HomeMy WebLinkAbout20113270.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, December 6, 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
Joyce Smock
Also Present: Kim Ogle, Michelle Martin, Chris Gathman, and Tom Parko, Department of Planning Services;
Heidi Hansen and Don Carroll, Department of Public Works; Lauren Light and Mary Evett, Department of
Health; Bruce Barker, County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Jason Maxey moved to approve the November 1, 2011 Weld County Planning Commission minutes,
seconded by Bill Hall. Motion carried.
The Chair read the first case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR11-0022
APPLICANT: Huwa Enterprises
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Public
and Quasi-Public Building including administrative offices or meeting halls for
agricultural organizations (Homestead Grange, Inc.) in the A (Agricultural) Zone
District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A RE-5103, being part of SW4 Section 5, T1N, R61W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Hwy 52; approximately 0.5 miles east of CR 87.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, stated that the National Grange was started in 1867 and is the nation's oldest
national agricultural organization. It was formed in the years following the American Civil War to unite private
citizens in improving the economic and social position of the nation's farm population. Homestead Grange No.
215 was founded in 1913. The original hall was built by its members and has been the meeting place for
many dances, showers, meetings,weddings and community events. It is anticipated that the new hall will also
be a community effort in the construction and use of the hall.
The U.S.D.A Soils Maps of Prim Farmlands of Weld County dated 1979 indicate that the soils on this property
as"prime". However, there is no irrigation water associated with the parcel as it is a"dry corner". Given that
the 2.5 acre new parcel is a non-farmed piece of land, the applicant is utilizing the property for the highest and
best use.
The surrounding land uses include a variety of agricultural activities, including irrigated and dryland farming
operations. There are limited farmsteads with associated housing stock in the general area. The proposed
Grange Hall site is approximately five (5) miles east to Morgan County and nine (9) miles west to Prospect
Valley. The Town of Keenesburg is approximately sixteen (16) miles to the northwest.
There are seven (7) property owners on (7) parcels within 500 feet of this proposed facility. There are
1
Corvlubnitictrunta)
is-/g-.20// 2011-3270
residences on several of the parcels. Staff has not received telephone calls, letters or electronic mail for this
land use proposal.
Eight referral agencies have reviewed this case and three 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.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, stated that they had very few concerns with this site. She added that the access
onto State Highway 52 is under CDOT jurisdiction. The applicants have received an access permit through
CDOT.
Mary Evett, Environmental Health, stated that the hall will be served by a commercial well and an engineered
designed septic system. The septic permit has been issued and will require final approval prior to issuance of
Certificate of Occupancy. Ms. Evett suggested striking Condition of Approval 1.B as the applicant has
addressed all the outstanding concerns/requirements of the Environmental Health Department.
Jason Maxey moved to delete Condition of Approval 1.B, seconded by Robert Grand. Motion carried.
Ann Christen, Secretary of Homestead Grange No. 215, said that they started this project because they didn't
own the land where the previous hall was located and the existing landowners decided not to renew the lease;
therefore they were forced to find another location and moving the building was too old and costly. Ms.
Christen added that the Homestead Grange has always been a very important part of her life and would really
like to see this for her kids and other kids in the community. The Grange Hall has served the community very
well.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
The Chair asked the applicant if she 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 USR11-0022, 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 with comment; Bill Hall, yes; Alexander Zauder, yes;
Jason Maxey,yes; Benjamin Hansford,yes; Mark Lawley, yes;Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Grand commended the applicants for working diligently to reproduce the Grange Hall in the
community because it is an important piece of the history for the community.
The Chair read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR11-0014
APPLICANT: A&W Water Service, Inc.
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for an Oil and Gas
Support and Service(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
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. PUD development proposals shall not be
permitted to use the special review permit process to develop(outdoor storage), in
the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part SW4 Section 32,T11 N, R61 W Lot A RE-4158 of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,
Colorado.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 122; approximately 1/4 mile west of CR 390.
2
Michelle Martin, Planning Services, stated that the facility is located in a rural agricultural area on a parcel
containing no improvements. Adjacent properties to the north,south and east are mainly utilized for grazing of
cattle. The nearest residence is approximately 801 feet to the west of the property in question. Also,just west
of the property in question is the Town of Grover municipal limit. The Weld County Department of Planning
Services has not received any comments from the surrounding property owners. Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval will ensure that this use will be compatible with surrounding land uses.
The site is located within the three-mile referral for the Town of Grover; the Town in their referral dated
October 7, 2011stated, "The Town of Grover Board of Trustees has reviewed the above mentioned referral
and we do have some concerns about this facility. The first concern is about its close proximity to Grover and
the possibility that the well could affect the Town's water supply. We are also concerned about traffic, noise
and the trucks coming in and out of the facility and the close proximity to some residences in town. A & W
Water has met with the Town and is aware of our concerns. They have conveyed to us that they will respect
our need to serve our water customers, and if we detect a significant drop in water levels that they would limit
their pumping time. They have asked to start construction of the water dock prior to USR approval from Weld
County, and the Town of Grover has no objections to this."
As a condition of approval the applicant will need to address the concerns of the Town of Grover. The
maximum projected number of groundwater delivery loads to be hauled from this facility will be 34 round trips
per day. The storage aspect of the business will utilize 5 round trips per day, for a total of 39 round trips per
day from this facility. The applicant submitted a dust control plan which they will be required to adhere to.
Planning staff is recommending approval of the application along with the conditions of approval and
development standards.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, stated that County Road 122 is classified as a local roadway requiring 60 feet of
right-of-way at build out. In January 2011, there were 413 vehicles per day on that roadway. The applicants
will be using an existing access into their site and then they will be sharing a paved exit with the neighboring lot
to the east. Expected daily traffic will be about 40 semis per day round trip. There will be an Improvements
and Road Maintenance Agreement with the applicant.
Mary Evett, Environmental Health, stated that the Colorado Division of Water Resources has issued two(2)
commercial well permits for this facility for water truck hauling. One well has been constructed on Lot A RE-
4158 and the other well is proposed to be installed on Lot C and an easement will be provided. Since no
employees will be stationed at this facility the applicant is proposing to provide portable toilets for the drivers.
It is the Health Department's policy that portable toilets are allowed when the use is temporary or seasonal for
up to 6 months. This is a year around business therefore permanent water and sewer is required to be
provided.
Jeff Wright, A & W Water Service, commented that they are developing several of these water loading
facilities around the County. Mr. Wright requested that portable toilets and bottled water be allowed because
there are no employees stationed at this facility. He added that they are willing to comply with noise control;
however they believe without the screening that they will be able to comply with the noise standards.
Commissioner Maxey asked what the average time is to fill a truck. Mr. Wright indicated that it takes
approximately 15 to 20 minutes to fill a truck. Commissioner Hall asked how many loads per day they are
anticipating. Mr. Wright said that they are expecting 39 loads per day. Mr. Hall asked if based on those
numbers if that would be too much for portable toilets. Mr. Wright said that they have not seen any problems
with their other sites which are larger. Ms. Evett added that they recommend 1 portable toilet per 10
employees on a typical 8 hour day.
Ms. Evett suggested that Development Standard 11 be amended to read"Adequate drinking, hand washing
and toilet facilities(bottled water, portable toilets and hand washing units are acceptable)shall be provided for
employees and patrons of the facility, at all time." In addition, Conditions of Approval 1.C and 1.D should be
deleted as well as Development Standards 12, 13, and 14
Robert Grand moved to amend Development Standard 11 as recommended by staff and delete Conditions of
3
Don Carroll, Public Works, stated that the applicants will need to obtain Right-of-Way Permits through the
Department's Utility Coordinator. No open cutting is recommended on county roads unless there are several
utilities and cannot make it work. No parking or staging of vehicles is allowed on county roads.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, stated that they can use portable toilets and bottled water on the
construction route. If there are dust issues, the applicants will truck in water to control the dust. There are no
further concerns with this request.
Patrick Groom, 822 7'" Street, Suite 760, Greeley, CO, stated that he represents the applicant DCP
Midstream. Mr. Groom said that this is the final piece of the puzzle for the LaSalle Processing Plant, which
was the subject of a special hearing heard about 1 month ago. At that hearing, you approved the USR permit
applications for the processing plant and the four compressor stations. This pipeline is one of two pipelines
that DCP will be seeking permits for. The second pipeline extends from the north to the processing plant;
however that is a separate USR application and he anticipates that case will be before the Commissioners
within a month or two.
Mr. Groom stated that DCP is the second largest natural gas processor and gatherer in the country. DCP has
had a presence in Weld County for over 20 years and currently employees an excess of 150 employees in
Weld County. Prior to approval of this project, DCP owns and operates seven natural gas processing plants
within Weld County and numerous compressor stations and operates an excess of 2800 miles of gathering
lines in Weld County. It is anticipated that this project will add 500 temporary jobs and 22 full time jobs in Weld
County.
DCP evaluated a number of routes. The first route that they evaluated was a direct route; however it
unfortunately crossed the reservoir and a number of sensitive wildlife areas. Therefore DCP had to look at an
alternative route to either the north or the south and the southern route was the preferable route as it avoided
the municipalities and DCP was able to acquire the necessary rights-of-way along that route.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Bill Jerke, 22911 CR 39, LaSalle, CO, stated that he is a property owner and is in support of this project. He
has had good negotiations with DCP. He encouraged the Planning Commission to approve this request.
James Ewing, 15611 CR 44, LaSalle, CO, stated that he is not for or against this project. He added that he
farms directly south of the Godfrey Bottoms site and asked if the ground will be taken care of with regard to
soil erosion as it is sandy and the wind can do a lot of damage in a matter of minutes.
Jerry Wait, 23462 CR 51, stated that he encourages oil and gas production. His concern is with the roads as
they are really sandy. He added that they have talked to the County and State to do something with the roads.
These roads have been used a lot more than just residential use. The heavy usage of the big trucks and
equipment do a lot of damage. Mr. Wait added that it is also a health issue with all the dust from roads.
Mr. Groom said that they addressed erosion issues when they had the compressor station sites permitted, as
well as the processing plant, by specifically acquiring an excess of 100 acres per site to mitigate the impact on
neighbors both from dust and noise. The compressor station footprints are less than 5 acres and are sitting
approximately in the center of those sites. In addition DCP has obtained APEN permits to mitigate air pollution
during the construction and operation of these compressor stations and the plant. DCP will also use best
management practices for dust abatement, including water suppression. With regard to the pipeline itself they
don't anticipate producing any problems after installation. Once the pipeline is completed, the surface will
either be returned to cropland or reseeded to native grasses to mitigate any erosion or air pollution factors.
During construction, DCP will use best management practices to reduce any emissions caused by that
installation including water suppression techniques to control dust.
Mr. Groom said that the purpose of this pipeline is to reduce the amount of traffic that would be required to go
from well to well to gather natural gas and other liquids to deliver to some other processing plant. The only
way to gather this in an efficient manner is to gather and transmit it by pipeline. There will be some truck
traffic necessary to remove liquids during the processing but they don't' think that impact will be very
5
significant. He added that they have entered into an Improvements Agreement and intend to maintain the
roads around the processing plant site.
Mr. Groom referred to Condition of Approval 6 which currently requires submission of the plat within 60 days.
He added that the applicant would like to request 90 days to submit the plat, given the volume of land use that
they are undertaking presently and the size of the pipeline project. Mr. Ogle indicated that Condition of
Approval 5 would also need to be amended to reflect the 90 days.
Benjamin Hansford moved to amend Condition of Approval 5 and 6 to reflect the 90 day requirement of
submitting the plat, seconded by Bill Hall.
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.
Bill Hall moved that Case USR11-0016 be approved along with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards, seconded by Mark Lawley.
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.
The following case was read into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR11-0018
APPLICANT: Wells Ranch, LLLP, c/o DCP Midstream, LP
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a 200-foot
Telecommunication Antenna Tower for radio communications between various
processing and compressor sites in the A (Agricultural)Zone District
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: All of Section 21, T6N, R62W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 68: east of and adjacent to CR 77 Section Line.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, stated that the proposed tower facility is located on a vacant parcel of land in a
rural area that is part of Wells Ranch. Seven (7) residences are located to the east of the site with the nearest
residence being approximately one mile from the proposed tower site. The tower may be required to be
lighted per FAA regulations and will generate very little traffic as it is an unmanned facility.
The surrounding area is rural in character with a majority of landscape in pastureland and dryland farming.
Two special use permits, USR-1266 for a machine shop and USR-1659 for a second single-family dwelling
are located over one mile from the proposed tower site to the east. There are numerous oil and gas wells and
associated encumbrances in the general vicinity. The proposed tower location is compliant with Section 23-4-
830.C.1 that states "Existing or approved telecommunication antenna towers cannot accommodate the
telecommunications equipment planned for the proposed DCP Midstream telecommunication antenna tower.
DCP approached Morgan County regarding the possibility of placing antennas on the tower and Morgan
County stated they would not permit any third-party equipment on the tower. The proposed Wells Ranch site
was chosen because it would provide the most coverage for DCP's network. There have been no letters,
electronic mail or telephone calls received regarding this facility.
The U.S.D.A Soils Maps of Prime Farmlands of Weld County dated 1979 indicate that the soils on this
property as"other".
Eleven referral agencies have reviewed this case and four 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.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, stated that that since this is construction of a tower they are allowed to
use portable toilets and bottled water. There are no outstanding concerns with this request.
6
Don Carroll, Public Works, stated that access is from County Road 68 and added that the County maintains
60 feet of right-of-way. There are no further concerns with this request.
Patrick Groom, 822 7th St, Suite 760, Greeley, CO, stated that he represents the applicant DCP Midstream.
He stated that this is intended to monitor the LaSalle project and DCP's other operations in Weld County.
With the explosive growth of natural gas production and the accompanying growth in the infrastructure of DCP
it has become important for DCP to monitor remotely its compressor stations and processing plants and
gathering lines both for safety reasons and also to monitor production. The installation of this radio tower will
allow DCP to do that. This site was chosen as it is a remote location with the least impact to surrounding
property owners. In addition, this site provided the elevation requirements that DCP needed for coverage. He
added that they looked at the tower to the north but were told that there was no additional space on that.
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 to include the "Right to Farm Statement" in the Development Standards.
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 USR11-0018, 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 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.
The Chair called a recess at 2:40 pm and reconvened the meeting at 2:50 pm.
The Chair read the following case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR11-0021
APPLICANT: Kerr-McGee Gathering, LLC
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Amended Use by Special Review Permit(fka
AmUSR-428) for a Mineral Resource Development Facility, including an Oil and
Gas Support Facility, and one or more microwave or other communication
transmission or relay towers over seventy feet in height—120 foot Radio Tower(to
add 8 additional compressor units as well as 2 separators,2 slug catchers,a back-
up generator and other equipment) at the existing Frederick Compressor Station
site, in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part NW4 Section 15,T1 N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 19; south of CR 10 Right-of-Way.
Chris Gathman, Planning Commission, stated that this site has an existing amended USR(AmUSR-428). The
original USR (USR-428)was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on August 6, 1980 for four(4)
4,000 horsepower compressor units. An amendment to USR-428 was approved by the Board of County
Commissioners on September 17, 2011 to add a 120-foot radio tower to the site. Under this amendment they
are proposing to add eight (8) additional compressors, two (2) separators, two (2) slug catchers, a backup
generator and other equipment to this site. The existing buildings and equipment are presently enclosed by an
existing chain-link fence.
Mr. Gathman noted that the original application form listed 6 additional compressors; however, prior to setting
the hearing date it was clarified that the applicant is requesting a total of 8 additional compressors and this
was noticed correctly in the newspaper and in the mailed notices to surrounding property owners. It is their
intent to construct the 6 compressors and add the additional 2 compressors in the future.
7
Four(4) residential properties are located across County Road 19 immediately to the west and southwest of
the site. An existing commercial business (USR-1330—excavation business) is located to the north of the
site. Agricultural parcels with residences are located to the south and east. One letter of objection was
received from a property owner to the immediate southwest of the site stating that the site is already very
noisy.
Thirteen (13) referrals were sent out and seven (7) referrals were received and indicate either no concern or
approval with conditions.
This site is located within the three-mile referral area of the Towns of Dacono and Frederick and the City of
Fort Lupton. A referral was received from Dacono indicating no conflict with their interests. No referral
responses have been received from Frederick or Fort Lupton.
The application indicates that the proposed compressors will be located inside of buildings.The Department of
Planning Services is requiring a noise abatement plan to address this issue and to ensure compatibility with
adjacent properties.
This existing facility is already enclosed with a chain-link fence and is not screened. The application indicates
that there will be no outside storage of equipment/materials on the site. Therefore a screening/landscape plan
has not been added as a condition of approval for this case.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached development
standards and conditions of approval.
Don Carroll, Public Works, stated that County Road 19 is designated as an arterial roadway with 80 feet of
right-of-way at build out. County Road 10 is a section line access or right-of-way; there is 30 feet of right-of-
way on the north side. There are some homes directly east of the site and Weld County has Nonexclusive
Agreements with those landowners.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, stated that permanent water and sewer are provided by an existing
commercial well and they have an existing septic system on site sized for 8 people. Staff requested that a
copy of the SPCC Plan and Air Emissions Permit be submitted. Noise is regulated by the Colorado Oil and
Gas Commission.
Commissioner Maxey referred to Development Standard 3 and noted that the employees listed are at ten(11),
which may be a typo however it seems to be in conflict with the size of the septic system for 8 people. Mr.
Gathman said that the previous amendment to the application allowed for up to 10 employees. He added that
this application indicated that they would have one(1)additional employee. Ms. Light said that the additional
employees can be added over time but they will have to upsize the existing system or it may depend on
whether it is part-time employees.
Vince Harris, Baseline Corporation, representing Anadarko, stated that they are proposing to add six (6)
compressors to the site in 2012. There are two additional compressors noted in the application; however they
are not anticipated to be installed in 2012 or any specific time in the near future. The existing tower is 100 feet
in height and they have included in the application a proposed height of 120 feet, if needed. In addition, slug
catchers and separators and other equipment are proposed.
Mr. Harris said that one of the two existing Cooper compressors will run at a time. He added that there are
five existing compressors on site. It is proposed to add the additional 6 compressors and an additional 2
compressors in the future.
There are regulations for daytime and night time noise levels. According to the Colorado Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission (COGCC)the maximum daytime noise level is 55 decibels and at nighttime it is 50
decibels. Anadarko and Noise Solutions have been working to reach the 50 or less decibels. Noise Solutions
have been onsite to do some noise level testing. The existing compressors are approximately 705 feet from
the western property line. At that specific area, current noise levels are at 58.2 decibels.
8
There will be silencers put on the Cooper Buildings and some muffler lagging so that will reduce noise levels.
In addition there were some ventilation upgrades as well. The predicted sound levels with all the proposed
equipment are estimated to start at 60 decibels. However with all the upgrades they predict the noise levels to
be at 50 decibels or less.
Commissioner Maxey asked the applicant to clarify the number of employees. Mr. Harris said it should state
that there are eleven(11)employees as they are adding an additional employee. Mr. Maxey asked if they are
planning to upgrade the septic system to meet that level. Mr. Harris said that they will have to upgrade their
system.
Steve Morgan, Calgary Alberta, Canada, stated that they have been working on this site for about 18 months.
He said that all of the compressors will be fully attenuated, therefore the coolers would be completely
enclosed. In addition, there would be exhaust silencers and building ventilation systems.
Commissioner Holton asked if berming would help reduce noise levels. Mr. Morgan said that they prefer
addressing noise on the site. He added that berms are directional to begin with and if you are outside the
noise shadow they found through their testing that it is actually louder because there is no ground absorption
of the noise.
Commissioner Grand asked how we can assure the surrounding property owners that the noise levels will not
go above the 50 decibels. Joe Sanchez, Project Manager for Andarko, said that after the equipment is
installed they will verify the noise sound levels and present those findings to the surrounding property owners.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Sheryl Been, 3647 CR 19, stated that it is already noisy with one compressor unit running and without all of the
proposed units running. In the presentation today, the noise levels are already out of range and she doesn't
understand how it is possible to comply with the noise levels with as many as 11 compressors running. It
doesn't seem logical that by adding more equipment it would decrease the noise. She is in opposition of this
application. She added that there is a vibration on their property as well.
Lynn Johns, 8690 CR 10, stated that they built their home in 1998 and it was a peaceful area. There was an
existing building on the subject site but there was no noise coming from that site. In 2002 there was
installation of compressors which made a great deal of noise. It has greatly impacted their lives in the last 8
years. In 2006 he complained to the COGCC regarding this as well as the oil companies, State
Representatives and the Governor of Colorado. He added that they have spent$30,000 to build a dirt berm in
front of their home to try and eliminate some of the noise. Anadarko has installed silencers around the
compressors; however there is a reverberating sound through the bedrock that is a great nuisance. It creates
an intense vibration. He urged the Planning Commissioners to deny the request.
The Chair asked the applicant to address the concerns expressed.
Mr. Sanchez stated that the old Cooper units have a lower RPM compared to the new units that will be
installed which have a higher frequency of vibration that is easier to mitigate with distance. Part of the APEN
agreement they would shut down one of the larger units and only run one unit at a time. Mr. Sanchez said that
this is the first time he has heard of a vibration issue and believes that by shutting down one of the old Cooper
units would help reduce that vibration. Commissioner Hansford asked if the company has looked into resident
frequency generators. Mr. Hansford said that it is common in the automotive industry and these generators
have a frequency that counteracts the other frequency and eliminates the vibration. Mr. Sanchez said that
they will look into that.
Robert Grand asked how the applicant is going to address the concerns expressed by the neighbors.
Mr. Sanchez indicated he felt that they were actively taking steps to address the noise issue through the
efforts outlined by the presentations of Mr. Harris and Mr. Morgan. He reiterated that the new equipment will
not be operated until it is tested for compliance with Colorado Oil and Gas Commission regulations.
9
Robert Grand moved to amend Development Standard 3 to read"The number of on-site employees shall be
limited to eleven (11)", seconded by Bill Hall. 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.
Mark Lawley moved that Case USR11-0021, 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 with reservations; Nick Berryman,yes,with comment; Robert Grand,yes,with comment; Bill Hall,
yes with comment; Alexander Zauder, yes with comment; Jason Maxey, yes with comment ; Benjamin
Hansford, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes with comment. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Berryman commented that with the new development standards and controls that hopefully
this will be mitigated as best as possible. It is a difficult problem and he fully supports the citizens to make
complaints should there be problems.
Commissioner Maxey commented this is not an easy case to decide on. He believes that since Anadarko
is well aware of the concerns expressed from the residents they will work hard to mitigate these problems.
He added that it appears that Anadarko was there since the early 1980's and hopes that they will continue
to work with their neighbors.
Commissioner Grand commented that it is a very intense use of this property. He believes Anadarko has
a good reputation of doing what they say they are going to do so that is why he voted yes.
Commissioner Zauder commented that he voted yes because Anadarko has a good reputation and hopes
that they will continue to work on these issues.
Commissioner Hall commented that it sounds that they are working on the sound issues and believes that
it is an attainable project.
Commissioner Holton commented that he feels comfortable with the steps that Anadarko has taken in the
past years to try and improve that facility. He encouraged them to work with the residents in the area.
The Chair read the following case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR11-0020
APPLICANT: Miller Family Investments, LLC
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Mineral
Resource Development Facility, including open pit gravel mining (sands, gravels
and stones)and Materials Processing in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: E740' NE4 Section 12, T8N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 96; west of and adjacent to CR 37.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, stated that the Miller Family Investments own this 40 acre parcel which they
intent to extract the mineral resource. Of this total permit area, approximately 8.74 acres has historically
been mined for road base. This old disturbance was before state permitting requirements and was never
permitted. The proposal includes a crushing facility utilizing existing material to be crushed, stockpiled
and dispersed by truck to job sites. There will be no concrete or asphalt batch plant at this location.
The site is currently utilized as non-irrigated pastureland and is surrounded by pasture and or farmland to
the south, west and east and to the north is the North Pierce Gravel Mine, permitted by Weld County
(USR-1716). The nearest residence is located approximately 2400 feet to the north of the proposed mine
location.
10
According to the Weld County Sand, Gravel Resources Map dated July 1, 1975 the site is classified as VI
(water deposited gravel, sand, silt and clay along present stream coarses, and the material is predominately
gravel that is clean and sound). The application materials indicate that the applicant has applied for a Special
112 Construction Materials Permit for the Lone Tree Pit, M-2010-047 from the Colorado Division of
Reclamation and Mining Safety. The estimated thickness of gravel-bearing zones varies from between 8 and
20 feet in depth over the entire site,with the overburden layer between 0-3 feet in depth. The material will be
transported to the gravel processing area, crushed, screened and stockpiled until such time as the material is
sold and trucked from the site.
Access is from County Road 37 and existing graded gravel road maintained by Weld County through a double
cattle guard at the gate entrance and into the site.
Sand and gravel processing equipment and material stockpiles will be located in the middle of the site utilizing
an existing access that has been upgraded for mining operation. The processing area is below the existing
County Road 37 elevation.
The proposed facility does not lie in a FEMA designated floodplain or floodway. The Lone Tree Creek channel
is an ephemeral stream that is typically dry all year, flowing only after larger rainstorms, bisects the site. The
FIRM Community Panel Map does not map this location; therefore a Flood Hazard Development Permit will
not be required. Building Permits issued will be required for all on-site electrical facilities and associated
equipment.
The application materials indicate that concurrent reclamation consists of regarding and placement of topsoil
materials. Reseeding will be done with native drought tolerant grass seed mixes.
Although the mine site has received approval from the DRMS, the applicant will be required as a condition of
approval prior to recording the plat to submit written evidence from the Division of Reclamation, Mining and
Safety Division that the performance warranty and financial warranty was submitted and accepted for the Lone
Tree Pit and that the reclamation permit for the mine is accepted.
Thirteen 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 there are no paved roads in the area; therefore they are asking for
double cattle guards at the entrance to eliminate tracking onto county roads as well as adequate turning
radiuses at the entrance. An Improvements Agreement including a haul route is required.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, stated that it is not a temporary use therefore the Health Department's
policy is that permanent water and sewer is required. An Air Emissions Permit will be required. Ms. Light
recommending deleting Condition of Approval 1.G as it is a duplicate of Condition of Approval 2.B.
Robert Grand moved to delete Condition of Approval 1.G, seconded by Jason Maxey. Motion carried.
Ben Lagenfield, Greg Leweki and Associates, representing the applicant, stated that the production estimate is
about 150,000 tons per year with the life of the mine at about 8 years. The site will be reclaimed to rangeland
and wildlife. The creek hasn't flowed for nearly 5 years however there are stipulations in the State Permit and
the County Permit to protect downstream water rights in the event of a large runoff. They are staying above
groundwater by at least two (2) feet.
Mr. Lagenfield requested to remove Condition of Approval 2.A with regard to septic systems. He doesn't
believe permanent water and sewer is necessary since it is a mobile facility and not designed to be
permanent. In addition, he would like to request the plat deadline be changed from the required 60 days to
120 days.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
11
Robert Grand moved to delete Condition of Approval 1.H, 2.A, Development Standard 13 and amend
Development Standard 11 to read "Adequate drinking, handwashing and toilet facilities (bottled water and
portable toilets are acceptable) shall be provided for employees and patrons of the facility at all times",
seconded by Bill Hall. Motion carried.
Robert Grand moved to amend Condition of Approval 4 and 6 to reflect the requested 120 day plat deadline,
seconded by Benjamin Hansford. Motion carried.
Alexander Zauder moved to amend Condition of Approval 5 to reflect the requested 120 day plat deadline as
well, seconded by Jason Maxey. Motion carried.
Robert Grand moved to delete the word "house" in the first sentence of Condition of Approval 2.6 as
suggested from staff, seconded by Alexander Zauder. 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.
Jason Maxey moved that Case US R11-0020, 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.
The Chair called a recess at 4:28 pm and reconvened the meeting at 4:33 pm.
The last case was read into record.
CASE NUMBER: Ordinance 2012-1
REQUEST: In the Matter of Repealing and Reenacting,with Amendments,A portion of
Chapter 23 Zoning and Chapter 29 Building Regulations of the Weld County
Code.
PRESENTED BY: Bruce Barker and Torn Parko
Tom Parko, Planning Services, presented the code changes starting with the minimum width required for a
manufactured structure in Section 23-1-90. He added that to be consistent with the remainder of the County
Code, staff is proposing the minimum width to be 24 feet.
Commissioner Hansford referred to the cargo containers and converting them into residences as was
approved in previous code changes. He asked if the cargo containers would still be allowed with this code
change. Commissioner Lawley asked if the intent is to clean up the language or to prohibit the single wide
mobile homes. Mr. Parko said that the intent is to clean up the language and not to discourage a single wide
home. Single wide mobile homes that are less than 24 feet can be permitted under the Zoning Permit for a
Mobile Home (ZPMH) application. This application allows for accessory to the farm, principal dwellings, etc.
The next code change proposes to include cumulative zoning in the Industrial Zone District. Currently, the
code allows it in Commercial Zone District. Under the new code change I-1 uses will be allowed in the 1-2
Zone and I-1 and 1-2 uses will be allowed in the 1-3 zone. However, in no case shall the 1-3 zone uses be
permitted in either the 1-2 or I-1 Zone Districts.
In addition, one(1)commercial vehicle is currently allowed in the Agricultural Zone District.This change would
allow one (1) commercial vehicle in the Estate Zone District as well.
Bruce Barker, County Attorney, presented the proposed changes in the violation process in the Zoning and
Building Code, Stephanie Arries, County Attorney, added that the Code has always allowed the County to
pursue 1 of 3 approaches in dealing with zoning and building code violations. These powers are given to the
12
County by Statute. Traditionally, we have only used injunctive procedures to enforce these code provisions
but it's becoming increasing clear that it is not a very effective way of dealing with it. It takes months and
months to go through the process. The District Court Judges have felt that there are better ways to handle
this. The biggest difference between the provisions of the Code is that the civil penalties, if remained unpaid,
become liens on the property. She added that is an efficient way of enforcing the code and believes that this
should be a better way to respond to complaints.
Mr. Barker referred to the proposed code change regarding the minimum width of 24 feet for a manufactured
structure and said that the history goes back to about 1992. At that time we started seeing manufactures
homes and we included in our definitions the allowance of these manufactured homes. We got a law suit by
one of the manufacturers of the manufactured homes and as a result we included a definition to include a
manufactured home in our definitions.There was another definition in our code regarding the ANSI standards
for a minimum of 24 feet. So to be consistent throughout the code staff is recommending that the minimum
width be 24 feet. Mr. Barker added that staff will further research if the definition from the ANSI 1994 Code
has been changed and if so, would it fit within our proposed changes.
Mr. Barker noted that the effective date for the enforcement action with regard to the violation process should
be December 6, 2011 so that we can get the process started for the targeted January 2012 court hearings.
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 Ordinance 2012-1, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval, seconded by Joyce Smock. Motion carried
unanimously.
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 5:13 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
13
Hello