HomeMy WebLinkAbout20051915.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, June 21, 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 Chair, Michael
Miller, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin
John Folsom
James Rohn
Bruce Fitzgerald
Tom Holton
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner Absent James Welch Absent
Also Present: Don Warden, Monica Mika, Kim Ogle, Chris Gathman, Jacqueline Hatch, Don Carroll, Peter
Schei, Char Davis, Pam Smith, Troy Swain
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on June 7,2005,was
approved as read.
The following items are on the Consent Agenda:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1509
APPLICANT: Jason Krill
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part S2NW4 of Section 6, Ti N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County,Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Permit for a home
business (fishing supplies, gear and giftware) and for one (1)single
family dwelling per lot other than those permitted under Section 23-2-
20.A of the Weld County Code in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 1 and approximately 1/4 mile south of State
Highway 52.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1510
APPLICANT: Alvin &Gail Brand
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2505; Pt of S2N2SE4 of Section 15,T1 N, R67W of the
6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a
single family dwelling unit other than those permitted by Section
23.2.20.A(an additional single family home) in the A (Agricultural)Zone
District
LOCATION: Approximately 1.4 miles north of CR 8 and west of and adjacent to CR
21.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1511
APPLICANT: Alan & Carol Davis
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-3227; Pt NW4 of Section 10, T3N, R68W of the 6th
P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a
home business (storage of excavating/construction equipment) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District
0 . arnde_ 7 -Go-AOO5 2005-1915
LOCATION: Approximately 1/4 mile east of CR 7 and south of and adjacent to CR 36.
Moved by James Rohn to approve the Consent Agenda. Seconded by Bruce Fitzgerald. Motion carried
unanimously.
Consent items to be continued:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1513
APPLICANT: Chris &Joe Miller
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A& B of RE-2617 pt of W2NW4 of Section 27, T3N, R67W of the 6'"
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a
Recreational Facility with uses similar to those seen at Guest farms and
fairgrounds in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. (For a complete list of
uses see application).
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Hwy 66 and east of and adjacent to CR
19.
Due to incomplete information, the Chair suggested this case be continued.
Moved by Chad Auer to be continued to the July 19, 2005 hearing. Seconded by Bruce Fitzgerald. Motion
carried unanimously.
Hearing items to be continued:
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1071
APPLICANT: Melody Homes - DR Horton
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt SW4 and Pt. SE4 of Section 33 and Part of the SW4 of Section 34,
T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Application for a change of zone from A(Agriculture)for PUD for 833
single family residential lots along with an elementary school site and
70.08 acres of open space.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 28 and east and west of and adjacent to CR
7.
Moved by James Rohn to be continued to the August 16, 2005 hearing. Seconded by Bruce Fitzgerald.
Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: 2AmUSR-1198
APPLICANT: Marcum Midstream 1995-2 Business Trust
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of Am RE-3308; Pt N2NW4 of Section 32, T4N, R65 of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Amended Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for
an Oil and Gas Support Facility(Class II Oilfield Waste Disposal Facility
and a Solids Recovery System) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 40 and 250 feet more or less east of CR 39.
Moved by Bryant Gimlin to continue indefinitely. Seconded by James Rohn. Motion carried unanimously.
The following items will be heard:
CASE: Weld County Fees
PLANNER: Monica Mika
Monica Mika, Department of Planning Services, presented a modification to the fee schedule, specifically
planning and building fees, and asked the board for their recommendation. She pointed out that there are
three guiding principles to look at when examining land use fees: that growth shall pay its own way
through cost recovery; factoring of regional competitiveness to fees; and the north/south dichotomy that
exists in the county, with regard to the type of permits sought in each area. Ms. Mika said fee
modifications were based on specific types, i.e. urban and non-urban, as well as consideration of the
additional man hours required to review applications. Ms. Mika reviewed her hand-outs with the Board
and then turned the presentation over to Roger Vigil, Chief Building Official. Mr. Vigil outlined the
increases in building and inspections fees presented in Appendix 5-K. Mr. Vigil said justification for the
increase in fees was arrived at after factoring in the number of inspections needed to complete a permit
and the vehicle costs accrued with those inspections, as well as the time initially taken to write the permit.
Mr. Vigil pointed out that manufactured home permits are primarily responsible for the increase in permit
fess that will occur, due in pad to the amount of inspections required for each home and the increasing
number of those homes in the county. Additional changes included the increase from forty-two dollars to
fifty dollars for each re-inspection fee and the cap for the investigation fee when building without a permit
was removed.
John Folsom asked Ms. Mika about fees required to change the existing MUD. She replied that modifying
an existing corridor and getting recognition of an urban corridor are very different processes and would
require various levels of research and therefore different fees.
James Rohn inquired about the fee for a hazardous waste disposal site, and whether this was unusually
high in order to discourage this type of development. Ms. Mika replied that fees need to cover cost
recovery and the time needed by staff to investigate this type of facility. Fees are not set to deter land use
development.
Bryant Gimlin asked Ms. Mika what the revenue generated would be if these fees were initiated.
She replied that this information has been submitted to the BOCC, and was based on man hours needed
to process these cases, not the aggregate of all of the fees. Mr. Gimlin asked Lee Morrison, County
Attorney, if these fee increases would be affected by the Tabor Amendment. Mr. Morrison said they would
not.
John Folsom inquired about the Capital Expansion fee. Don Warden, Director of Finance and
Administration, said this was the amount the County felt was necessary to help defer expenses associated
with the jail expansion and new county buildings. Mike Miller asked if the $575.00 Capital Expansion fee
on a new home was in addition to the increase in building fees. Mr. Warden replied that it is. Mr. Morrison
interjected that the Capital Expansion fee was not a part of the fee schedule that the Planning
Commission would be required to act on.
Bryant Gimlin expressed his disappointment with the increase in fees and said he felt there should have
been more time spent studying impacts in terms of total revenue generated. Mr. Miller said he felt the
fees were reasonable as they were still not covering 100 per cent of the costs.
John Folsom moved that Case Weld County Fees, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners 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. John
Folsom, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes ; James Rohn, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Chad Auer, yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1231
APPLICANT: Larry& Margaret DeHaan
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: E2SW4 &W2SE4 of Section 27, T2N R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Amended Special Review Permit
for a Livestock Confinement Operation (dairy) and Animal Feeding
Operation for 2, 300 milking cows along with approximately 1,70
replacement heifers, dry cows and calves in the A (Agricultural)Zone
District
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 16 and 1/4 mile east of CR 19.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, presented case AmUSR-1231. Larry& Margaret
DeHaan have applied for a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Use by
Right, Accessory Use or Use by Special Review in the Industrial Zone District (2,300 milking cows along
with 1,700 replacement heifers, dry cows and calves) in the A(Agricultural)Zone district.
The sign announcing the original Planning Commission hearing was posted May 5, 2005 by Planning
Staff. This case was continued at the original May 17, 2005 hearing date to allow the Health Department
to obtain applicants representative and review additional information regarding this application.
The site is located north of and adjacent to County Road 16 and 1/4 mile east of CR 19.
There are single family residences located to the west, east and south of the site (ranging from 1/4 to 1/2
mile from the facility). A special review permit for a 2,500 head dairy was approved for this site under
USR-1231 in 1999. No change (expansion) of the boundary of the original special use permit is requested
under this application.
Eleven referral agencies reviewed this case, ten referral agencies responded favorably or included
conditions that have been addressed through development standards and conditions of approval.
This proposal would increase the total number of cows from 2,500 to 4,000, relocate an approved hospital
parlour, allow for new animal pens, relocate the manure storage and compost area and silage storage to
the west side of the site and a silage storage area (in self contained bags)along the southern boundary of
the USR. No change (expansion) of the boundary of the original special use permit is requested under
this application.
The Weld County Department of Planning Services determined that the Special Use Permit, conditions of
approval and Development Standards, will make the proposal consistent with the Weld County Code and
ensure that there are adequate provisions for the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the
inhabitants of the county.
Sharyn Frazer&Tom Haren w/AGPROfessionals (rep for property owners)are present today. I will be
happy to answer any questions at this time.
John Folsom inquired whether the Town of Firestone had returned their referral. Mr. Gathman said they
had not.
Chad Auer asked Mr. Gathman to point out the gas/oil well heads on the property. Mr. Gathman said
there are two located on site by the calf huts and another on the southwest by the manure and compost
storage areas. There are none located near human residences and the setbacks for the building code
would not apply to the calf huts. The nearest building to the oil/gas heads is the maternity building for the
cattle.
John Folsom asked Pam Smith, Department of Environmental Health, to clarify for him who provides
water to the property. Ms. Smith replied that there are two wells on the property providing water, permits
for an additional two wells, and water also provided by the Central Weld County Water District.
Mike Miller inquired of Ms. Smith the number of septic systems on the property. She replied that there are
nine homes on the property; one system has the capacity to serve two homes. All of the homes have
permits for septic systems except for homes one and two for which she cannot locate any record of septic
permits. The Health Department has asked that these two homes (page 4, item 2B) have their septic
systems evaluated and recorded with the Health Department. Mr. Miller asked if it was acceptable for two
homes to operate off the same system. Ms. Smith said it was, as long as the size of the system was
adequate for that purpose.
Tom Haren, applicant's representative, said Firestone opposed the dairy when it was originally planned,
but has raised no opposition in subsequent applications. In regard to the wells, there are several well
permits for the site, but only two actual wells. The septic system in question, shared by the two homes, is
being evaluated to determine whether the site application is pertinent or not. In the application, the
changes to the property are the result of the new ownership and their wish to keep the young stock on
site, thus the addition of calf huts, maternity/hospital building, silage and manure placement. A nuisance
management plan still exists and there have been no issues or problems in that area since the DeHaans
assumed ownership. Mr. Miller asked about regulations regarding the lagoons and/or stormwater system.
Mr. Haren said the new changes require much more documentation in these areas and overall conditions
in these areas are currently much better than in the past.
Sharyn Frazer, applicant's representative, clarified the septic issue by saying that High Plains
Engineering has been hired to design, replace and repair the systems. The current systems have all been
pumped out and the pumper has assured the applicants that they are all in good working order.
The Chair opened the public portion of the hearing.
Sheryl Seysick, 7001 CR 21, Longmont, CO, requested that screening requirements be added to the
permit, dimmer light bulbs be used at night to diminish glare, and consideration be given to the location of
the silage if it will increase odor and flies near her home.
As no one else stepped forward, the public portion of the hearing was closed. Bruce Fitzgerald asked why
the screening plan was being re-visited when it had been approved in the original USR.
The Chair requested Mr. Haren step forward once again to address those issues. Mr. Haren said the
lights would be shielded or hooded, the proposed silage storage is better than previous storage methods
but conditions in the applications would be adhered to. Mr. Haren also added that there was no screening
plan in the original application,just some trees placed on the site map and no condition providing for a
screening plan. He said the applicants are willing to strike a happy medium between screening and a full-
blown landscape plan. Mr. Gathman asked that the applicants submit a screening plan prior to the
application going before the BOCC (Condition 1.D., page 4).
Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, said Development Standards three and thirty are duplicates and
he would like to eliminate number thirty and re-number the remaining standards (page 10).
Mr. Gathman clarified the original hearing date was May 17, 2005 continued to June 21, 2005. He added
that Development Standard eight should read "or land" not"of land", and Development Standard twenty-
five should read "one or more acres"not"five acres".
John Folsom asked Mr. Carroll about his preference for access of the property, whether it would be CR 16
or CR 19. Mr. Carroll replied his recommendation would be to utilize CR 19 to the paved system in order
to mitigate dust.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved: the hearing date on the Administrative Review be changed from May 17, 2005 to
June 21,2005; 1.D.be added on page four to the Administrative Review that shall read,"The applicants shall
submit a screening plan for review to the Department of Planning Services"; Development Standard number
eight shall read"the production area or land application"; Development Standard twenty-five shall read"In the
event that one or more acres"; and Development Standard thirty be deleted and the standards re-numbered
Bryant Gimlin seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Bryant Gimlin inquired about a development standard that would address the lighting. Mr.Gathman said there
is a standard in Section 23-2-250.D. It was moved by Bryant Gimlin and seconded by Bruce Fitzgerald that
the statement: "Lighting shall be in accordance with Section 23-2-250.D of the Weld County Code"be added
to the Development Standards as number thirty-four and the remaining standards be re-numbered. Motion
carried unanimously.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that Case AmUSR-1231, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners
along with the amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning
Commissions recommendation of approval. James Rohn seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Chad Auer, yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Donita May
Secretary
Hello