HomeMy WebLinkAbout20020729.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, March 5, 2002
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2002, in the Weld County
Public Health/Planning Building, (Room 210), 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was
called to order by Chair, Michael Miller, at 1:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin Absent
Cristie Nickles
Fred Walker Absent
John Folsom
Stephan Mokray Absent
Cathy Clamp
Luis Llerena
Bruce Fitzgerald Absent
Also Present: Drew Scheltinga, Don Carroll, Pam Smith, Robert Anderson, Monica Mika, Lauren Light,Carla
Angeli, Chris Gathman
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on February 19,
2002, was approved as read.
CASE NUMBER: Z-568
PLANNER: Carla Angeli
APPLICANT: DNS Development, LLC c/o David Dalglish
ADDRESS: 6025 Fox Hill Dr., Longmont, CO 80501
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to PUD with Estate uses for seven
residential lots and 4.445 acres of Common Open Space (Summit at
Mountain View PUD)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2196, being Part of the E2 of Section 5 , Township1 North,
Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County Colorado
LOCATION: 1/4 mile South of Hwy 52 on Weld County Road 5, West on Mountain
View Street, North on Fir Avenue (West of Carmacar Ranchette
Subdivision)
Carla Angeli, Department of Planning Services presented Case Z-568, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application.
John Folsom asked Drew Scheltinga, Department of Public Works, about the development being non
urban scale. Ms. Angeli stated it was considered urban scale. The adjacency to the subdivisions causes
the development to be considered urban.
Cathy Clamp asked about the office of State Engineers letter addressing six taps for seven lots. Ms.
Angeli stated that there is an agreement and there is an existing home therefor needing only six taps.
Robert Niemeyer and David Dalglish, applicant and representative. Mr. Niemeyer stated that there have
been numerous efforts in addressing the neighborhood and being compatible with those neighbors. There
was a request from a neighbor for the roads to be dirt. There are a total of sixty homes and twenty one of
those wanting to get the road paved. Mr. Dalglish stated that there was a letter addressing points about
the urban scale issue and the paved roads.
John Folsom asked whether the Peaks at Mountain view road was paved. Mr. Dalglish stated it was not
and they wanted to maintain the dust for those roads. There is a neighborhood that rides horses and the
06)1112- 3ffoend& 2002-0729
/1?•vv
gravel is more suitable. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Scheltinga about the paved road status. Mr. Scheltinga
stated the Board of County Commissioners knew of the development and the numerous lots. There have
been complaints with regard to dust in Carmacar Ranchettes. The basis for the recommendation is to
have pavement along with the criteria that is in place. The region is being developed with residences and
will soon be enclosed. There is a need to have those roads paved and this is a case in which they need to
be paved. Mr. Miller asked about Carmacar and the possible provisions associating activity to paving in
the future. Mr. Scheltinga stated that there were no requirements. There are citizens that like to be able
to ride horses but there are also those who do not like the dust or the condition of the road. Ms. Nicklas
asked if PUD are paved therefor the Peaks at Mountain view requirement was waved. Mr. Scheltinga
stated that there have been some changes recently. When the Minor subdivision were done they were not
required to pave. PUD requirements are to pave but the question is the number of lots and they fit the
criteria where there is a rural characteristic. This development meets the criteria for pavement. There are
some programs where dust abatement is applied by the property owner at their expense. Weld County
Public Works does not do any dust abatement inside Carmacar.
John Folsom stated that there are some lots with the dust control and there are posted speed limits and
the configuration of the road makes it difficult to speed.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Cristie Nicklas stated that with the development in the area causes a need to be paved. Would
recommend leaving the pavement aspect.
Robert Niemeyer, stated that there are issues when the pavement meets the gravel portion of the road.
The concern is when the dirt road goes to pavement. There will be a need for it to be replaced or
replenished because of the damage when the asphalt and dirt meet. The cost for paving the section is
five times adverse to doing the whole neighborhood of Carmacar. Ms. Nicklas added that there is not
much of an issue going from pavement to gravel. This is an area that the paving needs to be done. Mr.
Niemeyer stated that the buyers will pay for this twice. Ms. Nicklas does not think that if it is done to
criteria it will not deteriorate. Mr. Niemeyer asked about the improvement district and if the buyers will be
in the improvement district again. Mr. Scheltinga stated that those in the improvement district would not
be required to pay for improvements into Carmacar. If the paving was done at the same time for
Carmacar and Summit at Mountain view all would be asked to be involved in the improvement district.
John Folsom asked for clarification on the County assisting in the paving. Mr. Scheltinga stated that the
county roads that were not a part of the development and were a true county road were paid for by the
county.
Cathy Clamp asked for clarification with regard to what will be paved. Mr. Scheltinga stated that they are
requesting the paving of Summit Way. There is also a request for dust abatement on the access during
the construction phase of Summit at Mountain view.
Cristie Nicklas moved that Case Z-568, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation
of approval. John Folsom seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Cathy Clamp, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Luis Llerena, yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
Cristie Nicklas commented that the applicants are able to ask the county commissioners for the variance
on the paving issues.
CASE NUMBER: AMUSR-1096
PLANNER: Lauren Light
APPLICANT: Sharon Parrill
P.O. Box 5925
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a
use allowed as a Use-by-Right in the C-2 (General Commercial)Zone
District(restaurant/tavern) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt. of the NE4 of Section 21, Township 12 North, Range 66 west of the
6th p.m.,Weld County, Colorado
LOCATION: West of State Highway 85 and south of and adjacent to Weld County
Road 140
Lauren Light, Department of Planning Services presented Case AmUSR-1096, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending
approval of the application.
Michael Miller asked if the potential building is something that is included in this application. Ms. Light
stated that it is covered under the tavern definition in the zoning code. The USR would approve the
building and it would not come before the board but a building plan review would be done. There would
also be a liquor license hearing for that license and the use on the site. Mr. Folsom stated that in the use
by special review questionnaire the emphasis was placed on the liquor license. There were no additional
buildings at this time. Ms. Light stated that the application was presented that way but the drawings were
inclusive of that building. Mr. Folsom asked if it was an adequate request to have the building on the
drawings for the application. Ms. Light indicated it was legally advertised as a restaurant/tavern. Ms. Light
added that there are two separate uses and definitions with regard to restaurant/tavern in the zoning code.
Cathy Clamp asked Don Carroll about the CDOT referral and if there were any concerns with the access
from the highway. The Wyoming Department of Transportation was sent a referral and had no additional
comments to add to the conditions. Ms. Light indicated the only response came from Laramie County,
Wyoming regarding the septic system. Mr. Carroll stated he did not feel that he could offer any conclusion
due to the fact the access is in Wyoming.
John Folsom asked if the information supplied to WDOT (Wyoming Department of Transportation)
included information with regard to the increase in traffic. Ms. Light confirmed that the questionnaire
included the traffic count and was sent as a part of the referral. Mr. Folsom asked for clarification about
the Sheriffs Departments comment for possible concerns and what was meant by it not being properly
operated. Ms. Light stated that it could be a potential for problem because of the possible nightclub. The
existing nightclub is in Wyo. and is serviced by Wyoming. The sale of lottery tickets is the only distribution
at the existing store. Mr. Miller added that the Sheriffs comments stated that if operated through proper
training it could facilitate that.
David Mullikin, representative for the applicant, stated that the Sheriffs Department offered some tips on
training and they have sent employees to this training and will send more. The Weld County Sheriff
provided the information on the training and stated it there was not a problem at the site. There has never
been a case in which the Sheriff or Fire Departments had to respond. The store is one of the two
premium locations for lotto sales. There are 50-100 cars that go to the location. Mr. Miller asked about
the added building and requested clarification. Mr. Mullikin stated it was for a possible future use and the
applicant was told to add to the process now. Mr. Miller asked if there would be a problem if the additional
building was excluded from the application. Mr. Mullikin stated he could not answer. Mr. Miller added that
it was a very vague idea and the impact would be different on the site. Mr. Mullikin stated that it was up
for sale and the prospective owners were interested in the new building. This is a sale of the whole
property including both the Wyoming and Colorado sides.
Cristie Nicklas asked if the intent for the new building was to be close the existing nightclub and move it to
the new building. Mr. Mullikin stated that was not the case.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Luis Llerena stated that his idea is to exclude the building as a part of the application. Ms. Nicklas agreed
with the idea to remove the additional building. This would enable the new owner to come back with more
complete and inclusive information. Ms. Nicklas asked if there was a way to make them come for Site
Plan Review if the building was added. Mr. Morrison stated that there was not. There is no administrative
process at the SPR level. Mr. Morrison cautioned the board in making a decision if the applicant wanted
to include the building. Mr. Morrison stated they could not selectively approve things. There is a
possibility of discussing it with the applicant and seeing if they want to take it out. The recommendation to
the County Commissioners would include the fact that the building was the only issue of concern. Mr.
Llerena suggested that it be continued.
Michael Miller asked the representative to return and provided clarification with regard to the Planning
Commissions options of recommending denial if the building was included but would recommend a
continuance to find out whether the building can be removed from the plan. Mr. Mullikin stated it would be
a dance club and he would suggest a continuance. Mr. Mullikin added that it would be awhile before the
sale would go through. Mr. Morrison added that if a liquor license is involved that license is applicant
specific. The area must be outlined for alcohol consumption. There are specifics for that process that will
need to be done. There is a process to transfer a license from one location to another. It must have
specific criteria that must be met. Mr. Miller has concerns with the application in regards to the night club
and a specific use. The traffic that will be generated and increased with the addition of the proposed
building. Mr. Morrison stated that the liquor license was directed at the facility while this process is
directed at the traffic and land use issues. Traffic patterns will change drastically if the addition of a large
nightclub was added. Mr. Miller suggested to Mr. Mullikin that a continuance be the best solution. Mr.
Mullikin agreed.
Cristie Nicklas moved to continue AmUSR-1096 to April 16, 2002. Cathy Clamp seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Cathy Clamp, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Luis Llerena, yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1368
PLANNER: Lauren Light
APPLICANT: Philip and Patricia Hiddessen
ADDRESS: 2511 N. Pioneer
Mesa, AZ 85203
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a
Boarding Kennel for 50 Dogs (includes boarding, training, special events
and two dwelling units, mobile homes) in the A (Agricultural)Zone
District
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2790; Pt. of the E2 of Section 21, Township 7 North, Range
65 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Weld County Road 43 and north of and
adjacent to Weld County Road 78
Lauren Light, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1368, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending
approval of the application.
John Folsom asked if the property is located in the flood plain. Ms. Light state the applicant will have to go
through the Flood Hazard Permit regulations.
Patty Hiddessen, applicant, stated it will continue as farm with hay, cattle and sheep. The only thing that is
going to change is the addition of kennel. The only reason for the application was to come into
compliance with the regulations and train stock dogs.
Cathy Clamp asked if provisions were made for sound proofing for barking dogs. Ms. Hiddessen stated
that the kennel was being designed in the style of the barn. The building will have insulation rated to R45
with the opening to the south. The neighbors within noise distance are to the north. Pat Waters, real
estate agent for the applicant, stated the neighbors are in favor of the application. The neighbors that are
closest have responded positively. Mr. Miller asked for location of the neighbors homes and the neighbors
homes. There is one neighbor that is building a home to the north which is the nearest.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
John Haithcoat, neighbor to the north, signed paper stating there was no problem with the kennel but it
was for the land owners not for a business. The issue of location of the kennel with respect to noise is an
issue. They would be close to where the new kennel would be.
Mr. Miller asked about the setbacks. Ms. Light indicated that in the Agricultural District it was one foot for
every three feet of building height at a minimum. The buildings that are there are on the property line. Mr.
Haithcoat indicated his home was approximately 220 feet from the property line. He will be close to the
new kennel location.
Chair closes public portion
Luis Llerena asked about the setback due to the nature of the building and if the placement of building
envelope due to the type of use for the building can be moved to a different location. Mr. Morrison stated
that it is a possibility to mitigate the impact with the special use process. Mr. Llerena suggests in order to
accommodate both residence of new construction that the envelope be placed further back from the
property line.
The Chair re opened the public portion of the hearing and allowed Mr. Haithcoat back to the podium to
address issues since he is the closest and most effected neighbor.
John Haithcoat stated he does not have a problem with the kennel but the issue of the noise is concern.
Ms. Nicklas stated that there is no adequate place to move the building to. There are also conditions of
the approval that the dogs will not be outside in runs and they will be inside the building during the night.
The Chair closed the public portion
Luis Llerena stated that the movement of the building would be a possible better solution. Ms. Nicklas
stated that with the diagram provided there is no better location for the building. The back of the building
will be facing away from the neighbor and the opening will not face north or northwest. There is also a six
foot fence at the back of the building.
Patty Hiddessen stated the reason for the building being located there was flood area and the lay of the
land. It was the highest point in the land. Ms. Waters responded that there is a creek and there is not a
lot of area before it drops off.
Cristie Nicklas moved that Case USR-1368, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Cathy Clamp seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Cathy Clamp, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Luis Llerena, yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1367
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
APPLICANT: Robert Oman
P.O. Box 280, Ft. Lupton CO, 80621
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for open
pit mining and materials processing (extraction of sand and soil)a Use
by Right in the 1-3 (Industrial)Zone District(Manufacturing of soil
products) as a Use by Special Review in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SE4 SW4 Section 1, Township 1 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado
LOCATION: 1/4 mile east of Weld County Road 35 and 1/4 mile south of State
Highway 52
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1367, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending
approval of the application.
Cristie Nicklas asked Bethany Salzman, Zoning Compliance Officer, about the violation. Ms. Salzman
stated it was a nonconformance with Special Use Permit 460, specifically the increased truck trips and
the noise. The uses allowed on the site were limited to extraction of sand and currently there are fertilizer
material like wood chips on the property. Ms. Clamp asked about exceeding the truck trips. Ms.
Salzman stated that the permit allowed 30 and expanded to around 36. Ms. Nicklas asked if the
application was approved would the applicant vacate the previous USR and operate under the new one.
Mr. Gathman stated this was an amendment. They are still going to be required to operate under the
original USR standard and the new standards. Mr. Gathman stated it was approved a Special Use
Permit not an Use by Right, now there is an additional use. Ms Nicklas asked Mr. Morrison if there was
a limit on the number of SUPs and USRs on a parcel. Mr. Morrison asked if this permits incorporates
everything in the original permit the SUP could be vacated. Mr. Gathman stated it could be added as a
condition that prior to recording the plat the SUP would need to be vacated.
Ms Clamp asked Bethany Salzman about the noise limit violations and if it was in the light industrial zone
limit. Ms. Salzman stated that the violations were for noxious weeds, additional use, no stock piling, non
compliance with the foregoing development standards listed in SUP-460. The complaints with regard to
the noise came from truck traffic.
Michael Miller asked the location of Boss Composting, Towing Company and if there is WCR 12 goes
through to the Buffalo Ridge Development. Mr. Gathman stated that there was no connectivity on WCR
12 but WCR 35 continues on. Mr. Miller asked the proximity of Buffalo Ridge to the application. Mr.
Gathman stated it was platted to approximately 1/4 mile.
Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, stated that WCR 35 is paved south from Hwy 52 into Buffalo
Ridge and all streets in Buffalo Ridge are paved. The Public Works Department is in the process, this
year, of completing the link on WCR 10 across the canal to WCR 37.
Todd Hodges, representative for the applicant, provided clarification with regard to the property. Mr.
Oman met the intent of the original special use permit and at application to building permit he was
informed of the violation for the operation and since that time he has been working on the application to
make it legal. The original was approved in 1981 for 10 acres of soil and sand extraction for open pit
mining. In 1993 it was amended to 38.3 acres for open pit mining sand and solid. The access was
approved via the original point and they would like to protect that. The applicant will use the current
access until the County ROW access litigation is complete. The materials will be trucked into and off the
site. These are finished wholesale materials. The applicant agrees to vacate the SUP-460 and
AmSUP-460 as an approval recommendation for this application. The soil is non prime and no prime
farm ground is being used. The additional traffic is minimal, dust abatement, drainage and landscape
buffering have been addressed.
Cathy Clamp asked the applicant what the reasonable trip generation would be. Mr. Hodges stated that
the worse case scenario was 36 round trips.
Robert Oman, applicant, provided clarification with regard to truck trips included in this would be
deliveries, trash pickup. Ms. Clamp asked what was anticipated at full build out. Mr. Oman stated that it
would still be at 36 and this is the worse case scenario. Mr. Llerena asked that the truck traffic will
increase when there is an additional use. Mr. Oman stated that the peak of 36 round trips have not been
reached. Mr. Oman stated using the material on site will reduce the number of trips and sand will still be
one of them. Mr. Hodges added the sand that normally goes off by itself is being blended into the other
products. Mr. Miller stated that there will be a total of 48 trips a day at full build out according to the
traffic study.
Cathy Clamp asked about the pending lawsuit, the standing, nature and will it affect the use for the
property. Mr. Oman stated that it was a quiet title because of a barrier fence. The judge ruled in Mr.
Omans favor but there is an appeal in process. The neighbor attempted to quiet title the property. Ms.
Clamp asked if it will have any effect if it is under appeal and if it will have any effect on the access. Mr.
Oman stated he did get a permit from Weld County to extend WCR 12 and that is when all the conflicts
arose. The proposal was to extend WCR 12 approximately 200 feet and have the access directly off of
that. They are using the historic access that has existed from the beginning. The County ROW is used
to store things in the right of way.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Tim Trostel, neighbor, in opposition because of the noise plus there is a soil mixing machine that runs late
into the evenings. There is a light on top of this machine. There are semi truck deliveries at different
hours. There is dust in the house as well as drifts of dust. There are fuel tanks on the property. There
are containers of stored liquids on the south side of the property. Hwy 52 is dangerous as it stands now
with no deceleration lanes.
Mitch Martin, neighbor, project manager for Buffalo Ridge, provided clarification with regard to access to
Buffalo Ridge being primarily WCR 35. The secondary access will be the completion of WCR 10. There
are a lot of truck going in and out of Boss Composting. The volume of traffic is an issue. The 48 trips
generated by this facility plus the other business traffic make it an issue. Traffic on Hwy 52 is getting
heavier and heavier. The nature of the area is changing from Agriculture to Low Density Housing with the
significant influx of residences. The only reason for the application is because of the violation. Mr. Miller
asked when Buffalo Ridge was begun. Mr. Martin indicate it was in 1997. The mining application is not an
issue, it is the additional use. There is the hauling of material in and the use will continue on. Mr. Martin
added that 70% of the cost was done by Buffalo Ridge.
Mary Trostel, neighbor, has concerns with the noise and dust. The lights are going and the hours of
operation are not being respected. WCR 12 is not wide enough for two trucks.
Mike Desanti, neighbor, stated that if the permit is granted would like to see the hours of operation from 8-
5.
Karen Buckstin, neighbor, questioned if this operation compatible with the surrounding use of the land.
The area looks residential. Another concern is the limit to sand and soil or is there a possible odor
content. Ms. Nicklas asked if she lived in the Buffalo Ridge Subdivision. Ms. Buckstin stated she lives in
the Morton Subdivision approximately a half mile south east.
Mike Williams, representative for Tim Trostel, reiterated that the lights can be seen from the Buffalo
Ridge. The lawsuit is pending for a Right-of-Way and Mr. Trostel has used the property since 1972. Mr
Oman prevailed and it was determined it was a boundary fence. The lawsuit was appealed with a ruling
within one year to 18 months. There is the County Right of way and there would be a strip of land
approximately five feet on the north side of that ROW that would belong to Mr. Trostel. This would leave
the only access to the site is the historic access. Mr. Morrison asked if there was a stay. Mr. Williams
stated no. Mr. Morrison stated without the stay it does not preclude Mr. Oman from using the property.
Mr. Oman has access at this point and has prevailed in district court as of right now. Mr. Morrison asked
that even in the event it is overturned can someone be denied access to property from a County Road.
County was not an active party in case but did have agreements that protected them. Mr. Williams added
that the County ROW does exist. The issues is the portion above the ROW that is at hand. Mr. Williams
gave some history on the property. Mr. Miller added that the access is something that has to be
addressed with the consideration of the lawsuit at this time. There would be no way of knowing whether
the lawsuit would be overturned or stand. The Planning Commission has to deal with the issue as it
stands right now. Mr. Oman has the right to access as of now. Mr. Williams added the original mining
permit was to take the hill and level it out so a residence can be constructed. The representations at the
time were a small operation with no large hauling being done. Mr. Omans intent when purchased was to
make it a fertilizer factory. The use that is requested included composting consisting of wood, manure
and chemicals along with the use of the sand on site. There are tanks with diesel fuel on site with no
protection and there are possible hazards to the operation. Noise is also an issue that is a concern for the
surrounding neighbors. The blowing of the debris is a concern. Mr. Williams addressed areas that the
application does not comply with code standards. Fire, Safety with traffic, buffering and screening for the
south, noise, smell, dust and flies are some of the issues that have not been addressed with the
application.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Gathman about the berming around fuel tanks. Char Davis, Department of
Health and Environment, stated there will be an addition of those in the Development Standards dealing
with the berming of the fuel tanks. . The standard language will be added. Mr. Miller addressed some of
the concerns of Mr. Williams with the existing Development Standard that are in place with this
application. Ms. Nicklas asked about the trips per day. Mr. Gathman stated that there was no limit and
there needs to be an addition of a Development Standard. Ms. Clamp would like to apply directional
lighting standard. Mr. Llerena asked about the bus stop in haul route. Mr. Carroll stated there is a house
north on WCR 35 from the intersection of WCR 12 and WCR 35. Mr. Llerena asked that there is a history
of evening operation. If it were to be approved and then discovered to be out of compliance what would
happen to the operation. Mr. Morrison stated that there is a two stage hearing process and a possible
revocation of the permit. It would remove the right to do all the operations listed. Mr. Miller added that the
new application has many more enforceable stipulations than the previous permit.
Michael Miller asked Todd Hodges if manure is being currently trucked onto site. Mr. Hodges stated that
there are no raw materials coming onto the site. The manure is completely composted so it is a soil
product. There is no composting on the site, the soil products will be added with the sand. Ms. Clamp
asked about the commercial well and if it would be sufficient for the water use for the resident and the
roads. Mr. Oman stated that 9 acre feet of water per year is plenty for the use intended. There is an
intention of lining the detention ponds and to use that water to fill the water truck. Mr. Miller asked if there
were any other uses for the water other than dust control. Mr. Oman stated that there is a small amount
that is used in the process. Mr. Oman addressed the reason for the dust was a fire north of about 50
acres. The perennial rye grasses were destroyed and the grass did not reseed. Mr. Folsom asked about
the after hours operation. Mr. Oman stated that there are no lights on the soil processor. There may be a
possibility of some trucks from out of state arriving early, but he discourages it. Ms. Nicklas asked if there
is a residence planned for the site. Mr. Oman stated that yes there will be a trailer or home for an
employee to assist in the operation.
Todd Hodges, representative, provided clarification with regard to some of the issues. The fertilizer will be
stored in shed and the dust has to be maintained onsite. The traffic study was reviewed by CDOT and
was determined to be minimal with no improvements needed for Hwy 52. This site will pay for its portion
of the long term agreement for the haul route. The noise will be addressed with the Development
Standards and visibility is Y2 mile away from existing residences. The lights and the hours of operation
are in the Development Standards. The access issues is to protect an existing access. The future
expansion of the road depends on court case. Mr. Hodges has some concerns with Development
Standard#2 concerning the oil and gas and a surface use agreement would be in the applicants interest.
The issue with the condition is prior to scheduling the BOCC hearing. The applicant would like it stricken
completely. Condition of Approval concerning the paving of WCR 12. There are two users and the
applicant has upgraded the road and done dust mitigation. Traffic volume is not there to require
pavement and the applicant would work with Public Works for dust mitigation. The traffic study included
the neighbor. Condition of Approval 3G concerning the haul route, the applicant is willing to work with
Public Works on an agreement. Condition of Approval #6 concerning the operation has existed and will
continue to exist through the process. Development Standard#8 needs to be changed from Residential
to Industrial Use. The neighboring properties are Agricultural and therefor does not have a noise limit.
Don Carroll addresses Development Standard #3Fthat this was a standard with an open pit gravel
operation or heavy hauling operation. The trips per day on the existing road would not hold up and the
recommendation would be to pave it to typical county standard from the entrance to an existing County
Road. Mr. Carroll added Development Standard#3Gsticks with the USR to identify the haul route. This is
typical with all the operations. Ms. Nicklas asked if it was a proportional share with the surrounding
operations if there was a problem. Mr. Carroll stated yes it would be proportional. Mr. Carroll suggested
deletion of last two sentences in#3G and changing language in#3F from Private to Public Road
Maintenance.
Mr. Miller asked about Development Standard#8 and the noise levels. Char Davis stated that the
surrounding was agriculture and suggests the change to Light Industrial. Ms. Davis stated what the
decibel level on light industrial is 70.
Cristie Nickles moved to move#2A in Conditions of Approval down to Prior to Recording the Plat and
renumber as needed. Cathy Clamp seconded. Motion Carried
Mr. Llerena stated his recommendation would be to keep Development Standard #3F due to the fact that
there will be intense truck traffic on the road and the road will deteriorate.
Cristie Nicklas moved to change wording in Development Standard#3F per Public Works
recommendation. Cathy Clamp seconded. Motion Carried
Cathy Clamp seconded. Motion Carried
Cristie Nicklas moved to change Development Standard #8 to read Light Industrial instead of Residential.
John Folsom seconded. Motion carried.
Char Davis read into the record the recommended language for an additional Development Standard
consisting of "In accordance with the Above Ground Storage Tank Regulations (7 CCR 1101-14) a
spillage retention berm shall be constructed around the tank battery. The volume retained by the
spillage berm should be greater than the volume of the largest tank inside the berm. Alternative
protective measures may be allowed provided they comply with the Above Ground Storage Tank
Regulations. (Department of Public Health and Environment)"
Cristie Nicklas moved to add the above language. Luis Llerena seconded. Motion carried
Luis Llerena asked if the operation hours could be amended to include the daylight and dark hours. Mr.
Gathman stated that there is already a code requirement on the extraction. The concern from the
residence is the noise is already being considered but the operation is consistent also.
Luis Llerena moved to add to Development Standard #19 that the hours of operation shall be from 7:00am
to 6:00 pm or dark whichever comes first, except in cases of public or private emergency, or to make
necessary repairs to equipment. This restriction shall not appl to the operation of administrative and
executive offices or repairs facilities if located on the property. John Folsom seconded. Motion carried.
Mr. Gathman suggested that a Development Standard concerning lighting standards be added to contain
the following language. "Sources of light shall be shielded so that beams or rays of light will not shine
directly onto adjacent properties."
Cathy Clamp moved to include the previously read recommendation by Mr. Gathman. Cristie Nicklas
seconded. Motion carried.
Mr. Gathman suggested that a Development Standard concerning truck trips be added to contain the
following language. "The facility shall be limited to a total of no more than 36 round trip truck trips per
day."
Cristie Nicklas moved to include the previously read recommendation by Mr. Gathman. Cathy Clamp
seconded. Motion carried.
Mr. Gathman suggested that a Condition of Approval be added consisting of vacating the prior
applications. The language is as follows: "The applicant shall vacate SPR 460 and AmSPR-460."
Cristie Nicklas so moved. Cathy Clamp seconded. Motion carried
Cathy Clamp asked about vacating one of the accesses in accordance with the final court decision. Mr.
Gathman stated that the plat would vacate the historic access when the new access off of WCR 12 was
finalized. The issues behind the existing access is how long has it been there and that it goes through
adjacent property owners land and the verification would be needed for continued use.
Todd Hodges stated that the intent is to vacate the access once the new access is constructed. Mr.
Hodges stated that the historic access was approved as part of the Special Use Permit and the property
owner has spoken with that property owner. Mr. Oman stated that the adjacent land owner Chuck Buscha
has given a verbal agreement with regard to the access.
Mr. Gathman pulled the plat and it is described as being an access of WCR 12.
Mr. Morrison stated that the access off WCR 12 has been granted by District Court. If that decision is
overturned the applicant needs to have in place an agreement with the adjacent property owner, Chuck
Buscha, allowing him to use the historical access. Mr. Llerena has concerns with approving something
that uses some one else's property for access. Ms. Nicklas asked Mr. Morrison about the litigation and
not granting an access. Mr. Morrison stated that there is no way to deny access to Mr. Oman at this stage
in the application.
Luis Llerena moved to add a condition in Prior to Recording the Plat that states the applicant will obtain an
agreement with the adjacent land owner Mr. Chuck Buscha with regard to the existing historical access.
The agreement should address allowing the applicant to use the existing access in the event the access
off of WCR 12 is denied through a court order. Cathy Clamp seconded. Motion carried.
Cristie Nicklas moved that Case USR-1367, along with amendments be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning
Commissions recommendation of approval. John Folsom seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Cathy Clamp, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Luis Llerena, yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
John Folsom commented that the county is not going to be able to monitor on a constant basis and will
rely upon the residences to assist. A copy of the final agreement can be given to the residences.
Michael Miller advised the neighbors to obtain the numbers needed if problems arise.
CASE NUMBER: Z-569
PLANNER: Chris Gathman and Carla Angeli
APPLICANT: JER c/o Lifestyle Homes
ADDRESS: 920 54th Avenue, Suite 200; Greeley, Colorado, 80634
REQUEST: Change of Zone from R-5 (Mobile Home Residential)to R-2 (Duplex
Residential)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B in the Hill N Park Subdivision, located in the S2 of Section 26,
Township 5 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County
Colorado
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Weld County Road 52 (49`h Street), 1/2 mile
West of Weld County Road 35 (35'h Avenue)
Carla Angeli read into the record a request for continuance until May 7, 2002. The applicants are
revising the layout in consideration of Public Works comments.
Cristie Nicklas moved to continue the application to May 7, 2002. John Folsom seconded. Motion carried
CASE: Consider amendments to the Weld County Planning Commission
Bylaws:
Article V A. and B.to clarify place of regular meetings;
Article V B. 3. and V.G. to allow for use of a consent agenda: and Article
V.H. to specifically allow the Chair to limit oral testimony by staff, when
the written record is deemed adequate, and from the applicant and the
public to avoid cumulative and repetitious testimony
PLANNER: Kim Ogle/Lee Morrison
Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney, provided information with regard to amending the Bylaws
which allow the concept of a consent item. These items will still be included in the public process. This
would allow simple cases which are not controversial to proceed and Planning Commission will accept
the recommendation of staff and forward to the Board of County Commissioners. According to the Draft,
there would need to be two Planning Commission members in favor of removing an item from the
Consent Agenda and placing it on the Discussion agenda. This would allow the public an opportunity to
voice their concerns. The goal of the consent agenda is to make the meeting move onto cases that will
take additional time and are more controversial. Mr. Morrison addressed the change in Article V with
regard to correcting the location of the meetings in the Bylaws. Ms. Clamp asked if there needs to be
provisions made in case a larger room is needed at last moment. Mr. Morrison attempted to write this
into the language. Mr. Morrison added that there are additional requirements for posting and having a
special meeting. It needs to be posted outside Clerk to the Board office. The final issues is the Consent
Agenda and the willingness of Planning Commission to accept the staff recommendation. There is an
option of dispensing the oral presentation from staff. The written and oral is equal in the court system.
Michael Miller added that nothing can be done to amend the Bylaws without a vote of six members.
Cristie Nicklas moved to continue the Amendments to the Bylaws to March 19, 2002. Cathy Clamp
seconded. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 6:00 pm
Respectfully submitted
\Jew
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello