HomeMy WebLinkAbout20030335.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 21, 2003
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2003,in the Southwest Weld
County Conference Room,4209 CR 24.5, Longmont,Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair,
Michael Miller, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller I
Bryant Gimlin e' '
James Rohn
Fred Walker Absent -y.
John Folsom -'
Stephan Mokray `p
Cathy Clamp '
Bernard Ruesgen
Bruce Fitzgerald
Also Present: Robert Anderson, Char Davis, Pam Smith, Kim Ogle, Sheri Lockman, Chris Gathman, Don
Carroll
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on January 7,2003,
was approved as read.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1276
APPLICANT: Stromo, LLC
PLANNER: Robert Anderson
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the W2 of the SW4, Section 26, T3N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review for a Solid Waste
Disposal Site and Facility (Composting Facility) .
LOCATION: Approximately Y2 mile South of WCR 30 and 1 mile East of WCR 43.
Robert Anderson, Department of Planning Services, read a letter into the record from the applicant
requesting an indefinite continuance.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1410
APPLICANT: Guadalupe & Rose Chavez
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part SE4 of Section 4, T1N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for a Use by Right,
Accessory Use,or a Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial
Zone Districts (Indoor& outdoor storage and repair of machines/vehicles
associated with an asphalt& concrete business).
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to WCR 12;approximately 300 feet east of WCR 43.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, read a letter into the record requesting a continuance to
February 18, 2003, The issue is regarding access.
Christopher Ernst, attorney for the applicant, indicated they are in process of submitting an access permit
and this should be approved by February 11, 2003.
CASE NUMBER: AmPZ-539 and AmPF-562
APPLICANT: Floyd & Katharine Oliver
Qti6GLPage -1- 2003-0335
3-
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tract 1, Meadow Vale Farm 3r° Filing; being part of the SW4 of Section 4,
T2N, of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from PUD with Civic Uses to PUD with Residential Uses
and an Amended Final Plan.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to WCR 5 '/:; '/2 mile North of State Hwy 119.
Michael Miller, Planning Commission Chair, asked if there was anyone on the board that wished for this to
be removed from the Consent Agenda.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to remove this item from the Consent
Agenda. No one wished to speak.
James Rohn moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Stephen Mokray seconded.
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; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James
Rohn, yes; Bernie Ruesgen, yes; Cathy Clamp, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1411
APPLICANT: Christ Community Church
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-3226; being part of the SW4 of Section 6, T2N, R62W 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 WCR 73; Ys mile South of I -76.
Sheri Lockman, Planner, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1411, 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. Unlike a
typical USR application, the church has not submitted evidence of adequate water. Regulations allow one
well permit to be issued per individual/organization in the aquifer. The applicants are intending to transfer
the well permit that is servicing the existing church. The Division of Water Resources had indicated in
telephone conversations that to the best of the their knowledge, given that regulations do not change, the
applicants should not have any difficulty transferring the well permit to the proposed site. However, the
Division was unwilling to put this conversation in writing. Without going through the transfer process ans
subsequent review they could not make any promises. Because of the complication, staff has allowed the
applicant to proceed to hearings without the normal evidence of adequate water,however,staff has included
Development Standard#15.Which reads,"Prior to the release of building permits,the applicant shall submit
evidence to the Department of Planning Services that an adequate water supply of sufficient quality,quantity
and dependability has been obtained." This is a standard for any building permit with a similar occupation
rating.
Michael Miller asked about the location of the existing church. Ms. Lockman stated it is in Roggen. Mr.
Miller questioned rather they were going to abandon the permit. Ms. Lockman indicated they were going to
abandon the church but transfer the well permit to the new location. Mr. Miller questioned the possible use
of the old site. Ms. Lockman indicated that another individual under a different name could obtain a well
permit for the old church site.
Cathy Clamp asked that part of USR is to move the existing church building to this site in addition to
constructing building another. Ms. Lockman indicated that eventually this will happen. Ms. Clamp
questioned whether a single well would be adequate for both buildings. Ms. Lockman indicated that the
water would be sufficient for both buildings. Ms. Clamp asked if the intent is to move the well permit to the
new site and if there was no water on the new site. Ms. Lockman stated that the well permit on the new site
is just for a test well. It is not for use for the church. Ms. Clamp asked if there is no guarantee that a well will
be permitted and is there an alternative available. Ms. Lockman indicated that there is no alternatives to
Page -2-
I
wells in the area.
Fred Midcap, applicant, provided clarification to the water situation. The area contains good water and good
flowing irrigation wells. A permit for a commercial well is needed. An observation well was drilled,then once
the building is useable the permit will be transferred to the new location. The well permit will transfer to the
property.
James Rohn asked for clarification. Mr. Midcap indicated that once approval from the appropriate agencies
is obtained the well permit will be transferred to the new location.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case USR- 1411, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Cathy Clamp 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; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James
Rohn, yes; Bernie Ruesgen, yes; Cathy Clamp, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1407
APPLICANT: Elizabeth Roseman
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-2012; part of the E2 NE4 of Section 30, T2N, R66W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for a Use by Right,
an Accessory Use, or a Use by Special Review in the commercial and
industrial zone districts(towing, storage, sales, rental of motorcycles, cars,
recreational vehicles, noncommercial junkyard and auto pawn) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Highway 85;approximately 1/8 mile south of WCR
18.
Chris Gathman, Planner, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1407, 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.
Stephen Mokray indicated his concerns for a non commercial junkyard and this would normally be a zoning
violation. Mr. Gathman stated that this application is a result of a violation. There are requirements with a
non commercial and a commercial junkyard. For a non commercial junkyard in the agricultural zone district
screening is required. A commercial junkyard is not as specific. The applicants do not intend to part out the
cars in the storage area. The applicants will be fixing some of the cars and selling them from the front of
the property. Mr. Mokray asked about the violation and the enforcement. Mr. Gathman indicated it was a
non commercial junkyard. The applicant will not be allowed to sell parts from the cars.
Cathy Clamp asked about the access into the property. CDOT will be eliminating center medians thus
eliminating entrances into the property from northbound Hwy 85. CDOT is requiring a right in right out
access. Ms. Clamp questioned the route that would be used to enter the property from the south. With the
elimination of the center medians a U turn at CR 18 will be done. Mr. Carroll indicated that a U turn at CR
18 will most likely be done. This is a potentially dangerous situation. Ms. Clamp stated that there is a pull
out at CR 18 but they would have to cross two lanes of traffic.
Tape Non Audible
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the acceleration lane going south and if it passed the access to the property.
Mr. Carroll stated it does not go that far. Mr. Fitzgerald asked Mr. Gathman about the fence around the
property and if it is solid enough. Mr.Gathman indicated a landscape and screening plan are being required.
Page -3-
T
Staff would like to see something more standard and sturdy.
James Rohn asked about the City of Fort Lupton IGA and not going against it. Mr.Gathman stated that this
area is outside of the IGA. Staffs'decision is that it is not urban scale because there is no public water or
sewer. Mr. Rohn asked how enforcement will be done if parts are being sold off of the cars and what is
repercussion. Mr. Gathman indicated that another Development Standard could be added to address what
can be stored at the yard and there cannot be any sales of individual parts from the property.
Stephen Mokray asked Char Davis about a letter concerning the operation as a junkyard and the potential
for contamination due to leaking fluids from the automobiles. Ms. Davis stated she was out there and
nothing was noticed but it can happen. A standard concerning waste and solid waste not being on property
is included.
Cathy Clamp asked about the Kerr McGee memo and the release of the notification. Mr. Gathman stated
that Kerr McGee does not own or lease mineral interests in the area. They maintain a gas line that crosses
the property. A representative indicated that the condition that is included is acceptable. Ms.Clamp asked
if the maximum number of cars have been addressed. Mr. Gathman indicated that a specific standard is
not included that addresses this. There is a condition that address the amount of cars that can be sold on
the front, no more than ten vehicles at a time.
Brian Larson, attorney for applicant, provided clarification with regard to the fence being replaced with
something more stable. The applicants do not have any intention of operating a commercial junkyard. The
intention is to sell the cars in total and not part out. They will operate by the environmental standards that
have been established. The applicant has been in contact with Kerr McGee and there should be no issues
prior to the Board of County Commissioners. There has been extension of the acceleration and deceleration
lanes approximately 200-300 feet south of the property.
John Folsom questioned the use on the property being cars that will be stored and vehicles that will be
repaired with parts from the stored vehicles and then the sales of those vehicles. Dale Roseman,applicant,
indicated that the rental business will be the reason for the purchase of the cars. The sales will reduce the
inventory. There will be storage of RV, boats, campers as one category. Storage for towed vehicles from
the highway rather they are accident or not will be another category. There will be no parting out. Mr.
Folsom asked about the cars that are not worthwhile what is done with them. Mr. Roseman stated that once
all the useable parts are removed from a vehicle it will go to Anderson Crushing.
Bernie Ruesgen asked about keeping fuel on site for the vehicles. Mr. Roseman stated that there is no fuel
on site for the cars themselves. Any maintenance that involves chemicals has been addressed and a
method of removal has been determined. Mr. Fitzgerald asked about the total number of employees. Mr.
Roseman stated a maximum of five as noted in the application. Question in audible. Mr. Roseman
indicated that a vehicle is purchased and another just like it in order to utilize the parts to make one complete
vehicle that is in working order. This is an economical way of merging vehicles.
Bryant Gimlin asked how the applicants enter the property from the south. Mr. Roseman stated that the
center cut will be eliminated. To enter from the north a U turn must be done from CR 18. Ms. Roseman,
applicant, indicated that the acceleration ramp from CR 18 ends at the driveway. A U turn is made on CR
18 using the acceleration lane as a decel lane. CR 16 will be used if exiting the home and needing to go
north. A U turn will be done at CR 16.
John Folsom asked for clarification on the access and the acceleration lanes. Mr. Roseman stated it was
700 feet to the curb cut from CR 18.
Cathy Clamp asked about the applicants plans regarding the business over the next few years and will there
be an increase in the number of vehicles stored on site. Mr. Roseman indicated the storage area will be
the same in size with the exception of the proposed storage buildings. Those might not be developed. The
applicants indicated they intende4d to use the north area as a storage area for private RVs,automobiles and
motorcycles until the storage units were constructed. If there is a way to store campers, vehicles then the
left area will be storage for the rental business and the towed vehicles. The only growth would be where the
Page -4-
buildings would go. The applicants were not aware of the gas line, therefore,the north building might have
to be eliminated. Ms. Clamp asked how many wrecked vehicles will there be kept on the property. Mr.
Rosemen stated that there is not a number that can be given for certain. There are certain areas for specific
things. Fifty(50)vehicles would be the maximum. Ms.Clamp asked how they are coming onto the property
from the south. Mr. Roseman stated that he goes to CR 18,turning in the median is dangerous. Ms. Clamp
asked if most of the wreckers are roll off. Mr. Roseman stated he has one roll off plus a farm tractor and four
wheeler.
James Rohn asked when the business began.Mr.Roseman indicated that he was doing it in Aristocrat three
years ago and prior to that. There was no license required at that time for the business. In July 2000 a new
law was established and a need for a license was created. Mr. Roseman is in the process of obtaining a
license.
Bryant Gimlin asked if there was a Hwy 85 access permit. Mrs. Roseman stated that there are a list of
requirements that have to be met first before the Board of County Commissioner hearing.
Michael Miller asked Mr.Carroll if a CDOT access permit is required. Mr.Carroll stated that CDOT indicated
that there is existing access because there is a right in right out. Mr. Gathman indicated that there was no
number indicated for a permit but the comments appears to refer to one.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Dick Younghoff, neighbor and owner of Sinclair Station, indicated his concerns for a junkyard being across
the street. The station is kept in a neat orderly fashion.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Gathman for clarification with regard to the screening. Mr. Gathman stated it will
all be screened. The final construction of the storage buildings could take a while so the screening is
recommended for the whole site.
Brian Larson indicated the applicants concern for the non conveyance and would like to see it removed. This
gives the applicant approval for a Special Use on the property so that it can be sold to outside parties. The
number of parking spaces is 62 and this is excessive. The applicant would like to see this lowered to 30
spaces.
Michael Miller asked Mr.Gathman if the parking spacing can be reduced to 30. Mr.Gathman indicated that
this was a reasonable request. Mr. Miller questioned the non transferable title. Response inaudible.
Lee Morrison stated that the conveyance provision may not be typical but the other concern is when the
recommendation has not been accepted by the applicant. It is a major condition to place on someone. If
the applicant does not wish to have the condition in place that the decision needs to be made with it not in
there. This goes to the essence of the application.
James Rohn indicated that this project might be a hazard in the future. Mr. Miller stated that it has to be
what is there today not what could be there in the future.
John Folsom asked Mr. Morrison if his recommendation was to remove the non transferable permit. Mr.
Morrison indicated it would not change the permit. The applicant would like to see it removed.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to delete #29 from the Conditions of Approval. Bryant Gimlin seconded. Motion
carried.
Bryant Gimlin continued the discussion on the Hwy 85 access issue and it causing a hazard. The access
is in the middle of two intersections. Inaudible
Cathy Clamp provided clarification with regard to the information in the referral. CDOT has no plans to
Page -5-
improve the section to improve the area. Mr. Gimlin indicated that from a practical standpoint the U turns
will be dangerous.
Cathy Clamp indicated the approval for the gravel permit on CR 18 that was approved and the concern is
for the public safety at the intersection and the accel lane. Mr. Miller added that the applicant is asking them
to promote U turns on Hwy 85. The only accesses for commercial ventures on Hwy 85 were very old. Mr.
Miller has a tough time approving a commercial venture access on Hwy 85 when the only way to get there
is to do a U turn on Hwy 85 to head back to the south. This is one of the worst intersections on Hwy 85. Mr.
Gimlin added that the traffic that is trying to cross Hwy 85 from CR 18 or CR 16. Mr. Fitzgerald added that
CR 16 will be cut off. Different alternatives were discussed. Mr. Folsom added that the responsibility of the
Planning Commission is for the use not the access. Mr. Miller asked if the use creates the dangers. Ms.
Clamp indicated that the use is existing therefore nothing will be increased. Mr. Rohn added that the storage
sheds that are proposed will increase the traffic in the area. Mr. Rohn added that he does not see how the
use is congruent with the traffic factors.
James Rohn moved that Case USR-1407, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of denial. The reason being 23.2.220 A 7. Cathy Clamp seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, no; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, no; James
Rohn, yes; Bernie Ruesgen, yes; Cathy Clamp, yes. Motion carried.
Cathy Clamp commented that the primary reason for denial is the concern for traffic increase once the
storage sheds are constructed. She had no issue with the applicant operating his storage are for
wrecked/towed vehicles.
Bryant Gimlin commented that the access to Hwy 85 creates a hazard.
Michael Miller commented that the commercial access creates a hazard combined with the additional traffic
created by proposed storage units.
Meeting adjourned at 4:00pm
Respectfully submitted
t,/L, \J Aa_Ct i 1—J
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
PLEASE NOTE THAT A LARGE PART OF THE AUDIO TAPE WAS INAUDIBLE DUE TO THE
RECORDING SYSTEM AT THE SOUTHWEST BUILDING.
Page -6-
Hello