HomeMy WebLinkAbout20040538.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, February 3, 2004
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2004, in the Weld County
Public Health/Planning Building, (Room 210), 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was
called to order by Chair, Michael Miller, 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin
John Folsom
Stephan Mokray
James Rohn
Bruce Fitzgerald
Tim Tracy Absent
Doug Ochsner
Also Present: Peter Schei, Don Carroll, Sheri Lockman, Kim Ogle, Michelle Katyryniuk, Char Davis
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on January20,2004,
was approved as read.
The following Case will be continued:
CASE NUMBER: PZ-604
APPLICANT: Darrel Adolf
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot C of RE-2940; being part of the NE4 of Section 29, T9N, R67W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to PUD for five(5)residential lots and
one (1)Agricultural out lot.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 102; west of and adjacent to CR 17.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services, read a letter in to the record requesting an indefinite
continuacne. The applicant is adding more lots to the proposal.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1441
APPLICANT: Farmland Reserve Inc.
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part Lot B RE-1901; being part W2 E2 Section 1, T5N, R65W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a business
permitted as a use by right or an accessory use in the Industrial Zone
District (agricultural truck terminal and wash) in the A (Agricultural) Zone
District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Hwy 263; 1/4 mile west of CR 49.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services, read a letter in to the record requesting a continuance to
March 2, 2004. The applicant is requesting a continuance to March 2, 2004. There has been a letter
received from Melvin Dinner requesting a continuance to April. The applicant will address concerns about
placing the hearing that far out.
Lauren Light, representative, stated their continuance is based on surrounding property owner issues. The
applicant is not willing to continue this until April. Mr. Dinner is a representative of a competitor and is not an
adjacent property owner. Mr. Miller asked if it would place undue burden on the applicant? Ms. Light stated
it would.
/?-02-0092004-0538
Michael Miller asked why the request was being made now? Ms.Light clarified that the applicant is requesting
the continuance to March 2 to address issues with a surrounding homeowner. The letter from Mr. Dinner is
concerning a competitor not a surrounding owner.
John Folsom stated that someone that is not directly involved is asking for a continuance and can they? Mr.
Morrison stated that a request can be made. It is up to Planning Commission to the weight given to the
request based on the relationship to the case. The County does not require the parties to identify themselves
as surrounding owners or competitors. Anyone interested in the case can ask for a continuance but their role
in the case must be identified.
Michael Miller added that the letter indicates that Mr. Dinner will be out of town the month of March and April
will be the earliest he is available.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Bryant Gimlin added that just because one attorney is going to be out of town for a month does not justify the
reason for continuance. The client could testify on the issues of concern. Mr. Miller added that the attorney
had scheduled the time today to present the case and the applicant continues,this causes some issues. Mr.
Gimlin stated it was still 30 days notice.
Bryant Gimlin move to continue USR-1441to March 2, 2004. Stephen Mokray seconded.
The following Cases are on the Consent Agenda:
CASE NUMBER: 2nd AmUSR-542
APPLICANT: Duke Energy
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SE4 of Section 35, T4N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Mineral
Resource Development Facility including an Oil and Gas Support and
Service Facility(Oil and Gas Processing Facility)in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District.
LOCATION: South of CR 40; west of and adjacent to CR 35.
Stephen Mokray moved to approve the Consent Item. Bryant Gimlin seconded. Motion carried
CASE NUMBER: 3r°AmUSR-597
APPLICANT: Duke Energy
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1 thru Lot 4 SE4SW4&S2 Lot 3 &all Lots 4&5 SW4SW4 Section 25,
T5N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Mineral
Resource Development Facility including a Natural Gas Processing Facility
in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to 49th Street; east of and adjacent to 35th Avenue.
Stephen Mokray moved to approve the Consent Item. Bryant Gimlin seconded. Motion carried
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes;Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;James Rohn,yes;Doug Ochsner,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The following Cases are on the Hearing Agenda:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1452
APPLICANT: John &Tonya McEnedtee and Anthony& Katina Brigham
PLANNER: Michelle Katyryniuk
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-3006; part NE4 Section 19, T6N, 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 Districts, (outdoor storage for
recreational vehicles) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Hwy 392; west of and adjacent to CR 27.
Michelle Katyryniuk, Planner, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1452, 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 about the setbacks from the existing oil facilities. Prima has stated in their referral
letter that 250 feet must be adhered to but then requested 150 feet of setback. Ms. Katyryniuk stated that
the applicant was within the 150 feet with a fence structure and parking area.
Don Carroll, Public Works, stated CR 27 is a part of the Two Rivers Parkway. This CR will be a major
arterial and there are three alternates that are presently being reviewed. There will be public hearings with
the adjacent property owners to select the best option corridor. According to CDOT the intersection of
Hwy 392 and CR 27 does not warrant a traffic study. It was indicated that additional dedicated right of way
would be needed on Hwy 392 and CR 27 for possible turn lanes. Another concern is the bridge on CR 27,
this bridge is posted with regards to axle loads. Weld County Public Works is in the process of obtaining
funding from CDOT to replace the structure. The estimated time frame is to have work begin in 2005-
2007 to replace the bridge. The intent is to upgrade the structure. Mr. Miller asked if the three alternatives
for Two Rivers Parkway would utilize the bridge? Mr. Carroll stated the alternatives would cross the canal
at some location not necessarily at the exact bridge location. Mr. Miller asked if the alignment of Two
Rivers Parkway will determine what the structure is that replaces the bridge? Mr. Carroll stated the
structure will be associated with the future major arterial and possibly be four lanes. CDOT did not require
a traffic study but Landmark has stated that a traffic study could be done prior to Board of County
Commissioners.
James Rohn asked if the RV weigh would be over the limit for the bridge. Mr. Carroll has suggested a
condition that the applicant not allow Class A type RV's until the bridge is completed. The other possibility
would be to have the applicant post the exit route to be north on CR 27 to Hwy 392 for the Class A type
RV's.
Ken Merritt, representative from Landmark Engineering, presented clarification on the case. Some key
points of the proposal are there are two phases to this proposal. The proposal consists of 22 acres of a
70 acre parcel. There is a seven acre expansion area, which is part of phase two, to the north while the
remaining acreage is incorporated into the first phase. There are two wells operated by Patina on this site.
One is an oil well while the other is a tank battery and well head. The remaining acreage will continue as
agricultural. The remaining 48 acres is the best agricultural land of the 70 acres. There have been
changes made to the submitted information based on comments and concerns from staff and surrounding
neighbors. The major changes since the submittal are centered around four key points: Visual impact
from CR 27 and properties to the west. There was a great deal of concern of the visual impact of the
RV's. The original submittal contained a little amount of landscape buffering. This will be substantially
modified. The second issue was the architecture of the building. In the original submittal the building was
a very basic building, the new building is more characteristic for the area. The third issue was lighting.
The intent is to minimize the impact to the surrounding neighbors. The applicant has eliminated the
lighting from the storage area and limited it to the building area. This proposal will have no more ambient
lighting then a typical residence. The applicant is proposing light fixtures within the storage area that will
just be turned on by management staff in the event of an emergency. The applicant would prefer to
eliminate the storage lighting but this will depend on the Sheriff Department recommendation. The final
issue is the number of parking spaces. In Phase one there will be a maximum of 400 spaces. The Phase
two area will have a maximum of 200 spaces. When the maximum number is reached the applicant will
not expand into the agricultural area. The possible types of RV's that can be parked on site are boat
trailers, 5'"wheels, pop up trailers or Class A motor homes. There will be a mix of units and there is no
limitation on the specific type. The concerns and impacts of the neighbors have been taken into
consideration on the site. A handout was passed out that addressed the impacts to the surrounding
neighbors. The hand out consisted of visual pictures attempting to address the surrounding neighbors
concerns. There is significant landscaping added to visually screen the RV storage from the neighbors.
The vehicle storage has been centralized on site to try and minimize the visual impacts to the neighbors.
The architecture of the building will be more compatible with the surrounding agricultural type theme.
There will be a landscape berm on the west property line and the chain link fence will be moved 50 feet
from the property line. It will take time for the landscape to mature but it will also take time for the facility
to become fully occupied. Staffs concern will be addressed by the applicants willingness to continue the
landscaping into Phase two as well as along the north side of the site for possible future residences. The
area around the Patina Oil site has been addressed by moving the landscape and storage away from the
setbacks.
James Rohn asked if the parking area was cemented. Mr. Merritt indicated the surface of parking is
recycled asphalt, which will minimize the dust and allow the maximum permeability of the soil. Detention
will be provided and piped under the ditch to a field to the south. The surface area will not be asphalt
pavement.
Doug Ochsner asked if there are currently residences on site. JR McEntee, owner, indicated that there
are two five acre sites with three total homes which are not part of this proposal. The only building
associated with this proposal is a quonset for storage of farm equipment.
John Folsom asked if there would be anyone living in the RV or if maintenance will be performed. Mr.
Merritt indicated that there will only be RV storage and there is no maintenance on site. Mr. Folsom asked
if the site will be enclosed with a fence for security. Mr. Merritt stated there will be an 8 foot high security
fence around the site. It will be off CR 27 approximately 200 feet and off the western property line
approximately 50 for the landscape buffering. Mr. Folsom asked about the number of trips per day this
facility would generate? Mr. Merritt stated that 150-200 vehicle trips per week is estimated. This equates
to 15 vehicle trips per day. The applicant is willing to prepare a traffic analysis of what might be expected.
The applicant proposes that this will not change traffic any more, when developed, than if residences were
built. CDOT did not see the access onto Hwy 392 as an issue but there is concern with the turning radius.
There can be some work done to the intersection to make it safer. The applicant is willing to dedicate the
right of way for a right hand turn lane. Mr. Folsom asked for a summary either economic or otherwise why
this site, in a rural area, was chosen adverse to closer to an urban area? Mr. Merritt stated that increasing
rules prohibiting the storage of RV vehicles on private property which generates the need for this type of
facility. HOA and municipalities are not allowing for outdoor storage. A rural setting that did not have
good agriculture production was searched for. It was determined to be less of an impact in a rural setting
adverse to an urban setting. These types of facilities are not allowed as a use by right in any zoning
category, it is allowed only by special review. It is agreed that they are a large impact. The intent is to
mitigate the impacts as best as possible.
James Rohn asked Ms. Katyryniuk if the second phase would need to come back with an amendment.
Ms. Katyryniuk stated the second phase is part of this USR. When and if they expand to Phase two all of
the screening and landscaping will be required to continue.
Michael Miller asked about the issue of traffic. Mr. Merritt stated that on the average residential properties
generate 10 vehicle trips per day. There is no good data on this type of property. The applicants traffic
engineer has indicated this will not generate any more traffic than a residential site. There is data
available in highly populated RV environments such as Arizona, Utah etc. This area is not a highly
populated area. A facility of this size would generate somewhere between 150 to 200 vehicle trips. There
are no peak hour on this type of facility. Mr. Merritt added that the bridge is vehicle loaded. Everything but
the Class A motor homes will be able to utilize the bridge. The applicant would propose to limit, by
contract with the owners of the RV, that they utilize the north access route. There is a possibility that the
applicant could prohibit Class A motorhomes until the bridge is rebuilt. The applicant would rather
regulate Class A motorhomes rather than not allowing them until the bridge is operational. Mr. Miller
asked about the elimination of lights in conjunction with the hours of operation and if this would force
owners to possible utilize the lot with no lighting. Mr. Merritt stated that the hours of operation would need
to be modified or provide lighting that can be turned on temporarily. The applicant is willing to eliminate
the lighting from the parking storage area and maintain lighting around the building and for emergency
situations if needed.
Michael Miller stated that there is nothing in the Development Standards or Conditions of Approval limiting
storage on this site to RV. Ms. Katyryniuk indicated that the application material stated RV, boat, trailer
and possible jet skis would be the only things stored. There is a Development Standards that limits the
storage to outdoor recreational vehicles. Mr. Merritt stated it is not the applicants intent to store anything
other than recreational vehicles. Ms. Katyryniuk indicated that the proposal was advertised for outdoor
storage of recreational vehicles it is limited to this.
John Folsom asked if there would be a locked gate due to there not being employees. Mr. Merritt stated
there will be two gates. A slide gate will be open during the hours of operation. There will be no access
other than times of operation.
Stephen Mokray asked Mr. Carroll about the two extremes of traffic and the possible average of 160 trips
per week, how will this affect CR 27. Mr. Carroll stated that the most recent count on CR 27 reflects 610
vehicles in 24 hours and this is adequate. There will be expansion of this road which will enable it to carry
more traffic. Mr. Carroll state he is comfortable with the possible number of 160 additional vehicle trips
per day.
James Rohn asked in a typical day, what would occur? Mr. Merritt stated access will be at north entrance
and they must first come to the office. Owners getting things from their RV's would park near the office
and walk to the storage site, retrieve what is needed then leave. The use of these facilities is for storage.
There is not a great deal of vehicles moving in and out in a day. Typically the vehicles are stored in the
summer months and used during the winter months. Mr. Rohn asked if there would be staff on site from
6:00am - 10:00pm to check people in? Mr. Merritt stated that there will be someone there as long as the
facility is open. Mr. Rohn asked if owners live within a few miles. Mr. Merritt stated the owners live offsite.
John Folsom asked Mr. Carroll about the visibility from the site and the reverse turn on CR 64 '/:. Mr.
Carroll stated that CR 64 % is the Kodak Road. The access point to this site is adequate in both
directions. CR 64 '/2 is part of the Two Rivers Parkway. CR 27 is in the process of looking at re-
alignments that could correct some of the concerns at this intersection. Mr. Miller asked about the access
onto Hwy 392 and if the site distances were adequate. Mr. Carroll stated that it is a T intersection causing
the turns to be very tight, that is the reason for the discussion on possible improvements to the
intersection. CDOT indicated concerns over right of way for improvements. The applicant has indicated
additional right of way could be dedicated. Mr. Miller asked if there was adequate turning radius for a
vehicle to turn right from CR 27 onto Hwy 392? Mr. Carroll stated that the intersection would need to be
improved on both sides.
James Rohn asked if there was going to be dumping of black or gray water on site or is this strictly
storage. Mr. Merritt stated that there will be no waste disposal on site. There will be a dumpster for trash
collection.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
John Wirth, neighbor, ask about the lighting reduction and if this is approved by theinsurance company?
None of the traffic talked about pertain to that lot. There are to many people who pick up their RV's on
weekends, this will cause a large amount of traffic on Friday nights when the traffic is already bad. The
traffic per day will be high on certain days related to holidays.
Bob Kessler, neighbor, indicated concern with traffic. There are three companies that are along CR 27
and they have a right to travel to CR 27, once the bridge reconstruction is completed. These businesses
will be running at the same time the RV owners will be utilizing their site. The busiest season for Mr.
Kesslers concrete business is between May and October. There will be heavy transport utilizing the road
approximately every 10-15 minutes it is not just going to be the RV. Mr. Kessler suggests the applicant
buy a piece of industrial zoned property instead of using if for landscaping. Mr. Kessler does not want to
have to pay for the lights on CR 27 and Hwy 392. His feels as though this will devalue his property.
Chris Heines, representative for the Dimitts to the west, indicated concerns that this applicant has not
made effort to promote prime farm ground. The property has been historically farmed. The application
materials state there is not adequate water for the property which is wrong. Water could have been
purchased for the land or they could have rented. There is question as to why the applicants chose this
parcel. There are other commercial and industrial zoned lands available, even non productive agricultural
land can be used. The concern is the size and intensity of use is incompatible. There are 22 acres that is
going to have 600 units on site. The applicant is trying to make it more aesthetic but it is not working. Ms.
Heines presented a pictures of a similar storage facility next to the Walmart Distribution Center. There is
a question as to the ability to screen this from the neighbors. There is no amount of landscape that can
screen the site. There is a concern about crime issues. They are using fences and locked gates, but the
lighting proposed causes mixed emotion. The limited lighting would promote more crime while the
extensive lighting affects the neighbors. There are also concerns about waste from the operation, oil,
grease and antifreeze will be leaking into the ground. The issue of drainage is a concern, possible
contamination of the aquifer and groundwater. The water will be piped to the farmland to the south of the
ditch. The infrastructure is not in place, this need to be planned for. A traffic analysis is requested before
this proceeds any further. The applicant indicates intermittent usage but 600 units with weekend use and
holiday use does not qualify as intermittent. There is a blind site on CR 27 to the access and the visibility
is poor along CR 27. There is a concern with sewage problems especially with the number of people that
will be using the site. The proposal violates the Comprehensive Plan because it is not compatible with
future development of the surrounding area. Windsor has objected because it is not compatible with the
Windsor development plan. It violates the intent of the Comprehensive Plan to maintain agriculture
buffers between municipalities. The Development Standards need to be clear regarding no groundwater
contamination and a sewer system is needed for safety. The application is incomplete and inaccurate and
in a constant state of change. There needs to be full disclosure of what is going on with the site. What
are the projections for the site. How much traffic will this generate. Will there be maintenance or possible
waste generating activity will be done on the property. There is a ditch identified by the applicant to be
abandoned but further information needs to be provided because the ditch is utilized. There needs to be
more specific information regarding solid waste. The screening is not sufficient. A lighting plan needed, it
seems vague and needs to be nailed down. According to the Sheriff they cannot absorb additional
services. There are Windsor-Severance Fire District issues. The bottom line is applicant has not
demonstrated that this location is suitable. The applicant is incomplete, it is not in compliance with
Comprehensive Plans and this proposal disturbs the surrounding uses.
James Rohn asked Ms. Heines about the picture presented and if she knew how many RV's were parked
there. Ms. Heines stated it was approximately 400.
Eric Wilkerson, neighbor, indicated four basic concerns. The first being compliance with the Weld County
Codes, accuracy and efficiency of the application, compliance with Comprehensive Plan and consistency
with Weld County Codes. Mr. Wilkerson stressed that this is a very large commercial application. There
is an attempt by the applicant to minimize the size and impacts. Phase one and Phase two will contain 13
acres which will be parked vehicles. This is similar to 13 football fields with parked vehicles in an
agriculturally zoned area. The impacts will be large. The nature of the application requires the
consideration of ingress and egress. The number of vehicle trips per day is inaccurate, according to the
calculations the vehicles will leave the lot four times a year and that does not seem feasible. The
estimates of 150-250 vehicle trips a week is more accurate. The impacts need to be determined.
Acceleration and deceleration lanes and left turn lanes need to be done especially if there is prohibiting of
Class A motorhomes due to load restriction on the bridge. There are concerns about the aspect of water.
The Rallard ditch cannot be abandoned by a unilateral owner. The historic run off pattern of the ditch has
been altered by the piping proposal. The alteration of historic flow is a legal matter handled by Colorado
Water Laws. The land owner does not possess any water rights so he cannot beneficially use the water.
The County needs to review the water rights policies and determine what is being implied. By allowing
property owners the ability to abandoned the water rights from the surface rights devalues the land with
the insurance that the County will provide an economic and viable return on the property. An approval on
a proposed development such as this would promote the devaluing of the agricultural land and therefore
giving larger municipalities the ability to purchase those water rights. Future uses could include more units
and more phases. There needs to be a conditions that vehicles will not be serviced and waste disposal
needs to be prohibited. The screening attempts are going to be difficult, the site sits on a high point. A
better location for this would be land with compatible zone. The cost of this application will be passed onto
the surrounding neighbors, those costs should be borne by those causing it. CDOT did not look at the
traffic count but they will once a traffic study has been done.
Roy Armstrong, neighbor, indicated concerns with financial adverse affect. The traffic needs to include
farm machinery especially in spring and fall. There is a RV storage facility on Hwy 66 and 1-25, the traffic
for this is tremendous. There will be trash everywhere from the RV's.
James Rohn asked Mr. Armstrong about the number of RV's in the storage in the area at Hwy 66 and 1-
25. Mr. Armstrong does not know the exact number but it appears to be twice the size of the facility near
the Walmart Center. The Walmart Center has sanitary facility. There is debris and garbage located all
over the lot.
Larry Thayer, neighbor, addressed the visual impacts from his lot. Overheads were presented. There will
be no buffering to the south along the Greeley#2 ditch which borders his property. The area is an
agricultural area. The area is difficult to screen.
John Folsom asked about the lighting. Mr. Thayer indicated that lighting is a concern.
Ellen Thayer, neighbor, stated they wanted a to be a part of the rural atmosphere that is why they
purchased there. Ms. Thayer indicated they would move if this proposal was passed. There will be more
traffic and it would devalue their property. This will have a lasting effect to the whole area and set a
precedence if approved.
Shelly Langley, neighbor, stated there was a recent traffic study due to the re-construction of the bridge on
Hwy 392. Traffic will increase and a turn lane will be needed. The views will be disrupted. RV parks go
down hill within a few months. There will be oil, gas and propane leaks on site. The screening will take
years to mature. CR 27 is not wide and does not have shoulders. The fire impact needs to be addressed
due to the oil and gas that will be on the facility. Ms. Langley will be very disappointed if this was to pass.
Grant Morrison, neighbor, indicated concern with Rallard lateral that supplies water to his farm being
labeled as abandoned. Mr. Miller stated that there is a reference in the comments that this issue needs to
be addressed if abandoned. Mr. Grant added that the property for this proposal was leased and the land
was farmed. Commercial development of this sort takes away from the rural nature of the area.
Linda Wiggim, neighbor across the street, indicated this would be devastating to the value of their
property. The traffic an issue as well as security for their property. Accidents are frequent on Hwy 392
and CR 27. The lighting will be directly out their front door.
John Walkish, neighbor to the north, looks down onto this property. The intersection of CR 27 and Hwy
392 is not wide enough for an RV to turn. They moved out of city to get away from stuff like this.
Norm Emmerson, neighbor, opposed to this proposal.
Michelle Goad, neighbor, opposes this project. There are reasons there are specific zone districts for this
type of proposal.
Chair closed the public portion.
Ken Merritt, representative for the applicant, added this is the reason for this special review so the
surrounding neighbors issues will be addresses. The applicant has tried to adequately address the
impacts from the neighbors. There needs to be some clarification on certain issues. The applicant is
doing nothing that will affect the Rallard ditch. There will be a non interrupted flow to that ditch. Cache La
Poudre does no operate the ditch, it is a private ditch therefore they do not recognize this. The original
plan for the detentions is to capture the water and that water will be dealt with in accordance with local and
federal regulations. The design of detention pond will respect those guidelines. The piping does not
disrupt the natural flow. CR 27 is an arterial road and is intended to function as arterial. In the future this
road will carry larger amounts of traffic once the improvements to Two Rivers are made. This property will
not add a significant amount of traffic. There is a considerable amount of right of way on CR 27 for the
additional lanes proposed. Mitigation is the key, the applicant is trying to address all the impacts within
reason. The applicant is willing to limit the lights in accordance to the hours of operation. There will be no
maintenance done at the facility. There will be owner operators present on site.
James Rohn asked if there is going to be someone on site at all times. Mr. Merritt stated that there is
office hours and facility hours. There will be someone there at all times while the facility is open. The
office hours are different than the hours of operation. The lighting will need to be reviewed to possibly
change the hours of operation.
John Folsom asked if the land has water rights. Mr. Merritt stated that the land was purchased with no
water. The land that is being used for the proposal is the least productive of the property. The north and
south portions of the property contain ground water and will therefore continue to be agricultural.
Michael Miller asked if there is a need to specify the parking of RV's only. Mr. Rohn added it needs to be
stricter. Mr. Miller asked for clarification from staff. Ms. Katyryniuk stated the application only states RV
and staff feels that this is sufficient.
James Rohn asked Mr. Miller if people retrieve and return their RV's after 8:00pm. Mr. Miller stated
owners access the storage facility at all times.
Michelle Katyryniuk clarified that 1B needs to add the Rowlard Ditch to the comment and delete 2M.
James Rohn moved to accept staff changes. Bryant Gimlin seconded. Motion carried.
Don Carroll would like the applicant to supply a traffic impact study for review and approval to Public
Works and CDOT. Ms. Katyryniuk indicated that could be placed prior to scheduling the Board of County
Commissioners Hearing. Mr. Carroll added that Public Works would require an offsite improvements
agreement for Hwy 392 and CR 27. In the agreement Public Works will be looking for adequate turning
radius, widening of shoulders as well as approval from CDOT. Ms. Katyryniuk stated this will be located
Prior to Recording the Plat. Mr. Carroll added that the applicant shall post adequate signeage stating that
no overweight vehicles shall go south on CR 27 due to the restricted bridge. Ms. Katyryniuk stated that
will be included as a note on the plat.
James Rohn moved to accept Public Works conditions. Bryant Gimlin seconded. Motion Carried.
Bryant Gimlin stated this proposal is incompatible with surrounding neighbors. RV storage parks make
sense but not in the middle of agricultural land. It is a commercial/industrial use and should be in that type
of zone district.
Michael Miller agrees, the application is incomplete and there is no lighting plan. There is no way to
eliminate the lights and run a secure facility. The intersection is bad at Hwy 392 and CR 27. The location
is in appropriate and it is incompatible with both the present and future uses. The health, safety and
welfare of the neighbors have not been addressed.
Bruce Fitzgerald stated this is a far to intense use for the area. Mr. Gimlin added that the storage facility
this was compared to was near a commercial business.
James Rohn quoted Section 23-2-220.A.2-this section is used for things that are accessories to
agricultural. A RV storage park cannot be an accessory to agricultural production of any sort. There are
serious water right issues that can cause litigation.
John Folsom quoted Section 23-3-40 R-does provide for commercial uses in agricultural zone by the USR
process. Section 23-2-220-The Duties of the Planning Commission. The applicant has not complied with
these requirements. The proposal is not consistent with the intent of the district of which the use is
located. Section 23-3-310-The Intent of the Agricultural Zone District. The applicant does not comply
with this. The uses are not compatible with future development. The application does not comply with
requirements.
Stephen Mokray stated it is not compatible with area.
Bryant Gimlin added that if this was approved it would allow for more business type uses in the area.
James Rohn moved that Case USR-1452, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of denial. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Doug
Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: AmPZ-613
APPLICANT: Cattail Creek Group LLC do George DuBard
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot C of RE-2637; being part of the SW4 of Section 9, T6N, R66W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A (Agricultural)to PUD for 8 lots with Estate Zone
Uses and 1 lot with Agricultural Zone Uses along with 7.19 acres of open
space (Cattail Creek).
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 70 ; approximately 800 feet east of CR 29.
Michael Miller excused himself due to potential conflict of interest.
Sheri Lockman, Planner, Department of Planning Services presented Case AmPZ-613, 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 intent of the condition dealing with the post office. Ms. Lockman stated
that staff would like to catch the issue of addressing before a problem arises. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if staff
would like a single pedestal type delivery. Ms. Lockman stated that staff requests the Postal Service
recommendation in writing so no issues arise. Delivery is typically done with a neighborhood delivery next
to a bus pull off.
John Folsom asked for clarification on the past processes of this case to help orientate the Planning
Commission members. Ms. Lockman asked Mr. Morrison is this was relevant. Mr. Morrison stated it was
relevant to the Planning Commission but not to the decision. It would be helpful so Planning Commission
focuses on the current development adverse to the prior. Ms. Lockman read the resolution from the
Board of County Commissioners giving the reasons for the approval of the substantial change.
Doug Ochsner asked Ms. Lockman why this was a PUD and not a minor subdivision. Ms. Lockman
stated the applicant chose this process. With a minor subdivision there are limitations. The applicant
could not have done the agricultural lot in a minor subdivision. A minor subdivision does not have the
open space included for the buffering. For what the applicant wanted a PUD was a better application.
John Folsom asked about the removal of prime farm ground and if there is irrigation water with this. Ms.
Lockman stated that the large agricultural lot is under a pivot sprinkler. The applicant intends to keep this.
Mr. Folsom stated that this would be classified under USDA regulations as being prime farm ground. Ms.
Lockman stated that a portion of the ground in not classified as prime.
Anne Best Johnson, representative for the applicant from Todd Hodges Design, provided clarification on
the project. The hearing today is based on the direction of the Board of County Commissioners at the
change of zone process. This is a non urban scale development. Eight lots are on the least productive
ground. There is an 114 acre agricultural lot that is irrigated by a center pivot. The flood plain is located in
those no build areas. There will be common open space located on site. There is a draft copy of the
covenants submitted. Domestic water will be provided by North Weld County Water District. There will be
septic tanks for the lots. Access to the agricultural lot will remain the same. This proposal does meet the
criteria for the a change of zone. Ms. Johnson reviewed sections of the code in which the applicant is
compliant. The applicant is retaining 80% of the agricultural land and the right to farm statement will be on
placed on the plat. The applicant has concerns with Condition I that deals with the internal road. The road
will be paved and after a year, when the road it up to County standards, the applicant is asking the County
to accept maintenance. This roadway will be named. Another concern is with Condition P concerning the
labeling of the ditch. This is not a ditch it is a seep area. Another small concern is a typographical error.
In Condition Y the language should be complying not compiling. Ms. Johnson addressed Mr. Fitzgerald
concerns with the post office. A letter is sent to the post office to make sure the addresses are not
duplicated or confusing. The post office is also asked what type of boxes they prefer. After the change of
zone a list of addresses is obtained and submitted to the Post Office for and their recommendation are
incorporated into the final plat.
James Rohn asked about the HOA being in charge of the internal road. Mr. Schei stated the intent is to
pave the internal road and when the road is brought to county level the county will accept the
maintenance. Ms. Lockman clarified that the HOA is not responsible if they petition to the County after the
year and are accepted.
Doug Ochsner asked about the common open space and what is going to be there. Ms. Johnson stated
that the common open space will be seeded in a grass/dry land mix. There is a landscape buffer on the
back of Lots 8-6. Mr. Ochsner asked if the larger area will be dry land or irrigated. Ms. Johnson clarified
that it will be irrigated in a dry land mix.
Stephen Mokray asked for clarification on the separate parcel attached to the 114 acre irrigated lot. Ms.
Johnson stated it is a building envelope for Lot 9.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Debra Paige, neighbor, stated she represented of a group of neighbors. She further stated that the
change of zone was denied by the Board of County Commissioners. The buffering and screening is good
but does not buffer the affected properties. Ms. Paige's property will not be buffered, they sit on a hill and
look down onto the site. The proposal is at the lowest point in the area. This proposal does not meet the
requirements of Section 27-6-70 4. This use is incompatible with the surrounding area. There has been
no changes other than lines on a map. 173 people have signed a petition that was submitted with the
previous application. There is no way to prevent encroachment onto the other properties due to Coal
Bank Creek. There is no way to buffer this development from the neighbors. The irrigation is not
adequate to the area for the residences that are being proposed. '/3 share of Larimer Weld water, in a
good year, would provide water for only four or five two inch irrigation tubes. This water may be available
but no likely. These lots will dry up when there is no water available. The applicant has not come up with
a reliable irrigation plan. The application fails to meet the requirements of Section 27-6-60.5. The
applicant has not provided the 15% required for the common open. The agricultural out lot and
unbuildable parts of the lots are what is being used in the calculation. Section 27-6-80 A& B indicates the
common open space requirement. This application remains incompatible with the surrounding land uses.
There is no adequate buffer to the neighbors or no adequate irrigation water. Ms. Paige wants Planning
Commission to continue to deny this application. Ms. Paige, speaking as a land owner, indicated she was
appreciative of the meeting that was held for the land owners. The issue with the meeting was Cattail
Creek wanted to know what would make the surrounding owners happy. They were told when they the
bought their lot that all the land surrounding them would remain agricultural land and there was no future
development planned. If something was planned it could not happen for 10 years. The center pivot
leaves little room for common open space. There is no privacy or buffer except for seeding or trees. The
buffering will take years to mature. This will be an ongoing construction phase until all home are built.
This is not a farmer who has farmed the ground all his life, it is a developer who lived on the ground,
moved and developed Cattail Creek. This is about money but not at the expense of the residents.
Bryant Gimlin asked Ms. Lockman about the petition. Ms. Lockman indicated that the letters that were
passed out before the hearing was all that there was. Ms. Paige stated the petition was not re-submitted.
James Rohn asked who Ms. Paige purchased her land from. Ms. Paige indicated she purchased her land
from a member of the LLC who is trying to develop this.
John Folsom asked Ms. Paige how many acres were on her parcel. Ms. Paige stated it was 10 acres.
There is a hay field that is about 8 ''A acres with 10 shares of Woods Lake water. This is not enough to
irrigate the hay crop. The applicant cannot do it with what they are proposing.
Chair closed the public portion.
Ann Best Johnson, representative, provided clarification on some of the issues brought forward. A
photograph was presented to address some of the issues. The picture was taken at the mid-point of lot 3
looking south along the eastern property boundary. This area is the seep area. This area is not steep.
Mr. Rohn asked for clarification regarding the location of the picture. Todd Hodges, Todd Hodges Design,
provided clarification with regards to where the photo was taken from.
Ms. Johnson continued to address the issues brought forward by the public portion of the meeting. The
development is attempting to be compatible in accordance with Section 22-2-60 D. 20% of the property is
in common open space and buffer areas. Those buffer area are not intended for active recreational uses
just as a buffer. 80% of the land is under a center pivot. The intent of the common open space has been
meet. Section 22-1-120 C2 of the Comprehensive Plan talks about the fairness in the land use procedure.
The referrals have came back supporting the project. The irrigation report was submitted with the
application material. There is water available from North Weld County Water District along with the
proposed system.
Bryant Gimlin clarified that there is water on the lots for landscape but how does the applicant plan to
water the buffer areas. Dave Help, property manager, stated that there will be dry land pasture mix which
will need little irrigation. It has not been watered in the last three years. The area where the trees are will
have a drip system supplied off the land water or possibly North Weld Water.
John Folsom moved to change Condition P language from "ditch"to"seep area" and Condition Y correct
the spelling. Doug Ochsner seconded. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner is concerned about the water situation and rather there is adequate water to irrigate the
lots and buffer area. The purchasers will understand this and know that it will not produce great crops.
Mr. Gimlin asked if Mr. Ochsner is satisfied with the water, there is not adequate water to produce plush
lots.
James Rohn indicated his concern over the minor flood hazard area and the movement of the homes to
the side of hill in a draw closer to a potential hazard with the creek. It would be safer to place them on top
of the hill which would have reduced Lot 9 but for safety it would have been more appropriate.
John Folsom moved that Case AmPZ-613, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, no; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried.
Mr. Rohn commented his reason for denial was based on Section 22-3-50.P.1 & 2
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-227
APPLICANT: Cornish Plains Livestock LLLP
PLANNER: Michelle Katyryniuk
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the N2 of Section 4, T6N, R63W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
Livestock Confinement Operation (3,000 cattle) in the A(Agricultural)
Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 74; 1/4 mile east of CR 65
Michelle Katyryniuk, Planner, Department of Planning Services presented Case AmUSR-227, 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
John Folsom asked about the original USR and the number of cattle. Ms. Katyryniuk stated the original
USR was limited to the number of pens. Mr. Folsom asked if they were increasing the facility. Ms.
Katyryniuk stated they were. Mr. Miller asked how many head are they running now. Ms. Katyryniuk
indicated she is unaware of the exact number. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if they were currently out of
compliance. Ms. Katyryniuk indicated that they were because they were reducing the acreage therefor
exceeding the number of animal units allowed by right. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if the application was due to
compliance or reduction in the number of acres. Ms. Katyryniuk indicated it was for both issues. Mr.
Miller asked in what way were they out of compliance? Ms. Katyryniuk stated that the number of pens has
increased which increased the number of animal units.
Clar Orr, representative for the applicant, provided clarification. This feedlot has been in existence since
1973. The number of cattle was specified in the Planning Commission resolution and it was 20,000 cattle
and 25,000 lambs. The pen size was never increased to hold the number of livestock that was approved
by Planning Commission. There are currently 1600 head of cattle with the maximum being 3000. Mr. Orr
does not understand why the applicant has to go through this process when the original approval was for
that number of livestock. The applicant is not changing anything or adding any pens. They are
maintaining what is currently there. The water is there and the septic is there. The only thing changing is
decreasing the number of acres from 160 to 80 acres. Mr. Miller indicated they have added pens. Mr. Orr
stated that the pens added were south of the approved USR which fell under the use by right because of
the agricultural zone district. The applicant owned approximately 2000 acres when those pens were built.
This classifies as a use by right operation. The operation has not changed nor will it. The applicant wants
to be in compliance with state regulations. The applicant has intentions on being in conformance with the
State and Federal Regulations by July 2004. Mr. Orr stated he has several concerns with the conditions
attached to this USR. The applicant and purchasers will abide by the State Health Requirements.
(CAFFO Requirements)
Michael Miller stated that they are reducing the acreage from 160 to 80 acres. Ms. Katyryniuk asked Mr.
Orr where the numbers he was referring to came from. The Board of County Commissioners resolutions
does not indicate numbers. Mr. Orr stated there are no numbers in the resolution from the Board of
County Commissioners, the numbers comes from the Planning Commission resolution. It was the
assumption that the numbers continued. Mr. Miller added that the Board of County Commissioners only
approved what is in writing.
John Folsom asked about regulations under CAFFO and if the applicant was operating under them at this
time. Mr. Orr stated that there is currently not a CAFFO permit in place because they have been
operating under a use by right. Mr. Folsom indicated that a use by right was Weld County regulations and
CAFFO is a State regulation. Mr. Morrison added that CAFFO is a tiered system and the application
increases with the number of animals. No one is exempt due to the limited number of animals. Mr. Jiricek
stated that the current rules are open and in process of revision. They will not be less stringent than the
existing. The rules become effective at 1000 animal units. The applicant would need a containment
facility and the existing facility has limited containment. The current facility is not operating in compliance
with those rules at this time. Mr. Jiricek added that there is a permit but inspections are never done
unless a complaint has been called in. This issue will change in the coming years, permits will be
mandatory. Inspections and reporting will be required. Mr. Miller stated that the Health Department would
like the applicant to comply with the Conditions of Approval and the Development Standards as well as the
CAFFO regulations. Mr. Jiricek indicated that the timing is unique because the regulations are changing,
the Health Department recommendation was written based on the current regulations for CAFFO. The
future requirements were not known. The Health Department recommends that the applicant comply with
the rules in place and as those rules are modified, they will have to abide by them. Mr. Folsom indicated
that there is a condition that the applicant shall comply with the CAFFO regulations.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked Ms. Katyryniuk how many animal units are allowed per acre in a use by right
situation. Ms. Katyryniuk stated there are four animal units per acre allowed. Mr. Fitzgerald pointed out to
Mr. Orr that the use by right argument does not work. With 80 acres there would only be 320 animals
allowed. Mr. Orr pointed out that the applicants are in compliance due to the fact they own a large amount
of acreage. They are looking to reduce the acreage which would make them not in compliance hence the
reason for this hearing.
Mr. Orr added that Section 22-2-120 establishes the respect for established agriculture and the allowance
for continued operation without constraints. The applicant wants to continue to operate without having to
jump through several obstacles. Mr. Miller asked what the additional constraints were. Mr. Orr stated
anything other than CAFFO restraints are an extra burden.
John Folsom asked for clarification with regards to the SUP and the number of animals units. Ms.
Lockman added the applicant can use his use by right he does not have to be permitted as a USR. They
can still fall back on the use by right due to the number of acres that is owned in comparison to the
possible number of cattle. Mr. Folsom asked if the applicant was restricted by the 160 acres approved for
the SUP? Ms. Lockman stated they were limited by the 160 acres and pen sizes. The addition of pens
made staff feel as though they were not in compliance.
Lee Morrison added that the older permits are not as detailed or specific.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Rich Miller, prospective buyer, would like to keep his farms going and use the feed for this facility. This is
a nice facility that has good drainage and pens. He wants to put all the cattle in one spot to make it easier.
The Chair closed public portion.
Mr. Orr indicated the applicant has concerns with the Conditions of Approval and the Development
Standards. Condition of Approval 1C-there is not even a ditch. This is a drainage way, there is no one to
contact. Mr. Miller stated the way to satisfy this is to write a letter indicating that a reasonable effort has
been made to determine if there are rights to the ditch or drainage way. Mr. Orr continued with concerns
on Condition E and everything under it. The lighting has no effect on anyone. The nearest neighbor is
2700 feet away. Mr. Miller indicated that the Conditions states"if applicable." Mr. Orr added that adhering
to the CAFFO regulations is going to be the applicants primary concern. Mr. Orr asked about Condition H
and if it falls under CAFFO? Mr. Jiricek stated that those issues are not addressed by CAFFO. CAFFO is
strictly a water quality based rule. Mr. Miller stated this is one of the Health Departments conditions which
must be satisfied. Mr. Orr added that Condition L is not appropriate, off street parking with curbs is not in
the area. Ms. Katyryniuk stated that this was referring to the office as stated on the application material
and the number of employees. Ms. Katyryniuk is asking that it be delineated on the map where parking
would be for the employees. Mr. Miller stated that a line on the map needs to be identified showing
parking spaces. Planning staff does not have the authority to vary from the code, they have to write
appropriate conditions for this. Mr. Orr stated he understood, but that is why Section 22-2-120 was
referenced. There is also a question on the amount of water that could be supplied. There is a 2500
gallon cistern on site. This is the source for fire protection and is also used for a backup water source
when needed. The type of cattle are not mature therefor do not consume as much water. Mr. Miller
stated that all that is being asked for is a description of the well permits indicating how many gallons per
minute the well will provide. Ms. Katyryniuk added that the applicant has submitted 2 well permits, one for
domestic and commercial. The Division of Water Resources indicated 12 gallons per day per year is
needed to water one cow. The well permits indicated 33 acre feet which does not add up to supporting
3000 head of cattle proposed. Staff would like additional information. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if the size of
the cattle made an impact on the amount of consumption? This could cause a dispute in the amount
available.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case AmSUP-227, 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; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Doug
Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1020
APPLICANT: Clifford Clift, Appaloosa Acres Estates PUD
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 15C; Fourth Replat of Gilbaughs Appaloosa Acres; being in the W2
SW4 of Section 33, T7N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from Agricultural to PUD; Estate for a 22 lot residential
development outside of an IGA and UGB; east of the Town of Eaton.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 74; east of CR 41.
Kim Ogle, Planner, Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-1020, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending
denial of the application, should the Planning Commission recommend approval of this application the
following Conditions of Approval and Development Standards should be included.
Bryant Gimlin asked Pam Smith about the septic systems as proposed. Ms. Smith stated there are 4
previous replats, one through four, with 18 total residences. There are 17 single family and 1 duplex lots.
This proposal would contain 22 septic systems on 61 acres. The Health Department comments did not
reflect the previous residences or the possible impact of septic on the overall development. The ground
under review for this application is now vacant in pasture grass. Ms. Smith indicated that when this was
application reviewed, the proposal did meet the minimum lot size with a density of 2 %:acres. The density
to total land in this application calculates out to 2.7 acres per septic system. The minimum lot size by
Health Department guidelines, is one acre as development is on public water. (North Weld County Water
District)
Clifford Clift, applicant, provided clarification on the project. CR 74 is in a down grade status as far as the
county road classification. There will be acceleration and deceleration lanes to accommodate the traffic
on CR 74 turning into and out of the development. There will be an internal paved road. The school
district will dictate where the drop off and pick up will be. The front entrance will be landscaped with
xeriscape type material. There will be a drip line installed to irrigate the plants. The internal road is a
paved with a cul-de-sac every 1500 feet. The development has 32 acres of open space that will be
maintained by the Homeowners Association (HOA). The County Code enables the open space to
surround the internal lots. The bridle path will be maintained by the HOA. There will also be two detention
ponds adjacent to CR 74. This proposal is not removing any prime farm ground as there is only 2 shares
of water available for irrigation. In a typical year, this will allow for irrigation three to four times. The open
space will be seeded with native grasses and flood irrigated. According to title insurance the bridle trail is
a 12 foot easement for the benefit of those in the platted Gilbaughs Acres Subdivision, including this lot,
Lot 15C. The covenants will address the bridle path and the maintenance of it. There is some concern
with the open space and bridle trail. Colorado is a recording State and this means the last recorded plat,
4'" Replat, is the instrument that is referred to for determination of uses, zoning, etc.
Staff indicated the application was inconsistent with the County Code. The inconsistency is that the
application is outside the Intergovernmental Agreement Area (IGA)with the Town of Eaton. There is no
precedence being set, as within 1/2 mile there are 35 homes and within 3/4 mile there are over 100 homes.
The applicant is trying to do something that is beneficial and unique to the area. There is no water
associated with the land and therefor is not considered prime ground. This use is the highest and best
use for the land. The comments deal with non urban and urban development. The issue was the open
space area that was designated residential agricultural on the 4th Replat. This was changed on the third
Replat and carried to the fourth Replat. The Town of Eaton does not have an issue with the project.
There will be dual evaporation pads for each septic system. The applicant is trying to do a positive
development with high end homes.
James Rohn asked about Section 22-2-110 B -this site is unable to be served by urban infrastructure
which would include municipal sewer. Is it a possibility to be in the Eaton Sewer District? Mr. Cliff
indicated that the City of Eaton was not very receptive to that possibility. There is a requirement of a lift
station.
Doug Ochsner asked if there is a specific septic pumping plan to take care of the systems. Mr. Cliff
indicated that there could be a three year plan required in the covenants, depending on the size of the
tanks.
John Folsom asked Mr. Ogle if the land was zoned agricultural residential. Mr. Clift stated that was what
was on the zoning plat. Mr. Folsom stated that if it is agricultural residential, Section 23-3-100 gives the
intent for residential uses. Mr. Ogle indicated that was the interpretation from the County attorney. Mr.
Ogle stated that an agricultural lot can have a primary residence built on it. The applicant is able to apply
for a subdivision based on the agricultural zone district.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Dan Foster, representative for Appaloosa Acres Subdivision HOA, indicated the new development is
opposed by the HOA for the following reasons: the residents were told the land would not be developed
because it was open space and pasture with a bridle path around it. The residents believed they were
protected from the land ever being developed. The land was productive farm land until water was sold off
of it. The bridle path, which is a easement,was platted on the Subdivision Plat when this was developed
in 1974. The contention of the HOA is the bridle path can neither be moved or changed on use. The
residents were told that this development was not going to be horse properties. In a letter to the County
from the applicant it stated the open space will be used for grazing horses and those residents have
access to the bridle path. Appaloosa Acres HOA carries insurance on the bridle path. Mr. Foster read
statements from the Appaloosa Acres attorney, John Berry of Witwer, Oldenburg, Barry& Bedingfield,
LLP dated January 23, 2004 addressing the concerns of the bridle path. The following is direct quote from
that letter. "The covenants provide that"each and every one of these covenants, conditions, reservations
and restrictions is and are all for the benefit of each owner of land in such subdivision. Thus, when the
covenants are recorded, and when the plat was recorded, each of the approximate 15 owners of lots in
the Gilbaughs's Appaloosa Acres subdivision had vested rights in the bridle path as well as the other
property rights referenced in the covenants. By recording the plat and referencing the covenants, Mr. and
Mrs. Gilbaughs placed every homeowner in the subdivision with individual vested rights in the bridle paths.
I do not see anywhere in the covenants or on the plat that the Gilbaughs reserved any rights in the bridle
path area to allow them or their successors to utilize or convey any of the bridle path. Thus, it appears to
me that the only persons with any rights in the bridle path are those who are owners of the lots in
Gilbaughs's Appaloosa Acres.
Presumable, when each owner acquired his or her interest in a lot in Gilbaughs's Appaloosa Acres, such
purchaser relied upon the covenants and the assurance that they would have an unobstructed use of the
bridle path when making their purchase decision. As a vested property right, I do not believe that either
the Gilbaughs or their successors have any right to attempt to change the location of the bridle path, to
alter the use of the bridle paths or to attempt to allow other persons or parties to make use of the bridle
paths in any way. I do not even believe that the Gilbaughs or their successors would have the right to
authorize other parties to utilize the bridle paths even if solely for bridle path purposes." Any change in the
bridle path would take a written consent from a majority of Appaloosa Acres HOA members. The access
development into the proposed development is over the bridle path. The access road to the development
will cross over the bridle path which could be a major safety issue for the residents of either development.
Mr. Foster added that this development is urban scale in a non urban area. Traffic is a concern. The
existing residents are fearful that the proposed property owners will use their private road to access the
back of the proposed lots. The native grasses proposed in the open space will turn to weeds. Property
values will decrease. These existing homes will be looking at the back yards of the proposed homes.
Drainage is a concern as the land drains to south. In times of heavy rainfall the area is covered with water
for a lengthy time period. The retention ponds will be breeding sites for insects. The situation is unique
and this will change the way of life of the Appaloosa Acres residents.
John Folsom asked Mr. Morrison about vested rights in bridle path and mentioned in covenants. Mr.
Morrison stated this was an agreement that concerns the land but does not usually involve the County.
This is a private agreement, it is not a contract because it involves property. It is a document affecting use
of benefit and burden on property. It is not part of the plat. It is an issue between private property owners.
It will be an important issue to whether this could proceed but the County has no opinion in a possible civil
action. Mr. Morrison indicated that this may require litigation at a future time.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Foster if the bridle path was a recorded easement. Mr. Foster stated it was their
understanding that it was an easement platted with the development. Mr. Ogle added that on Replat 2
and the original document there is a designation of a 12 foot bridle path but not an easement. Mr. Miller
asked Mr. Morrison about the fourth replat and if the path would need to be called out at that time for it to
be valid. Mr. Morrison stated that the fourth replat was a realignment of property lines. The replat was
only dealing with two lots, it was not intended to affect the entire alignment of the lots. Mr. Morrison stated
that the vested rights are identified in the covenants and it is also identified on the plat. The argument for
vested rights is because of covenants not necessarily the plat. The legal right comes from the covenants.
Mr. Miller asked if the prolonged use gave them a right to the path as an adverse possession? Mr.
Morrison stated it was possible. There a several possibilities for this.
Joanne Gilbaughs, adjacent property owner, presented clarification on the project. The first sale of the
property and movement of the bridle plan was for a house to be built by the purchaser. It was not
agreeable to the owners to move the path. When this did not occur, there were proposals by Mr. Moody
for development however Mr. Moody encountered opposition by the property owners. The plans were
abandoned and the property was sold. This land will eventually be developed regardless but the idea of a
cluster development with more open space is more attractive. The intent is to keep the bridle path where
it has historically been. There are concerns with the turn lanes into the subdivision. There would need to
be a culvert under the access drive. Ms. Gilbaughs shares some concerns with what they, the residents,
will be looking at. The suggestion is to turn the homes around to face open space leaving the backyards
facing each other. Another suggestion is to leave as much open space as possible, keep the homes in
one area.
Diane Druitt, neighbor, indicated concerns with the development. The private road has been deeded the
association for Gilbaughs's Appaloosa Acres in 2001 by Ms. Gilbaughs previous owner and maintenance
of Happy Road.
The Chair closed the public portion
Clifford Clift, applicant, responded that the title insurance company will back the applicant on the situation
of 4th Replat and the easements associated with this development. The applicant feels as though the
bridle path is an easement. Lot 15 C is part of Appaloosa Acres. This parcel of ground does own and has
a right to the easement because it is part of the original plat. The HOA and covenants will address issues
of derelict vehicles and noxious weeds. The applicant wants to maintain the parcel as a high quality
development. There are things that can addressed regarding landscape.
Doug Ochsner asked if there is a plan to have the bridle plan open to the lots and if the covenants are
allowing horses. Mr. Clift stated there will be horses and they are allowed to use the path.
John Folsom commented that this development is compatible with the surrounding area. The issue
comes with the code and concentrating urban development in or around municipalities. The code also
states that locating urban scale developments outside urban boundaries is not efficient. There are no
sanitary services provided for the proposed urban subdivision. The minimum lot size in estate needs to be
2 %acres. The proposed site is one acre.
Bruce Fitzgerald added that if this was a 9 subdivision it would be more agreeable. This use is too intense
for the area.
Bryant Gimlin agreed. He stated the density of units is too high. Mr. Gimlin, thinking out loud inquired,
should something be included to address the concerns of the bridle path?
Michael Miller added that Planning Commission worked long and hard on the revision of the
Comprehensive Plan and the urban vs non urban statement was discussed extensively. Urban style
development should be in urban locations not where there are 22 septic system. The changes were
adopted to help alleviate the issues that have risen due to this type of development. Mr. Folsom stated
that this proposal is years to late. The rules have changes since the other subdivision have been
approved. Mr. Gimlin added that part of the reason the original subdivision was approved was because of
the large open space area incorporated into the development.
James Rohn stated he would be in favor of the proposal if it were to be done in two sections. Meaning 9
lots in phase one then come in with an additional 9 lots in the second phase. The main issue is the sewer.
Mr. Miller stated that there is also a provision that indicates if a 9 lot subdivision is located next to another
subdivision it is considered urban, with urban scale development.
Doug Ochsner commented that in urban vs non urban standards the urban scale is required to provide
central water, sewer system, road networks and parking facilities. Section 22-2-176 does not say it has to
be a public sewer system. A septic can be approved for this type of location. Mr. Ochsner's issue is
having one acre lots and horses. There is not enough acreage to support the livestock.
James Rohn added that the neighbors have believed this was open space for them.
James Rohn moved that Case PZ-1020, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Planning Commissions recommendation of denial. John Folsom seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Doug
Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Ochsner commented that he is voting yes only because he disagrees with the size and the design of
the subdivision and the legal issues of the bridal path and not because of the urban scale development or
septic systems.
Mr. Miller commented that he does not agree with the application because it does not meet the standards
of Section 22-2-110. B UGB.Goal 2. It is urban style development in a non urban area. Section 22-2-
190.C R. Policy 3.1.
Meeting adjourned at 7:00pm
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello