HomeMy WebLinkAbout20100188.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Department of
Planning Services, Hearing Room, 918 10`" Street, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by
Chair, Tom Holton, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Tom Holton - Chair
Mark Lawley-Vice Chair
Nick Berryman
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Roy Spitzer
Alexander Zauder
Jason Maxey
Also Present: Michelle Martin, Chris Gathman,and Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services; Don Carroll,
Janet Carter, and Clay Kimmi, Department of Public Works;Troy Swain, Department of Health; Bruce Barker,
County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Robert Grand moved to approve the December 1, 2010 Weld County Planning Commission minutes,
seconded by Erich Ehrlich. Motion carried.
The Chair read the first case into record.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1679
APPLICANT: JLW Investment, LLC
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Amended Use by Special Review Permit
for an Oil and Gas Support Facility(install additional tanks and office trailer in an
existing Class II Oilfield Waste Disposal Facility)in the A (Agricultural)Zone
District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B RE-748; located in Part of the NE4 of Section 18,T6N, R63W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Hwy 392 and approximately 1/4 mile east of CR
61.5.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, stated that staff is recommending that this case be continued to the
February 2, 2010 hearing date. The applicant is in the process of providing an updated drainage report and
drainage information to the Department of Public Works. This will also allow staff adequate time to review the
information.
Roy Spitzer moved to continue Case AmUSR-1679 to the February 2, 1010 Planning Commission hearing,
seconded by Nick Berryman. Motion carried.
The Chair read the following case into record.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-625
APPLICANT: Aka Energy Group, LLC
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Amended Use by Special Review Permit
for an Oil and Gas Support and Service(natural gas processing facility amended
to include an additional compressor and storage areas) in the A(Agricultural)
Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SE-218; being part of the SW4NW4 of Section 27,T5N, R64W of the 6th P.M.,
1
()
-3�rur�� 1 1g I
2010-0188
Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 55 and approximately 1/4 mile south of CR 54.
Michelle Martin, Planning Services, stated that the applicant is present and requests that this case remain on
the Consent Agenda.
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 read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1720
APPLICANT: William &Veleria Fabrizius
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a
Mineral Resource and Development Facility(oil and gas storage) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Located in the NW4 of a parcel described as all of Section 28(with the exception
of a 10 acre parcel in the SW4 SW4 of Section 28),T11 N, R61 W of the 6th
P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 89 and approximately 2 miles north of CR 122.
Michelle Martin, Planning Services, stated that the applicant is present and requests that this case remain on
the Consent Agenda.
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 to approve the Consent Agenda including Cases AmUSR-625 and USR-1720,and that
the cases 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 Bill Hall.
Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1695
APPLICANT: A&W Water Service, Inc
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a
Mineral Resource Development Facility, including Oil and Gas Support and
Services (water supply and storage, potash mixing and storage and production
pipe and equipment storage area) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the E2 of Section 31, T4N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,
Colorado.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Highway 60 and '/� mile north of CR 38.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, stated that this USR is to correct a zoning violation (ZCV08-00225) for
operating an oil and gas support facility without first obtaining the necessary Weld County Zoning Permits.The
proposal is for water supply and storage, potash mixing and storage and production pipe and equipment
storage area.
Water supply and storage is currently operating on site and resulted in the initiation of a zoning violation.The
original USR application included a proposed reverse osmosis facility component along with an equipment
washout facility component. These items have since been removed from the updated request.
Should this application be approved, the violation will be dismissed. If denied, this case will proceed
accordingly to violation hearing and possibly district court.
The facility is located in a rural agricultural area on a parcel containing an existing abandoned residence and
outbuilding in the southeast corner of the site.There are existing oil and gas production facilities located in the
2
eastern and northern areas of the site. The nearest single family residences are located approximately 700
feet west of the commercial well operation&water storage component of the operation and approximately 750
to 900 feet north of the proposed pipe & equipment storage area. The second nearest residence is located
approximately'A mile to the northeast of the site off of County Road 25.5.This site is located approximately'%
mile north of an existing oil and gas storage facility(pipe and production equipment storage)approved under
USR-1662 in October of 2008. The operation will directly access onto State Highway 60 via a road directly
west of County Road 38.5 (this road will be used exclusively by the applicant).
Fifteen referrals were sent out. Nine Referral agencies responded with comments. Three referral agencies
responded with no concerns and three referral agencies(Colorado Oil&Gas Commission, Platte Valley Soil
Conservation District, and Town of Gilcrest) provided no referral response.
Three(3)letters of concern(along with phone calls)from surrounding property owners have been received.A
summary of concerns mentioned in this correspondence were:
• Noise: Noise from the trucks (that according to the neighboring property owner—arrive before 6
AM), air horns, backup alarms from the trucks and noise from pumps utilized to transfer water
from the trucks to the tanks. Also noise was mentioned from the large pump that pumps water
from a ditch to the augmentation ponds on the property.
• The amount of traffic entering and exiting the site creates safety concerns and quality of life
concerns.
• How the wells associated with this use impact the water table.
• Equipment stored on the site is not adequately screened from neighboring properties.
• What road will trucks be allowed to access onto?
• Water in augmentation ponds are creating a potential mosquito issue (mosquito mitigation?).
• Trucks are utilizing County Road 38.5 and are creating a dust issue (noise and fumes as well).
• There is no way to prevent trucks from utilizing roads that are not part of the approved haul route
for the facility.
Due to the concerns expressed by the neighboring property owners, the Department of Planning Services
recommended that the applicant hold a community meeting with the neighboring property. Staff has also
included Conditions of Approval and Development Standards to address/mitigate these concerns:
• A landscape/screening plan will need to be submitted and approved by the Department of Planning
Services prior to recording the plat to address screening of the facility from neighboring properties
(specifically to the west, north and northwest of the site).
• Limiting hauling hours from 6 AM to 8 PM. In the event hauling is to exceed these hours requiring
notification of the DPS and County Commissioners Office.
• Requiring submittal of a lighting plan (to address any on-site lighting).
• Submittal of a noise control plan.
• CDOT is requiring a northbound left turn lane into the facility.
• A number of Public Works and Environmental Health conditions have been attached.
The Department of Planning Services feels that the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval will
adequately mitigate any impacts associated with this use and recommends approval.
Commissioner Lawley asked how long this business was operating on site prior to the violation. Mr. Gathman
said it is a 2008 violation but believes that they were operating prior to that.
Commissioner Lawley clarified if the only operation on site prior to the violation was water supply and storage
and didn't include potash mixing. Mr. Gathman said that the main component was the water supply and didn't
believe that any potash mixing or equipment storage was on site. He added that at some points in time they
stored water tanks on a temporary basis in 2009; however no additional storage has been noted recently.
Commissioner Grand asked what the structure of the road is that they turn-on. Mr. Gathman said it is a dirt
packed road. Mr. Grand asked if there is a requirement for a turn-on ramp. Mr. Gathman said CDOT showed
3
no requirements in their comments for that.
Commissioner Maxey clarified if west on CR 38.5 is the applicant's private road. Mr.Gathman replied yes and
added that there is no right-of-way to the west.
Troy Swain, Environmental Health, commented that staff suggested some conditions and development
standards for this case and received some feedback from the applicant and found some proposed changes to
be acceptable.
Mr. Swain stated that staff would like to delete Prior to Recording the Plat Condition of Approval 1.1 because it
is covered under Development Standard 13.
He commented that the applicant expressed desire to delete Condition of Approval 1.K; however staff
recommends keeping this condition because there is an existing residence.
Staff would like to amend Development Standard 8 to read"Slurry unloading/truck loading operation shall be
conducted, so as to prevent any release from the tank system from reaching land or waters outside of the
containment area or portable containment devices prior to clean up. Spill prevention measures shall be
employed when making connections and during loading/unloading operations. Portable containment such as
drip pans shall be available for use."
Mark Lawley moved to delete Condition of Approval 1.1 and amend Development Standard 8 as recommended
by Staff, seconded by Robert Grand. Motion carried unanimously.
Don Carroll, Public Works, commented that staff had also suggested some conditions and development
standards for this case and received some proposed changes back from the applicant.
Mr. Carroll stated that staff would like Condition of Approval 1.C.5 to remain as stated. He added that the
applicant, however, may propose changes.
Staff would like Condition of Approval 1.L to remain as stated to ensure that the applicant uses the paved
roads for their haul routes. He added that this also includes the two options of 100 feet of pavement with two
(2) cattle guards or 300 feet of pavement to make sure all the mud is knocked off the trucks.
Mr. Carroll noted that Development Standard 5 states the haul route.
Commissioner Berryman asked if there is any information on the vehicles per day. Janet Carter, Public
Works, said that it appears from the original traffic study the applicant is proposing 75 trucks per day from
commercial wells and approximately 3 employee/supervisor trips per day. Since that time the applicant has
done approximately a 40% reduction of their traffic. The applicant is now proposing 120 round trips per day.
Commissioner Lawley asked if this includes any increase for expansion. Ms.Carter said that she understands
they were originally planning a use out there that has since been removed;therefore there was a reduction in
traffic. She added that if they wish to add onto that number that they would need to amend their USR.
Mr. Gathman commented that there are a few additional changes that staff is proposing. On page 5, staff
would like to amend the description to replace the 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph with the following
sentence"Should this application be approved, the violation will be dismissed. If denied, the Violation Case
will proceed accordingly through a violation hearing and possibly district court."
In addition, staff would like to amend Condition of Approval 1.O by striking the first sentence prior to
"Screening of the water supply...."
Staff would like to request the deletion of Condition of Approval 1.Q as the applicant has provided a letter to
the Department of Planning Services addressing the referral response from the Town of Milliken.
Staff would like to amend Condition of Approval 1.T to include a subsequent email from CDOT on December
4
28, 2009.
Mark Lawley moved to amend the Description, amend Condition of Approval 1.Q, remove Condition of
Approval 1.Q and amend Condition of Approval 1.T as recommended by Staff, seconded by Robert Grand.
Motion carried unanimously.
Chrysten Hinze, Lind, Lawrence, & Ottenhoff, stated that they represent the applicant, A & W Water. Ms.
Hinze stated that in 2005 A&W purchased a parcel with a commercial well available for hauling water to the
oil field. There is also an existing residence on the property which will ultimately be used as an office.
The USR site comprises 36 of 92 acres. This location was chosen because there are a number of different
uses in the area and also because of the availability of water and the access of good roads for truck traffic.
The surrounding areas include agricultural, industrial, commercial, and rural residential. She added that the
FIDCO ditch runs diagonally along the parcel boundary. There are four (4) augmentation recharge ponds
located on the property. There is berming around each of them.
At full build out 15 tanks are proposed(14 fresh water tanks and 1 salt water tank). The trucks come from the
home base in Ft. Lupton or from whatever mineral development site they last were at.
Ms. Hinze stated that they have stipulated with Weld County that County Roads 38.5 and 38 will not be used to
access Highway 85. The applicants are proposing to use Highway 60 and County Road 40 primarily; however
they would like to request the use of County Roads 42 and 44 or any other paved roads to access Highway 85.
Maximum truck use at this site would be approximately 90 trucks per day. She added that this number will not
be occurring for some time. Currently, the traffic study indicated that they are about 75 trucks round trip per
day. In addition, they are proposing a maximum of 6 employee vehicles per week.
The pipe and storage equipment storage area is proposed to be nestled in among the recharge augmentation
ponds. The screening would be accomplished through the berming. A fence is proposed to be installed as
well to connect to the berm.
Ms. Hinze stated that the existing residence would be changed to an office once there is an employee located
on site. At that point a new septic system would be installed and parking would be available. Ultimately, the
applicants plan to replace the existing residence with a modular as the site use grows. The existing garage
would be used for storage.
The pumps and wells run automatically and this is a 24/7 operation for the oilfields. Most traffic will occur
between 6 am and 8 pm; however because of oilfield demands there are times when traffic has to occur after
those hours. Therefore they need the availability to run hauling traffic between the hours of 8 pm and 6 am.
There is a main access as well as an existing oil and gas access allowed by CDOT's requirements. Ms. Hinze
stated that the applicants are proposing to pave the first 100 feet along with the cattle guards at the main
access.
There is an existing sign prohibiting the use of County Road 38.5 and will be expanded to include the route
restrictions as discussed with Public Works.
Commissioner Grand asked how the drivers are enforced to use the stipulated haul routes. Gary Wright,A&
W Water Service, said that they would put up signs and reinforce it with their drivers and said that there are
consequences of time off to help circumvent traffic. Mr. Grand asked what the monitoring process is. Mr.
Wright commented that other communities are their eyes and ears. He said that they welcome people calling
in. He added that supervisors are trying to control and maintain those issues. They feel they respond to
complaints fairly rapidly.
Commissioner Holton clarified if all the trucks belong to A&W Water. Mr.Wright said some trucks are leased
trucks that are contracted by A & W. There are a few trucks which pull water and potash from this facility
5
which are not under contract with A&W. Mr. Grand asked how they handle the compliance of the road usage
with those trucks not under contract. Mr. Wright said that they would give them a warning and if they do not
respond they will shut them off of the water well and potash.
Commissioner Hall asked if they anticipate the pipe storage facility to be daylight hours. Mr. Wright said it
would be mainly daylight hours Monday through Saturday and occasionally on Sunday.
Ms. Hinze started by going through some of the proposed changes to the staff recommendation. On page 4,
Item 1.C, they are proposing that the fence is along the south end of the USR boundary rather than the north
end.
Roy Spitzer moved to amend 1.C as requested, seconded by Mark Lawley. Motion carried.
Ms. Hinze commented that on page 5, Condition of Approval 1.C.5,the language that they are proposing is to
replace the specific drawings of the improvements that will be required by CDOT with a note to the plat.
Mr. Carroll commented that they would like Condition 1.C.5 to remain as stated because if a note is placed on
the plat it doesn't give detail to staff. Staff feels that if they see it all up front everything fits better.
Curt Rolin, Civil Engineer, CES Consultants, Johnstown, CO. Mr. Rolin said that they would like to add a note
to the plat rather than actual drawing. He added that it is their intention to obtain a permit access and follow all
standards by CDOT. He doesn't like to show dimensions on a plat because it could be changed as it goes
through the process with CDOT. He believes that a note stating that all construction will be based on CDOT
standards and be approved by CDOT prior to construction would be an easier way to handle this.
Ms. Carter said that CDOT has an access code book that describes basic standards on construction. This is
a guideline for what is required so the information needed for the construction drawings are pretty generalized.
We understand that minor changes may be done but this will show a full delineation of what the intention is.
Commissioner Berryman asked if there is a disclaimer on the plat indicating that this is not for construction.
Ms. Carter said that it is not a finalized construction drawing. It has general survey information but when
construction happens things can get shifted slightly; however the intention does not change.
The Chair asked the Planning Commissioners if they wish to change this condition. No one wished to speak.
Ms. Hinze moved onto Condition 1.H and added that this was to clarify that the second proposed paragraph
applies only to tanks that were in direct contact with the ground.
Mr. Swain said that he didn't have a problem with adding the language as a clarification.
Roy Spitzer moved to amend Condition 1.H as requested, seconded by Erich Ehrlich. Motion carried.
The concern the applicant has with regard to retaining the septic requirements under Condition 1.J is that
there will be no employees on the site for some time. The only use on the property for the next couple of
years will be the well operation; therefore they propose that the any requirement for installation of a septic or
approval of the septic be removed and placed under the development standards instead of prior to recording
the plat. The proposal is to instead make use of portalets for the well operation until such time there is need
for a septic.
Mr. Swain commented that staff looked at the proposal under Development Standard 13. Typically portable
toilets are allowed for temporary and seasonal use (6-month time period); therefore it would be up to the
Planning Commission if using a portable toilet at the well facility would be acceptable. He added that there is
some language available from a previous land use that could be used for this. He stated that in that case
there was a six month time frame or until such time there was a need for the septic as well as a possibility of a
12 month extension approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
Commissioner Holton clarified if this language would be used in lieu of Development Standard 13. Mr. Swain
6
replied yes and added that this would make it consistent with the prior land use.
Robert Grand moved to delete Condition 1.J, seconded by Roy Spitzer. Motion carried.
Commissioner Hall asked if it is the best interest to use the existing septic system than to use port a potties.
Mr. Swain said that he understands there is no record of a septic system. Ms. Hinze said that they haven't
determined the status of the septic system. There are no employees on site so with having a building with
bathroom facilities with an unmanned system creates a question as to how that would feasibly work. She
added that they would like to approach Condition 1.K with a caveat that a letter from the property owner
indicating that they will not be using the existing septic tank but will be installing a new one is an alternative to
1.K.
Mr. Swain said that 1.K is kind of a mute point. He added that it was in the application that the applicants were
going to use an existing septic system; therefore staff needed to include a condition for that. If the applicants
choose not to use it, it doesn't matter if the development standard is there or not. It is only there because the
application said it was going to use the existing septic system.
The Chair asked the Planning Commissioners if they wish to change Condition 1.K. No one wished to speak.
Ms. Hinze commented that the applicant has proposed to replace the broad statement that it address all the
requirements and concerns of the Weld County Department of Public Works with language that seems to
relate to this condition. She clarified that they are proposing to pave the east 100 feet with two sets of cattle
guards of the site access road rather than 300 feet.
Commissioner Lawley referred to dust abatement and asked if that includes going back to the water operation
where it is not required now. Ms. Hinze said that she believes that there is a condition requirement that a dust
control plan be submitted. Mr. Swain added that prior to recording the plat they require that a plan be
submitted as well as a development standard which states that they control dust and that they follow the plan.
Roy Spitzer moved to amend Condition 1.L to read "The applicant shall pave the east 100 feet of the site
access road with two sets of cattle guards and shall install the stop sign and haul route sign in the appropriate
location as approved by Public Works prior to recording the plat. Evidence of such shall be submitted in
writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services, and the haul route sign and access pavement
shall be delineated on the plat", seconded by Mark Lawley. Motion carried.
(Alexander Zauder left the meeting at 3:00 pm)
The applicant has requested to amend Condition 1.N on the basis of the screening that has always been
proposed since the application was filed. They agree to submit the landscape/screening plan and that it be
allowed to be incorporated as part of the plat and the specifics addressed in the development standards.
Mr. Gathman said that he feels screening should still be addressed as the berms are approximately 4 feet
high. He doesn't mind modifying the language but recommended that it only be the first sentence and that the
second sentence be removed.
Roy Spitzer moved to amend Condition 1.N to read"The applicant shall submit a Landscape/screening Plan to
the Department of Planning Services for review and approval", seconded by Nick Berryman. Motion carried.
The applicant is proposing to delete Condition 1.O as the screening is adequate to protect the views to the
west. There is no residence to the south and the commercial well operation is quite far off the highway.
Mr. Gathman expressed concern that you can still see the tanks from the road. He said that he hasn't been
out there during night hours and isn't aware how often the trucks come to the site but isn't sure that the berm
is tall enough to screen the trucks moving to and from the site. Staff feels that it should be addressed now.
The Chair asked if the Planning Commissioners wish to further modify this condition,than what was approved
previously. No one wished to speak.
7
Ms. Hinze commented that the amendment to Development Standard 3 was proposed to address the
concerns that the applicant has about limiting the haul times between 6 am and 8 pm, based on the
requirements of the oilfield demands.
Bill Hall moved to allow for the proposed changes. The motion failed due to lack of second.
Under Development Standard 5, the proposal addresses the request that beyond Highway 60 and County
Road 40 for access to Highway 85, the applicant may also use County Roads 42, 44 or other paved roads as
direct access to Highway 85 from the site.
Mr. Carroll commented that staff is agreeable to the proposal. He added that they will add County Roads 42
and 44 to the haul route agreement and will work with the applicant on finalizing the haul route agreement and
road improvements agreement as the process proceeds.
Robert Grand moved to amend Development Standard 5 as requested, seconded by Roy Spitzer. Motion
carried.
Ms. Hinze commented that Development Standard 13 is subject to the proposed language from Environmental
Health with regard to allowing temporary use of portalets.
Mr. Swain said that the proposed language for Development Standard 13 is as follows "Adequate
handwashing and toilet facilities shall be provided for employees and patrons of the facility at all times.
Portable toilets may be utilized on site up to six (6) months or until the office building, pipe storage yard or
potash facilities are utilized(whichever occurs first). The applicant can utilize portable toilets for an additional
12 month period (beyond the initial 6 month period) if permission is granted by the Board of County
Commissioners. After these periods have elapsed,an Individual Sewage Disposal System shall be required."
Robert Grand moved to approve the amendment to Development Standard 13, seconded by Erich Ehrlich.
Motion carried.
Ms. Hinze stated that the proposed amendment to Development Standard 14 requests that the permanent
water supply be provided only after the office, potash mixing facility or the pipe storage yard,whichever occurs
first.
Mr. Swain stated that staff has no concerns with the proposed language.
Robert Grand moved to amend Development Standard 14 as requested, seconded by Bill Hall. Motion
carried.
The proposal to Development Standard 19 addresses the applicant's request that it's landscape/screening
plan as proposed using the existing berming through the ponds, the east side and south fence be allowed for
landscaping on the site.
Mr. Gathman said that staff recommends that the language remain as stated. There is a condition that the
applicant must still submit a landscape/screening plan which some of that is shown on the site map that was
submitted; however he feels that screening still needs to be done on the north side and also the west side. He
added that it would be best to keep it general and then refer to the landscape/screening plan that will actually
be recorded.
The Chair asked the Planning Commissioners if they wish to amend Development Standard 19. No one
wished to speak.
Ms. Hinze referred to Development Standard 23 and said that since this is an ongoing business,the applicant
is requesting that the condition be allowed that the existing operation remain in place until the plat is ready to
be recorded.
8
Bruce Barker, County Attorney, indicated that there were no concerns with this request.
Robert Grand moved to amend Development Standard 23 as requested, seconded by Bill Hall. Motion
carried.
The Chair called a recess at 3:20 pm and reconvened at 3:30 pm.
Clay Kimmi, Public Works, asked to return to Condition 1.L. Mr. Kimmi clarified that by modifying Condition
1.L, the reference to the referral response dated December 9, 2009 was deleted. That memo had all the
requirements for the improvements agreement, stormwater drainage plan and the permits for overweight
vehicles, etc. that would have been required. He said that staff would like to add the date of the memo back
into Condition 1.L to ensure that all those requirements are met.
Commissioner Holton asked if"...shall pave the east 100 feet of the site access road with two(2)sets of cattle
guards and shall address the requirements (concerns) of the Weld County Department of Public Works as
stated in their referral response dated December 9,2009. This includes installing the stop sign and haul route
sign in the appropriate location as approved by Public Works prior to recording the plat. Evidence of such
shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services and the haul route sign and
access pavement shall be delineated on the plat"would be acceptable. Mr. Kimmi agreed to that.
Ms. Hinze commented that the only problem with that is that the comments of December 9, 2009 are very
broad and they include some conflicting statements. She suggested that it could state "shall address the
comments pertaining to the drainage.." Mr. Kimmi said that there are several items in that memo that need to
be addressed such as stormwater drainage, permits required for overweight/over width vehicles, collateral
agreement, improvements agreement, etc.
Mr. Barker commented that you could amend the condition so that it says shall comply or address all of the
requirements set forth in the memo except the one referring to the 300 feet and make it 100 feet because it
sounds like that is the only exception. Mr. Holton asked staff to create the language for that condition.
Commissioner Berryman asked to revisit Development Standard 3 regarding hauling hours. He moved to
increase the evening hour from 8 pm to 9 pm to better utilize the summer daylight hours.
Commissioner Hall agreed with Mr. Berryman and added that utilization of the facility during daylight hours is
unreasonable.
Commissioner Grand understood the reason for daylight hours but added that in the winter time it effectively
adds another hour of operating time. He commented that they are allowed to haul in emergency situations.
Commissioner Hall asked if it was necessary then since we allow for emergency situations.
The motion died due to lack of second.
Mr. Kimmi stated that Condition 1.L could be amended to state"The applicant shall address the requirements
(concerns) of the Weld County Department of Public Works as stated in their referral response dated
December 9, 2009. This includes paving the east 100 feet with a double cattle guard of the site access road,
installing the stop sign and haul route sign in the appropriate locations approved by Public Works prior to
recording the plat. Evidence shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning
Services."
Mr. Barker commented that it would be better to have"..., except that" rather than"this would include..." He
said that this would clarify that it is making the exception to the 300 foot in the memo.
Mr. Kimmi clarified that it should state"The applicant shall address the requirements(concerns)of the Weld
County Department of Public works as stated in their referral response dated December 9,2009, except that
the reference to 300 feet of paving which shall be limited to paving of the east 100 feet with a double cattle
guard of the site access road, installing the stop sign and haul route sign in the appropriate locations approved
9
by Public Works prior to recording the plat. Evidence shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County
Department of Planning Services."
Roy Spitzer moved to amend Condition 1.L as stated, seconded by Bill Hall. Motion carried.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application
Diane Wolfe, 13292 CR 38.5, stated that she represents her sister and herself in this matter. She stated that
they do not fall within the 500 foot buffer and felt that this requirement should really be looked at.
Ms. Wolfe noted all of the industrial uses surrounding the site in question. She quoted Sections 22-4-10.A&B
and 22-4-40.C and stated that A &W haul traffic caused great distress that interfered with reasonable and
comfortable use and enjoyment of her property. The dust is a nuisance condition and the speeds that are
traveled are dangerous in this area. She submitted pictures of what it looks like when the trucks are traveling
on County Road 38.5 with the dust.
She understands that there are signs indicating that drivers are to avoid County Road 38.5 and it has gotten
better; however the haul traffic still continues to use these untreated local gravel roads. She expressed
frustration because every time she calls A&W she is told that no supervisors are available to speak to her.
She asked to know who specifically she can contact.
She asked who will be monitoring the number of round trips per day as indicated by the applicant. Ms.Wolfe
said that this location is not designed to handle the amount of large truck traffic. She listed numerous
concerns with traffic issues regarding safety. She indicated that accel/decel lanes (in addition to a left turn
lane) should be required for this facility.
Linda Santora, 13292 CR 38.5, Platteville. Ms. Santora indicated that she lives 1,700 feet east of the A&W
proposal and that she objects to this proposal. She quoted Section 22-4-10.B regarding environmental
impacts. In her opinion, since 2005 A&W Water has had no safety plan for the inhabitants living in the area
nor for passengers traveling on Highway 60 or for truck routing on local gravel roads.
She stated that acceleration and deceleration lanes should be mitigated for safety to include all the different
trips, such as up to 10 employees, visitors, pipe and equipment, other A & W Trucks, commodity, office
supply, potash, etc. All of this traffic will be at the entrance of Highway 60 and County Road 38. She asked
what type of equipment will be stored on the property and how it can be limited/regulated.
Ms. Santora handed out maps. She indicated that within .4 of a mile on County Roads 38.5 and 38 there is a
tremendous amount of industrial traffic from Platte Sand & Gravel, Noble Energy, and A & W Water. She
added that no dust control is exercised on A&W's property or on other roads in the area.
She said that this application from A&W Water, Western Equipment&Trucking, and Noble Energy contain
approximately 188 acres and this is flood irrigated prime ag land. To change all of this ag land to industrial
does not warrant industrial uses. She noted industrial lands for sale in other areas.
Ms. Santora stated that she wants accountability from A&W because they have a poor history. She wants to
make sure that if this is approved it is done properly.
Commissioner Maxey asked where the pictures were taken. Ms. Santora said that the pictures are taken from
Highway 60 going into the second entrance to the oil well. She noted that sludge was being dumped in this
area which is in violation according to the Oil and Gas Commission.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
Commissioner Grand stated that he has observed that there is a lot of activity that A&W needs to improve
with their truck driving and added that safety is important.
Commissioner Holton asked about jake brake signs and if they intend to put those up. Mr.Wright said that if
10
so desired they would place "No Jake Brake" signs on Highway 60. Mr. Holton said that he would like that.
Ms. Carter pointed out that all signage in the right of way of Highway 60 needs to be approved by CDOT.
Commissioner Spitzer said that it was mentioned in one of the letters submitted regarding the noise
containment for the pump itself. Mr. Gathman said that staff is requiring a noise control plan; however that
particular issue isn't specified but can be added. Mr.Wright clarified that all of their pumps are electrical. He
added that it may have been a misunderstanding as FIDCO was pumping water out of their ditch into the
central augmentation pond and that pump is a diesel pump. He added that there is installation of electric
pumps currently being put into place to replace the diesel pump.
(Berryman left the meeting at 4:15 pm)
Commissioner Holton asked how they intend to control the dust. Mr. Wright said that they have spray bars on
several of the smaller trucks and water some of the roads. He commented that they do not water County
Road 38.5 because the drivers should not be going down that road.
Commissioner Holton asked who the citizens should contact when there is a complaint. Ms. Carter said that
when they receive a call they direct them to the appropriate department and often recommend that they call
the Health Department.
The Chair asked the applicant if they 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-1695, 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 Erich Ehrlich.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, absent; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, yes; Alexander Zauder, absent; Jason
Maxey,yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Mark Lawley,yes;Tom Holton,yes with comment. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Holton encouraged A &W to be considerate of their neighbors.
The Chair read the last case into record.
CASE NUMBER: 2009-XX
APPLICANT: Beebe Draw Farms
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: Amended and Restated Consolidated Service Plan for Beebe Draw Farms
Metropolitan District No. 1 and Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District No. 2.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 39; north of CR 32; south of CR 38 (generally
located approximately 6 miles east of Platteville adjoining Milton Reservoir).
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, said that staff respectfully requests that this case be placed back on the consent
agenda. He added that the applicant is present and is in support of this request. He passed out some letters
from surrounding property owners including one from Jeff Hare. He added that Mr. Hare has aired some
concerns that he would like to have addressed at the Board of County Commissioners hearing.
Robert Grand moved to place Case 2009-XX on the Consent Agenda, seconded by Roy Spitzer. Motion
carried.
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 to approve Case 2009-XX and that it 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 Roy Spitzer. Motion carried unanimously.
11
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. Robert Grand
asked what the status was on the revisions to the County Code regarding a graduated level for USRs. Mr.
Barker commented that the County Commissioners provided some specific direction and it is currently being
discussed. He indicated that there are tier levels proposed. Mr. Grand inquired what the timeline is. Mr.Ogle
commented that it is at least 3 months out and added that staff needs to research other jurisdictions and bring
it back to the Board for consideration.
Meeting adjourned at 4:41 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
12
Hello