HomeMy WebLinkAbout20043302.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, November 2, 2004
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2004, in the Weld County
Department of Planning Services,Hearing Room,91810`"Street,Greeley,Colorado. The meeting was called
to order by Chair, Michael Miller, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL 1-
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin
John Folsom
James Welch
James Rohn Absent
Bruce Fitzgerald Absent
Tonya Strobel Absent
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
Also Present: Char Davis, Peter Schei, Don Carroll, Sheri Lockman, Michelle Martin, Pam Smith
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on October 19,2004,
was approved as read.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1486
APPLICANT: Karen & Gerrit Voshel
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B RE-2723; pt of the W2NW4 Section 28, T9N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a kennel
(25 dogs) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: Approximately 1/4 mile south of CR 102 and est of and adjacent to CR 17.
John Folsom asked if the Conditions of Approval and Development Standard had been approved by the
applicant. Mr. Morrison indicated that was part of the guidelines for the Consent Agenda.
Doug Ochsner moved to approve. Bryant Gimlin seconded. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1050
APPLICANT: P &A Turkey Farms Inc
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NE4 of Section 36, T5N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Planned Unit Development Change of Zone for nine (9) lots with Estate
uses; one (1) common open space outlot (6.369 acres); and two (2)
agricultural outlots (101.106 acres).
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 52; west of and adjacent to CR 49.
Michelle Martin,Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-1050,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.
Todd Hodges, representative for the applicant, provided clarification on the proposal. This proposal will be
for a 9 lot nonurban scale PUD, lot sizes range from 1.5 -2.5 acres. The applicants have entered into a
conservation easement with Colorado Open Lands on outlots B&C. This easement will never be built on and
has been left with water for the sprinkler pivot. Access to the residential lots is proposed from CR 52 and will
be paved. There are existing accesses along CR 49 and CR 52. These serve existing oil and gas uses as
well as agricultural uses on site. There are two oil and gas interests in the area, Patina & Prima. Patina Oil
and Gas has signed off that they have no problem with the proposed development. Prima is very close to
Ceni&, (4enr{a 11 lS-;,Yr)c/ 2004-3302
signing a surface use agreement with the applicant. Mr. Hodges provided additional photos of the site. The
proposal has the element of open space even though it is no longer required for nonurban scale
developments. Therefore this proposal is compatible with the area and services are available.
Bryant Gimlin asked about the existing access to the current home off of CR 49 and how will it be change.
Mr. Hodges indicated that was a Condition of Approval the applicant had concerns with. Future access for
the existing home will be from the internal road way, however,the applicant does not want to close or change
the access until the internal road is available. One of the Conditions of Approval requires the access to be
removed from the plat, but the intent of the applicant is to keep the access until the new internal roadway is
available. The existing residential access of CR 49 will be closed once the internal road is complete.
John Folsom asked about the secondary access to the development for the Fire Department. Mr. Hodges
indicated the Fire Department did not request secondary access. Mr. Folsom asked about CR 52 and if it is
paved? Mr. Hodges indicated CR 52 was gravel. The internal roadway will be paved.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Ron Bernhart, neighbor, indicated the proposed access into the subdivision is directly across from his home.
The traffic from CR 52 to CR 49 is extremely dangerous. The speed limit has increased along CR 49. When
turning north onto CR 49 the oncoming traffic cannot be seen because the intersection of CR 49 and CR 52
is below a hill. There are now more trucks on CR 49 than Hwy 85.
The Chair closed the public portion.
Michael Miller asked Mr.Schei if he could address the access onto CR 49 from Public Works standpoint. Mr.
Schei stated"First of all we need to clarify if it's the access from the development onto the gravel roadway 49
or if it's a concern at the intersection of 49 and 52 pulling out into 52 from a stop conditions that has existed
for some time." Mr. Miller stated the issue is pulling off of CR 52 onto CR 49. Mr. Schei stated"I think he is
talking about that intersection and what I can say about that intersection if it's a hazard (pause) has been a
hazard with Public Works, we have noted that in our improvement projects for safety improvements in the
County. It is not, I am not personally aware of that being a problem at that intersection. One of the things they
look at of course is when the sign those intersections is site distance and so forth. What I can do is take a
note of that and have it looked into but this is more of an offsite issue pertaining to the bigger picture that just
does not happen to(pause)the subdivision is going in but this may be a safety issue for all of the County itself,
but I am not aware of it being a safety issue." Mr. Miller added when he visited the site it was difficult to get
on CR 49 from CR 52, is there something that can be done as far as signage indicating traffic entering the
county road.Also when trying to pull out onto CR 49 tires spin in the gravel. Mr. Schei added"that is a good
point but this is probably not the only intersection along the route." Mr. Miller stated it was not but it is the one
that is being addressed today. Mr. Schei stated"that would be something that would need to be looked into,
but in perspective of this is that(pause) if this is a big overall problem which needs to be addressed (pause)
when Public Works, for example, raises the speed limit they just don't do it arbitrarily they look at the traffic
studies and take into consideration impacts and input for this. So as far as the speed and so forth like that
in turning out onto it, I don't foresee that as being a particular issue at this time and what I am saying is that
I can take note of it and look into it but that is what you are proposing, in my mind is a much larger problem."
Mr. Miller asked if there is an offsite improvements agreement. Mr.Schei stated yes. Mr. Miller suggests the
offsite agreement address the issue of accessing onto CR 49. Mr. Schei stated "we can look at that but one
of the things I need to bring up the fact of the pointing is that should the infrastructure be a million dollars, I
am making a big picture item,and this applicant puts in 5-10%as compared to the traffic,the County is being
stuck with a large bill." Mr. Miller indicated this would not cost a million dollars, the issue is the County
evaluating what can be done to mitigate the problem of entering CR 49. Mr.Schei stated"he does understand
that."
John Folsom asked Mr. Schei if he could address the line of site problem from the hill on CR 49. Mr. Schei
stated "that is a good perspective but what you are addressing is a current intersection that is out in the
County that is not to my understanding, and I can check with Don Carroll, if that is a problem. What we
normally do, is there is a ranking within Public Works that takes into account safety issues as far as
intersections and so forth like that."
Mr. Folsom asked Mr. Miller about his feeling about the line of site problem. Mr. Miller stated it is over a crest
of a hill. If a person is south bound on CR 49 at 65 mph, you are limited in the response time if someone is
pulling out from CR 52. Mr. Miller added it may not have been a problem in the past but Planning Commission
is looking at adding nine homes at the intersection. This is what we are trying to address, not what happens
historically on the road. There are no subdivisions down the road and if Planning Commission is adding an
additional 30-40 trips a day mitigation can be beneficial. Mr.Schei indicated"I understand and I think we have
to take this into consideration." Mr. Miller stated the only affective thing might be to pave the surface at the
intersection of CR 52 that would allow vehicles to take off without spinning on the gravel. Mr. Schei stated
"my colleagues have asked me to bring up the accidents layer for 2004-2001 and in that vicinity we have had
one accident, basically in the last four years. I think in perspective of looking at the data and so forth,we will
look at the situation. I guess my perspective is that we need to take that into consideration with a note of
measure." Mr. Miller stated that was all he was asking. When the offsite improvements agreement is being
reviewed consider that as a part of it.
John Folsom clarified that this would include the possibility of paving CR 52 to CR 49. Mr. Miller stated he
would be looking at paving another 30-40 feet from CR 49 into CR 52 so a vehicle has traction onto the main
roadway. Mr. Folsom indicated that CR 49 is paved and the internal road is paved, will the road agreement
include a responsibility to pave CR 52. Mr.Schei stated"yes it was a possibility. We would look at the current
count and where the County stands as far as dust mitigation and so forth, should it be above the threshold
we would ask for a participation agreement. One of the things that we are running into is the fact that we may
get a lot of agreements in Public Works but to take advantage of those monies that are coming into the Public
Works department, the share may be so small that to take advantage of that money we might not be able to
afford to do that so that is one of the things I am dealing with administration and in our staff is trying to see
what we can do because we might be putting ourselves in a spot where we may not be able to use those
funds and quote unquote bankrupt the County, trying to do those improvements. So that is one of the big
picture items that we are looking at. We may have four hundred thousand dollars in escrow but it may take
us four million dollars or a large sum of money to do the improvements." Mr. Miller indicated the case needs
to be dealt with and not the overall budget concerns for Public Works. These are things that need to be
addressed on this case. We are not dealing with million dollar issues.
James Welch asked about the limitations or improvements if the entrance was directly onto CR 49. There
appears to be an existing access onto CR 49. Mr. Schei stated "this would come with the layout of the
subdivision and what is presented." Mr. Schei added "one of the things they will look as is the stopping
distance from the crest of the hill to ensure it is adequate at 65 mph. This will probably be in the vicinity of
650-800 feet depending on the data. The different entrance would need to be up to the applicant."
Michael Miller asked about the access to the subdivision and the lights reflecting onto neighboring properties
and if any conditions or Development Standard had addressed this. Ms. Martin stated"at this point and time,
no." The applicants have proposed the internal access where it is. According to my site visit the access does
line up from across the residential home but at this point and time we do not have anything in the staff
comments to have them re-align the road." Mr. Schei added"that is normally what they try and do, try to line
up the access points so they be across from each other to try to eliminate conflicts. We try to do that in this
case, it may be unfortunate the headlights shine straight across, that is the normal policy that is used."
Michael Miller opened the public portion of the meeting back up to Mr. Bernhart to address the mitigation of
the lights onto the home with possible plantings or landscape.
Mr. Bernhart stated the landscaping would be on their side and the applicants would have to do. According
to Mr. Bernhart the safest access would be onto CR 49.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Hodges if landscape mitigation had been considered. Mr. Hodges indicated this was
the first they had heard of this. The sketch plan aligned the access farther to the west and it was realigned
based on referrals.
Michael Miller stated the access onto CR 49 is something Public Works will need to deal with and determine
what can be done.
John Folsom added it should go back to the drawing board to make the access to the development from CR
49. The negative would be the access would be onto a highly traveled road. Therefore, this would make the
entrance from a paved road to paved road.
Chad Auer stated it would be smarter to put the access from the subdivision directly onto CR 49, this would
make paved onto paved.
Bryant Gimlin indicated this would solve a small problem but create a bigger one. CR 49 is essentially a
highway. It would be better off channeling the vehicles off of CR 49 and onto CR 52. The traffic at CR 52
could be controlled with signs until things can be made better.
Michael Miller asked if Public Works would prefer the access be onto CR 52 or a private access onto CR 49.
Mr.Schei indicated"CR 52 would be preferred. In this stage the onsite improvements is not looked at heavily,
the final design is not determined but it could end up being paved road to paved road. As far as the offsite,
the topography indicates the site needs to be reviewed." Mr. Schei stated "he was under the
misunderstanding of the location of the hill but I think it would be good to look at for possible signing. It would
need to be reviewed to determine if the criteria was met."
John Folsom asked Mr. Schei if there were any alternative accesses that Public Works would look to at for
the subdivision. Mr. Schei stated"they would take into consideration the classification of the roadway which
is a minor arterial and there are certain spacing requirements for access points. They are laid out to us, we
would work our best to make certain or to find a resolution for the applicant that comes to us, it cannot be
guaranteed to them. We would try to work with them to make something fit for the situation and what we
need to do in those circumstances is to look at the existing access points on CR 49,the spacing and take this
into consideration. We would not arbitrarily deny it though. There is the appropriateness to providing access
to parcels." Mr. Folsom stated the deciding factor would be the proximity of other accesses. Mr.Schei agrees
with this.
Michael Miller indicated the Planning Commission needs to address the lights from the entrance shining on
other property.
Bryant Gimlin asked Mr. Hodges about the access alignment and if the meet driveway to driveway? Mr.
Hodges indicated they were designed to be right across from each other. Mr. Gimlin asked if lights would
shine directly into the home, is the house lined up with the driveway. Mr. Hodges was not aware of the exact
location of the home but the applicant is willing to provide evergreens on the property to attempt to mitigate
some of the concerns. Mr. Gimlin asked if it would be suitable if a standard was developed to address this.
Mr. Hodges indicated that would be fine. Mr.Gimlin asked Ms. Martin to work on some language to address
mitigation for traffic impact or lighting impact on the adjacent property.
Michael Miller indicated Planning Commission needs to address the existing residential access from CR 49
and rather it should remain until internal access is available. Mr. Hodges referred to 1.A.7 which deals with
the condition. This condition pertains to removing the access from the plat. The applicant proposed some
language as a note on the plat consisting of"the existing residential access to the existing residential structure
located on block 2 lot 2 from CR 49 shall be closed when access is available from Ridgeview Lane." Ms.
Martin stated typically with existing accesses the Department of Planning Services has been consistent to
have them removed from the plat and then at the time of the improvements agreement make that a condition
that the collateral is released based on the access being closed. Therefor the Department of Planning
Services is requesting to keep the Condition and have the existing access removed from the plat and then
at time of the release of collateral make sure the access is closed and the existing residence is accessing
from Ridgeview Lane. Mr. Miller asked for clarification on the lot block. Ms. Martin stated it was block 2 lot
2 which will need to be changed on staff comments.
Bryant Gimlin moved to amend 1.A.7 to state Block 2, Lot 2. Doug Ochsner seconded. Motion carried.
Michelle Martin asked Mr. Morrison about enforcing improvements off site. Mr. Morrison stated it is a matter
of the off site improvements agreement. Depending on which format is taken,something construct at the time
of the development that is one format another is typically used when the collection process is ongoing. Either
way off site improvements has to be tied to the agreement. Mr. Miller added that the offsite improvements
agreement could be amend to include addressing the light issue on the road. Mr. Schei indicated it could be
tied to the improvements agreement and it will be an offsite agreement that will be done immediately. Mr.
Miller asked if this will be done prior to the Board of County Commissioners?Mr.Schei stated it will be at the
time of Final Plat.
James Welch asked about the lights shining on the neighbors and if it would be a large deal to relocate the
access. Mr.Schei stated"that is something that we can look at, bear in mind this is a very old case that I have
been brought into in the tail end of things so I don't have the history, I am not making an excuse, but that the
normal procedure is what is in front of us,we can go back and look at the those situations and those items."
Mr. Miller stated it could be addressed at the time of Final. Mr. Schei added "that at this point the change of
zone is being done,they are not nailing down the alignment. The applicant has shown the roadways with lots
and layouts. Public Works can still work with them if adjustments be made." Mr. Gimlin indicated the
alignment may not have to move but other possible mitigating factors such as plantings may be used.
Todd Hodges indicated the applicants have concerns with condition 1.A.5 regarding the amendment of the
plat so the farm, oil & gas accesses from CR 49 are labeled only for oil & gas. These accesses have
historically been in existence for the farm. There access need to continue to be used for the operation of the
farm. They have been in place anyway. Ms. Martin stated staff is trying to eliminate some of the accesses
that are currently going to this site. Staff is allowing the applicant to keep the farm access from CR 52 and
alleviate the two on CR 49 which is already a busy road. According to my site visit they appear to be used for
only oil &gas at this time. Mr. Hodges added that they have historically been used as farm accesses. The
applicant is willing to remove an access out on the very south end of the property because it is not safe. The
others have cattle guards and are fenced. Mr. Hodges indicated the concern for Condition 1.C referring to
the ditch company referral. The condition states that prior to recording the change of zone the applicant must
submit written evidence that the road is within the ditch right of way,which it is not,as well as the items listed
in the referral from sketch plan have been addressed. The applicant has provided staff with a correspondence
list between the engineer and the ditch company representative. The items all seemed fine with exception
to one item which was water from the detention ditch. There is a condition that addresses the applicant
continued work with the ditch company on the amount of water released. The final engineering and final plan
will contain all the needed information. The applicant wants this Condition completely deleted. Mr. Miller
clarified staff is asking for evidence that the road is within the ditch right of way and it is not? Mr. Hodges
stated that was his understanding. The road is a farm road but historically the ditch wants to keep it open
also. There is a ditch rider road on the other side of the ditch but they use this side of the road. The ditch
company wanted the road to be maintained and the road is used as a buffer separation between their right
of way and the beginning of the improvements for the drainage. The applicant wants to keep the road for both
purposes. Ms. Martin stated, that in an email from Mr. Hodges, which explained the ditch company's
concerns. The applicants engineer indicated it is likely that an access easement would need to be dedicated
through out lot A to accommodate the existing ditch road. Ms. Martin continued to state that if the applicants
were willing to add an access easement on the plat it would meet the condition.
Michael Miller stated that if access has been historically used on the farm Planning Commission should allow
the use. Mr.Ochsner agrees. Mr.Miller indicated 1.A.5 could be deleted because the accesses are currently
referred to as farm and oil &gas on the plat.
Doug Ochsner moved to delete Condition 1.A.5 and renumber. Chad Auer seconded. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case PZ-1050, 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, no;James Welch,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes; Chad Auer,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes.
Motion carried.
John Folsom commented this should go back to the drawing board and consider the access to be relocated
on CR 49.
Doug Ochsner commented the traffic concerns needs to be addressed prior to final plat but is in favor of the
change of zone and subdivision if all the issues can be met.
Michael Miller commented and agrees the traffic issues need to be seriously considered with possible
alternatives. Mr. Miller would like to commend the applicant for providing open space even though it is not
required. There has been great care to make this an acceptable and high quality subdivision using those
standards.
Meeting adjourned at 2:36pm
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello