HomeMy WebLinkAbout20171136.tiffBEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Michael Wailes, that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County
Planning Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOCATION:
PUDZ16-0002
LAWRENCE & JACQUELYN BEBO
CHRIS GATHMAN
CHANGE OF ZONE FROM THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT TO THE
PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) ZONE DISTRICT FOR 9 RESIDENTIAL
LOTS WITH E (ESTATE) ZONE USES ALONG WITH AN 58 O2 -ACRE
AGRICULTURAL OUTLOT (TRACT A) THAT WILL BE NON -BUILDABLE FOR
RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES ALONG WITH COMMON OPEN SPACE.
LOT A AMRE-3669: LOCATED IN PART OF THE E2SE4, ALONG WITH THE
NE4SW4 AND THE W2SE4 TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE LITTLE THOMPSON
RIVER, ALL LOCATED IN SECTION 19, T4N. R68W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD
COUNTY, COLORADO.
WEST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 3 AND 0.5 MILES SOUTH OF STATE
HIGHWAY 56.
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 27-5-30 of the
Weld County Code.
2. The submitted materials are in compliance with Section 27-6-120 of the Weld County Code as
follows:
A. Section 27-6-120.8.6.a - The proposal is consistent with any intergovernmental agreement in
effect influencing the PUD and Chapters 19 (Coordinated Planning Agreements). Chapter 22
(Comprehensive Plan). Chapter 23 (Zoning). Chapter 24 (Subdivision) and Chapter 26
(Mixed Use Development) of the Weld County Code.
A. R.Goal 1. Ensure that adequate services and facilities are currently available or reasonably
obtainable to serve the residential development or district.
The proposed PUD is to be served by the Little Thompson Water District.
Section 22-1-120 C. R.Goal 3. Consider the compatibility with surrounding land uses. natural
site features, nearby municipalities' comprehensive plans and general residential growth
trends when evaluating new residential development proposals.
The lots sizes and proposed agricultural outlot are compatible with the surrounding area.
Section 27-6-120.8.6. b - The uses which would be allowed in the proposed PUD will conform
with the Performance Standards of the PUD Zone District contained in Article II. Chapter 27
of the Weld County Code.
Section 27-2-40. Bulk requirements — The applicant has chosen to adhere to the bulk
requirements of the E (Estate) Zone District for the nine (9) residential lots. The proposed lots
will comply with the use and bulk standards of the E (Estate) Zone District.
The applicant is proposing that Tract D will adhere to the use (uses by right, accessory uses
and uses by special review) and bulk standard requirements of the A (Agricultural) Zone
District.
Section 27-6-80 B 7 states: "All urban scale development PUDs containing a residential
element shall provide for a fifteen -percent common open space allocation, unless othe se
stated in Chapter 26 of this Code."
RESOLUTION PUDZ16-0002
LAWRENCE & JACQUELYN BEBO
PAGE 2
Section 27-2-60 states "Common open space is defined as any usable parcel of land or water
unimproved and set aside, dedicated, designated or reserved for public or private use or for
the use and enjoyment of owners or occupants of land adjoining or neighboring such area.
Common open space includes landscape areas that are not occupied by buildings or uses
such as storage or service areas, private courtyards, parking lots and islands. In all PUD
districts, except for those containing residential uses, common open space may include
landscape setbacks adjacent to roadways. where the setbacks are not utilized as parking or
storage areas. The amount and type of common open space provided in a PUD Zone District
shall be proportional to the intensity of the zone districts called for in the PUD or uses
specified in the application, unless specifically delineated in Chapter 26. Common open
space shall be designed to be useful to the occupants and/or residents of the PUD Zone
District for recreational and scenic purposes. Common open space in the PUD Zone District
shall be owned and maintained in perpetuity by an organization established specifically for
such ownership and maintenance purposes.
This PUD is considered urban scale (even though it is only 9 lots) given its proximity to the
municipal boundaries of Berthoud and its location 1/4 mile from an existing 6 -Lot PUD
(Markham View Estates PUD).
Staff is recommending that common open space be provided for the PUD. Given the limited
number of lots proposed (9), that a separate outlot designated as open space be designated
but limit the total common open space to five -percent 5% of the total site (6.2 acres)
The applicant stated in their application that a 70 -foot landscape setback on each lot (to be
maintained by each individual property owner). The applicant revised their request at the
Planning Commission to indicate that they have revised their request to have at least 6.2
acres of open space.
Section 27-6-120.8.6. c - That the uses which would be permitted shall be compatible with the
existing or future development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing Zoning,
and with the future development as projected by Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code or
master plans of affected municipalities.
The proposed PUD is located within the 3 -mile referral area of the Town of Berthoud and the
Town of Mead. The property borders the municipal limits of Mead to the north and southwest.
It is also located within the Weld County/Mead Cooperative Planning Agreement boundary.
No referral response has been received from either Berthoud or Mead in regards to this
application. The Town of Berthoud did respond to the sketch plan application for this PUD
and indicated that the PUD was consistent with the Town of Berthoud Preferred Land Use
Map (Low Density Rural Residential). Staff reviewed the current Berthoud Preferred Land
Use Map and confirmed that the PUD property is still designated as Low Density Rural
Residential.
Section 27-6-120.8.6.d - That the PUD Zone District shall be serviced by an adequate water
supply and sewage disposal system in compliance with the Performance Standards in Article
I/ the Weld County Code.
The Weld County Department of Public and Environment, in their referral dated December 5,
2016 indicated that the proposed PUD has satisfied Chapter 27 in regards to sewer service.
The proposed PUD will be serviced by individual Septic Systems.
The proposed PUD will be serviced by a Little Thompson Water District. The County
Attorney's Office determined the water supply to be adequate after the applicant committed to
provide Handy Ditch shares to the Little Thompson Water District to meet the requirement of
the 5/31/2016 Little Thompson Water District water letter.
RESOLUTION PUDZ16-0002
LAWRENCE & JACQUELYN BEBO
PAGE 3
The Division of Water Resources, in their referral dated December 6, 2016, indicated that the
existing exempt well (permit #288016) on Tract D will either be plugged and abandoned or
must be included in an augmentation plan. The applicant has agreed in writing to plug and
abandon the existing exempt well on Tract D.
Section 27-6-120.8.6.e - That street or highway facilities providing access to the property are
adequate in functional classification. width. and structural capacity to meet the traffic
requirements of the uses of the proposed PUD Zone District.
County Road 3 is a gravel road and is designated on the Weld County Road Classification
Plan as a local road which requires 60 feet of right-of-way at full buildout. The applicant shall
delineate on the site plan the existing right-of-way. All setbacks shall be measured from the
edge of right-of-way. This road is maintained by Weld County.
Section 27-6-120. B. 6. f - An off -site road improvements agreement and an on -site
improvements agreement proposal is in compliance with Chapter 24 of the Weld County
Code as amended and a road improvements agreement is complete and has been
submitted, if applicable.
An Improvements Agreement and Road Maintenance Agreement is required prior to
recording the Final map for this site. Road maintenance including dust control. damage
repair, and triggers for improvements will be included.
Section 27-6-120. B. 6. g - That there has been compliance with the applicable requirements
contained in Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code regarding overlay districts. commercial
mineral deposits. and soil conditions on the subject site.
A portion of Tract D is located within the 100 -year floodplain.
Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to adhere to the fee structure of
the County -Wide Road Impact Fee Program_
Building Permits issued on the proposed lots, will be required to adhere to the fee structure of
the County Facility Fee and Drainage Impact Fee Programs.
Section 27-6-120.6.8.h - Consistency exists between the proposed zone district(s). uses. the
specific or conceptual development guide.
The applicant is requesting that this PUD be approved as a conceptual development vs. a
specific development. The applicant is requesting a waiver from the 15% common open
space requirement and is also requesting a 70 -foot landscape setback from edge of the
internal road right-of-way (the standard setback in the Estate Zone District is 20 -feet).
Staff is not in support of a complete waiver from the 15% common open space requirement
and recommends at least 5% of the site be designated as common open space.
A conceptual development requires a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners at
the final plan stage.
This approval recommendation is based upon compliance with Chapter 27 requirements.
The Change of Zone from (A) Agriculture to PUD with E (Estate) Zone Uses is conditional upon the following:
1. Prior to recording the Change of Zone plat:
A. The applicant shall provide the Weld County Department of Planning Services with a
Statement of Taxes from the Weld County Treasurer showing no delinquent taxes exist for
the original parcel. (Department of Planning Services)
RESOLUTION PUDZ16-0002
LAWRENCE & JACQUELYN BEBO
PAGE 4
A complete Drainage Narrative is required prior to recording the Change of Zone plat.
(Department of Planning Services -Engineer)
C. The applicant shall address the requirements of the Colorado Department of Transportation
(CDOT) as stated in their referral dated November 9, 2016. (CDOT)
An internal roadway design shall be submitted for review, showing radius of cul-de-sacs, plan
and profile drawings, proposed cross -sections, surface of proposed road, supporting
pavement study information, vehicular speeds and traffic signage. (Department of Planning
Services -Engineer)
The plat shall be amended to include the following:
1. All pages of the plat shall be labeled PUDZ16-0002. (Department of Planning
Services)
2. The applicant shall adhere to the plat requirements in preparation of the Change of
Zone plat per Section 23-2-690 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning
Services)
3. The Weld County's Right to Farm shall be placed on the plat, Appendix 22-E of the
Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
4. All recorded easements shall be shall be shown and dimensioned on the Change of
Zone plat. (Department of Planning Services. Department of Public Works)
5. County Road 3 is a paved road and is designated on the Weld County Road
Classification Plan as a local road which requires 60 feet of right-of-way at full
buildout. The applicant shall delineate on the site plan the existing right-of-way. All
setbacks shall be measured from the edge of right-of-way. This road is maintained
by Weld County. (Department of Public Works)
6. County Road 42.5 right-of-way (within the Town of Berthoud) shall be delineated on
the plat. (Department of Planning Services)
7. Show the floodplain and floodway (if applicable) boundaries on the map. Label the
floodplain boundaries with the FEMA Flood Zone and FEMA Map Panel Number or
appropriate study. (Department of Planning Services)
The Change of Zone is conditional upon the following and that each shall be placed on the
Change of Zone plat as notes prior to recording:
1 The site specific development plan is for a Change of Zone from (A) Agriculture to
PUD with 9 residential lots with E (Estate) Zone Uses along with a 58-.02 acre
Agricultural outlot (Tract -A) that will be non -buildable for residential purposes along
with Common Open Space as indicated in the application materials on file in the
Department of Planning Services and subject and governed by the Conditions of
Approval stated hereon and all applicable Weld County Regulations. (Department of
Planning Services)
2. The Bulk Standards Requirement as delineated in Section 23-3-440, for the Estate
Zone Districts shall be adhered to for Lots 1-9. (Department of Planning Services)
3. The Bulk Standards Requirement as delineated in Section 23-3-50 for the
Agricultural Zone District shall be adhered to, for Tract A with the exception of the 80
acre lot size requirement, for the Agricultural outlot. (Department of Planning
Services)
RESOLUTION PUDZ16-0002
LAWRENCE & JACQUELYN BEBO
PAGE 5
4. The Federal Emergency management Agency (FEMA) FIRM Community Panel Map
#08123C -1670E effective date January 20, 2016 delineated floodplain is to be
utilized as common open space and shall not be developed. Developed shall be
defined as: Any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including
but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining. dredging, filing, grading.
paving. excavation or drilling operations or storage of equipment or materials.
(Department of Planning Services - Engineer)
5. Water service may be obtained from the Little Thompson Water District.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
6. The parcel is currently not served by a municipal sanitary sewer system. Sewage
disposal may be by septic systems designed in accordance with the regulations of
the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control
Division and the Weld County Code in effect at the time of construction, repair,
replacement. or modification of the system. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
7. Language for the preservation and/or protection of the absorption field shall be
placed on the plat. The note shall state: Activity or use on the surface of the ground
over any part of the OWTS must be restricted to that which shall allow the system to
function as designed and which shall not contribute to compaction of the soil or to
structural loading detrimental to the structural integrity or capability of the component
to function as designed. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
8. During development of the site. all land disturbances shall be conducted so that
nuisance conditions are not created. If dust emissions create nuisance conditions,
at the request of Weld County Environmental Health Services, a fugitive dust control
plan must be submitted. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
9. If land development creates more than a 25 -acre contiguous disturbance. or
9xceeds 6 months in duration, the responsible party shall prepare a fugitive dust
control plan. submit an air pollution emissions notice application, and apply for a
permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
10. The historical flow patterns and runoff amounts on the site will be maintained.
(Department of Planning Services -Engineer)
11. Weld County is not responsible for the maintenance of onsite drainage related
features. (Department of Planning Services -Engineer)
12. A detailed floodplain study to establish base flood elevations may be required for
subdivision of or development on Tract A. (Department of Planning Services -
Engineer)
13. The property owner shall control noxious weeds on the site. (Department of Public
Works)
14. The access on the site shall be maintained to mitigate any impacts to the public road
including damages and/or offsite tracking. (Department of Public Works)
15. There shall be no parking or staging of vehicles on public roads. On -site parking
shall be utilized. (Department of Public Works)
16. A Flood Hazard Development Permit is required for all construction or development
occurring in the floodplain or floodway as delineated on Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) FIRM Community Panel Map #08123C -1670E
effective date January 20, 2016 (Little Thompson River Floodplain). Any
development shall comply with all applicable Weld County requirements. Colorado
Water Conservation Board requirements as described in Rules and Regulations for
Regulatory Floodplains in Colorado, and FEMA regulations and requirements as
described in 44 CFR parts 59, 60. and 65. The FEMA definition of development is
any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not
limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving,.
excavation, drilling operations. or storage of equipment and materials. (Department
of Planning Services - Floodplain)
RESOLUTION PUDZ16-0002
LAWRENCE & JACQUELYN BEBO
PAGE 6
17. FEMA's floodplain boundaries may be updated at any time by FEMA. Prior to the
start of any development activities, the owner should contact Weld County to
determine if the floodplain boundaries have been modified. (Department of Planning
Services)
18. The property owner shall be responsible for complying with the Performance
Standards of Chapter 27. Article II and Article VIII. of the Weld County Code.
(Department of Planning Services)
19. Personnel from Weld County Government shall be granted access onto the property
at any reasonable time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property
comply with the Development Standards stated herein and all applicable Weld
County regulations. (Department of Planning Services)
20. The site shall maintain compliance at all times with the requirements of the Weld
County Departments of Public Works. Public Health and the Environment. and
Planning Services, and adopted Weld County Code and Policies. (Department of
Planning Services)
21. The applicant shall comply with Section 27-8-50 Weld County Code. as follows:
Failure to submit a Planned Unit Development Final Plan - If a PUD Final Plan
application is not submitted within three (3) years of the date of the approval of the
PUD Zone District, the Board of County Commissioners shall require the landowner
to appear before it and present evidence substantiating that the PUD project has not
been abandoned and that the applicant possesses the willingness and ability to
continue with the submission of the PUD Final Plan. The Board may extend the date
for the submission of the PUD Final Plan application and shall annually require the
applicant to demonstrate that the PUD has not been abandoned. If the Board
determines that conditions or statements made supporting the original approval of
the PUD Zone District have changed or that the landowner cannot implement the
PUD Final Plan, the Board of County Commissioners may, at a public hearing
revoke the PUD Zone District and order the recorded PUD Zone District reverted to
the original Zone District. (Department of Planning Services)
22. The PUD Final Plan shall comply with all regulations and requirements of Chapter 27
of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
23. No development activity shall commence on the property, nor shall any building
permits be issued, until the final plan has been approved and recorded. This does
not apply to the existing residence on the site. (Department of Planning Services)
24 RIGHT TO EXTRACT MINERAL RESOURCES STATEMENT: Weld County has
some of the most abundant mineral resources, including, but not limited to. sand and
gravel, oil, natural gas, and coal. Under title 34 of the Colorado Revised Statutes,
minerals are vital resources because (a) the state's commercial mineral deposits are
essential to the state's economy: (b) the populous counties of the state face a critical
shortage of such deposits; and (c) such deposits should be extracted according to a
rational plan, calculated to avoid waste of such deposits and cause the least
practicable disruption of the ecology and quality of life of the citizens of the populous
counties of the state.
Mineral resource locations are widespread throughout the County and person
moving into these areas must recognize the various impacts associated with this
development. Often times. mineral resource sites are fixed to their geographical and
geophysical locations. Moreover, these resources are protected property rights and
mineral owners should be afforded the opportunity to extract the mineral resource.
RESOLUTION PUDZ16-0002
LAWRENCE & JACQUELYN BEBO
PAGE 7
25. WELD COUNTY'S RIGHT TO FARM: Weld County is one of the most productive
agricultural counties in the United States, typically ranking in the top ten counties in
the country in total market value of agricultural products sold. The rural areas of
Weld County may be open and spacious, but they are intensively used for
agriculture. Persons moving into a rural area must recognize and accept there are
drawbacks, including conflicts with long-standing agricultural practices and a lower
level of services than in town. Along with the drawbacks come the incentives which
attract urban dwellers to relocate to rural areas: open views, spaciousness, wildlife,
lack of city noise and congestion. and the rural atmosphere and way of life. Without
neighboring farms, those features which attract urban dwellers to rural Weld County
would quickly be gone forever.
Agricultural users of the land should not be expected to change their long-
established agricultural practices to accommodate the intrusions of urban users into
a rural area. Well -run agricultural activities will generate off -site impacts, including
noise from tractors and equipment; slow -moving farm vehicles on rural roads; dust
from animal pens, field work. harvest and gravel roads; odor from animal
confinement. silage and manure; smoke from ditch burning; flies and mosquitoes;
hunting and trapping activities; shooting sports. legal hazing of nuisance wildlife; and
the use of pesticides and fertilizers in the fields. including the use of aerial spraying.
It is common practice for agricultural producers to utilize an accumulation of
agricultural machinery and supplies to assist in their agricultural operations. A
concentration of miscellaneous agricultural materials often produces a visual
disparity between rural and urban areas of the County. Section 35-3.5-102. C.R.S.,
provides that an agricultural operation shall not be found to be a public or private
nuisance if the agricultural operation alleged to be a nuisance employs methods or
practices that are commonly or reasonably associated with agricultural production.
Water has been, and continues to be, the lifeline for the agricultural community. It is
unrealistic to assume that ditches and reservoirs may simply be moved "out of the
way" of residential development. When moving to the County. property owners and
residents must realize they cannot take water from irrigation ditches. lakes, or other
structures, unless they have an adjudicated right to the water.
Weld County covers a land area of approximately four thousand (4.000) square
miles in size (twice the size of the State of Delaware) with more than three thousand
seven hundred (3,700) miles of state and county roads outside of municipalities.
The sheer magnitude of the area to be served stretches available resources. Law
enforcement is based on responses to complaints more than on patrols of the
County, and the distances which must be traveled may delay all emergency
responses. including law enforcement, ambulance, and fire. Fire protection is
usually provided by volunteers who must leave their jobs and families to respond to
emergencies. County gravel roads. no matter how often they are bladed, will not
provide the same kind of surface expected from a paved road. Snow removal
priorities mean that roads from subdivisions to arterials may not be cleared for
several days after a major snowstorm. Services in rural areas, in many cases, will
not be equivalent to municipal services. Rural dwellers must, by necessity. be more
self-sufficient than urban dwellers.
People are exposed to different hazards in the County than in an urban or suburban
setting. Farm equipment and oil field equipment. ponds and irrigation ditches,
electrical power for pumps and center pivot operations. high speed traffic. sandburs,
puncture vines. territorial farm dogs and livestock. and open burning present real
threats. Controlling children's activities is important. not only for their safety, but also
for the protection of the farmer's livelihood.
RESOLUTION PUDZ16-0002
LAWRENCE & JACQUELYN BEBO
PAGE 8
The Change of Zone plat map shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services' for
recording within sixty (60) days of approval by the Board of County Commissioners. With the
Change of Zone plat map, the applicant shall submit a digital file of all drawings associated
with the Change of Zone application. Acceptable CAD formats are .dwg, .dxf. and dgn
(Microstation): acceptable GIS formats are .shp (Shape Files), Arclnfo Coverages and
Arclnfo Export files format type is .e00. The preferred format for Images is .tif (Group 4) . .
(Group 6 is not acceptable). (Department of Planning Services)
With the Change of Zone plat map, the applicant shall submit a digital file of all drawings
associated with the Change of Zone application. Acceptable CAD formats are .dwg..dxf, and
.dgn (Microstation): acceptable GIS formats are shp (Shape Files). Arclnfo Coverages and
Arclnfo Export files format type is .e00. The preferred format for Images is .tif (Group 4) ...
(Group 6 is not acceptable) (Department of Planning Services)
Motion seconded by Gene Stille
VOTE:
For Passage
Bruce Sparrow
Cherilyn Barringer
Jordan Jemiola
Joyce Smock
Michael Wailes
Terry Cross
Tom Cope
Gene Stille
Against Passage Absent
Bruce Johnson
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this
case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I. Kristine Ranslem, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County.
Colorado, adopted on April 18, 2017.
Dated the 18t" of April, 2017
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
Lvv\Occ_
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday. April 18. 2017
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Administration
Building, Hearing Room, 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado. This meeting was called to order by Chair,
Bruce Sparrow. at 12:30 pm.
Roll Call.
Present: Bruce Sparrow, Cherilyn Barringer, Gene Stille Jordan Jemiola. Joyce Smock. Michael Wailes,
Terry Cross. Tom Cope.
Absent: Bruce Johnson
Also Present: Chris Gathman and Diana Aungst, Department of Planning Services; Hayley Balzano,
Department of Planning Services — Engineering Division: Lauren Light. Department of Health: Evan
Pinkham, Public Works; Bob Choate. County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem. Secretary.
Motion: Approve the April 4. 2017 Weld County Planning Commission minutes. Moved by Joyce Smock,
Seconded by Michael Wailes. Motion passed unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: PUDZ16-0002
APPLICANT: LAWRENCE & JACQUELYN BEBO
PLANNER: CHRIS GATHMAN
REQUEST: CHANGE OF ZONE FROM THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT TO THE
PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) ZONE DISTRICT FOR 9 RESIDENTIAL
LOTS WITH E (ESTATE) ZONE USES ALONG WITH AN 58.02 ACRE
AGRICULTURAL OUTLOT (TRACT A) THAT WILL BE NON -BUILDABLE FOR
RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT A AMRE-3669; LOCATED IN PART OF THE E2SE4, ALONG WITH THE
NE4SW4 AND THE W2SE4 TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE LITTLE THOMPSON
RIVER, ALL LOCATED IN SECTION 19, T4N, R68W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD
COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: WEST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 3 AND 0.5 MILES SOUTH OF STATE
HIGHWAY 56.
Chris Gathman. Planning Services, presented Case PUDZ16-0002, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. He said that the applicants are proposing a conceptual PUD Change of Zone
application. therefore after the change of zone process it would go before the Board of County
Commissioners for a hearing of the Final Plan. He added that staff is proposing a change to the staff
recommendation to designate where the floodplain crosses the property as a common open space and
designate it as an additional outlot that would be separate from the 58 acre agricultural outlot. Because the
property is located adjacent to the Berthoud town limits, the applicant would need to meet the open space
requirement. according to the Weld County Code. The Department of Planning Services recommends
approval of this application with the attached conditions of approval and development standards.
Evan Pinkham, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic and access to the site.
Hayley Balzano. Engineering, reported on the drainage conditions for the site.
Lauren Light. Environmental Health. reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements. on -site
dust control. and the Waste Handling Plan.
Kent Bruxvoort. 5014 Rose Court. Ft. Collins, Colorado. stated that he is a Civil Engineer representing the
applicants. Mr. Bruxvoort referred to the site plan and clarified that there is only a Tract A. The applicants
are proposing to add eight (8) homes along with the existing residence making it a 9 -lot development. The
lots would range in size from 5.35 to 8.55 acres.
Mr. Bruxvoort said that they are proposing to add a corridor of land on either side of the internal subdivision
road to provide for a soft trail so that every lot would be able to access the trail to its western end. With the
1
addition of open space. Tract A would decrease in area to 52 acres or smaller. Mr. Bruxvoort stated that
all agricultural uses allowed by code would remain on Tract A. as proposed.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Mr. Gathman referred to the proposed changes to the staff report that was handed out to the Planning
Commission. He noted that on Page 1. because this is a conceptual plan he recommended that the request
be modified to read "A Change of Zone from the A (Agricultural) Zone District to the PUD (Planned Unit
Development) Zone District for 9 residential lots with E (Estate) Zone Uses along with an agricultural outlot
that will be non -buildable for residential purposes along with Common Open Space." This modification
would also be on Page 3 of the staff report as well as on Page 7, under item 1.F.1. Mr. Gathman requested
to add an additional note on Page 7 under Item1.F.3 to read "The Bulk Standards Requirement. as
delineated in Section 23-3-50, for Agricultural Zone District shall be adhered to, with the exception of the
80 acre lot size requirement, for the Agricultural outlot."
Motion: Amend Staff Report as recommended by Staff. Moved by Terry Cross. Seconded by Tom Cope.
Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked the applicant if the applicant if they have read through the amended Conditions of Approval
and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Motion: Forward Case PUDZ16-0002 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of
Approval with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval. Moved by Michael Wailes,
Seconded by Gene Stille.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8).
Yes: Bruce Sparrow. Cherilyn Barringer, Gene Stille, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Michael Wailes, Terry
Cross, Tom Cope.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOCATION:
U S R 17-0009
RICHARD & BETTY ROOS, SR.
CHRIS GATHMAN
A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR ANY USE PERMITTED AS A USE BY RIGHT, AN ACCESSORY
USE, OR A USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW IN THE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL
ZONE DISTRICTS (COVERED AND UNCOVERED STORAGE OF RVS,
TRAILERS AND AUTOMOBILES ALONG WITH INDOOR MINI STORAGE),
PROVIDED THAT THE PROPERTY IS NOT A LOT IN AN APPROVED OR
RECORDED SUBDIVISION PLAT OR LOTS PARTS OF A MAP OR PLAN FILED
PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF ANY REGULATIONS CONTROLLING
SUBDIVISIONS.
LOT B REC EXEMPT RE -3855; PART S2SE4 SECTION 20, T1 N. R67W OF THE
6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 6 AND WEST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR
17.
Jordan Jemiola said that he knows the applicant and his family; however he feels he can make a fair and
impartial judgement.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, presented Case USR17-0009, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Mr Gathman noted that six (6) letters of opposition were received citing
concerns regarding the increase of traffic, potential conflicts with oil and gas traffic, light and noise impact,
incompatibility, potential impacts of lowering property values, loss of agricultural production, security and
crime concerns. The applicants did hold a community meeting and four (4) property owners attended the
meeting. The applicants indicated that the neighbors had no objection to the proposed project and were
receptive to ideas such as grading and berms, a screening fence and an automated lighting system that
would turn off when no customers were at the site. The Department of Planning Services recommends
approval of this application with the attached conditions of approval and development standards.
Evan Pinkham. Public Works, reported on the existing traffic and access to the site.
2
Hayley Balzano. Engineering, reported on the drainage conditions for the site.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health. reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements. on -site
dust control. and the Waste Handling Plan.
Richard Roos. Jr. stated that they have been trying to come up with a plan that works the best to screen
the property from the neighborhood uses. Mr. Roos provided a description of their planned landscaping
and screening that includes a wood fence, berms, trees and vegetation. He said that the lighting that they
are proposing is LED down lighting and when the last person swipes their card to leave the facility all the
lights will go off. He added that there will be infrared lighting for security purposes but it will be invisible to
the human eye. He also explained how they will accommodate the fire safety of the site.
Commissioner Barringer asked what the hours of operation are. Mr. Roos said that there will be some
limited after hours drop off by appointment. He added that their key codes will not work after 10 pm in the
summer without a special appointment.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
James Baxter, 2198 CR 17, stated that he lives directly across from the proposed site. He said that the
vehicles travel at a high rate of speed on County Road 6 and when they slow down to turn off onto County
Road 17 it becomes a safety concern. He said that the applicant mentioned he can't grow crops on this
property; however all the landowners have been able to grow and produce crops in the area. Mr. Baxter
submitted a photo that shows that County Road 17, where the customers will be entering into the facility,
has three tire tracks. He added that County Road 17 is not designed for that type of traffic going both ways.
Paula Boudreault, 2164 CR 17, stated that her concerns are similar to Mr. Baxters. She stated that she
would be the most impacted in that the entrance to this facility will be directly across from her residence so
she will get all the headlights and noise. Her husband has diabetes and emphysema and constantly has
to use oxygen and an inhaler and she said that all this dust will impact his health as well.
Commissioner Sparrow asked Public Works if dust should become a problem if the landowners can request
mag chloride to put on the road. Mr. Pinkham said that mag chloride is pretty regularly applied to County
Road 17 currently however, there are situations they could ask the County to apply that if it hadn't been to
reduce the dust.
Commissioner Smock expressed concern with the three tracks on the road and the width of the road. Mr.
Pinkham said that County Road 17 is a local, gravel roadway and added that the width of the road is
approximately 22 feet wide, which is pretty typical of what the gravel roads have, and added that they
believe it is adequate for two vehicles.
Lois Poggensee, 2034 CR 17, stated that she lives on the corner across from the proposed facility. She is
concerned about this facility and agreed with Mr. Baxter's comments. She added that traffic is a big
concern. Ms. Poggensee said that she attended the neighborhood meeting and did not voice an opinion
for or against; however, after further thought on the project she submitted an email to the Planning
Department in opposition to the facility. She said that County Road 6 has a lot of trucks that fly by so fast
and won't be able to stop with traffic turning onto County Road 17. She is also concerned with security of
the facility and the potential for crime.
Joyce Keeling. 2044 CR 17, said she attend the March neighborhood meeting and doesn't recall that
anyone was in support of the facility. She said that the traffic is a problem now and the dust is horrific She
expressed concern with the security and potential crime in these facilities.
Commissioner Smock asked if Ms. Keeling has talked with Weld County regarding the dust on the road.
Ms. Keeling replied no and added that she lives with it.
Hazel Frank. 1596 CR 15, stated that she lives one mile as the crow flies southwest of the proposed facility.
She said that there is a hill between her home and the facility so she is fortunate that she doesn't have to
see it. Her objection is to the location of the facility and feels that they are under siege with all the RV
3
storage facilities in the area. She said that she is more concerned with mag chloride than the dust problem.
She requested screening the entire facility from the neighborhood and added that she doesn't feel the chain
link fence with slats will uphold to the weather. Ms. Frank said that she prefers the berming with evergreen
trees.
Mike Hathaway and Heather Hathaway. 7673 and 7813 CR 6, stated that they live and own a kennel that
will be surrounded by the facility. Mr. Hathaway said that dust is an issue but feels that the applicants have
been honest with their proposal. At the neighborhood meeting crime was brought up and feels that their
proposed security measures are an appropriate attempt. He recalled that in the 17 years that they have
lived there, there was one year that hay was put on it. He recognizes that lighting could be an issue and is
interested in the new LED lighting that they are proposing.
Heather Hathaway said that she is completely comfortable with the applicant's proposal and is completely
happy with the landscaping and screening that they are proposing.
Commissioner Stifle asked how the land has been maintained. Mr. and Mrs. Hathaway said that it hasn't
been maintained. Mr. Hathaway stated that since the applicants have purchased it they have kept it mowed.
The Chair called a recess at 2:25 pm and reconvened the hearing at 2:40 pm.
Cherilyn Barringer left the meeting at 2:25 pm.
Mr. Roos said that there will be security cameras surrounding the entire perimeter of the facility. There will
be covered stalls on the north side of the facility for screening and added that they will landscape the facility.
Mr. Roos said that he spoke with the Weld County Sheriff's Public Resource Officer this morning and they
stated that there were two crimes in the past eight months: one was missing license plates and the other
contact was a trailer that was removed from outside of the gate of the storage facility.
Mr. Roos said that the entrance to the facility is directly across from the access to the residence to the east
and said that the entrance was not their first choice; however according to Weld County Public Works they
encouraged them to place the entrance to the facility across from the existing access to the east as there
are less potential points of conflict.
Commissioner Stille asked Public Works staff if they were stuck with the access at the proposed point. Mr.
Pinkham explained that because of safety and contact points on County Road 17 they recommended that
entrance point but said that they could work with the landowners and see if there is another location that
would be more suitable.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Motion: Forward Case USR17-0009 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval,
Moved by Jordan Jemiola, Seconded by Michael Wailes.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7).
Yes: Bruce Sparrow. Gene Stille. Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Michael Wailes. Terry Cross. Tom Cope.
Absent: Cherilyn Barringer.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
USR17-0007
R 17-0007
MARK VILLEREAL & ALMA GARCIA
DIANA AUNGST
A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR A USE PERMITTED AS A USE BY RIGHT, AN ACCESSORY USE,
OR A USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW IN THE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL
ZONE DISTRICTS (COMMERCIAL TRUCK PARKING) PROVIDED THAT THE
PROPERTY IS NOT A LOT IN AN APPROVED OR RECORDED SUBDIVISION
PLAT OR LOTS PART OF A MAP OR PLAN FILED PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF
ANY REGULATIONS CONTROLLING SUBDIVISIONS IN THE A
(AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
4
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOCATION:
LOT B REC EXEMPT RECX12-0114; PART E2W2NE4 SECTION 33, T6N. R64W
OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 62.5 AND APPROXIMATELY 0.6 MILES
EAST OF CR 53.
Diana Aungst, Planning Services. presented Case USR17-0007, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Ms. Aungst noted that two (2) letters and two (2) phone calls of support and
seven (7) letters of objection were received regarding this case. The letters of objection outline concerns
about noise. odors, property values. road deterioration and pollutants entering Owl Creek. To address
some of these concerns the applicant is installing a fence along the eastern property line and lining the
shop with insulation to reduce noise. Additionally. the applicant also maintains standards that the
employees are required to meet. Ms. Aungst stated that the majority of the property will be kept in
agricultural production. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application
with the attached conditions of approval and development standards.
Evan Pinkham. Public Works. reported on the existing traffic and access to the site.
Hayley Balzano, Engineering, reported on the drainage conditions for the site.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health. reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements. on -site
dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Mark Villereal, 26659 CR 62.5, stated that they operate Colorado Well Site Services and request that the
trucks they operate be parked on their property when not operating on the road. There will be very little
maintenance. such as replacing light bulbs and fixing tires.
As a result, from a community meeting they held with their neighbors, Mr. Villereal said that they installed
a privacy fence along the eastern side of their property by the ditch. He added that he has had continual
meetings with his employees to adhere to the hours of operation and to access the location from the west
so it doesn't disturb the neighbors to the east. Additionally. if the trucks are operating after the designated
hours of operation the drivers will park their trucks at a truck stop so they don't come to the property after
the stated hours of operation. Mr. Villereal said that although it is against his beliefs he has disabled the
backup alarms on the trucks, as it was a concern from the neighbors.
Mr. Villereal said that his family had purchased the property and moved in September 2016 and said that
the neighbors have told him that debris and dirt builds up in the culvert on County Road 62.5 and he plans
to help clean that out before the irrigation season begins
Commissioner Jemiola asked if the applicant would like to have any more than four (4) trucks on site. Mr.
Villereal said that they are going to keep it at a maximum of four (4) trucks. Ms. Aungst provided an
explanation of what process the applicant would need to go through if he chooses to increase the number
of trucks in the future. Mr. Wailes requested that a development standard be added to include the number
of trucks allowed on site. Commissioner Wailes highly encouraged the applicant to keep the alarms on the
trucks.
Commissioner Stille asked what the applicant intends to do with the remaining part of his property. Mr.
Villereal said that they intend to pasture it for their cows.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Warren Hammerbeck, 26942 CR 62.5, stated that he lives on the corner of County Road 62.5 and County
Road 55. He expressed concern regarding flooding and drainage of the surrounding community and the
hazardous material that might be in the trucks located on the applicant's property.
Iris Mesbergen. 26710 CR 62.5, stated that she lives directly across from the proposed project. She said
that they wish the applicants success with their business. However, the concern is their bedroom windows
are 75 yards away from this activity and they hear the noise. dust and odor from the trucks.
5
Commissioner Jemiola asked if this permit were approved what mitigations could be done to make it more
appealing. Ms. Mesbergen said that there isn't anything that could make it better. Mr. Cope asked if fencing
or more trees would allow enough of a buffer for noise. Ms. Mesbergen said not so much and is concerned
with the discrepancies in the application, such as the hours of operation and doesn't know how to enforce
the number of trees within a certain amount of time.
Teresa Sponaugle. 26899 CR 62.5, read into the record and submitted a letter of opposition. She
expressed concern that the applicants are operating under a current zoning violation. increased truck traffic,
noise, dust. odor and contaminants from the maintenance performed on the trucks onsite and possible
leaking into the Owl Creek Ditch and into the continual flooding onto their property. Ms. Sponaugle
submitted pictures of the trucks parked next to the Owl Creek Ditch, maintenance of trucks performed onsite
and flooding of the surrounding community in past years.
Commissioner Wailes said that with agriculture and applying harmful things into the environment there is a
risk of contamination as well. He added that this project is minimal to what agricultural practices could put
into the environment.
Gordon Mesbergen, 26710 CR 62.5. stated that the applicant has put a fence on the east side of the ditch:
however, that access is in direct line of his bedroom so when it is used those lights shine through his
bedroom. He expressed concern of decreased property values and decrease in quality of life. Mr.
Mesbergen said he is an owner/operator of a truck and he drives his truck home but the neighbors have
not had any concern as he drives 10/15 mph and doesn't drive back home in the middle of the night.
Connie Ley. 26660 CR 62.5, stated that she lives directly across the road from the applicants and has lived
there for 38 years. She stated that she is in favor of the applicants operating and requesting approval of
this permit. She explained that the applicant hauls freshwater and frac sand and added that these materials
are not harmful to the environment. Ms. Ley said that there are insecticides, pesticides and herbicides that
are used in agriculture and can become harmful in a flooding type of condition. She asked the Planning
Commission to consider allowing the applicants to continue with their business.
Joann Adler, 26622 CR 62.5. stated that they have no concerns with the applicants and their business.
She has no complaints about the applicant's project. She added that her husband and the applicant intend
to clean out the debris in the Owl Creek Ditch.
Raul Lara, 2315 16th Street, Greeley, stated that he is an employee of the applicants. He said that the
oilfield work is very strict and Mark lays it on them to be as quiet as possible when leaving or arriving to the
yard and not to come back to the yard after 8 pm. Mr. Lara said that he has a background in the agriculture
and oilfield. He said that they obey the rules and will park at a truck stop so they don't come back to the
site after 8 pm.
Dan Farris, 710 27th Avenue, stated that he knows the applicants and said that he hauled sand with Mr.
Villereal when they worked together. He added that he helped the applicant install the fence on their
property. Mr. Farris said that while he was out there he noticed there were nine other trucking companies
that drove by and added that there are no harmful products on his trucks or property. He knows that the
applicant is trying to come into compliance and believes he will operate in compliance.
Mr. Villereal said that they will not handle, haul or store any hazardous materials at their site. As far as
noise, he has gotten stricter with his employees and no trucks will come back after 8 pm. He reassured the
audience that it will not be a service shop and no major repairs will be done on the property. He said that
they were in violation and understood that they had this grace period to operate while they were going
through this permitting process. Mr. Villereal stated that he has installed GPS into each of the trucks that
monitors and logs driving behaviors. speed. and idle times.
Mr. Villereal said that they installed the privacy fence as close to the ditch as possible to eliminate any lights
shining into the Mesbergen's property. With regard to the runoff and flooding, he has spoken with Mr. Adler
about cleaning the culverts and placing the fence and berm on his property to prevent any runoff to the
south.
6
Commissioner Jemiola referred to the hours of operation and noted that if they working on trucks outside
of those hours the applicants will not be in compliance Mr. Jemiola asked if the hours of operation need
to be extended. Additionally, Commissioner Jemiola asked the applicants to clarify the number of
employees. Mr. Villereal explained how his business works and added that if trucks need maintenance it
is performed during the daytime. He said that if the hours could be extended they would appreciate it but
they didn't want to push the bubble. In response to Mr. Jemiola's inquiry of what he would like his hours to
be, Mr. Villereal requested that the hours be extended by an hour before and after the stated hours of
operation.
Commissioner Jemiola recommended that screening be in place to minimize the sight and noise. He also
recommended putting the alarms back on the trucks as it is a safety precaution.
Alma Villereal noted that there is an existing entrance on the west side of the property and they are
requesting to use this entrance as their truck entrance to avoid any headlights shining on the adjacent
properties. She added that they would like to extend the fencing along County Road 62.5 as well to help
address the light concerns. Mr. Pinkham, Public Works. commented that they are allowing three entrances
into the property so they can work with the applicants on which ones to use.
Commissioner Cope said that he feels that the hours the applicants applied for are appropriate for that
neighborhood and would hate to see additional hours extended. Commissioner Jemiola feels that the
applicant will not be in compliance with the hours as stated and why approve a case if it won't be in
compliance in terms of maintenance of the trucks. Mr. Cope said that the applicant stated that if
maintenance has to occur they won't be doing maintenance after those hours; they will be doing
maintenance the following day.
Motion: Amend Development Standard 4 by increasing the number of employees to eight (8), as indicated
in the application. Moved by Jordan Jemiola, Seconded by Joyce Smock. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion: Amend Development Standard 1 to include the maximum limit of trucks on site that will be allowed
is 4 trucks, Moved by Michael Wailes. Seconded by Jordan Jemiola.
The Chair called a recess at 5:20 pm and reconvened the hearing at 5:24 pm.
Commissioner Wailes recalled that he made a motion to amend Development Standard 1 limiting the
number of trucks to 4 and seconded by Jordan Jemiola. Mr. Wailes wanted to clarify the motion that it
should be four (4) tractors. Commissioner Jemiola agreed with the clarification.
Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Jemiola recommended amending Development Standard 7 to include screening on County
Road 62.5. Ms. Aungst recommended that it be included in Condition of Approval 6 and to read "The map
shall delineate the landscaping and/or screening along County Road 62.5
Motion: Amend Condition of Approval 1.B.6, as recommended by Staff. Moved by Jordan Jemiola,
Seconded by Michael Wailes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the amended Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in
agreement.
Motion: Forward Case USR17-0007 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the amended
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, Moved by Terry Cross. Seconded by Tom Cope
Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 5, No = 2, Abstain = 0)
Yes: Bruce Sparrow. Joyce Smock. Michael Wailes, Terry Cross, Tom Cope.
No: Gene Stifle, Jordan Jemiola.
Absent: Cherilyn Barringer.
7
Commissioner Stille cited Section 23-2-220.A.3 and doesn't believe it is compatible with the area as there
is too much potential for contamination to the creek as well as noise issues. Mr. Stille said that the
applicants are very good neighbors and very good bosses and respects that.
Commissioner Jemiola feels that the applicant should have the ability to do business in Weld County but
doesn't believe the existing hours of operation are sufficient for them to carry out their business needs. He
added that even with screening he feels there will be compatibility issues. Mn Jemiola cited Section 23-2-
220.A.3 and Section 23-2-220.A.7 and added that he doesn't believe there are adequate provisions for the
protection of health, safety, and welfare of the residents in the surrounding community.
Commissioner Wailes said that mistakes have been made and it is a confusing process in the County. He
added that he wants to give the Villereal's the benefit of the doubt and it appears that they are making
strides to correct this violation. He commented that the neighbors are the key to the enforcement of this
permit should it be approved by the County Commissioners. Mr. Wailes believes that the applicants will be
good neighbors and asked the neighbors to help them out and be good neighbors and successful. He
added that there is another owner/operator in the area and it would be an opportunity to mentor the
applicant.
Commissioner Smock said that the comments made have been helpful and also believes that the applicants
will be good neighbors.
Commissioner Cope said that he thinks the applicants are doing the right things and suggested listening to
the neighbors.
Commissioner Cross said that he doesn't believe the environmental issues aren't quite as big of a problem
with the types of trailers that they are pulling, which are freshwater and frac sand.
Commissioner Sparrow said that the applicants are willing to be good neighbors and the ball is in their court
to be good neighbors.
The Chair asked the public if there were other items of business that they would like to discuss. No one
wished to speak.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss No one
wished to speak
Meeting adjourned at 5:40 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
8
Hello