HomeMy WebLinkAbout20041840.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld County
Conference Room,4209 CR 24''A,Longmont,Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Commissioner,
John Folsom at 10:00am then continued to 1:30 pm due to lack of quorum. At 1:40 pm Chair, Michael Miller,
called the meeting to order.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin
John Folsom
Stephan Mokray
James Rohn
Bruce Fitzgerald
Tim Tracy
Doug Ochsner
Also Present:Char Davis,Chris Gathman,Don Carroll,Peter Schei,Bruce Barker,Jacqueline Hatch, Monica
Mika
The summary of the last two regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on May 18`" &
June 1, 2004, was approved as read.
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.
Chris Gathman read a letter requesting a continuance to the August 3, 2004 Planning Commission
meeting.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1475
APPLICANT: Samuel Clark
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Lot B of RE-1917; being part of the NE4 of Section 13, T4N,
R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
business permitted as a use by right or accessory use in the Commercial
Zone District(Landscaping Materials Yard) in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 46;west of and adjacent to CR 13.
Jacqueline Hatch read a letter requesting a continuance to July 20, 2004.
Consent Agenda:
CASE NUMBER: 2AmUSR-552
APPLICANT: Duke Energy
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-614; part of the W2SE4 Section 28, T6N, R65W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a
Mineral Resource Development Facility including a Natural Gas
Processing Facility in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: 1/2 mile north of CR 64, 1/4 mile west of CR 43.
arm), 6/2F42zoci 2004-1840
CASE NUMBER: USR-1476
APPLICANT: Troy&Judy Hefner
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 4 Althen Boyer Subdivision, Pt of SW4 Section 23, T1 N, R68 of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
business permitted as a Use by Special Review (Commercial Junkyard or
Salvage Yard) in the C-3 (Commercial)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to 1-25 (frontage road)and approximately 1/4 mile
north of CR 6.
James Rohn moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Stephen Mokray seconded. Motion carried.
The following cases will be Heard:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1477
APPLICANT: David & Darlene Rothrock
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B RE-3635, Pt NE4 of Section 4, Ti N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development and Special Review Permit for one Single
Family Dwelling Unit per lot other than those permitted under Section 23-
3-20A of the Weld County Code
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Hwy 52 and West of and adjacent to CR
43.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1477, 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:
1. Delete Item #2 page 4
2. Delete Development Standards#10
3. Delete Development Standards#12
4. Delete Development Standards#13
The changes reflect the changes affecting the Recorded Exemption process.
Michael Miller asked if the amendment will make this permanent as opposed to having the applicant come
back for a recorded exemption at a later time. Mr. Gathman stated that was correct.
James Rohn asked that Development Standards#14 be changed from "proposed lots"to"subject
property."
Ann best Johnson, representative for the applicant, indicated that the structure is needed for the ranch
operation.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak
James Rohn moved to delete"proposed lots" and replace it with "subject property" in Development
Standards#14. John Folsom seconded. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner moved to accept staff changes. Stephen Mokray seconded. Motion carried.
James Rohn moved that Case USR-1477, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tonya
Strobel, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1465
APPLICANT: Donald Wroblewski
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 17 of Vantage Acres#1; part of the SE4 of Section 17, Ti N, R65W 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 Special Review, (Home Business, parking of
trucks and trailers) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Vantage Road; approximately 1/4 mile west of
CR 41; approximately 1/4 mile north of CR 8.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1465, 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.
Bryant Gimlin asked if Vantage Acres had a HOA and if there were covenants that would prohibit this use.
Ms. Hatch stated this is an older subdivision and there is no HOA.
John Folsom asked if hours of operation need to be considered? Ms. Hatch stated that the applicant has
not proposed any. With this being a home business for their own employment none were suggested. Mr.
Folsom asked if there were any other USR or similar activity in the area. Ms. Hatch stated that there are
no other similar USR's within Vantage Acres. Mr. Folsom asked if the trucks the applicant will be using
are used for agricultural purposes or commercial/industrial purposes. Ms. Hatch indicated the applicant
can address this.
James Rohn asked about language that is associated with a USR that requires permits not be issues until
the plat is ready to be recorded. Mr. Rohns question is why this is not included in this USR? Ms. Hatch
indicated that the language is typically associated with a new USR's that are not in operation. The
applicant is already in operation so there would be no permits needed. Mr. Rohn added that Development
Standards#28 included the language of"proposed lots"and he would like that replaced with "subject
property". Ms. Hatch indicated staff has no concerns with this.
James Rohn asked Don Carroll about requirements road signs and dust abatement not being included
when this is a trucking operation? Mr. Carroll stated the application stated one truck, one low boy and one
flatbed which would not constitute a large increase in traffic. Mr. Rohn asked if Public Works will be
requesting dust abatement and road signs since there are additional trucks? Mr. Carroll asked if there are
signs in place now and if signs within the subdivision are not posted then those can be done. Mr. Rohn
asked about the dust abatement. Mr. Carroll indicated the applicant needs to provide clarification with
regard to the number of trucks and the vehicle trips. Ms. Hatch added that the applicants have only one
truck but there are times when relatives stay with them and they have trucks. They did not want to be
limited to their own truck. The applicants have indicated that there is just one personal truck on the
property.
Char Davis added that there is a Condition for a dust abatement plan and household standard. Ms. Davis
also recommended that"from drum washing and the washing of vehicles"be deleted from Development
Standards#12.
Joe Wroblewski &Tammy Wroblewski, applicants provided additional information regarding the
application. There is only one personal truck on site. The two additional trucks are for relatives that come
to stay on few occasions. The traffic and the noise cannot be attributed to their one truck, there are other
trucks in the area. The reasoning behind this application was for the convenience of the truck being at
home. Mr. Miller asked if the intent was to move up to three trucks. Ms. Wroblewski indicated they were
not intending to increase. There are other trucks and most of the time those trucks are empty.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application
David Lavanway, neighbor in Vantage Acres, indicated his concerns with the vehicles coming in and out at
all hours of the day and night. Another concern is the noise from the trucks. The subdivision seems to
have switched from agricultural to residential. There have been more than five trailers on site. Another
concern is for the safety in the area.
John Folsom asked if there were more than three tractors on site and if in a normal day the truck leaves
and comes back more than once that day. Mr. Lavanway indicated that on a general basis there are two
full trips in and out of the site on a daily basis but there has never been more than three tractors on site.
The Chair closed the public portion.
Joe Wroblewski stated there are other trucks in the area and he abides by the speed limit posted. Ms.
Wroblewski indicated that there are other trucks in the area and they are waiting to see what happens with
them before they apply. Mr. Miller added that under the terms of the agreement there will be no more than
three tractors or trailers there at any time. Ms. Wroblewski indicated she is understanding of this.
James Rohn asked Mr. Carroll about the dust abatement issue on the roads now that it is known that the
trucks are loaded some of the time. Mr. Carroll stated that any truck loaded will create more dust
depending on several different variables. Mr. Miller stated that Ms. Davis has required a dust abatement
regardless of the number of trucks.
John Folsom asked Don Carroll if the treatment of the driveway or parking was addressed in the referral.
Mr. Carroll stated that the plat drawing will be labeled and address the additional parking for trailers,
circulation, turning radius and that there will be no parking or staging on the CR(Vantage Drive). Mr.
Folsom would like to see a requirement for surface treatment on the property. Mr. Carroll stated the dust
abatement on site is Public Health and there is a requirement for dust abatement. Ms. Davis stated the
plan will address on site dust and there will be methods to keeping the dust to a minimum. The use of
water or gravel as a source to keep the dust down is an option. Mr. Folsom added that there is no specific
requirement? Ms. Davis stated that she will work with the applicant to meet this requirement.
Tonya Strobel asked the applicant where they pull over to let other cars pass by. Mr. Wroblewski
indicated that he typically backs into his drive, if there is traffic he will pull into the drive and wait for them
to pass by them back into the site.
James Rohn moved to amend Development Standards#28 to remove"proposed lots"and replace with
"subject property". Tonya Strobel seconded. Motion carried.
Bryant Gimlin moved to amend Development Standards#12 to remove"from drum washing and washing
of vehicles." Chad Auer. Motion carried.
John Folsom would like to propose an addition to prior to recording the plat(1J)that the Department of
Public Works examine the conditions in the neighborhood to determine whether there are adequate traffic
control signs. James Rohn seconded.
Don Carroll asked for clarification with regard to them being speed limit signs, stop signs or any other
signage. Mr. Miller asked if this was something that was done anyway. It seems to be unusual. Mr.
Carroll stated it could be looked at and both are regulatory signs and possible Board of County
Commissioners action would be needed.
John Folsom added that this might be more appropriate if it were done prior to the Board of County
Commissioners hearing. Mr. Folsom is proposing that the Department of Public Works conduct a study to
determine whether there are adequate traffic control signs in the neighborhood. Mr. Miller stated this was
pre-advertised so there will be a Board of County Commissioners hearing on June 23, 2004. Mr. Carroll
stated the accesses onto CR 8 and CR 41 can be evaluated. Mr. Barker indicated that this was more of a
directive to the Public Works Department and does not necessarily have to be a condition. The conditions
are more the responsibility of the applicant. Public Works will make some measure to accommodate the
directives prior to the Board of County Commissioners.
James Rohn indicated he would still like to see a condition detailing the dust abatement on the public
roads for the safety of the residents. Traditionally something is done and it is spelled out more. Mr. Rohn
asked Mr. Carroll for some language to that affect. Mr. Miller asked if the County Road section would be
included in Ms. Davis's dust abatement plan? Ms. Davis stated they are looking on the site of the USR. If
there was a complaint it could be looked at.
John Folsom withdrew his previous motion for Public Works.
Michael Miller indicated his concerns for a dust abatement plan on the road being requested from this
applicant when there will only be four trips per day. Mr. Rohn stated that in some cases that have been
heard it has been required as needed. Mr. Miller indicated that in most of the cases it was active truck
traffic associated with a business. This is more of a personal use for one truck. Mr. Miller added is seems
excessive for one person to be responsible for the dust abatement for the entire road when he is only
running one personal truck.
James Rohns moved to accept the following language"the applicant shall apply dust
suppressant/chemical magnesium chloride or calcium chloride on Vantage Drive from the entrance south
to CR 8, no less than twice a year or as needed or as directed by the Weld County Public Works
Department." There was no second.
Stephen Mokray added that there is a concern for other traffic. There is no reason to put the burden on
one truck owner. It is not fair.
Michael Miller indicated that the noise levels can be addressed in the hours of operation. Mr. Ochsner
stated that if this is one truck he will be going in and out at different times, this a very rural subdivision. If
this was a farm truck the neighbors would hear that also. It would not be fair to the applicant to put hours
on his business. Mr. Rohn stated that the noise level could only be what is accepted in a residential zone.
James Rohn moved that Case USR-1465, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the Amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tonya
Strobel, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
John Folsom commented "on a personal basis I am in general opposed to commercial/industrial uses that
are not associated with agriculture in the agricultural zone. The proposed use is doubly offensive in that it
being located in a subdivision however since this case meets the requirement of the code I am voting for
it."
Bryant Gimlin commented that the applicant now has regulations that he has to abide by whereas before
there were none. This should assist the neighbors in knowing what is allowable and what is not.
Michael Miller commented that rural subdivisions with small acreage are attractive to small business
owners. It is convenient to have a property in which you can bring your truck home and not have to put
out the money to lease a commercial site. This process is the best way to deal with these so there are
regulations placed on the owners. It is an important part of the process that keeps these things in control.
CASE NUMBER: 2004-XX
APPLICANT: Weld County/Town of Hudson
PLANNER: Monica Mika
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Various Sections, Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: The Intergovernmental Agreement Boundary for the Town of Hudson
Monica Mika, Department of Planning Services presented 2004-XX Hudson IGA, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending
approval of the application. Ms. Mika indicated that there are three ways to identify urban growth in Weld
County. The first way is through the three mile referral process, the second is from the half mile sanitary
sewer lines and the final way is through an agreement between Weld County and a municipality. The third
option will be considered today.
In August of 2003, this case was presented for public consideration, due to lack of quorum this case was
continued indefinitely, and was re-advertised for today's hearing.
The presentation will include:
1. Large map area of the original IGA Boundary Area
2. Modified map area of the revised IGA Boundary Area
3. Comparison of map area
4. Regional map
5. Municipal services map
There are three principle criteria : 22-2-100 B., and C, and E.
Criteria B. Efficient and orderly development and the conservation or agricultural land suggest that
urban type development take place in or adjacent to existing municipals or where
adequate infrastructure is currently available or reasonably obtainable. The Town of
Hudson has provided a map showing the location of existing municipal services are
available and readily obtainable in the future.
Criteria C Urban development adjacent to municipalities is appropriate if urban services can be
extended to serve the area. The Town of Hudson will provide water and sewer for urban
development in the IGA boundary area. United Power provides electrical needs; the
Hudson voluntary fire district provides fire services, library services are provided by Weld
RE#J and law enforcement is provided by contract with the Weld County Sheriff Office.
The Sheriff Office reviewed this request and has no comments.
Criterial E Individual landowners of property within the urban growth boundaries shall be notified of
any negations and considerations of intergovernmental urban growth boundary
agreements. On May 26, a public meeting was held to discuss this issue, and all property
owners within the proposed IGA boundary were send notification of the meeting and
hearing process.
It is the opinion of the Planning Commission at the direction of the County Attorneys office that this case is
forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a favorable recommendation.
Doug Ochsner asked about the 'A mile water and sewer area and if there are areas that are outside that 1/2
mile area? Ms. Mika indicated the map in the presentation shows the current line with a Y2 mile radius
from that line and there are areas outside that are still within the IGA boundary. Mr. Ochsner asked if the
lines were Y2 mile from existing facilities? Ms. Mika clarified that the Urban Growth boundary is created
based on the '''A mile from existing sanitary sewer lines while the IGA is based on services that are
available or reasonably obtainable.
John Folsom asked about the letter from the Kragh family and Town of Hudson regarding them not being
within the IGA boundary. Ms. Mika indicated that there was some confusion with regard to the revision of
the boundary, residents were unsure of whether they were in the boundary or outside. After notification
the second time there were significantly fewer correspondence.
Jim Landeck, Hudson representative, provided additional information. The response from the public in the
last several public meetings has been positive. Once the property owners understood that the purpose
for the boundary was for coordinated planning and not immediate annexation their anxieties were
alleviated. The Town Board of Trustees has endorsed agreement.
John Foslom asked about a letter from the Kragh family and their objection regarding exclusion and the
possible consequential damages. Mr. Landeck indicated he drew the line and the reason for the location
of the line were the utilities and reasonable distance for existing facilities. After the basis for utility and
reasonable distance the County Roads and section lines were the final criteria. If some properties were
excluded it was completely arbitrary.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Julie Grimes, property owner, asked whether CR 51 is included in the IGA agreement? Ms. Mika stated a
map can be entered into the record that states CR 51 is not included. Ms. Grimes indicated her largest
concern is that Calpine is in the IGA. Calpine was suppose to obtain a conservancy easement around the
entire plant to prevent any industrial growth around the plant. This has not happened and Ms. Grimes
indicated her fear is if the land is included in the agreement Hudson will want to annex therefor opening it
up to possible industrial uses. Ms. Grimes would like to know what can happen around the plant once it is
annexed. Ms. Grimes added that if CR 51 would not be included that would leave the property on the east
open so annexation could not be forced. Mr. Miller stated they are no more prone to be annexed rather
they are in the IGA or out of it. If Hudson chose to annex it would not matter where the IGA boundary
existed. Ms. Mika indicated the contiguity would become a criteria. Calpine, under the USR, is not
contiguous but some of the holdings of the company may be. Ms. Mika clarified that the Calpine USR only
contained the lands directly associated with the electrical facility. The buffer area did not fall under the
terms of the USR. During the hearing, it was determined that it was Calpine's intent to obtain a
conservation easement therefor not a condition of approval. Mr. Miller added that Planning Commission
did not have the authority to make the applicants get a conservation easement because the area was not
in the defined USR area. Ms. Grimes added stated that the reason Calpine requested the condition not be
made was to maintain a tax benefit. Ms. Grimes added to her knowledge the easement has not been
done. Ms. Grimes asked why the boundary could not be moved to CR 49. Ms. Mika added that the
boundaries were determined by the ability to have service provisions. Calpine has not responded
indicating they do not want to be included.
Loren Kragh, surrounding property owner, indicated his concern with being outside the IGA and the
possible consequential damages. The family has held onto the land because they believed they were in
the path of progress, agriculturally the land has limited value. There is a difference financially to the
inheritors of not being in the IGA to being the IGA of approximately 1 million in valuation of the land. The
family had hoped to sell the ground for development purposes. The largest concern is the referral three
mile referral area and the possibility that the County will oppose any development. Hudson did not provide
any information with regards to the new boundary, the only notification received was from the County and
a letter was sent only to them. The line as it exist limits some type of development.
Michael Miller asked Ms. Mika about the possibility of requesting an urban type subdivision in the area.
Ms. Mika stated this land outside the IGA boundary and it would not be appropriate to propose an urban
style development. There are variables involved and some of them being within the defined area and
have public services. The agreement states to the extent legally possible but urban development is within
the boundaries and non urban has been outside. Ms. Mika stated that urban development has occurred
outside the areas but at those times support services were available. If the applicant offered to extend
services then they could be considered as part of the municipality. Mr. Barker added that urban growth
area expands with municipal boundaries. This does not preclude annexation, annexation is a requirement
of the extension of those services. According to the definition Urban Growth will be denied to the extent
legally possible by the County in the areas of the municipal referral area outside of the Urban Growth Area
but the town is saying with the existing infrastructure they cannot extend outside the area. The
development needs to have the water and sewer and if it cannot be obtained it cannot be approved. Mr.
Barker continued with there area variety of different issues but the main issues is the agreement does not
preclude the municipality from annexing the area, likewise it does not require annexation of areas within
the Urban Growth Boundary. Mr. Gimlin added that not being in the area also creates opportunities like
estate planning with large lots that included septic which would be non urban. Mr. Barker added that it
allows the land to be marketed to non urban development which would include large agricultural uses that
could not occur within the urban area. The market is not precluded but is expanded on that avenue. Mr.
Auer asked about the original boundary being larger and the rationale at that time? Mr. Landeck stated
that when Hudson first started this process they did not understand that the language and he was directed
to use the three mile radius from the exiting town as the limits. As the discussion became clearer the area
shrank accordingly.
John Folsom asked if Mr. Kragh the property did not meet the standard for services and that is the reason
for it not being included? Mr. Landeck stated the town's view of the property is that it is a far reach for
utilities, it does not preclude the possibility for annexation. One of the requirements for the annexation
would be the extension of services to that property.
Gary Shriver, surrounding property owner, asked about how the Town will supply enough water for the
area? Mr. Miller stated that any development must bring water with them. Mr. Shriver asked if involuntary
annexation is done when all sides are surrounded? Mr. Barker stated this is considered an enclave
annexation and even then the town has to make the determination. The town must agree to bring the
property into the boundaries. Mr. Shriver asked if the owners will be required to obtain services from the
town or can the systems be maintained once annexation occurs? Ms. Mika stated the agreement talks
about new developments not existing facilities. Mr. Landeck stated that if the property is existing and
there are no plans for development it will stay as is.
The Chair closed the public portion
Doug Ochsner asked about the land around Calpine, why could this not be excluded? Ms. Mika stated
that the area is included because it speaks to concept of consistency with other properties in the area.
Also, Calpine has not provided a request or correspondence indicating they do not want to be included.
Mr. Landeck added that there has been discussion with Calpine to extend their services from their site to
the industrial park to the west. Consequently that is the reasoning Hudson felt they should be included
due to being close the existing industrial park.
John Folsom moved that Case 2004-XX-Hudson IGA, be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Stephen Mokray seconded
the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tonya
Strobel, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Doug Ochsner commented that he is hugely concerned with IGA and their ability to take away property
rights from the land owners he does compliment the Town of Hudson for keeping the boundary within the
%mile service area.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1000
APPLICANT: Stenerson, Olson & Lowry Development
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: W2 W2 NE4 of Section 30, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from (R-1) Residential to PUD (Nesting Crane Ranch)
for nine (9) lots with Estate (E) uses (33 acres)and three (3) non-
residential outlots (6.26 acres)for open space
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Hwy 66 and approximately 1/2 mile east of
CR 1.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-1000, 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
requesting the following changes to the comments: addition of 2Q to prior to recording the plat that states
the applicant shall address the requirements of Weld County Sheriff's office as stated in the referral
response dated May 7, 2004. Evidence of such shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County
Department of Planning Services.
James Rohn asked when the application was submitted and when did the Longmont IGA become
affective? Ms. Hatch indicated the Longmont IGA was established in October 2002 and the Sketch Plan,
which is the first stage, was submitted in February 2002. Mr. Rohn asked if the Division of Wildlife had
responded. Ms. Hatch indicated they had not.
Stephen Mokray asked Ms. Hatch where Mead was located in reference to this proposal. Ms. Hatch
indicated it was 2 '/3 miles from the site east on Hwy 66, Longmont is 2 miles south.
Bryant Gimlin asked Mr. Barker about the IGA with Longmont and how this interacts with the application.
Mr. Barker stated that in 1997 the first Frederick, Firestone and Dacono IGA was established. There were
a number of cases that were PUD Sketch Plans that were submitted prior to that date. The Board of
County Commissioners made the determination that the Sketch Plan, in accordance with the State Law
was what began the process for the PUD. This was the time in which is was considered submitted
therefor not subject to the agreement that came into affect after the Sketch Plan submittal date. This has
been consistent throughout the IGA's. The same rule applies to every IGA adopted.
John Folsom spoke of a possible conflict in the code with the adjacency of the Seemore subdivision. The
Longmont letter indicates the subdivision would not be considered non urban if it were adjacent to an
existing subdivision. Mr. Folsom questioned if this reference would not allow the subdivision to be
constructed? Ms. Hatch stated that having an existing subdivision adjacent to this proposal makes it meet
urban scale. The applicant is proposing to meet urban scale and pave the access. Mr. Folsom asked
why there was not a referral to CDOT? Ms. Hatch indicated the applicant has submitted a access permit
with the application which means they have contacted CDOT and there were no concerns. Mr. Folsom
asked if this property encroaches on the area for the expanded Union Reservoir? Ms. Hatch stated it
does not.
James Rohn asked if there were repetitive conditions that could be combined. Mr. Gimlin added that
Conditions 3 H &Y could all be combined and Condition 31 could be combined with the new Condition 3Y..
Ms. Hatch indicated they could all be combined into one statement.
Michael Miller asked about contiguity with the adjacent subdivision they must meet urban standards, but is
it acceptable to be on septic system? His understanding is that urban standards require City sewer. Mr.
Barker stated there was a change to the definition of urban which took out the requirement of public
sewer. The definitions allows for PUD to have septic system and still be considered an urban use. It is no
longer a requirement to have public services. Ms. Hatch read the urban scale development definition for a
PUD from the code.
John Folsom quoted from Section 27-1-10.b"the PUD zone district is not intended to be used to
circumvent or distort the policies and objectives of Chapters 22, 23, 24 & 26 of this code." Mr. Folsoms
concern is the only reason this is being applied for under a PUD is to get away from the adjacency issue,
otherwise the application would have been under the minor subdivision.
Mike McDunna, representative, indicated they would like the Final plat reviewed administratively.
Michael Miller asked about not using any of the available irrigation but to use treated water, why? Wayne
Wentworth, engineer for the project, indicated the main reason is that the land is sloped north and south,
and the location of the ditch would only allow for a small portion of property to be served without having a
pump system. The site needs a dual system to be able to irrigate in its entirety. Mr. Miller asked why a
dual system was not integrated into the design? Mr. Miller added it is difficult to maintain lots of that size
without irrigation. Mr. Wentworth indicated the majority of the lots will be native grasses while the areas
around the homes will be landscaped. Mr. Mokray asked how much irrigation water is with the ground.
Mr. Wentworth indicated five shares of Starboard Ditch. Mr. Jeff Olson, applicant, indicated they own five
shares and are the last down stream user of the ditch and it is a dry ditch. The property owner to the east
has vacated the ditch. Mr. Miller asked about the upstream users? Mr. Barker stated that it depends
upon the relationship and rights to the ditch. The agreements done by owners when the ditch was put
together plays a large role. Mr. Miller indicated his concern with five acres of land that will not all be
maintained, if this is the case the ground will be overgrown with weeds. Mr. Wentworth stated the area
around the house will be sod but the remainder will not be sodded. Mr. Miller asked if livestock was
allowed. Mr. Wentoworth indicated there would be no livestock. Mr. Mokray asked if the five shares were
initially used on the property? Mr. Wentworth indicated that in the two years he has been associated with
the project it has not been used. Mr. Mokray indicated if there is no irrigation water the area will be a
weed bed and with the pressure on municipal water supply that is not a good plan. Mr. Wentworth added
that there are subdivisions with dual systems but in the last few years developers have moved away
because of maintenance cost and the cost of installation.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Joe Knight, neighbor to the east, indicated his concerns were that he wanted to maintain a rural area.
Traffic is a huge concern and adding nine more homes would make it worse. The Starboard Ditch is a
lateral off of Highland Ditch Company. The five shares that came with the property could be Big
Thompson water. The ditch has not been abandoned it fades out. There is no way to deliver the water to
the property unless something is constructed. Mr. Knight does not want to see a subdivision in the area.
Guy Dinger, mother in law owns property to west, indicated his concern with the increase in traffic. The
proposed water pipeline to this site will be located in the easement known as Easement Road in the
Seemore Heights Subdivision which was vacated. The easement is a concern because this is a back
access to their properties. The neighbor has been paying taxes on that easement for years. There is a
concern over livestock issues and the possible complaints associated with this. Mr. Dinger asked how the
water will drain from the properties without coming onto the adjacent properties? The land has been
irrigated prior to this proposal. Mr. Dinger would not like to see any more homes behind them. Mr. Miller
asked where the water goes at this point? Mr. Dinger indicated to the water goes to the east and the
south.
Bob Sweeney, neighbor to the south, would like to see the design of the property. Mr. Sweeney does not
have any issues but would like to see where the open space is and how the drainage for the site will be
designed.
The Chair closed the public portion.
Wayne Wentworth added that there is a high spot and everything flows to the south from the highs spot, to
the north there is a low area where water congregates and moves across to Elmore Road in the Seemore
Heights Subdivision. In the drainage report submitted they are proposing a detention basin on the north
and either getting an easement for a pipe or an open flow to the barrow pit at Elmore Road where it ends
up at this point.
Michael Miller asked if Public Works has reviewed the drainage plan and if it is appropriate? Mr. Shei
stated the plan has been reviewed and they see no concerns. The developer is not permitted to have any
drainage release from the development that is greater than the historical five year level. This proposal is
to not increase. The concern from Public Works standpoint is will there be any impact to adjacent owners
and there is none in this case. Mr. Miller asked about the five shares and if there were any other water
rights associated or were these just carrying rights? Mr. Olson added that his understanding is there are
two different water rights that came with the property, one was with Big Thompson which were five share
and there were additional shares from the Starboard Ditch.
Michael Miller asked if the covenants prohibit animals on property?. Mr. Olson indicated they will allow
equestrian uses only. Mr. Olson added that he is in agreement with the surrounding owners that there not
be a large number of homes. The current zoning allows for several more homes and this is not the intent
of the developer. The Estate Zone will allow for a limited number of homes. Mr. Olson added that the
nine lots is a better plan for the 39 acres.
James Rohn moved to delete 3H and combine 31 &3Y together and re-letter. Stephen Mokray seconded.
Motion carried.
James Rohn moved to accept staff's recommendations to add a new 2.Q and re-number. Chad Auer
seconded. Motion carried.
Michael Miller indicated his concern with the Final Plan being done administratively. Mr. Rohn indicated
his concern that the premis that adjacency means urban and based on urban Planning Commission has
looked at sewer system as being a line and not a septic system. Even though the wording may not be in
place, Planning Commission has been going on the assumption that this was the criteria. Mr. Rohn does
not believe that this should go forward without being considered as an urban development. Mr. Ochsner
stated the code states a sewer system and a septic systems are a sewer system.
John Folsom asked Mr. Barker how a septic system is considered a sewer system. Mr. Barker stated the
intent was to allow septic, the way it was written was so it took out the requirement of public sewer system.
There was concurrence among staff and Board of County Commissioners that meant that septic systems
could be allowed. Mr. Rohn still believes that with the advice of staff Planning Commission has gone on
for the last six month believing that sewer is a sewer line. The Planning Commission needs to stay
consistent. Mr. Miller asked for examples. Mr. Rohn stated there was one off Hwy 52 and possibly Jeff
Stamps case. (MZ-1017)?
Stephen Mokray asked about a plot plan showing the layout of property and is there dual septic
envelopes. Ms. Hatch stated there is a drawing in the map section of the staff comments. The Health
Department has not requested septic envelopes on the lots.
Pam Smith, Health Department, stated the smallest lot is 2 '%acres. The preliminary information on the
septic system indicated they will be engineered. The envelopes were not required because of the lot sizes
and there was not comments about livestock being on site. Ms. Smith wants to add language in the
conditions that will address the envelopes on the lots to protect the area for the septic and animals.
Pam Smith indicated that the Point Subdivision is one of those that were large scale development with •
septic systems that was approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
Bryant Gimlin wants to see the Final Plan because of there not being any information provided on the final
concept of how this will look.
Doug Ochsner added that he has no problem with the development but he would like to see the water
issue looked at more closely.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Barker to address the issue of the Final Plan coming to Planning Commission
instead of staff alone? Mr. Barker indicated that if the request is stated and is made one of the Conditions
or Standards it could come back. Ms. Hatch stated that the note for administrative approval is in 2H. Mr.
Miller asked if the sentence was deleted would it come back to the Planning Commission automatically?
Mr. Barker stated that it would be better to make certain that Planning Commission is instructing that it
come back. Mr. Barker suggested adding language to 5A. •
Pam Smith suggested adding language for the septic envelopes to 2Q8. The language will consist of:
2.R. 8. Primary and secondary septic envelopes shall be placed on each lot. All septic system
envelopes must meet all setbacks, including the 100-foot setback to any well.
9. Language for the preservation and/or protection of the absorption field envelopes shall be
placed in the development covenants. The covenants shall state that activities such as
permanent landscaping, structures, dirt mounds or other items are expressly prohibited in
the absorption field site.
Pam Smith suggested adding the same language under 3D to keep the same comments all together and
re-number.
Bryant Gimlin moved to incorporate the language 2Q8 and 3D from Health Department. Tonya Strobel
seconded. Motion carried.
James Rohn would like to see the language from Mr. Barker added. The language consisted of"the Final
Plat approval shall be reviewed by Board of County Commissioners and Planning Commission.
James Rohn moved to accept the language from Mr. Barker and place in 5A. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded.
Motion carried.
Bryant moved to delete the last two sentences from 2H. Chad Auer seconded. Motion carried
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that Case PZ-1000, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Bryant Gimlin seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tonya
Strobel, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 4:30pm
Respectfully submitted
Vaksa-
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello