HomeMy WebLinkAbout950850.tiffSUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, April 4, 1995
The regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held April 4, 1995 in the County
Commissoners' Hearing Room (Room #101), Weld County Centennial Building, 915 Tenth Street, �ate�iev,,
Colorado. The meeting was called to order by the Vice -Chairman, Ron Sommer at 1:30 p.m.
Tape 479
ROLL CALL
Richard Kimmel
Daniel Lere
Curt Moore
Bud Clemons
Marie Koolstra
Ron Sommer
Shirley Camenisch
Judy Yamaguchi
Jack Epple
Absent
Present
Absent
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Also Present: Pat Persichino, Director; Monica Daniels -Mika, Long -Range Planner; Todd Hodges, Current
Planner, Department of Planning Services; Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney; and Wendi Swanson,
Secretary.
1. CASE NUMBER: USR-1078
APPLICANT: Robert and Donna Connell
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for a farm implement
business in the A (Agricultural) zone district.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE -1666, Located in the SE4, Section 12, T7N, R66W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: North and adjacent to Highway 14 and approximately 1/4 mile west of Weld County
Road 37.
Todd Hodges requested that the case be continued to May 2, 1995. Judy Yamaguchi moved that Case
Number USR-1078 for Robert and Donna Connell be continued to May 2, 1995. Daniel Lere seconded the
motion.
The Vice -Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision.
Ron Sommer, yes; Judy Yamaguchi, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Marie Koolstra, yes; Shirley Camenisch, yes; and
Daniel Lere, yes. Motion carried.
°I6
950850
SUMMARY OF THE WEL D COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
April 4, 1995
Page 2
2. CASE NUMBER: CompAmend 1-1995
APPLICANT: Mayeda Farms
REQUEST: Amendment to the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area Conceptual Land Use Plan
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NW4 of Section 7, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: 10702 Weld County Line Road 1.
Martin Dyer, representative of the property owner, spoke in favor of the request. The Mayeda's have recently
purchased the land and want to be part of the Mixed Use Development plan. Mr. Dyer is in agreement with
staff recommendations.
The vice-chairman asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak for or against this application. No one
wished to speak in opposition of the request.
Judy Yamaguchi asked Monica if based on the letter they received from St. Vrain Sanitation District, if the
applicant would have to petition into the District. Monica stated that they would have to petition, but services
are available to this site.
Jack Epple moved CompAmend 1-1995 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners' with the
Planning Commission's recommendation for approval. Judy Yamaguchi seconded the motion.
The Vice -Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision.
Ron Sommer, yes; Judy Yamaguchi, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Marie Koolstra, yes; Shirley Camenisch, yes; and
Daniel Lere, yes. Motion carried.
3. CASE NUMBER: USR-1077
APPLICANT: Public Service
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and A Use by Special Review Permit for a Major
Facility of a Public Utility construction of approximately 9.5 miles of natural gas
pipeline in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Various Legals-for specific legals see application materials.
LOCATION: South and adjacent to Weld County Road 4 from Weld County Road 19 to Weld
County 13 then north and adjacent to Weld County Road 4 from Weld County Road
13 to Weld County Road 1.5.
Jim McClung, representative of the applicant, spoke in favor of the request. Mr. McClung stated that there were
no changes in the route of the pipeline since they applied for the request, and also stated that they were in
agreement with staff recommendations.
3:30850
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
April 4, 1995
Page 3
The Vice -Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience that wished to speak for or against this
application.
Mike Shriver, representative of the property owners who own 416 acres of the proposed location, spoke
against the location. Their concern is the annexation of Broomfield to a Planned Unit Development. They feel
that the line could damage the Development process.
Brian Grubb, representing City of Broomfield, spoke against the application. Their concern was with the
preferred alternative of the proposed pipeline. Currentley Weld County Road 4 does not completely go all the
way through the development, and with no streets planned at the present time, if there were any development
in the future to expand the road, the pipeline would be in the development area. The City is willing to work with
Public Service on any alternative routes.
Lee Morrison asked Mr. Grubb if there was a process with the City of Broomfield that Public Service would
need to go through? Mr. Grubb stated that they did have a franchise agreement with them, and a section
states that Public Service will work with both the City and property owners so there is no adverse impact to
both existing and future development, they feel this agreement has not been met.
Barbara Kirkmeyer also spoke against the application, she asked that this case be continued due to lack of
notification. Council replied by saying that by publishing in three different newspapers that they did comply with
the requirements. Mrs. Kirkmeyer also had other concerns with other alternatives being thoroughly accessed,
and future development. Public Service has been working with the Kirkmeyer's on negotiating with their
property, but as of this time no agreement has been met.
The board had various questions on issues such as existing pipelines, and how they effect the area now. Also
the question of existing easements and why they were not being used was addressed. All alternative routes
were discussed in detail also.
Public Service stated that they are not denying anyone the right to develop the area, they just ask that no
buildings be put directly over the proposed pipeline. They were also not unwilling to relocate the pipeline, but
feel that the proposed area was the appropriate place.
Tim Knapp, legal representation for Public Service spoke for the applicant. He stated that the proposed
location corridor is one that has already been impacted, although they did look into other routes. The utilities
are all in the same area and location. He then asked for clarification on major and minor changes stated in #12
of the Developmental Standards.
:50850
Wendi Swanson
Secretary
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
April 4, 1995
Page 4
Jack Epple moved that Deveopment Standard #12 read: For illustrious purposes: (a) a major change would
include any realignment of more than 1/2 mile distance and any realignment on the property owned by a
property owner not previously identified as a potential grantor for the right-of-way. (b) a minor change would
include realignment within the same property unless the realignment exceeds 1/2 mile of the distance. Shirley
Camenisch seconded the motion.
The Vice -Chairman asked the secretary to poll the Planning Commission for their decision. Ron Sommer, yes;
Judy Yamaguchi, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Marie Koolstra, yes; Shirley Camenisch, yes; and Daniel Lere, yes.
Motion carried.
Marie Koolstra move Case USR-1077 be approved by the Planning Commission with amended Developmental
Standards included. Daniel Lere seconded the motion.
The Vice -Chairman asked the secretary to poll the Planning Commission for their decision. Ron Sommer, yes;
Judy Yamaguchi, no; Jack Epple, yes; Marie Koolstra, yes; Shirley Camenisch, no; and Daniel Lere, yes.
Motion carried.
Meeting ajourned at 2:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
6Aaith,&2n
950839
Hello