HomeMy WebLinkAbout972063.tiff ‘.,L_ ( C^
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,'AUgUSt 571 qe
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held on August 5, 1997, in Rohn#'104,Weld
County Centennial Building, 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was,,called to order by
Chairman,Arlan Marrs.
Tape 530
Glenn Vaad Present
Cristie Nickles Present
Fred Walker Present
Marie Koolstra Absent
Jack Epple Present
Rusty Tucker Present
Stephen Mokray Absent
Bruce Fitzgerald Present
Arlan Marrs - Present
Also Present:Keni Keithley,Current Planner, Shani L. Eastin, Current Planner, Gloria Dunn, Current Planner,
Scott L. Ballstadt, Current Planner, Department of Planning Services; Lee Morrison,Assistant Weld County
Attorney;Don Carroll,Weld County Pubbc Works;Sheble McConnellogue,Environmental Protection Specialist,
Weld County Health Department;Tammie Pope, Secretary.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on July 15, 1997,was
approved as read.
Election of Officers:
Cristie Nickles moved to appoint Glenn Vaad as Chairman. Rusty Tucker seconded the motion. The Chairman
asked for a motion that the nomination be accepted unanimously. Fred Walker moved to accept the
nomination unanimously. Cristie Nickles seconded the motion.
Cristie Nickles moved to appoint Rusty Tucker as Vice-Chairman. Fred Walker seconded the motion. The
Chairman asked for a motion that the nomination be accepted unanimously. Bruce Fitzgerald moved to accept
the nomination unanimously. Fred Walker seconded the motion.
The new Chairman, Glenn Vaad,thanked Arlan Marrs for his work as Chairman.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1161
PLANNER: Shani L. Eastin
APPLICANT: Paul and Ann Linn
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review permit for a commercial use (custom
woodworking shop) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The S2 NW4 N2 SW4 of Section 8, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to Weld County Road 3;south of and adjacent to Weld County Road 34-
3/4.
Shani L. Eastin gave an overview of the proposal and explained how it is consistent with the Weld County
Zoning Ordinance. The existing shop is 2000 square feet;the applicant wants an increase of 4000 square feet.
Ms. Eastin noted that the Mountain View Fire Protection District's comments have been addressed in the
Conditions of Approval. The applicant applied for the Special Use permit to contain the entire 85 acre site, but
the Department of Planning Services'staff is recommending approval of the permit in a five-acre section only.
Ms. Eastin noted for the record that this does not constitute a legal land split.
-> 972063
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 5, 1997
Page 2
The applicant, Paul Linn, explained that he uses water-based materials in his business, so they are not
hazardous. He stated that he is in agreement with the change to include only five acres in the Special Use
permit. Mr. Marrs asked if the applicant was in agreement with the Mountain View Fire Protection District
Condition of Approval. Mr. Linn stated yes, but he is unsure if his 2" piping will comply with the gallons per
minute requirements of the water district. Ms.Eastin explained that the applicant will be required to report back
to the Department of Planning Services after he has had the opportunity to work with the fire and water districts.
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 if the applicant was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. The applicant stated yes.
Fred Walker moved that Case Number USR-1161, Paul and Ann Linn, be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards,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; Fred Walker-yes; Jack Epple-yes; Rusty Tucker-yes; Bruce Fitzgerald-yes; Arlan Marrs-yes;
Glenn Vaad-yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1159
PLANNER: Gloria Dunn
APPLICANT: Leslie Vandenbos
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review permit for a Private Airstrip in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The NE4 of Section 28,T9N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to Weld County Road 29-1/2; south of and adjacent to Weld County
Road 102.
Gloria Dunn gave an overview of the proposal. The airstrip will be 50 feet wide and one-half mile long. An FAA
Air Space Analysis will be required prior to recording, and the concerns of Weld County Public Works are
addressed in Condition of Approval 3B. Ms. Dunn noted that she did not receive any response from
surrounding property owners. The Department of Planning Services' staff recommends approval of the
application. There was discussion regarding Condition of Approval 3B.
Joe Surprenant,surrounding property owner,stated that he has no problem with the proposal, and noted that
the train makes more noise than the airstrip will produce.
The Chairman asked if the applicant was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Leslie Vandenbos stated yes.
Jack Epple asked if there has been any problem with FAA approval for the several airstrips that the Planning
•
Commission has approved in the past. Ms. Dunn stated that she was not aware of any problems.
Mr. Epple moved that Case Number USR-1159, Leslie Vandenbos, be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards,with the Planning Commission's
recommendation for approval. Cristie Nicklas seconded the motion.
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 5, 1997
Page 3
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Cristie
Nicklas-yes; Fred Walker-yes;Jack Epple-yes; Rusty Tucker-yes; Bruce Fitzgerald-yes;Arlan Marrs-yes;
Glenn Vaad-yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: 2ndAmUSR-894
PLANNER: Scott L. Ballstadt
APPLICANT: Kauffman Land & Development
REQUEST: An Amendment to a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review permit for a two-
acre increase of an existing oil and gas support and service operation and contractor's shop
for vehicle and equipment maintenance relating to those activities,as well as the construction
of an addition to the existing shop building,the construction of an additional shop building, and
the construction of a permanent office to replace the existing mobile home.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-1921,and being part of the SE4 of Section 9,T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Weld County Road 22;west of and adjacent to Weld County Road
19.
Scott L. Ballstadt gave an overview of the proposal and explained how it is consistent with the Weld County
Zoning Ordinance. The property was used for oilfield support services from 1969 to 1989,when USR-894 was
approved for decorative rock fabrication. In 1992 the first amendment to USR-894 was done for the site's
current use. In 1996, the site was separated from the larger parcel as Lot A of RE-1921. Mr. Ballstadt
explained that the changes that were made to the Department of Planning Services'staff recommendation are
due to receiving additional information after the packets were sent to the Planning Commission members. Mr.
Ballstadt stated that the Department of Planning Services'staff recommends approval of application. Arlan
Mans stated his concem,after viewing the site,with water drainage. Mr. Ballstadt explained that this issue is
addressed by Condition of Approval#3F. Glenn Vaad questioned the use of an oil tank as a sign on the site.
Mr. Ballstadt explained that this issue is covered by Condition of Approval#3A, and that the applicant has
indicated that the tank has already been removed.
The applicant representative, Mollie Sommerville, gave an overview of the proposal. Ms. Sommerville
explained that the applicant has already complied with many of the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards,and is working to comply on any remaining. Ms.Sommerville stated a concern with Development
Standard#2. As amendments to USR's do not extend the time of vesting,the three-year vesting period has
already expired. Therefore, Ms. Sommerville requested that a new vesting period be created. She was also
concerned with the wording of Condition of Approval#2. As this is an existing USR,the applicant wants to
continue its current operation. Ms.Sommerville requested that the language be specific to construction. After
discussion,Lee Morrison suggested that the word "amended" be placed between"The"and "Special Review"
in Condition of Approval#2. Ms. Sommerville stated that this language was acceptable.
Mr.Vaad asked Ms.Sommerville to address the concerns of Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company. She
explained that Manuel Montoya,with Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company,was under the impression
that product would be stored at the site,which is not true. Once he was told that, Mr. Montoya did not have
a problem with the application, and indicated that the storm water drainage plan required by Public Works
would satisfy his concerns.
There was discussion of Ms. Sommerville's request for creation of a new vesting period. Mr. Morrison
suggested the following language for Development Standard#2: "Approval of this plan may create a vested
property right to the same extent available for a new Site Specific Development Plan pursuant to Section 90
of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance,as amended,effective upon the date of approval by the Board of County
Commissioners." Ms.Sommerville and Mr.Morrison discussed the use of"may"in the Development Standard.
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 5, 1997
Page 4
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 if the applicant was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. The applicant representative stated yes.
Man Mans moved that Case Number 2ndAmUSR-894, Kauffman Land &Development, be forwarded to the
Board of County Commissioners with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards, with the
amendments to Condition of Approval#2 and Development Standard #2, with the Planning Commission's
recommendation for approval. Fred Walker seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Cristie
Nicklas-yes; Fred Walker-yes; Jack Epple-yes; Rusty Tucker-yes; Bruce Fitzgerald-yes; Arlan Marrs-yes;
Glenn Vaad-yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1162
PLANNER: Kerri Keithley
APPLICANT: Spanish Assembly of God
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review permit for a public church with an
associated grass playground area and ball field in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot of RE-1850 being located in part of the SE4 of Section 8,T2N, R67W of the 6th
P.M.,Weld County,Colorado.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to Weld County Road 15-1/2; approximately 1/4 mile north of Weld
County Road 22.
Kerri Keithley gave an overview of the proposal and explained how it is consistent with the Weld County Zoning
Ordinance. The proposal is on a five-acre tract of non-prime soil adjacent to the east of the Enchanted Hills
Subdivision. The church will have approximately 170 members, with two Sunday services and a Wednesday
night service. Ms. Keithley received many opposition letters from surrounding property owners. Some of
letters expressed concern regarding traffic issues in the area. These concerns have been addressed in
Conditions of Approval#26 and#2C.
There was discussion regarding septic system concems. Sheble McConnellogue explained how Development
Standard#8 will assure that the septic system is adequate for the maximum amount of users. There was also
discussion regarding the possible traffic problems caused by parishioners using Elm Street and Maple Street
in the subdivision. Arlan Marrs asked if a barricade could be placed on those two streets to assure that they
will use Weld County Road 15-1/2. Don Carroll explained that barricades are not an option because those two
streets are public roads. Lee Morrison explained that Mr. Marrs' request would require the replatting of the
subdivision in order to vacate the streets. Mr.Mans asked for assurance that the parishioners will not use Elm
and Maple. Ms.Keithley stated that paving Weld County Road 15-1/2 will encourage its use, but nothing else
can be done as Elm and Maple are public roads. Per Mr. Vaad's request, Ms. Keithley explained how the
proposed lot was created in 1996 through RE-1850.
Tom Lindsay, the applicant's realtor, explained that the church has been renting a facility that is too small
during their search for property. They have been unable to purchase property because of the cost. Mr.
Lindsay stated that they have members in the Frederick, Firestone, and Dacono area. He stated that this is
a very polite organization.
Craig Owen,surrounding property owner,spoke in opposition of the proposal. He agrees that churches are
urban. Therefore,he feels that this proposal is incompatible with a totally agricultural area. He disagreed with
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 5, 1997
Page 5
Ms. Keithley's description of the site as non-prime soil, as hay grows very well on the site. Mr. Owen stated
that he thinks that the applicant's goal is laudable, however,he feels that the area should remain a single family
land use.
Mike Pummer,surrounding property owner,spoke in opposition of the proposal. He,too, felt the proposal is
incompatible with the area and that it is more appropriate on the 500 acres recently annexed by Firestone near
Weld County Roads 22& 13. He stated he was shocked by the amount of traffic through the subdivision on
the day the parishioners came out to inspect the site. His concerns were the possible traffic problems and
whether the people in the subdivision would end up paying for the paving project. Fred Walker asked Don
Carroll who will pay for the paving. Mr.Carroll explained that the applicant, not the subdivision,will pay for the
paving.
Margaret Williamson,surrounding property owner,spoke in opposition of the proposal. Ms.Williamson stated
that the opposition is not prejudicial; she just does not feel the church is appropriate for the area. She is
concerned about traffic and dust problems,as dust control does not last. Ms. Williamson questioned how such
a large building is allowable when the property owners in the subdivision cannot have a barn larger than 1500
square feet. Ms. Keithley explained that the 1500 square foot limit applies to accessory structures in the
subdivision. The church will be the principal structure,but the rule would not apply to the proposed site anyway
as it is not a part of the subdivision.
Mary Mengel, surrounding property owner, spoke in opposition of the proposal. Ms. Mengel stated that the
parishioners will have a hard time in the winter getting to the church on Weld County Road 15-1/2, even if it
is paved. She also expressed concerns that the homeowners in the subdivision will pay for the paving, and
questioned the ability of a septic system to handle, for example, 300 people attending a funeral.
Barb Northcutt, surrounding property owner, spoke in opposition of the proposal. Ms. Northcutt's concerns
include the condition of Weld County Road 15-1/2 in the winter, the possible traffic problems and the
enforcement of the speed limit,the safety of children and animals on the subdivision roads, and the effect of
the church on the quality of life that has been created by the people in the subdivision.
Bobby Miska, surrounding property owner, spoke in opposition of the proposal. She asked for a guarantee
that the parking situation will not become a problem. Ms. Keithley explained that the parking lot will have 90
parking stalls, which will be sufficient per the rules defined in the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. (The
Ordinance states that the number of spaces is based on the number of seats.) Ms. Miska asked what the
occupancy limit will be. Ms.Keithley estimated approximately 1500 based on a rough diagram of the church's
floor plan. Ms.Miska expressed concern that buses would be used to bring in people for other activities,such
as school, and wondered if the fumes would become an issue.
Per Rusty Tucker's request, Ms. Keithley, explained that the Weld County Zoning Ordinance allows one
parking space for every four seats of capacity. Any parking lot expansion due to expansion of the church
should be covered by Condition of Approval#2C.
Maria Rodriguez,the pastor's wife, explained that the reason the parishioners drove through the subdivision
when going to inspect the site was that they did not know that there was another route. They now know to use
Weld County Road 15-12. She stated that the church has been looking for property for 3-1/2 years and is very
excited to have finally found a place. Ms.Rodriguez stated that the parishioners will work with the community.
Linda Owens,surrounding property owner, spoke in opposition of the proposal. She stated that Weld County
Road 15-1/2 is often closed in the winter. She explained that the people in the subdivision"work their land"
in the evenings and on the weekends,which means they may disrupt the activities of the church.
WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 5, 1997
Page 6
Ms. Williamson asked what type of structure the church will be. Dennis Tatum, applicant representative,
explained that the building will be I-beam construction similar to the Assembly of God at 17th and Main in
Longmont. Mr.Tatum responded to some concerns of surrounding property owners. There will be no buses
as the classrooms are used only on Sundays,there will be an average of 60 empty parking spaces because
of car pooling,and the septic system will be built for a maximum crowd,which means it will be 66% larger than
what is needed at this time. Mr.Tatum stated that the church is willing to work with the neighbors. Mr. Walker
asked if the cost of the land plus development wouldn't end up being more expensive than another site; Mr.
Tatum stated no. Mr. Marrs asked if the applicant knew what the approximate cost of paving would be;Mr.
Tatum stated no.
The Chairman asked if the applicant was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. The applicant representative stated yes.
Per Ms.Nicklas'request,Ms.Keithley explained that prime and non-prime soils are determined by using a map
from the USDA Soil Conservation Service.
Mr. Carroll discussed the paving process for Weld County Road 15-1/2.
Mr. Walker asked what happens to the USR if it is approved but then the applicant is unable to afford the
development costs. Mr. Morrison explained that all numbers must be resolved and collateral must be posted
before the recording of the plat If,after three years,the plat has not been recorded,there would be a hearing
to abandon the USR. Mr.Marrs asked if the Planning Commission can base their recommendation on whether
the applicant does or does not have the ability to meet the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Mr.Morrison explained that the Planning Commission sets the standards and then the Department of Planning
Services'staff is responsible for ensuring they are met.
Jack Epple moved that Case Number USR-1162, Spanish Assembly of God, be forwarded to the Board of
County Commissioners with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards, 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; Fred Walker-yes; Jack Epple-yes; Rusty Tucker-yes; Bruce Fitzgerald-yes; Arlan Marrs-yes;
Glenn Vaad-yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Jack Epple commented that the Planning Commission has recently approved several expansions of dairies
and feedlots that have been in close proximity to residences,and this proposal seems much more compatible.
Meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
i
anvitic"(Poptj
Tammie Pope
Secretary
Hello