HomeMy WebLinkAbout20030099 SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, December 17, 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 Vice Chair, Bryant Gimlin , at 1:30p.m.
ROLL CALL '3
•
Michael Miller Absent (-il :-1
Bryant Gimlin
James Rohn u
Fred Walker Arrived prior to USR-1406 -
John Folsom
Stephan Mokray 1.) r9
Cathy Clamp _r
Bernard Ruesgen
Bruce Fitzgerald
Also Present: Don Carroll, Sheri Lockman, Monica Mika, Char Davis
The summary of the last two regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on November
19 & December 3, 2002, was approved with minor amendments.
CASE NUMBER: CZ-1026
APPLICANT: Charles &Alice Greenman
PLANNER: Monica Daniels-Mika
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part SW4 NW4 of Section 30, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone/ PUD/ From R-1 to Estate and Commercial (C-1).
LOCATION: 13518 WCR1.
Monica Mika, Department of Planning Services read a request for continuance to January 7, 2003 due to
the applicant wishing to review the conditions of approval.
CASE NUMBER: MZ-629
APPLICANT: Dallas and Marjorie Schneider
PLANNER: Lauren Light
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B RE-2293 being part of the NE4 of Section 30, T2N, R68W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Minor Subdivision Change of Zone from (A) Agricultural to (E) Estate for
nine (9) residential lots.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to 16-1/2; approximately 3/4 mile east of WCR 1.
Monica Mika, Department of Planning Services read a request for an indefinite continuance.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1406
APPLICANT: Ronald & Michelle Sack
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-3380; part SE4 of Section 6,Ti N, R64W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a
business permitted as a use by right or an accessory use in the
Commercial Zone District (parking of commercial trucks and equipment)
in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Hwy 52; 1/2 mile west of WCR 51.
dcnc All O.end-a— Page -1-
/- 4-aoO3 2003-0099
Mr. Walker arrived.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services, presented Case USR-1406. Mrs. Lockman stated that
staff has included conditions that will ensure the trucks and equipment will be screened from the adjacent
properties and road right-of-way. Further trucks and equipment will be required to park in the screened area
when on site. Also,the applicant will not be allowed any employees beyond those residing in the residence.
The access permit and well permit include this limitation.
Cathy Clamp asked about the parking of the trucks and if it is a business that is ran from the site. Ms.
Lockman indicated that Mr.Sack does have a business,but the request is limited to the parking of the trucks.
Ms. Clamp asked about the size of the parcel. Ms. Lockman indicated it was seven acres.
John Folsom asked about Development Standard #13 with regard to the only employees be the ones that
reside at the site. The residents are the only employees that bring the trucks onto and off of the site. Ms.
Lockman indicated that Mr. Sack was the only employee. The limitations through the access permit state
they can use the residential access as long as there are no other employees. The well permit is not a
commercial permit just a residential permit. Therefor it only applies to those residing in the home.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked how long the business has been in operation. Ms.Lockman stated that the applicant
could address that issue. The discovery was made when the property was subdivided causing it to become
a violation and needing a USR.
John Folsom asked Mr. Carroll if he has visited the site and his opinion of the access onto Hwy 52. Mr.
Carroll indicated that the site is existing. Mr. Carroll stated that Hwy 52 carries 1300 vehicles in 24 hour
period. This property sets on a hill and there is good access and site distance in both directions. It has been
functioning fine. Mr. Folsom asked if there would be a need for an additional lane to turn into the property.
Mr. Carroll stated that would depend on the individuals operating the equipment.
Michelle Sack, applicant, provided clarification of the project. The business started in January 2000. They
used to farm but had to sell out due to the economy. The truck are on the remaining 7 acres along with the
residence. T he business i s primarily contracting out t he a quipment and t rucks. T hey are rented to
companies in Denver who have their own drivers. Much of the times the equipment is not on site. That is
the reason for 12 pieces of equipment with just the Sacks as employees. The applicants do some septic and
leach fields but there is no need for employees. There will be no future increase of traffic due to the fact it
is only the applicant entering and exiting the area. The trucks are leased out for a period of time.
Cathy Clamp asked for clarification with regard to the delivery to or pick up of the trucks by the contractors.
Ms. Sack indicated that the equipment is delivered.
Bernie Ruesgen asked if the residence was the applicants and if maintenance of the vehicles was done
there. Ms. Sacks indicated that no maintenance was done on site nor was any fuel stored there. The
maintenance and fueling is done elsewhere. Mr. Ruesgen asked about the total number of trucks. Ms.Sack
indicated there are twelve stated in the application but two of them are for sale right now.
Mrs. Sack added that this is a commercial business not agriculture. There is no need to screen the farm
equipment and this equipment is in better condition and fewer of it. If the requirement is made to build a
fence it will be done but it will look worse then the maintained equipment that is presently on site.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Bryant Gimlin stated that staff will work with the applicant with regard to the screening on the property.
Cathy Clamp asked about the saplings that were in the photos. Ms. Lockman stated the area that was
originally discussed does not have much screening. Staff spoke with the applicant and it was suggested that
the trucks be moved farther back to where those saplings are. Staff might consider this a good alternative.
The site will need to be revisited to determine the best alternative. Ms.Sack indicated that the only concern
would be the increase in mice from the adjacent fields. They would get into the vehicles and possibly
damage the wiring.
Page -2-
James Rohn moved that Case USR-1406, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
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; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Fred Walker, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James
Rohn, yes; Bernie Ruesgen, yes; Cathy Clamp, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 1:50pm
Respectfully submitted
(;I'LL s 1� C��W Lt---
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Page -3-
Hello