HomeMy WebLinkAbout20112736.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
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
Mark Lawley
Nick Berryman
Robert Grand --
Bill Hall
Benjamin Hansford
Alexander Zauder
Jason Maxey
Also Present: Chris Gathman, Tom Parko and Kim Ogle, 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.
Jason Maxey moved to approve the September 20, 2011 Weld County Planning Commission minutes,
seconded by Bill Hall. Motion carried.
The Chair read the first case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1785
APPLICANT: Doris Cunningham
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for any Use
Permitted as a Use by Right, Accessory Use, or 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 part of a map or plan filed prior to
adoption of any regulations controlling subdivisions (oil field products
manufacturing) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of AmRE-991; being part of the NW4SW4 of Section 2, T7N, R66W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 33; approximately 1/2 mile south of CR 86.
Bill Hall announced that he would like to recuse himself as he is personally involved with the applicant's
case.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, stated that this request is to correct a zoning violation (ZCV11-00013)for
the presence of a commercial operation without first obtaining the necessary Weld County Zoning Permits.
The site is located immediately to the south of an existing single-family residence and also immediately to the
east of a single-family residence. Another residence is located approximately 500 to 600 feet northeast of the
site. A surrounding property owner, in a phone call received August 10, 2011, expressed concerns about the
proposed business and location of the existing structures from his property line. Additionally, in an e-mail from
a surrounding property owner received August 7, 2011, concerns were expressed regarding the hours of
operation, number of employees, outside painting and storage of equipment onsite versus what is called out in
the application.
Eleven Referrals were sent out and seven referral responses were received from outside referral agencies.
Referral agencies indicated no comment or approval with conditions.
I
1.6- nfl hiCa civaj n
I - 17-&o I I 2011-2736
This site is located within the three-mile referral area for the Town of Ault and the Town of Pierce.The Town of
Pierce indicated no conflict with their interests and no referral response was received from the Town of Ault.
Mr. Gathman stated that he spoke to property owner in person with their concerns and issues regarding this
site. Similar concerns were noted regarding dust, fumes from the painting operation, overspray from the
painting operation, and the amount of traffic and impacts. Another e-mail, from the surrounding property
owner immediately to the north of the site, was received August 26, 2011. Again concerns were expressed
with the fumes associated with painting, potential inconsistencies with the application in regard to running two
businesses out of the property—excavation and oil and gas support and service. Also mentioned were dust
impacts and traffic impacts.
This case was continued on September 6,2011 to allow outside referral agencies to review the request by the
applicant to have painting of equipment on the site. The Division of Wildlife responded with no concerns and
the Department of Environmental Health suggested an additional development standard be added
(Development Standard #19) requiring a valid Air Pollution Emission Notice (APEN) until or if painting is
reduced to zero emissions. No additional comments from referral agencies have been received.
The applicants have applied for an APEN for up to 2.5 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) annually. This
APEN is currently under review by the State of Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.The
applicant is proposing to paint outside on the south side of the existing shop building. The applicant has
installed hay bales between their property and the property owner to the north. The applicant indicated that
during the month of August they painted approximately 4 days a month and used approximately 7.5 gallons of
enamel paint. Mr. Gathman stated that it is his understanding that the applicants have applied for or are
planning to apply for an APEN to allow painting off-site at sites where the equipment is to be installed.
Staff has proposed a number of development standards to address potential compatibility issues and the
concerns raised by neighboring property owners including the following:
Development Standards 3-5 outline hours of operation,#of employees and number of semi-
tractor trailers associated with the operation.
Staff is requiring that the parking, staging, storage area be completely screened by a six-foot
opaque fence.
Additionally, staff is proposing a development standard that all proposed painting be
conducted indoors.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached development
standards and conditions of approval.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, stated that County Road 33 is classified as a collector roadway requiring 80 feet
of right-of-way at full build-out. In August 2010, there were 1,056 vehicles per day on that roadway. The
proposed traffic for this site is up to 18 employee vehicles and two (2) semi-trucks.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, stated that water is provided by a commercial well. Staff has a copy of
the well permit; therefore Condition of Approval 4 may be deleted. There is an existing septic system on site
sized for six(6)people. She added that the applicant can either enlarge the existing septic system or install a
new system.
Ms. Light stated that the painting came in after the original review of the application. Since there is painting on
site, staff would like the Waste Plan to include how the paints will be disposed of. The applicants have
submitted their Air Emissions application to the State, but referred any questions regarding the painting to Phil
Brewer, Weld County Environmental Health.
Mark Lawley moved to delete Condition of Approval 4, seconded by Robert Grand. Motion carried.
2
Commissioner Grand referred to the neighbors'complaint of fumes from the paint and asked if the painting will
be a contained process. Ms. Light said that it is addressed through a development standard that all painting
will be conducted indoors.
Phil Brewer, Environmental Health, stated that the State Air Pollution Control Division issues the Air Pollution
Emission Notice (APEN). The State would defer to a local County decision if the County makes a decision
that the painting will be required to be indoors or in a paint booth. He understands that not all the painting will
be done on the subject site. He added that they are planning to do painting off site at oil and gas facilities that
are established. The fumes that are generated by spray painting are fumes that are not contained by a paint
booth. A paint booth will reduce the emissions of the particulates generated by overspray.
Commissioner Grand clarified if the paint booth will solve the fumes problem. Mr. Brewer replied that the paint
booth will not solve the paint fumes. Mr. Grand asked how we address the concerns from the surrounding
residences regarding paint fumes. Mr. Brewer said that all automobile repair facilities in the County that do
painting are not required by the State Air Pollution Control Division to have controls on their painting
operations for emissions of chemicals. Mr. Grand expressed concern for not having an answer to the
residence's concern.
Cliff Simpson, owner of C & H Excavation, stated that they have a welding fabrication shop where they
manufacture safety equipment for the oil and gas industry. He added that they have had to paint the things
that they have built as it comes in with raw material.
Mr. Simpson said that he has been in contact with Phil Brewer regarding the painting regulations. He added
that they have looked into performing the painting at the sites that the product will be installed. He further
added that all painting done on site is done by electrostatic process.
Mr. Grand asked if he met with his neighbors and talked about their concerns. Mr. Simpson said that he has
met with all three of the neighbors. He said that the neighbor who lives the closest to him indicated no
concerns with this operation. Mr. Simpson said that he has had several meetings with the neighbors to the
north and added that not all of them have been good meetings. He met with another neighbor and the
conversation turned into something that was more personal rather than with regard to the business.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Patsy Deines,41474 CR 33, stated that she lives directly to the north of the site. She stated that she fears for
her safety, her property values and her personal health. She submitted a letter from her doctor for the record.
Ms. Deines said that her family chose to live there because it is a farming community and they wanted to be a
part of that.
She mentioned her safety because she said the newest hay bales that are put up as a buffer to their property
she sees them smoke and throw their cigarette butts out towards the hay bales. She added that their propane
tank is approximately 50 to 60 feet to the north side of the hay bales. She questioned that if a fire happens will
he be liable and is there enough insurance coverage to cover them.
With regard to the paint fumes, they are so bad that when they came home this past Saturday afternoon with
friends they couldn't sit on their patio and visit with them. This is a big concern as they invested everything to
purchase this property. Even if this doesn't reduce the property values it will definite diminish the number of
people who would be willing to purchase that property.
Ms. Deines also stated that the application said the operation would be 5 days a week; however he has been
there 7 days a week the majority of the time. He also said that he would be there 8 to 12 hours a day, and
noted that those hours have been exceeded.
Ms. Deines said that she has a lot of concerns and is not happy. Most of all,she would like to see this remain
as an agricultural community.
Dustin Winter stated that he is the property owner to the northwest of the site. He said that he has been a
3
farmer since he was 19 years of age and has lived at this residence for 21 years. He indicated that the subject
site and building was used as ag before and it needs to remain used as ag. Mr. Winter referred to a photo in
the presentation where it showed painting overspray on the ground and said that it is damaging ag ground. He
strongly expressed that this use needs to remain ag and they don't want to turn it into a commercial/industrial
park.
Steve Deines lives to the north of the site and asked what criteria it is that we are going to use to make this
recommendation. He is 50 to 70 feet from all this and it is miserable. He stated that the business is not to
operate on weekends; however they consistently operate on Saturdays. They paint indoors now but they
leave the doors open. Mr. Deines said that he cashed in his 401k and purchased this property and now they
are stuck with it. He expressed that he would like it to remain an ag community. He added that in the APEN
application it does not state that they are using electrostatic spray; rather it states air.
The Chair reminded the audience that they are an advisory board and encouraged them to attend the Board of
County Commissioner hearing.
Commissioner Holton asked the applicant if he is using the electrostatic painting system. Mr. Simpson said
that they have been using that application technique for the last 2 to 5 years.
Commissioner Grand referred to hours of operation and asked for clarification. Mr. Simpson said that he
would like to discuss changes to the hours of operation and the number of trucks. He said that he is the
owner of three(3)tractor trailers and the business is growing. The hours of operation have increased due to
the amount of production. Mr. Grand clarified if the applicant is currently working Saturdays. Mr. Simpson
said that at the time of application the hours of business were Monday through Friday but they have been
working on Saturdays. The Chair inquired what the applicant is requesting for changes. Mr. Simpson said
that he would like to have a maximum of 10 semi-trucks in and out. The Chair asked if this was discussed
with staff. Mr. Simpson said that this is the first opportunity that he has had to make this request.
Ms. Hansen said that their referral comments are based off their traffic narrative. She read the narrative
submitted into the record. Commissioner Lawley asked if the 10 semi-trucks per day would trigger any
improvements. Ms. Hansen said that they may be required to have an Improvements Agreement and Road
Maintenance Agreement. She stated that the narrative description was very minor but with more trucks added
they would like to add an Improvements and Road Maintenance Agreement if the turning radius needs to be
improved or if tracking control is required. More discussions would need to be had with the applicant.
Mr. Lawley asked if this additional truck traffic would have an impact on the septic system. Ms. Light said that
currently it is sized for 6 employees so they will need to upgrade the system now for the 18 employees.
Mr. Grand asked the applicant if he gave some thought on mitigating the impact from the painting. Mr.
Simpson said that 95% of the painting is done off site so hopefully that will solve that concern.
Commissioner Holton asked the applicant to clarify his request for hours of operation. Mr.Simpson would like
to request that they be able to work on a Saturday based on the demand of the business. Mr. Simpson said
that he would like to work 6 days a week 13 hours a day.
Robert Grand moved to amend Development Standard 4 to include Saturday, seconded by Nick Berryman.
Motion carried.
The Chair asked the applicant if he read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that he is in agreement.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1785, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, seconded by Mark Lawley.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, yes; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, abstain; Alexander Zauder, yes; Jason Maxey, yes; Benjamin
4
Hansford, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Grand commented that this is a tough case where there are conflicting views and ideas. He
believes that everyone has a right to the use of their property, both as a homeowner and productive business
opportunity. Unfortunately, in some cases those are in conflict.
Commissioner Holton commented that the applicant needs to realize that his request is pushing the limit to
where it needs to be located in an industrial area. He encouraged the applicant to consider relocation to the
industrial area if the business continues to grow in the future.
The Chair called a recess at 2:29 pm and reconvened the hearing at 2:37 pm.
The Chair read the following case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1789
APPLICANT: Cannon Land Company, c/o Encana Natural Gas, Inc.
PLANNER: Tom Parko
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for Oil and
Gas Storage Facilities(LNG Liquefaction and Storage)and Oil and Gas Support
and Service (fueling station, mini-liquefaction facility, staging) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SE-1206; being part of the S2SW4 of Section 11, T2N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 22; approximately one (1) mile east of CR 31.
Tom Parko, Planning Services, stated that there were two steps in this particular process. The first step was
to locate the facility on a proposed Subdivision Exemption as this is an oil and gas support and service facility.
The owner of record is Cannon Land Company. Encana is leasing 19.5 acres from Cannon Land for a LNG
(liquefied natural gas facility). The facility as proposed will be carried out in three phases. Phase 1 includes
two large 16,300 gallon LNG storage vessels and one LNG load off control facility. Phase 2 will include one
Liquid Nitrogen Storage vessel, one LNG Liquefaction skid and one LNG storage and dispensing. Phase 3 will
include a lot of uses in the future with five 100,000 gallon proposed LNG storage vessels, one shop and
control room, one gas pre-treating skid, one water-removal equipment skid, four area coolers, one
compressor building, one natural gas liquefaction equipment area, truck loading areas, one flare stack, and
two natural gas liquid storage vessels.
The proposed site is located within three-mile referral areas for the City of Fort Lupton and the Town of
Platteville. In neither case, however, is the proposed facility located in an urban growth boundary. Both
municipalities responded with no concerns or objections.
Thirteen referral agencies have reviewed this case and two offered comments, some with specific conditions.
There has been no correspondence received either for or against this proposal.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached conditions of
approval and development standards.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, said that because this is in three phases permanent water will not be
required until Phase 3.
Ms. Light noted that the last part of Development Standard 14 was left out. She requested that"Portable
toilets and bottled water would be provided for Phases 1 and 2" at the end of Development Standard 14.
Robert Grand moved to add the additional language as presented by staff to Development Standard 14,
seconded by Bill Hall. Motion carried.
Ms. Light commented that noise from the proposed compressor could be regulated by the Oil and Gas
5
Commission. Therefore on Development Standard 12 a sentence should be added "or with all applicable
State noise statutes and/or regulations".
Jason Maxey moved to add the additional language to Development Standard 12 as presented by staff,
seconded by Benjamin Hansford. Motion carried.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, stated that County Road 22 is classified as an arterial roadway requiring 140 feet
of right-of-way at build-out. In May 2007, there were 1,012 vehicles per day on that roadway. There is an
approved access onto County Road 22 for the facility. An Improvements and Road Maintenance Agreement
for County Road 22, which will include triggers for the different levels of phasing, will be required.
Ms. Hansen requested that the Items A through E under"Please add the following notes to the plat"on Page 5
be moved to Development Standards and remove Items B and C as they are already development standards.
Alexander Zauder made a motion to move Items A, D, and E to Development Standards,seconded by Robert
Grand. Motion carried.
Ms. Hansen also requested that the handout she submitted be included as Condition of Approval 4 in regard
to the Improvements and Road Maintenance Agreement.
Jason Maxey moved to include a new Condition of Approval 4 and renumber accordingly, seconded by Nick
Berryman. Motion carried.
Cathi Boles, Representative for Encana Natural Gas, Inc., 370 17th Street, Denver,CO,stated that they intend
to implement Phase 1 by the end of this year with the installation of two 16,300 gallon storage vessels on site.
It will require large semis with approximately 10,000 gallons of gas delivering into the storage vessels. Once
it is stored on site, smaller trucks will offload the gas and deliver to the customers.
As the demand grows, they will get into Phase 2 which is the liquefaction process. Phase 3 will be initially
three(3) large semi-trucks per week delivering the product and then the smaller trucks will deliver gas to the
customers.
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.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1789, 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. 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.
The Chair read the following case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR11-0004
APPLICANT: Soto Gonzales, do Donn Foster
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for an Oil
and Gas Support Facility(water hauling)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 (the maintenance and fabrication of new and existing trucks),
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.
6
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A&Lot B RE-4573; Part N2SW4 Section 1,T5N,R65W of the 6th P.M.,Weld
County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Hwy 263(8th Avenue)and 0.5 miles east of CR 47.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, stated that the site is located within three miles of the City's of Evans and
Greeley, and the Town of Kersey. The City of Greeley returned a referral indicating no conflict from Planning
and had several recommendations for the Civil Engineering components. The City of Evans and Town of
Kersey did not return a referral indicating a conflict with their interests.
The proposed facility lies between the Colorado Department of Transportation service yard and a
manufacturing facility(Marcy Equipment—Farm Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing Company)to the
west. Adjacent lands to the south are the Ogilvy Ditch and Bottomlands associated with the Cache La Poudre
River Corridor. Lands to the north are in agricultural production.
The site is located on two (2) lots, Lot A and Lot B of Recorded Exemption, RE-4573 which consists of 9.03
acres. There are physical improvements located on site and there are plans to remove all existing structures.
There is no irrigation water associated with the parcel. The applicant is proposing an on-site septic system
and the water will be provided by North Weld County Water District.
The surrounding properties have large tract agricultural lands to the north and west,with the Cache La Poudre
River and Ogilvy Ditch adjacent to the south and the CDOT facility adjacent to the north. There are seven(7)
property owners on five (5) parcels within 500 feet of this proposed facility. There have been no letters or
electronic mail received and no telephone calls received for this land use proposal.
Eighteen referral agencies have reviewed this case and five 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, stated that County Road 60.5 is classified as a collector roadway with 80 feet of
right-of-way. In 2010, the traffic count was taken between County Roads 47 and 49 which reflects 2,988
vehicles per day. A vehicle tracking pad at the entrance which will consist of 100 feet of asphalt and double
cattle guards was requested. After reviewing the traffic narrative provided by the applicant, the Weld County
Traffic Engineer would like to have an annual road inspection for any damages. The inspection would include
triggers for any improvements that would be necessary to the entrance.
Mary Evett, Environmental Health, stated that water is provided by North Weld County Water District. There is
an existing commercial septic system but the applicant is proposing to install a new septic system and
abandon the existing system.
The applicant indicated that there may be fabrication of the truck beds in the future. Ms. Evett commented that
she included Condition of Approval 1.G.1 in regard to the requirement of an Air Permit if any painting is done;
however she would like to move that to a Development Standard.
Jason Maxey made a motion to move Condition of Approval 1.G.1 to a Development Standard as stated by
staff, seconded by Mark Lawley. Motion carried.
Cameron Knapp, Drexell Barrel Engineering, 6513 W 4th St, Greeley CO stated that the request is for a truck
hauling facility to support the oil and gas industry. The water hauling trucks are basically just parked at this
facility. The trucks are filled off site and transported to various facilities. The plan calls for a single-story
building to house an office area, restroom as well as a shop area for general maintenance and truck repair.
Mr. Knapp indicated that in the future some fabrication will be performed as well.
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 he read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that he is in agreement.
7
Mr. Ogle requested that Condition of Approval 1.D be deleted as the applicant has submitted an Access
Permit.
Bill Hall moved to delete Condition of Approval 1.D, seconded by Nick Berryman. Motion carried.
Jason Maxey moved that Case USR11-0004, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, seconded by Nick Berryman.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. 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.
The Chair read the last case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR11-0011
APPLICANT: Todd & Rhonda Amen
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for an Oil
and Gas Support Facility(roust-a-bout,construction and excavating service)in the
A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part NW4 Section 6,T3N, R64W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 38; East of and adjacent to CR 49.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, stated that the property is currently in violation (ZCV11-00041). This violation
was initiated due to the operation of an oil and gas roust-a-bout company and the storage of commercial
vehicles and equipment without first completing the necessary Weld County Zoning Permits.
The site consists of 80 plus acres with historic use encumbrances. The surrounding properties are primarily
grazing lands with sparsely located single-family homes, oil and gas facilities and County Road 49, a future
major arterial road. There are nine (9) property owners on nine parcels within 500 feet of this proposed
facility. There have been no letters or electronic mail received and no telephone calls received for this land
use proposal.
The Department of Planning Service recommends denial of this application as the applicant has not met the
minimum requirements associated with adequate sanitary and potable water requirements associated with this
proposed use. The application materials indicate that bottled water and port-a-lets will serve the
commercial/industrial facility.
The Division of Water Resources in their referral dated August 18, 2011 states that because the property is
larger than 70 acres the property owner would likely be able to obtain two (2) exempt well permits, one full
domestic permit including outdoor water us and commercial drinking and sanitary well permit. Two permits
could be obtained if each permit were assigned a specific 35 acres or more of the property. The ability of the
property owner to obtain a second well permit for commercial use would be evaluated at the time the well
permit application is submitted to our office.
The Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment in their referral dated September 12, 2011
states"Permanent drinking water and sewage disposal facilities must be provided to employees and drivers
who access the site."
As discussed with the applicant's representative, the property owner does not desire to re-permit their
domestic well or drill a new well for commercial use and provide a restroom in the house for the drivers.
The applicant is requesting that portable toilets, hand sanitizer and bottled water be allowed since the drivers
are only on the property for short periods to pick up and drop off business vehicles and equipment.
As outlined previously, the proposal as submitted in the application materials is not consistent with County
Policy or consistent to similar land use applications in both employee numbers and intensity of use.
8
Mr. Ogle indicated that Condition of Approval 1.C.5 and 1.G be deleted as the applicant indicated that he does
not intend to put lights on site.
Jason Maxey moved to delete Condition of Approval 1.C.5 and 1.G as stated by Staff, seconded by Alexander
Zauder. Motion carried.
In addition, Mr. Ogle suggested that Condition of Approval 1.E be removed as staff has received a letter from
the Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Ditch that the applicant has met that requirement.
Jason Maxey moved to delete Condition of Approval 1.E as stated by staff, seconded by Nick Berryman.
Motion carried.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, stated that County Road 49 is classified as an arterial roadway requiring 140 feet
of right-of-way at build out. In June 2009, there were 2,980 vehicles per day on that roadway. County Road
38 is classified as a local roadway requiring 60 feet of right-of-way at build out. The applicant will utilize the
existing access onto County Road 38.
Mary Evett, Environmental Health, stated that it is Department Policy that permanent drinking water and
sewage disposal should be provided for the employees and drivers accessing the site. There is an existing
septic system for the residence which was designed and permitted for 5 bedrooms or 10 people. If used by
the employees it would need to be evaluated by an engineer to determine if it is adequate. The applicant has
a domestic well and according to the referral from the Colorado Water Resources states that the applicant can
obtain two exempt well permits as long as each permit is assigned a specific 35 acres or more.
Ms. Evett noted that Development Standard 17 may be deleted as it is a duplicate of Development Standard
16.
Robert Grand moved to delete Development Standard 17, seconded by Bill Hall. Motion carried.
Sheri Lockman, Lockman Land Consulting, stated that the site will be used for the storage and parking of
vehicles and equipment. She said that the site will be used for up to 11 employees,which the applicant's do
not even have at this point. The employees come to the site in the morning, pick up their equipment and leave
and bring it back at different times during the day. The equipment is not serviced on site. There is very little
time that those employees are on site. According to the Colorado Division of Water Resources referral, it
indicates that if use is approved as proposed they do not have any objections to the proposal. The problem is
that the house is now residential and cannot combine the commercial and residential. The other option is to
drill another well for employees that won't even be on site.
Commissioner Grand clarified if the request is to use portable toilets and bottled water. Ms. Lockman replied
that is correct.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Commissioner Lawley asked staff if there any conditions of approval or development standards that would
need to be amended if the Planning Commission would choose to allow portable toilets and bottled water.
The Chair called a recess at 3:46 pm to review potential amendments.
The Chair called the meeting back to order at 3:52 pm.
Ms. Evett noted that Conditions of Approval 1.F.1 and 1.F.4 may be deleted.
Bill Hall moved to delete Conditions of Approval 1.F.1 and 1.F.4 as stated by staff, seconded by Benjamin
Hansford. Motion carried.
9
In addition, Ms. Evett noted that Development Standard 10 would need to be amended to read "Adequate
Drinking, hand washing and toilet facilities (bottled water and portable toilets are acceptable based on the
number of temporary on-site employees per application documentation)shall be provided for employees of the
facility, at all times."
Mark Lawley moved to amend Development Standard 10 as stated by staff, seconded by Bill Hall. Motion
carried.
Ms. Evett stated that Development Standard 12 may be deleted. Robert Grand moved to delete Development
Standard 12, seconded by Alexander Zauder. 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.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR11-0011, 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. 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.
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 had
any further business to discuss.
Meeting adjourned at 4:00 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
10
Hello