HomeMy WebLinkAbout20032418.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, August 5, 2003
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 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 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin
James Rohn
John Folsom
Stephan Mokray
John Hutson
Bernard Ruesgen
Bruce Fitzgerald
Also Present: Don Carroll, Bethany Salzman,Kim Ogle,Sheri Lockman,Peter Schei,Jacqueline Hatch,Char
Davis, Cindy Etcheverry, Michelle Katyrynuik
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on July 15, 2003,
was approved as read.
The first order of business is the election of officers for the upcoming terms.
Bernie Ruesgen nominated Michael Miller for Chair. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded.
Stephen Mokray nominated Bryant Gimlin for Vice Chair. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded.
The elected officers will remain the same as last term.
The following item is continued:
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.
Jacqueline Hatch read a request for continuance to October 7, 2003. The applicant is in the process of
obtaining a commercial well permit. Stephen Mokray moved to continue to October 7, 2003. John Folsom
seconded. Motion carried.
The following is on the Consent Agenda:
CASE NUMBER: 2ndAmUSR-996
APPLICANT: Marcum Midstream 1995-2 Business Trust
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part SE4 Section 8, T4N, R64W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for an Oil and
Gas Support Facility (B rinewater Disposal) i n the A (Agricultural)Z one
District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 46 and west of and adjacent to CR 53.
CASE NUMBER: MF-614
C-6714.e page -1-
C 4 3
(.)2LiC3- :A//2
APPLICANT: Timothy& Lisa Brough
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-1911;being part of the SW4 of Section 6,T7N, R67W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Final Plat for a nine lot (9) Minor Subdivision (Pheasant Crest Estates).
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 84 and east of and adjacent to CR 13.
James Rohn would like to hear the case.
There was no other board member who wished to hear the case.
Bryant Gimlin moved to approve the consent Agenda. Stephen Mokray seconded.Motion carried with James
Rohn voting no.
CASE NUMBER: SCH-23
APPLICANT: Cattail Creek Group, LLC
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot C of RE-2537;being part of SW4 Section 9,T6N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A review of a previously denied application for land use (Change of Zone
PZ-613), and request for a Substantial Change Determination.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 70 and approximately 800 feet east of CR 29.
Michael Miller removed himself due to his involvement in the case. Mr. Gimlin read the case into the record.
This case was requested to be heard by a member of the public. Patrick McNear
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services stated,"Cattail Creek Group,LLC c/o George DuBard have
applied for A Review of a Previously Denied Application for Land Use, and request for a Substantial Change
Determination
Change of Zone PZ-613 was denied by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners on October 2,2002.
This proceeding today is not to rehear the original change of zone but rather to determine if the applicant has
met the criteria established to verify if a substantial change has occurred in order to reapply.
Pursuant to Chapter 2,Article II, Section 2-3-10 of the Weld County Code,the Commissioners shall consider
the a pplicant's request for a H earing o f Substantial C hange and whether within the concept of a new
application, the facts and circumstances are substantially changed from the initial application:
Criteria 1. --Has the land-use application substantially changed? (e.g., substantial changes in lot
size or density, in internal or external roads, or, in the case of a rezoning, in the uses proposed)
Criteria 2.—Have the surrounding land-uses substantially changed? (e.g.,has the adjacent land use
changed during the period of time since the last application such that what would be compatible with
the adjacent use has changed)
Criteria 3. — Have applicable provisions of the law substantially changed? (e.g., the applicant is
proposing using a different procedure so a different set of criteria apply or the applicable ordinance
has been amended by the Board so the criteria have substantially changed)
Criteria 4. — Within the concept of rehearing the previously denied application, is there newly
discovered evidence that the applicant could not have discovered with diligent effort at the time of the
original application ?
The Department of Planning Services has determined that the submitted information does meet the intent of
a substantial change Per criteria 1 and 4.
Criteria 1. Is that the land-use application substantially changed? (e.g., substantial changes in lot size or
density, in internal or external roads, )
Page -2-
The applicant originally proposed to create a Planned Unit Development with eight (8)one acre Estate lots
and one (1) one-hundred twenty-one acre Agricultural lot along with 30 acres of open space. The new
proposal has the following changes:
The applicant has increased the eight (8) Estate lots to four (4)acres.
The road has been moved to the east.
Landscaping has been included in the open space between the lots and adjacent
home to the west.
iv. Coal Bank Creek and the flood plain have been included in the residential lots
instead of the open space.
Criteria 4.States"Within the concept of rehearing the previously denied application,is there newly discovered
evidence that the applicant could not have discovered with diligent effort at the time of the original application
At the Board of County Commissioners hearing,allegations were made that the applicant was taking irrigation
water illegally. The applicant did not have a chance to respond because the allegations were made during
the last step of the change of zone process.
Planning staff reminded the commission and members of the audience that the hearing was not intended as
a rehearing of the change of zone. Also Planning Staffs recommendation of approval is in no way related to
a review of the change of zone. The only criteria staff reviewed is that which is related to the substantial
change. Many of the issues surrounding Cattail Creek are not relevant at the hearing and should be reserved
for the Change of Zone hearing if the applicants are granted the right to reapply."
James Rohn asked where the open space was on the map. Ms. Lockman indicated the area. Mr. Rohn
asked if lots 1-5 were in the flood plain and do the lots straddle the creek. Ms. Lockman stated that a small
portion was in the flood plain and they changed the lots because of the issues of having it in the open space
so it is now in the lots.
Anne Best Johnson, representative for the applicant, provided additional information on the substantial
change. Evidence will be provided to verify the substantial change. There only needs to be one criteria met
in order for a substantial change to be approved. Mrs.Johnson went over the new design of the development.
The lots size was increased, landscape buffer added, road and traffic issues were improved, building
envelopes are included and the open space was incorporated into the lots to increase the size of the lots. The
total amount of open space is 25.2 acres, this includes 7 acres of common open space which is the buffer
area and 18 acres that have been deemed non buildable on each lot. The irrigation water was determined
to be adequate for delivery and the amount was deemed adequate. Two of the four criteria for a substantial
change have been met. The applicant is requesting approval and if this is approved the change of zone is
the process that will be initiated. The information submitted exceeds the expectations of the sketch plan.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Patrick McNear, neighbor, indicated that the changes that have been made have not been substantial based
only on the lot size when the density was the issue for denial. The only change is in the size of the lots and
road location . The changes do not mitigate the issues from the Board of County Commissioners. The road
will only be another access point. The landscape buffer does not address the issue of the other adjoining land
owners. Another issue is Coalbank Creek is in the lots not in the open space. This does not mitigate the
attractive nuisance issue that was described in the previous hearing. There is no buffer protection for those
areas. The changes are minor and they fail to mitigate the Boards issues.
John Folsom asked Mr. Barker if the substantial change must be submitted based solely on the reasons for
denial from the Board of County Commissioners or can there be substantial changes in any aspect? Mr.
Barker stated it must be between the facts from the first application and the second application. The reasons
for denial by the commissioners are not crucial.
The Public portion closed.
James Rohn commented that the quotes from Sections 27-2-35, 27-2-70, 27-2-74 have not been met. Mr.
Gimlin asked about the criteria and that any one of the criteria needs to be met. There is not a need to have
to meet all four.
Page -3-
John Folsom moved that Case SCH-23, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. John 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; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James Rohn, no; Bernie
Ruesgen, no; John Hutson, yes. Motion carried.
Bernie Ruesgen commented that he is not convinced the changes are substantial. Changing lines are on the
map are peripheral.
James Rohn commented that section 27-2-74 has not been addressed. There has not been any additional
conservation. The attractive nuisance of the creek now being in back yards.
The following is on the Hearing Agenda:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1431
APPLICANT: Marlin Ness
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NE4 Section 21, T5N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for an RV Park,
Storage and Recreation Area in the Agricultural Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and a djacent t o Highway 3 4 (28`" Street Frontage Road) and
approximately%mile east of 15`Avenue.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1431, reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
John Folsom asked about the petition for annexation to the City of Greeley. Cities have been know to
establish contiguity through flagpole annexations. Mr. Gathman stated that he is not aware of any formal
petition to annex into the City of Greeley.
James Rohn asked about the standards and requirements that deal with the Division of Wildlife beyond the
preble meadow jumping mouse and orchids. Is there a way to ensure that hunting still be done and the
concern with the trials. Mr. Gathman stated there are conditions to cover the animals and there is also
condition 2 L that deals with the Division of Wildlife concerns.
Bryant Gimlin asked about 2 D & F and the difference. Ms. Davis indicated that the garage on site has a
bathroom and does not have septic permit. Any new development would require sewer. The facility use
sanitation services from the City of Greeley and the garage will need to be permitted. There is two different
things. This is a catch 22 situation. The City of Greeley will not allow them to use the sanitation district unless
they are annexed. If the annexation is not done then the septic system for the garage will need to be dealt
with.
Michael Miller asked about the sewage treatment facility like the system on the other side of the road. Ms.
Davis stated that the condition is left as an adequate disposal system due to the fact that it is a catch 22 for
the applicant. The treatment plant will satisfy the condition.
Stephen Mokray asked about the vacation of old USRs. Mr. Gathman stated that one was for Oil&Gas and
the other was for a gravel pit. Those need to be vacated so a new USR can be established.
Tony Evans, representative, provided additional information.There will be 200 pad sites and 20 recreational
parking sites. There is an existing RV use on north side of Hwy 34 owned by the same applicant. The pads
will be built in phases depending on financial circumstances. This will be mostly open space and the
possibility of a golf course. The applicant has met with the City of Greeley on four occasions and they
expressed their disinterest in annexation. They say that there is no contiguity. They would not allow this
project to tie into sewer because they are not annexed into Greeley. The property is surrounded by vacant
land. Annexation would have to be done in pieces in order to accommodate the 1/6 contiguity. Mr. Evans
stated even if the land was annexed the City of Greeley would not allow this type of use for the property.
Page -4-
James Rohn asked about the difference in the application letter and the referral letter received from Greeley.
Mr. Evans did not know why the City of Greeley's referral contradicted everything that was told to them. Mr.
Rohn asked about the applicant not exploring all the options with the City of Greeley. Mr. Evans stated the
only option is to submit application which is $1100 with a six month process and staff would deny because
there is not contiguity, besides they would not allow this type of use. Mr. Rohn asked what the plans for the
area are? Mr. Evans indicated he does not know what the plans for the area are.
Stephen Mokray asked about Greeley concerns over easements located on the parcel and the pads being
placed on them. Mr. Evans stated that could be addressed and the pads relocated. The easement is 25 feet
from center line.
Bernie Ruesgen asked about construction phases. How long until completed? Mr. Evans indicated that it was
possible to build 50 in the spring and fall so completion could be two years minimum.
Stephen Mokray asked about easement notations on the plat. Mr. Gathman indicated that can be done.
There is a development standard that addresses this issue. Mr. Mokray is bothered by hearing different
stories than what is in the text. It would be better if there was something from Greeley to support what is being
stated. Mr. Gathman was hoping for a representative from the City of Greeley. Mr. Gathman was writing his
comments based on the written referral from Greeley. Daryl Gesick, the planner on the case, has been out
of the office.
Char Davis, Weld County Health and Human Services, spoke with Darryl Gesick and he indicated that they
were interested in working with the applicant on annexation.
James Rohn stated that it may beneficial to continue this application a second time to gather adequate
information with regard to annexation and the possible options.
Michael Miller asked Ms. Davis about the existing water supply on site. Ms. Davis stated that it is an adjacent
property. This is also a catch 22 because the water is on the adjacent property. It is similar to the sewer lines.
The City of Greeley will give them access to water and sewer if they annex into Greeley but if they do not then
and alternative must be developed. There is an irrigation well noted in the application.
James Rohn asked about different water supply company alternatives. Mr. Evans indicated that the existing
RV park on the north side of Hwy 34 has water and it is an internal treatment plant. The water comes from
wells. This water can be piped or hauled across. There is a well on this property that is being taken through
the State process to get a different designation to public domain. Water will be internal. City water is too far
away and they will not allow the project to tie into City sewer. Mr. Miller indicated that the City of Greeley
wants the applicant to apply for annexation and if it is not acceptable they might make exception on the water
and sewer. Mr. Evans indicated that the City of Greeley has stated they would not allow use of their water and
sewer without annexation. The annexation will not happen due to the fact that the 1/6 contiguity does not
exist. The owner does not wish to go into the City of Greeley because they would not allow the use.
Michael Miller clarified that if annexation was applied for it would be denied because of the contiguity and after
denial then the use of the water and sewer could be looked at. Why not go through the process and get the
denial then apply for water and sewer. Mr. Evans indicated that water is on site that can be used for potable
sources. There is a treatment plant and a well going through the State Department. If this is denied the
existing water treatment facility can be used by either piping it across Hwy 34 or hauling it.
James Rohn asked about well being close to river and the contamination. There is no other water source
within%mile of property. Mr. Evans indicated that the residence has a well and the only potable water source
within Y mile is the City of Greeley.
Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, asked Mr. Evans about the storage area and if still part of the
application. Mr. Evans stated that there is a request for 20 storage spaces along with the pad sites.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
The applicant indicated issues with Development Standards 12, 13, and clarification of 23.
Page -5-
Stephen Mokray asked Ms. Davis about the maintenance and possibility of water being delivered from other
side of highway. Ms.Davis stated that the water system they have is monitored through State Health System.
The State might not allow the piping under Hwy 34.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Barker asked if another application was needed for the well on the existing site if a
change of use for that well was being applied for and to be able to use it on another site or haul it to the other
site. Ms. Davis indicated that if commercial well then it is fine but the information now stated it is an irrigation
well. Mr. Evans stated that the well is a commercial well. Mr. Miller stated that a well is permitted for specific
use and they have no authority to expand the water to other side.
Char Davis indicated that if sewer line is within 200 feet then a permit will not be allowed according to Code.
The septic that is on site now will need to be either permitted or abandoned.There is no way they could place
a new system on site. Mr. Evans indicated that they have applied for a hardship case from the City of Greeley
and they were denied.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Gathman about the golf course. Mr. Gathman indicated it would require a separate
application process and there are additional issues that will need to be reviewed. They would need to amend
this application or come in with a whole new application.
Michael Miller asked about the non transferability of the business.Mr.Gathman indicated that there have been
some cases in the past that applicants did not agree and there are factors involved. Mr. Miller asked Mr.
Barker if this is something that can be deleted.
Bryant Gimlin questioned that the difference from the writing from Greeley. There is also no proof of adequate
water and sewer. Mr. Miller stated that rather than go forward with denial recommend a continuance until all
the information for the water and sewer can be obtained.
Tony Evans added sewer can be done by septic. Mr. Miller would like the applicant to exhaust all possibilities
with annexation then apply for use of water line after denial. Mr. Evans indicated that the water line is a
distance away and it would be cost prohibitive to tap into it. Mr. Gimlin indicated that there is no proof of
adequate water, if the well could be used that would be fine but there is not proof either way. Mr. Evans can
provide information, cisterns are approved for RV parks.
John Hutson moved to deny the application if the applicant does not want to attempt to exhaust all the options
from the City of Greeley. James Rohn seconded. Mr. Miller stated that the Planning Commission is not
asking the applicant if they are in favor of continuance it is up to the Planning Commission to recommend.
John Hutson moved to continue this case indefinitely to allow the applicant to address the issues brought forth
in this discussion. If the applicant chooses not to address Development Standard #12, #13 and#23 then it
will be voted on accordingly. James Rohn Seconded.
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; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James
Rohn, yes; Bernie Ruesgen, yes; John Hutson, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1434
APPLICANT: Town of Eaton
PLANNER: Michelle Katyryniuk
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part NW4 Section 2,T6N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Major
Facility of a Public Utilities or Public Agencies (2.6 MG Water Tank).
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 33; 1/2 mile south of CR 74.
Michelle Katyrynuik, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1434, 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 how tall the tank was and whether it is applicable to the building height regulation as
stated in Development Standard#19. Ms. Katyrynuik stated that the tank is 75 feet. Ms. Lockman assisted
Page -6-
and indicated that the standard is for the setback to be met. It is a standard from building inspection. The
setbacks can be met. Mr. Gimlin asked if there is a need for secondary containment because of overflow.
Ms. Katyrynuik stated that according to the submitted information they have a drainage line that will go to
reservoir in the event of an overflow.
Eric Larsen,engineer for Town of Eaton, provided clarification with regard to project. The drain line is to drain
the tank and the overflow will go to reservoir. In event of failure,the natural grading of land is to east towards
reservoir. The flow will go to the east.
James Rohn asked if there is water in reservoir. Mr. Larson stated that the water from the tank would raise
the level in the reservoir 1-2 feet,which would not be an issue because it would not cause it to flow over. Mr.
Rohn asked who owns reservoir. Mr. Larson indicated that John Leffler owns the reservoir and they have
been in contact with him and written authorization will be provided.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Stephen M okray moved t hat C ase U SR-1434 b e a pproved a long with the C onditions o f A pproval 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; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James
Rohn, yes; Bernie Ruesgen, yes; John Hutson, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1430
APPLICANT: Marcelle Geudner
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part NE4 Section 8, T5N, R67W 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 accessory use in the Commercial Zone
District (Landscaping Materials Yard) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: 753 feet west of CR 17 and 1/2 mile north of State Hwy 34.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1430, 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.
James Rohn asked if the site was created by PUD. Ms. Lockman indicated that these were created prior to
zoning and the access was a granted easement to the surrounding property owners. Mr. Rohn asked about
the newly handed out suggested conditions. Ms.Lockman stated they were presented by Deanne Fredrickson
and she is present and will speak.
Michael Miller asked about reference to a motor home and it not used for overnight stays but allowed for
storage purposes. Ms. Lockman indicated storage is allowed but not for office or housing.
Marcel Geudner, owner, provided clarification with regard to the project. The site has been dramatically
improved since it was purchased. There water tap with Little Thompson was put in in the summer of 2002.
The property is leased to Jess Aragon for the Timberock business.
Jess Aragon, owner of Timberock, provided further information with regard to the project and the business.
Mr.Aragon has approval through Windsor to expand but the conditions of approval were cost prohibitive. He
owns 2 1/2 acres in Windsor. Mr. Aragon widened the road and made several improvements to the site. The
property in Windsor was not platted and he was lead to believe he could use both parcels. Mr. Aragon was
looking for a permanent site when he approached Mrs. Geudner. The business is difficult to re locate so the
materials were relocated and then Weld County was contacted with regard to the review process. The road
was a one lane road and needed to be widened. Mr.Aragon spoke with property owners in the area and none
were willing to share in the cost of widening or had any ideas or suggestions to accomplish it. It was
determined to be an easement road and the improvement was taken on by the business. The road was
Page -7-
widened to two lanes. 300 tons road base was used and the cost of rentals was accepted by the business.
Timberock has serious concern over safety and the neighbors. The neighbors to the west are on oxygen and
a cedar fence was installed in order to mitigate some of the concerns. The property is located at the top of
a historic drainage and the road floods in a certain spot so a culvert was installed at the low spot in the road
to mitigate water flood issues. The culvert is a one lane access road. The material was brought in, nothing
was removed. Safety concerns were addressed by installing a stop sign at the exit of the property as well as
a sign to slow down. A stop sign was installed on CR 17 to address some concerns from the neighbors.
There will also be a sign posted at the stop sign on CR 17 to make drivers aware of the limited site distance.
Another sign was posted to indicate that children were playing. Timberock is landscape business that sells
to consumers accounts,do not sell to landscapers. The business operates four non CDL trucks,two bobcats
are in the yard and a wheel loader. The equipment is fairly new and adheres to the safety regulations. Mr.
Aragon tells his drivers if they are creating dust then they are driving to fast. The business wants to be a good
neighbor. Mr.Aragon went through photos that were handed out at the meeting. The hours of operation are
in question. The business fits in well with the surrounding area. The material is in piles and there is no fire
hazard with regard to the mulches. They are difficult to ignite.There is no serious plans for growth it will stay
manageable.
James Rohn asked Mr.Aragon if city tax is collected or just state tax. Mr.Aragon indicated they collect state
tax. Mr. Rohn asked if there was a chance to mitigate some neighbors concerns with regard to the entrance
from CR 17. Mr.Aragon indicated he spoke with Mr. Lind about the access on the south end of the property.
Mr. Lind would rather lease ground adjacent to CR 17, that he owns, for a large sum of money adverse to
granting access use of the road.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Gary Fredrickson, neighbor in Windsong, indicated his concerns with the development. All the adjacent
owners request denial of the project. The reasons is that it is not compatible with the surrounding land uses
and does have a severe impact on the surrounding neighbors. The surrounding owners question what the
impact is when a special review is requested? Ms. Lockman indicated that the determination is based on
previous cases and the Comprehensive Plan is used. Previous proven land use cases are reviewed and
compared. The criteria are listed on the front of the comments in which Mr. Fredrickson has a copy. The area
is more of a large lot estate residential area with a small amount of agriculture and has been for approximately
20 years. Windsong HOA submitted a letter indicating this project as being a problem. In the Windsor land
use plan the area is classified as high use residential estate. This use is incompatible and has an adverse
affect on the surrounding area. This is also not an agricultural use. Photos were distributed identifying the
view from Windsong. The traffic is more than represented. The noise, dust and traffic make the use
incompatible. The hours of operation are not adhered to. The equipment runs all the time and the fumes and
exhaust are evident throughout the day. This project is not a storage yard but a retail establishment. The
road is a point of contention with the surrounding neighbors. The road has been narrowed at the location of
the culvert. Traffic safety also a huge concern. There is recorded documentation with regard to citations from
the Town of Windsor. The applicant has moved three times. There is immediate adverse impacts on the
neighborhood. The residents were not contacted prior to any improvements being made in the area, either
to the road or the culvert.
Michael Miller asked about the photo#3 taken and where it was taken from. Mr. Fredrickson indicated that
the photo was taken from the property line at Windsong located to the north. Mr. Miller asked if the photo was
magnified for effect. Mr. Fredrickson stated that there is a telephoto on his digital camera but it is not huge.
Mr. Miller added that it is zoned Agricultural through the county and in a letter from Windsor it states that
residential development on the property in the near future is unlikely due to the location. Mr. Fredrickson
indicated that there is evidence to the contrary, with the closing on property and the applicant himself
indicating he will be building his home there also.
Paul Geudner, owner, provided information with regard to the project. A handout was given to the Planning
Commission that indicated racial undertones. Mr. Geudner stated, "this thing is just racial." There was a
meeting at Windsong and a controversial item was left at the applicants property. Mr. Miller indicated that
there will be no testimony allowed that is directed ethnically. If there are facts to be represented then they are
to be presented. Mr. Geudner indicated that the traffic number represented was exorbitant. It is impossible
that 39 cars visited the site within one hour. Mr. Geudner indicated he had never seen more than six cars on
the busiest day they have had. The road into the area is dangerous and has been. People must be
responsible and look both ways. The access road was a one lane mud hole with two tire tracks. Mr.Aragon
Page -8-
has done all the repair work on the road. Mr. Aragon also dug out and made some retention ponds so if the
water came to fast it would have an area to pool and disperse through the culvert. The allegations from the
previous speaker are all bogus and unfounded. There is not much dust,the wind blows to the southeast away
from everyone. The dairy utilized the same type of equipment with the backup noise.
Sheri Platt, neighbor, indicated that her in laws owned the entire parcel and the understanding was that this
be a residential not commercial area. Safety is a huge issues because she has children that like to ride their
bikes. CR 17 contains a blind spot to the north and it is very dangerous to enter onto. There are customers
on an hourly basis and a large amount of traffic going in and out. There is a semi going in and out every day.
The hours of operation are far to long. There is a significant amount of dust from the road. It was requested
of Mr. Aragon to water the road and he refused. The sod farm is owned by Mr. Lind and the lease is up so
it is back to agricultural production.
Tom Weiler, neighbor, stated the road was modified to allow for only one lane where the culvert was placed.
The rock from the lane in front of his home was never replaced.The business started last November with land
moving equipment and the land was dug out and the surface dropped approximately 7 feet. Soil erosion will
eventually wear the ground away on his east property line. The site is now handling semi trucks,dump trucks
hauling materials in and out and it has"been nothing but a dust bowl." The fence does not retain the dust.
When there is a wind storm the dust is tremendous. Mr.Weiler has lived in the area for many years and has
never gotten stuck in the lane. This development has significantly impacted his quality of life. Mr.Weiler also
stated, "I'm also concerned it will impact the quantity of my life."
Brad Weiler,neighbor,addressed pictures that were submitted. The operation has been running seven days
a week since last fall barring some holidays. The hours of operation are not what is represented. The noise
from the dumping of the material is very loud. There is a huge health concern especially with the decline of
his fathers health.They have pre existing health problems but this is not going to help. The traffic is enormous
and an issue. A water line was replaced and the rock was never replaced. Mr.Aragon has not called,talked
or written a letter letting the surrounding neighbors know what was planned with the road.
Kathy&Gary Weinmeister, neighbor, indicated concerns. The surrounding neighbors were never contacted
with regard to the work being done on the road to ask if they agreed to it or wanted to share in the cost. The
lane is now restricted at the culvert. The roadway was a 60 foot wide useable lane. The restriction is a 14
foot wide area. That is all that is useable on the road. The dairy has access off of CR 17. Ms.Weinmeister
indicated that safety is a factor at the intersection. The signs are not obeyed.
Judy Hartshorn, neighbor, indicated concerns. The past practice on the decisions regarding the road was to
get together and decide what to do. Mr. Weinmaster helps with the road and also assists in keeping the
weeds down along CR 17 at the blind spot. The culvert limits the ability to plow the road in the winter to gain
access out. There was no communication, it was just done. Half of the easement was removed to build up
the land.
Cindy Rubiano, works with Mr. Aragon, indicated the road was raised. Mr. Weiler asked for the culvert and
now they are not happy with it.
James Spears, truck driver for Mr. Aragon, stated he has plenty of site distance when in a semi truck. The
size of a semi requires a wide swing.
Mike Tarkanian, son works for Mr.Aragon, indicated that there is plenty of room for the kids to ride bikes,the
Platts lane is 1/4 mile long. The site is manicured, trees have been planted and there are no weeds on the
property. The hours start at 8:30am because that is when he drops his son off and normally picks him up
around 6:00pm.The fence was one of the first things that was done. There was no animosity in putting the
fence up, it was something he wanted to do to try and mitigate some of the concerns.
Tina Schinner, future neighbor to the north, indicated their desire for property to be able to do 4H projects.
The concern is for the safety of the kids. In last thirty days the trucks are going slower, in the beginning they
were coming at a high rate of speed. Another concern is the run off from the culvert into the property. It would
run through the middle of the property towards Windsong. The area is zoned agricultural and he is running
a retail business. The understanding is that it is a private road and it is now being used as an access to a
business.
Page -9-
Deanne Fredrickson, neighbor, provided information with regard to suggested conditions that were handed
out to the Planning Commission in the beginning. There is more traffic but the amount is not known. CR 17
is potentially hazardous. There are some water quality issues with the detention pond. There are
professionals in the business that could have been utilized for the upgrades. The conditions were a way of
satisfying some of the concerns for the business and adequately monitoring the operation. It is questionable
if it is compatible with the area. The results would have been different if permission or at least input would
have been asked for. There is a break down in the system when someone does something and then asks
for permission to do so. It may not be a reason for denial but it is a reason to look very closely at the project.
Mr. Aragon did this to himself, he was aware that there was a process and chose to place it there then ask
for permission. There needs to be information gathered with regard to the road and what is needed to support
this type of business.
Cory Modelmog, works for Mr. Aragon, there is and always will be problem with traffic because of CR 17.
Drivers of commercial trucks can see over the blind spot due to the height of the trucks. The semi truck
comes in very few times a week.
Graham Sterkling, works for Mr.Aragon,does not understand how the use could not be compatible with the
surrounding area. The dairy contains piles of manure and uses the same type of equipment.
Chair closed public portion of the meeting.
Jess Aragon indicated that screening will be on the north side of the property with trees and a landscape plan
has been done. The use is compatible with the surrounding area especially the dairy. The hours of operation
are 8:30am-6:00pm Monday through Saturday and 9:00am-5:00pm on Sunday during the daylight savings.
This depends on the weather. In October the hours requested are 9:00am - 5:00pm and 10:00am -4:00pm
on Sunday. The equipment is new and does comply with the pollution standards. Diesel are not required to
be left idling any more and this saves on fuel. Mr. Aragon called the different neighbors but got negative
responses when asked about the road. There was an investigation done on the road prior to doing any work
and it was determined to be a public easement. In not getting any response from the neighbors,the project
was taken on by the business. Don Carroll came to the site and the issues of drainage and the road were
discussed. CR 17 is an issue that the whole area has to face. Safety is a number one priority, a business
cannot be operated without a conscious effort on safety.
Bryant Gimlin asked about the status of the road. Ms. Lockman stated Mr. Morrison made the determination
that the way it was created legally as a road for a roads purpose not a private lane. Mr. Barker stated it was
a deed and it was intended to be an easement but open to any members of the public that wanted to access
the properties. It is as close to a public road but is not dedicated to the public or to the local government. It
is more like a public roadway. Private easement will be called out specifically to the beneficiaries of the
easement. Mr. Mokray asked if county is obligated to do anything on the road. Mr. Barker stated that the
county does not take on maintenance and it is not considered public/county property unless there is a deed
to the county. Mr. Miller asked how this affects what Mr. Aragon did to the road and does he need to get
permission. Mr. Barker indicated the Mr. Aragon has as much right to maintain the road as anyone else.
Char Davis indicated she has a condition for dust abatement on the site but not the road accessing the
property. It is in prior to recording the plat 1C.
Don Carroll stated that a separate item will be needed for a dust abatement from CR 17 to the entrance of
the business. The question is whether to have dust control the whole way or just in front of the business. Mr.
Ruesgen questioned if Mr.Aragon should have to pay for the complete cost since he is not the only one that
uses the road. Mr. Gimlin indicated it was a public and commercial business that causes the need for this.
Mr. Rohn stated, "he is creating a nuisance with that dust to the neighbors and since he is the major
contributor with that being in that neighborhood. I think that he should have to shoulder that as a
appeasement to the neighbors for impacting their lives.". Mr. Fitzgerald indicted that this issue has been
handled before and the applicant was the one that shouldered the burden. Mr. Mokray asked Mr. Carroll if
he had an estimate of the cost. Mr. Carroll stated it was approximately 30-50cents for a square yard, one
application. The condition states a minimum of twice a year or as needed directed by Public Works. Mr.
Bryant suggested making the applicant responsible for dust abatement if he would like to go to the dairy and
ask to share then that is fine. Mr. Miller stated the business is creating a majority of the problem. Trucks
create more dust than cars do. Mr. Carroll suggested language consisting of"the applicant shall apply dust
suppression chemical (magnesium or calcium chloride)on the haul road between CR 17 and the entrance
Page -10-
to the USR site, no less than twice a year, or as needed, as determined by the Public Works Department."
Mr. Rohn would like to see a minimum of three times not two. Mr. Miller indicated twice a year is fine.
Stephen Mokray asked about the dust on the lot. Ms. Davis stated it will be inspected if complaints arise.
Bruce B arker suggested making the dust a batement language a Development Standard. D on Carroll
suggests it be Development Standard#18 then renumber as needed.
James Rohn moved to accept the above language with regard to dust abatement but the minimum application
be three times not two. There was no second. Motion failed.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to accept the above language with regard to dust abatement and enter it as
Development Standard #18. John Folsom seconded.
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; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James
Rohn, yes; Bernie Ruesgen, yes; John Hutson, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Char Davis, Public Health, indicated that there is a dust abatement condition that states the applicant shall
submit a dust abatement plan prior to recording the plat. They would decide if approved or not. If there are
complaints an air quality specialist will respond.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Carroll if there was a possibility to add a sign for trucks entering the roadway. Mr.
Carroll stated that CR 17 had been annexed by the City of Greeley. The county does not maintain the public
road to the site nor does it maintain CR 17. The City of Greeley must be contacted to see if there is going to
be any upgrades. There is a blind spot on CR 17 to the north, there is adequate site distance to the south.
In order to generate a traffic study 200 vehicles are needed. This access road is not close to the 200 vehicles
per day. The City of Greeley should respond with regard to the excel/decel lanes. CR 17 was a collector
when it belonged to Weld County. It generated 2200 vehicles in a 24 hour period. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if
there is going to be a design change on the road. Mr. Carroll stated that it would if it was in the County
system. Stormwater retention is covered in Development Standard. Ms.Lockman indicated the referral from
Greeley did not discuss the access or right-of-way. The access road is 24 feet in width for a two lane road,
it does narrow across the drainage. The narrowing could cause access issues during winter months and how
that is dealt with is up to homeowners.
Michael Miller indicated that there was nothing that could be done with CR 17 since it belongs to the City of
Greeley.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the hours of operations and for clarification. Mr.Aragon clarified that during the
summer months it would be 8:30 to 6:00pm Monday through Saturday and 9:00am to 5:00pm on Sunday and
the other times would be 9:00am through 5:30pm Monday thru Saturday and 10:00am to 4:00pm on Sunday.
Jess Aragon indicated issues with Development Standard #21 and #22. Development Standard #22 that
deals with limiting the dates of operation, is difficult since material will be delivered in the winter months due
to being a ble to purchase at reduce prices. Also there is Christmas tree business, elsewhere, during
November and December. There are times when calls come in from customers in the winter months. It would
be beneficial to be able to service them alone and not completely open the business. Ms. Rubiano added that
the yard is closed but calls are forwarded to the cell phone. One person gets the material and delivers. The
weather is very indicative to this type of business. Mr. Folsom indicated it could be defined as open to public
during the restricted hours. Mr.Aragon stated that the winter times allows purchase of rock at cheaper price.
Mr. Ruesgen stated that Development Standard#22 needs to be removed, it is hard to tell a business owner
that he has to shut his business down at a specific date and time. Mr. Ruesgen added that the hours of
operation could be not before 8:00am Monday through Saturday and no later than 6:00pm
Bernie Ruesgen moved to amend Development Standard #21 to read "the hours of operation will not be
before 8:00am and not after 6:00pm at any given time." Also to delete#22 from the Development Standards.
Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. Motion carried with Mr. Rohn voting no.
Jess Aragon indicated that the landscape screening plan to the south of the property would like to see
Page -11-
language added with regard to future development occurring. Mr. Miller clarified that a plan will be submitted
and the county will approve it and they will take into consideration the possible development.
Bryant Gimlin commented that this kind of application in which a housing development is compatible with
landscaping. Landscaping business is similar to the operation of a dairy in terms of equipment, noise and
traffic. The neighbors get some benefit of the conditions that are required, noise restriction, traffic, dust
abatement and hours of operation.
James Rohn commented that there has been testimony for and against the project. This area is a rural setting
and this is the third time the applicant has moved to get away from rules and gotten caught. Since the
neighbors have to use the lane they are going to be impacted greatly. A landscaping business is much better
than thirty homes but this interrupts the quality of life of the neighborhood. Very much against the proposal.
Michael Miller commented that there has been a large improvement and the business is nicely ran. In another
location it would be a nice business. This, however, is not compatible with the area. The people that live in
the area had a reasonable expectation that the area would remain somewhat similar to they when moved.
This operation compromises the quality of life and expectations. It is unfortunate that the business was done
first before the process.
James Rohn moved to deny case due to incompatability noting Section 22-3-50 B.1 P. Goal 2 There was no
second to the motion.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that Case US R-1430,along with the amended Development Standards,be forwarded
to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards
with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Bernie Ruesgen 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;Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;James Rohn,
no; Bernie Ruesgen, yes; John Hutson, yes. Motion carried.
John Folsom commented that this project hinges on compatability. There is trouble with the code that states
commercial and industrial uses can be used in the agricultural zone. Similar cases have been approved and
there should be no variance.
James Rohn indicated his comments were the same as his reason for recommending denial.
Bryant Gimlin commented that he does believe it is compatible with the surrounding agriculturally zoned
properties.
Michael Miller commented he does not believe it meets the standard in Section 23-2-28-3 requiring the use
to be compatible with the existing surrounding land use. Similar operations have been passed but it is our
responsibility to consider each of them as individual applications under the same parameters. This application
and the location does not meet the standards.
Meeting adjourned at 6:10pm
Respectfully submitted Ch(/1f---1t CI6L
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Page -12-
Hello