HomeMy WebLinkAbout20110945.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Department of
Planning Services, Hearing Room, 918 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by
Chair, Tom Holton, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Tom Holton
Mark Lawley
Nick Berryman
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Roy Spitzer
Alexander Zauder
Jason Maxey
Also Present: Kim Ogle and Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services; Heidi Hansen, Department of
Public Works; Mary Evett, Department of Health; Lee Morrison, County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem,
Secretary.
Robert Grand moved to approve the March 15, 2011 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, seconded
by Jason Maxey. Motion carried.
The Chair amended the agenda and moved Case USR-1776 to the first item on the agenda.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1776
APPLICANT: Beverly Ensley, c/o Viaero Wireless
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a
Telecommunication Antenna Tower(195 foot cellular tower)in the A(Agricultural)
Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B RE-4494;located in Part of the W2SE4 of Section 31,T9N, R67W of the 6th
P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 98 and approximately'/:mile east of CR 13.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, stated that staff is requesting that USR-1776 be continued to address sign
notification. There were two signs posted at the property; however they were posted on property which is off
of a County right-of-way and not off of a County maintained right-of-way. Therefore another set of signs need
to be posted at the nearest publicly maintained right-of-way. The next scheduled hearing date that this case
could be heard is May 3, 2011.
Mark Lawley moved to continue USR-1776 to the May 3, 2011 Planning Commission hearing, seconded by
Alexander Zauder.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Henry Jacobsen, represents Viaero Wireless, 1350 West 6th St, Loveland, CO, stated that he has an issue
with the manner in which the objection was raised. The letter that caused this continuance was received at
1:00 am this morning and the person who objected to it is a resident to the east of the proposed tower site
approximately%miles. In his opinion, the objector has been disingenuous as he waited until the morning of
the hearing to raise these objections expecting the Planning Commission and others to be thrown into some
kind of turmoil before they had a chance to address the issue itself.
Mr. Jacobsen stated that he had spent time with the particular individual six months ago and took pictures
1
2011-0945
derl,mu/7iuz laic 9//3//i
from his patio which was used in the photo simulation. In addition, he offered him to contact him with any
questions, objections, or problems he had with the application. This morning, Mr. Jacobsen received a 22
page letter addressing a number of items trying to find some form of objection that might cause this to be
delayed. The proposed tower site is quite remote. There are only two or three homes that would be affected
by this tower as far as the view shed. Even though the letter of the law might say that we have to post the site,
every person that would be directly affected was personally contacted by himself or by the County. He
questioned the necessity of the continuance given that all the parties were contacted. Most of the objections
in his letter he addressed with him both professionally and promptly, such as radio frequency safety. He
asked the Planning Commission to think seriously about this continuance as a nuisance suit in as much as all
of the people affected have been contacted.
Commissioner Hall asked the County Attorney if the notification given was proper. Lee Morrison, County
Attorney, indicated that there could be a reasonable argument made that notice was not adequate. He added
that the issue for the applicant is if they want to pursue this in light of the fact that there appears to be a
legitimate argument, not necessarily a clear violation, of the notice requirements.
Mr. Morrison asked if the objector was here. Mr. Gathman said that the objector is not here as he couldn't
make it.
The Chair reminded the Planning Commission that there was a motion to continue Case USR-1776 to the May
3, 2011 and asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes; Robert Grand,yes; Bill Hall,yes;Alexander Zauder,yes;Jason Maxey,yes;
Roy Spitzer, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1773
APPLICANT: Ken Wolf
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for any Use
Permitted as a Use by Right, Accessory Use, or Use by Special Review in the
Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts (flooring business), 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 subdivision in the
A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A RE-4953;Part SW4 of Section 7,T3N,R68W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,
Colorado.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 1; 0.5 miles north of CR 34.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, stated that the property is not located within an Intergovernmental Agreement
area but does lie within the three mile referral area for the Town of Mead, Boulder County, and the City of
Longmont. The Town of Mead and Bounder County did not respond to the referral request.
Surrounding property to the south and west are single family residential units within Summit Peak Estates.
The property to the north and east are in agricultural production. One letter with comments was received from
a surrounding property owner with concerns about a commercial strip development at this site and a decrease
in property value. Given the minimal impact to the proposed business, it is the opinion of the Department of
Planning Services that the use is compatible to surrounding land uses.
Eleven referral agencies reviewed this case;four agencies offered comments, some with specific conditions.
The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the application along with the attached
conditions of approval and development standards.
Mary Evett, Environmental Health, stated that water is provided by Longs Peak Water District. Documentation
was received from Longs Peak Water District that the existing water tap is adequate to serve the business.
There is an existing home on the property and is served by a septic system sized for three bedrooms. There
is an office in the home which is used by the employees. There are also drivers and installers that come to the
site which must have access to potable water, toilets and hand wash facilities. The existing system will require
2
an evaluation by an engineer for the employees. The applicant submitted a Waste Handling Plan and Dust
Abatement Plan in which both have been found to be adequate.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, stated that County Road 1 is classified a collector roadway requiring 80 feet of
right-of-way at build-out;currently there is 60 feet of right-of-way. In February 2010 there were 1,811 vehicles
per day on that road. The applicant will be using the existing access and added that it is a low impact use.
The applicant has provided a water quality depression to control stormwater runoff.
Ken Wolf, 16882 CR 1, Longmont, CO, stated that he does floor covering and installation only. He added that
he stores the carpet and pad and his employees load the carpet and go to the job site. Mr. Wolf commented
that with the proposed addition, he wishes to store more carpet.
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. Ogle stated that staff would like to request deletion of Condition of Approval 4 since all of the material will
be stored in an existing building or new building to be constructed.
Roy Spitzer moved to delete Condition of Approval 4, seconded by Mark Lawley. Motion carried.
Mr. Ogle added that they would like to request amending Development Standard 4 to read "The hours of
operation shall be limited to dawn until dusk Monday— Friday".
Roy Spitzer moved to amend Development Standard 4 as stated by Staff, seconded by Alexander Zauder.
Motion carried.
The Chair asked the applicant if he read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that he is in agreement.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1773 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval, seconded by Jason Maxey.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes; Robert Grand,yes; Bill Hall,yes;Alexander Zauder,yes; Jason Maxey,yes;
Roy Spitzer, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair read the following case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1774
APPLICANT: Robert& Mary Stahl
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Winery
in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Lot 5, West of River, Lupton Division 1, being part of the NW4SW4 of
Section 18,T2N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: 0.5 miles north of CR 20 Section Line; east of and adjacent to CR 25.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, stated that the proposed facility is within the three mile referral area for the City
of Ft. Lupton. The City of Ft. Lupton, in their referral dated March 7, 2011, responded that there is no conflict
with their interests.
The applicant is proposing a Winery with existing vineyards and tasting room to educate the public on the
wine-making process. The activity of growing grapes is directly related to the existing agriculture on the
property with the new winery/tasting room building being a natural extension of the vineyard. The vines are
grown on well drained soils from post mining reclamation. Water for irrigating the vineyard is by senior water
right and a non-tributary well that is both permitted and decreed. The portion that is not pumped is banked for
future use.
3
The Winery promotes diversification of agriculture in the County. The site is surrounded by agriculture and
aggregate mining activities. The property under review here was formerly mined for gravel by Weld County;
the property to the south was also mined by Weld County. The land on the west is currently being mined by
Pioneer Sand and Gravel Company, doing business as SW Chambers under USR-1444. Lands to the North
are in agriculture with oil and gas encumbrances. Lands to the east are in agricultural (vineyard) production
and lands farther east are bisected by the South Platte River and to the South are single family residences on
larger tracts of land.
Fourteen referral agencies reviewed this case; seven agencies offered comments, some with specific
conditions. Staff received one telephone inquiry regarding this case with concerns of Winery size, hours of
operation and the perception of traffic concerns.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application along with the attached
conditions of approval and development standards.
Mary Evett, Environmental Health, stated that water is supplied by an individual well. A letter was received on
March 10, 2011 from the Division of Water Resources indicating the well is approved for commercial use.
Therefore Conditions of Approval 1.H and 1.N may be removed.
There is a three bedroom home which is served by an existing septic system. There is a new septic permit
which was approved by the Board of Health on January 25,2011 for the Winery. The septic system will need
final approval prior to occupancy. Ms. Evett recommended moving Condition of Approval 1.O to 3.B Prior to
the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.
The design capacity of the existing and the proposed septic systems is just under 2,000 gallons per day. The
applicant is proposing to install a water meter at the Winery to monitor flows. Once the capacity exceeds
2,000 gallons per day, the applicant will need State approval for the septic systems. Ms. Evett referred to
Condition of Approval 1.F regarding this and suggested moving this item to Development Standard 4. In
addition, she recommended deleting the last sentence in the paragraph.
Ms. Evett stated that Condition of Approval 1.E is covered under Development Standard 11 and 25;therefore
this condition may be deleted.
Food for the events will be catered and therefore the applicant will not be required to obtain a Retail Food
Establishment License.
Ms. Evett noted that Development Standards 19 and 20 are duplicate to Numbers 16 and 17; therefore
Development Standards 19 and 20 may be deleted.
Roy Spitzer moved to delete Condition of Approvals 1.H, 1.N, 1.E, Development Standards 19 and 20, move
Condition of Approval 1.O to 3.8, Condition of Approval 1.F to Development Standard 4 and delete the last
sentence, seconded by Robert Grand. Motion carried.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, stated that County Road 25 is a local paved road requiring 60 feet of right-of-way
at build-out. The site is adjacent to the river. The entire property is in a floodplain and part of the property is in
the floodway. The Winery building is being built on an existing high spot and the applicants have acquired a
Flood Hazard Development Permit showing that it is high enough to be out of the floodplain to build at that
location. Development Standard 23 is a standard note for any property in the floodplain to warn any potential
buyers that it may not be buildable.
Robert Stahl, 9378 CR 25, Ft. Lupton, CO, stated that they are proposing a winery. He said that he has had
grape vines onsite for seven years. He added that it is a natural extension to turn those grapes into wine. He
added that they are a little different than the western slope in that they grow hybrid grapes.
The Chair asked if they wish to amend any of the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. After
some discussion, the applicants wished to extend the special events hours to 12 am.
4
Robert Grand moved to amend Development Standard 32 to read"Special Event hours are SAM to 12 AM",
seconded by Bill Hall. Motion carried.
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 he read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that he is in agreement.
Mark Lawley moved that Case USR-1774 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval, seconded by Bill Hall.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes; Robert Grand,yes; Bill Hall,yes;Alexander Zauder,yes;Jason Maxey,yes;
Roy Spitzer, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss. No one had
any further business to discuss.
Meeting adjourned at 2:16 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
5
Hello