HomeMy WebLinkAbout962288.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 3, 1996
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held December 3, 1996, in the County
Commissioners' Hearing Room(Room#101), Weld County Centennial Building, 915 10th Street, Greeley,
Colorado. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Arlan Marrs.
Tape 515
Glenn Vaad Absent .--
Cristie Nicklas Present a
-
Fred Walker Absent
Marie Koolstra Present r:i m
'-
Jack Epple Present 7J,- '-
Rusty Tucker Present
Ann Garrison Present _{
Shirley Camenisch Present __�
Arlan Marrs Present r`)
Also present: Monica Daniels-Mika, Director, Todd Hodges, Current Planner II, Chris Goranson, Current
Planner, Kern Keithley, Current Planner, Julie Chester, Zoning Compliance Officer, Department of
Planning Services; Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney; Trevor Jiricek, Supervisor, Weld County
Health Department; Sharyn Frazer, Secretary.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1134
APPLICANT: Western Wireless (Don Sizemore)
PLANNER: Kerni D. Keithley
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a 130-foot monopole radio
communication tower and equipment structure in the A(Agricultural)zone district.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SE4 of Section 17,T3N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: Approximately 1.2 miles east of Colorado State Highway 85; north of and adjacent to Weld
County Road 32.
Kerri Keithley explained that this proposal is consistent with both the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, as
amended and Zoning Ordinance, as amended. The proposal is not an incompatible land use and does not
appear to present any undue interference on the surrounding land uses. The proposal is consistent with the
intent of the A(Agricultural)zone district. A monopole radio communications tower and equipment structure
is allowed as a Use by Special Review in the A(Agricultural) Zone District. The proposal is also consistent
because it minimizes the amount of productive agricultural ground that is being taken out of production. The
portion of the site utilized for the Special Review activity appears to be non-productive land.
Don Sizemore, representative,Western Wireless, explained that this application is for a communication facility
consisting of a 130' high tower and a small equipment structure for a radio/telephone equipment facility that
will serve this entire region. Shirley Camenisch asked about security and fencing. Mr. Sizemore described
a small fence enclosure with a security light. He also stated the property owner has large dogs, so security
and/or safety issues should not be a problem. Discussion followed regarding the number of towers being
erected in Weld County.
The Chairman asked Mr. Sizemore if he agreed with the Department of Planning Services recommendation
including the conditions of approval and development standards. Mr. Sizemore said yes. The Chairman
asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished
to speak.
n
13611 962288
/ 1 / ��Ca �Cai
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 3, 1996
Page 2
Ann Garrison moved Case Number USR-1134, Western Wireless(Don Sizemore)be forwarded to the Board
of County Commissioners with the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval. Marie Koolstra
seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Cristie
Nicklas - yes; Marie Koolstra - yes; Jack Epple - yes; Rusty Tucker -'yes; Ann Garrison - yes; Shirley
Camenisch -yes;Arlan Marrs-yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1136
NAME: Greeley Cellular Telephone Company
PLANNER: Chris Goranson
ADDRESS: 1001 16th Street, Suite C-1, Denver, CO 80265
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for a Major Facility of a Public Utility
(120' cellular antenna and a 12'X 28' equipment shelter) in the A(Agricultural)zone district.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Located on part of the E2 of the NE4 of Section 12, T3N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: Approximately 300' west of Weld County Road 25; approximately 1/8 mile south of Weld
County Road 36.
Chris Goranson explained that this proposal is for an unmanned cellular facility with a 250 square foot
equipment structure. The applicant was required to apply for a Subdivision Exemption to create a temporary
location and this has already been done. The request for the uses which will be permitted are compatible with
the existing surrounding land uses. The surrounding land uses are agricultural production. This proposal is
not located within the Overlay District Areas identified by maps officially adopted by Weld County. The
applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort to conserve productive agricultural land by the design of the site.
The site is a lease area of 2500 square feet, or.057 of an acre. The site is,located on an abandoned corral
area, and therefore should not take any agricultural ground out of production. The access is existing and
referral entities either had no concems or their concerns were incorporated into the conditions of approval and
development standards. There were no surrounding property owner objections to this request.
Mac Neumann, Communication Site Acquisition Manager, representative, Greeley Cellular Telephone
Company reiterated that this would be an unmanned facility with an employee checking it once or twice a
month.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
John Martindale, surrounding property owners, asked how safe these stations are. Chris Goranson explained
these types of facilities fall under the Federal Communication Commission's standards and requirements.
Mac Neumann said FCC is the sole entity that monitors safety and health factors for these types of sites.
Typically these site emit 550 microwatts per square centimeter. The emissions for this type of cellular facility
are less than 10 microwatts per square centimeter.
Ann Garrison asked Lee Morrison if there was anything the Planning Commission could do to monitor the
number of towers being placed in Weld County. Lee Morrison explained these facilities fall under the
Telecommunication Act. Local governments are allowed to decide as long as the applications are reviewed
in light of the Telecommunications Act. Arlan Marrs asked about co-locating with other agencies. Mac
Neumann said this was a possibility as long as the facilities were compatible.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 3, 1996
Page 3
Ann Garrison moved Case Number USR-1136, Greeley Cellular Telephone Company, be approved. Cristie
Nicklas seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Cristie
Nicklas - yes; Marie Koolstra - yes; Jack Epple - yes; Rusty Tucker - yes; Ann Garrison - yes; Shirley
Camenisch-yes; Arlan Marrs-yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1137
NAME: Pierre Beaugh
PLANNER: Chris Goranson
ADDRESS: 25376 Weld County Road 48, Kersey, CO 80644
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for a private airstrip in the A
(Agricultural) zone district.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-1820, being part of the E2 of the NW4 of Section 8, T4N, R64W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Weld County Road 48; approximately 1/2 mile west of Weld County
Road 53.
Chris Goranson explained the Department of Planning Services'staff recommends approval of this application
because the applicant has demonstrated that a diligent effort has been made to conserve productive
agricultural land in the locational decision for the proposed use; is intending to continue agricultural production
on the site, the proposal is consistent with the intent of the district in which the use is located, and the use
will be compatible with future development of the surrounding area and with future development as projected
by the Weld County Comprehensive Plan:The surrounding land uses are predominantly agricultural in nature,
and the site does not lie within any Overlay Districts.This will be a private airstrip for personal use only. The
property consists of 45 acres, created through a recorded exemption. Access is existing from Weld County
Road 53. Referrals were sent and concerns were incorporated into the conditions of approval and
development standards. The Department of Planning Services received a letter of opposition from a
surrounding property owner, included in the Planning Commission's packets.
Platte Valley Fire Protection District had concerns with surrounding air traffic, density of residences, power
lines, and tank batteries in the area that create safety concerns.
Pierre Beaugh, applicant reiterated this airstrip would be for personal use only. The landing field would be
2600 feet long and well within the performance limits of the airplane and pilot. Pierre stated he had contacted
neighbors in the area and tried to resolve their concerns. Marie Koolstra asked about the advantages of
having a private airstrip when the Greeley/Weld Airport was approximately 10 miles away. Pierre Beaugh
explained that there was a 6-10 month wait for hangar space that usually costs anywhere from $150.00 to
$250.00 a month. It is also harder to perform maintenance on an aircraft that is stored elsewhere. Arlan
Marrs asked if there would be any crop dusting or sky diving performed from this airstrip. Mr. Beaugh said
no.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Dave Wright, surrounding property owner and volunteer fireman, expressed concerns about the power lines,
trees, and residences in the area. He also had concerns about another airstrip in the area that runs east and
west.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 3, 1996
Page 4
Mark Wakeman, surrounding property owner, also had concerns about overhead power lines, density of
private airstrips in the area, and what type of regulations the Federal Aviation Administration would make the
applicant adhere to. Marie Koolstra had concerns about the completeness of the FAA evaluation for safety
issues. Pierre Beaugh explained the FAA application form asks for latitude, longitude, field elevation,
physical characteristic of the land, address, other airports in the area, etc. He explained he had to call in for
obstructions and send in measurements. The application address the type of plane(whether it is a single or
twin engine, a turbo-prop or a jet, etc). The evaluation is based on those categories.
•
Gerald Monroe, surrounding property owner, stated that they raise organic vegetables and work in the fields
all the time. They have livestock and poultry on site and are concerned about the financial impact of an
airstrip in the area. He felt different alternative should be looked at and stated that another airstrip was not
necessary.
Curt Moore, representative, Patina Oil and Gas, wanted to reaffirm that they hold oil/gas leases in the area.
There is an existing tank battery on the property and need to guarantee access. Ann Garrison asked if they
had other oil/gas facilities on properties where airstrips were located. Mr. Mooret said yes, it had never been
a problem as long as the lines of communication were kept open.
The Chairman asked the application if he agreed with the Department of Planning Staffs recommendation,
conditions of approval and development standards. Mr. Beaugh said yes.
Jack Epple moved Case Number USR-1137, Pierre Beaugh, be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners with additions to Condition of Approval#1 and#3, and Development Standard#3, to include
Patina Oil and Gas and Fire District concerns, with the Planning Commissioners recommendation for
approval. Motion seconded by Rusty Tucker.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Cristie
Nicklas - yes; Marie Koolstra - no; Jack Epple - yes; Rusty Tucker :Yes; Ann Garrison - no; Shirley
Camenisch -yes; Arlan Marrs-no. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: Z-501
NAME: Marilyn Taylor
PLANNER: Todd Hodges
ADDRESS: 7505 Weld County Road 39, Ft. Lupton, CO 80624
REQUEST: A PUD Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) for an
airpark with 39 hanger lots and one residential lot.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A parcel located in Sections 30 and 31,T2N, R65W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,
Colorado.
LOCATION: 1/2 mile south of Weld County Road 18; west and adjacent to Weld County Road 39.
CASE NUMBER: S-409
PLANNER: Todd Hodges
NAME: Marilyn Taylor(Platte Valley Airpark)
ADDRESS: 7505 Weld County Road 39, Ft. Lupton, CO 80624
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Planned Unit Development(PUD) Final Plan for an
airpark with 39 hanger lots and one residential lot which includes the airstrips and control tower.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A parcel located in Sections 30 and 31,T2N, R65W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,
Colorado.
LOCATION: 1/2 mile south of Weld County Road 18;west and adjacent to Weld County Road 39.
•
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 3, 1996
Page 5
Todd Hodges explained he would present both Case Number 501 for the Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)
to PUD (Planned Unit Development) , and Case Number S-409 for the Final Plan together. Lee Morrison
explained they would have to be decided on separately and in order.
This is an existing airpark that was approved by a Special Review permit (USR-530), in October of 1982.
Most of the activity is already there. This request would be platting for 39 lots for hangar use only. This
property is within the referral area of Ft. Lupton, who had no concerns. No referral was returned from the
Town of Hudson. Weld County Health Department and Public Works concerns and/or comments have been
incorporated into the recommendation.
Todd Hodges stated the proposed P.U.D. Final Plan is compatible with the future development as permitted
by the existing PUD District and plans of affected municipalities. The Utility Coordinating Advisory Committee
reviewed and conditionally approved the P.U.D. utility plan at its November 14, 1996, meeting. Todd stated
that this request for a Planned Unit Development is located within the referral areas of the City of Fort Lupton
and the Town of Hudson. The uses allowed in the proposed PUD District will conform with performance
standards contained in the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, as amended. Adequate water and sewer will be
made available to the site to serve the uses permitted within the PUD District. The uses are existing that
require the water and sewage disposal. The one existing residence and the tower are served by a well and
individual septic systems. The hanger lots will not require additional water or sewage disposal. Weld County
Road 39 will provide access to the PUD District. The Weld County Department of Transportation reviewed
this request and indicates that the roads providing access are adequate for this proposal. The Planned Unit
Development District site is not located within the Flood Hazard or Geological Hazard Overlay Districts. The
Army Corp of Engineers reviewed this proposal and indicate that this proposal will not require a Department
of Army (DA) Permit.
Jack Epple asked about the existing residence. Todd explained it was already approved on the property. Ann
Garrison asked how many acres would be taken out of agricultural production. Todd explained this proposal
will not change the present agricultural use(dryland wheat production) as long as it doesn't interfere with the
airport uses.
Kevin Kinnley, representative, Platte Valley Parters Limited, explained this is an effort by the partnership to
expand the existing use. There is a large demand for covered aircraft storage. People want to own their own
buildings. This will stimulate the business of the airport, primarily in restoration of the runway. The runway
was installed many years ago and is in need of significant repairs. Ann Garrison asked if the runway was dirt.
Kevin said no-it is a paved runway. He further explained that there are two runways. The main one is paved
and the cross runway is turf. Shirley Camenisch asked how many aircraft this airstrip housed? Kevin stated
there were 25 aircraft based on site at this time plus other aircraft from public use airports, aircraft buying fuel,
maintenance repairs and visitors. The partnership has no intent of providing the same types of services that
other commercial airports in the area provide.
Marie Koolstra asked specifically what types of uses they were considering? Kevin explained that the
business plan calls for recreational use and personal business use. Marie had concerns about expansion,
approach systems, and safety issues.. Kevin explained that this building plan was put together under Federal
Aviation Administration location standards. Marie wanted to know who would look at safety issues on the
ground. Kevin said the local fire district. Todd Hodges said the existing facility is approved for up to 80
aircraft. Marie wanted to know if all the aircraft would have a hangar. Todd said no - some are enroute
stopping for fuel, etc. Kevin said the pilots themselves are governed with the licensing requirements by the
FAA. Kevin also stated that heavy traffic on a road would be a more serious safety issue than the aircraft.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 3, 1996
Page 6
He showed an overview of the runway. The buildings were not in the path of either runway. Vehicular traffic
would not be very significant for some time. A recreational airport doesn't see a lot of heavy traffic. Private
organizations cannot finance commercial uses. Clarification was made regarding permanent hangars vs.
portable hangars.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Russel Riley, surrounding property owner, stated he doesn't mind the planes, but has concerns about the
overhead power lines,trees, and tank batteries in the area. Curt Moore, representative, Patina Oil and Gas
wanted to ensure access would be available onto the property to service the tank batteries, and wanted to
inform the Board members the potential for further drilling in the area exists.
Morris Quick, interested party, said he has utilized the airport for many years. This airport offers a beautiful
location for pilots who enjoy recreational flying.
Marie Koolstra expressed concerns about adequate water. Kevin explained the existing well was upgraded
to a commercial well and it is more than adequate. Any aircraft/fuel accidents would be handled by the fire
protection district and this issue was addressed. Arlan Marrs asked about lighting for the runway. Kevin
explained that lighting is not a requirement for a recreational airport.
The Chairman asked if Platte Valley Airpark agreed with the Department of Planning Services
recommendation, including the conditions of approval and development standards. Kevin said yes.
Jack Epple moved Case Number Z-501, Platte Valley Airpark, be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners with the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval. Cristie Nicklas seconded the
motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Cristie
Nicklas - yes; Marie Koolstra - yes; Jack Epple - yes; Rusty Tucker - yes; Ann Garrison - yes; Shirley
Camenisch -yes-Arlan Marrs yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Jack Epple moved Case Number S-409, Platte Valley Airpark, be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners with the recommendation for approval of Z-501, Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to PUD
(Planned Unit Development)and the addition of Condition of Approval#1e, with the Planning Commission's
recommendation for approval. Shirley Camenisch seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Cristie
Nicklas - yes; Marie Koolstra - yes; Jack Epple - yes; Rusty Tucker - yes; Ann Garrison - yes; Shirley
Camenisch -yes-Arlan Marrs yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1135
APPLICANT: Soukup Investments, LLC
CURRENT PLANNER: Kerni Keithley
ADDRESS: 706 S. College Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a livestock confinement
operation (400 cattle), boarding facility(12 horses)and three accessory to the farm residences
along with the principle residence (4 residences total) in the A(Agricultural)zone district.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SE4 of Section 32, T7N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
LOCATION: West of Colorado State Highway 257, north of and adjacent to Weld County Road 74; adjacent
to the City of Windsor.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 3, 1996
Page 7
Ms. Keithley explained that the original USR-735, was submitted in 1986 for a horse boarding facility. This
request was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in May of 1986. The applicant at the time, Joy
Jefferson, then submitted an application to amended the USR in June of 1990 to allow for a livestock
confinement operation (1500 cattle) and a horse boarding/training facility (150 head). The Planning
Commission recommended denial of the request to the Board of County Commissioners. At the Board of
County Commissioners hearing, the request was approved with conditions that attempted to addresses the
incompatibility of the use with any future development occurring around the site. The Department of Planning
Services is recommending denial of this application. The property is located south of and adjacent to the
Valley View Ranch Planned Unit Development, a county subdivision, which encompasses approximately
eleven residential lots. Residences on the lots are currently existing with light commercial C-1 and C-2 uses
approved in the subdivision final plat. The applicant has not shown how the proposed use will be consistent
with the existing residential land uses.
Kerri stated that is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services' staff that the applicant has not shown
compliance as follows:
- The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposal is consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive
Plan, as amended. The use proposed is within the Urban Growth Boundary of the City of Windsor. The
site is a 20.5 acre agriculturally zoned parcel and is surrounded by Windsor on three sides: north, east
and west. The zoning around this property inside Windsor's city limits is Planned Unit Development
(PUD) allowing for industrial, commercial and residential uses. The applicant has not shown how the
proposed use will be consistent with the urban-type uses planned for the adjacent properties.
- This proposal is not consistent with the intent of the district in which it is located. Uses by Special Review
(USRs)are uses which have been determined to be more intense or to have a potentially greater impact
than the Uses Allowed by Right. As the impact or intensity of USRs are much greater, areas for the
conduct of these permits require additional consideration to ensure that they are established and operated
in a manner that is compatible with existing or planned land uses and developments. The location of this
parcel, adjacent to the City of Windsor and a residential subdivision, is not a suitable location for the
intensive type of operation of a livestock confinement operation (400 cattle) and boarding facility (12
horses) on the 20.5 acre site, as proposed in the application.
- The proposal is also not consistent with the Agricultural Zone District which allows for one(1)single family
residence per legal lot. The applicant has four residences on the site with an additional scale house that
has the potential to be a residence or has been utilized as a residence in the past. The eastern dwelling
was converted from a feed shop into a residence without the proper permits. The mobile home was
originally permitted as an office/manager residence and is now only a residence. The multiple (4-5)
residential structures on the 20.5 acre site is equivalent to a minor subdivision in terms of impacts to
roads, water and septic and is not consistent with the intent of the zone district.
- The proposal is not consistent with Section 24.3.1.3 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, as amended
and will not be compatible with existing development in the surrounding area. The proposed uses will not
be compatible with the existing residential development directly south of the site. Valley View Ranch
Subdivision (PUD) was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in March 1992. As stated
above, this is an eleven lot residential subdivision with possible neighborhood commercial uses allowed
at the intersection of Highway 257 and Weld County Road 74. Currently other land uses surrounding the
parcel are agricultural uses inside of Windsor's city limits. The parcels surrounding the site in Windsor,
however, are all zoned as Planned Unit Developments.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 3, 1996
Page 8
- The proposed uses will not be compatible with future development of the surrounding area as projected
by the Windsor future land use plan. The parcel is surrounded by Windsor on the west, north and east.
These properties are zoned Planned Unit Development and would allow industrial, commercial and
residential uses. Windsor has reviewed this request and has recommended conditional approval with
stipulations addressing that if residential development occurs within 1,000 feet of the site, the operation
will cease within six months. The Department of Planning Services' staff believes that the intense use
of the proposal on the 20.5 acre site will not be compatible with the projected future land uses of the City
of Windsor.
- The proposal is not located within the Overlay District Areas identified by maps officially adopted by Weld
County.
- The applicant demonstrated an effort to conserve productive agricultural land for the use, however, the
location of the use in the Urban Growth Boundary area of the City of Windsor and the proximity of the use
to Valley View Ranch Subdivision is not compatible or consistent with the Weld County Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinance or the Weld County Comprehensive Plan.
- The applicant has not demonstrated that there is adequate provisions for the protection of the health,
safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and the county. Two surrounding property
owners have expressed objections to the proposed use based upon the intensity of the use,
environmental concerns and the incompatibility with the existing residential uses in the subdivision directly
south of the site.
The Department of Planning Services'staff has concerns that the applicant is requesting four residences
with the potential for a fifth residence on a 20.5 acre site. The applicant has indicated that this operation
and Special Review Activity will only occur during the winter months when the cattle are brought from
another ranch. The Department of Planning Services' staff does net believe that the proposed use
justifies the need for four to five residences on the site as Accessory to the Farm structures. Accessory
to the Farms structures require that residences be principally employed on the farm. The Department of
Planning Services requested that the applicant submit W-2 forms for all residents at the site in order to
ensure that the residences are in compliance with the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. To date, these
forms have not been submitted to the Department.An affidavit was submitted for three residents, which
is included in the packet. Staff believes that the number of residences that the applicant is requesting
cannot be adequately justified, even if the Special Review Activity was to be performed year round. The
previously approved USR for the site (AMUSR-735) for a 1,500 head cattle operation and 150 horse
boarding facility was conditionally approved with three residences: the property owners residence, one
accessory to the farm residence and an office/manager residence in the mobile home. The applicant's
request is substantially less animal units than the previous USR, with the Special Review Activity only
occurring during the winter months. The applicant, however, is requesting three Accessory to the Farm
residences(4 residences total)while converting a scale house to be a potential residence. The number
of residences requested in this proposal is equivalent in impact to the required services (roads, septic,
water, etc.) as a minor subdivision.
In summary,the Department of Planning Services recommends that this request be forwarded to the Board
of County Commissioners with an unfavorable recommendation due to the following: a) Incompatibility of the
use with existing land uses; b)Incompatibility of the use with future development of the area; c) Health code
and building code violations with structures converted to residences without appropriate permits; d)
Inadequate justification of 4-5 residences on a 20.5 acre site; e) Numerous complaints from surrounding
property owners.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 3, 1996
Page 9
Jacqueline Johnson, representative for the applicant, stated that this application is for an entirely different
operation. Mr. Soukup owns a ranch up near Weldon and has to feed his cattle during the winter months.
He is anticipating 200 head of cattle/calves on the property for up to six months during the winter. He will also
have 12 horses on the property that are used by the workers he employs for this operation. The concerns
seem to be how to accommodate urban development and agricultural use. The applicant should be allowed
to operated within certain limits until development occurs. It is agreed that at some point this use would
become incompatible, but with the existing conditions at this time compatibility exists. Considering the fact
that when you run the numbers(11% less) than what was there previously (200 cattle/calves and 12 horses
for six winter months)concerns like dust, odor, flies are at a minimal. Ms. Johnson explained that there had
been a miscommunication regarding the number of accessory uses. There are two residences on site (both
are considered non-conforming uses), a mobile home, and a tack facility converted into a residence. The
laborers employed at this operation are part-time students with no other primary source of income who also
need a place to board their horses.
This property was cited for violations that the applicant acknowledges exist. Mr. Soukup met with the
Department of Planning Services and it was determined he should not pay for the conformance until the
Special Review permit request was approved by the Planning Commission and the Board of County
Commissioners. Ms. Johnson introduced Scott Jefferson who resides and works on the property.
Scott Jefferson explained he has lived on the property for 13 years. He stated the tack/scale house has a
bathroom and has historically been used as a bunkhouse, not a residence. It contains a stove that doesn't
work and a refrigerator that is being stored. The number of employees on the property are needed to run the
operation. The truck driver who hauls the cattle back and forth lives in the mobile home. Scott stated he feels
that this type of operation is consistent with the area. The only thing that isn't consistent is the subdivision
(Valley View PUD) that sticks out like a sore thumb.
Mr. Soukup,owner,stated that he hasn't had the opportunity to work things out with the Planning Department.
This type of use has existed for a long time. The proposed use is a lesser use only during the winter months.
Mr. Soukup said that his employees who reside on the property are college students who work part time. If
he had to remove the tack/scale house or mobile home he would.
Cristie Nickles asked Mr. Soukup is he was aware when he bought the property that the use had been
vacated. Mr. Soukup explained that he was aware the existing use was to be vacated, but was told he could
apply for a similar use.
Ms. Keithley reiterated that the Department of Planning Services' staff has worked with the applicant by
conducting multiple checks of the site, actually meeting on the site with personnel from the Building Inspection
Department and the Health Department. The Department of Planning Services requested the applicant submit
W-2 forms for their employees to ascertain permanent employment. These were not submitted.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Gary Taylor, surrounding property owners, said that there have been seven new homes built within a quarter
of a mile of this property. There are definite conflicts with the economic interests of the homeowners across
the road. Mr. Taylor stated that what is being described as the country is not the country, for example: an
absentee owner, substandard housing and college students. Jack Epple asked Mr. Taylor how long he had
lived in Valley View PUD. Mr. Taylor replied since April of 1994. Jack asked if the feedlot was in existence
when Mr.Taylor bought his property. Mr. Taylor said yes.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 3, 1996
Page 10
Roger Sheneman, surrounding property owner, said when he purchased his lot in Valley View PUD, he
checked with the developer to find out the status of the feedlot. He built his home with the understanding that
the feedlot would be vacated. Mr. Sheneman also had concerns about whether the septic system had been
permitted. He also had concerns about the employees riding their horses through his property.
Roger Raper, surrounding property owner, stated he purchased his lot in Valley View PUD this past year. He
is not opposed to cattle, but if a feedlot is going to exist, then he would not have purchased this particular
piece of property.
Manuel Pineda, surrounding property owners, explained that he has been farming in this area for over 40
years. He has concerns about the quality of the water from the irrigation lateral that runs through the area.
He also expressed concerns about the lagoon overflowing into the wetland area surrounding these properties.
Bob Erlich, representative for Amigo Farms, a surrounding property owner to the north, east and west of the
site, stated that they are opposed to this application. They were told by the developer that certain
development standards would have to be adhered to and followed. The whole area around this proposal and
the Town of Windsor has changed. It is no longer the country. Feedlot businesses are just not compatible
in this area.
Jack Epple asked why the Town of Windsor hasn't annexed the property. Mr. Erlich told him that property
was sold in two separate pieces and they were given assurances that when certain amounts of development
took place, these types of operations would cease.
Rich Erlich, surrounding property owner, stated that the applicant doesn't know how to take care of cattle.
He said that the place is a mess and his cattle gets out and goes on to surrounding properties and destroys
crops.
Scott Jefferson, resident, said that there have been personal problems with Rich Erlich in the past. The
houses on the property are older residences and the neighbors think that they are substandard because they
live in 1/2 million dollar homes.
The Chairman asked if the applicant understood the process after the Planning Commission made its
recommendation. Lee Morrison explained that if the Planning Commission should recommend denial of the
application the Board of County Commissioners would send a notice asking and then the applicant must write
a letter to the Board requesting a hearing.
Ms. Johnson asked the Planning Commission if they would approved this application with fewer structures
(residences).
Lee Morrison stated that this puts the Planning Commission members in a difficult position. They have to
know what it is they are deciding on. It would be impossible to make a motion until they know what the
application is for. Ms. Keithley reminded the members that by approving the amount of accessory to the farm
resiences on a 20 acre site (for a total of four residences), they would be setting a precedence. She also
reiterated that if the applicant could provide evidence that the residences were located on the property prior
to 1972, nonconforming use files could be set up by the Department of Planning Services, however,they have
not been set up as such at this time.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 3, 1996
Page 11
Ms. Johnson stated the applicant would like to remove the tack/scale house from the original application
request.
Ann Garrison moved Case Number USR-1135, Soukup Investments, LLC, be recommended for denial by the
Planning Commission. Jack Epple seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Cristie
Nicklas - yes; Marie Koolstra - no; Jack Epple - yes; Rusty Tucker - yes; Ann Garrison - yes; Shirley
Camenisch -yes; Arlan Marrs-yes. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.4Shary
ctfully submitted,
n Fr er 65
9'y1
Secretary
Hello