HomeMy WebLinkAbout20102742.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, November 2, 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, Tom Holton, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Tom Holton - Chair
Mark Lawley-Vice Chair -o
Nick Berryman
Erich Ehrlich
rn
Robert Grand i, r'
Bill Hall to
Roy Spitzer C)
Alexander Zauder
Jason Maxey
Also Present: Michelle Martin and Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services; Heidi Hansen, Department of
Public Works; Lauren Light and Mary Evett, Department of Health; Cyndy Giauque, County Attorney,and Kris
Ranslem, Secretary.
Bill Hall moved to approve the October 5, 2010 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, seconded by
Erich Ehrlich. Motion carried.
The Chair read the first case into record.
CASE NUMBER: 2nd AmUSR-840
APPLICANT: L.G. Everist, Inc.
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: 2n°AmUSR-840-A Site Specific Development Plan and Second Amended Use
by Special Review Permit for a proposed rail transload yard for off-loading,
storage, and load-out of industrial materials, including the ability to fabricate,
repair and make modifications of existing rail cars,the extension of the existing
on-site rail spur to create a"rail loop" of on-site track, including the utilization of
more than one cargo container for storage and ongoing Gravel mining, (sand,
gravel and stone) in the A (Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Section 1, T10N, R67W; and All of Section 35,T11 N, R67W;W2 of Section
26, T11 N, R67W; E2 E2 of Section 27,T11 N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,Weld
County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 126; east of and adjacent to CR 21; east of and
adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad Track.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, stated that the site is surrounded by agricultural range land and rural residential
uses. The Union Pacific Railroad main track and a private spur on the property exist and the proposed
expansion of the private rail is internal to the property.
The previously approved landscape and screening plan addresses screening from adjacent properties from
the proposed gravel mining operation and also the transload operation.
The proposed site is not located within the three mile referral area for any municipality or a county. The
property is located within a half-mile of the unincorporated Town of Carr.
The proposed transload facility utilizes existing infrastructure to capture a developing market in this area of the
county. The incompatibilities that occur between the proposed industrial use and the transload yard and
surrounding properties are minimized due to a variety of factors. The distance from the neighboring properties
to the west of the facility is approximately 2,000 feet. The Union Pacific mainline and County Road 21 are
0-0T Mrtbt: „o
11-15--.20/0 2010-2742
between the residence and the permitted boundary. There is an earthen berm along the west side of the
property which shields surrounding landowners and roads from visual noise and related impacts.
The applicant proposes no changes to the existing noxious weed control plan or waste management plan.
Stormwater and drainage controls are in place which appears to be sufficient for this use. The proposed
transload facility will have little to no additional impact on air or water since the use is simply unloading
materials and products from the rail.
Mining operations will continue onsite unimpeded by transload operations. The remaining areas to be mined
are mostly to the south of the transload use. Aggregate hauling, processing and other related mining
operations will occur in separate areas including the onsite haul routes.
Fourteen referral agencies have reviewed the case; five agencies offered comment, some with specific
conditions. Staff has received no letters, telephone calls, or emails concerning the proposed amendment.
The Development Standards and Conditions of Approval will ensure the proposed amendment to the current
operation will be compatible with existing and surrounding land uses.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application along with the attached
conditions of approval and development standards.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, stated that the applicants are not proposing a septic system on this site.
The previous USR was approved for adequate toilet facilities and bottled water. There wasn't a specific
development standard that stated portable toilets were acceptable; however that might have been the intent.
This is a unique case in that the new lease hold areas might exceed 6 months in length. According to
Environmental Health policy, six (6) months or more requires permanent water or sewer. If each leasehold
area was owned by a separate owner and they came in for USRs on each site and it was for six months or
less then portable toilets and bottled water would be acceptable. Since the leases overlap and may be more
than 6 months on each site, we require permanent water and sewer.
Dust and Waste Handling Plans have been submitted and approved. The applicants have received an air
emissions permit and a discharge permit.
Commissioner Lawley asked if this amendment changes the number of employee's onsite. Ms. Light said yes,
with the addition of the leasehold areas. Mr. Lawley clarified if currently they are allowed bottled water and
portable toilets. Ms. Light replied that currently bottled water and portable toilets are acceptable for the mining
operation.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, stated that County Road 126 is a collector roadway requiring 80 feet of right-of-
way; currently there is 60 feet of right-of-way. The most recent traffic count taken in July 2009 was 338
vehicles per day. County Road 21 is local, gravel road and requires 60 feet of right-of-way,which is current.
The applicants have submitted a traffic study and it is acceptable. An improvements agreement will be
completed prior to final plat. The drainage report for the entire mine area takes care of the stormwater runoff
from this area as well; therefore no additional drainage improvements are required.
Lynn Shults, L. G. Everist, 7321 E 88th Ave, Henderson, CO, stated that there will be no changes to the mining
operation. The amended request is for a transload facility. There are lease areas of at least 40 acres each.
Historically, they have had windmill parts come in by rail and be offloaded which may take a few days or a
week and then they just sit for X number of months. Then at the end of the lease period they come back in
with the proper trucks to offload to go wherever the windmill parts need to be delivered. She added that
people will be onsite for a week or two weeks at the most, depending on how long the offloading takes. The
materials sit by themselves until the leasehold crews come back to load out. So,although leases may overlap
six months each the actual use by humans is very transient, a couple weeks here or there. They are not there
continuously. Ms. Shults requested to have a variance on the septic requirement and follow the same
requirements that they have followed with the mining operation of portable toilets with hand sanitizer and
bottled water for employees.
2
Ms. Shults referred to Condition of Approval 1.6 and requested to remove the language"including use as a
potable water source." She stated that they have submitted evidence of a water supply decreed for dust
control and other industrial uses.
In addition, she requested to remove Condition of Approval 2 which refers to an individual sewage disposal
system.
Ms. Light stated that if the Planning Commission wishes to approve the applicant's request, Development
Standards)1, 14, and 21 should be removed and Development Standard 10 should be amended.
Erich Ehrlich moved to delete the language"including use as a potable water source"in Condition of Approval
1.B, remove Condition of Approval 2, and Development Standards 11, 14, and 21, seconded by Bill Hall.
Motion carried.
Ms. Light recommended amending Development Standard 10 to read"Adequate drinking, handwashing and
toilet facilities shall be provided for employees and patrons of the facility, at all times. Bottled water and
portable toilets are acceptable."
Jason Maxey moved to amend Development Standard 10 as recommended by staff, seconded by Bill Hall.
Motion carried.
Ms. Shults said that they already have a long term road maintenance and improvements agreement and
added that she is not sure what would need to be changed or added onto it for this use. Due to the economy
the mine is producing much less than it used to therefore their truck traffic has been decreased. She added
that the transload use is infrequent and generally the materials come in by rail and are taken out on. Any
oversized trucks will talk to Public Works about getting the proper permits. They feel that they don't need to
make any changes because the overall traffic is not increasing.
Ms. Hansen said that they would just like the opportunity to review the improvements agreement because they
do not know the leasehold possibilities and what could be coming out of there. If the mining would increase to
what it was, it could end up in the future with an increase of traffic at some point. Staff does not envision that
they will need to do improvements currently; they just want to review the language.
Commissioner Holton asked what the improvements agreement says now and if there are any triggers in it.
Ms. Hansen said it is all in regard to the mining operation and not the leasehold areas. Mr. Holton said that
there should be triggers in there and feels that there shouldn't be another improvements agreement.
Commissioner Maxey said that the current improvements agreement does not include what the applicant is
amending the use for. Ms. Hansen said that they are not asking for any improvements but rather a review of
the language to include the leasehold areas. Commissioner Lawley felt that it is not an unreasonable request.
Denny Fields, L. G. Everist, 7321 E 88th Ave, Henderson, CO, said that if they need to revisit the road
agreement they will and added that anyone coming from that property is responsible for any damage. He said
that he would like to put a time limit on negotiating the road agreement, however.
Mr. Holton strongly encouraged everyone to work on completing the improvement agreement prior to the
Board of County Commissioner meeting on November 24, 2010.
Ms. Shults said that she is confused on 1.C regarding the entrance and access improvements and requested
to remove this item. Staff concurred to strike Condition of Approval 1.C.
Mark Lawley moved to delete Condition of Approval 1.C, seconded by Bill Hall. Motion carried.
Ms. Shults referred to Development Standard 23 and said that she would like to request removing the second
sentence so they can get this site consistent with their other sites in Weld County. Mr. Ogle said that this is
the normal hours of operation for a gravel mine and added that we could specify hours for the gravel mine
operation and different hours for the transload facilities. He recommended Development Standard 23 to read
3
"Section 23-4-290.8 of the Weld County Code limits the hours of operation for sand and gravel operations to
the hours of day light except in the case of public or private emergency or to make necessary repairs to
equipment. Hours of operation in the winter months(November through April)will be from 7AM to 5PM and in
the summer months(May through October)will be 7AM to 7PM. Transload hours will be 24 hours 7 days a
week. Hours of operation may be extended with specific permission from the Weld County Board of County
Commissioners. This restriction shall not apply to operation of administrative and executive offices or repair
and maintenance facilities located on the property."
Bill Hall moved to amend Development Standard 23 as stated 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. 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.
Bill Hall moved that Case 2n°AmUSR-840, 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, absent; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand, absent; Bill Hall, yes;Alexander Zauder, absent; Jason
Maxey, yes; Roy Spitzer, absent; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes with comment. Motion carried
unanimously.
Commissioner Holton commented that he would like to see the improvements agreement done prior to the
Board of County Commissioner hearing so the applicants may review it.
The Chair read the following case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1757
APPLICANT: Latimer& Nancy Bohling
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Use
Permitted as a Use by Right,Accessory Use, or Use by Special Review in the
Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts(construction company) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B RE-519 being part of SE4 of Section 7, T2N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 22.5 and west of and adjacent to CR 25.5.
Michelle Martin, Planning Services, stated that currently the property is in violation (ZCV09-00013) for the
operation of a construction company without the necessary land use permits. If the USR is approved, the
violation will be closed. If denied, the case will continue through the court process.
The surrounding property to the north, south, east and west are zoned agricultural with single family homes in
the area. Located to the east of the site USR-1591 is permitted for outdoor storage of recreation vehicles and
equipment and USR-1564 for a hay auction. Therefore, given the minimal impact of the proposed construction
company, the use will be compatible with the surrounding land uses.
The property is not located within an Intergovernmental Agreement Area but does lie within the three mile
referral area for the City of Fort Lupton and the Town of Platteville. The City of Fort Lupton in their referral
dated September 8, 2010 indicated they have no conflicts with the proposed development. The Town of
Platteville did not respond to the referral request. The surrounding area is agricultural in nature with single
family residences in the area and a few Use by Special Review's. Staff believes that the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards will ensure that the use will be compatible with existing surrounding
land uses.
4
Sixteen referral agencies reviewed this case, ten responded favorably or included conditions that have been
addressed through development standards and conditions of approval.
Mary Evett, Environmental Health, stated that the modular home on the property will be available for restroom
purposes. There is an existing septic system for the modular home which is sized for three bedrooms or six
people. There are no employees or customers who will come to the site,only persons residing at the property;
therefore the septic system does not have to be reviewed by an engineer. There is a well on the property that
is permitted for domestic purposes only. Staff received a letter dated October 18, 2010 from the Division of
Water Resources stating that as long as the construction company will be operated solely by the property
owner and no customers will visit the site, the well may be used for its permitted use. If there are employees
in the future or if customers come to the site then they will need to get a well permit for commercial use. .
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, stated that County Road 22.5 is a local, gravel road requiring 60 feet of right-of-
way which is current. The applicants are utilizing the existing paved accesses. They will be providing a water
quality depression for stormwater runoff control.
Nancy Bohling, 10501 25.5, Ft. Lupton introduced her daughter Dawn Thurston. Ms. Bohling stated that she
performs the bookwork for their business at their home. They build homes at the job sites. The only business
done on the farm is the bookwork and storage of some equipment. Ms. Thurston stated that they do not
intend to make any additions or improvements on the property.
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. Martin proposed a new Condition of Approval 5 to state "The applicant shall address the conditions of
approval and submit a mylar for recording for Recorded Exemption 5050."
Mark Lawley moved to add a new Condition of Approval 5 as stated by staff and renumber accordingly,
seconded by Erich Ehrlich. Motion carried.
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 applicants replied that they are in agreement.
Mark Lawley moved that Case USR-1757, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval, seconded by Erich Ehrlich.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, absent; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand, absent; Bill Hall, yes; Alexander Zauder, absent; Jason
Maxey, yes; Roy Spitzer, absent; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Staff stated that the applicant for the next case on the agenda has not arrived yet and asked to hear the
following Case AmUSR-1253.
The Chair read the following case into record.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1253
APPLICANT: Rocky Mountain Wildlife Conservation Center dba The Wild Animal Sanctuary
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: AmUSR-1253-A Site Specific Development Plan and Amended Use by Special
Review Permit for the keeping, raising or boarding of exotic animals; as an
Agricultural Service establishment primarily engaged in performing agricultural,
animal husbandry or horticultural services on a fee or contract basis, including:
Veterinary clinics or hospitals, a Kennel, and as a Recreational facility and
uses including: Guest Farm, in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A and Lot B RE-2344, Part N2NW4 of Section 28,Ti N, R64W; Lot A and
Lot B Corrected AmRE-2541, Part S2SW4 of Section 28,Ti N, R64W; Lot A
5
and Lot B RE-4034, Part E2SE4 of Section 20, Ti N, R64W; N2SW4 of Section
21,T1 N, R64W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: North and south of and adjacent to vacated CR 6;West and east of and
adjacent to CR 53.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, stated that the existing 65 acre facility is primarily an agricultural based entity
that focuses on the preservation of open space, habitat grasslands and providing environmental amenities in
enrichment for the animals on premise. The large tracts of land under the control of the Wildlife Sanctuary
provide for a natural buffer between adjacent properties and uses. The sanctuary is primarily a developed and
open grassland habitat with primary and secondary fencing. This fencing and tract layout may also be used
for livestock or other approved land use operations in the future should this use go away.
The uses which would be permitted if this application is approved are compatible with the existing and
surrounding land uses. In the general vicinity of the proposed 320 acre facility there is limited residential
development outside of the residences located within the grounds of the sanctuary and surrounding lands
adjacent to the facility are predominately grassland and row crops. A recently approved Change of Zone
application for a nine lot subdivision is adjacent to the east. The applicant and the adjacent property owner
developer have held discussions on attempts to mitigate the potential impacts and conflicts between these two
land uses including setback and buffering between the animals and the residential development.
Representatives from both parties have entered into an agreement dated September 26, 2010 for the
protection of both developments from adverse compatibility issues that may arise from the establishment of
this residential subdivision.
The site is located within the three mile referral area of the Towns of Keenesburg, Hudson and Adams County.
The Town of Keenesburg in their referral dated August 11, 2010 and the Town of Hudson in their referral
dated September 8, 2010 indicate no conflicts with their interests. Adams County did not return a referral.
The purpose of the facility is to rescue animals that come in from a referral from regulatory and/or law
enforcement agencies due to official confiscation or court order. The rescued animals are brought to the
sanctuary for rehabilitation and long term care. The goal of the sanctuary is to change social consciousness
so that people learn to understand that capture of large carnivores do not make good pets. This is achieved
through education of visitors to the sanctuary. The education center at the sanctuary provides detailed
information in the rescue and care of the exotic animals through posters and videos.
Twenty-one referral agencies reviewed the case; seven agencies offered comments, some with specific
conditions.
Staff did receive a letter of opposition from an adjacent property owner this morning who has lands adjacent to
the west of the facility. There are no other forms of correspondence, telephone calls or electronic email
concerning this application.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of the application along with the attached
conditions of approval and development standards.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, stated that water is provided by several wells. The wells are currently
permitted for watering of domestic animals and ordinary household purposes therefore staff is requesting
documentation from the Division of Water Resources that the wells can be used for the animal sanctuary.
She added that the wells may need to be re-permitted. There are four septic permits associated with the site.
Heidi Hansen, Public Works, stated that County Road 53 is a local, gravel road requiring 60 feet of right-of-
way which is current. They utilize a single access from County Road 53. When they expand west they will
need a westerly access off of County Road 53;therefore the applicant will need to submit an access permit for
that request. The site is mainly open grassland therefore stormwater runoff control is not required.
Pat Craig, Executive Director of Animal Sanctuary, 1946 CR 53, stated that this request is to expand the
habitat for the animals. He added that there may be additional educational facilities developed in the future on
the 320 acres.
6
Mr. Craig said that they have had conversations with the Division of Water Resources and they have
submitted the application to change the wells to commercial use.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Dirk Bassinger, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, 1099 18th St, Ste 1800, Denver CO, stated that he
represents Anadarko Land Corporation. Mr. Bassinger said that they submitted an objection letter to Weld
County dated September 3,2010. He added that Anadarko entities together own all the minerals that underlie
the portion of the lands in Section 21. Current rules and regulations of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission allow for five (5) drilling windows in each quarter section where the property is located. This
means that there are four (4) undrilled drilling windows in the southwest corner of Section 21. Anadarko
entities regularly work with developers and surface owners to reach agreements for the compatible
development of the surface estate and mineral estate or some other disposition of the minerals.
Representatives of Anadarko entities have met with Mr. Craig and have discussed location for oil and gas
operation areas and other oil and gas facilities, the terms of agreement and mutual use of the property for
existing and future oil and gas operations and the uses proposed by the applicant. As of this date, there is no
agreement that has been made and Anadarko does not foresee any agreement not being reached. Anadarko
entities request to preserve the rights under the Colorado Statutes and request that the County include as a
condition for the approval for any final application for development that an agreement be reached between the
applicant and Anadarko entities.
Mr. Ogle noted that Mr. Bassinger was referring to Condition of Approval 1.B. Commissioners Holton and
Lawley believed that the code stated the applicant shall attempt to reach an agreement. Mr. Holton suggested
amending Condition of Approval 1.6 to read "Applicants that can show written evidence that an adequate
attempt has been made to obtain a Surface Use Agreement will be allowed to continue the process to
completion."
Mark Lawley moved to amend Condition of Approval 1.B as stated, seconded by Bill Hall. Motion carried.
The Chair asked the applicant if he read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that he is in agreement.
Jason Maxey moved that Case AmUSR-1253, 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, absent; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand, absent; Bill Hall, yes; Alexander Zauder, absent; Jason
Maxey, yes; Roy Spitzer, absent; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1758
APPLICANT: Javier Barron-Sixtos
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for an Oil
and Gas Support and Service Facility(roust-a-bout) in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A RE-2266; Section 16,T2N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,
Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 22; 0.5 miles west of CR 31.
Staff stated that the applicant, Javier Barron-Sixtos is unable to make the hearing meeting today and has
requested a continuance of case USR-1758.
Bill Hall moved to continue Case USR-1758 to the December 7, 2010 Planning Commission meeting,
seconded by Mark Lawley. Motion carried.
Trevor Jiricek, Planning Director, presented the 2011 Planning Commission hearing dates. Mr. Jiricek noted
7
that the July hearing date will be held on July 12, 2010 due to an observed County Holiday on July 5, 2010.
Bill Hall moved to approve the 2011 Planning Commission hearing dates as presented, seconded by Erich
Ehrlich. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 2:45 pm.
Respectfully
l submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
8
Hello