HomeMy WebLinkAbout20042121.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, June 1, 2004
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday June 1, 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
D7
Michael Miller I l ( r Y --
Bryant Gimlin Absent () —
John Folsom
Stephan Mokray
James Rohn
Bruce Fitzgerald Absent C) r
Tonya Strobel
CD
Chad Auer co
Doug Ochsner
Also Present: Don Carroll, Char Davis, Michelle Katyryniuk, Pam Smith, Kim Ogle, Sheri Lockman, Peter
Schei, Nathanael Bokelman
— CASE NUMBER: MZ-544
APPLICANT: Maurice Boney& Boney Macgillivray LLC
PLANNER: Michelle Katytyniuk
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt of the N2 Section 29, T4N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Minor Subdivision Change of Zone from the A(Agriculture)to E (Estate)
Zone for 9 (nine)residential lots.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 42 and 1/4 mile west of CR 29.
Michelle Katyryniuk, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting a continuance to August 3,
2004.
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 July 6,2004.
- CASE NUMBER: PZ-604
APPLICANT: Darrel Adolf
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot C of RE-2940; being part of the NE4 of Section 29, T9N, R67W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to PUD for five(5)residential lots and
one (1)Agricultural outlot.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 102; west of and adjacent to CR 17.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting a continuance to July 6, 2004.
dcrw.u01:t Q e ic,_ 7-.2/_ 2004-2121
- CASE NUMBER: 2004-XX
APPLICANT: Resource Colorado Water&Sanitation Metropolitan District
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot C of RE-2066; being part of theNW4 of Section 34, T1 N, R63W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Service Plan for Resource Colorado Water & Sanitation Metropolitan
District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 4; east of and adjacent to CR 67.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting a continuance to June 15, 2004.
The following Cases will be heard:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1473
APPLICANT: Tom Keberlein
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A RE-200; pt of the NW4 Section 29,T5N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Use
Permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use, or a Use be Special
Review in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 54(37th Street);west of and adjacent to CR 27
1/2(77th Ave).
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1473, reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
John Folsom asked Development Standards#25 and if the intent was there not to be parking or staging of
trucks on site? Ms. Lockman indicated that was correct.
James Rohn asked if there were any prior USR's or SUP's on the property. Ms. Lockman stated that there
were none.
Michael Miller asked about the existing buildings on site and on what authority can staff ask them to be
removed? Ms. Lockman indicated that non conforming structures that don't meets set backs can still be used
but cannot expand further into the right of way. The only exception would be if the road would be widened and
the property would be paid for prior to demolishing.
Doug Ochsner asked if the road was widened would they be required to remove them. Mr. Morrison stated
that the buildings would be allowed to continue in use if they continue to meet the non conforming standards.
If the County needed to acquire road right of way they will purchase the structures at the valued price. Staff
is not asking the applicant to give up the property right they have by usage. If the structures are modified over
50% then they loose the non conforming status and they could not be replace in current location.
James Rohn asked about the size of the building that will be built. Ms.Lockman indicated the building will be
80 x 50 foot. Mr. Rohn asked about the hours of operation being only Monday thru Friday. Ms. Lockman
indicated the applicant indicated these hours would be adequate.
John Folsom asked Mr. Morrison about the structures being allowed under a non conforming, if the previous
use was different would that eliminate the non conforming use. Mr.Morrison stated the setback issue is a non
conforming structure issue, which means the use does not change. The non conformity deals with the
structure not the use. Ms. Lockman added that the building department wants the applicant to speak with
them so the building are up to code for the use applied for.
Glen Droegmueller, applicant representative, provided clarification with regards to the site. The two non
conforming buildings will be used for storage of construction materials and there will be no construction on
site. The hours of operation can be handled on a Monday thru Friday basis because the use is for storage
alone. The future right of way would be minimal and the County is happy with the roads. Evans is in
agreement with the road, if additional right of way was needed negotiations could be done at that time.
Don Carroll added that the County will work with the municipalities for future right of way. Mr. Miller asked if
the reservation is included in this plan. Mr. Carroll added it was included.
James Rohn asked Mr. Carroll about the traffic on the roads,what is the speed limits and traffic counts? Mr.
Carroll stated the roads have both been annexed and the assumption for the speed limit is 55 mph and there
is no way to know the traffic counts. Mr. Rohn asked about the accidents at the intersection. Mr. Carroll
stated did not have this information.
Michael Miller asked Char Davis about the request that there be no toilet in the shop. Ms. Davis stated it was
acceptable as long as the home can be used for employees.
John Folsom moved to amend Development Standards#25 to include"no". James Rohn seconded. Motion
carried.
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 that Case USR-1473, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes;Michael Miller,yes;James Rohn,yes;Tonya Strobel,yes;Chad Auer,yes;
Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
— CASE NUMBER: USR-1474
APPLICANT: Gary & Carol Vander Wal
PLANNER: Michelle Katyryniuk
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B RE-2208; Pt of the SE4 Section 9,T5N, R64W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a
business permitted as a use by right or accessory use in the Commercial
Zone District(Office and storage for a dairy supply and services business)
in the A(Agriculture)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 388; %mile east of State Hwy 37.
Michelle Katyryniuk, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1474, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending
approval of the application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
John Folsom asked Ms. Katyryniuk about the flood hazard permit that is required for the proposed building
and if it would address the change in elevation on the property? Ms. Katyryniuk stated there is a flood hazard
development permit that was approved for the home and the applicants are applying for a FHDP to address
the shop but Condition 2H requested by Public Works is for a drainage report which should help mitigate any
concerns from the neighbors about the rise in elevation from the driveway. Mr. Folsom indicated the
neighbors concerns were for the additional elevation of the driveway which could potentially cause additional
flooding on his property. Mr. Folsom asked if the flood hazard permit will address the neighbors concerns.
Ms. Katyryniuk indicated it would only address the structures. Mr. Morrison stated the flood hazard permit
addresses the administrative steps that need to be taken, if the construction causes a net rise over one foot
then the area may need to be restudied. The FHDP is the mechanism that would lead to that direction.
James Rohn asked about the historical drainage flow of the property. Mr. Morrison stated the flood hazard
permit process is to identify issues and make sure that construction that occurs within the flood hazard
permitted property does not violate flood regulations. Mr. Rohn asked why a copy of the deed is needed?
Ms.Katyryniuk stated that the applicants are purchasing the property and a new deed indicating this is needed
to show ownership.
Michael Miller asked about the letter from Phillip Mathis and if he lives up or down stream from this site. Ms.
Katyryniuk indicated he lives west of this site.
James Rohn asked if the Division of Wildlife has responded. Ms. Katyryniuk stated she has not received a
referral from the Division of Wildlife.
Gary& Carol Vander Wal, applicants, stated that they understood the main concern from the surrounding
property owner is the potential flood issue and those concerns will be addressed with the USR permit. Mr.
Miller asked where the shop was to be built. Mr. Vander Wal stated he intends to build next to the road in
order to keep the shop away from the residence.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Phillip Mathis,neighbor,indicated that the road/driveway to the applicants home is inaccessible when it floods.
If the road is raised up any more it will causes more water on his property. Mr. Miller added that the flood
hazard development permit will require the applicants to address any concerns or affects on the neighboring
properties. Mr. Mathis added that a business needs to be able to be accessible. The last flood was in 2000
and the road to the applicants home was completely under two foot of water. Mr.Morrison asked if the house
stayed above the flood level. Mr. Mathis stated it stayed above because it sits on an island. Mr. Morrison
added the flood hazard permit does not address the driveway. The permit allows for the rise on the structure
and that is working, if the driveway is raised there will may be affects on surrounding properties.
John Folsom asked Mr. Mathis for clarification with regards to the how high the road has been raised. Mr.
Mathis stated the road has been raised approximately 18 inches and this has caused more water on his
property.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Michael Miller asked if the flood hazard can be written to include the road as well as the building. Ms.
Katyryniuk stated that the permit addresses the structures but in looking at the elevations that have been
submitted with the FHDP the road the applicants are proposing to the shop will be parallel to CR 388 and at
a lower grade then the County Road. Therefore any flood water should be able to go over the road and not
act as a dam. Mr. Miller asked if the access to the home off CR 388 is the same as access to the new
building. Ms. Katyryniuk stated it was. Mr. Miller added that if the road would just access onto CR 388 and
was it to late to address the road to the house since it has already been approved and built. Ms. Katyryniuk
stated that there is a condition requesting a drainage report from the applicants which should help mitigate
the drainage on site which will take into consideration the existing road as well as the proposed roads.
Don Carroll added the road has been elevated 18 inches, the home has been elevated out of the flood plain.
Michael Miller asked Mr.Carroll about the road and the damming affect that it might cause and a culvert would
be a reasonable cure. Mr.Carroll stated that a drainage study has been asked for and culverts are a possible
solution. There is also the option for a slow water crossing to help alleviate back up onto other properties.
The flood hazard development permit reviews structure elevation not necessarily approaches to structures.
James Rohn asked Mr.Carroll if a business is proposed could the road need to be built higher in order to gain
access to that business. Mr.Carroll suggested the applicant could be asked if there are any plans to elevate
the road. Mr. Miller stated the applicant early testified that the road could be built next to and parallel CR 388.
This should not add to the problem.
John Folsom asked Mr. Carroll for clarification on the drainage report and if it will address the problem of
flooding and would it specify a means of mitigation. Mr. Carroll stated the report is needed first before
concerns can be addressed. If the report does not address the concerns brought forth then more information
will be required. Mr. Folsom clarified that staff will not accept the report unless the required information was
addressed as well as mitigation. Mr. Folsom asked if the report will address this property only or surrounding
properties as well? Mr. Carroll indicated that questions in the drainage report.
Michelle Katyryniuk added that the drainage report will be stamped and signed by a certified engineer
indicating it will not affect the neighboring properties.
James Rohn asked Mr.Vander Wal about the driveway and if there are any plans to build the road up? Mr.
Vander Wal stated there are no plans to do this and until a flood happens there is no way of knowing how bad
the situation can be. Mr. Vander Wal indicated it may not be cost affective to build the driveway up for
something that happens once every ten years for a few weeks. Therefore culverts seem to be a better
solution to the problem but that can be determined after the drainage report.
John Folsom indicated that the report must be reviewed along with the recommendations. Mr. Miller added
that low water crossings has been an effective option in the area.
Michelle Katyryniuk added that staff recommends moving Condition 2.H to Prior to the Board of County
Commissioners 1.C to help address some of the neighbors issues.
John Folsom moved to approve staff recommendations to move Condition 2.H to 1.C. Stephen Mokray
seconded. Motion carried.
John Folsom moved that Case USR-1474, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes;Michael Miller,yes;James Rohn,yes;Tonya Strobel,yes;Chad Auer,yes;
Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
James Rohn commented "I vote yes but continue my opposition of developing land in the flood plains."
John Folsom commented he is hopeful that the neighbors concerns will be mitigated or removed with the soils
report that will be reviewed by Public Works.
Meeting adjourned at 2:30pm
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello