HomeMy WebLinkAbout20021676.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, June 18, 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 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin
Cristie Nicklas Absent
Fred Walker Absent
John Folsom
Stephan Mokray
Cathy Clamp Absent —
Luis Llerena Absent
Bruce Fitzgerald
Also Present: Peter Schei,Carla Angeli,Sheri Lockman, Don Carroll, Lauren Light, Frank Hempen, Kim Ogle,
Pam Smith, Char Davis
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on June4,2002,was
approved as read.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1389
APPLICANT: Michael Dean & Marjorie L. Greckel
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW4 of Section 8, T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for
a business permitted as a use by right or accessory use in the
Commercial Zone District (Storage of recreational vehicles,
campers, boats, trailers, construction trailers and modulars)in the
A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to WCR 15; Yz mile south of WCR 24.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting a continuance to July 16, 2002.
The applicant is investigating issues with the Mountain View Fire Protection District.
Bryant Gimlin moved to continue Case USR-1389 to July 16, 2002. Stephan Mokray seconded. Motion
carried.
CASE: USR-1390
APPLICANT: Anthony Navarro
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tracts B&C of SE-745; part of the SW4 of Section 14,T5N, R65W
of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Special Use Permit for a Commercial Recreational Facility
(Paintball Park) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Hwy 34; approximately 1/2 mile west of
WCR 47.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting a continuance to July 16,2002.
The applicant is addressing the issues with the Flood Hazard Permit that is in process.
Stephan Mokray moved to continue Case USR-1390 to July 16, 2002. John Folsom seconded. Motion
Oecnirt, Page 1
Oho 2002-1676
carried.
CASE NUMBER: CC2002-XX
APPLICANT: WCR#1 Coalition
PLANNER: Robert Anderson
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the W2 of Section 31, T3N, R68W and part of the NW4 of
Section 6, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado 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 Structural Land Use Map 2.1 to include 387+/-acres into the
MUD area).
LOCATION: South and adjacent to WCR 28; north and adjacent to WCR 26;
west and adjacent to WCR 1.
Robert Anderson, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting a continuance to August 20.
2002.
Michael Miller asked for an explanation. Mr.Anderson stated that the City of Longmont was requesting to be
present and the Union Reservoir Company is preparing a response letter.
Bryant Gimlin moved to continue Case CC2002-XX to August 20,2002. Stephan Mokray seconded. Motion
carried.
CLARIFICATION:
Monica Daniels Mika requested clarification for the Planning Commission Hearing scheduled for the beginning
of July. There is one case on the docket and it can be continued. A date of Thursday, July 2nd was approved
but Thursday is July 4 and Tuesday is July 2. It is at the boards discretion if a meeting is needed or not. Mr.
Miller stated it is difficult to get a quorum and he recommends elimination of that date. John Folsom stated
that July 16 is the next date and asked how many cases were scheduled. Ms. Mika indicated that there are
five.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to eliminate the first meeting in July. Stephan Mokray seconded. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: CZ-602
APPLICANT: Mike Siegrist, Riverdance Development Company
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Section 35, the SW4, NW4 and the NW4, SW4 of Section
36, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to PUD with Residential Uses
(R-1, R-2, R-3, & R-4)for six hundred eighteen (618) Residential
Lots,thirty-one(31)Lots with Commercial/Industrial(C-1,C-2&I-1)
Uses and 239 acres of Common Open Space including a
Community Clubhouse in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 28 and east of and adjacent to 1-25
Frontage Road.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, presented Case CZ-602, 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.
Vern Nelson, representative for the applicant, provided clarification with regard to the project. The owners,
Bob & Mike Siegrist, are present along with the engineers, Clayton Harrison & Chris Pickett of Pickett
Engineering. The referral agency comments have been reviewed and the issues have addressed. The
applicant is appreciative of the neighbors in the immediate vicinity and Public Works during the process for
a new alignment of WCR 9.5. The alignment will be from the St. Vrain Creek to Hwy 66 was developed in
Page 2
response to Weld County and COOT as a replacement for the current 1-25 frontage road. This will become
part of the future widening of 1-25. Planning for an upscale development of this size began 20 yrs ago. Mr.
Siegrist purchased the property and began with the gravel mining operation. Activity toward re-zoning has
intensified in the past years. The re-zoning is the next step so development can continue. The applicant
understands that much is to be done prior to final platting and actual development. The applicant believes
that they have accomplished a majority of the requirements. This development includes ample open space
and recreational facilities.
John Folsom asked about the capacity of the St. Vrain Valley School District and if the applicant has been
in contact with the district. The schools are over capacity now and will be more once this development is at
full build out. Mike Siegrist, applicant, indicated that the school district is looking at the project as if all the
homes will be occupied at once. This project will be 10-15 years until build out. The school system will see
approximately 30 students per year or less.
The applicant has spoken with the school district about two possible ways of funding new schools. A bond
issue is a possibility that will be on the ballot in November. In April of this year a new committee was put
together and the new bond issue is in the works. The applicant has also suggested mitigation fees. There
are two types of mitigation fees, one being cash in leu of land and the other is funding the infrastructure itself.
The school needs the money in lump sums, not a small amount at a time. The school is looking at the issue
and the applicant has made an offer for mitigation fee to the school district. The fees are similar to what a
development has paid in the area and it was$750 per house and$345 per town home. The school districts
mitigation fee structure is between$600-$2800. This varies as to what schools are over capacity. Mitigation
fees are difficult to determine.
Mr. Folsom stated that the need for the schools, because of capacity, is going to be there regardless. There
is no guarantee that the second bond issue will pass in November. Mr. Siegrist stated that Kathy Hall,
president of the school board, has stated mitigation fees are not a way to fund public schools. The school
district prefers to go through the bond issue process. The applicant is hoping to continue to work with the
mitigation fees. Mitigation fees will only apply until the bond issues passes. Mr. Siegrist is willing to continue
the discussion of the mitigation fees but is concerned about agreeing to an amount that is not set in stone.
The school district cannot tie any number down, as of now.
Mr. Folsom asked if the bond issue fails,would the applicant come to an agreement with regard to mitigation
fees. Mr. Siegrist indicated that there will be a need for schools and mitigation fees will be agreed to.
Mr. Gimlin asked if there was a condition that dealt with the submittal of an agreement from the school district
prior to final plat or noted somewhere. Mr. Ogle stated that language could be created and added to the
comments. Mr. Miller asked Frank Hempen, Department of Public Works, if WCR 9.5 has to be complete
to Hwy 66 before this project can go forward. Mr. Hempen stated that Public Works would like to see WCR
9.5 extended to Hwy 66 but there are other alternatives. Public Works will work with the developer on WCR
28. This will create alternative circulation. Mr. Hempen indicated that the developer in Riverdance is working
with other development's in the vicinity to try to pull together a Metro District.
Mr. Miller asked if the main goal was to funnel traffic to Hwy 66 or south to Hwy 119. Mr. Hempen indicated
that was correct, and the goal was to ultimately let traffic pass from Hwy 66 to Hwy 119. Mr. Miller indicated
that Hwy 66 is beyond capacity and asked what the status of Hwy 119 was. Mr. Hempen indicated that the
east side of the interchange is well signaled. Mr. Siegrist stated that the applicant is in phase one of
developing a Metro District. There have been traffic studies that have been done for the surrounding area.
It is the State's desire to have the frontage road disappear. The Metro District is on hold until some of these
projects get approval and can then move ahead. Mr. Siegrist stated that it currently goes from WCR 13 to
1-25 and Hwy 66 to the St. Vrain River. There has been an agreement drawn up that includes funding and
pay off of the funding. The Metro District has two purposes, one to put in road infrastructure and the second
is to bring in water. Mr. Hempen indicated the Department of Public Works does have the traffic study for
Riverdance and the Metro District.
Mr. Miller asked Mr. Siegrist about getting the bottom land OUT OF the flood plain. Mr.Siegrist indicated that
the flood plain actually runs on the north bank of the lakes but the applicant has gone to FEMA and requested
a CLOMR. With proper grading FEMA has agreed to remove it from the flood plain. All the residential and
commercial lots will be out of the flood plain. Mr. Folsom indicated that the base flood elevations have not
been determined in the area. Chris Pickett, engineer, stated the CLOMR was prepared and submitted
Page 3
establishing flood elevations. Mr. Folsom asked if this study established hydrological and hydraulic features
upstream to determine the base flood elevation in the specific area. Mr. Mokray asked the lakes being lined.
Mr. Siegrist stated that currently they are not lined but the anticipation is for the big lake to be lined as part of
this project. Mr. Mokray asked about an augmentation plan for the lakes. Mr. Siegrist indicated that there is
a substitute augmentation plan. In the future the big lake will be lined and there will be an augmentation plan
for the smaller lakes.
Mr. Folsom asked about the objections from the first proposal and one of them being from the Sheriffs
Department concerning public safety. In what way was this issue mitigated. Mr.Siegrist indicated the Sheriffs
Department is in support of the HOA and its ability to carry out some of the functions. This will assist the
department and relieve some fo the burden. The funding issue is addressed with regard to the additional tax
revenue being put back into the county budgets. Mr. Siegrist indicated that there are covenants and issues
that address some of the issues that the Sheriff normally deals with.
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 asked Kim Ogle if the language that addresses the agreement between the applicant and the
school. Mr. Ogle stated that he would propose the language be listed under #5M and subsequent
renumbering. The language would state"The applicant shall submit evidence of an agreement with the St.
Vrain Valley School District pertaining to the cash in lieu payment prior to submitting the final plat
application." Mr. Miller asked if they wanted to limit it to the cash in lieu option. Mr. Morrison indicated that
there are two factors going on. It is not general so it does not include all of the potential things that the
applicant has talked about but yet anything other than the cash in lieu option is strictly between the school
district and the applicant because the county by statue has no ability to compel someone to contribute other
than cash in lieu to a school district. The applicant has indicated it would be voluntary so keeping it general
as long as it is clear that the applicant is agreeing to do the agreement and the county is not requiring them
to do so. The agreement regarding mitigation including but not limited to cash in lieu.
Kim Ogle re-stated the condition to read,"The applicant shall submit evidence of an agreement with the St.
Vrain Valley School District regarding mitigation including but not limited to cash in lieu payment prior to
submitting the final plat application."
Vern Nelson suggested that the requirement be placed prior to recording the plat, not to submitting the
application. Mr. Ogle asked if this was prior to recording the change of zone plat or the final plat. Mr.
Nelson indicated it would be prior to recording the final plat. Mr. Nelson stated the a hard agreement of this
nature is not required by statue with respect to a re-zone issue. It is associated with a final plat filing. Mr.
Folsom would like to see the mitigation be more specific with regard to the addition of the language
"voluntary mitigation of impacts." Mr. Miller stated that the board does not have the authority to do that. Mr.
Folsom indicated it would be voluntary. Mr. Morrison stated that as long as the applicant was in agreement
both possibilities should be mentioned,cash in lieu of land and any voluntary mitigation payments for capital
improvements. Mr. Ogle provided another attempt at the language, "The applicant shall submit evidence
of an agreement with the St. Vrain Valley School District regarding mitigation and any voluntary mitigation
payments but not limited to cash in lieu prior to submitting a final plat. Mr. Morrison indicated there are two
items, one the voluntary mitigation payments for capital improvements and cash in lieu of land. Mr. Nelson
stated he would like to make sure that instead of prior to submitting it would be placed at prior to recording
the plat. Another consideration would be if the bond issue passes then this may be a consideration. Mr.
Morrison indicated that from the discussion if the agreement is in place before the bond election the
dissolution would be in that agreement. If the agreement is not in place before the election it would still be
reflected in the agreement. The Board is leaving the affects of the agreement to the applicant and the
school district with regard to the bond issue.
Kim Ogle indicated that in discussions with Ms. Mika the applicant is asking for an administrative review of
the application at final review. If the school district agreement is still not completed the project will have to
come before the board for final approval. They would not be eligible for final approval administratively.
Mr. Ogle attempted the language again, "The applicant shall submit evidence of an agreement with the St.
Vrain Valley School District pertaining to voluntary mitigation of capital improvement payments and/or cash
in lieu of land."
Mr. Morrison stated that the need to have a full hearing on this was if the agreement turns out to be an issue.
Page 4
It does not preclude administrative review if things are agreed upon prior to final plat review. Mr. Ogle
indicated that the agreement needs to take place prior to recording the change of zone plat thus all the
issues are agreed upon prior to the final plat administrative review. Mr. Ogle indicated it would be placed
at the time of final plan submittal. This would be#5M and subsequent renumbering.
Bryant Gimlin asked for clarification with regard to the affect on the administrative process. Mr. Ogle stated
that staff likes to have all the issues resolved prior to the administrative review. The referrals are received,
staff comments are done and the project is finalized. If this agreement is not done it will require it to come
before the board for final approval. Mr. Miller stated that regardless of what the board does if the agreement
is not accomplished it will come before the board.
Mr. Miller asked Mr. Nelson if the placement of the request in prior to submitting the final plans would be
adequate. Mr. Nelson indicated it would.
Bryant Gimlin moved to add#5M in Conditions of Approval with the language that states,"The applicant shall
submit evidence of an agreement with the St. Vrain Valley School District pertaining to voluntary mitigation
of Capital Improvements and /or cash in lieu of land prior to submitting the Final Plat application." Bruce
Fitzgerald 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; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion
carried unanimously.
Stephan Mokray moved that Case CZ-602, along with the 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. 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, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion
carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1377
APPLICANT: Gary&Carol VanderWal
PLANNER: Carla Angeli
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-359; part of the SE4 of Section 8, T5N, R67W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for
a use by right,an accessory use,or a Use by Special Review in the
Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts(Dairy equipment business,
Storage buildings) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to WCR 17 and north of and adjacent to HWY
34.
Carla Angeli, Department of Planning Services, presented Case USR-1377, 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.
Bryant Gimlin asked Char Davis, Department of Health and Environmental Services, about the equipment
washing. Ms. Davis indicated that there is a condition that addresses the washing of equipment. Mr. Gimlin
indicated that this was a current violation so they are conducting business now. The septic system cannot
handle this type of equipment washing operation, perhaps the applicant can provide more information.
Gary VanderWal, applicant, provided clarification with regard to the project. They have been running the
business since 1993. There was no indication at the time that what they were doing was illegal. Mr. Miller
asked about the concrete forming business. Mr. VanderWal indicted that they had rented the corner for
storage of concrete equipment. It was later determined that the storage was a violation. The VanderWals
discontinued the lease with the concrete company. There is no commercial washing,all of the work is done
off site.
Page 5
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. VanderWal questioned new building development standard. Mr. Miller indicated that a building permit
would need to be applied for if new buildings were proposed. Mr. VanderWal asked for clarification on the
evaluation by an engineer of the septic system. Ms. Davis indicated that there are employees and the
evaluation is to make sure that the system is up to standards.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case USR-1377, 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; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion
carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1380
APPLICANT: Richard McMahan for Saddler Arena
PLANNER: Lauren Light
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-3101;part of the S2 of Section 9,T7N, R67W of the 6th
P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for
an Equestrian Events Center including commercial roping/rodeo
arena, animal training and boarding, livestock sales facility,
equestrian events and concession sales. Included is an additional
request for a Commercial Recreational Facility which includes
Antique shows and auctions,canine events, boat and recreational
vehicle shows in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Hwy 14; approximately 1/2 mile east
of WCR 17/State Highway 257.
Lauren Light, Department of Planning Services, presented Case USR-1380, 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.
Todd Hodges, representative for the applicant, provided clarification on the project. This proposed arena
is directly related to agriculture due to the nature of the facility which will revolve around equestrian events.
It is compatible with existing and future land uses in the surrounding area and there were no conflicts with
the Towns of Windsor or Severance. Mr. McMahan, applicant, provided clarification on the concept for a
private arena and the site design. The concept came about 2.5 years ago. There are companies that are
developing software so the equestrian industry can go on the internet and enter shows. Mr. McMahan stated
that the show world for the equestrian industry is a lucrative adventure and would be more profitable if there
were more facilities. There are very limited places that people with horses can go practice. Mr. Miller asked
if there was going to be any livestock sales. Mr. McMahan stated that it would be more directed towards the
sale of llamas and such but it would not resemble a livestock sales barn. Mr. Hodges added this project is
related to agriculture and will revolve around equestrian events. The applicant has been very proactive in
working with the proper agencies to deal with any impacts before the submittal and will continue to work
addressing any possible conflict. The applicant has received a letter dealing with the mineral issues on the
property and are working on an agreement.
John Folsom asked about the proposed changes to 1A4 and Development Standard 25. Mr. Hodges stated
that both concerns are due to the applicant wanting to have reasonable alternatives. An example of this
would be valet parking. There are 10 acres that can be uses for parking that will never realistically be used.
The ADA actually states "reasonable alternative." The applicant wants some flexibility with regard to
parking.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Morrison about the judgement of what is reasonable. Mr. Morrison indicated that
there was some guidance in the code but ultimately the ADA does not rely on a strict set of standards. The
ultimate responsibility lies with the property owner. The enforcement is done on a complaint basis and
Page 6
possible lawsuit against the property owner. Mr. Miller asked Don Carroll, Department of Public Works,
about the limits of this. Mr. Carroll indicated that the surface must be a hard surface and the parking will
need to be close to the front door. Those are just some of the ADA standards that are reviewed. Mr. Miller
asked Mr. Carroll if there was any hesitation to approve the language that the applicant is asking for. Mr.
Carroll indicated that it was reasonable.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
John Folsom moved to amend 1A4 to state"The facility shall make reasonable accommodations pertaining
to the ADA standards" and Development Standard #24 to state "The facility shall maintain reasonable
accommodations pertaining to the ADA requirements." Stephan Mokray seconded Motion carried.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case USR-1380, along with the 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. 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; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion
carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1388
APPLICANT: Edward & Deloris Wolfe/Wiley Trucking
PLANNER: Lauren Light
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2310; part of the S2 NW4 of Section 16,Ti N, R66W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for
a use permitted as a Use-by-Right in the Commercial or Industrial
Zone District (Trucking Company) in the A (Agricultural) Zone
District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to WCR 29; approximately/ mile south of
WCR 10.
Lauren Light, Department of Planning Services, presented Case USR-1388, 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.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, about widening of WCR 29. Mr. Carroll
stated the widening of WCR 29 south of WCR10 is on the schedule to increase the size from 18 feet to 24
feet in width, there is no date certain but funding is available. Mr. Fitzgerald asked about the bridge and if
it will need to be redone. Mr. Carroll stated that the bridge is legal and is not posted which means vehicles
can go over it with a legal load. Mr. Carroll indicated that the bridge is either 20 or 24 feet in width.
In response to a letter that was received in which Mr. Fitzgerald was mentioned, Mr. Morrison asked Mr.
Fitzgerald for clarification with regard to a possible conflict of interest. Mr. Morrison asked Mr. Fitzgerald if
his involvement was as postmaster for the City of Fort Lupton. Mr. Fitzgerald indicated that he sends a letter
carrier to the location every day and was concerned with mail delivery patterns. Mr. Fitzgerald indicated that
there is no personal interest and he will neither gain or lose by the approval or denial of this application. Mr.
Fitzgerald indicated it was from a professional standpoint, not personal and there were some alternative
delivery patterns determined for the area. Mr. Morrison asked if an opinion was formed with discussion in
relation to the road and in the relation as Postmaster. Mr. Fitzgerald indicated that he has not formed a
decision and was looking at the project strictly professionally. Mr. Fitzgerald indicated that he does not feel
as though there is a conflict of interest.
Kirk Goble, representative for applicant, provided clarification with regard to the project. All the buildings
and exemptions will be inside the building envelope designated in RE-2310. The USR boundary is to the
north and that will be the only land that is subject to the USR. The Wiley's plan to construct their home on
the property. The boundary will include a 50'X 75' shop and landscaping at the entrance to the property.
The proposed uses include parking and storage of no more than five trucks with pup trailers. There will be
Page 7
shop storage and maintenance for the Wiley trucks only at this site. There will be no on site material
storage. There will be an average of two trips per day per truck, a morning departure and evening return.
The construction of the area and the entrance will be road base material. The trucks will be empty at this
location. There will be some truck washing of gravel materials. There are no chemicals and water will be
contained per the requirements of the Health Department. The existing shop is south of Fort Lupton,there
is presently nothing on this site. Mr. Goble indicated that the balance of the proposed property will include
the Wiley home, horse barn and corrals and irrigated alfalfa. The property has a two year old center pivot
sprinkler that will be used to continue alfalfa production. The building configuration has been addressed and
the reconfiguration is agreeable to the applicant. The building has been rotated and the truck parking will
be located at the south of the building. The referral from the City of Fort Lupton that addresses the desire
to have WCR 29 paved was received and the applicant has issues concerning this. WCR 29 is under the
authority of Weld County and there are plans in the works to widen it. The Wiley's and the Wolfe's have
made efforts to personally contact the surrounding property owners with regard to this project. The
applicant's have tried to address those issues. The issues of noise is dealt with in the technology of the new
trucks and no use of a jake brake. Gravel will be used in the area around the site to eliminate some of the
dust pollution. The trucks have extra mud flaps installed between the tandem dual tires to assist in rocks
being thrown up by the tires. The quiet county living is something that the applicant would like to enjoy also
since their home is going to be built on site.
Michael Miller asked about the dust suppression material and if they are more damaging than good. Mr.
Carroll indicated that the County uses the chemical quite a bit. The County will prepare the road in front of
the residence then the applicant will contact Envirotech to shoot that section of road. The down side to the
suppressant is that it may need to be applied more than a couple times per year and it may wash board.
When it gets beyond a safe condition the county will regrade and reshape the road and Envirotech comes
out again and shoots the section of the road again. Mr. Morrison asked if there was a traffic count for this
stretch of road. Mr.Carroll indicted that there will not be a count on WCR 29 because it is a dead end road.
The traffic count will be very low in the area. Mr. Morrison indicated that 200 vehicles per day is what the
State Health Department looks at when they start to require dust mitigation.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Don Smith,neighbor adjacent to the north, stated concerns with regard to noise,the dead end road and little
traffic. The major concern is the placement of the business on the north end of the property 150 feet from
the property line. There is the 150 feet and a narrow drive that separates the business from the residence.
The concern is the noise from the exhaust systems. It was pointed out that the expense of bringing a gas
line further south on the property was not a desirable alternative. Mr. Smith would like to see the operation
reconfigured so the business was at the south end of the property and locate the house at the north end.
Mr. Miller asked if there was active farming on the property. Mr. Smith indicated yes there is. Mr. Miller
asked if there were times when farming was going on early in the morning. Mr. Smith indicated that the
leaser to the farm farms other areas and is generally not there first thing in the morning. Mr.Smith indicated
that the Wiley operation is five days a week sometimes six. Mr. Mokray asked if there has been any contact
with the Wiley's to reach some type of agreement. Mr. Smith indicated that the real estate agent for the
Wiley's called and indicated that the building was reconfigured to assist with the noise. This still would not
take care of the problem of noise being only 150 feet away. Mr. Mokray indicated that the fume pollution
would have to be dealt with also. Mr. Smith indicated that the trucks will be noisy especially in the winter
time. If this is going to happen Mr. Smith would rather see it occur at the southern end of the property. Mr.
Miller asked if the sprinkler system supplied the bottom portion of the property where there are no
residences. Mr. Smith indicated that it can be moved around like it currently is to different locations. The
alfalfa is on the north end of Mr. Smith's property that is why the residence sits to the south end.
The chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Michael Miller asked why the applicant could not reconfigure the plan to place the business at the location
of the home. Mr. Goble stated that the sprinkler is portable but there will still be a need for lines. In an effort
to retain as much pasture area the business was placed at the northern end of the property. There is
additional costs associated with running the gas lines to the shop. The planned entrance and access will
be done in gravel and the longer the circulation pattern the more cost is associated with it. Mr. Miller indicted
that the drivers often spend time in the morning doing various maintenance while the trucks are warming
up for fifteen minutes or more. Mr. Miller is hesitant to subject the neighbor to the effect of this being only
Page 8
150 feet away when there is a reasonable alternative. Mr. Miller indicated the USR is for a specific area
only. The application would have to be amended. Mr. Morrison indicated that the use was not going to
change and is in the building envelope for Lot B so it could be changed as long as it has been advertised
and is in the possible area. Mr. Folsom asked if there was enough room to relocate the shop to the bottom
of the land because of the lands existing configuration. Mr. Goble indicated that in order to accommodate
the use of the sprinkler system there is a line in which all the improvements will be within. The circulation
system is designed to enhance and maintain as much of the useable farm ground.
The Chair called a five minute break for the representative to speak with the applicants about possible
reconfigurations to the business and home locations.
Kirk Goble, representative, indicated that one problem with the site is the south end is the low end of the
property. There is a drainage problem the further south on the property building are placed. There is more
buffer than what may have been thought. The building is 150 feet from the property line and the building
is 50 feet deep and the distance from the property line to the home is approximately 50 feet giving a total
of 250 feet. There will be building and landscape in that area and the eve height of the shop is 14 feet high.
Wiley trucking utilizes modern trucks with engine control which requires less warm up time in the mornings.
This buffer is more than what is required for an oil and gas facility. The ground is zoned agriculture so it is
a possibility that someone could put a barn on the setback and operate a farm facility. The applicants have
tried to make the operation and traffic flow work as well as concerns with the surrounding neighbors. The
applicants will stick by their plan.
Bob Wiley,applicant, provided clarification with the proposed property. At the beginning of this process plot
plan was handed to the surrounding owners including the Smiths. They were told at that time if there were
any issues with the plan to contact him they could work it out. There was never any feedback from any of
the neighbors spoken with. This could have all been taken care prior to this meeting if the issues would
have been brought forth. The Smiths were given the same opportunity as the rest of the surrounding
property owners to voice their concerns at that time. Mr. Wiley indicated that there needs to be something
other than farming to support the acreage.
Bryant Gimlin stated that there is enough separation from the shop to the property line. The prevailing winds
in the area will flow towards the applicants house not the neighbors. The new technology of today assists
in the fume and noise issues. The configuration does take the neighbors lifestyle into consideration.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case USR-1388, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation
of approval. Bruce Fitzgerald 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; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion
carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1391
APPLICANT: Howard &Veronica Cantrell
PLANNER: Carla Angeli
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-1057; Pt. of the SW4 of Section 1, T2N, R67W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for
a use by right, an accessory use, or a use by special review in the
commercial zone district (retail shop-selling trees, shrubs, grain,
garden decor, and jewelry) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to Weld County Road 23 and North of and
adjacent to Weld County Road 24.
Carla Angeli, Department of Planning Services, presented Case USR-1391, 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.
Michael Miller asked Char Davis, Department of Health & Environment, if the use of the restroom in the
Page 9
single family home was acceptable. Ms. Davis indicated it was acceptable because of the engineering
review. The home is located within 150 feet of the business. Mr. Miller asked about the monitoring of the
bathroom usage. Ms. Davis stated that they are looking at what the applicant has provided and that is all
they have to go by. Ms. Angeli indicated as part of recording the plat future restroom additions are being
requested.
John Folsom asked Don Carroll if there were any plans to extend WCR 24 east from WCR 23 and if there
was any right of way that the county has at the present time. Mr. Carroll indicated that expansion east on
WCR 24 could not be done due to the crossing of the river. Mr. Folsom asked about a 10 foot right of way.
Mr. Carroll indicated that WCR 23 and WCR 24 are designated as collector status and there is a need to
reserve 10 feet of right of way for future expansion. Mr. Folsom asked if there was any question as to how
close the access is to an intersection. Mr. Carroll stated that since these are already existing he is not
requiring anything additional.
Veronica Cantrell, applicant, stated the 10 feet right of way is listed on the plat for WCR 23&WCR 24. The
right of way to the east on WCR 23 is very vague. The information is in a book from the 1800's and it could
not be built into the conveyances.
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 moved that Case USR-1391, 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; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion
carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 4:30pm
Respectfully submitted
o ,,. n0.a 1Ar
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Page 10
Hello