HomeMy WebLinkAbout20043552.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, December 7, 2004
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2004, in the Weld County
Department of Planning Services,Hearing Room,91810th Street,Greeley,Colorado. The meeting was called
to order by Chair, Michael Miller, at 1:30p.m.
ROLL CALL s''
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin Absent
John Folsom tin
James Welch
James Rohn Absent
Bruce Fitzgerald co -
Tonya Strobel Absent
Chad Auer LEI
Doug Ochsner
Also Present: Char Davis, Peter Schei, Pam Smith, Michelle Martin, Jacqueline Hatch, Sheri Lockman, Kim
Ogle
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on November 16,
2004,was approved as read.
The following items are on the Consent Agenda:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1491
APPLICANT: Timothy& Lori Ehrlich
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-3039; part of the N2 N2 Section 34,T6N, R64W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Use by
Right,an accessory use, or a Use by Special Review in the Commercial or
Industrial Zone District (farm equipment and auto repair and up to six (6)
trucks and trailers used for storage) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 62-1/2; west of and adjacent to CR 57.
Doug Ochsner moved to approve the Consent agenda. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. Motion carried.
The following items will be Heard:
CASE NUMBER: MZ-1056
APPLICANT: Francisco Granados
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2916; being part of the W2 NW4 Section 3, T5N, R64W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Minor Subdivision Change of Zone from the Agricultural(A)Zone District
to Estate (E)Zone District for four(4) residential lots .
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 60 %, East of and adjacent to State Hwy 37.
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services presented Case MZ-1056, 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. Staff is recommending the
following changes:
&I/taint la ,(4._ 1
4? - O-O1-O3Y 2004-3552
Add the following note to the plat under 2.Y"Any disturbance of wetlands shall require the applicant
to contact the Army Corps of Engineers for permits pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act."
Reword 1.A.9 to say the following "The applicant shall work with the Colorado Department of
Transportation to determine the current right-of-way along State Highway 37 and the area to be
reserved for the future expansion of State Highway 37. Written evidence shall be submitted to the
Department of Planning Services."
John Folsom asked Ms. Martin the approximate size of the wetlands on site. Ms. Martin indicated they were
approximately less than an acre.
Clayton Harrison,Pickett Engineering representative for the applicant,stated he was is available for questions
but had nothing to add. Mr. Harrison indicated staff had done a great job with the presentation.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Mike Miller asked about a letter from CDOT and should it be included in the comments. Ms. Martin indicated
the letter was to be used as a reference to one of the Conditions staff was proposing to have changed.
John Folsom asked Ms. Martin if the internal road will be paved. Ms. Martin indicated it would not be paved.
Michael Miller indicated staff was recommending the following changes:
Add the following note to the plat under 2.Y"Any disturbance of wetlands shall require the applicant
to contact the Army Corps of Engineers for permits pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act."
Reword 1.A.9 to say the following "The applicant shall work with the Colorado Department of
Transportation to determine the current right-of-way along State Highway 37 and the area to be
reserved for the future expansion of State Highway 37. Written evidence shall be submitted to the
Department of Planning Services."
Doug Ochsner moved to approve the staff changes. Chad Auer seconded. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case MZ-1056, 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;James Welch,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1043
APPLICANT: Sherry Lawley
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B RE-3581;being part of the SE4 Section 4,T6N, R64W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to PUD for 8 (eight) lots with E
(Estate)Zone uses
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 72; west of and adjacent to CR 55.
Sheri Lockman,Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-1043,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 internal roadway being dedicated but not maintained. Ms Lockman indicated
the road would be dedicated but maintained by HOA. Mr. Fitzgerald asked about the Sheriff Departments
2
referral. Ms. Lockman indicated staff was requesting a note on the plat so the property owners realize there
are some traffic enforcement limitations. Mr. Fitzgerald asked for further clarification regarding if the internal
road. Mr. Schei indicated if an internal roadway is paved for a subdivision it would be maintained and under
the jurisdiction of the County. All roadways are dedicated to the citizens of Weld County. Mr.Fitzgerald asked
if a road grader will go down the road. Mr. Schei indicated it would not and added that no gravel roadways
within subdivisions are accepted for maintenance by the County.
John Folsom asked Ms. Lockman about the remaining Sheriff Department recommendations. Ms. Lockman
stated those recommendations are already incorporated into the comments.
Jeff Couch, representative for the applicant, presented additional information on the proposal. The Sheriff
Department comments are standard and the applicant is intending to widen the internal road at the entrance.
There is a cul-de-sac at the end of the roadway. The HOA will maintain the roadway. Addressing and street
naming is taken care of through the County process. The Colorado Division of Water Resources has been
faxed the information they requested. There is a Water Extension Agreement in place which is what the
Division requires. Galeton Fire Protection District will be met with to address any concerns they might have.
There is a letter from Division of Wildlife in the packet addressing the six issues for them. The prairie dogs
have been removed from the site. The native grasses will be replaced to maintain the vegetative cover. The
biggest issue is working with the Nazarenus Ditch. Most of the six conditions requested by the ditch company
can be met by slight modifications. The first request is the ditch company has a recorded right of way
agreement,therefore the drawings will need to reflect this and the laterals associated with the ditch company.
The second request is to add a note to the plat indicating an exclusive right of way easement. There is 120
feet of right of way from the ditch to the west and 50 foot to the east of the ditch. The exclusive easement is
170 foot wide. The issue is the maintenance of that 120 feet. The ditch company wants the 120 feet to be
adequately maintained and allow them to function as they have historically functioned. The soil is sandy in
the area and there has been some silting concerns. The ditch company wants to make sure there is a
vegetative cover and there are no problems with that to affect the function of the ditch. The ditch company
wanted the 120 feet to be dedicated as a common area,that would take approximately 1 Y acres from each
of the lots. The applicant did not want to dedicate it. The property will not be fenced and will still be accessible
to the ditch company. The HOA and landowners can maintain the land better. A plan can be put together that
will satisfy both the landowners and the ditch company. The applicant does not want to dedicate the property.
The ditch company does not want drainage from the site so the internal drainage will be done so that no water
drains into the ditch but drains into a pond. The applicant does not want to add any water that has not been
historically added to the ditch.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Morrison about the historic drainage into the ditch and it cannot be prevented in the
future. Mr. Morrison stated that historical flow cannot be prevented with the limitation that is will not be
modified to the detriment of the ditch. The water cannot be channeled in a way to erode the ditch bank where
it did not do this before or intensify the flow. As a general rule the continuing right of the historical drainage
can be maintained.
Michael Miller asked Mr.Couch if the applicant is in agreement with the last sentence containing the language
that the engineer from the ditch company review and approve the drainage report. Brent Goan,representative
for the applicant, indicated the engineer for the ditch company be given the opportunity to comment on the
report but there is a concern with the County delegating the authority to approve. Mr. Miller indicated the
language refers to the ditch company having the approval authority.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Dennis Egge, Vice-President of the Nazarenus Lateral Ditch Company, indicated their concerns about
development next to the ditch. There is a 120 foot right of way on the west side,the ditch company would like
to keep maintenance of this. There are several reasons this should be done and one is they do not want
drainage from the site into the system. The soil is sandy and the ditch will fill quickly. The ditch has
historically sat higher than the ground so the water typically banks up to the ditch and stood in the fields.
Another concern would be homeowners located on the ditch could object to spraying the weeds on the ditch.
The ditch company would like to see their right of way fenced so the area could be defined. There may be
future problems. Mr. Miller indicated the ditch company does not own the property there is an easement. So
3
the company is asking for the people who do own the property to fence off part of their ground. Mr. Egge
stated they have an exclusive right of way easement and in the agreement it is defined how the right of way
can be used. Mr. Miller asked if the easement defined who maintained the area. Mr. Egge stated the ditch
company has always done the maintenance. Mr. Miller asked whether the easement indicates it should be
fenced off. Mr. Egge stated the easement is defined so the ditch company can control all activity that goes
on inside the easement to protect the ditch. Mr. Miller stated that asking the owners to fence the easement
off is in effect taking that portion of their property away from them. Mr. Egge stated the owners cannot
technically use the property unless they clear it with the ditch company anyway. The easement is written so
the owner cannot even stack hay, build corrals or a structure without the approval of the ditch company.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Morrison about the fencing off of a portion of the property. Mr. Morrison asked if the
discussion was about the exclusive portion or the non exclusive portion? Mr. Egge indicated the exclusive
portion,the 120 feet on west side of the ditch. Mr. Morrison stated the exclusive is the smaller area. Mr. Egge
indicated the ditch company would like to see this as common ground so these concerns would not have to
be dealt with. Mr. Egge added the homeowners will not be allowed to use the ground for anything according
to the agreement. Mr. Morrison stated that the exclusive easement still allows for the owner to be the land
owner. There are special provisions in the recorded document that states the Lawley's will not be permitted
to cross under or over the easement with any structure. They can still use the ground for pasture and such.
Structures are prohibited without approval but it does not say any use. Exclusive does not refer to the fee
owners rights it refers to anyone being able to obtain an easement in the area.
Michael Miller clarified that the land owners have the ability to graze or recreate on the easement. Mr.
Morrison added that the fee owner cannot interfere with the use of the easement. It is possible that some of
the uses would interfere and structures are prohibited.There are other uses that could interfere and could be
a violation. Mr. Miller indicated that if the Planning Commission requires them to fence the area off it would
in effect be asking them to remove some of their property from use. Mr. Morrison stated that was true,there
is some allowed use of the easement although it is limited. Mr. Egge indicated the ditch company does not
want the property owners to fence back to the ditch and have the ditch rider have to open four sets of fences
to do his job. Mr. Egge continued with the request that there be a note indicating the easement on the plat.
The fence issue needs to be defined. There is a concern with kids near the ditch. The main concern is the
easement and the maintenance of it. The ditch company will work with the applicant.
Michael Miller asked if there any historical drainage from the site. Mr. Egge stated the ditch is higher than the
surrounding area. It was done this way when the ditch was created because of the sandy soil. The ditch
company wants to look at the storm drainage because of the amount the ditch can hold and at what level it
will overflow. Mr. Egge added the excess run off drains into the county ditch.
Chair closed the public portion
Michael Miller asked Ms. Lockman about Condition 5 M and delineating this on the plat so homeowners will
know. Ms. Lockman stated the intent is so the homeowners will be aware of the limitations placed by the
easement agreement to the plat.
Brent Coan asked about the addition to 3 B note on plat. There is an agreement in place with Petroleum
Development Corporation that indicates they will fence the facilities. The concern is for the applicant to fence
someone else's property. The applicant would like to be able to provide the agreement to staff before Board
of County Commissioners. Mr. Miller indicated the goal was to make sure it was fenced, it would be better
to leave this and provide the information to the Board of County Commissioners at that time.
Chad Auer moved to approve staff comments. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. Motion Carried
Doug Ochsner asked if the applicant could address the comments of the public. Mr.Couch indicated the one
issue left is a maintenance standard for the 120 feet. The rest of the requests from the ditch company are
fine. There is approximately 110 feet owned by lot owners and it is believed the HOA could maintain the
ground better than the ditch company. The ditch company has limited resources. There still needs to be
standards established. Mr. Coan stated the right of way and easement agreement does not address
maintenance. The applicant is requesting to continue working with the ditch company to best accommodate
4
both parties. Both parties want to see that the ground is properly maintained. Mr. Millers stated the owners
should be the ones who maintain their property. Mr. Ochsner stated that if maintenance interferes with the
workings of the ditch, for example if the ditch company cleans the ditch and leaves dirt on the right of way
which is the owners property they will not approve of this. The homeowners might decide they like the weeds
and want to keep them. Mr. Miller asked how involved does the Planning Commission want to get in
establishing a precedent for the homeowners to maintain their property. Mr.Ochsner states that it should be
left up to the ditch company to take care of their ditch. Mr. Morrison stated this is unique because the actual
ditch is smaller than the easement. The user of the easement is responsible for maintaining the use and not
the property owner. The issue gets clouded on the portion away from the ditch. It seems as though the
parties have come a long way at resolving the issues. It might be best to let the parties work out an
agreement before the Board of County Commissioners hearing. Mr. Miller's concern is it can be said who is
responsible for maintaining but it then needs to be defined as "maintained in what condition". Mr. Morrison
stated it would function better if the parties had an agreement as to who did what and to what standard
because they have a much more direct interest in the outcome. Mr. Coan added the County has standards
regarding weed control and such. It is good for the parties to address who does what part of the maintenance.
Both parties are interested in the best solution for the maintenance. Mr.Miller added that it is the responsibility
of the property owner unless there are other provisions.
John Folsom indicated there needs to be a mutual agreement between both parties.
Dennis Egge added the maintenance can be worked out but he has other issues specifically discing the
ground. The area is hard to burn because the access is on CR 55, it is something that can be worked out
through the HOA. Mr. Egge added that it was their understanding that if they had an easement they were
obligated to maintain.
Jeff Couch continued with the concerns of the ditch company. The issues can be addressed including the
drainage concerns. It would even improve the area drainage. The improvements will decrease the
maintenance for the ditch company. The HOA will assist in this. The homeowners really have no need to be
in the easement, they can get the grasses established and maintain them. It would be great to define some
of the uses for the land owners.
Jeff Couch had questions about Condition S. The applicant would like to see the language changed to"the
property owners shall not unreasonably interfere with the mineral owners." Mr. Miller asked if this provision
has been used in the past. Ms. Lockman stated it is fairly new language and she has no concerns with the
requested additions. Mr.Couch would like to add at the end language consisting of"...located on these lands
to the extent those rights exist on the north half of the SE4 of Section 4. No such ingress or egress rights exist
in the SE4SE4 of Section 4 and nothing contained herein is intended to change the rights of the parties or to
grant additional rights to any mineral owner or lessee". The reason for this is there has been a lease that
allows drilling but there are specifics in the lease that keep the lessee off the property. Mr. Miller would be
in favor of deleting the entire paragraph. There is an oil and gas lease that will determine what can be done
and not.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to delete Condition S. Dough Ochsner seconded. Motion carried.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that Case PZ-1043, 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. John
Folsom, yes;James Welch, yes; Michael Miller,yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Doug Ochsner commented he believes this is a good plan but the ditch company maintenance needs to be
addressed. It is a very important issue in this case.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1441
APPLICANT: LW Miller Transportation, LLC
5
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A or RE-1901 & Lot A of RE-3900, being part of the E2 of Section 1,
T5N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit fora business
permitted as a use by right or an accessory use in the Industrial Zone
District(livestock trailer washout, truck terminal, vehicle repair and fueling
station) 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 presented Case AmUSR-1441, 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 if the original approval was for 10 trucks a day. Ms. Lockman indicated at the Board of
County Commissioners there was a note required on the plat that indicated the maximum number of trucks
the facility can actually handle.That is where the average number of 20 came from. It is based on the facility
and what it can actually have. Mr. Miller stated that when it left Planning Commission there was a limit on the
trucks.
Doug Ochsner asked if Planning Commission is only looking at moving the fueling station and move the repair
to the shop. Ms. Lockman stated it was a new application even though it was an amendment. There a
multitude of little changes like the hours of operation. The whole application is being reviewed again. Mr.
Miller asked if the original application limited them to only washing their own trucks. Ms. Lockman stated in
their application it was for their own use. Mr. Miller indicated this application would open this up to the public.
Ms. Lockman stated it does open to the public but does not increase the amount of trucks to be washed.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the feedlot size. Ms. Lockman stated it was 59,000 head of cattle and it is
approximately 1/4 mile away.
Lauren Light, representative for the applicant, presented additional information on the site. The original
application was approved on May 12, 2004. The applicant purchased the onion facility and could not include
the facility at the time of the original USR. The Board of County Commissioners recommended an
amendment to the application that included the onion facility. At the Board of County Commissioners it was
directed to be public and have an average of 20 trucks. This amendment includes the onion facility which
increases the USR area, change to public use and the addition of a repair shop in the building along with a
fueling station. Farmland Reserve owns the land to the north and west and it is still farmed. There is one
residence to the south. There has been additional landscaping to try and mitigate some of the concerns the
adjacent neighbor has. Ms. Light presented overheads to identify the changes.This property is in the airport
overlay zone therefore no residential uses are wanted. The City of Greeley comment was based on the odor.
The odor will be minimal since there are no animals on site. The amount of material is less than the livestock
facility. There are only 20 trucks a day that can be washed and this is due to the design of the system. The
number of trucks washed will not change whether this is a public or private venture. The previous facility
located in the City of Greeley, did not have the updated technology. This facility requires a permit from the
State Health Agency. The water will support crop production making better use of a resource. The water will
be put back on the land and regulated through a permit process. The property is not contiguous to be eligible
for annexation. The property adjacent, which will be land applied on, is contiguous. The USR boundary is
not contiguous to the City of Greeley. There will be a waste water management system. There would be no
need for washouts if there were no feedlots. The waste water system is what controls the capacity of the
trucks being washed. The existing plat note will be maintained on this proposal. There will be a state of the
art waste water management system that will mitigate the odors. It will not be as intense as another use.
John Folsom asked Ms. Light about the fueling facility and if it were for LW Miller trucks only? Ms. Light
indicated at this time it is only for private use but in the future it may be utilized for public use. The fueling
station is for diesel fuel obtained by a card.
Michael Miller indicated on March 2 when this was approved by Planning Commission it had a potential for
10 trucks per day which was unlikely because it being LW Miller trucks only. Ms. Light indicated at the Board
6
of County Commissioners the number was determined on what the wastewater system can handle. This
application is different with the addition of the onion facility and the cost associated with this. The number of
trucks being washed will assist in the balancing of the cost incurred. Mr. Miller indicated that this application
is a representation of 20 trucks per day which is significantly different than what was represented at the
original Planning Commission hearing.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Lobel Lauck, neighbor across the road, indicated her concerns with the traffic. Ms. Lockman stated that
CDOT approved the original numbers and they are asking those to be updated because of the changes with
the fueling station. This information goes directly to CDOT. Ms. Lauck asked if there would be an issue with
trucks turning into the location. Ms.Lockman stated if the numbers get to large,CDOT will require upgrades.
Bob McFadden,Greeley Planning Commission,indicated concerns about odor issues and the money the City
of Greeley has spent on controlling the issues. It is nice that the applicant is considering the issue of odor but
Greeley Planning Commission would like to see some of that evidence. In the packet there were no specific
elevations, appearance, size of pond and the capacity of lagoon. There needs to be specifics dealing with
the solid waste and removal from the site. There is an issue about the number of trucks and it changing. The
total site is not identified. All the issues need to be addressed and the potential it will have on the City of
Greeley.
John Folsom asked Mr. McFadden about the improvements made to the facility that was within the City of
Greeley, and is what proposed similar to what exists. Mr. McFadden stated the difference was the site was
made to go from a lagoon system to city sewer system. The sewer system mitigated the problems associated
with the odor. The County and the City has spent a large amount on the airport system to the benefit of both.
Mr. Miller indicated that it was hard to compare the existing truck with this facility. The other truck wash did
several things out of compliance and the technology was not the same. Mr. McFadden indicated there were
restrictions placed on the truck wash but it still did not mitigate the odor problem until they went onto the City
sewer system.
Craig Thompson,Greeley Planning Commission,added this site is adjacent to city limits with the airport being
annexed. The site is located within the urban growth boundary. There will be a certain amount of industrial
growth,according to the master plan, in the area around the airport. This land application is a concern for the
city. CR 47 is being reviewed as an eastern arterial route at this time. The capacity approved by the Board
of County Commissioners was 20 trucks which was counter to the Health Department testimony which was
the processing of 15,000 gallons which is 5 trucks per day. The City of Greeley reviewed the proposal for 10
trucks and has less concern about this. The change occurred at the Board of County Commissioners
meeting. The lack of notice was referenced to Mead not receiving their notice for LifeBridge. The City of
Greeley has similar types of concerns. There was limited evidence on the technology that will be utilized. The
chief concern is the odor for Greeley. There have been several dollars spent to try and reduce the smell that
is emitted from the surrounding areas. There has been a significant amount of time spent on addressing
odors. There is an odor board within the City of Greeley. There is a letter from the Mayor of Greeley
expressing concerns. The largest concern is the number of trucks increasing to 20 without any referral
notification. The traffic impact to this corridor has been discussed. It is a State Highway but these need to
be reviewed. Mr.Thompson added"I found it interesting that planning staff indicated that-we have really not
reviewed that information yet,we don't have a traffic impact report. So basically we are going blind here. We
are crossing our fingers and hoping that the traffic impacts work out." Mr.Thompson continued that there is
no aeration of the lagoons, this helps reduce the odor. How often are the stack solids going to be removed
from the site? The land application of the water creates odor as it is being applied and sprayed from the
sprinkler. The area of the USR is not just this area it is a larger amount. There is a land application area
which is northwest of this and a second pond. The second pond is where materials and wastewater will go
to that is north of this property. The water will be land applied on another piece of ground. This is
approximately a 150 acres to where this will be land applied. The City suggests no aerial spraying of the
water, ground water monitor to determine the impacts and have an odor standard in place. The applicant
needs to incorporate best odor practices which includes aerating the ponds. The City would like to see the
maximum number be 20 trucks not average. This is a constantly changing application. The odor abatement
plan needs to improve. How is the waste going to be handled? This is not in the application. This proposal
7
seems to have gotten approval first and hope it works later. The staff report cites Section 23-2-220.A.1 has
not been met. The infrastructure is available at approximately 1-1 1/2 miles to the west. There was
information that was not included on the plan. There is information that is not included in the plan. There was
no landscape plan. Are the plans that have been presented to the Planning Commission acceptable. Mr.
Thompson passed out some standards that were in place for the truck wash located in town. There is a
possibility of making a piece of land in the vicinity a park.
Ken Whitaker, indicated the trucks need to be washed out more frequently when there are short runs. Who
will monitor only 20 trucks per day? Where will they be cleaned when the 20 limit is achieved? A commercial
washout will reach 20 trucks in no time at all.There has only been one complaint at the existing facility in the
last two years.
Jarred Ware,Union Colony Fire Protection District,wanted to make Planning Commission aware of the issues
from the fire protection district. There is a letter indicated ongoing concerns. They will need to abide by the
Uniform Fire Code.There has not been enough information received from the applicant. There may need to
be some site improvements.
Chair closed public portion.
Lauren Light indicated they have building plans to submit to Union Colony. The site is not contiguous to the
City of Greeley, Farmland Reserve owns the site that is contiguous. Tom Haren, Agricultural and Land
Professionals,provided clarification on the wastewater permit. The original application requested an average
of 10 trucks. Staff's comments included a maximum number 10 trucks. The Planning Commission changed
it to an average of 10 trucks, staffs concern was how to track an average. The Board of County
Commissioners came up with the number of 20 and it was an average. The washing of trucks does need to
happen more frequently when there are short runs. The system has had a sampling analysis done. The
material that comes from the trucks is more dilute than what is dealt with at the feedlot end. The volume of
water is larger than the waste coming out. The system contains double screen separators to remove the
significant portion of the waste. Farmland Reserve ground is currently being treated with waste water and has
been for several years. There is augmentation plans for the water that is going through the facility. The truck
wash in town went to City sewer because it was the only option. There was no option for land application.
City's land apply also. Aeration is a fix when the treatment process was not adequately done in the beginning.
The existing truck wash has to meet limitations on discharge to go to the City sewer. One of the design
criteria is that there are two ponds, one included in the USR and regulated under State standards for liners
and management. This facility is not animal so it is not under CAFO Regulations. Development Standards
3 indicates that if sewer is within 400 feet of the facility they will connect. Land application areas are not
included in the application also when municipalities utilize land application those areas are not within the City
limits. The odor mitigation plan is not just the trees and fences it is the design of the facility including the
loading rate of the system. The fences and trees were more for mitigation to the onion facility. There will be
one less building in the surrounding area now that the onion facility has been purchased. This is still diluted
manure not like what comes from a feedlot.
Michael Miller asked how the solids will be disposed of. Mr. Haren stated the solids will be collected on a
concrete pad with a concrete curb directly under the separation system. The system that will be installed at
this site has been installed in the Logan Utah facility. There is not a lot of odor generated, it has been
designed to stack into a truck and hauled to a solid waste compost facility. There is no specific number to
identify rather it will be hauled daily or weekly. The use of the facility will determine this. The applicant would
agree to come up with something that states under maximum conditions the disposal would be hauled away
X number of times. This could be added to the solid waste plan.
Doug Ochsner asked if this is the same water treatment system that is in Utah? Mr. Haren stated as far as
land application,no,but the solid separation is the same. Mr.Ochsner asked if the water treatment is different
and is it into the sewer. Mr. Haren indicated there is a discharge into Logan County sewer system.
Michael Miller asked if Mr. Haren had been to the Utah facility? Mr. Haren stated he had not but one of the
contractors had been. The site has been reviewed and installed with the new system.
8
Michael Miller asked Ms. Lockman how staff will enforce the 20 truck average? Ms. Lockman indicated it
would be based on complaints received. If there is failure in the drainage or if the smell gets bad staff would
inspect. Mr. Miller asked if there is any type of recording that could be required? Ms. Davis stated they are
required to apply for a Minimum Waste Water Discharge Permit for an Industrial facility. In the permit there
are things that need to be followed,testing will be required. There is no way of knowing the number of trucks.
They are required to meet the standards of the State. Mr. Miller clarified that they can have an average of 20
trucks but they could have 40 as long as there was no complaints. Then if there is a complaint there is no
recording standards to determine the number of trucks. Ms. Davis stated she is not sure if the State has any
regulations on this such as a meter flow. Mr. Morrison asked if there was currently a minimum discharge
permit. Ms. Davis stated on the previous application it was for 3000 gallons of recycled water that has been
through the treatment system,fresh water will be added,only used for the final wash,lagoon with an estimated
15,000 gallons a day. The design will be done and then the State will be informed and they will tell them what
they can meet. Mr. Morrison stated based on the minutes from the last Planning Commission hearing for the
original USR it was indicated the proposal should be governed by the amount of gallons not the number of
trucks because of enforcement. The standard still needed to be determined based on the State Permits. The
Board of County Commissioners concluded that the number of trips could not be used because there could
be trucks that were not actually being washed,there was an averaging issue and finally the amount of washing
was the critical factor. Mr.Miller indicated they are combining truck trips with the number of washouts. There
was a discussion as to how many trucks were accessing not necessarily washed out. Mr. Morrison indicated
that was the reason the Board of County Commissioners did away with the limit on truck trips. Ms. Lockman
indicated the number of trucks allowed at the washout was based on the State Permit and what the facility
could handle. Mr. Morrison stated the limit was based on State permit and there is language about being
further defined.
Doug Ochsner asked if it were possible to wash 40 trucks per day at this facility. Mr. Haren indicated there
are limitations that go beyond the waste water treatment. There are limitations on the system as well as
limitations on the amount of water the site can use. There are limits on what the site can use and number of
trucks. This application is a request for a twenty four hour operation and there are no limits on the hours of
the truck wash. Mr. Miller indicated his concern were for the number of trucks that could be washed out in
a twenty four hour time period.
John Folsom asked about Development Standards 11 regarding the approved odor abatement plan. Ms.
Davis stated it is a condition and staff is asking for this. Mr. Folsom asked if there were some standards to
compare to. Ms. Davis indicated that Mr. Jiricek would review the plan because of the extensive experience
he has. Mr. Haren stated that the previous USR which has been recorded had an odor abatement plan.
Doug Ochsner asked Ms.Davis if the land applied water is regulated? Ms. Davis stated the applicant will have
a State Discharge Permit which will contain testing.
Michael Miller indicated this application varies from original application greatly. The number of trucks to be
washed out and how to enforce that limit. The only factor that gave Planning Commission security was the
number would be regulated by being only trucks owned by LW Miller. This will open this up to guessing the
number of trucks and wait for complaints.
Chad Auer asked if the use would be to intense if they were washing as many as possible. Mr. Miller indicated
it would because the facility is designed for 40 trucks per day. If this number is exceeded it will cause
problems. Mr. Auer added that there will need to be some management if the use is intense.
Doug Ochsner added, he is torn between limiting the number of trucks on one side but yet limiting the number
would impede the economic right to have a business. If the facility can prove the waste and odor can be
handled the number of trucks may not matter. The concern is there may not be enough information obtained
to determine this.
Michael Miller indicated his concern is the only way to know is to wait until there is a problem and at this point
it is more difficult to fix. Weld County and Greeley have committed a large sum of money for the airport and
the development around this. It would be unfortunate to set that process back.
9
Bruce Fitzgerald asked Mr.Morrison if a requirement could be made for record keeping? Mr. Morrison stated
it could be considered reasonable. Mr. Miller asked how that would be enforced? Mr. Fitzgerald indicated
the Health Department would be out there from time to time. There could be a requirement there is a record
keeping component and have the Health Department review once they P e there.Mr.Miller if this is done there
needs to be some means of enforcement. Mr. Fitzgerald indicated it could be a Development Standards and
if the Development Standard is not adhered to it would be a violation. Ms. Davis indicated it would work it if
were available to staff when the site is visited. Ms. Lockman indicated Tire Mountain has a similar situation.
Michael Miller asked who was going to inspect and what would be done if the logs are not available. Mr.
Fitzgerald stated they would not be in compliance and would become a violation. Ms. Lockman added it has
occurred before. The applicant is allowed time to come into compliance and if the do not they would go
through a Probable Cause hearing.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to amend Development Standards 33 to require the applicant to maintain a maximum
of 20 trucks per day and have a log to prove this and available to County staff. The language shall consist
of"The trailer washout facility shall not exceed 20 trailers per day. The property owner shall be required to
keep a log to ensure this, which shall be available on request by County Staff." Chad Auer seconded.
Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case AmUSR-1441, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation
of approval. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; James Welch,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Doug Ochsner commented he does support because it is compatible with the surrounding area. There are
feedlots and packing plant near and this supports the agricultural community.
Bruce Barker, Weld County Attorney will be available for the remaining cases.
CASE NUMBER: 2004-XX
APPLICANT: Weld County/Town of Gilcrest
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Various Sections, Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: The Intergovernmental Agreement Boundary for the Town of Gilcrest
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented the proposed IGA for Gilcrest, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending
approval of the application.
Michael Miller asked about the letter from the Town of Gilcrest indicating they currently cannot provide
infrastructure for the area they have or to the Urban Growth Boundary Area. Can the plan for those services
still include that?. Ms. Lockman indicated a plan has been submitted on how the projected growth will occur.
Mr. Barker stated that timing and projected growth in the are were the issues addressed. The County likes
to have plant capacity for an area to provide services, the lines may not be there. The agreement requires
developers to install those lines. The plant is there to allow development to occur or if it is not what is the
timing of the plant. Mr. Miller indicated the understanding was the ability to expand to % mile of where
services are available. Mr. Barker stated they could expand beyond the%mile depending on the individual
ordinances. The legal standards have been met.
Menda Warren, Mayor of Gilcrest, provided clarification to the proposal and the areas in which Gilcrest has
started to make progress. They have gotten grants to redo the Comprehensive Plan and Code review. During
this process the infrastructure needs have been identified and the building plans to address them. There is
current space at the existing facility. It has the ability to expand. The town is presently in process of bringing
the lagoons for treatment to state standards. There is a capitol improvements project in process. They are
10
working on a drainage plan that would benefit the community. The Town of Gilcrest must grow to be able to
afford the uses that will be needed for the community.
Doug Ochsner asked Ms.Warren where the current sewer lines are and if they are within the IGA boundary.
Ms.Warren indicated the lines are along the current city limits and there are some developments that will be
bringing in additional lines. Mr.Ochsner asked if someone came to the Town of Gilcrest and they were within
the boundary would they be required to hook to public services. Ms. Warren indicated the town does want
to work with surrounding property owners. There are developments that would like to be in the new
boundaries. The developers typically like to start closer to the town and work their way out. Drainage is the
big challenge and they are addressing those concerns. Mr. Ochsner asked if the Town of Gilcrest would be
opposed to individual sewer systems in a larger scale development. Ms. Warren stated they would like to
work to the benefit of all involved, if the cost exceeds the benefit then no one wins. Ms. Warren, personally,
does respect personal property rights.
John Folsom asked if there was any response to the public hearing. Ms. Warren indicated there was good
response and also some valid concerns. The town would like to speak with those and ask what is the goal
for their property and try to work with them. This is the first step in a long process of hearings.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Jack McLelland,neighbor,indicated concerns with projected growth,timing and property rights. The concern
is the sewer system, reality is the water comes down CR 42 and intersects at CR 29. The main concern is
two fold. The first being the ability of the land owners to use the land through the Recorded Exemption (RE)
and Subdivision Exemption (SE)process. Within the current agreement there is a definition of development
that excludes RE and SE. The agreement says that development is a process where by the planning
department kicks it over to Gilcrest and they decide whether to annex or not. This cannot be done for RE and
SE. Another term is Non urban development and within this agreement(Gilcrest IGA)it is defined in part as
less than nine lots. What really happens is minor subdivisions get put in on isolated sections,that part, under
the control of non urban development,the planning department, by the way it is written denies the case. The
agreement says"to the extent legally possible as determined by the County, the County will deny proposals
for non urban/urban development." Non urban development are RE and SE. Mr. Barker clarified that this in
fact 180 degrees of what Mr. McLelland stated. Development excludes RE's and SE's. That means they are
not covered by the agreement,the agreement does not apply to RE or SE. As a result those are not covered
by any regulations that are contained therein and they can occur without having being regulated by the
agreement. Mr. McLelland stated "3.3 F flies in the face of that statement. It says the County will deny
proposal of non urban development." Mr. Barker indicated the way it is written,this agreement does not apply
to those so as a result they can continue without ever being effected by the town. The County can grant those
without going through the process, that is in Section three. Mr. McLelland argued that if a planner picks this
agreement up and a minor subdivision has been submitted what would he do. Mr. Barker indicated that a
minor subdivision is a different process than a RE and SE. It will be covered by the agreement because it is
nine lots or fewer. The RE and SE is not covered by the agreement a minor subdivision is. Mr. McLelland
stated "yeah it is covered, it is denied." Mr. Barker added to the extent on a minor subdivision in the urban
area it is a non urban use so that is correct for a minor subdivision, not so for RE or SE. Mr. McLelland stated
that Chapter 24 addresses SE and it includes minor and major. Mr. Barker stated it was separate. Mr.
McLelland offered alternative language. The agreements with Platteville, Evans, Milliken and LaSalle
specifically address the issue. The concern is after time a planner will pick up an RE and see it is two lots and
nothing less than nine can be done because it does not differentiate between a minor subdivision and RE is
simply states less that nine lots. Mr. McLelland referred to the Milliken agreement and it states the definition
for non urban development ignores the subdivision issue. The development is the same definition. Mr.
McLelland stated"when it comes to the section they wont do it says very much the same. They will deny the
non urban development in the urban growth area." This is what is in the agreements that completely surround
Gilcrest. This agreement as written does not benefit the surrounding area nor the town itself. Mr. Miller does
not see a significant difference in what is being said. Mr. McLelland argued that what is excluded is not the
definition of non urban says development of nine or less lots. An RE has two lots. Mr. Barker stated that a
minor subdivision could have three lots, they can go up to nine lots. Mr. McLelland indicated his other issue
is the control of a significant amount of land by an entity over which the land owners have no control or
influence. The entity is not accountable to the land owners. All rules are being changed, the land owners
11
have been notified but they do not feel as though it makes a difference.
Sam Frank, mother owns property, questioned the Gilcrest Comprehensive Plan map. There was some
indication that there would be commercial in the area and he would like to know what those uses are. Mr.
Miller stated those areas are intended to be commercial, it does not mean it is set in stone it is just what
Gilcrest would like to see in that area. There is a ditch on one side and a separator station on the other. Mr.
Frank would like to see the town succeed.
James Tanner, neighbor, asked if annexation would be done and what is the time frame. What type of
services will there be and what will the cost be? Mr. Tanners farm is on the east side of the railroad tracks.
Mr. Miller explained this is just a planning tool and there is no imminent annexation. The property within the
boundary is proposed for development a referral is sent to Gilcrest and they will respond as to whether it
should go through the County or Gilcrest. Mr. Tanner asked if there was any guarantee they will not be
annexed? Mr Miller stated there is no guarantee. Mr. Miller indicated it was nothing more than a tool between
the Gilcrest and the County. There will be no changes in taxes or anything else. Mr. Tanner asked what the
goal is for Gilcrest and agrees that they need assistance. Mr. Miller indicated this was a step in the right
direction.
Deede Patton, neighbor, asked why Gilcrest would no longer be a town after a couple of years? Ms. Patton
has concerns with development coming into town and not paying taxes like a previous developer.
Chair Closed the Public portion.
Menda Warren, Mayor of Gilcrest, addressed some of the issues brought forward in the public portion. Ms.
Warren indicated she wants to work with the community and is available at any time to discuss issues.
Doug Ochsner commented he would like to compliment Gilcrest for wanting to do this. Mr.Ochsner feels the
IGA is far to big and services cannot be provided. In time this will be done but the best way is to have services
available so the developers will come to town. This places a burden on land owner that is within the IGA to
say they would need to wait for services. This seems to be a land grab at this point. Mr.Auer stated it is not
a land grab it is a tool. Communities do not have to build services first to make and IGA appropriate. The
towns need something to begin the process. Mr. Miller added there have been numerous IGA that were far
more reaching than this. This is a reasonable approach for Gilcrest,the services can be reasonably obtained.
Chad Auer moved that Case 2004-XX,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners 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; James Welch, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner, no; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Doug Ochsner commented this is to big of an area and services are unavailable.
PLANNER: Monica Mika
ITEM: Changes to Weld County Code Chapter 22, Chapter 23 and Chapter 24.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, presented the proposed changes to the code by Chapter. The
proposed changes for Chapter 22 are as follows:
Sec. 22-1-150. Comprehensive Plan amendment procedure.
B1. Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals shall be considered biannually with during a public
hearing process LLgiiiniug m Man,h vs Sept ssiii“ of Lad'ycal.
B3. A typewritten original and t-h,o.,n (11) thirty (30) copies of the proposed amendment must be
submitted to the Department of Planning Services no later than February 1 or August 1 of each any
given year to be considered for review provided, however that no amendments to the MUD
Structural Plan pursuant to Section 26.1.30 will be accepted during the calendar year 2005.
12
and puhlh, The following items shall be submitted as part of the proposed amendment:
B.4 c. Delineate the number of people who will reside and work in the proposed area and the
number of jobs created by the proposed development: This statement shall include the
number of school-aged children and address the social service provision needs, such as
schools, of the proposed population.
d. Be submitted with a deed or legal instrument to the Department of Planning Services
identifying the applicant's interest in the property.
e. Demonstrate that the site can be serviced by public water and sanitary sewer service.
f. Include a prepared preliminary traffic impact analysis if it.,yuiia.d. All traffic analysis
information and reports shall be prepared and certified by a registered professional engineer
competent in traffic engineering and shall address impacts to strategic roadways, if
applicable. The intent of this analysis is to determine the project's cumulative development
impacts, appropriate project mitigation and improvements necessary to offset a specific
project's impacts. This analysis shall include the following information:
B.9. The Planning Commission shall consider the proposed amendment, the Department of Planning
Services'recommendation, and any public testimony and determine whether:
a. The existing Comprehensive Plan is in need of revision as proposed.
b. The proposed amendment will be consistent with existing and future goals, policies and
needs of the County.
In the case of any amendment to the I-25 Mixed Use Development area Map:
c. The proposed amendment inclusion into the Mixed Use Development area map or
modification to the existing land use classification as outlined on the Mixed Use
Development area map is adjacent to and contiguous with the existing I-25 Mixed Use
Development area Map.
d. The proposed amendment will address the impact on existing or planned service
capabilities including, but not limited to, all utilities infrastructure and transportation
systems.
e. The proposed number of new residents will be adequately served by the social
amenities,such as schools,of the community.
f. The proposed amendment has demonstrated that adequate services are currently
available or reasonably obtainable.
B. 11 In the case of any amendment to the I-25 Mixed Use Development area Map:
c. The proposed amendment inclusion into the Mixed Use Development area map or
modification to the existing land use classification as outlined on the Mixed Use
Development area map is adjacent to and contiguous with the existing 1-25 Mixed Use
Development area Map.
d. The proposed amendment will address the impact on existing or planned service
capabilities including, but not limited to, all utilities infrastructure and transportation
systems.
e. The proposed number of new residents will be adequately served by the social
amenities, such as schools, of the community.
f. The proposed amendment has demonstrated that adequate services are currently
available or reasonably obtainable.
Michael Miller asked how it was determined the number of residents will be adequately served by the social
amenities? Mr.Ogle indicated staff is requesting that social amenities be included in the application,presently
it is not addressed. It is up to the applicant to inform staff regarding the proposal. Mr. Miller asked if the
clarification was what the applicant will provide or what is presently available? Mr.Ogle stated it would include
what is presently available and what will be provided in addition.
13
John Folsom suggests adding more amenities such as libraries,recreation centers,senior citizen centers and
youth services. Mr. Folsom suggested to enumerate all the services that should be provided. It is found that
some of the developments, under the County,a lot of services are not provided and they need to be provided
by neighboring municipalities at a cost to the citizens of that municipality. Mr. Ogle stated those uses can be
added. Mr. Folsom also suggest language be added to B.11.F to include fire protection, public safety and
public works. Public safety(i.e. Sheriff's Department)has indicated they do not have adequate personnel to
support any additional development. Mr. Folsom indicated he believes it should be provided that there is
adequate public safety if there will be an increase developments within the County. Mr. Miller added then
there will be no other developments approved.
Bruce Barker suggested that since there are requested amendments to the chapters it would be better to
approve each chapter separately adverse to waiting to the end, when the changes are fresh in Planning
Commission's mind.
Mr. Ogle clarified that he has an amendment to item E to include additional uses. Mr. Folsom stated it also
applies to B.11 and B.9. Mr. Miller indicated it will come down to interpretation. There are several amenities
that could be mentioned. Mr. Folsom added he wanted the include the fact the County does not provide all
these amenities therefor it falls on the municipalities. Mr. Miller indicated it was adequately addressed by the
terminology. Mr. Folsom withdrew the recommendation. Mr. Ogle indicated that examples could be given
such as.... Mr. Miller indicated that would be more acceptable, there has not been enough attention paid to
those services.
John Folsom indicated there was a typo error in B.4
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to approve the amendments to Chapter 22. John Folsom seconded. Motion carried.
Kim Ogle presented the proposed changes to Chapter 23. The proposed changes are as follows:
Sec. 23-1-90. Definitions.
CHURCH: A building or structure, or groups of buildings or structures, that by design and
construction are primarily intended for conducting organized religious services and associated
accessory uses.
Zone R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 T-1 1-2 I-3 E PUD A
Application USR USR USR USR USR SPR SPR SPR USR SPR SPR SPR USR USR/SPR USR
The above chart defines the land use process for churches.
USR-Use By Special Review
SPR-Site Plan Review
DERELICT VEHICLE: A vehicle that is inoperable(unable to move under its own power);is partially
or totally dismantled; has all or portions of its body work missing or is substantially damaged; '13 nut
1Lgibt.,t.,d does not have a valid registration with the State, as required by Section 42-3-103, C.R.S.,
or by Section 42-3-138 or 42-12-102, C.R.S., and/or the number plate assigned to it is not permanently
attached to the vehicle, as required by Section 42-3-123, C.R.S.; or is lacking proper equipment to the
extent that it would be unsafe or illegal to USE on public road rights-of-way or otherwise not equipped
with lamps and other equipment as required in Sections 42-4-202 to 42-2-227, C.R.S. This definition
shall not include implements of husbandry,farm tractors or vehicles customarily operated in a FARMING
operation.
HEAVY MANUFACTURING-PROCESSING:The manufacture of compounding process or raw
materials. These activities or processes would necessitate the storage of large volumes of highly
flammable, toxic materials or explosive materials needed for the manufacturing process. These
14
activities may involve outdoor operations as part of the manufacturing process. i.e.,Ethanol Plant
HOUSEHOLD PETS: Any nonvenomous species of reptile and any domestic dog, domestic cat,
rodent, primate or bird over the age of six (6) months; provided, lruwvs,va,r, that members of the order
crocodilia(e.g. crocodiles, alligators, etc.), gorillas, orangutans,baboons, chimpanzees,member of the
class apesAves, order falcons (e.g. hawks, eagles, vultures, etc.), and animals defined as LIVESTOCK
herein, shall not be considered to be HOUSEHOLD PETS for the purpose of this Chapter. (Note: See
definitions of EXOTIC ANIMALS,LIVESTOCK and KENNEL.)
KENNEL: Any place other than a PET SHOP or veterinary clinic or HOSPITAL, where five(5) or
more HOUSEHOLD PETS of one(1) species, or a total of eight(8) or more household pets of two (2)
or more species,are kept or maintained. Property that is zoned(A)Agricultural and not part of a platted
subdivision or unincorporated town and which is larger than ten(10)acres shall be permitted to keep or
maintain eight(8)HOUSEHOLD PETS of one(1) species or sixteen(16)HOUSEHOLD PETS of two
(2) or more species without being considered a KENNEL, and in addition, no more than thirty (30)
birds as long as the landowner or occupant holds a current Common Bird Breeder license issued
by the Colorado Department of Agriculture Animal Industry Division and is in good standing with
such Division.
OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION FACILITIES: Consist of the oil or gas well, pumps, heater treaters,
separators, meters, compressors, TANK BATTERY and other equipment directly associated with the
producing well, all of which must be connected and functional acid us utrs.tatioxi.
Zone R-I R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 I-I I-2 1-3 E PU A
D
Application USR USR USR USR USR USR USR USR USR USR SPR SPR USR UBR UBR
The above chart defines the land use process for siting oil&gas production facilities.
USR:Use By Special Review
PUD:Planned Unit Development-Callout by Zone District Requirments,unless specifically addressed in PUD application as a UBR
UBR:Use by Right
PROCESSING: An activity associated with the chemical transformation of materials or
substances into new products,which may include blending of gases and liquids.
RESEARCH LABORATORY: A facility for scientific research in technology-intensive fields.
Examples include but are not limited to biotechnology,pharmaceuticals,genetics,plastics,polymers,
resins, coating fibers, films, heat transfer and radiation research facilities.
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT:A facility designed for the collection,removal,treatment,and
disposal of water-borne sewage generated within a given service area.
SHOOTING RANGE-OUTDOOR:The use of land for archery and/or the discharging of firearms
for the purpose of target practice, skeet or trap shooting, or temporary competition, such as turkey
shoots. Excluded from this use type shall be general hunting and unstructured and non-recurring
discharging of firearms on private property with the property owners permission.
SHOOTING RANGE-INDOOR: A facility designed or used for shooting at targets with rifles,
pistols,or shotguns and which is completely enclosed within a building or structure.
URBAN GROWTH CORRIDOR: An area delineated in an adopted County Comprehensive Plan
15
[In accordance with the Goals,Policies,and Guidelines],prepared pursuant to Section 22.2.110 within
which urban development is encouraged by delineation of the area, compatible future land use
designations, and implementing actions in a local comprehensive plan, and outside of which urban
development is discouraged.A urban growth area usually defines the limit within which the full range
of urban level services will be provided. The purpose is to promote projected urban development
within and adjacent to existing urban areas so as to ensure efficient utilization of land resources and
urban services to adequately support that urban growth.
WIND TURBINE: A machine or machines that convert the kinetic energy in the wind into a
usable form(commonly known as a wind turbine or wind mill). The wind energy conversion system
includes all parts of the system except for the tower and transmission equipment.
Permitted through a USR in all districts. 1041 permit application required only if of state wide
concern.
Michael Miller asked about the"shooting range outdoor"definition and is this applicable to a range that must
be permitted or a definition. Mr.Ogle indicated as defined,this type of shooting range would need a special
use permit. Mr.Ogle indicated private trap shooting ranges,as long as it does not come under the definition
of requiring a special use permit, which would be commercial uses, would not require a USR permit.
John Folsom asked about the definition of processing. I4e suggested,the use of chemical seems to be more
restrictive so it should be stricken. Mr.Miller asked what the definition was intended to apply to. Mr.Ogle
indicated it was for an Ethanol Plant,a heavy industrial type use. Mr.Miller agrees to strike"chemical"from
the processing definition. Mr. Ogle agreed.
Michael Miller asked if the Urban Growth Corridor was a new definition. Mr. Ogle indicated it was a new
definition. Mr.Folsom asked if the definition suggests the MUD will be continuous to I-25? Mr.Ogle stated
that was not the case.
Mr. Ogle continued with the following:
Sec. 23-2-20. Duties of Department of Planning Services.
B.6. Refer the application to the following agencies,when applicable,for their review and comment.
The agencies named shall respond within twenty-eight(28)twwdy-oh,c(21)days after the mailing of the
application by the COUNTY. The failure of any agency to respond within twenty-eight(28)
O days may be deemed to be a favorable response to the Planning Commission. The reviews and
comments solicited by the County are intended to provide the COUNTY with information about the
proposed Change of Zone. The Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners may consider
all such reviews and comments and may solicit additional information if such information is deemed
necessary. The reviews and comments submitted by a referral agency are recommendations to the
COUNTY. The authority and responsibility for making the decision to approve or deny the request for
Change of Zone rests with the officials of the County.
Sec. 23-2-160. Application requirements for site plan review.
R.4. Width of access—ten(10)to fifteen(15) feet for a one-way single access,twenty-four-
foot minimum for two-way traffic.
Sec. 23-2-210. Duties of Department of Planning Services.
B.1. Set a Planning Commission hearing date not more than sixty (60) folly-five (45) days after the
16
complete application has been submitted.
B.6. Refer the application to the following agencies,when applicable,for their review and comment. The
agencies named shall respond within twenty-eight (28) twenty e..c (21) days after the mailing of the
application by the COUNTY. The failure of any agency to respond within twenty-eight(28)twenty-OHL
(2+) days may be deemed to be a favorable response to the Planning Commission. The reviews and
comments solicited by the COUNTY are intended to provide the COUNTY with information about the
proposed Use by Special Review. The Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners may
consider all such reviews and comments and may solicit additional information if such information is deemed
necessary. The reviews and comments submitted by a referral agency are recommendations to the COUNTY.
The authority and responsibility for making the decision to approve or deny the request for a Special Review
Permit rests with the officials of the COUNTY.
Sec. 23-2-330. Duties of Department of Planning Services.
B.1. Set a Planning Commission hearing date not more than sixty (60) fully-fix,- (45) days after the
complete application has been submitted.
Sec. 23-3-40. Uses by special review.
E.1. ChuR.liee. CHURCH
U. PROCESSING
V. RESEARCH LABORATORY
W. HEAVY MANUFACTURING-PROCESSING
X. WIND TURBINE- (Height stipulation of seventy (70) feet or less does not
apply)
Michael Miller asked for clarification on a wind turbine under 70 not needing a process. Mr.Ogle stated in this
case the 70 foot height requirement is waived, it will require a USR no matter how high it is. Mr. Miller clarified
this was for commercial use. Mr. Barker added a USR will need to be done for any wind turbine that is
constructed. Mr. Miller indicated a 15 foot wind turbine would require a USR? Mr. Barker stated there was
no kv exception in the definition. Mr. Ogle indicated by definition a wind turbine is permitted by USR in all zone
districts. Mr.Ogle added that the wind turbine is not addressed in the current code. Mr.Welch added that the
wind turbine is meant for something that generates electricity,according to the definition every wind mill in the
County would need to have a USR. Mr. Barker indicated that a certain kv could be added as an exception.
Mr. Miller indicated it could not be stated as a commercial use because if a private wind generator was put up
and more kv were produced the excess would go back into the system and credit would be applied to the
account. Mr. Barker indicated the standard for residential is 115 kv so a private user would be far less than
this. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if the issue was the height or the potential power. Mr. Barker stated the exemption
would be more for a private use. Mr. Miller added that it could qualify that for private use it could be exempt
from the USR process. Mr. Miller suggested the definition be amended to specifically call out a commercial
use would need a USR but a personal use would not need one. Mr. Ogle indicated the concern would be if
a private user wanted to sell the excess back to the grid system. This was the concern that the Board of
County Commissioners had. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if a building permit was required at this time. Mr. Ogle
indicated it was. Mr. Fitzgerald added that the only driving force for a USR would be the height and the affect
on the surrounding property owners. Mr. Ogle stated that was correct.
John Folsom asked if the Urban Growth Corridor referred to anything in the code presently? Mr. Barker stated
it was in the Urban Growth agreements and there was no definition for Urban Growth Corridor, that is the
purpose for the new definition. Mr. Folsom indicated that a definition applies to something in the code, and
it refers to Section 22.2.110 but there is nothing in the section that refers to an Urban Growth Corridor. Mr.
Barker added that in the definition it was re-done to include the Urban Growth Areas in Urban Development
as part of the definition. Mr. Folsom indicated it refers to areas but not corridors. Mr. Barker stated it is in the
definition for urban and non urban development. It is also in Chapter 22.
17
Michael Miller asked what the intent of the height stipulation associated with the wind turbine. Mr. Ogle
indicated that wind turbines have not been addressed before. A wind turbine will always require a USR. Mr.
Miller asked why the statement was included when a USR will need to be done. Mr. Ogle indicated there are
ham controlled radio's and if the antennae is below 70 feet a USR is not needed but if it is above 70 feet a USR
will need to be done. Mr. Miller suggested it be limited to wind turbines that are built for commercial use. Mr.
Ogle clarified that if a private land owner sells the excess kv back to the grid this will place them in a
commercial status. Mr. Miller indicated there a lot of people who are looking at wind turbines for their homes
and if it does not affect the surrounding properties it should not be prohibited. Mr. Ogle stated the concern of
the Board of County Commissioners was if it was limited to kv produced there may be smaller scale producers
that come in with multiple wind turbines located all around the County and there would be no requirement for
a USR. Mr. Miller stated that was commercial because of the intent. Mr. Miller stated that a homeowner that
sells a small amount back to the grid should not be punished as a commercial venture. Mr. Ogle stated that
would activate a 1041 and this becomes a legal decision. Mr. Ogle indicated this definition was a proactive
attempt by staff. Mr. Fitzgerald suggested limiting it to a single structure under 70 feet. Mr. Barker indicated
a private venture could be exempted because it would not qualify as a commercial type. An exemption should
be made for a private wind generation but by definition that is difficult because the parameters are difficult to
determine. Mr.Barker suggested recommending to the Board of County Commissioners the definition exclude
private wind generation facilities. Mr. Miller clarified that the language should include"excluding turbines for
private use."
Michael Miller proposed adding that language to 23.3.40.X.
John Folsom indicated his issue with Urban Growth Corridor was defining something that does not otherwise
appear in the code. Mr. Barker indicated it was found in Chapter 24 as a change to the definition. Those
changes were then plugged into the new IGA's. The definition in the Gilcrest IGA will be the same in Chapter
24. Mr. Barker indicated the point is the urban and non urban definition, which are in Chapter 24 and the
IGA's, include reference to the Corridor.
Sec. 23-3-50. Bulk requirements.
E. No BUILDING or STRUCTURE, as defined and limited to those occupancies listed as Groups A,B,F,
II,I,M and R;,,TaLlc 3-A of the 1997 U„ifonn Building Code, shall Lc eo„st ueted within a two-1,undicd-
foot,adiu,of any tank batle,y v, unc-1,unl,ed-f,fty-foot,adiueOfany wellhead. Any Luusl,uetion w
two-hundred-foot radius of any tank batleiy 01 uiic-hundred-fifty-foot radius of any wellhead shall require
a vat idnee fivu,theA of thin Chapt‘ iu aeev,danee with Section 23-6-10 C. (Weld County Cudifn.atioii
Ordinance 2000-I)
E. No BUILDING or STRUCTURE as defined and limited to those occupancies as Groups A,B,
E, F, H, I, M, R, S and U in Section 302.1 of the 2003 International Building Code, shall be
constructed within a 200-foot radius of any tank battery or within a 150-foot radius of any
wellhead. Any construction within a 200-foot radius of any tank battery or 150-foot radius of
any wellhead shall require a variance from the terms of the Section 23-3-10 of the Weld County
Code.
Sec. 23-3-110. R-1 (Low-Density Residential) Zone District.
D. 4. ChurUu . CHURCH
Sec. 23-3-120. R-2 (Duplex Residential) Zone District.
D.2. CHURCH
D.3. OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION FACILITIES
Sec. 23-3-130. R-3 (Medium-Density Residential) Zone District.
18
D.2. CHURCH
D.3. OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION FACILITIES
Sec. 23-3-140. R-4 (High-Density Residential) Zone District.
D.2. CHURCH
D.3. OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION FACILITIES
Sec. 23-3-150. R-5 (Mobile Home Residential) Zone District.
D.2. CHURCH
D.3. OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION FACILITIES
Sec. 23-3-210. C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) Zone District.
B.3. SCHOOLS,‘liundlasa and PUBLIC SCHOOL extension classes.
E.1. Commercial towers subject to the provisions of Section 23-4-800.
E.2. CHURCH
Sec. 23-3-220. C-2 (General Commercial) Zone District.
E.1. Commercial towers subject to the provisions of Section 23-4-800.
E.2. CHURCH
Sec. 23-3-230. C-3 (Business Commercial) Zone District.
D.6. RESEARCH LABORATORY
E.1. CHURCH
Sec. 23-3-240. C-4 (Highway Commercial) Zone District.
D.1. OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION FACILITIES.
D.2. CHURCH
Sec. 23-3-310. I-1 (Industrial) Zone District.
D.4. RESEARCH LABORATORY
D.5. WIND TURBINE
D.6. PROCESSING
E.1 Commercial towers subject to the provisions of Section 23-4-800.
E.2. CHURCH
Sec. 23-3-320. I-2 (Industrial) Zone District.
DI. OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION FACILITIES.
D.3. PROCESSING
D.4. RESEARCH LABORATORY
D.5. HEAVY MANUFACTURING-PROCESSING
D.6. WIND TURBINE
19
E.1. Commercial towers subject to the provisions of Section 23-4-800.
E.2. CHURCH
E.3. OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION FACILITIES.
Sec. 23-3-330. I-3 (Industrial) Zone District.
D.3. PROCESSING
D.4. RESEARCH LABORATORY
D.5. HEAVY MANUFACTURING-PROCESSING
D.6. WIND TURBINE
E.1. Commercial towers subject to the provisions of Section 23-4-800
E.2. CHURCH
E.3. OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION FACILITIES
Sec. 23-3-430. Uses by special review.
C. Chinch. CHURCH
J. WIND TURBINES
Sec. 23-3-440. Bulk requirements.
L. No BUILDING or STRUCTURE,a,JLfincd and limited to thoac oa,npancics hsLd as Groups A,B,
E,II,I,M and R in TaLh,3-A of the 1997 Unifuun Building Coif,shall be consh nistLd within a two-hunch cd-
foot iadiub Of any tankbattwy Oi unc-huudiCd-fifty-fuvt radius of any wellhead. Any con5trlxcti0n within a
two-hunih�,1-foot ladiub of any tank battciy ui um..-hundicl-fifty-foot ialius of any wclllicad ol,all icyuin.
a vaudncc horn the twins of this Chaptc, in accUIJancc with St.ctivn 23-6-10 C. (WclJ Cuunty Cvdifcation
Ordinance 2000-1)
1. No BUILDING or STRUCTURE as defined and limited to those occupancies as Groups A,B,E,
F, H, I, M, R, S and U in Section 302.1 of the 2003 International Building Code, shall be
constructed within a 200-foot radius of any tank battery or within a 150-foot radius of any
wellhead. Any construction within a 200-foot radius of any tank battery or 150-foot radius of any
wellhead shall require a variance from the terms of the Section 23-3-10 of the Weld County Code.
Michael Miller indicated the amendments made to Chapter 23 were in Section 23.3.40 language was added
to include"excluding turbines for private use." Mr.Fitzgerald suggested adding them to each of the references.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to accept the proposed changes to Chapter 23 with the amendments. Chad Auer
seconded. Motion carried.
Kim Ogle presented the proposed changes to Chapter 24. The proposed changes are as follows:
Sec. 24-8-30. Subdivision exemption.
A. The subdivision exemption is intended for the following four(4)purposes:
1. Division of a parcel of interest in a parcel which does not result in the creation of a new residential or
permanent building site. The subdivision exemption may be utilized in conjunction with a recorded
exemption to separate one(1)additional existing habitable residence with accessory outbuildings from any
of the recorded exemption parcels in u v;ding.A subdivision exemption lot in conjunction with a recorded
exemption created prior to March 1, 2004, is eligible for a one time only land exemption. A
subdivision exemption lot in conjunction with a recorded exemption created after March 1,2004 is
not eligible for a future land exemption. The subdivision must meet the following criteria:
Michael Miller asked for clarification on this. Mr. Ogle stated in the last code changes the effective date was
indicated as January 1, 2004 and the changes did not come into affect until March 1, 2004 so this is more
clarification. If the RE was done prior to March 1 a one time land split can be done from the original parcel if
it was created after this process is not allowed. Mr.Ochsner asked what the intent of this was. Mr.Ogle stated
presently REs are allowed once every five years, staff is getting parcels that are creating mini subdivisions on
20
corners of roads. The concern is having mini cities in which no urban services are provided. Mr. Ochsner
questioned rather this limited the person that does a 30 acre a RE. Mr. Ogle clarified that there is always the
possibility to do a land split on a larger parcel,the smaller parcel is not allowed to split. Mr.Ogle added it could
always be amended but a land split could not be done. This would be a different application. Mr. Ochsner
commented the intent makes sense but when there is a larger parcel it should be allowed to re-divide if it is
over a certain amount of acres. Mr. Ogle stated it has nothing to do with the size of acreage is has to do with
the number of lots created. Mr. Ochsner indicated he believes is should be tied to the size.
Sec. 24-8-35. Subdivision exemption process and time parameters.
After a complete application is received, the',colekd subdivision exemption should be completed within
f ty-fve (45) sixty (60) days. wnl as pnoctaat,l with a Reismdt.d Lnt,nnptiuu, ;u wln;chistiSi, the time flame
will fulluw the RcLOndud Exemption pnotnas as deaci;b1.d;n Section 24-8-40 of this Cod... (Weld County
Code Ordinance 2003-10)
Sec. 24-8-20. Recorded exemption.
C. 1. When a contiguous land ownership equals at least one hundred sixty(160)acres or is
a parcel otherwise recognized as a complete quarter section, a portion of the parcel equal to the
minimum buildable lot size (eighty [80] acres) may be used in the two-lot recorded exemption
application. When a contiguous ownership equals two (2) or more parcels created prior to the
initiation of subdivision regulations, a single parcel may be used in the two-lot recorded
exemption application. Lot B of a two-lot recorded exemption is eligible for future land exemption
five (5) years from the date of recording the exemption plat, in accordance with Section 24-8-40.M.
Lot A of a two-lot recorded exemption created prior to January 1 March 1,2004,is eligible for a one-
time-only future land exemption. Lot A of a two-lot recorded exemption created after Janivany I March
1, 2004, is not eligible for a future land exemption.
2. The CALunpt;Ou application Shall ;u6ludt,the total coutiguuua land Owners slip.
A three-lot recorded exemption may be applied for when contiguous land ownership equals a
minimum of one hundred twenty-two (122) acres. Remaining contiguous property must be
included unless the remaining parcel equals at least eighty (80) acres; is a parcel otherwise
recognized as a complete half of a quarter section; is a lot of an existing recorded exemption; or
is a parcel created prior to the initiation of subdivision regulations. Two (2) of the proposed
parcels shall be less than thirty-five(35)acres in size,and the third parcel must be at least one hundred
twenty(120)acres in size. Lot C of a three-lot recorded exemption is eligible for future land exemption
five (5) years from the date of recording the exemption plat, in accordance with Section 24-8-40.M.
The two(2) smaller lots of a three-lot recorded exemption created prior to January 1 March 1,2004,
are eligible for a one-time-only future land exemption. The two(2)smaller lots of a three-lot recorded
exemption created after January 1 March 1, 2004, are not eligible for a future land exemption.
3. The foul-lut neeonled eneiupt;on application alnall ;ncludL the total COntiguvua land ownership.
A four-lot recorded exemption may be applied for when contiguous land ownership equals a
minimum of one hundred twenty-three (123) acres. Remaining contiguous property must be
included unless the remaining parcel equals at least eighty (80) acres; is a parcel otherwise
recognized as a complete half of a quarter section; is a lot of an existing recorded exemption; or
is a parcel created prior to the initiation of subdivision regulations.Three(3)of the proposed lots
shall be sized in conformance with the requirements of Section 24-8-40.L, and the fourth lot must be
at least one hundred twenty(120)acres in size. The three(3)smaller lots shall attempt to be clustered
together. The three(3)smaller lots are not eligible for future land exemptions. The larger lot(Lot D)
is eligible to apply for a future land exemption five(5)years from date of recording the exemption plat,
in accordance with Section 24-8-40.M.
4. (MOVE TO C.1.)Whn.nn a contiguous ownership equal, boo(2)Lit move panet.la wudtv.,d piiui tt,
tine initiation of,ubdivision nesulationa,a a;nglt,pamCel may tic uat,1 in the two-lot iu,vnded eneniptiuni
apph;Lation. (Weld County Code Ordinance 2001-1; Weld County Code Ordinance 2002-9; Weld
County Code Ordinance 2003-10)
Sec. 24-8-30. Subdivision exemption.
A.g. The residences were not originally constructed on separate legal lots.
21
Sec. 24-8-40. Exemption standards.
M. After January 1 March 1, 2004, the proposed recorded exemption is eligible for land exemption if it
is not part of:
N. None of the smaller lots of recorded exemptions approved after January 1 March 1,2004,are eligible
for future land exemptions.
Sec. 24-8-50. Submittal requirements.
G. A description of how the property is being used. When the parcel is located in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District,the description shall includc appi oainnatc acncagc of pi ilia,and tonpi into.
fatnnland as dcftnCd in Chaptcn 22 of this Cock, number and types of livestock and any existing
improvements such as the principal residence, labor home, mobile home, manufactured home, barn,
outbuildings, irrigation ditches and oil well production facilities on the property.
Sec. 24-8-60. Exemption plat.
B. The plat shall be delineated in nonfading permanent black ink on a dimensionally stable polyester
sheet such as ennui' or Mylar or other product of equal quality, three (3) millimeters or greater in
thickness. The size of each shall be either eighteen (18) inches in height by twenty-four(24) inches
in width or twenty-four(24) inches in height by thirty-six (36) inches in width. The mixing of sheet
sizes is prohibited. No plat submitted shall contain any form of stick-on-type material such as,but not
limited to "sticky-back," adhesive film or kroy lettering tape. The drawing shall be at a scale of one
(1)inch equals one hundred(100)feet or(1)inch equals two hundred(200)feet. Vicinity maps shall
be at a minimum scale of(1)inch equals two thousand(2,000)feet. The type face shall not be less than
eight(8)point in size. Maps drawn to other scales must be approved in writing by Planning Staff.
Sec.24-8-70. Duties of Department of Planning Services and Board of County Commissioners.
C. The County Planner shall prepare a staff recommendation within linty-floc (45) sixty (60) days of
receipt of a complete application. The is.oitjnncnaldatiun recommendation shall address all aspects of the
application including,but not limited to,comments received from agencies to which the proposal was referred
and the standards contained in this Article.
Sec. 24-8-90. Exemption correction.
D. The datc fot calculating compliance with the tinting pn LW/iaiuna of Sa.ction 24-8-40.M ohall ba,th1,data,
of n.wndung tln,tnwt 1LAn.ut ptcv iuua cnwuptnun aaaucnatcd w1t1n tlnc pau,ci, nut tin, date of the wuwtnOn-
The recording date of the correction shall not be used to calculate the timing provisions of Section 24-8-
40.M. Rather,the date shall be figured by the recording date of the exemption which is the subject of
the correction. (Weld County Code Ordinance 2002-9; Weld County Code Ordinance 2003-10)
Sec. 24-8-100. Exemption amendments time provisions.
Time provisions do not apply to subdivision exemptions for adjustment of property lines between two (2)
contiguous parcels, for the creation of lots for the purpose of financing or for the temporary use of a parcel
for public utility facilities. Any change to a previously approved exemption, which is not a correction as
defined in Section 24-8-90 of this Chapter, shall be processed as a new exemption, if eligible. The data,fin
t.aloulating cunnpliann,c with tint tinting pio%iaiOno of Scctiou 24-8-40.M alnall be the datc of tlnc most
pwVlOus CACniptiuu aa5Ociatcd with tin,panccl only in tin- following instancca. In the following instances,
the recording date of amendments shall not be used to calculate the timing provisions of Section 24-8-
40.M. Rather,the date shall be figured by the date of recording of the previous exemption:
A. Where a boundary change results in a change of acreage between of Lot A,Lot B, Lot C,Lot D,
22
or the Subdivision Exemption Lot done in conjunction therewith,tlicreby not c,cating an additional building
sits.o,cl,a„gingthe Lnta.,i0i boanda,y of the 0,igi,fal,wu,did ex.-141M,, ,mow,dud cnc,,,ptiu„/bubdi v isi0,I
Lnu,uptiuu combination. and does not create an additional lot.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Jack McLelland, Gilcrest, commented on the change to 24-8-30 indicating that amending the opportunity to
do a RE split, the County has an opportunity to address the issue presented for smaller lots. The County can
control the size of the lots by the size of the septic system. Mr. McLelland added this has the problem that it
can create large parcels then split into two, then split again. This proposal takes away this opportunity.
Michael Miller asked if there was a limit to the size of lots when a four lot RE is done. Mr. Ogle stated it was
one acre net in size if there is public water and sewer. Lot A, B and C may be of any size, so long as Lot D
is the larger acreage. The maximum lot size can be whatever as long as the largest lot (lot D) is 120 acres
or greater in size.
Doug Ochsner agrees with the intent but believes the size of the lot should be incorporated. Mr. Ogle stated
there were other options that could achieve the same need. The only issue is there is no separate legal parcel.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to accept Chapter 24. Chad Auer seconded. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 6:30
Respectfully submitted
\1 OR Qs_ la_Ct
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
23
Hello