HomeMy WebLinkAbout20042482.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, August 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, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin
John Folsom Absent m
James Rohn ( ";
Bruce Fitzgerald
Tonya Strobel
Chad Auer Absent
Doug Ochsner
rV
Also Present: Don Carroll, Pam Smith, Monica Mika, Sheri Lockman, Peter Schei
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on July 20,2004,was
approved as read.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
James Rohn nominated Michael Miller for Chair. There were no other nominations. Michael Miller nominated
Bryant Gimlin for Vice Chair. There were no other nominations. The officers will stand as were last year.
The following Case will be continued:
CASE NUMBER: MZ-544
APPLICANT: Maurice Boney& Boney Macgillivray LLC
PLANNER: Michelle Katytyniuk
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt of the N2 Section 29,T4N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Minor Subdivision Change of Zone from the A (Agriculture) to E (Estate)
Zone for 9 (nine)residential lots.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 42 and 1/4 mile west of CR 29.
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services, read a letter into the record requesting a indefinite
continuance. Referrals will be re-mailed due to changes in the application.
The following cases will be heard:
CASE NUMBER: 2004-XX
APPLICANT: Resource Colorado Water& Sanitation Metropolitan District
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot C of RE-2066; being part of theNW4 of Section 34,Ti N, R63W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Service Plan for Resource Colorado Water&Sanitation Metropolitan District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 4; east of and adjacent to CR 67.
Monica Mika, Department of Planning Services presented Case 2004-XX, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record.The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the application.
Bruce Barker added that today the Planning Commission is considering this site to be a service plan. The
creation of a district requires a two part process. The first being a service plan brought forward and approved
Qte ode.. S- 18-acxo y 2004-2482
by the Board of County Commissioners and the second process is to go to court and petition the court to
approve an election for the purpose of the creation of the district. The County is in part of the process for the
review of the service plan. Objections by property owners can be made at any time or by the County through
the court process. It may be wise to ask the applicants if the court process has begun. The first step is
approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Section 32-1-203 discusses the points that must be proven
to the Board of County Commissioners. One of those statutes is review by the Planning Commission. Mr.
Barker recommends reviewing the points, hear the presentation, hear testimony and then make a
recommendation. This recommendation should be either approval without modification, recommend denial or
recommend conditional approval. The district the applicant is asking for is a Metropolitan District (Metro
District). That is one that is provided for under State Statute Section 32-1-1004. A Metro District has services
that must be provided by State Statute. There are several types of services that can be provided. The State
Statute requires they provide two of the services possible. The services that are being provided for by this
district are sanitation,water and mosquito control. When a district is reviewed it begins with the area itself and
this property could be one lot only and that is what is being reviewed here. The service area can extend beyond
the boundaries. Mr. Barker indicated the main concern from Mr. Warden was that once this is set up water
will be provided for other areas and the district board have a plan for succession should the current members
retire or move on. The Metro District has made amendments to the service plan to take care of those issues.
Exhibit 27, proposed by Mr. Barker,contains language that has been agreed to by the applicant for the purpose
of modifying the service plan to give notice, by Statute, of 45 days before anything happens. If this does not
occur the district will need to come back for further review. Mr. Barker then presented the conditions that would
cause a further review to modify the service plan. The County wants to make certain there is a line of
succession should any turn overs on the district board occur. The district is planning on having the end user
which will be municipalities step in and control should the current board leave. There will be additional language
that will allow for time to review the proposal if one of the conditions in Exhibit 27 occurs. This language will
allow the County time to review the modifications and hire anyone needed at cost of the applicant to determine
if the modification will be of benefit to the district. Staff is confident that Mr. Wardens concerns have been
addressed. There is an exhibit expressing this as well as other aspects of the proposal. Exhibits 27-33 will
become part of the record.
James Rohn asked about an advisory panel containing two Board of County Commissioners members and
staffs request to have that removed. Mr. Barker stated that the Board of County Commissioners has been
specific about not being on the Metro District Board. The idea is the Board of County Commissioners does not
have any oversight except for the service plan. With the recent change to Section 10 of the service plan there
will be notification so there is no need to be on the board itself.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Carroll about Mr. Warden's concern for the lack of oversight of the service plan as
originally written. It was indicated there was a provision that any changes to phases will not be considered a
material modification of the plan and shall not require an amendment. Mr. Barker indicated that it has been
amended through the new language. The applicant will provide additional information regarding the succession
and the flexibility to the plan.
Harvy Doich,applicant/owner,provided additional information regarding the service plan and court proceedings.
The owners have acquired 5000 acres of land as well as the associated water in Prospect Valley. Mr. Doich
indicated on the map the location of the farms that are owned. Ten percent of the wells and farms in the area
are owned by PV Holdings. For the past 12 years,the business has finally completed adjudication of the water
that would take the consumptive use of 4565.2 acre feet of water for the calculation. This was the settlement
that was entered into with the Groundwater Commission. This was then approved by the court system. The
Groundwater Commission has given approval to export the water out of the basin through pipelines to use for
municipal services. This was also approved by district court. There has been an agreement worked out with
Lost Creek Groundwater Management to agree with the use, consumptive figure and to be able to export the
water subject to certain conditions. Those conditions include dry land farming,weed free and meter the water
regulated by the State and local authorities. This was approved by the district court also. Two weeks ago the
court decrees were received by the applicant and the land was closed on. The original plan by the company
was to provide water to lots that were being developed by them in surrounding counties because of the
shortages. Half of the water owned is in Weld County while the other half is in Adams County. There would
be a pipeline for distribution. The applicant has been working with several communities to assist in the shortage
of water. The idea is to transport water, treating the water and return to area to be available in the farming
communities thus keeping the aquifer recharged. The municipalities would rather be notified should there be
any change to the Metro Board adverse to dealing with several land owners. In accordance with the
requirements there will be meetings, notices and legal postings for any activity within the Metro District. The
intent is not to be a retailer of water but a wholesaler to providers. The different municipalities will be in charge
of the billing and the water retail end. The Metro Board would like a diverse advisory committee to include
several members from the surrounding communities involved with the services provided. This is a new idea in
Weld County but has been done in Arapaho County and the Arapaho County eventually became the largest
provider for the water. There are other communities that are beginning the process to create a Metro District
in counties. This proposal is a great benefit for the area and the County itself as well as the southern
municipalities. The water will stay in Weld County as part of the program. There has been discussion with the
State for additional funding to re-charge the aquifer. Mary Anne McGeedy, provided additional information with
regard to special districts and is counsel for the district. This application creates an entity that works with other
cities and special districts to provide the consumer need and demand for domestic water supply. The
applicants intention is to work with other service providers in a way that allows for community input and other
government input. Since this would be a type of government all the information will be public. The advisory
board is optional and it is not mandatory that the County provide any members. The County will always have
the option of appointing someone to the board should the determine a need. Ms. McGeedy indicated that there
is a process after the Board of County Commissioners has granted approval and that process is through the
court system. Once the process is completed through the court and election process in November the
applicants intend to begin in the spring of the following year. Ms. McGeedey added the applicant has met all
the Statutory requirements and the requirements of staff. There has been a concern for the oversight in
management of the plan and the continued management of the district in conjunction with the County. Some
of the critical moments will be at the time of issuance of debt. At that time, there will be rate studies to
evaluate the cost of the increase in service level or extension of facilities. This will require a submittal of the
rate study to the County as well as any other municipality that has an IGA that is in the service system. This
will give them the opportunity to review and comment. To anticipate the detail of financing now would not be
exact it would be a guess. The negotiation with the specific communities will be to predict the revenue and
responsibly prepare a study for consideration.
Michael Miller asked if Mr.Warden's concerns regarding phases and conditions for amendment to the plan has
been addressed. Ms. McGeedy stated that the applications contains a description of the first phase of
construction and the concern was what happens after and if the applicant goes beyond that phase, will they
be submitting information to determine if a substantial change will occur? Ms. McGeedy indicated that if this
does occur the applicant will be submitting information pursuant to a finance and rate study. Copies will be
submitted to staff at that time and staff will determine if a substantial change has occurred and will require
amendment. Ms. McGeedy indicated that once the rate studies have been submitted it will reveal how the next
phases will be financed,therefor no amendment will be needed. Mr.Barker added that Mr.Warden and himself
met with the applicant and Mr. Warden's concerns of who would take over and make certain money taken in
would be provided for has been taken care in the additional language of Exhibit 27. They have met a bond
issuance company,and this alleviated the concern. The purchasers of the bonds must be assured those bonds
will be paid off. The rate study that will be done determines the fees that will be generated to pay for those
bonds. The section modified indicates the rate study will be provided to the Board of County Commissioners
to make sure the fees are adequate.
Michael Miller stated his understanding is any changes to phase one plan or additional phases are not
considered a modification to the service plan, it goes beyond the financial aspect. Mr. Barker stated that Mr.
Warden's primary concern was the financial aspect and it be taken care of. This plan accommodates the
needed flexibility to the applicant without an amendment to the service plan.
James Rohn asked about the augmentation plan on the wells and how they are getting water. Mr. Doich
indicated that there is no augmentation plan required,the water is consumptive water from the acquired farms
and 100%can be used. Mr. Doich added that the district is trying to find a way to return the water to the basin
because it is good business. The district is looking at ways to bring back some irrigation water into the area
that can be stored and used for the farms to protect against drought.
Michael Miller asked about the criteria that must be met and is there other services available in the area the
district is intending to provide water to? Mr. Doich indicated that there was a large need for water in the area
that this district is a drop in the bucket, there is not enough of water for farms or cities. The applicant is trying
to find a balance between serving needs and obtaining water. The communities that are being developed require
water to be brought to them and finding that water is becoming more difficult.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if this district will require approval in Adams County. Mr. Doich indicated it does not
because they are dealing with municipalities. They are not anticipating delivering services into the Counties
themselves but are advising the Board of County Commissioners of what is happening.
Michael Miller asked if the right of way that is needed has been acquired. Mr. Doich indicated that much of
right of way along public roads along the section lines. There may be occasion to purchase and condemnation
would be used as a last resort.
Monica Mika asked what will this eventually look like. The land is presently on a center pivot and looks to be
green and healthy. Will this be dry land or will there eventually be a land use application for this area? Mr.
Doich indicated that at the present time there is no plan for development. There has been a commitment to
the State and District as to how the land will be maintained. There will be no changes,the farms that have the
ability to dryland farm will continue. The others will contain grasses and the weeds will be maintained. The
look will be the same with regards to agricultural. There are seven different farming groups that will continue
to farm the valley. The applicant has committed to using local farmers. The applicant has also committed to
reducing the amount of pesticides to enhance the water quality in the aquifer.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Wood Eppelshemer, neighbor, indicated his concern as far as the best way to management the transport to
the benefit of the valley and the recipients of the water. The consumptive use will benefit the aquifer. Mr.
Eppelshemer stated that it is very important that this is a public utility that will help deal with economics of the
valley. If this remains public the land owners and owners of the water will be protected,a private company could
create more problems.
Mark Graif, mayor of Keensburg,indicated approval of the proposal. The Town of Keenesburg believes that an
agreement will be done and believe that this will give the municipalities a better control of the aquifer and not
damaging it.
Chair closed public portion.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Barker if there was any Development Standards or Conditions that needed to be
approved with this. Mr. Barker indicated the only change would be to Section 10 that is the language that has
been agreed to and it is part of Exhibit 27. Mr. Barker suggests that the language be included in the resolution
before it goes to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. It does need to be included in the motion
which would be the amended language in Section 10 Exhibit 27.
James Rohn moved to accept the above referenced language. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. Motion carried.
Monica Mika suggest amending the language to"inadequate"in Section 32-1-305 2.5 A of the staff comments.
Doug Ochsner moved to amend the language. James Rohn seconded. Motion carried.
James Rohn moved that Case 2004-XX,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners 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. Michael
Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tonya Strobel, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: MJF-1062
APPLICANT: JER, A Partnership
PLANNER: Michelle Katyryniuk
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B Hill-n-Park Subdivision; pt of the SW4 Section 26, T5N, R66W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Hill-n-Park Third Filing (Thirteen (13) Residential Lots in the R-5 Zone
District).
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to 49'"Street and East of and adjacent to Yellowstone
Drive.
Michelle Martin,Department of Planning Services presented Case MJF-1062,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 surrounding area and the businesses that are located within the vicinity. Ms.
Lockman stated that there is a storage area and that plat was just recorded as well as a concrete business.
Doug Ochsner asked for clarification on the location of this project in reference to the municipalities. Ms. Martin
indicated on the map the boundaries of the City of Evans, City of Greeley and Weld County.
James Rohn asked if a HOA and membership is mandatory and if there is a HOA for the older lots. Ms. Martin
indicated that the HOA is just for the proposed development. Ms. Martin indicated there was no HOA for the
previous filings in Hill N Park.
Tonya Strobel stated that her ex-step mother is an owner in the partnership. There was limited contact during
the time of the marriage. Mr. Morrison indicated there are no financial ties and asked if this would affect her
ability to hear the case fairly? Ms. Strobel indicated it would not have any impact on her decision. Mr.
Morrison added it is better to disclose earlier in writing preferably with a 48 hour notice. Mr. Morrison does not
see this as a problem but it comes down to being fair. Mr. Miller does not think this would be a problem but
since there is a quorum without the voter perhaps it would appear better if Ms. Strobel would abstain. Ms.
Strobel indicated she would not be biased and therefor will hear the case.
Bryant Gimlin asked about a similar case that was proposed in the same area? Ms. Martin stated that Mr.
Gathman did present a case in another area of Hill N Park for multi family. Mr. Miller stated that application
was denied by Planning Commission. Mr. Morrison added if the Board of County Commissioners did not act
on the case then there would not need to be a substantial change. Ms. Martin indicated that it looks like the
applicant withdrew the previous application.
Mike Thomas, applicant, indicated that there was a proposal with Lifestyle Homes and there was concerns
therefor they withdrew. This proposal is for single family homes and there seems to be no issues. There are
some concerns with the depth of the lots and landscaping. There has been a request for a 6 foot fence by the
City of Greeley but that does not fit with the area and the landscaping will be left to the individual property
owners. The sidewalk will be increased to accommodate the concerns of the City of Greeley. Mr. Thomas
continued with the only concerns being from the City of Greeley and most of those were addressed once the
understood that they were proposing a stick built homes in the development.
Michael Miller asked if the development would be stick built or modular. Mr.Thomas indicated that the homes
will either be stick built or modular there will be no mobile homes. Mr. Miller asked if there will be any
covenants? Mr. Thomas indicated that the HOA has minor covenants.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Carol Applegarth, neighbor,stated she has no objections but does not want to see modular homes in the area.
The Hill N Park area has gone down and the addition of modular will only increase this.
Kevin Thompson, neighbor, asked questions about the boundary and where the driveways will be located. Mr.
Thompson is not in-favor of the 6 foot fence because of the view.
The Chair closed public portion
Mike Harvey indicated the border on the map is the four sides that are presently vacant ground. There will be
a single access to the area which will be across the street from the fire station. The parking will be in the
driveways and not on the streets.
Lee Morrison asked if the modular home meets the definition of manufactured home in accordance to code?
Mr. Harvey indicated it does meet the definition in accordance to the Weld County Code. Mr. Morrison added
that the nature of the construction of the homes be described in accordance to the code definition. Mr.
Morrison stated that a manufactured home is built to HUD standards and has permanent installation with a
pitched roof. This is also considered a site built structure according to the code. Ms. Martin read the definition
of manufactured home from the Weld County Code and added the application specifically states stick built or
manufactured.
Michael Miller asked if any Development Standard or Condition addresses the 6 foot fence. Ms. Martin
indicated there is a Development Standard to attempt to address the concerns for the City of Greeley, which
requested the 6 foot fence.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case MJF-1062, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Doug Ochsner seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Michael
Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tonya Strobel, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: MZ-547
APPLICANT: Olando Ltd. Liability Company
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B RE-2016; Pt of the SE4 of Section 16, T6N, R64W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Minor Subdivision Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) Zone District to E
(Estate)for nine (9) residential lots. (Owl Creek Estates).
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Hwy 392; '/,mile east of CR 53.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case MZ-547, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of the application.
Michael Miller asked if the previous application made it through Board of County Commissioners or was it
withdrawn. Ms. Lockman stated the PUD was denied but it was not presented by this applicant. This applicant
came back with a substantial change and now the minor subdivision change of zone.
Todd Hodges,representative,provided clarification regarding the project. The prior owner had a PUD and was
approved by Planning Commission but not the Board of County Commissioners. In November 2003 a
substantial change was done and approved by both the Planning Commission and Board of County
Commissioners. The applicant is therefor back to the minor subdivision change of zone. The access has been
centrally located with the permits needed through CDOT. The drill sites have been delineated on the plat along
with the well sites. The applicant has been working on agreements with the two existing well sites but those
are not complete yet. The primary land uses are agriculture and residential. Mr. Hodges went through photos
from various locations on the site. Staffs denial is based on the location to the approved dairy to the east and
compatibility with it. This proposal will be governed with covenants not like the surrounding area. The
surrounding area was largely created with the recorded exemption process. The applicant has discussed the
proposal with the owner of the dairy and there has not been any objections. The dairy was approved through
the amended USR process. The dairy was required to operate with existing and future land uses in the area,
which are minor subdivisions. The large lots lend themselves to a higher and greater use than the exiting
agricultural use.
Bryant Gimlin asked Mr. Hodges about lot A and if it exited onto Hwy 392. Mr. Hodges indicated that it does
and there was no other option. Mr. Hodges indicated that there is a Condition for the Oil&Gas that if it goes
away their access goes away. This access has been approved through CDOT. Mr. Gimlin asked if draft
covenants were done. Mr. Hodges indicated they have not been. Mr. Gimlin asked if he would be willing to
place something in the covenants that addresses the dairy? Mr. Hodges stated it could be discussed with the
applicants. Mr. Morrison stated that there is a provision in State Law that addresses this issue. Mr. Gimlin's
intent is to make sure the lot owners were informed of the dairy.
Doug Ochsner asked for clarification on the covenants and rather animals were allowed. Also what type of
subdivision is envisioned are they large homes, agricultural homes with animals? Mr. Hodges stated that the
animal units will be as allowed with the Estate Zone District. This subdivision would allow one animal unit per
acre and the intent is to allow for animal units,4H projects and gardening type uses. Mr. Hodges indicated that
this was the highest and best use for the property since it was not productive based on the water. Mr. Ochsner
asked if there was any water that went with any of the lots. Tammy Ellerman,provided clarification with regards
to the water and homes. The homes will be stick built nice homes. They will be able to have 4H projects with
niece barns. The covenants will address most of the issue brought forward today. There are 2 shares of
Larimer and Weld Irrigation water. The delivery varies every year.
Michael Miller asked if there is no irrigation water how are the owners going to maintain the lots. Ms. Ellerman
stated that dryland farming can be done. The water can be kept with the ground but the concern is who will
irrigate the land. There would need to be one person who would be responsible. Mr. Miller stated that lots of
this size without water become nothing but weeds it is important to have water available. It is not required in
the code but encouraged since there will be animals on the lots. It is very difficult to maintain large lots with
no water. Ms. Ellerman indicated that on the east side there was some sub-irrigation. Mr. Miller asked Mr.
Hodges about the previous application being denied because of lot size. Mr. Hodges indicated that some was
based on lot size, open space and maintenance of that open space. The lots in the previous application were
smaller and clustered. Ms. Lockman read excerpts from the minutes of the denied COZ which addressed the
reasons for denial. Mr. Miller indicated that it was stated the way the lots are laid out was a higher and greater
use than current land use especially when there is no water. The land can currently grow crops,what happens
if it is broken up and all the water is removed, this is not a better use. Mr. Hodges stated that the existing
water is not adequate for the operation or financially feasible for agricultural production. The higher and best
use would be the smaller lots with the 4H projects that would graze animals on dryland.
James Rohn asked Mr. Schei about his referral and clarification. Mr. Schei indicated there is no place in
County Code that requires a minor subdivision to be paved. Public Works cannot require a minor subdivision
to be paved. The applicant has indicated the interior roadway would be paved and Public Works will accept
the roadway when the warranty period is up. Mr. Rohn asked Mr. Morrison if there was a way to put a condition
that it must be paved. Ms. Lockman indicated that the Condition is already present based on the applicants
willingness to pave the interior road.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Julie Bolles, neighbor, objects in part because the Sheriff's Office does not have ability to absorb any more
service. Mr. Miller clarified that this is a typical statement that is on every application. Ms. Boiles continued
that the previous application that was denied was in part for the adequacy of the water. The new development
has eliminated the open space and added homes to the plan, the total acreage is still the same. It will require
more water for the landscaping of subdivision lots. The agreement with North Weld Water District has not been
signed. The water district will restrict delivery when CBT water is less than 50%. The neighbor cannot buy any
more water because of the drought. There is such a water shortage around the state it is hard to understand
developing more. The third objection is the preservation of agriculture ground in this county putting a subdivision
close to a municipality will defeat the purpose of the right to farm clause and it is inconsistent with the
development in the area. The density is greater then anything within miles. The elimination of the open space
defeats the rural living incentive. The neighborhood will be affected with the increase of homes including the
noise and increase on demand for services. There will also be an increase in traffic on Hwy 392. The increase
of 86 trips per day would be incredible. The semi traffic has increased in the area. There will be increased
conflicts with increase development in the area. The covenants should be included in the application to provide
additional information as to what is expected. The County can either continue to develop or continue to farm
but we will not be able to do both.
Cynthia Vance, neighbor on Hwy 392&CR 55, opposes the development. The traffic is 55 mph but there are
many accidents. There has been an increase in traffic along the highway with lots of semi trucks that do not
slow down. There is little water pressure in the area. People in the area have constantly complained about the
dairy to the Board of County Commissioners for the last 8 years. Ms. Vance does not recommend an
additional 9 homes in the area.
Darryl Delka, neighbor, indicated concerns with the development. Mr. Delka has questions on the quality of
homes that will be built. The neighbors have no idea of what is being proposed. There are no homes on the
property presently. There was water included in the sale of the original property now there are only two shares.
This is an existing acreage that was farmed with water. The sub-irrigation property sets at the bottom of the
hill. If the ground is dryland and once it is grazed clean it does not come back without applying water to it.
The dairy is still a problem along with the noise. Mr. Morrison asked if there was a basis for this issue. Mr.
Delka indicated that the development will not coexistent with the existing neighbor. The entrance is on a
hillside onto Hwy 392,this will prove to be dangerous for school buses. There is no fence along the creek and
trash problems exist and will be worse with more people. There are to many questions at this point and time.
The Chair closed public portion
James Rohn abstained from the case.
Todd Hodges,addressed the concerns with the surrounding owners. There are subdivisions located in the area.
The development of the covenants is costly and those will be done with the final plan. Those can be made
available to the public as soon as possible. An approval is needed prior to the financial burden of the covenants.
Mobile homes would need to go through a different process therefor these homes will be stick built and nice
homes. This proposed use encourages the continued agricultural uses. There can be several issues that arise
with different land uses. There is a State Statue and right to farm covenant that addresses the situation but
there can also be language in the covenants that address this. There are nice homes in the area and these
will be comparable. The area fits the minor subdivision application process. The elimination of open space was
a directive and has not been required in a minor subdivision. North Weld Water District is one of the easiest
to work with in that the previous applicant had an agreement and this applicant has a proposed agreement.
The agreement would be signed if approval is granted. This will not impact the existing services as indicated
through the water district. This water line extension will contain fire hydrants. The applicant has proposed
paving the internal road and CDOT has no concerns. Tammy Ellerman,provided information with regard to the
irrigation water. The water has to come across two properties before it arrives at this ground. There are 2
shares and that is all it came with,there are some lateral rights. There will be an 8 inch water line, homes and
fire hydrants.
Doug Ochsner asked if Larimer Weld Irrigation or Reservoir. Ms.Ellerman indicated it was irrigation,early water
that delivers May to mid-June.
Bryant Gimlin asked if an 8 inch line would be installed and how big the residential taps will be and will that be
enough to support some landscape irrigation. Ms. Ellerman indicated that the line was required by the District.
The applicant is the one being used to upgrade the line. Mr. Gimlin asked about the amount of water each lots
will have access to. Mr. Ellerman stated it was approximately one acre.
Todd Hodges indicated the condition 1A-Prior to Scheduling that the applicant have a signed agreement with
existing operator or show the drill windows as indicated per the State Statute. The applicant has shown the
two existing wells with the 150 foot radius. The potential drill sites have been shown. The applicant would like
to not show the 400 foot setback by the two existing wells and the no build radius is shown. Mr. Morrison
stated that 400 foot radius is for existing wells the 800 foot box is for proposed wells that have not been drilled.
Mr. Hodges indicated that they have met 1A and they would like it to be removed or discussion that staff agrees
this has been met. Mr. Morrison asked for clarification with regards to the location of the existing and the
possible wells. Mr. Morrison stated that the areas that can maintain the safety margin should remain. Mr.
Morrison is comfortable with the intent of the applicant. Ms. Lockman suggests adding"around undrilled wells"
at the end of the sentence and clarify. Mr. Miller stated an envelope is for proposed not existing the language
is fine as it stands.
Doug Ochsner commented that the highest and best use is the minor subdivision which is the goal of the
landowner. Mr. Ochsner stated it comes down to compatibility and there is a need for agricultural type lots that
do promote 4H and not necessarily mansions. The concern is the lack of water for the ground. If these were
larger lots with water it would be more acceptable. The compatibility is there but the size and design of the
subdivision is in questions.
Bryant Gimlin commented that the previous denial was based on the access, compatibility and the water.
Those issues have not gone away but possibly changed order. The lack of water on the large lots is a major
concern, there will be dust and dirt.
Bruce Fitzgerald commented that compatibility is an issue.
Tonya Strobel stated that there is a need for this type of housing and some have been approved through the
recorded exemption and subdivision process. This development is not consistent with the surrounding
properties.
Michael Miller commented the compatibility issues are big. People have a responsibility to determine if the
surrounding uses will be compatible with them and the dairy is not. The irrigation system is essential. There
are some that do not understand that without water there is nothing but dirt and dust. The lack of effort on the
part of the developer for irrigation water shows that it is not important to them. Dryland cannot have animals
unless there is a way to irrigate. The water issues is the main reason he will not be in support and secondarily
it is not compatible. This is not in best interest of the health safety and welfare of the county.
Tonya Strobel moved that Case MZ-574, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of denial.
Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Michael
Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes; Tonya Strobel, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
Doug Ochsner commented that this minor subdivision could get approval if the design was different,water and
compatibility and water enter into this.
Bryant Gimlin commented he is in favor of denial based on staff recommendations based on lack of irrigation
and compatibility.
Doug Ochsner left the meeting due to prior commitment.
PLANNER: Monica Mika
ITEM: Changes to Weld County Code Chapter 23: Section 23-1-90, amended
definitions of DERELICT VEHICLE, HOUSEHOLD PETS, and KENNEL;
corrections to stated elevations of Greeley-Weld County Airport in Sections
23-5-10 and 23-5-50;and correction to referenced Airport map in section 23-
5-20; Chapter 24: correction to subdivision exemption process and time
parameters in section 24-8-35.
Monica Mika, Department of Planning Services presented the proposed Code Changes, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending
approval.
Lee Morrison stated there are two levels of licencing for birds that is based on both the number of birds and on
the species. One requires a greater need for care and a smaller number of birds. Ms. Mika indicated that staff
is referencing the definition back to the State regulations. Mr. Miller asked for clarification with regard to the
term"ayes." Mr. Morrison stated that previously spell check was used and apes replaced the correct language.
Game Birds are separately licensed through the Department of Wildlife.
Ms. Mika continued with the proposed code changes.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
James Rohn moved that Case 2004-05,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning
Commissions recommendation of approval. Tonya Strobel seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Michael
Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tonya Strobel, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Further business discussed
Mr. Morrison presented a request for a site visit for a substantial change case for Timber Rock that the applicant
has submitted. A site visit can be done in a number of ways as a part of a meeting or individually. Testimony
cannot be taken. The first item would be to recommend that the applicant apply or is granted a substantial
change.
Michael Miller clarified that the original was denied by both Planning Commission and Board of County
Commissioners. He has done a site visit but it seems like a site visit would be more appropriate after the
substantial change is determined. It would be best to do individually because as a group it would be discussed
amongst each other.
Lee Morrison added that this has not been requested for some time. Mr. Gimlin added that in the bylaws it
indicates making site visits but a precedence should not be set to do as a group.
Michael Miller stated it is more appropriate to have the substantial change hearing to determine if a site visit
is more appropriate.
Bruce Fitzgerald added that he would be more likely to accommodate a public utility request.
Mr. Morrison and Ms. Lockman will address the request to the attorney for Timber Rock.
Meeting adjourned at 4:45pm
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello