HomeMy WebLinkAbout20030424.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 7 , 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 Vice Chair, Bryant Gimlin, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Michael Miller Absent n
Bryant Gimlin
James Rohn
Fred Walker
John Folsom Absent I `
Stephan Mokray �1 N
Cathy Clamp Absent Lri
Bernard Ruesgen
Bruce Fitzgerald
Also Present: Robert Anderson, Don Carroll, Kim Ogle, Peter Schei, Monica Mika, Pam Smith, Char Davis
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on December 17,
2002, was approved as read.
CASE NUMBER: 2nd 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 1/2 mile west of WCR 73.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, read into the record a request to continue the project to
February 18, 2003. The case will be held in the Southwest Weld Office.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the reason for continuance. Mr. Ogle indicated that there is a mineral
notification issue of thirty days that needs to be resolved.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1408
APPLICANT: Charles & Marion Baum
PLANNER: Robert Anderson
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NE4 of Section 22, T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Single
Family Dwelling Unit, Other than Those Permitted under Chapter 23,
Article III, Division 1, Section 23-3-20.A. in the A (Agricultural) Zone
District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to WCR 21; approximately %z mile south of WCR 20
Bryant Gimlin read the applicant, request and location into the record. The Board members were asked if
anyone would like to remove this case from the consent agenda. Mr.Gimlin then opened the case up to the
audience to see if anyone would like to remove the case. There was no indication for removal.
The consent agenda was approved.
C4- • /,I e Page -1- 2003-0424
�l /2 -2OJ3
CASE NUMBER: CZ-1026
APPLICANT: Charles &Alice Greenman
PLANNER: Monica Daniels-Mika
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part SW4 NW4 of Section 30, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone/ PUD/ From R-1 to Estate and Commercial (C-1).
LOCATION: 13518 WCR1.
Monica Mika,Department of Planning Services presented Case CZ-1026,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 Conditions D and F being different and why they are included. Ms. Mika stated
that the temporary structures used for storage need to be a permanent structure. It is functioning as a
warehouse that needs to be permanently adhered to ground. Ms. Mika indicated that there are three
structures with one being a semi type storage structure. Ms. Mika indicate that Condition F pertains to
information typically taken care of in the application process. It is generally part of the Site Plan Review
Process which is typically not seen by the Planning Commission. Mr. Rohn indicated that this is to be
approved as a PUD but there is not drawing showing what the lots will look like. Ms.Mika indicated that they
are existing parcels and there is no requirement to further plat.
Charles Greenman,Alice Greenman,applicant,provided further information with regard to the project. The
applicants have a small antique store in which they buy, sell, refinish antiques. There is more restoration
done on the site and they are a total water based company. There are no solvents involved in any of the
processes used to restore. T he storage building is a metal storage container, there is a foundation
underneath them. One of them is a rental unit. They are confined by the existing building and are virtually
not visible from the road.
Bryant Gimlin asked Ms. Mika about there not being a requirement for septic for the shop but there is a
condition that pertains to a hand washing facility. Ms. Smith, Department of Health and Environment,
indicated that when the septic system was evaluated it was in accordance with the house. Ms.Smith stated
that there are no restroom facilities in the shop or plumbing. These are conditions of approval are typically
seen in a USR application. The option to use the house would then change the specifics of the septic system
that was designed solely for the home. Patrons have to have access to hand washing and restrooms.
Bernie Ruesgen asked about the number of customers in the course of a year. Mr. Greenman stated about
1-2 walk in per day.The largest part is the restoration. The applicants go to the customer location and then
haul the antiques back to the shop. There is a parking located in the front and an alternative one in the rear.
Mr. Ruesgen asked how large the area was. A review of the plat indicated the number of spaces. Mr.
Ruesgen asked about the pick up service for the customers. Mr. Greenman indicated that his pickup and
an inclosed trailer are used.
James Rohn asked for clarification to the parking. Ms. Mika indicated that future parking will be in the back
of the building.
Bryant Gimlin asked about permanent foundations for the storage containers. Mr.Greenman indicated that
all the units have their own foundations. Mr. Reif indicated to the applicant that as long as they remain
temporary there is no need for foundations.
Monica Mika provided clarification with regard to the structures. The way they are built conforms to the
Uniform Building Code. There is some contradictory language in the referrals from Mr. Rief. The applicants
will need to make some additional effort to make sure that there are permanent foundations according to the
zoning ordinance. The way the application is being processed is two storage containers are for personal use
and one for commercial.The one dedicated to the commercial operation will be assessed the Transportation
Impact Fee.
Bernie Ruesgen asked about the additional work to make the storage meet the permanency for foundation.
Ms. Mika stated that in order to meet the term of permanent foundation they will need to be adhered to the
Page -2-
ground. There are two sets of standards building code and zoning ordinance. The meeting of the zoning
ordinance needs to occur. Mr. Greenman added that there is one rental unit and they do not want a
foundation for a temporary structure. Mr.Gimlin added that the Planning Commission is trying to make sure
that the applicant is understanding of the terms and conditions.
Fred Walker asked if the applicant is aware of the Road Impact Fee. Ms. Mika stated that the structure that
is closest to the shop will be assessed the Road Impact Fee and the applicants have been made aware of
this.
James Rohn asked why staff utilized the PUD process if the violation and the combination of parcels was
the only thing being done. Ms. Mika stated that in order to carry out the activity it has to have the correct
zone. A way to get the uses of commercial and residential on one property was to go through a PUD
process. There are other options but this is the one the applicant chose.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Monica Mika added that the last in the second paragraph under B needs to be stricken from the record.
There is an additional change to 4 V to indicate a 15 foot reservation.
James Rohn moved to delete the last sentence in the second paragraph under B, change the language in
4 V to reflect a 15 foot reservation and forward Case CZ-1026 to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Stephan
Mokray, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Fred Walker, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James Rohn, yes; Bernie
Ruesgen, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: MZ-1001
APPLICANT: Carl Hill/W. B. Farm Estates
PLANNER: Monica Daniels-Mika
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-1563; part of the NW4 of Section 20, T7N, R66W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to E (Estate)for 9 residential lots.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 80; approximately 1/2 mile east of WCR 27.
Monica Mika,Department of Planning Services presented Case MZ-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 mentioned that the Fire Departments typically ask for a turn around and a second fire entrance
and asked if the cul de sacs were large enough. Ms.Mika stated that the turn arounds are adequate and the
Fire Department did not provide additional comment. The Department has signed off on a similar design.
They have asked for a fire hydrant.
Bernie Ruesgen asked about Lot 2 and a 30 foot access to Lot B. Ms. Mika indicated that the easement will
allow access for the RE that is not part of this project. It will be a shared access for the property in the back
as well as the eight lots in this project.
Jim Rossen, representative for the applicant, is available for questions.
Fred Walker asked about the change of zone and there not being any building envelopes. Mr. Rossen
stated that building envelopes have not been established. Lots 6-8 will be situated towards the westerly
portion of the lots for septic concerns and groundwater. Mr. Walker asked about the drainage slew. Mr.
Rossen indicated that it is located east of the first cul de sac where the open space is. It is a wetlands area
and it will be kept as open space. It will be maintained by the HOA and is approximately 4.23 acres. There
Page -3-
will be no building envelope.
Stephen Mokray questioned the lots. Mr. Rossen stated that 8 lots on plat ninth lot is part of the RE. Ms.
Mika indicated that this is creating nine lots but one of the lots will be non buildable.
James Rohn asked about the source of the non potable water. Mr. Rossen stated that there is an irrigation
ditch on the west property line and it will be utilized if that is what the applicant chooses to do. Mr. Rohn
asked about the dedication of shares. Mr.Rossen stated that it has not been determined that the subdivision
will use non potable water.
Fred Walker asked about the referral letter from the City of Thornton for the right of way for the maintenance
of the ditch. Mr. Rossen stated it will have impact on certain lots but an easement will be granted for access
for maintenance to the ditch. Ms. Mika indicated that there is language on the final plat that indicates that
all easements will have signed agreements. There is no language in a change of zone for this.
Mr. Rossen added that the turn arounds in the subdivision are designed for fire engine and school bus code.
The two entrances would require more than the proposed 8 lots.
James Rohn asked about the referral letter from Weld County RE9 with regard to the cash in leu and if that
will be paid to the district. Mr. Rossen indicated it will be paid to the district.
Fred Walker asked about a note about removing existing waste irrigation ditch. Mr. Rossen indicated that
the ditch that is to be removed is specific to the property. It is owned by property owner so can be removed.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Monica Mika indicated that information will need to be corrected to gain the total number of acres indicated
on the plat. This will need to be submitted with the corrections.
Bryant Gimlin asked about the water for landscape irrigation. Mr. Rossen stated it would be through
domestic water. The water supply is adequate and the landscape plans will be drought tolerant, rock,gravel
and natural grasses. These are what are proposed through the HOA.
Peter Schei, Department of Public Works,would like to add a note to 3 Y with the following language, "the
HOA will accept and provide uninterrupted maintenance of their internal roads." They will need to named
also.
James Rohn asked Mr.Schei about the applicants and the county coming together to pave CR 80. Mr.Schei
indicated that an agreement will be entered into with regard to travel count that will be added to the system.
Should the County pave that section of roadway the applicant will be required to contribute their
proportionate amount. Mr. Rohn asked if the CR 80 was paved would the internal roads then need to be
paved. Mr. Schei indicated that would be something that will need to be reviewed at the time.
Peter Schei wanted to move#3 W to 2A 22.These issues would be addressed in prior to recording the plat.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked Mr.Schei about the stop sign at the Y and if it was recommended. Mr. Schei stated
that sign age can be addressed and this is included as a comment in the staff reports.
Fred Walker asked about the drainage running from west to east and no retention. Mr. Schei indicated that
there is no detention foreseen for this parcel. The final drainage report will need to address the issue with
the appropriate calculations. Mr. Schei added that certain numbers will trigger retention but the larger lots
will not need to have one.
James Rohn moved to make changes to the Conditions of Approval that reflect Public Works request.
Stephen Mokray seconded motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Page -4-
James Rohn commented that in the Town of Ault there are three subdivisions that are not built out at full.
The homes in the area have not sold and he finds it hard to approve a subdivision when there are existing
lots that do not have present buyers. There is also a water issue for the area. Mr. Rohn stated verbatim
"that he cannot bring himself to add more misery to the pot." Mr.Walker added that the applicant has shown
there is the ability of water and all the rules and regulations have been met. Planning Commission does not
have the ability to say no to the project due to the non ability to sell lots.
Bernie Ruesgen moved that Case MZ-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. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Stephan
Mokray,yes;Bryant Gimlin,yes;Fred Walker,yes;Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;James Rohn,no;Bernie Ruesgen,
yes. Motion carried.
Mr. Rohn sited Section 27-6-120 6 (C)(1)(c&d)as his reasons for denial.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-794
APPLICANT: Galeton Community Church do Dennis Egge
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 7, 8, &9, Block 18, 1s'Addition, Zita (Galeton); being part of the SE4
SE4 NE4 of Section 6, T6N, R64W 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: North of and adjacent to Second Street and east of and adjacent to
Grandview Ave.
Sheri Lockman, Planner, Department of Planning Services presented Case AmUSR-794, 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.
Bryant Gimlin asked about the definition on the setback which states it is equal to or greater than. Ms.
Lockman indicated that staff would like to see that the church is even with the existing structures. The
conditions is not in staff comments because they do not have the power to grant the variance. The Board
of County Commissioners do. Mr. Gimlin indicated that Planning Commission does not have that power
either. After discussion,Mr.Morrison indicated that the Planning Commission can make a recommendation.
The concept is not unusual because the county quite requiring variances to non conforming structures where
it did not cause the setback to be violated any more than it already is.
Ann Johnson,applicant representative, provided clarification on the project. Mr.Egge provided information
on the site design.There have been agreements with Department of Public Works for the paving of the alley.
This will allow the traffic travel in all directions on paved surfaces. This will assist in controlling sound and
possible dust issues. The paving of the alley assists the church in drainage issues. The water will drain into
the paved alley and travel to CR 74 where an inlet to the master drain will be installed. The applicant would
like to start and finish the project within one year.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the height of the new construction. Mr . Egge indicated that they are going
to be about the same as the existing church height.
Fred Walker asked Ms. Johnson about the new area in the amended USR and if it included the new lot
purchased. Ms.Johnson indicated that it was with the addition of the land that was purchased. Mr.Walker
indicated is seems to be an extra step for no special purpose. The use of the property is not changing just
expanding.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Page -5-
Anne Johnson mentioned that the applicant worked with the referral agencies to address the issues from
them. The applicant has comments on Condition of Approval 1 C 3 referring to ADA records. Mr. Egge
indicated that reasonable accommodations will be made for all that use the facilities. They will include five
parking spaces including a van space, sign indicating van loading, valet parking system, if needed, for a
blind individual.
Bernie Ruesgen indicated that the variance is consistent with the existing units and this will not jeopardize
anything that has already been done. Mr. Gimlin asked if this was to grant the variance or determine what
it will be. Mr. Morrison added that the language can be included in the recommendation to the Board of
County Commissioners.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to accept the language consisting of"the proposed building shall maintain a setback
from second street which is equal to or greater than the setback of the existing church." James Rohn
seconded. Motion carried
James Rohn moved that Case AmUSR-794,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. Stephan
Mokray, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Fred Walker, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James Rohn, yes; Bernie
Ruesgen, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 3:00pm
Respectfully submitted
\lam-bLAiNc
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Page -6-
Hello