HomeMy WebLinkAbout990685.tiff •
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, March 16, 1999
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held on March 16,1999, in the County
Commissioners' Hearing Room(Room#101), Weld County Centennial Building, 915 10th Street, Greeley,
Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Marie Koolstra, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
,,;
Marie Koolstra Present
Jack Epple Present ° n o
Cristie Nickles Present c >
Fred Walker Present 5.7;:,,
Bruce Fitzgerald Absent "71
Michael Miller Absent
Stephan Mokray Present v'
Man Marrs Present
Bryant Gimlin Present
Also Present Scott Ballstadt, Planner,Julie Chester, Planner, Ben Patton, Planner, Sheri Lockman, Planner,
Department of Planning Services; Lee Morrison,Assistant County Attorney;Trevor Jiricek, Health Department;
Don Carroll, Public Works; Wendi Inloes, Secretary.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on March 2, 1999,
was approved as read.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1217
APPLICANT: Faith Tabernacle Church
PLANNER: Scott Ballstadt
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 2 through 7, Block 1, of Peterson-Alexander Subdivision; being part of
Section 16, T5N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Church in the R-1
zone district.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to US Hwy 34 Bypass Frontage Road (28th Street) east of and
adjacent to 71st Avenue(WCR 29).
Scott Baflstadt, Department of Planning Services,asked that Case USR-1217, be continued indefinitely, due
to not having a commitment at this time of water services by the City of Greeley.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against the continuance.
No one wished to speak.
Stephan Mokray moved that Case USR-1217, be continued indefinitely. Bryant Gimlin seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Marie
Koolstra, yes;Arlan Marrs, yes; Cristie Nickles, yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Jack Epple,
yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1211(continued from the March 2, 1999 hearing)
APPLICANT: Mary Roberts/Jeremiah Wickham
PLANNER: Ben Patton
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SW4 of Section 31, T1 N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Recycling Facility.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to US Hwy 85; approximately 'Yz mile north of WCR 2.
elettafrj
OP3lIA�
990685
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
March 16, 1999
Page 2
Ben Patton,Department of Planning Services,presented'Case USR-1211,with new comments being entered.
Ben said that several concerns have been raised regarding the proposed use, such as the access and the
larger trucks not being able to make the 90-degree turn off of US 85; landscaping;and storage of materials
on the site. Ben then 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. •
Mary Roberts,applicant,said that she was in agreement with conditions,and if there is a problem with access,
they will use smaller trailers to get materials in and out. Ms. Roberts also said that they will be cleaning the
site within six months.
Bryant Gimlin asked what type of recycling business they will be doing, in particular drum reconditioning. Ms.
Roberts stated they will not be doing any reconditioning, and any type of metal drum that comes in will be
empty,and what would have been in the drums will be nontoxic,and toxic dumping is done off site in southern
Colorado. There will be no liquid, and primarily will be cardboard, newspaper, and some glue which is not
liquid.
Marie Koolstra asked about the application saying there would be burying on the site. Ms. Roberts said they
will not be burying, and any kind of waste will be brought to a landfill in Erie.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Janis Hershman, spoke against the application,with her main concern being the access off of Hwy 85 which
they currently share, and it is a narrow lane,the dust,and the traffic with concern for children. Mrs. Hershman
also questions Mr. Wickham's credibility, who has not made payment on the property in question since
September of 1998, and have concerns of a foreclosure, leaving trash on the site. Mrs. Harshman also
questioned why no permits or zoning changes were not required when the dumping began.
Ed Lehrberger, spoke against the application. Mr. Lehrberger has had many dealings with the Mr. Wickham
over the years, and has had a lot of problems such as defaulting on property, storing items illegally and not
cleaning them up.
Chuck Winchester, spoke against the application. Mr.Winchester has concerns with ground water, rodents,
and his main concern is with the access. Part of the road the applicant will be using is also a part of the parcel
Mr.Winchester lives on, and feels it needs to be rebuilt.
Man Marrs asked if there is an easement for the road. Ben explained that there is a recorded easement for
the right to use the road, and there is another access off of WCR 2. Ben said the easement abuts the trailer
park and it is 20 feet wide,and Public Works has requested that the applicant attempt to obtain an agreement
from the property owner to use larger trailers.
Mr.Winchester explained that part of this road does not exist, and there is a hill that has eroded, and asked
if this would move the easement. Ben explained that the easement does not move as it is a recorded deed.
Ben added that they need to explore this issue if there is a problem with the road being washed away over
the years, and they were not aware of the problem.
Mary Roberts, said she is not aware of the differences between Mr. Wickham and Mr. Lehrberger. Ms.
Roberts does not want property to go into foreclosure and will do everything she can, and with or without Mr.
Wickham, she is going to keep the property clean. As far as why permits had not been applied for previously,
she did not know because it was a business decision that maybe she should have been more involved with.
With the use of smaller trailers, the dust issue should not be such a problem, and was also not aware of
speeding trucks, but with the use of the narrow easement it should not be as bad using the smaller trucks.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
March 16, 1999
Page 3
Fred Walker asked if there is a problem with the easement as far as the soil erosion for the road, can there
be a condition that this be taken care of before approval. Ben explained that a standard condition on roads
by Public Works is that the road shall be maintained according to county standard, but since this is a privately
maintained road,they may have to add some language.
Bryant Gimlin asked who actually owns the easement. Ben said that it is mutual between the owners of the
property whose property is not contiguous to Hwy 85,which is at least three different owners.
Lee Morrison said that on occasion when an improvement needs to be made on private property before the
use occurs safely, there have been standards applied. If there is mutual joint use of the easement, a
requirement for an agreement between the parties using the easement, spelling out the responsibility for
maintenance, along with the type of traffic they are generating.
Fred Walker asked if a requirement on the length of trailers is placed,who will enforce checking this. Ben said
that we would have to rely on property owner's observation and notifying the Planning Department, and
appropriate steps would be taken.
Stephan Mokray asked about concems on storage of liquid materials, fires, along with other concerns, and
has this been cleared up. Ben said that the Health Department has gone above and beyond on conditioning
the site, and the applicant is required to inventory the items being stored.
Trevor Jiricek said there are several conditions, and they have prohibited the handling any liquids on the
facility.
Marie Koolstra asked about not storing more than 500 cubic yards of materials on the site at a time, and it
seems there is more than that on the property now. Trevor said the intention was for the facility, and this was
a number that the applicant felt was reasonable. Ms. Roberts said that the storage is going to be inside.
Bryant Gimlin asked about access and about the egress/ingress lanes off of Hwy 85. Ben said he did not
think there is anything excessive on the access, and did not appear to be an overly dangerous site. Don
Carroll said there is a traffic light located to south of the intersection which controls traffic flow to the north,
and has gotten in and of the property with no problems.
Man Marrs asked if there was an actual turn lane off of Hwy 85 if you are traveling north. Don said there was
a partial turn lane.
Marie Koolstra asked Ms. Roberts if she was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Ms. Roberts stated she was in agreement.
Jack Epple asked if the site needed to be cleaned up before the permit is issued. Ben said that one of the
Conditions of Approval is that the site is cleaned up six months after the approval from the Board of County
Commissioners.
Ben added Condition of Approval#30 to say: The applicant shall resurvey the access easement from US 85
and if the legal description deviates from the existing legal description, a new access agreement shall be
executed. And Condition of Approval #3E to say: An agreement regarding maintenance of the access
easement shall be executed and signed by all users of the easement. These would be prior to recording the
plat.
Fred Walker asked about the six months for clean up, and would this be conditional upon approval, or after,
and would like to see it as a condition of cleaning up before. Ben explained that the establishment of an
absolute time line is necessary so that the applicant could not keep pushing back the clean up of the site, and
there is also a conflict in timing of recording the plat,which is 30 days, and this is another incentive to clean
the property up.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
March 16, 1999
Page 4
Jack Epple moved to add Conditions of Approval#3D and#3E. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Marie
Koolstra, yes; Man Marrs, yes; Cristie Nickles,yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Jack Epple,
yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Jack Epple moved that Case USR-1211, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion.
Man Marrs said that he still had some confusion on the two additions to the Conditions of Approval, and that
the comments the Board had,did not seem to appear to be the same as what staff had. Ben explained that
he had made the changes after sending comments out to them, and that the additions should fall under prior
to recording the plat,#4A#4 and#5.
Comments from Arlan Marrs, Cristie Nickles and Marie Koolstra that there are some concerns on the
application with surrounding property owners, access and easements, that the Board of County
Commissioners needs to review carefully.
Comments from Jack Epple that he is also concerned, but cannot deal with financial problems, and if the
applicant is willing to meet the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards, then they should be given
a chance to do so.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Marie
Koolstra, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Jack Epple,
yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: Z-521
APPLICANT: William Harper
PLANNER: Ben Patton
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SW4 of Section 13, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone for five lots from Agricultural to PUD(Estate/R-4).
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to WCR 32; approximately 'A mile west of WCR 13.
Ben Patton, Department of Planning Services, presented Case Z-521. Ben then read the recommendation
into the record and stated that the Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application,along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Ben added that the applicant
has reduced the length of the proposed cul-de-sac to the estate lots on the west portion of the PUD.
Todd Hodges, representative for the applicant, said that Mr. Harper has reviewed staff comments and was
in agreement with them.
Arlan Marrs asked Mr. Hodges to go over each lot and what will be on the lots. Mr. Hodges explained on an
overhead map the proposal.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Ray Edmiston, spoke against the application. Mr. Edmiston said that the property is not%mile east of VVCR
13, but'A west of WCR 13,and did not realize the property was so close to his. Mr. Edmiston does not feel
the proposal is good for Weld County or the neighborhood.
•
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
March 16, 1999
Page 5
Gene Wagy, spoke against the application. Mr. Wagy said that he moved to Weld County with the
understanding that agricultural ground should not be split up into less than two acres. Mr. Wagy added that
the proposal is non-conforming to the area. Mr. Wagy was also under the understanding that the only way
to get apartment rentals, is if the property was on city sewer or city services. He also had concerns in the
increase in traffic on WCR 32,and asked if the home had been condemned. Marie Koolstra said that staff has
placed conditions on the site, and could get a copy of those from staff.
Trevor Jiricek, Weld County Health Department, addressed the sewage for the development, and explained
that in this case,the PUD Ordinance allows smaller lots when you have a community waste water treatment,
which this site does, and is permitted through the State Department of Health. If the site were on septic
permits alone, it would have to have an overall density of 2.5 acres per home, per the Ordinance.
Don Carroll,Weld County Public Works, addressed the WCR 32 traffic. Don said this was a paved road, and
current counts range around 200, and with additional 18 units being added, they calculate about 6.5 trips per
' unit, which the road is still capable of handling the traffic. On WCR 13, this road has been annexed by the
Town of Mead,and Hwy 66 is a state highway,which they do realize is a bad intersection, but have no control
of this location.
Harvey Fishner, spoke against the application,and had concerns on waste water being dumped into the lake.
Trevor Jiricek said that the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, requires a permit for
these types of discharges, and the facility has to submit quarterly reports to the State, and they are routinely
inspected by the district engineer. They do need to provide a certified operator to run the facility, which is a
condition of the permit, and a requirement of the State Water Quality rules. Mr. Fishner asked how will they
know that conditions are being met. Trevor said that any report done by the state, is public record, and failure
to comply results in a$10,000 per day, per violation. Mr. Fishner also wanted to know how the current owner
is going to bring the condemned building up to code, and feels that if it didn't work before,why would it work
now. They have had problems in the past with drugs and such, and they will have a large amount of people
with a large amount of problems.
Lee Morrison,Assistant County Attorney, said that the history of the apartments was not in accordance with
the county regulations, and violations were issued,and prior to this,there was a Use by Special Review permit
for a group home.
Marie Koolstra explained that the Board has to deal with the factual information such as zoning, land uses,
health department problems, and some of the concerns Mr. Fishner has, are with is law enforcement.
Ben Patton added that the physical status of the occupants of the apartment will not be consistent with the
previous use,and the Use by Special Review permit#860,which is still active, will be vacated as a condition.
There will also be covenants in place for the site.
Marie asked Ben if the current owners are the same as the previous owners. Ben stated that Mr. Harper is
a new property owner. Marie asked Mr. Fishner why he believes there will be the same problems under new
owners,when they are doing things the proper way. Mr. Fishner then had concerns on the four homes sitting
lower than the pond, and needing fill dirt brought in. Ben Patton explained that these concerns will be
addressed through the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards, and will conform to Building
Codes. Mr. Fisher then asked if they had a permit from Public Service to dump the waste water. Ben said
they do have a discharge permit, and permission from Public Service to cross their property. Trevor added
that a lift station will be required for the four homes to be served.
Barbara Fishner, surrounding property owner, asked if the new owners owned the property at the time that
the home was condemned. Ben said they did not. Mrs. Fishner then asked if there will be family dwellings
with children, or an adult community. Ben said there was no restriction on type or gender of the people
purchasing or renting the homes. Mrs. Fishner was concerned with the numerous trucks from Westem Sugar,
and any children that may be affected.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
March 16, 1999
Page 6
'Todd Hodges addressed some of the concerns. Mr. Hodges explained that the proposal is actually a
reduction in density. Mr. Harper has made improvements on the site. As far as the past history, Mr. Harper
has no intention of the same problems occurring, and with the Conditions and Standards, covenants, and the
State Health Department requirements, should ensure things run smoothly. Mr. Wagy indicated he has
concerns,and Mr. Harper had met with Mr.Wagy, providing a 100-foot setback from his property to the west.
Marie Koolstra asked Mr. Hodges if Mr. Harper was the property owner when the property was condemned.
Mr. Hodges stated they were not. Marie than asked about providing a place for the children. Mr. Hodges said
that he would let the applicant address that issue.
Man Marrs asked Mr. Hodges how far west the I-25 Frontage Road was. Mr. Hodges said about one to 1-1/2
miles. Man asked if it would be conceivable for some of the traffic to go west and meet with this road, instead
of going to WCR 13. Mr. Hodges said this was conceivable.
William Harper, applicant, said that he has owned the property since July or August, and the problems that
occurred prior to this, he did not own the property. Mr. Harper is now trying to redevelop the property into
something better and better quality apartments. They will have some swings and games for the children.
Concems on traffic on WCR 32 are posted as a high traffic area,with posted signs. Mr. Harper had contacted
most of the neighbors prior to the Sketch Plan, with the exception of Mr. Edmiston whom he was unable to
contact. He did provide the 100-foot setback for Mr.Wagy to address his concems of building to close to his
property. Mr. Harper said that he could have gone with a higher density, but wanted to maintain the rural
atmosphere. The USR for the nursing home facility is still in effect, and could go back to that use at some
point, but want to cut back from 120 to 60 people. Concems on waste water treatment are highly regulated,
and he is required to turn in a monthly monitoring report to the State Health Department, and operated by on
site care taker,or an off site service. Agreements with Public Service have been in place and included in the
packets.
Marie Koolstra asked Mr. Harper if he was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Mr. Harper stated he was in agreement.
Stephan Mokray moved that Case Z-521, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Cristie Nickles seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Marie
Koolstra, yes;Arlan Marrs, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Jack Epple,
yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1219
APPLICANT: Sand Land, Inc.
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NE4 of Section 29, and the NW4 and N2 SW4 of Section 28,
T4N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for Open Cut Gravel
Mining and Batch Plant in the(A)Agricultural zone district.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Hwy 66 and adjacent to WCR 17 on the east and west.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services, presented Case USR-1219. New comments were given
to replace preliminary comments. The Department of Planning is recommending approval of the application,
along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Sheri then read the recommendation into
the record.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
March 16, 1999
Page 6
Brad James, representative of the applicant, gave a presentation of the proposal with the use of maps. Mr.
James said they did try and create a tool that better communicates to the diverse agencies they have to
partner with. Mr. James pointed out on a map the surrounding land uses, such as cattle operations, a saw
mill, a farmers market and residences. Some residences are already screened from view and some are not.
Overall operations will use about 20 employees, involving approximately 200 vehicles per day. On hours of
operation, they are requesting to have up to three shifts with one and a half shifts of 12 hours being nominal,
six days a week. There will be continuous extraction and continuous reclamation, and no phasing for the
operation. Discharge permits have been granted from the State Department of Health. He addressed
concerns from the County on dust abatement, they are not anticipating a lot of gust from operations since
mining is done in moist conditions, and roads will be wetted by a wash truck. Noise will be controlled by
berming. Use of WCR 17 has not been determined at this time, or the access off of Hwy 66, so there is still
some work to be done with CDOT, relative to how access will occur. Mr. James talked about the reclamation
plan, which is designed to create multiple use potential on the property, and If the property was to develop,
in advance of mining resources could not be recovered, so it is in effect a conservation practice to go in
advance of development and recover the resource. They do expect to use extra fill dirt to enhance the shape
of the ponds, and after about 20 years will have four ponds and light residential.
Man Marrs asked if this will be a wet or dry operation. Mr. James said it will be dry. Man then asked if there
were any plans of any outside perimeters to diminish effects on surrounding property owners, as far as
lowering water tables. Mr.James said he does not anticipate impact on area wells,as there are no area wells
within 600 feet, except for what seems to be one abandoned well, and the 600 feet is a requirement by the
Division of Water Resources. Mr. James said that he did exceed the 500 feet notification process. Man said
that he has seen situations where gravel operations have impacted agricultural practices, as far as lowering
water tables in pastures and irrigated fields, and just wanted to make Mr. James aware of this. Mr. James
said that they are concemed with impacts, but this site is near a typography table, which makes it incredibly
stable as opposed to a hillside operation. They do not anticipate, because of this, any impacts to adjacent
lands. Irrigation sources are brought into the area through adjacent properties.
Stephan Mokray asked Mr. James how deep he anticipates the ponds to be,and if he plans on lining the pits.
Mr. James said they anticipate the ponds to be as deep as 40 feet, and have no plans to line the walls, and
that permits are obtained from Division of Water Resources. Stephan then asked if they had an augmentation
plan in place at this time. Mr. James said they are working on one.
Fred Walker asked about the dry mining, and if the water table was low enough so that they wouldn't have
to pump water out to extract the gravel. Mr. James said in dry mining they do have to pump the ground water
out during operations. Fred then asked about the northeast comer of the property, and if they owned this or
not,with concems with setbacks. Sheri Lockman explained that this is an area that has been accepted out,
but they do own it.
Mr. James then talked about the screening, and showed on his map his plan. Mr. James talked about
vegetation and the plan includes placing species in the mixture that provide different height,form,function and
color, across the property.
Cristie Nicklas asked about the applicants wanting to change the hours of operation.
Sheri explained that Section 44 of the Zoning Ordinance states that daylight hours are minimum standard,and
that Planning does not have the authority to change these. Lee Morrison added that if the hours are specific,
then the Planning Commission could recommend to the Commissioners the change, and places the burden
on the applicant to demonstrate why the extended hours of operation are necessary.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
March 16, 1999
Page 7
Jack Epple asked Mr.James if he was applying for a Minerals and Geology permit, and if there are currently
any monitoring wells on the site. Mr. James said they are applying for the permit, and have no wells on the
site at this time.
Marie asked Don Carroll to address the issue of access of WCR 17. Don explained that Public Works is
recommending as on all operations, that if there is a situation where there is a gravel stretch between the
operation at the entrance, they use a road maintenance agreement to have them pave the entrance to the
nearest paved road. The applicant has proposed direct access off of Hwy 66, and if this happens, the
entrance paving will not be required. They are also requiring dust abatement on WCR 17 for some
residences.
•
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 Mr. James if he was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Mr. James stated he was in agreement, but would like to gain some flexibility on hours, access,
the septic issue, and a 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, which he has spoke with them on
whether this was necessary.
Sheri explained that Condition of Approval#2J, addressed the 404 permit.
Mr. James is not sure at this time which access he will be using, and wanted flexibility on this issue. Marie
asked Don Carroll if the conditions were flexible. Don said that the current conditions reflect that they will be
using WCR 17. The proposal to relocate WCR 17, Public Works did have some problems with this, and is
not a viable option, and are not comfortable relocating the road, but would improve it where ft's at with an
improvements agreement. Marie asked what happens if they do not use WCR 17. Don explained that if they
have approval from CDOT for access onto Hwy 66, they would delete the requirements at that time. Marie
suggested that Mr. James have a route established at the time of the Commissioners hearing.
Trevor Jiricek addressed the septic system issue, and the requirement of a structure served by a hand
washing facility and septic system, accessible to all employees on site, as per the ordinance. Lee Morrison
said that with gravel operations where work moves within the property, the Commissioners have approved
porta potties, and they could recommend a vault or porta potties.
Chris Varra, applicant, said that they have used septic systems, but most of the facilities and the way the
general business is going for mining, he would agree on a septic system. They are open to whatever they
need to do.
Man asked Trevor if a vault system would suffice. Trevor said they have considered vaults in the past and
approved them.
Stephan Mokray moved to put in a vault instead of a septic system.
After discussion from the Board, Trevor and Mr. Varra, it was determined that since there are employees
scattered all over the site working on different phases over 150 acres, it is difficult to place the facility at a
central location, so they decided to leave the standard alone.
Stephan Mokray withdrew his motion.
Jack Epple moved to change the hours of operation to 24 hours a day, Development Standard#16. Stephan
Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Marie
Koolstra,.yes;Man Marrs, yes; Gristle Nickles, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Jack Epple,
yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
March 16, 1999
Page 8
Jack Epple moved that Case USR-1219, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and modification to Development Standard #23, regarding the hours of operation
conforming with Development Standard#16, with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval.
Cristie Nickles seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Marie
Koolstra, yes;Man Marrs, yes; Cristie Nickles, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Jack Epple,
yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1218
APPLICANT: Charles and Gail Schnerle
PLANNER: Julie A. Chester
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-1401; being a portion of the E2 NE4 and the NE4 SE4 of
Section 12, T5N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Home Business,
specifically of Storage Units.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to 95th Avenue, approximately 'A mile south of Hwy 34 Business.
Julie Chester, Department of Planning Services, presented Case USR-1218. New comments were given to
replace preliminary comments. The Department of Planning is recommending approval of the application,
along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Julie then read the recommendation into
the record.
Fred Walker asked if there were any suggestions by the Division of Wildlife Julie explained that an initial
referral was not sent, and that in general a referral is sent if the property is in a flood plain or appears to be
in an area of significant wildlife habitat which it did not appear to be. The City of Greeley brought the matter
to the departments attention, and a referral was sent at that time, along with a follow-up telephone call, and
a response was never received. Fred said he brought this up because of the letter from the City of Greeley
stated that any suggestions from the Division of Wildlife should be incorporated, and why would they write this
without knowing what the suggestions will be. Julie said they have attempted to contact the Division as
suggested by the City.
Arlan Marrs asked if 95th Avenue was a City of Greeley road. Don Carroll, Public Works, said that 95th has
been annexed into the City of Greeley. Arlan then asked how it is addressed on the issue of requirements
on the paving of 95th. Don explained that once an annexation occurs, it would be between the applicant and
City of Greeley. Julie added that the applicant is not against doing any paving, but wanted to wait until
construction of the buildings were completed.
Charles Schnerle, applicant, said that he was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards, but would like to change some of the landscaping requirements. The property sits in the middle
of a com field, and it is difficult to landscape. Julie said that this was a City of Greeley recommendation, and
that as long as they attempt to address the issue,this would be what Planning staff is asking for. Mr.Schnerle
wants to landscape on the east side of his property for sure, but the north, west and south side should not
require landscaping.
Jack Epple asked if the county is requiring any landscaping. Julie said that we were not, and that we are
asking for an approved landscaping plan since Mr. Schnerle stated in his application that he would be doing
some landscaping. It is going to be up to Mr. Schnerle to negotiate with the City of Greeley,or at least attempt
to, and send a letter stating he has contacted Greeley and what he is proposing to do. The Department of
Planning will be approving the landscaping plan, and we are not requiring that they meet the City's
requirements, but to attempt to meet the requirements.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
•
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
March 16, 1999
Page 9
Stephan Mokray moved that Case USR-1218, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation
of approval. Cristie Nickles seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Marie
Koolstra, yes; Man Marrs, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Jack Epple,
yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1216
APPLICANT: Lance Messinger
PLANNER: Julie A. Chester
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2235; being part of the E2 of Section 31,T3N, R66W of the 6th
P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Mineral Resource
Development facilities including Oil and Gas Support and Service (Storage and Repair of
downhole oil field tools).
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to WCR 25-1/2,just south of WCR 28.
Julie Chester, Department of Planning Services, asked that Case USR-1216, be continued to the April 6,
1999, hearing, due to lack of referral information.
Cristie Nickles moved that Case USR-1216, be continued to the April 6, 1999, hearing. Stephan Mokray
seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Marie
Koolstra, yes;Arlan Marrs, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Jack Epple,
yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjoumed at 4:30 p.m.
•
Respectfully submitted
tOoldjoigaiL)
Wendi Inloes
Secretary
Hello