HomeMy WebLinkAbout20021299.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, May 7, 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
Fred Walker
John Folsom -
-
Stephan Mokray -
Cathy Clamp Absent
Luis Llerena
Bruce Fitzgerald Absent
Also Present: Peter Schei, Carla Angeli,Sheri Lockman, Don Carroll, Pam Smith, Drew Scheltinga,Cindy Etcheverry
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on April 16, 2002, was
approved as read.
CASE NUMBER: CZ-553
APPLICANT: Dennis Neal (Mill Creek PUD)
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B RE-2835; being part SW4 of Section 29, T4N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from Agricultural to PUD for 9 residential lots and one agricultural
lot with a conservation easement.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 40 %and West of and adjacent to WCR 3.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services, read a letter into the record requesting a continuance to June 4,
2002. The hearing will be at the Southwest Weld Office.
Cristie Nicklas moved to continue Case CZ-553 to June 4, 2002. Stephen Mokray seconded. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1370
APPLICANT: City of Longmont c/o Brad Schol
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: S2 NE4 Section 8, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Private
Recreational Facility (St. Vrain Archers and Bowhunters Association) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of State Highway 119;south of Vista View Drive; southwest of and adjacent
to WCR 5; south of and adjacent to Vista Commercial Center on the City of
Longmont Landfill site.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1370, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the application.
John Folsom asked if Chapter 23-3-470 applies to outside archery. Mr. Ogle stated that the DPS interpretation was
pistols and rifles exclusively. Mr. Folsom asked Mr. Carroll where WCR 5 terminates. Mr. Carroll indicated that the
county maintains WCR 5 to the intersection that turns back west into Vista Commercial.
Brad Schol, applicant, provided clarification on the project. This application is by the City of Longmont for a
recreational use on the cities old landfill. In 2001 the City of Longmont entered into a 5 year lease agreement for
w o5/Q° 2002-1299
40 acres for an archery range. The Archers Association has been talking with the city over the last few years to find
a suitable site. The range will be located on the top of the landfill, which is the same elevation as the Vista
Commercial Center. The lease will be restricted to the upper portion of the landfill. There will be an archery course
around the perimeter of the leased area. The western portion of the course will be changed to address the concerns
of the neighbors. The City is interested in this type of activity because it provides youth and service organizations
an opportunity to experience the activity. There seems to be a need for this in the area. This is a temporary use and
variances are requested with regard to a permanent water and sewer system as well as paving. There are several
issues to be addressed including: 1. The public water concerns are possible contamination because of the site
being a old landfill. 2. The private improvements agreement is another issue since there will be a minimal amount
of construction on the site. A waiver of the security requirements for the City of Longmont would be requested. The
access road consists of approximately 1000 feet of paved road that is currently used for the City of Longmont
wastewater composting facility. An existing gate limits public access onto the property. The access is maintained
by the city and is in good shape.
Stephan Mokray asked about the temporary use and if extended beyond the five years what about the water issues.
Mr. Schol stated that because of the temporary nature and the limited improvements that it would continue with the
bottled water and vault septic facility. The Archers Association would not be able to withstand the cost of extensive
improvements and the City of Longmont would not be interested in taking it over due to the cost of extending city
utilities to the site. Mr. Mokray asked about hand washing. Mr. Schol indicated that the bottle water would be used
and something that would be equivalent to the hand washing and acceptable by the Weld County Department of
Health. Char Davis, Department of Health and Environmental Services, stated the County requires facilities for
washing hands. If there is a place to use the restroom then some type of hand washing facility needs to be provided.
Mr. Folsom asked about signage. Mr. Schol indicated that there will be a kiosk and notification for members
containing information about the drop offs. There would be information at the beginning of the course. Roger
Trudell,president of the archery association, provided some clarification to the project. In starting a new range there
is a need for insurance. The course will need to be inspected prior to issuance of insurance. In the design there
are no shots going towards the residential developments. The safety issue is addressed prior to the issuance of any
insurance for the site. There are some signs that are being made by the City of Longmont for landfill purposes. The
association will not be able to utilize the site if public water and sewer are required, as the cost is out of the
associations budget. The applicant agrees that there is a need for the hand washing facility but an alternative is
asked for. The bathroom could be designed like the restroom in National Forrest Lands. The usage is approximately
60 paid memberships. The vehicles will be limited to 10-15 trips per day with the weekends being slightly higher
(25-35 Trips Per Day)
Michael Miller asked Ms. Davis about possible alternatives for the hand washing facility. These facilities can be
provided by Waste Management. Ms. Davis would like to see something for hand washing provided and the use
of the portable facilities would be acceptable to the Health Department. There will also be the need for bottled water
at the site. Mr. Trudell indicated that the portable units and bottled water will be acceptable to the applicant.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one
wished to speak.
Fred Walker indicated some observations with the inequitable processes within the county. Mr. Morrison indicated
that it was a separate issues and not relevant.
John Folsom asked Mr.Carroll if there is a recommendation for an ADA space. Mr.Carroll stated that an ADA space
would be asked for. Mr. Miller asked about the gravel parking lot. Mr. Carroll stated that the type of facility and low
traffic volumes,the board can waive the requirement for paved access road and parking. Mr. Miller asked about the
waiver from the Private Improvements Agreement. Mr. Ogle stated that the agreement was collateral taken from the
applicant for any improvements made on the site, in this case the gravel parking, curb stop and lighting. The county
would hold monies against the applicants project until the improvements have been completed. Once this has been
completed the money will be given back to the applicant. Staff will go into a governmental agreement with the City
of Longmont to assure that the improvements will be done. Mr. Folsom asked about the methane gas issue. Cindy
Etcheverry, Department of Health and Environmental Services, stated that they have a venting system at the land fill
and it expels the gas. Mr.Morrison added that the installation of sewer and water lines would complicate the methane
gas problem. Ms. Etcheverry indicated that it would cause the methane gas to flow to other areas,it will follow the path
of least resistence. Mr. Morrison added that the paving of a parking lot would complicate the matter and path of the
methane. Ms. Etcheverry indicated that the gravel parking area is a better alternative.
Cristie Nicklas moved to delete 1B, 2D, 2F-no text, Development Standard#17 and amend Development Standard
#14 language to state"Hours of operation are daylight hours only." 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;Cristie Nicklas,yes; Fred Walker,yes; Luis Llerena,yes.
Motion carried.
Cristie Nicklas moved that Case USR-1370, 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;Cristie Nicklas,yes;Fred Walker,yes;Luis Llerena,yes.
Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: Z-569
APPLICANT: Lifestyle Homes
PLANNER: Chris Gathman/Carla Angeli
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Hill N Park, Lot B, a subdivision in the S2 of Section 26,T5N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from R-5 to R-2 in the Hill N Park Subdivision.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to WCR 52 (49`" Street); ''A mile west of WCR 35 (35th
Avenue)
Carla Angeli,Department of Planning Services presented Case Z-569,reading the recommendation and comments
into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of the application.
Billie McDivitt, representative for Lifestyle Homes, provided more clarification to the property. The property is on
vacant ground. The parcel is such a size that access does become a problem from an interior street system. If is
not feasible to get all the lots to access onto the cul-de-sac. A private drive would be the only way to do this and this
would create a HOA. There have been changes to the exterior lots to access Yosemite Ave and Yellowstone Ave.
There is a proposed increase ROW at the south part of the parcel. The road was built on the edge of the site and
the applicant is granting more ROW so the county will have some ROW beyond the edge of the asphalt. The access
issue was not brought forward early enough in the process to adequately address. The applicant has worked closely
with the referral agencies and the system failed in that a major issue was not brought to light far enough in advance.
John Folsom asked about some of the alternatives and the idea of two streets ending in cul-de-sacs. Mr. McDivitt
stated that the size requirements would make it impossible with the number of lots to make this development
economically feasible. The lots would need to be smaller and that would not work with the lots size requirements.
Mr. Miller indicated that the only way to make this work was to reduce the number of lots. Mr. McDivitt agreed.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Sheila English Ogden has concerns with the traffic in the area. Ms. Ogden would rather see the area be used as a
park adverse to more residential development. Ms. Ogden is in objection to the project.
Peggy Campbell,stated that the area was marketed as a park in the beginning. The traffic has increased immensely.
There seem to be trucks using this route to get to Hwy 85. The street is also very narrow.
John Renna stated his concerns with the traffic in the area. There have already been fatalities in the area and the road
is far to narrow.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
Lee Morrison asked for clarification with regard to the lots. Ms. Angeli stated the property is 3.5 acres. Mr. Miller
asked for clarification with regard to the park and the lot that is being discussed. Ms.Angeli stated that the lot is zoned
R-5. It is across the street and south of the park and the fire station.
Bryant Gimlin asked Department of Public Works about the issues with the access. Mr. Scheltinga stated that
Yellowstone and Hill N Park are both major accesses into the subdivisions and there is a median on Hill N Park Drive
that runs down the block. Having adjacent accesses one right after another causes a traffic problem that there is no
reason to create. The problem for the access is the density for the proposed development consisting of eleven
buildings with a total of 22 families. Families with driveways accessing Hill N Park would not be able to directly access
their properties off of 49th Avenue due to the median. They would have to do a U-turn around the median and then
come back. Mr. Scheltinga would be willing to try different alternatives with regard to smaller ROW or amendment
to the standards to try and work out something. To create access for this parcel off Yosemite Drive would be another
alternative. The number of buildings and density is the sole issues for denial. The density proposed includes 22
families with 2 cars each,which totals 44 cars in the subdivision causing a parking issue. Mr. Miller stated that a circle
drive in the center would access all the lots but some lots would have to be lost. Mr. Llerena stated that the area is
already dense and the configuration does not make sense. Mr. Folsom stated that altering the road configuration,
would that bring in constraints from the fire dept. Mr. Scheltinga stated it would but a loop drive would be the most
workable. Mr. Mokray asked about traffic studies. Mr. Scheltinga stated that there were no studies done for the
surrounding area. The streets are not in the five year improvement plan for Public Works. Mr. Llerena asked about
the school bus stop for the kids and it being on 49`". There is a lot of concern with regard to the activity within the area
for not only the school kids, fire department and the senior center. The access for safety was being taken away
because of the number of units. Mr.Miller stated that there is plenty of activity in the area and the number of driveways
into the project was plenty. Mr. McDivitt stated that the application is for a re-zone not to put lots on the ground. The
applicant had to go through the subdivision process but step back to the change of zone process. The process needs
to be reviewed. If re-zone and subdivision could be applied for at the same time it would be better for the project and
the completeness of it. The system needs to be reviewed to become a more applicant friendly process. The applicant
feels as if the re-zone is not approved the money spent on the re-subdivision work was wasted. The final subdivision
plat might look very different than what is proposed today. Mr. Miller stated that the applicant needs to come up with
a better plan to let the board know what is being proposed. The plan does not have to be exact but has to show the
general idea. Mr. Miller indicated that the best way to make the project work with regard to the access issues was to
reduce the number of lots. Mr.Llerena stated that it is the boards responsibility to ensure the health safety and welfare
of the residents. It would be to the applicants benefit to submit a plan that would be more acceptable to the County
Departments. The applicant would like to see a joint application process for re-zone and subdivision. Mr. Walker
asked what kinds of densities are allowed under the R-5 zone. What is the maximum density under the current zone
for the 3.5 acres and what will be the maximum under the requested zone. Mr. Gathman, Department of Planning
Services, stated that there is a 6000 sq. foot lot size minimum requirement. They would have to do a re-subdivision
through the county. The density would be approximately 15 lots for a R-5 Zone District. Mr. Folsom stated his
concerns with 6000 sq.ft lot size for a mobile home would be minimum allowable and the density could be greater than
that.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case Z-569,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions
of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of denial based on the
issues of density and access. 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;Cristie Nicklas,yes;Fred Walker,yes;Luis Llerena,yes.
Motion carried unanimously.
Bryant Gimlin added that the applicant should have been more diligent and treated the process with more importance
something may have been worked out.
Cristie Nicklas added that the charge of the board is to look at the case the way its presented to them.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1372
APPLICANT: Bennie Rodriguez
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B, RE-2063; being part of the NW4 of Section 35,T5N, 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, an Accessory Use or a Use by Special Review in the
Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts(Concrete Business)in the A(Agricultural)
Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 52 (49`" Street), 1/4 mile east of 47th Avenue
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1372, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of the application.
Andy Jones, attorney representing the applicant, provided background and clarification on the project. The
presentation included information with regard to both USR-1372 and USR-1371. Mr. Morrison indicated that the
information could be presented in its entirety but the Board will need to act upon each case separately. Testimony
from all parties will be accepted. Mr. Jones continued with his presentation beginning with the history of the parcel.
The lots were created by RE-2063 as vacant ground and residential. The surrounding area contains a large mix of
uses and densities. Some of the uses include small scale agriculture, small acreage residential, high density
residential, commercial, home base contracting, industrial and new subdivisions. The applicant is requesting to
continue the concrete flatwork operation that is presently being done on the property. This operation is currently in
violation of the County Code. Mr. Jones stated that the impact is no greater than any other typical agricultural
operation and the applicant has agreed to the fact that there will be no increased use and the term of the operation
will be limited to Mr. Rodriguez only. Further, the work that is done for the operation is done on job sites. The
equipment is moved from site to site and not stored at this property. The site is just the initial meeting place for the
workers. There is no office open to the public, no traffic, no mixing or sorting of cement or aggregates. Mr. Rodriguez
does the flat work only, the concrete is hired in and poured on site. Next Mr. Jones addressed the violation. He
indicated that the applicant believes that it may not be a violation. The primary reason is that it is indistinguishable
from an agricultural operation. There are plenty of violations in the area that are of the same nature. One of the
reason that the applicant feels that this has happened is possibly because of race. There have been continuous phone
calls to the county regarding this violation. There have been no other calls pertaining to the same type of operation
in other parts of the neighborhood. There has been a complaint to the county that identifies a taco truck. In response
to the violation, the applicant took the initiative to come into compliance with the county. The applicant put up a
screened fence,filed the USR application and is willing to take any additional reasonable measures to adhere to the
requirements.
Mr.Jones finished his presentation by indicating that the applicant has issues with the need for a septic system review.
There is no bathrooms that are open to the public. The house is the only use on the septic system. There is no waste
on this site. All waste is generated on site and is hauled away. The shop is not used for the business. It is a typical
outbuilding that can be seen on any agricultural property. The applicant is offering mitigation as follows: meeting place
for employees but there will be no more than 2 cars at a time,the storage area will all be screened in, no work on site,
no public office and only temporary storage of forms and trucks between jobs. The applicant wants to maintain the
limited operations as currently established. The applicant is willing to agree that the business will only be in operation
until Mr. Rodriguez retires.
Fred Walker asked about the name suggested for the USR. With the use being limited to Mr. Rodriguez the USR
would be under his name. Mr. Jones indicated that they had applied under Mr. Rodriguez name.
John Folsom asked about Mr. Rodriguez's son continuing the business. Mr. Jones indicated that his son will not be
taking over the business. Mr. Miller asked about the fenced in area and the height of the fence. Mr.Jones stated that
the applicant will be willing to increase the size of the fence to six feet. Mr. Miller asked if building permits were pulled
when the shop was built. Mr.Jones stated that there were. Mr. Miller asked Char Davis, Department of Health,about
the septic review. Ms. Davis indicated that the system was approved as a three bedroom home in 1992 not as a
commercial business. There is a requirement that the system needs to be evaluated by an engineer. The system may
not change. Ms.Davis indicated that the waste handling plan can be a statement naming the waste disposal company
and pick up times. Mr. Morrison stated that he and Mr. Jones discussed how the violation will be treated. It was
agreed that the application could be made and process completed without any issue of the violation. By doing the
process the applicant is not admitting to guilt in regards to the violation case. If litigation becomes necessary the
applicant has reserved the right for a defense, if necessary.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Sheila English Ogden,stated concerns about the screened in area. Ms. Ogdens property is located at the rear of the
applicants property. Ms. Ogden has problems with people buying property and doing business without first checking
the zoning and determining what is allowed. This is not a racial situation. There are other residences in the
surrounding area who are of a minority and are not in favor of the project. The applicant has improved the property
over the years but there are some things that still need to be taken care of. The structure was painted which has
helped. The fence needs to be taller. Ms. Ogden would like to see denial for the project. There is a lot of violations
going on in the area and there are no USR's for those businesses. Mr. Gimlin asked how far from the fenced area
is her residence located. Ms.Ogden stated she is approximately 300 yards. Mr.Gimlin asked about the traffic coming
from the business. Ms.Ogden stated she has not noticed it specifically from this property.Mr.Miller asked if the West
boundary was more adequately fenced would that assist with the view. Ms. Ogden indicated it would.
Peggy Campbell, stated that this is not a new and recent problem. The area is much better and the exposure is
limited. The property is cleaned up and Ms. Campbell cannot understand why he would want to put storage units in
to destroy the aesthetics of the property. Ms.Campbell thought it was tacky for the lawyer to bring up the racial issues.
The applicant has done work for the neighbors and they like him. The road has been inundated with traffic in the last
few years. If there is any transition it is people moving away from the corporate world and finding other things to do.
Steve Applegard,adjacent property owner, in favor of the project. Has never had any problems with the project. The
county residents need to forget the old concept of no growth. The area is growing and there is nothing that can be
done about it.
Carol Applegard,adjacent property owner, has no problem entering 49`"Street. She has the approval for the storage
of 80 RV's on a 4 acres parcel of land adjacent to the applicant. The surrounding area has its own set of issues, Hill
N Park has several issues. There are home based businesses that have special use permits. Ms. Applegard
indicated that the two acres that is for the proposed storage units was at one time for sale and would not sell. The land
is basically sand and virtually non productive. Ms. Applegard is in support of the project. Growth in the community
is happening and will continue. The City of Evans will encompass this area soon. With regard to the commercial
aspect of the neighborhood, there is a gas station, fire station, senior center, church and convenience store across
the street. There are other business operated in the area.
Audrey Wimmer, representative from City of Evans, the request was reviewed and it does not comply with the
comprehensive plan. Per the coordinated planning agreement adopted by Weld County and Evans and the future land
use map. The whole area is identified as low density residential. Commercial or industrial activity would not be
reviewed because it is not a permitted use. The request is for denial to avoid any additional non conforming uses in
the future.
Eric Carlson, Carlson Oil and Gas, stated that there is an Oil & Gas agreement with the applicant. Mr. Carlson sold
the property to Mr. Rodriguez and it seems that the property is taken care of.
The Chair Closes the public portion
John Folsom asked about the IGA with City of Evans and if petition for annexation. Ms. Lockman indicated that there
were no requirements.
Luis Llerena asked about the stated concern over his possible conflict of interest and if there was any concern. Mr.
Morrison asked if Mr.Llerena's property abutted the applicants. Mr.Morrison asked if Mr. Llerena had a preconceived
notion of what his recommendation would be. Mr. Llerena indicated that he had made a point of not having any
contact. Mr. Morrison asked if the results of the final decision would have any economic benefit or loss. Mr. Morrison
stated that Mr. Llerena decision would have to be based on the record. Mr.Llerena stated that it would not be a benefit
for him. Mr. Morrison stated that he did not see any clear indication of conflict to which he would have to abstain from
the vote.
John Folsom stated he has a problem with uses on a property without proper approval given. This applicant's case
should be considered by itself. The area has similar commercial operations and there should be no reason to
disapprove this. The way the site is going to be operated is not going to change. It is not detrimental to the area. Mr.
Llerena stated that the area is residential and it is expanding. The fact that the business exist does not mean it is
compatible. The intent is to protect the residential aspect and quality of life. The concerns are understandable. The
proposed property is in violation and the nature of the violation includes the operation of the concrete business.
Bethany Salzman, Weld County Zoning Compliance, stated that the violation was started with a letter from Mr.
Rodriguez in regard to any permits needed for the operation on the property. That was submitted in 2000 and the
initial violation letter was sent in March 2001. Upon the processing of the violation a noncommercial junkyard was
found and this caused the screening. Mr. Morrison stated that the USR was submitted to take care of the violation.
Mr. Miller stated that he had done the site visit and Mr. Rodriguez has done and agreed to several different aspects
including limited operation,screening. The screening of the business activities would have to be increased with regard
to the street. The neighboring property owners have pretty much stated that the property has been cleaned up
immensly. Mr.Folsom indicated that the surrounding property owners need to understand that there will be conditions
applied and if they are violated the approval can be revoked. Mr. Llerena stated that history has proven it otherwise
and it has been shown with some of the other properties. Mr. Miller stated that the County does not have the staff to
search for violations. As they are brought to the attention of the County they are dealt with. Ms. Nicklas stated that
this application is attractive because of the time frame that Mr. Rodriguez will be the only operator of the business.
The fact it is not going to be increased is another benefit to the surrounding neighbors.
Michael Miller asked about the landscaping and screening plan and if the fencing would be addressed in it. Ms.
Lockman indicated that the section quoted was from the commercial district so there are landscaping requirements.
The screening needs to be improved on the West side. Mr. Mokray stated that the applicant has taken the initiative
to make a wrong a right.
Michael Miller stated that the applicant would like to have some variances from the septic review,waste management
plan and building permit review. Ms. Nicklas indicated that all the requests for deletion should stay.
Cristie Nicklas moved that Case USR-1372, 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;Cristie Nicklas,yes; Fred Walker,yes; Luis Llerena,no.
Motion carried.
Luis Llerena added that his vote of no was based on the fact the existing use will be expanded when there is a current
violation on the place, the proposed project is not compatible with the low density residential focus in the area.
Bryan Gimlin added that his initial response was denial but with the additional information it is basically a park n ride
with storage on it. It is really not a business with the sense that there are customers coming in and out and employees
on site.
Michael Miller added that it is tough enough for a small businessman to make a go of it without placing excessive
burdens on them. Mr. Rodriguez has made a great effort in cleaning the property and maintaining a nice operation.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1371
APPLICANT: Bennie Rodriguez
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A, RE-2063; being part of the NW4 of Section 35,T5N, 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, an Accessory Use or a Use by Special Review in the
Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts(Storage Units)in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 52 (49' Street), 1/4 mile east of 471h Avenue.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1371, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of the application.
Michael Miller indicated that the information presented by Mr.Jones in USR-1372 will be applicable in this case and
should be entered into the record.
Mr.Jones, attorney for the applicant, provided clarification on the project. The request for storage units consisting of
two buildings approximately 40'X360',paved drive, bathroom, retention pond and there will be no contractors allowed
to utilize the units. This is in the Agricultural Zone District and is an allowed use. This ground is not prime farm
ground. The requested use will be useful to the neighborhood and is compatible with the approved RV storage next
door. The county is bound by the IGA of Evans and compatibility is addressed. Mr. Jones argued that no conflict
exists because of the mixed uses that are already in the area. If there is a need for mitigation the applicant has no
problems addressing those concerns. There is no conflict with this request in that the surrounding area is considerable
mixed with uses that range from high density residential to RV storage to commercial. The additional mitigation
request for landscape is a good idea. This would include drainage, lighting, restroom onsite and hours of 8:00am to
8:00pm. The request is for approval because the use is appropriate to the area in a transition from rural to urban, it
is not prime farm ground and the adjacent RV Storage has set a precedent.
Bryant Gimlin asked about the reason for staffs recommendation of denial. Ms. Lockman indicated that compatibility
and the IGA with Evans were the basis for the recommendation of denial. Mr. Folsom asked about when the RV park
was approved. Ms. Lockman stated it was approved in September of 2000.
Mr. Jones, representative for the applicant, stated that this property is in the county in the Agricultural Zone District
not in a residential subdivision.
Michael Miller asked how far off the units would be from 49'"Street. Mr. Jones stated the applicant will need to meet
the setbacks and the units will be 75-100 feet off the road. The screening will be shown on a complete landscape plan
completed by a landscape architect and submitted to the DPS. Mr. Miller asked about the access and if it will be the
same as the home access. Mr. Jones stated yes. The front of the two buildings will be steel fronts. Mr. Miller asked
about the office area. Mr.Jones stated the office will be in the front facing the street. Mr.Miller stated that the concern
is for the appearance to be "dressed up"a little. Mr. Jones stated that brick could be agreed to. Mr. Folsom asked
about the access. Mr. Rodriguez, applicant, stated that if two accesses would be needed it can be done. Mr. Carroll
stated that the WCR 52 (49'"St) is designated as collector and would require 80 feet right-of-way at build out but the
road has been annexed by Evans. The plat shall have a shared access points for Lots A& B. Mr. Morrison stated
that the City of Evans will not need to be involved unless another access is requested.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Steve Applegard, adjacent property owners, recommended approval and indicated it will be taken care of.
Eric Carlson, Carlson Oil and Gas, indicated an agreement is in place.
Carol Applegard, adjacent property owners, stated that the second lot could not be sold, therefor, the reason for the
storage units.
Sheila English Odgen asked about the aesthetics and how many units. Ms Lockman indicated that it will be 144 units.
Ms.Ogden asked about the lighting. Mr. Miller indicated that the lighting should be non intrusive to the neighbors and
hours of access will be limited.
The chair closed the public portion.
Stephan Mokray moved that Case USR-1371, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval.
Fred Walker 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;Cristie Nicklas,yes; Fred Walker,yes; Luis Llerena, no
Motion carried
John Folsom added that the continuation of the existing business can be justified but with the changes in the area
there should be no addition to the commercial situation.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1379
APPLICANT: Voicestream Wireless
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt. E2 SE4 of Section 32, T11 N, T66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Application for a Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review
Permit for a Major Facility of a Public Utility (300' cellular tower) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: Approximately 750 feet East of Hwy 85; approximately 1.25 miles North of WCR
122.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1379, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the application.
Matt Butler,representative for the applicant,provided clarification on the project. Voicestream is looking at a new site
for the Hwy 85 corridor. The reason for this site is because of the inability to co locate on the AT&T structure. This
structure is co locatable and will enable other carriers to add.
John Folsom asked why the use of a lattice design. Chris Tenney,representative for the applicant,stated that a lattice
design was chosen because of lease agreements with the land owner. Mr. Miller how far it was away from the AT&T
tower and why put it next to 85. Mr.Tenney stated it was a quarter to half mile away from the AT&T tower. The reason
for putting next to Hwy 85 was to be able to cover the corridor. Ms. Nicklas asked if it was on the top of the hill. Mr.
Tenney stated it was on the smaller hill. The hill has a recess on top of the hill so the equipment will be somewhat
hidden by the natural terrain.
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 USR-1379, 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;Cristie Nicklas,yes;Fred Walker,yes;Luis Llerena,yes.
Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1381
APPLICANT: Linda Daniel
PLANNER: Carla Angeli
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2800; part of the E2 of the SE4 of Section 26, T6N, R66W 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 District (Greenhouse and retail garden center) in the A (Agricultural) Zone
District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to WCR 64 ("O" Street) and West of and adjacent to WCR
35 (35`h Avenue)
Carla Angeli, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1381, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the application.
Tim Clancy, representative for the applicant, provided clarification with regard to the project. The applicant is already
approved to sell the plants that are grown there but would request to be able to sell arts and crafts at the site. The
permit is needed in order to do this. The letter from Mr. Schwartz is definitely one of interest and legitimate concerns.
The landscape plan will address some of his issues with regard to screening.
John Folsom asked about addressing City of Greeley's concerns. Mr. Clancy indicated that the only issue that posed
a problem would be the paving of the entire area. That would be financially and economically impossible for the
applicant to do.
Stephen Mokray asked for more detail with regards to what is planned. Kirsten Daniels, applicant, provided more
detail as to what was going to be done with the property. Currently plants that are grown on the premises are being
sold and the request is to be able to sell other items, such as potting soil, pots, fertilizer. There will be related items
but not something that was grown on the premise.
Michael Miller asked about the access and if it were separate from the existing home that is there. Ms. Angeli stated
it was a shared access. Mr. Carroll stated that there is a secondary access and it addresses lot A. Ms. Daniels
indicated that there is an additional access on the west side of the property that accesses the back property. The one
to the east accesses the greenhouse and Ms. Daniels residence.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Kent Everett,asked what the circle is and what the building is. The house that is behind the house is up for sale and
what plans are for that.
Kirsten Daniels stated that her house is not for sale. The sign pertains to a 12 acres parcel that is to the north that
is for sale. The circle is a proposed garden center. Ms. Angeli indicated that the garden center is part of this
application.
Bryant Gimlin asked about the 8 foot fence requested by Mr. Schwartz. Mr. Clancy stated that a landscape plan will
be submitted and it will be addressed in the plan. Mr. Folsom asked about the size of the sign requested. Mr. Clancy
stated it will be two four foot signs in an L shape facing each direction on 35`" Ave and O St. Ms. Nicklas indicated
that this sign would not assist in the entrance of the facility. That sign would also not address the concerns of the
neighbor. Mr. Folsom asked about having to approve the larger sign. Mr. Morrison stated that a sign can be approved
in the Ag zone district in a Special Use Permit. There have been some situations were the sign was not thought of
and the Board of Adjustments had to deal with it. This is not the best process, it does not have to approved. If the
application was turned down with regard to the sign they cannot then go to the BOA for approval. Mr. Miller stated
some concerns about the sign on that corner. The road is heavily traveled. Mr. Llerena stated that the focus would
be better on what is allowed and can be afforded right now. Ms. Nicklas questioned if there is two signs or one at 64
square feet. Mr. Morrison stated that since they are connected it is considered one sign. Mr. Morrison stated that the
directional signs may not have been addressed with regard to the size. A sign advertising the business can be 16
square feet or approved for larger. Mr. Clancy added that directional signs are permitted and is a separate issue from
the advertising of the business. There are setback requirements that will be complied with to assist in safety. Ms.
Angeli stated that the code allows for one identification sign per principle use which is the 16 square foot sign. Offsite
directional signs shall be allowed subject to certain regulations. It is considered two separate issues. The directional
signs will not be limited. Mr.Carroll suggested that if the sign at 35th is approved that it needs to be put on the plat with
a specific dimension from the center of the roadway. Ms. Angeli added that staff is suggesting a 32 square foot sign
in that intersection and another 16 square foot sign closer to where the business is located. This would compromise
and make them both smaller. Mr. Folsom suggested one sign at 45 degrees to the intersection. Mr. Morrison stated
the code addresses onsite directional signs and there is no limit to them. The signs cannot exceed 10 foot in height
and four square feet per face with no commercial message. There are other regulations that would deal with the
number that are able to be placed on the property. Mr.Gimlin stated that there should be limits imposed if going above
the 16 square foot sign. Mr. Miller added his concerns with the intersection and the placement of the sign for safety
precautions. Mr. Carroll stated that the sign would need to be placed in such a way that the sight distance sign
triangle. Mr. Llerena stated that it is far to open ended and vague. There needs to be more specifics to the
requirements. Mr. Clancy stated they would withdrawn the sign request. Mr. Gimlin offered that the sign could be
oriented towards O Street and closer to the entrance. The applicant anticipated increasing the sign allotment and still
live by the other provisions of the code. Mr. Morrison indicated that the applicant can maintain the opportunity to
address the issue before the Board of County Commissioners. Mr.Clancy indicated that this would be something that
the applicant would like to do. Mr. Morrison indicated that the Board can approve the application and not address the
sign issues. This would enable the applicant to address the issue at BCC time.
Cristie Nicklas moved that Case USR-1381, 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;Cristie Nicklas,yes;Fred Walker,yes;Luis Llerena,yes.
Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 5:30 pm.
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello