HomeMy WebLinkAbout20042122 AMENDED
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, July 6, 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, at 1:30p.m.
ROLL CALL
n.�
Michael Miller aj
Bryant Gimlin III I /4;
John Folsom n
Stephan Mokray 117 v,
James Rohn
Bruce Fitzgerald Absent , s
Tonya Strobel
Chad Auer q
Doug Ochsner Absent a)
Also Present: Peter Schei, Don Carroll, Chris Gathman, Sheri Lockman, Pam Smith, Char Davis
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on June 15, 2004,
was approved as read.
The Following items will be continued:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1481
APPLICANT: Monfort Finance Co. Inc.
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SW4 Section 24, Township 5North, Range 64 West of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review for an
Agricultural Service establishment primarily engaged in performing
services on a fee or contract basis, including: Alcohol production
exceeding ten thousand (10,000)gallons per year or the sale or loan of
alcohol occurring to any other person not involved in the alcohol
production operation (Ethanol Plant) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: Approximately Y2 mile west of CR 61; Ys mile north of State Highway 34.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services, read a letter into the record requesting to withdraw this
case.
The following items are on the Consent Agenda but will be heard:
— CASE NUMBER: USR-1479
APPLICANT: Fred &Carol Ley
PLANNER: Wendi Inloes
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A Re-3317; located in part of the NE4 of Section 6, T4N, R64W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a single
family dwelling unit(other than those permitted under Section 23-3-20A)
in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 50;west of and adjacent to CR 51.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1479, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending
approval of the application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. The
Jerviektt awes_ 7_ y 2004-2122
reason for this application is the Recorded Exemption process is not available to them at this time.
Carol & Fred Ley, applicants provided additional information regarding the case. Their concern is the
Recorded Exemption (RE)will exempt out one acre, which will be in the middle of the five acres. The
proposed home is for family members only. Mr. Miller stated the County's position is to have the USR until
a RE can be recorded. Mr. Gathman stated the RE is not a requirement to sell the parcel, the applicant
can keep both parcels in their name. Mr. Miller indicated that the ultimate issue is the mobile home will be
used for family and that is tough to enforce.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Michael Miller asked if the case could be reviewed after set period of time for compliance? Mr. Gathman
stated a Development Standard would be needed to be added to address that possibility. This application
contains provisions for the RE, if those conditions are not present this will be a permanent USR. There are
other applications that can address this issue but the parcel must be eligible and this one is not at the
present time.
John Folsom added that the County is being accommodative to permit this second home. The County is
unable to monitor the conditions due to lack of personnel. The RE is a proper way to address this issue
but it is unavailable at this time. Mr. Folsom feels the comments regarding the RE should be kept.
James Rohn asked Mr. Gathman what would happen if the comments were to remain and the applicants
did not apply for the RE? Mr. Gathman indicated the USR would then be considered in violation and that
violation process would begin.
Michael Miller added that there was a case where the County did not want to do an RE when an easement
for access across land was a concern. Mr. Gathman indicated that was two existing residences and the
location of those did not allow for direct access, it would have created an island lot with not direct access
to a County road. Mr. Gathman added this application borders directly onto two county roads and it can
be configured to have direct access.
Stephen Mokray asked if the applicants were restricted to a specific spot on the property. Mr. Gathman
indicated the plat does not give an exact location, there can be alternative locations.
Michael Miller asked if the applicants would be willing to place the mobile home adjacent to CR 50 so that
it would not be in the center of property. Ms. Ley stated that the mobile home has to go where it is shown
because there is a septic system in place, due to a mobile home in the past years. Mr. Miller asked for the
reason for that mobile home. Mr. Ley indicated it was to help with the farm.
John Folsom asked if Public Works had any objection to an access being created from CR 50. Mr. Carroll
stated there is are existing access's onto CR 50 & CR 51, the suggestion is to use the main access off CR
50. Mr. Folsom stated the access could be on CR 50 with not much land being disrupted due to the
agricultural zoning.
James Rohn moved to amend Development Standards#13 to state"subject property"not"proposed lots".
John Folsom seconded. Motion carried.
James Rohn moved that Case USR-1479, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. 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; Tonya
Strobel, yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1466
APPLICANT: Francisco& Lorraine Valencia
PLANNER: Michelle Katyryniuk
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 11 of Black Hollow Acres, First Filing; being part of the E2 of Section
33, T8N, R67W 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 (a construction
business) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 86; approximately 740 feet west of CR 19.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1466, 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 why this application is different than the previously heard USR-1478 that was placed
on the consent agenda? Ms. Lockman indicated the violation on the USR-1478 was brought forward by a
surrounding property owner, this case was brought forward by inner County staff.
Michael Miller asked if the applicant had applied for a building permit and inspectors found a business on
site. Ms. Lockman indicated that was the information she had been given.
Ann Best Johnson, representative for the applicant provided additional information on the case. The book
keeping and storage of forms are on site. The workers do not meet on the site, but at the construction
sites. The storage of the materials will be in the barn. The forms and blankets are presently on site and
the main reason for applying for the USR is to be able to move those items to the barn. It is very costly to
replace those items. This is a family operated business and the barn is awaiting a Certificate of
Occupancy.
Stephen Mokray asked how long the site has been in violation? Ms. Johnson indicated the letter was
received in January of this year.
Lorraine Valencia, applicant, did not have anything further to add to the presentation.
James Rohn asked Ms.Valencia how long they had been in business and how long operating from this
site? Ms. Valencia indicated it has been four years and they have been operating from the site for those
four years. Mr. Rohn asked if they were not aware of the process for this type of operation. Ms. Valencia
indicated that she was not aware of the process and the intent was for the barn to store things in.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Pam Smith, Health Department, asked for clarification with regards to a business on site and using the
existing septic on site for the employees on site? The number of employees and activities needed to be
clarified for the engineer to evaluate the system. The evaluation had to be re-addressed. There was a
meeting in which employees, trucks and equipment being parked on site in the pole barn was discussed.
There was also indication of employees coming every morning to the site and picking up the trucks, went
to work and brought the trucks back at the end of the day. The septic system was fine even with
employees since there were only Ms. Valencia who does the book keeping. There was no mention of
restroom, parking of trucks or employees. Ms. Smith needs some clarification regarding this.
Ann Best Johnson stated that the application materials state there may be two employees that come to
the site, one maybe a part time temporary book keeper. Mr. Valencia does not have the employees meet
on site and drive to the actual work site. It is more cost effective to have the employees meet on site
adverse to drive to home and then drive to site. There may be an occasion where an employee might
have to pick up materials from the barn. Ms. Johnson indicated that trucks will be parked inside. Mr.
Miller asked about the trucks parked in side with forms on site, someone is loading and unloading these
forms. There will be employees coming to the site. Ms. Johnson stated there will be two employees at
the most.
Michael Miller asked Ms. Smith about the need for restrooms in the shop for the employees. Ms. Smith
stated she has a letter from the engineer that indicates the system is adequate for three employees. Ms.
Johnson stated the letter from the engineer was dated October 13, 2003. The application was submitted
in February so there were some minor changes from that point.
James Rohn moved to change Development Standards#9 language from proposed lots to subject
property. Tonya Strobel seconded. Motion carried
Chad Auer asked if there is not some reason that this could be amended in the text of the comments
adverse to making the same motion on every case. Ms. Lockman stated that the text will be noticed and
changed in future applications. Mr. Rohn stated his reasoning is this is not a PUD and there is only one
subject property there is no creation of lots. Mr. Rohn does not want a lawyer to be able to use the
language as a technicality.
Char Davis indicated the restroom had been worked out with the engineered design. The septic can
accommodate the restrooms in the shop. The commercial exempt well has also been addressed.
John Folsom asked if there will be a restroom in shop? Mr. Folsom indicated his concern was with the
number of people coming and going from the site. Ms. Davis added that it has been addressed.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case USR-1466, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Tanya Strobel 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; Tonya
Strobel, yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The following items will be heard:
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 six (6) residential lots
and one (1)Agricultural outlot.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 102;west of and adjacent to CR 17.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-604, reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. The wells were reviewed
as cluster wells and therefor Cluster PUD Conditions have been added.
Stephen Mokray asked Ms. Lockman about the approved three well sites for the six lots and are there
some existing wells. Ms. Lockman stated there are three existing wells, the original proposal was to share
them between the lots but the State reviewed them as a cluster therefor there will be individual well on
each lots. Mr. Mokray asked about augmentation. Ms. Lockman indicated this will not need to be done
since there will be individual wells.
James Rohn asked if this application was subject to Ordinance 2002-11. Ms. Lockman stated it was and
a note can be added. Ordinance 2002-11-deals with the fee structure for road impact.
Michael Miller asked Ms. Smith about individual wells on the property and is there a history of successful
wells in the area to rely on? Ms. Smith stated there are homes in the area and those wells seem to be
adequate.
Michael Chalona, representative for the applicant, provided additional information on the site. Mr. Miller
asked about the water wells in the area. Mr. Chalona stated there has been no complaints and the
applicants have worked with the State engineer. There are three well permits issued but those will be
returned and individual wells will be permitted for the site. The cluster development of the wells will meet
all State and County regulations. Mr. Miller asked if the applicant will be drilling the wells before the lots
are sold?What is the applicant going to do if one wells is non productive and the lot is already sold.
Darrel Adolf, applicant, stated that in talking with Steve Ingrim, who drills wells in the area, there is water
under the property at approximately 600 foot deep. Mr. Miller asked what they were going to do if the lot
was sold and there is no water? Mr. Adolf indicated he was not sure, but a possible solution would be to
place a stipulation in the buyers contract addressing the concern.
John Folsom stated that it is not unusual to sell a lot when the well has not been drilled.
Stephen Mokray asked if they needed to apply for three more permits. Mr. Adolf stated that the three
permitted wells will be turned back in and they will apply for six individual wells.
Michael Miller stated the code requires the applicant to be able to provide water before approving a
subdivision. Ms. Lockman stated the State will not give them wells unless lots are in place. Mr. Miller is
trying to avoid a lot owners not having water when the lot is sold. Mr. Morrison added there is evidence
there is water and there is no way of knowing until a well is drilled. A suggestion might be to require a
disclaimer on the plat that would indicate the source of water intended to be ground water. There is
evidence there is ground water but nothing is drilled. Mr. Miller asked if the County is on firm ground as
far as meeting the requirement of the code. Mr. Morrison stated there is no way to tell someone to drill
before a lot is created. Mr. Morrison stated the Board of County Commissioners shifted away from public
water supply in all cases but this is a statutory cluster. This process has been available but has not been
widely used.
James Rohn asked Ms. Lockman about the quality of the wells. Ms. Smith stated that if water is not
considered non-potable, they can treat the water to bring it to standards. The quantity and quality are
different issues.
Bryant Gimlin mentioned 2B does notify future lot owners that wells are not guaranteed.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Peter Schei, Public Works, is requesting a paving waiver for the subdivision. The formal request was not
made to Public Works.
Pam Smith, Health Department, would like to see the information that has been provided modified once
the well configuration has been changed to accommodate all the wells.
John Folsom asked since the fire district did not respond there would be no provision for a secondary
access. Ms. Lockman stated that Nunn is a volunteer department and they have never requested a
secondary access. There is a Condition that requests the applicant meet with the fire district to address
any possible concerns.
Michael Chalona, representative, indicated their concern with the paving of the internal roadway. CR 17
and CR 102 are both gravel road and there are no plans for them to be paved. The private road will be
gravel and this was the understanding when Northern Engineering reviewed the drainage of the project.
The applicant is willing to work with Public Works to get the issue resolved.
Michael Miller indicated that in the past the paving requirement has been varied from. He would be in
favor of this for this application.
John Folsom indicated the applicant is willing to go through the process with Public Works so there would
be no need to modify the comments.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Chalona if the applicant was wanting the Planning Commission to waive the
paving or will they work with Public Works? Mr. Chalona indicated that if Planning Commission would
make the change now that would be great but if the change is not made then they will continue to work
with Public Works.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Morrison if there was any reason for addressing this issue. Mr. Morrison
indicated the applicant has no problems in dealing with Public Works reviewing the request. Public Works
reviews more variables in their process. Mr. Schei added the access has not been viewed, the comments
are standard. In 2003 the traffic count on CR 17 was over 200 per day. It is above the 200 car threshold
which indicates that some type of work needs to be done in area. Public Works has asked the road to be
paved and have an offsite agreement to pave the stretch of roadway due to the traffic counts. The access
to the property is approximately'/]mile to CR 100. Public Works cannot keep up with the paving needs
for the county, therefor they are asking the applicants to do the work themselves. The increased
demands on Public Works and staff is increasing.
John Folsom suggested a provision for the subdivision road to be paved when and if the CR is paved. Mr.
Miller added that the code indicates paving within the year but the chances of CR 17 being paved in that
time frame are none. Mr. Schei stated paving is not in the works for five year plan. Mr. Schei added that
there will be several cases before the Planning Commission that will request paving for internal roads. Mr.
Folsom added that if Planning Commission feels strongly about paving instead of gravel it should
circumvent the decision from Public Works. Mr. Miller is not in favor of paving internal roadways onto
gravel roads.
John Folsom asked Mr. Carroll if paving all internal roadways is the position of Public Works. Mr. Carroll
added that they would like to have pavement to pavement because it is a good fit. If the paving is not far
away and there is traffic generated, Public Works would prefer paved road to paved road. CR 17 & CR
102 is not on the radar to pave. Mr. Folsom asked if the decision will be made by Frank Hempen? Mr.
Morrison added that the Board of County Commissioners can make the final decision. If there is not
enough evidence to decide, it can be passed on an make the applicant work with Public Works.
Michael Miller is in favor of addressing the issue today. The suggestion is since the gravel roads adjacent
will be gravel for a long time it is burdensome to make the applicant pave the internal roadway at this time.
Chad Auer asked if Planning Commission does not waive is it inevitable the applicant will have to pave.
Mr. Miller stated an application for a waiver to the Director of Public Works will be made and reviewed by
them.
Bryant Gimlin added that it was common sense that the road should be a gravel road, but the applicant is
willing to work with Public Works and they have been good about it. It is best worked out between the
applicant and Public Works.
James Rohn moved to add language to 2W, a note on the plat, then renumber consisting of"Effective
June 1, 2003 building permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to adhere to the Fee Structure
of the Weld County Road Impact Program." (Ordinance 2002-11) Chad Auer seconded. Motion carried.
Bryant Gimlin moved to add language to 2B consisting of" Future property owners should ensure
that adequate water supply be available prior to purchasing a lot. James Rohn seconded. Motion carried
with John Folsom voting no.
John Folsom commented that it is too arduous to the seller.
Darryl Adolf asked for clarification with regards to the addition of water language. Mr. Gimlin read the
entire paragraph back to him. Mr.Adolf indicated that when 35 acres is bought and a well is drilled it is not
guaranteed at that time. Is the issue that the wells are close together? Mr. Gimlin answered that this is
more of a buyer beware notice, it is not that the applicant has to guarantee. Mr. Gimlin indicated his
concern with the fire system and possible low flow rates.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case PZ-604, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation
of approval. James Rohn 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; Tonya
Strobel, yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1478
APPLICANT: Jose&Josefina Aguirre
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-3128; Pt of the NE4 of Section 26, T5N, R65W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A 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 District (Concrete Business)
in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 54 and 'V2 mile East of CR 45.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1478, 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.
James Rohn asked about the Development Standards addressing weed height. Ms. Lockman stated it is
in the code and was brought forward to make sure it was made aware of.
Thomas Hellerich, representative for the applicant, provided additional information on the project. There
are two people living in the residence and one will be working there. There are five or six other employees
that will be there. There are more than seven vehicles but they will not be used on a daily basis. This was
a commercial feedlot therefor the structures already exist which will be used for storage, there will be no
outside storage. The proposal for another building is if the business grows.
Michael Miller asked about the amount of dirt that will be on site? Mr. Hellerich stated it would be a small
amount. Jose Aguirre, applicant, indicated it would be a couple of truck loads. There will be nothing
stored on site with regards to raw materials.
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 asked Ms. Davis about the employees and the use of the restroom in the residence. Ms.
Davis indicated the septic system will need to be designed by an engineer and reviewed to make sure it is
adequate. The Health Department goes by the information from the applicant and the letter from the
engineer to determine whether it will meet the County regulations. The applicant may have to add onto
the leach field. Mr. Gimlin asked if there needed to be on cap of employees. Ms. Lockman indicated the
applicant is required to follow the application as submitted. If they wanted more employees they would
need to come back and it would be reviewed as a possible substantial change. Ms. Davis added the
engineer will look at the use including the employees not being on site all day. The septic system allows
for six people.
Don Carroll, Public Works,would like clarification on the number of employees. There were 12 cars,
some pickups and 3 large trucks on site today. Mr. Hellerich indicated the applicant has employees that
get rides from the property. Mr. Miller asked if this was a common occurrence? Mr. Hellerich indicated
this is not typical. Ms. Aguirre added that when there are jobs farther away the workers come to the site
for a ride. Mr. Miller indicated there is an issue with the number of employees that come to the site. Ms.
Lockman would like to know the maximum number of employees on site. Mr. Hellerich indicated the
maximum would be 12. Ms. Davis asked if those 12 would be using the residence for a restroom facility?
Mr. Hellerich stated there is a restroom in the large building, it was there when the dairy was present. Ms.
Davis indicated there is one septic permit on site. Ms. Davis indicated there may be a need for a separate
septic system for restroom in the building and asked if the employees use the restroom in the building?
The employees arrive at the home for a ride then immediately leave. If they need to use the restroom
while there they use either. Ms. Davis indicated that the home needed to be evaluated because it was
approved for five or six people and employees once in awhile. The septic system in the shop needs to be
permitted. Ms. Davis suggests adding language to 2G to include the shop.
James Rohn asked Ms. Davis if there is a preference as to which restroom the employees use. Ms. Davis
stated that since the building and home are close they would allow them to use both.
James Rohn moved to amend the language in 2G to indicated "the home and shop shall be reviewed"
Bryant Gimlin seconded. Motion carried
Chad Auer moved that Case USR-1478, 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; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tonya
Strobel, yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 3:30pm
Respectfully submitted y l
\VII C_/LJ
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello