HomeMy WebLinkAbout981210.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, June 16, 1998
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held June 16, 1998, in the County
Commissioners' Hearing Room (Room#101), Weld County Centennial Building, 915 10th Street, Greeley,
Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chairman, Glenn Vaad, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Glenn Vaad Present
Fred Walker Present
Bruce Fitzgerald 9 Absent
Cristie Nicklas Present
Jack Epple Present
•
Marie Koolstra Present a
Stephan Mokray Present r a
Arlan Marrs Present
Also Present: Moncia Daniels-Mika, Director, Scott Ballstadt, Current Planner II, Julie Chester, Current
Planner, Ben Patton, Current Planner, Department of Planning Services; Lee Morrison, Assistant County
Attorney; Don Carroll,Weld County Public Works; Sheble McConnellogue, Trevor Jiricek,Weld County Health
Department; Cyndy Giaque, Assistant County Attorney; Wendi Inloes, Secretary.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on June 2, 1998, was
approved with a change.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1187
APPLICANT: Nextel Communications
PLANNER: Julie A. Chester
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Section 14, T3N, R61 W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Major Facility of a Public
Utility for a Telecommunication Facility.
LOCATION: North of 1-76 and west of Weld County Road 95.
Julie Chester, Department of Planning Services, presented Case USR-1187, reading the recommendation
into the record. Julie stated that staff is recommending approval of the application, along with the Conditions
of Approval and Development Standards.
Larry Storms, representative of the application, stated that they are in agreement with the Conditions of
Approval, and did have a question on Development Standard#11, regarding the access road being graded
and drained. Mr. Storms explained that the road will have limited use to the facility, possibly once every three
to four months, and the building will be monitored, also limiting access. He also stated that if required to have
a road, this would take out approximately four acres out of agricultural use, which was a concern from local
land owners. Mr. Storms also expressed that if required to upgrade, this could attract more people to the site
giving the opportunity to jump the fence and climb the towers. Mr. Storms than gave a brief overview of the
proposed telecommunication tower.
Don Carroll, Weld County Public Works, addressed the road grading, stating that he would be in agreement
to change Development Standard #11, to read the access road to be an all-weather road, and delete the
grading and draining. Mr. Storms was in agreement with the change.
Jack Epple moved to change Development Standard#11. Cristie Nicklas seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Glenn
Vaad, yes;Arlan Marrs, yes; Marie Koolstra,yes; Cristie Nickles,yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Jack Epple, yes;
Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
C S� 981210
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 16, 1998
Page 2
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Cristie Nicklas asked Julie if the Soil Conservation's re-vegetation standards were included. Julie stated that
they were not. Julie explained that Development Standard#3 addresses the issue, but could be modified to
include the Soil Conservations recommendation. Mr. Storms was in agreement with the modification.
Jack Epple moved to modify Development Standard#3. Cristie Nicklas seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Glenn
Vaad,yes;Arlan Marrs,yes; Marie Koolstra, yes;Cristie Nicklas,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Jack Epple,yes;
Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Jack Epple moved that Case USR-1187, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and changes to the Development Standards, along with the Planning Commissions
recommendation for approval. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Glenn
Vaad,yes;Arlan Marrs, yes; Marie Koolstra,yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Jack Epple, yes;
Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1189
APPLICANT: Dave and Sherry Warehime
PLANNER: Scott Ballstadt
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lob B of RE-138, being part of the SE4 of Section 1, T6N, R65W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Recreational Facility(Rodeo
Arena) in the A(Agricultural)zone district.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Weld County Road 72 and approximately 1/4 mile west of Weld
County Road 49.
Scott Ballstadt, Department of Planning Services, presented Case USR-1189, reading the recommendation
into the record. Scott stated that staff is recommending approval of the application along with the Conditions
of Approval and Development Standards.
Dave and Sherry Warehime,applicants, presented letters of support from neighbors for the arena,which were
entered into the record as exhibits. They explained that they wish to provide a place for young children to ride.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
The Chairman asked the Warehimes if they were in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards. The Warehimes stated that they were in agreement.
Arlan Marrs asked about the alcohol restrictions, and if the recommendations are coming from the Planning
Department, and do we have the authority to place these conditions on the uses. Scott explained that the
department has been using standard language for Use by Special Review permits, and Lee Morrison,
Assistant County Attorney, stated they did have the authority.
Stephan Mokray moved that Case USR-1189, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners, along
with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation
for approval. Marie Koolstra seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Glenn
Vaad,yes;Arlan Marrs, yes; Marie Koolstra, yes ; Cristie Nicklas,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Jack Epple, yes;
Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 16, 1998
Page 3
CASE NUMBER: Z-512
APPLICANT: Kermit Bohrer
PLANNER: Scott Ballstadt
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the S2 NW4 of Section 19, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Planned Unit Development Change of Zone
LOCATION: East and adjacent to Weld County Road 1; approximately I/2 mile north of State Highway 66.
Scott Ballstadt, Department of Planning Services, presented Case Z-512, reading the recommendation into
the record. Scott stated that staff is recommending approval of the application, along with the Conditions of
Approval.
Glenn Vaad asked about the storm drainage report, referring to the Boulder County storm drainage criteria
manual, and if this was a manual that Weld County accepts. Don Carroll explained that since Weld County
does not have their own manual, it is acceptable to use surrounding counties', as long as they state what
calculations and methods they are using, so Weld can follow them.
Marie Koolstra,asked about the State of Colorado letter and the water commitment. Scott explained that this
is addressed in Condition of Approval#2B.
Cristie Nicklas asked about the Health Departments condition on maintenance and removal of manure. Since
the covenants state there will be no livestock, was this condition needed. Sheble McConnellogue, Weld
County Health Department, stated that if that is what the covenants state, than the condition can be deleted.
Lee Morrison explained that the covenants are not enforceable by Weld County, so that there is a need for
a condition pertaining to maintenance and removal of manure.
Barb Brunk, representative of the applicant, stated that they are in agreement with the Conditions with the
exception of#C2 on the request from Public Works to change the 40-foot access easement to a 60-foot right-
of-way. Ms. Brunk explained that if the access and utility needs to be 60 feet wide to accommodate the road
and easements. This would reduce the size of the residential lots, making them less than the required 2.5
acre minimum. Additionally, the 60-foot right-of-way would take Ag land out of the development.
Don Carroll addressed the right-of-way issue. Don read from the Subdivision Ordinance, which states that
county roads shall have a minimum right-of-way of 60 feet, and the applicant is willing to do a 40-foot right-of-
way, less than the required minimum, and Don feels that it would be up to the Board to make the decision.
Lee Morrison agreed that it would be up to the Planning Commission and Commissioners to make the
decision, if it appears that it will function effectively. Mr. Morrison understands that it will be a privately
maintained roadway.
Glenn Vaad asked Scott on clarification that Mt.View fire protection district had no conflicts. Scott stated this
was correct.
Arlan Marrs asked that because there is a right-of-way dedicated, this does not necessarily take away from
the 2-1/2 acre lot size.
Barb Brunk gave her understanding of what right-of-way and easements are. Lee Morrison explained that
if it is a right-of-way it is platted outside each lot, and easement is included within the lot.
Barb than clarified that they are asking for a 40 foot access utility easement, and would be willing to go to 60
feet, but by making it a 60-foot right-of-way, as requested by Public Works,this would take away from the lots.
Barb proposed a 20-foot easement in conjunction with a 40-foot right-of-way, commenting it is important to
keep an area designated that is not a part of someone's lot. Ms. Brunk asked who would maintain the road.
Lee stated that it could be dedicated to the private use of the five lots, and dedicate or convey it as common
to the homeowners association. Ms. Brunk stated she was agreeable with the change.
9S1
•
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 16, 1998
Page 4
Cristie Nicklas moved to change Condition#C2 to say a 40-foot right-of-way with a 20-foot easement. Arlan
Marrs seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Glenn
Vaad,yes;Arlan Marrs,yes; Marie Koolstra,yes;Cristie Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Jack Epple,yes;
Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Fred Walker asked when the application was first applied for. The Department of Planning received the
application on April 15,1998, for the Change of Zone. Fred asked when the owner first decided to do
something, Don Carroll stated the Sketch Plan stage was November 7, 1997.
Arlan Marrs moved that Case Z-512, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners, along with the
modifications to Conditions of Approval and the Planning Commissions recommendation for approval.
Stephan Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Glenn
Vaad,yes;Arlan Marrs, yes; Marie Koolstra,yes; Cristie Nicklas,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Jack Epple,yes;
Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1188
APPLICANT: Robert Nightwalker
PLANNER: Julie A. Chester
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Section 26, T8N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Nonprofit Wildlife
Rehabilitation/Sanctuary and Educational Center.
LOCATION: South of East Cave Avenue and East of Priddy Street, just outside city limits of Pierce,
Colorado.
Julie Chester, Department of Planning Services, presented Case USR-1188, reading the recommendation
into the record. Julie stated staff is recommending approval of the application along with the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards.
Fred Walker asked about Condition of Approval#2F, and what USDS stood for. Julie did state this was a
typo, and should be USDA, United States Department of Agricultural.
Glenn Vaad asked about Condition#2E, regarding the overlay district and the Flood Hazard Development
Permit. Julie explained this is an application through the Department of Planning, that the applicant must
apply for, and explained what the process is, and that an engineer fills out and stamps. Glenn referred to a
letter from surrounding property owners on the history of flooding, and would these issues be addressed by
the flood hazard permit. Julie stated that they would be covered.
Glenn then asked about Condition #2B, and asked if the permits would only have to be applied for. Julie
stated that they should change the wording to state the permit should be applied for and approved.
Moved by Cristie Nicklas to change the wording in Condition of Approval#2B, to say permits must be applied
for and approved. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Glenn
Vaad,yes;Arlan Marrs,yes; Marie Koolstra,yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Jack Epple, yes;
Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
/off /0
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 16, 1998
Page 5
Robert Nightwalker, applicant, had a question on the permits being approved. Mr. Nightwalker explained that
this is a non-profit organization, and in order to get the permits and licenses, he would need to have the facility
inspected, and since he is not zoned yet, would be in violation. Julie stated that there is a representative from
the Division of Wildlife(DOW), who could address such issues. Mr. Nightwalker then addressed some of the
concerns he has heard. Some concerns were smell, he explained that the cages are cleaned and disinfected
regularly, there will be no stockpiling of manure, and most animals that come into the site would be babies,
and kept inside. Regarding the issue of the flood area, a small flood will not have that much of an affect on
the facility itself, they will have almost all chain link fencing around the facility. There will be an emergency plan
in the event of a large flood. On noise issues, they will be placing the most vocal animals in the back of the
facility. Safety issues, all cages will meet or exceed DOW requirements, and doors will be constructed with
a double door system, and a perimeter fence will keep both people and animals out. Mr. Nightwalkers main
objective is to rehabilitate and release the animals, and a facility in Weld County is needed. Mr. Nightwalker
than had a question on Condition #2D(1), on the arena. There will be approximately a bus of kids with a
maximum of 50 children.
Stephen Mokray asked about the facility being non-profit, and how does he plan to subsidize the expense.
Mr. Nightwalker stated that through donations, grants, admission, and possibly sales.
Arlan Marrs asked if he had plans to rehabilitate such animals as skunks and racoons. Mr. Nightwalker
explained that there are some animals that cannot be rehabilitated, and the DOW provides a list of these
animals. Mr. Nightwalker stated he does need to get with the DOW, but wanted to deal with one government
agency at a time.
Glenn Vaad asked if this was a temporary site. Mr. Nightwalker stated that the Department of Planning
Services told him the zoning ordinance definition of temporary is considered six months, and he will probably
be there for two to three years, than move to a larger more remote area. Glenn asked about where dead
animals will be disposed of Mr. Nightwalker stated they will be using the County landfill, which is allowed.
Sheble McConnellogue, Weld County Health Department, stated that the North Weld landfill accept dead
animals, and the Laidlaw landfill does not.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Larry Rogstad from the Division of Wildlife, addressed many concerns of the Division, and explained the
purpose of the Division. Mr. Rogstad stated that Mr. Nightwalker had not spoken to any member of the local
members. Mr. Rogstad went over the applications that would need to be applied for and that both state and
federal regulations would apply. There are concerns which need to be addressed such as rehabing, education
on diseases from wildlife to humans, and communicable diseases within wildlife populations. Mr. Rogstad
stated that there are several rehab facilities throughout Weld County. Danger to humans is also an issue that
would need to be addressed. If a sanctuary and educational center is applied for, it is not allowed by the
Division of Wildlife. The flood issue is also a concern by the DOW, with the security of the cages could be
a problem. Mr. Rogstad stated that the application should be approved contingent upon the successful
application for all appropriate licenses and permits from the DOW and the US Fish and Wildlife,for any wildlife
use the facility will engage in. The issue of the contingency of Condition#2B, would not be a problem for the
Division, and they would work with Mr. Nightwalker. Mr. Rogstad also asked that if any violation would occur,
if approved, they would request the permit be suspended or revoked.
Stephan Mokray asked about the hazards of diseases, did this include humans. Mr. Rogstad explained that
if a sick animal is brought in, they would be under the rehabilitation permit, and the applicant would have to
work closely with a Veterinarian, keeping the animals quarantined in a separate facility. Stephan then asked
where the animals would come from. Mr. Rogstad explained from field officers, local animal control officers
and general citizens. There are guidelines on the taking in of animals.
Arlan Marrs asked if he understood that if a permit is applied for through the DOW, it would not be approved.
Mr. Rogstad stated that the educational permit would not be approved. The DOW is trying to discourage
these types of permits.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 16, 1998
Page 6
Arlan then asked about the difference between exotic and native animals. Mr. Rogstad explained that the
DOW does not manage or regulate exotic wildlife. Arlan asked where the process of permit would come in
on a non-native species. Mr. Rogstad recommended that Mr. Nightwalker contact the US Fish and Wildlife
service regarding this issue. Arlan then asked what process the DOW goes through when a permit is applied
for. Mr. Rogstad stated this is an internal decision, and that John Wagner, the local officer, would approve
portions of or all of the application, to meet the regulations. Arlan asked what assurance the Planning
Commission would have, if approved, that John Wagner did an adequate job reviewing and placing
stipulations to protect public health. Mr. Rogstad stated that the DOW aggressively enforces the laws of the
State of Colorado, and that John Wagner is one of the most aggressive hardcore law enforcement officers
you will see.Arlan asked Mr. Rogstad to give a brief number of animals that cannot be rehabilitated, and what
could he do. Mr. Nightwalker would need to give a list to the DOW on the types of animals and the type of
facility he will have.
Glenn Vaad addressed the request to revoke the permit in the case of a violation, and that the Planning
Department has placed standard language stating that the DOW could pull their permit, placing him in
violation with the County standards. Glenn then asked about the date of the last revision of the rules and
when the regulations were updated. Mr. Rogstad stated it was September 18, 1997. Mr. Rogstad than
defined what an educational facility was, compared to a rehabilitation facility.
Willie Archibeque, spoke in opposition of application. Mr. Archibeque had concerns with flood issue, parking
on his property, and all the buildings that are being proposed. Mr. Nightwalker currently has a wolf on his
property, which Mr. Archibuque feels is a danger. To get onto the Nightwalker property, he has to go on his
property,and this is trespassing,and will not allow parking. Mr.Archibeque is against this proposal being close
to residences.
Bridgette Sparks,with a rehabilitation center in Larimer County, spoke for the application. Ms. Sparks spoke
about the amount of animals they get and the services they provide. Ms. Sparks stated she would like to
have a rehab center closer to the western side of Weld County. Ms. Sparks addressed the disease issue and
spoke of the strict regulations that would alleviate problems. Ms. Sparks has worked with Mr. Nightwalker and
feels that he could handle the proposed facility very well. Ms. Sparks also talked about the importance of the
public being educated.
Arlan Marrs asked Ms. Sparks about where the exotic birds come from. Ms. Sparks explained that people
get them as pets, and realize they are too big, too costly, or more care is involved, so they are dumped at
shelters or on the side of a road. Most of them are able to be adopted out.
Glenn Vaad stated that the Planning Commission is charged with protecting surrounding property owners and
their rights, and asked Ms. Sparks if she felt this is going to exist as an economically viable enterprise, or
could it be abandoned and become a problem to surrounding land owners. Ms. Sparks feels that this will work
and since the field is growing and becoming more recognizable with more money being put into it, therefore
giving the support needed.
Susie Phillips, spoke for the application. Ms. Phillips has property behind Mr. Nightwalker, and also is having
to do a Flood Hazard permit, so is familiar with that situation. Ms. Phillips also stated that she has not seen
any problems with the wolf, or felt threatened.
Don Hoff, attorney for Town of Pierce, spoke against the application and addressed concerns by the Town.
Mr. Hoff talked about the concerns on flood issues, noise, health, odor, dust, safety, and the hazard to the
citizens. Mr. Hoff talked about the property being in a floodway, which was later verified by Julie Chester that
the area is not in the floodway, but the floodplain, according to the FEMA map. The Town does have their own
flood information, outside of the County.
Raymond Van Why, Mayor of Pierce, spoke against the application. Mr. Van Why feels that if this passes,
and the facility does not work out, it will become a junkyard. He also believes this is too close to people.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 16, 1998
Page 7
Charlie Hunt, spoke against the application, with concerns of flooding and feels that this it is infringing on
others property rights. Mr. Hunt was also concerned that anything that is built,will back water up and go onto
his property.
Linda Baker, Mr. Nightwalkers mother, spoke for the application. Ms. Baker feels that the flood issue has
been addressed,with engineers taking care of the issue. Ms. Baker also explained where the wolf came from,
which lived in her back yard for three years and had no problems, and does understand about children, she
has grandchildren herself, and people should be afraid of an animal they are not familiar with.
Mollie Archibeque, spoke against the application. Mrs. Archibeque lives less than 100 feet from the proposed
site, and stated she will be afraid to live by the animals.
Jean Branch, spoke for the application, and feels that no one cares for animals and this would be a good
facility to have to keep animals around.
Cristie Nicklas asked Larry Rogstad about regulations on keeping wolves. Mr. Rogstad stated that in
Colorado, if it is pure wolf, it would have to have a license with the DOW. Most cases are hybrid wolves that
do not need permits, which is difficult to determine. John Wagner of the Division is aware of the wolf, and
commented that they do not make good pets.
The Chairman asked Robert Nightwalker if he was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards. Mr. Nightwalker stated he was. He also addressed concerns from the public. The
sanctuary part of the facility is made for exotics, and that children will not have access to cages or animals.
On airborne diseases, Mr. Nightwalker stated the cages are ten feet apart,which is required. Rehab animals
do differ from educational animals, and he does plan on rehabilitating and releasing. Not all the buildings will
be going up, but wanted to have them in the proposal for future use. If the facility does not succeed, he will
be donating everything on site, to other non-profit facilities. Mr. Nightwalker does want to have someone on
site at all times, and has applied for a grant for this reason. He will not take an animal in that there is no room
for, and that they can't handle.
Fred Walker asked about asked about the hybrid wolf, and are they under any type of regulation. Larry
Rogstad stated that there are not regulations. Fred asked if approved, they would need do better fencing for
the wolves, and housing the noisy animals inside at night.
Marie Koolstra commented that she felt they are zeroing in on one species, considering there are other dogs
out there that are noted to be just as volatile.
Marie asked about a hybrid wolves and can they reproduce. Larry Rogstad stated they can reproduce, but
in this case he had been told by Mr. Nightwalker that the wolf he has, has been spayed, so therefore will not
reproduce.
Julie stated that the Department could look at Condition of Approval#2C, on the issue of fencing, that staff
could look at prior to recording, and possibly add wording to include the DOW also giving approval.
Glenn does not want to put the Department in this position on the decision. Glenn did agree that they are
focusing in on a potential dangerous problem, and that they have neglected to address other situations where
there are animals that could hurt someone, and they do not have the requirement.
Fred moved to modify Condition #2C, to add the Division of Wildlife giving approval also. Cristie Nicklas
seconded the motion. Fred did add that he also wanted to add the animals being located inside at night.
Cristie withdrew her second to the amendment to the motion. There was no second to the amendment.
Stephan Mokray commented that by placing so many conditions on the applicant who is already struggling
to get the facility together, Mr. Nightwalker may not be able to get off the ground.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 16, 1998
Page 8
Marie Koolstra added that if the animals are going to be handled as domestic, it may be harder for Mr.
Nightwalker to return them back to the wild if he has to cage and treat them as domestic, and this is not what
they are striving to do. Marie also feels that there are already enough conditions and standards placed on the
application.
Arlan commented that he is not sure it is there job to determine his ability financially to make the proposal
work, but did second the motion because they are charged to watch the health, safety, and welfare of the
County residents and the residents in the Town of Pierce. The facility does not belong in this area, but
somewhere else.
Glenn than explained to Mr. Nightwalker that he still has the opportunity to talk to the Board of County
Commissioners.
Stephan Mokray moved that Case USR-1188, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Planning Commissions recommendation for denial. Arlan Marrs seconded the motion.
Jack Epple commented that he is not comfortable with the flood plain issue and feels the Division of Wildlife
should have been included and some of the issues could have been negotiated out.
Cristie Nicklas also commented about concerns of the flood plain issue and dialogue with the DOW should
have began a while ago.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Glenn
Vaad, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Marie Koolstra, no; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Jack Epple, yes;
Fred Walker, excused. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: Z-511
APPLICANT: Larry Intermill
PLANNER: Ben Patton
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-2130 situated in part of the SW4 of Section 20, T6N, R64W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to E (Estate)for a 5-lot minor subdivision.
LOCATION: North and adjacent to Weld County Road 66; approximately 1/4 mile east of Weld County
Road 51.
Ben Patton, Department of Planning Services, presented case Z-511, reading the recommendation into the
record. Ben stated that staff is recommending approval of the application along with the Conditions of
Approval.
Arlan Marrs asked Ben about the ditch that runs along Weld County Road 66 and if this was the only one.
Ben stated that Greeley Ditch#2 also falls about 400 feet to the northeast.
Steve Stencel, representative of applicant, stated that the applicant is in agreement with the Conditions of
Approval.
Glenn Vaad asked about the referral from the Health Department that states the septic tanks may need to be
engineered. Steve stated they are aware of this, and that there was a preliminary Geological study done on
the site, and the possibility of both engineered foundations and septics may be needed. Glenn then asked
how close the Lindy Lake Subdivision was to this proposed site. Ben stated about a % mile north of the site,
and Steve pointed this out on the overhead. Glenn asked if this was an established subdivision. Scott
Ballstadt, Department of Planning, explained that Lindy Lake is in the Sketch Plan stage, and no comments
have been sent out on this proposal for or against the subdivision. Glenn asked about the rules as set forth
in the Subdivision Ordinance, on the proximity of the two subdivisions being contiguous. Scott explained that
the Intermill proposal is a Minor Subdivision and Lindy Lake is a PUD, and therefore was exempt from the
contiguity rule.
9*/) '°
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 16, 1998
Page 9
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Jim Anderson spoke against the application. Mr. Anderson feels that the use is incompatible with commercial
agricultural. Other concerns Mr. Anderson expressed, were the close proximity of the homes to commercial
agricultural and on the ditch that he owns which is a short distance from the proposed site. The ditch provides
irrigation and could be a danger to people and pets. The maintenance of the ditch is also a concern and
getting to the ditch with equipment. Mr. Anderson then pointed out on the map where the Anderson and
Greeley#2 ditches are located.
Fred Walker asked if the ditch in relationship to the proposed subdivision was 500 feet. Mr. Anderson stated
it was probably a little further than that. Fred then asked if he would have access problems for maintenance.
Mr.Anderson explained that he currently uses an access that would run through the middle of the proposed
subdivision, and have also used an access off of Weld County Road 51.
Gerald Roth spoke against the application. Mr. Roth had concerns with all the housing going in. Mr. Roth also
has a ditch and is concerned with safety and maintenance issues.
Larry Intermill, applicant, addressed the concerns. Mr. Intermill stated he does have an agricultural
background and the proposed site is not prime farm ground. Mr. Intermill then entered a map as an exhibit
which showed the ditches and the proximity to the site. The water table was also addressed and Mr. Intermill
has had an engineer involved with the process.
Fred Walker asked if he was going to give the ditch owners access onto the property. Mr. Intermill stated if
they need to get in he does not have a problem with giving them access, and historically they have come
through there, but will also have to get two other property owners approval.
The Chairman asked Steve Stencel if he was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval, Mr. Stencel
stated they were in agreement.
Cristie Nicklas moved that Case Z-511, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners, along with the
Conditions of Approval and the Planning Commissions recommendation for approval. Stephan Mokray
seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Glenn
Vaad,yes;Arlan Marrs, yes; Marie Koolstra,yes; Cristie Nicklas,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Jack Epple, yes;
Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1190
APPLICANT: H. Michael Croissant
PLANNER: Julie A. Chester
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the E2NE4 of Section 11, T1N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Specific Development Plan and Site Plan Review for a composting facility (sawdust& raw
manure) in the A(Agricultural)zone district.
LOCATION: West and adjacent to Weld County Road 35; approximately 1/2 mile south of Weld County
Road 12.
Julie Chester, Department of Planning Services, presented Case USR-1190, reading the recommendation
into the record. Julie stated that staff is recommending approval of the application along with the Conditions
of Approval and Development Standards.
Glenn Vaad asked Julie to point out on the map where the retention ponds are. Julie stated that the ponds
are within the 80 acre parcel. Glenn also asked about referral to the Ft. Lupton Planning and their
reservations. Julie explained that the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards do address their
concerns. Julie also referred to the Buffalo Ridge Subdivision, which is in close proximity, stating she had
spoke to a representative from the Subdivision, and they do not have a problem with the application, and
anyone living there is aware of the agricultural uses. Julie then explained to Glenn the referral process to
another Town or City Planning Commission.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 16, 1998
Page 10
Leslie Ecker, representative of applicant, spoke for the application along with other specialists that would be
available for questions. Mr. Ecker entered into the record a letter for a water truck, which addresses the dust
issues.
Arlan Marrs asked about the ground water monitoring plant and if this was required by the Health Department.
Mr. Ecker stated it was, along with the State Health Department. Arlan then asked what all will be involved
with monitoring wells. Mr. Ecker stated they are 20 feet deep to bedrock, and the actual plant would be
whatever is requested by the Health Department.
Trevor Jiricek, Weld County Health Department, stated that the monitoring network was not being required
by County or State, but that under a series of negotiations, because of the vagueness of composting
regulations that currently exist in the state, Weld County has used the confined animal feeding operation
regulations as guideline for run-off containment. These regulations require the composting facility's contain
control run-off from 25 year,24 hour storm event and have retention facilities for the containment. Trevor also
stated that they have submitted a monitored plan.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
The Chairman asked Mr. Ecker if they were in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Mr. Ecker stated they were in agreement.
Arlan Marrs moved that Case USR-1190, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and changes to the Development Standards, with the Planning Commissions
recommendation for approval. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Glenn
Vaad,yes;Arlan Marrs, yes; Marie Koolstra,yes; Cristie Nicklas,yes;Stephan Mokray, yes; Jack Epple, yes;
Fred Walker, excused. Motion carried unanimously.
New Business
Monica Daniels-Mika, Department of Planning Services, presented the Board with a recommendation from
the Ag Council on open space issues, which reads as follows:
The most important aspect, for an open space plan is that it is based on voluntary participation. The plan
must include notification of property owners and include representation from affected property owners when
creating an.open space plan. The City of Greeley and other towns, including the County, should have no
intention of using their regulatory authority, condemnation, or to force land owners in any way to comply with
open space plans. The acquisition of open space lands must be from willing sellers and be obtained for fair
market value compensation.
Meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
Respectfully/ ��� ��submitted
�a�
I
Wendi Inloes
Secretary
9s�IID
Hello