HomeMy WebLinkAbout20090771.tiffSUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld County
Conference Room, 4209 CR 24.5, Longmont, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Doug
Ochsner, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Doug Ochsner - Chair
Tom Holton - Vice Chair
Nick Berryman
Paul Branham
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Mark Lawley
Roy Spitzer
f_n
cn
Also Present: Michelle Martin, Jacqueline Hatch, Tom Honn, and Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services;
Dave Snyder and Don Dunker, Department of Public Works; Lauren Light, Department of Health; Bruce
Barker, County Attorney (via phone), and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Robert Grand moved to approve the March 3, 2009 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, seconded by
Tom Holton. Motion carried.
The Chair read the first case on the Consent Agenda into record.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOCATION:
USR-1688
Jose & Patricia Jauregui
Jacqueline Hatch
A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Home
Business (concrete repair/services) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
Lot 4, Block 32, 2nd Aristocrat Ranchettes being part of Section 27, T2N, R66W
of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Approximately 1/4 mile east of CR 31 and approximately 1/2 mile south of CR 18.
East of and adjacent to Harold Street and south of and adjacent to Mary
Avenue.
The Chair asked Ms. Hatch if she wishes for this case to remain on the consent agenda. Ms. Hatch replied
that she does wish for this case to remain on consent; however she would like to make one minor change to
the staff comments. Ms. Hatch requested to add a new Condition of Approval 1.D on page 4. The new
condition states "The applicant shall either submit a copy of an agreement with the property's mineral
owner/operators stipulating that the oil and gas activities have been adequately incorporated into the design
for the site or show evidence that an adequate attempt has been made to mitigate the concerns of the mineral
owner/operators." Ms. Hatch added that the applicant is aware of this change.
Tom Holton moved to add a new Condition of Approval 1.D as provided by staff, seconded by Bill Hall. Motion
carried.
The Chair asked the applicant if they wish to keep this case on the consent agenda. The applicant replied
yes.
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 they read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. Abraham Jauregui, 7526 Harold St, Ft. Lupton, CO replied
that he is in agreement.
Cr
L iitinu.tni <Vt.) .) j 3 -,3o -
2009-0771
The Chair read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOCATION:
USR-1685
Benjamin Hansford Sr.
Michelle Martin
A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for a Home
Business (auto repair and service) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
Lot 1 Block 29 of Aristocrat Ranchettes Subdivision 2n° Filing in Section 27, T2N,
R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
South of and adjacent to Caroline Ave and west of and adjacent to Richard
Street.
The Chair asked Ms. Martin if she wishes for this case to remain on consent. Ms. Martin replied yes.
The Chair asked the applicant if they wish for this case to remain on consent as well. The applicant replied
yes.
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 read the last case into the record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1686
APPLICANT: Turnpike Limited Liability Company
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
REQUEST: 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 (Custom Seeding Business) in the A
(Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE -1514 being part of NW4 of Section 9, Ti N, R63W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Hwy 52 and East of and adjacent to CR 65.
The Chair asked Ms. Martin if she wishes for this case to remain on consent. Ms. Martin replied yes.
The Chair asked the applicant if they wish for this case to remain on consent as well. The applicant replied
yes.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
William Thomas, 32500 Hwy 52, Keenesburg, CO. Mr. Thomas said that one of his concerns is the current
easement on his property which allows Turnpike to pass his property to get to their property.
Mr. Thomas researched and found approximately 28 recorded easements on his property and one that is not
recorded, specifically the Prairie Falcon Parkway. His goal is to find out if there is an alternative access that
the Turnpike Company will not need to use that easement anymore.
Mr. Thomas inquired if the 49 acres includes the whole thing or if it is more for the actual business. He
recognizes the fair amount of agriculture out there as well as buildings and the custom seeding business.
He has talked to and sent letters to Weld County which was then forwarded to Turnpike LLC. The applicants
did respond to him with answers to a lot of the concerns and questions that he had regarding waste disposal,
fuel storage, chemical storage, light pollution, noise pollution, property accesses, number of employees, and
hours of business. Mr. Thomas indicated that he is comfortable with the responses that he received from
Turnpike LLC.
Mr. Thomas expressed that his main concern is that if this application is approved that Turnpike LLC will use
the easement as a haul route for their trucks. He explained that this easement is a railroad grade. He stated
that his ultimate goal is to eliminate some of the easements on his property. He wishes to clarify if this case
will support that.
Commissioner Holton asked Bruce Barker, County Attorney, if the easement will get vacated if this USR is
2
approved. Mr. Barker indicated that typically with USRs any land use permit that is granted is going to be
subject to those existing easements; therefore it doesn't get rid of them by itself. He added that the usage
would go away only if there is a release of the easement. Commissioner Holton said that it looks like the main
entrance is going to be off of County Road 65.
Ms. Martin stated that Commissioner Holton was correct and added that the proposed access that the
business would be using is directly off of County Road 65 and not associated with Mr. Thomas's property.
Commissioner Holton asked if there are any development standards regarding this easement. Ms. Martin
replied no and added that the easement that Mr. Thomas is referring to would only be used for agricultural
purposes and not for the business itself.
The Chair asked if any of the Commissioners wished to pull this item off of the Consent Agenda. Tom Holton
and Mark Lawley wished to pull this item and hear this case specific to Mr. Thomas's concerns regarding the
easement.
Roy Spitzer moved that the amended Consent Agenda which includes USR-1688 and USR-1685 be
forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval, seconded by Erich Ehrlich. Motion
carried.
Commissioner Grand disclosed that he has a relationship with Turnpike LLC which involves the Weld County
Fair Parade. He added that he chairs the parade and Turnpike LLC participates in the parade. Mr. Grand
does not believe that this relationship will impede his ability to make a fair decision.
The Chair asked Mr. Grand if he has any reason for financial gain or loss on this case. Mr. Grand stated no.
The Chair announced that this case will now be a hearing item and read the case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1686
APPLICANT: Turnpike Limited Liability Company
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
REQUEST: 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 (Custom Seeding Business) in the A
(Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE -1514 being part of NW4 of Section 9, Ti N, R63W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Hwy 52 and East of and adjacent to CR 65.
The Chair asked Ms. Martin to clarify the easement which Mr. Thomas referred to as well as the 49 acres of
the USR.
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services, stated that the zoning on the property will remain
agricultural. The access for the proposed seeding business will be off of County Road 65 and located within
approximately 49 acres of the USR boundary.
The access that Mr. Thomas is referring to was created with a recorded exemption and came off of Highway
52 and along the eastern boundary of his property which was an access for Lot A and B of the Recorded
Exemption. At this time there are no development standards or notes that preclude the applicant from utilizing
that access but it is one that has not been identified as one that they would use.
Ms. Martin indicated on the Recorded Exemption map where the proposed access for the business is and the
easement to which Mr. Thomas is referring to.
Commissioner Lawley clarified that both parties have a legal right to use that access. He understands that the
access is from County Road 65 for the business. Ms. Martin said that the applicant can still utilize the
easement for agricultural purposes but the one included for the USR will be the access from County Road 65.
The Chair asked the applicant if they wished to make any comments.
3
Cory Huwa, Turnpike LLC, 43031 Hwy 52, Roggen, CO. Mr. Huwa clarified on a visual slide where the access
for the USR is from as well as the easement that Mr. Thomas was referring to. He assured the
Commissioners and Mr. Thomas that the easement is only used for agricultural purposes only. He indicated
that they still farm the remaining acres of the site. Mr. Huwa added that he understands the traffic concerns
as stated by Mr. Thomas and has tried to limit his employees from utilizing that easement.
Mr. Huwa commented that he is confident that they can work through this and handle this by simply using that
easement through discretion.
With regard to the size of the USR, Mr. Huwa stated that it is their intent to keep good agricultural ground in
agricultural production, which is why they only applied for the 50 acres for their business.
Mr. Huwa concluded that they want to be good neighbors. He added that he does not intend to use the
easement for truck traffic as it is not a good access for that type of equipment.
Commissioner Holton asked if a development standard can be added to clarify the use of the easement. Ms.
Martin replied that a development standard can be added.
The chair asked for any further public comment on this case.
Mr. Thomas commented that with the added change he is in full agreement with it and supports USR-1686.
He expressed that he appreciated the time and respect given to his concerns.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, commented that the applicants have done a great job of addressing the
Department's conditions prior to this point; therefore staff would like to delete conditions of approval 4 and 5 as
they have been completed.
Ms. Martin suggested adding a development standard to read "The access to the business shall be located off
of County Road 65 only."
Tom Holton moved to delete Conditions of Approval 4 and 5 and add a new Development Standard #37 as
suggested by staff, seconded by Mark Lawley. Motion carried.
The Chair asked the applicant if they 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.
Roy Spitzer moved that Case USR-1686 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 Robert Grand.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, absent; Paul Branham, absent; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, yes; Mark Lawley,
yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
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.
Commissioner Ochsner commented that at the next Planning Commission meeting on April 7, 2009 there will
be an appraisal specialist who will give a presentation and asked the commissioners if they wish to meet at
11:00 a.m. or 12:00 noon. The Commissioners felt that 12:00 noon time would be appropriate.
Mr. Ochsner commented that Mr. Holton has expressed a desire to serve on the Rural Taskforce for Weld
County. Commissioner Grand nominated Mr. Holton to serve on the Rural Taskforce as a representative from
the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hall seconded the nomination.
Tom Honn, Planning Director, wished to refer to the discussion from the last meeting on regulating water
transmission lines. He commented that he would like to get what the Commissioner's intent is so that it gives
staff a little more direction on how to proceed. He added that there were some conversations a few years back
about issues associated with water and water regulation and because of Mr. Barker's involvement in it, Mr.
4
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
Honn asked him speak to that.
Mr. Barker recalled that four years ago the issue of what is known as 1041 regulations were discussed. These
are in place right now for two areas: 1) electrical transmission lines and generation facilities, substations, and
2) toll roads. These areas are currently considered as being areas of state interest that we regulate. About 4
years ago there was a proposal that we regulate the placement of water pipelines under 1041. The intent was
to make it so that it was harder to take water out of Weld County. The only method by which we could
regulate that activity is to regulate the pipeline that would take the water out of Weld County. However there
was a realization of going through the hearing process that in fact it was not something that they wanted to
regulate. There was a strict desire to not interfere with private property rights that were inherent in water
transfer. As a result the action was not to approve any regulation on any water pipeline.
Mr. Barker added that we have never looked into regulating the placement of water pipeline that are a trunk
line or a distribution line. He added that there are concerns with regard to safety of the electrical transmission
lines as well as for oil and gas pipelines.
Mr. Barker said that there are a couple of options to regulate water lines: 1) USR through a Major Facility of a
Public Utility, or 2) 1041 process.
Mr. Holton commented that he would like to have some oversight over the water lines so that there is some
public input from the private property owners. Mr. Lawley asked what the purpose is if there is a
condemnation process. Mr. Holton expressed that he wants to have something that the company will come in
with good faith and bargain with the property owner.
Mr. Barker said that in the condemnation process the company has to prove that they dealt fairly with the
property owner. He pointed out that in a condemnation case there is a jury of peers which is chosen by the
court and are typically real estate officials who know the property values of the area.
Mr. Lawley commented that he understands Mr. Holton's point and agrees with him but added that ultimately
they are going to choose a path and if the property owner doesn't like it then it will be condemned.
Mr. Holton commented that he understands these points but still feels that we need some kind of oversight. It
gives the companies a level of review that they know that they will be scrutinized and there will be public
comment. Mr. Spitzer commented that it would be better to design utility corridors.
After a lengthy discussion staff was directed to explore ways of implementing the regulation of water pipelines.
On another note, staff commented that in order to reduce costs in postage and paper they are looking at
providing packet information through electronic mail, disc, or to view information on the website. Staff
comments or other information would be provided for reference in hard copy form at the meeting. Staff asked
the Planning Commissioners to reply with their preference.
Staff identified that they have not received field checks back from the Planning Commissioners and asked if
they would try to turn those in.
Meeting adjourned at 3:04 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
5
Hello