HomeMy WebLinkAbout20102446 SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• Tuesday, October 5, 2010
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Department of
Planning Services, Hearing Room, 918 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by
Chair, Mark Lawley, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Tom Holton
Mark Lawley
Nick Berryman
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Roy Spitzer
Alexander Zauder
Jason Maxey
Also Present: Chris Gathman, Michelle Martin, and Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services; Don Carroll,
Janet Carter and Heidi Hansen, Department of Public Works; Lauren Light, Department of Health; Bruce
Barker, County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Robert Grand moved to approve the September 7, 2010 Weld County Planning Commission minutes,
seconded by Erich Ehrlich. Motion carried.
The Chair read the first case into record.
• CASE NUMBER: AmPF-336
APPLICANT: UQM Properties, Inc.
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Amended Planned Unit Development
Plan for Del Camino Center PUD (to divide Block 2 and Block 2A into one (1)
additional lot)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Block 2 and Block 2A-Amendment to the Del Camino Center PUD; located in
Part of the W2NW4 of Section 14, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
LOCATION: Approximately 400 feet east of the East 1-25 Frontage Rd and approximately
700 feet south of CR 22.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, commented that the request is to divide two (2) existing lots into one
(1) additional lot. He stated that there is an existing access that comes off into the Frontage Road. An
existing business is located at the north end of the site under UQM Properties. The two parcels to the
south are presently vacant.
Mr. Gathman stated that any future development of the property would need to go through the Site Plan
Review process where parking, access, building locations, and landscaping would be addressed. At this
time the applicant does not have any plans to build in this area.
A referral was received from the Town of Firestone inquiring about one of their pending developments to
the east of this site (Cottonwood Hollow). They asked if there are any height restrictions or architectural
requirements for proposed future buildings on proposed Lot 3. Mr. Gathman said that currently under
Chapter 19 of the Weld County Code there is an article that gives details of the design standards for
Dacono, Firestone, and Frederick. Although currently this site is not within an Intergovernmental
Agreement area for the Town of Firestone, Mr. Gathman understands that this chapter is still in place and
would be reviewed at the time of Site Plan review.
• The existing building is served by St. Vrain Sanitation and they have indicated no conflicts with their
1
dna:At 0 I tatentaj 2010-2446
/o-l3 -ant O
interests. This site is zoned PUD with Commercial (C-1 through C-3) uses as well as Industrial (I-1 and I-
2) uses.
Don Carroll, Public Works, commented that the access is from Specialty Place and is a paved private
access road, not maintained by Weld County. This site is part of the old 1-25 MUD, which is referred to
now as the RUA. Anything built within the RUA is required to comply with all design standards (curb,
gutter, sidewalk). Staff is working with the applicant on finalizing the stormwater drainage on site. Mr.
Carroll stated that the applicants have contacted the Weld County Weed Division and added that there is
a weed plan for the open space until development occurs.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, stated that Central Weld County Water District will serve the
subdivision and St. Vrain Sanitation will provide sewer service. Staff has no concerns with this request.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
The Chair asked the applicants if they have read through the amended Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicants replied that they are in
agreement.
Bill Hall moved that Case AmPF-336 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 Erich Ehrlich.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand,yes; Bill Hall,yes;Alexander Zauder, absent; Jason Maxey,
yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, absent. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair read the following case into record.
• CASE NUMBER: USR-1742
APPLICANT: Yia &Ying Lo
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Use
Permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use or Use by Special Review in
the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts (flea market and sports fields) in
the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B AmRE-4665 being part of the SE4 of Section 24,Ti N, R68W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: Approximately 1/2 mile south of CR 8 and west of and adjacent to CR 13.
Michelle Martin, Planning Services, stated that this case was originally brought before the Planning
Commission on August 3, 2010 and was continued indefinitely in order to address some of the concerns
and requirements of the referral agencies and surrounding property owners.
A traffic study was conducted for the proposed development,which was reviewed by the City of Dacono. The
City of Dacono indicated in an email dated September 1, 2010 that their concerns are adequately addressed
by the traffic letter and the City will not be requiring any off-site improvements to County Road 13.
Primarily,the surrounding property to the north, south, east, and west are agricultural with residences in close
proximity. Seven property owners were notified of the proposed development based on the applicant's
certificate list of surrounding property owners within 500 feet. More than 50% of the property owners sent
letters in opposition of the proposed flea market and sport fields. Some of their concerns are as follows:
decreased property values, increase of traffic, trash blowing onto neighbors property, lack of sanitation, no
medical assistance, lack of monitoring of hours of operation and number of people to the facility, lack of
screening/landscaping, and the lack of enjoyment of their own property.
• The applicant hosted a neighborhood meeting on August 14,2010 where six(6)neighbors attended. Many of
the neighbors indicated they would prefer to see the applicant relocate the facility further west towards the
motocross track. The neighbors continued to voice their concerns regarding the traffic, noise, and trash.
2
• The applicants have indicated they do not want to relocate the facility further west on the property because
they will lose visibility along County Road 13 (Colorado Boulevard). The applicant also stated that they will
have trash cans around the site to handle the waste. The applicants also indicted they will only be in operation
six (6) months out of the year and only on weekends, as opposed to the motocross track to the north of the
property which is open year-round. The applicant has also not proposed to install any landscaping/screening
for the proposed facility.
The proposed flea market will operate on the weekends from 8 am—8 pm, April to October. During these
hours of operation many of the surrounding property owners will be at home. According to the letters from the
surrounding property owners and the comments from the neighborhood meeting the proposed flea market and
sport fields will negatively impact their quality of life.
The Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of the application.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, stated that the access is from County Road 13 under the jurisdiction of the
City of Dacono. Dacono had asked for a traffic study before they would approve an access for this use.
The applicant has provided a traffic study and the City of Dacono has approved this access. Ms. Hansen
said that Weld County is allowed to perform a traffic count on the applicant's driveway to ensure that they
are operating under that traffic study.
Ms. Hansen suggested removing Development Standard 25 as it is a duplicate of Development Standard
33.
Robert Grand moved to delete Development Standard 25, seconded by Jason Maxey. Motion carried.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, commented that the request is for 6 months; therefore staff will
support bottled water and portable toilets. Environmental Health is requesting that the records and
maintenance of the portable units are kept and retained on a seasonal basis. The applicants have
• submitted Waste Handling and Dust Abatement Plans. The driveway, parking lot and market area will be
paved with recycled asphalt. Any areas not paved will be covered with woodchips and if dust becomes an
issue then they will water the area down.
Ms. Light said that since the applicant's have stated that they intend to have live poultry vendor booths on
site staff has provided the applicant with signs stating that handwashing is required. In addition, the
Department of Agriculture may also have requirements regarding the live poultry on site.
Mao Lee, interpreter for Yia Lo, 1412 Cyprus Circle, Lafayette, Colorado. Yia Lo said that they propose to
operate the flea market and soccer fields during the weekends over the summer time. He added that this
is a way to share their culture to the community. There will be fruit and vegetable, clothing, music and
poultry vendors.
Commissioner Berryman asked the applicant if he plans to build the flea market and soccer fields all at
once or if it will be phased in. Mr. Lo said that they will probably build in phases depending on feasibility.
Commissioner Grand referred to the neighborhood meeting and said that in the testimony given by the
neighbors they suggested moving the activities to the northwest of the property. He asked the applicant if
he would consider moving the site further west on the property. Mr. Lo said that he does not want to move
because it is too noisy and dusty from the motocross track adjacent to the site. He said that they want to
stay close to the street so that his business does better. In addition it would cost more for the road to be
built into the site. He expressed that he wants to be a good neighbor to the community. After further
discussion, Mr. Lo said that if he needs to move the activities to the west for the Planning Commission to
approve this case then he will move it.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
• Duane Linkus, 2600 CR 13, stated that he lives directly across the road. He owns the motor sports track and
added that he purchased the land in 1989. He expressed concern on adding another access to County Road
3
13, which has several other accesses in the close vicinity. He indicated that the Traffic Study submitted was
taken during the week and not on the weekends. He mentioned that all the neighbors at the meeting were
•
opposed to this proposal. He added that the flea market will lower property values in the area.
Lee Ogden, 2230 CR 13, stated that the traffic study was taken across from his house on Tuesday,
Wednesday and Thursday; it was not there over a weekend. He is opposed to this proposal as he is
concerned about the traffic. He indicated that there is a blind hill prior to his access and foresees possible
accidents there. He is opposed to the flea market and the selling of the poultry, goats and small livestock.
Trevor Jacob, 2700 CR 13, stated that he purchased his home 5 years ago and added that if he knew that
there would be a possible flea market in the area he would not have purchased his home. He is concerned
that the property values will decrease. He stated that he is also concerned about the increase in traffic as well
as the trash from the site.
Mr. Lo said that it will be a small soccer field, like the size of a volleyball field. He stated that they will not sell
goats; however they will sell pigeon, ducks, and chicken. He reiterated that he wants to be friendly with his
neighbors and pleaded for a chance and opportunity to do what he wants with his property. He indicated that
in the future he may try to put in some trees.
Commissioner Lawley asked about the butchering of animals on the site. Mr. Lo said that he will not do any
butchering on site. He will respect the law here and comply with no sacrificing of animals.
Commissioner Grand said that he was surprised with the magnitude of the houses in the area and asked the
applicant if he would consider a landscaping plan to alleviate some of the concerns of the neighbors. Mr. Lo
said that he will put a 10 foot berm along County Road 13 and in addition may put rock or wood chips as well.
On the south side he will put a 5 foot berm to make the site look nice. Mr. Grand said that by putting this 10
foot berm along County Road 13 shouldn't affect him moving west as the berm will affect his visibility. Ms.
Martin indicated that she has not seen the plans for the berm that Mr. Lo is speaking of.
• The Chair asked the applicant if he has read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if he is in agreement with those. The applicant replied that he is in agreement.
Commissioner Spitzer asked how much of the property is for the soccer fields. Ms. Martin said that the entire
site is 20 acres in size; however the USR encumbers approximately 5 acres of the site. The remainder
property would be cropland or however Mr. Lo wishes to use it.
Mr. Spitzer said that he is struggling with this case as he is having trouble with finding compatibility issues. He
asked how this case differs from agri-tainment. Ms. Martin said that staffs logic behind the reasoning for
denial is after the neighborhood meeting it was a consistent theme of moving the location of the facility,
working on screening or buffering this site from their views and none of that was supplied to staff on how they
would mitigate these issues. Mr. Spitzer said that he understands the neighborhood complaints but he would
frankly find motor sports more obnoxious than a flea market. He struggles with the logic according to the
code.
Commissioner Grand agreed with Mr. Spitzer and added that the applicant needs to come into compliance
with staff; however he is struggling with the denial as well.
Commissioner Ehrlich said that he is hung up on the traffic and he would deny it because of the intensity of the
traffic on County Road 13. He is also concerned with the medical responses with that many people (fire,
ambulance, etc).
Commissioner Hall said that he does not see this as an agri-tainment but rather a retail sales outlet. He sees
a conflict with retail sales and traffic in this area.
Commissioner Maxey referred to the City of Dacono's referral and added that if this area is annexed to
Dacono, it is planned to be an industrial area.
• Commissioner Spitzer said that he doesn't see it as a retail sales area but rather as a cultural gathering place
4
for Hmong people.
• Commissioner Lawley is concerned that the traffic study was done during the week. Ms. Hansen stated that
according to the traffic study it was performed on Friday, Saturday and Sunday.
Janet Carter, Public Works, said that she reviewed the traffic study. It was taken on the weekend so it was
taken during the peak time and is comparable. However, the amounts of traffic that they proposed was
significantly lower than the traffic that Weld County has gathered on that segment of roadway. She mentioned
to keep in mind that based on the traffic volumes that they were recommending they would be warranted for
the turning lanes; however if you have a certain volume of traffic in a forecasted period of time and it doesn't
reach a certain number then you don't actually have to have the turn lanes. Normally, in our general practice
when she reviews them she doesn't take that into account because a forecast is very variable and can have
many different components to it. In her opinion, she would have required the turn lanes; however this is under
Dacono jurisdiction and Weld County can make recommendations but it is ultimately their decision to not
require the turn lanes. Ms. Carter stated that their traffic count was in the hundreds where Weld County traffic
count is approximately 1,900 vehicles.
Erich Ehrlich moved that Case USR-1742 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
denial, seconded by Bill Hall.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, no with comment; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand, no with comment; Bill Hall,yes with comment;
Alexander Zauder, absent; Jason Maxey, no; Roy Spitzer, no; Mark Lawley,yes; Tom Holton,absent. Motion
failed.
Commission Berryman commented that he doesn't believe it is necessarily incompatible and added that
most of the issues can be taken care of through the Weld County Code.
• Commissioner Hall commented that this is the second time it's been presented and the plans are still not
complete. He added that there has been plenty of opportunity to work through the details and it has not
been done.
Commissioner Grand commented that this is a mixed area but the individual property owner has a right to
use his property in a way that contributes to the community. He feels some of the issues have been
addressed.
Commissioner Lawley commented that he believes there is a public safety issue related to traffic that has
not been addressed.
Robert Grand moved Case USR-1742 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.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman,yes with comment; Erich Ehrlich, no; Robert Grand, yes comment; Bill Hall, no;Alexander Zauder,
absent; Jason Maxey, yes with comment; Roy Spitzer, yes with comment; Mark Lawley, no; Tom Holton,
absent. Motion carried.
Commissioner Berryman commented that he is in favor of looking for some traffic triggers for some
turning lanes if warranted. In addition, he would like to see some landscape/screening plans.
Commissioner Maxey echoed Mr. Berryman's comment regarding screening and encouraged the
applicant to make sure that these issues, including traffic, is worked out with staff prior to the Board of
County Commissioners hearing.
• Commissioner Grand reiterated the property right aspect of this case.
Commissioner Spitzer reiterated Mr. Maxey's comments and added that the traffic issue should be worked
5
out prior to the Board of County Commissioner hearing. He asked staff to make note to the City of
Dacono that we feel the traffic study is suspect.
• Commissioner Lawley reiterated his concerns with public safety relating to traffic.
The Chair called a recess at 3:06 pm and reconvened the meeting at 3:16 pm.
Erich Ehrlich left the meeting.
The Chair read the following case into record.
CASE NUMBER; USR-1751
APPLICANT: William Askew, do Jane Stamp
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a
Kennel (to accommodate 50 dogs of two specific breeds: miniature Dachshund
and Bernese Mountain Dogs) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part SW4 of Section 33, T5N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 50; west of and adjacent to CR 17.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, commented that this is an existing kennel that has an active violation for the
presence of too many household pets.
The facility is within the three mile referral area for the Towns of Johnstown, Milliken and the City of Greeley.
The Town of Milliken returned a referral indicating no conflicts with their interests. The City of Greeley and the
Town of Johnstown did not return a referral. Surrounding properties are predominantly agricultural in
character with two residences in close proximity.
Thirteen referral agencies reviewed the case; five referral agencies offered comment, some with specific
conditions. There have been no letters or telephone calls received requesting information on the application
• from interested parties or surrounding property owners.
Mr. Ogle suggested removing Condition of Approval 1.F as the applicant has provided evidence from Little
Thompson Water District. In addition, he recommended adding a new Development Standard(Development
Standard#34) to include the Right to Farm Statement.
Heidi Hansen, Public works, commented that County Roads 50 and 17 are classified as arterial roadways and
require 140 feet of right-of-way; currently there is 60 feet of right-of-way. The traffic count on County Road 17
in August 2009 showed 4,025 vehicles per day. County Road 50 showed over 1,500 vehicles per day. There
were two dangerous accesses at this site. Staff requested that those accesses be closed and they have
complied with that. The applicants will utilize the existing residential access onto County Road 50 which is
further from the intersection.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, stated that water is provided by Little Thompson Water District and there
is an existing septic system which is sized for six(6) people. If the system is used for the kennel operation or
if it exceeds six people per day then an engineered evaluation is required. Ms. Light said that she would like
the applicant to add to the Dust Abatement Plan that if dust becomes a problem it will be watered.
Ms. Light said that since the applicant has removed the repair shop from the request, Development Standard
17 may be deleted.
Robert Grand moved to delete Condition of Approval 1.F, Development Standard 17 and add a new
Development Standard 34 to include the Right to Farm Statement, 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. 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.
6
Roy Spitzer moved that Case USR-1751, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
• amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval, seconded by Jason Maxey.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, yes; Erich Ehrlich, absent; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, yes; Alexander Zauder, absent; Jason
Maxey, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, absent. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair read the following case into record:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1746
APPLICANT: White Bear Management, LLC dba Polar Gas Front Range
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for any
use permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use, or a Use by Special
Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts(propane gas storage and
service yard), 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 subdivision in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A RE-828; Part SW4 of Section 9, T2N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 22; east of and adjacent to CR 29 Section Line.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, commented that this application is for a propane storage and service yard with
up to six (6) bullet tanks located on approximately 4.5 acres.
The facility is within the three-mile referral area for the Town of Platteville and the City of Ft. Lupton. Both the
Town of Platteville in their referral, dated June 16, 2010, and the City of Ft. Lupton in their referral,dated June
18, 2010, indicated no conflict with their interests. The surrounding property is primarily agricultural with oil
• and gas encumbrances, several residential structures, and an oil and gas support and service facility
approximately 2 miles to the east of proposed facility. Staff has received two(2)letters from adjacent property
owners and several phone calls from interested parties concerning this case. Staff is requiring a screening
plan for all elements of outside storage from public rights-of-way and adjacent properties as required in
Section 23-3-250.A.9 of the Weld County Code. The applicant has indicated that an eight foot tall opaque
fence will be installed to mitigate this concern.
Mr. Ogle noted several issues that staff will want to further discuss:
• Evidence of potable water and sanitary facilities associated with the facilities.
• A dumpster must be provided on site for any type of refuge that may be deposited.
• The ability of the oilfield producers and associated personnel to utilize the existing oil and gas access
which is across this property to lands to the east of the parcel.
• The applicant has not included all of the property in the boundary for the USR.
Mr. Ogle stated that Senate Bill 35 is embodied in CRS 30-28-101 (10) (a) which defines the term
"subdivision"or"subdivided land". It states the following: " (10)(a)"Subdivision"or"Subdivided Land"means
a parcel of land in the state which is to be used for condominiums,apartments,or other multiple dwelling units,
unless such land when previously subdivided was accompanied by a filing which complied with the provisions
of this part 1 with substantially the same density, or which is divided into two or more parcels, separate
interests, or interests in common, unless exempt under paragraph (b), (c) or(d) of this subsection (10). As
used in this section, "interests" includes any and all interests in the surface of land but excludes any and all
subsurface interests. A lease hold fits into the last sentence,where there is reference to"any and all interests
in the surface of the land." So, a leasehold that is less than 35 acres in size is considered an illegal division of
land according to the statute. Given the interpretation of Senate Bill 35,the applicant shall include all lands as
described in RE-828 in the permit boundary for USR-1746.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of the application with the attached conditions of
• approval and development standards.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, stated that County Road 22 is an arterial road requiring 140 feet of right-of-way;
7
presently there is 60 feet of right-of-way. The most recent traffic count is from April 2009 and shows 1,200
vehicles per day. The applicant is utilizing an existing access off of County Road 22. There will be a security
• gate set back from the roadway to allow trucks to completely exist the county road before stopping to open the
gate.
There is some question about the oil and gas utilizing this existing access. The applicant wants to put up a
locked gate and have oil and gas entities use another access. Apparently there was never an agreement to
allow oil and gas to use that access; however the oldest aerial staff has shows the access was there in 1998.
The County Oil and Gas Policy Section 22-5-100.B.3 states"Existing service roads should be used to provide
access for oil and gas and other mineral extraction activities." Because the access has been in use for at
least 12 years, staff considers this an existing access. Staff requested that the applicant work with the oil and
gas industry to either provide them access or to have them agree to utilize a different access. The applicant
has attempted to contact the oil and gas interests; however staff is not aware of any resolution to date. Ms.
Hansen added that the applicants have been very diligent in working with staff to try and resolve all issues.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, stated that the applicant is not proposing any sanitary facility for the
propane delivery drivers on the USR site. According to the application materials, the drivers will be there for
45 minutes to upload/offload product. Since this is not a temporary or seasonal use, the Health Department
Policy requires permanent water and sewer. She added that if the USR stays on the whole site they could use
the house located on the site as an option. Another option is to utilize a restroom similar to those found at the
parks or a composting facility.
Ms. Light stated that the applicants have indicated that the drivers will either take their trash with them or
deposit it in the waste container along with the household waste. If the USR is on the entire site, then the
utilizing the same container would be acceptable.
Nathan Reed commented that his brother Chris Reed and he operate Polar Gas, LLC. The business started
in 1960 and has been a family operated business since then. They are a retail propane provider and buy
propane from the propane producers (Encana Midstream, DCP Midstream) and then they distribute that to
• their retail customers in Weld County and throughout the Front Range. The majority of the propane comes
from Encana Midstream which is two miles from the proposed facility.
Mr. Reed stated that they need more storage because they are only able to have above ground storage tanks.
He added that the excess propane in the summer is put into a pipeline and shipped to Kansas and stored in
the underground caves. When winter comes, the propane is then trucked back to Colorado at an added
expense. He further added that this request will help eliminate those propane shortages and the added cost of
shipping the propane to and from Kansas.
On August 5, 2010, the applicants met with the two neighbors who submitted letters and talked to them about
their concerns. Mr. Reed said that Ms. Gildea was concerned about the visual impact of the tanks. He said
that they are proposing to screen the entire facility with a neutral or natural color to minimize that visual impact.
In addition, the tanks will be painted with the same neutral or natural color.
Another concern was the safety over a propane accident. Mr. Reed said that the National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) has very strict regulations on propane storage facilities and those are becoming more
restrictive in 2011. He added that they have designed and will build to those 2011 regulations. In addition,the
State of Colorado is required to inspect all of the equipment prior to and after installation and then on an
annual basis to ensure that safety is maintained. Mr. Reed commented that he has worked with the
Platteville-Gilcrest Fire Protection District and added that they are familiar with the facilities.
The increase in truck traffic was another concern raised. Mr. Reed said that the same propane that is coming
from two miles away that would be shipped to other places is being shipped to their facility and offloaded.
Therefore the traffic will not be increased.
A question regarding how this facility would affect surrounding property values was raised. Mr. Reed said that
they have gone through a lot of trouble of landscaping the property with trees. They intend to maintain the
• trees and property. This proposed facility is not intended to be a distribution center; it will only be used as a
storage facility.
8
Danna Ortiz, Civil Resources, 323 5th St, Frederick, CO, provided the Planning Commissioners with a list of
• conditions of approval and development standards that they would like to request to be removed.
They are requesting to remove the conditions of approval and development standards regarding the restrooms
on the property. She said that restrooms are not necessary for this facility. She added that the drivers are
only on the site for a maximum for 45 minutes. She said that the drivers have to drive a maximum of 10
minutes to get to their office location where there are permanent restroom facilities. In addition, it is a
significant expense to design and construct the septic system.
In addition, they would like to request the requirement of a commercial well be deleted. Ms.Ortiz said that the
drivers will supply their own water. She said that if they were to obtain a commercial well, they would not be
allowed to use water for any outside use, such as maintaining the landscaping and dust control.
With regard to the boundary of the USR encompassing the entire property, Ms. Ortiz said that this requirement
seems to contradict both Weld County regulations and practices. She said that Section 23-2-200.G of the
Weld County Code states"any decrease in land mass occupied by a Use by Special Review shall qualify the
landowner to be able to request a partial vacation". In that section it does not discuss any minimum parcel
size for USR's. It seems that if they were required to have the USR encompass the entire property they could
then request a partial vacation. In addition, Ms. Ortiz stated that Weld County has a well established
precedence for approving USR's without encompassing the entire property.
The applicants are required to have a screened dumpster. Ms. Ortiz said that they are not generating any
waste on site. Whatever the truck drivers bring in they will bring out.
According to Development Standard 19, the applicant must provide access to the existing oil and gas
companies through the property. Ms. Ortiz said that they are in discussions with Kerr McGee, Anadarko and
KP Kauffman and added that this should be between the oil and gas companies and the landowner.
• With regard to screening on the property, Ms. Ortiz said that there is not a fence along a portion of the north
property boundary. She said that it is not appropriate to include this as a condition for this use. She added
that this issue went to District Court and the District Court ruled in 2007 that the present screening is
adequate. In addition, the Weld County Code Compliance Officer who was involved in the court case,
indicated in her referral to this land use case that she did not have any conflicts with this issue. Therefore it is
not appropriate to resurrect this and make it a new condition when it has already been brought to court and
adequately dealt with.
Mr. Ortiz said that while it's true that the majority of the activities will take place during daylight hours, propane
is in highest demand in the winter and also during periods of peak demand. They are requesting that this
language be revised to state that the typical hours of operation are daylight hours only and may be extended
upon notification to the Planning Department. They understand the need to somehow limit the hours but it is
important for the business that they have more flexibility.
According to Development Standard 40,the USR is void if ownership of the property is transferred. Ms. Ortiz
referred to Section 23-2-290 of the Weld County Code that dictates when USR's expire. The land is currently
owned by Sam Reed,the father, and it is in the long term plan that Sam would transfer the land to Nathan and
Chris,which is an ownership change and would require them to go through the USR process again. It seems
that this requirement is an unreasonable expense to put on the applicant.
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 Planning Commission asked the County Attorney for advisement on the applicant's request.
Bruce Barker, County Attorney, referred to the requirement of including the property in the USR boundary and
said that according to State Statute any interest that is created in land is in essence a subdivision of the
• property. The fact that the owner is not the holder of the USR is a lease of a portion of the property on which
the USR would sit. Anytime there is a lease that is created in land that is separate and distinct from the
9
ownership of the property can be considered, under the statute and our provisions, to be a subdivision of
property. He advised planning staff to make certain that the entire property is included in the USR so that
•
there is no uncertainty that this is creating a separate interest in property.
With regard to the fence, Mr. Barker said that this is a new permit and if you believe that the conditions should
include a certain type of screening or landscaping then that can be put on as a condition of this Use by Special
Review and is not subject to previous determinations either by the Board of County Commissioners or by a
court.
With the oil and gas access, Mr. Barker believes that there is some necessity to allow access but not
necessarily a right that those mineral owners have to use the current roadway or not. If the surface owner has
an alternative to get them to the same spot they can probably work that out. He believes it should be
negotiated out between the producers of the mineral interests and the applicant.
Commissioner Maxey referred to the statement that the USR must encumber the entire property. He added
that the Section (Section 23-2-200.G)that the applicant referred to is no longer in the code book so it makes it
an invalid point.
Commissioner Grand said that since the house would be included in the USR the commercial water well and
septic should be covered through this. Ms. Light said that the well would need to be changed for commercial
use; however the applicant would lose their outside irrigation right. She added that the septic system for the
house was installed in 1985 without a permit. Staff has a Statement of Existing on record which shows a 500
gallon tank; therefore the tank is not big enough as 1000 gallons is the minimum required. She added that
they allow vaults if there is not another water source. Ms. Light recalled a previous case where the applicant's
main office was a few miles away and they were allowed to use those facilities. She said that could be an
option in this case; however it would create a problem if the property is sold.
Commissioner Spitzer asked about the intensity of the use, particularly the number of trucks per day and
people on site. Mr. Reed said that they do not intend to have trucks at the facility every day. He stated that
• there would be one truck every other day. Maximum times in the winter would be maybe one or two trucks per
day; therefore you may have two people on site for a total of 1.5 hours per day. He indicated that their office is
approximately 11 miles from the proposed facility.
Ms. Light recommended deleting Conditions of Approval 1.C, 1.D, 2, and Development Standards 14 and 17
and amend Development Standard 12 to read "Adequate drinking, handwashing and toilet facilities shall be
provided for personnel at the company office located at 12576 CR 2.25, Brighton, CO 80603".
Roy Spitzer moved to delete Conditions of Approval 1.C, 1.D, 2, Development Standards 14 and 17 and
amend Development Standard 12 as recommended by staff, seconded by Nick Berryman. Motion carried.
Mr. Reed commented that if the USR boundary will encompass the entire property then the 2 yard dumpster
which is located on site will be utilized.
With regard to the oil and gas access, Ms. Hansen stated that they do not have an issue with the applicant
negotiating the issues between them and the oil and gas companies; however the concern is that a new
access will not be provided for oil and gas from County Road 22.
Sam Reed stated that he doesn't have a problem with the oil companies using the road but when he
purchased this property the oil and gas companies were not using that property to access the wells. Rather
they were coming in from County Road 31 on the east side. When he made improvements on site, the
companies started using the same road. He said that he will discuss this issue with the oil companies directly
but feels that Weld County should not get involved.
The consensus of the Planning Commission was that the applicant should work out this issue with the oil and
gas companies. Ms. Hansen suggested deleting Development Standard 19 and adding Condition of Approval
1.J stating "The applicant shall attempt to reach an agreement with the oil and gas companies concerning
• access".
10
Robert Grand moved to delete Development Standard 19 and add a new Condition of Approval 1.J as stated
by staff, seconded by Nick Berryman. Motion carried.
• Regarding the screening issue, Sam Reed stated that they resolved the issue with the County by screening
everything from County Road 22. Commissioner Lawley clarified that the creation of the USR requires
screening from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way. Mr. Ogle said that this USR case is separate
from the violation case to which Mr. Reed is speaking of.
Commissioner Grand wished to amend Development Standard 3 regarding the hours of operation. Staff
suggested amending it to read "The hours of operation are daylight hours only and may be extended with
notice to the Weld County Planning Department."
Roy Spitzer moved to amend Development Standard 3 as stated by staff, seconded by Robert Grand. Motion
carried.
Jason Maxey moved to delete Development Standard 40, seconded by Roy Spitzer. Motion carried.
The Chair called a recess at 4:48 pm and reconvened the meeting at 4:52 pm.
The Chair asked the applicants if they have read through the amended Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. Nathan Reed replied that they are in
agreement.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1746 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 Roy Spitzer.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, yes; Erich Ehrlich, absent; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, yes; Alexander Zauder, absent; Jason
• Maxey, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, absent. 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 4:54 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
•
11
Hello