HomeMy WebLinkAbout972329.tiffCORRECTED SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 7, 1997
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held October 7, 1997, in the County
Commissioners' First Floor Hearing Room (#101), Weld County Centennial Center, 915 Tenth Street, Greeley,
Colorado. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Glenn Vaad, at 1:30 p.m. ._
ROLL CALL
Glenn Vaad
Rusty Tucker
Arlan Marrs
Bruce Fitzgerald
Cristie Nickles
Jack Epple
Fred Walker
Marie Koolstra
Stephen Mokray
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Also present: Monica Daniels -Mika, Director, Kerri Keithley, Current Planner, Shani Eastin, Current Planner,
Todd Hodges, Current Planner, Scott Ballstadt, Current Planner, Department of Planning Services; Bruce
Barker, County Attorney; Don Carroll, Weld County Public Works; Sheble McConnellogue, Weld County Health
Department; Sharyn Frazer, Secretary; Wendi Inloes, Secretary.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on September 16,
1997, was approved.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1165
PLANNER: Scott L. Ballstadt
APPLICANT: SBA of Denver, Inc.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Major Facility of a Public
Utility consisting of an 81' Free -Standing Monopole Wireless Communication Tower.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SE4 SW4 of Section 30, T3N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Weld County Road 28 and west of and adjacent to Weld County
Road 25-1/2 (Highway 85 Frontage Road).
Scott Ballstadt, Department of Planning Services, asked the Board for a continuance which had been
requested by the Town of Platteville to give them more time to review the application.
Stephan Mokray moved that Case USR-1165 be continued until the October 21, 1997 Planning Commission
meeting. Arlan Marrs seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Adoption of the Planned Unit Development Plan
Monica Daniels -Mika, explained that the proposed Planned Unit Development Ordinance (PUD) will be used
as a regulatory document. The concept started when the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee decided
that this particular process should provide procedures due to sensitivities faced when developing in the
Agricultural zone district. The development of this Ordinance requires the deletion of PUD references in the
existing Zoning Ordinance. The Department of Planning Services' staff intends to maintain the step process
to eliminate any confusion. The first step is the submittal of the sketch plan so that staff has an overview of the
type of development proposed. The second step, the change of zone, has been altered to bring the process
more in line with existing state statutes and also allows an applicant to choose a development path, either
specific or conceptual based upon the detail in the submitted application. Development and enhancement of
the concept at this stage allows the decision makers more information regarding the PUD at this step. Specific
972329
MINUTES OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 7, 1997
Page 2
uses may not always be available, but looking at the design during the change of zone stage could eliminate
the need for the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners to evaluate the proposal more
than once. If the design meets the specific path criteria at the change of zone stage, then the third stage, the
final plat, could be approved by Department of Planning Services' staff. Ms. Mika further explained that a table
of contents and an outline will be provided to better help the public understand the process.
Kerri Keithley explained that the memo handed out to each of the Commission members explained the
proposed changes. The PUD Ordinance will allow more flexibility, expediate the process, fully explains the
criteria for urban and non urban scale development, and better aline with requirements of the Weld County
Health Department. Ms. Keithley explained the word change from "shall" to "may" allows more flexibility in
interpretation.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against the proposed
PUD Ordinance. No one wished to speak.
Man Marrs expressed concerns with the 300 -year time frame addressed in Section 2.20, Water and Sewer
provisions. Monica Daniels -Mika explained this requirement is in conformance with regulations provided
through the Division of Water Resources. Discussion followed regarding what are considered private wells
(25 people or less) vs. commercial wells (more than 25 people). Mr. Marrs was concerned that an applicant
might be restricted to public water and public sewer when a well or septic would be less expensive or
restrictive. Ms. Mika reiterated that the various zoning districts (agricultural, residential, estate), would still
affect the Planned Unit Development process.
Glen Vaad had comments about Section 6.3.2.2.1.7, Storm Drainage and stated that he hoped these
requirements would put a handle on the problem. He further stated, that "this is a critical issue." He also asked
Kerni Keithley what vertical control meant in conjunction with landscaping elements. Ms. Keithley explained
the use of landscaping as screening to improve aesthetic and visual appeal.
Marie Koolstra stated that she was not convinced that the Department of Planning Services has the capabilities
to enforce standards, conditions, maintenance schedules, and availability of water for landscaping plans. She
suggested that staff consult with an agronimist or some type of landscape architect to ensure all requirements
and conditions of the approved development would be met. Kerri Keithley explained how staff ensures that
on -site improvement's agreement standards are met and collateral could be withheld as insurance. Monica
Daniels -Mika stated that the suggestion by Ms. Koolstra held merit and staff would incorporate language to
address these concerns.
Glenn Vaad discussed Section 6.3.6.5.4.4, regarding off site detached signage. He expressed concern that
the state does not allow for off site signage and the county might be allowing room for future problems and
gave the example of the flashing sign located west of I-25. Ms. Keithley informed Mr. Vaad that the Zoning
Ordinance does allow for off site signs and informed him that the sign in question is located within a
municipality. She reiterated that the county does not allow flashing signs.
Mr. Vaad and Bruce Barker discussed road maintenance agreements. Glen Vaad asked for clarification
regarding a county maintained road being incorporated by a municipality. Mr. Barker explained that once
incorporated the maintenance agreement stands due to the fact that the municipality is located within the
boundaries of Weld County.
Glen Vaad also expressed concern regarding the physical measurement requirements of maps (24" x 36")
stating that storage becomes such a large issue. Monica Daniels -Mika explained that the County is in the
process of implementing a GIS program, but until County wide norms are established, this size requirement
is set forth by the Clerk and Recorders Office.
MINUTES OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 7, 1997
Page 3
Mr. Vaad asked for a change in verbiage in Section 6.3.6.1, "quality" was changed to "corridor"
Stephen Mokray moved to forward the Planned Unit Development Ordinance to the Board of County
Commissioners with the Planning Commissions recommendation for approval. Cristie Nicklas seconded the
motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Arlan
Marrs - yes; Cristie Nicklas - yes; Marie Koolstra - yes; Jack Epple - yes; Bruce Fitzgerald - yes; Stephen
Mokray - yes; Glenn Vaad - yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: S-431
PLANNER: Todd A. Hodges
APPLICANT: Western Dairymen Cooperative, Inc.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Planned Unit Development Final Plan for a 19 lot and
open space subdivision in a PUD C-3 and I-1 zone district.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the N2 of Section 10, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent of State Highway 119; approximately'/ mile west of 1-25 frontage road
west.
Arlan Marrs and Marie Koolstra asked to be excused from this hearing due to conflict of interest. There was
no objection. There was a question as to weather there were enough members for a quorum. Bruce Barker,
County Attorney, needed to confirm that five members would be a quorum. The Chairman had a five minute
recess at 2:28 p.m. for Bruce to check the bylaws. It was determined there was enough members.
Todd Hodges, Department of Planning Services, explained the application for a 19 -lot subdivision on a 55 -acre
site currently zoned PUD C-3 and I-1 use. The Change of Zone was approved by the Board of County
Commissioners on February 5, 1997. Todd then spoke about surrounding properties and the current zoning.
There were some changes on the recommendations from the preliminary one. Most changes occurred due
to correspondence with the applicants representative and the Conditions of Approval had been met prior to
the hearing date. Prior to recording the P.U.D. final plan plat #1 - B,C,D and G were dropped from the
Conditions and re -lettered from the original. Also on the preliminary recommendation, #1-H had changed from
sidewalks being clearly delineated on the plat mat, to being delineated on the landscape plan. On page four
of the preliminary recommendation, #2-D stated that St. Vrain Sanitation District will provide sewage disposal
for all residential uses, since there are no residential uses, this has changed to say all lots.
The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval along with the Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards. Each lot will be required to obtain a site plan review through the Department of
Planning Services and the Department will be monitoring the development of each individual lot.
Glenn Vaad asked Todd about the referral from St. Vrain School District, the possible growth of the school and
how they will be handling this. Todd stated that due to the residential growth, St. Vrain feels that they have
looked at numbers and growth. Glenn also asked about the phases of construction. Todd stated that the
phases of construction will be determined through the improvements agreement and will be included in the
final plat review by the Board of County Commissioners.
Kris Pickett, representative for the applicant, clarified the phasing of building and what will be taking place.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against the application.
No one wished to speak.
MINUTES OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 7, 1997
Page 4
The Chairman asked Mr. Pickett if they were in agreement with staff recommendations and Conditions of
Approval. He stated that they were.
Jack Epple moved that Case S-431, Western Dairymen Cooperative, Inc., be approved, Bruce Fitzgerald
seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the Secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Arlan
Marrs - excused; Christie Nicklas - yes; Marie Koolstra - excused; Jack Epple - yes; Bruce Fitzgerald - yes;
Stephan Mokray - yes; Glenn Vaad - yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: Z-507
PLANNER: Shani L. Eastin
APPLICANT: Tri-City Ventures
REQUEST: Change of Zone from (A) Agricultural to (E) Estate - Meadow Brook Farm.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW4 of Section 8, T5N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Weld County Road 60; approximately 1/4 mile east of Weld County
Road 15.
Shani Eastin, Department of Planning Services, explained the request for a Change of Zone from (A)
Agricultural to (E) Estate for approximately two and a half acres to be absorbed into existing Lot 6 of Meadow
Brook Farms which currently has six lots. She explained that the process includes three applications, an
Amended Recorded Exemption, Resubdivision, and the Change of Zone. The change will not create a new
lot, but extend the acreage of Lot 6 to allow more space. The Department of Planning Services is
recommending approval for the two and a half acre Change of Zone.
Glenn Vaad asked Shani about the lay of the land, which Shani explained on an overhead map. He also asked
about the City of Greeley referral letter and how close they are to the project. Shani explained how the
Change of Zone was in a three-mile radius of the City of Greeley.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against the application.
No one wished to speak.
The Chairman asked Kris Pickett, representative for the applicant, if they were in agreement with the
Conditions of Approval and staff recommendations. Kris stated that they were in agreement.
Arlan Marrs moved that Case Z-507, Tri City Ventures, be approved, Christie Nicklas seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the Secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Arlan
Marrs - yes; Christie Nicklas - yes; Marie Koolstra - yes; Jack Epple - yes; Bruce Fitzgerald - yes; Stephan
Mokray - yes; Glenn Vaad - yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: Z-508
PLANNER: Shani L. Eastin
APPLICANT: Merle D. & Karla L. Grieser
REQUEST: A Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to E (Estate) for a five (5) lot Minor Subdivision.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE -789, located in the E2 of the E2 of the NW4 of Section 21, T4N, R65W
of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Weld County Road 44; approximately % mile west of Weld County
Road 43.
MINUTES OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 7, 1997
Page 5
Shani Eastin, Department of Planning Services, explained the application for a Change of Zone from (A)
Agricultural to (E) Estate for a proposed five lot Minor Subdivision, what the intent of the lots would be, the road
accesses and explanation on various land use. The Department of Planning of Services staff is recommending
approval of the request.
Glenn Vaad asked Shani to point out the current access. Shani explained that there is two accesses, one
which is being utilized by the oil and gas company that sits on the east side of property, and the current access
that is used for the home the Grieser family lives in. Shani explained the concern of the eastern access which
is near a hill. Don Carroll , Publics Works Department, explained that the proposed residential access is 600
feet from the crest of the hill. Staff reviewed both access points and believe that the access being proposed
for the Minor Subdivision is the safest.
Stephen Mokray asked Shani about the applicants applying for the same application that he understood had
been turned down previously, and what they had done differently in this application. Shani explained how the
applicants have never applied for anything similar to this application, but that a request for a Recorded
Exemption had been denied and explained that process.
Arlan Marrs asked if the five proposed lots would only have the potential of four new homes. Shani said that
yes there would be four new homes with one of the five lots currently having a home.
Glenn Vaad asked Shani to explain the extralinaties effects of the Subdivision and what will be done to address
those. Shani talked on how the effects are on streets, roads, water lines, any proposed sewer lines, impacts
to schools, towns and all of the referrals that may be impacted. Glenn also asked about the referral on Weld
Central Water District and the water pressure being reduced. Shani explained the availability to the site and
that the final plat would provide more detail to the water supply and the type of improvements to the line will
have to be made.
Steve Stencil, Intermill Land Surveying, representative of the applicants, spoke for the application stating that
the Grieser's have no problems or conflicts with the conditions as set by the staff.
The Chairman asked that if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the application.
Herman Peterson spoke against the application. Mr. Peterson showed on a map the various home owners
and where they were located. The concerns of Mr. Peterson were how he had moved to the country to be in
the country and feels that a residential development would bring urban growth. He also had concerns of the
traffic that travels down Weld County Road 44 and how more houses are going to create more traffic.
Christie Nickles asked Mr. Peterson how many acres he currently owns and he stated that he owns 3.3 acres
of dry farmland which he farms himself.
Jack Epple asked how long they had lived there and Mr. Peterson stated it had been since June of 1985.
Don Baker spoke against the application. He spoke on how the land was susceptible to erosion and how the
horses have pounded the ground into dust. He had concerns on the blowing dust and trash blowing around
into neighboring homes. He also had concerns on the traffic, roads and livestock.
Arlan Marrs asked Mr. Baker how may acres he owned, and he currently owns 7.5 acres which he built a
home on in 1983. Arlan asked what the rest of the acreage was used for and Mr. Barker has someone that
farms dryland wheat. Arlan then asked what Mr. Baker has done about the dog, trash, and traffic concerns.
Mr. Baker stated that he had to eventually build a fence around the garbage area. Arlan asked why these
same steps couldn't be taken for others.
MINUTES OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 7, 1997
Page 6
Dave Boulter spoke against the application with concerns of productive farm land being taken out of production
which is a major part of their living. Mr. Boulter is concerned with the population, road danger, crime, and how
four or five houses will have a huge impact on agriculture. He was also disappointed on how they had not been
contacted on how the property owners felt on the proposal.
Arlan Marrs talked about the statement Mr. Boulter had made on the importance of keeping this ground in
production and in his opinion, the biggest problem in agriculture is that we have an overproduction of
commodities and that the best thing would be to take marginal acres out of production. Mr. Faulker commented
that an entire generation of farmers is lost if this happens. Arlan also commented about how he had driven
along Weld County Road 44 and that there are new homes being built on lots that look like prime agricultural
and that putting homes on lots like what is being proposed seems like a better alternative. Mr. Boulter feels
that it would be better to look at each individual lot on a case by case basis.
Christie Nickles asked Mr. Boulter if he was originally opposed when the property was split. Mr. Boulter stated
that he was not around but feels they are a community and would oppose any other neighbor doing the same.
He feels they have reached a saturation point.
Richard Langel spoke against the application and explained how the original split took place. Mr. Langel is
opposed to four wheelers on other properties and how the more people that move in the more problems they
have with pets and other animals. He spoke about keeping rural rural and urban urban. Mr. Langel also
wanted to comment from what he understood on the economic impact on any property within 1/4 mile of the
subdivision prohibits anyone else from proposing the same. Shani explained that this was in fact not a correct
statement and read Mr. Langel the correct language and told him she would be willing to sit down with him at
any time to discuss the issue and also explain the difference between a Planned Unit Development and Minor
Subdivision.
Max Urlich spoke against the application with concerns of irrigated land and the heavy traffic on Weld County
Road 44.
John Earhartspoke against the application with concerns of keeping prime land prime. He also is concerned
with the traffic on Weld County Road 44 and there not being a turn off lane for school buses. Mr. Earhart also
wanted to know if the survey done was accurate. Mr. Vaad stated those questions would be answered when
the representative was called back.
Cohn Kelley spoke against the application. He has lived there since 1975 and is concerned with the human
aspect to families and their privacy being invaded. He also agrees with all the other concerns of the property
owners.
Carl Jepsen II, spoke against the application with concerns of traffic, loose animals, lose of cattle and people
who do target practice.
Debbie Vandenhogin spoke for the application. She stated that the land was not good farm land and feels the
Grieser's should be allowed to do what they want with their land. She does agree with the traffic concerns but
not from the residents or farmers.
Francis Arends spoke against the application explaining the history of the water problems in the area since the
1930's. His main concern is the water and feels the more homes built the less water will be available.
Louise Kelley spoke against the application with concerns of dust, noise, traffic, law and fire protection and also
the water pressure.
MINUTES OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 7, 1997
Page 7
Merle and Karla Grieser, applicants, addressed concerns of the property owners and clarified that the 80 -acre
parcel was surveyed in four 20 acre parcels but was never recorded and they bought 60 acres and a Recorded
Exemption was done from that. Mrs. Grieser addressed the concerns expressed from surrounding property
owners such as the traffic and suggested the speed limit be reduced over the hill. She also is concerned with
the farm equipment coming in and out be the hill and feels that everyone needs to take precautions. She also
explained how the land had not been farmed in 15 years and they want to turn it back into grassland. The
Grieser's are willing to work with the County and further stated that they want to do things the right way.
Steve Stencil, representative of the applicants, addressed the question on the survey that John Earhart had
presented and he stated that everything checked out to standards and most all of the pins existing were found.
He also accepted the Conditions of Approval.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked Don Carroll of Public Works if the Planning Commission could control the speed limit
on Weld County Road 44. Don said that the posted speed limit is 55 miles per hour which falls under the
jurisdiction of the Weld County Sheriffs department or State Highway Patrol. Bruce Barker, County Attorney,
said that the department could review the speed limit but the decision would be up to the Board of County
Commissioners by a recommendation of the Engineering Department and by different factors such as site
distance and number of vehicles.
Arlan Marrs asked Don Carroll what assurances that the 600 feet is adequate for a turn out lane. Don
explained that when they review a situation they use the Road Access Code as adopted by the Colorado
Department of Transportation. When they go to a site, they measure the distance from the access road to the
cress of the hill in this particular situation and measured it several times and the access is within the 600 -foot
range . The safe stopping distance of 55 miles per hour is 555 feet. He agreed that people do exceed the
speed limit and they have no control and that it is hard to justify a turn out lane for four new homes. He
indicated that the Department could look into a pull off lane and some other options and also suggested some
turn around points for school buses.
Stephan Mokray asked Don Carroll if he felt that this was a safe condition based on numbers. Don explained
on how it meets the minimum but is not the best situation and that he had gone over a few access options with
the applicants and the applicants chose to go with the bottom access.
Arlan Marrs asked the applicants why they chose the bottom access and Mrs. Grieser said that they wanted
the top access but recommendations came back later that the bottom access would be better.
Glenn Vaad asked Shani about set back requirements and she explained to the board that it is 20 feet. Steve
Stencil added that the Grieser's have agreed to use building envelopes to limit where the homes can be built.
Shani stated that these type of issues will be a part of the final plat.
Arlan Marrs asked if there was any liability on the County by approving something if there was a less than
desirable and better alternatives available granted at the inconvenience of another landlord. Bruce Barker
explained that the County does have the authority to establish access points by virtue of the fact that it has
control over the zoning and control over the new access points for the roadway pursuant to Ordinance 180 as
amended. The liability of the County in terms of any time we design a access or roadway is limited by the
Governmental Immunity Act of Colorado. County roadways have completed the immune for negligent
maintenance and also negligent design, but there is no immunity for intentional acts, which is the only
exception, and on negligent there would be immunity.
Christie Nicklas made a statement on how some land should not be used for farmland and that people are
missing the use of the property. She also asked about the reply from the water district and Shani stated again
that there was no referral response but there was a letter from the applicant in the packet under the utilities
section.
MINUTES OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
October 7, 1997
Page 8
Stephan Mokray also made a comment that he is concerned on the conflict of developing and the concerns
of odor and flies. Glenn added the Right to Farm Covenant would take those issues into consideration.
Marie Koolstra moved that Case Z-508, Merle and Karla Grieser be approved, Christie Nicklas seconded the
motion.
The Chairman asked the Secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Arlan
Marrs - yes; Christie Nicklas - yes; Marie Koolstra - yes; Jack Epple - yes; Bruce Fitzgerald - yes; Stephan
Mokray - no; Glenn Vaad - yes. Motion carried.
Meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m.
Respectfully subd
Wendi Inloes
Secretary
Hello