The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20030570.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, February 18, 2003 A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2003, 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 1:30 p.m. ra ROLL CALL z -, -i ;: . Michael Miller Absent 'LT.; �- Bryant Gimlin James Rohn Fred Walker Absent r John Folsom Stephen Mokray c -�1 Cathy Clamp o Bernard Ruesgen Absent Bruce Fitzgerald Also Present: Char Davis, Peter Schei, Don Carroll, Chris Gathman, Robert Anderson, Kim Ogle The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on February 4, 2003, was approved as read. The following items are on the consent agenda: CASE NUMBER: CZ-1028 APPLICANT: Steve Brancucci PLANNER: Kim Ogle LEGAL DESCRIPTION: N2 E2 SE4 of Section 30, -11 N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to 1-3 (Industrial). LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 6 and East of and adjacent to State Hwy 85. CASE NUMBER: CZ-1029 APPLICANT: Steve Brancucci PLANNER: Kim Ogle LEGAL DESCRIPTION: N2 E2 SE4 of Section 30, T1 N, R66W; Lot B of CorrRE-470, SE4 SE4 of Section 30, T1 N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to 1-3 (Industrial). LOCATION: North of and adjacent to WCR 4 and West of and adjacent to WCR 27. CASE NUMBER: 2n°AmUSR-274 APPLICANT: Duke Energy PLANNER: Kim Ogle LEGAL DESCRIPTION: S2 SE4 SW4 of Section 24, T2N, R63W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a 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 WCR 18 and '/ mile west of WCR 73. CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-941 APPLICANT: Duke Energy Field Services, Inc. PLANNER: Kim Ogle LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part SW4 Section 30,Ti N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado. ( > j- (*Lair-, Page -1- 2003-0570 �• ,3- 2/3O-i REQUEST: Request for a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Mineral Resource Development Facility including an Oil and Gas Support and Service Facility (Oil and Gas Processing Facility) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. LOCATION: North of and adjacent to WCR 4; 1/4 mile West of WCR 15. CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1038 APPLICANT: Duke Energy Field Services, Inc. PLANNER: Kim Ogle LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part SE4 Section 8, T3N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. REQUEST: Request for a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Mineral Resource Development Facility including an Oil and Gas Support and Service Facility (Oil and Gas Processing Facility) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. LOCATION: North of and adjacent to WCR 34; 1/4 mile West of WCR 29. Stephen Mokray moved to approve the Consent Agenda as read. John Folsom seconded. Motion carried unanimously. 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 an indefinite continuance. The applicant is working on an access agreement. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. Christopher Ernst, representative for the applicant, indicated that the docket is full in March and an April deadline will be worked towards. James Rohn moved to continue indefinitely. Cathy Clamp seconded. Motion carried. CASE NUMBER: USR-1416 APPLICANT: William &Ann Stonebraker PLANNER: Chris Gathman LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part NE4 of Section 28, T2N, R64W 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 Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone District (Display Fireworks Storage) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 18; 1/2 mile East of WCR 53. Chris Gathman,Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1416,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 for clarification from Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms(ATF)and the worst case scenario for a possible explosion effecting the homes or traffic on Hwy 76. Mr. Gathman indicated that there is a 300 Page -2- or 500 foot setback that is an ATF requirement between the storage units. Mr. Folsom asked about the six foot fencing and is there a condition of approval addressing this. Mr. Gathman indicated a screening plan will be required that will include security. Mr. Folsom asked if the ATF will inspect the site. Mr. Gathman indicated that the applicant could address that question. Lynn Leeberg, representative for the applicant, provided clarification with regard to the project. This a 13 acre site on a total of 137 acres. There will be no manufacturing of the fireworks,just storage. Fireworks are considered low explosive and there are several regulations under ATF and the uniform fire code that must be adhered too. The ATF does inspect on a regular basis and the fire department is on record with no concerns. The regulations are specifically designed for the worse case scenario. Some of the regulations consist of 200' separation from storage containers. Those containers are also modified under ATF regulations. There is also a 300 foot setback from the roads, homes, railroad tracks. The closest resident is approximately 1900+ feet with the closest container being 300 feet from the 1-76 right of way but the actual distance is 425 feet from the actual roadway. The desire is minimal signage to draw minimal attention to the site. This project will have minimal impact on the site and the area due to the lack of need for electricity, septic,water and public access. John Folsom asked if this is storage for finished product. Mr. Leeberg indicated it was for finished product alone. Bill Stonebraker, applicant, provided clarification with regard to the project. The fireworks are used by the cities and other organizations that have fire approval for the displays. Mr. Folsom asked about the trips per day for this site and any special conveyance that the trucks need to be. Mr. Stonebraker indicated that the trucks are all approved by CDOT and they will not be more than a small van. There will be a possible increase around the fourth of July to 3 or 4 times a week but that would be the extent of the traffic. Mr. Gimlin asked if ATF does inspections. Mr.Stonebraker indicated inspections are required. Mr.Gimlin asked about the size of the containers. Mr.Stonebraker indicated it was approximately 10'x 40'. Mr. Stonebraker indicated that a landscape design will be made for the area that will assist in the possibility of fire. Ms. Clamp asked about size of the trailer and rather they are semi trailer. Mr. Stonebraker indicated that they are more attractive. The units have a double lock system, required by the ATF, they are also lined on the inside with wood that is fire retardant covered with plywood and Sheetrock. Ms.Clamp asked about the size of the parcel that is being planned. The setback requirements indicate that thirteen units will be all that fits. Mr. Stonebraker indicated that the number thirteen was the maximum number that can be placed on the property. They are no anticipating on having that many. Mr. Folsom asked if the reason for the new site was the lack of space at the existing facilities. Mr. Stonebraker indicated that there will never be any manufacturing of the fireworks, it is strictly a storage facility. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. Bonnie Macintosh, neighbor,opposes the project due to the concerns of the portability of the buildings and the land being rezoned as commercial. Once this is commercial there is nothing stopping the applicant from moving the units off and there is no guarantee as to what is being moved in next. Mr. Gimlin indicated that this proposed use will not change the zoning on the property. This is a use permit in the agricultural zone district. Mr. Morrison indicated that it applies to the use on this property. Mr. Gathman indicated that a provision for the termination of the USR upon sale or lease to outside parties has not been included in the Development Standards. The storage of fireworks could transfer to another owner but the use would have to remain the same as approved under the USR. Chair closed public portion. Mr. Leeberg indicated that this is just a use that is defined as a part of the code. It cannot be changed to something else without another review. The applicants believe this will be a minimal impact from the site. There is a significant buffer around the site and this was a benefit for this property. There are questions for clarification with regard to some of the Development Standards. A signage plan is required and the applicant would like it to be defined as what is required by the ATF and the Fire Department. The desire is not to bring attention to the area. The screening is proposed to be 6 foot chain link with no slats because this could call attention to the area. There is a minimal amount of waste generated on the site. The applicant would like to get some clarification with regards to the Improvements agreement for collateral. There is no offsite Page -3- impact and the applicant would like to keep it as simple and minimal as possible. The applicant will build in a phase basis as proposed in the application. Mr. Morrison asked for clarification on the lack of need for public road improvements. Mr. Gathman indicated that there is a private access. The fencing and possible improvements to the access road to the site would be covered in the improvements agreement. Mr. Morrison indicated that the plans will determine what is proposed what of the proposal might need to be collateral posted. If the work is already done there will be no need for collateral but it could involve the fencing and the screening. Mr. Leeberg indicated that phasing can be done. There will be three to four containers and the installation of the fence would be done at the same time. Mr. Morrison would like to see a description of the phasing and the installation of units and fence. Mr. Stonebraker does not want to take up the whole area until it is needed. James Rohn asked Mr. Gathman for clarification with regard to the USR being transferable. He would like to limit it to these owners and their children because of the neighbor concerns. Mr. Gimlin indicated that it is really not required on this case it precludes Mr. Stonebrakers possible future plans for the property. Mr. Leeberg asked a legal question as to if this is allowable under the code. Mr. Morrison indicated that for this to be effective the applicant has to be agreeable. Mr. Morrison added that the condition cannot be imposed if the applicant is not agreeable with it. Mr.Morrison provided more clarification with regards to the Condition for non transfer of the USR. Mr.Stonebraker indicated that this is easily resolved because a hazmat license must be granted before anyone can come to the property and remove material. Mr. Rohn indicated that question was that the USR would expire when the ground is sold. Mr.Stonebraker indicated that he would prefer it expire if the parcel was sold out of the family and a new application would need to be made. James Rohn moved that new language be added to page 7 2A of the Development Standard that consists of"This USR shall expire if it is transferred to any party that is not a future heir of the applicant." Cathy Clamp seconded. Bryant Gimlin commented that even though the applicant has agreed to this he is not sure the applicant fully understands to concept of the standard. It may not even be necessary in this case. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom,no;Stephan Mokray,yes; Bryant Gimlin, no;James Rohn,yes; Cathy Clamp,yes. Motion carried. Cathy Clamp suggested additional language for Development Standard 1consisting of " for a maximum of thirteen units as indicated in the application materials " James Rohn seconded The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;James Rohn,yes;Cathy Clamp,yes. Motion carried unanimously. Cathy Clamp moved that Case USR-1416, 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;Bryant Gimlin,yes;James Rohn,yes;Cathy Clamp,yes. Motion carried unanimously. CASE NUMBER: USR-1415 APPLICANT: Genevieve P. Clark PLANNER: Robert Anderson LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parts of Section 5 and 8, T4N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Business permitted as a Use by Right or Accessory Use (Woodworking Business) in the Commercial or Industrial Zone District in the A (Agricultural)Zone District . Page -4- LOCATION: East of and adjacent to WCR 3 at the junction of WCR 48. Robert Anderson,Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1415,reading the recommendation and comments into the record as well as corrected the title to include the words "use by right". The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. John Folsom asked about the referral from the Berthoud Fire Protection and if there are finishing operations with volatile substances conducted on the site. Mr.Anderson indicated that finishing appears to be included in the application but suggested that the owner clarify Commissioner Folsom's question(s). Mr. Folsom asked Mr.Anderson about a stipulation for hours of operations and the number of employees. Mr.Anderson recommended the addition of Condition of Approval#16 with the language consisting of"Hours of operation shall be daylight hours and the operation will be limited to two employees" and subsequent renumbering Bruce Clark, applicant and operator, provided clarification with regard to the proposal. There will be no finishing, no painting and/or adhesives. 99% is building dog houses and tough shed type buildings. There is very little scrap generated with no chemicals. A minimum amount of material is used in the design. Ms. Clamp asked if this is custom orders or are these marketed items. Mr. Clark indicated they are done as ordered. There are no businessmen, no sales men,there is just himself and one employee. The inventory at this time of year may be several sheds but around April the market picks back up and those will be gone. James Rohn asked if this was done commercially or was this a hobby that grew into a business. Mr. Clark indicated that money has been made from this but it has increased recently. It has been a majority of the income for the past twenty years. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to speak. Bruce Clark disagrees with regard to the septic system. The system was reviewed by Department of Health on February 2001 and deemed adequate for a residence. There is an employee and himself and there is really no need for a civil engineered system. Char Davis, Weld County Health Department, indicated that it was evaluated as a home and since this will be more of a commercial use it is reviewed differently. The use is reviewed differently. John Folsom moved to add language provided by Mr. Anderson with regard to the hours of operation and number of employees. Cathy Clamp seconded The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;James Rohn,yes;Cathy Clamp,yes. Motion carried unanimously. Stephen Mokray moved that Case USR-1415, 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;Bryant Gimlin,yes;James Rohn,yes;Cathy Clamp,yes. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 3:00pm Respectfully submitted la a Lo ?aut. Voneen Macklin Secretary Page -5- Hello