HomeMy WebLinkAbout20060042.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, December 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 1:40 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Erich Ehrlich
Roy Spitzer
James Welch
Bruce Fitzgerald
Chad Auer Absent
Doug Ochsner
Tom Holton
Paul Branham
Also Present: Bruce Barker, Pam Smith, Monica Mika, Sheri Lockman, Don Carroll, Peter Schei
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on, November 15,
2005, was approved as read.
Discussion on the noise proposal presented at the November 15, 2005 Planning Commission hearing.
Monica Mika indicated staff would like to get direction from the Planning Commission as to how they
would like this to proceed. Mr. Phil Brewer from the Weld County Health Department is here to provide
additional information on the noise levels and how they are measured. Mr. Barker clarified the request
was for nighttime decibel (db) reading of 55 and 60 db during the day. Mr. Miller referenced the reason for
the request for noise variation and possible code change. The noise ordinance would be for stationary or
semi stationary equipment when in use in the agricultural zone district. The maximum noise level would
be that of the Commercial Zone District level.
Bruce Fitzgerald added that the 55 db level at night and 65 db during the day is in accordance with the
State Statute. Ms. Mika would like to discuss and see if the Planning Commission would like to direct staff
to proceed. There has been some discussion with the Board of County Commissioners for a noise
ordinance for the entire county. Ms. Mika suggests that all noise components be incorporated throughout
the county. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if there have been complaints. Mr. Brewer stated they are not often but
there have been noise complaints. The complaints have been from several avenues such as oil & gas,
barking dogs, concrete companies as well as Yosemite Power Company that vibrated the earth for a mile
away from the plant itself. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if the complaints could have been mitigated by the
owners. Mr. Brewer stated a majority of the issues could have been resolved. Mr. Miller stated that in the
instance he was referring to, the neighbors offered to buy the muffler and the offender would not agree to
it. Mr. Miller added that this is an agricultural county and contains agricultural uses but with reasonable
effort the issue could be resolved and there was no intention to place unreasonable limitations on
agricultural uses.
Paul Branham asked if there is anything in the county code that applies to noise, there is a State Statute
that applies to noise levels. The state law could apply to a number of situations, the issue is reasonable.
The State Statute 18-9-106 subsection C refers to unreasonable noise levels near private residence.
Should this be the case the Sheriff's Department should address. Mr. Barker indicated that statute has
certain requirements before it could be prosecuted. Mr. Branham stated the Sheriff could deal with and
summons, injunction and go the criminal route. Mr. Brewer indicated he addressed the complaints on
stationary machines by going to the source and measuring the noise levels at 25 feet from property line. A
majority of the readings are not levels that are above the levels allowed. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if Sheriff
Department services were ever used. Mr. Brewer stated they had not. Mr. Branham indicated the term
reasonable would be the defining force behind the state statute.
ee d46 /-4 _D1104, 2006-0042
Bruce Barker asked what the process was if a source was found to be over the limits. Mr. Brewer stated
he notifies the owner of the source and informs them he is not certified and does rough measurements but
if they would like to hire a professional agency they are able to do so. Mr. Brewer indicated he has never
had an instance of the owner hiring an outside agency. Mr. Brewer added that the department asks for
voluntary cooperation. Mr. Branham stated this would be a criminal issue if the instance of reasonable is
not adhered to. Mr. Miller added that the Planning Commission needs to take into account the increasing
number of homes that are being added to the areas and this will become more of an issue, therefore this
would need to be addressed now rather than later. The noise ordinance needs to be reviewed.
Doug Ochsner added the agricultural community does not seem to have an issue with the reasonable
noise level and there was nothing that would be louder than the commercial or industrial uses
recommended. An ordinance change would be adequate if it would guarantee not to infringe on the
agricultural community and still maintains the element of reasonable.
Tom Holton asked how this would affect non-stationary equipment or cattle, Mr. Miller stated those were
covered with the right to farm act that is placed on the plat. This amendment would apply to stationary or
semi stationary equipment only. This will be an issue that needs addressed soon with the constant
addition of subdivisions.
Paul Branham prefers to look at the state statute and let the Sheriff address the issue. Mr. Barker stated
he would like to look at the state statute and see if it applies. Mr. Barker stated it would also depend on
whether the District Attorney will prosecute. Mr. Branham stated that if this is a chronic situation then they
will have to address. Mr. Barker stated that the criminal act would be addressed by the Sheriff and the
Right to Farm act would not apply. Mr. Barker stated that Planning Commission could do both, a noise
ordinance and adhere to the state statute and see if the DA would pursue. Mr. Morrison added the state
nuisance provision provides limits for exceptions for agricultural practices but does not provide for
reasonable but it does have a standard in the industry. There are certain activities that some in the
agricultural community could use as a defense such as activities around irrigation. The noise statute is
not clear in draft but appears to bring a private cause with a nuisance action. Agricultural situations would
require the generator or receiver of sound to be reviewed. If the noise was placed next to a residential
area this could allow for a residential standard case.
Mike Miller moved to have the Department of Planning Services staff pursue the establishment of the
recommended noise limitation as submitted relative to semi stationary and stationary equipment in the
agricultural zone. Tom Holton seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes;James Welch,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Tom Holton,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Doug Ochsner commented he would like the staff to look into the utilization of the state statute that Mr.
Branham suggested.
Michael Miller excused himself due to illness.
The following Case will be continued:
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1095
APPLICANT: Sonja Stonestreet
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt of Lot 2 of RE-2690; pt SE4 of Section 31, T8N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to PUD with Estate Zone used for
Nine (9) Residential Lots (Waterford Hill PUD)
LOCATION: 'A mile north of CR 86 and west of and adjacent to CR 15.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services read a letter requesting a continuance to January 3, 2006
due to notification error.
The following item is presented by the School District as a courtesy to the Planning Commission.
School District RE-3J
Dr. Marvin Wade
Marvin Wade and Dick Huwa presented the proposed high school at Keenesburg. Voters approved the
bond for the building of a new school for 900 students with the ability to expand to 1300 students.
Dick Huwa added the information was sent in the packet and they are here to help if there are any
questions. The packet had all the needed information. Many things were not in the packet but staff has
seen. They have done a traffic impact study, a drainage study to county standards, geological survey was
contacted and a site assessment was done. The school is permitted through the state and they will go by
the International Building Code. The local fire protection agency was contacted for input also.
Mr. Morrison clarified that this in an informational hearing since the statute provides the school district is
exempt from regulations however a request can be made that the school board have a hearing on zoning
land use issues.
Bruce Fitzgerald indicated the Department of Planning Services recommended changes in traffic and flow
and street changes and are those going to be implemented. Mr. Huwa stated they had commissioned an
engineering study and met with CDOT to determine what would be the governing criteria. The
improvements were not part of the bond issue and would total about a million dollars. This will be more
pressing at a future dates and the board decision will be at a future date. There may be a cost sharing
basis with the county at a future date. There will be are other issues with the surrounding roads. The
roads themselves pose problems with irrigation and other issues. The expansion of the road would be an
issue. Mr. Fitzgerald suggested some grant writers utilizing those.
Monica Department of Planning Services wants to thank these people for the opportunity for input on the
new school.
Tom Holton asked if a traffic light at the intersection was reviewed. Mr. Huwa stated it was looked into but
the need was not warranted. Mr. Holton suggested that the vehicle count not be the only criteria for need
but the lack of experienced drivers on road would be a good place for this. Dick-break down req. for traffic
study would focus on CR 59 first for just turn lane into schools.
The following cases will be heard:
CASE NUMBER: CZ-1104
APPLICANT: Jay& Sherrie Woods
PLANNER: Brad Mueller
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part SW4SE4 of Section 36, T6N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from Low Density Residential (R-1)to Agricultural (A).
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to F Street and west of C Street.
Brad Mueller, Department of Planning Services, presented Case CZ-1104, 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 when the zoning change was done. Mr. Mueller stated it has been low density for
a few years and the original zoning allowed for the building of the home. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if this would
change the property tax. Mr. Mueller stated the tax is based on the use and the tax would not change.
Paul Branham asked how long the landscaping business has been there and if there have been
complains. Mr. Mueller stated this process is due to a violation complaint and the business has been in
existence for a couple of years but the applicant can address better.
James Welch asked whether this change of zone request is a prelude to a USR application. Mr. Mueller
stated the USR will be submitted at a later date.
Paul Branham asked what the nature of the complaint was. Mr. Mueller stated it was the operation of a
business without USR approval.
Jay woods, applicant provided further clarification on the proposal. The complaint was from a staff
member who saw the business, there have been no complaints from the neighbors. The business has
been in operation for 23 years off of west 10'"Street. The business out grew the existing site and needed
something larger. They did not realize the zoning had effect on the business. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if they
understood the significance at this time. Mr. Woods stated that is the reason for the application and
attempt to come into compliance.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Jay Woods indicated he is agreement with the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval.
Pam Smith added there is an undocumented septic system and the house was built in 1957 so no septic
permit was done. Ms. Smith added that since they will be reviewing this again at the USR submittal they have
not asked for the system to be evaluated at this time. The septic system would not be notices had this
application not been brought forward.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case CZ-1104,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; James Welch, yes; Tom Holton, ,yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1099
APPLICANT: Soaring Skies Ventures LLC
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-3685; Pt S2 of Section 5, T7N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agriculture)to PUD for nine (9) residential lots
(Sorrel Ridge).
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 15 approximately 1/4 mile north of CR 84.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services, presented Case PZ-1099, 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. The applicant has
requested that the subdivision name be changed to Sorrel Ridge.
Erich Ehrlich asked if the entrance will be paved and enter onto a paved county road. Ms. Lockman
indicated the internal road will be paved.
Doug Ochsner asked for clarification on the 15% open space requirement. Ms. Lockman stated this will
be considered an urban scale development since there are several subdivisions in the area. Had this
been the first subdivision in the area it would not be required.
Tim Halopoff, applicant, provided a rendering of what the site will look like and indicated that the 15%
open space will be the bridle run around the site. This is an equestrian type community that will be
directed and designed towards horse owners.
Doug Ochsner asked about the open space and how it will be maintained and watered. Mr. Halopoff
stated the HOA will govern and maintain the open space. The open space will be fully landscape. This
open space will be for the owners of the lots and not a public open space. Mr. Ochsner asked about letter
the from North Poudre Irrigation with regards to access and easement. Mr. Halllapulah stated they had
taken into account the request by North Poudre and implemented it into the design.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Tim Halopoff, agreed with the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval.
Erich Ehrlich asked about the Cactus Hill easement being 35 feet. Ms. Lockman stated that Condition 1B
addresses the easement.
Erich Ehrlich moved that Case PZ-1099, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Doug Ochsner 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; James Welch, yes; Tom Holton, yes, Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1531
APPLICANT: George & Mary Carlson Living Trust
PLANNER: Brad Mueller
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Prairie Ridge Estates. Lot 1 of Section 8, T7N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Use by Special Review for a Home Business (Haystacking and retrieving)
in the (E) Estate Zone District
LOCATION: Southeast corner of CR 84 and CR 15; northwest of Severance.
Brad Mueller, Department of Planning Services, presented Case USR-1531, 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.
Tom Holton asked about Development Standards 26 and whether that addresses existing building or building
to be built. Mr. Mueller stated that is for two additional buildings that will be used for hay storage and staging.
Mr. Branham what percentage of the site will be used for the business. Mr. Mueller estimated that it will be
approximately 2/5 of the lot.
Kevin Martin and Debbie Martin, applicants, provided clarification on the application and the proposed use.
The business is a custom hay stacking and retrieving business. The equipment leaves in the morning and
there are times in which they need to bring hay back due to time constraints. The buildings will be used for
storage of the equipment needed for the business and farming. The need to store the hay will be on a
temporary basis due to the business being a seasonal operation. Mr. Fitzgerald asked where they presently
store the equipment. Ms. Martin indicated that the existing home is used for the storage and the business.
This site will be purchased pending approval of this application. Ms. Martin indicated their concern on the lack
of approval for the access off CR 84. This access would utilize the existing entrance to the Cactus Lateral
Ditch but the road is on this property. The use of the access would be minimal with approximately one trip per
month during the off season and possibly on trip per day during season. The previous owner utilized this
access for a sheep feedlot and the loading and unloading of corn storage.
Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, stated their concerns for the access are that they want the
applicants to use the internal access and do not want to provide an access off of CR 84. The concern is site
distance from the hill. This distance is 600 feet to top of hill with a posted speed limit of 55 mph. They would
not be in support of granting an access at this location because of the safety condition to the top of the hill.
The subdivision has provided adequate space for a turn around which could accommodate the machinery.
Mr. Spitzer asked if the second access is a service road to the ditch. Mr. Carroll stated it is adjacent to the
ditch bank road. This location is on the applicant's property.
Ms. Martin provided clarification on the location of the requested access and stated the use would be minimal
and they would do whatever they needed to do to ensure the safety of the residents. The business is seasonal
and would not be year round therefore the access would not be used year around either. The use of the
access will eliminate the wear and tear on the paved access road to the entire subdivision. The use would be
exiting the property. There is more traffic on CR 84 due to the bridge on CR 15 being fixed.
Doug Ochsner asked about the driveway below the ditch easement. Ms. Martin indicated the ditch company
has an easement and this would not interfere or cause any harm to the ditch bank road. Mr. Ochsner stated
that if the ditch company gave them permission would that be allowable. Mr. Carroll stated it would be
allowable with the ditch company but the county does not feel it is a safe location.
Roy Spitzer asked if the traffic was coming from the east. Mr. Carroll stated the ditch is above this requested
location. The photos presented represent this. Mr.Spitzer indicated that the traffic would be coming over the
hill at 55 mph and would not have time to slow down.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked Mr. Carroll if he felt the location was not safe at any time. Mr.Carroll stated this was
not a safe condition and the alignment of the access is at a 45 degree angle, or parallel to the ditch.
Doug Ochsner asked about hours of operation since this activity does not take place on property, is there a
need for hours of operation. Mr. Mueller stated that as a general rule staff tries to put some parameters to a
use,unless they would cause a hardship. Mr. Mueller would rather leave this in since it is not a hardship. Ms.
Martin indicated there are times in the summer in which the trucks do not return to the house until late. The
equipment returns to park and nothing more. Mr. Ochsner suggested deleting Development Standards#5.
The entrance of the trucks would be no different then a vehicle arriving home late at night with their headlights
on.
Debbie Martin indicated they would be willing to make the access as a one way into the property so as not to
have safety concerns for turning right onto CR 84 as well as the deterioration of the internal roadway. This
would eliminate the concern for the vehicles traveling east on CR 84 that crests the hill. Mr. Schei indicated
that the subdivision would like the use of the internal lots. Public Works feels the safe access is from the
internal roadway.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Bert Carlson, current owner, indicated the existing buildings were the original building. Mr. Carlson has no
problem with what the applicants want to do. The south entrance to the site will require a hard right and
attempt to not run into the entrance sign for the subdivision. Mr. Carlson does not have a concern if they
would like to move that access further south on the property to try and mitigate the issue of entrance. The
island is 28 feet wide and approximately 158 feet long. The south access runs into the bottom of the island.
Mr. Carlson would be in agreement with a one way into the site.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
Doug Ochsner asked if the movement of the driveway would address the concerns. Ms. Martin indicated the
one way entrance would be better for the business with noise and deterioration to the internal roadway and
they would enforce it to be one way.
Tom Holton asked if this was a semi-trailer. Mr. Martin indicated he has a t600 Kenworth with a 29 foot trailer
and it does take more room to turn. If he were able to utilize the access from CR 84 he would not have to
make the sharp left turn from the internal roadway into the site. Mr.Branham asked for clarification on the one
way. Mr. Martin stated they would enforce this and there is no way to make a right hand turn from the
requested access on CR 84 or make a left turn from CR 84 into the site. The truck is too large and it would
end up in the barrow pit on the north side of CR 84.
Tom Holton asked Mr. Carroll about right in right out onto Hwy 52 and would this compare. Mr.Carroll stated
this was controlled by the state.
Brad Mueller suggested Planning Commission approve the hours of operation to be daylight hours to stay
consistent with sand and gravel operations. Mr. Fitzgerald stated this would be daylight hours and asked if
that would be agreeable to the applicant. Mr. Martin stated there are times with the trucks do not enter back
onto the site until late at night. This does not occur frequently but does occur and it would be only headlights.
Mr. Fitzgerald added they are trying to find a medium in which to allow for the complete operation of the
business. Ms. Martin stated the leaving in the morning would not be affected but the entrance back into the
site could be affected. Mr. Ochsner stated this is not consistent with sand and gravel operation, this is one
truck maybe two. This type operation would not be any different then a personal vehicle returning home in the
evening with headlights on. Mr. Ochsner recommends deleting Development Standards#5.
Doug Ochsner moved to delete Development Standards#5. Tom Holton seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; James Welch, yes; Tom Holton, yes, Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously
Paul Branham indicated if it is left as it there will be no second access. He suggests it be left as presented
due to the safety issue and staff has reviewed this and made the best decision based on the county standards.
Mr. Branham would like to see the driveway moved to the south and utilize that.
James Welch agrees with Mr. Branham with regards to the safety issue.
Debbie & Kevin Martin are in agreement with the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval.
Paul Branham moved that Case USR-1531, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Doug Ochsner 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; James Welch, yes; Tom Holton, yes, Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 3:45pm vRes ectfullyul �
submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello