HomeMy WebLinkAbout20033393 SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, December 2, 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, 1:30at p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin
John Folsom
Stephan Mokray
James Rohn
Bruce Fitzgerald
Tim Tracy ?
Doug Ochsner Absent
Also Present: Peter Schei, Char Davis, Michelle Katyryniuk, Sheri Lockman, Don Carroll, Monica Mika
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on November 18,
2003, was approved as read.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1440
APPLICANT: Brent& Patricia Johnson
PLANNER: Michelle Katyryniuk
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part SE4 Lot A RE-901 Section 8, T7N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Veterinary
Clinic and Livestock Confinement Operation in the A (Agricultural) Zone
District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Hwy 14 and west of and adjacent CR 29.
Michelle Katyryniuk, Department of Planning Services, read a letter withdrawing the project.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-604
APPLICANT: Darrel Adolf
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot C of RE-2940; being part of the NE4 of Section 29, T9N, R67W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to PUD for five(5)residential lots and
one (1)Agricultural out lot.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 102; west of and adjacent to CR 17.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services,requesting a continuance to February 3, 2004. There are
agreements in process.
The following Cases will be heard:
CASE: Building Inspection
PLANNER: Jeff Reif
Jeff Reif, Building Inspection, read a letter addressing fees. Weld County will issue grading permits in order
to enforce Storm Water Drainage requirements in certain areas of unincorporated Weld County. In order to
determine appropriate permit fees for these grading permits, a fee schedule needs to be adopted.
Department of Building Inspection staff recommends that the grading permit fee be based upon the value
(cost)of the work completed. The permit applicant will provide an estimate of the cost when applying for this
permit. The permit fee will be assessed for the reported cost in accordance with a formula already determined
by the Building Code.
C'b„arti t r /a- j5 a 3 c.)1h> 'S•_ 3i/3
John Folsom asked if there would be a form that would need to be filled out after the work was completed,
will this need to be supported with evidence of the cost. Mr. Reif stated the applicant will have an estimate of
cost and they will be assessed that cost when the permit is applied for. The fees will be assessed accordingly.
Mr. Reif indicated that if the estimate is out of line there could be a requirement of supporting documents. It
is not normal to require supporting documents after the work is done. Mr. Folsom indicated his concern for
possible low estimates.
James Rohn asked if there will be inspections throughout, then a final inspection like a building permit? Mr.
Reif stated there will be inspections and a final approval will be granted. The reason for the grading permit
is to make sure the storm water drainage requirements according to EPA standards are applied. Mr. Rohn
asked if this permit was associated with USR or PUD or associated with any type of work. Mr. Reif stated it
is in specific areas not necessarily every application.
Tim Tracy asked if this was a new fee? Mr. Reif stated current fees are based on the valuation of the work.
The intent is to associate the storm water drainage fees with the current grading fees.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked who the typical applicant is. Mr. Reif indicated it is typically a developer. The storm
water drainage areas are in areas that would disturb more than one acre of land, generally a larger project.
These fees would only be in areas designated as storm water drainage areas, typically close to larger
municipalities. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if Oil&Gas Companies utilized this. Mr. Reif stated that if they are in the
area and disturbing more than an acre of land they would be subject to the fee.
John Folsom provided a scenario and asked if the estimate was over would the developer want a refund. Mr.
Reif stated that the cost of the work is a competitive process and there are people bidding for the work. A
letter could be written to the Building Official requesting a refund, this would need to be supported by
documentation.
Michael Miller asked if this is designated for a specific fee and not a new fee. There is typically information
provided to Planning Commission with regards to the fee and how it is calculated. Mr. Reif stated that
currently there are calculations and a fee formula. Mr. Miller stated that there is no fee schedule and this is
an issue there is no formula.
Bryant Gimlin asked whether the fee is up for approval just asking for the ability to require a storm water
permit. Mr. Reif stated they are asking to use the existing grading fee for the storm water drainage fee also.
Mr. Morrison added that this may not even be needed. The department is trying to assure that the do not get
challenged that the existing grading and excavating provisions are meant for other things other than storm
water issues. The intent is to use the existing grading permit fee and being able to apply it for the storm
drainage permit fees.
Tim Tracy asked if there will be two different fees associated with a project if both the grading and the storm
water fees can be applied. Mr. Reif stated that the permit fee for storm water drainage is inclusive, there is
no additional fees to the project. Mr. Tracy would like to see the wording redrafted and brought back to
indicate that there is no additional fees. Mr.Morrison stated that clarifying the language could be done without
redrafting. The grading fee is based on the work,some of the work is grading. This could be dealt with in the
recommendation indicating that the two are not additional to different parts of the same project. Mr. Tracy
would like to know how grading is defined in the building code, is storm water drainage identified as part of
this. Mr. Morrison stated it is not defined it is determined by how much is being moved on site. Not every
activity is significant enough to constitute grading. Mr.Reif stated grading is based on work conducted on site.
Tim Tracy asked if the intent is to include storm water drainage permit fee along with the grading permit fee
that is already in the code. Mr. Reif stated that any excavation that would be required would be done with a
grading permit. The intent is for it grading not to be an exclusive use of the permit. Mr. Morrison suggested
adding language to the third paragraph to state"The Department of Building Inspection requests the Planning
Commission submit a favorable recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to establish a
grading permit fee schedule based upon the cost of the work performed be established but those fees shall
not duplicate those fees charged for other grading work."
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Tim Tracy moved to accept the language suggested by Mr.Morrison. James Rohn seconded. Motion carried.
Stephen Mokray moved that the Grading Permit Fee, along with the additions, be forwarded to the Board of
County Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning
Commissions recommendation of approval. Tim Tracy seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes;Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;James Rohn,yes;Tim Tracy,yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE: MEAD IGA
PLANNER : Monica Mika
Monica Mika, Department of Planning Services,provided information and clarification of the Mead IGA. The
Department of Planning Services is recommending approval for the Douthit&School and Frederiksen parcel
annexations,but denial for the Sekich parcel annexation.The two parcels that staff is recommending approval
for are the Douthit&School and Frederiksen because those meet the intent of the IGA and are consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan for Mead. Both parcels are within the area of influence and are contiguous with the
town. The Comprehensive Plan for Mead indicates that flexability is needed when annexing parcels. There
is language for annual renewal within one year included in this IGA. The infill of the communities is also a
review requirement. The two properties will be developed at an urban scale and will be serviced by the St.
Vrain Sanitation District and Little Thompson.
John Folsom asked whether the denial for Sekich parcel is based on lack of inclusion into the Comprehensive
Plan. Ms. Mika stated the concern is the original application was to be serviced by Town of Mead or St.Vrain
Sanitation District. The recent information indicates they will be serviced by septic systems. Septic systems
are not adequate with the intent of municipal services. The IGA agreement requires that municipal services
be obtainable. This is just one of the criteria. The additional concern is that this area is outside of the Town
of Mead area of influence. The town of Mead's Comprehensive Plan requires that something be in writing for
assurance of development in the area. The Sekich parcel is outside the area. There has been requests for
infill that have been denied by Mead due to not being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Mika
added that infill of development needs to be reviewed. The Town of Mead has grown in various directions
and does it make sense for the public services? The St.Vrain Sanitation District provides service to this area.
The property owners are the ones who petitioned for inclusion into Mead.
John Folsom asked if annexation has been voted on by the voters of the town. Ms. Mika stated that the first
step is to modify the boundaries. Mr. Folsom asked about MUD additions and if the same criteria is utilized.
Ms. Mika indicated that the MUD does not require agreements. The MUD does require that a parcel can be
served. This application indicated that it would be serviced by either Mead or St.Vrain,but the indication now
is there will be septic systems.
Bryant Gimlin asked if there is any current land use applications. Ms. Mika indicated there was nothing
presently in the Weld County process for any of the parcels. There may be some in the Frederiksen
annexation but this will be handled within the town.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Michael Friesen, Town Administrator of Mead, provided clarification with regard to the annexations. The
understanding, by the town, was that the county would add areas to the urban growth boundary if the land
owner was in favor of doing so. The Douthit& School annexations are going through public hearings and
working in the process. The Frederiksen has gone through the public hearing and will be in the annexation
election on January 6,2004. The Sekich addition has applied for annexation to be platted for large lot estate.
It has not had any public hearings. There is no definite on the approval, by the board, for the Sekich parcel.
The Sekich addition will be including an area on the north for a proposed sewer system for the Town of Mead.
There is a study being done now for this process. The town will pick a site from this parcel for a treatment
plant.The town would like to have the treatment plant located in the town. The IGA needs to be revised and
so does the Comprehensive Plan for Mead. In all annexations into Mead the developer is required to amend
the Comprehensive Plan with addendum. The area of influence,according to the Comprehensive Plan,needs
to expand. The Sekich addition is considered contiguous.The town would like to have complete consistency
in development but it is not happening in that manner.
John Folsom asked if Mead has a sewage disposal plant. Mr. Friesen stated they own treatment plant but
it will not handle all the growth that is expected. They are looking at establishing one east of the interstate.
Mr. Folsom asked about the flagpole annexation and the whether the present Sekich addition is contiguous
with a development within the town.
James Rohn asked Ms. Mika how a recommendation of denial on IGA when the town wants the addition. Ms.
Mika stated that the reason is there are criteria and it is up to staff to determine whether the application meets
the criteria. The concern with saying it is appropriate when the use will be serviced by septic, does not meet
the intent regarding public services addressed in the IGA. The Sekich addition is ill timed and the building
blocks are not there. Mr. Morrison added that it takes two parties to modify and amend the agreement. Mr.
Rohn asked if Planning Commission recommends denial for Sekich and the town wants the parcel,what is
the next step in the progression. Mr. Morrison stated that this agreement doesn't preclude the inclusion once
the issues have been addressed. This is not the final for the application, it would delay the process though.
John Folsom asked if this parcel could be amended into the MUD. Ms.Mika stated the concern is to still meet
the urban infrastructure requirements and there must be contiguity. Petition for inclusion into the MUD is still
a recommendation by the Planning Commission.Ms.Mika indicated that the most recent requests have meet
the requirements.
Mike Friesen added the IGA pre-existed and is problematic because it does not provide for a continuum of
planning and development scenarios. They are some developments that may not fit into the urban or non
urban molds. Non urban talks about agricultural with cluster developments. This is just one type. There is
nothing written in stone in this country that states that municipalities must provide services equally to all
developments. The assumption in this document is that there is all services in an urban development or there
are no services. Many municipalities do not provide the same services to each development. The Town of
Mead has large lot estate subdivisions that are on septic. Those subdivisions have not been required to
attach to a main line. The town board should be able to annex and approve development that they think is
appropriate for the location,but not necessarily provide it with all the services. The Sekich addition may have
septic lots as well as municipal sewer. There have been no discussion with the petitioner as to services or
possible development. There is a lot of work that needs to be done on the Sekich addition.
Tim Tracy asked how many acres in Sekich addition. Ms. Mika stated 800 acres. Mr. Tracy asked whether
parcels within the existing boundary are develop able? Mr.Friesen indicated that there are active annexations
that will be going to vote,that will fill a large portion of area within the existing boundary. Mr.Tracy indicated
that the concern is that this is sprawling outside the growth boundary. Are all the areas within the boundary
serviceable now? Mr. Friesen indicated that the town is not in the water business, and they are all serviced
by Little Thompson Water District or by Longs Peak Water District. Mr.Tracy asked about the timing and how
long will it be before these services can be provided? Where is the revenue coming from to build too an area
if infill does not occur? How long will it take to provide services? Mr. Friesen stated it takes a while to get a
sewer treatment plant done. The existing treatment plant will be to capacity soon so this needs to be
accomplished soon. There has been communication with what the Sekich parcel will develop. The money
will come from development. The town will make sure that if those who want service will have to help pay for
the service. The time frame is variable due to it being market driven. The infill area is being addressed due
to communications with owners.
Stephen Mokray asked if part of town was being provided with sewer and where was it located. Mr. Friesen
indicated that the plant can provide the north and the west areas of Mead. Mr. Mokray asked about the new
plant and what will it service. Mr. Friesen stated it will provide service to everything within the boundary. That
is the long range plan for the town's treatment. Mr. Friesen stated that there are some developments and
those developers are aware of the sewer development issues and their responsibility to assist.
John Folsom asked for clarification with regards to Frederiksen and Douthit, if they are being serviced by
Mead or St.Vrain. Mr.Friesen stated the St.Vrain Sanitation District area runs along Hwy 66 and south. The
Douthit addition will be serviced by Mead and the lines will be paid for by the Douthit and School addition.
Nick Richardson, representative of Mead Village, commented that they are in support of the criteria that
suggests development for surrounding the core community of Mead.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
Michael Miller stated that he agrees with staff and the criteria indicated. The approval of the Douthit and
School and Frederiksen and denial of the Sekich addition.
John Folsom commented that flagpoles should not be done and infill should be done first. The flagpole
annexations are done so there is no alternative but to address this in this way. Mr. Folsom recommends
approval of the Frederiksen and Douthit& School while deny the Sekich. Mr. Fitzgerald agrees.
James Rohn commented that in Code 22-2-100 B-The Town of Mead will grow but the need is to infill inside
the IGA. Sekich addition is to far out and there are not enough services to property.
Stephen Mokray moved that the Douthit & School Addition along with the Frederiksen be forwarded to the
Board of County Commissioners with the Planning Commission recommendation of approval while the Sekich
Addition be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning Commission recommendation
of denial. 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, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, abstained; James Rohn, yes; Tim
Tracy, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1447
APPLICANT: Becky& Herschel Holloway
PLANNER: Michelle Katyryniuk
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2820; part of the NE4 Section 8, T4N, R64W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for Oil and Gas
Support and Service (Hauling of Water) and Semi-Trailers and Cargo
Containers Situated as Permanent Storage Units in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 48 and west of CR 53.
Michelle Katyryniuk, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1447, 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 about hours of operation. Ms. Katyryniuk stated that the department is recommending
this time frame after conversations with the applicant.
John Folsom asked Mr. Morrison if there was any limitation on the development standards an when they are
to be completed or when the plat will be recorded. Mr. Morrison stated that the ordinance provides for
recording. According to the comments the plat and Conditions will need to be done within 30 days of approval
from Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Folsom stated that if an applicant decides to drag his feet
indefinitely and not comply or record, how long can this go on. Mr. Morrison stated that if there is not a good
faith effort then it can be brought back after 30 days for possible revocation. If the permit is revoked the
applicant will be back to court for violation hearing.
James Rohn asked Bethany Salzman, Zoning Compliance Officer, if this applicant has operated in Weld
County before. Ms. Salzman stated this is the first time the applicant has been turned in Weld County.
John Folsom asked for clarification about the operation and what is provided. Does this applicant have a
requirement to comply with CAFFO regulations? Ms. Katyryniuk stated that the applicant hauls water to oil
and gas services. It has been indicated that they are also washing trucks on the property. There have been
some conditions added to account for this. The applicant is within the number of animal units per the
agricultural zone district. Ms. Davis indicated that best management practices are being asked for to keep
nuisances down. A newer management plan is also being requested.
Tim Tracy asked about the violation. Ms. Salzman stated the violation is for having a commercial business
without a USR within the agricultural zone district. Mr. Tracy asked about how many tractor trailers can be
stored. Ms.Katyryniuk stated that there can be one truck or trailer if go through a home occupation. Mr.Miller
added that there is a difference between a truck being brought home and running a business.
Herschel Halloway,applicant,provided clarification. An oil field service business is ran from the house. There
are five tanker trailers,two flat bed trailers,two van trailers for storage and to bob-tailed water trucks on site.
The trucks are in operation from 6:00am to 10:00pm in the evening. The trucks leave and dispose of Class
2 waste which goes to an injection well. Mr. Miller asked if brine water was hauled and not drilling mud. Mr.
Holloway stated that drilling mud is no longer handled. Mr. Miller asked about the number of trucks. Mr.
Holloway indicated that there are 3 tandem trucks,4 transport and 1 extra transport trailer that is used on fresh
water only and sits the rest of the time.
James Rohn asked Ms. Katyryniuk about the hours of operation. Ms. Katyryniuk stated that 7:00 am is the
time in which they can leave. The applicant can propose a change to the hours of operation in the
development standards. Mr.Rohn asked about warming up the trucks,does the hours of operation mean that
no activity shall occur before 7:00am? Ms. Katyryniuk stated it would need to be silent until 7:00am.
John Folsom asked Ms. Katyryniuk about time limitation being daily. Does this mean five days a week or
seven. Ms. Katyryniuk indicated the applicant would like 7 days a week.
Tim Tracy asked Mr. Halloway about the hours of operation being 6:00am to 10:00pm now and will this work.
Mr. Halloway indicated the disposal opens at 7:00am.The guys leave at seven but there have been times in
which a truck will leave earlier than 7:00am. Mr.Tracy asked if time requirements will work for business. Mr.
Halloway indicated if they were confined to the hours it would not work for the business. The business
determines the operation.
John Folsom asked Mr. Halloway if the trucks are in and out all day long. Mr. Halloway indicated that
approximately 85-90%of time they leave in the morning and are gone throughout the day. There are some
instances where they come back to change trailers.
James Rohn asked how many residences are in the area. Ms. Katyryniuk indicated that there are a few
homes. Mr. Rohn asked if the operation is run constantly. Mr. Halloway stated that the operation was run 24-
7. Mr. Rohn is nervous about having the residences mornings disrupted by the trucks. He would feel more
comfortable with the trucks leaving at 7:00 am.
Bryant Gimlin asked Mr. Halloway if they service the trucks on site. Mr. Halloway stated that the trucks are
serviced as much as possible on site. The service is preformed outside. The maintenance is done during
regular business hours. If it cannot be done it is taken to Kenworth.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Robert Kuntz,neighbor, indicated concerns with hours of operation and being seven days a week and during
holidays.The fumes from the diesel trucks are an issue and it is getting worse. The trucks come in and out
all day long. The traffic is bad and the road conditions are dusty and rough. The primary concern is that this
land is agriculture and rural agriculture. The neighbors do not want a commercial business in the area. The
noise pollution is an issue and it will devalue the surrounding property. If this is approved the neighbors would
like to have hours of operations established. They do not want seven days a week and definitely not on
holidays. It is a disruption to the area.
The Chair closed the public portion.
Herschel Halloway, applicant, added that he has sprayed the road in an attempt to control the dust. There
are several water trucks in the area. Mr. Halloway is willing to do anything to try and make this right. He will
have the drivers slow down and not use jake brakes. Mr. Halloway has no control over the oil industry, they
are twenty four hours a day seven days a week and that is not something he can control.
Char Davis indicated that there are additional standards to added. Ms. Davis has shared these with the
applicant and he is willing to address them.
John Folsom asked Ms. Davis where the conditions need to be added. Ms. Davis indicated that they are to
be in Prior to recording and the others are Development Standards.
Bryant Gimlin asked if the hours of operation need to be addressed. Mr. Miller indicated his issues with the
hours of operation. This type of business does not belong in this area, it is not compatible. This type of
business needs to be in an industrial zone district because there is no way to control the hours of operation.
John Folsom moved that Case USR-1447, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
denial. James Rohn seconded the motion.
The denial is based upon:
1. 23-2-220 A.2-the use is not consistent with the intent of the agricultural district.
2. 23-2-220 A 2 -the use is not compatible with surrounding area
3. 23-2-220 A 4 -the use is not compatible with future surrounding uses
4. 23-2-220 A 7-there is not adequate provision for the health,safety and welfare of the County
residents.
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;Tim Tracy,yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
. CASE NUMBER: CZ-1049
APPLICANT: CC Land LLC
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-358; being part of the NW4 Section 22, T6N, R67W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) Zone District to C-3 (Business
Commercial)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Hwy 392 and east of and adjacent to Hwy 257
Sheri Lockman,Department of Planning Services presented Case CZ-1049,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 if the boundary change reversed the referral from Windsor for denial. Ms. Lockman
stated that it does reverse the referral.
Michael Miller asked about annexing to Windsor. Ms. Lockman stated they have de annexed due to the
benefit of a use tax. If Windsor adopts a use tax or the dealership goes away they will be re-annexed into the
town.
Lee Morrison stated a use tax means if something was purchased outside jurisdiction it would be assessed
the same amount as a sales tax when brought into the jurisdiction. Windsor does not have use tax but has
sales tax so that Windsor residents can buy( at Champion)for less than if at a dealer ship inside Windsor.
They are basically the same tax but assessed at different times and places- sales tax at time and point of
purchase and use tax assessed at point and time of delivery(of title)
John Holman,representative,agreed with Ms.Lockman and stated the standards and conditions will be done.
He further clarified that if the site is ever anything other than dealership it will be re annexed.
John Folsom asked if the owners were aware of being in an agricultural zone district and operating a
commercial business. Mr. Holman indicated he was not aware of the owners knowledge but the violation is
the reason for this application.
Mr. Morrison asked when the current owner acquired the business. Mr. Holman indicated it has been
approximately two years.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
James Rohn moved that Case CZ-1049, 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;James Rohn,yes;Tim Tracy,yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: MZ-1039
APPLICANT: Charles Messerlein - Black Hollow Estates
PLANNER: Michelle Katyryniuk
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part NE4 Section 10, T7N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Minor Subdivision Change of Zone from the A (Agriculture) to E (Estate)
Zone for nine(9) residential lots.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 84; west of and adjacent to CR 21.
Michelle Katyryniuk, Department of Planning Services presented Case MZ-1039, 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 about there not being any open space. Ms. Katyryniuk stated this is a minor
subdivision not a PUD therefor there is no requirements for open space.
John Folsom asked about the fire district not having a second access to the subdivision. Mr. Schei stated
there is a 30 foot emergency access to CR 84. This is separate from the primary access.
Jeff Couch, representative, provided clarification on the project. The secondary access was addressed in
the sketch plan comments from the fire district and it will be provided. The name will be modified due to
the closeness of Black Hollow Acres. The internal street will be related to the subdivision.
James Rohn asked Ms. Katyryniuk about a referral from Lin Dodge requesting that the internal road be a
Place adverse to Court. Ms. Katyryniuk stated that cul de sacs running East and West should be named
Place.
John Folsom asked Mr. Schei asked about an internal paved road in the subdivision. Mr. Schei stated
that the subdivision is required by code to be paved. The applicant can ask for a waiver of the paving
from the Director of Public Works. This internal road does not front a paved street. That final decision will
be up to the Board of County Commissioners.
James Rohn asked Ms. Katyryniuk about the pond. Ms. Katyryniuk stated that from the field inspection
there was no pond evident but the ariel photograph does indicate a water feature. Mr. Couch indicated
that there is a slew and there is a pond located there. The drainage is directed away from the site
because the site is higher. Mr. Rohn asked about Lot 6 and it being a flagpole type and there are no
building envelopes. Mr. Couch indicated that there is a map included in the packet that depicts the
envelopes.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Sara Tomlinson, neighbor, indicated concerns with the maintenance of the CR 21 due to the increase in
traffic and during the construction phase. There is a water main line on CR 84 but they have a well. Is the
site going to have wells or connect with the water line?
Peter Schei stated that the applicant has been asked to submit offsite improvements agreement based on
the traffic. 200 cars per day warrants dust mitigation. The residents can be assured that this concern has
been addressed. During construction water will be provided to aid in the dust concern. CR 21 traffic is 40
vehicles per day. Ms. Katyryniuk stated they shall obtain water from North Weld County Water District.
John Schmidt, neighbor, indicated their concerns for traffic and dust. The road is in poor condition. Mr.
Miller stated that the neighbors should contact Public Works if it becomes a larger problem.
The Chair closed the public portion
Jim Rohn asked about road improvements agreement and if there is a requirement for magnesium
chloride a certain number of times per year. Mr. Schei stated it was in a typical agreement and depends
on the route. There will be a stabilize base on the road. The county does the best it can and they ask the
applicant to share their portion.
John Folsom stated that the 200 vehicles trips per day will be needed before there are requirements for a
development to apply magnesium chloride. Mr. Schei stated that the number of vehicle trips is in
accordance with the county level and it is the same at the state level. Public Works does ask the
applicant to voluntarily do assist but it would not be something that a condition could be placed.
Char Davis stated that there are a few things to add. There is a Development Standard that talks about
dust from the Health Department standpoint. Development Standards G, H & I deals with the health
issues.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Schei if it was outside the Planning Commission authority to require dust control
at this point in the process. Mr. Schei stated the application is based on a traffic count in the County
Code. Mr. Miller asked if it is outside the Planning Commission authority to require dust control. Mr.
Morrison stated that because of the emission standards of the state, it falls on the county when it is 200
vehicles a day. The nuisance is caused if something is not done about it. It is harder for the county to
determine the application of magnesium chloride is needed when the standard of 200 vehicles are not
met.
Jeff Couch stated the onsite dust control is minimal due to it being internal. The problem is the roadway.
The traffic may be doubled because of the development. The applicant does not want to pave the internal
road. There is a condition that requires a open ended agreement for the dust concerns. There are three
levels from stabilize road base, to magnesium chloride to paving. This agreement can become very
costly. The concern is the openness of the condition. Mr. Miller added that it the county will not ask for
paving due to the limited number of trips. The agreement will be based on the applications proportionate
amount. The applicant would rather donate the money for magnesium chloride for a few years and let
the county be responsible for the maintenance. The applicant would rather have a firm agreement.
Lee Morrison added that it is preferable to deal with the developer and address in an escrow fund to
provide some contribution of the base over a period of time. The County is not expecting to collect over a
long period of time. The agreement could be written for pavement as the lots are sold or up font to
contribute to base stabilization.
Michael Miller asked about the agreement. Mr. Schei stated the agreement is done at the final plan
application. The concern by the applicant is the cost once this is implemented. Mr. Couch added that
they will be meeting\kith Public Works next week to iron out some of the details.
Peter Schei stated that these are standard comments to alert the applicant that there will be future
agreements in the works and there will be future costs.
Tim Tracy asked about the water and who will they be served by. Mr. Couch indicated the site can be
serviced from the west. The fire district comments in the sketch plan directed this. Mr. Tracy asked if the
was nothing that would prohibit the use of the well for the livestock. Mr. Couch stated that was true and
there could be supplemental well usage. The intent would be to separate irrigation from domestic water.
The domestic and fire water will come from a potable system. The idea is to keep the native system in
tact. There is no water on the land now and the water will need to be purchased or rented. The irrigation
will come from seepage from the existing water.
John Folsom asked about a possible communal well. Mr. Couch indicated it would be supplemental
system. Mr. Folsom asked for clarification on the application of individual well to the State, those
applications are denied by the State. Mr. Morrison stated that unless they are prepared to augment.
Michelle Katyryniuk suggested adding a Condition C to Prior to Scheduling the Board of County
Commissioners stating"The applicant needs to provide the Department of Planning Services with
adequate research according to the Colorado State Mineral Owner Notification Requirement stating who
owns the mineral rights."
James Rohn moved to accept the language. Stephen Mokray seconded. Motion carried
Jeff Couch does not like Condition 4 E being open ended. Mr. Miller indicated that Planning Commission
is comfortable that the applicant will still meet their obligation concerning the condition. Mr. Couch
indicated the additional concern is with the paving of the internal roadway. They would like to be the
roadway to be an aggregate surface with the agreement that at the time improvements were made to CR
21 they would also make upgrades to the internal road. Mr. Schei indicated that Public Works would like
the applicant to get a waiver regarding the internal roadway. He does not have the authority to waive the
paving of the internal roadway. There are other projects coming into the area. Mr. Morrison stated this
can be done in the process. Mr. Couch stated that the application shows aggregate surface. Mr. Miller
indicated that the waiving of paving has been done in the past.
John Folsom suggested language consisting of"the typical roadway section of the interior roadway shall
be equivalent to CR 21 now and in the future." Mr. Miller stated that what would happen if ten years down
the road the property owners would have to provide the funding to pave the road.
Lee Morrison stated there is a way to do this and it would be to include the something in the covenants
that would amount to a local improvements district. Mr. Miller asked if this would be the responsibility of
the applicant. Mr. Morrison stated that at change of zone it would be what is requested and at final plan
have the applicant propose a mechanism for it to happen. This would be one way that the future would be
provided for. Mr. Miller stated that if CR 21 or CR 84 were paved then the subdivision would have to come
up to the same standard. This would ensure that there are similar standards in the area. Mr. Morrison
stated that they have worked on some language to that affect.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services, provided information regarding other developments in
the area. Mr. Miller indicated that the other developments will be asked to pave also.
John Folsom moved to accept his language. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded.
James Rohn asked a hypothetical question to Ms. Lockman about paving all the way around this project.
Ms. Lockman indicated those developments would have to come up to urban scale but those other
developments also have the opportunity to request a waiver.
Peter Schei stated what is proposed is not in line with the code. The code requires the subdivision to be
paved but the applicant can ask for waiver from Public Works. The applicant needs to make a formal
request to Public Works for the waiver. Mr. Schei would like to follow the protocol and not set a different
development standard. Mr. Morrison stated that a decision has been made by the Planning Commission
and a denial has not went forward based on the paving issue. Mr. Miller stated it has been done
numerous times in the past.
The motion open on the floor regarding Mr. Folsom language was voted on.
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, no; Tim Tracy,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried.
John Folsom moved that Case MZ-1039, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation
of approval. Bryant Gimlin seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tim Tracy,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 5:00pm
Respectfully submitted
\
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello