HomeMy WebLinkAbout991466.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, May 4, 1999
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday May 4, 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 Vice-Chairman, Jack Epple, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Marie Koolstra Absent
Jack Epple Present
Cristie Nicklas Present
Fred Walker Present
Bruce Fitzgerald Absent
Michael Miller Present
Stephan Mokray Present
Arlan Marrs Absent
Bryant Gimlin Present
Also Present: Julie Chester, Planner II, Eric Jerman, Planner, Ben Patton, Planner, Anne Best Johnson, Long
Range Planner, Department of Planning Services; Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney, Trevor Jiricek,
Health Department, Sheble McConnellogue, Health Department; Don Carroll, Public Works; Jennifer Mehring,
Secretary.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on April 20, 1999,
was approved with amended changes to grammatical and spelling errors.
PLANNER: Anne Best Johnson
REQUEST: Weld County Zoning Ordinance:
1. Repagination, grammatical changes and changing the case of letters of
words within this document for County-wide consistency.
2. Revision to the text of the Zoning Ordinance for consistency with FEMA,
current practice and regulations, revisions at the request of the Board of
County Commissioners and the Weld County Departments of Public Works
and Public Health.
3. Updating the Official Weld County Zoning Map.
Jack Epple, stated that not all of the members had received a copy of the zoning regulations, and requested
that this case be continued.
Anne Best Johnson, Department of Planning, said that the packets had been delivered to Planning
Commission two weeks prior, but the Planning Commission has asked for additional time to review this
request.
The Vice-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 that the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, be continued to the May 18, 1999, hearing.
Michael Miller seconded the motion.
The Vice-Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision.
Cristie Nicklas, no; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Fred
Walker, yes. Motion carried.
}
��"} • 991466
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
May 4, 1999
Page 2
CASE NUMBER: USR-1220 (continued from the April 6, 1999 hearing)
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, presented Case USR-1220 and read the recommendation into the
record. Eric stated that the Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the application
along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Eric noted that the applicant has agreed
to reduce the size of the proposed acreage from 115 acres to approximately 5 acres.
Mike Miller asked Eric to clarify why this Concrete Batch Plant is exempt from the Mixed Used Development
ordinance. Eric stated that this application is exempt from the Planned Unit Development process because
in the Mixed Used Development plan most of the guidelines and requirements are directed toward the Planned
Unit Development applications. Therefore, this application is exempted because it is a Use by Special Review
Permit, not a Planned Unit Development Permit.
Stephan Mokray asked Eric if the applicant is currently operating. Eric replied that even though they
constructed the site prior to receiving the proper permits, he is under the impression that they are not
conducting business on this site yet.
Francisco Martinez, applicant, explained that he misunderstood the process, and made a mistake by building
this concrete batch plant before receiving the proper permits.
The Vice-Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application.
Molly Larson, representative of Michael Siegrist, surrounding property owner,stated that Michael Siegrist owns
land south of and east of the proposed site. She noted that Mr. Siegrist had submitted two letters to the
Department of Planning. Ms. Larson addressed several concerns Mr. Siegrist had. The proposed concrete
batch plant will have visual impacts. What will be the effect of the increased traffic? Ms. Larson asked how
will the applicants help keep the noise to a minimal? Will they store other outside materials on this site? How
are the applicants going to address drainage, because they are on a downward slope? She questioned the
increased possibility of pollution? What will be the hour of operations for this facility? What is the compatibility
of this proposed site in comparison to the surrounding properties? She also addressed the issue that this
facility was built prior to the proper permits being obtained. In conclusion, Ms. Larson questioned why this
permit was exempted from the PUD process?
Lee Morrison, assistant County Attorney, stated that this process for a concrete batch plant is typically
associated with the sand and gravel operations. Therefore, it is exempt from PUD in the MUD.
Karen Radokovitch, representative of the applicant, explained that Mr. Martinez started the process to obtain
the USR permit in November 1998. The facility will be shielded from the surrounding property owners by
extensive landscaping. Mr. Martinez did obtain permits from Colorado Department of Transportation, Health
Department, Fire Protection District, and water,which made him believe that he was okay to build the concrete
batch plant. To Mr. Martinez's dismay, that was not the proper procedure, and he sincerely regrets proceeding
without the proper permits. Ms. Radokovitch concluded that berms and extensive landscaping will help
eliminate several concerns the surrounding property owners had.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
May 4, 1999
Page 3
Ginny Shaw, surrounding property owner, stated that she represented the St. Vrain concerned Citizens who
have presented the Department of Planning with several letters. She commented that their main concern was
that this concrete batch plant was built prior to receiving the proper permits.
Ms. Larson talked about the possibility of moving this batch plant to the north.
Arthur Brennan, engineer, said that Mr. Martinez is willing to assure that this concrete batch plant will be a
positive impact to the surrounding properties.
Jack Epple asked Mr. Martinez if he was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Mr. Martinez stated that he was in agreement.
Mike Miller asked Mr. Martinez of that 115 acres, why he chose that particular location to build the concrete
batch plant. Mr. Martinez answered that they felt that parcel of land was the best place to build the concrete
batch plant.
Mike Miller asked Mr. Martinez if he was proposing to build homes on the other acreage. Mr. Martinez replied
that the acreage was zoned commercial, but they haven't disclosed the possibility of a residential subdivision;
however, that would be a separate application.
Mike Miller asked if the setbacks would interfere with the truck's abilities to turn around on that property. Mr.
Martinez said no.
Mike Miller then asked Mr. Martinez what will be done with the waste and the washout water. Mr. Martinez
stated that they will be on site, but they plan on building a pond area.
Jack Epple asked Don Carroll, Public Works, if he has done any traffic reports. Don explained that the main
access would be off of the 1-25 frontage road, therefore, Colorado Department of Transportation will be
handling that. The Public Works Department is requesting hard surfaces inside the facility to hold done the
dust.
Jack Epple asked Eric what the requirements are on the noise. Eric said that on Development Standard #13,
the Health Department is requesting 80 decibels.
Jack Epple then asked Eric what the hours of operation would be. Eric replied that the applicant is asking for
12-16 hours a day, and 24 hours during peak time.
Fred Walker moved that Case USR-1220, 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 Vice-Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision.
Cristie Nicklas, no; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, no; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Fred
Walker, yes. Motion carried.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
May 4, 1999
Page 4
CASE NUMBER: USR-1229
APPLICANT: Fred and Paula Avery
PLANNER: Eric Jerman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SW4 of Section 14, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for Commercial Storage of
Recreational Vehicles, Boats and Trailers.
LOCATION: Approximately '/ mile east of 1-25 and north of and adjacent to Weld County Road 32.
Eric Jerman, Department of Planning, asked that Case USR-1229 to be continued indefinitely. The
Department of Planning Services and the Town of Mead consider the application to have several
complications. In addition, the Mountain View Fire Protection District has expressed concerns about the
proximity of available water supply. The Fire District is requesting the applicant to bring in an additional eight-
inch water line to the property. The applicant believes that the cost for this water line may prohibit pursuing
this application for the Use by Special Review at this time. The applicant is aware of this continuance and is
agreement.
The Vice-Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application. No one wished to speak.
Fred Walker moved that Case USR-1229, be continued indefinitely. Michael Miller seconded the motion.
The Vice-Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision.
Cristie Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Fred
Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1228
APPLICANT: Jerry and Jeannie Bess
PLANNER: Julie A. Chester
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the E2 of Section 8, T7N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Fishery in the A
(Agricultural) Zone District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to WCR 41 and approximately 1/3 mile north of State Hwy 14.
Julie Chester, Department of Planning Services, presented Case USR-1228. 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.
Stephan Mokray asked Julie if the ponds have been constructed. Julie stated that the referral response from
the Greeley Soil Conservation District indicated that construction had begun. She noted that she did not
witness the construction of the ponds because during her field check the roads were muddy, which did not
enable her to drive directly to the site. Stephan asked Julie if the ponds were required to be designed by an
engineer. Julie replied that the applicant was required to have an engineer's study, and directed the question
toward the applicant.
Stephan questioned the wording on Condition of Approval#K.2. and asked if that was the criteria from the
County. Julie explained that Condition of Approval #K.2. came directly from a referral response from the
Building Inspection Department. Stephan asked Julie if the applicant would still need to build a female
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
May 4, 1999
Page 5
bathroom facility if all the employees were male. Julie reiterated that#K.2. came directly from the Building
Inspection Department's referral, and suggested an amendment to that Condition of Approval.
Shannon Skelton, representative, stated that they have searched Northern Colorado looking for a competent
water supply that would allow them to hatch and rear quality fish. The proposed operation would run by pulling
water out of the irrigation wells, which are located on the southwest corner of the property. The water from
the irrigation wells will tie into one universal pipeline and then be pumped to the north rearing ponds, which
will be collected in a five-acre pond. A 20 horse power pump will be installed to pump water from the pond
to the southwest ditch, so the farmer will be able to irrigate his crops.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Skelton what will be done with the water during the winter months. Mr. Skelton
replied that during the winter months they don't need as much fresh water because they rely on aeration. The
fish's metabolism slows down; thus, they consume less oxygen. Mr. Skelton explained that they will run the
water into the tail pond and if any overflow exists, it will flow to the ditch on the east boundary of the property.
The ditch will then flow into Crow Creek.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Skelton if he operates any other fisheries. Mr. Skelton said no.
Fred Walker asked Mr. Skelton to clarify where the water would be pumped, after the retention pond. Mr.
Skelton answered that they had purchased the north 80 acres of a 200-acre parcel. The farmer whom they
purchased the ground from, will lease back the farmable ground. One of the purchase agreements for the
land and the wells stated that the farmer would be able to continue to farm the land. Mr. Skelton added that
the water would actually be beneficial to the farmer because it would be fertilized with fish excrements.
Fred Walker asked Mr. Skelton if the water wells are on the 80 acres. Mr. Skelton stated that one well was
on the 80 acres and the rest of the wells were south of the 80-acre boundary line.
Fred Walker asked if Mr. Skelton had talked to the Division of Water Resources about the use of the water.
Mr. Skelton replied that he did talk to Division of Water Resources and Tuttle Applegate had engineered the
design.
Stephan asked Mr. Skelton if the pond had been constructed prior to receiving the proper permits. Mr. Skelton
stated that he was under the assumption that he could construct the pond as long as he was not operating
business before obtaining the proper permits.
Stephan Mokray asked Mr. Skelton if the ponds were lined pits. Mr. Skelton said that the ponds were earthen,
which are 4 feet deep, 25 feet wide and 150 feet long.
Fred Walker asked Mr. Skelton what would supply the recharge pond. Mr. Skelton replied that the pond would
be supplied by shares of Larimer&Weld Irrigation and Larimer&Weld Reservoir. In the winter months they
would pump the water from the tail pond to the recharge pond.
Stephan Mokray asked Mr. Skelton if he was raising these fish for commercial use. Mr. Skelton explained that
they are a private operation that supplies anyone who owns a pond or a stream that wants quality fish.
Stephan Mokray asked Mr. Skelton how he will control the fish excrement on the farm land. Mr. Skelton
answered that part of the excrement will be in the water that goes to the farmer for his crops. The build up
of the excrement on the bottom of the pond will be treated one of several ways. One way is to use a bacterial
enzyme that will be poured into the ponds to purify the water. Another would be to drain the ponds and let
the sun dry the organic matter.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
May 4, 1999
Page 6
Stephan Mokray asked Mr. Skelton where he got his fishery experience from. Mr. Skelton replied that he had
worked for several different fisheries for a number of years. He added that Tuttle-Applegate has been a
phenomenal mentor as well.
The Vice-Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application. No one wished to speak.
Jack Epple asked Mr. Skelton if he was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Mr. Skelton stated that he was in agreement.
Jack Epple asked if Mr. Skelton had a problem with the wording on Condition of Approval#K2. Mr. Skelton
said no.
Stephan Mokray moved that Case USR-1228, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Fred Walker seconded the motion.
The Vice-Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision.
Cristie Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Fred
Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: Z-525
APPLICANT: Eden's Reserve/Mark & Jackie Eberl
PLANNER: Ben Patton
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NE4 of Section 21, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from Agriculture to PUD for 9 lots with Agricultural & Estate uses .
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Weld County Road 32 and approximately 1/4 mile west of Weld
County Road 7.
Ben Patton, Department of Planning Services, gave new comments to replace the preliminary comments.
Ben stated that the Department of Planning is recommending denial of the application. Ben then read the
recommendation into the record, and discussed the goals and policies of the Weld County Comprehensive
Plan which do not support the approval of urban scale development outside of Urban Growth Boundary areas.
Todd Hodges, representative of the applicant, argued that this change of zone is consistent with the PUD
Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Hodges stated through the submittal
packet,the proposed application meets the intent of the PUD Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan, and the Zoning
Ordinance. The only contention would be the number of lots proposed within PUD, solely based on the
definition of an Urban Scale Development. Mr. Hodges then went through the reasons for denial, #2A-#2H,
giving explanations.
2A. Mr. Hodges explained that this section states that property does not support the approval of
urban scale development outside of the urban Growth Boundary areas or areas served by
urban infrastructure. The only urban scale infrastructure which does not support urban
growth is the sanitary sewer. The existing site to the east, which consists of 20 smaller lots,
are serviced by individual septic systems. This proposal actually acts as a buffer transition
to the true urban scale to the east of Mead. Goal#2 of the urban growth boundary indicates
concentrate urban development and or adjacent to existing municipalities. This proposal is
directly adjacent to an existing municipality boundary. Mr. Hodges added that the proposal
also reserves the largest portion of the property for continuous agricultural production. Policy
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
May 4, 1999
Page 7
number 3 indicates that these urban scale developments should be directed to services
available. Services are not available from the Town of Mead. This proposal is in
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, because the proposed lot sizes are incompliance with
the zone district.
2B. Mr. Hodges stated that the only urban infrastructure not available is public sewer. Therefore,
it is in compliance with this section.
2C. Mr. Hodges addressed the issue that the Town of Mead would like to annex this proposal.
However, if it does get annexed into the Town of Mead, it would not be this kind of
development. Specifically, high densities would be sought.
2D. Mr. Hodges said that this proposal completely complies with this section. The lots are
adequate to supply the use of septic systems. Public water is also available.
2E. Mr. Hodges stated that Public Works reviewed this application, and meets the criteria.
2F. Mr. Hodges explained that the application does meet the requirements of the Public Works
Department. The applicants are willing to maintain Weld County Road 32 along that portion
of the county road that abuts the PUD.
2G. Mr. Hodges addressed the issue that this site is not located within any overlay districts.
2H. Mr. Hodges stated that this application was submitted as a specific guide. The application
is consistent with the zone district proposed,which is Agricultural, Estate, and Colorado Open
Space.
Mr. Hodges concluded that this proposal complies with the approval criteria of the PUD Ordinance, and when
constructed it will be an example of a creative design in which agricultural production can be maintained while
allowing residential uses.
Fred Walker asked Mr. Hodges if the Town of Mead was located to the right of this property. Mr. Hodges
replied that was correct.
Mike Miller asked Mr. Hodges if they have developed a secondary access road for fire access. Mr. Hodges
explained that it was not included on the landscape plan, but was included on the engineer's plan. Mike Miller
then asked Mr. Hodges if it meets the criteria asked by Mountain View Fire Protection. Mr. Hodges stated that
it did.
Bryant Gimlin asked Mr. Hodges to clarify the use on lot nine. Mr. Hodges said that there are no structures
currently on the property and the intent will remain agricultural production.
Jack Epple asked Mr. Hodges if he has communicated with the Town of Mead. Mr. Hodges replied that he
had not communicated directly with the Town of Mead. Jack Epple then asked Mr. Hodges if the Town of
Mead was interested in annexing this property. Mr. Hodges stated that The Town of Mead is interested in
annexing this property and is opposing this property staying in unincorporated Weld County if development
does occur.
Stephan Mokray asked Todd if the Town of Mead were to annex if they will provide public water and sewage.
Mr. Hodges answered that according to the infrastructure the Town of Mead cannot offer any of these
services.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
May 4, 1999
Page 8
The Vice-Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application.
Mike Mc Donough, Town of Mead Planner, addressed concerns that the town of Mead had. Mr. Mc Donough
asked if the existing ditch will remain the same with regard to safety and design issues. The Town of Mead
feels that the length of the cul-de-sac providing single access to the development is excessive. Mr. Mc
Donough asked what the applicant's intentions are on making the railroad to the west safe for the subdivision.
The 21 acres of proposed open space do not fit in with the Town's Open Space Plans. Mr. Mc Donough then
addressed the issues that there are 9 residential household's that will use the Town of Mead's services at no
cost, because the subdivision will not be annexed into the Town of Mead. He then referred to a letter from
Frank D. Hempen, Jr.,Weld County Public Works Director, addressing concern to help eliminate jurisdictional
conflicts with roadways.
Cristie Nickles asked Mr. Mc Donough to clarify what services the Town of Mead is offering to this subdivision
if it is annexed. Mr. Mc Donough replied that when the Town of Mead runs a sewer line, they will be able to
connect. He then added that they need to look at this community as what it will be in the future; police
protection, maintenance of the roads, etc.
Fred Walker asked Mr. Mc Donough in the Town of Mead's Comprehensive Plan, if it allows for 2.5 acres to
be serviced by septic systems in this type of zone district. Mr. Mc Donough said he would need to research
that. Fred then asked Mr. Mc Donough if the subdivision to the east was on a septic system. Mr. Mc Donough
replied that it was, along with a couple of other nearby subdivisions. Fred stated that he felt that the Town of
Mead was inconsistent with its policy regarding septic systems.
Fred asked Mr. Mc Donough who owned the ditch. Mr. Mc Donough answered that ditch is Highland Ditch.
He then asked Mr. Mc Donough if it was the burden of the property owner to change the slope of the ditch.
Mr. Mc Donough replied that was correct. Fred Walker questioned if they were trying to impose a condition
on the land owner for a subject right-of-way that is an irrigation company's ditch. Mr. Mc Donough stated that
was correct.
Fred asked Mr. Mc Donough if the open space policy was a policy in which the Town of Mead is willing to buy
open space, or if it is affected by zoning. Mr. Mc Donough replied that the open space policy was designed
to require money to purchase open space.
Fred Walker asked Mr. Mc Donough if they contacted any of the property owners regarding the proposed
intergovernmental agreement. Mr. Mc Donough stated that they have had several public hearing meetings,
which have been well advertised.
Fred Walker asked Mr. Mc Donough if annexation was a voluntary process from a land owner, unless it is
surrounded on three sides. Mr. Mc Donough replied that is the correct process. Lee Morrison clarified that
the IGA does not require annexation right now. It does address annexation agreement, which facilitates future
annexation can occur in the future. Lee Morrison asked Mr. Mc Donough if they could say that annexation
wouldn't occur until sewer service is available. Mr. Mc Donough said that would be acceptable.
Mr. Hodges addressed Mr. Mc Donough's concerns. He said that the two referrals from the Town of Mead
had inconsistencies. The first one from the Sketch Plan said that this subdivision would compliment the Town
of Mead, and requested to annex into the town. The current response seems to concern the design of the
proposal. He then added that at one point the owners did try to annex into the Town of Mead, but decided
to reside in the County.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
May 4, 1999
Page 9
Stephan Mokray asked Mr. Hodges how long ago the owners tried to annex into the Town of Mead. Mr.
Hodges replied five years ago.
Mr. Hodges stated that the final decision to annex into the Town of Mead lays with the citizen's of the town.
At this time the owner's would like to remain in the county, and are not closed to the opportunity to annex into
the Town of Mead. He then added that the railroad that runs by the subdivision is very rarely used. The
railroad eventually goes through the Town of Mead.
Cristie Nicklas asked Mr. Hodges what the Agricultural Lot was going to be used for. Mr. Eberl, applicant,
replied that it would be used to farm alfalfa hay. He explained that the reason they decided to develop part
of the land was because they wanted to continue farming, but needed extra income.
Mr. Hodges added that the property owners, at their will, held a meeting for the surrounding property owners
to address concerns they may have had.
Jack Epple asked the applicant if he was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Mr. Hodges stated that he was in agreement.
Fred Walker commented that he felt this application was similar to the Moriah Estates Case, because that was
approved by the Board of County Commissioners, he felt that they should follow suite. Fred Walker stated
that annexation should be a voluntary process, not enforced. He added that he felt that the Town of Mead
didn't have anything to offer the property owners today, although in the future they might be able to. The
property owners should not have to wait on the town.
Bryant Gimlin stated that he agreed with Fred Walker. He added that the way the agricultural economy is, you
have to sell some property to enable you to keep farming.
Mike Miller asked Mr. Eberl if he would be interested in annexing his property in the future. Mr. Eberl replied
that it would be up to the purchaser's of the property.
Fred Walker moved that Case Z-525, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Bryant Gimlin seconded the motion.
Cristie Nicklas commented with her decision, she felt there was a significant difference with this subdivision
and the subdivision north of Windsor. Do to the proximity of the city limits of Mead, she felt like this could be
approved.
The Vice-Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision.
The motion failed by Stephan Mokray, Michael Miller and Jack Epple, voting no and Cristie Nicklas, Bryant
Gimlin and Fred Walker voting yes.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1153
APPLICANT: Public Service Company of Colorado do Rick Thompson
PLANNER: Julie Chester
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Section 19 and the E2 of Section 24, T12N, R66W of the 6th P.M.Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Major Facility of a Public Utility Use by Special Review Permit Amendment for the
Expansion of the Ponnequin Wind Electric Generation Site.
LOCATION: Adjacent to the Wyoming/Colorado border, approximately 3 '/z miles east of 1-25.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
May 4, 1999
Page 10
Julie Chester, Department of Planning, presented case AmUSR-1153, and gave new comments to replace
the preliminary comments. Julie then read the recommendation into the record stating that the Department
of Planning Services is recommending approval of the application along with the Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards. Julie thanked the Romans, surrounding property owners because they had been
very helpful during the field check.
Fred stated that when this case initially came to the Planning Commission there was confusion on access.
He then asked Julie where the access to the property is. Julie said that the access comes in from Wyoming.
Rick Thompson, representative for Public Service Company of Colorado, explained that this wind generation
facility is performing exceptionally well. This is the first operating wind generating facility in the state, and the
largest customer driven facility in the country. This facility was built in January 1998 and began producing
electricity in April of 1998. Mr. Thompson said that they currently have approximately 1100 customers and
numerous small businesses. The Public Service Company has a need to expand the wind facility site to
accommodate additional demand. Therefore, they are proposing to add eight(8)wind turbines which will be
extensions to the west of the existing layout. The design of the turbines will remain the same. Mr. Thompson
added that the project to date, has proven that it is compatible with the environment. Public Service Company
has an extensive marketing program in place that is conducted by an environmental firm. The Department
of Energy has conducted an environmental review project for this area and found that the facility has no
significant environmental impacts, including the area that they are proposing an expansion. Mr. Thompson
concluded that Mr. & Mrs. Roman, previous property owners, were present and would be willing to answer
any questions.
Cristie Nicklas asked Mr. Thompson if all the footers had been dug and poured for the turbines. Mr.
Thompson stated that as a corporation they are trying to meet a tax credit date of June 1, 1999. Therefore,
they have dug the holes before coming in front of the Planning Commission, knowing that they were at risk.
Cristie Nicklas commented that she too was at the initial hearing for the original case. She talked about the
issue of the minimal visual impact of the turbines from Interstate 25 and Highway 85. Cristie Nicklas then
questioned the fact that the turbines are visible from both Interstate 25 and Highway 85. Mr. Thompson
replied that Cristie Nicklas was correct, the original proposal was for 27 turbines that were actually shorter
than the ones that were constructed. Through working with the Department of Planning staff, they reduced
the density of the number of turbines that were originally proposed and changed the actual type of tower so
they would be solid. By doing so, the towers grew approximately 8 feet in height making them visible to both
roads.
Fred Walker asked Mr. Thompson if the access to the site would remain the same. Mr. Thompson stated that
the access would remain the same because they have invested a substantial amount of money to that
location. He then pointed out on the map exactly where the access to the site is.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Thompson if the site was available for them to visit. Mr. Thompson stated that it
could be accessible for anyone from Weld County that wanted to visit, but currently they don't allow the public
onto the site.
The Vice-Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application. No one wished to speak.
Jack Epple asked Mr. Thompson if he was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Mr. Thompson stated that he was in agreement.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
May 4, 1999
Page 11
Jack Epple explained that he was at the original hearing for this facility, and one of the major issues was the
impact on the wildlife. He then questioned what the outcome was on that issue. Mr. Thompson answered
that an environmental assessment was performed by the Division of Energy, based upon the National
Environmental Policy and found that there was no significant impact to the wildlife by this facility.
Stephan Mokray moved that Case AmUSR-1153, be approved along with the Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards. Michael Miller seconded the motion.
Fred Walker commented that he had voted no at the initial hearing because he had concerns with the access
to the site. He stated that he felt that access issue had been resolved. He added that he was glad that he
had the opportunity to re-vote on this case.
Cristie Nicklas commented that she too voted no for the same reason. She agreed that the renewable
resource is a good idea. She added that she wished the visual impacts were mitigated by Public Service.
The Vice-Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision.
Cristie Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Fred
Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1227
APPLICANT: Jack Walker
PLANNER: Anne Best Johnson
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 2 of RE-1039; being part of the W2 NW4 of Section 20, T2N,
R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for the Manufacturing of
Animal Confinement Structures in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to US 85; 350' north of WCR 18.5.
Anne Best Johnson, Department of Planning, presented Case USR-1227. Department of Planning Service's
Staff is recommending approval of the application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Anne then read the recommendation into the record. Anne noted that Condition of Approval#2BI,
should read detention instead of retention.
Jack Walker, applicant, explained that the intent of the permit was to allow the construction of a facility to
manufacture animal confinement structures. He added that the business would consist of 5-6 employees.
Fred Walker asked Mr. Walker if he was aware of the noise level of the area. Mr. Walker said that the noise
level of that area should not be a problem.
Michael Miller asked Don Carroll, Public Works, if the property had adequate room for the trucks to turn out
on Weld County Road 20 and enter Highway 85. Don Carroll stated that Section J asked the applicant for a
25-foot wide road access to accommodate two-way traffic. The proposed site is far enough away from the
intersection to turn the semi-trucks around and to get squared away before approaching Highway 85. Don
also said that the State may request the applicant to make some improvements to Weld County Road 20.
Stephan Mokray asked Mr. Walker what type of structure he manufactured. Mr. Walker explained that the
structures are portable livestock buildings, that range in size. They are basically a modular livestock building
made of steel. Mr. Walker said that they come on a truck ready to be assembled, and that they assemble
them for the consumer.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
May 4, 1999
Page 12
Stephan asked if the buildings are wired for electric. Mr. Walker stated that they only wired for electric if the
consumer requests for it.
The Vice-Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application.
Darrell VanHooser, representative of the surrounding property owner to the south, stated that they don't have
a problem with this facility being built.
Kevin Willard, surrounding property owner, said that his property is to the north of Mr. Walker's property. He
commented that he is familiar with Mr. Walker's business and feels comfortable with this business being next
to him.
Jack Epple asked Mr. Walker if he was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Mr. Walker stated that he was in agreement.
Anne pointed out that the wording on Condition of Approval #261, reads retention and should read of
Detention.
Cristie Nicklas moved that Case USR-1227, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion.
The Vice-Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision.
Cristie Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Fred
Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 4:25.
Respectfully submitted
Jennifer Mehring
Secretary
Hello