HomeMy WebLinkAbout20002371.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, September 19, 2000
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday, September 19, 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
Fred Walker Absent
Cristie Nicklas Present
John Folsom Present
Jack Epple Present
Michael Miller Present
Stephan Mokray Present
Arlan Marrs Present
Bryant Gimlin Present
Cathy Clamp Present
Also Present: Robert Anderson,Julie Chester, Chris Gathman,Anne Best Johnson, Department of Planning
Services; Pam Smith, Department of Public Health and Environment; Don Carroll, Diane Houghtaling, Public
Works; Lee Morrison, Bruce Barker, Weld County Attorney; Trisha Swanson, Secretary.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on September 5,
2000, was approved as read.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1285
APPLICANT: Lambland Inc., dba A-1 Organics
PLANNER: Julie Chester
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Section 36,Township 3 North, Range 64 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: Adjacent to the Coors Energy Site on a private road, approximately four miles north of 1-76
and five miles from the Town of Keenesburg.
Julie Chester, Planner, presented Case USR-1285 and noted that the Department of Planning Services is
recommending a continuance to October 17, 2000. Julie noted that this continuance is requested in order
to receive a referral from the State Health Department and to give the Department of Planning Services time
to prepare appropriate conditions.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this continuance.
No one wished to speak.
Michael Miller moved that Case USR-1285 be continued to October 17,2000. 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; 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.
/I LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 28, East of and adjacent to I-25 frontage road.
2000-2371
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
September 19, 2000
Page 2
Chris Gathman, Planner, presented Case Z-548 and noted that the Department of Planning Services is
requesting a continuance to October 17, 2000 in order for the applicant to turn in a modified plan for the re-
alignment of Weld County Road 9 1/2. Michael Miller asked if the continuance is due to the applicant not
getting the information in or because of Public Works. Chris noted that Public Works is allowing the time for
the property owners time to come up with a solution, rather than simply telling the property owners how it will
be re-aligned.
Don Leffler, representative of the applicant, noted that the applicant has been working with the surrounding
property owners and should have the information as soon as possible.
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 Z-548 be continued to October 17, 2000. 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; Cathy Clamp, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1125
APPLICANT: Hall-Irwin Construction Company
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: E2 SW4 of Section 30 and NE4 NW4 of Section 31, Township 6 North,
Range 66 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Amendment to a Use by Special Review to expand an existing mining operation.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 64.5, approximately 1/4 mile east of WCR 25.
Chris Gathman, Planner, presented AmUSR-1125 and read the Department of Planning Services
recommendation of approval into the record. Chris also noted that there are a few revisions to the Conditions
of Approval. Chris also noted that the reclamation plan included the return of 30-40 acres to farmland.
Cristie Nicklas asked where the Etter farm is located as they did turn in a letter of concern. Chris noted that
the farm is to the west of the site. Cristie asked how the drain tiles would be dealt with. Chris noted that the
applicant could answer that better.
Cathy Clamp asked if Development Standard#3. B and#24 were the same. Chris agreed that one of these
could be removed. John Folsom asked some questions concerning the concrete and batch plants. Cathy
Clamp asked about the screening. Michael Miller questioned the 25'setbacks, asking if this was adequate.
Michael noted he would like to see a Development Standard for the drain tiles.
Danna Ortiz with Rocky Mountain Consultants, Representative for the applicant, noted that the reclamation
plan was designed to work with what the landowners would like to have,then the mining plan was set to work
with this. Ms. Ortiz noted that the Tigges would like to have a fish hatchery in the future, thus the reason for
the square shapes of the lakes on their land.
John Folsom asked if the asphalt batch plant would be in the same area as the rest of the plants. Ms. Ortiz
noted that it will be in the same area. Michael Miller asked how the wash water is dealt with at the site. Ms.
Ortiz noted that the water is recycled and that the discharge is monitored as well, but that is water used for
de-watering. Michael asked what plans Hall-Irwin had to protect the drain tiles. Danna Ortiz noted that the
drainage will continue along the property to the river,that the water will still be moved from the drain tiles. Ms.
Ortiz also noted that they have turned in a study to the State to show that the site will have adequate support.
Danna Ortiz also noted that they are planning to have a well on the site property to monitor the possible levels
of the nearby wells and have an agreement started to allow for repayment if there is some damage or
contamination. Cristie Nicklas noted that the applicant should share more of this information with the
surrounding property owners.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
September 19, 2000
Page 3
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. Ortiz noted that they have a question about the Development Standard requiring bottled water as they
have an agreement with the Sharkstooth Pipeline to provide water and that this information is in the
application.
Discussion covering the possible need for larger setbacks along the roads. Public Works noted that this will
be adequate and that the applicant is aware of a future plan along the road. Diane Houghtaling noted that the
applicant will need to come in to Public Works before they finish the pond in the northwest corner. Jeff Gregg
of Hall-Irwin noted that there will not be any access needed to the edge of the road near 64.5. Mr. Gregg
noted that this will be a substantial berm that will be used to fill in the pit during the reclamation,that the berm
will not be used strictly for screening.
Cathy Clamp moved to remove Development Standards#24 and#9 with subsequent renumbering. 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; Bryant Gimlin,
yes; Cathy Clamp, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Michael Miller moved to add Development Standard #24 read "Setbacks shall be a minimum of 25'from all
adjacent property lines and adjacent right-of-ways". 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; Cathy Clamp, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Michael Miller asked about adding some wording that required the applicant to work on keeping underground
drain tiles useable. Chris Gathman noted it might be made as a Condition of Approval.
Michael Miller moved to add Condition of Approval#2. B to read "The applicant shall address the concerns
of the representative of the property owner adjacent to mining parcels 1 &2 concerning the underground drain
tiles. Evidence of such shall be submitted in writing to the Department of Planning Services." Cathy Clamp
seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs, no; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin,
yes; Cathy Clamp, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried.
Arlan Marrs commented that he feels the applicant is already working in good faith with the surrounding
property owners and should not be penalized by having to have this before the Board of County
Commissioners hearing as surrounding property owners may not be as easy to work with.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case AmUSR-1125 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, noting that the application was in compliance with the proposed Amendment
24. 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; Bryant Gimlin,
yes; Cathy Clamp, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
September 19, 2000
Page 4
CASE NUMBER: Ordinance 2XX
APPLICANT: City of Fort Lupton /Weld County
PLANNER: Anne Best Johnson
REQUEST: Intergovernmental Agreement
Anne Best Johnson,Long Range Planner,presented the Fort Lupton Intergovernmental Agreement(IGA)and
noted that there are two changes from previous IGA's concerning impacts to county roads and infrastructure
as well as storm water detention facilities. Anne noted that the Department of Planning Services is
recommending approval of this IGA.
Paul Rayl, Planner for the City of Fort Lupton, stated that the City of Fort Lupton based their Urban Growth
Boundary (UGB) on their 2020 study and plan. Mr. Rayl noted that there were public hearings and citizen
input for this study. Mr. Rayl also noted that they UGB marks the line where the city could feasibly provide
services. Paul Rayl stated that the plan was adopted at a public hearing in July of this year.
Arlan Marrs asked about the open space involved in the layout. Mr. Rayl explained that the plan identified
three separate time frames for annexation in order to have a smoother progression of services, but that they
would be able to provide services to anyone within the UGB. Arlan Marrs asked about agricultural lands being
allowed to annex. Mr. Rayl noted that they did not plan to annex these lands, but that they were within the
proposed UGB. Bryant Gimlin asked how these meetings were advertised. Paul Rayl noted that there were
articles in the local paper as well as the local cable access station. John Folsom asked if the water and sewer
could serve everyone within the area or even beyond into Aristocrat. Mr. Rayl noted that they could serve
everyone within the UGB,but that bringing sewer and especially water beyond these lines could be a problem.
John Folsom asked what determination the City of Fort Lupton uses to define contiguity. Mr. Rayl noted they
use the State's definition. Michael Miller noted he would prefer this plan gave anyone within the area the right
to annex in if they were going to lose some property rights by being inside the UGB.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Glenn Teets of Roggen noted that he is concerned with the growth, especially in southeast Weld County as
there will not be enough water to support all the growth that is being approved.
Cathy Clamp asked Mr. Rayl if the City of Fort Lupton would be able to bring in the water without the help of
Hudson, in case the deal that is currently being worked on fell through. Paul Rayl noted that the City of Fort
Lupton will be able to bring in the water even without Hudson, if the need arose.
Arlan Marrs commented that before this meeting he would have voted in favor of this application as the UGB
was conservative and seemed realistic, but after seeing the possibility of agricultural land not being allowed
to annex and the open space plans, he is concerned.
Michael Miller noted that the City of Fort Lupton did present a conservative UGB, but would like to see the
surrounding property owners outside of the city notified by mail. Mr. Miller noted that he would be upset if his
right to develop was taken from him without being allowed to have a voice about it.
Jack Epple moved that the Fort Lupton IGA be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners 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, no; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,no;Jack Epple,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes;
Cathy Clamp, no; Cristie Nickles, yes. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: Ordinance 2XX
APPLICANT: Town of LaSalle/Weld County
PLANNER: Anne Best Johnson
REQUEST: Intergovernmental Agreement.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
September 19, 2000
Page 5
Anne Best Johnson, Long Range Planner, presented the LaSalle IGA and read the Department of Planning
Services recommendation of approval into the record. Anne noted that there are three differences from the
previous IGA's brought before the Planning Commission. These differences include using the secondary
Urban Growth Boundary line, the language concerning the county roads and infrastructure, and language
concerning storm water detention.
Discussion concerning the two boundary lines followed. Bruce Barker noted that the Town of Kersey used
the inner boundary line.
Gary Waddell, Mayor of LaSalle, noted that these boundary lines are from a comprehensive plan from 1999
with a series of hearings that included participation from outside landowners. Mr.Waddell noted that the water
and sewer system is capable of double the current population of LaSalle. Gary Waddell corrected Bruce
Barker and noted that the Town of LaSalle intended the secondary, outside line to be the Urban Growth
Boundary.
Cristie asked how surrounding property owners were notified. Mr.Waddell noted that there was not a mailing
outside of city limits, but that some outside property owners were at the meetings. Mr.Waddell noted that the
reason they chose to have such a large UGB is that they are not sure in which direction the growth of LaSalle
will occur. Bryant Gimlin noted that he feels the purpose of the IGA's is to plan where the future growth of a
town will occur. Mr. Waddell stated that the town did not want to be too inclusive or exclusive when setting
the UGB. Arlan Marrs noted that within the UGB line,the town would have a lot of control over development
and that an area this large is too much for a town the size of LaSalle to provide services throughout the entire
area. John Folsom noted that this large of an Urban Growth Area (UGA)could possibly encourage flagpole
annexations.
Michael Miller asked for a percentage of surrounding property owners who had any say in the drawing of the
UGB line. Mr.Waddell noted that almost all of the surrounding property owners within the inner UGB line were
at the meetings or discussed the line with the town. Carl Harvey, another representative of the town also
noted the landowners associated with the meetings. Mr.Waddell did note that not as many inside the outer
boundary were informed or at the meetings.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Glenn Teets of Roggen noted that he is concerned with the growth and noted that population density is never
discussed, that the type of homes affects the city as much as the land amount being considered. Mr. Teets
was also concerned with water availability in the town.
Gary Waddell noted that very little multiple family housing is available or planned in LaSalle and said that the
town's regulations allow the town to ask for 2 units of water for each residence if necessary. Mr.Waddell and
Mr. Harvey noted that they don't plan on any residential development within the flood plain.
Stephen Mokray moved that the LaSalle IGA be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the
Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Jack Epple seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, no; Arlan Marrs, no; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, no; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin, no;
Cathy Clamp, no; Cristie Nickles, no. Motion failed.
Michael Miller commented that he is concerned with the effect this large of a UGB will have on adjacent
landowners, noting that the town had done a great job of informing those landowners within the inner UGB,
but that not enough effort had been made for the outside landowners. Michael also noted that this agreement
allows too much freedom for the town to control surrounding property owners.
John Folsom commented that he agrees with Michael Miller.
Cathy Clamp commented that she agrees with Michael Miller.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
September 19, 2000
Page 6
Bryant Gimlin noted that he feels the IGA process is to overcome the idea that you can't know what will
happen in the future. He noted that he feels the purpose is to avoid problems in the future and he feels the
Town of LaSalle failed to study the infrastructure and adjacent landowners well enough.
Cristie Nicklas commented that she would have agreed with the inner UGB, but the lack of information to the
landowners in the second UGB is the reason she is voting against this application.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1284
APPLICANT: Laurie Buffington
PLANNER: Robert Anderson
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-1997, Part of the NE4 of Section 29, Township 4 North, Range
68 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for the Boarding and Training
of 8 to 10 Service Dogs, and their Owners, in the Agricultural Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to WCR 40.5 and 1/2 mile East of WCR 3.
Robert Anderson, Planner, presented USR-1284 and read the Department of Planning Services is
recommending approval of this application.
Michael Miller asked if there would be any people boarded at the site. Robert noted that only dogs will be
boarded at the site when they are there for training. Cathy Clamp asked if a traffic study would be required
for the site. Don Carroll noted that,according to a count in 1996,there were only 79 cars in 24 hours and that
a traffic study would not be necessary.
Laurie Buffington, Applicant, stated that her business is to train service dogs for the disabled and to make
aggressive dogs less aggressive. She stated that she has the correct credentials to do this business and
often gets referrals from law officials as well as many veterinarians. Ms. Buffington read a letter to the
surrounding property owners into the record. Ms. Buffington further stated that she has already cleaned the
property up, that she has to go through the USR process because she is placing handicapped accessible
restrooms at her site, making the site a commercial business. Laurie Buffington noted that there will be 8-10
dogs at her site for training with an additional 8-10 dogs on the site during some days for training classes, but
that these dogs will not be boarded at the site. Ms. Buffington noted that she has run this business in Boulder
county and that neighbors near her have never had a problem before.
John Folsom asked if she met the requirements of Boulder county. Ms. Buffington noted that she did meet
the requirements. Cathy Clamp asked if the classes would be any larger than the 4-8 dogs Ms. Buffington
applied for. Ms. Buffington noted that there would not be more than 8 dogs in each class. Michael Miller
asked if Ms. Buffington trained police dogs as well as service dogs. Laurie Buffington noted that she does
not train dogs to become aggressive,that she trains them to be better companions to the people that own and
need them.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Sharon Rowe, a surrounding property owner, noted that does not have a problem with Ms. Buffington
personally,she does not want to have to deal with the change to the neighborhood. Ms. Rowe noted that she
does not like that the word"boarding"will be down the road from her house as she feels this lowers the value
of her home, which she is trying to sell. Ms. Rowe also noted a dislike for the lights being on at all hours.
LuAnn Halverson,a nearby property owner, noted that although she hear the previous property owners dogs
barking, she is not disturbed by any barking from Ms. Buffington's dogs. Ms. Halverson also noted that Ms.
Buffington has indeed fenced the property and cleaned it up from the previous owners.
Janet Bayless, who works with the dogs that Ms. Buffington trains, noted that Laurie Buffington is a very
responsible person and does not doubt that this will be run in the most respectable way.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
September 19, 2000
Page 7
Linda Poret, who also works with the dogs that Ms. Buffington trains, noted that Ms. Buffington has great
integrity and will follow through with all that she agrees to do at the site.
Ronald Halverson,a nearby property owner, noted that the dogs at her site are not aggressive or any trouble
at all. Mr. Halverson also noted that if everyone in the neighborhood had dogs as well trained, the entire
neighborhood would be better off.
Ms.Buffington noted that she is not licensed to run a kennel and that she will not be boarding dogs she is not
training. Laurie Buffington also noted that she has left letters with the neighbors including her number to call
if they have any concerns, questions,or if they would like to see the site. She also noted that she trains dogs
against being aggressive.
The Chair asked Ms. Buffington if she was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Ms. Buffington asked if she could have the dogs outside at 5:30 a.m. instead of at 7:00 a.m. as
she is often up early and so are the dogs. Ms. Buffington noted that she is outside with the dogs, keeping an
eye on them if she lets them out.
Jack Epple moved to change Development Standard #11 to read 5:30 a.m. instead of 7:00 a.m. 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; Cathy Clamp, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Michael Miller moved that Development Standard#1 be amended to remove the word"Service"and"/Owners"
from the first sentence and add the following wording after dogs: "and the daily training of an additional 10
dogs/owners". 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; Cathy Clamp, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Cristie Nicklas commended Ms.Buffington on her diligent efforts concerning this application and the work she
does for people and their dogs.
Jack Epple moved that Case USR-1284 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, noting that the application was in compliance with the proposed Amendment
24. 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; Cathy Clamp, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Stephen Mokray commented that he appreciates the work the applicant is doing for the handicapped.
CASE NUMBER: Z-549
APPLICANT: Mike Cervi
PLANNER: Robert Anderson
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-2464, Part of the N2 of Section 6, Township 3 North, Range 63
West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from Agricultural to Commercial (C-3).
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to 1-76 Frontage Road and east of and adjacent to WCR 73.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
September 19, 2000
Page 8
The above case was presented in tandem with the following case as they are basically the same application
on two parcels in the same area. Mr.Anderson noted the differences in legal descriptions as well as a letter
received from Mr. Teets.
CASE NUMBER: Z-550
APPLICANT: Mike Cervi
PLANNER: Robert Anderson
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-2465, Part of the NE4 of Section 1, Township 2 North, Range
63 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from Agricultural to Commercial (C-3).
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to 1-76 Frontage Road and 1/4 mile west of WCR 73.
Robert Anderson, Planner,presented Cases Z-549 and Z-550 and read the Department of Planning Services
recommendation of approval into the record. Mr.Anderson noted that the applicant has wells for the site, but
that these are not commercial wells, that this will be addressed during the Site Plan Review process
The Planning Commission had questions if the surrounding property owners would have any notification when
the landowner decided what kind of business would be on the sites. Lee Morrison noted that no public notice
or surrounding property notices would be done during the Site Plan Review process, but that there would be
referrals sent out. Bryant Gimlin noted that this leaves the surrounding property owners no ability to make a
statement about whether or not they had a problem with the business near their property. Lee Morrison noted
that the C-3 zoning limits the possible businesses,this allows some idea of what may be allowed at the site.
Robert Anderson listed all the uses that are allowed in the C-3 Zone District.
Cathy Clamp asked what type of land this was. Robert noted that the land is listed as Other on the USDA
maps, that neither parcel is listed as prime farm land.
Steve Stencil, Representative for the applicant, noted that the land is across the Interstate from most of the
town,that Mr. Cervi is not looking to place any specific businesses on the site, he is just zoning the land while
he has the money, as commercially zoned land will sell better.
Lee Morrison asked how the water issue would be dealt with on the site. Mr. Stencil noted that the have
obtained well permits, but not commercial well permits. Lee Morrison noted that the Board of County
Commissioners will raise this issue at the next stage of this application. Steve Stencil stated that he will work
with Mr. Cervi on what he would like to do to alleviate this issue, maybe even apply for the commercial wells
before the Board of County Commissioners hearing.
Michael Miller stated the well issue would better addressed at the Site Plan Review stage. Mike noted that
as a commercial property this site could be fenced and used for equipment storage or something in that same
idea. Mike noted there are several commercial uses that would not require a well.
Arlan Marrs stated he agrees that the Site Plan Review stage is the place to look at the water issue and that
this is the message to give to the County Commissioners. Arlan stated that with this piece of property and
the desire to develop in the future, a well permit at this point makes no sense, that it should be taken care of
at the Site Plan Review stage, and at that point the applicant can evaluate what type and size of well is
needed.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Glenn Teets,a surrounding property owner,noted that he feels the unsure future of the business at these sites
may effect the town of Roggen. Mr. Teets noted that he does not feel there is enough information to make
an intelligent decision concerning the change of zone, that Mr. Cervi does not know how the land will be
developed as he plans to sell it,and that he would prefer the land be zoned C-1 or C-2,thereby narrowing the
possible chance of an unsatisfactory use near their town. Bryant Gimlin noted that Robert Anderson had
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
September 19, 2000
Page 9
noted the possible uses of the land. Mr.Teets noted that there is too large a range involved in those choices
for a town the size of Roggen.
Steve Stencil noted that there will be a lesser impact on the other side of the Interstate and that the C-3 zoning
was chosen for the possibility of vehicle or equipment sales. Cristie Nicklas noted that the C-3 zoning allows
flexibility to attract businesses to a more remote area.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case Z-549 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning
Commissions recommendation of denial, citing Section 21.5.1.2, lack of compatibility with surrounding land
uses, and Section 21.5.1.3, lack of adequate water, noting that the application was in compliance with the
proposed Amendment 24. 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, no; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin,
yes; Cathy Clamp, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried.
Michael Miller commented that it is hard to agree to a change of zone without knowing what type of business
will be on the site and how it might effect the surrounding property owners.
John Folsom commented that he agrees with Michael Miller.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case Z-550 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning
Commissions recommendation of denial, citing Section 21.5.1.2, lack of compatibility with surrounding land
uses, and Section 21.5.1.3, lack of adequate water, noting that the application was in compliance with the
proposed Amendment 24. 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, no; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin,
yes; Cathy Clamp, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitt
l� j mow— 1
Trisha Swanson
Secretary
Hello