HomeMy WebLinkAbout20051344.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld County Conference
Room,4209 CR 24 %, 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
Also Present: Char Davis, Don Carroll, Peter Schei, Chris Gathman, Michelle Martin
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on April 5, 2005 was
approved as read.
The following item will be continued:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1504
APPLICANT: The Bluffs, John Villano &Josef Guetlein managers & Ray Edmiston owner of
Aerial Sprayers, Inc
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt of the N2 Section 5, T2N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for an Airstrip
and an Agricultural Service Establishment. More specifically an airstrip for
private use and for a crop dusting and spraying operation facility. The facility
includes hangar, landing strip, fertilizer storage facilities, insecticide storage
facilities, fuel storage facilities and offices accessory to the crop dusting or
spraying operation in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 26; approximately '% mile east of SH 85; west of
and adjacent to CR 29 Section Line.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services read a letter requesting a continuance to May 17, 2005. The
applicant would like to expand the use of the airstrip for personal use. The extra month will allow for re-
notification. Mr. Miller asked if the applicant will be the only additional use and if that was significant enough to
require re-notification. Mr. Gathman indicated that was staff determination.
The following items will be heard:
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1077
APPLICANT: Harvey and Olga Markham
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-3667; being part of the N2 NE4 of Section 19, T4N, R68W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A (Agricultural)to PUD for 6 Residential lots with Estate
uses.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Highway 56; approximately 1/4 mile west of CR
3.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-1077, 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.
{ 2005-1344
( ca42-. O`er"-`,- 5- - <2OO5
Bryant Gimlin asked about the PUD boundary going through existing buildings. Mr. Gathman indicated the map
is made with the GIS data and it is not specific to building location. Mr. Gathman stated there is no building
encroaching on property lines, a recorded exemption was done on site and approved. The applicant does have
a silo and another building in the right-of-way for CDOT and those have been addressed through a NCU
application done at the time of the RE. A present requirement is to meet setbacks. Mr. Gimlin asked if there
was a shared access is that on the property line or an easement granted. Mr. Gathman stated the Lot A of RE-
3667 (which Mr. Markham owns) and the PUD will share the subdivision access
Bryant Gimlin asked Char Davis, Department of Health, about the septic envelopes. Ms. Davis stated the
envelope is dependent on the number of bedrooms and the perc rate. The perc rate in the area is the west
portion of the site has 22 minutes per inch and the eastern side is 88 minutes per inch. There will be some
different sizes depending on the locations.
Michael Miller asked for clarification on the access. Mr. Gathman indicated Lot A is not in the PUD but its
access will be a part of the public right-of-way access to the subdivision. With it being a public right-of-way it is
no different than accessing off a County road.
John Folsom asked about referral to County attorney. Mr. Gathman indicated one is normally sent. Mr.
Morrison he is not to receive a referral such because he cannot provide advice for approval or denial. Mr.
Folsom asked if this was in a flood plain. Mr. Gathman indicated it was not.
James Rohn asked about the Department of Wildlife referral and hunting to the south and how the applicant
will mitigate to allow hunting so as not to become a nuisance. Mr. Gathman indicated the Condition 1 B states
the applicant shall attempt to address the Department of Wildlife referral. Mr. Rohn asked if there was a way to
add something on the plat to reserve the right to hunt. Mr. Miller clarified that the right to farm also protects the
right to hunt on private property. Mr. Morrison indicated the County's Right to Farm is an advisement to
property owners for possible nuisances. There is a reference to hunting but it is not major part of it. Mr. Miller
indicated that hunting is a protected activity and in the Weld County code it is allowed in County.
Michael Miller asked about the lack of open space within the urban development and what the criteria was the
Department of Planning Services used to waive this. Mr. Gathman indicated that staff reviewed several items.
Those items were; there were no concerns from the Town of Berthoud, there being only six lots as opposed to
more than nine lots and the subdivision is not adjacent to a municipality. If the subdivision was not adjacent to a
municipality it would be considered non-urban. The nearest developed subdivision is one mile away. The main
issue is that the proposal borders Berthoud on the south and this was one item in the conclusion of the non
urban scale. Mr. Miller indicated his concern is staff is not requiring open space for of any subdivision. Mr.
Gathman added that open space was required in all subdivisions but when the code was amended the open
space requirement for non urban scale subdivisions was taken out. Mr. Miller asked about the number of
homes adjacent to this proposal along Hwy 56. Mr. Gathman indicated there will be no sewer service out there
anytime soon which is a requirement of urban scale development.
James Rohn asked Mr. Morrison if Planning Commission cold revoke the staff waiver for open space. Mr.
Morrison stated Planning Commission is a recommending body and Board of County Commissioners has the
final say. Planning Commission could recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the waiver be
removed. The Board of County Commissioners is not bound by staff but there are factors that need to be
considered. The same thing has happened with paving.
Chad Auer asked about Berthoud referral and rather the assumed County staff would not give waiver to the
open space requirements. Mr. Gathman indicated the referral sent to Berthoud did not include any open
space.
Tom Holton asked about the location of the detention pond. Mr. Gathman provided the location on an
overhead. There is also a Condition Prior to Recording the plat that will detail the location of the pond and
amend the recorded exemption if necessary. Mr. Holton asked if the detention pond could be counted as open
space. Mr. Gathman stated it could be if the area could be used for something in addition to detention such as
a park. This needs to be reviewed on a case by case basis.
James Rohn stated that if the waiver was not allowed the size of lots would be less than 2.5 acres which would
affect the size needed for septic systems. There have been subdivisions approved on septic lots with less than
one acre. Mr. Miller clarified that the gross net acreages needed for septic systems is 2.5 acres. Ms. Davis
indicated that was her understanding.
John Folsom asked if this was in a road impact fee area. Mr. Gathman indicated it was and there is a
Development Standard on the plat.
Harvey Markham, applicant, provided clarification with regard to the proposal. Mr. Markham indicated there are
no buildings on the lot lines. Mr. Miller asked about the water supply delivery line that is being referenced. Mr.
Markham indicated he is unaware of anything of that nature but agrees with Mr. Hooker that they will provide an
easement if in fact there is a line and it needs an easement. Mr. Markham clarified the location of the retention
pond.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Alan Hoskins, neighbor to the east, indicated his concern over the fence line on their property. The fence line is
about two feet on his side. There has been some concern on open space. They are subdividing the property and
the fence line is two feet off.
Dan Hooker, neighbor to west, indicated concerns. They are not abandoning the well but are abandoning the permit
to drill a well. There is another concern that the access does not have culvert under it. There are drainage concerns
and it would be a good idea to have one. CDOT planning needs to be better along this area. The Town of Berthoud
needs to be concerned with the highway. There needs to be concern with what is going to happen in the area.
John Folsom asked Mr. Schei about the culvert. Mr. Schei indicated this was a CDOT issue and would be
addressed by them.
Lisa Hoskins, neighbor, stated there is hunting on the property to the east.
The Chair closed public portion
Harvey Markham indicated they are trying to get the surveyors together with regards to the fence line. The culvert
will be addressed and there is no drainage problem for the site itself.
Chris Gathman added there is another option for the open space specifically a fee in lieu. Mr. Miller indicated the
comments stated the requirement can be waived as long it meets the requirements of the section. The intent for
open space is to provide an open space for people to recreate and neighbors to gather. How does this meet the
intent in order for it to be waived? Mr.Gathman stated staff determined this is not urban scale subdivision therefore
there is not an open space requirement. Mr. Miller stated the waiver can only be granted if the intent was found to
have been met. Mr.Gathman added that the staff decision was based on the location of the proposed subdivision in
regards to other existing subdivisions, the Town of Berthoud's comments and the number of lots. Mr. Miller stated
that it is considered to be urban because it is adjacent to Berthoud.
James Rohn asked if Berthoud was aware there would be no open space. Mr. Gathman stated the referral packet
that was received by the Town of Berthoud did not include any open space.
Chris Gathman stated a condition could be included in regards to the irrigation line but this change of zone will only
address the property boundaries. The easement could be accomplished at Final Plat stage.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Morrison how best to address the issue for easement. Mr. Morrison asked if final plat was
to be staff approved. Mr.Gathman stated it was. Mr. Morrison added it could be addressed at this time by Planning
Commission. Mr. Gathman suggested placing the standard language consisting of"the applicant shall provide a
copy of an agreement with the owner of any ditch located on or adjacent to the site or shall provide written evidence
that an adequate attempt has been made to mitigate the concerns of the ditch owners" be added as condition 1 F.
Bryant Gimlin moved to approve the above referenced language. James Rohn seconded. Motion carried.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Markham if he was in agreement with the Development Standard and Conditions of
Approval. Mr. Markham indicated he was.
James Rohn asked if the waiver for open space was going to be reviewed and removed. Mr. Miller stated that if it
would be considered for removal it would be within Planning Commission rights to make that motion. Mr. Miller
asked Mr. Rohn if that was what he would like to do. Mr. Rohn responded he would like to make a motion but would
like the attorney to form the language of the motion. Mr. Gathman added that if the application would have been a
minor subdivision there would be no requirement for open space either.
Bryant Gimlin added this is a non-urban scale subdivision and the only thing that is making the application
considered urban scale is the location. There are only six lots on seventeen plus acres. This provides larger lots
and a more open area plan. If the open space is required it would reduce the size of the lots making it more urban in
nature. Mr. Miller stated it would be 2.4 acres over the entire size of the property. Mr. Miller added that was the
reasoning given by a commissioner, was they live in open space and this goes against the principle behind open
space. The intent of the open space is for the neighbor to be able to gather where they are not on a private property.
There is no common area for people to gather. Mr. Miller disagrees with the removal of the open space requirement
in the code. Mr. Rohn added there is an HOA on the property that could be responsible for any open space. Mr.
Gathman added the retention/detention pond will need to be addressed with regards to maintenance. Mr. Miller
stated the biggest problem with the amendment is that the application does not include open space and for Planning
Commission to require the open space would make the applicant have to submit basically a new application. Mr.
Morrison stated the lots will need to be drawn at final plan; this is a change of zone application. It would not inhibit
the County process. The change of zone will be approved and if the applicant comes back with five lots instead of
six he will not need to begin again.
John Folsom stated each case must be determined on its own merit. With just six lots there is no need for open
space. Mr. Miller disagrees with the elimination of open space as a whole but not particularly in this case. Mr.
Fitzgerald added PUD's come in the MUD area with many more lots than nine.
Lee Morrison provided the language requested by Mr. Rohn. The language would be added to 2 B"the Planning
Commission does not concur with staff determination for the following reasons,the development is considered urban
scale and the development is next to a town and therefore recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
not sustain the waiver."
James Rohn moved to provide language that the Planning Commission does not agree with the waiver
recommended by staff. No second, motion fails.
Lee Morrison added the covenants deal with open space which there is none. The comments need to modify 3 B.
Mr. Gathman stated the retention pond would need to be addressed specifically for the access for maintenance.
There will need to be an easement to access from the road.
James Rohn moved to amend 3 B to remove the language open space and replace with retention. James Welch
seconded. Motion carried
Chad Auer moved that Case PZ-1077, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval.
Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom,
yes;James Welch,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes;James Rohn,yes;Chad Auer,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Michael Miller commented on the open space issues and he would encourage the Board of County Commissioners
to review the policy on open space in PUD and take this issue up again and find ground in the middle to make more
sense.
The following cases were read into the record. They will be presented at the same time but voted upon
separately.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1502
APPLICANT: Chad &Angela Lease & Michael Lafferty
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 8 of Scott's Acres; Pt NE4 of Section 9, Ti N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a single family
dwelling unit other than that permitted by Section 23-3-20.A (a second home) in
the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Bruce Road and East of and adjacent to Peak View
Road.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1503
APPLICANT: Chad &Angela Lease & Michael Lafferty
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 8 of Scotts Acres; Pt NE4 of Section 9, Ti N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for a Livestock
Confinement Operation (150 cows) in the A (Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Bruce Road and East of and adjacent to Peak View Road
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services presented Cases USR-1502 & USR-1503, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record.The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of
both applications along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
John Folsom asked how many calves are on the property. Ms. Martin indicated from conversations with the
applicant there are approximately 80 but the applicant can better address how many animal units are on the
property.
Bruce Fitzgerald indicated that USR 1503 would be for 3.71 acres and how many animal units are allowed for the
area. Ms. Martin indicated 4 cows per acre are allowed. Mr. Fitzgerald indicated there could be 14-15 animal units
allowed as a use by right.
Michael Miller asked if the application were to be granted it would be for animal units not specific to age. Ms. Martin
indicated it would.
Chad Lease and Michael Lafferty,applicant, provided clarification on the proposal. Mr. Lease addressed USR-1502
and indicated their intent is to replace the existing farm house and make the site a legal plot plan. Mr. Lease
provided a history of the land. A quick claim was done in 1976 which caused the illegal division. Mr. Miller asked Mr.
Morrison rather the division was done prior to the code. Mr. Morrison stated it was done after the subdivision
restrictions which were done in 1972. Mr. Morrison added lots less than 35 acres in size created after November
1972 have to go through the County process. Mr. Miller indicated there had been a home on site for thirty plus years
and to make the applicant go through a lengthy process to replace seems odd. Mr. Lease added the lot had been
sold, surveyed and title search done with nothing illegal found out. Mr. Morrison stated that title companies ignore
subdivision regulations. Mr. Miller asked if this was approved would the 3.7 acres become two lots and they be able
to sell one home or split. Mr. Morrison stated they would have two homes on one lot. Mr. Lease indicated they were
informed by the Department of Planning Services that the USR was the process that needed to be done. Mr.
Lafferty addressed USR-1503 and indicated the calves are from newborn to 6 months old at the most. Mr. Lafferty
stated he would not have any concerns if the USR was recorded with the limitation on the ages of the animals.
There is no intent to bring cattle on property. If the USR application would limit them to a specific age the applicant
will adhere to this. Mr. Lafferty added there are approximately 100 calves site now.
Michael Miller asked what how many animal units have been historically kept on site. Mr. Lafferty stated the
numbers go up and down. Mr. Miller asked how long has this use been on site. Mr. Lafferty indicated he had been
doing this for approximately 30 years.
Michael Miller asked why this is a violation when it has been done for thirty years. Mr. Lafferty added there have
been times when there were fewer calves and times when there were several calves. Ms. Martin stated a NCU was
applied for and it was denied. Staff went back through and reviewed aerial photos and it was determined there was
no calves on site therefore the reason for denial. Ms. Martin added the aerial photos were taken in 1963 and 1973
and there were no calves present at the time. In order for a non conforming use there needs to be calves on site on
or before 1972.
Michael Miller asked about a letter in the packet concerning the visibility of the huts and is there anything in the
Development Standard regarding screening. Ms. Martin indicated that with feedlots there is typically no screening
required. The applicant has spoken with the property owner regarding the concerns and has agreed to relocate
some of the huts.
Michael Lafferty indicated the huts have been moved to address the concern of the neighbor.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Everitt McKulley, neighbor, indicated his concerns. Mr. McKulley added, Mr. Lafferty has had animals on site but no
specific calving operation. The huts are not disturbing to them and there is very limited noise and smell. There is no
visual pollution on site, this is an agricultural area and the uses are to be expected. Mr. McKulley added the second
home should be allowed.
John Folsom asked how long the calving operation has been in business. Mr. McKulley indicated he was not sure
exactly the time but it has been approximately ten years. Mr. McKulley added the number of huts has changed but
the animal operations have been in business for quite a while.
Chair closed the public portion.
Lee Morrison asked Ms. Martin about the use limited to the calves and rather it was a use by right or use by special
review. Mr. Miller clarified that he asked was if this was approved would this be specific to young animals or animal
units, the understanding is animal units regardless of age. Mr. Morrison stated that the USR could be limited to a
particular age. If this was just for animal units there could be several different types of animals on site. Mr.Morrison
added that when CAFFO regulations are involved there are several different options dealing with design and waste
created and such. Mr. Miller stated the application refers to animals from newborn to one year and is that binding.
Mr. Morrison stated it was and the applicant does not appear to have any issues with this because that is his intent.
Mr. Miller asked if there should be a specific Development Standard to limit the age. Mr. Morrison stated it could be
done but the application materials define this. Mr. Morrison stated that the application materials are binding but
when a recorded plat is being reviewed they will see the limitation without having to do further investigation. Ms.
Martin suggested placing this as a note on the plat limiting the age. Ms. Martin suggested placing this as a
Development Standard #2. Mr. Lafferty would agree to the limitation of a maximum age of six months old. Mr.
Folsom agreed with the six months since a one year old cow can be significantly different.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if there were presently any cows on property. Mr. Lafferty stated there were none and he has
no intentions of having any.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to add Development Standard#2 to state"The maximum age of any animals on site will be
six months." John Folsom seconded.
James Welch asked if they wanted to place an additional language to exclude out animals for personal use. This
would address possible complaints from neighbors that see a larger animal.
Bruce Fitzgerald withdrew the original motions.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to add Development Standard #2 to state "150 cattle under the age of six months old in
addition to the animals allowed for a use by right." John Folsom seconded.
Michelle Martin commented the number of cows that would be allowed as a use by right is included in this USR. Mr.
Morrison stated that the way the motion is written the applicant would have 150 plus 13 other animals it can be done
but with a small parcel that could be mis-interpreted. Mr. Miller stated he would be more comfortable saying 150
maximum six months old plus up to 4 mature animals.
There was extensive discussion on the language.
Bruce Fitzgerald withdrew the previous two motions and moved to add Development Standard #2 to state "Allow
maximum 150 calves with a maximum age of six months and allow, in addition allow up to four mature animals for
personal use." John Folsom seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom,
yes;James Welch,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes;James Rohn,yes;Chad Auer,yes;Tom Holton,yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously
Michelle Martin suggested amending Development Standard #1 to include 150 cattle plus the four additional units
outlined in Development Standard #2. This would give them 154 animals on the property.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to amend Development Standard#1 to read 150 cattle plus the four additional animal units.
James Welch seconded.
There was additional discussion as to the exact language for both Development Standard #2 and Development
Standard #1.
Lee Morrison suggested striking the reference number in Development Standard#1 so there would be no conflict.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to strike the language in Development Standard #1. John Folsom seconded. Motion
carried.
James Rohn moved that Case USR-1502, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards 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;James Welch,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes;James Rohn,yes;Chad Auer,yes;Tom Holton,yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
James Rohn moved that Case USR-1503, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval.
Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom,
yes;James Welch,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes;James Rohn,yes;Chad Auer,yes;Tom Holton,yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 3:30 pm
Respectfully submitted
!t,
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello