HomeMy WebLinkAbout20031910.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, July 15, 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 1:30p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin
James Rohn l
John Folsom _
Stephan Mokray
John Hutson
Bernard Ruesgen "'
Bruce Fitzgerald
Also Present: Sheri Lockman, Peter Schei, Pam Smith, Jacqueline Hatch
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on July 1, 2003,
was approved as read.
The following case is Continued.
CASE NUMBER: 2nd AmUSR-842
APPLICANT: Jarrald A. & Jaye L. Jamison
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: S2 SE4 and Lot A& Lot B of RE-1367; also described as the S2 N2 SE4
of Section 32, T3N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for a Commercial
Junkyard and Salvage Yard (tire landfill, storage and recycling facility) in
the 1-3 (Industrial)Zone District .
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to WCR 41 and North of and adjacent to WCR 26
section line.
Sheri Lockman,Department of Planning Services,read a letter requesting a continuance to August 19,2003.
The applicant needs additional time to notify mineral owners. The applicant would also like to amend the
request to include a mobile home. It will need to be re-notified in the papers.
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 presented Case PZ-1011, 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 about the recreation activity that is going on now. Ms.Lockman stated that is an allowed
private use.
Csyvxmvt"' aria_ Page -1-
-7- acco 2003-1910
Bernie Ruesgen asked about the issue of relocation of the gas lines. Ms. Lockman stated that Kerr McGee
is the only one that staff has not received an agreement from. The issues have been addressed and an
agreement is almost completed.
Stephen Mokray asked about Mead requesting annexation. Ms. Lockman stated the application is not in an
IGA agreement area therefore staff is not bound to force them to annex to Mead.
John Folsom asked if a response from Firestone was received. Ms. Lockman stated that the response
indicated no conflicts. Mr. Folsom asked if there had been a 100 year flood elevation study that was
submitted to FEMA. Ms.Lockman stated that they gave received a LOMA which has been approved by from
FEMA. The residential lots will not be in the flood plain. Mr. Folsom commented that the basis for the FEMA
maps was not based on studies,they were estimates of what the limits of the flood plain would be. A LOMR
addresses changes that will affect the flood plain but there is still a problem of what the flood plain is. Mr.
Morrison added that original maps were done at the urban scale first due to lack of money.They started with
the urban areas. The LOMR is from data from that site done by engineer. Mr. Schei indicated that the
applicant has submitted extensive drainage studies for the LOMA. They have taken into consideration the
cross sections and have done studies and submitted them to the federal agency for review. Public Works
and FEMA does not have any concerns at this time for the development or the flood issues. The necessary
documentation has been provided. Mr. Folsom stated the LOMR is to study the affect the development will
have but the actual flood plane limits have not been determined.
Michael Miller asked about the boat ramp and access. Mr. Schei stated their concern was the access and
he wants it to be identified in a specific area and location. Is the access private or public? Mr. Miller asked
Ms.Smith about the condition of the recreational uses complying with swimming pool standards. Ms.Smith
stated that information was needed in order to determine whether it was going to be private or where
memberships where going to be sold. There are regulations within those standards that deal with natural
bathing areas.
Doug Tiefel, representative, provided clarification on the project. Previously two sand and gravel mining
operations have operated in the area. This development gives the feel of living on the water. The flood
plain for the property was analyzed and deemed to be adequate. They have made sure they were above
the flood plain and took that to FEMA. No lots are within the adopted flood plain from FEMA. There have
been more studies done on the flood plain so the area has been evaluated more than in the past years.
There will be a new bridge located to the south of the property. The mining permit can be vacated next
month once the final clearing of the silt from the north lake is done. The silt was hauled to the lots on the
north. A soils report was done on those lots and submitted also. The north homes will be built with
engineering techniques. The south lots are closer to the water. Both phases have sewer available and there
are two separate water districts servicing the development. The Duke line was relocated and the Kerr
McGee line was left in place. A signed agreement is very close to being completed with Kerr McGee. The
applicant has addressed the public roadways. The external road has been agreed upon,the internal will be
private. This is a gated community. The applicant has spoken with Mead and they have a higher density
option that the applicant does not want. The concept is not to have curb and gutter and asphalt. The internal
road will be asphalt. The applicant would like to see 24 foot wide asphalt, as an internal road, as apposed
to 40 foot. The covenants require two off street parking in addition to the garage. The covenants prohibit
on street parking.The applicant is open to suggestions for this but the look of 40 foot of asphalt takes away
from the intent of the development. The intent is for separate HOA for the lots south and north. The
membership of the lake will be limited to the lot owners but could change. The Health Department condition
will be on the plat map. There will be one common boat ramp sharing access with Kerr McGee for service
of tanks. Ms. Lockman is recommending the elimination of lot 8 in the newest map. The applicant is asking
to reconfigure the lots. In meeting with Kerr McGee the drill site has no definite date for completion.
John Folsom asked about a levy between the two lakes. Mr. Tiefel stated that to some extent there is but
not along the whole length of the lake. Mr. Folsom asked about lining in the levy. Mr.Tiefel stated that there
would not. There are two choices. One is to cover through augmentation and not line or line them. The
augmentation plan for the property goes back 20 years. That agreement to not line them was respected.
Mr. Folsom asked about the elevation for the creek level. Mr.Tiefel stated the creek level is lower than the
lake level by one foot. There are springs on the south lake that keep it higher than the river. The north side
is slightly higher than the river also due to water from the surrounding farming. Mr. Folsom stated that they
may be losing some augmentation water into the creek. Mr. Folsom commented that the City of Longmont
has some affluent that goes down the creek from the sewage plant. Mr. Folsom stated that this land is in
Page -2-
a buffer area from Firestone. Mr. Tiefel indicated he had talked with Firestone and they expressed no
interest in going over CR 26.
Bernie Ruesgen asked about the cul de sac size change. Mr. Tiefel stated that the applicant has no
problems with adjusting the cul de sac size to 65 foot.
Stephen Mokray asked if the 24 foot roadway will support fire and rescue operations. Mr. Schei indicated
that there would need to be sign offs from the Sheriff and Fire District for the length of road. There have
been emergency accesses located at the end of the cul de sacs. The MUD requirements want curb gutter
sidewalk along with,width of roadway. Public Works indicated that since it was gated that there would be
no need to have the curb and gutter.
Michael Miller asked about the provisions for parking boats. Mr.Tiefel stated that a common boat house or
shed has been discussed but nothing has been proposed due to specifics. It would be a nice feature that
could be presented at a future date. Mr. Tiefel stated the covenants can be expanded to include the
provisions.
Bryant Gimlin asked if one 8 foot parking lane could be added in an attempt to come to an agreement with
both sides. Mr. Miller stated that 24 feet is minimum for one oversize vehicle. Mr. Folsom asked if the main
argument was the pavement? What about a gravel shoulder? Mr. Tiefel indicated that if the a gravel
shoulder would be agreeable.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak
Michael Miller likes the compromise of the 24 foot roadway with 8 foot gravel shoulders.
Peter Schei suggested paved parking area adjacent to the properties. There would be two lanes for parking
where there were lots on both sides of the street. There would be one lane where there were only homes
on one side. The minimum would be a four foot gravel shoulder. Mr.Schei indicated it would be two twelve
foot lanes with an additional 8 feet for parking that is adjacent to the properties.
Michael Miller indicated that lot 8 (lot 7 on the 15` plats) needs to be addressed. The applicant wants to
reconfigure not eliminate. Ms. Lockman indicated that new language will need to be added and staff would
like to be able to review the changes. Mr. Miller suggested that the language should state, "Lot 7 shall be
incorporated into open space or adjacent lots or reconfigured to allow for setbacks from the well."
Peter Schei added that language needs to be changed in 2E to 40 feet not 80 feet.
Michael Miller asked about the 40 feet of asphalt versus 32 feet. Mr. Gimlin thinks the compromise is good
but Mr. Schei's idea is more specific. Gravel can be done for the parking lanes instead of the asphalt. Mr.
Schei provided clarification with regard to the parking lanes being asphalt in the areas with homes. The
MUD areas stated asphalt. Mr. Miller asked why the parking lanes could not be gravel with an adjacent four
foot shoulder. Mr. Schei stated there are pros and cons for either side. Public Works wants the paved
shoulder even if it is four foot. It is recommended for safety.
John Hutson moved to amend 2E and 2K2 to state" to allow two 12 foot paved lanes and an 8 foot gravel
shoulder adjacent to the homes." Stephen Mokray 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.
Michael Miller indicated that language needs to be amended that refers to Lot 7.
Bryant Gimlin moved to amend the language on 2K 7 to state"Lot 8, Block 1 is a non-buildable lot. The lot
shall be incorporated into open space or adjacent lots or be reconfigured to meet the setbacks for the oil and
gas well." John Folsom seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Page -3-
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.
Stephen Mokray moved to amend the language in 2 E to state 40 feet of right of way not 80. John Hutson
seconded. Motion carried
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case PZ-1011,along with the amendments, 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 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; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James
Rohn, yes; Bernie Ruesgen, yes; John Hutson, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
John Folsom commented that this case is an amendment to the MUD to increase the size of the MUD.
Personally there are a lot of concerns about increasing the size of the MUD. There are sufficient areas that
are undeveloped without having additional territory added to it. Sitting on this board does not allow for
personal views but only following the code.
CASE NUMBER: PF-543
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
APPLICANT: Daryll & Carol Propp, Propp Realty, Inc.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part NW4 and part NE4 of Section 9, T1 N, R68W
REQUEST: Final Plat for a 7-Lot PUD- Long's Peak Estates
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 12, between WCR 5 and WCR 7. For a
more precise location, see legal.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services presented Case PF-543,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. Ms. Hatch recommended
minor changes to the comments.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the geological hazard permits. Ms.Hatch stated the site is a shallow coal mine
and the geological hazard permits will be reviewed at the time of building permits. The permit verifies that
the home is built within the envelopes that are specified and have been agreed upon by the Colorado
Geological surbey. It is a safety precaution. There is a permit process that has to be done and the permit
process is done by the state. Only Lots 3-7 will need to have these.
John Rinko, representative, provided clarification with regard to the project. This is the final stage of the
process. There have been extensive studies done with regard to the mines. Building envelopes have been
set to minimize any impacts.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Paul Barthoff,neighbor,indicated his concerns with regard to access to the irrigation water from the laterals
that cross the property. The head gates are located on the east side of the property. The lateral crosses the
property in the area of interest. The ditch company was contacted and they indicated that they had not heard
from anyone. The lateral is part of the Farmers Irrigation system. This area is an aqueduct. The area below
the lateral remains damp and swampy. There have been problems with excess water in the areas. The new
property owners will not have issues with irrigation in the future.
Michael Miller asked about acceptable language from the ditch company. Mr.Schei stated when he reviews
the development the ditches need to be contacted and verification needs to be submitted to Public Works.
There has been nothing submitted that addresses this.
The Chair closed public portion.
Page -4-
John Rinko,representative,stated that the ditch crossing to the south will have a road that crosses the ditch.
The applicant has worked with the ditch company and the design criteria has been received. The ditch
laterals along the northern portion of the property. By law the owners of the land must maintain these. The
HOA is responsible to maintain the ditches. The ditch laterals will be maintained and actually improved.
They have been incorporated into the open spaces. There was a study for wetlands and the isolated wetland
area is part of the open space.
Sean Welsh, engineer, provided clarification with regard to the ditches and incorporating them into open
space. The ditches have the option of being piped. The one to the north is not completely piped. There is
a recreational trail that crosses it but it will have a culvert. The lateral to the south will be piped. There is
a depression where the wetlands are located. Mr. Miller asked if written permission has been given to
enclose the laterals with pipe. Mr.Welsh stated that the ditch company has been on site to review the area
and the main crossing was discussed. According to the ditch company the laterals are the responsibility of
the user beyond the head gate. Mr. Miller stated that it is important to work with the people that have
concerns and the surrounding neighbors.
John Folsom asked Mr. Morrison about the lateral being the citizen issues but the ditch being the ditch
company responsibility. Mr.Morrison stated it was an easement to the users of the water they hold that right.
They have the right to maintain and not to have it interfered with. Mr. Folsom asked if there was a change
to the lateral would there need to be an agreement. Mr. Morrison stated that any change made run the risk
of improper use of the water. It would be a good idea to get an agreement from those affected.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the accessability to the head gate. Mr. Miller suggested some language as
a development standard that addresses the accessability to the head gate and the delivery of the water.
Sean Welch stated that there is some language noted on the plat with regard to the head gate being an
easement. Mr. Miller added that language needs to be added to address both the laterals.
Michael Miller suggested adding 1 P and renumbering to state"the applicant shall provide written evidence
that an agreement has been reached with affected parties regarding the changes to the laterals and
provisions have been made for access and maintenance for the head gates and laterals."
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to accept the above language. Stephen Mokray seconded. Motion carried.
Bryant Gimlin moved to accept the changes proposed by Ms. Hatch consisting of amending 2 O and 3 G
language to address only lots 3-7, 1 A(2)to include out lot B,2 B to include letters dated Dec. 10,2001 and
an email dated July 14, 2003, 2 K to address the street maintenance. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. Motion
carried.
James Rohn moved that Case PF-543, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James
Rohn, yes; Bernie Ruesgen, yes; John Hutson, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 3:45 1R spectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Page -5-
Hello