HomeMy WebLinkAbout20003224.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, December 5, 20L0
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday, December 5, 2000, 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
•
Cristie Nicklas Present =I
•
Fred Walker Present IT -
John Folsom Present i,!
Jack Epple Present i 1
Michael Miller Present
Stephan Mokray Present =
Arlan Marrs Present J.
Bryant Gimlin Present
Cathy Clamp Absent
Also Present: Julie Chester, Sheri Lockman, Kim Ogle, Chris Gathman, Monica Daniels-Mika, Department
of Planning Services;Don Carroll,Diane Houghtaling,Public Works;Pam Smith,Department of Public Health
and Environment; Lee Morrision, Assistant County Attorney; Trisha Swanson, Secretary.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on Novemoer 21,
2000, was continued to December 19, 2000 for approval.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1302
APPLICANT: L. Blake Nelson
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the E2 of Section 6, Township 2 North, Range 67 West of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Com nercial
Recreational Facility (Roping Arena) in the A (Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 26 and west of WCR 15.
Sheri Lockman, Planner, presented Case USR-1302 and noted that the Department of Planning Sei vices is
requesting a continuance to December 19, 2000. Ms. Lockman noted that this continuance is to allow the
applicant to work out legal access and adequate water supply.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this conti ivance.
No one wished to speak.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case USR-1302 be continued to December 19, 2000. Michael Miller seconded
the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decisio i. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Bryan Gimlin.
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1276
APPLICANT: STROMO LLC, John Moser
PLANNER: Julie Chester
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SW4 of Section 26,Township 3 North, Range 65 West of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Solid Waste Disposal Site
and Facility (Composting Facility).
LOCATION: South of WCR 30, approximately 1 3/4 miles west of WCR 49.
Cifov,4 64z rota,
--( 8-.2 OO
2000-3224
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
December 5, 2000
Page 2
Julie , Planner, 276 and noted that lanning Services is
requ st ngtarcontinuance to the December 91hearing the Department
2000 date. Ms. Chester noted Pthat the Department
of Planning Services is requesting this continuance as they have not received the State Department of Health Department of Pulictrecmmendion yet. Ms.heorecommendation f omCthe Statel in order to giveethheirr rrecommendation to elth and Environment needs
the Department of Planning
Services. Julie further stated that the applicant had changes consultants recently and would like the addit onal
time to get their consultants up to date on the case.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this continuance
No one wished to speak.
John Folsom moved that Case USR-1276 be continued to December 19, 2000. Stephen Mokray seccnded
the motion.
es; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin,
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray, y
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1279
APPLICANT: Aggregate Industries
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the W2 and the NW4 of Section 8, Township 4 North, Range 66
West of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado. ,ration in
REQUEST: Sitethe AgriculturalSp iific Development District.enPermit and Special Use Permit for a Gravel Mining Op
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to WCR 46; East of and adjacent to SH 60.
Kim Ogle, Planner, presented Case USR-1279 and noted that the Department of Planning Services is
requesting an indefinite continuance to work out on-going traffic issues.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this contii luance.
No one wished to speak.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case USR-1279 be continued indefinitely. Michael Miller seconded the motion.
es; Michael Miller,yes; Jack Epple,yes; Bryan, Gimlin,
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray,y
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1296
APPLICANT: Fay and Mary Shultz
PLANNER: Monica Daniels-Mika part of the W2 of Section 21, T5N, R67W of the 6th
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot B of RE172; being
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development
for a Retail/Wholesale en Use db Special
Greenhouse.iew Permit for an Agricultural
Sere ce Esicb
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to WCR 54; approximately 1/4 mile east of WCR 17.
Monica Daniels-Mika, Planner, presented Case USR-1296 and read the Department of Planninc. Services
comments into the record. Ms. Mika noted that the site is a small part of RE-172, that the applicants are in
the midst of another recorded exemption, RE-2822, in order to further split the land to include only this site.
but will
Gristle Nicklas asked if the site was Lot A or Lot B. Ms. Mika noted that the area is Lot B of RE-1 '2,
become Lot A of RE-2822.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
December 5, 2000
Page 3
Michael Miller asked if the Building Department Development Standard means that the greenhouses can not
be built next to other buildings, closer than the 40' stated. Ms. Mika noted that the Uniform Building Code
requirements are different for public greenhouses, that the applicant would be able to have them closer to
other buildings if they were not for public use.
Fay Shultz, Applicant, noted that the business will be mostly retail, with some wholesale as well.
Michael Miller asked if the stated hours of operation on the Development Standards were enough tc run the
business. Mr. Shultz noted that about 90 percent of his business will probably be during April and May, that
the hours were longer during those months.
John Folsom asked if the greenhouses would be inflatable. Mr. Shultz noted that they are douole-poly
membranes that are inflated for insulation. Mr. Folsom asked about the size of the greenhouse. M . Shultz
noted that the greenhouse will be 96x150 feet and 16'9" high at the peak.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this applicaion. No
one wished to speak.
Cristie Nicklas asked if the applicant was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Deve opment
Standards. Mr. Shultz indicated he was in agreement.
Michael Miller moved to change Development Standard #3 to state"from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m " instead of
"8:00 a.m. to 4:40 p.m." Fred Walker 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; Bryan' Gimlin,
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case USR-1296 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and amended Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. 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; Jack Epple, yes; Bryan Gimlin,
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: Z-552
APPLICANT: Hoshiko Farms Inc.
PLANNER: Monica Daniels-Mika
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SE4 of the NW4 of Section 29, T6N, R65W 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 66; east of and adjacent to State Hwy 85
Monica Daniels-Mika, Planner, presented Case Z-552 and read the Department of Planning Services
conditions into the record. Ms. Mika stated that the site is surrounded by intense agricultural uses and
industrial uses. Ms. Mika also noted that the applicant will be required to go through a subdivision process
to divide the land as well as a Site Plan Review before placing a business on the site.
Cristie Nicklas asked why the five farmhouses within a mile of the site did not constitute a residenl;al area.
Ms. Mika noted that most of the homes were not single family residences, but were part of intense agricultural
operations.
John Folsom had a question concerning the request of the City of Greeley to make part of the site I-' instead
of 1-3. Monica noted that this is not possible as this is only one parcel and the entire parcel must he zoned
as only one zone.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
December 5, 2000
Page 4
Bryant Gimlin asked if North Weld County Water District is able to provide enough water for fire protection.
Ms. Mika noted that the fire district did state the site would be acceptable, but also noted that fire protection
would be worked out during the Site Plan Review process.
Michael Miller asked about traffic going west from the site. Ms. Mika noted that this is addressed at the Site
Plan Review process. Diane Houghtaling agreed and stated that this would be fine-tuned when the type of
business was applied for.
Dennis Hoshiko, Applicant, agreed with the information stated by the Department of Planning Services.
Cristie Nicklas asked if Mr. Hoshiko had an idea of the planned use for the site. Mr. Hoshiko statec that he
is just changing the zone in case something comes along in the future.
Bryant Gimlin asked if North Weld would be capable of providing enough water for fire protection. Tom
Collins, Representative for the applicant, stated that the applicant will have to enlarge the line and give the
right-of-way to North Weld, with possible cost sharing from other beneficiaries. Stephen Mokray asked Ms.
Mika if the Planning Commission needed to address this issue at this time. Monica noted this will be
addressed when the use is known.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Tom Selder,a neighboring business,stated that he is in support of this use as it would be compatible with the
surrounding land uses.
Gary Reinke,a property owner across the street from the site, stated that he is opposed to the change to 1-3.
Mr. Reinke stated that he and his wife just bought the property and are renovating a Victorian on the site for
their residence. Mr. Reinke noted that he is concerned with the traffic and feels there are enough residences
in the area for the Planning Commission to think about the possibility that it may not be a totally compatible
use.
Discussion concerning future public chances to argue against the use followed,with Ms. Mika noting that the
site will not be at another public hearing unless it is proposed to be subdivided. Monica noted that the time
to address the issue of compatibility is at this hearing.
Lee Morrison noted that an explanation of the uses and functions of the 1-3 zoning may help clear up the
questions. Ms. Mika noted that the main concern of the 1-3 Zone District is that it is the most intense use
allowed by the county and that the outside storage is often a concern. Ms. Mika noted that landscaping may
mitigate some of the impact, but the site will still appear as an Industrial use.
Cristie Nicklas asked the applicant if he was in agreement with the proposed Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards. Mr. Hoshiko stated that he is in agreement.
John Folsom noted that both industrial and residential uses are in the area and deciding compatibility can be
a difficult decision. Mr. Folsom noted that the Planning Commission may have to look to the future of the
area.
Cristie noted that the Planning Commission had denied a similar request recently because the designated use
was not definite and near residential areas.
Fred Walker noted that he would like some screening in the area, noting that the county requires screening
of trash cans, why not the screening of an industrial use.
Lee Morrison noted that the granting of the 1-3 Zone would not allow for specific conditions for the site,as this
was a traditional change of zone. Mr. Morrison noted that the Planning Commission does have the option of
moving and voting for an 1-2 District. Mr. Walker noted that he is willing to leave as 1-3, rather thar change
the zone to 1-2.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
December 5, 2000
Page 5
John Folsom noted that the adjacent site has outside storage, that this site should be able to do the same if
it has the same zoning.
Michael Miller noted that he is not comfortable with the blanket zoning of property and would prefer to vole
on an individual basis.
Arlan Marrs noted that he understands the concerns of the Planning Commission members, but that the
allows the owner to market the property, without the zoning, the property is difficult to market.
Jack Epple noted that the case in Roggen that was brought up earlier during the hearing did not hive any
commercial or industrial uses near it, whereas this site does and is therefore a different situation.
Cristie Nicklas noted that the Planning Commission still denied the marketing potential of the site as a reason
in the Roggen case.
Lee Morrison noted that the Board of County Commissioners approved the Change of Zone in Rogtien that
was being discussed.
Arlan Marrs moved that Case Z-552 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along •Nith 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 decisior . John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin,
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1301
APPLICANT: Wingnut Leasing
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2050; Part of the S2 S2 NE4 of Section 30, Township ! North,
Range 66 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Permit and Special Use Permit for a use allowed by rig at in the
Commercial and Industrial Zone District(Contractor's office, Shop and Equipment Storage
Yard) in the Agricultural Zone District.
LOCATION: %2 mile north of WCR 4; west of and adjacent to WCR 27.
Chris Gathman, Planner, presented Case USR-1301 and read the Department of Planning Eervices
comments into the record. Mr. Gathman noted the changes to the original Conditions of Approves. Chris
noted that the Department of Planning Services is recommending approval for this application.
Michael Miller had questions concerning the letter required from the mineral rights being enough to w-thstand
the state requirements. Chris Gathman noted that the Division of Minerals and Geology had noted sand and
gravel deposits on the property, but that the deposits were of low commercial value. Lee Morrison noted that
the questions had to do with both the commercial value and the agreement to allow the removal of the
minerals.
Michael Miller asked about the"classified injection well"in Condition of Approval#3. C. Chris noted that the
EPA had brought new requirements to the Department of Public Health and Environment and that over 20
employees could require different standards. Pam Smith noted that a septic system is a classified ]njection
well, but that the state could decide if it needed the new requirements or not. Michael Miller also noted that
the bottled water seemed a bit strange for a permanent structure. Chris noted that they may be able to permit
a commercial well, as there is not any public water available near the site.
John Folsom had a few questions concerning the turning access onto the property. Chris Gathman noted that
the road will be widened and access will be added meeting Public Works standards.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
December 5, 2000
Page 6
Marilee Bergstom, Representative for Wingnut Leasing, stated that the lot used to be a sheep feed tot, that
they have cleaned up the property and there is one residential home on the site.
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 they were in agreement with the Development Standards and the
Conditions of Approval. Ms. Bergstrom indicated they are in agreement.
Fred Walker asked Pam Smith if the site fell into the category to need the EPA approval or not. Pam noted
that they would have to show evidence to the Department of Public Health and Environment that the did not
need to comply.
John Folsom asked if the Fire District requests would be covered. Chris noted that there is a Condition of
Approval to address this.
Michael Miller noted that Development Standards 13, 14, &28 all cover the same topic.
Michael Miller moved to delete Development Standards 13 and 28, with subsequent renumbering. Bryant
Gimlin 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; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Michael Miller moved to have Condition of Approval#3.C read as follows:"Apply for an Underground Injection
Control (UIC) Class V Injection Well through the Environmental Protection Agency or provide evidence that
the applicant is not subject to the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class V Injection Well". 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; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin,
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Bergstrom did have a question concerning the required letter from the mineral owners, as then' are no
owners listed. Lee Morrison noted that they would actually need a determination from the state of evidence
from a mineral economics standpoint that shows the resource is not viable or a market valuation. John
Folsom noted that the State leaves this determination to the county. Lee noted that the county would probably
not have the ability to determine this, but that placing the burden upon the applicant to shov• this is
appropriate.
Bryant Gimlin commented that he feels the Condition of Approval #2.B makes the applicant responsible for
this. Michael Miller commented that the State requirement does not ask for the mineral owners to state that
the applicant can build upon the site, the State notes that you CANNOT build on the site if it is commercially
viable.
Michael Miller moved that Condition of Approval#2.B read"C.M.Goal 1 stated"conserve lands which provide
valuable natural mineral deposits for potential future use in accordance with Colorado State Law." The
applicant shall submit to the Weld County Department of Planning Services evidence that mineral resources
available on the property are not commercially viable." 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; Jack Epple, yes; Bryan' Gimlin,
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
December 5, 2000
Page 7
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case USR-1301 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the amended 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; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin,
yes; Fred Walker, yes; Cristie Nickles, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Bryant Gimlin left the hearing at this time.
CASE NUMBER: Z-553
APPLICANT: Albert Challenger
PLANNER: Julie Chester
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW4 and N2/SW4 of Section 29, Township 5 North, Range 67
West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Planned Unit Development Change of Zone for Five Residential Lots and Open Space,
including a Conservation Easement for a Heron Rookery.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to WCR 15 '/:, approximately 1/4 mile south of WCR 54.
Julie Chester, Planner, presented Case Z-553 and read the Department of Planning Services
recommendation for approval into the record.
Michael Miller asked if the application was for 4 lots or 5 lots. Julie noted that it is for five residential bts, that
there is a total of 54 acres, so the requirement for average lot size of 2.5 acres is met. Michael Miller asked
the length of the conservation easement. Lee Morrison noted that the existing conservation easement is
perpetual.
John Folsom asked why the change from a detention pond per lot to the single detention pond. Jule noted
that Diane Houghtaling in Public Works had asked for one detention area. Julie also noted that the
requirement for the 100 year storm also covered the areas of the lots that are not in the flood plain, in case
of any building upon these areas.
John Folsom had a question on the angle of the access. Diane Houghtaling noted that the access is
perpendicular from the road, then turns, making the access acceptable.
Michael Miller asked about the retention pond at the river bottom. Diane noted that the ground has been
changed since the FEMA maps were created, that the applicant just needs to show that the gravel pit is a
probable detention pond that will hold the water for the 100 year storm.
Albert Challenger stated that he is looking to preserve the Heron rookery on the property, that the lo' closest
to the Heron rookery will be owned by him,which is a difference from most PUD's. Mr. Challenger noted that
the owner of Lot 1 will be responsible for the land under the conservation easement and open space. Mr.
Challenger noted that the land will not be open for access, which would destroy the rookery. Mr. Challenger
noted that the scenic viewing area is just for a future possibility,that it will probably not be created urless the
county chooses to in the future.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Jacob Kammerzell, a surrounding property owner, noted that he does not want the viewing area as there is
too much tailgating on his nearby property and he feels this would encourage even more of this behavior. Mr.
Kammerzell also noted that he feels the birds will move away if there are homes in the area. Mr. Kammerzell
brought pictures of past flooding at the site and feels that the trees that fell into the water during the previous
flooding are causing problems on his property, that the development of this property would be even more of
a problem for his nearby property.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
December 5, 2000
Page 8
Lee Morrison noted that the conservation easement for Lot 1C is already in place, that the Planning
Commission could not remove the viewing area from this area of the conservation easement.
Julie noted that this is an undeveloped area and the buildout will only be on 15.5 acres. Julie also noted that
the additional homes in the area may actually cut back on the tailgating in the area.
Lee noted there are signs at the site to warn people against trespassing, hunting, and fishing, noting that the
laws are strictly enforced.
Cristie Nicklas asked the applicant if he is agreement with the conditions of approval for Z-5!,3. Mr.
Challenger noted that he is in agreement.
Michael Miller moved that Case Z-553 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. John Folsom 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; Fred Walker,
yes; Cristie Nickles, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted-
•
-�
Trisha Swanson
Secretary
Hello