HomeMy WebLinkAbout971660.tiffn
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
I jut?sdfl, June 3, 1997
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held .drip 3, 1997, in the County
B Commissioners' Hearing Room (Room #101), Weld County Centennial dilkirip;915.10th Street, Greeley,
Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Vice -Chairman, Jack E�plei
Tape 526
Glenn Vaad
Rusty Tucker
Fred Walker
Shirley Camenisch
Cristie Nicklas
Jack Epple
Marie Koolstra
Arlan Marrs
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Also Present: Monica Daniels -Mika, Director, Gloria Dunn, Current Planner, Kerni Keithley, Current Planner,
Shani L. Eastin, Current Planner, Department of Planning Services; Lee Morrison, Assistant Weld County
Attorney; Don Carroll, Weld County Public Works; Tammie Pope, Secretary.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on May 6, 1997, was
approved as read.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1147
PLANNER: Gloria Dunn
APPLICANT: Collis & Donna M. Woods
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for 4-H horse boarding, training
and riding arena and stables.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 3, Block 3, Country Estates Second filing in part of Section 23, Ti N, R66W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Mathews Avenue; south of Weld County Road 8.
Gloria Dunn explained that the applicants are moving out of state and are therefore withdrawing their Special
Review Permit request. Ms. Dunn stated that the Department of Planning Services' staff recommends
approval of the withdrawal by the Planning Commission.
Fred Walker asked if the applicants will receive a refund. Ms. Dunn stated that the Department of Planning
Services' Director and Office Manager considered the applicants' refund request. However, since the staff had
processed the application, done the field check, posted the sign, and partially written the recommendation, it
was determined there would not be a refund. Ms. Dunn stated that she met with applicants to explain why
there would be no refund, and gave them all information generated throughout the process, and the applicants
seemed to be satisfied.
Marie Koolstra moved that Case Number USR-1147, Collis & Donna M. Woods, be withdrawn from the Board
of Planning Commission. Shirley Camenisch seconded the motion.
The Vice -Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision.
Glenn Vaad-yes; Cristie Nicklas-yes; Fred Walker -yes; Marie Koolstra-yes; Jack Epple-yes; Rusty Tucker -yes;
Shirley Camenisch-yes. Motion carried unanimously.
971660
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 3, 1997
Page 2
CASE NUMBER: USR-1149
PLANNER: Gloria Dunn
APPLICANT: David B. & Kimberly K. Orr
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a storage facility for
recreational vehicles, campers, boats, etc.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE -1979 in part of the SW4 of Section 23, T2N, R64W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Weld County Road 18; east of and adjacent to Weld County Road
57.
Gloria Dunn gave a brief overview of the proposal. The site was previously used as a poultry farm, and has
a number of agricultural outbuildings, which are proposed to be modified to store recreational vehicles,
campers, and boats. Two residences and one mobile home permitted for accessory farm use are existing on
the site. Ms. Dunn stated that according to the applicants, the mobile home will be replaced with a newer
model for use as their residence, and the two permanent dwellings will be used to house an employee and a
business partner of the storage facility. There is existing access from Weld County Road 18, which is a gravel -
surfaced, local road. A second access, to be located farther east on Weld County Road 18, is proposed for
the recreational storage facility, which would be enclosed by fencing and a gate. Ms. Dunn stated that
recommendations made by the Weld County Public Works Department appear as Condition of Approval 3A,
and recommendations made by the Weld County Health Department appear as Condition of Approval 2A and
Development Standard 11. Development Standards 7 through 10 were also recommended by the Health
Department, and address waste, dust, and noise control. Ms. Dunn stated that the Department of Planning
Services' staff recommends approval of this proposal, and she read the reasons from her recommendation into
the record.
The applicant, David Orr, stated that he wishes to take an old poultry farm, fence it off, clean it up, and raise
the existing buildings' ceilings to 14 feet. He will put a garage door on each stall, thereby allowing for separate,
private access to each storage unit.
The Vice -Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application. No one wished to speak.
The Vice -Chairman asked if the applicant was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. The applicant stated that he would like to be allowed to keep the mobile home on the site. Gloria
Dunn asked Mr. Orr if he anticipated a time, in the near future, when he would not need all of the residences
for the operation. Mr. Orr stated that in several years he might not need all of the residences for the operation,
and at that time he would like to rent them out for security purposes and income. Jack Epple asked which
Development Standard the applicant had a problem with. Ms. Dunn stated that Mr. Orr was referring to #6
which states "... In the event that a third residence is not needed in the operation of the recreational storage
facility, the mobile home shall be removed from the property." Ms. Dunn explained that the development
standard was worded in this way because the applicant indicated that the three residences would be used by
himself, his partner, and an employee. Mr. Orr stated that he will start out in this manner, but eventually, he
would like to move behind the facility and rent out the mobile home. Glenn Vaad asked how the mobile home's
need in the operation could be interpreted. Mr. Vaad wondered if one interpretation could be that if either of
the owners or an employee of the facility needed housing, then the mobile home is needed. Ms. Dunn stated
that Mr. Vaad's interpretation was correct, and she noted that some accessory dwelling permits are permitted
for security purposes. Mr. Epple asked if the mobile home can remain on the site if it is used for the business.
Mr. Orr stated yes. Mr. Epple asked if this is acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Orr stated yes.
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 3, 1997
Page 3
Glenn Vaad asked if it would be reasonable to require some statement in a rental or lease agreement between
the applicant and the person living in the mobile home regarding the occupant's responsibility for security. Lee
Morrison stated that the existing language is general, so the evidence suggested by Mr. Vaad would be
acceptable. Mr. Vaad asked if the applicant would be agreeable to adding a statement to future rental
agreements regarding the occupants responsibility to be part of the security of the facility. The applicant stated
he had no problem with that request. Mr. Morrison suggested that the statement could read as follows: "Any
lease or agreement concerning the third residence shall reflect the responsibilities of the occupant to assist
in the care of the facility."
Glenn Vaad moved that Case Number USR-1149, David B. & Kimberly K. Orr, be forwarded to the Board of
County Commissioners with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards, with the amendment to
Development Standard #6 to include the understanding that any lease or rental agreement on the third
residence will acknowledge some responsibility for care of the facility, with Planning Commission's
recommendation for approval. Cristie Nicklas seconded the motion.
The Vice -Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision.
Glenn Vaad-yes; Cristie Nicklas-yes; Fred Walker -yes; Marie Koolstra-yes; Jack Epple-yes; Rusty Tucker -yes;
Shirley Camenisch-yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1148
PLANNER: Kerri Keithley
APPLICANT: Public Service do James McClung
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
Utility (12" high pressure gas pipeline 7.5 miles long).
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Various legals - See Application Materials
LOCATION: Between Weld County Road 7 and Weld County Road 19-1/2, along
Weld County Road 34.
Major Facility of a Public
Weld County Road 7 and
Kern Keithley stated that the proposal is in the vicinity of Mead. The preferred route for the pipeline is proposed
to connect with an existing 12" line at the corner of Weld County Roads 7 and 32. The line would then travel
north one mile on Weld County Road 7 to the intersection of Weld County Roads 7 and 34, and then it would
run approximately six and -a -half miles east along Weld County Road 34, until it connects with the Public
Service valve set at the intersection of Weld County Roads 34 and 19-1/2. Ms. Keithley stated that the
Department of Planning Services' staff recommends approval of this proposal.
Gristle Nickles asked if the Planning Commission is the final approval of this public utility. Ms. Keithley stated
yes.
Glenn Vaad asked why the optional route was not the preferred route. Ms. Keithley stated that the application
requires the applicant to give a preferred route along with a couple of alternate routes, in case a referral
agency, such as the Town of Mead, had a problem with the pipeline going through the Town. Ms. Keithley
stated that the applicant would have to answer why one route was chosen over another.
Shirley Camenisch asked if the Town of Mead had a problem with the pipeline. Ms. Keithley stated that the
Town had no conflicts as long as they are notified 24 hours prior to any road closures.
The applicant, Jim McClung with Public Service Company, stated that the proposal is part of a reinforcement
project that has extended from Denver to Fort Collins. These are the last pieces to complete the work. There
is a line in Boulder County, which this is eventually going to, that was built in 1929. Public Service built a 24"
pipeline supplying gas for the conversion of the Fort St. Vrain Power Station. At that time, they built a valve
set at Weld County Roads 19-1/2 & 34 to take the gas west and to reinforce the system in Boulder County.
Mr. McClung stated that they would not be in the Town of Mead except where they cross Weld County Road
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 3, 1997
Page 4
7. They chose the preferred route because the optional route would add miles to the pipeline and more impact
to more people. Mr. McClung stated that they are having some conflicts with the waterline being built along
Weld County Road 34, but they are in contact with Little Thompson.
Glenn Vaad asked if gas flows one direction in a gas line. Mr. McClung stated that gas can flow in both
directions, and in this case, the supply is on the east end. Mr. Vaad asked if it comes from Weld County Road
19-1/2, going west. Mr. McClung stated yes. Mr. Vaad asked if the terminal end of the existing 12" line is at
Weld County Roads 32 and 7. Mr. McClung stated that Public Service uses that piece as a bottle because they
were having supply problems in that area. There are two ends that go nowhere - the east end is at Weld
County Roads 7 and 34, and the west end is at County Line Road. They are building four miles of the same
pipeline in Boulder to connect at the other end of the existing line. Mr. Vaad asked if the pipeline is on the north
or south side of Weld County Road 32. Mr. McClung stated that the pipeline is on the south side. Mr. Vaad
asked how they planned to cross the road. Mr. McClung stated that Don Somer with Weld County Public
Works dictates this.
Fred Walker stated that he understood that all damages are paid to the land owner unless the land owner
states otherwise. Mr. Walker asked if Mr. McClung recognizes a crop -share lease. Mr. McClung stated that
their obligation is to the land owner. He would prefer to pay the operator and the owner their separate shares.
He has had experiences in the past where he as paid the owner, but the owner did not pass on the operator's
share. Mr. Walker asked if this project will happen during growing season. Mr. McClung stated yes. Mr.
Walker asked if Mr. McClung would be willing to deal with the lessee simultaneously to the land owner if the
lessee were to provide a formal crop -share lease. Mr. McClung stated yes.
The Vice -Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application. No one wished to speak.
The Vice -Chairman asked if the applicant was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. The applicant was in agreement.
The Vice -Chairman reminded the Planning Commission that this will be the final approval.
Cristie Nicklas moved that USR-1148, Public Service do James McClung, be approved with the Conditions
of Approval and Development Standards. Glenn Vaad seconded the motion.
The Vice -Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision.
Glenn Vaad-yes; Cristie Nicklas-yes; Fred Walker -yes; Marie Koolstra-yes; Jack Epple-yes; Rusty Tucker -yes;
Shirley Camenisch-yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1150
PLANNER: Shani L. Eastin
APPLICANT: Kenneth Littlefield and Jay Littlefield (Childrens Arc)
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Commercial Use
(Residential Child Care Facility) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The W2 of Section 23, W2 and the W2 of the NE4 of Section 26, T8N, R58W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to Weld County Road 129; north of and adjacent to Weld County Road
88.
Shani L. Eastin gave an overview of the proposal. There will be three residential homes which are proposed
to house eight youths between the ages of 10 and 17, along with two house parents per home. In the original
application the applicant applied for the permit to be valid on a total of 720 acres, but the applicant has
requested the acreage limit to be moved to only include the SW4 of Section 23, TBN, R58W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado, encompassing 160 acres. The Department of Planning Services' staff encouraged
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 3, 1997
Page 5
the applicant to use the least amount of property needed for this use. Ms. Eastin stated that the Department
of Planning Services' staff is recommending approval of this proposal, and she read the reasons from her
recommendation into the record. Ms. Eastin noted that Development Standard #3 was an addition.
Glenn Vaad asked how the ages of the children listed in additional Development Standard #3 were reached.
Ms. Eastin stated that an age parameter is required from the applicant when applying for State and Social
Services licenses and that the applicant had listed the ages in the application.
The applicant, Jay Littlefield, stated that they have three of these facilities at other sites. Mr. Littlefield stated
that there is a need for this extension program, whereby young men who have been somewhat successful in
some other placement are "emancipated" from the system, or rather placed in a transition place, before going
into foster care, or off to college, vocational school, or a job. Mr. Littlefield stated that they will work with Weld
County and will bring the more successful children to this facility from their other facilities, as these children
will be attending public school and must function there. Mr. Littlefield stated that they have agreed to work with
the conditions set forth by the Department of Planning Services.
Jack Epple asked where the other facilities are located. Mr. Littlefield stated that there is a Girl's facility in
Logan County, outside of Sterling, a Boy's facility in El Paso County, outside of Green Mountain Falls, and a
Girl's facility in Green Mountain Falls, El Paso County, for a total of 98 children.
Jack Epple asked if there were any comments received from the public school system. Ms. Eastin stated that
their comments were in the packet and were in support of the project.
Glenn Vaad asked for comment on the genesis of the age parameters. Mr. Littlefield stated that they had to
apply for a license for a certain age range. With their other facilities, the ages started out between 10 and 18,
but they then changed the ages to between six and 18 because there were some younger children that needed
their facilities. At the proposed site, they thought most of the kids would be older because they have to function
in the public school. Mr. Littlefield stated that the age parameter must be stated on the State license. The
parameters can be adjusted on the State license, if necessary.
Glenn Vaad asked if the age specification, 10 through 17, is in the zoning. Ms. Eastin stated that the permit
will be ages 10 through 17, and if Mr. Littlefield's RCCF license does vary from that age range, the Department
of Planning Services would need to be notified and determine if the Special Use Permit would need to be
amended. Mr. Vaad asked why the Planning function has to deal with the ages, since it is already a State
license requirement. Ms. Eastin stated that the Department of Planning Services likes to work with the referral
agencies. Since these children will attend public school, the district needs to know the expected ages, as
different age groups could have an impact in this smaller school district. Mr. Vaad asked if it would be
appropriate to reference the licensing agency and state that this permit is confined to whatever the competent
jurisdiction says are the age limits. Lee Morrison stated that the criteria could be changed to conform the land
use permit with the licensing. Mr. Vaad stated that he would feel more comfortable with that. Cristie Nicklas
asked if the State licensing agency referred to the school when making the age determination. Mr. Littlefield
stated that he believes that there are not ages listed on their other permits in the other areas. They have made
an agreement with the schools as to who they can and cannot enroll, and he assumes that the agreement
cannot be broken. Glenn Vaad asked if the agreement the applicant has with the school district indicates that
the permit will state the children's ages. Mr. Littlefield stated no. He did not have a copy of the agreement, but
stated that he could provide one.
The Vice -Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application. No one wished to speak.
Glenn Vaad moved that USR-1150, Kenneth Littlefield and Jay Littlefield, be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards and an amendment to
Development Standard #3 stating "The facility shall allow for youths of ages permitted by the competent
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 3, 1997
Page 6
licensing authority. The facility shall be composed of three (3) homes. Each home shall house no more than
eight (8) youths and two (2) house parents." Rusty Tucker asked if Lee Morrison agreed with that verbiage.
Mr. Morrison stated that the verbiage would work, and that not defining the licensing agency was a good idea.
Fred Walker asked if the existing agreement between the applicant and the school district could be recognized
rather than getting into the age barrier. Mr. Morrison stated that the problem is that the applicant did not bring
the agreement, so the the Planning Commission could not verify it is appropriate to incorporate into the permit.
Mr. Morrison stated that, as described, it does seem appropriate, as it does have a social -economic impact in
the schools. The Planning Commission could include in its comments that the better way to deal with this might
be to incorporate the agreement, and recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that they consider
that when it is made available. Glenn Vaad stated that he wanted the record to show this discussion. Mr.
Morrison stated that Mr. Vaad's concern could be addressed in the motion by noting that the Commissioner's
should consider incorporating all or a portion of the agreement when they have all of the evidence in front of
them.
Fred Walker moved that USR-1150, Kenneth Littlefield & Jay Littlefield, be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation for approval and recommendation for review of the agreement between the Prairie School
District and the applicants. Glenn Vaad seconded the motion.
The Vice -Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision.
Glenn Vaad-yes; Cristie Nicklas-yes; Fred Walker -yes; Marie Koolstra-yes; Jack Epple-yes; Rusty Tucker -yes;
Shirley Camenisch-yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 2:26 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Tammie Pope
Secretary
Hello