HomeMy WebLinkAbout20100473 SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Department 0f
Planning Services, Hearing Room, 918 10th 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
c,
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Roy Spitzer
Alexander Zauder
Jason Maxey
Also Present: Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services; Heidi Hansen and Don Carroll, Department
of Public Works; Lauren Light, Mary Evett, and Troy Swain, Department of Health; Cyndy Giauque, County
Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Robert Grand moved to approve the February 2,2010 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, seconded
by Bill Hall. Motion carried.
The Chair read the first case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1726
APPLICANT: Otoniel Goldman
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for an
Accessory Building (a proposed addition to an existing garage that will exceed
4%of the total lot area in an approved or recorded subdivision or lots part of a
map or plan filed prior to adoption of any regulations controlling subdivisions, as
detailed in Section 23-3-30 of the Weld County Code-Union Colony
Subdivision)and a Home Business (parking of two dump trucks) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Lot 3 Union Colony Subdivision; located in the SW4NE4 of Section 9,
T5N, R65W of the 6th P.M. Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to 16'"Street and approximately 1,300 feet east of Ash
Ave.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, commented that the applicant is proposing to park a total of two semi
trucks in the agricultural zone district. The applicant has indicated that the trucks will be parked inside the
garage during the winter season and bad weather conditions. The applicant is also proposing an addition to
an existing garage that will exceed 4% of the lot coverage required on this parcel.
The site is immediately adjacent to residences south and a residence with commercial vehicles to the east of
the site. The property is located approximately%mile to the east of the City limits of Greeley. The site is well
screened with fencing presently. This use meets the intent of a home business because it is conducted
primarily within a dwelling unit or an accessory structure and principally carried on by the family resident
therein.
Eleven referrals have been sent to outside referral agencies; six (6) responses were received and either
indicated no concerns or are addressed through the conditions of approval and development standards.
1
3-IS- to
.c_9cc /o-- Cx/7
This site is located within the three-mile referral area for the Cities of Greeley, Evans and Garden City. The
City of Greeley, in their referral response dated January 4,2010, requested that the proposed materials for the
addition match the materials over the existing building. The City of Evans indicated no conflict with their
interests. No response was received from Garden City.
No letters or correspondence has been received from surrounding property owners.
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 the location of the site is on East 16th Street which is a paved local road.
He added that the access is existing and it appears that the traffic circulation is good. Public works has
worked with the applicant on a water quality feature which collects water run-off from the structures and the
property. No traffic study is required. The site is not located in a flood zone.
Mary Evett, Environmental Health, commented that the residence on site will be available for restroom
purposes. There is an existing septic system sized for four people. Also,the garage has a lavatory and wash
basin which drains to the septic system. Since there are no employees (only the applicant and his wife who
reside at the property) the septic system will not be required to be reviewed by a Colorado Registered
Professional Engineer.
Water is supplied by an existing well and is limited to domestic purposes. Use of the well for any other
purposes such as dust control or truck washing would be inhibited. There is a floor drain in the garage which
the applicant indicated that they will fill with concrete. The applicant is required to provide photographic
evidence that the floor drain has been sealed.
Commissioner Holton referred to Development Standards 14 and 15. Development Standard 14 indicates that
there is an existing well and asked if in Development Standard 15 staff is requesting an additional well. Ms.
Evett commented that in Development Standard 15 they are recommending that they test the well on a regular
basis.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Ms. Evett commented that she would like to amend Development Standard 15 to read "The application is
proposing a well as its source of water, for domestic use only. The applicant should be made aware that
groundwater may not meet all drinking water standards as defined by the Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment. We strongly encourage the applicant to test their drinking water prior to
consumption and periodically test it over time".
Mark Lawley moved to amend Development Standard 15 according to staff's recommendation, seconded by
Roy Spitzer. Motion carried.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions
of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1726, 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,yes; Jason Maxey,
yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1728
2
APPLICANT: Viaero Wireless
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Non-
1041 Major Facility of a Public Utility(330 foot wireless communication tower
and related accessory buildings/structures) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part W2 of Section 32,T8N, R64W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: Approximately 1/2 mile east of CR 51 and approximately 2 miles south of CR 90.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, commented that since this case is a Non-1041 Major Facility of a Public
Utility, the Planning Commission is the final decision making body for this application.
The proposed tower is located in a rural area, approximately 4,000 feet and 1.25 miles from the nearest
residences to the northwest and north of the property. It is approximately 1 mile from the nearest residence to
the south.
Two letters from surrounding property owners to the north and west of the site have been received expressing
concerns with the proposed location of the tower. It should be noted that the tower is proposed to be placed in
the southeast corner of the property which is the furthest distance from these residences. Development
Standards and Conditions of Approval will ensure that the impacts to the surrounding areas are mitigated to
the greatest extent feasible.
Seven referrals were sent out to referral agencies; four (4) referrals were received and either indicated no
concerns or are addressed through the development standards and conditions of approval. No responses
were received from the West Greeley Soil Conservation District, Galeton Fire Protection District and the
Colorado Division of Wildlife.
In regard to property line setbacks, consistent with the requirements of the Weld County Code, the
Department of Planning Services has attached a condition that the cell tower be set back a minimum of 330
feet from the nearest property line (100% of the tower height) per Section 23-4-830.A.3. The applicant is
requesting that the Planning Commission approve a lesser setback. In addition,the applicant has provided a
stamped letter from an engineer indicating that if the tower failed it would likely occur due to buckling. The
letter indicates that while it is impossible to predict the exact location of a fallen tower in case of a guyed tower
the fall radius would likely be within the guy radius.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application along with the attached
conditions of approval and development standards.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, stated that the access is off of County Road 51,which is a local gravel road that
requires a 60 foot right-of-way. The applicant is proposing a 20 foot access easement to get to the tower site
and it will be graveled. Because the site will essentially remain as is, Public Works is not asking for any storm
drainage control measures.
Mary Evett, Environmental Health, stated that since there are no employees, permanent water and sewer are
not required. Noise is restricted to the non-specified area. Ms. Evett stated that they would like to amend
Development Standard 7 to reflect the non-specified area rather than the residential zone.
Robert Grand moved to amend Development Standard 7 according to staff's recommendation, seconded by
Alexander Zauder. Motion carried.
Bob Hirsekorn, 1224 W Platte Ave, Ft. Morgan CO. Mr. Hirsekorn commented that Viaero Wireless was
started in 1991 with the first tower built in Ft. Morgan. Since then they have been built approximately 400
towers in Colorado, Nebraska, eastern Wyoming and Kansas. Viaero Wireless strives to cover rural areas to
provide coverage for the farmer and rancher who are out in the field. Mr. Hirsekorn passed out a coverage
map of northeast Colorado.
Mr. Hirsekorn indicated that Viaero Wireless uses microwave to backhaul the signal back to Ft.Morgan which
they believe gives them a stronger network.
3
Mr. Hirsekorn commented that they are requesting a setback reduction because their towers are being built at
a standard above what the building code for towers requires. This reduction would also help in not having to
acquire more property. The towers are being built to withstand 95 mph winds, 130-140 mph wind gusts. In
addition, the engineer has indicated that the tower will fall with the guy wire. Mr. Hirsekorn noted that in the
Weld County Code in the agricultural zone district it requires a 1 to 1 setback, but in the commercial or
industrial zone district the setback requirement is 20 or 30 percent of the height of the tower.
Commissioner Holton asked if Viaero Wireless will allow co-location on this tower. Mr. Hirsekorn replied yes
and added that it is included in one of the conditions of approval.
Mr. Gathman handed out an exhibit which indicates that the nearest setback would be 264 feet from the
property to the south. Commissioner Holton asked if staff wishes to change Condition of Approval 6 to 264
feet. Mr. Gathman said that in being consistent with the Weld County code, staff is recommending that they
make the 1 to 1 requirement. The applicant is arguing that they would like to change it to a lesser amount;
therefore should the Planning Commission agree with the applicant's argument then Condition of Approval
2.A.6 would need to be amended.
Cyndy Giauque, County Attorney, addressed the Chair and commented that when someone wants to change
a setback she inquired if this is a Board of Adjustment decision. Mr. Gathman said that he emailed Mr. Barker
directly with that question and his interpretation was that from a staff standpoint we need to be consistent with
the Code; however the Planning Commission does have the purview to modify it.
Mr. Hirsekorn stated that the towers will be built at a much higher standard than what is required. He added
that if one of the guyed wires comes off then the other two wires are pulling it towards them which is why it
would fall within the guy wire radius.
Commission Holton asked what kind of setback the applicant is proposing. Mr. Hirsekorn said that if it were
changed to 30%of the height of the tower that would be acceptable or to relax the setbacks for the agricultural
zone district for this application. .
Robert Grand moved to amend Condition of Approval 2.A.6 to identify the setback distance of 264 feet,
seconded by Nick Berryman. Motion carried.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Jim Stults,42667 CR 51,commented that he is opposed to this application due to the reasons of devaluation
of his property. He commented that they have been inundated in this part of Weld County with development.
Mr. Stults stated that his taxes continued to increase while his property continues to devalue. He said that
there are thousands of acres of State and Federal land out there. All of our governments are faced with big
deficits right now and it seems to him that it would be reasonable that we would sell or lease some of that
State and Federal land to be able to make some money for our governments.
Mr. Stults said that they all have problems with people shooting at their windmills and tanks and added that
this only adds one more thing to draw that type of activity. He added that they have all this development and
proposals in their back yard and feels that they should be compensated.
The Chair closed the public portion for this case.
Ms. Giauque informed the Planning Commission that she sent an email to Bruce Barker inquiring about the
setback and to clarify his opinion on that. She stated that he replied that he does not see how the Planning
Commission can waive that setback requirement. Ms. Giauque stated that she believes the setback issue
needs to be addressed by the Board of Adjustment.
Based on new information, Robert Grand withdrew his motion to amend Condition of Approval 2.A.6. Nick
Berryman withdrew his motion as well.
4
Mr. Hirsekorn stated that he was proceeding on the advice of staff. He requested that this application be
approved with the standard the way it was so that they can go back and negotiate with the landowner to see if
they can get more land so this does not hold up the project.
Mr. Hirsekorn mentioned that there is a petition of over 40 people which have said they need to have some
service out there. To address Mr. Stults'concerns he commented that having communication available out
there will enhance the value of a property. He added that they are bringing more than cell service out there.
They are in the process of deploying 3G service so that internet service will be available through the wireless
service.
Commissioner Maxey asked if the applicant has looked at other locations in that area which might be further
away from residences. Mr. Hirsekorn indicated that they have looked at several locations and added that
there are three factors that determine the location of the site: 1)it needs to meet the coverage area for which
they are proposing, 2) needs to have microwave link ability for line of sight, and 3) need to have a willing
landowner. This location met all three of those factors. He added that he looked at locations for
approximately 4 months prior to finding this site.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions
of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1728 be approved along with the amended Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards, 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 with comment; Bill Hall,yes;Alexander Zauder,Yes;
Jason Maxey, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Grand commented the applicant deserves to get good information from staff and suggested
that we work harder on that in the future.
The Chair called a recess at 2:25 pm and reconvened at 2:31 pm.
The Chair read the following case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1729
APPLICANT: Viaero Wireless
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for a Non-1041
Major Facility of a Public Utility(330-foot wireless communication tower and
related accessory buildings/structures) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part N2NE4 of Section 4,T7N, R58W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 86 and approximately 650 feet west of the
intersection of CR 86 and CR 127.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, commented that this site is approximately % mile west of the nearest
residence and just over'/mile from the municipal town limits of New Raymer and approximately 1 mile to the
northwest of the nearest residence to the south of the site.
Nine referrals were sent to outside referral agencies; five (5) referral responses received either indicated no
concerns or are addressed through the approval of conditions and development standards. Staff did not
receive referrals from the West Greeley Soil Conservation District, New Raymer Fire Protection District,
Division of Wildlife, and the Town of New Raymer.
No letters have been received from surrounding property owners in regard to this case.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached conditions of
approval and development standards.
5
Mr. Gathman indicated on a visual slide that the tower will be located in the northeastern corner of the site.
Mary Evett, Environmental Health, commented that they have the same comments as the previous case along
with the correction to Development Standard 7 regarding the noise level in a non-specified area.
Robert Grand moved to amend Development Standard 7 as recommended by staff, seconded by Jason
Maxey. Motion carried.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Carey Wickstrom, 33038 CR 4, commented that they farm, ranch and feed cattle in Weld County. He said
that in some areas they have cell phone coverage and in some areas they do not have coverage. He added
that in the world we live in anymore it is pretty important for the operation of their business to have coverage to
talk to their employees, cattle buyers, etc. He stated that his kids go to school and spend a large amount of
time on the buses and there is no cell service through that area. It is important for their safety to be able to
talk to or get a hold of them if we need to. He urged the Planning Commission to approve all three proposed
sites because they need coverage.
Del Northup, landowner, encouraged to approve this application. Mr. Northup reiterated Mr. Wickstrom's
comments in regard to coverage areas. He added that there are many areas in their Fire District where there
is no coverage.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions
of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1729 be approved along with the amended Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval,seconded by Bill Hall.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman,yes; Erich Ehrlich, absent; Robert Grand,yes; Bill Hall, yes;Alexander Zauder,yes;Jason Maxey,
yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1730
APPLICANT: Viaero Wireless
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Non-
1041 Major Facility of a Public Utility(330-foot wireless communication tower
and related accessory buildings/structures) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B RE-3624; located in Part of the NE4 of Section 29,T2N, R62W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 18 and approximately 500 feet west of CR 77.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, commented that this proposed tower is located in a rural agricultural area.
The nearest residence is located approximately 500 feet from the site. Other residences in the area are
located approximately 1500, 1700, and 2200 feet from the proposed wireless tower.
No correspondence has been received from surrounding property owners in regard to this proposal. Staff is
concerned with the proximity of the tower to the existing residence located southeast of the tower site. The
tower site is located approximately in the northeastern portion of the site. Mr. Gathman indicated that the
applicant has attempted on numerous occasions to contact this neighboring property owner with no success.
Seven referrals were sent to outside referral agencies; five(5) referral responses that were received either
indicated no concerns or are addressed through the conditions of approval or development standards.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval with the attached conditions of approval and
development standards.
6
Commissioner Lawley asked what staff's concern is with this case. Mr. Gathman said that he is concerned
that this tower is quite a bit closer than the other two sites to a nearby residence. It is an 80 acre parcel and
suggested locating the tower closer to middle of site rather than moving it closer to an existing residence. Mr.
Gathman commented that staff has not received any correspondence or phone calls from the residence but
maybe it is a renter or someone out of town. He added that staff is concerned that they don't have anything
from the neighboring property indicating that they are okay with the tower location.
Mary Evett, Environmental Health, commented that they have the same comments as the previous case along
with the correction to Development Standard 7 regarding the noise level in a non-specified area.
Roy Spitzer moved to amend Development Standard 7 as recommended by staff,seconded by Robert Grand.
Motion carried.
Rick Bailey, 1224 W Platte Ave, Ft. Morgan, CO. Mr. Bailey commented that the landowner is proposing to
build a residence in the southwestern portion of the parcel and preferred to keep the tower location in the
northeastern portion of the parcel.
Commissioner Holton asked how far the tower will be from the house to the east. Mr. Bailey said that
according to google earth it shows approximately 780 feet. He added that if it were to ever fall it would fall
within the guy wire radius.
Commissioner Hall noted that it was mentioned that the applicant made several attempts to contact the
residents and asked in what fashion the applicant tried to contact them. Mr. Bailey said that when he was
working in that area he would go by the house at periodic times to see if anyone was home and had no
success. He understands someone lives there but was not able to make contact. He added that in the last
three weeks he made 10 different calls and indicated that there was no recorder to leave a message. In
addition, on February 25,2010 at 7:16 pm it was busy and in a few moments when he tried to call back no one
answered.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Marley Morris, 7807 CR 77, commented that he lives in the residence to the east of the proposed tower
location. He stated that he is a 365 day resident of that home and hasn't received anything by mail.
Mr. Morris indicated that the tower is located within 500 to 600 feet of his home. He understands that it is
proposed to be located in the corner of the property because it is closest to power and would be least
expensive for them. He is concerned as he believes the applicant has not taken the time to think about how it
is going to affect him or why.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
A lengthy discussion took place regarding notification to surrounding property owners. Commission Lawley
commented that the County has done due diligence in the process of notifying the surrounding property
owners. The applicant has submitted an application and has been recommended for approval because it has
met all the requirements of the Weld County Code. Mr. Lawley felt that the applicant has done what he
needed to do as well as the County.
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.
Commissioner Spitzer agreed with Mr. Lawley's comments and added that the property was posted as well.
Commissioner Grand commented that the applicant has the right to make a proposal; however it is
unfortunate that the other property owner was not included in the loop.
Commissioner Hall said that he is satisfied with the process that had taken place with regard to notifying the
surrounding property owner. He encouraged the applicant to visit with their neighbors and see what they can
7
work out to resolve this issue.
Commissioner Maxey agreed with Mr. Hall's comments; however he understands the frustration of the
surrounding property owner.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1730 be approved along with the amended Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval, seconded by
Alexander Zauder.
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,yes; Jason Maxey,
yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair read the following case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1727
APPLICANT: Jim Roth&Jim Arnold
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a
private commercial recreational facility(water skiing lake and campsite for water
skiing members)along with commercial hunting (hunting on a fee basis) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Sections 4, 5, 8, 9,& 17,T6N, R63W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Hwy 392 and approximately 1 mile east of CR 61.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services,commented that this site is currently under violation(ZCV09-00252)for the
operation of a commercial recreational facility without an approved permit. If this Use by Special Review
application is approved and the plat is recorded the property will be in compliance. If denied,the violation case
will proceed accordingly through violation hearing and possibly District Court.
There is an existing residence on the property. Site boundaries are approximately % mile from nearest
residences on either side. No phone calls or correspondence have been received from surrounding property
owners in regard to this proposal. Staff did receive a referral from the West Greeley Soil Conservation District
and indicated that there were concerns with regard to the access allowing local residents, release of water
from the lake into the stream creating a frozen barrier, compounding saturation and flooding on the site, and
seepage of water into local farmlands.
It should be noted that the applicant has a lease from the New Cache La Poudre Irrigating Company to use
the land for private recreation purposes. The lakes are in private ownership and it is not open to the public.
Eight referrals were sent out to outside referral agencies;three(3)referrals were received and either indicated
no concerns and or are addressed through conditions of approval and development standards. No referral
responses were received from the Weld County Sheriff, Weld County Code Compliance, Eaton Fire District,
and the Colorado Division of Wildlife.
No letters, correspondence,or phone calls have been received from surrounding property owners in regard to
this case.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this case with the attached conditions of
approval and development standards.
Mr. Gathman noted that the applicant is not proposing any permanent improvements to this site.
Commissioner Holton asked how many members there are currently. Mr. Gathman said that the proposal is
for up to 50 members maximum. Mr. Holton asked why we are limiting it to 50 members. Mr. Gathman said
that the applicant is limiting the number of their members. Mr. Grand said that according to Development
Standard 32 it states that it does not include guests, which essentially one member could bring numerous
8
guests. Commission Holton suggested asking the applicant when he makes his presentation.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, commented that the access is from State Highway 392; therefore CDOT has
jurisdiction. There is an existing access to the property. Ms. Hansen requested to make an amendment to
Development Standard 28 to read "Primary access drives shall be surfaced with gravel, recycled asphalt or
the equivalent and shall be graded to prevent drainage problems".
Robert Grand moved to amend Development Standard 28 as proposed by staff, seconded by Jason Maxey.
Motion carried.
Ms. Hansen stated that no storm drainage control measures are required and the site is not located in a FEMA
floodplain.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, commented that the application states that the RVs are self-contained.
They also provide portable toilets in the various campsite areas. There is also a development standard which
requires the RVs to dispense of their sewage at other approved offsite facilities because there is not a dump
station on site. According to Environmental Health's policy, this is not a temporary or seasonal use;therefore
they need permanent water and a sewage disposal system. Staff determined that this a full time business
because the hunting was added in. If a septic system is installed, it needs to be a commercial design
approved by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer as well as approved by the Board of Health.
In addition,a Dust Abatement Plan is required such as low speed limits and gravel primary roads. The Waste
Handling plan includes a dumpsterwhich they currently have on site; however the applicant needs to provide
how often the waste is picked up and which company provides that service. Noise is restricted to the
commercial level.
Ms. Light commented that Development Standard 12 could be removed because it is a duplicate. She added
that depending on what is decided for the usage of portable toilets,the Planning Commission will need to look
at Development Standards 8, 13, 14 and Condition of Approval 4.
Jim Roth,22150 CR 41, and Jim Arnold, 1810 84th Ave Court. Mr. Roth commented that the hunting will take
place 3 days a week; there are only six (6) members. This does put them over the six-month limit but it is
such a limited amount of usage. He added that the septic systems and potable water is cost prohibitive for
them. During the summer there are self-contained campers and the members bring their own water in. He
added that they provide portable toilets as well.
Mr. Roth stated that 20 mph signs are posted to keep the speed down. He commented that he and his partner
police the area for trash and haven't seen a problem.
Mr. Arnold said that they are trying to keep this area as natural as possible. He added that they allow
members to start moving in their campers in March; however the skiing starts typically in late April. He stated
that hunting begins in September.
Commissioner Grand referred to the membership question and asked for a more specific explanation. Mr.
Roth said the member is whoever the lot is assigned to. He added that they are allowed guests, but there are
rules and regulations to limit numbers to keep it from being overcrowded. Mr. Grand asked what the
maximum number of people is they expect to be there. Mr. Roth said that the member has an 80 to 100 foot
spot and they are allowed one more camper for just the weekend. He added that they have included in their
rules that they can have a company party if prearranged with them. Mr. Roth commented that if there are two
families out there per lot that could be up to 10 people depending on family size. Mr. Grand commented that
in theory if there are 50 members and 2 families you could potentially have 500 people. Mr. Roth said that
number would be highly unlikely and added that the most boats ever on the lake last year were 7.
Commissioner Lawley asked if tent camping is allowed. Mr. Roth said that if they don't have a camper,a tent
is allowed.
Commissioner Maxey clarified if the six(6) members are only for hunting or only 6 members at a time to hunt.
9
Mr. Roth replied that a total of 6 members only are allowed to hunt plus two guests at a time.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Joyce Wallace, West Greeley Conservation District 4302 W 9`"Street. Ms. Wallace commented that in her
letter their chief concern was the evasive aquatic species that come in from boats. This is a pristine water
source and those can be very devastating to agricultural water supply delivery systems. She felt that it needed
to be adequately addressed about how inspections were going to be done before boats were placed in the
water.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
Mr. Roth indicated it was a state law enforcement issue regarding Evasive Aquatic Species. He added that
there are already laws prohibiting Evasive Aquatic Species.
Commissioner Grand commented that with regard to the permanent water and sewer system,this is a private
facility with limited use over the summer primarily. He feels that no requirement is needed for a permanent
water and septic system with the understanding that everyone needs to use the facilities that they have or the
portable toilets.
Ms. Light commented that another option instead of a septic system would be a vault. Commissioner Maxey
stated that he understands the applicant's concerns for cost; however he feels that there needs to be
something there because this is a permanent, although private, site.
Commissioner Holton expressed that he looks at it as a campground. He would like to see the portable toilets
being serviced on a regular basis. His opinion is that Developments 13 and 14 could be removed; however
Development Standard 8 needs to remain because if there is a septic system installed it needs to comply with
the Weld County Code.
Commissioner Lawley said that he would like to see a statement in the development standards restricting the
number of members in lieu of installing permanent water and septic systems. Mr. Holton clarified if Mr. Lawley
wished to amend Development Standards 23 and 24 referring to the number of members allowed. Mr. Lawley
replied yes.
Roy Spitzer moved to delete Condition of Approval 4, seconded by Nick Berryman. Motion carried.
Roy Spitzer moved to amend Development Standard 7 to read "Adequate drinking (bottled water),
handwashing and toilet facilities(portable toilets)shall be provided for personnel using the facilities",seconded
by Bill Hall. Motion carried.
Robert Grand moved to delete Development Standards 12, 13, and 14, seconded by Roy Spitzer. Motion
carried.
Robert Grand moved to amend Development Standard 23 to read "Hours of operation for the water skiers
shall be from sunrise to sunset from April 1 through September 7(Labor Day)with 50 members allowed at any
one time with their guests", seconded by Jason Maxey. Motion carried.
Mark Lawley moved to amend Development Standard 24 to read"Hunting on a fee basis is limited to six(6)
members with up to two (2) guests per member three (3) days a week and major holidays from mid-
September to February 179'annually", seconded by Roy Spitzer. Motion carried.
Robert Grand moved to delete Development Standard 32, seconded by Bill Hall. Motion carried.
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.
10
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1727 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,yes; Jason Maxey,
yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair read the next 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, commented that the applicant is proposing to install some additional tanks
to the existing site along with 10 by 24 foot office trailer.
All of the tanks are located within the earthen berm containment area originally specified under USR-1679.
Hours of operation, number of employees and number of trucks coming to the site will not change under this
proposed amendment.
The facility is located approximately 500 to 600 feet east from three residences within the platted townsite of
Barnesville and approximately 250 to 300 feet north of an existing residential lot. Unimproved parcels are
located to the north and east of the site.
Development Standards and Conditions of Approval will ensure compatibility with the existing surrounding land
uses. The applicant is proposing to haul predominantly during daylight hours. The application limits the total
number of trucks to 30 per day; any further increase in trips will require approval from CDOT.
Nine referrals were sent to outside referral agencies; four(4) referrals were received and either indicated no
concerns or are addressed through development standards and conditions of approval. No response was
received from the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission,Weld County Sheriff, Colorado Division of Wildlife,and
the Galeton Fire Protection District. No phone calls, letters or correspondence have been received from
surrounding property owners.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application along with the attached
development standards and conditions of approval.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works,commented that CDOT has jurisdiction over the access since it is State Highway
392. Public Works is requesting 100 feet of pavement with two sets of cattle guards or 300 feet of pavement.
Ms. Hansen stated that they have requested a revised site plan because the existing onsite road layout is
different from what was originally designed. Public Works is working with the applicant and their engineer on a
revised drainage report. The site is not located in a FEMA floodplain. An improvements agreement is
requested to ensure that everything is completed as designed.
Troy Swain, Environmental Health, commented that this amendment includes some minor additions from the
original USR-1679. This facility is on a routine inspection list.
Jesse White, 351 Glen Coach St, Denver CO. Mr. White commented that this is a minor addition to the
facility. He added that in reality they had planned on this from the start but there was a misunderstanding on
11
how to denote the additional tanks.
Commissioner Maxey clarified if an office building is proposed. Mr. White said that the office trailer was part
of the original plan also; however they don't plan to build that building but rather place a trailer there instead.
He added that the specs on the building have not been determined yet.
Mr.White referred to Condition of Approval 1.C.3 in regard to paving the access and added that this condition
was not included in the original USR-1679. He said that nothing is changing in regard to traffic impact;
therefore he doesn't understand why that is a requirement under this amendment.
Commissioner Spitzer asked if this condition was required on the original USR. Ms. Hansen said it was not.
Commissioner Maxey asked if this was a standard two years ago when the original USR was approved. Ms.
Hansen said that it was not and was told to review this as a new application and not as an amendment.
Commissioner Holton commented that things change over time and added that he agrees with staff in that this
is a new application and that some type of tracking pad is necessary. Mr. White proposed gravel or recycled
asphalt rather than pavement to reduce his costs.
Commissioner Grand said that we have been consistent with paving the 300 feet or 100 feet with double cattle
guards. Ms. Hansen said that they have been recommending this standard consistently to aide in the tracking
control. Mr. Holton expressed that he feels%"rock works a lot better than pavement because with pavement
it stays and then the trucks track through it. Ms. Hansen agreed and added that that is why they like the
double cattle guards because they are easier to clean out. Mr. Grand asked if rock is an alternative to paving.
Mr. Holton replied yes and added that the cattle guards are necessary.
Commissioner Maxey commented that in previous hearings we required the pavement and asked how
consistent we want to be. Mr. White commented that they would prefer the 'A" rock or recycled asphalt; he
would like to clarify if the rock applies to the 300 feet or 100 feet with double guards.
Robert Grand moved to amend Condition 1.C.3 to read"The access shall be indicated with'/"rock for either a
minimum of 300-feet onsite or for 100-feet with double cattle guards", seconded by Bill Hall. YAYS: Roy
Spitzer, Robert Grand,Alexander Zauder, Bill Hall, Nick Berryman, Mark Lawley,Tom Holton; NAYS: Jason
Maxey.
Mr. White asked to remove Condition 1.C.4 in its entirety because it comes in conflict with the timing of
everything. He believes it is inconsistent with rest of the USR. Ms. Hansen commented that they are
requesting the revised site plan because the onsite road layout is different from what was shown on the
original USR plat. Things were built differently and areas that were called out for detention areas for drainage
are not there because there are roads going through them. She added that they are working with the applicant
and that may be fine, but staff is asking that the final plat reflects what is actually there.
Dan Hull, Lamp, Rynearson and Associates,4715 Innovation Dr, Ft. Collins,CO. Mr. Hull commented that in
general the layouts are the same; however the road may have shifted 10 feet to the east. It did create a
conflict with the drainage that was originally proposed but they are working through that and believe that they
will come to a resolution on that. He added that they don't want any gaps in the applicant's future
improvements.
Mr. Gathman said that this is an amendment and there will be a new plat which will replace the original plat.
This will show the additional tanks. He added that it is important that it should show what is on site to show
compliance with the USR.
Mr. Hull said that they can make modifications; they only ask that it not show as constructed today, because
Mr. White is not done with his improvements. Ms. Hansen accepted that and added that they can show what
is proposed and what is existing. Staff suggested amending condition 1.C.4 to read "The plat shall indicate
the site layout(onsite roads and layout)as it has been built as well as the additional improvements specified
under this amendment".
Robert Grand moved to amend Condition 1.C.4 as suggested by staff, seconded by Mark Lawley. Motion
12
carried.
Mr. White noted that Conditions 1.D and 1.G appear to be duplicated and added that he hasn't received a
referral from Public Works dated 2/6/10 and asked to have one of them removed or the date changed.
Mark Lawley moved to delete Condition 1.D, seconded by Roy Spitzer. Motion carried.
Mr. White said that he is not clear of what the implications are of entering into an improvements agreement.
Ms. Hansen said that they would accept removing the first sentence in Condition 1.F regarding the layout of
the site. She added that they would like an improvements agreement for the access improvements as well as
any drainage improvements.
Bill Hall moved to amend Condition 1.F as recommended by staff,seconded by Robert Grand. Motion carried.
Mr.White wished to verify if Condition 1.K,as it relates to Development Standard 34,will not require him to get
permits for concrete construction of the containment. Mr. Gathman said that as far as the concrete if tanks
are going to be set on the concrete itself then they will have to provide some kind of evidence to the Building
Department that it is structurally adequate. If not then there is not an issue with getting a permit for that.
Troy Swain, Environmental Health, commented that he understands the new tanks will be set on the concrete;
therefore he will need to contact the Building Department. The existing tanks are already in place; therefore
the applicant will pour around those tanks. In the future if there is any tank replacement,those tanks will be on
top of the concrete structure.
Mr. White expressed that he didn't want it to conflict because as it states currently he cannot get a permit until
the plat is recorded but he can't build this until he gets a permit. Mr. Gathman said that since the
improvements are on site we want to make sure that they are in place prior to recording the plat.
While Mr. Gathman was working on language to amend this, Mr. White requested that with regard to
Condition 2 additional time be granted because there are a lot of things happening in 60 days (building
permits, etc).
Robert Grand moved to amend Condition 2 in regard to the number of days of submittal to 90 days,seconded
by Mark Lawley. Motion carried.
Mr. White wished to clarify if Condition 4.C allows that all the approvals will come in the 90 days.
Mr. Gathman returned to Condition 1.K and said that typically we have a note which states that no building
permits shall be released until the plat is recorded. He added that it is not specifically indicated here and
therefore recommended amending Condition 4 to read"Prior to the Release of Building Permit for any future
construction, alterations or change of occupancy(not including improvements associated with Condition 1.K)".
Mark Lawley moved to amend Condition 1.4 according to staff's recommendation,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.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions
of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Robert Grand moved that Case AmUSR-1679 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval, seconded by Bill Hall.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman,yes; Erich Ehrlich, absent; Robert Grand,yes with comment; Bill Hall,yes with comment;Alexander
13
Zauder, yes; Jason Maxey, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Mark Lawley, yes;Tom Holton, yes with comment. Motion
carried unanimously.
Commissioner Grand commented that he thinks their time would have perhaps been a little better spent if
there would have been a little more prep work between the applicant and staff on some of these issues.
Commissioner Hall commented that an amendment was made with regard to replacing the pavement with
rock due to the low intensity of this operation.
Commissioner Holton commented that since an amendment was made with regard to the rock and cattle
guards he asked that Public Works consider this as an option in their future reviews.
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.
Commissioner Maxey asked what everyone's thought is regarding the process of Non-1041 applications,
specifically that the Planning Commission is the decision making body. Ms. Giauque commented that she
believes that there is a statutory authority for that and added that she would need to research it.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, updated the Planning Commission on the findings regarding the distance of
notification to the surrounding property owners. Upon research from five(5)surrounding counties, three(3)
counties require 500 feet, one (1) county requires 1500 feet and one (1) requires '% mile.
Robert Grand inquired on when they can expect to see the proposal for code changes. Mr. Ogle said that staff
is currently formatting the changes and anticipates to schedule it soon.
Meeting adjourned at 5:10 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
14
Hello