HomeMy WebLinkAbout20032914.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, October 7, 2003
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday,October 7, 2003,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 1:30p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin
James Rohn
John Folsom
Stephan Mokray
John Hutson
Bruce Fitzgerald Absent
Tim Tracy
Doug Ochsner
Also Present:Don Carroll,Michelle Katyryniuk,Sheri Lockman,Chris Gathman, Kim Ogle, Monica Mika,Jeff
Reif, Bruce Barker, Voneen Macklin.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on September 16,
2003, was approved as read. The amendment to the September 2, 2003 minutes was approved.
The following items are continued:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1441
APPLICANT: Farmland Reserve Inc.
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part Lot B RE-1901; being part W2 E2 Section 1, T5N, R65W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a business
permitted as a use by right or an accessory use in the Industrial Zone
District (agricultural truck terminal) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Hwy 263; 1/4 mile west of CR 49.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting an indefinite continuance. The
application will modified the application.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1440
APPLICANT: Brent& Patricia Johnson
PLANNER: Michelle Katyryniuk
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part SE4 Lot A RE-901 Section 8, T7N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Veterinary
Clinic and Livestock Confinement Operation in the A (Agricultural) Zone
District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Hwy 14 and west of and adjacent CR 29.
Michelle Katyryniuk, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting a continuance to December
2, 2003. The applicant will be increasing the animal units on the case.
// / y Page 1
CASE NUMBER: USR-1432
APPLICANT: Mark & Kristi Weimer
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A; part SE4 Section 22, T6N, R64W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit to use
a single family residence to park company equipment associated with a
trucking business.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Carlton Road/CR 66 and approximately 1/4 mile
west of CR 57.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting a continuance to November 4,
2003. There was not adequate time to notify for this meeting. This was a previously continued item.
Jessie Banik asked how many times a case can be continued. This has been ongoing since August. Mr.
Miller stated the case will be heard on November 4,2003, and if they are in violation,they are tabled until the
hearing. Mr. Barker indicated that he believes this has gone through a violation hearing. Mr. Barker then
suggested that Mr.Banik have the Board of County Commissioners enforce the zoning ordinance,which can
be done with a letter to the Board of County Commissioners asking the ordinance be enforced.
The following items will be heard:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1433
APPLICANT: Leslie Windyka
PLANNER: Michelle Katyryniuk
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-2174; part N2 SE4 of Section 20, T5N, R64W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Kennel,
Junkyard,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,
(Vehicle Service/Repair) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 54 1/4 and west of Davis Road.
Michelle Katyryniuk, Planner, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1433, read the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommended
approval of the application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Patrick Groom, attorney for the applicant, provided clarification with regard to the project. This would be a
kennel, with an auto repair operation run by Ms. Windyka's son. The junkyard would be limited to a few
spaces on specific areas on the property. The applicant is aware of the surrounding neighbors concerns
regarding asthetics and noise. The property would be subject to noise standards regulated by the County and
the kennel would be confined indoors. The junkyard would not increase the noise or be allowed to increase
in size. The repair work would be performed in the building located on the north side of the property. There
would be adequate screening requirements imposed by the County. An irrigation ditch and railroad currently
exist on the north portion of the property. Screening would also be placed on the north side of the kennel
when future development occurs. There would be no change in appearance of the site. The kennel and
junkyard would be uses permitted by the special use permit.
Bryant Gimlin asked about the kennel and whether it was inclosed. Mr. Groom stated that it was an indoor
kennel. Mr. Gimlin asked about the junkyard and if it would consist of cars that are waiting to be worked on,
or junk cars to be parted out. Mr. Groom stated they would be customer cars for the most part, but the
applicant and her son do own some vehicles in the storage areas. The applicant does not anticipate non-
operational vehicles on the property.
Michael Miller asked for clarification with regard to the number of employees. Mr. Groom stated that the two
additional requested were for possible future employees. There would be no additional employees at this
time, other than Ms. Windyka and her son.
Page -2-
Michelle Katyryniuk stated the kennel would be in the outbuilding,detached garage and there was a proposed
outside dog run.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Ron Miller, 25615 CR 54 1/4, Kersey, Colorado, adjacent neighbor, opposed the project. His concerns
included the rat infestation, due he believed to the dog and rabbit food, increased junk and clutter on the site,
and the visual nuisance created by the businesses because there was no fence between the properties.
Melanie Troutman, daughter of Alfred and Esther Peters, 25641 CR 54 1/4, Kersey, CO, neighbor,opposed
the project. She said that when Ms.Windyka moved in, she indicated there would be no more than three or
four dogs.The noise from the dogs barking during the summer was unbearable. Ms.Troutman said the site
had rats in the ceiling of the shed that contained the rabbits and the neighbors were becoming infested with
the rats. There have been up to thirteen vehicles on site at a time, which needed to be moved with an ATV
because they were non-operational. There was also an area where four vehicles can be stored and sheet
metal is used for the screening, which she felt was not adequate. The vehicles behind the shed were also
screened with sheet metal which Ms.Troutman felt was not adequate screening material. Ms.Troutman said
the applicant stated her son was not going to have a garage, he would just be helping people in their church.
Mr. Miller stated that the screening would have to be approved by staff. There would be Development
Standards and Conditions of Approval that would have to be adhered to regarding the operation of both the
kennel and junkyard and the county can administer and enforce those standards and conditions.
John Duwell, 26542 CR 51, Greeley, Colorado, neighbor, stated that this was no place for a junkyard and he
is opposed to the project.
Ron Schafer,CR 54 1/4, Kersey, Colorado, neighbor,opposed the junkyard. He believed that small projects
like this lead to bigger things, and the junkyard would depreciate the property value for surrounding property
owners.
The Chair closed the public portion.
Patrick Groom, indicated that the aforementioned concerns are governed by the Weld County Code. The
applicant would adhere to the standards for screening, replacing any screening that was found to be
unsatisfactory. He did not believe there was a problem with rodents, but that would be addressed by the
Department of Public and Health and Environment and appropriate measures taken at that point. Mr.Groom
pointed out that the applicant's parcel was a one acre parcel and there simply wasn't room to develop an
extensive junkyard. The parcel was originally an agriculturally zoned area and uses in the area were currently
changing. Ms. Windyka, applicant, commented that the grasses on site would go to seed and reseed for
drought resistant grasses. The rats have been poisoned and there was no longer an infestation. The junkyard
was actually considered a commercial junkyard by Weld County Code definition only. Therefor it would not
be a salvage operation. There have been steps made to repair the engines that were on site at the present
time. All vehicle repairs are done by referral and by appointment only. They have no desire to have the
general public frequenting the site. The screening would be modified and a tree screen might solve some of
the neighbors issues. The applicant has not pursued trees screening at the request of the neighbors to
preserve their view of the mountains.
John Folsom asked Ms. Katyryniuk about the rabbits and were there controls as to the number? Ms.
Katyryniuk stated that this was not part of the USR, but indicated that the agricultural zoning district allowed
two hundred rabbits. Mr. Folsom asked Mr.Carroll about the forty foot right of way and the request to reserve
an additional ten feet. Mr. Carroll said that was correct,that CR 54 1/4 was designated as a collector status
road which would require eighty feet of right of way at full build out. Presently there was sixty feet so Public
Works asked to reserve an additional ten foot right of way for future build out. Ms. Katyryniuk said this
reservation (A.3.)was in the conditions. Mr. Folsom then inquired about the number of vehicles on property
and there condition. Ms. Katyryniuk indicated there was one car in front of the detached garage,two cars on
a cement pad adjacent to the outbuildings,and some cars behind the detached three car garage,but she did
not know if there were also cars in that garage.
Page -3-
Patrick Groom addressed the applicant's issues with the Development Standards. The applicant would like
Development Standard 16, number 2,to reflect that the pad is a 20 x 40 foot concrete pad, not a 20 x 20 foot
pad. This would also affect Development Standard 18, which should also be changed to a 20 x 40 foot
concrete pad. The applicant would like Development Standard 17 to reflect that the area for repair be limited
to the fifteen hundred square foot,three car garage,and the attached 20 x 50 foot paved area adjacent to the
garage be used for vehicle repair. Mr. Groom felt the language in Development Standard 21 was confusing
and suggested that it could read, "from sunset to sunrise, dogs shall be kept either indoors, or in a location
that limits the noise from barking dogs to carry beyond the property boundaries." In Development Standard
24, the applicant had an issue with the grasses not being over twelve inches in height, and wanted an
exception for a small area to the west of the garage,that would be planted with ornamental grasses that may
exceed t his h eight. M r. Miller asked M s. K atyryniuk i f t here w as a I andscape p Ian requirement. M s.
Katyryniuk stated that the screening was addressed individually for each item. Mr. Miller indicated that a
landscape plan could be included that delineated the grasses in the specific areas. Bryant Gimlin stated that
the words"native grasses"could be added to the language. Mr. Miller agreed and suggested adding"native
grasses and weeds were not permitted to grow taller than twelve inches", to the condition and it would cover
all of the issues at hand. That was agreeable to the applicant and her representative. In Development
Standard 33,the applicant requests, if possible,that some notice be given when representatives are planning
to visit the property. Mr. Miller agreed.
Stephen Mokray moved to amend the language in Development Standard 16& 18 to replace the 20 x 20 foot
concrete pad with the 20 x 40 foot concrete pads. James Rohn seconded. Motion carried.
Mr. Gimlin questioned whether there could be a limit placed on the number of total cars stored externally on
the property because there were several different areas for car parking,and this would help keep the numbers
manageable. Jim Rohn stated concern that the term"commercial junkyard" denoted derelict cars,and that
the cars stored were for repair,not necessarily derelict. Mr.Miller asked how many cars can a mechanic have
that he is currently working on? Mr.Miller then suggested five cars, in various stages of disrepair at any given
time, would be reasonable. Mr. Mokray favored six or three in every location requested.
Tim Tracy inquired about screening requirements and whether additional screening would be needed beyond
the pad if work were being done there? Mr. Miller stated screening will be requested for the storage
locations, not working areas and that he would not be in favor of repairs occurring on the pad. Doug Ochsner
reminded the board that the parcel is zoned agricultural and that this was a special use permit. The applicants
are in an agricultural zone and they need to make repairs. John Hutson asked about the hours of operation
and if that precluded any night time work in the area? Mr. Miller said that would be difficult to enforce, not
knowing whether the vehicles being worked on were personal or belonging to others. Mr. Rohn commented
that the cement pad does not need to be used for repairs,they could be done inside. Mr. Mokray stated that
he would like to see no work performed on Sunday, as Sunday should be a day of rest.
It was moved by Bryant Gimlin and seconded by Stephen Mokray to amend Development Standard 24, page
eight to read, "that property shall be maintained in such a manner that native grasses and weeds are not
permitted to grow taller than twelve inches." Motion carried.
Pam Smith,Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment,added that Development Standard
7, page six, showed there were no employees. As there would now be employees or the potential for
employees, s he a sked t o insert t hat"adequate hand washing and toilet facilities s hall b e provided for
employees and invited guests of the facility". Moved by John Folsom and seconded by Jim Rohn to add the
language Ms. Smith suggested to Development Standard 7, page 6. Motion carried. John Hutson asked
about Development Standard 9 and whether it would be modified, in regard to the septic system, now that
there would be the potential for employees at the facility? Ms. Smith said the septic system presently in use
was for the residence only, but the septic system must now comply with the Development Standards, page
4, 1.C. because the use has been changed from strictly residential to include employees and guests. The
system is for the residence,therefore she asked that the septic system comply with that provision which said
the septic system must be reviewed by a registered professional engineer. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Groom if he
and the applicant were in agreement with the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval and their
amendments? Mr. Groom said they were in agreement and pointed out that there was not an amendment
made to the number of vehicles which would be allowed outside. Mr. Groom said they are not opposed to a
Page -4-
limit on the number of vehicles but suggested that a maximum of ten vehicles be kept outside, including the
applicant's personal vehicles and those being currently worked on.
Mr. Mokray stated that he felt ten vehicles were too many and he would like a six vehicle maximum. Mr.
Groom then clarified that they would like to include ten outside vehicles, up to three vehicles being repaired
or stored inside, and there would be no other vehicles on the property except for whatever were in the
driveway. Mr. Miller stated they needed a total vehicle number as the USR includes the entire property. Mr.
Groom wants twelve vehicles allowed on the property; ten in the back and two on the concrete pad outside.
Mr.Tracy asked how many vehicles the applicant presently owns on the property? Ms.Wyndyka stated there
were six vehicles behind the shop and three vehicles on the concrete pad, all in various stages of repair. All
but two belonged to her son.
Mr. Folsom asked Bruce Barker, County Attorney, if there was a conflict in limiting the number of vehicles in
a commercial junkyard and was there any limit to the number of vehicles on the property even though only
a portion of the property had been designated a commercial junkyard? Mr. Barker stated the number could
be limited because the use was permitted and could have limitations. To answer the second part of Mr.
Folsom's question,the USR encompasses the entire parcel,therefore the limitation should be directed toward
the north end. If the proposed plat showed the designated area for storage, Mr. Barker suggested limits could
be placed on the number of vehicles in that area, such that all vehicles to be repaired or worked on must be
stored in a specific area.
Jim Rohn moved to amend Development Standard 16, item 4,to read, "The storage area for the commercial
junkyard will be limited to three distinct areas within the property, holding a maximum of ten vehicles in
outside storage." Doug Ochsner seconded the motion. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members
of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom, no; Stephan Mokray, no; Michael Miller, no;
Bryant Gimlin, no; James Rohn, yes; John Hutson, no; Tim Tracy, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion failed.
John Folsom moved to amend Development Standard 16, item 4, to read, "The storage area for the
commercial junkyard will be limited to three distinct areas within the property,with a limit of six vehicles to be
stored outside." John Hutson 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, no;
Bryant Gimlin, yes;James Rohn,yes;John Hutson,yes;Tim Tracy,yes; Doug Ochsner, no. Motion carried.
Mr. Miller asked Mr. Groom if the applicant agreed with the motions and conditions of approval? Mr. Groom
said though the applicant disagreed with the number of vehicles but they understood the commission's ruling.
John Folsom moved that Case USR-1433, 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;John Hutson,
yes; Tim Tracy, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Miller then informed the room that the agenda would be rearranged and that USR-1393 would be heard
next.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1393
APPLICANT: Beau Rappell and Jed Rappell
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-2060; part of the S2 SW4 of Section 10, T6N, R64W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a
commercial roping arena (indoor/outdoor) in the A (Agricultural) Zone
District.
Page -5-
LOCATION: East and adjacent to WCR 55; north and adjacent to WCR 70.
Chris Gathman, Planner, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1393, 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 Mr. Gathman if it had been considered to limit the number of participants in the events.
Mr. Gathman indicated the maximum number of participants is one hundred according to the application and
limits could be inserted as a Condition of Approval,as he was not sure how often events would take place that
would exceed these numbers. Mr. Folsom inquired if a special permit could be applied for if the applicant
knew they would exceed the maximum allowed number of participants? Mr. Gathman said yes, they could.
Tim Clancy,applicant's representative,822 7th Street,Suite 760,Greeley,Colorado,said the building was up
and events had occurred for approximately ten years, prior to the applicant's purchase from the previous
owner,a Mr.Larson. The Use by Special Review process was applied for after someone complained that Mr.
Rappell did not have one. Beau Rappell,applicant,34018 CR 55,Greeley,Colorado,indicated that the arena
was the main reason he purchased the property in order to continue the events that had been taking place
on the property prior to his ownership.
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 asked Jeff Reif, Weld County Building Official, if the house would need to be brought up to
current standards when the applicant applied for a Certificate of Occupancy? Mr. Reif said a conversion
would not be required to meet all of the current standards. They would however,look at the electrical circuits,
egress from bedrooms, and smoke detectors, but it would not have to meet today's current standards.
Stephen Mokray asked Don Carrol, Department of Public Works, about the traffic if they are anticipating one
hundred participants and does he see that as a problem? Mr. Carroll stated that he would like to know how
often events occur. Mr. Carroll said current traffic counts in the area showed fifty vehicles in a twenty four
hour period. If the events are scheduled regularly and the number of participants is consistently one hundred,
then dust abatement would become an issue, but presently there was no concern. Mr. Rappell stated the
estimated one hundred participants was to cover large events that may take place, however smaller events
were more common. There was usually an average of twenty to thirty people at the weekly practice,and once
a month, one might see fifty trailers for the larger events. Jim Rohn asked where most participants come
from? Mr. Rappell stated they were from a short distance away, the events were small, and there were no
two day events only one day events, therefore no overnight stays were required. Mr. Rohn inquired about
the participants travel route. Mr. Rappell said he suggested CR 392 to CR 55 as these roads were better
maintained. Lastly Mr. Rohn asked if there would be concession sales at the events? Mr. Rappell said the
participants primarily brought their own food,but in the past he has allowed licensed vendors to provide food.
John Folsom motioned that language be added which would "Limit the number of participants to a maximum
of one hundred to any event." This would become Development Standard 23, page 10 and re-numbering of
the remaining standards would need to occur. Jim Rohn seconded. Motion carried.
Mr.Miller asked Mr. Rappell if this was a commercial operation and did he charge fees? He replied that it was
and he did charge fees.
Jim Rohn moved that staff language in their handout be added to page 6, 2. M. and 2.N. be added to the
conditions of approval. John Folsom seconded the motion. Motion carried.
Mr. Miller asked Mr. Rappell if had had an opportunity to read the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if he was in agreement with them? Mr. Clancy, applicant's representative, replied that item M.
would be taken care of, item N. was not a problem, and number 13 could be deleted as it was also included
in 19, and that may be true for 16 as well if they could add"employees" to 19, then 16 might also be omitted.
Page -6-
Pam Smith,Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment,said deleting 13 and 16 as they were
covered in 19,would be fine. She also suggested the second sentence of 19,"adequate hand-washing and
toilet facilities shall be provided for the public and employees of the facility"be included. Mr.Clancy said with
respect to number 20, Mr. Rappell would like to explore the possibility of other options as defined in ISDS
requirements. Ms. Smith said that typically the requirement is that there must be a restroom for employees
if needed. Mr.Clancy also suggested the use of portable toilets,and said a similar facility had been approved
to do so in a previous case. Mr. Clancy also asked that number 23 be either deleted or amended to use as
possible alternative residence. Mr. Gathman, planner, stated he was trying to be consistent with similar
applications where they have a permanent residence and have opted to put in a second residence. He
recommended this be limited to either family or employees of the roping arena and not be used as an outside
rental for anyone. Doug Ochsner questioned if there was a specific code being followed? Bruce Barker,
County Attorney,stated that they have amended the code to include a second residence for a Use by Special
Review application. Mr.Gathman said the commercial roping arena and secondary residence were included
in the notices, the intent to use was included in the application, and this was consistent with other cases.
John Folsom moved that Development Standards 13 and 16 be deleted and add "adequate hand-washing
and toilet facilities shall be provided for the public and employees of the facility" to 19. Stephen Mokray
seconded. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner moved that Development Standard 23 be deleted. Seconded by Jim Rohn. Motion carried
7-1.
John Hutson moved that a new Development Standard 23 be added which states, "Roping events shall be
limited to a maximum number of one hundred participants," to replace the deleted Development Standard
23. John Folsom seconded. Motion carried.
Mr.Miller asked the applicant is he was in agreement of the amended Development Standards and Conditions
of Approval. He replied that he was.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case USR-1393,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. John Folsom 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;Tim Tracy,yes;James Rohn,yes;
John Hutson, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1442
APPLICANT: Jon Moser
PLANNER: Michelle Katyryniuk
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-1566 Section 9, T6N, R66W 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, Accessory Use, or a Use by Special Review
in the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts (the selling, manufacturing
and outdoor storage of metal products)in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 72 and east of and adjacent to CR 31.
Michael Miller excused himself due to a potential appearance of a conflict of interest, as he was in the
notification area.
Michelle Katyryniuk, Planner, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1442, 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.
Page -7-
Jim Rohn asked about this application being in violation. Ms. Katyryniuk stated the sale and manufacture of
metal products was being done without a Use by Special Review. The applicant also had a roping arena on
the premises, which was for private use only, but the lighting for the private area has become an issue to
surrounding property owners.
John Vasquez,representative for the applicant, 106 Rock Bridge Court,Windsor,Colorado,80550, provided
clarification. The arena had been through a review process and been approved. It was not within the limits
of this Use by Special Review,and if there are issues with lighting,they need to be addressed separately from
this USR-1442. The present commercial operation was on site when purchased by the applicant and the
applicant was deemed in violation before he could get the Use by Special Review application completed.
Scott Moser, applicant,clarified the primary business was a custom metal sign company. He may get metal
deliveries once or twice a month. The majority of his business is conducted over the internet,therefore there
was not heavy customer traffic to and from the site.
Stephen Mokray asked Mr.Moser if the manufacturing included welding? Mr. Moser stated that some welding
was done, but not a large amount. Welding was performed on an individual basis. The primary production
was done by a water jet cutting machine,and the water is recycled so there was no need for outside disposal
of water. John Folsom inquired if Mr. Moser had any paint finishing facilities? Mr. Moser responded that he
did not, the majority of the cutting he does is with aluminum or stainless steel and if they require a finish he
takes them to another facility for powder coating.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Mr. Gimlin asked the applicant if he had read the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval and if
he agreed with them? Mr. Vasquez said they had, but took issue with number 19 with respect to the hours
of operation. Mr. Moser would like the ability to work Friday&Saturday, 7-5:30 p.m. when and if necessary.
John Folsom asked about the surface use agreement with Bonanza Oil. Mr.Vasquez stated that there have
been conversations but he did not presently have a letter in hand. The letter should be received within the
next two weeks and there should be resolution prior to meeting with the Board of County Commissioners.
Doug Ochsner moved to amend Development Standard 19 to read that "outdoor storage" be deleted and
"hours of operation for selling and manufacturing of metal products be limited to Monday through Saturday,
7 a.m. to 5:30 p.m." John Folsom seconded. Motion carried.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case USR-1442,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. Tim Tracy 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;Tim Tracy,yes;James Rohn,yes;
John Hutson, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: 2003-XX
PLANNER: MONICA MIKA
REQUEST: COUNTY CODE CHANGES
Monica Mika, provided clarification with regard to the code changes and said that most discussion needs to
occur with regard to the Recorded Exemption. Ms. Mika began with Chapter 24-8-10,and said the Recorded
Exemption process was unique in Weld County in that it was an exception to the state rules and regulations
on subdivision. It was the only process that while creating multiple lots,are exempt to state statute. Recorded
Exemptions were initially created because minimum lot size in the county agricultural zone was eighty acres,
which was generally higher than the minimum lots size in other adjoining communities. Recorded Exemptions
have changed and require an eighty acre parcel. According to the Code, any parcel less than eighty acres
may be eligible for a Recorded Exemption depending upon when and how it was created. A parcel was
considered to be lawful if it was over thirty five acres and in the agricultural zone, it won't be eligible for a
Page -8-
building permit unless it was eighty acres or was created through a recorded exemption process. A recorded
exemption was a narrow tool for dividing land but it was not the only tool. In 2000,the County Commissioners
created a three lot recorded exemption,which allowed starting with one hundred sixty acres. One lot needed
to be more than one hundred twenty acres and the remaining two lots occupied the remaining acreage.
Recently,the recorded exemption process was proposed to change to four lots. We were recommending this
because staff was finding that with change in water rules and regulations,there were a lot of farmers needing
to maintain production and maintain augmentation. It is merely a choice, or just one more process for the
division of land. When the Board of County Commissioners originally looked at this, they stated that the
process would make sense in the preservation of prime farm land and maintenance of agricultural production.
The recommendation before the Planning Commission was a three pronged recommendation: look at the
introduction of the four lot recorded exemption; look at the limitation of further division of all lots created
through the recorded exemption process; modify decision of ten year rule; modify,or revert back to every five
years, but that would only be applicable to larger lots.
Mr. Miller asked about clarification of the subdivision process. Ms. Mika replied that lots a, b, and c cannot
be further subdivided through the recorded exemption process, but the largest lot could be subdivided again
after five years. There was no time frame to come back and do a minor subdivision, a major subdivision, or
a PUD. The timing element for further division was only tied to the recorded exemption process.
John Folsom asked about the motivation of the four lot recorded exemption with regard to the center pivot and
the corners being sold off. Ms. Mika said there was a provision in the proposal in front of them allowing the
possibility to cluster the homes, maintain best farming practices, and utilize an internal road with no new
access.
Jim Rohn asked about specific lot location. Ms. Mika stated they must cluster with a shared internal roadway
if at all possible and it was limited to the one hundred sixty acre minimum. Mr. Barker added that there was
a statement in the Code in Section 24-8-20 A. which stated, "A recorded exemption must not be for the
purpose of evading the requirements in intent of this chapter." Ms. Mika said that she believed that if a
property owner wanted to come back after five years and carve off a corner of the property, she did not think
that was an evasion to the Ordinance. An evasion to the Ordinance would be if the property owner came back
to repeatedly establish subdivision after subdivision.
Mr. Miller commented that the original idea was to utilize the four corners of the center pivot, but by forcing
the property owner to cluster the lots,it takes away from the center pivot and best farming practices. Ms.Mika
stated that they still need to look at best farming practices. The assumption that every pivot is a circle pivot
and there was no row crop activity happening in Weld County is not necessarily the case. We may have a
lot of farm ground that was presently under a center pivot that we won't have under a center pivot two years
from now because they won't have the augmentation water available to run the center pivots. Ms. Mika said
we were going to see changes in farming parcels that have historically had some water that won't, so there
must be a balance. She also addressed the no"net gain"access issue where the County Code talks about
having only one principle access and said they have added new language.
Tim Tracy asked if the assumption was that farming in the future was not going to be based on a center pivot
model? Ms. Mika said the biggest assumption was that where they were getting water was changing and
would continue to change rapidly. What we are intending to do is to ensure that public policy try to stay
somewhat current with what we know to be happening in the farming community.This creates an alternative.
Mr. Tracy then asked about the five year versus the ten year limit. Ms. Mika said that once you do an
exemption you can come back and apply to do another in five years on the large parcel only. The larger
parcel in the proposed regular exemption could apply to be further split.
Bruce Barker asked why are they putting in the new language, "A recorded exemption must not be for the
purpose of evading the requirements in intent of this chapter." Ms. Mika said that was being added so that
if someone were to come back and do a four lot recorded exemption and then two weeks later try to do a
minor subdivision, and the overall density exceeded nine lots, we could say that is an urban use and the
applicant needs to go through an urban process. Mr. Barker said it appears that the applicant could go on
ad infinitum until they have a subdivision. He thought the language being added gave the Planning
Department the opportunity to say no, that's evading the requirements of a subdivision ordinance because
Page -9-
they are creating a subdivision. Ms. Mika said the applicant has the right to apply for further subdivision, but
then staff will have the ability to say this was not the way to subdivide. Ms. Mika added that the rationale for
the five year recorded exemption was because the public requesting a change.
Bryant Gimlin added the notion of the five year restriction was that the recorded exemption was a quicker and
easier process to go through. The five year was short enough and flexible for change but long enough to get
out of the subdivision process.
Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, asked for clarification on this example: if there was an eighty acre
parcel and it was split into a ten and a seventy acre parcel, had been through the recorded exemption
process, and there was an existing home on the ten acre parcel, can the owner/applicant come back in and
do a split on Lot B,the seventy acre parcel? Also with the existing home and existing driveway accessing the
ten acre parcel, how would they deal with the new access and the clustering on Lot B? Ms. Mika said in
Section 24-8-40 it talked about "no net" increases and the policies to carry this out are not completely
established yet. Section 24-8-25 talked about a recorded exemption being completed in sixty days,and that
was not specifically in the Code at that time. It also talked about a recorded exemption used in conjunction
with a subdivision exemption and when that happens that will fall under the time frame.
Mr. Miller said it appeared to him that they were extending time frames on everything? Ms. Mika responded
that they were recommending that referral agencies be given twenty-eight days rather that twenty-one to get
their responses back to the Department of Planning because they have had to continue too many cases due
to referrals not received before the hearing date. Another possible time change element was due to the fact
that hearings now occur at the Southwest Weld Complex,which has caused some hearings to be two weeks
later than previously possible.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Jack Wheeler, 5909 County Line Road, Erie, Colorado, said he owned one hundred sixty acres north of Fort
Lupton and this proposal would make it much easier for division of his land for his kids.
Rick Dutton, 15686 Caroline, Fort Lupton, Colorado, 80621, commented on the five years the board was
looking at for recorded exemptions,and said if one were going to subdivide, it would take fifty to one hundred
years to get it done, but that he supported the five year recorded exemption time change.
Seeing there was no one else wishing to address the board, the public portion was closed.
Jim Rohn said he approved of the recorded exemption code changes,but was a bit leary of approving the four
lot recorded exemption.
Bryany Gimlin questioned if there could be additional accesses if the lay out warranted it and it was not
detrimental to the County road system? Ms. Mika replied yes.
John Hutson moved to approve the amendments to Article 8 as written. Stephen Mokray seconded.
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;Tim Tracy,yes; James Rohn, no;
John Hutson, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried 6-2.
Ms. Mika then spoke to the board about Article 2, Section 21-2-10, in which the changes were in relation to
dates and times and were repeated throughout the Code, and that the intent was to put the information into
the Code and make sure that it was being followed. Mr. Miller suggested it might say"that upon submittal
of the application,a hearing date will be set within the next sixty days"? Ms.Mika also suggested that ten days
was an appropriate amount of time to get the cases to the Board of County Commissioners, and that would
be throughout the whole text for consistency. The changes would also be made in Section 21-2-60,once the
board decides on modifications to changes.
The hearing was then opened to public comment. Seeing none, it was closed.
Page -10-
Ms. Mika asked Mr. Barker if he had any comments pertaining to the changes. He had none.
The board then discussed among themselves the possible language changes they might make to the Code.
Jim Rohn moved that Section 21-2-260, B.1. be amended to read"A Planning Commission hearing should
take place within sixty days." Stephen Mokray seconded. Motion carried.
Jim Rohn moved that Section 21-2-260, B.6.be amended to read,"the failure of any agency to respond within
twenty-eight days." Stephen Mokray seconded. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner asked when a person came in to make an application, when does the applicant receive
notification? Mr. Miller responded that it was within sixty days from the date the application was deemed
complete. Ms. Mika said when the application is turned it, it is reviewed and determined whether or not it is
complete. Mr. Ochsner said he felt the applicant needed to be notified whether or not the application is
complete in a timely fashion.
Jim Rohn moved that Article 2 be approved with the amended changes. Seconded by John Hutson. Motion
carried.
Ms. Mika reviewed Article 1, Section 23-1-90, and the definition determining when the application was
complete, and if it did or did not meet specific criteria as defined in the Code. A definition change was made
in the modification to a change for a home occupation. The next definition change was to the word
"landscape"rather than "landscaping." Manufactured structure was next and a new component was added
to the manufactured mobile home area where they have seen a lot of manufactured structures, pre-built
offices, and pre-built classrooms coming in and they needed to be able to address those in the Code. The
last change was a definition in relation to referral agencies,where it talked about a referral to an agency may
not constitute giving them everything in the file. A referral was merely a component of a packet.
John Folsom motioned to approve Chapter 23, Article 1 with the amendment that it shall read " vehicle no
larger then one ton gross vehicle weight and/or one trailer that cannot exceed fifteen feet." Jim Rohn
seconded the motion. Motion carried.
John Hutson moved to continue this meeting on the Code changes to October 21, 2003, at 10 a.m., at the
Southwest Weld County building. Jim Rohn seconded. Motion carried. Ms. Mika ended by saying that the
board members would be sent a new, complete packet with page numbers.
Michael Miller adjourned the meeting at 5:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Page -11-
Hello