HomeMy WebLinkAbout20010859.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, April 3, 2001
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday, April 3, 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 1.32 p.m.
ROLL CALL
-70
Cristie Nicklas Present m
Fred Walker Present J W
John Folsom Present
Jack Epple Present
Michael Miller Present r 'i 7' -
Stephan Mokray Present
Arlan Marrs Present
Bryant Gimlin Present
Cathy Clamp Absent
Also Present: Sheri Lockman, Julie Chester, Kim Ogle, Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services;
Trevor Jiricek, Department of Public Health and Environment;Don Carroll,Diane Houghtaling,Public Works;
Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on, March 20,2001,
was approved as read.
CASE NUMBER: S-586
APPLICANT: Robert L. Parsons
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of 2n°AMRE-2375, being part of the S2 Section 8,Township 7 North,
Range 67 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado
REQUEST: Final Plat for a 5-lot Minor Subdivision - Skylark Ranch
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Highway 14, '/3 mile east of Weld County Road 15
Sheri Lockman, Planner, presented Case S-586 and read the Department of Planning Services comments
and recommendations of approval into the record.
John Folsom asked if the home presently being built could be permitted before the approval of S-586. Ms.
Lockman told him yes as the property is a legal parcel and the applicant is allowed one (1) home per legal
lot. Fred Walker asked about the referral from the water company right of way. Ms. Lockman stated that
was addressed in the Change of Zone application.
Robert L. Parsons, stated that he lives on this property and permits for the house have been finaled.
Michael Miller asked if the fire and school bus access had been addressed. Ms. Lockman stated that
Mr. Parsons has been meeting with the school district regarding the school bus pull off access. All the
homes are going to have sprinklers due to the limited emergency access. Also fire hydrants will be put in
place. Michael confirmed that there is adequate turn-around for fire equipment.
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 Nicklas asked the applicant if he was in agreement with the Development Standards and Conditions
of Approval. Mr. Parsons noted that he was in agreement.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case S-586, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Mr. Miller seconded the motion.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
April 3, 2001
Page 2
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;Jack Epple,yes; Bryant Gimlin,
yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes ; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1319
APPLICANT: Four Way Baptist Church
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
ADDRESS: 9966 WCR 41, Fort Lupton, CO 80621
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW4 of Section 16, Township 2 North, Range 65 West of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Public and Quasi
Public Building (Church) in the A (Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Weld County Road 22 and east of and adjacent to Weld County
Road 41.
Kim Ogle,Planner,presented Case USR-1319 and the read the Department of Planning Services comments
and recommendation of approval into the record with modifications to comments,Line item 3.1 was deleted
per a request by the applicant.
Trevor Jiricek, Department Public Health and Environment stated that USR application is for an occupancy
or congregation of 450 people. They have designed for and will receive approval for a septic system that
only accommodates 254 people. That would mean a deficit of roughly 200 people. Mr. Jiricek stated that
doesn't necessarily comply with the policies of the State Health Department in regard to sizing septic
systems. Mr.Jiricek presented two options to be considered: (1)reduce the USR application to a maximum
of 254 people or(2)adding an additional development standard that says"once the congregation or other
events exceeds 254 people the applicant would need to address their sewage disposal needs accordingly."
Ms. Nicklas asked Mr.Jiricek if the reason they only applied for 254 person septic because this 450 person
application would be for increase in growth of the church? Mr. Jiricek noted the applicant could address in
more detail,however,in Colorado if you design a septic system that accommodates more than 2000 gallons
of water per day, you have apply for a more rigorous review process called a Site Application Process
through the State Health Department,that most people try to avoid such application. Mr.Jiricek noted,that
the congregation and the number of people actually using the facility presently, is much less than 254
people.
Arlan Marrs asked Mr. Jiricek if there is any kind of a system that would allow on the days that there are
more than 254 people say up to 450 people that the waste could be stored in some sort of vault system and
then allowed to leach out over the next week? Mr.Jiricek stated,that there might be systems available, but
none have been applied for in the county. Mr. Marrs asked if there was a possibility where the applicant
could get an average for a weekly type of evaporative transportation system that would be needed and allow
that to happen over a week rather than have to be taken care of all in one day. Mr.Jiricek stated that State
policy says you are supposed to design for design capacity, with the issue being you have to design for a
24 hour peak flow a 24 hour period. Policy specifically states you are not to include days where the system
is not going to be used.
Michael Miller asked Mr.Jiricek if the commission approved this USR permit based on 254 people and then
they wanted to expand to the 450 later, would they still have to go through process for the review at that
point? Mr. Jiricek confirmed that the applicant would have apply for the Site Application Process through
the State Health Department.
Bryant Gimlin asked Mr. Jiricek if the applicant had an event with more than the 254 people what needs
would they have to address? Mr. Jiricek stated if the applicant routinely has or would have more than 254
people there needs to be a permanent sewage disposal system that will accommodate the maximum
number of people that are using the structure.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
April 3, 2001
Page 3
Stephan Mokray asked Mr. Jiricek how this would be monitored? Mr. Jiricek stated that if Phase II had
included building a larger sanctuary, the building permit could be tied to it. But, unfortunately, Phase I
includes the sanctuary and Phase II is for more classrooms.
John Folsom wanted clarification if the modular is a temporary structure or classroom structure so there
would be any additional classroom buildings that would require additional sanitary facilities. Mr. Ogle
confirmed that the temporary classroom is actually a mobile home that is not permitted, but the applicant
is proposing to move the mobile home, permit it, and move it to where it says temporary structure on the
map. The lavatory facilities would be in the church.
Marcia Aden, applicant, stated that the Four-Way Baptist Church has been in operation since the early
1960s. The church has an average of about 160 people in attendance at services.
Mr. Marrs asked Ms. Aden where the 450 number came from? Robert Lee, applicant architect from
Cornerstone Architects, stated that the number of people in the sanctuary is about 360 people on the floor
with about 40 to 50 seats in the choir loft. Ms.Aden also stated that the seats that are filled by the choir are
from the congregation sitting in the sanctuary.
Mr. Marrs asked Ms.Aden if this is a necessary need for 450 person capacity or can you get by with a lessor
amount. Ms. Aden replied that the church is pressured for growth and at this time have more people than
can be accommodated. Mr. Marrs noted that the number 450 creates a problem for the septic system. Ms.
Aden stated that the septic system sized for 254 people would probably last quite a while as the
congregation at this time is about 160 per Sunday for only three (3) hours.
Ms. Nicklas noted that because you applied (the church) for 450 person USR permit, that bypassing State
rules for the septic system creates a problem.
Tom Haren, AgPro Environmental Services, applicant's representative, stated the original number of 450
was derived from Cornerstone Architecture. Mr. Haren stated the applicant would like to modify the permit
to 405 person capacity. Mr. Haren also explained in conferring with the Department of Public Health and
Environment that in order to permit the septic system the formula used to determine the 254 person capacity
was by taking the maximum flow of 3000 gallons per day, and work it backwards.
Mr. Miller asked Mr. Haren what the cost difference would be between a 405 capacity septic installation and
a 254 capacity septic installation. Mr. Haren replied,four to five times as much for a standard system plus
on the inside, it would be six-month process to go through the Site Application process with the State.
Ms.Nicklas addressed the audience by stating that she had been told that most of them were in favor of this
application. Ms. Nicklas asked for a show or hands in favor and then asked if there was anyone who would
like to address the commission and no one wished to speak. Along with the show of hands a petition was
also signed with 37 people showing support of this application .
Mr. Miller asked how is the determination of the 254 capacity level with the future expansion option going
to be monitored and how is that enforced? Mr. Jiricek stated that there is no mechanism for the county to
identify when and if the applicant has a service that exceeds 254 people. (twill be a condition on their permit
and unless the county receives a complaint, the county will have to take their word that the applicant will
come in and expand the system.
Lee Morrison asked Mr.Jiricek about a flow-meter, a peaking flow-meter. Mr. Haren responded that there
will be a flow-meter on incoming water. Mr. Haren stated, the applicant would like to tie the septic system
to a flow-meter because what you would you see is that the waste management system of this facility is
over-designed with the way we have to do the system. Mr. Haren restated that it is so over-designed that
if there are fluctuations, the applicant is not concerned from and engineering standpoint that there will be
waste problems.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
April 3, 2001
Page 4
Mr. Morrison,stated that the applicant is most going to be concerned about the 3000 gallons in a peak day.
Mr. Jiricek responded that it would cause daily records to be maintained or at least records on those days
when there are large groups of people. Mr. Morrison stated that an average won't work.
Mr. Miller stated that perhaps this is a self-regulating item and that if the septic system fails and you have
300 people at your church, who are probably going to be coming back for a bigger permit.
Mr. Jiricek stated if the system was tied to a flow-meter the applicant could still come in with their water
usage record and make a reasonable argument that the water usage was minimal at the facility.
Mr. Miller asked Mr. Ogle if the well will be substantial enough to service this facility? Mr. Ogle stated it
would be more than adequate. Mr. Jiricek, stated that the applicant needed to demonstrate that their well
is appropriately permitted for the proposed use as a condition of approval.
Ms.Nicklas asked the applicant if they were in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Mr. Haren, representative for the applicant requested modifications to items
in the Conditions of Approval.
Mr. Haren requested that line Item 2 c of the Conditions of Approval to surface the parking lot with asphalt,
concrete or equivalent, not be a requirement, and allow for gravel. Applicant also requested line item 2 d
of the Conditions of Approval be modified to allow delineation of the ADA parking places with bumpers and
signs instead of striping the parking lot. Mr. Haren also requested that line item 2 e Conditions of Approval
concerning, a storm water drainage retention facility be eliminated.
Don Carroll, Public Works, stated on item 2 c Conditions of Approval, the existing parking area is mostly
asphalt,thus the reason for the remaining section to be asphalt,however he will work with applicant on using
gravel for the parking lot. For item 2 d, Conditions of Approval, if the parking lot does go to gravel, Public
Works would like to maintain areas for the ADA parking, 2 e, and for item 3 d. will continue to ask for a
stormwater drainage plan. Mr. Carroll stated the historical runoff comes from the west, passes under WCR
41 via a culvert, across the church property to the southeast. The proposed structure, in Phase1 and also
through the parking lot will impede this historic flow towards the southeast. There is a possibility to
channelize the overflow around the structure and the parking lot and still disperse the water through the
historical route.
Ms.Nicklas asked Mr.Carroll if the applicant necessarily needs a storm water drainage retention facility.Mr.
Carroll stated they need to tell you how they are going to manage the flow that traditionally flows where the
applicants proposed building site is blocking. Mr. Carroll requested information on how the historical flow
was going to be handled.
Bryant Gimbal asked Mr.Carroll if the ADA parking delineation could be accommodated on the asphalt part
of the parking lot? Mr. Carroll responded that would be a possibility.
Ms.Nicklas suggested that the Planning&Public Works staff have an opportunity to determine a stormwater
drainage plan for the historical flow water involving the building site and parking lot.
Jack Epple commented that the site sits on the corner of irrigated property. Not many churches in that area
that have paved parking lots.Jack said he would be in favor of and support the gravel parking lot,improved
stormwater drainage plan without a detention pond.
Mr. Epple moved to approve the changes of 2 c, the requirement of surfacing the parking lot changed to a
gravel parking lot. 2 d, the delineation of the ADA parking spaces by bumpers and signs with no striping of
the parking lot. 2 e, to approve a stormwater drainage plan without a detention pond of the Conditions of
Approval; and additionally change the number from 450 to 254 on 3 a, Conditions of Approval and add
Development Standard for further septic system and re-number changes.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
April 3, 2001
Page 5
Mr. 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;Jack Epple,yes; Bryant Gimlin,
yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes ; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Haren requested number 3 g, Conditions of Approval requiring Improvements Agreements to be
eliminated. Discussion followed with the final decision to eliminate 5. g. Conditions of Approval because a
USR does not require a landscaping plan. Don removed his part of the Improvements Agreement as long
as the applicant would provide graveling, drainage and ditch work at the site.
Mr. Haren proposed a modification to Number 5 of the Conditions of Approval; requesting that the building
permits be released due to the help from volunteers building the church. The modification would read
Special Review activity shall not occur nor Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued on the property until
the Special Review plat is recorded.
Mr. Ogle stated that this is a condition that the Board of County Commissioners would have to modify.
Mr. Morrison stated if Number 5 of the Conditions of Approval is amended the whole permit is subject to
revocation if the plat does not get recorded.
Mr. Gimlin moved that Case USR-1319 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
eliminating 3. g of the Conditions of Approval. Michael seconded the motion. Staff amended 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;Jack Epple,yes ; Bryant Gimlin,
yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes ; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1321
APPLICANT: Unisite, Inc.
PLANNER: Robert Anderson
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the Southwest Quarter, Section 6, Township 2 North, Range 62
West of the 6'h Prime Meridian, County of Weld, State of Colorado
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for a Major Facility of a
Public Utility(250'Telecommunications Monopole Tower)in the Agricultural Zone District.
LOCATION: 60' East of Weld County Road 73 R.O.W &220' North Weld County Road 24.5 sited
on land to be leased from the Rodney& Diane Wolfe.
Julie Chester, Planner spoke in behalf of Robert Anderson. Julie Chester presented Case USR-1321 and
read the Department of Planning Services comments and recommendation of approval into the record.
Ms.Chester mentioned that minor changes have been made to the staff recommendation which were mainly
grammatical. New comments were not given to the Commission.
John Folsom questioned Mr. Carroll about the 80 foot right-of-way of Weld County Road 73. Mr. Carroll
responded that Weld County Road 73 is designated on the Transportation Map as a collector status road
which requires 80 feet of right-of-way at full build out. There is presently 60 feet of right-of-way. If the facility
borders a particular county right-of-way, Public Works asks to reserve additional right-of-way. Mr. Folsom
commented in this case that the lease does not access the right-of-way. Mr. Carroll concurred.
Rob Wolfe, property owner stated his name and address for the record.
Ms. Nicklas asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
April 3, 2001
Page 6
Phil Sortel, partner in the West Creek Land and Cattle Company, spoke in opposition to the proposed cell
tower. Mr. Sortel operates a farm and ranch on the North side of 1-76. He cautioned the Planning
Commission to be very careful of the applicant's business practices. He also stated that he had experience
dealing with Unisite that was less than desirable and a potential lawsuit is pending.
Fred Walker stated that in the past the public utility company has always been the applicant and would
question why the applicant is the property owner? Ms. Nicklas also questioned this.
Ms.Chester responded that Mr.Anderson (Planner)had had a difficult time contacting the actual applicant.
The actual applicant is Unisite, who is leasing the property owned by the Wolfes.
Julie suggested that since these concerns are being brought and are on the record and the applicant,
Unisite, is not present that this case, be continued until the applicant can be present and address these
concerns.
Ms .Nicklas asked Mr. Morrison if the Planning Commission could continue this application due to the fact
that the applicant was not present. Mr. Morrison advised the Planning Commission that it would be
applicable to ask for a continuance in order for the applicant to be present at a future hearing.
Julie also stated that the Conditions of Approval along with the Development Standards were to the be given
to the applicant the day of the hearing. At this point,since the applicant is absent there is no assurance that
the Unisite is in agreement with them.
Ms. Nicklas asked the landowner, Mr. Wolfe if he had been in contact with Unisite. He had not been in
contact with them in the last few weeks. Ms. Nicklas asked Mr. Wolfe if he knew why there was no
representation at the hearing today. Mr.Wolfe had no idea and had figured someone from Unisite would
be here.
Mr. Marrs moved that Case USR-1321 be continued until May 15, 2001. Stephen Mokray seconded.
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;Jack Epple,yes ; Bryant Gimlin,
yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1320
APPLICANT: Colorado Interstate Gas
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Major Facility of a
Public Utility(50'Telecommunications Monopole Tower)in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 15, Township 3 North, Range 61
West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: Approximately 1 mile east of Weld County Road 91 and 1/4 mile north of Interstate 76,
sited on land to be leased from the State of Colorado
Chris Gathman, Planner, presented Case USR-1320 and read the Department of Planning Services
comments and recommendations of approval into the record. Mr. Gathman stated that the applicant was
present.
Jack Epple asked if the tower was set up for a multi-user? Mr. Gathman stated he believed it was just for
Colorado Interstate Gas.
Joe Martinez, applicant from the Colorado Interstate Gas examiner, stated his name and address for the
record. Art Steges, Colorado Interstate Gas, stated he is the project engineer for this site.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
April 3, 2001
Page 7
Mr. Epple asked the applicants if the tower was set up for multiple users or private. The applicants
responded that the tower was private. Ms. Nicklas mentioned the tower was only a fifty (50)foot tower.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Ms.Nicklas asked the applicant if they were in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Both Mr. Martinez and Mr. Steges indicated agreement.
Mr. Epple moved that USR-1320 be approved along with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Stephan Mokray seconded.
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;Jack Epple,yes; Bryant Gimlin,
yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes ; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 2:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Vicki Hamilton
Secretary
Hello