HomeMy WebLinkAbout20040338.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 6, 2004
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2004, in the Weld County
Public Health/Planning Building, (Room 210), 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was
called to order by Chair, Michael Miller, at 1:30p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin
John Folsom
Stephan Mokray
James Rohn _—
Bruce Fitzgerald ,2
Tim Tracy
Doug Ochsner
Also Present: Don Carroll, Sheri Lockman, Michelle Katyryniuk, Peter Schei, Kim Ogle, Char Davis
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on December 16,
2003, was approved as read.
The following Items are Continued:
- CASE NUMBER: 3r°AmUSR-597
APPLICANT: Duke Energy
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1 thru Lot 4 SE4SW4& S2 Lot 3 &all Lots 4& 5 SW4SW4 Section 25,
T5N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Mineral
Resource Development Facility including a Natural Gas Processing Facility
in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to 49th Street; east of and adjacent to 35th Avenue.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting a continuance to February 3, 2004.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1452
APPLICANT: John &Tonya McENtee and Anthony& Katina Brigham
PLANNER: Michelle Katyryniuk
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-3006; part NE4 Section 19, T6N, 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 Right,an Accessory Use,or a Use by Special Review
in the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts, (outdoor storage for
recreational vehicles) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Hwy 392; west of and adjacent to CR 27
Michelle Katyryniuk, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting a continuance to February 3,
2004.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1454
APPLICANT: Michael Arrington
PLANNER: Michelle Katyryniuk
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-354; part of S2 SE4 Section 33, T5N, R65W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for an oil and
gas support and service facility in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
CATION: North of and adjacent to CR 50; %z mile west of CR 43
n
rf_ Qi
o_ 2004-0338
Michelle Katyryniuk, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting a continuance to March 2,
2004.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1431
APPLICANT: Marlin Ness
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B RE-2692; part of the NE4 Section 21, T5N, R65W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for an RV Park,
Storage and Recreation Area in the Agricultural Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and a djacent to Highway 34 (28th Street Frontage Road)and
approximately Y2 mile east of 1s'Avenue.
Chris Gathman,Department of Planning Services,read a letter requesting a continuance to January20,2004.
James Rohn asked if there were any concern from the neighbors since the case would be heard at the
Southwest Weld Office. Mr. Gathman indicated no one has called or expressed concerns regarding the
proposal.
The following are on the Hearing Agenda:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1457 originally assigned case#2nd AmUSR-1047
APPLICANT: Regent Broadcasting of Fort Collins, Inc.
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SE4 Section 19, T8N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for one (1)
radio communication transmission tower over seventy feet in height (755
feet) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: /z mile west of CR 27; 74 feet north of CR 90.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1457,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.
James Rohn asked about the development standards and why the subdivision standards are being utilized.
Ms. Lockman stated that subdivision exemptions are used with utility providers because they will be leasing
the property. This is used in situations like water towers and other similar uses. It is basically to create the
parcel for the use. Mr. Rohn asked why there is a need for development standards#12, #13 and#17 which
address construction on the site. Ms. Lockman stated that the old tower needs to be removed.
Ken Lind, representative for the applicant,provided clarification on the project. The applicant is in agreement
with the development standards and conditions. The issue of co-location has been addressed on this tower
and the allowance for it. With regards to co-location, information will need to be provided by the individual
companies interested. The original tower went up in the 70's. This is a replacement, larger, tower. The
smaller tower will be removed once final approval is granted. There is an agreement with the Board of County
Commissioners regarding the removal of the middle tower. There is cash bonding associated with the
agreement. There is a letter from FOX television, owners of the adjacent tower, requesting additional
conditions on the project and none of the conditions are acceptable to the applicant. This tower is an
improvement to an existing facility. They are not related to the zoning but can be part of a subsequent
agreement between the parties. Some of the items exist in leases on the property.
Doug Ochsner asked what the purpose for the tower is and why a new tower was constructed. To address
concerns from a surrounding property owner Dave Rehman stated FM does not interfere with the AM radio
stations and the lights are on the FOX facility.
Michael Miller asked Ms.Lockman if the light pollution standards would address the issue with the lights. Ms.
Lockman indicated that there is nothing that can be done through this USR for lighting on the adjacent tower.
However, the old permit can be reviewed but nothing at this time can be done.
Dave Rehman, continued. The station was purchased out of bankruptcy. The older towers integrity were in
question, therefor, a new tower would be built and improvements made to it including possible co-location.
Ernie Jones, ERI engineer, provided information on the tower structure. The existing tower is basically out
of date and there have been improvements in the industry on the standards and codes. There is a loading
increase on the newer tower. Codes today are twice as regulatory as what they were 30 years ago. The
existing structure was pipe and erosion is occurring. The existing tower has small anchor shafts and the
newer tower will contain better anchor supports.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Mark Grueskin, council to FOX, indicated that they are not for or against the tower. The procedure used to
release the building permit is of concern. There is ongoing litigation, but not pertinent to this decision. There
was a set of conditions distributed that FOX is requesting be added to the present conditions.There was an
existing operating agreement between the previous owners. In bankruptcy court when property transfers it
transfers free and clear of encumbrances, Regent Broadcasting believes the operating agreement to be an
encumbrance and therefor not bound by it. The guide lines cross the FOX property. There are cross
easements. FOX is asking for additional conditions that apply to the special use to ensure safety for FOX.
They are asking for conditions concerning non interference, cross easements, maintenance, insurance,
certificate of insurance, that neighboring land owners be notified before a change to the tower, engineering
reports and demolition of the old tower.
Michael Miller asked if the litigation is currently addressing the issue of the operating agreement. Mr.Grueskin
stated it was not. Mr. Miller asked if there is evidence that the operating agreement was nullified. Mr.
Grueskin stated he does not have any of the bankruptcy documents so there is nothing concrete that he has
seen. There have been conversations and they have been advised that the agreement is no longer in place.
Michael Miller asked Mr.Morrison if the operating agreement is an encumbrance. Mr.Morrison stated he was
unable to make a determination as to if the operating agreement was still valid with the available information.
This does not preclude Planning Commission from looking at the request from FOX. Mr.Grueskin stated that
if the operating agreement is nullified then the incorporation of the conditions will be essentially a double
coverage for the same issues. Mr. Miller asked why this information was not given weeks ago to Planning
Commission when they first learned of this issue. Mr. Grueskin stated Regent Broadcasting and FOX have
attempted to avoid the controversy. There is the possibility of another operating agreement.
Bryant Gimlin asked if the agreement was recorded. Mr.Grueskin was not sure. Mr.Gimlin added that if the
agreement is not recorded it would not be found in the bankruptcy agreement. Mr. Gimlin asked if the guide
wires pass the USR boundaries. Ms.Lockman indicated that there is the issue of overlapping USR's because
of the guide wires.
John Folsom asked if it was FOX's positions that the operating agreement is still in affect. Mr.Grueskin stated
FOX was under the assumption that it was still in effect, they were informed that Regent Broadcasting felt it
was not. Mr. Folsom indicated that the proposed modifications only apply to the subject property they do not
affect FOX. It would be more equitable to affect both parties. Mr.Grueskin stated that FOX has no issue with
the conditions being bilateral. This would make it equitable to both parties.
Lee Morrison stated the operating agreement was recorded May 22, 1995.
James Rohn asked Mr.Morrison if the operating agreement has been recorded does it mean it is still in effect.
Mr. Morrison asked the applicant to respond.
Tim Tracy asked if the bankruptcy court may have alleviated this agreement. Mr. Morrison stated that the
bankruptcy court would not say what agreement is no longer in affect. It is associated with the laws at hand.
Mr. Tracy asked if these are issues that Planning Commission needs to be concerned with or do the parties
need to address them. Mr. Morrison stated of the items listed as suggested conditions, yes on some and no
on others. Mr. Tracy asked about development standard #16 and if it has any application to the conditions,
also development standard #23 addresses concerns for the adjacent owners. Are these what Planning
Commission needs to be focused upon. Mr. Morrison stated that some issues might be addressed generally.
Mr. Morrison added that another option is to have the parties continue discussion and not resolve the issue
today. Mr. Gimlin added there could be a condition added to Prior to Scheduling the Board of County
Commissioners that an agreement be reached or at least attempted. Mr. Morrison stated that this could not
allow a denial but encourage the communication before the case goes forward. Mr. Miller added that the
adjacent property owners rights are always respected. The intent is not to negatively affect those owners.
Mr. Morrison added that there is an agreement in place with the Board of County Commissioners to get
approval or the tower will need to be removed.
Tim Tracy asked Mr. Grueskin about the operating agreement and when it became an issue. Mr. Grueskin
stated he received an email yesterday. There has been no present discussion with Regent Broadcasting.
FOX indicated they are open to talks, there are some common grounds between the two.There is the ability
to work this out in time. The litigation is to ensure FOX's operations. Mr. Miller asked what potential
operations would affect theFOX tower. Mr.Grueskin stated a structural mishap is the reason for the request
for insurance information. They would like to be made aware before anything is adding to the tower.
John Folsom stated if a condition is added that an agreement be done, it puts FOX in the diver seat and the
ability to not accommodate Regent Broadcasting and make this case unable to go forward.
The Chair closed public portion.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Lind what the objection was for the conditions that have been presented by FOX.
Mr. Lind stated that what has been proposed is a private unilateral agreement. It is binding upon Regent but
not upon FOX. Everything that is in the conditions can be in an operating agreement they are not land use
issues. Most of the items were in the operating agreement. Regent has indicated t hat the operating
agreement is not binding on either party. The old agreement did not contemplate a new tower, the old
agreement is not applicable with a new tower. There is encouragement to both parties to enter into an
operating agreement. Mr. Gimlin asked if the applicant is agreeable if a condition be placed in Prior to
Scheduling to make an attempt to enter into an operating agreement. Mr. Lind addressed the issues listed
on the letter from FOX.
Sheri Lockman proposed language in Prior to Scheduling the Board of County Commissioners hearing"The
applicant shall contact the owners of the adjacent tower,an attempt shall be made to address their concern.
Written evidence of a reasonable attempt at a solution shall be submitted to the Department of Planning
Services." Mr. Morrison added or a copy of the agreement, if any.
John Folsom asked how this issue came about and is this the ususal procedure. Mr. Morrison stated the
County was contacted by Mr. Lind who indicated that time was of the essence in getting the tower build and
obtaining FCC approval. The County allowed construction to occur, they would not preclude denial but a
deposit was required to dismantle the new tower if the permit was in fact denied. The applicant was required
to apply for the building permit and follow the code but the final decision on zone could be made at hearing
date. Mr. Folsom stated that he questioned the wisdom of that procedure.
Bryant Gimlin moved to approve the language suggested by Ms. Lockman consisting of"the applicant shall
contact the owners of the adjacent tower, an attempt shall be made to address their concern. Written
evidence that a reasonable attempt has been made to resolve the issues shall be submitted to the Department
of Planning Services. James Rohn seconded. Motion carried.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case USR-1457, 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;Tim Tracy,yes;
Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Doug Ochsner excused himself due to possible conflict of interest.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1453
APPLICANT: Tim Felte do Shaun Roberts
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-902; being part of the SW4 Section 10, T7N, R66W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a mineral
resource development facility(concrete batch plant) in the A(Agricultural)
Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Hwy 14; 1/2 mile west of CR 33.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1453, 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.
Shaun Roberts, applicant, provided further clarification with regard to the project. They are producing
concrete (mud)and placing them in trucks for mixing while traveling to the site.
John Folsom asked if material will be delivered to the site. Mr. Roberts indicated it would.
James Rohn asked Mr. Carroll about the vehicle trips on Hwy 14 and the possible clogging of vehicles. Is
there some way Planning Commission can ask for accel/decel lanes. Mr. Carroll indicated that CDOT will
have the final say on the vehicle trips in accordance with the improvements to the area. Mr. Roberts indicated
he is speaking with CDOT with regards to improvements to the road. The size of the operation is small for
now and when it increases CDOT will require improvements to the road. Mr. Rohn asked what type vehicles
will be on site. Mr. Roberts indicated one semi truck, cement mixers and personal vehicles.
Tim Tracy asked if the 17 trips were deliveries not aggregate being shipped in. Mr. Roberts stated that the 17
trips is a trip being in and out. Mr.Tracy asked if there was a specific number of trips that CDOT was looking
for to evaluate. Mr. Roberts indicated that CDOT was looking at peak hours for the vehicle count and their
concern.
Michael Miller asked if they were operating similar type plant in another location. Mr. Roberts indicated his
father in law was and this would be like a sister company. Mr. Rohn asking what vehicle trips were being used
at the other plant. Mr. Roberts indicated that now it is slow due to weather. In discussing this issue with
CDOT there will need to be a maximum number of 50 trips instead of the 17 trips indicated. After the 50 is
surpassed they will need to re-apply to conform to the new standards.
John Folsom asked how many ready mix trucks they have currently. Mr. Roberts indicated that there will be
7 trucks at this location. Mr. Folsom questioned 17 trips per day with this many trucks. Mr. Roberts indicated
he is working with CDOT to determine the number of vehicle trips per day allowed before improvements will
need to be made to Hwy 14. They have come up with a preliminary number of 50 trips per day.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Dorothy Stewart, adjacent mineral owner,was curious to know if gravel will be mined.
The Chair closed public portion.
Shaun Roberts stated there will be no mining done on site.
Michael Miller indicated that there is a need to amend the truck trips now.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if 50 trips will be enough. Mr. Roberts stated that CDOT has recommended this
number and requested that they reapply as the business becomes larger. Mr. Miller asked why Planning
Commission should address the number of trips when it is a CDOT issue. Mr. Gimlin stated the standard
needed to be re worded to accommodate the CDOT referral. Mr. Carroll stated that there is a condition that
is included that states the applicant shall address CDOT concerns.
Sheri Lockman asked for clarification for the maximum number of trucks on site. Mr. Roberts stated there
will be 10 trucks. Ms. Lockman asked if 10 trucks can be parked in the building. Ms. Lockman indicated that
the application states all trucks will be parked inside the building. Ms. Lockman added that the applicant has
to follow what he has placed in the application,the conditions and development standards are in addition. Mr.
Morrison stated that the referrals sent out were based on the application. The application indicated they will
be parked in the building. Mr. Roberts would like to amend this due to the possibility that there may be some
instances in which a truck will be parked outside the building. Mr. Miller indicated that would cause this to be
a different application. Mr. Morrison stated that the recommendation needs to be made clear. Ms. Lockman
stated it was in the questionnaire on the application, it was not advertised this way. Mr. Miller asked for
clarification as to what would be needed to amend the parking issue. Mr. Morrison stated that it would be
beneficial to find out what the applicant wants and develop a standard that is acceptable to both.
Tim Tracy asked if the application is amended does this bring other things into play that would affect the
recommendation for approval. Ms.Lockman indicated that staff has done their recommendation and Planning
Commission can amend any way they feel is necessary.
Sheri Lockman indicated that staff would like to see where the trucks will be parked, if they will be screened.
There has been previous applications in the area that were required to store the vehicles inside. There is
landscaping due to the adjacent homes so there will be screening. Trucks outdoors is feasible but the location
needs to be designated. Mr. Gimlin added that language can be included to address.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to delete Development Standard#15 and include language that requires the applicant
to adhere to CDOT requirements, present and future. James Rohn seconded. Motion carried.
Sheri Lockman suggested adding language in Development Standard#16 and renumber accordingly. The
language shall consist of"Primary storage shall be within the pre-existing building for all trucks, overflow
parking shall be designated on the plat in a screened area." Mr.Carroll suggested that if there is any overflow
parking it would be located in the rear of the property. Ms. Lockman amended the language to read"Primary
storage of trucks shah be within the pre-existing building. Overflow parking shall be at the rear of the property
and noted on the plat."
James Rohn moved to accept the language proposed by Ms. Lockman. John Folsom seconded. Motion
carried.
John Folsom asked about the hours of operation and rather this was five or six days a week from 6:00am to
6:00pm. Ms. Lockman indicated the applicant would like to address this.
Shaun Roberts asked to address Development Standard#26 regarding hours of operation.Mr.Roberts would
like to change the hours to 430am - 9:00pm.
James Rohn asked about the house to the west and if there was any issue with the time suggested. Ms.
Lockman stated that the home is most likely a rental since the property is owned by City of Thornton. The
Department of Health would like the noise level to be within the residential levels. The applicant does not
believe they can meet this level. Mr. Rohn asked why the residential level was being recommended. Ms.
Davis stated that the reason is because there are residences nearby and compatibility was reviewed.
Michael Miller stated that 4:30am -9:00pm is extreme. Mr. Miller suggests that the 6:00am to 6:00pm would
be better suited for the area.
James Rohn moved to amend Development Standard#10 to state"the facility shall adhere to maximum noise
level allowed in the light industrial zone as delineated in 25-12-3 CRS."Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. Mr.Miller
asked what the level for industrial was. Ms. Davis stated it was 80 decibels which is high. Light industrial is
70, commercial is 60 and residential is 50. Motion carried.
Shaun Roberts added that the majority of the time, 6:00am to 6:00pm would work but there are instances
where they may need to start the equipment earlier. Mr. Miller asked if they are purchasing a new or used
plant. Mr. Roberts indicated they are leaning toward new. Mr. Rohn indicated this was his back yard and
knowing the traffic patterns and sounds.
James Rohn moved to amend Development Standard #10 to indicated the hours of operations shall be
5:30am -7:00pm.
Bruce Fitzgerald does not want to change the hours of operation that are listed.
Tim Tracy stated the 6:00am to 6:00pm is fine. The question is when is the material being delivered to the
site? Mr. Miller added that the aggregate will be coming from a pit that has daylight hours on their operation.
The noise will take place when everything is being loaded into the trucks. Mr.Tracy has no issue with 5:30am-
7:00pm. Mr. Roberts stated that most of the time they will start at 6:00am but do not want to be limited in case
of emergency.
James Rohn motion was seconded by John Folsom. Motion carried with Bruce Fitzgerald voting no.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about Development Standard #27 regarding the number of employees. Mr. Carroll
indicated that the existing layout is for eight employee parking spaces and six or seven customer slots. There
is room on the lot in the overflow area. There is a requirement for off street parking and circulation as well
as surfacing. Public Works would prefer recycled asphalt and the parking spots shall have wheel guards.
Mr.Carroll suggests labeling the plat with the truck parking/employee parking areas. Mr.Fitzgerald indicated
that 12 employees will be needed. Mr. Roberts stated that twelve would be fine.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to change Development Standard #27 to 12 employees. James Rohn seconded.
Motion carried.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case USR-1453,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. James Rohn 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;Tim Tracy,yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
James Rohn comments were inaudible due to the microphone not being on.
CASE NUMBER: MF-1001
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
APPLICANT: Carl Hill/Brett Hill
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-3473; being part of the NW4 Section 20, T7N, R66W
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 80; 1/4 mile east of CR 27. For a more precise
location, see legal.
REQUEST: Minor Subdivision Final Plan for eight (8) Estate Zoned Lots (WB Farm
Estates)
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case MF-1001, 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.
James Rohn asked why staff is recommending approval when the Sheriff referral indicates they cannot absorb
any additional services. Ms. Lockman stated that intent of the referral from the Sheriff Department is to bring
forth the need for funding from the Board of County Commissioners for additional officers.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the addressing and requested that it be from the internal road. Ms. Lockman
indicated she would get with Lin Dodge, Department of Planning Service, to ensure this was done correctly.
Jim Rawson, representative, indicated he is available for questions.
James Rohn asked about the soils test and the low load bearing quality. How will this be built on? Mr.
Rawson indicated that the recommendation by the soils engineer was to use spread footings. This would
spread the weight out to carry the weight of the foundation. Mr. Rohn asked "since these are required
engineered foundations, what is the expected life of that type of foundation and is there going to be require
repair in the future because of the soils? Mr. Ralston stated that the recommendation of the soils engineer
took everything into consideration including the soil conditions and water content. They are planning on a
permanent structure not a foundation that has limited life. Mr. Rohn asked if the soil type and specialized
foundation will be disclosed to the potential buyers. Mr. Ralston indicated that the buyers will receive a soils
report and the recommendation from the soils engineer.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
James Rohn asked Mr.Schei about the soil type and possible erosion.Mr.Schei stated that there was nothing
outstanding contained in the soils report.
John Folsom asked if it was general procedure of Public Works to accept what a qualified engineer
recommends. Mr. Schei stated there will be inspections at each building site. An engineer would make a
recommendation for the situation. Mr.Folsom stated that the engineers recommendation is what is accepted.
Mr. Miller added that this is the reason for having an engineered foundation, the design the best option for
individual areas.
James Rohn commented that his comments are from the West Greeley Conservation District that tells the
soil texture and whether the soil on site was the type that eroded. Mr. Miller asked what the point of the
question was. Mr. Rohn indicated he was concerned about future buyers and whether the area is safe for
them. Mr. Miller asked in what respect. Mr. Rohn stated that the concern was for erosion and damaged
foundations. Mr. Miller stated that an engineer has to review and design the foundation, if it is found to be
unsafe then that will be the recommendation.
John Folsom added that the issue with foundations has been more with expansive soils with limited load
bearing. Ms.Lockman stated that during the sketch plan phase a referral was sent to the Colorado Geological
Survey and they have a two page referral stating recommendations for the applicant to adhere to. These
recommendations have been included as a condition. Ms. Lockman read from the referral and it stated "in
summary there are no geological conditions present at this site that would preclude the proposed
development."
Peter Schei added that there was nothing in the geotechnical report to alert him. The report indicated that a
spread footing foundation can be used.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case MF-1001, 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,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes;James Rohn, no;Tim Tracy,yes;
Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried.
James Rohn indicated his reason for denial was based on Section 24-3-60 number 1, 5, 15, 16. Mr. Miller
asked what those sections were for clarification. Mr. Rohn stated that"these are the areas in which we are
to see that they have- 24-3-5 is our responsibility to looking this up, number 5 is the soils, #15 is the fire
Department and Sheriff Department, #16-undo adverse affect on wildlife." Mr. Miller asked about the undo
affect on wildlife and if he would elaborate. Mr. Rohn stated that"as a question written#P, I have previously
reviewed this area- it is bordering of low lands-my concern is with wild animals particularly bird type life and
the fox and other animals." Mr. Miller asked for clarification with regards to the soils and not being satisfied
with the report from a qualified engineer that it can be built on. Mr. Rohn stated"I worry about the way we are
-the position that might put on future land owners of that area."
Meeting adjourned at 4:05pm
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello