HomeMy WebLinkAbout990275.tiff RECEIVED
02/04/99
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 19, 1999
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held January 19,1999, in the County
Commissioners' Hearing Room (Room#101), Weld County Centennial Building, 915 10th Street, Greeley,
Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chair, Jack Epple, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Marie Koolstra Absent
Jack Epple Present
Gristle Nicklas Present
Fred Walker Present
Bruce Fitzgerald Present
Michael Miller Present
Stephan Mokray Absent
Arlan Marrs Present
Bryant Gimlin Present
Also Present: Monica Daniels-Mika, Director, Julie Chester, Planner, Scott Ballstadt, Planner, Ben Patton,
Planner, Department of Planning; Don Carroll, Public Works;Trevor Jiricek, Health Department; Lee Morrison,
Assistant County Attorney; Wendi Inloes, Secretary.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on January 5, 1999,
was approved as read.
CASE NUMBER: Z-519 (Continued from the 1/5/99 hearing)
APPLICANT: Terry and Janice Wiedeman / David and Kayleen Hunt
PLANNER: Julie A. Chester
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2112; being part of the S2 of Section 14, T4N, R66W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Planned Unit Development Change of Zone for 5 Residential Lots and 1 Commercial Lot with
a 78.2 acre Agricultural Outlot.
LOCATION: Located Northwest of and adjacent to U.S. Hwy 85 and east of WCR 33.
Julie Chester, Department of Planning Services, presented Case Z-519. Julie stated that staff is
recommending denial of the application, due to a provision of water/sewer requirements for a lot that will have
a commercial garage. Julie stated that the application does comply with all other requirements. Julie then
read the recommendation into the record.
David Hunt, applicant, gave an explanation of the development. Mr. Hunt explained the reason for the
commercial lot, is to provide a larger area for Dan's garage, which provides services for the surrounding
agricultural community,and who is an important part of the community. They have support from many people,
with the exception of the PUD requirement of Dan's garage being on a public sewer. The nearest sewer is
located in either Gilcrest or LaSalle, which would not be feasible or practical. The only opposition they have
received is regarding a water line that runs underground, which he feels can be resolved with building
envelopes.
Man Marrs asked about the well located to the west, and if it will serve the property. Mr. Hunt said there are
a couple of irrigation wells, and at this time they are not sure which well will serve the property. Arlan said
there should be some type of easement designated. Arlan then asked what the future plans for Dan's garage
will be, as far as the existing site. Mr. Hunt said he could not answer that for Dan.
The Vice-Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
C onQe t (42-4,1,—/ 990275
/).7112/Oo
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
January 19, 1999
Page 2
Melvin Dinner, surrounding property owner, had a concern regarding a 15-inch diameter underground water
line that runs through the proposed site, that serves water to his family farm. Mr. Dinner had originally sent
a letter of objection on the proposal when he first received notification, but has since been told access and
maintenance will be provided, and addressed in the Development Standards. Three of the five lots being
created, would be affected by the line. Mr. Dinner said that no easement was written into the title work, and
is asking for the 30-foot easement be provided as a standard and recorded.
Fred Walker asked about where the pipeline crosses the paved intemal road of the proposal and who would
pay for the repair of any leaks to the pipeline. Mr..Dinner explained that it would probably be between the
property owner and themselves. Fred asked what type of pipeline it was. Mr. Dinner stated it is a metal 15
inches in diameter pipeline, put in around 1987.
Jack Epple asked if there was a grand fathered easement. Mr. Dinner said there was. Jack then asked if the
concern of the pipeline was resolved,would he be in agreement. Mr. Dinner said as long as the conditions
are met, and the easement is protected, and means of access are protected, they could continue the
development.
Bryant Gimlin asked if the applicants have given him any reason to believe they will not cooperate. Mr. Dinner
stated that he has talked with Terry Wiedeman, and he is willing to work with him.
David Hunt, stated that Mr. Dinner's issue can be addressed through the conditions and standards.
Lee Morrison asked Mr. Hunt about the 30-foot easement Mr. Dinner is asking for, and if he is in agreement
with this. Mr. Hunt said at this time, he is not certain how many feet they would need, and that 20 feet may
be enough to get in and out. Terry Wiedeman, applicant, stated he will work with Mr. Dinner to make
everything work.
Jack Epple asked if they needed to add the easement to the conditions. Lee Morrison explained that the
measurement is necessary for maintenance, and if the parties are at this time not in agreement on the exact
width, he would hesitate to put it in.
Mr. Wiedeman asked that Steve Stencel of Intermill Land surveying, address the easement issue. Steve
explained that in his opinion as a surveyor, 30 feet is plenty wide, and that a 15 to 20 foot easement would
probably be enough.
Man Marrs asked how deep the line was. Mr. Dinner said at least 4 to 5-foot deep, and they have no problem
farming the area. Arlan said he would recommend a 30-foot easement to be placed on the standards,
considering it is going into residential lots. Mr. Dinner said he agrees on needing the wider easement for
accessibility and the need to get in and out with equipment.
Julie Chester suggested that they leave the standard as is until an agreement is reached. If a smaller
easement could be put in it would be better, because of the fact they may need to reconfigure the lots, and
Planning staff may need to reevaluate the proposal. Lee Morrison said that the parties can provide a copy
of an agreement for the easement, and provide a copy prior to recording the plat. Mr. Dinner stated he would
have no problem with the agreement.
Julie suggested adding the following language to Development Standard#6 to say: The applicant shall enter
into an agreement for the access easement for the water line, and submit a copy of the agreement to the
Department of Planning Services prior to recording the plat.
Cristie Nicklas moved to add language to Development Standard#6. Mike Miller seconded the motion.
The Vice-Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Bryant
Gimlin,yes;Man Marrs,yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes; Jack Epple, yes;
Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Q ) 75
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
January 19, 1999
Page 3
The Vice-Chair asked Mr. Hunt if he was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Mr. Hunt stated both himself and Mr.Wiedeman have reviewed them and are in agreement.
Cristie Nicklas asked if they needed to address the septic system on the outlot. Lee Morrison said that this
is a unique situation because this is a commercial use, but is being used for the agricultural community, (and
is one lot out of several being used this way). The use is for a garage, and is set up so that someone cannot
come back and use it for a more intensive use, without going back through the PUD process. Lee said if they
do approve, they would not be setting any precedent on the septic requirement.
Fred Walker asked about the agricultural outlot being non-buildable,and if there could be further development.
Julie explained that there has been discussion on this, and that at some point somebody could come back
and reapply for another resubdivision of the property. Lee said the way this application is set up, the
agricultural out lot would have to go through applying for further application, or be addressed through
covenants or a conservation easement.
Arlan Marrs moved that Case Z-519, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards, with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval, with the understanding that Section 64.3.1.2, regarding septic systems in a PUD for a garage, will
not violate the intent of the section. Cristie Nicklas seconded the motion.
The Vice-Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Arlan
Marrs, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Jack Epple,
yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: 3rd AmUSR-248
APPLICANT: Colorado Groundwater Resource Services/Varra Companies
PLANNER: Ben Patton
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW4 of Section 31, T3N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: 3rd Amendment to a Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for
a Solid Waste Disposal.
LOCATION: Approximately 1 mile north of WCR 26; approximately 1 mile west of WCR 15.
Ben Patton, Department of Planning Services, asked that Case 3rd AmUSR-248, be continued indefinitely.
This requested continuance was prompted by the Weld County Health Department, which notified both the
Department of Planning Services and the applicant that further testing and subsequent approval by the State
of Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment will be required prior to Weld County review and
approval.
The Vice-Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Cristie Nicklas moved to continue Case 3rd AmUSR-248, indefinitely. Mike Miller seconded the motion.
The Vice-Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Arlan
Marrs,yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Jack Epple,
yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
licluS 75
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
January 19, 1999
Page 4
CASE NUMBER: USR-1209
APPLICANT: Jim and Judy Reynolds
PLANNER: Ben Patton
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NE4 of Section 32, T4N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review permit for a house moving
business and outdoor storage.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to WCR 38-1/2, approximately '/2 mile east of US 85
Ben Patton, Department of Planning, presented Case USR-1209. Ben stated the Department of Planning is
recommending approval of the application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Ben then read the recommendation into the record. Ben stated that they are proposing a new Development
Standard which would state that outdoor storage shall be adequately screened from view from all public rights
of way.
Mike Miller asked if there were any provisions to limit storage of homes on the site. Ben stated that no homes
will be stored, just the equipment that will be used to move the homes, and there are no provisions.
Jim Reynolds, applicant, had a question about the screening requirement, and what will be required. Ben
explained they need to comply with the operation and design standards in Section 24.5.1.0 of the Zoning
Ordinance. Ben said although this operation is similar to an agricultural facility, it is not agricultural materials,
therefore the screening will be required. Mr. Reynolds said that he has some problems with the screening,
as a neighbor farms around his property, and is concerned fencing or shrubs may interfere with his farming.
Mike Miller asked what type of equipment will be stored. Mr. Reynolds said he will have I-beams, trucks, and
blocking, and stated that he does not store homes on his property, and would agree to put this into the
conditions.
Ben Patton explained that a landscaping plan is required to be submitted to the Department of Planning,which
is reviewed and approved. Ben added that the screening would not be required for the entire site, but just of
the area being used for storage. Ben stated he had made a site visit, and did not see any problems with
having room for screening on the site, still allowing access.
Mr. Reynolds also asked about the parking plan. Ben explained that this will also be submitted and reviewed
by the Planning Department and Public Works, to ensure vehicles coming to and from the site will have
adequate parking,which Ben said there is enough parking on his site that would not require an engineer being
hired.
Mike Miller commented that he is familiar with house moving operations, and feels that the screening
requirement is not necessary with the type of equipment Mr. Reynolds is using, which is very similar to farm
equipment. Mike stated this may be an unnecessary burden on the property owners.
The Vice-Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
The Vice-Chair asked Mr. Reynolds if he was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards, with the exception on the concern of screening. Mr. Reynolds stated he was in agreement.
Arlan Marrs asked about the screening issue, and asked Mr. Reynolds if some fencing and landscaping
around the storage area will create any problems for him. Mr. Reynolds stated that it wouldn't be such a
problem for him, but his concern is with the problem it could create with his neighbor. Arlan said if they do
not require screening for the entire outside boundary of the property, but just the area dedicated for storage,
would he have a problem. Mr. Reynolds said if it was screening from the view from Hwy 85, he would not
have a problem, and it would be no more than 100 feet.
c,*1" 7 S
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
January 19, 1999
Page 5
Fred Walker commented that he agrees that the landscaping requirement is asking too much, and the
applicant has stated he has invested his life savings in the piece of property, and the county is now holding
him back.
Arlan Marrs commented that he agrees that the requirement can go too far at times, but to keep in mind future
uses of the surrounding property. If this use is not screened, it creates problems down the road. But if the
applicant feels that he can handle the extra burden, then it would be appropriate in this case.
Jack Epple commented that he feels the Department of Planning needs to give Mr. Reynolds leniency on the
appropriate type of screening.
Ben Patton explained that the landscaping plan is up to the applicant to propose what they wish for screening,
and Planning will evaluate the plan and decide whether the plan is adequate.
Mr. Reynolds had an aerial photo of his property explaining there are roads all around his property, creating
buffers, and would not have a problem screening, but does not want to block any accesses from anyone.
Monica Daniels-Mika, Director of Planning, asked the Board to consider when looking at these types of
screening plans, that while they may or may not feel comfortable with them, that if an applicant has any
outdoor storage equipment, and someone decided to turn them in, at this time it creates a violation in the
ordinance. Although they may not choose to include it in the ordinance, and it goes to a violation, the Board
of County Commissioners will make the screening something that happens. Monica said the department is
judicious on what they accept for screening, and allow flexibility to the applicant. Outdoor storage may not
be something everyone wants to look at, and if can be taken care of through the land use process, or violation
process, and the Planning process is a more pro-active way.
Fred Walker asked that this case be a test case to see if anyone complains.
Monica said to pick and choose which standards should be applied to which cases is not something Planning
would want to participate in. If as a Board they do not feel that screening is merited, they can make a
recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to stand behind it when staff has to explain why they
made the recommendation.
Fred asked what the use of the property was prior to the application. Monica explained that it was a recorded
exemption lot used as a regular residential parcel with no commercial activities on it.
Mike Miller stated that his concern was that Mr. Reynolds is going to be storing equipment on his property as
outside storage, a farmer next to him who can park equipment on his property that is practically identical. How
can you draw a line and say that a farmer can have a truck with a trailer parked in back and be legal, and not
be legal for the same truck and trailer on property next to it. Monica said she is not sure this example is
applicable,and that they would look at a derelict vehicle. Monica said she just wanted to encourage the Board
that it is their zoning ordinance, and there is a definition in the ordinance that defines a use that is allowed in
the agricultural community. They are correct that there is a lot of ag stuff out there that does not look good
that is exempt, and if it is commercial in nature, it is looked at differently because of the ordinance. Monica
suggested that they look at Section 30 of the zoning ordinance and look at the definition of what constitutes
a non-commercial junk yard, instead of trying to piece meal every application to fit to what the ordinance needs
to be,then they need to change the ordinance. If they want to make a recommendation to the Commissioners
that all outdoor storage should be treated the same, then her question is to screen it or not screen it.
Mike Miller commented he was not saying that all outdoor storage should be considered the same, but if the
application is approved without screening and is sold down the road and changed in nature, that person would
have to go back through the process. Monica explained that they would because the permit is specific and
runs with the land for the use. Mike stated that with this specific use where the equipment being use is very
similar to farm equipment down the road, are they out of line to waive the screening requirement. Monica said
that is her recommendation that if they can justify in their motion where in the zoning ordinance it supports
them to do so, they can carry it onto the Board of County Commissioners.
qqaol 7'S'
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
January 19, 1999
Page 6
Bryant Gimlin asked if he understood that staff has said they are willing to take a look at a screening plan so
that the applicant will not have to put a lot of money into it,and the applicant has indicated it would not be too
great of a financial burden for the area he has to work with. Ben stated this is correct and they are not asking
for the entire property to be screened, and will review the plans.
Jack Epple added that he feels that it is not a question of whether screening is needed or not needed on this
application, and that a reasonable screening plan would make sense; however, there are other applications
that meet the same commercial use that screening needs to be done, and does not want to set a precedent.
Ben added a Development Standard that said that no storage of homes shall appear on site.
Arlan Marrs moved that Case USR-1209, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the motion.
The Vice-Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Arlan
Marrs,yes;Cristie Nicklas,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes; Jack Epple,yes;
Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: Z-520
APPLICANT: Moriah Estates/Jim Scott
PLANNER: Scott Ballstadt
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SW4 of Section 4, T6N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Planned Unit Development Change of Zone for 24 Estate zoned lots on 64.88 acres.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to WCR 72 and approximately 1/4 mile east of Hwy 257.
Scott Ballstadt, Department of Planning, gave new comments to replace the preliminary comments. Scott
stated that the Department of Planning is recommending denial of the application. Scott then read the
recommendation into the record, and discussed consistency with surrounding developments, comparing
densities of other county approved subdivisions as follows: lot sizes in Shiloh Estates range from 2.12 to 17.41
acres containing 14 lots on 75.5 acres for an overall gross density of 5.39 acres. Lot sizes in Gander Valley
PUD range from 5.6 to 40.48 acres containing 5 lots on 64.7 acres for an overall gross density of 7.23 acres.
However, Moriah Estates proposes 1 acre lots containing 24 lots on 64.88 acres for an overall gross density
of 2.70. According to the Windsor Planning Dept., North Shores, which was developed through the Town of
Windsor, contains 2.5 acre lots.
Jim Scott, applicant, explained the"cluster"concept of the development, and that he chose this because of
the design, layout, and use of open space. Mr. Scott then went through the reasons for denial, #2A-#2H,
giving explanations.
2A. Mr. Scott explained that this section states the proposal is within Windsors urban growth
area. Mr. Scott said that due to a lack of an intergovernmental agreement, the proposal is
not within the Windsor UGB. However;Windsor does consider the parcel to be within their
urban growth area in their Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Scott contends that the issue of whether
they are within the UGB or not, is outweighed by one important fact, and that is that the
parcel is directly adjacent to the Town of Windsor's incorporated boundary. The Weld
County Comprehensive Plan allows for urban scale development in this circumstance, along
with numerous language in the Comp Plan which directs that urban scale development takes
place in close proximity to a municipality.
Cristie Nicklas asked Mr. Scott if he does not think that urban scale development should be expected to use
public water and sewer. Mr. Scott stated he will be addressing water and sewer later, but that yes there are
provisions, and that they can show that services are being provided.
99023 75
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
January 19, 1999
Page 7
• 2B. Mr. Scott talked about density, and the consistency with surrounding developments. Mr.
Scott said that it is true that due to the cluster style development, that the lot sizes are smaller
than the surrounding developments, but that the density is very much consistent. Mr. Scott
said that out of the surrounding developments, which vary from one residence per 13.67
acres, to the one residence per 2.53 acres,with the majority of the lots, 151 available, out of
a total of 170 lots, are of higher density than what is proposed at Moriah Estates,which is one
residence per 2.7 acres. In their observation, residence within a typical 2.5 acres subdivision
with homes and septic systems, are confined to the less than one acre. In Moriah, the
balance of the land is going to the preserved as open space.
Man Marrs asked about density of the 151 lots out of 170 lots,what he meant by this. Mr. Scott said of the
six subdivisions in the area, there is a total of 170 lots, some developed through the county, some through
Windsor. 151 of the lots have a greater density than what is being proposed by Moriah. Although the lots are
bigger in the surrounding subdivisions,the open space of Moriah makes the density compatible. North Shores
density,developed through the Town of Windsor, is 2.63 acres,with a couple other subdivisions having larger
lots. Mr. Scott stated that overall Moriah is very compatible.
Mike Miller asked what the benefit of having one acre lots over 2.5 acres lots. Mr. Scott explained that they
plan on clustering the lots into smaller one acre parcels, and the remainder used for open space. In a typical
2.5 acre lot subdivision, people want the open and rural feeling, but are inclined to the take care of it. By
making the lots smaller, the lots will be maintained well, and the open space being planted into grass/hay, this
will be maintained by the homeowners association.
2C. Mr. Scott talked about annexing into Windsor, and the history. When they began to consider
the parcel for development, they had the choice of pursing annexation, or through the Weld
County guidelines. At this time they began inquiring, and Windsor was just finishing their new
comprehensive plan. At this time they had mixed favorable acceptance of the proposal, and
within the next few weeks a draft was approved, not including their parcel, making it ineligible
for annexation. After application was made to the Weld County at the Sketch Plan, through
a referral from the Town of Windsor, they were informed they were now inside the urban
growth boundary area. Windsor has had ample time to annex, and have not.
2D. Mr. Scott addressed the water and sewer issue, and entered into the record an agreement
from North Weld Water. Each lot withing the subdivision will have a primary leach field site,
as well as a secondary leach field located within the open space area. The Geological
Survey has raised three issues pertaining to the soils. They have performed two sets of
investigations, one in February and one in September, at the end of the irrigation season.
Perc tests at thirteen sites have been conducted,with 100%of the sites supports leach fields,
with the worst being 60 minutes per inch, occurring at only one location. As to the shallow
ground water, soils investigation showed no ground water high enough that would affect
septic systems. And on shallow bedrock, the three sites that ran shallow, they are all located
in what is to be open space.
Man Marrs asked about the secondary site for the leach field being located in the open space area, and who
actually owns the open space. Mr. Scott stated that it will be owned by the Homeowners Association. Arlan
then asked Lee Morrison if it is acceptable to have a secondary leach field in an open space area. Lee said
that it is possible, and the Health Department has done so in some existing failed systems, not new
developments, and is not an ideal circumstance. Scott Ballstadt stated that although the covenants do not
include the easements into the open space for leach fields, the applicant has been working with the Health
Department, and they would be required to have some type of easement for the purpose of the leach fields.
Mr. Scott stated that he was in agreement with the requirements, and the easements will also be indicated
on the plat map.
gda? 75
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
January 19, 1999
Page 8
Cristie Nicklas asked why the test were done in February and September. Mr. Scott explained they began
to explore the parcel, and a concern from the Health Department was what the ground water level would be
after irrigation seasons. This is why they chose September, one week after irrigation. Cristie stated that she
lived in an area with great fluctuation of ground water, with the highest being in April, May and June. Fred
Walker said that he has grown up in the area and knows the piece of land, and there are no wells in the area,
and that the area is all surface irrigated, and in his opinion would be the highest water time.
Fred Walker then asked Mr. Scott out of the four subdivisions in the area, how many are on septics. Mr. Scott
stated all of them. Fred then asked Mr. Scott about a newly proposed subdivision in the area and a petition
from residents stating that septic systems were fine, and that what Mr. Scott is asking for in no more different
from the new subdivision that Windsor will probably approve.
Mr. Scott explained that most of the surrounding area is under septic systems, and it is highly unlikely that
there will be resources to bring sewer into the area, and Windsor has looked at this being an area of septic
systems.
Fred Walker then stated that this piece of land is not highly productive irrigated agricultural land, although it
has been irrigated and grown crops.
2E. Mr. Scott talked about the bus stop requirement of either a pull off or circular being needed.
Mr. Scott stated that he has no problems with any of these issues.
2F. Mr. Scott stated that he feels that they can come to an agreement with the County regarding
street and highway facilities.
2G. Mr. Scott addressed the issue with the Geological Survey issue on the required report, and
since they have met the Weld County Health Department requirements, did not think he
needed the report, but have since gone ahead and had the report done. Again, the 60 mpi
was the worst rate that was only found on one of thirteen parcels.
Fred Walker asked Mr. Scott if the perc test becomes an issue, how would he feel about engineered septic
systems. Mr. Scott said that per the Health Department, as a rule, wants to make sure that the sites will have
standard leach fields, and engineered systems would be held to a minimum, but would not have a problem
with it. Mr. Scott said his residence is served by an engineered system now, and although it is not the most
desirable in terms of expense, they certainly function within the County guidelines.
Trevor Jiricek, Health Department, explained that no more than 25%of lots in a subdivision can have evapo-
transpiration systems, and 75% conventional, as per the ordinance, not saying that you cannot have more
than 25%of septics in a subdivision being engineered designed. Mr. Scott explained that he understood this
was one of the guidelines used in evaluating the overall soils on a parcel of land.
2H. Regarding the uses allowed within the PUD guidelines and whether Estate zoning is
appropriate. Mr. Scott explained that Moriah has a density of 2.7 acres per residence, being
smaller, and that PUD Section 2.3, allows for variation of the bulk requirement of lot size.
In conclusion, Mr. Scott stated that the proposal of Moriah Estates, although somewhat out of the norm, is
consistent with land use in the area, provides for all services needed for the residents, provides a pleasant
atmosphere for residents and homeowners, and utilizes a design which maximizes benefits of open space
for the community.
The Vice-Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
9(k ��
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
January 19, 1999
Page 9
Phillip Ditbumer, resident of Shiloh Estates, spoke for application. Mr. Ditburner stated he knows of at least
three other families that also support the subdivision. His concern is that if this development is not approved,
that eventually the area will be annexed into Windsor, with a much more dense development than what Mr.
Scott is proposing. Mr. Ditburner stated that what Mr. Scott is proposing will consistently maintain the quality
of life in the area.
Manuel Pineda,owner of surrounding property, spoke for application. Mr. Pineda said that the soil district has
rated the soil as highly erodible,and stated that this is not prime agricultural land. Since the Shiloh subdivision
has gone in, the erosion has decreased by 90% on the first 75 acres. Mr. Pineda stated that the proposed
development is compatible with the surrounding area. His farm is surrounded by development, and hopes
that the commission considers recommending approval of his application.
Arian Marrs asked about the center open space area, and was their access from the outside lots. Mr. Scott
explained that there is access from a trail system, an easement created for the Windsor canal, and from WCR
72. Arlan asked about the Windsor canal, and what kind of provisions were in the covenants to protect access
from occurring. Mr. Scott explained that they have been in discussion with them, and a formal easement has
been agreed to, and it has been stated they do not want the canal fenced. The area is about 20 feet deep,
and heavily bushed covered, and the feeling is that this will prevent a lot of traffic from down in the canal.
Arlan asked if there was a specific statement in the covenants or notes on the plat regarding the canal, and
parents being responsible for their children. Mr. Scott said they have not specifically put any language in
addressing parents being responsible for children, but have put language in the covenants with regards to all
of the irrigation ditches in the area regarding concerns on theft of the water, and a fine being imposed for such
theft. Mr. Scott said it would be a good idea to make the new residents of the area more aware that there is
danger to children, and would be agreeable to any language.
Manuel Pineda, stated that two years ago, a couple of children fell into the Larimer-Weld canal, and came
under a lot of scrutiny because the canal was not fenced. The canal runs about 40 miles, and he does not
believe that there is anywhere that an area is not fenced,that children will not get in. Mr. Pineda also said that
of the 35-40 years he has been there, he has yet to see the Windsor canal do any maintenance through a mile
of the property. Mr. Pineda also stated that the Windsor canal has right-of-way, but the canal is as wide as
80' right-of-way in places and that this is a dilemma with irrigation companies and with all the growth coming
in and houses along canals and right-of-ways and ditches, it's a problem.
Fred Walker commented that he feels the application fits in well with the area, and the only difference is the
cluster development, and it is well suited.
The Vice-Chair asked if anyone wanted to make a motion to deny. No such motion.
Scott then passed out conditions for approval for review, and stated that if approved he did have an additional
condition he would like to add.
The Vice-Chair asked Mr. Scott if he had any questions regarding the conditions. Mr. Scott asked for
clarification on#8, regarding the primary and secondary leach sites, and the Health Department has indicated
they would like both of the primary sites reserved,and he feels that they have enough space set aside for both
sites. He also asked about the requirement of no landscaping be allowed on the secondary site, and it may
be excessive.
Trevor Jiricek explained that they have asked for the primary site that was not used as well as the secondary
site, be preserved. Trevor said this'may have been overkill, but the secondary site is in an area that will be
farmed and planted in hay and cut several times a year, and since preliminary work from the Geological
Survey indicated some shallow bedrock and ground water which could facilitate an above ground mounded
type system, and whoever farms the open space may not be thrilled with it in the middle of the field. In ten
years if the lot develops, the secondary spot may be the only spot left.
The Vice-Chair asked Mr. Scott if he was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Mr. Scott stated he was in agreement.
9961 7s
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
January 19, 1999
Page 10
Scott added that the following Condition of Approval#4D5, be added to say: Both primary leach fields and
secondary leach field for each individual lot shall be protected by easement. Such easement shall be
delineated on the plat as well as being included in the subdivision covenants.
Arlan Marrs moved to add Condition of Approval#405. Fred Walker seconded the motion.
The Vice-Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Arlan
Marrs, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Jack Epple,
yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Fred Walker moved that Case Z-520, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
attached Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Mike Miller seconded the motion.
Cristie Nicklas commented that she feels this needs to be annexed to the Town of Windsor.
The Vice-Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Arlan
Marrs, yes; Cristie Nickles, no; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Jack Epple, no;
Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 4:05
Respectfully sub d
Wendi Inloes
Secretary
7.5
Hello