HomeMy WebLinkAbout20131477.tiffSUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, June 4, 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, Jason Maxey, at 1:30 pm.
Roll Call.
Present: Benjamin Hansford, Bill Hall, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Nick Berryman, Robert Grand.
Absent/Excused: Bret Elliott, Jason Maxey, Mark Lawley.
Also Present: Kim Ogle, Diana Aungst, and Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services; Don
Carroll, Heidi Hansen, Jennifer Petrik and Janet Carter, Department of Public Works; Lauren Light and
Mary Evett, Department of Health; Brad Yatabe, County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
• Motion: Approve the May 21, 2013 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, Moved by Bill Hall,
Seconded by Nick Berryman. Motion passed unanimously.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOCATION:
USR13-0013
QUARTER CIRCLE LAZY H RANCH
KIM OGLE
A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR A MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT FACILITY,
INCLUDING OIL AND GAS SUPPORT AND SERVICE, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO A NATURAL GAS PROCESSING FACILITY, NEW EQUIPMENT
AND PIPE STORAGE YARD, A LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS (LNG) PLANT, A
LNG STORAGE FACILITY AND ANY USE PERMITTED AS A USE BY RIGHT,
AN ACCESSORY USE OR A USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW IN THE
COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICT LNG FUELING FACILITY, A
COMMUNICATIONS TOWER GREATER THAN 70 FEET IN HEIGHT [100
FEET], A MORGAN COUNTY REA SUBSTATION AND MORE THAN ONE
CARGO (CONEX) CONTAINER IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
N2 SECTION 21, T9N, R61W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY,
COLORADO.
EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 89; ONE MILE NORTH OF CR 102.
D Kim Ogle, Planning Services, presented Case USR13-0013, 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. Ogle stated that
staff is recommending an amendment to Development Standard 36 by deleting the following language
"for any hazardous chemical used or stored in the workplace".
L> Heidi Hansen, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access and drainage conditions and the
requirements on site.
• Mary Evett, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -
site dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
I> Motion: Amend Development Standard 36 as stated by staff, Moved by Bill Hall, Seconded by
Jordan Jemiola.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 6).
Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Bill Hall, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Nick Berryman, Robert Grand.
D Pam Hora, Tetra Tech, stated that she is representing the Keota Oil and Gas Processing Facility.
She said that the facility is on an 80 acre parcel that is part of 320 acres. Noble Energy intends to
purchase the 80 acres upon approval of the Use by Special Review Permit by the Board of County
Commissioners. The uses proposed for the site will consist of a natural gas processing facility, Liquefied
Natural Gas (LNG) Plant and storage facility, central processing facility for oil, storage yards that may
G6-13 3a,�i�w
2013-1477
include cargo containers, 100 foot tall communications tower and a power substation. The site will
operate 24/7 365 days per year.
Gas throughout northern Weld County will be piped to this facility to be treated for use by consumers and
then the resulting soluable gas stream would then be piped off site. A by-product of the gas processing
facility is unstabilized condensate. The unstablized condensate will be stabilized at this facility. In
additional unstabilized condensate from Noble Energy's Lily Plant which is located at County Road 96
and County Road 129 will be trucked to this facility to be stabilized. The stabilized condensate will be
sold and trucked off site to locations for use.
Additionally, a Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facility will be located on site. She stated that this will be the
largest LNG plant in Colorado.
Ms. Flora requested approval of the case and thanked staff for their help throughout this project.
Commissioner Smock asked for clarification regarding the Homeland Security and how it would affect a
facility that is so far away from everything. Terry Brey, Noble Energy, 1625 Broadway, Denver, Colorado
stated that Homeland Security brought it to their attention because of groups that oppose oil and gas
activity. He added that these type of facilities fall under potential homeland security issues.
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 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 USR13-0013 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 Benjamin Hansford.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 6).
Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Bill Hall, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Nick Berryman, Robert Grand.
D CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOCATION:
USR13-0002
BEAR TRACKER ENERGY, LLC
DIANA AUNGST
A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING OIL AND
GAS SUPPORT AND SERVICE (NATURAL GAS PROCESSING FACILITY
WITH A FIELD OFFICE, STORAGE YARD, PROCESSING PLANT, AND A GAS
METERING STATION) IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
LOT A OF RECORDED EXEMPTION RECX12-0082; PART OF THE E2NE4
SECTION 26, T12N, R63W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 136.5; WEST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR
71.
• Diana Aungst, Planning Services, presented Case USR13-0002, 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.
r> Heidi Hansen, 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.
D Grant Burchell, Project Manager, Summit Midstream, 999 16t° Street, Suite 400 South, Denver,
Colorado, stated that this site was approved last year. EOG had originally planned on doing this project
themselves; however Summit Midstream contracted with them to build this part of the project. It was
approved to build this facility on the south part of the parcel and then because of corporate reasons
Summit Midstream wanted to own the property. Therefore when they purchased the property, EOG said
that they will need a separate USR so a portion of the existing USR will need to be vacated and replaced
with this proposed USR. Mr. Burchell said that the facility has been constructed under the original USR;
however because of new ownership they are requesting to vacate a portion of the existing USR and
replace it with a new permit number.
The original site was limited to two (2) access points on County Road 71. When they separated the site
they requested an additional access on County Road 136.5 and were granted a temporary access. He
stated that they would like to make that permanent because it is a separate site and for safety reasons
they would like to have 2 access points.
Ms. Hansen stated that right now the access is approved for temporary use. She added that the Traffic
Engineer would review the application for permanent use and either approve/or deny the access permit.
If it would be denied then it would go before the Board of County Commissioners for determination. She
said that it is a separate permit process and not something that is granted through the USR process.
Brad Yatabe, County Attorney, reiterated that this is not in the purview of the Planning Commission;
however there is a process for this separate from this hearing.
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 USR13-0002 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 Bill Hall, Seconded by Joyce Smock.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 6).
Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Bill Hall, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Nick Berryman, Robert Grand.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOCATION:
USR13-0011
JENNIFER JAQUISH
MICHELLE MARTIN
A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR A CHILD CARE CENTER IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE
DISTRICT.
LOT A REC EXEMPT RE -3463; PART SW4 SECTION 18, T2N, R67W OF THE
6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 13; NORTH OF CR 20.
Michelle Martin, Planning Services, presented Case USR13-0011, 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.
D Jennifer Petrik, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access and drainage conditions and
the requirements on site.
Mary Evett, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -
site dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
D Mickey Leyba-Farnsworth, Permontes Group, 625 Main Street, Longmont Colorado, stated that the
applicants are proposing a daycare center at this site. She added that the current access agreement is
for this subject site and the parcel to the south for a residential and agricultural use. They are going
before the Town of Firestone to request a separate access for commercial use of the daycare center.
The applicants intend to limit the daycare center to 12 children. Ms. Farnsworth stated that they are
proposing some safety improvements for the crossing of the Firestone trail and will be presenting these to
the Town of Firestone.
• John Jaquish stated that he is a State Certified Daycare Provider and added that he intends to be
there on a daily basis. They hope to have a second phase to the facility to add onto the existing garage
for future growth. He added that they have discussed annexation into Firestone upon the proposed
growth.
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.
D Motion: Forward Case USR13-0011 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 Bill Hall, Seconded by Joyce Smock.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 6).
Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Bill Hall, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Nick Berryman, Robert Grand.
D CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOCATION:
USR12-0063
MURDOFF HOLDINGS LLC
DIANA AUNGST
A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT ANY USE PERMITTED AS A USE BY RIGHT, AN ACCESSORY USE,
OR A USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW IN THE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL
ZONE DISTRICTS (OUTSIDE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE)
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 REC EXEMPT RE -2798; PART SW4 SECTION 8, T6N, R67W OF THE
6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
EAST AND ADJACENT TO CR 15; APPROXIMATELY 0.25 MILES NORTH OF
WINDSHIRE DRIVE.
L> Diana Aungst, Planning Services, presented Case USR12-0063, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Ms. Aungst stated that staff has received two (2) letters of opposition from
surrounding property owners citing concerns of drainage, lighting, noise, traffic, views, property values
and security. This site is located within the Urban Growth Boundary of the Town of Windsor. The
Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached conditions of
approval and development standards.
• Heidi Hansen, 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.
C> Gordon Murdoff stated that he is proposing an RV storage area. There is currently no water
available to the site for agricultural use. He added that a horse trailer could be stored on site but no
commercial vehicles will be allowed.
Commissioner Grand asked the applicant if he considered annexing into the Town of Windsor. Mr.
Murdoff stated that he has had discussions with Windsor and indicated that Windsor denied annexation.
In response to Commissioner Smock's inquiry, Mr. Murdoff stated that access to the site is by
appointment only.
Commissioner Smock noted that the Windsor Fire Department submitted concerns on this facility. Mr.
Murdoff said that he left a message with the Fire Department but didn't receive a call back. He
understood that their concern was that a fire hydrant should be within 400 - 450 feet from the property.
He added that there is a fire hydrant that is located on County Road 15 which is 204 linear feet to the
corner of his property. Ms. Aungst stated that staff received a letter from the Windsor/Severance Fire
Protection District that included 9 comments. She suggested that a Condition of Approval stating that the
applicant should attempt to address these concerns be added to the staff report.
Motion: Add Condition of Approval 1.G to read "The applicant shall attempt to address the concerns
of the Windsor/Severance Fire Protection District and provide evidence to the Department of Planning
Services.", Moved by Benjamin Hansford, Seconded by Nick Berryman.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 6).
Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Bill Hall, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Nick Berryman, Robert Grand.
D The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application.
Zada Steidl stated that she owns the property that surrounds this site. She indicated that has been
approached by two (2) developers and plans to sell her property to one of them for a proposed
development. She asked the Planning Commission to keep this in mind regarding this case. She stated
that she is opposed to this proposal as it ruins their property value and it disturbs their livelihood. She
asked the Planning Commission to deny this request.
D Scott Ballstadt, Chief Planner, Town of Windsor, 301 Walnut Street, Windsor, Colorado, stated that
the site is located in the Town's Growth Management Area. He added that the proposed use is an
industrial use surrounded by existing and planned residential uses. The Town respectfully disagrees that
the 6 foot privacy fence provides adequate screening for storage of the RV's. Additionally, the Town does
not feel it is compatible with the surrounding land uses.
In October 2012, the Town of Windsor Planning Commission submitted referral comments and asked that
the application be denied and that the applicant be referred to the Town for possible annexation. Mr.
Ballstadt said that the applicant has not contacted the Town to discuss annexation; however he was did
attend the Planning Commission hearing regarding this case.
If the project does move forward for approval, Mr. Ballstadt said that the Town is requesting that
Condition of Approval 1.F.10 acknowledges that the access is the jurisdiction of the Town of Windsor.
Additionally, that Development Standard 20 which refers to Weld County Code Section 23-2-240 should
be amended so that the access is designed to the Town's standards. The Chair asked for legal
advisement. Mr. Yatabe recommended that no changes be made to the conditions of approval as that is
typical language. Ms. Aungst stated that according to Section 23-2-240 there are design standards that
the USR needs to comply with. Under that section, subparagraph 8 talks about the standards that the
County uses as far as designing an access for ingress and egress into a site. She added that we would
not apply this since it is Windsor's jurisdiction. Mr. Yatabe agreed and recommended that the
development standard remain as it is.
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 USR12-0063 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 Benjamin Hansford, Seconded by Jordan Jemiola.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 6).
Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Bill Hall, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Nick Berryman, Robert Grand.
Commissioner Berryman encouraged the applicant to provide as much screening as possible.
[:)' CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
USR13-0014
UFI FEEDING LLC
MICHELLE MARTIN
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, (BATTING CAGES, GYMNASTICS FACILITY
AND BASEBALL FIELDS), 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.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PART NE4 SECTION 13, T4N, R68W AND LOT B REC EXEMPT RE -1917
BEING PART NE4 SECTION 13, T4N, R68W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD
COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 46 AND WEST OF AND ADJACENT TO
CR 13.
P Michelle Martin, Planning Services, presented Case USR13-0014, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Ms. Martin stated that three (3) letters were received from surrounding
property owners in opposition to this case citing impacts of traffic, noise, trash, bright lights, wildlife and
that the proposed use would be better suited in a different location such as a municipality. One (1) letter
was received in support of this case. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this
application with the attached conditions of approval and development standards.
• Don Carroll, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access and drainage conditions and the
requirements on site. -
Janet Carter, Public Works, stated that they had a meeting with the applicant regarding the traffic study
that staff requested because of the volume the applicant is proposing at full build out with 254 trips. The
applicant's representative requested that the traffic study not be required; therefore staff provided
alternate options for them. Ms. Carter pointed out that originally the access point was in conjunction with
the Subdivision Exemption (SE) lot located adjacent to the parcel. Additionally, Ms. Carter said that the
applicant is approaching the number to require pavement on County Road 13. The representative
requested utilizing an existing access further to the east, closer to the intersection of County Road 13 and
County Road 46. Ms. Carter said that she believes if they choose to move their access point to the
proposed one she felt that it was acceptable. Additionally they would need to pave from their access
point to the east of the intersection.
D Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -
site dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan. Ms. Light stated that Condition of Approval 2.B has been
met.
• Glen Czaplewski, AGPROfessionals, LLC, 4350 State Highway 66, Longmont, Colorado stated that
during this process they have submitted and have been approved for a Recorded Exemption (RE) to
divide out 2 lots for residential homes. These homes are not included in the USR discussion. Mr.
Czaplewski stated that they are limited to a maximum of 50 people on site at any given time.
Mr. Czaplewski said that the applicants are proposing a 14,200 s.f. building to be used as a gymnastics
center and batting cages as well as some practice baseball fields. Additionally a residence will be located
on site. Most of this site will remain in agricultural production. Because of the tight time constraints they
originally permitted the facility as an agricultural exempt building; however they have recently submitted
and have been issued a commercial building permit for the facility. Mr. Czaplewski expressed that these
facilities (gymnastics and ball diamonds) are used only for practice. They will not be used for
tournaments or games.
Realizing that the public was concerned about the proposed facility, a neighborhood meeting was held to
address their concerns. They understand the lighting concern and stated that they are not proposing any
lighting on the baseball fields. The only lighting proposed is some safety lights in the parking lot and
along the building. With regard to the traffic concern, Mr. Czaplewski stated that there are triggers in the
improvements agreement that require pavement and improvements to the county roads from the
increased traffic.
Mr. Czaplewski provided a broad view of the use by special review permits in existence in the
surrounding area and believes that it is compatible with the existing uses.
• The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application.
Larry Barker, 5288 CR 46, stated that he has lived to the west of the site for approximately 20 years. He
stated that County Road 46 is a mess and doesn't hold up to the traffic today. He added that the
applicant is assuming the traffic will come from Johnstown; however he believes that traffic will come from
Berthoud and other surrounding areas. He expressed concerned that there has been no mention of dust
mitigation on County Road 46. He stated that they obtained an agricultural exempt building permit while
they have constructed it for commercial use and added that they have been trying to be sneaky in this
process.
D Brenda Dones, 5368 CR 46, stated that she lives to the west of the site. She stated that the road
access is probably the biggest concern to her. The intersection of County Roads 46 and 13 is a really
difficult intersection in the sense that whenever there is snow, rain or irrigation the north portion of County
Road 46 has a depression area so it narrows the intersection to one (1) lane. She recommended that
they look at the drainage at the intersection and if there is a road treatment that it be paved rather than
applying mag chloride.
In addition, because the access point has been changed she suggested that the parking lot be changed
as well to the east side of the building to accommodate the concerns of lighting.
• Mike Hamernik, 4686 CR 46, stated that he lives approximately 1.25 miles west of the property. He
echoed the previous comments and expressed concern regarding the hours of operation. After listening
to the presentation he is concerned with the increased traffic on the road.
D Bob Bixler stated that he lives in Johnstown Colorado. He said that this facility is great for the kids
from Johnstown. He added that they need these physical activities in the summer and after school. He
asked the Planning Commission to think about this and what it could do for them.
> Mr. Czaplewski responded to the concerns. He stated that Mr. Barker was concerned about County
Road 46. Based on Public Work's referral, they identified the primary users coming from Johnstown. He
said that if they are wrong the improvements agreement will be changed and they will be responsible for
the improvements. Mr. Barker expressed concern that he was not notified because he lives over the
required 500 feet. Mr. Czaplewski stated that the 500 feet is the standard used and apologized for not
including him in the meeting. With regard of using a back door to get this case approved, he stated that
they used processes contained within the Weld County Code. He reiterated that no lights are being
proposed for the baseball diamonds.
With regard to Ms. Donas' comments he apologized for the confusion in this process. It has moved very
fast and they have tried to mitigate and change things in order to accommodate some of the concerns.
Drainage is an existing condition today. In regard to moving the parking lot to the east, he said that the
best spot for the septic system is to the east of the building and they can't park on top of the parking lot.
Mr. Czaplewski clarified that the applicants are no longer proposing a residence inside of the large
gymnastics building; rather the residence will be located on site but apart from the facility.
Commissioner Berryman asked how the applicant will manage the traffic coming from County Road 13.
Ms. Carter stated that they can designate the haul route to come from County Road 13. Through citizen
complaints and traffic counts if the numbers increase on County Road 46 the applicant will need to
comply with the improvements agreement. Ms. Carter stated that the applicant needs to determine if they
want to do a traffic narrative or a traffic study prior to the Board of County Commissioner's hearing. She
added that if there is more than 10% of traffic on County Road 46 they will be required to comply with the
triggers.
• Ms. Martin recommended adding a Condition of Approval 1.F that states "The applicant shall either
submit a copy of an agreement with the property's mineral owner/operators stipulating that the oil and gas
activities have been adequately incorporated into the design of the site or show evidence that an
adequate attempt has been made to mitigate the concerns of the mineral owner/operators. Drill
envelopes can be delineated on the plat in accordance with the State requirements as an attempt to
mitigate concerns. The plat shall be amended to include any possible future drilling sites."
Motion: Add Condition of Approval 1.F as stated by staff and re -letter accordingly, Moved by Bill Hall,
Seconded by Joyce Smock.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 6).
Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Bill Hall, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Nick Berryman, Robert Grand.
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 he would like
to request an amendment to Condition of Approval 1.F.6. He stated that there will only be 50 people
allowed on site at any given time and requested that the 85 parking spaces be amended to 50 parking
spaces.
Motion: Amend Condition of Approval 1.F.6 as requested, Moved by Bill Hall, Seconded by Joyce
Smock.
Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 5, No = 1, Abstain = 0).
Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Bill Hall, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Robert Grand.
No: Nick Berryman.
Commissioner Berryman preferred having a slightly higher number
D Motion: Forward Case USR13-0014 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 Bill Hall, Seconded by Joyce Smock.
Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 4, No = 2, Abstain = 0).
Yes: Bill Hall, Joyce Smock, Nick Berryman, Robert Grand.
No: Benjamin Hansford, Jordan Jemiola.
Commissioner Berryman commented that he is more comfortable with some of the questions clarified and
the limited number of people on site.
Commission Hall recommended that the parking lot be moved to the east side.
Commissioner Grand agreed with Mr. Hall and Mr. Berryman's comments. He said that although the
applicants technically complied with the Weld County Code the fast track of the application left a bad
taste in the neighbor's minds.
Commissioner Jemiola commented that he voted no because he would like to see more screening
required to make it compatible for the neighbors.
Commissioner Hansford commented that he voted no because he believed these details should have
been worked out prior to the Planning Commission hearing. In addition, he felt that it was fast tracked
and was not submitted appropriately.
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. No one
wished to speak.
Meeting adjourned at 4:46 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
(� p Digitally signed by Kristine Ranslem
9 a1 A li iP�'ryt UJ� ru/'tr. Date: 2013.06.06 14:24:46 -06'00'
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
Hello