HomeMy WebLinkAbout20052627.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, August , 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 Bruce Fitzgerald, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller Absent
Erich Ehrlich
•
Roy Spitzer Absent -
James Welch
Bruce Fitzgerald •
Chad Auer Absent
Doug Ochsner
Tom Holton
Also Present: Kim Ogle, Sheri Lockman, Pam Smith, Peter Schei,
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on, July 19, 2005,
was approved as read.
The first item of business is the election of officers.
Tom Holton nominated Bruce Fitzgerald as Chair for the Planning Commission. Mr.Fitzgerald was elected by
acclimation.
Tom Holton nominated Chad Auer Vice Chair. Mr. Fitzgerald indicated he had spoken with Mr.Auer and he
would accept the position. Mr. Auer was elected by acclimation.
The following cases will be heard:
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 Review 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.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting to September 6,2005. The applicant has
not complied with the State mineral notification. Patrick Glenn, representative, indicated they will have the
adequate notification done by September 6, 2005.
Doug Ochsner moved to continue. James Welch seconded. Motion carried.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Erich
Ehrlich,yes;James Welch,yes;Tom Holton,yes, Doug Ochsner,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1041
APPLICANT: William & Carol Cessna
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the N2 of Section 10, T7N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from a (Agriculture)to PUD (Planned Unit Development)
>!Adruxfa ,1. , Q_7_:2005 2005-2627
for nine (9) residential lots. (Mountain View).
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 84; approximately 1/4 mile east of CR 19.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-1041,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. Ms. Lockman stated 13 referral agencies
reviewed PZ-1041 and 10 responded favorably or included conditions that have been addressed through
development standards and conditions of approval.
No correspondence has been received from Surrounding Property Owners.
The applicant has requested a waiver from pavement from the Department of Public Works. However,
they do not have the authority to waive pavement in this instance because of the location of the adjacent
subdivisions. The Department of Planning Services does feel that pavement is appropriate in this situation
because of the number of subdivisions being proposed in this general area. A map showing the existing
and proposed subdivisions in the area is in the presentation. There are 7 subdivisions being reviewed in
the general area at this time. Three County Subdivisions have been approved in the past 5 years and
Severance has annexed a half mile section for Saddler Arena which is an urban scale development to be
services by Public Sewer and Public Water.
There has been confusion as to which fire protection district the site lies within. The referral from the Poudre
Fire Authority states the site is outside of their service area.The Windsor-Severance Fire Protection District is
requesting that the entire site be petitioned into their service area. Planning Staff does feel it is very important
to have this site in a services area prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing to ensure the
appropriate fire district is reviewing this case
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if the map included the town boundaries for Severance. Ms. Lockman indicated the
location of Severance on the map and provided clarification on the applications currently in the process.
Doug Ochsner asked about the ditch on site and whether it will service this property or others. Ms. Lockman
stated the irrigation ditch was for other properties, this site has no water associated with it.
Jeff Couch,application representative, provided additional clarification on the site. There is open space in the
property both around the boundaries and in the center. The lots have been adjusted to accommodate the
power lines that are located on site. Mr.Couch stated the applicant has been working with the Lake Canal for
an agreement but the ditch company would like to see the plan after the entire design is complete. The
applicant would like to have the final done administratively. The surrounding roads are gravel. There has
been some discussion with the Fire Districts and determining who would be responsible. The
Windsor/Severance Fire District will be the responding agency. There is one road into the development;there
are detention facilities to the south.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the taxes for the districts. Mr. Couch indicated that presently the taxes are
being paid to Poudre Fire Authority but the petitions have been filed to change this to Windsor Severance. Mr.
Fitzgerald asked about the projects on either side of this proposal. Mr. Couch stated they were owned by
separate individuals.
Erich Ehrlich asked about the entrance location in association with the hill on CR 84. Mr. Couch stated the
entrance location is on the high spot in the hill. The site distance is no concerns. The approach has been
widened to accommodate both the post office needs as well as the school district.
Tom Holton asked about the waiver for asphalt. Mr. Couch indicated they have asked for a waiver due to the
surrounding area being nothing but gravel. There will be both on site agreement and off site agreements for
the maintenance of the roadways. Peter Schei, Department of Public Works, stated that paving will be driven
by development in the area and the ability of Public Works to do the project. Paving is not on the schedule in
the next five years.
Erich Ehrlich asked if there was a Wing Sport business in the area. Rob Parsons, applicant representative,
indicated there is a rental property during the duck season.
Tom Holton asked about the oil and gas in that ownership being sold. Mr.Couch indicated the ownership was
in an LLP but was transferred to individual owners. Mr. Couch added that the Town of Severance does not
want to annex in the area.
Doug Ochsner asked if there was a ditch company agreement or is it addressed in the Development Standard.
Ms. Lockman stated it was addressed in 6.B. The ditch company would like to see the technical data which
will be done at final plat.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the road agreement, if the waiver for no pavement was granted. Mr. Schei
stated a PUD is required to be paved. If the waiver is accepted the HOA will be responsible for the
maintenance of the internal roadway which will be addressed in the covenants. If the internal roadway is
paved the County will ask for it to be up to their standards at which time they will take over maintenance. Mr.
Fitzgerald asked about dedication of the roadway. Mr. Schei indicated this will be a public road regardless of it
being paved or gravel. Both adjacent proposals are gravel but are also Minor Subdivision and need off site
improvement agreements. Those proposals were submitted prior to this development. This PUD is urban
which delineates the need for paving. Mr. Holton asked if the submittals were taken into account when the five
year plan for paving was done. Mr. Schei stated it was not due to the proposals being recent and the plan
having already been in place. The work is being development driven in the County. There needs to be a
sensitive approach to the drivers in the County due to the increased number.
Doug Ochsner added that this is still a rural area,with gravel roads and there should be no concern in granting
the waiver. Mr. Holton added there is development in the County and the County will eventually do something
when appropriate. Mr. Ehrlich stated that the traffic projection and safety will need to be taken into
consideration due to the topography of the area.
Peter Schei stated the hill is adjacent to Sadler Arena and it is the hope that the Town of Severance will
require them to do improvements on CR 19. Severance did not take the entire roadway in the annexation but
the County is working with them for an agreement on the remainder of the road.
Sheri Lockman stated the Weld County Code states that all internal roadways shall be paved in an urban
scale development and there needs to be compelling reasons that the waiver should be granted.
James Welch stated the road should be paved according to the rules. Mr. Ochsner added that Planning
Commission is allowed to grant waiver if there are reasons for one. It does not make sense to have pave road
in middle of a rural area even though there are other subdivisions.
Jeff Couch stated that with the addition of the two subdivisions and this one the traffic count may be just at 200
trips per day which is the breakpoint for paving. There are going to be only two off site agreements done in
the area.
Tom Holton asked Ms. Lockman when the other proposals will come before the Planning Commission. Ms.
Lockman provided clarification as to which ones will be brought before Planning Commission and which ones
require or are propsing paving.
Doug Ochsner asked if the waiver was granted what would need to be done. Ms. Lockman stated there would
need to be some changes made to the Development Standard and Conditions in the comments.
Erich Ehrlich asked if the waiver was granted what the future ramifications would be or would this be the end
of possible future discussions.
Peter Schei added additional conditions that would need to be modified if the waiver was granted.
Doug Ochsner moved to grant the waiver. There was no second so the motion failed.
Tom Holton moved that Case PZ-1041, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. James Welch seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Erich
Ehrlich,yes;James Welch,yes;Tom Holton,yes, Doug Ochsner,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1066
APPLICANT: Mikal Torgerson
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2681; Pt of the SE4 of Section 32, T8N, R66W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agriculture)to PUD for 9 lots with E (Estate)
Zone Uses along with 28.4 acres of open space.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 86; 1/4 mile west of CR 29.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-1066, 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.
This Case is Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to PUD with Estate uses for 9 lots with E (Estate)Zone
Uses along with 28.4 acres of open space. (Torgerson PUD), utilizing water from North Weld County
Water District and individual septic systems. The site is located north of and adjacent to CR 86; 1/4 mile
west of CR 29 and is predominately agricultural. The proposed subdivision takes into consideration the
surrounding properties, as well as the site advantages. The site is designed with a perimeter buffer
around all lots separating the residential lots from the adjacent properties. The Griffith Minor Subdivision is
approximately 2200 feet to the west of this proposed development.
15 agency referrals reviewed this case with 9 referral agencies responding which have included conditions
of approval and/or recommendations that have been addressed in the development standards and
conditions of approval.
The proposed site is within the three mile referral area for the Towns of Severance, Ault and Pierce. The
Towns of Severance and Ault did not respond to the change of zone referral request. However, at the
sketch plan, the Town of Severance did indicate the plan had no conflicts with their interests; the Town of
Ault returned a referral for sketch plan objecting to the County considering this application as an
unincorporated subdivision. The Town of Ault requests the applicant petition to the Town for annexation.
The proposed subdivision is outside of the Intergovernmental Agreement Area therefore the applicant is
not required to prepare annexation documents to the town of Ault. The Town of Pierce returned a referral
date June 10, 2005 stating the plan had no conflicts with their interests.
The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of this application with the attached
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Mikal Torgerson, representative for the applicant, indicated he was available for questions as Mr. Ogle
provided a complete summary of the proposal.
James Welch asked Mr.Ogle why this was a PUD and not a Minor Subdivision. Mr. Ogle stated the applicant
made a mistake in the naming/titling of the plat and asked for a PUD not Minor Subdivision.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked Mr.Torgerson if he was in agreement with the Development Standards and Conditions
of Approval. Mr.Torgerson indicated he has concerns with the last two conditions under Prior to Scheduling.
1.C asked for evidence of the well and that information has been provided to the best of the applicants'ability.
1. D would like an agreement with the Pierce Lateral but the applicant does not have ownership of the
adjacent 30 feet that is being requested by the ditch company. Mr. Ogle responded that the map that the
Department of Planning Services has does not indicate the boundaries in relation to the 30 foot being
requested. Mr. Torgerson indicated he could work with staff to alleviate that concern and clarify the maps
provided. Mr. Ogle added that the summary from the sketch plan indicates no uses proposed with the well
permit. There is one monitoring well for which limits the use for fire protection, household purposes for not
more than three single family residences and irrigation of not more than one acre of garden. Staff is asking
who will be controlling the well. The well is presently located on Lot 8 of the proposal and the question is
rather it will be for the HOA or another individual or will it be capped for non use. Mr.Torgerson indicated the
well will be used to irrigate and water animals for the owner of Lot 8. Mr. Ogle asked Mr. Morrison about the
ability to permit a well for a specific lot that is not attached to the HOA or the proposal.
Doug Ochsner asked Mr. Ogle and Mr. Schei about the waiver for pavement. Mr. Schei indicated this
subdivision would not be required to be paved due to the proximity of other subdivisions. Mr.Ochsner stated
the code requires paving. Mr. Schei stated a PUD is required to be paved. Mr. Schei clarified that both
applications asked for waivers and both were granted. This subdivision is in close proximity it was not allowed
to have the waiver and the urban scale. Mr. Ogle added that the applicant has written a letter asking for a
waiver which was granted by Frank Hempen. The Planning Commission packet has a copy of the letter
requesting the waiver.
Discussion ensued on the paving waiver specifically the differences and the requirements needed for to the
waiver in correlation to the PUD application process.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case PZ-1066, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Erich
Ehrlich,yes;James Welch,yes;Tom Holton,yes, Doug Ochsner,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 3:00pm
Respectfully submitted )
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello