HomeMy WebLinkAbout981655.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, August 18, 1998
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held on August 18, 1998, in the County
Commissioners' Hearing Room (Room#101), Weld County Centennial Building, 915 10th Street, Greeley,
Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Marie Koolstra, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Marie Koolstra Present
Jack Epple Present
Glenn Vaad Absent
Cristie Nicklas Present
Fred Walker Present
Bruce Fitzgerald Present
Michael Miller Present
Stephan Mokray Present
Arlan Marrs Absent
Also Present: Monica Daniels-Mika, Director; Scott Ballstadt, Planner II, Julie Chester, Planner, Department
of Planning Services; Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney; Don Carroll, Weld County Public Works;
Sheble McConnellogue, Weld County Health Department; Wendi Inloes, Secretary.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on August 4, 1998,
was approved as read.
CASE NUMBER: 3rd AmUSR-877
PLANNER: Julie A. Chester
APPLICANT: Andrea Bigelow/Frank Scott Trust Trustee and Living Trust
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Gravel Mining
Operation
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Sections 7 and 8, and parts of Sections 17 and 18, T2N, R68W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado
LOCATION: North of Weld County Road 20-1/2 and south of Highway 119, one mile west of Weld County
Road 7 and east of Weld County Road 1
Julie Chester, Department of Planning Services, asked for Case 3rdAmUSR-877, be continued for the
following reasons:
1. The applicant has entered into a new lease agreement with the City of Longmont and a letter was
just received on Friday, August 14, 1998 confirming this.
2. Staff requires adequate time to evaluate whether the new agreement substantially changes the
original application submitted to the Department of Planning Services. Additionally staff requires
adequate time to make a recommendation to the Planning Commission after evaluating the new
information.
Mike Reifer, representative of the application, spoke on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Reifer explained that they
are asking for the continuance due to the fact that they entered into a lease agreement that was recently sold.
Since this, they have had to come up with a new agreement, not giving enough time for Planning staff to
review the new information.
Jack Epple moved that Case 3rd AmUSR-877, be continued to the September 15, 1998, hearing. Cristie
Nicklas seconded the motion.bafri lilt
n 981655
o1131
-
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
August 18, 1998
Page 2
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Marie
Koolstra, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Jack
Epple, yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1191
PLANNER: Julie A. Chester
APPLICANT: Stanley Heinze
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit to manufacture and
assemble agricultural weedburners and farm crop sprayers and repair farm machinery.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-902, located in the SW4 of Section 10, T7N, R66W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: North of Highway 14 and west of Weld County Road 33.
Julie Chester, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1191, reading the recommendation into
the record. Julie stated there had been changes to staff recommendations, and explained that the conditions
of approval include a landscaping/screening plan to be submitted for review prior to recording the plat. Staff
would like to clarify that this requirement is not intended to place a hardship on the applicant, as the applicant
voluntarily proposed landscaping in the application materials. Additionally, a Use by Special Review is a Use
which is typically more intense than uses which are allowed by right in the Agricultural Zone District. Outdoor
storage areas are allowed as accessory uses in the C-4 zone district as long as such areas are screened from
adjacent properties zoned residential, commercial or industrial, and is not allowed in the Agricultural Zone
district without a Special Review Permit. Finally, sound planning practices attempt to preserve and enhance
aesthetic value in development, particularly in cases such as this. The site is located on a main thoroughfare
which also serves as a community entrance into the Town of Ault. The Department of Planning Services is
recommending approval of this application.
Michael Miller asked Julie about water being provided by an adjacent property owner, and one of the
Development Standards states using the public water supply. Julie explained the Conditions of Approval state
either a written letter from the City of Thornton stating there is an agreement to share their tap or the applicant
must require their own tap.
Fred Walker asked about Condition of Approval#13 regarding screening of the dumpster, and if this was a
new condition. Julie stated it is an operation standard in the Zoning Ordinance used in Commercial/Industrial
zone districts. Fred then asked about Condition#15 regarding ag related implements, and is concerned about
disassembled parts sitting outside. Julie stated this was a concern of staff also, and wanted to limit the
outside to certain storage. Julie stated they could add some language to prevent any disassembled parts
being stored outside that are not ag related.
Fred asked Sheble McConnellogue about the decibel level being at 55 dba, and this may be too low for the
use being proposed. Sheble explained that they trying to be considerate of neighboring homes. A motor
cross located next to residential areas has a noise level of 60 decibels, and was used as an example. Fred
stated this is not a heavy residential area, and is concerned the decibel level should be higher.
Stanley Heinze and Louis Fabrizius, applicants, spoke on behalf of the application. Mr. Fabrizius explained
that they would like to add to the permit manufacturing of parts, and other machine type parts that would not
be ag related. Marie Koolstra asked if this would be an expansion of the use. Julie stated that staff based
the recommendation on ag type implements only, and that the commission would have flexibility to change
this, as long as the change was similar.
Mr. Fabrizius asked about how the noise level was measured. Lee Morrison explained on a residential
property it is 25 feet from inside the next residents property. Marie asked what the level was for light industrial.
Sheble stated it was 70 decibels. Sheble stated she was going by agricultural use, and questioned whether
Ag uses were exempt. Lee explained that agricultural uses are not listed and this is not an agricultural
operation.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
August 18, 1998
Page 3
Michael Miller asked for more information on expanding the manufacturing. Mr. Fabrizius stated it would be
replacement parts, similar to what they are doing now.
Fred Walker stated he feels that 55 decibels is too low, and wanted to change it to light industrial.
Fred Walker moved to change Development Standard#8, from 55 decibels to 70 decibels. Cristie Nicklas
seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Marie
Koolstra, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Jack
Epple, yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
There was discussion on changing the language on expanding the use to add additional parts that are similar
to what the use is, but being non-ag related.
Fred Walker moved to add to Development Standard #1, similarly manufactured parts. Stephan Mokray
seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Marie
Koolstra, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Jack
Epple, yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
The Chair asked the applicants if they were in agreement to the Conditions of Approval and changes to the
Development Standards. They stated they were in agreement.
Cristie Nicklas moved that Case USR-1191, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and changes to Development Standards #1 and #8, with the Planning
Commissions recommendation of approval. Michael Miller seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Marie
Koolstra, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Jack
Epple, yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: Z-513
PLANNER: Monica Daniels-Mika
APPLICANT: Floyd Oliver/Elms
REQUEST: Planned Unit Development Change of Zone within the Mixed Use Development area.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NW4 of Section 4, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION; South and adjacent to Weld County Road 26;-west and adjacent to Weld County Road 5.5.
Monica Daniels-Mika, Department of Planning Services, presented Case Z-513. Monica explained that this
application is located within the MUD area, so both the PUD and MUD standards apply, and explained the
standards to the Board. Monica then gave an overview of the application and read the recommendation into
the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the application along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Monica did ask that the lot sizes for the patio homes
be changed from 1200-1300 sq.ft.to 4000 sq.ft. lots. Monica then stated that the reason for the continuance
was due to the uncertainty of water issues. This issue has been resolved and 124 taps will be available for
the first filing.
Bruce Hendee, representative of the applicant, gave an overview of the development, with a map of the
proposal.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
August 18, 1998
Page 4
Mr. Oliver is also the developer of Meadow Vale Farms,which is immediately south of this site. The overall
design is a continuation of the concept of Meadow Vale Farm, with a change in smaller lots, to give a sense
of continuity. A post office, elementary school, and park will also be built to accommodate the new
development. Mr. Hendee addressed the request for flex zoning. As the market shifts, they would like to be
able to have the flexibility to use lots that are not marketed, turned into larger lots. Storm drainage will be
going under WCR 5-1/2, and water and sewer will be provided by Left Hand Water and sewer. They are
requesting the recommendation from Planning on opaque fencing be eliminated. The philosophy on the
Meadow Vale development is based on a sense of openness and integration between neighborhoods, and
would like to continue this.
Michael Miller asked about the Adam dairy and the location. Mr. Hendee pointed this out on the overhead.
Fred Walker asked if they considered the dairy to be a compatible use to the development. Mr. Hendee stated
they do recognize the right-to-farm, and referred further questions to Mr. Oliver.
Floyd Oliver, applicant, addressed the dairy, and stated he has not seen a better operator than Mr. Adams,
and does an excellent job. There have been no complaints on the dairy from the Meadow Vale development,
and have had no problems with noise, insects, and recognize his right to continue to operate. Mr. Oliver
explained they currently have three water systems. Domestic water for internal household use, a water
system for fire protection, and an irrigation system for sprinkler systems. They are currently under
construction to pave WCR 5-1/2, and will extend this road to the dairy, so truck traffic is less of a concern.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
The Chair asked Mr. Oliver if he was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Mr. Oliver stated they were in agreement with all of them, with the exception of the requirement
of opaque fencing, with the feeling that this destroys the concept they are trying to achieve. Monica stated
that it is not the intention of staff to separate the patio and single family homes with the opaque fence, but
to place the fence where it conflicts with adjoining properties. In order to mitigate noise, lights, ascetic
concerns and traffic, the fence needs to be placed around the perimeter of the site. Due to a high intense
area adjacent to a residential area on one side, and two agricultural uses on the other sides, including the
dairy, the fencing is a standard in the MUD standards, which Monica read to the Board.
Mr. Oliver asked Monica to show on the map where they are suggesting the fencing. Monica pointed out on
the map, explaining they would like it around the parameter of the development.
Mr. Oliver feels this destroys the concept of open space if he is screening off country living, and the people
buying the lots are doing so for the open concept.
Fred Walker commented that a six foot fence would keep trespassers out. Mr. Oliver feels the fence is a
barrior, and would like to put up a three rail fence.
Bruce Hendee stated he understands the attraction, but suggested instead of the opaque fence, having a
three rail fence,with welded wire fabric around it, which is an attractive looking fence that would keep small
pets out. Mr. Hendee commented on fencing in a community wide perspective, is concemed with what
happens to a community over a time with fencing closing off communities, destroying the visual integrity.
Stephan Mokray asked Monica what the purpose of the opaque fence being requested. Monica explained
that it is spelled out in the MUD plan to moderate the impact of noise, lights, assetic concerns, and traffic.
Monica stated that this does not say that the six foot opaque fence is the only option, but there shall be an
opaque planted screen between the two properties. This leaves flexibility for the property owner to propose
various types of options.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
August 18, 1998
Page 5
Michael Miller asked if there was a fence requirement on adjacent subdivision. Monica stated that this was
created before the MUD standards, so there were no standards at that time.
Marie Koolstra asked about the flexibility to increase the size of lots. Monica explained that this would be the
flexible zoning, which would pertain to block five, and there are conditions and standards for this. Planning
is asking for the plat to be there most intense use.
Cristie Nicklas moved to amend the patio home lots in Section 2.3.1 and Section 10.0.1 from 1200-1300 sq.
ft., to 4000 sq ft. per lot. Fred Walker seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Marie
Koolstra, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Jack
Epple, yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Marie Koolstra asked about making a motion to delete the condition regarding the opaque fence. Cristie
stated that she does not believe it is a fence they are dealing with, but opaque screening which could include
landscaping as well as a fence, and it could just be a misunderstanding of verbage. Marie stated that at this
point there seems to be a misunderstanding, and Mr. Oliver and the Planning staff needs to get together and
come to an agreement on what is acceptable for both.
Mr. Oliver explained that their plan would be to build a three rail fence around the perimeter of the site where
a lot backs up to open space. Mr. Oliver objects to the height of the fence and opaque, but did state he was
in agreement with all other Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Oliver how much property he owned. Mr. Oliver stated he owns 155 acres which is
Meadow Vale,and this proposal of 140 acres. Michael stated he was concerned with all the developing going
up around the dairy, and though there have been no complaints up to this point, it may become an issue. Mr.
Oliver explained the only possibility for development would be to the west, and not east which is where the
dairy is located.
Jack Epple moved that Case Z-513, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
changes to the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Marie
Koolstra, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Jack
Epple, yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 2:50 p.m.
Respectfully sub
LdM&L
Wendi Inloes
Secretary
OF/b
Hello