HomeMy WebLinkAbout20040991.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held i n the Southwest Weld County
Conference Room,4209 CR 24'/:, Longmont, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Michael
Miller, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
r-J
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin ='
John Folsom
Stephan Mokray C
v c�
James Rohn
Bruce Fitzgerald
Tim Tracy Absent
Doug Ochsner
a1
Also Present: Char Davis, Don Carroll, Sheri Lockman, Jacqueline Hatch, Chris Gathman
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on March 2, 2004,
was approved as read.
CASE NUMBER: CZ-1052
APPLICANT: Hunt Brothers Properties Inc
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the N2 SW4 Section 20, Ti N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agriculture)to 1-3 (Industrial).
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 27; approximately 1/4 mile north of CR 6.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, indicated that this case has been heard previously. The
Planning Commission chose to wait until the Weld County Code amendments were adopted prior to a final
vote. Planning Commission wanted to verify that asphalt & concrete batch plans were a Use by Special
Review in the 1-3 (Industrial) Zone District prior to voting on this case. Those changes have been
implemented into the Weld County Code.
James Rohn moved that Case CZ-1052, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Bryant Gimlin seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;James Rohn,yes;Doug Ochsner,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: MF-1017
APPLICANT: Jeff Stamp
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B, Corrected RE-2462; part SW4 Section 36, T4N, R68W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Minor Subdivision Final Plan for nine (9) lots with E (Estate)Zoning.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 38; '/% mile west of CR 13.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case MF-1017, reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
John Folsom asked if there was an IGA with the town of Mead. Ms. Lockman indicated there was not an
agreement in effect at this time.
��f 4014 3-)'-/ a9 2004-0991
Todd Hodges, representative for Mr. Stamp, provided clarification to the project. This is the final step in the
process for a minor subdivision. The Homeowners Association (HOA)will have the irrigation water deeded
to them which will allow for a more efficient use of the water. A concern from the surrounding neighbors was
there be no manufactured or mobile home on the properties, the homes will all be stick built. A view corridor
was provided as a result of discussion with the surrounding neighbors. Referral agencies requests have been
addressed either by Development Standards or Condition of Approval. This property is in compliance due to
the property being a non urban design. There are services available to the site. The home sites will contain
sprinkler systems in addition to the hydrants. The interior roadway will be improved to county standards along
with an off site improvements agreement along the county road. The applicant feels as though this meets the
intent of the criteria required by Weld County.
James Rohn asked Ms. Lockman about the city limits of Mead. Ms. Lockman pointed the city limits on a
visual map.
John Folsom asked Mr.Schei about CR 38 and the overpass across 1-25. Has the signaled Railroad crossing
on CR 13 been improved? Mr. Schei stated that there is no plan for upgrading those signals.
Stephen Mokray asked about the Mead referral requesting the subdivision be referred to the town for possible
annexation. Ms. Lockman stated there is no IGA or jurisdiction that requires staff to do so.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
David Martini, neighbor, indicated concern about the loss of agricultural land. Mr. Martini inquired as to how
the irrigation water will be delivered to these lots and who will manage the head gate. How can the Planning
Commission approve this if this requested information is not in place at this time.
Michael Miller asked Ms. Lockman if there is additional information regarding these issues. Ms. Lockman
stated that there is some information on the utility plan but the applicants representative can better address
those issues.
William Kasey, neighbor, indicated concern with traffic and dust along CR 35 which is not paved.
Michael Miller stated that the subdivision has been approved and this is the final plan. Mr. Schei addressed
the off site improvements agreement that requires the developer to set aside funds to mitigate the dust on the
roadway. This agreement will be in place prior to recording the plat.
John Folsom asked Ms. Lockman about the letter from the group of neighbors. Ms. Lockman stated there
were no letters received regarding this case.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
Todd Hodges, representative, indicated Dennis Messner will address the water issues. Dennis Messner
indicated the irrigation shares will be transferred to the HOA. There will only be one person who will do the
ordering of water and maintenance. The system will be from the existing headgate and go through the internal
system to the individual lots. All lots will have irrigation water. Mr. Miller asked if the same party will manage
the water. Mr. Messner stated it will be only one party responsible for ordering and delivering.
Peter Schei added that CR 38 is classified as a minor arterial and additional right of way will need to be
reserved. The total will be 55 feet from the center line meaning 25 feet of reservation in addition to the 30 feet
dedicated and shown on the plat. This was an oversite on Public Works part. Mr. Hodges stated that there
is a 20 foot utility easement outside of the right of way along with an additional 15 foot utility easement. If this
is reservation only and does not affect the lot size it should be fine. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Schei if the
reservation would require the utility easement to be moved. Mr. Schei asked Mr. Morrison if the utility
easement can remain in the right of way reservation. Mr. Morrison stated it could,there are utility easements
in most of the rights of way in the county. Mr. Hodges stated that Central Weld Water District has a 20 foot
exclusive easement for construction of a line. Mr. Messner stated that the 20 foot utility easement does
contain a water line. Central Weld is in the process of installing a new line that will go down the middle of CR
38. Mr. Miller suggest that prior to Board of County Commissioners this issue be addressed.
Sheri Lockman stated that the covenants do not deal specifically with the maintenance of the irrigation water.
Mr. Hodges stated that the covenants can be clarified.
Peter Schei asked if the line currently being installed by in the Central Weld Water Utility easement is a
replacement water line. Mr. Messner stated it is a new water line. Mr. Schei stated there should be no
conflict. Mr. Miller clarified that an additional 25 feet will need to be reserved.
John Folsom asked for clarification regarding the reservation. Mr.Schei stated they are asking an additional
25 feet plus the 30 feet already dedicated.
John Folsom moved to require the applicant to add language to the covenants describing the management
of the water as described in the hearing today. Ms. Lockman suggest placing this in 1D where covenants are
being addressed. Ms. Lockman suggested placing additional language at the end of Condition 1D to state
the following: " envelopes shall be placed in the development covenants along with a description of the
management of the irrigation water."
John Folsom moved to include language in 1 D as referenced above. James Rohn seconded. Motion carried.
James Rohn moved to include the additional 25 feet of right of way in Condition 1J. Bruce Fitzgerald
seconded.
James Rohn indicated his concern with the right to farm act and at a previous meeting a surrounding land
owner was concerned with not being able to aerial spray his hay. That owner has the right to farm his land
and this would impose on it.
John Folsom indicated this issue was addressed in the Change of Zone. The farmer had other alternatives
to aerial spraying.
Mr. Miller stated that this is not a rehearing for the change of zone it is a final plan for the minor subdivision
process. Issues that are relevant to the change of zone are being discussed at this time.
John Folsom moved that Case MF-1017,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Stephen 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;James Rohn,yes;Doug Ochsner,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-629
APPLICANT: Dallas & Marjorie Schneider
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2293; part of the NE4 of Section 30, T2N, R68W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to PUD (DalMar Estates)for nine (9)
lots with E(Estate)Uses(34 acres)and three(3)non-residential outlots(21
acres)open space.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 18; approximately'/]mile east of CR 1.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-629, reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Doug Ochsner asked about the ditch and what type it was. Ms. Hatch stated it was an irrigation ditch.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Schei about the vehicle count. Some of the numbers mentioned in the information
given does not calculate. The traffic count for this proposal was under of 100 but this would throw the count
over the 200 cars a day for an agreement. Mr. Schei stated that there are other developments in the area that
are coming on board and this development will throw this over the threshold. Mr. Miller asked if Public Works
is requesting dust abatement from this applicant. Mr. Schei stated there is a paving project under way and
they are asking the applicant to participate in this. Public Works is asking all the applicants in the area to
participate.
Clayton Harrison, representative of the applicant, provided clarification on the project. Agreements were a
concern at the time of sketch plan and the applicant has addressed a majority of them. There is one
agreement that will need to be finalized prior to the scheduling of the Board of County Commissioners. The
applicant has agreed to move the road to help mitigate the concern of one of the oil and gas companies. The
applicant has submitted a request for a paving waiver. The request was denied due to this proposed
subdivision would generate additional traffic on adjacent gravel CR 16%. The applicant is not proposing that
CR 16 1/2 not be paved, they are requesting the internal road not be paved. A waiver can be granted if the
PUD is not in close proximity with other PUD. Currently they are not close to any other subdivisions. The
applicant would like to be granted the pavement waiver for the internal roadway.
John Folsom asked if the applicant had contacted the Army Core of Engineers due to the wetlands. Mr.
Harrison stated that the wetlands are not jurisdictional wetlands. Mr. Folsom asked if there was a provision
addressing this.
Michael Miller asked if DalMar road will also serve as the access road to maintain the wells. Mr. Harrison
stated it was.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Morrison if the Code requires 150 feet from structures and/or roads. Mr. Morrison
stated that the County Code deals with structures. The Oil and Gas Commission deals with distance from
roads if the well was put in second. Mr. Miller stated that if the applicant does not agree with K.P. Kaufman
all they would need to show is that a good effort was made to come to an agreement. Mr. Morrison stated
that if they do not have to have an agreement, they will need to show they have done their best to
accommodate KP Kauffman concerns.
John Folsom asked if there is any effort to find mineral deposits. Mr.Harrison stated that Planning and Public
Works has reviewed and there is none in this case.
Doug Ochsner asked if there has been contact with the ditch company for an agreement. Mr. Harrison stated
the agreement is complete and in the packet.
Bryant Gimlin asked the length of the internal road. Mr. Harrison stated it was approximately 3000 feet.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Helen Bryant, neighbor, asked about the access to CR 16'h and who is going to have to pave for the paving?
Ms. Hatch stated the access will be adjacent to the existing driveway. Mr.Schei stated that all the developers
will share their proportionate cost of the paving of CR 16 %. Ms. Bryant will not be assessed anything. She
is considered background traffic because she already exists.
Jenny Shaw, neighbor, asked about paving on CR 16'%. How is the paving cost for a county road calculated
when a municipality has a portion of the roadway. Mr.Schei stated if a roadway is within the municipality they
will bear that cost and the maintenance for their section. County roads can have sections owned by the
County and individual municipalities.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
Inaudible discussion
James Rohn moved to delete 1B. Doug Ochsner seconded. Motion carried.
Peter Schei commented that the vehicle count on CR 16 % is 228. CR 16 %F is in the 2004 plan for dust
abatement. There is a paving plan for 2007. This project started as minor subdivision and at that time no
internal paving was required, when it changed to PUD status the internal paving is required by code.
Bryant Gimlin commented that if this road is also an oil and gas access,they will tear up the pavement much
quicker. It would be beneficial for the applicant to have something other than asphalt.
John Folsom asked if there was a steep grade on the road. If there is it would be better to pave it then
dedicate it to the county when completed.
James Rohn asked if the oil and gas company would pay for the maintenance on the internal road that they
utilize. Mr. Miller stated that a normal oil and gas lease is required to maintain access roads to the wells,this
would be hard thing to enforce if the applicant tried to force them to maintain the quality of the asphalt. Mr.
Rohn commented the trucks would be harder on the asphalt. Mr. Miller stated the grade to the site is not
significant to support or cause the need for paving. Mr. Rohn stated that Public Works has required other
subdivisions interior roads to be the same as the connecting exterior road. It would be beneficial if the
applicant would meet the paving requirement at some point in the future.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if the applicant has to pay a road impact fee. This would be$18,000 from the property
owners when permits are pulled. How much more involvement over and above this money is the developer
going to need. Mr. Schei stated that the traffic impact fees go to the major arterial. These are the strategic
corridors not any county road in the system. Public Works recommendations are based on their policy. The
fees are hard on the developers but the public as a whole will be taxed to keep the infrastructure up to a
certain level. There was continued discussion on paving of the interior roadway and Planning Commissions
ability to determine something other than the recommendation by Public Works. Mr. Morrison stated that the
Planning Commission can chose rather to forward Public Works recommendation or make one of their own
regarding the paving.
Michael Miller asked if the county would pave an entry way into the site or strictly the roadway when the time
comes for CR 16 '/ to be paved. Mr. Schei stated there would not be accommodation for the access.
John Folsom asked about paving CR 16 '/x. Mr. Schei stated that in 2007 the road will be paved and this is
part of the established budget.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to grant waiver for internal road to be gravel. The recommendation is to amend 2E
on page 4 to stated"The typical roadway section of the interior roadway shall be shown as two 12-foot gravel
lanes with 4 foot gravel shoulders on the change of zone plat." Doug Ochsner seconded. Motion Carried with
John Folsom voted no.
Jacqueline Hatch stated that 2E page 4 is not a condition. Additional language can be added to Condition 2B
to address the same concern. Mr.Miller stated that it has been established that Public Works has denied the
paving waiver but Planning Commission has recommended that the internal roadway be changed to a gravel
surface. The referral agencies will have to accept the recommendation for gravel also. Mr.Schei stated that
a separate item will need to be added as a condition. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Morrison if Planning Commission
recommends the waiver for paving the layout still needs to be acceptable to the referral agencies. Mr.
Morrison stated that the layout must be adequate. There needs to be nothing changed because the layout
is the same the surface is the only change.
Michael Miller commented that the code indicated that if the internal roadway enters onto a paved surface it
must also be paved, but the code does not indicated it has to be paved. Mr. Schei stated that a minor
subdivision does not have to be paid but a PUD does have the requirement of paving. A waiver can always
can be requested.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case PZ-629, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Stephen 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;James Rohn,yes;Doug Ochsner,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1458
APPLICANT: Kenneth Shannon
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW4 of Section 29, T1 N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a use
permitted as a Use by Special Review, (Oil & Gas Support & Services) in
the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to Hwy 85 business (CR 27); approximately 1/4 mile
south of CR 6.
Jacqueline Hatch,Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1458,reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of the
application.
James Rohn asked about question 5F on the application questionnaire regarding trips per day. The amount
requested by the applicant does not seem sufficient. Ms. Hatch stated that staff did not indicated the number
of trips allowed as a Condition, there is a limit of the number of employees and the hours of operation.
Michael Miller stated the applicant has requested 6:30am - 5:00pm.
Kenneth Shannon, proposed purchaser of the land and the owner of the pipeline company, provided
clarification on the project. This business is a small construction company that lays pipe for the gas and oil
industry. They also do plant construction and some concrete work. The outdoor storage of equipment will
be in pipe racks, nothing will be on the ground. Mr. Miller asked about the number of truck trips per day. Mr.
Shannon stated that most of the employees work in the field. There may be four to five people in this facility
during the day.
John Folsom asked the applicant if there were on call 24 hours a day? Mr. Shannon stated the company
works from 6:30am - 5:00pm, five days a week.
Michael Miller asked if the only reason staff is recommending denial is the IGA with Fort Lupton. Ms. Hatch
stated that the IGA was the main reason but there are concerns with compatibility with the surrounding area.
The close proximity of the proposed buildings to the neighbors to the north was a concern. Landscaping may
not be able to mitigate this.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Shannon about the discharge of runoff onto the railroad right of way. Mr. Shannon
stated that there will be a retention pond on site which will contain the runoff on the property.
John Folsom asked about concerns from the surrounding property owners concerning well contamination.
Mr. Shannon stated this is a small company and there should be no problems.
Stephen Mokray asked Ms. Hatch about a letter from Union Pacific (UP) about this being two parcels of
ground. Ms. Hatch stated that there are two parcels and the proposal is to connect these by the railroad right
of way. That is why they are being reviewed at the same time. When Mr. Shannon purchases the property
a new lease agreement will need to be done with UP. The existing agreement is non transferrable. Staff has
requested moving the condition to have a lease agreement with UP from prior to recording to prior to Board
of County Commissioners Hearing. Mr. Mokray asked how this will work if Union pacific rejects the
agreement. Ms. Hatch stated that if an agreement is rejected Mr. Shannon will still be ok because he is
moving the retention onto his site. There will be two separate sites not connected but still under one Use by
Special Review. Mr. Miller clarified that the agreement will not matter because of the pond location. There
is a condition to provide a copy of this agreement if he cannot do this what happens? Ms. Hatch stated that
if an lease cannot be obtained, the applicant will provide staff with a letter indicating they have attempted to
comply. The applicant will then go to the Board of County Commissioners.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services, stated that she had indicated that the USR could be done
without the railroad right of way. Ms. Lockman asked Mr. Morrison if this application should be on two
separate USR if the right of way cannot be obtained? The Union Pacific right of way is the attaching piece,
without this there would be two separate parcels. Mr. Morrison asked if they would be operated together or
as separate functions. Ms. Hatch stated it would be the same business. Mr. Morrison added there has been
past cases in which the USR is not all on a contiguous property. Legally it can remain in one USR but other
issues may be presented.
Michael Miller asked for clarification with regard to the agreement, stating it would be beneficial for internal
connectivity and is there any reason for not obtaining the lease. Mr. Shannon stated that the lease would be
beneficial but not a necessity. The only objection from the UP was the detention pond.
James Rohn asked if the applicant can modify his use due to the references quoted in staff comments
referring to mineral resource development facility. Ms. Hatch stated this application is considered a mineral
resource development facility, if something were to change a new use by special review would need to be
submitted.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Richard Stutz,neighbor,indicated concerns with possible well contaminations. Any retention pond in the area
will go into the gravel beds. The pond will be upstream of his well. Mr. Stutz indicated that he holds the
railroad lease on the section behind his house. There is a concern that equipment in yard will drain or spill
any material which will go to the retention ponds. Another concern is the location of the big building, it will be
next to their bedroom. Mr. Stutz would like to see the building relocated to the back of the property. Another
concern is the fence, the applicant proposes the location will be 15 feet from house on the north, this will
create a blind corner next to the driveway. The house was built in 1956 and the septic tank is in the power
line right of way. If the fence were to be built it would not allow them to access the septic tanks. They have
historically used the power line right of way to access their backyard and the fence would not allow them to
access either the septic or their backyard.
James Rohn asked Mr. Stutz about the lease with the railroad and if he had any documentation. Mr. Stutz
indicated there is documentation but he has none with him.
Gene Tadehara, neighbor, indicated concern with the location of the proposed building being next to his
residence on the north. The building could be more centralized away from the existing residences. Another
concern is rather there will be on site storage for fuel? Ms. Davis indicated there was a regarding onsite fuel
storage.
Terry Wheland, spoke on behalf of the Sasaki's, indicated that the purchase contract is contingent on getting
the special use permit. The Sasakis would like to see the concerns of the neighbors addressed.
Michael Miller asked if Mr. Wheland could address the railroad lease and who has possession of the lease.
Mr.Wheland is not sure who has the lease,the Sasaki's have been farming for 20 some years and the water
has been sold off the land so it will no longer be used as agriculture.
Mary Cypress, property owner to the south, asked about the location of the fence and if it around the entire
property.
Don Claps, indicated that the applicant will do what he can to mitigate the concerns of the neighbors. Their
current business is well maintained and clean,they will be a positive attribute to the neighborhood. The lease
is separated into three sections. The Sasaki's own the lease on the north end while Mr. Stutz has a year to
year lease behind his property. The southern end is also owned by the Sasaki's. The railroad did offer the
lease behind Mr. Stutz property to Mr. Shannon for a 20 year period.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
Ken Shannon provided clarification with regards to some of the concerns that have been expressed by the
neighbors. Mr. Shannon indicated the buildings will not be next to the fence. George Pallsburg, Alles &
Associates, representative, indicated the building will be approximately 40 feet from property lines for both
buildings. The fence that will be built will not obscure the vision triangle needed to exit the property. Mr.
Pallsburg stated the fence will be located at the 80 foot from center line, this will give an extensive site
distance triangle. Mr Carroll stated CR 27 has an 80 foot of right of way at full build out.
Don Carroll from Public Works would like to enter N on page 5 stating that"the applicant shall address site
distance at the proposed property lines to accommodate driveway access to neighboring properties,this way
the site distance triangle will be utilized." Mr. Miller asked about the access to the septic system. The historic
access for maintenance is the power line right of way. Mr. Shannon pointed out that the septic system is on
the property he is attempting to acquire. Mr.Miller pointed out that historically Mr.Stutz has used the property
and it would not be fair to remove that use due to maintenance needs of the septic system. The intent is not
to remove the ability of the neighbor to maintain the septic system.
Michael Miller asked if there will be fuel on site. Mr. Shannon stated there will be fuel on site in a contained
vault. It will be in the center of the property. Char Davis stated there is a condition addressing the above and
under ground storage tanks for fuel and there will be used oil on site. The septic system was in place in the
50's before regulations. There is not much that can be done at this point, but if the system fails it will need
to be relocated on the owners property.
James Rohn asked Mr. Morrison about the right of way lease and if there is anything the County can do about
this. Mr. Morrison stated that there is conflicting testimony. Mr. Miller added there is a 5 year lease to Mr.
Stutz but UP has offered a 20 year lease to Mr. Shannon. Mr. Morrison stated that Planning Commission
would not know the status of the lease prior to a decision. Staff wrote the comments according to the
information provided. Mr. Rohn asked for clarification with regard to the Planning Commission reviewing this
proposal as two parcels with one USR since there are different owners of the UP leases. Mr. Morrison stated
it should be viewed as two lots under one USR because it is unclear as to what the status of the lease will be.
Mr.Rohn indicated his concern of having one USR with two lots and once access. The trucks will exit the site,
utilize county roads to gain access to the other site creating more trips per day. Mr. Morrison stated that was
a consideration for Planning Commission but not a legal issue.
James Rohn moved to relocate Condition 2H to Condition 1 B. Stephen Mokray seconded. Motion carried.
James Rohn moved to accept Public Works language into Condition N #15 consisting of"the applicant shall
address the site distance at both driveways associated with the Stutz and Sipres properties for adequate site
distance in both directions." Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. Motion carried.
Michael Miller asked if there is a need to create a Development Standards for access to the existing septic
system.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to have language for an agreement for access for maintenance of the septic system
by Mr. Stutz. Char Davis stated that if the leach field fails they will not be able to repair it. Mr. Miller clarified
this is strictly for the maintenance of the existing system. Ms. Hatch suggested the following language be
added to a Development Standards#25 with language consisting of"The applicant shall permit the neighbor
access to the existing septic system for maintenance purposes. When the septic system fails the new septic
system shall be placed on the respective lot." James Rohn seconded. Motion carried.
James Rohn commented his concern is for the railroad right of way and for the neighbor not being able to
access out of his property.
John Folsom stated the neighbor will access from CR 27.
Michael Miller commented that largest concern is the IGA with Fort Lupton. This is a signed agreement that
states"at any time legally possible" reject urban development in a non urban area. The question is what is
legally possible as far as denying the application. Mr. Gimlin stated this property does not have the same
logistics as some of the previous proposals that we were recommending denial on. This lot has more of a
potential for agricultural uses or other types of uses. This purpose may not be the best use.
Michael Miller added that the whole corridor is prone to industrial development. The area lends itself to
industrial uses. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Morrison about the IGA and could this be a reason for denial. The IGA
is the only thing that pushes the Planning Commission toward denial. Mr. Morrison stated that the findings
for another case was there was no other use that was feasible. The avenue that must be evaluated is rather
there is some other reasonable use for the property. If there is no other reasonable use there, there could
be a legal base for approving the application despite the IGA.
John Folsom stated that legally possible leading to a higher and better use does not enter into this. The
Planning Commission must abide by the IGA.
Doug Ochsner asked if there is a definition of urban scale development. This does not seem to be an urban
use.
Stephen Mokray stated that on a previous case the vote was based on the premiss it was the best use of the
land, the same thing applies here. This is an industrial area and this type of business fits into the area. The
only difference is the neighbors.
Michael Miller commented that in the event the right of way is not granted there are two separate parcels and
traveling from one to another is not a good situation.
James Rohn commented that the towns need more credit at times. He has a large concern with these
properties not being connected.
Bryant Gimlin commented that storage, noise and buildings are urban as oppose to agriculture.
James Rohn moved that Case USR-1458, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the
Planning Commissions recommendation of denial. John Folsom seconded the motion.
Doug Ochsner commented that his reasoning for denial is based on compatibility not because of the IGA.
James Rohn commented that by the time this case reaches Board of County Commissioners it is
recommended that the railroad right of way lease be settled.
Stephen Mokray commented that this is an industrial area and meets the need for the property.
Bryant Gimlin commented that he agreed with the same comments and the compatibility of the proposed use
with the neighbors.
Michael Miller commented the denial is based on Section 19-12-50 B regarding the IGA with Fort Lupton and
that this use is not safe for the general public due to the different accesses. Along with the proposal not being
compatible with the surrounding area and the lack of the railroad lease.
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,yes; Doug Ochsner,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 4:30pm
Respectfully submitted
f
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello