HomeMy WebLinkAbout20020248.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 15, 2002
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held TuesdayJanuary 15,2002,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 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin
Cristie Nicklas
Fred Walker Absent
John Folsom
Stephan Mokray
Cathy Clamp
Luis Llerena Absent
Bruce Fitzgerald
Also Present:Robert Anderson,Sheri Lockman,Lauren Light,Pam Smith,Carla Angeli,Monica DanielsMika,
Lee Morrison, Don Carroll, Char Davis
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on December 18,
2001, were approved with amendments as read.
CASE NUMBER: Z-564
APPLICANT: Fran Garcia
PLANNER: Robert Anderson
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-2509,being a part of the NE4 of Section 6, T4N, R68W
of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to E (Estate) for a Five (5)
Lot PUD.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to WCR 3 and south of and adjacent to State
Hwy 60.
Robert Anderson, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting a continuance to February 19,
2002. The Department of Planning Services recommends an indefinite continuance.
Cristie Nicklas moved that Case Z-564 be continued indefinitely. Stephan Mokray seconded. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: County Code 2001-XX
APPLICANT: Reynolds &Woods Properties
PLANNER: Robert Anderson
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: E2 of Section 23,T3N, R68W and the N2 and the SW4 of Section
24, T3N, R68W and the NE4 of the SE4 and the E2 of the NE4 of
Section 30, T3N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Petition for Inclusion into the Mixed Use Development Area of
Unincorporated Weld County, changes to Chapter 22
(Comprehensive Plan) and Chapter 26 (Mixed Use Development
Plan).
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Hwy 66, and '/ mile east of 1-25.
Robert Anderson, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting a continuance to February 19,
2002.
Stephan Mokray moved to continue Case County Code 2001-XX to February 19, 2002. John Folsom
seconded. Motion carried
CASE NUMBER: Z-568
APPLICANT: David Dalglish
/ - `�- " O) -•g - 2002-0248
PLANNER: Carla Angeli
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2196, part of the E2 of Section 5, Ti N, R68W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: PUD Change of Zone for Summit at Mountain View.
LOCATION: 1/4 mile south of Hwy 52 on WCR 5; west on Mountain View
Street; north on Fir Avenue (West of Carmacar Ranchette
Subdivision).
Carla Angeli, Department of Planning Service,read a letter into the record requesting a continuance to March
5, 2002. The Department of Planning Service is waiting on a Public Works referral.
Cristie Nicklas moved to continue Case Z-568 to March 5,2002. Stephan Mokray seconded. Motion carried
CASE NUMBER: USR-1361
APPLICANT: Jerrald & Faye Jamison, Tire Mountain
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: N2 of the S2 of the SE4 of Section 32,T3N, R65W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for
a Solid Waste Disposal Site and Facility in the 1-3(Industrial)Zone
District, and a Certificate of Designation.
LOCATION: South of WCR 28 and west of and adjacent to WCR 41.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services, read a letter into the record requesting an indefinite
continuance.
Stephan Mokray moved to indefinitely continue Case USR-1361. Cristie Nicklas seconded. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1360
APPLICANT: Western Mobile, Inc.
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the E2 of the NE4 of the NE4 of Section 9, T2N, R68W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for
a Mineral Resource Development Facility(Concrete Batch Plant)in
the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Hwy 119 and west of and adjacent
to WCR 7.
Sheri Lockman,Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1360,reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
John Folsom asked what the reason was for doing a new USR not an amendment. Ms. Lockman stated that
the entire mining operation was reviewed recently and it is expensive and time consuming on both the
applicant and the staff to re-review the mining portion. Mr. Folsom asked Mr.Scheltinga about the turn lanes
and acceleration lanes. Mr. Scheltinga stated that CDOT would have to approve them. The Department of
Public Works has also recommended a sharing agreement that will help cover the cost of any future traffic
signals. The Department of Public Works is asking CDOT to re-look at the configuration of the entrance and
that all the turning lanes and access are thoroughly reviewed. The Department of Public Works cannot force
CDOT to approve the access plan nor can they force them to put in as traffic signal, they can only suggest
it.
Duane Bolig,land manager for Western Mobile Inc.,provided clarification on the ready mix batch plant. USR-
1199 was set up in 1997 and several USR were combined. USR-1199 include sand and gravel mining on the
north and south side of Hwy 119. USR-1360 is currently part of USR-1199. They are not requesting zoning
for an asphalt plant just a ready mix concrete plant. This request is for several reasons including market and
transportation conditions. The market and transportation conditions suggest that the material produced on
this site will go to the east to 1-25. This request is for a different plant due to the sensitivity of the traffic issues
for entrance off Hwy 119. This plant will enable the trucks to make a right turn onto Hwy 119 and not have
to cross all lanes of traffic. The raw materials will come from the south up WCR 7 to this new plant and
eliminate the traffic on Hwy 119. Mr. Miller asked about the processing of the aggregate on the north side of
the road. Mr. Bolig stated that the conveyor is dismantled and there is not much material left to be mined from
the original plant site, approximately 300-400 thousand tons. The permanent plant has already been moved
to the Cottonwood Site. Mr. Folsom asked if the remaining material will be hauled across Hwy 119. Mr. Bolig
stated that there will be no need to haul it across Hwy 119 to the ready mix plant. This material will be hauled
onto the 125 corridor. Mr. Miller asked if the intention is to crush the material and use it for road base but not
bring in a wash plant. Mr. Bolig stated that the current plans are for road base but there is a possibility for a
portable wash plant.
Mike Hart,Consultant for Lafarge,stated a concern regarding Condition of Approval#22 and what will happen
once the mining on the north side of Hwy 119 is done. Weld Country Planning Staff suggested that once the
material is mined Lafarge would need to come back for a PUD. Lafarge would like to have alternatives that
would still be in compliance with Weld County without having to go through a PUD process. The applicant
would like to see the language in Condition of Approval#22 reflect this. Lafarge would like to have long term
use of the project without having to go back through a public process for the same piece of property. Another
concern was Condition of Approval#24 with regard to hours of operation. The company would like to have
alternative language that would fit the hours they would like to work. Lafarge would like to have a 3:00am to
10:00pm time frame. Mr. Miller stated that the Weld County Code has provision for operation with regard to
a public business. Mr. Morrison provided clarification with regard to the hours that would allow them special
provisions. Ms.Lockman stated that the condition is a standard from the Weld County Code and the applicant
can ask the Board of County Commissioners for permission to operate outside those hours. The Board will
allow for this but the applicant must be specific with regard to the job in question. Mr. Folsom asked about
the proposed uses on the property once the batch plant is completed. Mr. Hart stated that the intention is to
use the ready mix plant beyond the life of the aggregate reserves. Once the life of the aggregate is completed
and the long term use is profitable then the property will be vacated. There is intended to be 65 acres that
will be water storage. The applicant will apply for any application to permit the use on the property if it is
different than what is mentioned in the application. Mr. Miller asked the applicant why they want to change
language to exempt them from PUD rules. Mr. Hart stated that the understanding is when the mining on the
north side of Hwy 119 is completed that Lafarge would have to obtain approval for what they are proposing
to do on this site through the PUD process. Ms. Lockman stated there are certain requirements in the MUD
are. If this were to come in as a batch plant without mining staff would require the applicant to go through the
PUD process. Ms.Lockman stated that once the mining is completed this would be considered an accessory
use.
Duane Bolig, stated they submitted the new USR under the recommendation of staff and would like
clarification. They have done traffic studies, landscape plans and other requirements for the PUD process
and have committed to the mitigation for the traffic. They have also committed to doing the Flood Hazard
Development permit. They are trying to conform with staff and the requirements of the PUD process. They
are asking to go through the public hearings once. Mr. Miller asked what the other standards are that would
have to be met in the PUD process that the applicant is not meeting in the USR process. Ms. Lockman stated
that PUD's have quite a few different things that are not covered by a USR including open space and interior
roads. A Change of Zone process would also need to be done. Mr. Bolig stated that they are not planning
on coming in with a multiple lots subdivision. They have made allowances for dedications along Weld County
Road 7. Mr. Folsom asked about the difference between the terms dedication and reservation. Mr.
Scheltinga responded that they have requested the full right-of-way for WCR 7. Mr. Folsom asked if the
preference was for dedication or reservation. Mr. Morrison stated that if they are willing to dedicate the ROW
it would be better. Mr. Bolig responded that if there will be a need for acceleration and deceleration lanes then
they believe the need for dedication is warranted. Mr. Bolig stated that they are trying to get approval for
placing the plant on 16 acres. The total site is 75 acres. Mr. Morrison stated that the staff presented an
interpretation of Weld County Code Section 26.2.60. Mr. Miller asked if the Planning Commission has the
option to interpret the ordinance differently. Mr. Morrison stated that the time frame for production might add
bearing to the interpretation as to what is reasonable in allowing this use as an accessory. John Ware stated
that the plant will run for approximately up to 15 yrs. This use may change in the event a more profitable use
becomes prevalent. There are many different things that make this a very viable location. The request is
to operate the batch plant in perpetuity. Mr. Miller asked if there was a time line on when mining would be
done on USR-1199. Mr. Ware stated that it could be 1-2 years. Mr. Folsom asked about the percentage of
trucks that will be hauling material on Hwy 119 and Hwy 52 along WCR 7. Mr.Moorhead,production manager
for Lafarge, stated that no more than 20% or less of those trucks will go down Hwy 52. 1-25 is a much
preferred route. Ms. Nicklas asked Mr. Scheltinga if agreements with regard to haul routes can it be
designated as to what percentage can go what route. Mr. Scheltinga stated that they do not establish the
percentages for each route. Mr. Scheltinga stated that the reason for establishing a haul route is to keep the
trucks on one route and to identify what stretches of roadway the applicant will be responsible for maintaining.
Ms. Clamp asked about the traffic signals and who is responsible for them. Mr. Scheltinga stated that the
traffic signals on Highway 119 are totally under the Colorado Department of Transportation jurisdiction.
(CDOT)Mr. Folsom stated that CDOT does not have the funding to put a traffic signal at Hwy 119 and WCR
7. Mr. Scheltinga stated that when a county road connects to a state highway the state highway department
takes the responsibility for the design, installation and the maintenance. The agreements are for the purpose
of sharing the cost of installation. The county can ask CDOT to locate a light and show them that funds are
available to be applied to the cost. Mr. Scheltinga stated that there is nothing we can do as a county to force
CDOT to place a signal. Mr. Morrison stated that the State has ultimate decisional approval.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Don Coldway,surrounding property owner,has concerns about USR-1199 and the lack of material for mining.
The mining materials is gone, therefore, material would have to be hauled in. This will cause traffic to be a
nightmare. The adjacent property owners concerns have not been addressed. He is completely opposed
since it is already mined out.
Floyd Oliver,surrounding property owner, is in support of moving the ready mix plant to the south side of Hwy
119. There is going to be a plant located in the area but where will it be and where will it fit the best is the
question. The traffic congestion will be less if it is located on the south side of Hwy 119. Mr. Oliver has been
working with Colorado State Parks and they are very interested in having an expanded Barber Pond concept
in the St.Vrain Valley Region. Mr. Folsom asked if there was funding from the state for the purchase of the
land. Mr. Oliver stated that they have the approval through the legislature.
Rob Harding,adjacent property owner, raised issues regarding the traffic. If the applicant is going to pay for
a traffic signal this would alleviate the need to move the plant. There has been nothing addressed with regard
to that. The applicant has made no effort to contact any of the residences around the proposed plant. The
batch plant can be placed at WCR 20.5 where the material is,the difference would be approximately 2 miles.
WCR 7 is not in any condition to handle the amount of truck traffic this proposed batch plant will cause.
Shirley Silvers, surrounding property owner, has significant issues with regard to traffic. The gravel mining
operation permits came to the area and the property owners were told that when the plants were complete
the ground would be turned back into ponds,open space. These gravel mining pits are being completed and
now the batch plant permits are being applied for. Traffic is unbelievable and impossible. These gravel trucks
are coming from all direction and attempting to turn onto County Roads that are not capable of handling the
amount and size of those trucks. When was the traffic study done with regard to the truck traffic? What was
the purpose for the conveyor if trucking it out was easier. The increase in residences are already having an
impact on the surrounding area. Hwy 119 is the main arterial to the City of Longmont from 1-25. The area
supported wildlife habitat before all the gravel mining operations began.
Marvin Hopper, surrounding property owner, stated his concerns with the traffic on WCR 7. WCR 7 is an
alternate route for the Del Camino traffic. The trucking of materials in and out of the site will only add to the
traffic for the residences and the surrounding area.
The chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Michael Miller addressed the concerns of Ms. Silvers with regard to the conveyance of material and the
benefits to the company and surrounding property owners especially with regard to the decrease in traffic.
Mr. Scheltinga stated that the traffic study was done in October 2001.
Duane Bolig, addressed some of the concerns with regard to not locating the batch plant at the Cottonwood
site on WCR 20.5. The applicant looks for sites that are in commercial/industrial areas located in close
proximity to Federal and State roadways. Lafarge will be bringing in material to the site. The Cottonwood site
is not zoned for a ready mix plant. Lafarge has also been in contact with the Colorado Open Lands and is in
negotiation for the property located north of Hwy 119. Ms. Nicklas asked about the batch plant on USR-1199,
and whether the materials were on site or trucked in. Mr. Bolig stated that there was not a batch plant located
on the premiss. Ms. Clamp asked about the permit for USR-1199 and specifically, the condition for ceasing
operations when bald eagles were present. Ms. Clamp asked if there is anything in this application that
addresses those same issues. Mr. Hart stated that that condition pertained to operation on the south side of
Hwy 119 and at the west end of the property. There is a bald eagle roust located there, it is not considered
a nesting area. The permit from the Army Corps of Engineers allowed for the disturbance of approximately
6 acres in that location. All the mining in that area is now complete. Mr. Bolig addressed some of the issues
and concerns with regard to traffic. Lafarge has been in contact with CDOT about the signaling of Hwy 119
and WCR 7. Lafarge has committed to the funding when and if CDOT determines that signal is warranted.
Bryant Gimlin stated his concerns with the final use of the property once gravel mining is complete. Mr. Miller
stated that Lafarge must go through the PUD process if a change of use is desired. Ms. Clamp stated that
since USR-1199 already has approval, exempting it would serve no purpose. Ms. Lockman,stated that they
are in a low impact area and there is no guarantee the applicant would be approved in a PUD processor a
Change of Zone would be granted. Mr. Gimlin stated that he does not feel comfortable placing a condition
contingent upon another case. Mr. Miller stated that it would be to the benefit of the applicant as well as staff
to address the issue now. Ms. Nicklas stated that it would be beneficial to put a time line on Development
Standard#22 and it would alleviate the issues concerning the plant and what process it will be required to do
once mining is complete. Ms. Lockman stated that tracking the project would be difficult once mining is
complete if the applicant does not come in for another application to amend out the property. Ms. Lockman
suggested putting a condition utilizing a time frame on this property only.
Mr. Hart asked for clarification with regard to the time frame. Mr. Miller gave the example that after 10 years
if the applicant wanted to continue using the batch plant then they would have to come in for a PUD process.
Mr. Hart would rather see the language reflect 15 years. Mr. Morrison stated that another option would be to
set that time line and make the burden of proof be on the applicant to prove that mining operations were still
being done.
Stephen Mokray moved to amend Condition of Approval #24 to include the language "the operation hours
shall be from 5:00 am to 7:00pm except in the case of public or private emergency". Cathy Clamp seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes; Cathy Clamp,yes;Cristie Nicklas,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried
Cristie Nicklas moved to change Condition of Approval#22 to state" USR 1360 will be considered invalid 15
years from the date of the Board of County Commissioners resolution. Should the owners of the Batch Plant
wish to continue operating, they must be approved for a PUD". Bryant Gimlin seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Stephan Mokray, no; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Cathy Clamp, no; Cristie Nicklas,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried
Cathy Clamp and Stephan Mokray believe that 15 years is to long.
Cristie Nicklas moved that Case USR-1360, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Bryant Gimlin seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, no; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Cathy Clamp, no; Cristie Nicklas,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried
CASE NUMBER: S-611
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
APPLICANT: Harlen Schultz
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-2668; being part of the SW4 of Section 7, T4N, R68W
REQUEST: Minor Subdivision Final Plan
LOCATION: North of WCR 46 and east of and adjacent to WCR 1. For a more
precise location, see legal.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services presented Case S-611, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Mr. Ogle added that there
are two amendments to staff comments. These changes are located on Prior to Recording the Minor
Subdivision Plat addition of item G to state "the applicant shall amend the Minor Subdivision Final Plat to
reflect the conditions and comments from the Utility Board Review December 13, 2001."
John Folsom asked if an agreement has been reached with the school District for cash in Lieu. Mr. Ogle
responded that there was.
Ken Merritt, Landmark Engineering, provided clarification with regard to the school district referral. There is
an agreement in place and those fees have been paid. The applicant has also reserved 20 feet of right-of-way
for Weld County Road 1 as well as a 45 foot easement for the relocation of the McIntyre Ditch. The applicant
has spoken with Weld County Health Department for the platting of the envelopes for the septic fields. The
location will be agreed to and delineated on the plat prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing.
Cristie Nicklas asked Mr. Ogle about the height limits of the homes. Mr. Ogle stated that the requirement for
the Estate Zoning is not as restrictive as a R-1 zone district. Mr. Merritt stated that they could amend the
covenants to include the language with regard to height established in the Estate Zone District.
Cathy Clamp asked about the Right to Farm Statement and it being shown on the plat. The concern is that
homeowners do not read the plats. Ms. Clamp asked if is was possible to put the Right to Farm Statement
in the covenants or make reference to it on the plat. Mr. Merritt stated that it can be placed in the covenants.
Mr. Miller asked Mr. Morrison, Assistant County Attorney, if Planning Commission can require things placed
in covenants. Mr. Morrison stated that the Right to Farm Statement is something that can be required to be
placed in the covenants.
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. Morrison stated that there are regulations that require the covenants be submitted for review. The County
is not reviewing the covenants on behalf of the private parties,they are reviewing it to see if there is something
that creates and issue with respect to the counties interest. The motion should include the language for
submitting prior to recording as well as the Right to Farm Statement.
Cathy Clamp moved to add Condition of Approval#1 H to Prior to Recording The Minor Subdivision Final Plat:
to state "The Declaration of Covenants Conditions and Restrictions shall include the Right to Farm Statement.
These covenants shall be submitted to the Weld County Attorneys Office for approval." Cristie Nicklas
seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes;Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;Cathy Clamp,yes;Cristie Nicklas,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Cristie Nicklas moved that Case S-611, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes;Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes;Cathy Clamp,yes;Cristie Nicklas,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1364
PLANNER: Lauren Light
APPLICANT: Gina Rhoads
ADDRESS: 5264 Weld County Road 16 3/4
Longmont, CO 80504
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for
an Airstrip(Helicopter Landing Facility)in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Block 26, Dream Acres, Pt. of the NW4 of Section 25, Township
2 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to Weld County Road 11, south of and
adjacent to Weld County Road 16 3/4
Lauren Light, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1364, reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
John Folsom asked Mr. Morrison about the IGA and the need to petition the Town of Frederick for
annexation. Ms. Light stated that the referral came back from the Town of Frederick with no conflicts with
the request. Mr.Morrison stated that it can be left to interpretation with regard to it being urban or non urban.
Gina Rhoads, provided clarification with regards to their business being a public service. Helicopters do
incite strong emotions. The utility companies have used their services for location of downed power lines.
They have also trained pilots for the Flight for Life Medical Service. The applicant is not requesting a flight
training facility, there is one at Longmont Airport. This application is for land use only. The use will be to
land at the home residence and use for emergency purposes from the residence. Emergencies can be
twenty four hours a day and 365 days a year. The helicopter is used for power outages and emergency
situations. Falcon Helicopters is negotiating a contract with Excel to provide service for emergency
response. The applicant stated that the Excel contract would be better suited if the helicopter was located
on site and had easier access. There are also law enforcement agencies that use this service for
emergency situations. Tim Rhoads,Owner Falcon Helicopter,they have been in business for several years
and have provided support for several Utility Agencies and Law Enforcement Agencies, including Weld
County. They have also provided helicopter flight lessons. Mr.Rhoads stated that there is no disagreement
with the approaching and departure,that has already been discussed with the FAA and agreed upon. There
has never been FAA complaints. Mr. Rhoads has a few issues with some of the Development Standards.
Development Standard#3 stating that the strip can only be utilized by owner or can they authorize someone
to use the pad. Development Standard #4 stated that there may be a need for more helicopters for search
and rescue possibilities. There is a larger helicopter used for mountain rescues. Falcon Helicopter has
been called out at all different times and having the helicopter easily accessible would make a beneficial
difference. There has been several instances in which power outages have been discovered and pipe lines
have been repaired. There has been a need with various law enforcement agencies for quick response.
Development Standard #7 stating that flying lessons and training,there is not intent for this. They are not
operating anything that is open to the public or opening a school or a commercial business. Development
Standard #15, would like some clarification with regard to routine maintenance. Routine maintenance
consist of washing,changing filters,cleaning mud. There will be no major maintenance consisting of engine
overhaul. Development Standard #19, the applicant would like the language to reflect that Weld County
would request to be on the property.
Michael Miller provided some clarification with regard to Development Standard #7 and the fact that the
County does have a say as to how property is used and if it will have an impact on the surrounding
neighbors. With regard to Development Standard#19 this is a standard condition that allows the county to
ensure that the property is being used in the way applied for. Mr. Miller asked about the hours of operation
and it being 8:00am to 5:00pm in the Master Records. Mr. Rhoads stated that those hours were based on
the existing work with the utility companies and not the law enforcement needs. The business contracts
consisted mainly of Public Utility contracts. Those contracts required work done in daylight hours only.
John Folsom asked about the conditions for making a safe landing. Mr. Rhoads stated that there is a
landing light on the helicopter but it will be more useful having heliport landing lights. Pilots for helicopters
are not trained or equipped to make instrument landings. If a pilot takes off and runs into poor weather
conditions, the aircraft is set down. Once conditions improve the flight can continue. Mr. Folsom indicated
that there is a certain amount of development to the southeast that is underway. Mr. Rhoads indicated that
the airspace issue is a constant and the area to the south will not be affected due to the fact that helicopters
are not restricted like airplanes are. The airspace issues are dealt with at all times and the FAA has
regulations for that.
Bryant Gimlin asked about the refueling facility. Mr. Rhoads indicated that there is a fuel truck that is used
when in the field. Mr. Gimlin asked if the helicopter will be stored inside a building or hanger. Mr. Rhoads
indicated that the building on site is being used for the farm and personal use and the helicopter will be left
in the open.
Cathy Clamp asked about the noise effect from the jet engines. Mr. Rhoads stated that the engine on the
larger helicopter sounds like a normal airplane. The smaller helicopter engine is a piston engine and is the
size of a car engine. Ms. Clamp had concerns of the landing pad becoming a staging area for law
enforcement. Mr. Rhoads stated that this has only occurred a few times. Ms. Clamp indicated that this is
a concern for the neighbors regarding several helicopters at the pad and flying over animals. The FAA has
laws regulating the harassment of animals and the animals that are in this area are used to this because
it is a corridor for several different types of aircraft.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Lauren Light stated that Development Standard #3 is specifically out of the Weld County Code under the
definition of airstrip. Development Standard #7 with regards to the flying/training was not included in the
referrals that were sent out. Ms. Light indicated that there could be some building code issues with the
location of the fuel truck. Mr. Gimlin indicated that the truck is the size of a typical truck not a large fuel truck.
Mr. Rhoads clarified that it is a 3/4 ton truck with a one hundred gallon tank on the back.
Char Davis stated that Development Standard#15 is meant to deal with the possibility of generating waste.
e.... changing oil, change fluids Mr. Rhoads indicated that they have no intentions of doing major
maintenance.
Cristie Nicklas asked Mr. Morrison about Development Standard #3 and the possibility of the addition of
authorized user since this definition came directly out of the Weld County Code. Mr. Morrison stated that the
confusion might come with the definition on private use from the County and the FAA. This would not apply
to an emergency situation. The intent was for the owners use and not a broader usage. Mr. Miller wanted
clarification with regard to the emergency uses. If law enforcement was needed it would be allowed, but not
other intensive uses.
Bryant Gimlin stated that since Development Standard #3 is in place there is no need for#4.
Bryant Gimlin moved to delete Development Standard #4. Cristie Nicklas seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;Cathy Clamp,yes;Cristie Nicklas,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Tim Rhoads needed clarification on#7. Mr. Miller provided that there will be no flight school or training. The
applicant would like to see a change in the language, specifically the word routine maintenance to major
maintenance. Routine maintenance will consist of greasing,changing air filters,washing,cleaning. Ms.Davis
stated that the concerns of the Health Department would be the waste. The concern of the applicant is to not
have to fly the helicopter to do routine maintenance, that would not be cost effective.
Cristie Nicklas moved to change the language in Development Standard #15 to read "with the exception to
an emergency condition, no maintenance that generates hazardous waste of the aircraft shall be performed
unless a waste management plan has been submitted and approved by the Department of Public Health and
Environment." Stephan Mokray seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes;Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;Cathy Clamp,yes;Cristie Nicklas,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Cristie Nicklas moved that Case USR-1364, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, no;Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes; Cathy Clamp,yes; Cristie Nicklas,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried
Mr. Folsom believes that this is incompatible with the surrounding area.
CASE NUMBER: Z-567
APPLICANT: Peter Hyland (Coyote Run PUD)
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot C of RE-2759; being a part of the NW4 of Section 26, T7N,
R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Change of Zone from A(Agriculture)to E (Estate)for a 5-Lot D.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to WCR 76.5 and east of and adjacent to
WCR 21.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services presented Case Z-567, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Mr.Ogle indicated that Item
I is to be deleted from staff comments.
John Folsom asked about the viability of agricultural production and according to the USDA map it is
considered to be Prime Irrigated Land. The applicant will continue agricultural uses on a portion of the ground
and also the land has been farmed. Mr. Ogle stated that the applicant agrees there is irrigation water on the
site and it is prime farm ground but the configuration of the site limits the ability to have a viable farm
operation,as the Eaton Canal bisects the ground. Mr. Folsom asked about bulk standards. Mr. Ogle stated
that the applicant has proposed a modification of the bulk standards. There are three of them,which deviates
from the standars and the PUD process allows for deviation from the standard.
Stephan Mokray asked the concerns from the Town of Windsor with regard to the road,fire protection district.
Mr. Ogle stated that the applicant has met with Mike Davis of the Windsor/Severance Fire Protection District
and has agreed to the terms that were outlined in the first letter dated in April 12, 2001.
Pete Hyland, stated there are three owners and two of the three will live at the location. Mr. Hyland further
indicated that the Eaton Canal makes this parcel of property tough to farm.
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 moved that Case Z-567, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
amendments to the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes;Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes; Cathy Clamp,yes; Cristie Nicklas,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 5:00pm
Respectfully submitted
\)C �_� �� �", •
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello