HomeMy WebLinkAbout990559.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, September 21, 1999
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday, September 21, 1999, in the
Weld County Public Health/Planning Building, (Room 210), 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. The
meeting was called to crder by Chairman, Fred Walker, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Fred Walker Present
Cristie Nicklas Present
John Folsum Absent
Jack Epple Present
Bruce Fitzgerald Absent
Michael Miller Absent
Stephan Mokray Present
Arlan Marrs Present
Bryant Gimlin Present
Also Present: Sheri Lockman, Planner, Eric Jerman, Planner, Julie Chester, Planner; Department of Planning
Services, Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney, Sheble McConnellogue, Department of Health and
Environment, Trisha Swanson and Wendi Inloes, Secretary.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on September 7,
1999, was approved as read.
CASE NUMBER: USR 1242
APPLICANT: Stan and Lori Waddell
PLANNER: Julie Chester
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NE4 of Section 31, T9N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Use by Special Review Permit for an Agricultural
Service establishments primarily engaged in performing agricultural, animal husbandry, and
horticultural services on a fee or contract basis, including, custom meat processing for
Chicken and Turkey Processing Facility located in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Weld County Road 100; west of Weld County Road 39.
Julie Chester, Department of Planning Services, asked that Case USR-1242 be continued to October 5, 1999,
as the applicant was going to amend application back to original application. The Department of Planning
Services is also waiting for a referral from Department of Health and Environmental Services.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this continuance.
No one wished to speak.
Jack Epple moved that Case USR-1242 be continued to October 5, 1999. Stephen Mokray seconded the
motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Arlan
Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Cristie Nickles, yes; Fred Walker, yes.
Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1243
APPLICANT: Lewis Farm/Golden's Andesite Mining Company
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The SE4 of Section 13, TIN, R67W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Use by Special Review for an Open Cut Gravel
Mining Operation in the (A)Agricultural zone district.
LOCATION: /z mile east of Weld County Road 23 and north of and adjacent to Weld County Road 8.
990559
( az-rJ O ,.l ' /_t L�U- 9
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
September21, 1999
Page 2
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services, presented Case USR-1243. Sheri read the
recommendation into the record, and stated that the Department of Planning is recommending approval of
the application, along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Sheri clarified that the
Department of Planning staff would like more of the natural riparian area on the east half of the site to remain
and for the pond on the east half of the site be reconfigured for a more natural appearing habitat as required
by condition #2 M and states that Condition#2 N was recommended by the Division of Wildlife.
For the record, Development Standard 3 a. The last line should read-of the Platte River which would obstruct
passage of flood flows. (Planning Dept.). Development Standard#31 line 4 should read -amendment of the
permit by the Board of County Commissioners before such changes
Robert Lair, representative for the applicant, said they were in general agreement, but had a few questions
concerning several conditions. Applicant requests that the cost of the road upkeep, listed under Conditions
of Approval #2 C, be shared by the applicant and other road users as has been done in the past with other
agreements.
Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney, stated that this has been done only in areas where other gravel
trucks are using the road, as the gravel trucks cause much more damage to the road than private vehicles.
Lee stated that this could be changed in the future if other gravel pits companies use this road at a later date
and to leave the wording of the condition open to do that.
Robert Lair, representative, also questioned #2 K, as he did not know if the Colorado Department of
Transportation had jurisdiction over Weld county roads.
Sheri Lockman stated :hat she had spoken with Gloria Hice-Idler at CDOT and that Gloria had spoken about
a possible agreement with Weld County about the roads, but had received no referral from CDOT as of this
morning.
Bryant Gimliin questioned if this operation would require acceleration and deceleration lanes to be changed
on State Highway 85.
Jack Epple asked if condition#2 K could be included in the road maintenance agreement( Condition#2 C)
discussed earlier.
Robert Lair, representative, stated they felt their site plan already covered#2 M by leaving several riparian tree
areas and that#2 N would be changing the future use of this site as a water storage area by cutting the 3:1
and 2:1 slopes to 5:1 as requested.
Fred Walker asked if applicant was comfortable with Development Standard#22 concerning working hours
and Government contract working hours. Robert Lair, representative, stated that the applicant is agreeable
with this condition.
Discussion began over the nature of the buffer along WCR 8. The applicant agreed to place a berm 6' high
along entire property line abuting WCR 8, as well as trees planted along the section facing the home of
property owner across WCR 8.
Arlan Mars asked the applicant if the perimeter is lined. Robert Lair, representative, stated that it will be clay
lined. Discussion ensued concerning the impact of the mining on the wells of surrounding land owners.
Sheri Lockman stated that the Division of Wildlife feels the loss of the existing riparian forest to the proposed
water storage with limited wetlands is not an equal trade-off.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against the application.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
September21, 1999
Page 3
Don Rosenbach, surrounding poroperty owner, had some concerns as listed:
• The possibility of private land owners having to pay for road upkeep.
* How close is the setback to fenceline for landscaping purposes?
* Is applicant changing path of the Lupton-Meadow ditch as it does not follow the path shown on site
plan at this time.
Is site going to have a surry wall or just be clay lined, thereby effecting the shallow wells in the area?
• Total surface acreage of ponds?
• Are water rights going to be used?
• Abundant wildlife could change in area.
Robert Lair, representative, stated that the ditch is going to be relocated, and they already have the approval
of the ditch company. Sheri stated that the required setback in the zoning ordinance is 10 feet for a gravel
mining operation, the Department of Planning requested a 20 foot setback for this site. Robert Lair,
representative, also noted that the mining would be below ground level, therefore minimizing the visual impact,
and that there would be 130 acres of open water lake area at end of process.
Stan Peters, engineer for applicant, stated that the clay lining would be constructed as the mining process
exposes the edge of the site. He also commented on the possibilty of recharge trenches at site.
Arlan Marrs asked for more information about the possible change in ground water levels to surrounding
property owners. Discussion concerning the water levels in surrounding wells and the possible ways to
counteract this problem followed.
Jack Epple, moved that condition#2 C be amended as follows: The applicant shall post adequate collateral
and enter into a Road Maintenance and Improvements agreement in an ammount proportionate to the impact
of the operation to include the following improvements: C 1. Upgrade and pave WCR 8 up to the main
entrance. Christie NicIdas seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Arlan
Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes ; Fred Walker,
yes. Motion carried uranimously.
Arlan Marrs moved to omit K from Conditions. Jack Epple seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Arlan
Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, no; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin, no; Cristie Nicklas, no ; Fred Walker, yes.
Motion failed to pass.
Discussion concerning wording of new Condition O to read: The applicant shall submit a plan for approval to
the Department of Planning Services for establishing a baseline, monitoring of ground water and
implementation of a recharge program if drawdown does occur to existing wells in the vicinity.
Fred Walker asks applicant if this is acceptable. Applicant agrees with this condition.
Christie Nicklas moves to add Condition of Approval O. Stephen Mokray seconds the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Arlan
Marrs, yes; Stephan Nlokray, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes ; Fred Walker,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Arlan Marrs commented that although this is an improvement that it is not only the wells that are affected but
also surrounding subirrigated pastureland is affected and that it is difficult to measure the effect of the mining
operation on these pastures. He feels it almost has to be monitored in a case by case situation and he hopes
that this applicant is aware of that responsibility.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSSION
September 21, 1999
Page 4
Jack Epple commented that he feels this is probably the best way for both the applicant and the surrounding
property owners to measure what is going on outside the site boundaries.
Arlan Marrs moves to -emove Condition N. Bryant Gimlin seconds the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Arlan
Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray,no; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes ; Fred Walker, yes.
Motion carried.
Jack Epple moves that Case USR-1243 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards as amended. Stephen Mokray seconds the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Arlan
Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes ; Fred Walker,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1240
APPLICANT: Cornerstone Evangelical Free Church
PLANNER: Eric Jerman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-1940, Part of the NE4 of Section 12, T4N, R68VV of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for a Church in the Agricultural
Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Highway 60 and approximately 1 mile west of Weld County Road
13.
Eric Jerman, Department of Planning Services, asked that Case USR-1240 be continued until November 2,
1999, at the request of the applicant as they are not able to fulfill the requirements of condition #2 A at this
time. Eric stated that this additional time is requested for the applicant to continue to negotiate with the Town
of Johnstown for sewer service.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this continuance.
No one wished to speak.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case USR-1240 be continued to November, 2, 1999. Christie Nicklas seconded
the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Arlan
Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes ; Fred Walker,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: Z-529
APPLICANT: Hoshiko Farms, Inc.
PLANNER: Eric Jerman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SW4 of the NW4 of Section 29,T6N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from Agricultural to 1-3.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to highway 85 and approximately 1/2 mile south of Weld County Road
66.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
September21, 1999
Page 5
Eric Jerman, Department of Planning Services, presented Case Z-529. Eric read the recommendation into
the record and stated that the Department of Planning is recommending approval of the application, along with
the Conditions of Approval.
Bryant Gimlin asked if this property included the bean elevator to the north. Eric stated that there were no
structures on this piece of property.
Dennis Hoshiko, applicant, stated that this 0.9 acre piece of property has been used for years by Big R and
that they have been farming a 0.9 acre piece of property belonging to Big R. They have a mutual agreement,
but are going through this process to sell the pieces to each other.
Christie Nicklas asked whether the property they were farming was zoned for agriculture. Dennis Hoshiko,
applicant, stated that it is not, but that a large bit of Union Pacific right of way has allowed people to farm the
land for years. Eric stated that the Department of Planning is looking into if it is zoned industrial and possibly
applying for a non-conforming use permit because it has been farmed for years. Eric stated that the applicant
has applied and been approved for lot line adjustment after the change of zone.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
The chair asked the applicant if he was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Hoshiko stated he
was in agreement.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case Z-529 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval along with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Christie Nicklas
seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Arlan
Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes ; Fred Walker,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: Z-531
APPLICANT: Jim and Bonnie Bates/Coalbank Crest Subdivision
PLANNER: Julie Chester
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2279; located in part of the NE4 of Section 33, T7N, R66W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Minor Subdivision Change of Zone for 5 Estate Zoned lots .
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Weld County Road 31; south of Weld County Road 76.
Julie Chester, Department of Planning Services, presented Case Z-531. Julie read the recommendation into
the record and stated :he Department of Planning is recommending that this application be approved with the
Conditions of Approval. Julie clarified that the property must have a separate lot allocated for the road, this
application does not include this lot and the creation of a separate lot decreases the lot size to below the
minimum requirement of 2.5 acres. The Department of Planning Services has recommended two options to
remedy this situation:Apply for an amended Recorded Exemption to increase the original lot size to adequate
size for this five-lot subdivision or decrease the number of lots to four. Julie stated that Conditions of Approval
have been added to his application to address this concern #1 E, F and#3 A.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
September 21, 1999
Page 6
Arlan Marrs asked if the separate lot for a roadway being a part of the subdivision application is new. Julie
stated that this has been consistent with other minor subdivision application requirements. Lee Morrison,
Assistant District Attorney, said there have been other ways to accomplish this, but the lot sizes have always
been 2.5 acres.
Jim Bates, applicant, stated that he had concerns with the last two conditions. He states that he was just
recently informed of this change to the conditions. He stated that non-urban scale development in the
Subdivision Ordinance states minimum lot size to be 1 acre. He also stated the Larimer-Weld ditch is the
west side of this property and it would be impossible to add the road to this side as it would cross the lot lines.
Julie stated that the nor-urban scale development is a definition given to many separate types of development
and that the 1 acre lot is only in the PUD district with the overall density being 2.5 acres. Julie stated that the
applicant chose the minor subdivision, not the PUD process.
Fred Walker asked if the applicant could work this out with a PUD application. Julie stated that this application
was for a minor subdivision for Estate zoning from the beginning and would have to start this application from
the beginning with a sketch plan application and other processes of the PUD.
Jim Bates stated that he chose the minor subdivision over the PUD development because he was not looking
for the multiple uses the PUD was created for. Julie stated that the PUD would also include 15% open space
and that was part of the reason that the applicant chose the minor subdivision.
Arlan Marrs asked what the options were for the individual lots to have individual access from WCR 31. Julie
stated that this is not allowed in the Planning or Public Works ordinances.
Arlan Marrs asked the applicant if he would like to continue as a four-lot subdivision or to continue this case
to look into other options.
Jim Bates, applicant, stated he would prefer to continue this case in order to look into other options than those
given by the Planning Department.
Arlan asked if they were to approve and send this case to the Board and the Board denied the application,
would the applicant have to go through a substantial change hearing. Julie expliand the applicant would need
to go through a substantial change hearing showing he has made substantial changes to the original
application or if the applicant chooses to do a PUD the applicant would have to start at the sketch plan again
under the new ordinance. Discussion ensued about the course the applicant would have to take in the future.
Julie stated that the continuance by the Planning Commission would allow the applicant to look into other
options, including the options given by the Planning Department.
Jack Epple moved to continue Case Z-531 until October 5, 1999. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Arlan
Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Jack Epple,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes; Christie Nicklas, excused; Fred Walker,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Trisha Swanson
Secretary
Hello