HomeMy WebLinkAbout20031725.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, June 17, 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
Fred Walker Absent
John Folsom
Stephan Mokray
John Hutson Absent '
Bernard Ruesgen Absent ra
Bruce Fitzgerald
Also Present: Pam Smith, Peter Schei, Sheri Lockman
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on June 3, 2003,
was approved as read.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1011
APPLICANT: Doug Tiefel/River Runs Through It, LLC-Pelican Shores
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the E2 of Section 36, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to PUD for 40 lots with R-1 (Low
Density Residential) Zone Uses along with 193 acres of open space
consisting of a river corridor and two private recreational lakes.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to WCR 26 and west of and adjacent to WCR 13..
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting a continuance to July 15, 2003.
The applicant does not have some finalized agreements.
The following items are on the Consent Agenda:
CASE NUMBER: County Code-2003-XX
APPLICANT: Town of Keenesburg/Weld County
PLANNER: Monica Daniels Mika, Director of Planning
REQUEST: Request for an Intergovernmental Agreement .
CASE NUMBER: County Code-2003-XX
APPLICANT: Town of Fort Lupton/Weld County
PLANNER: Monica Daniels Mika, Director of Planning
REQUEST: Request for an Intergovernmental Agreement .
Stephen Mokray moved to approve the Consent Agenda. James Rohn seconded. Motion carried.
The following is on the Hearing Agenda:
CASE NUMBER: MZ-1017
efl a r Page -1-
2003-1725
APPLICANT: Jeff Stamp
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2462; part SW4 Section 36,T4N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Minor Subdivision Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to E (Estate)for
nine (9) lots.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 38; 1/2 mile west of CR 13.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case MZ-1017, 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.
Stephen Mokray asked about the approved 400 head dairy west and if it was still in operation. Ms. Lockman
indicated there were some cattle located at the property but there may not be the 400 head. Mr. Mokray
asked how far it was located from the site. Ms. Lockman stated it was approximately a quarter mile.
James Rohn asked about the clarification on ownership of the property. Ms. Lockman stated that this is an
old recorded exemption lot. The deeds are reviewed when this process is done, there is a small portion of
land that is in question. This deed may date back to 1918 indicating it might have been sold but is was still
being included in the deeds to date. This does not affect the layout of site and a new boundary survey will
be accepted. Mr. Rohn asked if there was a dam located to the north. Ms. Lockman indicated that the
applicant can provide more information regarding this.
John Folsom asked out the two dams to the north and if they were for agricultural storage of water. Ms.
Lockman indicated that the site was not located in a flood zone. Mr. Rohn asked about possible structures
being located in the area. Ms. Lockman indicated she was not sure of the type of structures that were
located in the area.
Michael Miller asked about letters in the packet stating that meetings had been held by Todd Hodges,
representative for the applicant,with the Fire Protection District. Those meetings suggested the use of tanks
for fire protection and there is a standard, included, referring to water flows and fire hydrants. Ms. Lockman
stated that staff is relying on Mountain View Fire District to review the final plans. Mountain View has agreed
that the homes would need sprinklers if the fire flow is not adequate.
Todd Hodges, representative, provided clarification with regard to the issues of concern.The applicant has
had meetings with fire district and the intent is to have hydrant as well as additional tanks with sprinklers to
homes. This has been used on other sites.The intent of the site is to produce lots to meet the surrounding
area as the area urbanizes. The intent of a minor subdivision is to fit within the agricultural community. This
is out of the urban growth boundary. The surrounding properties have been split through recorded
exemptions. The lots for these range from 2.5 -16 acres. The layout fits within the area. The zoning will
be estate,with the intent to continue with agricultural type uses. These lots will allow animal uses and farm
type uses. The lot owners will have irrigation on property through non potable water delivered by the Little
Thompson Water District through the Highland Lateral. The details will be carried through at the final plan.
The internal road has a turn around specifically designed with the Fire Protection District. This proposal does
meet the intent of the minor subdivision process. Changes have been made based on comments from
referral agencies.
Michael Miller asked for clarification with regard to the dams surrounding the area. Dennis Messner,
Engineer,provided clarification with regard to the dams. There is a natural drainage course and if the dams
were to breach it would follow that. There is a small corner the water could affect but it is not a designated
flood zone. Mr. Miller asked about the capacity. Mr. Messner indicated that the Davis Reservoir has not
been used for some time so he is unaware of what the capacity is.
John Folsom asked about the elevation of the lots from the drainage dams. Mr. Messner stated that 10 feet
on one lot would be affected. The rest of the lots are above the elevation of the drainage basin.
James Rohn asked if this sits on slope or plateau. Mr. Messner indicated that the entire site rises from east
Page -2-
to west and slopes at about 30 feet.
John Folsom asked about the neighbor letters regarding the use of pesticide being restricted. Mr. Hodges
stated the intent is to have agricultural uses on lots. There is a Condition of Approval for the Right to Farm.
The idea is to have consistent properties within the area. Mr.Folsom asked about the covenants with regard
to the type of homes. Mr. Hodges stated that there are no drafted covenants but there is a definite intent
of what the homes would be. Jeff Stamp,applicant,stated that the type of homes will be consistent with the
surrounding area. The intent is to offer a subdivision with decent homes that can have animals. They will
be decent quality homes, not necessarily mansions, but similar to what is in the neighborhood. Mr. Folsom
asked if there were intentions to place restrictions in the covenants for the homes to be stick built and not
modular or trailer. Mr. Stamp stated there would definitely not be trailer homes.
James Rohn asked Mr.Stamp about the land surrounding the area. Mr.Stamp stated the surrounding area
consisted of parcels between 7 and 30 acres. Mr. Rohn asked about the sizes of farms in the area. Mr.
Stamp indicated that they go from 10 acres to 60 acres. Mr. Rohn asked about the ability to spray crops.
Mr. Stamp indicated there would be the typical spraying.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Dave Peterangelo,neighbor,indicated his opposition to the case. He has been told by crop dusters that they
will not spray his lot due to the number of homes and the possible liability. If the spray is not done the
insects will destroy the first and largest cutting. Mr. Peterangelo suggests that the two smaller lots be open
space and there be a buffer on the north of the property line so the helicopter can spray. A ground unit will
mash the hay down. There is an easement for irrigation from the same ditch that Mr. Stamp uses and this
should continue. There has been no mention of how this will be delivered. There is no mention of whether
the internal road will be paved. There will be an increase in traffic and the dust control will need to be done.
The right to spray will be interrupted. Mr. Miller asked about the crop dusters rational of it being to close to
homes or the height of home. Mr. Peterangelo stated the helicopter needs space for the blades.
James Rohn asked about where there is aerial dusting done in the area. Mr. Peterangelo stated that there
are farms to the north and east that have been sprayed. The cost of liability insurance is extremely high.
Mr. P eterangelo would be liable and so would the crop duster for possible accidents or claims. Mr.
Peterangelo will also not have any view of the mountains. Mr. Folsom asked if there was any alternative
to the spraying the pesticide. Mr. Peterangelo stated that a ground unit will work for hay but alfalfa it will not
work for.
Peter Schei, Public Works, asked about the difference between spraying over his home adverse to other
homes in the area. Mr. Peterangelo stated he is aware when they are there and leaves, but it cannot be
guaranteed by the other possible residents.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Morrison about notifying affected owners of spraying. Mr. Morrison stated his is
not sure if the right to farm protection statute applies to the contractors of the farmers who are doing the
work. The statute indicates that if they are meeting the standard of the industry and are not creating a
nuisance agricultural practices can be continued without liability. Not sure whether this would extend to the
crop duster. There is some protection to the land owner as long as the regular practices of the industry are
observed.
Dave Martini, neighbor, opposes development. Mr. Martini read an article from the American Farmland
Trust that included statistics on the development of agriculture lands to subdivisions. The Highland Ditch
delivers water to the whole area including the proposed site. A different headgate will need to be installed
for the amount of water delivery and separation, it would overburden the existing headgate. There are no
plans for infrastructure to deliver water. It will not flow to the bottom of the property. This proposal will turn
prime irrigatable land into neighborhood and that does not fit with the area. The 2-3 acre lots are unrealistic
for agriculture uses. There are no plans for water rights to the land. County Road 38 is an unpaved road
and in the winter the road suffers. Mr.Martini provided more information with regard to a cost of community
study. Mr. Martini would like to see these things taken into consideration. There is a shooting range to the
north and general shooting in the surrounding area. Development does not fit in the area. Margil Farms is
Page -3-
in the area and does not have all their lots sold. There is also a large development within Mead city limits.
The impact on St. Vrain School District will be significant. The agricultural uses will be lost forever.
Michael Miller stated that the county has a road impact fee to counteract the infrastructure for homes and
roadways. Some farmers are willing to accept a trade off from farm land because they believe there is to
much which causes the prices to go down. Everything will be considered in the decision.
The Chair closed the public portion of hearing.
Todd Hodges, representative, provided clarification with regard to the road. A Condition of Approval is a
proportionate share of the dust abatement. The subdivision will maintain more of the road and it will be in
better shape than it presently is. The covenants will be in place after the change of zone. There will be
infrastructure for the water issues. There will be a half share of Highland deeded to the property. This
subdivision process makes the subdivision pay for all associated costs. In this process there is dust
abatement fee, road impact fee and the fee that will be paid to the school system. The internal road will be
gravel. The external road is not paved, therefore, it did not make sense to pave the internal. The traffic
count does not justify paving. This is intended to be a non urban development. A minor subdivision cannot
be adjacent to an existing subdivision or municipality. Mead wants to potentially annex according to their
referral. This project meets the intent of county minor subdivision. These sites will pay their own way when
upon construction, specifically on dust abatement. Mr. Stamp provided clarification on the irrigation. The
water will be delivered by gated pipe. Water will be piped to deliver to each lot. There will be more
engineering as the project continues in the process of the county. The intent is to create subdivision that fits
with the surrounding area. These lots are similar to what is going on in the neighborhood.The subdivision
process required the improvement of the road and the water situation. Mr. Miller asked about the spraying
issue. Mr. Stamp said that they can still spray and does not have to be aerial.
John Folsom asked about the two lots made into open space. Mr.Stamp stated that he is intending to place
the building envelopes out of the way of the neighbors to try and accommodate them.
Peter Schei, Public Works,stated that it was imperative to address the irrigation water issues. This should
be a requirement at the final plan process. It should include language so the water users down flow are not
interrupted. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Hodges about the Highland Lateral and the location. Mr.Stamp stated the
head gate that will be used is on the north side of his property. Gated pipe is used now to feed Mr.
Peterangelo and that will be used to feed the other lots. Mr. Mokray asked about the current water amount.
Mr. Stamp stated that he owns a half share of Highland and it yields approximately 45 inches. Mr. Mokray
asked about deeding water. Mr. Stamp indicated it will be deeded to the HOA, this gives them the ability
to flood irrigate. Mr. Miller asked for clarification on the delivery method that will be used. Mr.Stamp stated
that the water will be delivered through gated pipe. Mr. Rohn asked about the location of the envelopes and
their ease for irrigation . Mr. Stamp stated that the envelopes have not been developed completely but that
is the consideration.
Michael Miller asked Pam Smith,Public Health and Environment, if the envelopes designated were primary
and secondary locations. Ms. Smith stated they were. Mr. Miller asked about the building envelope not
being delineated but the septic envelopes are. Ms.Smith stated they are requesting from the applicant that
the envelopes be designated on the lots. The envelopes can move between now and the final plat.
John Folsom asked for detail on the agreement with the county for maintenance of the road. Mr. Schei
stated that a normal improvement agreement would be recommended where the applicant would share in
the cost for dust abatement and other items. The agreement has not been discussed with the applicants.
The major concern was the trips per day being almost doubled. Mr. Schei does not anticipate this to be a
major issue. There is no intent to pave CR 38.
Michael Miller stated he agrees that some of these lots are not compatible with the surrounding area. Lots
1 through 4 are questionable. The main trouble is the compatibility issue. Mr. Rohn's concern is with the
spraying issue and the possible inability to do so.
Peter Schei, Public Works,stated he would like to see the addition of language in Condition of Approval Q
Page -4-
at the time of final Plan"Irrigation/non-potable water plans along with construction details will be required
with the final plan submittal." (Department of Public Works)
James Rohn moved to add the above referenced language. Stephen Mokray seconded. Motion carried.
Lee Morrison added that Planning Commission would have to give code reason for the recommendation for
denial if that were the course chosen.
James Rohn moved for denial based on Section 22-2-60 D A goal 4. Mr. Rohn stated, "this is not a good
purposeful conversion of agriculture land. I believe it would hinder the neighborhood because of the air
spraying, flood water and the school problem." Stephan Mokray seconded.
Mr. Morrison reiterated that the reasons for denial need to be based on specific code section.
James Rohn restated his motion for denial. 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, no; Bryant Gimlin, no; Bruce Fitzgerald, no;James Rohn,
yes. Motion failed
John Folsom commented that on principle he has a lot of concerns about the subdivisions and recorded
exemptions. He feels that being a member of the Planning Commission he has to rely on the code for the
reasoning. This case is in substantial compliance,compatibility is very subjective. Other cases have been
approved that contain the same type of issues.
Bruce Fitzgerald commented that the school district is in a bad way. Margil Farms will impact the school
district far more that these nine lots.
Bryant Gimlin commented that it is compatible and there are alternatives to aerial application of pesticides.
Michael Miller commented that he does not think this is the best plan. It is not totally compatible with the
area but there is no nine lot subdivision that is totally compatible with the agricultural area. There needs to
be ways that the neighbors can get around the problems.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case MZ-1017, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation
of approval. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, no; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James
Rohn, no. Motion carried.
James Rohn commented that he still has issues with the aerial spraying for crops and irrigated farm land
going away. This is not an appropriate position for the site especially since it is downstream from a dam.
Michael Miller commented that this is not a real compatible use. Prior to Board of County Commissioners
he would like to see more information regarding alternative methods of spraying and water issues.
Meeting adjourned at 3:00
Rerspectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Page -5-
Hello