HomeMy WebLinkAbout20041183.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,April 6, 2004
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2004, in the Weld County
Public Health/Planning Building, (Room 210), 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was
called to order by Chair, Michael Miller, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL L-j
4 0
7
Michael Miller ri
Bryant Gimlin ) — b
John Folsom v
Stephan Mokray _
James Rohn Absent
Bruce Fitzgerald i
Tim Tracy Absent
Doug Ochsner c0
Also Present: Don Carroll, Michelle Katyryniuk, Sheri Lockman, Char Davis, Pam Smith
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on March 16,2004,
was approved as read.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1454
APPLICANT: Michael Arrington
PLANNER: Michelle Katyryniuk
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-735; part of S2 SE4 Section 33, T5N, R65W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for an oil and
gas support and service facility, semi-trailer and cargo containers,situated
as permanent storage units, and a use permitted as a use by right, an
accessory use, or a use by special review in the commercial or industrial
zone districts, (an industrial machine shop) in the A (Agricultural) Zone
District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 50; 1/2 mile west of CR 43.
Michelle Katyryniuk, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1454, 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 Condition requiring opaque fencing around the entire site. He continued to say
there are no adjacent land uses that need to be screened. This seems to be an extreme measure for fencing
when there are no residences. Ms.Katyryniuk stated there will be a case heard later in the day for a residence
to the north of this property. Staff felt that in order for the use to be compatible with surrounding properties
now and in the future, screening is needed. Mr. Miller asked about the road impact fee even though this
business is in existence. Ms. Katyryniuk stated the additional traffic was the reason the impact fee was
applied. Mr. Miller indicated that the business is not expanding but adding to the office. Ms.Katyryniuk stated
that the previous USR was for a landscaping company which will be vacated through this USR if approved.
Mr. Miller asked if the current use was in place prior to the USR. Ms. Katyryniuk indicated the applicant could
address this.
Michael Arrington, applicant, indicated he is in agreement with the improvements but the screening of the
entire property is a concern. He stated that he was willing to work something out with the future residence
for screening, an agreement can be done and submitted to the Department of Planning Services.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
1yd11A.e.n QjRr . y_ +q -X)o'4 2004-1183
Michael Miller stated that the screening on all four sides is excessive. He would be in favor of allowing the
applicant and neighbor to negotiate an agreement for screening along the affected property lines.
John Folsom commented that not screening the site on all four sides does not protect for future uses which
could be residences.
Bruce Fitzgerald added that there are no requirements for existing businesses and this is an existing business.
Michael Miller asked Mr.Arrington how long the business has been at this site. Mr.Arrrington indicated they
have been in operation for 3 years.
Stephen Mokray asked Ms. Katyryniuk for clarification on the location of the residences staff was concerned
with. Ms. Katyryniuk indicated there is a residence to the south and a future residence to the north. She then
stated there also needs to be screening along the right of way as well as along the north side of the property.
Mr. Miller stated he understands the need for screening along the right of way.
Michael Miller suggest amending the condition to have screening along the road right of way and let the
applicant and neighbor agree upon the screening of the adjacent property.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to amend Condition C3 to include language consisting of " The applicant shall
delineate an opaque visual screen along the road right of way with an attempt to make an agreement with the
adjacent neighbor to the north for screening along the property line." Stephen Mokray seconded.
Michelle Katyryniuk asked if Planning Commission would like to hear any public comment from the adjacent
property owner since he is in the audience.
Michael Miller re-opened the public portion of the hearing giving Mr. Borrego the option to address any
possible concerns.
George Paulsberg, representative for Mr. Borrego, indicated that they have no concerns with negotiating an
agreement with Mr. Arrington concerning the screening.
The public portion of the hearing was closed.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, no; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried.
Michael Miller asked about the road impact fee and clarification. He stated the intent of the fee is if a new
application was adding additional impact to the roadway then they would be subject to the fee. In this case
the business has been in place for three years and would the applicant still be required to participate? Mr.
Morrison stated that there is a separate process for dealing with road impact fees. He continued to say it is
not part of Planning Commission determination and there is an appeals process. The fee is collected at the
building permit stage. Mr. Morrison asked if there will be any building permits to this case? Mr. Miller stated
the applicant wants to add to the office. Mr. Morrison added that the impact fee calculations will be based
either on the whole structure or just the addition. This is not a concern for the Planning Commission. Mr.
Miller asked for clarification on the appeals process. Mr. Morrison stated it was an administrative process
where there is a table of what the contribution would be and there is the ability to show the table is
inappropriate. Ultimately the decision could be to the Board of County Commissioners but not through this
format.
John Folsom asked Mr. Morrison about the fact that the business has been in operation and that being the
basis for not requiring the impact fee or fencing. Mr. Folsom then added does the decision needs to be based
on what is proposed today? Mr. Morrison asked if this was the same business and is it being expanded to
where a USR is needed. Ms. Katyryniuk stated that there is a current USR on site for a landscape business.
The property has been sold and Mr.Arrington has been operating the Oil and Gas support service there for
three years. He is wishing to vacate the old USR with the condition this USR is approved. Mr.Morrison stated
that there is no vested right in a use that is no longer being operated. Planning Commission must look at this
business as though it was going on vacant ground.
John Folsom asked Mr. Carroll about the access requirement and if he wanted limitations on the accesses.
There is also a condition addressing those concerns and is the language comfortable to him. Mr. Carroll
stated there are multiple accesses and the intent was to utilize the main access point. The language in the
condition is appropriate.
John Folsom asked Ms. Katyryniuk about the condition concerning Sheriff Department when there are none.
Ms. Katyryniuk stated that the Sheriffs office did not have any concerns and therefore condition 2J could be
stricken.
John Folsom moved to delete 2J. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. Motion carried.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case USR-1454,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; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Revised submittal dates for the 2004 Planning year
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services,presented a request by the Department of Planning Services to
modify the submittal dates to allow for the 28 day referral process that was approved in Weld County Code
updates. This will be an addition of seven days.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Stephen Mokray moved to approve the revised submittal dates. Bryant Gimlin seconded. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1466
APPLICANT: Francisco & Lorraine Valencia
PLANNER: Michelle Katyryniuk
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 11 of Black Hollow Acres, First Filing; being part of the E2 of Section 33,
T8N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Use
Permitted as a Use by Right,an Accessory Use,or a Use by Special Review
in the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts (a construction business) in
the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 86; approximately 740 feet west of CR 19.
Michelle Katyryniuk, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting a continuance to May 4,2004
to address concerns from staff.
Todd Hodges, representative, requesting continuance to address concerns from staff.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
John Folsom moved to continue to May 4, 2004. Stephen Mokray seconded. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1467
APPLICANT: Prima Oil and Gas
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Section 34, T6N,R67 W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for an oil and
gas production facility (nine oil and gas wells) in the I-1 (Industrial) Zone
District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to Hwy 257; south of and adjacent to CR 64 Section
line.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1467, reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of the
application. The reason for this denial is solely based on the fact that Section 23-5-250.6 of the Weld County
Code states"No developments hall occur i n the F loodway District with t he a xception off lood p roofed
agricultural exempt buildings." Planning staff has spoken to FEMA and they have stated they do not have a
concern with the oil and gas wells being located at this site so long as the appropriate flood hazard permit and
no rise certificate are completed. However,on the Board of County Commissioners has the authority to grant
building permits contrary to the Weld County Code.
Michael Miller asked why this case was before Planning Commission. Ms. Lockman indicated it was in the
industrial zone district and a special use permit is needed for oil and gas wells.
Bryant Gimlin asked if the wells and tank batteries were in flood district and if there was a need for special
facilities to protect against flood. Ms. Lockman stated they could be flood proofed and the engineer would
designate how they could be built. A no rise certificate has to be presented. FEMA did not think this would
be a problem since the size of the structures is very limited. Mr.Gimlin asked if the structures were governed
by the Oil and Gas Industry. Ms. Lockman indicated that FEMA does the flood plain. This is the reason they
are required to do a flood hazard permit and a no rise certificate.
John Folsom asked if the tank batteries and storage will be out of the floodway and the well heads will be in
the floodway? Ms.Lockman stated that there are some structures that are not in floodway. Mr.Folsom asked
if the storage tanks are out side and only the well heads were in would staff recommend denial? Ms.Lockman
indicated that according to the Weld County Code she has no other option. Mr. Morrison stated that the things
needing a building permit would be moved out of floodway. Well heads do not need a permit.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about Section 23-5-250.B of the Weld County Code and if staff sees this as
development. Ms. Lockman indicated that staff does see this as development. This is the reason the Board
of County Commissioners are going to have to decide on the building permit issuance.
Mike Wozniak, representative for Prima Oil &Gas, provided clarification on the project. There is a surface
use agreement with Kodak and there will be no tank batteries within the flood plain. The discussion
concerning building permits might not be needed. Five of the proposed nine wells are located in the floodway
not in the flood plain. Those wells will no way impede a flood. The Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
does require the wells to be built with special engineering. This would ensure that there will be no adverse
impact on either the facility or surrounding area. FEMA is comfortable with this type of operation. The
locations have been determined by the surface owner and FEMA.
John Folsom asked if directional drilling has been considered to get out of the floodway. Mr.Wozniak stated
two will be directionally drilled. It is cost prohibitive to do this to the rest. The surface owners also requested
that there be very little surface disturbance.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if the base plank could be raised. Mr.Wozniak stated it could be done but that creates
other issues. The present design is more flexible and adaptable with little disruption to the surrounding area.
The flood hazard permit will address issues concerning the design to impact the area minimally.
John Folsom asked Mr. Morrison if the county has the right to prohibit the applicant for proceeding. Mr.
Morrison stated that the law states local government retains the land use authority over oil and gas but in
limited areas. The recent concern is what areas are affected. There are some things local government can
regulate, if can ultimately deny is another question.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case USR-1467, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, no; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Gimlin added that there is not significant impact that these wells are in the floodway and the applicant has
demonstrated the ability to go ahead and put the wells in without any effect on a flood.
Mr. Folsom commented that staff reference to Section 23-5-250B in the code stands.
Michael Miller indicated in Case USR-1454 the applicant was not asked whether he agreed with the
Conditions of Approval or the Development Standards. Mr. Morrison indicated that the Board of County
Commissioners. When the agreement and the plat is signed this is the ultimate assurance.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1463
APPLICANT: Darlene Blaney
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: S2 SE4 of Section 22, T10N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a single-
family dwelling unit other than that permitted by Section 232-3-20.A(guest
house) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 21;north of and adjacent to C R 114 section line.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1463,reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of the
application. The manufactured home was originally permitted under ZPMH-2232 as a "Medical Hardship."
A violation was initiated as a result of failure to re-justify the use. As is the case for many temporary permits,
the applicants are unwilling to remove the structure one the use ceases and attempt to find another way to
permit the home.The application indicates that this home will be used as a guest house but could become a
permanent home when medical assistance is needed fora family member. The applicant chose to proceed
using the Use by Special Review process although Planning staff directed them to apply for a Recorded
Exemption. Recently, on similar applications, the Board of County Commissioners has required applicants
to apply for a Recorded Exemption as soon as they are eligible. Planning staff agrees that this USR should
be denied and the applicants should proceed through the Recorded Exemption process.
John Folsom asked if the person that was issued the medical hardship still reside in either homes. Ms.
Lockman stated that the applicant could address this. Mr. Folsom asked if the applicant can apply for a
recorded exemption. Ms. Lockman indicated they were eligible for that process.
Tom Honn, representative of applicant, provided clarification on the project. There have always been two
residences on site. The oldest home was replaced four years ago with the medical hardship process,not sure
why it was not considered as a replacement for an existing home. The homes have been occupied by family
or laborers. The conditions for the medical hardship have not changed since its approval. Once it was
learned that the medical hardship would be removed the applicants decided to find a better process to fit their
needs. The recorded exemption process was presented to them but they felt this was inappropriate due to
the fact the land would be split. The two homes are within 100 feet of each other. There is no way to split it
off with the RE process. The family want to keep the property together. The applicant has no intent of making
the home a rental. This is the reason for the USR option. The permit for the mobile home, as a medical
hardship, has building permits and septic permits. There are some concerns with some of the comments.
There is one comment requiring a building permit for the manufactured home to comply with installation
standards as a permanent structure. When it was installed originally there is a permanent foundation with
approved permits and a certificate of occupancy. The applicant is unsure of what to ask for to address the
concern for a permanent structure. It is confusing when it is called a temporary structure that the County
wants on a permanent foundation. According to the maps submitted CR 21 is the access point so the concern
over access is confusing. There is a concern over the condition for a CAD map. The applicant is trying to
do this as an individual with minimal cost. Staff has indicated they will help with the plat map.
Michael Miller asked if the applicant would be willing to give up the right to file for a recorded exemption if the
USR were to be approved. Ms. Lockman stated there is a Development Standard that addresses this
concern. Mr. Morrison stated that a condition of approval for the RE would be to vacate the USR. An RE
cannot be added to the USR.
John Folsom asked what the objection of the applicant was to the RE process. The cost would be minimal
and this would satisfy both staff and allow for the additional home. Mr. Honn stated that intent is not to divide
the property. The ground is in the family and there has always been two homes. The RE, in the mind of the
applicant, was dividing the property.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Herman Schroeder, indicated that they wanted to move the old house out and wanted something newer. The
home has been for family only. They do not want to split off the land.
Michael Miller asked about the access permit concern. Ms. Lockman stated staff told the applicant the plat
did not need to be done up front, a small drawing will work. Staff will help the applicants with the plat. A plat
will need to be done regardless so it can be recorded.
Sheri Lockman addressed the other concerns of the applicant. The concern with the permanent foundation,
in order to apply for the USR there must be a single family residence and that must be on a permanent
foundation. The original permit for the medical hardship was with a temporary foundation. The Board of
County Commissioners has waived this requirement. Staff is required by Code to ask the applicant to meet
the definition of a single family residence and be on a permanent foundation. Mr. Miller stated that a mobile
home on a permanent foundation is block and tied down. Ms. Lockman stated it was a modular. Mr. Miller
stated it is not on a temporary foundation. Ms. Lockman stated it would be considered temporary with block
and tied.
Michael Miller asked if it would have been approved if the foundation was not satisfactory? Ms. Lockman
stated the foundation is satisfactory it is the type of foundation that is the concern. Staff has to require the
foundation to be permanent because it has to fit the definition of a single family home.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the anchors and tied down and if it were legally placed there. Ms. Lockman
indicated the home was legally put there. Mr.Fitzgerald stated the code was changed for modular foundations
over a year ago. Ms. Lockman stated the code did not change in the temporary and permanent foundation
definition.
John Folsom asked for clarification on Condition 1C for a building permit for a manufactured home. There
was a permit and final inspection made according to a referral from Mr. Vigil. Ms. Lockman stated that the
home was legally permitted for a temporary use.
Michael Miller asked if there is a difference in the building code between the foundation for a temporary
structure versus a permanent structure?Ms. Lockman indicated someone would find Mr.Vigil for a definitive
answer.
Sheri Lockman continued with the final concern for the applicant regarding the CAD drawing. Staff has
indicated that if a surveyor is hired a CAD drawing will be requested but it is not a requirement.
Michael Miller asked Mr.Vigil if there was a difference in the foundation requirements for when the home was
established on a temporary foundation and what is required today for a permanent foundation. Roger Vigil,
Building Inspections,stated that the original building permit was set as a medical hardship with block and tied
foundation. It is like a park set in a trailer park. A manufactured home would need an engineered crawl space
to be permitted legally by todays requirements. Mr. Miller clarified that to be permitted in accordance with
current regulations the foundation would need to be engineered and have a crawl space not block and tied.
A mobile home park is block and tied.
Bryant Gimlin asked if there is a difference between a principal dwelling and guest house and not used
permanently. Ms. Lockman stated this will be listed as a single family dwelling unit and regulated the same.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked Mr. Vigil about the process the owner will have to go through to get a permanent
foundation. Mr. Vigil stated they can purge the title. Banks would accept this as a way of making it a
permanent structure with cassions welded to the foundation. The County has gotten out of that because
banks vary as to what they require for finance purposes. The County requires them to be engineered
according to the State requirements which requires a permanent foundation. Mr. Fitzgerald asked what the
applicant would need to do to obtain a permanent foundation on a structure that already exitst. Mr.Vigil stated
that it should be on a permanent foundation. Some banks will allow cassions retrofitted to become
permanent.
Michael Miller asked if there was anything unsafe about the way the house is set. Mr. Vigil stated no.
Lee Morrison added that the legislature got into the issue and said that manufacture homes, if put on a
permanent foundation should be treated the same as site built homes. Mr. Miller added that bank financing
or separate lots are not being viewed,what is being viewed is the basic concern for safe installation. If there
is safe installation the Planning Commission should waive the requirement for a permanent foundation, if
Planning Commission has that ability. Mr. Morrison stated that it could be recommended to the Board of
County Commissioners.
Michael Miller addressed the concerns brought forward by the applicants representative. Mr. Honn clarified
• that everything submitted indicates the access to be on CR 21. He stated that at a previous meeting with staff
it was indicated that what was submitted was fine and the information would be converted later.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to strike Condition 1B referencing temporary versus permanent. Stephen Mokray
seconded.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case USR 1463,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Michael Miller commented that the County should apologize to these people for dragging then through this
for something that was handled poorly several years ago. He hopes the Board of County Commissioners
stands by the recommendation to waive the foundation requirements.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1464
APPLICANT: Alfonso Borrego
PLANNER: Michelle Katyryniuk
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of Corrected RE-3089; part S2 SE4 Section 33,T5N, R65W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit fo an oil and gas
support and service facility,and a single-family dwelling unit other than that
permitted by Section 23-3-20.A(an apartment) in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 50; approximately 3,000 feet west of CR 43.
Michelle Katyryniuk, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1464, 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 Ms. Katyryniuk about the succession of the emails received. Ms. Katyryniuk stated
the final email according to the date is the most current. Ms. Katyryniuk indicated the applicant understands
that the apartment will be used as the principal dwelling until they construct their future home. The apartment
will then be considered an accessory building as stated by the Development Standards.
George Hallburg, representative for the applicant, provided clarification on the project. He stated that it is a
family operation. Mr. Miller asked what the applicant intends to do on the site. Mr. Hallburg stated it was a
maintenance facility for oil and gas support. Alfonso Borrego,applicant, indicated his need is to have a place
to park the equipment for the operation. He added that there will be a shop with an apartment located on the
second floor. Mr. Borrego indicated there will be backhoes and tandems parked on site.
Bryant Gimlin asked what the intent is with the apartment once the residence is built. Mr. Borrego stated he
intends on turning it into an office.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Don Carroll, Public Works, asked about the access to the site because the existing access is in the plowed
field. Mr. Carroll suggested creating a shared access with the proposed USR-1454. Public Works would like
clarification on what will be utilized. Mr. Hallburg indicated that presently they were going to construct the
access within the 30 foot strip of land that is part of the property. The applicant would be willing to discuss
a shared access option with the adjoining property owner. Mr. Miller asked if the road access to the property
would be an extension of the oil and gas road that is already present? Mr. Hallburg indicated it would. Mr.
Carroll suggested sharing the access points adverse to having two roads close together. Mr.Hallburg clarified
that there would be a shared access with the oil and gas company.
Michelle Katyryniuk clarified that the same access that the oil and gas company uses is the same access Mr.
Arrington uses. Mr.Carroll indicated there was two separate accesses but they are on the Rainbow property.
Mr. Borrego stated he has 30 feet on the east side of the Rainbow access. He was intending to build a culvert
for his road access. Mr. Carroll prefers one access point that will split into two roads.
Bryant Gimlin asked for clarification on the configuration of the property. Mr. Hallburg indicated the original
RE would need to be referred to in order to get a clear understanding of how the property was created.
Don Carroll suggested adding"and access"to Condition 2F to address the access concerns for Public Works.
Bryant Gimlin moved to accept the proposed language from Public Works. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded.
Motion carried.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case USR-1464,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1032
APPLICANT: UIV Land LLC
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Amended Lot B of AmRE-3340;part NW4 Section 20 and part SW4 Section
17, T5N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to PUD with Estate uses for nine (9)
residential lots, two (2) lots with Agricultural Zone Uses along with 13.63
acres of Common Open Space (Stillwater Acres PUD).
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 15; 'h mile north of CR 54.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-1032, 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. Mr. Ogle stated there were two
amendments to staff comments as follows:
1. Modification to the Change of Zone Comments, under the heading
At the time of Final Plan submission, Item 4.R is a repeat of item 4.H, staff moves to strike item 4.R
and renumber.
2. Addition to Staff Comment, Section 3, Prior to Recording the Change of Zone plat, Item 3.F should
state"The applicant provide written evidence of acceptance of the Change of Zone plat and the notes
to be placed on the Change of Zone plat from the Reorganized Farmers Ditch Company c/o Randolph
W. Starr, P.C., Attorney", and renumber.
•
John Folsom asked if this was in a flood plain. Mr. Ogle stated there are no flood plain issues on site.
Clayton Harrison, representative for the applicant, provided additional comment on the application. Mr.
Harrison stated that the concerns raised by the Colorado Division of Wildlife referral specific to the threatened
and endangered species have been addressed via an on-site inventory performed by a field biologist. The
report will be submitted to the US Fish and Wildlife Service for review, comment and action as warranted.
Pam Smith, Department of Environmental Health, stated that the perk rates on site indicate septic system
replacement envelopes will not be required as the lots are large enough to accommodate a second envelope
location.
Don Carroll, Public Works stated that he had no comment at this time.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Ogle about the future development potential for the agriculture outlots. Mr. Ogle
stated the agricultural outlots are viable lots for future development, however, for development to occur,the
PUD application process would be required and the urban development standards would be employed. Mr.
Morrison stated the statement was accurate by staff with one caveat. Mr. Morrison indicated that the area
could change over time and development could determine the use of the outlots. Mr. Morrison also stated
that the HOA covenants may also address the possible ownership of the lot for development. Discussion
continued on the possible conflict of utilizing the outlots as open space meeting the fifteen percent requirement
versus utilizing the agricultural outlots as a future development parcel. •
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to accept the recommended changes from staff. Bryant Gimlin seconded. Motion
carried.
Kim Ogle added that Condition 3.D should be deleted. This is something that is addressed in the final plat
step of the application.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to delete 3.D. Stephen Mokray seconded. Motion carried.
Don Carroll, Public Works, referred to the applicants request about vacating the right of way on CR 56. Mr.
Morrison stated that this is a separate statutory vacation request that needs to be done in order to vacate that
portion of the right of way, unless it is part of a subdivision. Mr. Morrison continued, if the Board of County
Commissioners approves the Change of Zone then the vacation of existing right of way will be simple, and
a separate petition will need to be filed. Mr. Morrison speculated that there may be time to file the petition and
have everything heard at the same time.
Mr. Ogle stated that Condition 4.J addresses this issue of right of way, and inquired of Mr. Morrison should
this be deleted as the vacation petition would address this issue. Mr. Morrison stated that it is presumed that
the applicant would like to ask for an administrative review of the Final Plat as the Change of Zone is a site
specific application. The suggestion is to not wait until final plan. The Board of County Commissioners should
have the opportunity to hear both the case and the vacation request at the same time. The Board of County
Commissioners decision is effective when the Change of Zone plat is recorded.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to delete Condition 4.J. Stephen Mokray seconded. Motion carried.
John Folsom asked Mr. Ogle about Condition 3.G and those conditions referencing only the Reorganized
Farmers Ditch Company. Mr. Folsom inquired about adding the Greeley & Loveland Canal to the existing
requirements stipulated by the Reorganized Farmers Ditch Company. Mr. Gimlin indicated there is an
agreement with the Farmers Ditch. Mr. Ogle stated that the ditch company was the one who requested the
notes be placed on the plat, Whereas the Greeley & Loveland Canal had no objections or additional
requirements for the proposed application. Mr. Ogle stated that due to the unique nature of the request by
the Reorganized Farmers Ditch Company staff has asked for a signoff from the company to make sure the
notes placed on the Change of Zone plat are acceptable. Mr. Miller stated that in his opinion, it would be wise
to make those conditions applicable to both ditches located on site.
Mr. Ogle suggested that Notes on the Plat numbers 9-16 specifically call out the Greeley& Loveland Ditch
Company along with the Reorganized Farmers Ditch Company, as warranted or required.
John Folsom moved to include in Conditions 9-16 the reference to Greeley&Loveland Ditch Company. Bruce
Fitzgerald seconded. Motion carried.
Clayton Harrison asked for clarification with regard to the right of way. Mr. Miller stated that information will
be provided to the applicant by Don Carroll of Public Works. Mr. Miller indicated that this document should
be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Change of Zone thereby providing the
Board of County Commissioners the opportunity to review both concurrently.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case PZ-1032,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; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 4:00pm
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello