HomeMy WebLinkAbout992726.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, October 19, 1999
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday October 19,1999, in the Weld
County Public Health/Planning Building, (Room 210), 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting
was called to order by Chairman, Fred Walker, at 1:45 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Fred Walker Present
Cristie Nicklas Absent
John Folsom Present
Jack Epple Present
Bruce Fitzgerald Present
Michael Miller Present
Stephan Mokray Present
Arlan Marrs Present
Bryant Gimlin Present
Also Present: Monica Daniels-Mika, Director, Kim Ogle, Planner, Eric Jerman, Planner, Ben Patton, Planner,
Anne Best Johnson, Planner, Department of Planning Services; Bruce Barker, County Attorney, Sheble
McConnellogue, Department of Public Health and Environment,
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on October 5, 1999,
was approved as read.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1247
APPLICANT: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt. NW4 Section 1, Township 1 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Public Utility Facility,
specifically a 0.9 mile 115 kV Transmission Line
LOCATION: South of SH 52; North of WCR 12; East of and adjacent to WCR 11.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, asked that Case USR-1247 be continued to November 2, 1999
as the legal was published with the incorrect hearing date. Kim stated that the applicant was comfortable with
this change.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case USR-1247 be continued to November 2, 1999. Michael Miller seconded
the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs , yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1246
APPLICANT: Willard and Tanya Kenyon
PLANNER: Eric Jerman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SE4 of Section 19, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for Outside
Storage of Commercial Equipment in the Agricultural Zone District.
LOCATION: Approximately 400' north of WCR 18; and approximately % mile east of WCR 1.
COflweon-t a I -02 - q9 992726
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
October 19, 1999
Page 2
Eric Jerman, Department of Planning Services, asked that Case USR-1246 be continued indefinitely at the
request of the applicant to allow time for the applicant to come into agreement with surrounding property
owners concerning access to the site.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case USR-1246, be continued indefinitely. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the
motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsum, yes; Arlan Marrs , yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: S-505
APPLICANT: Les Gelvin / Remington Place
PLANNER: Ben Patton
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-1723; located in the NE4 of Section 7, T7N, R67W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado
REQUEST: Fina Plat for a 4 lot Minor Subdivision.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to WCR 15; approximately '/3 mile north of State Hwy 14. For
a more precise location, see legal.
Ben Patton, Department of Planning Services, presented Case S-505. Ben read the recommendation into
the record, and stated that the Department of Planning is recommending approval of the application along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Ben stated that the Utility Board had approved the
final plat on October 14, 1999. with the addition of the fire hydrant placement on the plat.
John Folsom asked why 4.6.9.12, addressing ingress and egress, was not in the conditions of approval. Ben
stated that these criteria were implicitly addressed elsewhere in the Conditions of Approval.
Fred Walker had questions concerning reasonable access and right of way to the ditch as well as water
drainage at the site. E3en stated that the building envelopes were far from the ditch and that the applicant had
adequate documentation from the ditch company and could address any ditch questions.
Les Gelvin, Applicant, stated that he is aware that his deed starts 50 feet from the ditch and was willing to
work with the ditch company if they had any concerns. The drainage would be less than the current amount
at the site and would not contaminate the ditch water. The applicant is in agreement with the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Jack Epple moved that Case S-505 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs , yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1244
APPLICANT: Patricia Healy
PLANNER: Ben Patton
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 3, Block 5, Green Acres Subdivision; located in part of Section 24,
TIN, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
October 19, 1999
Page 3
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Kennel.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Appaloosa Avenue; immediately north of Pinto Street.
Ben Patton, Department of Planning Services, presented Case USR-1244. Ben read the case into the record
and stated that the Department of Planning Services is recommending approval with the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards.
Arlan Marrs asked if the covenants are still in effect, but Ben stated that no evidence of active covenants were
apparent in the application. Bruce Barker stated that the covenants are between the landowners in the
neighborhood and would deal with the compatibility of the neighborhood but could be a factor for the Planning
Commission to consider. Michael Miller asked how many animals would be allowed without the USR. Ben
said 5 animals of one species of domestic animal are allowed here.
Stephen Mokray asked if this application is a business. Ben explained that this could potentially be a business
but that the USR application if for a kennel. Bruce stated that this case deals with the intent and that the
request is for the kennel. John Folsom asked if the usage changed in the future to a business would the
applicant have to reapply for a USR. Ben stated that they might if there were a large increase in the number
of animals on the site or if, for example, there were large trucks on the site.
Patricia Healy, Applicant, stated that they have several Doberman Pincers and Boxes that they show at
American Kennel Club(AKC) competition. They occasionally sell them for pets, but mostly breed to restock
for show purposes. She stated that this is a hobby, there is no profit and that it costs more than it gains to
have these animals. The runs that the animals are in exist on the interior of their property and that even if the
dogs got out of that fence, there is still another fence before they could get off the property. She also stated
that when they bought the property, the covenants had expired. Ms. Healy further stated that they want to
come into compliance by applying for this USR permit for the number of dogs on their property
Arlan Marrs asked what kind of fence existed on the exterior of the property. The applicant stated that the
rear fence is a field fence, with a wooden picket fence on the south side of the property, but they are working
on placing chain link fencing on entire property. The exterior of the dog runs are chain link with hog panels
in between the three separate dog runs.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Charles Crumbly, adjacent landowner, is concerned with the constant barking and the number of dogs. He
stated that there were 21 dogs when the applicant moved in and that the barking is from 6:30 a.m. to 10:00
p.m. He also stated that the dog runs are 8 feet from the fence. Jack Epple asked Charles if he knew of the
covenants for the subdivision. Charles stated that the covenants had expired. Stephen Mokray asked how
long this has been going on and asked if Charles had spoken with the owner about the dogs barking. Charles
stated that it has been about a year and that they tried to talk to the owners concerning the barking but to no
avail. He also questioned the health aspect with his well being only 60 feet down. Michael Miller asked how
many animals Charles had on his property and how many other property owners had over 10 animals.
Charles stated that he has one horse, two dogs and some chickens and that there are some property owners
with more than 10. Arlan Marrs asked how Charles thinks the noise problem should be solved. Charles
doesn't feel hours of operation would affect the noise problem.
Michael Miller asked Bruce if there were any legal recourse for the barking of the dogs. Bruce Barker stated
that there was not an addition to the Ordinance concerning barking. Michael asked how loud the barking
would have to be to be a health issue. Ben stated that 55 decibels is the residential limit for noise according
to state statute and that the dogs would be limited to the hours of 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. through the Development
Standards Michael asked if the noise was measured at the property line. Sheble McConnellogue,
Department of Public Health and Environment, stated that C.R.S. suggest that the noise levels be recorded
25 feet outside of property line. At the site, the dogs of the property owners were quieter than the dogs of the
adjoining property where the noise level was being tested.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
October 19, 1999
Page 4
Fred Walker asked Charles if the covenants had expired and if so why Charles didn't look into re-establishing
the covenants. Charles said that the neighborhood was quiet and that they never thought they would need
one. Sheble also stated that the septic system must be 100 feet from a well and that the waste should be
controlled as well.
Maryann Bower, neighbor, stated that she had a problem with Doberman Pincers in particular in the neighbor
from the past attacking children and herself Bryant Gimlin asked if the applicant's dogs had been out.
Maryann stated that no, they were different dogs.
Kiko Crumbly, neighbor, stated that she was upset that the quality of living had gone down for them since the
dogs moved in next door. Her children are not comfortable playing outside with the dogs barking all the time
and she can't entertain outside anymore with all the noise. Arlan asked where her property was in comparison
to the applicant's land. Kiko pointed out her land directly north of and adjacent to the applicant's. Fred asked
what kind of fence was between the property. Kiko stated that the fence was a field fence, wire squares of
about 9"X9".
Stephen asked the applicant if she would be willing to remove the voice boxes of the dogs or work with the
noise issue. Ms. Healy stated that there were never 21 dogs on the property, and that the dogs don't run loose
all day, they are outside for a short time for exercise and meals, etc., but that they are indoor pets. She stated
she would be willing to debark the dogs to keep them, but would prefer not to. Ms. Healy stated that they are
placing the fence up as quickly as finances allow. She also stated that Mr. Crumbly also has several goats,
not just the one horse and two dogs he stated and that several property owners have many animals, as many
as fifty goats on one property and a miniature horse farm on another.
Discussion ensued concerning possible ways to ease the barking impact on the neighboring properties. The
applicant stated that as soon as they are approved AKC judges, the breeding will lessen and the number of
dogs will decrease. Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, stated that a 6' wooden fence would be the
most effective form of landscaping to lessen the noise.
Discussion ensued concerning the possible options open to the applicant to diminish the noise.
Michael Miller commented that he feels that fencing alone may not solve the problem and that further steps
may be required to end this problem and that there may be a better way to do so than the aforementioned
fence.
Bryant Gimlin commented that he felt that these conditions are all that the Planning Commission members
are authorized to do, that to act further would be entering into a neighborhood dispute that may be better
served in another governing body.
Stephen Mokray commented that this may not be the ultimate solution, but it is a compromise that could work.
Jack Epple commented that this is an agricultural area and regulating every dispute along these lines would
take a lifetime.
John Folsom supported Bryant, Jack, and Stephen's assessment of the decision.
Stephen Mokray moved that Condition of Approval#3 A as follows: "A landscaping and screening plan shall
be submitted to the Department of Planning Services staff. This plan shall include a solid 6 foot fence which
runs along the north edge of the property from the back side of the house west to the property line. Upon staff
approval, the plan shall be placed on the mylar plat to be recorded.", Development Standard #14 with
subsequent renumbering should read as follows: "The solid 6 foot fence, as shown on the approved screening
plan, shall be in place within 3 months from recording of the plat." Bryant Gimlin seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs , yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
October 19, 1999
Page 5
Arlan Marrs commented that he doesn't feel this is the best solution, but it is better than doing nothing.
Michael Miller commented that he agrees with Arlan and he feels it may not solve the problem, but there may
not be a solution to the problem.
The applicant is in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and the Development Standards.
Arlan Marrs moved that Case USR-1244 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
added Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation
of approval and the applicant investigate other options that may be more monetarily efficient and to reduce
the noise factor and be prepared to present those findings at the Board of County Commissioners hearing.
Bryant Gimlin seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs , yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
PLANNER: Anne Best Johnson
REQUEST: Eaton IGA
Bruce Barker, County Attorney, presented the Eaton Intergovernmental Agreement. Bruce explained that this
IGA was the result of Weld County Commissioners and the Town of Eaton officials desires to work toward
a coordinated planning agreement. Bruce explained that this agreement is identical to Ordinance 207 with
the Town of Keenesburg. The Town of Eaton has approved this agreement. The version presented today
has the complete contents as well as a map to define the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and the
Comprehensive plan area covered. The map is a part of the Eaton IGA and is attached as Exhibit A. The
Comprehensive plan area is fairly close to the referral area. Bruce mentioned that all growth within the UGA
(Urban Growth Area) has to be urban development as defined with the requirement of Board of County
Commissioners and the Planning Commission.
Bruce mentioned subparagraph F in Section 3.3 on page 4 which states "To the extent legally possible as
determined by the County, the County will deny proposals for non-urban developments in the UGA.", Section
3.2 page 3 states"To the extent legally possible, the County will disapprove proposals for Urban Development
in areas of the Municipal Referral Area outside the Urban Growth Area." Section 4.1 "The Municipality will give
serious consideration to all petitions for annexation of lands within the Urban Growth Area and will consider,
in any determination to annex such properties,without limitation, the following factors: (I)the extension of one
or more municipal services to the area would place and unreasonable economic burden on the existing users
of such services or upon the future residents or owners of property in the area itself; (II) the area is not
reasonably contiguous in facet to the Municipality's existing boundaries, and its annexation would result in
disconnected municipal satellites."
Arlan Marrs questioned Section 3.3 as the denial of different uses such as Special Review Permits. Bruce
stated that those permits would be subject to review on the definition of Non-Urban Development, and that
each application would be different. Arlan stated his concern with the reduced flexibility of county residents
in the Urban Growth Area to utilize their property because this property is adjoining a city. Fred Walker
questioned if Recorded Exemptions are going to be affected. Bruce mentioned that the definition of
development in Section 2.1 states that recorded exemptions and subdivision exemptions are not considered
development. Fred asked if these two processes would not be required to have sewer as the other
developments would be required to have within this UGA. Bruce stated that they would not have to have
sewer pursuant to this agreement,that it is not subject to the same rules as it is not considered a development
in this agreement.
Arlan asked what type of development would be subject to the last few lines in the definition of development,
if this included 5-Lot minor subdivisions. Bruce stated that he and Anne Best Johnson had decided that would
cover an Agricultural PUD due to a state statute concerning water. Fred asked if this would apply to Weld
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
October 19, 1999
Page 6
County as Weld County is home rule, not statutory rule. Bruce stated that a home rule county has no greater
powers than statutory municipalities in land use, that the distinction could be made that home rule deals with
the structure of the county itself.
Anne stated that the Planning Department had discussed this and agreed that the PUD would be the only
development that would allow flexibility for an agricultural outlot. The Planning Department is entertaining an
additional definition of farmability for the IGA agreements, working with the Soil Conservation District Board
of Directors. This definition will include soil capacity to support either crops or agricultural uses, the availability
of water, the functionality of water delivery, as well as the size of the property. Fred asked if this ag PUD
would apply to all development. Anne stated that this would apply outside the Urban Growth Area, that the
town only wants urban growth within this UGA, and would like to see enforcement of no Urban Growth in the
area outlined in the Comprehensive plan area.
Fred noted that people with property within the UGA must be tied to water and sewer, as well as needing to
be contiguous with other development, in order to develop their land. The land owners outside the UGA but
within the Comprehensive plan area will not be able to develop their land as other county land owners are
able to develop. Fred states that he feels this is unjust without notifying the property owners who will be
affected by the Eaton IGA and that this creates an urban reserve that cuts the land value out from under the
owner. Fred also noted that even landowners within the UGA who are not contiguous cannot develop until
land adjacent to the town between their property and the town is developed.
Fred stated that if a developer were to have land in this area and enough funds to develop it, but the town
decides not to go with the plan, this IGA leaves them no recourse to go to the County Commissioners, they
are out of options with their land. He stated that the county is very careful to notify surrounding property
owners in USR cases, but that no one in the area was being notified of this change.
Arlan Marrs asked if there was any follow up by the Board of County Commissioners with the Keenesburg and
Evans IGA's concerning the notification of surrounding property owners. Bruce said that there had not been
any change with the Board of County Commissioners. Arlan stated that he did not feel that this lack of
notification was right.
John Folsom noted with the municipal annexation act the preferred method is to have urban growth within the
bounds of the municipality. He stated that this land could be annexed then developed. Bryant Gimlin noted
this land must be contiguous. John stated it could be done by a flagpole annexation. Fred feels Section 4.1
that if the land is not contiguous they can't flagpole and this allows no flexibility for adjoining land owners. He
feels the contiguous part of the IGA is too binding.
Arlan questioned how. with the ever changing agricultural economic scene in this county, this agreement could
place a 40 year time frame for this change. He feels this is a long time to be stuck in an agreement with the
quickly changing face of agriculture. Arlan is concerned with this part of the IGA. Fred noted that if a farmer
cannot sell the land for a good enough price, the first thing he is going to sell is the water. Flexible land and
water sell together, yet when land is restricted, the water will sell. This prime irrigated land will start to go dry
and Fred feels this plan does not look far enough into the future for the state of the land
Bruce noted that the development is restricted by economics and that it will cost too much to run public
services to the far reaching subdivisions. This will restrict growth in all of these towns. Fred noted that if the
developers and landowners want to spend extra to develop the land that is not contiguous, they should be
allowed that option.
Bryant feels the difference between this area and the Keenesburg/Evans IGA's is the type of land, this being
very good farm land. He would like to see a public meeting to allow the public and landowners speak their
piece, that in not doing this, the county is being less than diligent in their duties. Arlan feels the county and
municipality should not do this IGA just because they can. Why not just a statement to the towns concerning
referrals in these areas, while some problems with existing uses wanting to expand in earlier IGA's and not
being allowed to do so because of the IGA's. He feels the notification should take place, even if no one
responds, in order to do the right thing for these landowners.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
October 19, 1999
Page 7
Fred noted that he has no problems with the coordinated effort, his problem is with the lack of notification and
input to those possibly affected. He feels they sent a message to the commissioners, but nothing happened
before.
Jack Epple noted that the towns feel Weld County does what they want. He feels that the towns should have
to right to make the changes in areas that affect them. He stated that he feels the lack of municipality control
in the south is leading to the lack of adequate water. Bryant stated he is basically in agreement with the idea
of the plan, he just feels the people who are going to be affected by this are the only ones who have not been
notified, the landowners. He feels the land owners need to be notified and that make this IGA easier to
accept.
Discussion ensued or placing this request to notify as a motion or if this could be reworked. Bruce stated that
this would not be viable, as this is just a recommendation. Once it is passed on by the Planning Commission,
it is in the Board of County Commissioners. Bruce stated that the best way to do anything is to place a
recommendation on the approval. Bruce noted that the Board felt that the publication process was notification
enough to allow public input. It was noted that in a legal sense, this is adequate, but asked how many land
owners in the area have access to the Ft. Lupton publications. Bruce noted that as this was a legislative
action, the members of the Planning Commission can contact the Commissioners to state their feelings on
this subject.
Michael Miller noted again that the large number of people being affected by this are not being notified while
neighboring landowners of a USR kennel operation are being notified. He feels the landowners should be
notified of what is being proposed in their area.
Jack Epple moved that the Town of Eaton IGA be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners
recommending notification of the surrounding property owners in the Urban Growth Area by the County, with
the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, no; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller, no; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Fred Walker, no. Motion carries.
Meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
ik.,"ovt&A4 --
Trisha Swanson
Secretary
Hello