HomeMy WebLinkAbout992379 SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, September 7, 1999
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday, September 7, 1999, in the
Weld County Public Health/Planning Building, (Room 210), 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. The
meeting was called to order by Chair, Fred Walker, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
J
Fred Walker Present j
Cristie Nicklas Present
John Folsom Present
Jack Epple Present
Bruce Fitzgerald Present
Michael Miller Present
Stephan Mokray Present
Arlan Marrs Present
Bryant Gimlin Present
Also Present Sheri Lockman, Planner, Ben Patton, Planner, Kim Ogle, Planner, Department of Planning
Services; Sheble McConnellogue, Health Department; Don Carroll, Public Works; Bruce Barker, County
Attorney; Cyndy Giauqe, Assistant County Attorney; Wendi Inloes, Secretary.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on August 17, 1999,
was approved as read.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1237
APPLICANT: Loveland Ready Mix
PLANNER: Ben Patton
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NE4 of Section 3, T4N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Use by Special Review for a Gravel Mining Operation and a Concrete Batch Plant.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to State Highway 257; approximately'/mile north of State Highway 60.
Ben Patton, Department of Planning, asked that Case USR-1237 be continued indefinitely, per the applicants
request as continuing negotiations for annexation is still pending.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against the continuance.
No one wished to speak.
Jack Epple moved that Case USR-1237 , be continued indefinitely. Mike 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; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: Z-530
APPLICANT: Daniel Ochsner do Denver Canadian
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-2151; Being Part of Section 21, T3N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Minor Subdivision Change of Zone from Agricultural to Estate for 5 lots.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Weld County Road 19 and less than '/, mile north of Highway 66.
9rN�/ CP
�s'(�yf .'-� 992379
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
September 7, 1999
Page 2
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services, presented Case Z-530. Sheri 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. Sheri clarified that the site is not classified as prime, according to the USDA
map.
For the record, Condition #D.3, the last line reads Weld Count Road 53, and should be Weld County Road
19.
Roger Kenny, representative for the applicant, said that they were in agreement with the Conditions, and any
changes that are asked of them, they are willing to do. Mr. Kenny also clarified that the land east of the
irrigation ditch is not prime farm ground, and land west is considered prime.
John Folsom, said he understands that there is a currently a permit, USR-338, in existence on the parcel, and
asked if the land is economically feasible for sand and gravel mining. Mr. Kenny said he was not certain as
that is not his field of expertise, but they will be vacating the permit. Sheri explained that the permit was for
mining to the west of the site and that they did do a little mining, but the site of the minor subdivision was not
an area designated as a good mining area.
Mr. Kenny said that they met with the Town of Platteville quite a few months ago, and they looked on the
application favorably, and now they do not.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Roger Lowe, representative for Patina Oil and Gas, said they are not opposed to the proposal, but do want
to ensure that they have access to several wells located near the development. Mr. Lowe said he has been
working with Mr. Ochsner on access, and sees no problems.
The following surrounding property owners, Cynthia Parker, Lila and Kenneth Mayer, Bruce Rippe, Nancy
Fisher, Linda Pyat, Roberta Wilson, and Jane Ann Johnson Smith, had several concerns, and spoke in
opposition of the proposal concerning the following:
* Concern with prime agricultural land being taken out of production.
* The area is surrounded by working farms, and development puts the farmers in risk to continue to
farm.
* Non prime farm ground can always be used for some other agricultural use.
* Owners of lots in the development will complain about odor, noise and traffic.
* Asking for a bus stop will place children in danger, as now they will have to cross WCR 19, where as
before they did not.
* Becoming less rural and more urban.
* Right-to-Farm covenant needs to be communicated and understood by potential buyers of the lots.
* Since the development is next to WCR 19, they would like to see a 300-foot setback for the homes.
* The difficulty of aerial sprayers to continue to spray crops due to complaints from people.
* The expansion of operations, and the future problems this may create.
* Increase in traffic, semi traffic coming in and out of the adjacent property, and concerns with night
driving.
* The irrigation ditch and the drainage of waste water that may become a problem.
* The Town of Platteville has worked on the Comp Plan, not yet in place, and the citizens have spoken
loudly on what they would like to see, and did not want to see development, but an agricultural buffer.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
September 7, 1999
Page 3
The proposal does not comply with the standards in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan,
particularly Policy 7 and 9: page 2-4 Goal 3: page 2-4 Policy 3: and page 3-10 Policy 3 and 5.
Placing developments closer to Towns and Cities.
Sheri explained that the Right-to-Farm covenant will be placed on the plat, and in the covenants. Bruce
Barker, County Attorney, added that covenants would not be between the lot owners and the neighbors, but
between the lot owners and the developer. Bruce added that protection provided by Colorado Law, is located
in State Statute 3.5 101 and 102, provides for an immunity to a nuisance action against the new or adjacent
land owner that has an existing agricultural operation. To qualify for the immunity, the operation must have
been there for at least one year and operated in a non-negligent fashion. The County's Right to Farm
covenant is more informational and not binding.
Mike Miller asked Bruce if the immunity nuisance would apply to expanding operations. Bruce said that when
there is an expansion, it does not provide immunity for the existing use.
John Folsom asked about the ditch, and if it was a lateral irrigation ditch, was it controlled by a ditch company,
and could a culvert be put in. Kenneth Mayer said he did not believe it was owned by a ditch company and
is probably a right of way since it has been used for more than 18 years. Mr. Mayer also did not believe there
would be any problems putting a culvert in.
Fred Walker said he has looked at the property, and that it is a good place for the homes, and that a private
owner has the right to apply for the application.
John Folsom commented that he feels that a portion of the land is prime farm ground.
Stephan Mokray asked Sheri about and Intergovernmental Agreement with the Town of Platteville. Sheri
explained that currently there is no IGA that includes this particular area. Bruce Barker added that they
received no request to date. Arlan Marrs asked how Platteville's proposal to change boundaries affects the
current IGA. Bruce explained that in order to change the boundaries, there would need to be a concurrence
with both Platteville and the Board of County Commissioners to alter the area.
Stephan Mokray asked Bruce Barker that if an IGA was in place including this property, would the County
respect that and deny the application. Bruce said the proposal would need to fall under the definition of urban
development, and Sheri has said in her comments it does not, and it would depend on the definition as written
in the IGA.
Roger Kenny, representative, addressed some of the concerns. He explained why they placed the building
envelopes closer to the road. Due to the ditch being at the bottom of the lots, a walkout lot, nice views, and
it would be an ideal situation for the outlot to be used for 4-H type activities. Mr. Kenny also added that the
soil classification on top of the hill is 78 which is not real good.
Stephan Mokray asked about the ditch being a hazard to children. Mr. Kenny said that it is not a large ditch,
it is a concrete drainage slab. Dan Ochsner, applicant, added that the ditch is only about 2 feet deep and that
water only runs through during irrigation.
Mr. Kenny also addressed the bus stop, and said that this was a condition placed by Planning, and they could
either put it in or not put it in. They are also being required to substantially buffer along WCR 19, enough that
traffic lights are not an issue coming from the operation across the road from the proposal.
Arlan Marrs said he assumed that the entire acreage of the lots were above on the higher level, and he
understands now that part of the lots will actually be on the down side of the irrigation ditch. How in the future
do they plan to get the irrigation to the rest of the farm with the irrigation running through each of the lots. Mr.
Kenny said there a number of mechanisms, and the first would be an easement. Arlan said he sees future
problems if the ditch is not moved back.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
September 7, 1999
Page 4
Cristie Nicklas asked for clarification on if the ditch was an irrigation ditch or drainage ditch. Dan Oschner
explained that the property to the west is irrigated by the ditch. Cristie asked if it was row irrigated or pivot.
Mr. Oschner said it was row irrigated. Cristie was concerned on how the row irrigation is going to work if they
plan on letting the home owner fence it. Mr. Oschner said they may possibly sprinkler irrigate or putting in a
sod farm.
Arlan Marrs asked how many acres are under irrigation. Mr. Oschner said there is approximately 35 acres
to the west currently irrigated by the ditch, and the remaining acreage is irrigated by a separate ditch.
Mr. Oschner added that he would like to ask for approval of the application as he has complied with all the
County regulations, and believes the development will be a beautiful subdivision.
Jack Epple asked what the setback was currently for the homes. Mr. Kenny said the setback is currently
about 115 feet to the front of the building envelope, but does not see the homes being built that close and may
be back an additional 40 to 50 feet for the view.
The Chair asked Mr. Kenny if they were in agreement with the Conditions. Mr. Kenny stated they were in
agreement.
Cristie Nicklas added that she has concerns with the irrigation ditch being in the middle of the lots and not
being fenced.
Jack Epple said he also has concems, and the applicant has followed the regulations. In the past they have
dealt with expansions of feed lots, with subdivisions being built across the road, and have denied the ag use
because of residential problems, and this could become a problem in the future. He would like to see the
applicant push the homes back as far as they can go.
Mike Miller said they are in a situation where the applicant has followed the rules, but extenuating
circumstances are going to cause problems with the expansion of operations and the development. He also
feels the intersection of WCR 19 and Hwy 66, in his opinion, is one of the worst in Weld County.
John Folsom said that he would question the project conforming with the Comp Plan, and is not satisfied with
the mining operation that was once there, and possible mineral deposit left behind.
Fred Walker asked Sheri if there was enough land above the ditch to compress the envelopes and keep them
on top, and was there an acreage requirement. Sheri said there was no requirement for the building
envelopes, and is not sure what types of homes are being put in, and there may be some problems with lot
sizes if changed.
John Folsom asked what the minimum lot size was. Sheri said it was 2-1/2 acres for Estate zoning, and since
this is a minor subdivision, there is no variance.
Sheble McConnellogue, Health Department, added that if they are going to move the homes closer to the
ditch, she had concems with the septic systems, since they would need to be on the back side of the homes,
and there needs to be a 100 feet from the ditch.
Mike Miller moved to deny Case Z-530. Cristie Nicklas 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; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Fred Walker, no. Motion carried.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
September 7, 1999
Page 5
CASE NUMBER: USR-1241
APPLICANT: Eaton Country Club
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The N2 of Section 30, T7N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a 3000 square foot
addition to Eaton Country Club.
LOCATION: 37661 WCR 39, Eaton, Colorado.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning, presented Case USR-1241. Kim read the recommendation into the
record, and stated that the Department is recommending approval of the application, along with the Conditions
of Approval and Development Standards.
Don Chadwick, representative of the application, said there has been no controversy, and that the clubhouse
and golf course have been there prior to zoning, and now that they are expanding the clubhouse, they need
a variance.
Fred Walker asked what exactly the permit covers. Kim said that it covers the entire 125-acre parcel, and
although they are asking for the 3000-foot expansion, they are including the clubhouse and golf course in the
permit.
Sheble McConnellogue, Health Department,asked Mr. Chadwick about the service shop and shed, and if they
will be changing oil and working on vehicles. Mr. Chadwick said that it is a maintenance shed that is on the
other side of the golf course, and that there will be no change in the use.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Jack Epple moved that Case USR-1241, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, excused; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant
Gimlin, excused; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Cristie Nickles, yes; Fred Walker,yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
Respectfully subm. d
taiticei
Wendi Inloes
Secretary
Hello