HomeMy WebLinkAbout20011011.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, March 20, 2001
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday, March 20,2001, in the Weld
County Public Health/Planning Building,(Room 210), 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley,Colorado. The meeting
was called to order by Chair, Cristie Nicklas, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
r..l.t C -ri
Cristie Nicklas Present - '
Fred Walker Absent
John Folsom Present
Jack Epple Absent _'
Michael Miller Present
Stephan Mokray Present
Arlan Marrs Present
vi
Bryant Gimlin Present
Cathy Clamp Present
Also Present: Sheri Lockman, Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services; Don Carroll, Diane
Houghtaling, Public Works; Pam Smith, Char Davis, Weld County Department of Public Health and
Environment; Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney; Trisha Swanson, Secretary.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on March 6, 2001,
was approved as read.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1311
APPLICANT: John and Eleanor Hochmiller
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: E2 W2 NE4 of Section 32, Township 3 North, Range 65 West of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for Salvage Yard (Auto
Salvage, Used Truck Sales, and General Truck Repair) in the 1-3 Industrial Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 28 and 1/4 mile west of WCR 41.
Sheri Lockman, Planner, presented Case USR-1311 and noted that the Department of Planning Services is
requesting an indefinite continuance. Ms. Lockman noted that the applicant is still working on permitting his
well.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this continuance.
No one wished to speak.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case USR-1311 be continued indefinitely. Michael Miller seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Arlan Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Cristie Nicklas noted that the case listed as third on the agenda would be moved forward to second.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1318
APPLICANT: Jose Aguirre
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 14, Indian Hills Subdivision, being part of the NW4 of Section 35,
Township 5 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Special Use Permit for a concrete foundation flat work business in the Agricultural Zone
District.
/�
LOCATION: Approximately 250 feet south of WCR 52,approximately 1/4 mile east of WCR 33(47th Ave).
66YL Coq 2001-1011
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
March 20, 2001
Page 2
Chris Gathman, Planner, presented Case USR-1318 and noted that the Department of Planning Services is
requesting a continuance to April 17, 2001. Mr. Gathman noted that the applicant has retained legal council
to work on the concerns of the Department of Planning Services and surrounding property owners.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this continuance.
No one wished to speak.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case USR-1318 be continued to April 17, 2001. Michael Miller seconded the
motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Arlan Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes;Cathy Clamp,
yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: Z-548
APPLICANT: California Home, Inc.
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW4 of Section 35,Township 3 North, Range 68 West of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from Agricultural to PUD for a proposed 18-lot business park PUD.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 28, East of and adjacent to 1-25 frontage road.
Chris Gathman, Planner, presented Case Z-548 and read the Department of Planning Services Conditions
of Approval and recommendation of approval into the record. Mr. Gathman also noted that Condition of
Approval #4. C was changed to Condition of Approval #5. G and that a sentence had been added to the
following Conditions of Approval: #5. F, #5. G, and #6. A.
Michael Miller asked if the alignment of WCR 9.5 had been finalized. Diane Houghtaling,Public Works, noted
that Mr.Seigrist,the property owner who would have the alignment come through his property,was committed
to having the road go through his property. Mr. Miller asked if the grade and conditions of the road would be
workable. Ms. Houghtaling noted that she had informed Mr. Seigrist that the alignment would probably be
expensive, but that Public Works believes that Mr. Seigrist is committed to placing the road through his
property. Mr. Miller questioned what would happen if Mr. Seigrist decided not to develop his property. Ms.
Houghtaling noted that they will eventually work this out, that there were a total of three options for the
alignment, but that the most traffic would be generated by Mr. Seigrist's development. Mr. Miller noted that
the approval of Case Z-548 would remove the property from consideration as an option for placement of WCR
9.5. Ms. Houghtaling noted that this would be true,but that there would still be two other possible placements
for this road. Lee Morrison,Assistant County Attorney, noted that the most traffic would be generated by Mr.
Seigrist's development and the road would be easier placed with the lower amount of traffic generated in the
region if Mr. Seigrist decided not to develop. Mr. Morrison also noted how difficult it would be to place any of
the agreements in stone, as this is too fluid a situation until a later date.
Cathy Clamp asked if the amount listed in the Public Road Improvement Agreement for Z-548 would be
enough to cover the road changes if the Seigrist development fell through. Ms. Houghtaling noted that if this
happens,the ability to cover the costs by charging Z-548 would be lost,but that any development to the north
of this site would be charged accordingly.
Mr. Folsom asked how the lots would be accessed, as before they were not allowed to access off Benjamin
Avenue when it was a 4-lane road. Ms. Houghtaling noted that the road is now going to be a 2-lane road and
access off of this road will be allowed, as it will no longer be an arterial road.
Mr. Folsom asked if the amount of right-of-way allowed for 1-25 would be enough for future growth of the
interstate. Chris Gathman noted that CDOT (Colorado Department of Transportation) had no comments.
Mr.Morrison noted that CDOT is restricted from acquiring property too far in advance. Ms. Houghtaling noted
that CDOT is requesting the maximum amount they can ask for at this time.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
March 20, 2001
Page 3
Michael Miller asked about the applicant's request of a variance from the required setbacks from oil wells.
Mr. Gathman noted that the BOCC (Board of County Commissioners)will have the final say on this request,
as the final agreement with the fire districts and oil companies is not finalized at this date.
John Folsom asked if Benjamin Avenue will end at the north edge of the property. Mr. Gathman noted that
this road will go through to CR 28.
Don Leffler, representative for the applicant, noted that they have incorporated CDOT's right-of-way into the
plat,noting that there is an additional 50'landscape buffer beyond this right-of-way. Mr.Leffler noted that they
are working with fire districts to achieve the 150' setback they are requesting and that they will have the
support of the fire districts before the BOCC hearing. Mr. Leffler also noted that the alignment of CR 9.5 was
the predominant reason for the significant change being approved for the Seigrist property. Mr. Leffler noted
that they do not have a problem with correcting the on-site and off-site improvements,that the improvements
agreements are just rough drafts.
Arlan Marrs asked which lots the oil well setback affects. Mr. Leffler noted that this will only affect Lots 3 and
4 of Block 2. Mr. Leffler noted that any buildings would still have to go through the Building Inspection
Department.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Leffler what he considered the primary concerns of building near an oil well. Mr.
Leffler noted they would be concerned with the safety and well-being of people in the area,which is why they
are working on a building with open sides and lightening rods on top. Mr. Miller noted that natural gas leakage
is often a problem when the oil wells are complicated with structures. Mr. Leffler noted that the proposed
building would have open sides. Mr. Miller noted that he not comfortable with building within 150' of well
heads.
Mr. Miller asked what the distinction is between distance from the oil heads. Mr. Gathman noted that
Agricultural and Estate zones are allowed to have 150' from a well and 200' from a tank battery, but that
Residential zones are to be 350'from either structure. Mr. Gathman noted there is no specific setback for
tank batteries in Industrial or Commercial zones.
Cathy Clamp asked if a note could be added to the plat to create a buffer on these lots. Mr. Leffler noted that
these lots will be restricted for building within an 100' area.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Cristie Nickles asked the applicant if he is in agreement with the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Leffler noted that
they are in agreement with these conditions, even as modified by the Department of Planning Services.
John Folsom asked if the Planning Commission had the ability to change the setbacks for the oil wells. Mr.
Morrison noted that the Planning Commission could make a recommendation. Mr. Morrison noted that the
restrictions on placing Oil and Gas facilities near structures existed for Oil and Gas companies,that the BOCC
felt adding restrictions to those building near these facilities made complete sense.
Michael Miller noted that a commercial building is possibly more dense than a residential area, that he
hesitates to allow a building within the 350' setback required. Mr. Miller also questioned why there is not a
restriction within the Industrial and Commercial zone districts.
Mr. Leffler noted that the well is almost dried up. Mr. Miller commented that technology is changing and that
the need for natural gas and oil is such that companies are coming back in and refracing the existing wells.
Mr. Leffler stated that they would not refrac the well if there were a building there. Mr. Miller noted that the
oil lease allows for refrac of the well. Mr. Leffler noted that he will continue to work with the fire districts and
present this option to the BOCC.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
March 20, 2001
Page 4
Bryant Gimlin noted that the Condition of Approval does not approve the setback, it agrees to accept letters
from the fire district and the oil company allowing the lesser setbacks. Mr.Gimlin noted that placing a number
upon the applicant would be arbitrary.
Arlan Marrs noted that he agrees with Bryant, that the Condition of Approval places the burden upon the
applicant to get the agreement from the fire district and oil company.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case Z-548 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval 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; Arlan Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes; Cathy Clamp,
yes; Cristie Nickles, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 2:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
F.
Trisha Swanson
Secretary
Hello