The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20161052.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, March 15, 2016 e 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, Jordan Jemiola, at 12:45 pm. Roll Call. Present: Benjamin Hansford, Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Gene Stille, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Michael Wailes, Nick Berryman, Terry Cross. Also Present: Diana Aungst, and Tom Parko, Department of Planning Services; Wayne Howard, Department of Planning Services—Engineering Division; Lauren Light, Department of Health; Bob Choate, County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary. Motion: Approve the March 1, 2016 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, Moved by Benjamin Hansford, Seconded by Joyce Smock. Motion passed unanimously. CASE NUMBER: USR16-0004 APPLICANT: MICHELLE WILSON PLANNER: DIANA AUNGST REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT FOR ONE (1) SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT PER LOT OTHER THAN THOSE PERMITTED UNDER SECTION 23-3-20.A. (SECOND SINGLE- FAMILY DWELLING UNIT)IN THE A(AGRICULTURAL)ZONE DISTRICT. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PART NE4NE4 SECTION 25, T2N, R68W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO. LOCATION: SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 18(GODDING HOLLOW PARKWAY)AND ABOUT 925 FEET WEST OF CR 13(COLORADO BLVD). Diana Aungst, Planning Services, presented Case USR16-0004, reading the recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached conditions of approval and development standards. - Wayne Howard, Engineering, reported on the existing traffic, access and drainage conditions and the requirements on site. t ` Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on- site dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan. i Michelle Wilson, 5846 CR 18, stated that she is proposing an additional home on her property. She said that she intends for her dad to live in the second home. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to speak. The Chair asked the applicant if she has read through the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that she is in agreement. I Motion: Forward Case USR16-0004 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 Benjamin Hansford, Seconded by Joyce Smock. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 9). Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Gene Stille, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Michael Wailes, Nick Berryman, Terry Cross. 1 COMMartiCettlUM 2016-1052 (3-0334 CASE NUMBER: USR16-0001 APPLICANT: M G WOODWARD LIVING TRUST, C/O MARK AND GLENDA WOODWARD PLANNER: DIANA AUNGST REQUEST: 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 (RV, BOAT, CAMPER, AND PERSONAL VEHICLE 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 IN THE A(AGRICULTURAL)ZONE DISTRICT. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT A REC EXEMPT RE-2942; PART NE4 SECTION 20, T1 N, R65W OF THE 6TH P.M.,WELD COUNTY, COLORADO. LOCATION: SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 8 AND WEST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 41. Diana Aungst, Planning Services, presented Case USR16-0001, reading the recommendation and comments into the record. Ms. Aungst noted that one (1) email was received from the adjacent owner of the RV storage facility (located in Hudson) that outlined questions regarding fire protection, parking and emergency access. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached conditions of approval and development standards. Wayne Howard, Engineering, reported on the existing traffic, access and drainage conditions and the requirements on site. 0' Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on- site dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan. Commissioner Smock asked who has the authority to waive the portable toilets or bottled water requirements. Ms. Light stated that the Board of County Commissioners has the authority to waive that requirement. Mark Woodward, 19886 CR 8, stated that they are proposing a small RV and boat storage area to include about 100 parking spaces. Commissioner Jemiola referred to the letter submitted by the adjacent landowner and asked about the concern of the 10,000 gallon water tank which would be located on her property. Mr. Woodward said that he met with the Fire District and they looked at the Hamilton's existing 10,000 gallon water tank and their opinion was that they didn't see a need to maintain two services out there. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. Chris Hamilton, 2886 CR 41, lives directly across the street and owns the existing storage facility. She asked to clarify if the emergency exit is required. Ms. Aungst said that staff has received direction from the Board of County Commissioners to not approve emergency access points because they encumber the roads with too many accesses. Therefore staff is not requiring them anymore. Ms. Hamilton referred to the culvert under County Road 41 and said that there has been some drainage problems with that as the culvert is lower than the dirt on the property. She asked if Weld County will look at that and do anything due to the changes in the landscape with the recycled asphalt. Mr. Howard said that he is not aware of any culvert issues. He added that the Town of Hudson performed the services that is being referred to as recycling the roadway and whether they addressed any drainage as part of that process he is not aware of. With this section of roadway as shared jurisdiction it is a little tricky trying to get those kinds of things dealt with. He suggested that the applicant contact either Public Works Departments in Weld County or the Town of Hudson if there is a particular problem with drainage. 2 Ms. Hamilton referred to the fire mitigation plan for the water source on this property. She said there is a 10,000 gallon water tank on her property. She indicated that she spoke to the Hudson Fire Chief and he said that would be Ms. Hamilton's primary source of water in the event of a fire. She said she hasn't seen the applicant's fire plan and added that two(2)people can't be using the same water tank for fire prevention. She added that she has a letter from the Fire Chief that is in contrary to what the applicant stated. Mr. Woodward said that he talked with Hudson Fire Chief two (2) months ago when they submitted the application. He has not received a copy of the letter Ms. Hamilton referred to. Ms. Aungst added that a referral was sent to the Hudson Fire District; however no response was received therefore staff is not aware of any concerns about fire protection or emergency access points. The Chair suggested that the applicant visit with the Fire District prior to the Board of County Commissioner hearing. 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. Weylan Bryant, Engineering Service Company, stated that there is no intent to store commercial vehicles; however they just wanted to clarify the definition of commercial vehicles under Development Standard 7. He asked if a pickup truck came in with a commercial tag to take their RV out of the facility would that be allowed. The Chair said that the intent is not to have oil and gas storage vehicles on the site and this facility is only for recreational vehicles. Additionally, Mr. Bryant said that they would like to request a waiver on the portable toilets and bottled water. He added that they don't feel it is an appropriate need for an RV storage facility. Commissioner Hansford recommended that it be left to the Board of County Commissioners to decide. Commissioner Johnson said that he is also in favor of leaving it in for the Board of County Commissioners to determine. Commissioner Stille said that these RVs have their own facilities and is in favor of removing the required portable toilets and bottled water. Commissioner Smock said that it is good to have portable toilets; however the bottled water may not be needed. Commission Berryman said that typically the people are not on site for very long therefore he doesn't feel it is necessary; however he would like the Board of County Commissioners to make that determination. Commissioner Sparrow was in favor of leaving the language in. Commissioner Cross agreed that the handwashing facility and bottled water are not particularly necessary; however he believes portable toilets are a good idea. Commissioner Wailes said that it is not just RVs being stored here and added that it is not a bad idea to supply these facilities as it does not add that much overhead cost. Commissioner Jemiola said he agreed that portable toilets be supplied; however he is not concerned with providing bottled water. The consensus was to leave the language in for the Board of County Commissioners to decide. Mr. Bryant referred to the requirement of opaque fences. He said that the next door neighbor has a similar use and has a non-opaque fence. He added that there is fear that the opaque fence would draw attention that would lead to crime. Mr. Bryant further added that the owners of the facility live immediately to the west of the proposed facility and their intent is to have visual security. On the east side of the proposed facility, their vision of the storage area is somewhat blocked by the existing house and garage on site. Mr. Bryant added that they are proposing to install an opaque fence around the storage facility on the southern side to protect the view of the southern property owner. Commissioner Johnson said he is not a fan of opaque fences; however these are the regulations. He added that he understands and concurs with Mr. Bryant; however he is more in favor of letting the Board of County Commissioners make that decision. Commissioner Hansford agreed with Mr. Johnson. Commissioner Sparrow said that the applicant lives there now but if it was to be sold to another owner it could be a problem. Commissioner Cross asked if the waiver to the opaque fence is due to financial reasons. Mr. Bryant said that the main reason is for security as it affords them the ability to watch the property from their residence. Commissioner Hansford said that most of these facilities have video surveillance and asked if there will be any security measures like this in place for this facility. Mr. Woodward said that they will have security monitors in place. Mr. Hansford asked why they would not want to comply with the opaque fence if there are security monitors. He added that the opaque fence is not for your security but to protect the view from adjacent property owners. 3 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 USR16-0001 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 Bruce Johnson, Seconded by Gene Stille. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 9). Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Gene Stille, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Michael Wailes, Nick Berryman,Terry Cross. CASE NUMBER: ORDINANCE 2015-25 PRESENTED BY: TOM PARKO REQUEST: IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING AND REENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS, CHAPTER 21 AREAS AND ACTIVITIES OF STATE INTEREST, OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE Tom Parko, Planning Services, stated that there have been several stakeholder meetings with water districts and other parties interested in water. He said that there has been a lot of feedback shared in these meetings and a great deal of opposition. As a result of these meetings they have been looking at making it a standard USR process rather than a 1041 process. Therefore, he said that they are working to craft some code changes and will hold another stakeholder meeting to finalize these changes. Mr. Parko requested a continuance to the May 3, 2016 Planning Commission hearing. Jemiola asked if there is a provision to have a faster process for any water entity that wants Commissioner to supply water to Weld County residents. Mr. Parko said that they are looking to exempt such entities who would supply domestic water to residents and to the agricultural community. He added that these code changes are designed for the really large water transmission lines originating in Weld County and moving outside of Weld County. Commissioner Sparrow asked if this is due to a problem or a perceived problem. Mr. Parko said that it is a problem and added that he hears concerns from constituents and the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Stille asked how this will address eminent domain and if there are fees to cross other lines. Mr. Parko said that eminent domain can be exercised but through these conversations eminent domain is the last resort. Commissioner Jemiola asked if Weld County can prevent the use of eminent domain by another governing body. Bob Choate, County Attorney, said that we do not have the ability to restrict or prohibit the use of eminent domain by another entity because all eminent domain powers are bestowed upon the various entities by the State via the constitution and/or statute. Mr. Choate said that he has not researched a greater condemnation authority since we avoid such conflicts. Mr. Parko added that it needs to show that there is a public need for such use. Mr. Parko referred to Mr. Stille's question and said in dealing with fees it is a private matter between two companies to negotiate. Commissioner Johnson said that if water is being moved a long distance all those pipelines should be treated the same. He added that there needs to be a way to make sure the surface owners are being brought into the loop in a fair manner because it seemed like when this topic was initiated there were problems of threatening eminent domain. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to speak. ` Motion: Continue Ordinance 2015-25 to the May 3, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, Moved by Benjamin Hansford, Seconded by Bruce Johnson. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes= 9). 4 Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Gene Stille, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Michael Wailes, Nick Berryman, Terry Cross. '"'" CASE NUMBER: ORDINANCE 2016-02 PRESENTED BY: TOM PARKO REQUEST: IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING AND REENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS, CHAPTER 19 COORDINATED PLANNING AGREEMENTS, OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE. Tom Parko, Planning Services, presented Ordinance 2016-02 and provided an explanation on Weld County's Coordinated Planning Agreement with the Town of Kersey. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to speak. Motion: Forward Ordinance 2016-02 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval, Moved by Benjamin Hansford, Seconded by Bruce Johnson. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 9). Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Gene Stille, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Michael Wailes, Nick Berryman, Terry Cross. 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. Tom Parko noted that the Solar Ordinance which had been heard by the Planning Commission has been discussed at several additional meetings since then with the County Commissioners and many other entities including United Power and Tri-State. As a result of these meetings and further discussion, there will be a new version of this ordinance proposed to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation. Meeting adjourned at 2:11 pm. Respectfully submitted, Digitally signed by Kristine Ranslem "61,661L,yazi2'L, Date:2016.03.17 08:00:30-06'00' Kristine Ranslem Secretary 5 Hello