HomeMy WebLinkAbout20011376.tiff • .Qa'd 3:55 p.m.
/w,.)d4j mai2a, 200/
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, May 15 , 2001
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday, May 15, 2001, 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, Michael Miller, at 1:40 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Cristie Nicklas Absent
Fred Walker Present
John Folsom Absent
Jack Epple Present
Michael Miller Present
Stephan Mokray Present
Arlan Marrs Present
Bryant Gimlin Absent
Cathy Clamp Present
Also, Present:Sheri Lockman,Julie Chester,Anne Best Johnson, Robert Anderson, Kim Ogle, Lauren Light,
Department of Planning Services; Drew Scheltinga, Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, Pam Smith,
Char Davis, Department of Public Health and Environment; Lee Morrison, County Attorney.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on May 1,2001,was
approved as read.
1. CASE NUMBER: USR-1327
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
APPLICANT: Cockroft Dairy Farm c/o AgPro Environmental Services, LLC
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Sections 10, 11, 14 and 15,T5N, R64W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for an
Agricultural Service Establishment and a Livestock Confinement Operation
(1,350 head Dairy) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: Adjacent to Weld County Road 388 on the North and South and west of
and adjacent to Weld County Road 57.5
Sheri Lockman, Planner requested that Case USR-1327 be continued until June 19, 2001 due to
outstanding referrals. Tom Haren, Ag Pro, representative for the applicant was in agreement of this
continuance.
The Vice Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
continuance. No one wished to speak.
Commissioner Fred Walker moved to continue Case USR-1327 until June 19, 2001. Commissioner
Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Vice-Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, absent; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes ; Bryant
Gimlin,absent;Cathy Clamp,absent; Cristie Nicklas,absent; Fred Walker,yes. Motion carried unanimously.
OS -;3O .<2OOI 2001-1376
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 2
2. CASE NUMBER: USR-1321 (Continued from April 3, 2001)
PLANNER: Robert Anderson
APPLICANT: Unisite, Inc. c/o Cheryl T. Wade
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 Lattitce Tower)in the
Agricultural Zone District.
LOCATION: 60' East 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.
Robert Anderson, Planner presented Case USR-1321 and read the Department of Planning Services
comments and recommendations of approval into the record. Mr.Anderson stated that Planning Services
staff would like to make a correction to the preliminary document by changing the word "monopole" to a
"lattice structure", on pages 1 and 2. Mr. Anderson stated it is a lattice structure not a monopole.
Cheryl Wade, applicant stated name and address for the record. She apologized for not being present at
the previous hearing.
The Vice Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this case.
Phil Sotel, West Land and Cattle Company stated his name and address for the record. Mr. Sotel stated
he was present at the previous hearing and he is again stating that he is against this application. He was
also concerned about the sixty(60)foot setback stating that zoning requires a 750-foot setback. If the tower
were to collapse, it would hit the road. Mr. Sotel also stated that this tower is not a utility. It's parent
company American Tower is not a utility. The utility would be the wireless carrier that would be using this
tower. Mr. Sotel suggested that this is"spec"tower and most likely there is not a utility.
Cheryl Wade responded to Mr. Sotel, stating the original applicant is not present because they have been
transferred. Ms.Wade went on to state that Unisite and American Tower are international companies. Ms.
Wade stated that in developing a site that is adequate for a tower the company identifies three(3)locations
in case one does not work. Ms.Wade stated, Mr.Wolfe's property met all the requirements and guidelines
required.
Commissioner Fred Walker requested the applicant to show exactly where the tower would be on the map.
Mr. Anderson stated that the actual tower location was between Weld County Road 73 and Weld County
Road 24.5. The tower would be constructed sixty feet from the Weld County Road 73 right-of-way.
Mr. Walker asked if setbacks were required for all structures. Mr. Anderson stated that cell towers are not
considered structures and are required to meet setbacks. Mr.Walker confirmed the tower would still be 250
feet even though it changed from a monopole to a lattice tower.
Commissioner Michael Miller asked the applicant why this location was determined since Roggen sits down
in a hole. The applicant responded that because this site does sit lower,there was a need for area service.
That need was determined by evaluating the existing utility carriers in the area.
Commissioner Clamp asked if the lattice type tower could be used by multiple users. Ms.Wade stated that
was possible and that this tower was designed for a minimum of five (5)carriers.
Mr. Miller asked Lee Morrison, County Attorney if this does in fact constitute a public utility since there is no
established carrier. Mr.Morrison stated that towers are treated differently due to Federal legislation that they
have to all be treated alike. Weld County has chosen to put towers in the category of a major facility of a
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 3
public utility. The tower just has to fit within the Federal Telecommunications Act. Mr. Morrison also stated
the user will be a utility carrier and the applicant had suggested that the plat not be recorded until the
carrier(s)was identified.
Mr. Walker stated that the sixty-foot setback may be a problem. Mr. Walker asked if the tower could be
moved so it would not be so close to the road. Ms.Clamp also asked Mr.Anderson if there were any other
structures on the parcel that would prevent the lattice pole to be moved to another location. Mr. Anderson
stated that there are no other structures on the parcel.
Rodney Wolfe,property owner stated his name and address for the record. Mr.Miller asked if the relocation
of the tower on his property would be a problem. Mr. Wolfe stated"no"there was no problem however,the
railroad tracks are close by.
Stephen Mokray asked the owner how the railroad tracks would be affected if the tower was moved to the
east. Mr. Wolfe stated that if the tower is going to tip, it will either be on the railroad tracks or on the road.
Mr. Wolfe stated again that the tower can be moved to a different location if need be.
Ms.Wade suggested that the leased area is 100 feet by 100 feet. The tower could be moved fifty(50)feet
to the east without creating new studies from the FCC, FAA, soils and be within their limits and better meet
the Planning Commissions requirements.
Mr. Miller asked the applicant if they were in agreement of the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval. The applicant stated they were in agreement.
Mr.Mokray moved that Case USR-1321 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the name
change from"monopole"to"lattice pole"along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards
Arlan Marrs seconded the motion.
The Vice-Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,absent; Arlan Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Jack Epple,yes; Bryant Gimlin,
absent; Cathy Clamp, yes; Cristie Nicklas, absent; Fred Walker, no. Motion passed five to one.
3. CASE NUMBER: USR-1328 (Continued from May1, 2001)
PLANNER: Julie Chester
APPLICANT: HCC, LLC
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A&B of RE-2569, being part of the SW4 of Section 9,
Township 9 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a business
permitted as a use by right or accessory use in the Commercial or
Industrial Zone District (Construction Maintenance Shop, Equipment
Storage, Warehouse and Outdoor Storage) in the A (Agricultural) Zone
District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Highway 14 and east of and adjacent to
WCR 29.
Julie Chester,Planner presented Case USR-1328 and read the Department of Planning Services comments
and Recommendations of Approval into the record. Ms. Chester also made additions to Development
Standard 1 on page 6 stating that"The Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit is for a use
permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use or a Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial
Zone Districts (Construction Maintenance Shop, Equipment Storage,Warehouse and Outdoor Storage)in
the A(Agricultural)Zone District,limiting the Commercial/Industrial uses to Uses by Right in the C-3/I-1 Zone
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 4
District relating directly to the construction and/or storage uses as indicated in the application materials on
file and subject to the Development Standards stated hereon."
Commissioner Walker asked Ms.Chester if there have been any code violations or environmental concerns
on the property. Ms. Chester stated there are none on record. Ms.Chester stated on May 8,2001 the field
inspection showed minor areas of concern that appeared to be in the stages of clean up.
Mr. Miller stated he did a field check there today and there was no significant debris.
Rodney Rice, HCC, LLP,applicant stated his name and address for the record. Mr. Rice stated that an El
test was done on the property and the property did pass.
Ms.Clamp stated the warranty deed received by the commissioners was in the name of HCC,LLP but it was
undated. Mr. Rice stated that they were the owners now and the deed was transferred in March of this year.
Mr.Miller asked the applicant what type of construction equipment is perceived to be stored. Mr.Rice stated
that water and wastewater contracting equipment, a crane, and an excavator would be stored at the
maintenance facility. Mr. Rice did state,that most equipment would be at the job site, and those jobs could
last from six (6) months to five (5)years. Mr. Rice also stated that equipment stored more than a month
most likely is not functioning and would be removed.
Mr.Miller asked if the facility would be rented to other facilities. Mr.Rice stated that the facility would include
a construction firm and an office building. The parcel to the west would possibly be used for RV and trailer
storage in the future.
Mr. Miller asked Ms. Chester how the Development Standard stating that no derelict vehicles be allowed to
be stored on site was determined. Mr. Miller stated that is fairly easy to determine if a car is derelict,
however construction equipment is a different matter. Mr. Miller asked how a derelict construction vehicle
is determined. Ms.Chester stated that farm equipment is similar to the construction vehicles and if they are
in a state of disrepair and cannot be driven then they would be considered derelict.
Mr. Miller asked Ms. Chester if the screening plan was based on RV's or the construction equipment which
is considerably taller than RV's. Ms.Chester responded that the screening plan has not been approved yet.
She also stated that one of the Conditions of Approval requires that the applicant submit a screening and
landscaping plan which will be addressed and approved by the Planning Services Department. Ms.Chester
stated the general idea of the screening plan is not to attempt to screen the cranes and extremely tall
equipment but mitigate the impact from the surrounding area and public rights-of-way. Mr. Miller stated that
the screening would work hand in hand with the Development Standard# 1 change.
The Vice Chair opened the meeting to public comment. There was no public comment.
Mr. Miller asked the applicant if he was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and the Development
Standards along with the additional language. Mr. Rice stated at this time, he was in agreement.
Mr. Walker moved to forward Case USR-1328 together with the amended Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval to the Board of County Commissioner with their recommendation of approval.
Mr. Mokray seconded the motion.
The Vice-Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,absent; Arlan Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Jack Epple,yes; Bryant Gimlin,
absent; Cathy Clamp, yes; Cristie Nicklas, absent; Fred Walker, yes. Motion passed unanimously.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 5
4. CASE NUMBER: Amend County Code Chapters 22 & 26
PLANNER: Anne Best Johnson
APPLICANT: Northeast 1-25 MUD Amendment Landowners
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Section 25,T3N, R68W and the Western 3/4 Section 30,
T3N, R67W of the 6th P.M. Weld County, Colorado
REQUEST: Project Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Mixed Use
Development(MUD) Plan Structural Land Use Map 2.1 to include 1,100
acres into the MUD area.
Anne Best Johnson presented Amended County Code Chapters 22 and 26. Ms. Johnson distributed
exhibits of referrals that were received after the Planning Commission packets were mailed. The referrals
are from the St. Vrain Valley School District, Sheriff's office, the Town of Firestone and a field check from
Commissioner John Folsom.
Mr. Walker asked Ms. Johnson if the MUD is opened up every six months for changes. Ms. Johnson
responded yes it does.
Mr.Miller asked Ms.Johnson if Highway 66 was expanded to four(4)lanes,the approval of this application
would exceed the capability of a four-lane highway. Ms. Johnson deferred the question to the Department
Public Works, Drew Scheltinga.
Drew Scheltinga, Public Works Department stated he was filling in for Diane Houghtaling. Mr. Scheltinga
stated"yes"this is a serious expansion. He also stated that both Weld County Road 13 and State Highway
66 will need major improvements. Mr. Scheltinga said existing studies of State Highway 66 indicate that
even with the four-lane expansion it will still be 18%over used. Mr. Scheltinga disagreed with the idea that
with this application 42% of the future traffic will be going East to Platteville. Most likely the traffic will be
going to the west toward 1-25 or north and south on Weld County Road 13. Mr. Scheltinga reiterated that
this is a serious roadway deficiency problem and CDOT has no monies programmed for the improvements
of State Highway 66.
Mr. Miller stated he has a Five-year plan book from the State of Colorado and could not find any
improvements for Highway 66 listed.
Mr. Miller asked Mr. Scheltinga how much over capacity would Highway 66 be if this application was
approved and Highway 66 was not expanded. Mr. Scheltinga responded that most likely the two-lane
highway isn't going to function at all.
Mr. Miller requested from Ms. Johnson information on the referral from the Sheriffs Department. No one
from the Sheriff's Department was present. Ms. Johnson stated that the Sheriffs office and the Board of
County Commissioners have been in negotiations of expanding their budget. Ms. Johnson stated she did
not know how the Sheriff's Department funds were allocated.
Commissioner Arlan Marrs stated that this area is in the Southwest Road Improvement area. Mr. Marrs
stated that future development that occurs, at the point of building permits they will adding those funds into
that monies for road improvement in that area.
Ms. Johnson stated at the fee would be collected with building permit issuance and that a road impact fee
would be attached. Mr. Marrs again stated that there would be funds for county roads. Mr. Morrison stated
that the road impact fees were not for state highways.
Mr. Marrs stated as these areas develop it is obvious that more policing will be required but also as it
develops in a condensed form, it will be easier to put substations there. Mr. Marrs stated it is important to
remember that we worry about police, road services, but if we don't have the development we can't afford
to do it either. These things tend to go hand in hand.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 6
Mr. Miller stated that the Sheriffs Department was taking into consideration the substation and the Weld
County satellite offices being built down there.
Douglas Rademacher, applicant stated his name and address for the record. He stated he represents the
Northeast 1-25 MUD proposal. Mr.Douglas Rademacher introduced the landowners that were present who
are proposing this amendment. Mr. Douglas Rademacher introduced a Power Point program.
Dale Rademacher,stated his name and address for the record. Mr.Dale Rademacher presented the Power
Point program identifying and explaining the proposal.
Mr. Marrs asked Mr. Dale Rademacher how the landowner agreement came about. Mr. Dale Rademacher
stated the landowners had many meetings and a lot of dialog to come to the agreement. Mr. Marrs said he
thought this is a good plan for Weld County.
Mr.Miller asked Mr. Dale Rademacher to clarify the creation of the 5400 jobs. Mr.Dale Rademacher stated
that a formula was used per the land use and floor space ratios to arrive at that number.
Mr. Marrs stated that we shouldn't assume all these people will get on the highways and go to Denver. If
the proposal is designed so the people stay in the proposed area some of the road traffic is alleviated.
Jim Blankenship, JLB Engineering, traffic engineer for this proposal stated his name and address for the
record. Mr. Blankenship stated that there is a need for an in depth traffic analysis both internally and
externally at the site that will occur at the time of development applications.
Mr. Miller expressed his concern with the traffic on Highway 66 and asked Mr. Blankenship what the
mitigation plan for the traffic on Highway 66 and still move forward with this proposal. Mr. Blankenship
stated that with each development the traffic problems would be addressed.
Mr. Dale Rademacher clarified that there would separate property owners, with separate development
proposals over several years.
Mr. Miller asked Mr. Morrison if this proposal is approved,would the development fall under just one large
development or under individual ones. Mr. Morrison stated a traffic study would be needed for each
development proposal.
Mr. Miller stated that each individual development proposal would be subject to the road impact fee for the
county roads but subject to a traffic study for Highway 66. Mr. Morrison responded that each development
proposal will have to go through an evaluation based on the adequacy of access and the state highway will
be an issue on each and every one of them.
Mr.Marrs asked Mr. Dale Rademacher if the Town of Firestone offered to buy this property as a buffer. Mr.
Dale Rademacher stated that there is no mechanisms in place for those kinds of purchases. Mr. Dale
Rademacher stated that what the proposal is preserving is the river corridor which is a natural boundary.
Within the river corridor is a trail system and ponds. Mr. Miller referred to the gravel mines along the south,
however the proposal is to the north of the gravel mines. Mr. Marrs asked if the dairy and feedlots to the
east had been contacted in regards to this proposal. Mr.Dale Rademacher stated that Tom Reynolds owner
of the Reynolds Cattle Company would like to continue in the cattle business for a while but eventually like
to be in the MUD. As for the dairy, we have not spoken with them.
Ms. Clamp asked Ms. Johnson if this proposal is approved what happens to the existing landowners that
are zoned Agricultural. Do they stay as they are or do they have to change? Ms.Johnson stated that there
are several active farms and active gravel mines, in the MUD and they won't have to change.
Mr. Miller asked Mr. Morrison if the Planning Commission denied this proposal how long would the
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 7
applicants have to wait before reapplying. Mr.Morrison stated that generally the applicant can reapply within
a five year period if there is a substantial change in the surrounding area or the site itself.
Vice Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Mr. Walker stated that this proposal is conceptual in the planning and the landowners won't have to take
care of the traffic issues today,as it is a conceptual proposal for the future. The traffic discussions will take
place when specific development occurs. Mr.Walker stated this is a very pro-active application on the part
of the landowners for future development.
Mr. Miller asked Ms. Johnson to summarize what benefits this property would receive if they were included
in the MUD. Ms. Johnson stated the landowners will be able to apply for Urban scale development on their
property.
Mr.Walker disagreed with Ms.Johnson stating anyone in the county can apply for Urban scale development
regardless of property location. Mr. Morrison stated that you can apply for Urban scale development but
there are a number of policies that might determine that the proposal will be unsuccessful. Discussion
followed.
Mr. Marrs moved that the County Code 2001-0-_ be sent to the Board of County Commissioners with the
Planning Commission recommendation for approval. The case number will be assigned by the Clerk to the
Board.
Mr. Mokray seconded the motion.
The Vice-Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,absent; Arlan Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Jack Epple,yes; Bryant Gimlin,
absent; Cathy Clamp, yes; Cristie Nicklas, absent; Fred Walker, yes. Motion passed unanimously.
5. CASE NUMBER: USR-1330
PLANNER: Robert Anderson
APPLICANT: John Zadel, 4200 WCR#19 Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A/RE-3051, Part of the South Half of the
Sbuthwest Quarter, Section 10,Township 1 North, Range
67 West of the 6TH Prime Meridian, Weld County,
Colorado
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a
Business permitted as an Accessory Use(Excavation Business)in the C-3
(Commercial)Zone District in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent Weld County Road 10 &East of and adjacent Weld
County Road 19.
Robert Anderson, Planner presented Case Number USR-1330 and read the Department of Planning
Services comments and Recommendations of Approval into the record. Mr. Anderson handed out a fax
from H.S.Gathering received this afternoon at 12:41 stating additional concerns to this case. Mr.Anderson
stated that in Paragraph 2C of the Administrative Review allows for the flexibility for Department of Public
Works, H.S. Gathering and the applicant to come some agreement without specific change to the
Administrative Review.
Mr. Marrs asked if Weld County Road 19 is the boundary line for the southwest road impact fee area. Mr
Anderson stated that it is the boundary, however at this time the road impact fee committee has not met
regarding this case and at that point a decision would be made determining if there is a fee accessed and
how much that fee would be. Mr. Marrs also stated that if the access is off of Weld County Road 10 the
applicant may be able to avoid the road impact fee.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 8
Don Carroll, Department of Public Works concurred if the facility had direct access to Weld County Road
19 the road impact fee would accessed however if the access is from Weld County Road 10 the fee would
not be accessed.
John Zadel, JZM, LLC, applicant stated his name and address for the record. He is also representing
Northern Colorado Constructors. Mr. Zadel indicated that the road base would be adequately addressed
either by adding additional 4 inches of road base or by providing asphalt.
Mr. Miller confirmed that the access would be from Weld County Road 10 and that you agree to cover with
eight (8) inches of road base for H.S. Gatherings high pressure lines.
The Vice Chair opened the hearing for public comment. There was no comment.
Mr. Miller asked Mr. Zadel if he was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and the Development
Standards. Mr. Zadel stated he was in agreement.
Mr. Marrs moved that Case USR-1330 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Development Standards and the Conditions of Approval with the addition of eight inches of road base or
asphalt cover over the H. S. Gathering high pressure lines be included in the Condition of Approval 2 C.
Mr. Mokray seconded the motion.
The Vice-Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,absent; Arlan Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Jack Epple,yes; Bryant Gimlin,
absent; Cathy Clamp, yes; Cristie Nickles, absent; Fred Walker, yes. Motion passed unanimously.
6. CASE NUMBER: 2ndAmUSR-1172
PLANNER: Lauren Light
APPLICANT: Hall-Irwin Corporation
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Section 36, Township 1 North, Range 67 West
and Part of Section 31,Township 1 North,Range 66 West
of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a
Gravel Mining Operation the A (Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Weld County Road 2 and East of and adjacent to
Weld County Road 23 ''A.
Lauren Light, Planner presented Case 2nd Amended USR-1172 and read the Department of Planning
Services comments and recommendation for approval into the record.
Dana Ortiz, Rocky Mountain Consultants,representative for the applicant stated her name and address for
the record. Ms.Ortiz wanted to clarify the language on the Administrative Review 2.b.stating that the seven
(7)years is the length of time for the expansion not the duration of the site.She went further to state on page
4, Item 2.A., prior to scheduling a Board of County Commissioners hearing, the well permits must be
obtained. At this time the well permits have been applied for and going through the review process,however
it is a lengthy process and the applicant would like to have the wording changed to read, Prior to recording
the plat,the well permits will be obtained. Ms.Ortiz went on to state that on Development Standard Number
17 on page 6 if the wording could be added to read,with the exception of local delivery.
Mr. Marrs asked if the well permits addressed on page 4, Item 2.A. are for recharging purposes. Ms. Ortiz
responded they are for exposing the groundwater.
Mr. Miller responded to the applicant's request to change the wording on Development Standard Number
17 regarding hauling on Weld County Road 23.5 by asking Don Carroll for specific information. Mr.Carroll
responded that the Improvements Agreement specifies that the haul route would be on Weld County Road
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 9
2,Baseline Road,which is paved. Mr.Carroll went on to state that Weld County Road 23.5 is a local gravel
road, not set up for any heavy hauling. Mr. Carroll requested information from the applicant regarding what
type of local deliveries are being considered. Ms. Ortiz stated it would be delivery gravel or concrete for
customers along Weld County Road 23.5, not as a haul route. Mr. Miller stated that as long as the haul
trucks access Weld County Road 23.5 by way of Weld County Road 2 that this would not be an issue.
Mr.Carroll,stated that the haul routes have to be maintained. Sometimes if not adhered to the trucks short
cut to Wattenburg to Weld County Road 8 to the next paved road. That isn't the intent that we want. Mr.
Carroll stated that if there is a delivery on Weld County Road 23.5 that it isn't a problem.
Mr. Marrs, stated that in the original permit a slurry wall was used to seal the line the pit. Mr. Marrs asked
if that is still the case. Ms. Ortiz stated no the well won't be lined. Mr. Marrs stated that could be a problem
as the surrounding property owners requested the pits be lined with slurry originally. Ms. Ortiz stated that
research had been done on the location of all wells within 600 feet of the property. Mr. Marrs stated the
landowner on Weld County Road 23 and Weld County Road 2 was the one in question at the original
hearing. Ms. Ortiz stated that it was most likely not recognized in the research as it was not in the 600 foot
radius. Mr, Marrs stated the concern that if the original permit required the well to be slurry lined, it might
be a step backwards if this current well was not required to be slurry lined.
Jeff Greg, Hall-Irwin gave his name and address for the record. He went on to state that the well being
referred to is Bob Sakata's. Mr. Greg stated that Mr. Sakata offered to be at this hearing and offer his
support. Mr.Greg suggested that Mr.Sakata submit a letter of his support of this case.Mr.Marrs stated that
would be appropriate.
Mr. Miller asked the applicant if he was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and the Development
Standards. The applicant stated yes.
Mr. Mokray moved that Case 2n°Amended USR-1172 along with the change to 2.A to change the wording
to applied for well permits and the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with Planning
Commission's approval.
Mr. Marrs amended the motion adding that a letter from Mr. Bob Sakata be submitted stating there are no
concerns regarding the water well in the adjacent area.
Mr. Marrs seconded the motion.
The Vice-Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,absent; Arlan Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Jack Epple,yes; Bryant Gimlin,
absent; Cathy Clamp, yes; Cristie Nicklas, absent; Fred Walker, yes. Motion passed unanimously.
7. CASE NUMBER: Z-555
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
APPLICANT: John Davis, Lyons 66 Pacific, LLC
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt. NW 1/4 of Section 26, Township 3 North, Range 68
West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado
REQUEST: Change of Zone from C-4, Highway Commercial to PUD for 15
Commercial /Industrial lots in the MUD
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to 1-25 Frontage Road, and south of and adjacent to
State Highway 66.
Kim Ogle, Planner presented Case Z-555 and read the Department of Planning Services comments and
recommendations of approval into the record. Mr.Ogle distributed letters from Little Thompson Water District
dated May 4, 2001 and from LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. dated April 4, 2001 as well as final staff
recommendations.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 10
John Davis, applicant stated his name and address for the record. Mr. Davis asked for clarification of
paragraph 5 on page 4, regarding the submittal of a traffic study.
Drew Sheltinga, Department of Public Works stated that the interchange at this time is being redesigned and
the area in front of Mr. Davis' property is also being redesigned in conjunction with the overpass. The
overpass will carry four(4)lanes of traffic over 1-25 east and west. Mr. Sheltinga stated that discussion had
occurred between Mr.Davis and CDOT regarding a right turn into and a right turn out of the realigned frontage
road on the east part of the property. An additional right turn lane into and a right turn lane out of the 1-25
frontage road access would be required and that is what the escrow would held for.
Mr. Sheltinga stated that the applicant would be dealing with CDOT on the improvements, however it is an
off-site improvement and the funds would be escrowed. Mr. Davis asked if the funds were to be directed to
CDOT, or Weld County. Mr. Morrison,Assistant County Attorney, stated that arrangements could be made
with CDOT or the Planning Staff could incorporate this into the Improvements Agreements that are necessary.
J.J. Kinsfather with Swift and Associates, stated his name and address for the record. Mr. Kinsfather stated
that the access permit for this site requires acceleration and deceleration lanes. Mr. Kinsfather asked if
escrow for these turn lanes was in addition to what is already being required. Mr. Morrison stated if CDOT
feels adequately protected in the fact that they won't allow access into the highway until the work is done then
Weld County will rely on their requirements. Mr. Morrison went on to say,they might say they don't need any
money set aside, you just won't access onto the highway until the work is satisfied.
Mr.Davis also wanted clarification on page 5 second paragraph regarding the drainage report being approved
before recording the Change of Zone Plat. Mr. Davis stated that the preliminary drainage report had already
be submitted to the Department of Public Works.
Mr.Sheltinga,stated that the Department of Public Works was requiring the drainage report at this time,and
if not submitted then the Change of Zone Plat would not be recorded. Mr. Sheltinga went to say the
Department of Public Works was requiring the references for the formulas that were used in the Preliminary
Drainage report, clarification that the pond size will hold 100-year storm and release of five-year existing,the
slopes of the sides of the ponds are 4 on and a method of showing how it will be converted from a point
discharge to overland flow and how it leaves the site.
J.J. Kinsfather expressed his concerns that the drainage report now speaks to the broad issues of the
detention and conveyances but specifically there might be storm sewers and inlets that have not been
addressed in the currently submitted drainage report. Those items can't be addressed until final construction
drawings. Mr. Kinsfather stated that this is a matter of timing and it would be the applicants desire to get the
Change of Zone plat recorded as soon as possible.
Mr. Sheltinga stated that a regional detention pond was being created for the entire site,then size the pond
to show information for a 100-year storm and 5-year release and 4.1 side slopes and how discharge out of
the pond.
J.J. Kinsfather stated that could be done.
Mr. Davis stated the last item for clarification is on page 15, Item, 5.G., the boundary survey to verify the
alignment of the frontage road and Mead Road.
Mr.Kinsfather stated that the survey information is available and will provide the Department of Public Works
is a copy of the boundary survey. The intent of this survey is the new road has to line up accordingly.
Mr. Sheltinga stated this would be meet the intent of the Department of Public Works requirement.
Mr. Miller confirmed that the survey the applicant has would fulfill the Department of Public Works
requirements.
Mr. Miller asked if the applicant was in agreement to the Development Standards and the Conditions of
Approval. Mr. Davis stated he was in agreement.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 11
Jack Epple moved to forward Case Z-555 along with the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval
to the Board of County Commissioner's with Planning Commissions' approval.
Mr. Mokray seconded the motion.
The Vice-Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,absent; Arlan Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Jack Epple,yes; Bryant Gimlin,
absent; Cathy Clamp, yes; Cristie Nicklas, absent; Fred Walker, yes. Motion passed unanimously.
8. Other business included the cancellation of the July 3, 2001 Planning Commission meeting due to
the July 4, 2001 holiday.
Stephen Mokray moved that the July 3, 2001 meeting be canceled.
Cathy Clamp seconded the motion.
The Vice-Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,absent; Arlan Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Jack Epple,yes; Bryant Gimlin,
absent; Cathy Clamp, yes; Cristie Nicklas, absent; Fred Walker, yes. Motion passed unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m.
Res�Respectfully sub fitted, //
Vicki Hamilton
Secretary
Hello