HomeMy WebLinkAbout990864.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, April 6, 1999
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday-April'6, 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 1:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Jack Epple Present
Fred Walker Present
Bruce Fitzgerald Present
Michael Miller Present
Stephan Mokray Present
Arlan Marrs Present
Bryant Gimlin Present
Also Present: Julie Chester, Planner, Ben Patton, Planner, Eric Jerman, Planner, Scott Ballstadt, Planner,
Department of Planning Services; Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attomey; Trevor Jiricek,
Health Department; Don Carroll, Public Works; Jennifer Mehring, Secretary.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on March 16, 1999,
was approved as read.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1216 (continued from the March 16, 1999 hearing)
APPLICANT: Lance Messinger
PLANNER: Julie A. Chester
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of Recorded Exemption 2235, being a portion of the E2 of Section 31,
T3N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for Mineral Resource
Development facilities including Oil and Gas Support and Service (Storage and Repair of
downhole oil field tools), in the A(Agricultural)Zone
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to U.S. Highway 85, approximately 1/4 mile east of WCR 25 ''A,
between WCR 26 and WCR 28
Julie Chester, Department of Planning Services presented case USR-1216. New comments were given to
replace preliminary comments. Julie 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. Julie noted that Conditions of Approval 2B2 and 2D, should read detention rather
than retention.
Fred Walker asked Julie, on Development Standard 2B3, whether it was a matter of putting it on the plat, or
if the applicant had to provide the road right-of-way? Julie said that they just needed to indicate that on the
plat, because the right-of-way is already existing for future planning.
Lee Morrison, asked Julie if the 75' right-of-way already exists, or if it was a reservation of the right-of-way?
Julie answered that the referral response from the Colorado Department of Transportation that the right-of
-way already there, but the applicant needed to show that on the plat. Lee Morrison said the wording on
Development Standard 2B3, was correct then. Lance Messinger, applicant, stated that the right-of-way is
there.
Jack Epple asked Mr. Messinger to briefly describe what he will be doing at the site. Mr. Messinger explained
that they repair down-hole tools, which are the tools that run in and out of wells. Basically they repair them,
sell them and store them.
990864
Arlan Marrs, asked Mr. Messingers what type of screening plan he had. Mr. Messinger said that he had
concerns on how the screening will hold up in the years to come. He has seen different types of screening
and some of them look terrible, so he wanted to know if it would be better not to have any type of screening.
Bryant Gimlin asked Mr. Messinger to describe the size of equipment that will be stored and how much. Mr.
Messinger answered that inside the building they store pieces of materials about 5-6 feet in length, about 75
pounds which are stored on racks. Most everything they have can be hauled in a pickup, with the exception
of some of the metal pipe that they use, it's about 30-35 feet long and those are kept in the storage yard on
racks. There is probably less than 50 pieces of pipes kept in the yard.
Arlan Marrs questioned Mr. Messinger about the concerns on the property to the north of the proposed site.
Mr. Messinger replied that the property to the north is the nine acres that they exempted on a recorded
exemption. They are currently using 3 acres for the proposed site which will leave 6 acres to the north. Their
plan is to seed that and keep the weeds down.
Michael Miller said that Condition of Approval F states the property will not be used for its proposed use until
the plat has been recorded, and it appears that the property is currently being used. Julie explained that is
a standard Condition of Approval that they put on all Special Use Permits. In general, the use shall not occur
until the permit has been approved and the plat has been recorded, in this case, it began as a violation. Mr.
Messinger is bringing it into compliance by getting the Special Use Permit. Michael Miller then questioned
if they will continue to allow him to use the building as it is. Julie said that technically he should not be
conducting his business there until this case has been approved. So by approving this case and deciding to
take that condition off, then yes he will be allowed to continue conducting his business there without this being
approved. Should the board and Mr. Messinger agree on the Condition then he shouldn't be currently
conducting his business there.
Michael Miller addressed his concern with the on going procedure, people building their business and then
coming in for the permit. Mr. Messinger said that he didn't intend to run his business without the proper
permits. He was under the assumption that the contractor would pull both the Recorded Exemption and the
Special Use permit at the same time. They ended up in a situation where they needed the Recorded
Exemption needed to be done as quickly as possible. The contractors schedule wouldn't allow him to follow
through with the Recorded Exemption, so Mr. Messinger pulled that permit himself understanding that the
contractor would pull the Special Review permit. The contractor never pulled the permit.
Michael Miller asked if the hours of operation on Development Standard #3, would be satisfactory to Mr.
Messinger. Mr. Messinger answered that those were his normal business hours. He went on to explain that
they weren't a retail type business, they just have people corning and going. He has four employees that work
for him full time. Only one of them is there from 7a.m-5p.m., the other employees are usually in the field.
Michael Miller clarified that the other 3 people will be in and out 24 hours a day. Mr. Messinger replied that
they are in and out during their hours of work, except for the rare occasions that they work after hours. In
general they go out to the job site to fix the tools.
Michael Miller asked Julie if the building currently meets all the setback requirements. Julie said that it did,
and they have gone through the whole building permit process and the permit has been finaled. She said that
the setbacks are part of the inspection requirements and were approved.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Julie addressed some of the concerns the Planning Commission Members had in regards to this permit.
She said that the recorded plat on the Recorded Exemption shows the 150'of right-of-way on Highway 85.
Julie referred to 2A, on the Conditions of Approval,which requires the applicant to submit a landscaping and
screening plan. She said that they generally look at the long term landscaping plan but not generally the
screening plan. She went on to say that they can add language to read, "The landscaping plan shall indicate
location and species of all planting materials, planting implementation schedule and landscaping and
screening maintenance plan. If they add that language with the ok from Mr: Messinger, he would be required
to maintain the screening.
Jack Epple asked the applicant if he reviewed the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval. He
then verified that the applicant understood what Julie stated about the screening. Mr. Messinger said that he
understood about the screening, but his concern was what the screening will look like in a couple of years.
He said after looking at some of the materials, in his opinion they don't look like they will hold up after a couple
of years. Mr. Messinger said he felt that they would be better without screening. Jack Epple asked Mr.
Messinger if he was aware that the screening didn't necessarily need to be a fence, it could be a line of trees.
Mr. Messinger said he doesn't understand the need for screening when he is going to landscape along the
property line. Julie said that they could go over that at a later date, when he submits a plan.
Fred Walker asked Mr. Messinger if he was comfortable with the required noise decibel. Mr. Messinger
replied that the loudest piece of equipment they have is a fork lift.
Julie Chester stated that Mr. Messinger has been very diligent in pursuing the Special Use permit. It is the
philosophy of the Department, that if they are working towards being in compliance and making an effort, we
do try to work with the applicant.
Michael Miller moved to amend Condition of Approval 2.A. Add language to existing condition to state:
landscaping and screening maintenance plan. Bryant Gimlin seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Arlan
Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Jack Epple,
yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Stephan Mokray moved that Case USR-1216, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Michael Miller seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Arlan
Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Jack Epple,
yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1223
APPLICANT: Bart and Geri Fischer
PLANNER: Julie A. Chester
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of Recorded Exemption 1754, being part of the NW4/SW4 of Section
30, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for Home Business
(Construction Business), in the A(Agricultural)Zone
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 16 '/z and East of and adjacent to WCR 1
Julie Chester, Department Planning Services, presented case USR-1223. 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 Julie Chester on Conditions of Approval 2.D.1, if the right-of-way is existing or if they were
asking for a right-of-way extension? Don Carroll, Public Works, explained that this road is maintained by
Boulder County, and there is currently a 60' right-of-way. He said that usually on a situation like this, they
identify the future right-of-way, and ask to reserve additional 20'for future build out. Fred Walker asked Don
to clarify if they were asking to dedicate land or if it was something they will obtained in the future. Don replied
that they are asking them to reserve an additional 20' not dedicate. Arlan Marrs asked Don how that would
be recorded on the plat. Lee Morrison said the term reservation means that the right-of-way is there when
it is needed, it doesn't mean it is just granted. This right-of-way basically keeps structures from being built
in the area. He recommended to re-word Condition of Approval 2.D.1., to read "reservation of an additional
20' of right-of-way for a total of 100' of right of way for future expansion of WCR 1."
Arlan Marrs moved Condition of Approval 2.D.1, be reworded to read, "Reservation of an additional 20' of
right-of-way for a total of 100' of right-of-way for future expansion of WCR 1. Fred Walker seconded the
motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Arlan
Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes; Jack Epple,
yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Bart Fischer, applicant, said that they intended to utilize the existing facility and didn't plan on adding anything
to the property. The only thing they will do is clean it up to make it look neat. He added that they run a
construction business, so they didn't need to change anything.
Arlan Marrs asked Mr. Fischer if there was a problem with the referral from Public Works, stating that they
will need to remove or trim a bush, because of access problems. Mr. Fischer replied that he didn't have a
problem with the referral, and that will actually be part of cleaning the property.
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. Fischer if he was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Mr. Fischer stated he was in agreement. He added that his only concern is that the existing barn,
is only at 16.5', but after talking with Julie he realizes that the right-of-way doesn't affect existing buildings.
He added that eventually he would like to replace that barn with a new pole barn, but he will follow the setback
requirements.
Bryant Gimlin asked Julie to clarify what his current setbacks are. Julie stated that there are existing
structures on his property that currently don't meet the setback requirements, but they have already been
addressed in a Board of Adjustment. She said she talked with Mr. Fischer about replacing the existing
structures, and he will need to follow the setback requirements. There is an old barn that was built prior to
zoning.
Fred Walker moved that Case USR-1223, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Michael Miller seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Arlan
Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Jack Epple,
yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1222
APPLICANT: Town of Mead
PLANNER: Ben Patton
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt. SW 1/4 SW 1/4 of Section 8, Township 3 North, Range 68 West of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Major Facility of a Public
Utility for a Water Tank
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to WCR 3; Approx. 1/4 mile north of WCR 34
Ben Patton, Department of Planning Services, presented case USR-1222. The Department of Planning
Services is recommending approval of the application,along with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Ben then read the recommendation into the record.
Jenny White, representative of the Town of Mead, said their request is basically something they are obligated
to do with Little Thompson Water District, their water supplier.
Mike Mc Donough, Planner for the Town of Mead, said that they had reviewed Staffs recommendation and
found no problems with any them.
Fred Walker asked Mike Mc Donough what color he will be painting the Water Tower. Mike Mc Donough
stated that he wasn't sure if that had been engineered yet. He said that they suspected that it would be a light
blue/turquoise,or a light brown color, but they would paint it whatever color they felt would be necessary. Fred
Walker said that from his opinion the earth tones blend in to give it a better appearance. Mike Mc Donough
said that they have an existing water tank near by that is the light blue/turquoise color, so he thought the
engineer would make this the same color.
Lee Morrison stated that there is a provision grant called a munsell color scale that is to match the background
to tanks,which he believed is the color scale the oil and gas commission uses on their regulations. The scale
is based on earth tone colors.
Ms.White commented that the Town would have no objections to any color they are asked to put on the water
tank. She said that their main concern is that they need the water pressure and the water safety that goes
along with fire protection.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Stephan Mokray moved to add a Development Standard that will read, " the paint scheme will be approved
by the Planning Department prior to being painted."
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Arlan
Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Jack Epple,
yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Stephan Mokray moved that Case USR-1222, be approved along with the Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Michael Miller
seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Arlan
Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Jack Epple,
yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1220
APPLICANT: Ademar Construction
PLANNER: Eric Jerman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW4 of Section 35, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Batch Plant located
in the MUD .
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to 1-25 Frontage Road and south of and adjacent to WCR 28.
Eric Jerman, Department of Planning Services, asked that case USR-1220 be continued until the April 20,
1999 hearing. The Department of Planning Services asked for the continuance to allow Ademar Construction
to bring the application into compliance. Ademar Construction was aware of the request for continuance and
was in agreement with staffs request.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked Eric if the applicant was continuing to do business there? Eric said that he didn't know
if they had started doing business there. Eric then stated that they should not be operating now. Eric noted
that the applicant constructed the building prior to obtaining building permits and planning approval.
Michael Miller asked Eric to explain why they need to reduce the size of the boundaries from 115 acres. Eric
said that the applicant had originally applied for the boundaries of their USR to be 115 acres. He explained
that staff doesn't generally recommend such a large area especially because the batch plant will only take up
approximately 3 acres. Last week it became known to the Planning Department that they planned to put in
a subdivision on the same piece of land. Eric then stated that at that paint he advised the applicant they
should reduce the boundaries of the USR. Therefore when they apply for a subdivision they won't have to do
an amendment on the USR to reduce the boundaries.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against the continuance
of this case.
Sharyn Tomlin, surrounding property owner, wanted it to be known that she was present.
Stephan Mokray moved that Case USR-1220, be continued until the April 20, 1999 hearing. Michael Miller
seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Arlan
Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Jack Epple,
yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1221
APPLICANT: Pawnee Sportsmans Center/Allen Rechnagel
PLANNER: Scott Ballstadt
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: All Sections 1 & 12-7-63;the SW4 of Section 6-7-62 and part of Section 7-7-
62 of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use be Special Review Permit for a Recreational Facility
(shooting range) in the Agricultural zone district.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to WCR 71 and approximately 2 miles south of State HWY 14.
Scott Ballstadt, Department of Planning, presented Case USR-1221. The Department of Planning Services
is recommending approval of the application, along with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Scott then read the recommendation into the record.
Tim B. Rough, applicant, explained that they currently have a shooting range facility under a special use
permit. At the present time they are leasing the land and the owner has the land up for sale. They are
basically looking for a place to relocate the shooting range permanently with room to expand. Mr. Rough
handed out a packet of information discussing the need of a facility of this nature. He talked about statistics
in regards to safety. Mr. Rough said he felt this shooting range was compatible with the surrounding area.
He described the two different phases of the shooting range. Mr. Rough stated that he had a couple of
concerns pertaining to the Planning Departments requirements. One concern is the requirements for berm
height for the 600 yard range. Section 45.3.4.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a 25' berm with an
additional 15'barricade for up to 300 yard range and an additional 10'for each additional 100 yards of range.
Richard Beck, applicant, explained that the long range riffle doesn't go very far after 500-600 yards, and the
10'additional berm is not practical. He believes that a 20' berm with a 10' back stop should be sufficient.
Jack Epple asked Scott where he got the berm information? Scott replied it was specifically addressed in the
Development Standards to comply with section 45.3 in the Zoning Ordinance which addresses this specific
shooting range uses, and section 45.3.4.3.2. This states that for every 100 yards of range after 300 yards,
a 10' additional berm must be added. Mr. Beck added that:for this range they are requiring a 60' berm.
Jack Epple asked which Development Standard this was from? Lee Morrison,County Attorney replied it starts
in the first part of Development Standard#3. He stated that:it doesn't talk about it specifically but it refers to
the Weld County Ordinance.
Jack Epple asked Mr. Rough what other concerns he had and explained that they will discuss the berm in a
minute. Mr. Rough indicated he had talked to Scott on Development Standard#23, no overnight camping
or temporary housing, and Scott stated that the Health Department was unaware of the intent of temporary
housing and overnight camping as it was not proposed in the application materials. Mr. Rough asked Scott
if he had talked to Sheble McConnellogue, Health Department? Jack Epple said that Trevor Jiricek, Health
Department, was present and asked Trevor if he could comment on that? Mr. Ruff explained their only intent
for overnight camping was for their competition shoots that last a couple of days. Many of the participants
drive over a hundred miles, and overnight camping will enable them to be well rested for the competition.
Because they will be self contained campers, Pawnee Sportsmans Center doesn't plan on providing any extra
services or electrical hookups in the future.
Trevor Jiricek said that the Health Department had not reviewed Development Standard#23 with that intent.
Trevor Jiricek, stated that if restroom facilities will be available for anyone staying overnight and they were
sized appropriately, they should be okay. Lee Morrison asked Mr. Rough approximately how many
participants would be staying overnight? Mr. Rough answered that he didn't expect over 10. Michael Miller
reminded everyone that Mr. Rough had referred to self contained campers. Trevor Jiricek said just to make
sure facilities are available in the event someone should pitch a tent.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Mr. Rough stated that he had received three letters from surrounding property owners with concerns, and had
spoken to two of the three.
Wilma Andrews, surrounding property owner, felt that the questionnaire was misleading and brought up a few
concerns. Her question was if they were open for 14 hours a day with approximately 14 costumers, why do
they need so much parking, buildings, and employees? They say there is no sufficient growth anticipated in
this area, but since she has lived there she has seen growth in this area. Ms. Andrews also questioned the
statement that there is more desirable land to live on near the front range. She felt this land is desirable to
live on. The draw on the map is actually the bed of Sand Creek, and they don't want lead pollution in the
creeks. How are they going to improve the wildlife habitat? There is a deer crossing sign up the road, there
has to be a number of deer out there for the sign to be placed out there. Ms. Andrews then questioned if the
Division of Wildlife had addressed any concerns? The county roads to the Sport Center are gravel, how are
they going to control the dust? Will the Zoning be changed?
Jack Epple asked Ms. Andrews to point out where she lived. She pointed out that she lived directly to the
north of the proposed site.
Fred Walker asked Ms. Andrews if Weld County Road was an asphalted road at one time, because when he
went out there he had notice some asphalt residue? Ms. Andrews said Rolland Ball lives on that road and
he said that it has never been paved. Don Carroll, Public Works, assumed that it was recycled asphalt.
Larry Ball, Surrounding property owner, explained that his family owned a large amount of the surrounding
property. They live, farm, and ranch on their land. The roads as they are get really dusty. His main concern
is that they can hear the shooting range in Galeton, therefore, they know they will be able to hear quite a bit
of noise. Mr. Ball said that if it is ran right there shouldn't be a problem. But anywhere people are allowed on
a public piece of property there's trash left behind. He wanted to know which way will they be shooting? Is
alcohol going to be served in the lounge? He discussed that in section 14, new homes could be built, so there
is growth out there.
Roland Ball, surrounding property owner, expressed his concern with the trash that will be brought in by the
participants. He stated that his family's homestead was established in 1914, off of Highway 14 on WCR 69
and WCR 71. Every year they walk along the ditches and pick up trash that people throw from Highway 14.
He also questioned if alcohol will be served in the lounge.
Jack Epple asked Don Carroll what his traffic studies currently show on Weld County Road 71. Don Carroll
replied that they don't have a count on Weld County Road 71. He then discussed information he did have in
regards to the roads in that area. The main access route to the proposed facility will be south on Weld County
Road 71 on Highway 14. Public Works is recommending the facility to place a dust suppressant adjacent to
the residence and corral area. He stated that with the one hundred plus estimated shooters a week the dust
suppressant should be sufficient. He also asked for adequate parking at the range, in which he hasn't had
a chance to see the map for that yet, and suggested that maybe the applicant could comment on that.
Stephan Mokray asked Don Carroll what meant by recommend, was it optional? Don Carroll replied no, that
it actually states, "the applicant shall place". Stephan then asked what the life was on that dust suppressant?
Don Carroll stated about twice a year, usually around feed lots and dairies it is about twice a year. Scott
Ballstadt clarified that he incorporated Don Carroll's comments on dust suppressant on Development
Standard#18. It requires the applicant to apply dust suppressant on Weld County Road 71 adjacent to Mr.
Balls property, and not to exceed a maximum of 2 times per year. Michael Miller asked Scott to clarify
minimum or maximum. Scott Ballstadt said that maximum was the word that was used in the Public Works
referral. Michael Miller questioned if Development Standard# 18 should read "not to exceed a maximum of'
or if"minimum" would be the appropriate phrase. The current wording gives the impression that the dust
suppressant is not needed at all. Don Carroll stated that the wording can be changed to minimum.
Fred Walker, talked about the current success of the facility, and there will be more than 14 people out there
a day, he felt that the dust will be an issue. Scott Ballstadt clarified that prior to recording the plat, #36 does
require a parking circulation plan. The plan requires adequate parking, turn around area, and a traffic
circulation to the 600-yard range and also a parking plan. They will need to provide this prior to recording the
plat. Scott Ballstadt also addressed that the application does indicate one hundred plus users, and
Development Standard#22, does state maximum of 200 visitors during tournaments and special events.
Tim Rough wanted to clarify that there will be over a hundred participants a week and more during
tournaments, therefore they need the large number of parking spaces. He also said he is willing to comply
with applying the dust suppressant at least twice a year. He discussed that the Division of Wildlife had been
notified, John Wagner did send back information to the county. Typically, on the property they have used in
the past you see a temporary displacement of wildlife in the beginning, but they get used to your schedule and
they begin to work around it. He stated that they don't plan on changing the use of the ground in any way.
Mr. Rough commented that they have already cleaned the site up, and plan on keeping it clean. They will not
serve alcohol, and they have a very strict alcohol policy. Generally, the people who will use this range are
fairly educated and conscience. Basically, their history shows that they are very responsible.
Jack Epple asked Mr. Rough to mention his experience on noise and state which direction they will be
shooting. Mr. Rough said the best abatement for noise is distance, but they can do some landscaping, and
berming. They intend to refoliate a lot of little sand creek drainage, and this will give them approximately two
miles of noise buffer. Department of Planning asked to draw up map to verify they will try to create a noise
barrier, but there is no way to completely silence the noise. •
Jack Epple again asked Mr. Rough which direction they will be shooting? Mr. Rough answered to the north
and north east.
Michael Miller asked if they will be shooting into any drainage areas? Mr. Rough replied that they will be
shooting across sand creek, the shooting stations will be along the bank and the targets will be presented on
the other bank. Mike Miller clarified that they will be shooting away from the drainage. Mr. Rough said that
was correct, their sporting type range is done in a horseshoe fashion, so you shoot mostly toward the interior
and so that will reduce the amount of land you will have to reclaim.The will do reclaiming because they believe
that reclaiming is profitable. Mike Miller asked how they do that? Mr. Rough said that there is companies that
will come in and will do it on a percentage basis. Basically, they will pull up the top three or four inches of soil
and sort it out through a series of screens and the soil is resoaked.
Bryant Gimlin asked Trevor Jiricek as far as the lead shot and the material the sporting glaze is made out of,
draining into the creeks. Trevor Jiricek answered that initially they didn't understand that they will be shooting
across drainage, and he is not sure if it is an issue. He said from past experiences they are required to be
biodegradable, non toxic clays. In regard to the lead in the drainage, it doesn't sound like there will be any
because they are shooting across it.
Michael Miller moved to amend Development Standard#23, to read no temporary housing shall be permitted
on site, overnight camping for self contained units shall be permitted for two nights. Bryant Gimlin seconded
the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Arlan
Marrs, yes ; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Jack
Epple, yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Michael Miller moved to amend Development Standard #12 and #13, to add language to the end of
Development Standard#12 to read, this includes access to the clubhouse and shop building during over night
events. On Development Standard#13, add language to the end to read, the systems shall be appropriately
designed to allow for the hydraulic load for day-to-day business, as well as for temporary, overnight events.
Stephan Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Arlan
Marrs, yes ; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Jack
Epple, yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Michael Miller moved to amend Development Standard #3, to add language to read "not withstanding the
foregoing statements, shooting backstops and berms shall be constructed according to NRA standards, detail
drawings of which shall be submitted to the County Commissioners for their approval." Stephan Mokray
seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Arlan
Marrs, yes ; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Jack
Epple, yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Fred Walker moved to amend Development Standard#18, to read as follows, the applicant shall extend the
dust suppressant control area from 150' north of the residence to 150' south of the corrals on WCR 71
adjacent to the residence located approximately 1.3 miles north of the property as determined by the Weld
County Public Works Department, a minimum of two (2) times per year. Stephan Mokray seconded the
motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Arlan
Marrs, yes ; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Jack
Epple, yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Arlan Marrs moved that Case USR-1221, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Michael Miller seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Arlan
Marrs, yes ; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Jack
Epple, yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
APPLICANT: Lighthouse Cove/Don LaFaver
PLANNER: Scott Ballstadt
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2330; being part of the N2 NE4 of Section 16, T2N, R68W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to Pt1D for ten (10) residential lots zoned R-1.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to WCR 7 and approximately 1/4 mile north of WCR 20.5.
Scott Ballstadt, Department of Planning Services, presented Case Z-522. The Department of Planning is
recommending approval of the application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Scott then read the recommendation into the record.
Shani Eastin, representative of the applicant, gave a presentation of the proposed site. She explained that
Lighthouse Cove is a single family residential area with the central focus on the lake. The lake was formed
by an old gravel pit. They are proposing 10 single family lots, each lot will be allowed a boating dock and one
inboard ski boat. One boat will be allowed on the lake and no jet skis will be permitted at any time. Urban
services will be provided by Left Hand Water District and St. Vrain Sanitation District.
Mike Miller asked if the land around the lake is the original earth or if it is fill dirt that was mined? Shani
answered that is the original earth based on their knowledge.
Fred Walker asked Shani on Conditions of Approval 2G, if they were close to a regional trail. Shani replied
that they were close to a regional trail, Idaho Creek sits to the north. And there has been some discussion
with the Long Range Planner in regards to the possibility of a connection between the recreational trail and
the regional trail.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Ginny Shaw, surrounding property owner, addressed her concerns based on a letter from the St. Vrain
Concerned Citizens written by John Folsom. With only one road into the subdivision, would there be room
within the cul-de-sac for the emergency vehicles to turn around? The noise level from the boats? Is there
one boat per household on the lake at a time or just one boat from each household on the lake at a time?
What about the right-of-way on Weld County Road 7? Will the applicant provide an access lane into this
development? How late will the motor boats be allowed to be on the lake, and who will do the study on that?
This area is in the flood plain, will these houses be built according to building standards? Who will provide
safety provisions within the lake usage itself? She explained she feels these are important issues and would
like answers to these questions.
Sharon Hopper, surrounding property owner, complimented the applicant on the great job they have done
cleaning up the property. However, she expressed her concerns on the fact that there are twelve lakes out
in that area. How is it going to be determined which lakes will be allowed motor boats and which ones won't?
She explained that she had talked to Monica Daniels-Mika about this issue, and was told that it was really up
to the land owners to control that. Ms. Hopper said that she felt that it shouldn't be left up to the land owners.
She also said that this area is generally quite, and they will have to use good judgement on the use of motor
boats because of the noise factor. She also asked if they will they meet the FEMA specifications and if St.
Vrain School District will be able to handle the additional student load? She concluded that John Folsom did
an in depth study of the area, and feels his questions should be addressed.
Jack Epple asked Ms. Hopper to clarify the FEMA issue. Ms. Hopper explained that it is on page two, number
17, of his letter.
Bob Duckworth, surrounding property owner, he stated that his property is joined to the south of this proposed
site. He explained that he had been out of town, but knew that this property had changed hands, because
it had been cleaned up. With the way the property looks and from what he has seen and
heard today, he doesn't see this as being determental. He said that there have been motor boats on the lake
before, and there has never been any problems.
Mike Miller asked Mr. Duckworth how many boats at one time has he seen out there? Mr. Duckworth
answered that there has never been more than a couple boats on the lake at one time. He said that he can
see how this could be a problem if a lot of boats were allowed on the lake at one time.
Mary Reuth, surrounding property owner, she explained that this used to be her father-in-laws property, and
is happy that the new property owners have cleaned up the property. She said her only concerns would be
if there was a flood and Idaho Creek.
Tim Palermo, surrounding property owner to the north, said he is impressed with the clean up that has taken
place on this property. He also states that he is really excited about what the property owners are proposing.
He explained that with the old gravel pit left behind, the weeds had grown up, and from the moment the new
property owners have come in they began to clean it up and provided landscaping. He admits he had
concerns with this proposed site, but they came to him and explained their future plans and ideas. Mr.
Palermo also stated that in the past there has been water skiing, and some of the boats were noisy. But on
the other hand, he also runs tractors in the middle of the night, and hopefully the future neighbors will be able
to accept that. Mr. Palermo said ski boats have been out there before and you could hardly hear them.
Scott, stated that this is an 80 acre parcel less the 5 acre farm house taken off with RE-2330. One of the
Conditions of Approval for that Recorded Exemption was to clean up that property, and Mr. LaFaver was out
their immediately cleaning that up. Scott Ballstadt then addressed some of the concerns brought up. The
Fire District did state in their referral dated February 17, that the development did meet the requirements from
the fire district and there are additional conditions of approval to address that. The one hundred foot right-of-
way on Weld County Road 7 is accurate and was verified by the Public Works Department. At the time of
construction they will be required to come in and obtain a Flood Hazard Development Permit for each
individual building site.
Lee Morrison, County Attorney, clarified that it doesn't require a map provision, if there are two ways to
address it, the more cumbersome is to revise the map to show that they are outside of the flood plain. But
in this area they are allowed to show that their developmental will not increase overall flood way. There is a
process to do that and Mr. Folsom talks about one method for doing the flood issues. The less cumbersome
way to do that for each individual structure is to do it the way Mr. Ballstadt suggested. Scott Ballstadt added
that with the Flood Hazard Development Permit, each individual lot would have to bring an engineer out and
establish the base flood elevation and certify they will build accordingly to that flood plain. He believes that
the application materials indicate the overburden that was built up around the edge of the lake. And when the
engineer goes out to survey, they will probably back that up. Scott states the Conditions of Approval#3 has
a list of items that staff is requiring which addresses the Home Owners Association, covenant agreements,
and the Right-to Farm covenant. Therefore, he believes the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval address those concerns.
Ms. Eastin, stated that she appreciated Mr. Folsom's questions, and they have been incorporated into the file
and their development plan. Their Clients were dedicated into making sure that the surrounding property
owner's concerns were met. Ms. Eastin said the safety provisions will be strictly enforced by the Home
Owners Association. Ms. Eastin explained because this property is in a flood plain, they will be required to
adhere the FEMA regulations in regards to obtaining the Flood Hazard Development Permit. She then
clarified that the home owners will be allowed to have a boat and a boat dock, however, there will only be one
boat on the lake at any given time. The noise level will be minimal because the boats will be required to be
an inboard.
The Chairman asked Ms. Eastin if she was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Ms. Eastin stated she was in agreement.
Fred Walker moved that Case Z-522, 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.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Arlan
Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes; Jack Epple,
yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 4:33 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
CLilt) nifl;
Jennifer Me ring
Secretary
Hello