HomeMy WebLinkAbout20120754.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Administration
Building, Hearing Room, 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Tom
Holton, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT _�
Tom Holton R": T.. LIM
Mark Lawley 0 z° "O
Nick Berryman fr s�c >
Robert Grand — —0
C
Bill Hall f i1-4
Benjamin Hansford w
Alexander Zauder to
Jason Maxey . . .o
Joyce Smock
Also Present: Kim Ogle, Chris Gathman and Tom Parko, Department of Planning Services; Don Carroll and
Heidi Hansen, Department of Public Works; Lauren Light and Mary Evett, Department of Health; Brad Yatabe,
County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Robert Grand moved to approve the February 21, 2012 Weld County Planning Commission minutes,
seconded by Benjamin Hansford. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: USR11-0030
APPLICANT: BAYSHORE LLC, C/O KERR-MCGEE OIL AND GAS ONSHORE, LP
PLANNER: KIM OGLE
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND AMENDED USE BY SPECIAL
REVIEW PERMIT(FORMERLY USR-1664)FOR AN OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION
FACILITY IN A PUD(PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT)ZONE DISTRICT WITH E
(ESTATE), C-1, C-2 (COMMERCIAL), R-1, R-2, R-3 AND R-4 (RESIDENTIAL)
ZONE DISTRICTS.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PART SE4 SECTION 25, T3N, R68W OF THE 6th P.M., WELD COUNTY,
COLORADO.
LOCATION: WEST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 13; NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 28.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, stated that the applicants are requesting a continuance of this case until June 5,
2012 to obtain a signed Surface Use Agreement for a horizontal well to be located within the Bayshore PUD.
Staff is in support of this request.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR11-0030, be continued until the June 5, 2012 Planning Commission
hearing, seconded by Jason Maxey. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR11-0023
APPLICANT: ADOLPH&JOHN TREVINO
PLANNER: CHRIS GATHMAN
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR ANY USE PERMITTED AS A USE BY RIGHT, AN ACCESSORY
USE, OR A USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW IN THE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL
ZONE DISTRICTS, 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 (STORAGE OF UP TO 30 TRAILERS AND 25 TRUCKS ALONG
WITH A FUTURE SHOP ASSOCIATED WITH A TRUCKING BUSINESS)IN THE A
(AGRICULTURAL)ZONE DISTRICT.
1
L Mini t,C_Cli VI,I )
44CI-20/42.- 2012-0754
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT A REC EXEMPT RE-2341; PART NE4 SECTION 30,T4N, R65W OF THE
6T" P.M.,WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: SOUTH OF CR 42;WEST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 39.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, stated that the proposed use involves the storage of trucks and equipment
associated with hauling of crops and agricultural related products such as hay, onions, silage and sugar beets.
The site is located on an 11 acre parcel that is partially covered with livestock pens,where vehicle storage is
not occurring. No additional agricultural land will be removed from production.
The site is located in an agricultural area. The site is adjacent to a single family residence immediately to the
west and a single family residence to the east across County Road 39. An existing Use by Special Review
Permit (USR-662 — for a horse boarding and training facility) is located immediately to the south of the
property. Agricultural land and a single family residence are located to the north and northwest of the site.
This application was submitted to address an active Zoning Violation (ZCV10-00140). This violation was
initiated due to the operation of commercial vehicle traffic and storage of vehicles without first completing the
necessary Weld County Zoning Permits. This violation was initiated by staff. The Department of Planning
Services has attached development standards and conditions of approval to ensure compatibility with the
surrounding area such as requiring that the truck and trailer storage area be completely screened from
adjacent properties.
Nine Referrals were sent out and four referral agencies responded with either no comments or approval with
conditions.
The proposed USR is not located within a three-mile municipal referral area or within an Intergovernmental
Agreement(IGA) area.
Mr. Gathman provided an email along with pictures that was received this morning from a surrounding
property owner. In the email some concerns dealt with rotting food, blowing trash and potentially an outhouse
on the property. Ms. Light and Mr. Gathman spoke with the applicant this morning regarding this
correspondence received today. Mr. Gathman said that the outhouse will need to be removed as it is not an
allowed use. With regard to the food and blowing trash, the applicant indicated that it may have dealt with the
animals that they have on site as some of the food comes in boxes. He added that they discussed how it
needs to be contained on site.
Bill Hall moved to delete Development Standard 17 as it was duplicated, seconded by Robert Grand. Motion
carried.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, stated that County Road 39 is classified as a collector roadway. In August 2010,
there were 1,111 vehicles on that roadway. The proposed traffic is very minimal. The application states that
there are no onsite workers daily and an average of 1 truck per week may leave the lot. Staff has no concerns
with this request.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, stated that the applicant said that if portable restrooms are not acceptable
that they would put in a septic system. According to Department Policy, portable toilets are not acceptable for
a permanent use. Ms. Light said that after discussion with the applicant this morning regarding the outhouse,
he stated that he understands that it will need to be removed. Central Weld County Water District provides
water to the site.
The applicant indicated that there are some trash cans on site and they intend to take the trash from the trash
cans and bring it to their business in LaSalle to be picked up. Ms. Light stated that is acceptable; however the
trash needs to be contained so it doesn't blow away.
Adolph Trevino, LaSalle CO, stated that he is storing some of their equipment on site. He added that they had
a storage area in Greeley but they had a lot of theft and vandalism so they moved it to this site which is closer
to where they do business in LaSalle.
Mr.Trevino indicated that they plan to build a house or building in the future. When the building is constructed
they intend to install a septic system.
2
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Carson Evans, 19909 CR 30, stated that he lives to the west of the property. He wished to have clarified what
size the property is in acres, how many vehicles can be stored on site and what type of screening would be
acceptable given that the elevation of his property and County Road 39 are higher than the applicant's
property. In addition, he expressed concern regarding the applicants utilizing his access.
Mr. Trevino said that with regard to Mr. Evan's access, it is the lease road for the oil and gas company. When
Mr. Evans purchased his property, Mr. Trevino said they gave him an easement from their property to access
his site which is adjacent to the oil and gas lease road. Mr. Trevino clarified that the majority of the time they
use the access in the middle of the property, but they do use the leased access on occasion to get trucks in
and out sometimes when it is muddy.
Mr. Trevino understands that they will need to provide screening. Mr. Gathman said that it could be trees or
other screening higher than 6 feet. The screening plan will need to be approved by the Department of
Planning Services.
Mr. Gathman said that according to the County Assessor it states that it is 11.08 acres but with the county
right-of-ways and ditch right-of-ways the net acreage is 8.03 acres.
The Chair asked the applicant if he read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if he is in agreement with those. The applicant replied that he is in agreement.
Mark Lawley moved that Case USR11-0023, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval, seconded by Bill Hall.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Joyce
Smock, yes; Nick Berryman, yes; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall,yes;Alexander Zauder,yes; Jason Maxey,yes;
Benjamin Hansford, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR11-0027
APPLICANT: M&M EXCAVATION COMPANY
PLANNER: CHRIS GATHMAN
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR ANY USE PERMITTED AS A USE BY RIGHT, AN ACCESSORY
USE, OR A USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW IN THE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL
ZONE DISTRICTS, 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 (OFFICE/REPAIR SHOP WITH OUTDOOR
VEHICLE/EQUIPMENT STORAGE AND VEHICLE STAGING AREA ASSOCIATED
WITH AN EXCAVATION BUSINESS) IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE
DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT B REC EXEMPT RE-4762; E2NW4 SECTION 17, T5N, R64W OF THE 6TH
P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 58 AND 1/4 MILE EAST OF CR 51.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, stated that the applicant proposes to construct a new building containing a
shop and office for their excavation business. Two 8,000 gallon fuel tanks are also proposed to be installed
onsite along with ten (10) truck parking spaces and a proposed heavy equipment staging area.
Eleven Referrals were sent out and ten referrals were received and either indicated no conflict with their
interests or approval with conditions.
The proposed site is located in an agricultural area one mile north of the Town of Kersey. There are three(3)
single-family residences located approximately 700-feet to the west,400-feet to the north,and 350-feet to the
east of the proposed USR site.A USR fora gravel mining operation (USR-1687)approved in 2009 is located
approximately 1/2 mile to the west. No phone calls, letters or e-mails have been received from surrounding
property owners regarding this case. The Department of Planning Services is requiring that the
3
truck/equipment parking area and staging area be screened from the adjacent residential properties and
public right-of-way.
The USR site is located within the three-mile referral areas of the City of Greeley and the Town of Kersey.The
site is located immediately outside of the Intergovernmental Agreement Area (IGA)for the Town of Kersey.
Both the City of Greeley and Town of Kersey returned referrals indicating no conflicts with their interests.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, stated that County Road 58 is a classified as a collector roadway. In April 2010
there were 258 vehicles on that roadway. The proposed traffic is minimal with 15 employees and they expect
6 to 8 trucks using the site daily. Staff has asked for access improvements including improvements for a
turning radius.
Mary Evett, Environmental Health, stated that the facility will be served by Central Weld County Water District
and added that a letter of commitment from the District was submitted. An engineered designed septic
system will be installed for the new shop and office building. The above ground storage tanks will need to be
registered by the State Oil Inspection and a Spill Plan will be required. In addition, the applicant will need to
revise the Waste Management Plan to include any waste generated from repairs and maintenance of vehicles
and equipment.
Ms. Evett recommended amending Development Standard 15 to read"Bottle water, portable toilets,and hand
wash units shall be utilized during construction of the facility." Robert Grand moved to amend Development
Standard 15 as stated by staff, seconded by Jason Maxey. Motion carried.
Patrick Groom, 822 7th St., Suite 760, Greeley, CO, stated that he is representing the applicant. M&M
Excavating has been operating in Weld County since 1997 and provides general excavation services. With
the exploded growth in the oil and gas activity, they have also grown exponentially and have outgrown their
current location. In 2007, they purchased this property with visions of constructing an office and shop. They
intend to develop an office and shop with a total footprint of 500 by 500 feet with the remaining 70 acres in
farmland production. They believe the impact to the neighbors will be minimal.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Mr. Groom requested that Conditions of Approval 10 and 11 be amended to require the recording of the plat
within 90 days. Bill Hall moved to amend Conditions of Approval 10 and 11 as requested, seconded by Nick
Berryman. Motion carried.
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.
Mark Lawley moved that Case USR11-0027, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval, seconded by Jason Maxey.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Joyce
Smock,yes; Nick Berryman, yes; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall,yes;Alexander Zauder,yes;Jason Maxey,yes;
Benjamin Hansford, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR11-0024
APPLICANT: DCP MIDSTREAM, LP
PLANNER: KIM OGLE
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
FOR A NON-1041 MAJOR FACILITY OF A PUBLIC UTILITY (12-INCH
NATURAL GAS PIPELINE) IN THE A(AGRICULTURAL)ZONE DISTRICT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: THE PREFERRED ROUTE CROSSES SECTION 36,T6n, R65w; SECTION 1,
13, 24,T5N, R65W; SECTIONS 6, 7, 18, 19, 30, 31,T5N, R64W OF THE 6th
P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: SOUTH OF CR 64; NORTH OF CR 50; MAINLY RUNNING ALONG CR 49;
WEST OF CR 51.
4
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, stated that the pipeline is approximately 9 miles in length. The preferred route
crosses multiple sections and services to connect to compressor site of Libsack (USR-1793)to the LaSalle
Gas Plant(USR-1792). The pipeline will be located within the three-mile referral area of the Towns of Kersey
and the City of Greeley. The Town of Kersey indicated no conflict with their interests and the City of Greeley
noted in their referral dated February 14, 2012, that the preferred pipeline route passes through the Mitani-
Tokuyasu State Wildlife Area. DCP is working with the Colorado Department of Parks and Wildlife to address
the concerns of the City of Greeley.
The applicant reviewed two potential pipeline locations and selected the preferred route for environmental
considerations and the ability to negotiate the many private easements for this greater than 10-inch pipeline,
with private land owners, whereas the alternative alignment involved crossings that may result in greater
environmental impacts in certain locations.
The applicant has proposed a number of measures to mitigate impacts from the pipeline including
replacement of any soil that is removed, re-vegetated with native grasses as necessary or left fallow per the
landowner's request, installing tracking pads where heavy equipment crosses County Roads. The
Department of Public Works returned a referral dated February 13, 2012 indicating that portions of the
proposed pipeline alignment are located within an identified special flood hazard area and will require a permit
for development proposed within the Cache La Poudre and South Platte River floodplains. The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers in their referral response dated January 24, 2012 may require a Section 404 Permit.
Twenty-six referral agencies have reviewed this case and nine offered comments, some with specific
conditions.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached conditions of
approval and development standards.
Don Carroll, Public Works, noted that the County Road 49 Alignment Corridor Study is located at Highway 34
and County Road 49. He said that the section of pipeline at that intersection will need to be relocated outside
of the future right-of-way. He added that Mr. Groom has provided a sketch of that intersection showing it
outside of the future right-of-way.
The pipeline will cross the Cache La Poudre River and the South Platte River and will need to obtain Flood
Hazard Development Permits for the crossings. In addition, if they will be working in the right-of-way they will
need Right-of-way Permits as well as any Transport Permits for any over-weight or over-width trucks.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, stated that portable toilets and bottled water will be acceptable for this
since it is a construction project. An Air Emissions Permit will be needed if 25 acres or more is disturbed.
Staff has no concerns with this request.
Patrick Groom, 822 7th St., Suite 760, Greeley, CO, stated that he is representing DCP Midstream, LP. He
said that this pipeline is the last piece of the puzzle for approval of the planned infrastructure. This pipeline will
run from the Libsack site, previously approved by the Board of County Commissions, and run southerly to the
LaSalle Gas Processing Plant, also previously approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Mr.Groom
stated that the preferred route provides the less impact to farmland and property owners. Because it is
crossing the South Platte River, there had to be a slight deviation to accommodate wildlife in that area. DCP
felt that the proposed preferred route would have the least environmental impact on property owners and the
community.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Jeff Maxey,26468 CR 49, asked if the applicant could explain the route to them. The pipeline will go through
his property and he believes that it will be within 200 feet of his house. He would like an explanation of where
the route is and how close a pipeline can be to a personal residence.
Mr. Maxey asked why the pipeline doesn't go around the residences rather than through the middle of them.
He also inquired how they will access the site. He said that he was not informed that it was going to be that
5
close to his house and asked how far the right-of-way for the pipeline will be and will it come onto his property.
Mr. Sandin also held concerns with the alignment of the pipeline west of County Road 49 and what impacts
may be present and when the pipeline was to be constructed
Mr. Groom said that the preferred route has been negotiated with the landowners and the rights-of-way have
been attained. If Mr. Maxey does not have a right-of-way then that means it is not crossing his property;
however it may border his property. Mr. Groom added that he believes the setback requirements for any
structure are 150 feet from the pipeline.
Commissioner Holton asked if a neighborhood meeting was held. Mr. Groom said that a neighborhood
meeting was held for the entire project last fall which included the processing plant, the pipelines and the
compressor sites.
Mr. Groom requested that Conditions of Approval 5 and 6 be amended to require the recording of the plat
within 90 days. Robert Grand moved to amend Condition of Approvals 5 and 6 as requested, seconded by
Mark Lawley.
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.
Mark Lawley moved that Case USR11-0024 be approved along with the Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards, seconded by Benjamin Hansford.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Joyce
Smock, yes; Nick Berryman, yes; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, yes; Alexander Zauder, yes; Jason Maxey,
abstain; Benjamin Hansford, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair called a recess at 3:10 pm and reconvened at 3:27 pm.
CASE NUMBER: USR11-0031
APPLICANT: BB COLORADO HOLDINGS, LLC, C/O DAVE'S OILFIELD CONSTRUCTION
LLC
PLANNER: CHRIS GATHMAN
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR AN OIL AND GAS SUPPORT AND SERVICE(OIL FIELD ROUST-A-
BOUT AND PAINTING BUSINESS)IN THE A(AGRICULTURAL)ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: W2E2 SECTION 32,T4N,R64W OF THE 6 P.M.,WELD COUNTY,COLORADO.
LOCATION: SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 40 AND %MILE WEST OF CR 53.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, stated that the applicant intends to operate the roust-a-bout operation in
an existing building for scheduling and equipment storage. The applicant intends to construct a new building
for the painting operation. Additionally outside storage of equipment, raw materials and finished product is
proposed on the site.
The proposed use is located on a turkey farm site that is no longer in operation. There are several turkey
barns located on the property. Additionally, three (3) single family residences were originally located on this
property and have been recently divided off from this USR site through the Recorded Exemption and
Subdivision Exemption process. Three (3) other single family residences are located on the property to the
east which is under common ownership with the USR parcel and was part of the original turkey farm operation
as well. An irrigated agricultural parcel lies to the north.A mobile home is located on a property immediately to
the west of the site adjacent to the northwest corner of the site. Remaining lands immediately to the west and
south are unimproved with the exception of oil and gas production facilities.
The Department of Planning Services is requiring a screening plan as a condition of approval of this
application to screen outdoor storage of equipment, materials and raw product from nearby residences and
from the County Road. Additionally, several development standards are proposed such as requiring the
applicant to adhere to county noise requirement, to ensure compatibility with existing surrounding land uses.
6
This site is not located within a three-mile referral area of any municipality nor is it located within any existing
Intergovernmental Agreement Area (IGA) of a municipality.
No letters, phone calls or correspondence has been received from surrounding property owners in regard to
this case.
The Department of Planning Services does recommend approval of this application along with the attached
conditions of approval and development standards.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, stated that County Road 40 is classified as a local gravel roadway. In July 2011,
129 vehicles were on that roadway. Due to the proposed traffic, a Road Maintenance Agreement, which
includes dust control from the site and tracking control, will be required.
Mary Evett, Environmental Health, stated that the facility is served by an existing well recently re-permitted for
commercial use. The existing shop building is served by a septic system and is permitted for 8 persons. This
will need to be evaluated by an engineer to determine if it is adequate.
Ms. Evett suggested amending the first sentence in Condition of Approval 1.D to read"Any additional hydraulic
load to any existing septic system will require to be reviewed by a Colorado Registered Professional
Engineer." Jason Maxey moved to amend Condition of Approval 1.D as recommended by staff, seconded by
Bill Hall. Motion carried.
Ms. Evett stated that the applicant submitted a written statement today indicating that they will not be doing
any vehicle washing onsite; therefore Condition of Approval 1.G and Development Standard 11 no longer
apply. Bill Hall moved to delete Condition of Approval 1.G and Development Standard 11, seconded by Jason
Maxey. Motion carried.
Tim Naylor, AGPROFESSIONALS, 4350 State Hwy 66, Longmont, CO, stated that they are requesting to
utilize the existing buildings for a roust-about facility. Dave Burroughs would like to relocate his business to
this location because it has outgrown his current location. A proposed shop for the painting operation will be
located between two turkey barns located in the middle of the property. Mr. Burroughs plans to construct a
residence in the future and live on site.
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.
Jason Maxey moved that Case USR11-0031, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval, seconded by Benjamin Hansford.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Joyce
Smock,yes; Nick Berryman,yes; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, yes;Alexander Zauder,yes; Jason Maxey,yes;
Benjamin Hansford, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR11-0029
APPLICANT: DORIS CUNNINGHAM, C/0 JEFF BEDINGFIELD
PLANNER: CHRIS GATHMAN
REQUEST: A REVIEW OF A PREVIOUSLY DENIED APPLICATION FOR LAND USE(USE BY
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT #1785 FOR OIL FIELD PRODUCTS
MANUFACTURING AND PAINTING) AND REQUEST FOR A SUBSTANTIAL
CHANGE DETERMINATION.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT B AMD REC EXEMPT AMD RE-991; PART NW4SW4 SECTION 2, T7N,
R66W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 33 AND APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE SOUTH
OF CR 86.
Bill Hall excused himself from hearing this case since he was previously involved with the case.
7
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, stated that USR-1785 was denied by the Board of County Commissioners
on October 19, 2011. The applicant is requesting a substantial change to this determination. Per the Board of
County Commissioners Resolution, it was denied for the following reasons:
1) The proposal is not consistent with Chapter 22 or any other code provisions or ordinances in effect.
2) The proposed use is not consistent with the intent of the A(Agricultural) Zone District.
3) The proposed uses are not compatible with the existing surrounding land uses.
4) The proposed Design Standards (Section 23-2-240), Performance Standards (Section 23-2-250),
proposed Conditions of Approval and Development Standards do not ensure that there are adequate
provisions for the protection of health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and
County.
Mr. Gathman said that according to the criteria in determining a substantial change, Criteria 1 states"Has the
land-use application substantially changed?" Mr. Gathman said that in reviewing the hearing record of this
case a lot of the concerns expressed dealt with incompatibilities specific to the onsite painting component,
traffic, dust, noise, hours of operation and inadequate room on site for storage and staging of equipment
associated with the business. The applicant has proposed a number of changes to the operation to include:
• No on-site painting. The painting will occur in a facility located in the Town of Ault.
• No long term storage of completed work-in-progress materials. These materials will be delivered to
the new Ault Facility within 2-3 days after completion.
• No storage of finished painted products.
• No storage of semi-trucks and no on-site semi-truck repair.
• No off-site employees will park at the site. On-site office employees and shop workers will only park
at the site.
• Changed hours of operation to provide options accommodating to adjacent neighbors.
Additionally, the applicant has proposed a 15 foot lean-to along the north property line to screen the north
property. However, the applicant already proposed a 13 foot lean-to along the north property line at the
October 19, 2011 Board of County Commissioners hearing.
Mr. Gathman stated that staff believes that the number and type of changes proposed constitute a substantial
change to this application under Criteria 1. The remaining criteria do not apply to this particular case.
Commissioner Lawley clarified if only manufacturing would be done on site. Mr. Gathman replied that
manufacturing would be performed on site as well as an office.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, stated that their requirements will not change greatly from the original
application. The traffic impacts came after the original application was submitted and increased through the
hearing process. At the Board of County Commissioner hearing there was enough traffic concerns that
warranted an Improvements and Road Maintenance Agreement.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, stated that the Waste Management Plan would change because there is
no painting on site. An Air Emissions Permit would not be required.
Jeff Bedingfield,4025 St. Cloud Dr., Suite 230, Loveland, CO, stated that he is representing C&H Excavating.
He said that this is a comparison of what the USR application was at the time it was presented to the
Commissioners and the changes being proposed and whether or not those changes are substantial.
Mr. Bedingfield said that after reviewing this case this application was a moving target from the start. C&H
Excavating was a business that originally excavated oil and gas sites for drilling. It also manufactured stairs
and cattle guards. After the application was submitted they began manufacturing large water tanks for the
fracking operation. When they began manufacturing the water tanks they then had field crews which came to
the property and then delivered and assembled them at job sites. When the employees came in to the
property their headlights were sweeping the adjacent residence to the north and parking along the north side
of the property. In addition there were concerns with paint over spraying and odor.
Mr. Bedingfield said that they are proposing to still manufacture the stairs, cattle guards and the water tanks.
8
These products will be stored on site for 2 to 3 days and then delivered to their Ault facility for painting and
storage. There will be some raw materials coming in; however there will be no finished product stored on site.
Additionally, there will be no storage of semi-trucks and truck repair performed on site. The employee
numbers started small and grew by the end of the process with up to 30 employees. Now there will be 18
employees maximum on site. With regard to the hours of operation they provided options to the neighbors for
their consideration.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Dustin Winter,41555 CR 33, stated that according to the substantial change questionnaire it states that within
the concept of the new application the facts and circumstances of which are substantially changed from the
initial application. He understands that the initial application submitted in May of 2011 was proposing 13
employees and the hours of operation were Monday through Friday 7 am to 6 pm. Painting was not part of
the initial application. Mr. Winter agreed that the application was a moving target. However, he doesn't
understand that the substantial change can apply to the initial application as it wasn't heard as the initial
application. They are still manufacturing the same amount of stuff and the same exact stuff. It is still a heavy
industrial commercial business in an agricultural zoned rural residential area. He quoted Mr. Holton's
comments at the last hearing that in the future he would recommend this business move to another area
where it would be more compatible with its surroundings. In addition, he also quoted a County Commissioner
that this business is a square peg in a round hole and does not fit in this area. Mr. Winter said that this is a
great business but it needs to be somewhere else.
Steve Deines stated that he lives directly to the north of the site. He wanted to clarify if one or all three of the
optional hours of operation would be put in the recommendation. Mr. Holton said that the hours of operation
will not be decided today but at the time of the USR application hearing.
Mr. Deines was asked what he thought about the proposed changes. He indicated it was not ideal living next
to this facility but that the proposed changes would definitely improve the situation.
Commission Maxey asked why the entire operation has not been relocated to the Ault facility. Mr. Bedingfield
said that although the applicant is leasing the property he has made a significant investment in the property.
Commissioner Grand commented that he voted in favor of the application at the last hearing although he
recognized the painting component as an issue. He feels that with no painting it is a significant change to the
operation.
Commissioner Hansford echoed Mr. Grand's statement and agrees that this is a significant change from what
was presented at the Planning Commission hearing.
Commissioner Zauder said that he feels that we should give the applicant an opportunity to submit a USR
application; however he feels that manufacturing does not belong in the agricultural zone district.
Commissioner Maxey said he understands Mr. Winter's comments regarding the initial application and said
that the questionnaire may need to be amended because there is a big difference between the original
application and what was presented at the hearing. He agreed that this is a substantial change from what was
presented at the hearing.
Commissioner Smock agreed with Mr. Zauder's comments and added that agriculture is really important to
Weld County and would not like to see this type of business where there is agriculture.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR11-0029 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the
Planning Commission's approval of determination of a substantial change in the land use application which
addresses the issues raised by the Board of County Commissioners in the original decision of denial,
seconded by Benjamin Hansford.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Joyce
Smock,yes; Nick Berryman,yes; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, abstain;Alexander Zauder,yes; Jason Maxey,
yes; Benjamin Hansford, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried.
9
The Chair called a recess at 4:40 pm and reconvened at 4:49 pm.
Robert Grand and Jason Maxey left the meeting at 4:40 pm.
CASE NUMBER: ORDINANCE 2012-3
REQUEST: IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING AND REENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS,
A PORTION OF CHAPTER 5 REVENUE AND FINANCE, CHAPTER 23
ZONING AND CHAPTER 24 SUBDIVISIONS, OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE.
PRESENTED BY: TOM PARKO
Tom Parko, Planning Services, presented the proposed code changes. He said that staff has been trying to
clean up some past cases and said that there hasn't been a process that allows the Board of County
Commissioners to take action on a Site Plan Review application that has not been recorded or has failed to
meet the findings found in the Weld County Code. This proposed change will allow this process to happen.
Mr. Parko briefly explained the proposed change to the code where the right-of-way does not break up the
contiguous land holdings for purposes of determining animal units.
Mr. Parko said that the current code does not define what "temporary" means with respect to offices as
temporary accessory uses. The County defines temporary as six (6) months or less and this proposed
change will apply this standard to offices as well. In addition, this code change will not require a permit for
structures associated with a Site Plan Review(SPR) or Use by Special Review (USR).
With regard to the Official Zoning Map for Weld County, staff is proposing that this map be placed on the
County website in a digital version and will be updated frequently through the GIS Department.
The current fee schedule does not provide a fee in cases where staff spends time assisting applicants on
novel uses or development that doesn't necessarily fit into the established fee categories. Staff is proposing
that the applicant will deposit the estimated amount of costs prior to assistance and then the County will draw
down upon it based on staff time spent. This is intended to recover staff time on a project that does not go
through a land use permit where fees are collected up front. The Planning Commission expressed concern
that there is no criteria that determines the difference of a large case from a small case.
Mark Lawley moved that Ordinance 2012-3 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval, seconded by Bill Hall.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Joyce
Smock, yes; Nick Berryman, yes; Robert Grand, absent; Bill Hall, yes;Alexander Zauder,yes; Jason Maxey,
absent; Benjamin Hansford, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss. Nick
Berryman asked if the exact location of a proposed pipeline can be better delineated. Mr. Holton suggested
maybe changing the time that the plat needs to be recorded since we have many requests to amend that.
Meeting adjourned at 5:14 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
14,0\50- lib AVa-nn
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
10
Hello