HomeMy WebLinkAbout20031807.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, July 1, 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- present `-
Bryant Gimlin - present r'
James Rohn -present
John Folsom -present
Stephan Mokray- present
John Hutson - absent _
Bernard Ruesgen -absent
Bruce Fitzgerald -absent
Also Present: Monica Daniels Mika, Michelle Katyryniuk,Chris Gathman, Department of Planning;Bethany
Salzman, Zoning Compliance Officer; Peter Schei, Public Works; Pam Smith and Char Davis,
Environmental Health; Lee Morrision, County Attorney; Donita May, Secretary.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on June 17,2003,
was approved as read.
The following are continued items:
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 % mile north of State Hwy 34.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services, requested a continuance of case USR-1430, in order to
allow the applicant additional time to notify the properties mineral owners, in accordance with Colorado
Revised Statute,C.R.S.24-65.5-103. Staff requested the case be moved to August,5,2003. Ms.Lockman
also said that due to the many safety complaints received, a compliance officer will be talking to the
applicants regarding the safety concerns, prior to the August hearing date.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this continuance.
No one wished to speak. John Folsom moved that Case USR-1430, be continued to August 5, 2003.
Stephen Mokray seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
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 adjacent to Highway 34 (28th Street Frontage Road)and
approximately 'A mile east of 1 St Avenue.
L/
a7Loeth 2 Page -1-
7-//" 3 2003-1807
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, originally requested a continuance as a result of failure
to notify mineral owners and lessees within thirty days of the Planning Commission hearing. However the
Planning Department recently received written statements from the mineral owners and lessees agreeing
to waive the thirty day notice requirement. As that was the only reason for the continuance request, and
because the applicants were present, Planning was prepared to proceed with the case at this hearing.
The Chair agreed to hear the case immediately following the hearing items. James Rohn said he had
received the information on Case USR-1431, but as it was likely to be continued, he had not prepared
adequately to vote on the case. The Chair said Case USR-1431 would then be heard after the consent
items.
The following is on the Consent Agenda:
CASE NUMBER: MF-1042
APPLICANT: Don & Lisa Buxman (Buxman Estates)
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part W2SW4 Section 21, T6N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Final Plan for an 8-Lot Minor Subdivision for E (Estate) uses.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 29; approximately 1/4 mile north of CR 66.
James Rohn asked to have the case heard. John Folsom questioned why the agenda lists the case as MF-
1042, and on the summary sheet it is MS-603? Mr. Gathman clarified that when it was originally set up it
was MF-1042, but our new numbering system has changed it to MS-603 and all of the surrounding property
owners have been notified. Mr. Folsom also didn't recall having final plat cases heard in the past. Mr.
Gathman said hearings are held for minor subdivision applications but not for PUD's. The Chair asked if
there was anyone in the audience that wanted this removed from the consent agenda? Seeing none, it
remained.
CASE NUMBER: County Code-2003-XX
APPLICANT: Town of Kersey/Weld County
PLANNER: Monica Daniels Mika, Director of Planning
REQUEST: Request for an Intergovernmental Agreement .
CASE NUMBER: County Code-2003-)0(
APPLICANT: Town of LaSalle/Weld County
PLANNER: Monica Daniels Mika, Director of Planning
REQUEST: Request for an Intergovernmental Agreement .
CASE NUMBER: County Code-2003-XX
APPLICANT: Town of Ault/Weld County
PLANNER: Monica Daniels Mika, Director of Planning
REQUEST: Request for an Intergovernmental Agreement .
CASE NUMBER: County Code-2003-XX
APPLICANT: Town of Eaton/Weld County
PLANNER: Monica Daniels Mika, Director of Planning
REQUEST: Request for an Intergovernmental Agreement .
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to have any of these agreements removed
from the consent agenda. Seeing none, they all remained.
John Folsom questioned verbage regarding the word"modification". Ms. Mika explained that the change is
to the automatic renewal date plus change the effective date because these old agreements had effective
dates, but did not include termination dates. The IGA remained the same except for the time parameters
associated with it.
Page -2-
Stephen Mokray moved that all five County Code cases on the consent agenda be recommended for
approval. John Folsom seconded the motion. Mr. Rohn voted against approval. Motion carried 4 to 1.
The Chair called for Case USR-1431 to be heard and read the information into the record.
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 adjacent to Highway 34 (28`" Street Frontage Road)and
approximately 1/2 mile east of 1st Avenue.
Mr.Rohn moved that Case USR-11431 be continued to August 5,2003,because some board members were
not fully prepared to hear the case. Mr. Folsom seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission. John Folsom,yes;Stephan
Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes;. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
The Chair then recommended to the Planning Commission that when they receive any materials, even those
requesting a continuance, that they read those materials and be fully prepared, regardless of whether it may
be continued or not.
The following is on the Hearing Agenda:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1429
APPLICANT: David &Annita Alvarez
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman/Michelle Katyryniuk
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-3025; being part of the NE4 of the NE4 of Section 29, T7N,
R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a church
childcare center and private school in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 78 and west of and adjacent to CR 41.
Michelle Katyryniuk, Department of Planning Services, David and Annita Alvarez have applied for a Site
Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a church, childcare center and private school
in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. The Department of Planning Services is requesting a continuance of
USR-1429 in order to allow the applicant additional time to notify the properties mineral owners in
accordance with Colorado Revised Statute, C.R.S. 24-65.5-103. Staff is requesting the case to be moved
to September 2, 2003.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against the continuance of
USR-1429. No one wished to speak.
James Rohn moved that Case USR-1429, be continued to September 2,2003. Stephen Mokray seconded
the motion. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
The Planning Commission members were advised to keep the materials from the two continued cases in
order to prepare for the upcoming hearings.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-594
APPLICANT: Todd Muckier, Debra Eberl & Eli Krebs
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A and B of RE-2695; being part W2 Section 29,T5N, R67W of the 6th
Page -3-
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Change of Zone from (A)Agricultural to PUD for seven (7) lots with (E)
Estate Uses and one (1) non-residential lot with Agricultural uses.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 54 and /2 mile East of WCR 15.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-594, reading the recommendation
and comments into the record.Todd Muckier, Debra Eberl and Eli Krebs have applied for a Change of Zone
from Agricultural to PUD for 7 lots with Estate Zone Uses and 3 non-residential outlots with agricultural uses.
The applicants have varied from the Estate Bulk Requirements for the 7 residential lots in that the lots will
be allowed 4 animal units and the existing home on Lot 7 shall have a setback of 189 feet from the existing
tank battery.
Lakota Lakes Ranch PUD is located South of and adjacent to CR 54 and east of and adjacent to CR 15. The
city of Greeley is approximately 1 mile northeast of the site.The town of Johnstown is approximately 2 miles
south of the site.
The site is currently being mined under 2n°Ammended Use by Special Review Permit 672. The majority of
the surrounding property is agricultural in nature with homes in close proximity. To the south of the site is
Challenger Ranch PUD.
Sixteen referral agencies reviewed this case,nine responded favorably or included conditions that have been
addressed through development standards and conditions of approval. The City of Greeley has
recommended denial based on inadequate services and insufficient setbacks from oil and gas wells,as well
as the length and gravel surface of the access road.
The Weld County Department of Public Works is requiring the access road to be paved. This is consistent
with the requirements for Challenger Ranch, the adjacent PUD.
One letter requesting denial of the PUD has been received from the attorney representing Albert Challenger,
who developed the property south of the site. The letter addresses many concerns, which, should the
commission wish, Planning Staff and the applicant will address individually.
The Weld County Department of Planning Services Staff has determined that the application has met the
criteria as listed in section 27-6-120 of the Weld County Code and therefore is recommending approval
This morning Planning Staff received a fax from KP Kauffman who is working with the applicant on a surface
use agreement. KP has agreed that the surface agreement can be done prior to the final plat submittal. I
spoke to Black Stone Minerals Company who had submitted a letter requesting an agreement prior to
approval of the Change of Zone. They have indicated that they will defer to the timing laid out by KP
Kaufman. Therefore Planning Staff has moved the required mineral agreement from"Prior to scheduling the
Board of County Commissioners hearing"to"4.P, "At time of Final Plan submission".
Concerns have been raised by the applicant regarding Condition of Approval 6.6 on page 9. The mining
agreement was entered into by the previous owner. Planning Staff has required that the USR for gravel
mining be vacated on the property prior to recording the final plat. Application materials indicated that the
operation is in its final stages and reclamation will begin within the next few months. Because of the
applicants concern regarding this condition I spoke to Erica Crosby with the Divisions of Minerals and
Geology this morning. Erica indicated that at the applicants request she did a field check of the site on
Friday.She stated that although the mining is complete there are stock piles on site. Further the reclamation
does not match the existing plan and a new plan must be submitted. The Division considers this an active
mining site as long as minerals are being trucked from the site and reclamation is in process. They will not
give final sign off until the landscaping is fairly well established, According the Erica, this could be as much
as 5 years.
Because of this new information and the vague information regarding the exact time line to remove the
stockpiles and complete reclamation. Planning Staff has added Condition of Approval 1.A which requires
Page -4-
the applicant to contact the operator of the mining operation to determine a time line to complete removal
of stockpiles on site and reclamation of the site. Coulson Excavating has given a letter stating that the
reclamation was scheduled to begin late summer and fall of 2003. However, no expected time lines for
completion were included.
Planning Staff does have some concerns regarding compatibility as long as trucks are actively removing
stockpiled material.
The Department of Planning Services' Staff Recommends that this request be approved.
Mr.Gimlin asked Ms.Lockman about the letter in regard to the amount of open space and whether it is less
than was originally planned? Ms. Lockman said the open space has not changed, it is still at roughly sixty
acres. Mr. Miller inquired whether the open space was available to all of the residents or just the owners of
the property? Ms. Lockman replied that she was under the impression that it was for use by the residents
of the property.
Mr.Miller then asked what Ms.Lockman planned to do with the applicant's letter to the mining company and
the time line information contained in it, as Mr. Miller felt that this was information the board needed before
they could render a decision in the case.
Mr.Folsom inquired about County Code requirements pertaining to subdivisions adjacent to each other. Ms.
Lockman replied that there is nothing that prohibits this in a PUD. Mr. Rohn asked how the Bracewell PUD,
PZ-552, which allowed active mining and which Planning staff recommended for denial, differs from this
case,which staff is recommending for approval?
Ms. Lockman said she did not recall the facts in PZ-552, but that in a PUD, one is allowed to mine.
Mr. Folsom inquired about lot sizes in this case in comparison to the lot sizes in the adjacent Challenger
PUD. Ms. Lockman replied that the lots in this case were smaller.
Mr.Tomm Honn, 1601 Quail Hollow Drive,Ft.Collins,Colorado,representing the applicants,addressed the
board. Applicants are creating a seven lot subdivision, clustered to the northern portion of site,with open
space along the river. The area for development does not contain prime soils. The open space has natural
attributes, mineral resources, and natural hazards. Gravel mining is essentially completed, they are in the
process of removing final stockpiles and in late summer and fall will begin the final stages of reclamation.
The site is in a flood plain but the lots are not within the one hundred year flood plain. Mr. Honn had some
concerns about requiring a paved road rather than gravel, as in the Challenger development. He felt the
heavy truck traffic would impose unfair maintenance costs on the property owners. There is also a potential
for horses in this development, and for these reasons,the applicants desire gravel streets. Mr. Honn then
spoke to the CR 15 dedication and said they were suggesting a reserved right-of-way for the future be placed
on the plat. Finally, Mr. Honn addressed the timing of the application of the final plat due to the gravel
extraction. The applicant's are not opposed to abandoning the USR on the property,but are concerned that
the plat submittal will be delayed due to the gravel mining,which is out of their control. Mr. Honn felt it was
appropriate to establish some conditions on lot one,that it should not have a building permit issued until the
USR has been abandoned.
Mr. Miller asked for clarification of the lots and locations and access to the Challenger PUD. Mr. Honn said
the original RE had been vacated allowing the existing lots to be more even in size. Mr.Honn then explained
the access points from CR 54, down the site to the turn around, and the easement that can potentially
connect all of the road from CR 54 to CR 15 1/2 . Mr. Rohn inquired about page 5, condition#2 a, and why
it is in there? Ms. Lockman said lot seven was originally a subdivision exemption for financing purposes
only. At his death it was somehow transferred to his son and sold as a separate parcel. He will be required
to sign the plat as he does have ownership in this. The illegal lot will become lot seven at the completion
of this subdivision.
Todd Muckier,applicant,2216 2491 Avenue, Longmont,Colorado,80501,addressed the board. He said four
of the six proposed lots will be owned by family members and they look forward to future construction. Debra
Page -5-
Eberl, applicant, 2216 24th Avenue, Longmont, Colorado, 80501, spoke about her intent to improve the
property and provide a nice place to live.
Mr. Miller expressed concern about four horses per lot,that he felt that was a lot of horses per lot,and what
exactly were they applying for? Ms. Lockman said the outlots would follow agricultural requirements and
the other lots estate requirements,and would abide by the bulk requirements of the estate zone district. Mr.
Rohn asked about the building envelopes on the flood plain,contained in page seven, numbers 3e and 3f,
specifically, how high are the building envelopes in elevation from the flood plain, and why are basements
not being allowed ? Peter Schei, Public Works, said there is a high water table in that area, therefore
basements are not allowed. Mr.Schei said it is recommended that envelopes be placed towards the upper
portions of the lots as a safety requirement because of the flood zone. Mr. Rohn inquired again about
elevation and how much above the flood plain are the homes? The finished floor must be one foot above
flood plain, according to Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller asked Mr. Schei about the landscaping within the site distance triangles ( page 7, 3b) and
suggested Mr. Schei might want to re-word that information.
Mr. Miller asked Mr. Muckier about access of out lot D. Mr. Muckier said he had contacted Mr. Betz, the
property owner, and that he was fine with them crossing the property to access out lot D, but that they did
not have a signed agreement with him stating that. Mr. Miller asked how access would be controlled with
reclamation issues and mining going on,as it presents a safety issue,particularly if this takes five more years
for them to clean this up? Mr. Muckier replied that Mr. Coulson said their development would not interfere
with his mining operation. Mr. Muckier said he would post notices in specific areas as well as construct
temporary fencing. Ms. Eberl spoke about dedicated easement along west boundary line as well as ingress
and egress through the property.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Gene Eberl, applicant's father, said he was committed to build in the subdivision. He spoke about weed
control, elevations of the homes to be built on slabs with no basements will be three feet above flood
plain,and that horses will follow the bulk requirements on each lot. There will be no random pasturing of
horses,just those horses of the property owners.
Gerry McCrea,McCrea&Short Engineers, 1231 8th Avenue,Greeley,Colorado,80631,said he has worked
on this property for eleven years beginning with Mr.Challenger and that he was very familiar with precedent
and procedures of this property and its development. The basic concepts have not changed all that much.
The road system serving the property remains the same,along the railroad and the hill along the Brush Ditch
and the accesses which were determined on the Challenger portion of the overall concept remain as well.
The farm fields is where these lots will be developed, not in the flood plain. The extension of CR 15 seems
to be questionable because there would be a river crossing and there are no roads to the south that would
be of particular value, so that would be a major undertaking for the County if it were to be enlarged for a
major collector arterial. He closed by saying that he felt the changes that had been made were all positive
and still fit within the framework that was originally approved on the Challenger PUD and the property to the
north that he owned at that time.
Robert Brown,7360 CR 54, Greeley,Colorado,80631, lives adjacent to this property to the east on CR 54.
Mr. Brown said he was very much in favor of this development and is excited to have homes in this area.
The area is much more pleasant since Mr. Muckier and Ms. Eberl took ownership of the property and he
hoped the Planning Commission would approve the application..
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing as there was no one else wishing to address the Planning
Commission. Mr. Miller then asked Peter Schei about Public Work's position on the right-of-way issue on
CR 15. Mr.Schei replied that they had put in a general statement regarding CR 15; lot one in the northwest
corner of this development has an access back to the gravel mine, and it is important that this portion be
dedicated since it will be platted,and lot one will be adjacent to that section line. Further south a reservation
would be appropriate and it would be beneficial to any future concern to have that reservation go and extend
through out lot D south along entire section line for public access back there.
Page-6-
Mr.Miller questioned the need for public access. Mr.Morrison,County Attorney,said there was no obligation
to create and maintain a public access as a buildable lot is not being created back there. There may be
reasons to have the availability of the right-of-way for some time in the future, but access need not be
preserved across this proposed development.
Mr. Miller then inquired about the dedication on the north end and the reservation along the south end,why
do we need a dedication on that lot if we are not going to dedicate the whole thing? Mr. Folsom pointed out
that there isn't an easement agreement for the gravel mining so when gravel mining ends, the easement
goes away. Mr.Miller said he didn't understand why they needed to dedicate any portion of it if it's reserved?
Mr.Schei agreed,as did Mr. Rohn. Mr. Mokray asked what happens if the property sells in the future? Mr.
Miller responded that they don't need to do anything more than reserve the right of way. Mr. Miller then
expressed concern about the timing for the final plat and compatibility issues, and felt that it should be
wrapped up before it gets to final plat. Mr.Folsom asked Mr. Miller about compatibility. Mr. Miller said if he
were the operator,he would be concerned about encroachment of residents onto the mining site as that could
cause huge liability issues regarding water and equipment. Mr. Miller said lot one would be impacted the
most, and didn't feel personally, that it would take five years for the reclamation process to be completed.
Mr. Gimlin responded that the applicants said they were willing to wait on development of lot one and that
most of the reclamation activity on the west side is away from the lots and should be compatible. Certainly
the owners, if they move in, it will be at there own peril.
Mr. Miller asked Ms. Lockman about the animal units calculation and was the currently mined area figured
into calculating the total number of animal units? Ms. Lockman replied that lots one through seven shall
adhere to the uses allowed in the estate zone district and allow for one animal unit per acre, so most of the
lots will be allowed three animals. The two and a half acre lot will be allowed two animals. Out lots B, C,
and D shall adhere to the uses allowed in the agricultural zone district,except for no residential structures,
and after discussions with the applicant, they have agreed that no more than seventeen horses shall be
allowed. The seventeen horses allowed is the amount the seven estate lots add up to so that would give
them that area to run all seventeen of the horses on. The whole number of horses could be twice that,
including the estate lots,for a total of thirty four horses.
Mr. Gimlin wanted to discuss the issue of paving versus gravel. Mr. Rohn said he believed a paved road
adds to the value of property and would like to see the road paved. Mr. Gimlin said it should go to
compatibility, and agrees with the applicant about keeping it gravel, but how does that match up with the
neighboring Challenger PUD, and is their road paved? Ms. Lockman said paving was not required for the
Challenger PUD, but two subdivisions adjacent to each other become urban scale development but
pavement was included in their improvements agreement. Mr. Schei, Public Works, said the County will
assume maintenance at some point. Mr. Miller then said it only makes sense to pave internal roads.
Mr. Miller then asked Ms. Lockman if she had language she would like to read into the record regarding
animal units? Ms. Lockman said amend condition 3 A.to read:
3. The Change of Zone is conditional upon the following and that each shall be placed on the Change
of Zone plat as notes prior to recording:
A. The site specific development plan is for a Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to PUD for
seven (7) residential lots and three (3) non-residential outlots as indicated in the application
materials on file in the Department of Planning Services. Lot 1 through 7 will adhere to the uses
allowed in the E(Estate)Zone District.Outlots B,C and D will adhere to the uses allowed in the
A(Agricultural)Zone District except for no residential structures and no more than seventeen
animal units shall be allowed. Lot 7 shall have a setback of one-hundred eighty-nine feet from
any tank battery.The PUD will be subject to and governed by the Conditions of Approval stated
hereon and all applicable Weld County Regulations. (Department of Planning Services)
James Rohn moved that Case PZ-594,be amended and 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.
Page-7-
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; . Motion
carried unanimously, 5 to O.
Peter Schei, Department of Public Works, suggested an amendment to item 3. B., page seven,to read:All
landscaping within the sight distance triangles shall be less than three and a half feet high at maturity.
Bryant G imlin made a motion to a pprove the a mendment and include the a forementioned I anguage.
Stephen Mokray seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously, 5 to 0.
Peter Schei, Department of Public Works, suggested that item H. 1., page six, be stricken entirely and
replaced with this language: CR 15 should be shown as thirty feet of reserved right-of-way along the section
line for the full length of the development property, and additionally, the CR 15 thirty foot reserved right-of-
way is not intended to provide any current benefit for the use of that reservation by the public. It was moved
by Bryant Gimlin and seconded by Steven Mokray to amend item H. 1., page six, to include the language
read into the record by Peter Schei, Public Works. Motion carried unanimously, 5 to 0.
Mr. Folsom suggested that item 1. A., page four, be deleted, as there was no impediment to developing
these lots while the reclamation continued. Mr. Miller said that statement itself is not necessary, but they
do need to make a statement saying lot one cannot be offered for sale until the reclamation is complete.
Ms. Lockman then suggested that they not limit the sale of the lot,but put a note on the plat saying: Building
permits shall not be issued on lot one prior to the vacation of Corrected Amended USR-672. James Rohn
motioned to include language read into the record by Ms. Lockman. John Folsom seconded the motion.
Motion carried unanimously, 5 to O.
Ms. Lockman then suggested that this become item 3. B.,page seven, be re-lettered,and that item 1.A. be
deleted. James Rohn amended his previous motion to reflect Ms. Lockman's suggestion that: Building
permits shall not be issued on lot one prior to the vacation of Corrected Amended USR-672. Bryant Gimlin
seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously, 5 to 0.
John Folsom moved to eliminate item 1. A., page four and also item 6. B., page eleven. James Rohn
seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously, 5 to 0.
Mr.Miller asked Ms.Lockman about page 8,item U., regarding notification of potential purchasers,and how
many potential purchasers would bother to read that? Ms. Lockman said there would be a note on the plat,
a standard way of informing the public that there are operations in the area. Mr. Miller suggested that item
U., page eight be added to 5. I., page 10 and add language that: There shall be a note in the covenants
stating that there are confined animal feeding operations in the area.
James Rohn made a motion that item U.,page eight be added to 5. I.,page 10 and add language that: There
shall be a notice in the covenants stating that potential purchasers are hereby notified that confined animal
feeding operations are located directly northeast and northwest of the site adjacent to County Road 54.
Further, % mile west of County Road 15 on County Road 56 lies a confined animal feeding operation
permitted by SUP-154 for 2850 head of cattle. Off-site impacts that maybe encountered include noise from
trucks, tractors and equipment; dust from animal pens and odors from animal confinement, silage, and
manure. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously, 5 to 0.
James Rohn motioned to correct a typographical error on page eight, item X., to change compiling to
complying. John Folsom seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously, 5 to 0.
The Chair asked Mr. Muckier if he had an opportunity to read the development standards and conditions of
approval as amended, and are you in agreement with them? Mr. Muckier said he had and he was.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case PZ-594,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
Page -8-
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,with comment,
that he feels this is a good use for the property remaining after the mining operation commences. Motion
carried unanimously, 5 to 0.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1428
APPLICANT: John Walkusch
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SE-485; part SW4 Section 18, T6N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Use
by Right,Accessory Use or Use by Special Review in the Commercial or
Industrial Zone Districts (repair work on heavy duty trucks and farm
equipment).
LOCATION: Approximately 600 feet north of Hwy 392; 1/2 mile west of CR 25.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1428,reading the recommendation
and comments into the record.The Department of Planning Services'Staff Recommends that this request
be denied.
John Walkusch has applied for a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Use
by Right, Accessory Use or Use by Special Review in the C (Commercial)and I (Industrial)Zone Districts
(repair work on heavy duty trucks and farm equipment) in the A(Agricultural)Zone district.
The sign announcing the original Planning Commission hearing was posted Jun13, 2003 by Planning Staff.
The site is located approximately 600-feet north of State Highway 392 and approximately '% mile east of
WCR 25.
There are two single family residences located adjacent to the site.These residences share the same access
as the applicant. Other properties consist of cropland to the north, south, east and west. Another single
family residence is located approx. '%mile to the west along with a residence to the northeast.
13 referral agencies reviewed this case, 12 referral agencies responded favorably or included conditions that
have been addressed through development standards and conditions of approval.
Two letters of support were received from two of the adjacent property owners that share the existing access
point and have expressed support for allowing the applicant to access his business via this road. However,
no permission has been received from the property owner to the west,where a portion of the access (50%)
traverses over.
The property owners/users of the access signed an access agreement for the joint use and maintenance of
the access road in 1994. Two of the other property owners sharing the road have expressed support for this
request. However, the remaining property owner who signed the access agreement for the road has not
provided a letter indicating no concerns nor support for this request. Planning staff has consistently viewed
the use of a private access for a special use permit as a substantial change to the existing access and have
required consent from all users of the access prior to recommending approval of such request. The applicant
does not have consent from all users of the access. The Department of Planning Services, therefore,
recommends denial of this application. The Department of Planning Services has no other issues with this
application to warrant denial.
Mr. Walkusch is present today and I will be happy to answer any questions at this time.
Page -9-
Mr. Gimlin asked Mr. Gathman why this wasn't like other agreements requiring diligent effort from a third
party? Mr. Morrison responded that the issue that can come up with easements is whether there has been
an increased burden on existing easement. Mr. Morrison recommended to planning staff that they require
agreements from all those who have an interest over which the easement traverses,so there wouldn't be the
possibility of a future argument about whether this use does conflict with the existing easement. Mr. Gimlin
then inquired whether the infrastructure is suitable for increased traffic?
Mr. Miller asked Mr. Gathman if there were additional buildings to be built or will they be operating out of the
existing facility? Mr. Gathman said the applicant will be operating out of the existing facility.
Mr. Folsom inquired how wide the easement was and if it is on two properties? Mr.Gathman replied that the
easement access is thirty feet, split between two properties, and the shared property owner has not shared
consent or refusal. Mr. Folsom asked if there has been any consideration of the property owner to the east
coming off north from Hwy 392,to increase the easement to twenty five feet on his property,so that in effect,
the agreement with the property owner to the west would be moot? Mr. Gathman replied that was one
suggestion, but he did not know if the property owners would support moving the entire easement onto their
property, when presently it is only half on their property.
Mr. Mokray asked about the owner's current operation violation and what impact this has had on the other
property owners? Mr. Gathman said there have not been any concerns of the other property owners, and
according to their letters they have suffered no adverse impact. Mr. Folsom asked about separate access
of the property owner to the west? Mr. Gathman said there is a possibility that he still uses the access for
agricultural purposes.
Mr. Rohn asked if there was a chance that the Colorado Department of Transportation might offer the
applicant another access point to his property? Mr.Gathman said he does not have any direct frontage onto
the state highway so the only way for the applicant to get another access is to go through someone else's
property to get to his property, and there are existing residences on both neighboring properties. Mr. Rohn
then asked if the applicant's business was serving the surrounding area or was more far reaching? Mr.
Gathman replied it would be best if the applicant addressed that question when he spoke.
John Walkusch, 12439 Hwy 392,Greeley,Colorado,80631,applicant,addressed the Planning Commission
and said that the whole issue over this application is based on the access to the property. He said he owns
the original house on property. The building Mr. Walkusch works out of is a machinery shed used for
equipment repair when the previous owner farmed the property. The complainant lives to the west of the
applicant and will not give his approval as he is against allowing access for the applicant. Mr. Orth had
blocked off access of the driveway road to the north of the site and built a fence as well to prevent further
access. Mr. Walkusch said that when he moved to the property in 1994, he understood that access was to
be shared by four property owners.Mr.Orth has not paid his share of the cost of the gravel and improvements
for the road. Mr.Walkusch said he also has personally maintained the driveway year around, in the nine and
a half years he has lived there. Mr. Orth has access to his house and property off of CR 25. Since Mr.Orth
has closed off the north access he has built a new road for access up behind the Walkusch property. Due
to the blocked access, the other neighbors have also been denied access to the north.
Mr. Folsom asked the applicant if he has spoken to the neighbor on the east side about increasing the size
of the easement on his property? Mr. Walkusch feels Mr. Orth has breached the contract as he has not
helped maintain the driveway. He also said moving the easement to the east would take away pasture land
from that property owner. He said he never has known exactly where Mr.Orth's property is in relation to the
easement without having a survey performed. Mr. Folsom suggested a survey might help resolve the
situation. Mr. Walkusch then discussed the various information he possessed containing information
regarding the easement.
Mr. Rohn asked Mr. Gathman if it was possible to exclude Mr. Orth from the agreement? Mr. Morrison,
County Attorney, replied they can find the existing easement adequate, if it is not increasing the burden on
the easement to serve this use. Mr.Folsom asked Mr. Walkusch how long he had been operating the
business and will the operation change once the USR is granted? Mr. Walkusch replied that the operation
Page -10-
will not change substantially if the USR is approved.
The Chair opened the hearing for for public comment.
Ted Myers, 12437 Hwy 392,Greeley, Colorado, 80631, and resides immediately south of the Walkusch
property. He said they have been good neighbors, as has the business, and the value of his property has
increased due to Mr.Walkusch's diligent attempts at maintenance of the road. Mr.Myers said the Walkusch
business has not caused the road to deteriorate. As a matter of fact,due to the business and Mr.Walkusch's
maintenance, the road was better than it had ever been. As far as Mr. Myers was concerned, Mr. Orth has
given up any claim to the road because he blocked it of his own volition with a"spite fence"for no real and
practical purpose. Mr. Myers cited a recent vehicle fire in the area when the Windsor/Severance F.P.D.
responded and had to seek an alternate route because of the blocked access. Mr.Myers ended by expressing
his hearty approval of Mr. Walkusch's application.
Tom Coop,255 Sandstone Court,Windsor,Colorado,80550,said he has done business with Mr.Walkusch
and that he had always been accessible until Mr.Orth put in the obstacle across access road and hampered
the applicant's situation. He felt that Mr. Walkusch has done an excellent job of maintaining the road year
around, he should have legal rights to drive way, and his application should be supported.
Bob Winter,33652 CR 21,Windsor,Colorado,80550,said the Weld County Farm Bureau in a meeting held
June 19, 2003 sent a letter of support for Mr. Walkusch in his business efforts. The Farm Bureau supports
property rights and did not feel it was fair to ask another property owner to give up land for an easement when
there is an access easement already in existence. The Farm Bureau is against the taking of land and
supports the use of the existing right-of-way. Mr.Winter said he has always been satisfied with the applicant's
work, the price he charges is fair, and he would like to see the business continue.
Tim Johnson, 10859 CR 76 'A, Greeley, Colorado, 80631, said he owns a small dairy farm and has had Mr.
Walkusch do repairs for him. He felt that a man like Mr. Walkusch was an asset to the area and he would
like to have him be able to continue his repair business.
Gary Bragdon, 475 Newell Drive, Loveland, Colorado, said he was a former neighbor of Mr.Walkusch and
wanted to reiterate what previous speakers had said. He spoke to the applicant's character, the integrity of
his work, the valuable service that he has provided, and the inequity to the applicant should he have to
relocate his business were his application denied. Mr. Bragdon felt the neighbor who has not consented to
the USR, has breached his original agreement with the applicant, and the agreement should be invalidated.
Consequently, why should Mr. Walkusch have to buy property from another neighbor to create a new
easement? He endorsed the application and respectfully asked the Planning Commission to approve the
USR.
Norm Emerson, 13237 CR 66, Greeley, Colorado, 80631, farms south and east of Mr. Walkusch and
endorsed his business. He said he was a good helpful neighbor,a positive asset to the community, and he
would like to see Mr. Walkusch and his business remain in the area.
Denise Walkusch, 12439 Hwy 392, Greeley, Colorado,80631,said Mr.Orth does not presently use the road
and that her husband makes farm calls so increased vehicle traffic is not always an issue on the road.
Mark Callahan, 1530 Bayberry Circle, Ft. Collins, Colorado, moved to Colorado in 1995 and chose to live
here in part because of Mr. Walkusch. He endorsed the applicant for many reasons and recommended
approval of his application.
Jay Miller,140 E. 4'h Avenue, Severance, Colorado, 80546, said the Walkusch property is always neat and
the road maintained. He is an asset to the area and endorses his application.
Mr. Rohn said Mr. Orth should have attended and as he did not, he should not be given the credit of time.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Miller said he felt the issue is the easement and that
access should not be restricted just because one of the parties has not signed the agreement. Mr.Morrison
Page -11-
added that the silence of one property owner does not allow the liberty to expand the use beyond what was
reasonably anticipated. Mr. Orth doesn't necessarily lose any property interest in that piece of ground that
the easement goes over just because he doesn't go over it. The issue of maintenance by Mr. Walkusch is
relevant.
Mr.Miller said they need to decide whether it's an appropriate use and if the easement is valid and adequate,
though Mr. Orth could pursue the issue in court whether the Planning Commission approved it or not.. Mr.
Folsom said Mr. Orth has apparently not objected to the use of the easement, therefore it must not be an
additional burden or he would have objected by now. Mr. Gathman said he has not received any letters
specific to this case from Mr. Orth and he was given notice as a surrounding property owner within five
hundred feet.
Bethany Salzman, Weld County Zoning Compliance Officer, said that on November 27, 2001 a letter from
Mr. Orth was received regarding a scheduled violation hearing. She said she believed Mr. Orth was in
attendance at that hearing and that he has expressed opposition, but not since that hearing on January 8,
2002. Mr. Orth attended the hearing and objected to the business but said nothing specifically about the
easement.
Mr. Rohn said if Mr.Orth objects to the business,he should have been here or filed a statement to that effect,
and the Planning Commission should then not have terms for denial for this case.
Mr. Miller said the recommendation for denial from planning staff was due to the standard procedure that
when shared easements or accesses should have the permission of all participants. That is why we are
considering that, it is not specific to Mr. Orth's protest.
Mr.Miller asked the applicant if he had had an opportunity to read the development standards and conditions
of approval and was he in agreement with them?
Mr. Walkusch replied that he had and he was in agreement.
James Rohn moved that Case USR-1428, 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. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Rohn to elaborate as to why he felt
this case was appropriate for approval,against the recommendation of the planning staff. Mr. Rohn said he
felt that Mr.Walkusch has shown great emphasis on taking care of not only his property and the surrounding
property,but the neighborhood in general. He believed that when the applicant spent his hard earned money
to take care and maintain the road and the neighbors are pleased by this, I feel that this is well defined in the
need.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes,with comment,that Mr.Walkusch was an asset to the community and we
need more people like him;Michael Miller,yes,and he reiterated what the other commission members stated;
Bryant Gimlin, yes, with comment, that in his opinion the applicant showed diligence in trying to gain
permission for the access agreement in this case and that the access agreement itself looks like it will still
support this activity. There is nothing in there one way or the other that contemplates any change of burden
or any particular usage of any one kind and that in his opinion the access agreement on file is still valid;
James Rohn, yes, with comment, that he thought this was a good area for this business and due to his
willingness to work with the neighbors, his application should be approved. Motion carried unanimously, 5
to 0.
Meeting adjourned at 4:15 p. m.
Respectfully submitted
_
Donita May
Secretary
Page -12-
Hello