HomeMy WebLinkAbout990061.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, December 15, 1998
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held on December 15, 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
C
Jack Epple Present
Cristie Nicklas Present rrrnn c
Fred Walker Present 3 i
Bruce Fitzgerald Present
Michael Miller Present
Stephan Mokray Present
co
Man Marrs Present
Also Present: Monica Daniels-Mika, Director, Scott Ballstadt, Planner II, Julie Chester, Planner, Anne
Johnson, Long Range Planner, Eric Jerman, Planner, Department of Planning Services;Trevor Jiricek, Sheble
McConnellogue, Health Department; Don Cadoll, Public Works; Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney;
Wendi Inloes, Secretary.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on December 1,
1998, was approved as read.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1202 (continued from the December 1, 1998, hearing)
APPLICANT: Scott Busker
PLANNER: Julie A. Chester
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Section 28, T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Agricultural Service
Establishment for a Livestock Confinement Operation (Dairy)for 4500 head of cattle in the
Agricultural Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to Weld County Road 17; south of Weld County Road 18.
Julie Chester, Department of Planning Services, presented Case USR-1202. New comments were handed
out to replace the preliminary comments. Julie stated that the Department is recommending approval of the
application, along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Julie then read the
recommendation into the record. Julie presented a video of the site to the Planning Commission.
Arlan Marrs asked Julie to give an overview of the concerns from Firestone, and where the County stands.
Julie explained that Firestone concerns,was that part of the site is within their Urban Growth Boundary(UGB),
which may conflict with future growth and the baseline standards, which are a part of the Intergovernmental
Agreement. This issue has been addressed through the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Julie said the original referral from Firestone did not address their reasons why it was not consistent with the
IGA, or why it was not consistent with their Comprehensive Plan, and has not received anything in writing
specifically stating why it is not consistent.
Arlan asked what specifically Julie did with the Conditions of Approval (COA) and Development Standards
(DS) in regards to addressing the baseline design standards, and what they are intended to do. Julie
explained that COA #2J#1 addresses landscaping and buffering non-compatible uses. Mr. Busker had
landscaping in his application and is not against adding more. COA#2J#3 was also added addressing
lighting, which should not be a problem. DS#7 was also added as a catch all, to address any future uses.
Arlan asked what the original intent of the baseline standards were. Julie explained the baseline standards
were developed so all new uses with the IGA have a baseline so the area will have minimum standards.
w e
or l0hi99 990061
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
December 15, 1998
Page 2
Bruce Fitzgerald asked by right, how many animals would be allowed. Julie stated, by right, Mr. Busker is
allowed 500 based on his applicatipn of 125 acres, but Mr. Busker has additional adjacent property that was
not included in the permit, which would allow four animals per acre. Julie said she has not actually counted
how many are out there at the present time, and that Mr. Busker could answer that.
Arlan asked Lee Morrison about the Baseline standards. Lee said the idea was not for everything to look
alike, but for someone not to develop at a lower quality within the jurisdiction, and the standards is to make
sure that someone could not choose one jurisdiction over another to avoid quality development. Firestone
has questions on whether the standards have been adopted by everyone, and the County' s position is that
as soon as the County signed off on them,they were in effect, but there are some procedural things that would
not apply. As of September 7, 1998, the County agreed to follow the standards, but it is not clear on whether
the procedures apply. Arlan asked what the intent was for this type of ag use, or if there was any. Lee
explained that he is limited to what the intent is since there is no specific language for these types of facilities.
It is at the Planning Commission and County Commissioner's discretion on what to approve, and Firestone
is arguing the County no longer had this discretion by virtue of the agreement. Arlan commented that he
understood the baseline standards to be intended for more residential and commercial developments.
Michael Miller asked if the UGB was established before or after the dairy was in place. Julie said the IGA was
in place after the dairy was in place.
Arlan asked Lee about how the boundary was determined. Lee explained the process involved going back
to the Comprehensive Plan and the service area that a municipality in the future will have the ability and desire
to provide urban services to. This was arrived at by individual municipalities coming forward with their
proposed areas and then negotiation among all the parties. Arlan asked if there were any detailed service
plans, Lee said he did not believe there was. •
Scott Busker, applicant, stated he is asking for the expansion of the dairy with additional housing, to assure
both himself and his family has the ability to grow with the changes of the dairy industry, and maintain a viable
operation in the future. The dairy industry is competitive and growing like other industries, and he feels they
need to grow with it to be successful.
Steven Mokray asked Mr. Busker how many cattle he has currently. Mr. Busker stated he currently has
roughly 870, well within the legal limit of four per acre. He has 220 plus acres with additional ground leased
to cover any overage, well within his rights. Mr. Busker stated he does not want to increase overnight, but
wants to have the ability to grow.
Michael Miller asked about the opposition of surrounding property owners on excessive flies and odors on the
current amount of cattle on the site. Michael asked if he has been cited by the Health Department or had any
violations. Mr. Busker stated he had not, and until this proposal came about, he had no contact or problems
with any surrounding property owners.
Michael asked Trevor Jiricek about the Development Standards for controlling flies and odors, and are they
something that currently apply to the dairy? If expanded, would there be expectations the conditions would
improve with the expansion? Trevor explained that currently in Colorado, agricultural odors are exempt from
regulations and if the permit is approved a standard would be established that the dairy would have to meet
a measurable standard that would be measured at their property line. Management for fly, odor, and dust
abatement plans will be required to be submitted, and the applicant would be responsible for following through
with the plans. In all cases, if a complaint is received, they will go out and if the plans are not abided by,
recourse is the revocation of the permit. Trevor stated he has had two complaints, one was in 1997,
conceming the dairy accepting chicken manure to compost on the facility, and the other was on October 26,
1998, on excess flies. Both Trevor and Julie Chester went to the site the following day, and there had been
a couple of freezes, and saw no fly conditions alleged in the complaint. Michael asked that with the new
290062/
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
December 15, 1998
Page 3
standards,would there be a better control of the flies? Trevor said he could not answer the question directly,
because they are intensifying thS,use, and if the facility is well maintained and managed, he would not see
a significant increase.
Tom Haren, of Envirostock, and representative of the applicant, talked about the application containing a
manure management plan,which is required by state law and also submitted to the county for approval,which
must be done and approved by a registered professional engineer. The plan addresses solid manure storage,
collection and application, any liquid manure process generating water from the milking facility, and storm
water run off. Mr. Haren then talked about the lagoons and their standards. The main use of the solid manure
for Busker Dairy is used for composting, and Mr. Busker is currently on a program where issues from the
county have been addressed. The facility is accountable and liable for making sure that recycled water from
the lagoons, does not cause surface or ground water pollution from land application. The nuisance plan is
required under this type of permit and under county zoning rules, which includes flies, dust, odors, and
rodents. There are currently no state regulations, but when met with county regulations for nuisance
conditions, Mr. Busker is liable for any incidence that is substandard to the plan, which puts a layer of
regulation on his facilities that are not currentlyin place.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked Mr. Haren about the odor from WCR 17, and the fifteen-to-one threshold. Mr. Haren
explained he has seen this recurring in the USR standards, and with agricultural facilities, elimination of odors
is not practically feasible. As far as technically feasible, in previous hearings he would say no, but recently
he has seen information from the hog industry and research that has been done, that with enough money they
can figure out ways to radically reduce odors, but does not feel they can be practically eliminated. The odor
comes from both dry and wet manure,and by reducing sources of odors,composting, keeping the pen surface
clean, keeping standing water away, could reduce the odor. These standards are not currently on the facility.
As far as the standard from WCR 17, Mr. Haren, feels it is a tough standard for Mr. Busker to meet.
Cristie Nickles asked Don Carroll of Public Works, about the road count on WCR 17. Don stated that a count
was done on 10-26-98, and from the south end of the dairy the count was 186 vehicles, and from the north
end it was 62,which indicated there were approximately 62 vehicles in a 24 hour period. Cristie asked how
far the nearest paved road was. Don said WCR 19 and WCR 52 were paved, approximately 1 to 2 miles.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
The following surrounding property owners, and representatives, Brent Coan, Ginny Shaw, Diane Evans,
Michael Gunesch, Gilbert Evans, Joe Hedan, Dave Mallory, and Will and Hauns Wimmer, spoke against the
application.
Mr. Coan, who represented Irene Schuett and Ugene and Heleva Merino, read an outline into the record,
which was marked as exhibit 44. The main concern was on flies and odor. Property value, waste disposal,
flooding, health issues, ground water contamination, and too many animals for the site, were some of the
other concems. Mr. Coan also stated that the application was not complete, citing these reasons also listed
in exhibit 44. If the permit is to be approved, they do ask that the number of animal units be reduced to 1000
head.
The other surrounding property owners had these concerns:
' Odors from the site
* The decease in property values
• Flooding of ditches from water runoff
• An excess amount of cattle for area, and the size of the dairy
• The dairy not being clean
• Flies, being the main concern from the surrounding property owners
• Support of Mr. Busker when he began with what they thought to be small dairy, and feel they were mislead
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
December 15, 1998
Page 4
Several documents were entered into the record and marked as exhibits 41 thorough 47.
Ginny Shaw, a representative of the Southeast Weld group,stated the group has a mixed reaction. The topic
of agricultural land preservation is highly important to keep alive, and by cutting out agricultural growth, it
would be a serious mistake. If the application is approved, it needs to be at safe standards.
Tom Haren addressed the property owner concerns. Mr. Haren stated he had been in this position before,
representing livestock confinement operations, and had a unique situation with Busker Dairy, since he owns
property in the northeast corner in the Town of Firestone. Mr. Haren is familiar with the property and area,
and understands a lot of the concerns. He does not feel that there would be a decrease in property values,
but with the increase of homes, operations are getting squeezed out and relocated, because land is becoming
so valuable for development. Mr. Haren addressed Mr. Coan's comments. Mr. Haren is on a national animal
feeding operation committee, and has attended a conference recently on redesigning standards and
guidelines. When an operation does not run smooth,these regulations work, and carry both fines and jail time
when in violation. As to soil conditions, there are no specific design criteria standards, and it is up to the
operator to hire a professional engineer, someone who is qualified to design the facility. The questions
regarding the 125 acres, is included in the application, and the additional acreage is included in the manure
and waste water management plan. Mr. Hares has met with the Towns of Dacono, Firestone, and Frederick.
Frederick did not hold a public meeting on the application. The Town of Firestone stated that it does not meet
the conditions and criteria of the IGA. Mr. Haren questions whether when the towns drew the boundaries for
the IGA if any consideration was given to existing property boundaries; and also why the boundaries went
through an existing dairy. In a Firestone town meeting on November 12, 1998, Bruce Nickerson, Town
Planner, and Mayor Patterson stated that no thought was given to existing property owners when the
boundaries were delineated. Firestone established precedence when they discovered a subdivision had been
split by the drawing of the boundary,which was later modified to include the subdivision. Discussion had been
made to modify and excluded the dairy, and the request was denied. The Town of Firestone had indicated
that future growth could be another 20 or more years before they expanded out by Mr. Busker. As to baseline
standards, Mr. Haren said they are intended to apply to new development and activities within the UGB, and
major transit corridor, which Busker does not fall into any of these. Mr. Haren than read the purpose of the
IGA into the record, and stated that there are 21 Conditions of Approval and 30 Development Standards that
Mr. Busker is going to have to comply with before he can add one cow.
Mr. Haren said he has been in this type of situation before with several other operations, and there is no rule
or requirement that can be written that can apply to each situation all of the time, and by using the best
judgement, while upholding obligation, while protecting property rights, is the best they can do. In previous
cases, Weld County has approved a 5,000 head dairy on 240 acres within 3/4 of a mile from the Town of
Platteville, and a 10,000 head feedlot that operates at 50% of its facility within the town limits of Gilcrest. It
has been shown that mitigation control can be designed and required from the applicant to ensure public
health and well being, and a precedent is established.
Tom Haren then showed on overheads where Mr. Busker lives and where the property is split by the IGA.
Man Marrs asked Mr. Haren to show on the map,where the current pens are located and what they contain.
Mr. Haren explained on the overhead what the pens are being used for, and what the future uses will contain.
Arlan asked what the surrounding areas are and what future plans there are. Mr. Haren explained the
property to the north is vacant with the exception of some oil fields. The plans include no more room for
expansion to the north, and will have some pens and composting area and lagoons, along with landscaping.
Arlan stated he does not see enough pens for the number of cattle being proposed. Mr. Haren stated Mr.
Marrs was correct. When the plans are designed, Mr. Haren does two things, first is to find a long-range plan
and second to make sure that they are always in compliance with Weld County for head count. The pens are
designed to hold 100-125 head, and the designated areas are for overage. The number proposed for milking
is always higher than what is planned, because Mr. Haren wants to make sure he counts for calves and
replacement heifers. Stephan Mokray also agreed the expansion area was not large enough.
99006 /
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
December 15, 1998
Page 5
Arlan stated that he understands what Mr. Haren is saying regarding what the property can handle for
management, but on this particular,application,with surrounding property owner concerns and total acreage
available, he is concerned the number of 4,500, is inappropriate, and wopdered if there should be a
reevaluation. Mr. Haren explained that he has used this number for the manure and waste water
management plan, and the reason the numbers are not apples to apples across the board with other dairy
facilities, is that different dairy facilities do different management techniques. Quarterly reports are done on
the facilities to make sure the diaries stay in compliance.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked Mr. Busker about the current row of manure on the north end of the facility, and what
it is for. Mr. Busker explained that it is material that is to be composted and is in the first phase of composting.
The Chair asked Mr. Haren if the applicant was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and the
Development Standards. Mr. Haren stated they were in agreement.
Jack Epple asked staff to address Mr. Coans letter and the issues of signage, legal description, surrounding
property notification, and right-of-way. Julie Chester explained the sign was posted on November 12, 1998,
more than the required 10 days, and that she was notified the sign was down, Julie notified Mr. Busker right
away, and the sign was put back up, and this Issue was taken care of. Lee Morrison explained that some
legal notices are required and some are courtesy, and the fact the sign fell down does not mean the posting
was inadequate. Julie then explained the legal notice containing 125 acres was the actual boundary of the
site itself, and the application stated additional acreage for the waste disposal application. Julie stated that
notices were mailed out to surrounding property owners also. Julie explained all the issues regarding rights-
of-way have been addressed, and could add to Condition of Approval#2J, to include roads and utilities shall
be delineated on the plat map. Condition of Approval#21 covers oil and gas concerns. Regarding concerns
from Mr. Coan on differing soil types, the Longmont Soil Conservation District referral was submitted, along
with a report from Mr. Busker in his application, and any issues have been addressed through Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards. Lee clarified that posting of signs does not contain the language that
it is a courtesy, and questions the standing when someone who appears at the hearing contests the lack of
notice of the hearing. Language does appear that the surrounding property owner notification and a second
publication, is a courtesy.
Cristie Nicklas moved to add Condition of Approval #2J#4, that all county roads and utility easements be
designated on the plat map. Steven Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Marie
Koolstra, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Stephan Mokray stated he felt 4,500 was too large a number, and made a motion to limit the number to
2,500. Lee stated there could not be a motion to decrease the number, that this would be up to the applicant
to decrease the number, and the motion would need to be on the application. Stephan withdrew his motion
and asked the applicant if he was willing to go to 2,500. Mr. Haren stated they would be willing to look at a
number less than 4,500, but would like to base it on the waste management and design criteria that are
worked through with the Health Department and technical professionals that work on these types of facilities
before designating a number. Mr. Haren stated that the applicant would be willing to decrease by 1,000 head,
to 3,500.
Arlan Marrs still felt that 3,500 is still too many animals and that 2,000 would be a better number. Arlan
suggested giving the applicant some time to discuss this with his applicant. The Chair gave a 5 minute recess
to allow Mr. Haren and Mr. Busker to discuss a reduction in number.
Torn Haren stated that they are willing to reduce to 3,500 with a change in the Conditions. The approval of
the manure management plan and the nuisance management plan,and the justification of the head count and
design of the facility, would be moved and approved by the County Commissioners prior to their approval.
CIO/t)el /
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
December 15, 1998
Page 6
Lee Morrison asked for clarification that this evidence be provided prior to and as part of the County
Commissioners hearing. Mr. Hare said this is correct,and that it is in the application now that if deemed with
staff and the commissioners that supplement support be provided, they can include this with new plans and
justification on animal units, and be approved prior to a resolution. Lee said this would change those
standards to be provided prior to scheduling with the Board of County Commissioners. There will be staff
review and approval of the manure and waste water management plan. This can be done although it is not
typically done.
Fred Walker commented that he feels that 3,500 head can be justified with safeguards, based on facts and
studies.
Arlan Marrs had concerns with the physical layout of the operation, and not having enough space.
Jack Epple moved to change the Conditions of Approval #2, to say prior to scheduling the County
Commissioners hearing instead of prior to recording the plat, and also to change Condition of Approval#2A
and Development Standard#1, from 4,500 head to 3,500 head. Cristie Nicklas seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Marie
Koolstra,yes;Arlan Marrs,yes;Cristie Nicklas,yes; Stephan Mokray, no; Michael Miller,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes; Jack Epple, yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried.
Jack Epple moved that Case USR-1202, 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. Cristie Nicklas seconded the motion.
Arlan commented that his concern is for all of agricultural, and the number is not appropriate, and by
approving an application that has difficulty or cannot meet the conditions put upon it, encourages further
regulation upon all of agricultural industry. It is important that when we give a permit, the owner/operator has
a degree of certainty he will be able to meet the standards.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Marie
Koolstra, yes; Arlan Marrs, no; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, no; Michael Miller, no; Bruce Fitzgerald,
no; Jack Epple, yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried to neither approve or deny.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1206
APPLICANT: Andesite Rock Company
PLANNER: Eric Jerman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SE4 of Section 3, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Mining Operation.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Hwy 119 and west of and adjacent to 1-25.
Eric Jerman, Department of Planning, asked to continue Case USR-1206, to the January 5, 1999 hearing,
due to surrounding property owners not being notified, therefore not giving them opportunity to respond.
Stephan Mokray moved to continue Case USR-1206, to the January 5, 1999 hearing. Michael Miller
seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Marie
Koolstra, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
99 006
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
December 15, 1998
Page 7
CASE NUMBER: USR-1205
APPLICANT: Megan Harper i
PLANNER: Julie A. Chester
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-1687; being part of the N2NE4 of Section 16, Ti N, R67W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for an Agricultural Service
Establishment primarily engaged in Animal Training and Boarding Facility.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to WCR 19 and south of WCR 10.
Julie Chester, Department of Planning, presented Case USR-1205. Julie stated the Department is
recommending approval of the application,along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Julie then read the recommendation into the record. New comments were handed out to replace preliminary.
Michael Miller asked about the hours of operation, and why Saturday and Sunday were left out. Julie
explained that this is what was in the application, and that the applicant could address this issue.
Arlan Marrs asked Lee Morrison about the application being in the Dacono IGA, and what impact will this have
on the applicant. Lee said he understood from Julie it was not, and Arlan said it was within the boundary.
Julie put a map on the overhead, and it was determined that it was in the Dacono IGA boundaries. Arlan did
not feel this would have any impact on this issue, but feels that the problem with the IGA, is that Dacono has
gone far out of their realm to have any control, and from his understanding of the IGA, in a new use as this,
it should not be allowed. Julie explained that if Dacono had responded to the referral that the application was
not consistent, then those concerns would be addressed, but they did not respond to the referral sent to them.
Fred Walker asked if a referral was received from Bull Canal, and Julie said she did nbt receive a referral
response. Fred also asked about the well permit, and it being a private permit, and the use seems to be a
commercial permit, and could there be some type of violation. Julie stated she had spoke to the applicant on
the same issue, and Megan Harper indicated that she had spoken to the State as far as the well permit for
the accessory to the farm permit, and that the State had no concerns. It was also indicated that the
requirement from the Health Department regarding water is addressed in Development Standard#12. Fred
said his concern was that a farmer is not allowed to use a well commercially for ag purposes, and this use
seems to also be commercial. Stephan Mokray suggested getting a letter from the State engineer to ensure
the well permit could be used for this application. Julie said they could add that as a Condition of Approval.
Megan Harper, applicant, addressed the questions from the board. The proposed use is for personal use as
well as boarding out to another trainer. Hours of operation were an error on her part, and will be Monday
through Sunday. Regarding the issue of the well permit, she stated that when the process was first started,
she contacted the Division of Water Resources to get a copy of the permit, explaining what they were
proposing, and they did not have any concerns, but she will get a letter from them if needed.
Lee asked if the paperwork for the well that was being used, was going to be a change of location. Megan
explained that the paperwork is from the previous owner, and that it was a change of ownership.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Julie added the following changes:
Changes to Condition of Approval#2d to add the proposal is located within an Urban Growth Boundary of a
municipality.
Add Development Standard#25 to say that all future proposed uses on the facility shall maintain compliance
with all the Uniform Baseline Standards as described in Ordinance 201, with the exception of the height
requirement for accessory structures.
9900&/
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
December 15, 1998
Page 8
Add Condition of Approval#2 C, that the applicant shall submit evidence from the Colorado Division of Water
Resources of an adequate water supply for the proposed use.
Change Development Standard#14 to add the hours of operation from Monday through Friday to Monday
through Sunday.
Bruce asked why Ordinance 201 was added to the conditions. Julie explained that since it was determined
the proposal was within the UGB of Dacono, the Baseline Standards apply.
Stephan Mokray moved to add the changes to the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Arlan
Marrs seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Marie
Koolstra, yes; Arlan Marrs, 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 the applicant if she was in ageement with the changes to the Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards. Megan Harper stated she was.
Jack Epple commented that since the Baseline Standards were going to be included, the applicant may want
to review them before saying she was in agreement. Lee stated she would still have time to review them
before the Commissioners hearing and make changes there.
Arlan Marrs moved that Case USR-1206, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
changes to the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards, recommending leniency to the Baseline
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; Arlan Marrs, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: Ordinance 147-P and Ordinance 191-D
APPLICANT: City of Longmont
PLANNER: Anne Best Johnson
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: E2 of Section 7, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and Mixed Use Development, Map 2.1, Structural
Land Use Map.
REQUEST: Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to conform to the Mixed Use Development
Ordinance Policy 6.22, and to the Urban Growth Boundary map 1, as proposed by the Weld
County Comprehensive Plan. Revisions to the Mixed Use Development Structural Map 2.1,
along with Amendments to the Mixed Use Development Ordinance will also be considered.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Hwy 119 and Y:mile east of Weld County Road 1 (Boulder
County Line).
Anne Best Johnson, presented the proposed changes to the Ordinances 191 Structural Land Use Map 2.1,
reading the recommendation into the record, with no changes to preliminary comments. The Department of
Planning is recommending approval.
•
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
December 15, 1998
Page 9
Fred Walker asked about procedure, and why Longmont is asking to change our map, when they have
indicated in the application that they are going to annex into their community, and why fees are being waived,
and didn't it cost the County something to prepare these cases.
Anne said that she could not address the reasoning why Longmont wants to change the map, but because
the area was designated in the MUD plan as high intensity employment center and residential, that the City
wanted the MUD plan amended to show the correct land use designation as a regional park.
Marie Koolstra stated that the fee situation is for the Commissioners to address, and not for the Planning
Commission to address. Lee Morrison stated this was correct.
Arlan Marrs asked if the City of Longmont annexes this property, and turns it into open space, what type of
control Weld County will have on protecting surrounding land owners. Arlan also asked if there are standards
and conditions that are placed on open space. Lee explained that since this is not a change of zone, but a
change in the Comprehensive Plan map, standards or conditions are not required. Arlan stated that problems
such as noxious weeds and zoning are some issues that County and Planning staff need to be aware of to
consider in the future for open space plans ani'the effect they have on surrounding property owners.
Monica stated that representatives from the City of Longmont were available for questions, and that this will
not only serve as an open space buffer area, but they are intending to make it a park, and the City already
has highly maintained parks.
Jean Robbins, representative from the City of Longmont, addressed concerns from the board. Jean
explained that they have gone through an extensive plan for Sandstone Ranch. They plan on keeping the
eastem area in fields such as soccer and football, and the westem with active recreation,such as softball and
baseball. There is currently mining in the southwestern section which is in the beginning stages, so they are
not sure what the reclamation plan will look like or what is planned. The concept is for a community and
regional park that will provide adequate recreational opportunities to the north and.passive recreation to the
south.
Arlan Marrs asked about anticipated user fees. Ms. Robbins said that currently there is no discussion for
entrance fees, but there will be a sports fee. Arlan stated he was concemed about City of Longmont fees and
fees charged to County residents. Arlan stated that he believed a potential future conflict may exist.
Monica Mika explained that there are different scaling fees in and around the MUD area, and an example
would be the library, and the have a different fee for those who reside in Longmont and pay taxes and those
who live outside.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Ginny Shaw, spoke for the application, and represents about 100 families within MUD district. Ms. Shaw
stated she was elated that the City of Longmont has taken the initiative to put land in open space, and hopes
the County follows as a way of putting in buffers between Cities and Towns. Ms. Shaw then handed out
copies of the square mileage of the IGA area.
Sharon Hopper, had concems with the fees, and what types of fees they are looking at.
Jean Robbins addressed fee issue, and said she did not have an answer at this time, but will find out the
answer and get back with Ms. Hopper.
•
g9Oo(oi
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
December 15, 1998
Page 10
Anne Johnson then addressed the last two requests for the Table 5 changes, grammar changes, and current
urban growth boundary areas. frnne read the recommendation for these changes into the record, and
recommends approval.
Arlan asked if these changes were being made because of the regional park change being made. Monica
explained that it is to update other activities in the MUD that have happened over the last couple years.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Jack Epple moved that the request to amend and replace the 1-25 Mixed Use Development Area Structural
Plan, Map 2.1 Structural Land Use Map, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along 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; Arlan Marrs, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Man Marrs moved to amend and replace Table 5: Land Use Plan Distribution, be forwarded to the Board of
County Commissioners along 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; Arlan Marrs, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Jack Epple moved to make language changes to reflect correct grammar usage, and current urban growth
boundary areas, and be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along 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; Arlan Marrs, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Anne Johnson then gave an overview of the proposed changes to the Mixed Use Development Structural
Map, which also had changes to it to reflect changes to the Comprehensive Plan.
Jack Epple moved to make changes to the Mixed Use Development Map Area Structural Plan, Map 2.1
Structural Land Use Map, and be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along 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; Arlan Marrs, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
December 15, 1998
Page 11
CASE NUMBER: Z-466
APPLICANT: Clay Varra
PLANNER: Scott Ballstadt
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW4 NW4 of Section 10, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: To extend the submittal date of a PUD plan
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Hwy 119 and east of and adjacent to WCR 7
Michael Miller withdrew from this case due to a conflict of interest.
Scott Ballstadt, Department of Planning Services, presented the request for an extension on a PUD plan.
Scott read the criteria for the permit into the record. No representative was available to comment. Scott
stated he has had contact with the applicant, his staff, and voice mail. Mr. Varra was originally contacted on
November 10, 1998, and told that his final plan had not been received or approved. On December 2, 1998,
he was notified of the hearing, and on December 9, 1998, Scott was informed that Mr.Varra would not be able
to attend. Scott informed them at that time that a representative should be present. Mr. Varra called on
December 14, 1998, and stated he could not Mike it and may send a representative. More than ten contacts
have been made to Mr. Varra in the last two months.
Marie Koolstra asked Scott if Mr. Varra has indicated if he wants to continue the PUD or end the process.
Scott said it is up to the applicant to substantiate to Planning Commission that he is willing and had the ability
to continue with the PUD final plan application, and Mr. Varra was under the impression the plan has been
accepted, approved and recorded. Scott was unable to find such records, and Mr. Varra indicated to Scott
he would be able to get the evidence the Wednesday prior to Thanksgiving, and no evidence had been
submitted to this day. Last contact was when the PUD district was approved, at that time there was a one
year time limit to bring in the final plan, and the Edson's who were the owners, did bring in one extension that
was approved to negotiate water and sewer, and that was the last submittal.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked Scott about a recommendation. Scott explained that he does have a memo
documenting contacts with Mr. Varra, and stating the facts of the case, but if is the applicant's burden to
provide evidence.
Cristie Nicklas asked what was currently going on, on the property. Scott explained the use was approved
for C-3 and I-1 uses, and currently there is a landscape supply business and modular office on the site,which
are zoning violations that will go before the Commissioners for violation hearings.
Bruce did say that at the end of the recommendation, staff does recommend the permit be revoked. Scott
explained that based on the information, this is staffs opinion.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Ginny Shaw, wanted to present pictures and read some of the MUD requirements. Lee Morrison explained
that the issue is whether the PUD permit has been abandoned, and issues on potential violations are not
relevant. Ms. Shaw stated they did contact the Planning Department in June, and why they have been
allowed to operate for the last seven months.
Scott explained that the operation of business will be addressed at the violation hearings. Mr. Varra did come
in the Planning Department requesting permission to operate the landscape supply business, and was
informed of the process he would need to go through. Through the summer there has been extensive contact,
and some confusion on the applications that have been brought in.
gg00(ol
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
December 15, 1998
Page 12
Arlan Marrs asked Lee what would happen if Mr. Varra comes in after a vote to revoke. Lee explained that
if something is out there that the fiQal plan has been recorded, then it is a moot issue, and he is still protected.
Stephan Mokray moved to revoke permit Z-466. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Marie
Koolstra, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, excused; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
Respectfully sub ed
abet
l/
Wendi Inloes
Secretary
Hello