HomeMy WebLinkAbout20133268.tiffSUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
D. A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County
Administration Building, Hearing Room, 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado. This meeting was called to
order by Chair, Mark Lawley, at 1:30 pm.
Roll Call.
Present: Bruce Sparrow, Jason Maxey, Jordan Jemicla, Joyce Smock, Mark Lawley, Michael Wailes,
Nick Berryman.
Absent/Excused: Benjamin Hansford, Bret Elliott.
Also Present: Kim Ogle, Chris Gathman, and Diana Aungst, Department of Planning Services; Don
Carroll and Jennifer Petrik, Department of Public Works; Lauren Light and Mary Evett, Department of
Health; Brad Yatabe and Bob Choate, County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Motion: Approve the October 15, 2013 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, Moved by
Jason Maxey, Seconded by Joyce Smock. Motion passed unanimously.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOCATION:
USR13-0043
E L DODSON
CHRIS GATHMAN
A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR A MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT FACILITY
INCLUDING AN OIL AND GAS SUPPORT AND SERVICE FACILITY (OILFIELD
SERVICE COMPANY LAYDOWN YARD, OFFICE AND REPAIR &
MAINTENANCE SHOP FOR OIL AND GAS EQUIPMENT) IN THE A
(AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
LOTS A AND B REC EXEMPT RE 4214; PART N2SE4 SECTION 32, T4N,
R66W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
WEST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 29; APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET SOUTH
OF HIGHWAY 85.
I► Chris Gathman, Planning Services, presented Case USR13-0043, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this
application with the attached conditions of approval and development standards. Mr. Gathman indicated
that staff was recommending screening for the laydown yard area due to the site being adjacent to
Highway 85 and the proximity to existing residences to the south.
Commissioner Maxey noted that he visited the site today and provided a field check to staff.
Jennifer Petrik, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access and drainage conditions and
the requirements on site.
DI' Mary Evett, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -
site dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan. Ms. Evett recommended deleting Development Standard
12 as it is duplicated in Development Standard 16.
Motion: Delete Development Standard 12, Moved by Jason Maxey, Seconded by Nick Berryman.
Motion carried unanimously.
Ds E. L. Dodson stated that this is a family owned business for support of oil and gas services. He
added that this site is mainly a laydown yard or storage facility.
Commissioner Maxey asked about the proposed housing and what it will be used for. Mr. Dodson said
that the house may be for him in the future.
1
/I- 031)-15
2013-3268
Commissioner Maxey asked if the hours of operation need to be extended. Mr. Dodson said that their
employees usually work out on the job sites. He added that they have shift changes and said that in the
laydown yard some employees would come at 6:30 or 7:00 p.m. The Chair asked the applicant what he
might propose for hours of operation. Mr. Dodson said it is a 24 hour operation but there may be
employees arriving at shift changes from 6-7 pm. Mr. Dodson added that he would like to propose hours
of operation from 5 am to 8 pm.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
DI' Commissioner Maxey wanted to clarify if the hours of operation should be 24 hours as employees
may come to the job site from a fracing operation outside of the daylight hours and doesn't want to see
him in violation for being outside of the approved hours of operation. Mr. Dodson said that it would be a
possibility for employees to come to the site after daylight hours, in emergency cases.
Motion: Amend Development Standard 5 to read "The hours of operation will be 24 hours, 7 days a
week", Moved by Jordan Jemiola, Seconded by Jason Maxey. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the amended Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in
agreement.
Motion: Forward Case USR13-0043 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval, Moved by Jordan Jemiola, Seconded by Jason Maxey.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7).
Yes: Bruce Sparrow, Jason Maxey, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Mark Lawley, Michael Wailes, Nick
Berryman.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOCATION:
USR13-0047
KEVIN & CHRISTINA CONTRERAS
DIANA AUNGST
A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR A USE PERMITTED AS A USE BY RIGHT, AN ACCESSORY
USE, OR A USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW IN THE COMMERCIAL OR
INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICTS (PERSONAL TRAINING FACILITY)
PROVIDED THAT THE PROPERTY IS NOT A LOT IN AN APPROVED OR
RECORDED SUBDIVISION PLAT OR LOTS PARTS OF A MAP OR PLAN
FILED PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF ANY REGULATIONS CONTROLLING
SUBDIVISIONS IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
LOT A AMD REC EXEMPT RE -314; PART W2SW4 SECTION 18, T6N, R65W
OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO COUNTY ROAD 37; APPROXIMATELY ONE -
QUARTER MILE NORTH OF STATE HIGHWAY 392.
Commissioner Maxey and Commissioner Smock noted for the record that they have visited the site and
provided field check forms to staff.
D" Diana Aungst, Planning Services, presented Case USR13-0047, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Ms. Aungst noted that one letter was received from a surrounding property
owner outlining concerns regarding signage and requested that no sign be associated with this business.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached
conditions of approval and development standards.
Di' Jennifer Petrik, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access and drainage conditions and
the requirements on site.
2
IIII' Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -
site dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Kevin Contreras, 3327 CR 37, stated that he is operating a cross -training facility. He said that they
coach them on exercises and health training. He added that the classes are 1 hour in length.
Commissioner Smock asked how he will accommodate parking. Mr. Contreras said that they don't expect
20 or 50 vehicles at any one time. He added in some classes they range from having 1-12 attendees so
they expect up to 12 vehicles at any given time and added that more than 1 person will come in a vehicle.
They have parking in front and overflow parking in the back to the east of the proposed facility.
Commissioner Wailes asked how long they have been in business. Mr. Contreras said that they started
in 2009 and have outgrown the previous facility. He added that they have been operating since 2012
from this facility.
Commissioner Maxey referred to Development Standard 4 relating to hours of operation and asked if
those hours need to be amended. Mr. Contreras thanked him for bringing it to his attention and said that
the last class starts at 6:30 pm.
Commissioner Maxey referred to the surrounding property owner letter regarding no signs. Mr. Contreras
said that he has talked to the property owner and said that he would like to keep good neighbors and
added that there is a sign on the north side of the property and that they are willing to negotiate the size
of the sign.
Commissioner Maxey noted that Item 2.A on Page 3 is conflicting whether all of the activities occur in the
pole barn. Mr. Contreras said that the majority of the activities are held inside the pole barn; however
they do have jogging exercises outside.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application.
Parry Peppler stated that he lives in Faith Estates, across from the proposed facility. He said that they
moved out there for the peace of the area and said that he doesn't want to have a sign installed for the
facility.
Commissioner Sparrow asked if the facility is compatible with the area. Mr. Peppier said that as long as it
doesn't grow he believes it is. Mr. Peppier noted that the joggers at night might be a safety issue.
'` Jim Shaw, 33409 Faith Lane, said that he lives directly west of the facility. He said that he doesn't
believe that the lighting and signs are necessary in this subdivision.
Commissioner Sparrow asked if he thought the facility was compatible with the area. Mr. Shaw said that
they like their peace and quiet but said that the facility is there now.
D` John Cook, 42577 CR 19, stated that they have been coming to Cross Fit Eaton since it was located
in Eaton and decided to continue to come to this facility because of the atmosphere. He is a firefighter
and his wife is in healthcare and added that this operation is essential for them in their profession. He
wanted to speak in favor of this case.
IP Mr. Contreras said that he understands his neighbors concerns and does not want to decrease any
property values including his own. He does not intend to light the sign and just wants a sign to identify his
location so it doesn't cause any accidents when they slow down and try to find the location. He added
that he might put a light in the parking area east of the facility.
Commissioner Maxey indicated that if there will be lighting to the east of the facility it shouldn't directly
affect the neighbors. He commented that maybe a sign wouldn't be necessary if the cliental is
3
established and if the website includes a map that identifies the site. Mr. Contreras said that they get
some drive by folks that will stop in but most are referred.
Mr. Contreras requested if he could increase the hours from 5:30 to 7:30 pm
DI' Motion: Amend Development Standard 4 to amend hours of operation from 5:30 am to 8:00 pm
Monday through Saturday, Moved by Jason Maxey, Seconded by Bruce Sparrow.
Motion passed unanimously.
Ms. Aungst outlined the types of signs allowed in the agricultural zone district.
Commissioner Maxey said that he appreciated the effort from the applicant on working with the neighbors
with the sign and hopes that something can be mutually accepted but he doesn't feel it is necessary.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the amended Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in
agreement.
D' Motion: Forward Case USR13-0047 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval, Moved by Joyce Smock, Seconded by Bruce Sparrow.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7).
Yes: Bruce Sparrow, Jason Maxey, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Mark Lawley, Michael Wailes, Nick
Berryman.
The Chair called a recess at 2:49 pm and reconvened the hearing at 3:02 pm.
® CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOCATION:
USR13-0044
AUSTIN PEITZ, C/O CRESA
DIANA AUNGST
A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES
INCLUDING OIL AND GAS SUPPORT AND SERVICE (TWO 8,000 S.F.
SHOP/OFFICE BUILDINGS, A MOBILE HOME FOR SECURITY HOUSING, A
DIESEL FUELING AREA, A PROPANE TANK, AND PARKING, STORAGE AND
MAINTENANCE OF FRAC HEATING TRUCKS, HOT OIL HEATING TRUCKS,
PROPANE TANK TRUCKS AND WATER TRANSPORT TRUCKS) IN THE A
(AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT
LOT C REC EXEMPT RECX11-0036; PART SW4 SECTION 30, T4N, R66W OF
THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 40; WEST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR
25.5.
D" Diana Aungst, Planning Services, presented Case USR13-0044, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Staff has received 30 letters of opposition outlining concerns of noise, dust,
traffic, hours of operation, decreased property values and fire control. The Department of Planning
Services recommends approval of this application with the attached conditions of approval and
development standards.
Commissioner Maxey and Commissioner Smock noted for the record that they have visited the site and
provided field check forms to staff.
Commissioner Jemiola stated that he serves on the Milliken Town Board and noted that he had no part of
the Milliken referral that was returned to the County. He feels that he can make a fair and unbiased
decision in this matter.
Commissioner Wailes noted that he knows a number of the surrounding property owners who are in
opposition but feels that he can vote on an impartial basis. Commissioner Maxey clarified if he had any
4
conversations with the individuals about this case. Mr. Wailes stated he did not have any conversations
with them.
Jennifer Petrik, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access and drainage conditions and
the requirements on site.
D' Mary Evett, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -
site dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Commissioner Maxey asked Public Works for explanation on turn lanes onto Highway 60 since CDOT
stated that the applicant would need to have a Traffic Impact Study done. Ms. Petrik said that she will
need to talk with CDOT. She added that in the CDOT referral they are requiring an Access Permit but if a
Traffic Study is required in order to review the Access Permit then they will work through that requirement.
Commissioner Wailes referred to a letter submitted by a surrounding property owner concerned with the
proposed retention pond on the property. Ms. Petrik said that the applicant will be required to meet the
State Water Law that states they are not allowed to hold the water for more than 72 hours. This will need
to be included in their Drainage Report.
r" Randy Hurlburt stated that he represents the applicant, Austin Peitz. He stated that the applicant
has owned this property for a couple of years and is employed with Heat Waves Hot Oil Services. He
added that they are currently located in Platteville and are outgrowing this location.
Mr. Hurlburt said that the retention pond would percolate within 48 hours so there should be no concerns
regarding breeding of mosquitoes. He said that with regard to equipment, there will be 31 units accessing
the site. He added that this does not include the 20 employee vehicles.
Mr. Hurlburt said that they have attempted to contact CDOT but unfortunately they haven't been able to
reach them. He said that the size of most of the trucks are similar to what is used in the farming industry.
He said that they are willing to be good neighbors and are willing to screen the property from the
surrounding property owners.
Commissioner Maxey asked if they are proposing any vegetation for landscaping. Mr. Hurlburt said that
they haven't proposed any landscaping but that they are agreeable to the slats for screening.
Commissioner Maxey asked if the applicants tried to contact any of the neighbors or had any outreach
after finding out the opposition to this case. Mr. Hurlburt replied that they did not.
Austin Peitz, 16501 N. Essex, Platteville, Colorado. Commissioner Maxey said that it appears it is used
for farming and asked if it was being used for crops. Mr. Peitz said that when he purchased the property
he intended to build his home. He added that due to family circumstances he needed to purchase a
home immediately and posted this property for sale. Because the company he works for is growing he
thought this would be a good option. Mr. Peitz said that there was wheat on the property but in order to
keep weeds down he mowed it. He added that no crops have been planted since last spring.
Commissioner Wailes asked if this property is currently on the market. Mr. Peitz replied yes.
Ms. Petrik provided a brief outline on the drainage report submitted by the applicants.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application.
Derek Ellis and Hillary Ellis, 19189 CR 25.5. Mr. Ellis asked if 70 units per day included the employee
vehicles. They expressed concern with the trucks making the turns from Highway 60 onto County Road
40. He said that the property value is a big question. When they purchased their property they were told
that Mr. Peitz was building a home.
5
Mr. Ellis cited Section 22-2-90 which provides guidelines on what commercial development is. He added
that there no major roadways or commercial park in proximity to the site. The nearest commercial
business is A&W Water.
Mr. Ellis cited Section 23-2-240 regarding egress. They emphasized that a traffic study needs to be done
because it is unsafe at the intersection of County Road 40 and Highway 60. Additionally, Mr. Ellis said
that they would like to see a fire mitigation system to ensure safety and added that they are concerned
about the 24/7 operation with the surrounding residential homes.
Pat Paul, 12854 CR 40, said that County Road 40 cannot carry the weight of these trucks. She
expressed concern for the animals staring at the welders and the damage it will do to their eyes. She
said that these are farm to market roads and not made for this type of activity. Additionally, she is
concerned with noise and lighting.
li Byron Schmunk, 19414 CR 25, stated that County Road 40 is a two-lane dirt road and during
farming you need to yield to farm equipment. Mr. Schmunk said that he has talked to the landowner of
the farm and he indicated that he offered to purchase Mr. Peitz property back. Additionally, Mr. Schmunk
said that there is a convenance on that farm that states only a stick -built residence is allowed.
r" Isabel) Vargo, 18847 CR 25.5, stated that she lives across from the site. She stated that the trucks
will not make the turn at the intersection of County Road 40 and Highway 60. Additionally, she expressed
concern for her animals and the noise from the trucks.
Daniel Stout, 1149 CR 40.5, stated that he is opposed to this facility due to traffic concerns. He said
that the trucks will not make the turn from County Road 40 onto Highway 60.
ID' Cindy Lips, 19117 CR 25.5, stated that she lives closest to the proposed facility. She said that they
raise animals on her property. She said that Mr. Peitz had planned to build a home and added that when
the property was being overrun with weeds she offered to fence the property off for her animals to graze
but did not receive a call back. She said the closest corner of her home is 16.5 feet from Mr. Peitz
property line. Ms. Lips expressed concerns regarding noise, odor, truck traffic, and traffic safety.
The Chair called a recess at 5:04 pm and reconvened the hearing at 5:13 pm.
Robert Birdseye, 19117 CR 25.5, stated that he is a truck driver and added that you cannot turn
onto County Road 40 with commercial trucks. He is in opposition to this proposal because it is
incompatible with the surrounding area.
Sheryl Weigandt, 19619 CR 25.5, stated that she is in opposition to this facility and expressed
concerns regarding traffic, dust and wear on County Road 40. She added that there will be a lot of extra
traffic and would like to see the community stay as an agricultural community.
DP' Gale Scott, 11496 CR 40, stated that there is no commercial property in this area. She is concerned
that it is changing from a farming and rural residential area to a commercial area.
Mr. Peitz appreciated all the comments that were said and added that he intended to build a home
for his family. The property lines were drawn prior to when he purchased the parcel. The offers he
received were less than what he owed on the property. He said that they are trying to do everything right
and will comply with all the rules.
Mr. Hurlburt said that they intend to visit with CDOT on further direction regarding the traffic study. With
regard to lighting, Mr. Hurlburt said that they will submit an engineered lighting plan and added that they
do not intend to spill any light off -site.
6
ID' The Chair asked staff to explain the traffic study requirements. Ms. Petrik said that 100 round trips
require a traffic study. She added that CDOT did mention the requirement of a traffic study in their
referral; therefore they can request a traffic study be provided. Ms. Petrik stated that they will work with
CDOT on any improvements that are required at the intersection of Highway 60 and County Road 40.
Additionally, the legal weight limit on county roads is 85,000 pounds and if the road is damaged there is a
road maintenance agreement that would state they are responsible for any damage.
Commissioner Maxey asked the applicants if they looked at any other sites. Mr. Hurlburt said that they
have looked for the past year but haven't found anything so since this was readily available they felt it
was a good opportunity.
The Chair asked if there was a referral from the fire department. Ms. Aungst said that she tried to get
comments from the fire district but was not successful; however she hopes to have them prior to Board of
County Commissioners hearing. She did receive an email on Saturday from the Platteville-Gilcrest Fire
Protection District with a list of questions. She forwarded the email to Mr. Hurlburt and requested that he
contact the Fire District and answer these questions. She added that there is a condition of approval that
all building permits will need to have fire district approval prior to issuance of the building permits.
The Chair asked staff to explain noise restrictions. Ms. Evett said that the applicants will need to meet
the commercial and residential levels which are 55 decibels during the day.
The Chair clarified if the applicant is required to submit a lighting plan. Ms. Aungst said that it is required;
however they haven't received a plan yet.
Commissioner Maxey stated that he feels that a traffic study is warranted
I" Motion: Add Condition of Approval 1.F that requires a traffic study be provided, Moved by Jason
Maxey, Seconded by Jordan Jemiola. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the amended Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in
agreement.
ID. Motion: Forward Case USR13-0044 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, Moved by Jordan Jemiola. Motion died due to lack of second motion.
Motion: Forward Case USR13-0044 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
denial, Moved by Jason Maxey, Seconded by Nick Berryman.
Commissioner Maxey commented that he feels this request is industrial in natural and that it is
incompatible with surrounding land uses. He cited Section 23-2-220.A.3 regarding compatibility.
Commissioner Sparrow commented that he feels the landowners have the right to do what they want with
their property; however he believes that in this case the neighbors lose part of their property rights by this
proposal.
Commissioner Wailes concurred with Mr. Maxey and Mr. Sparrow and added that he supports private
property rights. He doesn't believe that they would be able to mitigate enough of the factors that are
causing a problem for a worthwhile enterprise for the applicants.
Commissioner Jemiola said that he doesn't believe that you have a right to a "view" and that traffic
concerns could be mitigated with a traffic study.
7
Commissioner Smock cited Section 22-2-90 regarding compatibility and feels that the applicant is sincere
with his desire to do what is correct. She believes that compatibility is the issue and it is not compatible
with the surrounding area.
Commissioner Berryman agreed with Mr. Maxey and cited Section 23-2-220.A.3 regarding compatibility
with surrounding land uses. He believes this is a rural agricultural area. He believes this business would
be better located closer to a well -traveled paved road and an existing commercial or industrial zoned
property.
Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 5, No = 2, Abstain = 0).
Yes: Bruce Sparrow, Jason Maxey, Joyce Smock, Michael Wailes, Nick Berryman.
No: Jordan Jemiola, Mark Lawley.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOCATION:
USR13-0032
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO
KIM OGLE
A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
FOR A MAJOR FACILITY OF A PUBLIC UTILITY (ONE 115 kV
TRANSMISSION EXTENDING APPROXIMATELY 2.5 MILES) IN THE A
(AGRICULTURAL), R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTAL) AND 1-3 (INDUSTRIAL)
ZONE DISTRICTS
THE PREFERRED ROUTE COMMENCES AT THE MONFORT SUBSTATION
LOCATED IN THE NE4 OF SECTION 33, T6N, R65W AND HEADS TO THE
MIDDLE OF THE SE4 OF SECTION 33 THEN CONTINUES WEST ALONG
THE S2 OF SECTION 33 AND TERMINATES AT THE LUCERNE GAS PLANT
EXPANSION IN THE S2 OF SECTION 32, T6N, R65W OF THE 6T" P.M., WELD
COUNTY, COLORADO
GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF EAST C STREET; 0.5 MILES WEST OF
CR 43; SOUTH OF CR 64.5; EAST OF NORTH 6TH AVENUE.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, presented Case USR13-0032, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Mr. Ogle noted that the Planning Commission heard this case on September
17, 2013 and recommended approval. The case moved forward to the Board of County Commissioners
and on October 2n° it was referred back to the Department of Planning Services to allow the applicant
additional time for further review of the various route options and to determine potential compensation for
impacted landowners. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application
with the attached conditions of approval and development standards.
ID* Don Carroll, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access and drainage conditions and the
requirements on site.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -
site dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
I* Derek Holscher, Public Service Company of Colorado, 1800 Larimer Street, Suite 400, Denver
Colorado, stated that this is a 2.5 mile transmission line to serve the needs of the DCP plant expansion.
At the August 61h Planning Commission meeting there was a concern by landowners regarding the
preferred route. Therefore they requested a continuance and met with the landowners and then
amended the preferred alignment. This alignment was then presented at the September 17th Planning
Commission and was recommended for approval. At the October 2n° Board of County Commissioner
hearing, the surrounding land owners had further concerns and it was referred back to the Planning
Commission. Since that hearing Public Service Company of Colorado and DCP have worked with the
landowners to resolve all issues. At this time after review of several different routes and public outreach
they believe that this is the best and preferred route (Route A) and the landowners have agreed as well.
D" Patrick Groom, 822 71b Street, Suite 760, Greeley, Colorado, stated that this transmission line is
intended to provide power to the DCP Lucerne Expansion Plan; however inheritantly landowners were
affected. As a result DCP worked with the affected landowners and they believe that they have reached
8
agreements in principle with all of the landowners to address their concerns. Mr. Groom added Mr.
Hoshiko still has some details that need to be worked out, such as the exact width of the easement and
placement of the transmission poles; however they believe these issues will be resolved before the Board
of County Commissioner hearing. All of the other concerns presented by Mr. Hoshiko have been
addressed and they believe that the affected landowners support this preferred route. Mr. Groom said
that they intend to have signed letter agreements prior to the Board of County Commissioner hearing.
Commissioner Maxey said that from the Planning Commission continuation he believed that Public
Service mitigated the main concern of the landowners in which the proposed route cut their farms in half
and eliminated the possibility of center pivot irrigation. He added that he is struggling to see what more
they can do now. He understands the on -going negotiations but the route is the same and they can't pay
the price until it is approved.
Brad Yatabe, County Attorney, clarified that there was a lot of question at the Board of County
Commissioner hearing as to the route and potential alternatives to that and that is why it came back to the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Groom said the landowners are in favor of this route and added that there are minor details that still
need to be resolved such as how many poles there will be and maintenance around the poles. He said
that the main concern of overall compensation has been negotiated and agreed upon by the landowners.
Mr. Groom added that after the Board of County Commissioner hearing Public Service and DCP did
review alternate routes and they remain convinced that this preferred route has the least impact and the
most efficient route.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Motion: Forward Case USR13-0032 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, Moved by Jordan Jemiola, Seconded by Jason Maxey.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7).
Yes: Bruce Sparrow, Jason Maxey, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Mark Lawley, Michael Wailes, Nick
Berryman.
CASE NUMBER: ORDINANCE 2013-11
PRESENTED BY: BOB CHOATE
REQUEST: WELD COUNTY CODE ORDINANCE #2013-11, IN THE MATTER OF
REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS, CHAPTER 3 HUMAN
RESOURCES, CHAPTER 6 LAW ENFORCEMENT, CHAPTER 12 LICENSES
AND PERMITS, AND CHAPTER 23 ZONING, OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE.
► Bob Choate, County Attorney, introduced Ordinance 2013-11. Mr. Choate presented the proposed
code changes to Chapter 23 relating to marijuana and the legalization of it in Colorado and how Weld
County is responding to it.
Mr. Jemiola asked if this includes hemp. Mr. Choate said it does not. The changes to Chapter 23 include
recreational marijuana into the definitions.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
III' Motion: Forward Ordinance 2013-11 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Planning Commission's recommendation of approval, Moved by Jordan Jemiola, Seconded by Bruce
Sparrow.
9
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7).
Yes: Bruce Sparrow, Jason Maxey, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Mark Lawley, Michael Wailes, Nick
Berryman.
Dr CASE NUMBER:
PRESENTED BY:
REQUEST:
ORDINANCE 2013-10
BRAD YATABE
WELD COUNTY CODE ORDINANCE #2013-10, IN THE MATTER OF
REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS, CHAPTER 23
ZONING, AND CHAPTER 8 PUBLIC WORKS, OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE.
I' Brad Yatabe, County Attorney, introduced Ordinance 2013-10. Mr. Yatabe presented the proposed
code changes to Chapter 8, Public Works and Chapter 23, Zoning of the Weld County Code.
Mr. Yatabe said that this is the floodplain management ordinance that is currently contained in Chapter 23
and is proposed to move to Chapter 8. There are 2 issues that promoted this change: 1) the Colorado
Water Conservation Board is the apparatus that oversees FEMA guidelines within Colorado and they
have changed some rules around and we are being mandated to have these rules in effect by January
14, 2014. In order to qualify for National Flood Insurance Program, each locality needs to have a
floodplain manager and they need to meet at least the baseline FEMA standards. He added that at a
county level if we want our county citizens eligible for flood insurance and disaster funds through FEMA
we need to have a floodplain administrator and have these in effect. The second prompting of this
change is due to the recent floods. This was presented at a 1st reading with the BOCC because there are
citizens looking to rebuild and we want them to do that with the most up to date standards. He added that
the 2n° reading has been continued twice to allow for further consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners. There is some debate on whether these should remain under Chapter 23 or if they
should move over to Chapter 8 Public Works.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
r' Motion: Forward Ordinance 2013-10 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Planning Commission's recommendation of approval, Moved by Jordan Jemiola, Seconded by Jason
Maxey.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7).
Yes: Bruce Sparrow, Jason Maxey, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Mark Lawley, Michael Wailes, Nick
Berryman.
The Chair asked the public if there were other items of business that they would like to discuss. No one
wished to speak.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss. Kris
Ranslem, Planning Services, presented the 2014 Hearing Dates for the Planning Commission. The
Planning Commission recognized and accepted the 2014 Hearing Dates.
Meeting adjourned at 6:57 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Digitally signed by Kristine Ranslem
�i x1(bt7i It �{ L Date: 2013.11.08 14:04:32 -0700'
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
10
Hello