed out the application lists up to 14 dogs. Ms. Bucy indicated that is what she has
presently.
Tom Holton asked if the building that housed the animals was insulated. Ms. Bucy stated it was not but
that is the intent.
Michael Miller asked about the breed and whether they were barkers. Ms. Bucy stated it varies as to the
animal.
Michael Miller asked if he has attempted to stop the barking. Ms. Bucy stated she has attempted to bring
in the ones that seem to be doing the majority of the barking and does get after them to not bark. The
barking seems to be the biggest concern for the neighbors.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Joyce Grimes, neighbor, indicated the concerns with the noise. There is dogs barking at all hours of the night
and there is not a noise ordinance for agricultural area. The basic concern is the noise. There is a concern
that if the animals get out there are only two animal control officers for the area. If dogs are sold from the
property the speed limit needs to be amended. It will take more water for the dogs and cleaning of them.
There is a water board and will there need to be more shares of water for them?
Charlene Fraser, neighbor to the south, indicated her concerns for the barking. Her property is approximately
100 feet from the property line. The barking happens the entire time she is outside. Ms. Fraser is home all
day and spends most of her time in the back yard during which time they do nothing but bark. There are two
other dogs that seem to do the barking when Ms. Bucy is not at home. The dogs need to be put up when they
are not at home. The noise is unreasonable.
The Chair closed the public portion.
Michael Miller asked Ms. Davis about the animal waste disposal being through trash pick up. Ms.Davis stated
it was appropriate.
Roy Spitzer asked for clarification on the Camfied Water Board. Mr. Gathman stated that the existing wells
are for indoor use and they are augmenting wells for outside irrigation of lawns. This is a Condition proposed
that prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing written permission from the Water Board be provided
to allow the dogs to be included in the augmentation plan.
Ruth Bucy added she is aware of the barking but it is not all day long. She has been home on the weekends
and this does not occur. There is more barking when there is movement. There are presently four dogs out
and the Aussie will go to work with her when weather cools. She is purchasing bark collars and a high
frequency sound system to help with barking. Ms. Bucy does have a share for water for augmentation. The
animals will utilize approximately 2-5 gallons a water per day when it is hot outside. The use will be minimal
and there will be very little traffic impact.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the two other dogs. Ms. Bucy stated that the other two are included in the 14.
There are presently 12 adult dogs with 3 puppies on site now.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked for clarification on a USR and how many animals can have. Mr.Gathman stated that
up to 4 dogs on 10 acres is allowed and five and above would be a USR.
Chris Gathman would like to see Development Standard #4 amended to remove the last sentence. Mr.
Fitzgerald asked how the onsite visit was and Mr.Gathman indicated the dogs barked when he was along side
of the house.
The Planning Commission continued with extensive discussion on the barking since the Development
Standard addresses removing the supervision of the animals. This number of animals is three times what is
allowed. Staff does not believe they have the ability to recommend the barking collars just that barking needs
to be controlled.
Michael Miller stated that in the past kennels have been supervised when the dogs are outside. This is
addressed in the Development Standards.
Erich Ehrlich asked how many animals are kept inside and how many have the ability to be out. Ms. Bucy
stated the door to the garage is left open for them to go in and out. This would be 5 dogs outside, 4 in the
house and a couple in a pen in the garage.
Bruce Fitzgerald reiterated Development Standard#4 with regards to the supervision and when the dogs are
allowed out. Ms. Bucy indicated she was under the impression it would be supervision from sunset to sunrise
versus the daytime. There would be problems if it were from sunrise to sunset for the animals that are outside
during the day.
Tom Holton stated that the first Development Standard states specifically the Schipperke animals not the two
other Aussie dogs. They are all adult animals.
Erich Ehrlich asked what the penalty was for having more animals than allowed. Mr. Gathman stated the
County is the enforcing body and there would be a land use violation. The Weld County Animal Control would
assess the monetary punishment for dogs at large or such. Mr. Ehrlich suggested that there could be a
possible increase in animals if a specific breed is limited.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the posted sign. Mr. Gathman stated the sign is posted in the appropriate time
frame as recommended by the code. Mr. Fitzgerald asked about the notification. Mr. Gathman stated that
notification is of property owners within 500 feet of the site is required.
Roy Spitzer asked Mr.Gathman what had previously been done with other kennels regarding supervision. Mr.
Gathman stated this was standard language but the Development Standard and Conditions need to be
evaluated on a case by case basis. Mr. Miller stated that even if this was in the country it would still be a
concern for the neighbors. There are things that happen when the animals are not supervised which
compounds the problem. They will need supervision due to possible problems. Mr. Miller disagrees with
removing Development Standard#4 last sentence. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if the request for removal was based
on the lifestyle of the applicant and her being away from home. Mr.gathman stated that staff was concerned
with how this conditioned would be enforced. Mr. Gathman stated the main issue is barking during the
daytime.
Chad Auer is in support of keeping the language because this is a request to increase the number per code by
three times. This type of variance compiled with the irritating variable of barking will need to be addresses.
The supervision could include collars.
Tom Holton stated that if the language is removed it will be in conflict with Development Standard#3.
Michael Miller stated he does not like the fact the animals will be locked up 22 hours a day. The way the
Development Standard reads the animals are not allowed outside during the evening. Mr. Holton added that
with the 4 added by right there could be 18. Mr. Gathman stated the applicant needs to clarify more prior to
the Board of County Commissioners with regards to the dogs and the number of animals. Typically the USR
will include the total number of animals.
There was continuous discussion on the number of animals.
Chad Auer moved that under Development Standard #1 the "Schipperke" name should be deleted and
replaced with adult. Tom Holton seconded. Motion carried.
Chris Gathman stated there are other options for Development Standard #3 regarding the employee since
supervision will be needed. This is a hobby and not a commercial operation. Mr.Miller suggested deleting the
entire requirement.
Michael Miller moved to delete Development Standard#3. Chad Auer seconded. Motion carried.
Ruth Bucy asked for clarification on letting the animals outside after dark to relieve themselves. Mr.Gathman
stated that as long as they are supervised that will be fine. Ms. Bucy asked if there would be a need someone
to supervise them when they are outside, the only choice is to lock all of them up while she is away from the
home. This will not fix the barking problem.
Ruth Bucy indicated her agreement with the Development Standard and Conditions of Approval.
Michael Miller indicated he has a problem with application; it is not realistic to keep 14 animals on % acre.
This is not compatible with neighbors. Training animals not to bark is difficult. The kennels that have been
approved in past have been commercial with supervision and it is cruel to lock up an animal 24 hours a day all
winter. If the animals are not locked up it is not fair to the neighbors. This type of operation is not compatible
in a neighborhood setting.
Bruce Fitzgerald agrees but the twist to this situation is this is a private owner and is not for profit although the
same issues occur.
Erich Ehrlich commented on how the animals would be monitored during the day. This was the biggest
concern. This does not seem compatible with the Development Standards preliminary.
Michael Miller moved that Case USR-1521, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
denial. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Tom Holton, yes, Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Chad Auer commented this was to intense of a use.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1087
APPLICANT: Ed Orr
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-3181 being part of the W2NW4 Section 30, T6N, R66W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Change of Zone from A(Agriculture)to PUD for nine (9) residential lots
with Estate Zone uses (Orr Estates).
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 64.5; approximately 1/4 mile east of CR
23.5.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-1087,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.
Rob Cassaday, representative for applicant, provided clarification on the proposal and is available for
questions.
Michael Miller asked if these were two acre sites. Mr. Cassaday indicated they were. Mr. Miller asked if they
were providing irrigation water. Mr.Cassaday stated they are applying for an irrigation tap for the open space
from North Weld County Water District.
Michael Miller asked how much open space was on site. Mr. Cassaday stated there are 24 acres with 15%
open space and this does not include the detention pond.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Sandra Miller, neighbor, indicated she would rather have the acreage homes instead of bottle plants or
commercial developments.
Gloria Gazman, mineral right owner, indicated her concern with re-zoning agricultural property to residential. It
is not a good policy to take agricultural land out of production. The water is a concern.
Lisa Lowes, neighbor, indicated she would like to see the speed limit adjusted on the road. The traffic from
Kodak and the bottling plant makes this a very busy road. The posted limit is 55 mph and this is posted near
Kodak. Ms. Lowes would like to see the retention ponds to the north of the homes. Robert Jacobs, Public
Works, stated that the ponds are located at the south end of the subdivision. The road is classified as a
collector and is 55 mph. Mr. Fitzgerald asked how that could be amended. Mr. Carroll stated the best way
would be to draft a letter the Department of Public Works requesting the change and indicating the concerns.
An engineer would do s site inspection for a safety analysis, and evaluate the possible concerns. Should a
change be warranted then it could be recommended to the Board of County Commissioners at a hearing.
The Chair closed the public portion.
Michael Miller asked Mr.Jacobs if this was in conflict with the re-alignment of O Street. Mr.Jacobs indicated
this section would not cause any concern and there has not been a final alignment determined. Ms.Lockman
added that at the latest meeting regarding O Street which was held in Windsor this section would not be of
concern.
Rob Cassaday,added that this is agricultural land to estate which are larger lots. This area is not considered
prime for production. The land is difficult to irrigate and is a small acreage.
Michael Miller asked where the detention ponds would be. Mr. Cassaday stated they will be in outlot A which
is on the south end of the property and will be used as a buffer to CR 64. The size of the ponds has been
engineered for the area and need.
Rob Cassaday agrees with Development Standard and Conditions.
Erich Ehrlich asked Ms. Lockman about a water between North Weld Water District and the applicant. ms.
Lockman stated there is a draft that will need to be signed prior to the recording of the final plat.
Chad Auer moved that Case PZ-1087, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Roy Spitzer seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Michael Miller,yes; Chad Auer, yes; Tom Holton,yes, Bruce Fitzgerald,yes.
Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 3:35pm
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello