HomeMy WebLinkAbout20050184.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Bruce Fitzgerald, that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County
Planning Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1470
APPLICANT: Jose Martinez
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt SW4 Section 19, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Use by
Right or Accessory Use in the Industrial Zone District (storage of vehicles
and equipment along with employee parking associated with a
landscaping business) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: Approximately 600'east of CR 1 and approximately'/mile north of Hwy 66.
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
Should the Board of County Commissioners approve this request, the Planning Commission recommends
that the following conditions of approval and development standards be attached:
1. Prior to scheduling the Board of County Commissioners hearing:
A. The applicant shall submit signed a road maintenance agreement for the two private
easements/rights-of-ways that provide access to the site or provide a plan as to how the
applicant will maintain these roads to address the additional traffic generated by the
business. (Department of Planning Services)
2. Prior to recording the plat:
A. All sheets of the plat shall be labeled USR-1470. (Department of Planning Services)
B. The plat shall be amended to delineate the following:
1. The attached Development Standards. (Department of Planning Services)
2. The approved screening plan. (Department of Planning Services)
C. The applicant shall submit a dust abatement plan, to address parking area and dust pile
concerns, for review and approval, to the Environmental Health Services, Weld County
Department of Public Health & Environment. (Department of Public Health &
Environment)
D. The Environmental Health Services Division was unable to locate a septic permit for the
septic system serving the existing home. The septic system shall be reviewed by a
Colorado Registered Professional Engineer. The review shall consist of observation of
the system and a technical review describing the systems ability to handle the proposed
hydraulic load. The review shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Services
Division of the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment. In the event
the system is found to be inadequately sized or constructed the system shall be brought
into compliance with current regulations. (Department of Public Health & Environment)
E. The applicant shall submit a waste handling plan, for approval, to the Environmental
Health Services Division of the Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment.
The plan shall include at a minimum, the following:
1) A list of wastes which are expected to be generated on site (this should include
expected volumes and types of waste generated). EXHIBIT
2) A list of the type and volume of chemicals to be stored on site.
r /H7�
i.15_ C/$'
Resolution USR-1470
Martinez
Page 2
3) The waste handler and facility where the waste will be disposed (including the
facility name, address, and phone number)
Evidence of Health Department approval shall be submitted to the Department of
Planning Services.
F. The applicant shall address the requirements of the Department of Planning Services as
stated in the landscape referral dated March 26, 2004. Written evidence of such shall be
provided to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
G. The applicant shall attempt to address the recommendations of the Weld County Sheriff's
Office as stated in their referral dated April 22, 2004. Written evidence of such shall be
provided to the Department of Planning Services. (Weld County Sheriffs)
H. The applicant shall submit two (2) paper copies of the plat for preliminary approval to the
Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
The applicant shall enter into a Private Improvements Agreement according to policy
regarding collateral for improvements and post adequate collateral for all landscaping,
transportation (access drive, parking areas, etcetera) and non-transportation (plant
materials, fencing, screening, water, signage etcetera). The agreement and form of
collateral shall be reviewed by County Staff and accepted by the Board of County
Commissioners prior to recording the USR plat. Or the applicant may submit evidence
that all the work has been completed and reviewed by the Department of Planning
Services and the Department of Public Work." (Department of Planning Services)
3. Upon completion of 1. and 2. above the applicant shall submit a Mylar plat along with all other
documentation required as Conditions of Approval. The Mylar plat shall be recorded in the office
of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder by Department of Planning Services' Staff. The plat shall
be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld County
Code. The Mylar plat and additional requirements shall be submitted within thirty(30) days from
the date of the Board of County Commissioners resolution. The applicant shall be responsible for
paying the recording fee. (Department of Planning Services)
4. The Department of Planning Services respectively requests the surveyor provide a digital copy of
this Use by Special Review. Acceptable CAD formats are .dwg, .dxf, and .dgn (Microstation);
acceptable GIS formats are ArcView shapefiles, Arclnfo Coverages and Arclnfo Export files
format type is .e00. The preferred format for Images is .tif(Group 4). (Group 6 is not acceptable).
Thisdigitalfilemaybesenttomaps@co.weld.co.us. (Department of Planning Services)
5. The Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on
the property until the Special Review plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County
Clerk and Recorder. (Department of Planning Services)
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Jose Martinez
USR-1470
1. The Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit is for a use by right or Accessory Use in
the Industrial Zone Districts (storage of vehicles and equipment along with employee parking
associated with a landscaping business) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District, as indicated in the
application materials on file and subject to the Development Standards stated hereon.(Department of
Planning Services)
2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 23-8-10 of the Weld
County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
3. The operation shall be limited to no more than one (1) six-ton truck, one (1)one-ton truck, three(3)
trailers to be pulled by the trucks and two (2) small loaders as outlined in the application materials.
(Department of Planning Services)
4. Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday Through Saturday as outlined in the
application materials. (Department of Planning Services)
5. All outdoor storage and parking shall be confined within the opaque privacy fence. Outdoor storage
shall not extend above the top of the privacy fence. (Department of Planning Services)
6. A maximum of four (4) employee vehicles shall be allowed at the site. (Department of Planning
Services)
7. All liquid and solid wastes (as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, 30-20-
100.5, C.R.S.) shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that protects against
surface and groundwater contamination. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
8. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. This is not meant to include those
wastes specifically excluded from the definition of a solid waste in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites
and Facilities Act, 30-20-100.5, C.R.S. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
9. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust,
blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
10. The facility shall operate in accordance with the approved "waste handling plan". (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
11. Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions shall be controlled on this site. The facility shall be
operated in accordance with the approved dust abatement plan at all times. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
12. The facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Residential Zone
District as delineated in 25-12-103, C.R.S. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
13. Adequate handwashing & toilet facilities shall be provided for the employees and patrons of the
facility. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
14. Any septic system located on the property must comply with all provisions of the Weld County Code,
pertaining to Individual Sewage Disposal Systems. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
•'—• 15. All potentially hazardous chemicals must be stored and handled in a safe manner in accordance with
product labeling and in a manner that minimizes the release of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs). (Department of Public Health and Environment)
Resolution USR-1470
Martinez
Page 2
16. The facility shall utilize the existing public water supply(Lon g's Peak Water District). (Department of
pPY( 9� ) ( P
Public Health and Environment)
17. Any vehicle washing area(s)shall capture all effluent and prevent discharges from drum washing and
the washing of vehicles in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Water Quality Control
Commission, and the Environmental Protection Agency. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
18. A plan review is required for any additional building. Plans shall bear the wet stamp of a Colorado
registered architect or engineer. Two complete sets of plans are required when applying for each
permit. (Department of Building Inspection)
19. Each building will require an engineered foundation based on a site-specific geotechnical report or
an open-hole inspection performed by a Colorado registered engineer. Engineered foundations
shall be designed by a Colorado registered engineer. (Department of Building Inspection)
20. Buildings shall conform to the requirements of the various codes adopted at the time of permit
application. Currently the following has been adopted by Weld County: 2003 International Building
Code; 2003 International Mechanical Code; 2003 International Plumbing Code; 2003 International
Fuel Gas Code; and the 2002 National Electrical Code and Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code.
(Department of Building Inspection)
21. Building height, setbacks and offset distance shall be determined by the Zoning Ordinance.
Separation of buildings of mixed occupancy classifications shall be in accordance with Section
R309.2 of the International Residential Code. (Department of Building Inspection)
22. Building height shall be measured in accordance with the 2003 International Building Code for the
purpose of determining the maximum building size and height for various uses and types of
construction and to determine compliance with the Bulk Requirements from Chapter 27 of the Weld
County Code. Building Height shall be measured in accordance with Chapter 23 of the Weld County
Code in order to determine compliance with offset and setback requirements. Offset and setback
requirements are measured to the farthest projection from the building. (Department of Building
Inspection)
23. Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to adhere to
the fee structure of the Weld County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11) (Department of
Planning Services)
24. The historical flow patterns and run-off amounts will be maintained on site in such a manner that it will
reasonably preserve the natural character of the area and prevent property damage of the type
generally attributed to run-off rate and velocity increases,diversions,concentration and/or unplanned
ponding of storm run-off. (Department of Public Works)
25. The existing access and off-street parking shall be surfaced with gravel, asphalt and concrete or
equivalent and shall be graded to prevent drainage problems. (Department of Public Works)
26. Both easements should have adequate gravel and should be graded and drained to provide an all-
weather access to the parcel. (Department of Public Works)
27. There shall be no fueling operations conducted at the site unless previously approved by the Fire
District. If fuel operations are contemplated, plans for the installation of fuel tanks must be submitted
to the Fire District for review and approval prior to installation. (Mountain View Fire Protection District)
28. The shed/garage shall be used solely for the storage of equipment only.
29. The landscaping on site shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan.
(Department of Planning Services)
Resolution USR-1470
Martinez
Page 3
30. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of
Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code.
31. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of
Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code.
32. Personnel from the Weld County Government shall be granted access onto the property at any
reasonable time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the
Development Standards stated herein and all applicable Weld County regulations.
33. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations from the Weld County Code,Air
Pollution Control Division, Water Quality Control Division, Colorado Department of Labor and
Employment, and the Environmental Protection Agency.(Department of Public Health&Environment)
34. The Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the foregoing
standards and all applicable Weld County regulations. Substantial changes from the plans or
Development Standards as shown or stated shall require the approval of an amendment of the Permit
by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans or
Development Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the
Department of Planning Services.
35. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing
Development Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Development Standards may be
reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners.
Motion seconded by John Folsom
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Michael Miller
John Folsom
Bryant Gimlin
Stephen Mokray
Bruce Fitzgerald
James Rohn
Tonya Strobel
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this
case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I,Voneen Macklin, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission,do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution, is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County,
Colorado, adopted on May 18, 2004.
Dated the 18th of May, 2004.
0-eft---P tI C.k-L )
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
5 -- IF - bf
CASE NUMBER: USR-1470
APPLICANT: Jose Martinez
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt SW4 Section 19, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Use by
Right or Accessory Use in the Industrial Zone District (storage of vehicles
and equipment along with employee parking associated with a
landscaping business) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: Approximately 600'east of CR 1 and approximately 'A mile north of Hwy
66.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1470, reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. The main reason for denial
is the access concerns.
Michael Miller asked if the recommendation for denial is because there is no approval for the use of the
access road. Mr. Gathman stated they are looking for approval from those neighbors that are directly
impacted by the business, either the ones who's property is driven by neighbors who maintain or use the
access. A letter from the Marshes indicated opposition.
James Rohn asked about Development Standards asking for 4 employees cars while the application
indicates one employee but there is a total of 16 vehicles. The numbers do not add up. Mr. Gathman
stated that the original application indicated two people utilizing the site and one employee. Not all 16
employees will be at the site. The main office is located offsite, this is a staging area for the equipment.
The new numbers for vehicles are one six ton truck, one one ton truck, three trailers to be pulled and two
small loaders, with those numbers for equipment there would need to be four vehicles parked on site. The
limited amount of equipment on site determines the number of vehicles needed. This is the reason for the
limit on four employee vehicles. James Rohn asked where the office was located and will there be
customers coming to this site. Mr. Gathman indicated there will be no customers as this a staging area
with some storage of materials.
Bryant Gimlin asked about Development Standards#28 (inaudible). Mr. Gathman indicated it was from the
Mountain View Fire Protection District. This was in their referral letter. Since this would deal with any
potential future uses in the area this was inserted as a Development Standard. This is not a standard
drafted by Planning staff but it can be clarified.
John Folsom asked Mr. Morrison about the state statute regarding a use by right with a land locked lot
(inaudible). Mr. Morrison stated this is a complicated issue and part of the problem is that there was a
lower level use before now. Part of the reason staff is recommending denial is on lack of adequate access
and what in fact would change the use on the access. Land necessity precludes the creation of a lot
easement. This lot is not land locked and the issue is what use is appropriate.
Lee Morrison asked Mr. Gathman about the recommendation being on lack of access is that both legal and
practical or are there issues as the whether the access is adequate to serve the use. Mr. Gathman stated
that the access does have a tight turn, there are boulders on both sided of the access site from CR 1. Staff
is being consistent with other recommendations under similar situations. It is Planning Staff policy that,
when there is a private access, a consent or sign off from the other users of the access is needed. If a
business is brought in that is a substantial change to the access, the uses should have some consent to
this. Mr. Morrison stated the county is not in the role that the court may need to be in. Mr. Miller stated
the issue was the use of the access being normal when the court order was done. Now the questions
arises since the use will be changed to a more substantial use.
Macon Cowles, representative for the applicant, provided clarification with regard to the project. The numbe
of employees will be at a maximum of 16 but those employees will not be at this site, they will be on job
sites. Jose Martinez, applicant, provided information with regard to the property. There will be two trucks in
and out every day. The other trucks rarely come to the yard. There will be loaders at the yard more often in
the off season times. The equipment will be on site during the winter. Mr. Miller asked how the large rocks
and material got to the site. Mr. Martinez stated the six ton truck brought those on site. Mr. Cowles added
that there is rock that is stored only temporary and will be used on other jobs. The access is the key
issue. The court order indicates the Marshes are in charge of maintenance. The use of the easement
(road) is the concern and the court order indicates that the Marshes cannot block access. The applicants
,.. sent a letter to the surrounding owners to let them know what the applicant wants to do. The applicant
attempted to speak in person with all the neighbors that would be most affected by the business. The
Martinez are willing to assist the Marshes with the maintenance of the road as the remaining neighbors
should be. The amount for maintenance of the road has not been received. There are neighbors that are
running businesses out of the homes. The neighbor to the east has vehicles on site and would not
acknowledge the applicant and the neighbor to the south runs a flooring business while the neighbor to the
west is fine with the proposal. The maintenance and the sharing of the road is binding on all the neighbors
in the area. The Martinez are the only ones that have stepped forward to share in the cost. There is a
condition that permits the applicants to develop a plan to maintain the road and access to this site. The
applicant is willing to pay his proportionate share for the maintenance on the access road.
James Rohn asked about the zoning compliance referral that indicates a violation and asked how the
operation could continue. Mr. Gathman stated that it is standard to let an operation continue as long as
they have submitted an application to bring the operation into compliance.
Macon Cowles added that the applicants bought the property and started this use with the understanding it
was a use by right. The realtor for this sale will tell the Planning Commission that the intent was this type
of business was allowed under the zoning that existed. Mr. Miller indicated that the issue is that this is a
buyer beware situation, the zoning must be verified before purchase. The owner is responsible to determine
the zoning and the allowable use. Mr. Cowles indicated that the access concerns that have been brought
forth now were never called out by the title company. The court order was not called out in the title
commitment.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Byron Marsh, neighbor, indicated he was the owner of the private road that accesses the property. They do
have the right to access the property. This is a residential area and the added traffic has increased. The
cost of the road has been absorbed by Mr. Marsh. The maintenance cost were not extreme so this issue
was never brought forward. There are 8 children that ride on this road with bicycles and their safety is a
concern. Mr. Marsh has sent all the neighbors letters and a letter was addresses to Mr. Cowles. The
Marshes would not like to see this approved due to safety and traffic. The road is not wide enough to
accommodate the turn in for larger trucks. The entry way is 13'6"and the road is approximately 20'due to
extra use. This is a residential area and even though there are other businesses they do not have this
many employees. There are limited trips on the road per day for the other businesses.
Michael Miller asked about if the extra width is due to extra traffic caused by Mr. Martinez. Mr. Marsh
indicated it was not all his responsibility. The traffic has doubled and that causes the concern, at one time
it was a one lane road. Mr. Miller stated that the neighbors should pay for additional use or maintenance
and they should be billed if they do use it excessively. Mr. Miller asked if anyone has been billed for the
maintenance of the road. Mr. Marsh indicated they had not because he felt it would be improper when the
others that live on it have not paid any upkeep in thirteen years. Mr. Marsh has billed everyone but none
one has adhered to the bill. A bill was given to an associate of Mr. Martinez.
Doug Ochsner asked if Mr. Marsh would be opposed to this application if the applicant would pay for
maintenance of the road. Mr. Marsh is concerned for the safety of the kids and the amount of traffic onto
CR 1.
James Rohn asked about the existing business to the south of the Martinez and if they are operating this
business out of the existing home or is this just his home. Mr. Marsh indicated he was not sure.
Tina Winwood, realtor who sold property, indicated she was under the impression the property was suitable
,.-•••• for the landscaping business. The property was zoned agricultural and they thought it was a great fit for the
Martinez's.needs. There was numerous trucks across the street. Mr. Miller added that agricultural
property allows for keeping agricultural equipment on the property, it does not allow for running a
commercial business. Ms. Winwood indicated that the business is not run from the house this is just for
storage of equipment. There are numerous violations in the surrounding area due to equipment being in the
area.
The Chair closed the public portion.
Macon Cowles, added that there are no children on this road, they may visit the neighborhood. The notice
that was left with an associate did not get to the Martinez. In the order it binds that the successors shall
not interfere with the use. It seems as though the maintenance agreement is being used to stop a
reasonable use of this property. The equipment on site has dropped dramatically.
Michael Miller asked about the historic number of people employed on this property. Mr. Martinez indicated
that there are four people everyday.
James Rohn asked when was the property purchased in the Town of Mead? Mr. Martinez indicated he has
owned if for five years. Mr. Rohn asked why an industrial area was not selected? Mr. Martinez stated this
place was purchased because there was more land and where they store the equipment there is not a
HOA with restrictions. Mr. Rohn asked if he lived on this site. Mr. Martinez stated he lives in Mead. Mr.
Martinez stated he purchased this property because he does not have the money to purchase commercial
property. Commercial is more expensive.
Chris Gathman added that there is information that was handed out addressing some letters referred to in
public comment.
Don Carroll added that Public Works does not want to interfere with a court judgement and ask for
additional conditions. Mr. Morrison stated that it needs to work within the confines of the order. (Inaudible)
What improvements provide for additional cost for someone causing damage from normal wear and tear of
the access? What kind of improvement needed to make this easement useable?
Michael Miller stated the limitations would be for appropriate access from CR 1. Mr. Morrison added if there
are impediments that cause the limitation of the use of the road those would need to be considered. Mr.
Carroll stated there are two boulders on two sides of the drive confining the turning radius, the boulders
would need to be taken out of County right of way and relocated. The road has hard surface with the width
being 14-20 feet, it would accommodate two cars to pass. The turning radius to Martinez could use some
work and the road needs moisture. Mr. Miller asked about CR 1. Mr. Carroll stated the latest count was
around 2300 vehicles. Mr. Miller asked if there would be room on CR 1 if a car were to stop to turn? Mr.
Carroll stated he believed CR 1 is double striped. (Inaudible)
John Folsom asked Mr. Gathman (inaudible) Mr. Gathman stated that staff is dealing with a consistent
policy in regards to private easements. When there are special use permits it is looked at as if something
is changed above and beyond single family residential. Mr. Morrison stated that the County cannot
interpret the court order. (Inaudible) If a conflict arises that ends up in court they would like to see an
agreement.
Michael Miller added that in a previous case there was the question as to whether a change to the driveway
was considered a substantial change to the use. Mr. Morrison added that there was evidence of prior use
with agricultural consistent with the intensity of use.
Bryant Gimlin asked Mr. Morrison if there should be language that the applicant should attempt to get an
agreement. Mr. Morrison stated that is an opportunity, Mr. Gathman has addressed it partially in Condition
1A which states the applicant shall submit signed road maintenance agreement for the two private roads
that provide access to the site or provide a plan as to how the applicant will maintain the road if an
agreement cannot be reached.
Michael Miller added that the court order does not limit to uses. There is provisions that if a residence uses
the road too much they should pay for their share. Mr. Miller indicated his largest concern was the access
4" from CR 1.
John Folsom (inaudible) something about the access.
Bryant Gimlin asked about the condition that the applicant submit a private road improvements agreement.
Is it specific to the road or to the maintenance yard? Mr. Gathman stated that when this condition was
placed in there it was specifically for improvements to the storage yard not to the road.
Bryant Gimlin moved to add the language from staff regarding the improvements agreements. John Folsom
seconded. Motion carried.
Bryant Gimlin asked if Development Standards#28 should be amended. Mr. Gathman suggested keeping
the first sentence and deleting the remainder of the paragraph.
Bryant Gimlin moved to amend Development Standards#28 with staffs suggestion. Bruce Fitzgerald
seconded. Motion carried.
James Rohn moved to deny USR 1470. Stephen Mokray second.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, no; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, no; Bryant Gimlin, no; James Rohn, yes; Chad Auer, no;
Tonya Strobel, yes; Doug Ochsner, no; Bruce Fitzgerald, no. Motion failed.
Bryant Gimlin commented (inaudible)
Michael Miller stated that he has no issue with access, the court order will address that concern. Mr. Miller
indicated his biggest concern is a one acre site in the middle of homes, one acre with a home does not
leave much room for storage of equipment. On this basis the question of compatibility without considering
the access is the concern.
Bryant Gimlin commented (inaudible)
James Rohn commented that his recommendation of denial was based not only on the access but also for
the health, safety and welfare of the residents. This business would be better suited in a commercial area.
The access is interfering with the residences that are there and disrupting their livelihood.
Stephen Mokray indicated that the number of vehicles may be limited now but with a growing business the
need for room will expand. This is a residential area with a commercial use in the middle.
Bryant Gimlin commented (inaudible)
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that Case USR-1470, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. John Folsom 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; James Rohn, no; Tonya
Strobel, no; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried.
John Folsom commented that the boulders that are in the right of way need to be removed and there are
severe restrictions on this application.
CASE NUMBER: 2004-XX
APPLICANT: Melody Homes/DR Horton
PLANNER: Monica Mika
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A tract of land located in the NE & SE Quarter of the Section 33, T3N,
R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Amendment to Map#2.1: Structural Land Use Plan of the Comprehensive
Plan (Chapter 22)and the Mixed Use Development Plan (Chapter 26)to
include 188 +/- total acres designated for potential Residential, Regional
Commercial, Employment Center, Regional Park, School Site, and
Neighborhood Center Development with a proposed population density of
3000 residents.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 7 between CR 26 and CR 28; east of and
Hello