HomeMy WebLinkAbout20051562.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, May 3, 2005
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2005, in the Weld County
Department of Planning Services, Hearing Room,918 10th Street,Greeley,Colorado. The meeting was called
to order by Chair, Michael Miller, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin —n
John Folsom ,-
James Welch Absent
James Rohn
Bruce Fitzgerald Absent
Chad Auer __
Doug Ochsner
Tom Holton
Also Present: Kim Ogle, Sheri Lockman, Jacqueline Hatch
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on,April 28, 2005,
was approved as read.
The following Cases are on the Consent Agenda:
CASE NUMBER: 3Am USR-996
APPLICANT: Marcus Midstream 1995-2 Business Trust
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SE4 of Section 8, T4N, R64W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review for an Oil and Gas
Support Facility(Brinewater Disposal) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 46 and west of and adjacent to CR 53.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1488
APPLICANT: John File, Farfrumwurkin LLP
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: E2SW2 & N2 SE4 & part of the W2W2 of Lot B of RE-3474;
being part of the W2W2 of Section 32, T2N, R68W; and part of the SE4
of Lot B of RE-1775 of Section 31, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a mineral
resource development facility including dry open pit mining and materials
processing in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Hwy 52;west and east of and adjacent to CR 3-
1/4.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1506
APPLICANT: Larry Rittel
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-3613; Pt N2NW4 of Section 28, T8N, R62W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review for a Use allowed
by Right, an Accessory Use, or a Use by Special Review in the
Commercial or Industrial Zone district, for a welding fabrication shop in
the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to SH 14; west of and adjacent to CR 77.
a17iu,t znk-- S-a3-Zoo r 2005-1562
CASE NUMBER: USR-1507
APPLICANT: LA,LLC. c/o George Mozeika
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B RE-2704; Part of theS2NW4 of Section 34, T8N, R65W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for uses
similar to a Child Care Center(specifically a group home for mentally
disabled children and adults) and for one single family dwelling unit per
lot other than those permitted under Section 23-3-20.A of the Weld
County Code in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 43; 1/4 mile south of CR 88.
Marilyn Clarry, neighbor, asked for clarification on the number of dwellings on the site. Ms. Lockman
stated there will be one additional home and North Weld Water will service the area. Ms. Clarry asked
how many residences will there be in the homes. Ms. Lockman stated there will be a total of eight people
in one home.
Doug Ochsner moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Bryant Gimlin seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner,
yes. Motion carried unanimously
The following cases will be Heard:
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1268
APPLICANT: Glen Fritzler
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NE4 Section 22, T4N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
Recreational Facility with uses similar to those seen at Guest Farms and
fairgrounds in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Hwy 256, West of and adjacent to SH 85; %
mile east of CR 31.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case Am USR-1268. Mr. Glen Fritzler has
applied for A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Recreational Facility with
uses similar to those seen at guest farms and fairgrounds in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
The sign announcing the Planning Commission hearing was posted April 22 by Planning Staff. The site is
located south of and adjacent to State Highway 256, West of and adjacent to State Highway 85; '/2 mile
east of County Road 31, the Town of Gilcrest is located approximately% mile southwest of the site.
Surrounding properties are agricultural in nature with homes in close proximity to the north. One letter
stating concerns has been received by planning staff.
Planning staff is requesting quite a few changes to staff comments. Planning Commission has been
provided a memo outlining the requested changes by staff and the additional information submitted by the
applicant.
Condition of Approval 1.A. required the applicant to submit a sign plan. This condition has been
completed. The proposal is in compliance with the Colorado Department of Transportation sign
regulations.
Sign # 1 is for an 150 sq. ft. off-site sign at the intersection of Hwy 85 and CR 33. Section 23-4-90 C of
the sign code does allow for off site signs for this use and of this size in the Agricultural Zone District.
However, Section C.7 requires them to be located a minimum of 2,000 feet from an exit or entrance road
on a limited access highway, because this sign is not in compliance with Section 23-4-90 C.7. of the Weld
County Code staff is recommending denial of sign#1.
Sign #2 is for a 150 sq ft 25 foot high sign possibly to be internal lit at some time in the future. Mr. Fritzier
also indicates that this sign will include a message board. The new plat submitted by the applicant
indicates that this sign and sign #4 lie outside of the USR boundary. These signs will not meet the criteria
for an off-site sign therefore staff is recommending that the USR boundary be adjusted so that these signs
lie within the USR boundary. If moved within the boundary of the USR Staff can recommend approval of
the 150 sq foot sign with the condition that the message board be in compliance with Section 23-4-110.A.5
which prohibits components of signs that change physical position or light intensity by any movement or
rotation of the physical sign or components which make up the sign or which give the visual impression of
movement or rotation. In simple language, the message should be stationary and not be moving.
Some of the remaining signs which show prices and the US flag requested on number 9 may fall into the
category of section 23-4-100E which lists "what is not a sign". These signs are all in the interior of the lot
and are intended to aid people visiting the site.Any sign with a commercial message legible from a
position off the site would be considered in the signage requirements. As long as they are sized and
placed so that they are not intended for people from the road right-of-way to read, they would not be
included in the sign requirements.
Per the code the site may have one additional 150 square foot sign. Planning Staff is requesting that all
signs that do not fall into the category of Section 23-4-100E be a combined 150 square feet maximum.
This would include the hours of operation sign which is on the entrance gate, the banner, the maize flag
and possibly the produce and price signs if they are intended to be viewed from State Highway 85. Staff
has asked that the applicant submit additional information regarding signs 3 through 9 to determine if they
meet Section 23-4-100E "What is not a sign"
Condition of approval 1.B. required a detailed plat. The applicant has submitted a plat therefore Condition
of approval 1.B may be removed. The plat submitted by the applicant includes a note that states"all
proposed entertainment features, locations and sizes are approximate. Exact location of all entertainment
features varies from year to year."This note would grant the applicant the right to put any type of
entertainment feature of any size anywhere on the lot without review. Use by Special Review permits are
site specific requiring review for substantial changes. Staff is requesting the addition of Condition of
Approval 2.G.11 which changes the language of this note as follows: "The locations of all proposed
entertainment features shown in Detail A are approximate. The entertainment features currently shown will
not be moved out of the area shown in Detail A. Yearly changes to the size and type of entertainment
features shall be submitted to the Weld County Department of Planning Services for a substantial change
determination."
Bryant Gimlin asked if the applicant would need to go through another USR. Ms. Lockman stated this is
standard language and would not force them to go through another USR application process unless the
change was deemed substantial.
Planning staff requests the removal of Condition of approval 1.C.which required the applicant to submit a
landscape/Screening Plan to help mitigate the impact to surrounding property owners. The applicant has
submitted a plan that includes 10 feet of open space around the perimeter and 180 feet adjacent to
Highway 256. Planning staff does not believe that an empty 10 foot buffer is adequate. Planning staff is
asking the Planning Commission to make a recommendation on a buffering plan to the Board of County
Commissioners.
Condition of approval 1.D. required the applicant to submit a written proposal indicating how they plan to
address the concerns of the Western Mutual Ditch Company. The applicant has submitted a letter stating
that they are willing to discuss the terms and conditions the ditch company desires. Bradley Gramick, the
attorney representing the Ditch Company has requested they be given a copy of the amended plat and
continue discussions with the applicant. Staff is requesting that Condition of approval 1.D. be retained as it
now reads. Planning Staff does not feel that the applicant has adequately met this condition.
Application materials include a letter from Kerr-McGee Rocky Mountain Corporation. The letter indicates
that they wish to be contacted if there are changes to the design of the site. Because of the amount of new
information included on the new plat staff did include a condition requiring the applicant to allow Kerr-
McGee to review the plat. The applicant has requested that this condition be moved to prior to recording.
Staff has agreed to this change and would like the new condition placed at 2.L. with the understanding that
the applicant may need to make changes according to Kerr McGee's review responses.
Planning staff requests Condition of Approval 2.B be removed. The applicant has submitted a lighting plan
which requires each group to carry a glow stick or flashlight into the maze. Planning Staff does feel this is
adequate.
Planning staff requests the removal of Condition of Approval 2.D and 2.E regarding concerns raised by the
Fire District and the Town of Gilcrest. The applicant has submitted written responses to these conditions.
The applicant has requested that Condition of Approval 1.E. regarding a traffic impact study be moved to
prior to recording the plat. The traffic study may require significant changes to the site layout and include
items that need to be included in the improvements agreement. County Staff needs time to review the
study.
The applicant has requested the removal of condition of Approval 2.F. The condition requires the removal
of two semi trailers that are currently being used for storage on site. Planning staff has discussed this
condition with a representative from Ag Professionals which the applicant has hired. Staff does agree that,
in this instance the code is vague and difficult to understand. Semi trailers are listed in the USR section,
however, the sections states that they should be considered as Temporary Accessory Structures.
Temporary Accessory Structures are listed as an accessory use in the Agricultural district for the purpose
of storing agricultural goods inside the unit. They may be permitted in part upon a determination that the
temporary accessory structure is necessary to the agricultural operation of the property and that the
accessory structure shall be for a period of twelve month and is renewable only by grant of the Board of
County Commissioners.
This section is difficult to understand so staff recommends that the applicant be given the benefit in the
interpretation and be allowed to keep the trailers for 12 month even though they are not being used to
store agricultural goods.
Condition of approval 2.1 requires the applicant to submit a plan to ensure that traffic does not cross the
burrow ditch to access the site from Highway 85. The applicant has indicated that this condition should be
removed in that he does not own the CDOT right of way and can not control the actions of drivers who
miss the entrance to the site. Staff does believe that this condition should stay as written and the
applicant should attempt to work with CDOT to ensure the safety of his patrons.
The Weld County Department of Public Health has submitted a memo requesting the removal of
Development Standard#14 regarding open burning.
The Weld County Department of Planning Services Staff is recommending approval of amended USR-
1268 with the proposed Development Standards and Conditions of Approval.
Char Davis, Weld County Public Health, indicated that the State of Colorado indicates that recreational
burning is exempt. The State hopes the fire departments will be involved with the burning. It is
understood that recreational burning consists of campfires.
Bryant Gimlin stated this is a permanent facility that has activities every year and asked why the applicant
is allowed to use portable toilet and hand washing facilities. Ms. Davis indicated the operation is less than
six months in duration which is considered temporary. Mr. Gimlin stated that considering it temporary
even though it occurs every year is a loophole in the Weld County code.
Doug Ochsner asked about Condition 2.D.11 stating the need for the applicant to submit for approval if
there are any changes. Ms. Lockman stated this is standard for a USR, it allows for small insignificant
changes without having to go through an entire USR process. This also assures there will be no huge
substantial change without the neighbors having the opportunity for a public forum.
Bryant Gimlin asked Mr. Carroll about the CDOT permit to access Hwy 85, there is presently ingress and
egress from CR 33. Mr. Carroll stated there is an access from Hwy 85 where CR 33 enters or connects to
the site. There is also a parallel road that is considered a frontage road that should be addressed in the
traffic study along with comments from CDOT about how they want to handle this. There is access onto
Hwy 85 where CR 33 does come into.
John Folsom asked Mr. Carroll if he had any concern with traffic flow for large events. Mr. Carroll stated
that the applicant has chosen to make the site a one way in and one way out which would work. The
excel and decel lanes are short in the area but it depends on frequency and volume. If the events are
staggered it would be more beneficial to the area. Mr. Carroll added that once the traffic study is done
and reviewed there will be recommendations from the various agencies. Mr. Folsom asked if CDOT has
been given all the information on the case and can make a determination. Ms. Lockman stated they
received the same referral packet and a firm has been hired by the applicant to complete the traffic study.
Mr. Folsom asked if a flag is considered a sign. Ms. Lockman stated that a flag that is a US Flag or
Colorado flag is not considered a sign but other flags with logos or advertising are considered a sign. Mr.
Folsom asked about the sign on Hwy 85 having the message board. Ms. Lockman stated it will be located
on site and is visible from Hwy 85.
Michael Miller asked why the traffic study was not available at this hearing. Ms. Lockman stated CDOT
indicated their request in a referral response after the application had been turned in.
Glen Fritzler, applicant, provided clarification with regards to the project. The maze is a money making
operation while the farm is not. There will be produce sold on site also. Mr. Fritzler indicated they have
outgrown the first USR. Safety is a huge key to this type of operation. The applicant wants to provide a
low impact for the neighbors. Mr. Fritzler indicated the biggest changes were the inflatables that were on
site and the number of customers increased. There are no significant changes but there are things in the
proposal that might be done and some that may not be done. The applicant wants to give the customers
something brand new each year. Mr. Miller indicated his impression was this would be a new Eliches. Mr.
Fritzler indicated he intends to bring in one or two new items a year. Mr. Fritzler added this is a
complicated process and everything possible was included in the application. Mr. Miller stated the issue
he is considering is there is such a wide variety of things proposed that if all of them were included it would
change the application but if one or two were included it would not be that significant. Mr. Miller asked if
the application was approved would there be 4-5 big things a year added and is this allowed. Mr. Miller
indicated the fear is the applicant would put all the suggested activities into the area at once and turn the
area into an amusement park. Mr. Fritzler added there has been growth in the last few years and it is
important to add something new every year. There are significant elements to the maze and Mr. Fritzler
indicated he does not want to remove one when he adds another.
Michael Miller asked Ms. Lockman if there was a limit on the number of activities. Ms. Lockman stated
there is a Detail A on the plat which limits the room for the activities. There is also a Development
Standard that addresses this concern. Ms. Lockman added that Detail A can be modified to any design
but the entertainment aspect will be limited to that area only. Mr. Miller asked about the four wheel track
area. Mr. Fritzler indicated there is no detail plan on the four wheel track and there is no intent to
implement this as a priority. This area would be more of a practice course. Mr. Holton asked how the
dust will be mitigated. Mr. Fritzler indicated there is a water tank that waters the area. If it becomes a
significant problem an agency will be utilized for magnesium chloride applications.
Doug Ochsner commented the biggest concern is the four wheeling and it being a different type of
entertainment. Ms. Davis indicated the race track would concern the Health Department. The noise level
as well as the dust issues would be a concern.
James Rohn commented the four wheeler area would need to be controlled by the insurance as well as
the staff requirements.
Michael Miller indicated the compatibility issue with this type of use would be the concern.
John Folsom referred to a letter from the neighbor who discusses the use of ATV's and motorcycles and
the noise associated with them. Mr. Folsom would like to know where the noise level is measured for this
type of vehicle. Ms. Davis stated it would be 25 feet off site. Mr. Folsom asked if a motorcycle or ATV
would fall within those noise limits. Ms. Davis indicated they would not. Mr. Folsom asked about the
internal signs and the type of sign used. Mr. Fritzler stated there is a welcome sign that is not intended to
be seen from the highway. Mr. Folsom asked if the lettering was larger than 6 inches. Mr. Fritzler stated
the concession stand sign may be larger type but was not visible from highway.
Glen Fritzler continued with his concerns for the Conditions of Approval and the Development Standard.
Mr. Fritzler went to the Board of Adjustment asking for allowance of the signs and the variance was
granted. The customers want more directional signs from the north for safety purposes. Sign#1 is at a
location that is important for the safety of customers turning. This sign makes it safe and easier to find.
Mr. Miller asked if the sign was approved by Board of Adjustment and is there anything different planned.
Mr. Fritzler indicated he would like to keep the sign and possibly move it should CDOT close the access.
Sign #2 is not in the USR boundary but that can be changed to accommodate all the signs. Mr. Fritzler
would like to be allowed to abide by CDOT standards which allows for message boards. Mr. Miller asked
for clarification with regards to the message board. Mr. Fritzler stated CDOT does not allow the words to
run across the message board. Mr. Miller asked if the message board and the sign would exceed 150
feet. Mr. Fritzler stated they would not. Mr. Fritzler stated he has no concerns with the plat and notifying
staff of significant changes if deemed as such. Mr. Fritzler stated buffering of the site is a concern. The
maze is an attractive site with buffering on all sides. There is no need for additional buffering. Mr. Miller
stated the main viewable area is the parking adjacent to the highway to the north (Hwy 256). Mr. Fritzler
stated there is 180 feet of corn to the north. Mr. Ochsner stated the applicant is dividing part of the
property and asked where the location of this is. Mr. Fritzler stated the home development is in the north
area. The parking lot is the closest thing to the lots and there could be some type of buffer in the 10 feet.
Mr. Miller asked about the process used for dividing. Ms. Lockman stated they have applied for a
Recorded Exemption (RE)and Subdivision Exemption (SE) in combination. Ms. Lockman added staff is
concerned the 10 feet buffer is not adequate. The buffer is intended to mitigate the lights from cars in the
adjacent parking lot. Mr. Miller asked if this would be something addressed in the RE or SE process. Ms.
Lockman stated that it would not. Mr. Holton asked where the power line on the west was located in
relation to the exit. Mr. Fritzler stated the road is to the west of the power lines. Mr. Fritzler continued with
the Western Ditch concerns and stated those concerns were vague but can be addressed once they are
determined. Ms. Lockman added the ditch company has stated the application is vague so they want to
see the new plat and speak with the applicant again. Mr. Fritzler continued with the traffic study and
stated a company has been hired to prepare the study. CDOT has indicated they want the basic numbers
and that no improvements will be asked for. Mr. Ochsner asked about the unauthorized access onto Hwy
85 and how this will be addressed. Mr. Fritzler stated that something can be done but he cannot legally
address it because it is not his property it is owned by the State. Mr. Fritzler indicated the problem is when
customers miss the turn off to the north they utilize the inappropriate crossing. Mr. Fritzler stated they
would like the traffic study requirement moved to prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing not
prior to scheduling the Board of County Commissioners hearings. Ms. Lockman added that if the condition
was moved to prior to the hearing staff would not have adequate time to review the study and answer
questions. Mr. Fritzler stated they have semi trailers for storage and would like to keep them until
permanent facilities can be built. Once the permanent structures are done the trailers will be removed.
This will be in approximately 4-5 years. Mr. Fritzler added the trailers are not moved but farmed around.
Mr. Ochsner asked if this was limited to two trailers. Ms. Lockman stated they can have more than one
with a USR but they are considered temporary accessory structures which are limited to storing
agricultural supplies. The trailers can be considered temporary for 12 months with and approval by the
Board of County Commissioners for an additional 12 months. Mr. Morrison added it is unusual to put a
limit on what can be done with a USR. Mr. Miller asked if the conditions can be written to allow for the use
for five years. Mr. Morrison stated it could be done and be called out within this permit. Ms. Lockman
stated the trailers need to have current plates, tires and must be operational. Mr. Fritzlers stated the
trailers store the haunted house supplies and there is no equipment to move the trailers. Mr. Fritzler
added the current plates are a waste of money. Mr. Miller stated it has to be done. Mr. Fritzler continued
by stating he would like to leave them at the present location until proper storage is finished. Mr. Miller
stated the issue is how this will be determined and after five years the Board of County Commissioners
could be asked to extended permission.
John Folsom asked Ms. Lockman if there is anything in the Development Standard that prohibits carnival
type operations to be at this site, specifically mentioned in the Development Standard are class B and
Class A amusement rides. Ms. Lockman stated it is a possibility, the applicant indicated a possible ferris
wheel in the application but as long as he employs the people that is a possibility.
Glen Fritzler added that Development Standard #27 limits the number of employees. The number of
employees has increase to 150 employees with 70 employees at one time on site and he was not
anticipating a limit on the number of employees. Mr. Fritzler indicated the number of employees reflects
on the safety of the site and he believes it is beneficial to adequately staff for the safety of the customers.
Bryant Gimlin indicated the increase in employees changes the intensity of what is proposed, this is twice
the number proposed with twice the customers and intensity. The number of patrons is limited to 2000.
Michael Miller indicated he does not want to limit the number of employees for safety reasons. Mr. Auer
asked if there is adequate parking even at full build out. Ms. Lockman stated there is plenty of parking.
Michael Miller stated that if staff is limiting the number of customers would it be necessary to limit the
number of employees? Ms. Lockman stated that as long as the customers are limited staff sees no need
to limit the employees.
Glen Fritzler added he would like to remove Condition 2.G.4 & 5. This requirement is to widen the exit to
24 feet and have two way traffic at the entrance. The applicant and Public Works feel that one way flow
would be better. Mr. Carroll added he would like to have CDOT's comments before addressing the
frontage road. Mr. Carroll agrees with deleting 2.G.5 but would like to maintain 2.G.4 until CDOT has
commented.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Michael Miller asked Ms. Lockman about Sign#1 and staff reason for denial. Ms. Lockman stated it was
based on the code. Mr. Rohn stated that if the sign helps to safely get the customers to the site in it should be
allowed.
Michael Miller stated the applicant has agreed to move the boundary of the USR to include the sign#2 and the
message board. Staff suggests adding 2.G.8 which states"The boundary of the Use by Special Review shall
be amended to include sign number 4 and sign number 2 as listed in the proposed sign plan.
James Rohn stated that buffering should be addressed on the north side where the homes will be built. The
remaining buffers are adequate. Mr. Rohn proposed the buyers need to be aware of the operation. Mr.
Ochsner would like to see a buffer at this location. There should be a fence for safety and trespassing
purposed. Mr.Auer agrees. Mr. Holton asked if the screening needed to be permanent. Mr. Holton stated
the operation is not year around so the barrier should not. Mr. Holton suggested placing something that would
be tall enough and thick enough to mitigate the lights from the cars.
Michael Miller asked Ms. Lockman if they have to submit a landscape plan. Ms. Lockman stated they have
submitted a plan that indicates a 10 feet buffer with nothing in it. This meets the criteria of submitting a plan
but staff does not feel the plan is adequate. Staff had suggested 10 feet of corn rows but that was not
acceptable to the applicant. Staff would be happy with a fence. Mr. Ochsner asked the distance of the
fencing needed. Ms. Lockman indicated it was approximately 1400 feet of fence.
Michael Miller asked how many lots will be in the area. Mr. Fritzler indicated there will be 3 lots. Mr. Gimlin
asked what buffers this presently. Mr. Fritzler stated there are a ditch and a road. Mr. Miller asked about the
landscape plan. Staff is asking Planning Commission to make a recommendation. Mr. Gimlin stated the
issue is the lights in the evening. Mr. Fritzler stated the irrigation water does not flow adequately to maintain
corn rows. Mr. Fritzler stated the purchasers of the lots would be responsible for a fence but straw bales
would be a second suggestion. Mr. Fritzler stated the purchasers will know the operation is there and he does
not feel it is his responsibility to protect them. Mr. Gimlin stated that if they start to complain it will be the
applicants concern. Ms. Lockman suggested a possible berm. Mr. Fritzler stated that would be far too much
dirt. Mr. Rohn suggested ornamental trees in the area.
Michael Miller suggested it would be the applicant's responsibility to screen the neighbors and he would need
to determine how. Ms. Lockman requested that the plan be done prior to Board of County Commissioners
hearing so the Commissioners can review it.
Mr. Miller indicated the next issue was the storage trailers and he would propose allowing them to utilize them
for five years provided they remain licensed and are moveable. Mr. Rohn suggests the limit be three years.
Mr. Auer clarified that if the Planning Commission goes by letter of the code it begins at zero years, then
planning staff decided to grant them 12 months and the present suggestion is to go five years. Ms. Lockman
stated the code is very vague and she would not say the code says zero, it is vague because it refers you to
temporary accessory structures that mentions 12 months which is what staff is referring to. Mr. Ochsner
stated to continue use would be a letter to the Board of County Commissioners asking for permission to use
next year. Ms. Lockman asked Mr. Morrison if this would be a 9:00 am hearing to ask for a continuance of
use. Mr. Morrison stated it has been done but is cumbersome, an outside timeline would be better. Mr.
Ochsner asked if it was against code to allow. Ms. Lockman stated that there are several possible allowances
within a USR.
Sheri Lockman read language for a landscape and buffering plan for the homes north of the site. The
language shall be places in Prior to the Board of County Commissioners Hearing and put as 1 A. "The
applicant shall submit a landscape buffering plan to the Department of Planning Services. The plan shall
address screening of the existing homes northeast of the site and the proposed Recorded Exemption lots
upon sale of the lots." Mr. Holton asked if this would only buffer the lots in the RE. Ms. Lockman's language
indicates buffering of the existing lot and future buffering when the other lots are sold. Mr. Fritzler stated he
has no problems with the surrounding owners concerning the lights.
Bryant Gimlin moved to delete 1 C and replace it with the language regarding the landscaping plan. Chad
Auer seconded. Motion approved.
Sheri Lockman provided language for semi trailers. The language will consist of"The two semi trailers being
used as storage units shall be removed from the site within five years from the date of approval by the Weld
County Board of County Commissioners. The trailers shall be maintained in drivable condition and shall
maintain current licensing." Staff recommends this to be Development Standard#36 and renumber.
James Rohn moved to amend Development Standard #36 to the above stated language. Bryant Gimlin
seconded. Motion carried.
Tom Holton moved to delete Development Standard #27 regarding the maximum number of employees
allowed. James Rohn seconded. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner would like to further address the four wheel issue. Mr. Ochsner does not feel this activity
belongs in this USR. Mr. Holton agrees. Mr. Miller asked Ms. Lockman how this could be addressed. Ms.
Lockman stated it could be addressed with a condition that indicated the plat shall be amended to delete the
four wheel track or it could be done as a Development Standard. The Development Standard would state
"There shall be no four wheel or All Terrain Vehicles (AN) on site other than for personal use."
There was discussion on the AN track and the elimination of the track does not include the barrel ride being
run with an AN.
James Rohn asked what the ground under the proposed four wheel track was being used for at this time. Mr.
Fritzler stated it is being farmed but was added to the application due to the future limitation on water and lack
of possible uses for the ground.
James Rohn asked if there is a way to move the lines to exclude the four wheel area. Mr. Miller stated the
idea is to use the area for expansion and he would rather see the same type of uses expand to this area rather
than a four wheel track. Mr. Miller would be in favor of expanding Detail A to include the four wheel area for
the same type of use without having to go through the USR process again. Ms. Lockman suggested adding a
condition stating the plat shall be amended to include the four wheel track area into Detail A.
Ms. Lockman suggested adding this as 2.G.12 on Prior to Recording the Plat with language consisting of"the
plat shall be amended to include the area indicated as four wheel drive into Detail A." Then add Development
Standard#37 which will eliminate the four wheel drive use. The wording will need to be inclusive of no race
tracks or riding tracks.
Doug Ochsner moved to accept the language for 2.G.12 to add the four wheel area to Detail A. Bryant Gimlin
seconded. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner moved to add Development Standard#37 which eliminated commercial AN courses on site
Bryant Gimlin seconded. Motion carried.
Michael Miller indicated it was asked of the Planning Commission to delete 1.B which refers to submitting a
detailed plat,and add 2.G.11 which states"The plat submitted by the applicant includes a note that states"all
proposed entertainment features, locations and sizes are approximate. Exact locations of all entertainment
features vary from year to year." Use by Special Review permits are site specific requiring review for
substantial changes. The note shall be replaced with " The locations of all proposed entertainment features
shown in Detail A are approximate. The entertainment features currently shown will not be moved out of the
area shown in Detail A.Yearly changes to the size and type of entertainment features shall be submitted to the
Weld County Department of Planning Services for a substantial change determination", replace 1.F with 2L
consisting of the following language"Application materials include a letter from Kerr-McGee Rocky Mountain
Corporation.The letter indicates they wish to be contacted if there are changes to the design of the site. Prior
to recording,the applicant is required to submit the amended plat which shows the location of structures and
entertainment features. The applicant shall submit written evidence from Kerr-McGee to the Department of
Planning Services indicating that they have reviewed the additional information and that oil and gas activities
have been adequately incorporated into the design of the site and that mineral owners concerns have been
mitigated., delete 2.6 regarding the lighting and 2.D regarding addressing the concerns of the LaSalle Fire
Protection District, delete Development Standard 14 regarding open burning and delete G.5 requested by
Public Works.
Bryant Gimlin moved to accept the above changes. James Rohn seconded. Motion carried.
Michael Miller continued with the request for the signs. Planning Commission recommends that Sign#1 (the
150 square foot off site sign)be allowed to remain. Sign#2(the 150 square foot sign with a message board)
will be moved inside the boundary of the USR. Ms. Lockman added the message can be changed but there
cannot be movement on the sign as per Weld County Code. CDOT was checked with regards to regulations
but Weld County does not follow the same regulations so staff cannot agree to CDOT standards and ignore
Weld County code. Mr.Ochsner asked if the applicant would like to get a variance for the sign he would need
to go to the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Morrison stated the Board of Adjustment would not be appropriate in
this situation since the original USR did not address signage,the Board of Adjustment was used. There is no
ability to utilize both. Mr. Miller asked if they are allowed to vary from the code and have a message board that
meets CDOT standards.
James Rohn commented there are towns that allow message boards that have movement and as long as the
sign would meet the CDOT requirements on motion he should have the option. Mr.Auer stated he is more
cautious of approving the message board and the static sign should be kept. Mr.Gimlin added he agrees with
the static sign since there is a lot of activity in the area. Mr. Ochsner stated the movement on a message
board was not a distraction but this section of the code should be reviewed. Mr. Gimlin added that the speed
limit makes a difference also. Mr.Welch added that they are allowed at I-25. Mr. Gimlin added that the signs
along major interstates are not done on an 8 x 8 scale, they are much larger and can be read at a higher
speed. Mr.Miller clarified that if the boundary is moved to include the sign a message board can be done with
a static message and the total signage is less than 150 square feet.
Michael Miller clarified with staff that the balance of signs on the property that are visible from Hwy 85 must be
a total of 150 feet in size and this does not include the Welcome sign. Ms. Lockman is not sure of how the
signs fit as of right now. Mr. Miller stated it would be Mr. Fritzlers responsibility to construct the signs
accordingly.
Tom Holton asked if the height of Sign#2 was reviewed. Ms. Lockman stated that they could place a higher
sign per code.
Bryant Gimlin moved to replace Condition 1.A with the following language: "The applicant shall clarify if signs
number 3 through 9 on the proposed sign plan are intended to be legible from off-site or if they will be sized
and placed so that they are intended only for on-site visitors.All signs number 3 through 9 that are intended to
be legible from off-site shall be limited to a maximum of 150 square feet total in accordance with Section 23-4-
100C.1 and 2 of the Weld County Code. No sign with a commercial message legible from a position off the
site would be considered to meet the intent of Section 23-4-100.E."and add Conditions 2.G.8-10 consisting of
the following language:
2.G.8 The boundary of the Use by Special Review shall be amended to include sign number 4 and sign
number 2 as listed in the proposed sign plan.
2.G.9 The applicant has requested one 150 square foot, 25 foot high, internal lit sign with a message
board. In accordance with Section 23-4-110.A.5 of the Weld County Code, the plat shall indicate
that the message board shall be stationary.
2.G.10 The plat shall indicate the size of signs number 3 through 9 that do not meet Section 23-4-100.E ,
"what is not a sign". The signs shall be a maximum of 150 square feet total in accordance with
Section 23-4-100C.1 and 2 of the Weld County Code.
Doug Ochsner seconded. Motion carried.
Glen Fritzler commented he is in disagreement with the message board being a static sign. Mr. Fritzler wants
CDOT to regulate the signs. Mr. Miller clarified the internal signs and stated the Welcome sign would not be
included in the sign requirements of 150 square feet. Mr. Morrison added the direction of staff is to make
CDOT and Weld County Code work better together. A change would require a legislative change which is not
available yet. Some of the recommendations are based on code provisions and what happens if the code
changes and the USR is more restrictive then the code. Ms. Lockman stated it would become a use by right if
the code became more lenient he could have more signs.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case Am USR-1268, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation
of approval. Doug Ochsner seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, no; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes; James Rohn, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes;
Tom Holton, yes . Motion carried unanimously.
Doug Ochsner commented he would like to thank the applicant for bringing a wonderful entertainment facility
to the County and he should be proud of it and proud of the County.
John Folsom commented there has been too much latitude given with the use. If the applicant was directed to
list all types of uses it would have been better to address the uses being dealt with in an amended USR. Mr.
Folsom does not believe the proposal is consistent with the intent of the district where the use is located.
Section 23-3-10 was quoted. This will become as the possibilities outline this will be more of an entertainment
use than agricultural use even thought there is corn in the area. This is detrimental to the agricultural uses in
the area. The more successful the use is the greater the problems will be. The uses are not those that will be
compatible with the surrounding land uses. There has not been an adequate provision for the health, safety
and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and the County because of the possible traffic problems.
James Rohn commented it was nice to get to work with an applicant with an established business in Weld
County and to get to see the business grow.
Meeting adjourned at 4:00 pm
Rgspectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello