HomeMy WebLinkAbout20043197.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld County
Conference Room,4209 CR 24%z, Longmont,Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Michael
Miller, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin
John Folsom Absent
James Rohn
Bruce Fitzgerald
Tonya Strobel
Chad Auer Absent
Doug Ochsner Absent
James Welch
Also Present: Kim Ogle, Jacqueline Hatch, Chris Gathman, Sheri Lockman, Char Davis, Don Carroll, Peter
Schei
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on September 21,
2004 &October 5, 2004, was approved as read.
The following cases will be continued:
— CASE NUMBER: CZ-1065
APPLICANT: Arnheim, LLC
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2050; Pt S2S2 of NE4 of Section 30, T1 N, R66W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agriculture) to 1-3 (Industrial).
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 27; '/2 mile north of CR 4.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting a continuance to November 16,
2004 for mineral notification.
- CASE NUMBER: USR-1488
APPLICANT: John File, Farfrumwurkin LLP
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: E2SW2 & N2 SE4 & part of the W2W2 of Lot B of RE-3474; being part of
the W2W2 of Section 32, T2N, R68W; and part of the SE4 of Lot B of RE-
1775 of Section 31, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a mineral
resource development facility including dry open pit mining and materials
processing in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Hwy 52;west and east of and adjacent to CR 3-1/4.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting a continuance to November 1,
2004 for mineral notification.
CASE NUMBER: None
APPLICANT: Weld County
PLANNER: Monica Mika
REQUEST: The Weld County Planning Commission Schedule and Land Use Case Fees
for 2005
/�
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services presented the proposed changes, reading the recommendation
de-)t7uty £ 11 6)3 °2(X)
2004-3197
into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the proposed Fee
Schedule and Planning Commission Hearing dates.
James Rohn asked if there were any fee or fines under the USR for violation cases? Mr.Ogle stated that 50%
of the application fee is the amount of the fine,and this is done through the violation process. Mr. Rohn would
like to know if there is a way to assess fines on property that have initiated a land use illegally? Mr. Ogle
stated that the direction of the Board of County Commissioners is to work with the applicants while they are
in process and still operating. This request would need to be addressed with the Board of County
Commissioners. A work session could be arranged, should the Board of County Commissioners determine
a new direction was requested. Mr. Ogle added that the violation fee is noted on the fee schedule as an
investigation fee.
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 moved to accept the proposed fee schedule and submittal dates and recommended they be
forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
Bryant Gimlin disclosed he had previous relationships with the applicant but there have been no dealings for
the past three years. Those dealings were nothing pertaining to this case.
Lee Morrison indicated that there was nothing that could be construed as a conflict but it was ultimately up to
the Planning Commission and the members of the audience.
Mr. Miller opened for public comment concerning the possible conflict and there was none.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1475
APPLICANT: Samuel Clark
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Lot B of RE-1917; being part of the NE4 of Section 13, T4N, R68W
of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a business
permitted as a use by right or accessory use in the Commercial Zone District
(Landscaping Materials Yard) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 46;west of and adjacent to CR 13.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1475, reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application along with the Conditions
James Rohn asked the about road impact fee. Ms. Lockman stated it would be required at building permit
stage and no permits would be issued without the fee being paid. The road impact fee is addressed in
Development Standard # 15.
Michael Miller asked about the building not meeting the setback requirements. Ms. Lockman indicated the
buildings will need to be moved, the roads have large setback areas. They will also need building permits.
Mr. Miller indicated the signs exceed the 16 sq.ft. sign for the agricultural zone district. Ms. Lockman stated
there is a condition that prior to Board of County Commissioners they will submit a sign plan. Any sign not
approved by the Board of County Commissioners will need to be removed.
Mike McDonough, representative, provided clarification on the project. The intent is to develop undlgr
Johnstown at some time in the future after annexation, this use is temporary. The applicants are not in
agreement with the requirements for water and sewer. The cost of a water tap is presently$28000 and septic
system is$12000 for a temporary use. The location of those would not coincide with the future development.
Mr. Miller asked when the annexation will be final. Mr. McDonough stated the process could take up to a year.
Mr. Miller asked if Johnstown has accepted the annexation. Mr. McDonough indicated the application and
money have been turned in. Mr. Gimlin added that the letter from Johnstown stated it is not eligible to annex
due to contiguity.
Char Davis, Health Department, stated the septic system would be needed because port a potties for a
temporary use would be allowed for six months only. The annexation will take longer than six months. The
water is a Weld County Code requirement for any site with employees. Mr. Miller asked if this could be
addressed with portable hand washing facilities? Ms. Davis indicated a septic system does not work without
water. The water tap could be carried over to the next use.
James Rohn asked about a meeting with the Board of County Commissioners in September and what
occurred? Ms. Lockman indicated the applicant submitted the required information to proceed with the USR
hearing so the violation was continued. Mr. Rohn asked how many employees will be on site? Ms. Lockman
stated the application indicates one employee. Mr. Rohn asked about the hours of operation specifically
regarding delivery before or after the hours of operation. Ms. Lockman stated there will be no business
coming from the site outside the hours of operation.
Michael Miller asked if the truck traffic would be limited to tandem axel trucks and nothing larger. Mr.
McDonough indicated that tandems will be the only trucks on site.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Michael Miller indicated he understands the applicants position on not wanting the water tap especially if this
will not align for future uses, but yet one to one and a half years with bottled water and port of potties is a little
extreme. Mr. Gimlin added that would go against what the Planning Commission typically adheres to as far
as water and sewer supply. Mr. Gimlin added that the time for annexation is not defined and if there is a
proposed use there will be a way to design with the future in mind for the water and sewer.
Bruce Fitzgerald indicated these were necessary items for a business.
Michael Miller asked if was possible to accept the use of bottled water and port a potties contingent upon the
applicant showing that annexation is within so many months. Mr. Morrison stated it was legally possible but
the Department of Planning Services would have difficulty with enforcement. Mr. Rohn added he would like
to see the conditions stay because the water tap fee is increasing and if the water tap is purchased later it will
cost more. Mr. Miller indicated the area will be commercial so the investment in the tap will not be wasted.
James Rohn moved that Case USR-1485, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Tonya Strobel seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. James
Welch, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tonya Strobel, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1059
APPLICANT: Applied Films Corporation
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-1009; SW4 NW4 of Section 14, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from(A)Agricultural to PUD with C-3 Business Commercial
Uses for one (1) lot.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 9 and 1-25 Frontage Road and approximately 1/2
mile north of CR 20.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-1059,reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application along with the Conditions. Staff recommends the following changes: 1.A be deleted and 2.CC be
changed to indicate three years instead of two years. Ms. Hatch added that Public Works referral was
received late and was not incorporated in the staff comments. Peter Schei, Public Works, would be adding
his referral to staff comments.
Bryant Gimlin asked about the annexation process. Ms. Hatch indicated the Town of Firestone still wants an
annexation agreement and staff is supporting of this. At the time of Final the applicant will need to provide
Department of Planning Services an annexation agreement. Mr.Gimlin would like to know how you still have
an annexation agreement and request for withdraw. Ms.Hatch indicated the applicant wished to withdraw due
to contiguity but Firestone would still like the agreement. Mr. Miller added the applicants withdrew the
application for annexation because it would have forced the neighbors to annex to gain contiguity. The
annexation agreement will state when contiguity exists they will be annexed.
Lee Morrison stated an agreement can be an earlier step in the process than the actual petition for annexation.
James Rohn asked about the road impact fee. Ms. Hatch stated it would be included at the time of final plan.
Anne Best Johnson, representative for the applicant, provided clarification to the project. The purpose of the
application is for a PUD with C-3 zoning on a single lot. A Site Plan Review will be needed once the final use
is determined and will address specific issues. The proposed uses for this site will comply with the C-3 Zone
District. The surround uses are primarily business and industrial and the C-3 uses are compatible with the
surrounding areas. This proposal does meet the criteria from the Weld County code. The applicant is
requesting a staff review at final plan application. There will be an improvements agreement and other criteria
required at final plan.
Michael Miller asked Mr.Schei what the reason is for not having Public Works comments incorporated in the
packet. Mr. Schei stated, "we were late." Mr. Schei added that as of the end of August this year the tally for
referrals has exceeded 25%of the current reviews for the end of last year. Public Works will exceed the work
load for last year. An apology was given. Mr. Miller asked if this will continue to occur. Mr. Schei stated he
would try not to have this happen again.
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 moved to accept staff changes. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case PZ-1059, 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 Welch seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. James
Welch, yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tonya Strobel, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1487
APPLICANT: Bible Baptist Church
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-1500; part of the SW4 of Section 6,T1 N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a church in
the A(agricultural)zone district.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 1; approximately/2 mile south of State Hwy 52.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1487, reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application along with the Conditions. Planning staff is recommending that the following conditions of approval
be added:
1)Add as item 2.B#5:The label"CHRISTIAN ED."shall be removed from the existing outbuilding as indicated
on the site plan. (Department of Planning Services)
•
2)Add as item 2.B#6:An overflow parking area shall be indicated on the plat to be used in the case of special
events. (Department of Planning Services)
3)Add as item 2.H (prior to recording the plat)and renumber subsequent items:
"The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements/concerns of the Boulder County Land Use
Department as stated in their e-mail received October 14, 2004. Written evidence of such shall be provided
to the Department of Planning Services." (Department of Planning Services)
Michael Miller asked Mr.Gathman about Development Standard#26 specifically calling out worship services
ending no later than 10:00 pm. Mr. Miller would like to see this changed to reflect any activity or event that
occurs at the church. Mr. Gathman indicated the language could be changed.
Loren Bley, representative for the applicant, provided clarification of the project. There are 31 Development
Standards and the applicant has addressed several of them already. Development Standard #10- the
applicant has completed a letter of service and commitment for site. Development Standard#12 or#13-the
property has recently acquired a new septic system. The applicant has agreed to hire a geotechnical Engineer
for an updated report. Development Standard #21 regarding emergency vehicles-the applicant will comply
with the Fire Protection District. Development Standard#18 regarding access -the applicant will work with
Weld County Public Works.Development Standard#24 regarding site lighting-the applicant will limit the height
of the light poles to 15-20 feet with down directional lighting that have shields. All of this will be in the final
documentation. Development Standard#23 regarding the limit of 75 people in congregation. The sanctuary
can hold up to 99 people, but this would only be for special services, for example Easter Sunday. The
applicant will provide a plan for overflow parking. This use is acceptable in the area.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Chuck & Tina Conilogue, neighbors, indicated concerns for the possible future growth and having a larger
building in the future. Mr. Miller indicated they would need to go through this process again if they intend to
expand the facility. They are limited to a congregation of 75 with the legal occupancy of the building being 99
according to the applicants representative. Mr.Conilogue indicated concern with the parking lot and the lights.
There is presently no one in the home and this will change the entire character of the area. Ms. Conilogue
added it may affect their resale value. This is essentially changing the use and basically turning it into
commercial site. Mr. Miller asked if the property to the east is a commercial business? Mr. Conilogue stated
that cabinet making was originally proposed but it is not being used for that. Mr. Miller added that Planning
Commission is responsible to ensure the compatibility with the surrounding neighbors through Development
Standards and Conditions of approval. Ms. Conilogue added her concern was the access issue, she wants
to be sure that the proposed access is in place before the church opens. Mr. Miller indicated the access will
happen before the church is operational.
James Rohn asked Mr. Gathman about the number of USR's on this stretch of road. Mr. Gathman stated
there was a USR for a cabinet making business as well as a special use permit to have two residences on one
parcel of land. Mr. Rohn asked what the uses to the west in Boulder County are proposed across CR 1? Mr.
Gathman indicated the referral from Boulder County did not mention anything.
Bryant Gimlin asked Mr. Carroll about the access. Mr. Carroll indicated the Boulder County does have
maintenance on this stretch. Boulder County was asked to comment through the referral process. Weld
County has control over access. Mr.Morrison stated if the access is within Weld County's jurisdiction,it would
be Weld County but Boulder County should be consulted. The adequacy of the access would be determined
by Weld County Public Works. Mr. Carroll added there should be a new access on south property line that
would be for the church only. This would free up the existing access to the north for the residences only. Mr.
Carroll is asking the new access to be 24 feet in width with adequate turning radiuses. All traffic for the church
will utilize the south access. Mr. Miller asked about accel and/or decel lanes. Mr. Carroll indicated the
intersection does not meet the warrants because this use will be one or two days a week for a few hours.
James Rohn asked if there was a landscape clause to mitigate the views. Mr. Gathman stated there is a
Condition that addresses lighting, no landscape plan has been submitted. The applicant has to address the
landscape referral.
Joe Baldwin, owner of site, provided clarification. Boulder County to the west is open space and has been
planted in different crops. To the south side the land is owned by Ms. Billings and she has indicated she will
not sell. There is little interest in selling the land. This area had nothing built when Mr. Baldwin moved there
except one building. The neighborhood no longer has the flair of residential, it has an industrial flair to the
area. The church use is consistent with the area and will be quiet. There is an active construction and
cabinets business in the rear. The area has become more commercial rather than agricultural.
The Chair closed the public portion.
James Rohn moved to accept staff recommendations. Bryant Gimlin seconded. Motion carried.
Tanya Strobel moved to amend Development Standard#26 to indicate"all events." Bryant Gimlin seconded.
Motion carried.
James Rohn moved to delete Development Standard #4 &9. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. Motion carried.
Tonya Strobel moved that Case USR-1487, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. James
Welch, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tonya Strobel, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
— CASE NUMBER: PZ-1048
APPLICANT: Weld 45 Acres LLC
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2812; part of the S2 NW4 of Section 2, T2N, R67W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from(A)Agricultural to PUD(Moores Manor North)for eight
(8)lots with (E) Estate Uses (36.4 acres)and one(1)non-residential outlot
(6.8 acres)for open space.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 21-1/2 and approximately 1/2 mile south of CR
26.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-1048, reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application along with the Conditions. Staff recommends the following changes: 1.C be added and 2.CC be
changed to indicate three years instead of two years.
James Rohn asked about non potable water and is there water for the open space. Ms. Hatch stated that#5.1
at the time of final plan the applicant shall provide evidence of the non potable water source for the open
space. The Road Impact Fee will be also be noted at the time of final.
Jeff Couch, representative, provided clarification on the project. There will be one change to the entry way,
the access will have a turn around at the front of the subdivision due to the school district requirements. This
will also provide for a mailbox location and an identification sign. There are 17 '/:shares of the Coal Ridge
Ditch, this water will be dedicated to the HOA for the open space and common area irrigation. There is a
historical irrigation patterns that is being left alone. The existing road is gravel,the water line,telephone,and
gas is existing in the roadway. The impact will be minimal.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application
Stephen McGlofflin, representative for Encana Energy, would not object to this application if there was a
surface agreement. A surface use agreement can be put together very quickly.
The Chair closed the public portion.
Tonya Strobel moved to accept staff conditions. James Rohn seconded. Motion carried.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that Case PZ-1048, 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. James
Welch, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn,yes; Tonya Strobel, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 3:30pm
R spectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello