HomeMy WebLinkAbout20092329.tiffSUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Department of
Planning Services, Hearing Room, 918 10'" Street, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by
Chair, Doug Ochsner, at 1:40 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Doug Ochsner - Chair
Tom Holton - Vice Chair
Nick Berryman
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Mark Lawley
Roy Spitzer
Also Present: Jacqueline Hatch, Chris Gathman, Brad Mueller, and Michelle Martin, Department of Planning
Services; Don Carroll, Don Dunker, and Janet Carter, Department of Public Works; Lauren Light, Department
of Health; Bruce Barker, County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Robert Grand moved to approve the June 2, 2009 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, seconded by
Bill Hall. Motion carried.
The Chair read the first case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1694
APPLICANT: Keith Thoene
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
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 a Use by Special Review in
the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts (storage of construction materials -
steel doors and frames) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B RE -3050 being part of E2 NE4 in Section 25, T1 N, R65W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 49 and south of and adjacent to CR 6.
Jacqueline Hatch, Planning Services, stated that the applicant is requesting that this case be continued to the
October 6, 2009 Planning Commission hearing. The applicant is requesting to have this case continued to
allow him the time to finish the construction of his home on the property. He is currently in violation; however
he has removed all items from his property and understands that he cannot store or operate any commercial
business activity on the site until his USR is approved and recorded.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1694 be continued to the October 6, 2009 Planning Commission
meeting, seconded by Erich Ehrlich.
CASE NUMBER: 3RD AmUSR-1282
APPLICANT: John & Dorothy Johnson
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: 3f° AmUSR-1282- A Site Specific Development Plan and Third Amended Use by
Special Review Permit for an Agricultural Service Establishment primarily
engaged in performing agricultural, animal husbandry, or horticultural services
on a fee or contract basis including Livestock Confinement Operations ( a
livestock feeding operation for a total of 11,240 head of cattle including a dairy
operation and 20 horses, an additional milk parlor, office/scale house, additional
1
Co if L• . • u-- 7-A -� ,cif
2009-2329
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOCATION:
pens, and removing the limit of 2,000 dairy cattle (out of the 11,240 head total)
associated with the operation amended to include a new stormwater pond and
effluent storage, a new sediment basin, commodity area and expansion of the
compost area) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
Lot B of AmRE-499, Lot B of RE -3535, Lot A of AmRE-3535, and Lot A of RE -
3705; located in the NW4, the SW4NE4 and the N2SE4 of Section 1, T6N,
R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
East of and adjacent to CR 47 and South of and adjacent to CR 74.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, requested a continuance of this case to the August 4, 2009 Planning
Commission hearing to address newspaper notification. He added that staff submitted an amended legal
notice however it did not get published in the paper. In order to meet notification requirements, staff is
requesting a continuance until August 4, 2009.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Erich Ehrlich moved that Case 3r° AmUSR-1282 be continued to the August 4, 2009 Planning Commission
meeting, seconded by Tom Holton.
Bill Hall stated that he is an acquaintance with the applicants for USR-1701 but feels that he can make a fair
judgment in their case. In addition, he has been friends with the applicants for a number of years for USR-
1651 and feels that he can make an impartial judgment with this case as well.
Robert Grand disclosed that he has a business relationship will Mr. Balderas and added that he has no
interest in this piece of property. He stated that he feels that he can make a fair recommendation with regard
to this case.
The Chair asked the Planning Commissioners or any members of the public if they feel that these two
Commissioners could not make a fair judgment in any of these cases. There was no comment.
The Chair read the first case on the consent agenda into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1696
APPLICANT: Manuel & Anita Balderas
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
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 a Use by Special Review in
the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts (auto sales, salvage, services, and
repair) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A RE -2012 being part of E2 NE4 being in Section 30, T2N, R66W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to State Highway 85 and approximately 1/8 mile south of
CR 18.
Jacqueline Hatch, Planning Services, commented that staff is in support of this application remaining on
the consent agenda.
The Chair asked the applicant if they wish for this case to remain on consent. The applicants indicated
yes.
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 Planning Commissioners if they wish for this case to be heard. No one wished to
speak.
The Chair read the following case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1701
APPLICANT: Hadley Barrett & Lee Brenner -Barrett
2
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOCATION:
Jacqueline Hatch
A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a
kennel (15 dogs and grooming) and one single family dwelling unit per lot
(second home on the property) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
Lot B of RE -1568 being part of SE4 of Section 32, T5N, R64W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
Approximately 1/4 mile North of CR 50 and approximately 1/4 mile west of CR
53.
Jacqueline Hatch, Planning Services, commented that staff is in support of this application remaining on the
consent agenda. She added that staff is asking for a minor change to the staff comments. She
recommended that Item 1.E in regard to the Improvements Agreement be removed from the Conditions of
Approval. Ms. Hatch added that the applicant is aware of this change.
Tom Holton moved to remove Condition of Approval Prior to Recording the Plat Item 1.E, seconded by Nick
Berryman. Motion carried.
The Chair asked the applicant if they wish to keep this item on the consent agenda and if they are in
agreement with the amended conditions of approval. The applicant indicated yes.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Tom Holton moved that the Consent Agenda including Cases USR-1696 and USR-1701 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 Robert Grand. Motion carried
unanimously.
The Chair read the first hearing case into record.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
USR-1651
Jay & Sherrie Woods
Chris Gathman
Part of the SW4SE4 of Section 36, T6N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use 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, (Lawn Tree and Care Business)
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 and One (1) SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT per LOT
other than those permitted under Section 23-3-20.A (addition of future single-
family home) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
South of and adjacent to "F" Street and 1/8 mile west of "C" Street.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, wished to make a clarification to this application. In the original
application the applicant had requested one additional single family residence; however after some
conversations with the applicant that has now been removed from this application. Therefore the request
addresses only the lawn and tree care business.
The site is located south of and adjacent to "F" Street and 1/8 mile west of "C" Street.
Thirteen referral agencies reviewed this case and eleven referral agencies responded. Referral agency
recommendations and requirements have been addressed through development standards and conditions
of approval.
The site is adjacent to the City of Greeley municipal boundaries to the west, a single-family residence to
the west (zoned R-1 residential), two single-family residences to the north and west (zoned R-1
residential), and an industrial operation (zoned 1-3 Industrial) to the northeast. Railroad tracks and single-
family residences located within the City of Greeley are located to the south.
3
This case began as a zoning violation (violation # VI -0400132) for operating a lawn and tree care business
in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) zone district. The violation case was originally brought before the
Board of County Commissioners on August 9, 2005. The applicants were directed to apply for a change of
zone application to Agriculture to address correcting the violation because commercial businesses are not
allowed as a use by right or as a special use permit in the R-1 Zone District. CZ -1104 was approved by
the Board of County Commissioners on February 15, 2006. The applicants are now applying to correct the
violation through a Use by Special Review Permit to allow a commercial business to operate in the
Agricultural Zone District.
The site has an existing City of Greeley Water Tap and is on an existing septic system.
During the review of this application, the City of Greeley determined that the Woods property was located
within 400 -feet of an existing sewer -line. It is a requirement of the ISDS Regulations that any development
requiring a permit for a new or expanded septic system within 400 -feet of sewer is required to abandon
the septic system. They don't have to abandon the system if no changes are needed. If they need a
permit they have to connect to sewer unless it has been determined by the municipality that sewer service
is not feasible. The City of Greeley has determined that it is feasible to provide sewer service to the
Woods property. The City of Greeley requires annexation or at a minimum an annexation agreement as a
condition of providing city sewer service.
This case has been continued several times to allow the applicant to discuss annexation and/or an
annexation agreement with the City of Greeley and also to allow the applicant time to deal with personal
health issues. No progress has been made toward annexation or an annexation agreement between the
City of Greeley and the applicant since preliminary meetings were held between the two parties in the
spring of 2008.
Unless the applicant can demonstrate that the existing septic system on the property is adequate to serve
the proposed landscaping business as outlined in condition 1.D — it is staffs position that the applicant will
need to connect to City of Greeley sewer. Mr. Gathman clarified that on the original application the
request was for up to 24 employees associated with the business; however Mr. Woods sent an email
yesterday indicating that he would like to reduce the number to 15 employees.
The site is located within the Urban Growth Boundary Area for the City of Greeley.
Section 22-2-40.C UD.Goal 3. states: "Until Intergovernmental Agreements are in place with
a particular municipality, define a standard County Urban Growth Boundary as a one -quarter -
mile perimeter around the municipal limits that are currently physically served by central
sewer (whether by the municipality or other recognized agencies)."
The property is located within the urban growth boundary of the City of Greeley. Section 22-2-
40.E.1 of the Weld County Code states the following criteria shall be considered when
considering an application in an urban growth boundary area:
UD.Policy 5.1.The County may consider approving a land use development within an urban
growth boundary area if all of the following criteria are met:
The adjacent municipality does not consent to annex the land or property in a timely manner,
or annexation is not legally possible.
The proposed development, including public facility and service provision, is consistent with
other urban -type uses and conforms to County regulations.
The proposed urban development attempts to be compatible with the adjacent municipality's
comprehensive plan (though it may not necessarily conform to it).
The City of Greeley, in their referral dated February 29, 2008 and letter dated March 20, 2008, states that
it would be more appropriate for the applicant to annex and develop within the City of Greeley. However, in
its current state, any annexation would have to be petitioned by the property owner. The City of Greeley
also indicated that the proposed use would be required to locate in the Commercial High Intensity (C -H),
Industrial Low Intensity (I -L), or Industrial Medium Intensity (I -M) zone districts. The adjacent property to
4
the west was recently annexed into Greeley and is zoned Industrial Medium Intensity (I -M).
No letters of opposition or phone calls have been received from surrounding property owners.
Mr. Gathman pointed out a modification which needs to be made to the staff comments. In the original
Public Works referral it listed that C and F Streets are collector roads and require an 80 -foot right-of-way
at full build out. After talking with Don Dunker of Public Works C and F Streets are considered arterial
roads and require 140 -feet of right-of-way at full build out and which would have a future right-of-way
requirement of 70 feet from the centerline. Mr. Gathman indicated that in looking at the map he believes
that the house and outbuildings are still far enough back that they wouldn't be encroaching within that
area.
Jay Woods, 2040 Fairway Lane, Greeley, CO. Mr. Woods introduced his son Brad Woods. He
apologized for the continuation of this case.
Mr. Woods commented that he is not sure about the septic tank size. He stated that he is not excited
about being annexed into the City of Greeley as they started this process with County. He added that his
son lives out there and would like for him to continue living out there for security reasons.
Mr. Woods said that they can certainly find out exactly how big the septic system is to make sure they are
in compliance. He pointed out that the employees are seasonal and they come in the morning and then
back at the end of the day. He added that there are a couple of secretaries there.
Commissioner Holton asked if they have talked to an engineer about the septic system. Mr. Woods said
that he can have an engineer evaluate the septic system; however he just didn't want to go through a lot of
expense if he was going to be annexed. Mr. Woods commented that the cost to hook up to the sewer line
would be approximately $15,000.00.
Commissioner Berryman asked the applicant to give more background information on his discussions with
the City of Greeley about annexation and also hooking into the sewer system and why that didn't go
through and where it stands at this point. Mr. Woods said that originally they couldn't get hooked into the
line because they were told it was a high pressure line and now they've been told it is not. He added that
in all honesty he would like to stay with the county. He has paid for permits with the county and then if he
has to go through the city he would have additional costs for permits.
Commissioner Hall asked how many people live in the house. Mr. Woods stated that only his son lives in
the house.
Don Dunker, Public Works, said C and F Streets are arterial roads and require 140 -feet of right-of-way at
full build out. Presently there is 60 foot of right-of-way and it is maintained by Weld County. The traffic
counts taken in 2008 for C Street were 2281 ADT and the traffic counts for F Street in 2008 were 2310
ADT.
Mr. Dunker stated that 25th Avenue, which is north of this site, is a local paved road and requires a 60 foot
right-of-way at full build out. There is presently 60 foot of right-of-way and it is maintained by Weld
County. The traffic counts taken north of the bridge over the river were 2714 ADT. This application will
add approximately 50 vehicle trips for the 15 employees.
Mr. Dunker stated that the access is from F Street and it appears to be as far west of the property as
possible. There will only be one (1) access allowed for this property. 40 foot radiuses will be required at
the access.
A water quality capture feature shall be constructed for the buildings, drives and other impervious areas.
This USR is located in a FEMA 100 -year floodplain. As determined by the 2003 Core Study by the City of
Greeley, this property would have a base elevation of 4663 feet and a Flood Hazard Development Permit
will be required.
Mr. Dunker clarified that Condition of Approval 1.B.4 should be amended to read "C and F Streets are
5
arterial roads and require a 140 -foot right-of-way at full build out. There is presently a 60 -foot right-of-way.
70 feet from the centerlines of C and F streets shall be indicated as edge of future right-of-way. These
roads are maintained by Weld County. Pursuant to the definition of SETBACK in the Weld County Zoning
923-1-90), the required setback is measured from the future right-of-way line."
(Bruce Barker entered meeting at 2:03 p.m.)
Tom Holton moved to amend Condition of Approval 1.6.4 and change Development Standard #6 from 24
employees to 15 as recommended by staff, seconded by Erich Ehrlich. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked for comments from Environmental Health.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, stated that the water is supplied by City of Greeley. The septic
system is the issue with this case. Back in 2007, the applicant applied for a Statement of Existing through
the Health Department for the existing system. Based on the information submitted by the applicant their
septic tank is 500 gallons and today's standards are 1000 gallons. Therefore if the applicant wanted to
upsize it he would have to apply for a permit through the Health Department; however based on the
regulations they couldn't issue the permit because of the 400 foot rule with the City of Greeley. The
regulations do allow that if the City of Greeley states that it is not feasible for them to hook up to sewer and
provide a letter then a permit can be issued to the applicant.
Based on the information the applicant submitted in 2007 that system was sized for a two bedroom house
or for four people and the applicant is requesting 15 employees. Ms. Light indicated that maybe it would
be acceptable since the employees are not there all the time but right now a 500 gallon tank is not
sufficient. The regulations require that at a minimum a 1000 gallon tank is needed for commercial,
industrial, and residential zone districts.
Commissioner Hall asked where the exact location of the sewer line is, if it is truly within the 400 foot. Ms.
Light stated that she believed it was within 200 feet and commented that the City of Greeley could verify
that distance.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Brandon Gossard, City of Greeley Planning and Zoning Department. Mr. Gossard entered a letter into
record and thanked the Commissioners for the opportunity to provide comments. He added that although
it is adjacent to the city limits the City of Greeley does have an interest in the manner that it develops.
Mr. Gossard commented that the principle concern in the letter is the verification of the septic system.
Secondly, the conditions of approval provided indicate that a dust abatement plan, waste management
plan, and a screening plan will be provided and approved. He indicated that the City of Greeley would like
to be able to review those plans to ensure that the manner of development is at the very least compatible
if not compliant with city standards. Ultimately, the letter does recommend another continuation until the
septic system question is answered and until the city can review the waste handling plan, dust abatement
plan and the screening plan for compliance or compatibility with municipal standards.
Mr. Gossard mentioned that in the spring of 2008, Mr. Gathman organized a group meeting in which the
City had drafted an annexation agreement for the purposes of a starting a dialogue. Shortly thereafter,
Mr. Woods had some unfortunate medical conditions and the city did not pursue the matter. At this point it
is still at the first rendition of the offered annexation agreement.
Mr. Gossard referred to the question of where the exact location is of the sewer line and stated that the
sanitary sewer line is located in the railroad right-of-way. By measuring the distance from the structure
itself it is further away than 400 linear feet; however from the property line it is approximately 30 to 40 feet.
He added that the City of Greeley's Water and Sewer division took a look at the sanitary sewer line and
determined that it would be feasible for this property to connect to the city's sanitary sewer.
Commissioner Grand asked if the agreement defining the 400 feet is specifically designed to a property
line or to the actual physical location of the sewer system. Mr. Gossard said that he understands that it is
6
from the property line as that is what they have been operating under.
Commissioner Holton asked what the county code states with regard to the 400 foot designation. Ms.
Light said that it states that no individual sewage disposal system permit shall be issued to any person
when the subject dwelling, place of business, or institution is located within 400 feet from a sewer line of a
municipality or special district. Ms. Light added that they have always referred to the property line. Bruce
Barker, County Attorney agreed with Ms. Light and added that it was written from the state statute so they
track identically. He further added that our policy has always been from the property line.
Commissioner Holton commented that if is 30 feet from the property line but over 500 feet from the
connection to the structure, when does it become an undue burden. Mr. Barker commented that they
have always measured from the property line and believes that is the way the state interprets it too.
Commissioner Berryman asked if the applicant would be bearing the full cost of the installment. Mr.
Gossard stated that it would be a private tap so the applicant would bear the entire cost.
Mr. Gathman wished to clarify the distance from the structures and stated that according to GIS it is
approximately 600 feet from the nearest house to the sewer line.
Commissioner Holton asked Mr. Woods if he knew for sure what size the tank is. Mr. Woods said he did
not know but would have someone come to inspect it to determine how big it is.
Commissioner Ocshner asked how reasonable cost is determined. Mr. Gathman said that the feasibility is
determined by the municipality. Mr. Barker added that he is not certain if the feasibility was tied to an
individual but tied more to the municipality.
Commissioner Holton said that it does not seem right to have all that expense for one house. Mr. Barker
said that our interpretation has been from the property line but the regulation does say from the subject
dwelling, place of business or institution; therefore you need to make your own determination.
Commissioner Hall believes that the intent is for subdivisions and that makes a big difference because
there are multiple homes. He added that when it states "subject dwelling" it seems that it makes it clear
that it is where the house sits on the property. Mr. Barker said that you could look at it another way in that
a vacant lot is within 400 feet of the sewer line and someone says they want to put their house on the
other end of the lot. Therefore the property boundary has been an adequate way of interpreting that.
Jay Freeze, Freeze Engineering, 217 E 18th St, Greeley entered the meeting and announced that he had
some information on Mr. Wood's septic system. He commented that the sewer line is at the south end of
the property and within 400 feet of the property line. The house is at the extreme north end of the
property. He added that this sewer line is a main trunk line and he believes that the City of Greeley would
not be particularly interested in having a single property tie into their main trunk line. He added that
hooking up to the city's sewer main is not a practical alternative for Mr. Woods.
Commissioner Ochsner asked Mr. Freeze if he knew the status of the septic system. Mr. Freeze replied
that they have not inspected the system. He indicated that Mr. Woods wished to wait until after this
hearing to determine that.
Commissioner Holton commented that we will be seeing more issues like this as there are farm houses
that are getting encroached upon by city limits. Mr. Barker commented that it is one of those things of
where staff's interpretation is based upon how the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning
Commission interpret our regulations. It is just that with this case you can see the benefit of going either
way. Maybe the way to distinguish this case from the typical situation is that there is an existing home.
Ms. Light commented that she just spoke to her director about this situation and in his opinion you could
go 400 feet from the structure. In this case it is a really old system and obviously public health would
prefer that they were on sanitary sewer. The house was built in 1957. We do not know how the system is
working or any information about the system so there will be some expense for the applicant in upgrading
the system.
7
Commissioner Holton wished to clarify that the interpretation from the Planning Commission has changed
from the property line to the structure on existing homes.
The Chair asked the applicant if he has read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that he is in agreement.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1651 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 Tom Holton.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, yes with comment; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, yes with comment; Mark Lawley,
absent; Roy Spitzer, absent; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Berryman recommended that in the future we try to use this interpretation of the distance
sparingly and only in cases as necessary. He would hate to see a major precedent set with this.
Commissioner Hall felt that some clarity was brought to the problem that they will encounter in the future. He
added that this will help both the Environmental Health Department and themselves to look at this because a
sewer line in that length would be an undue burden on a single family residence.
The Chair called a recess at 2:48 pm and reconvened the meeting at 2:54 p.m.
The Chair read the following case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1700
APPLICANT: Roy Wardell c/o Noble Energy
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Major
Facility of a Public Utility or Public Agencies (communication tower) in the A
(Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: W2 of Section 19, T3N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 32 and 1/2 mile west of CR 39.
Jacqueline Hatch, Planning Services, reminded the Planning Commission that this case does not get
forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners; the Planning Commission has the final determination.
The sign announcing the Planning Commission hearing was posted on June 24, 2009 by staff.
The site is located south of and adjacent to County Road 32 and approximately % mile west of County Road
39 consisting of approximately 318 +/- acres; however the USR boundary is proposed to be only 900 square
feet.
The communications tower shall not exceed 180 feet in height.
The facility is located in a remote area. There are seven property owners within 500 feet of the subject
property. No comments were received from any surrounding property owners. The facility is unmanned and
will not create additional use in the area. The surrounding property is primarily agricultural. The property to
the northwest consists of a Compressor Station (AMUSR-1067), an Oil and Gas Support Facility (2 AMUSR-
1280) and an Injection Well site (USR-1677). The property directly to the east is a Turkey Farm (SUP -243)
which is not in operation at this time.
The site is not located within the three mile referral areas for any municipality or County.
The site is proposed to be unmanned. Therefore no permanent water or sewer is required. Portable toilets
and hand washing units are to be utilized during construction of the tower. Bottled water shall be used during
construction for drinking.
8
The applicant stated that the preferred location for the facility was to be at Noble Energy's Platteville office.
However, the wells that need to be monitored were hidden from the office location due to a ridgeline east of
Platteville. The physical/geographic constraint essentially eliminated any feasible line of sight view of the wells
from the office. Therefore this tower height and location was selected.
Nine referral agencies reviewed this case, five referral agencies had no comments, and four referral agencies
included conditions that have been addressed through the development standards and conditions of approval.
Ms. Hatch commented that the applicant's representative, Julie Cozad, has handed out a memorandum
addressing some of the conditions. Don Carroll of Public Works and Ms. Hatch have reviewed them and
agree to delete three (3) of the Conditions of Approval as they felt these items have been addressed and
amend one of the Conditions of Approval.
Therefore staff is requesting that Conditions of Approval 2.A, 2.6, and 2.C on page 4 be removed from the
staff comments as these items have been addressed. Condition of Approval 4 on page 5 currently states that
the plat needs to be recorded within 60 days from the date of approval; however the applicant is requesting
that it be extended to 120 days. Staff is in support of this request.
The Weld County Department of Planning Services is recommending that this application be approved.
Julie Cozad, Tetra Tech 1900 S Sunset St, Longmont CO. Ms. Cozad passed out some handouts. She
introduced Mr. Wardell who is the underlying property owner. Ms. Cozad clarified that the site is actually
about 1 mile from County Road 39. She further clarified on Mr. Wardell's behalf that even though it is not
a municipality there is a metro -district (Pelican Lakes) located within two miles of this facility.
Ms. Cozad introduced Greg Pickerel, Facilities Manager with Noble Energy, and Eric Vandecar, Landman
for Noble Energy.
Ms. Cozad gave a brief presentation about Noble Energy.
Ms. Cozad stated that this site is a very rural location. Surrounding properties are agricultural with many
oil and gas facilities within the area. Agricultural uses are primarily dryland pasture.
Noble Energy desires to create a wireless radio network within northeastern Colorado for communication
and monitoring of its oil and gas wells in Weld County. The USR is for 180 foot communication tower
which will be of metal construction.
The site is approximately 300 by 300 feet for the communication tower with three (3) guy wires
approximately 140 feet from the tower. The tower and guy wires are within fenced areas with the details
of the fencing shown on the USR map. Primarily the fencing around the guy wires is typical barb wire and
around the communication tower is more of a security type fence which is 6 foot tall.
There will be four (4) communication dishes that are attached to the tower and a 6 by 6 foot radio shack
will be within the fenced area.
Neither the Federal Aviation Administration nor the Weld County Code require a light be attached to the
top of the tower due to the height.
There is an existing access for the oil and gas facilities which is a 12 foot gravel road.
The tower is a critical component of Noble Energy's day to day operations and production. Construction is
slated to begin immediately upon approval of the application and will take approximately 12 months to
complete. The site was chosen due to geological constraints and the need for a line of sight between the
wells and tower.
Noble Energy would have preferred to centralize their wireless radio network from their Platteville office;
however the wells that needed to be monitored were hidden from the office location due to a ridgeline that
is east of Platteville. This physical and geographical constraint eliminates any feasible line of sight view
9
from the wells to the office
Some additional purposes of the tower is to create a network between the Platteville, Greeley and Kersey
locations to implement a wireless radio system for remote polling of the wells and to allow Noble to adjust
and optimize production via monitoring system controls and environmental factors such as emission
output.
The Planning Department has also required a Subdivision Exemption to create the parcel for this specific
use. The application has been submitted and has been conditionally approved. Ms. Cozad commented
that they have worked through most of the conditions of approval and added that this is an administrative
process through the Planning Department.
Ms. Cozad referred to the memo and commented that they would like to have the opportunity to go
through some of the conditions.
The Chair asked if she could go through those now. Ms. Cozad stated that they would like to request that
2.A, 2.B, 2.C be deleted as they have been completed. She pointed out that 2.D has been completed and
they just need to provide a letter to Ms. Hatch. As stated earlier with regard to 2.E they have submitted
the Subdivision Exemption application and have been conditionally approved and are now working through
those conditions.
Ms. Cozad commented that the County would like the applicant to include the access road, which is an
existing access road, within the USR boundary as well as the guy wire locations. The applicants' concern
is that they currently have a license agreement that has already been negotiated with Mr. Wardell and to
put all the guy wires within the USR boundary would mean that they would have to increase the size of this
lease area from the 900 square foot area. The guy wires are located in a 100 by 100 foot area. She
mentioned that Ms. Hatch's suggestion was to make a triangle; however that would encumber also the
road under the USR. Therefore they suggested that because the license agreement with Mr. Wardell can
be recorded and it outlines all those things they would prefer that lease agreement be recorded at the
Clerk and Recorder's office and have that recording information on the USR plat rather than include the
road and guy wire locations as part of the USR. Ms. Cozad commented that they would like to have a
discussion with the Planning Commission about this.
Ms. Cozad stated that they have no other concerns with the remaining conditions of approval or
development standards.
Commissioner Holton asked if there was an airport still in operation out there. Mr. Wardell, 16512 Essex
Rd North, Platteville CO, recalled a private hanger two to three miles south of this site.
Commissioner Ochsner wished to clarify if 2.A, 2.B, and 2.C have been completed. Ms. Cozad
commented that 2.A was with regard to the Improvements Agreement. She added that they discussed it
with staff prior to the meeting and this road is already in place. As part of the construction for the tower
they will construct a small piece of road but it is not a road that will be used on a regular basis; it will be
used less than once a year. It will be a 12 foot gravel road.
Ms. Cozad commented that with regard to 2.B she has submitted a letter to staff. With regard to 2.C a
letter has already been sent to the Division of Wildlife.
The Chair noted that in the past if these items have been completed they have kept them on but
recognized that they have been completed. However with regard to Condition of Approval 2.A since an
Improvements Agreement is no longer needed we will need to remove that item.
Robert Grand moved to delete Condition of Approval 2.A and reletter and amend Condition of Approval 4
from 60 days to 120 days, seconded by Tom Holton. Motion carried.
Commissioner Ochsner asked Ms. Hatch for comments of the applicant's request of Condition of Approval
2.G regarding the USR boundary. Ms. Hatch said that she spoke to Ms. Cozad about it yesterday and in
return asked all staff members for their comments. Staff all agreed that the USR boundary did need to
10
include the entire cell site facility including guy wires, dog houses, and tower. When it comes to the
access ideally staff would like the access included in the USR boundary; however they are willing to allow
that to go as long as it is shown on the recorded plat the recorded document for the access agreement.
Ms. Cozad indicated that the cell tower is actually within a 30 by 30 secured fence area. The guy wires
are within a 10 by 10 foot area. The total lease area is 900 square feet which includes the guy wire areas
and they are requesting to do separate little areas for the guy wires rather than include a bunch of area
that he doesn't need to lease from Mr. Wardell.
Greg Pickerel, Noble Energy, 804 Grand Ave, Platteville commented that their license with Mr. Wardell is
specific to a 30 by 30 area for the tower and the radio shack and also three (3) 10 by 10 areas for each
guy wire with fencing to keep the cattle from rubbing on it. He is requesting all four locations which touch
the ground be separate as Mr. Wardell would like to keep the rest of it as it is and not encumbered by any
action which would result any burden for him in the future and cause any revision in the license
agreement.
Commissioner Grand asked why the entire area needs to be included as opposed to the applicant's
suggestion. Ms. Hatch commented that the USR boundary should be one area and not multiple little
spots; therefore staff suggests making the area in the form of a triangle. She added that it doesn't prohibit
Mr. Wardell from farming in those areas. Mr. Barker indicated that he didn't follow why the guy wires need
to be a part of the USR. Ms. Hatch commented that in the past the guy wires have always been a part of
the application as they are a part of the tower. Mr. Barker understood those comments but added that the
guy wires don't modify the use. In his opinion you could reference it to the lease that they already have
which allows them to put it there. He understands that the guy wires are a critical use to the tower but on
the other hand they don't change and he doesn't see why they should be included in the area of the USR.
Ms. Hatch commented that it has been staff's position that if it is part of the USR then it should be
included in the boundary.
Commissioner Ochsner asked what the negatives are to the landowner of including it in the entire USR
boundary. Mr. Pickerel said that the license calls for a specific 30 by 30 area and then three 10 by 10
areas so therefore the license would have to be revised to match the lease. The contract with Mr. Wardell
is for four (4) separate pieces. Ms. Cozad added that the guy wires are a part of the license agreement
which will get recorded and they will put the recording information on the USR plat so even though the
USR doesn't encumber the whole entire area it will encumber all three squares and the tower.
Mr. Barker asked staff if there were any development standards which apply to the guy wires. Ms. Hatch
said not in particular; however the Division of Wildlife had comments regarding the wires to mark them so
birds didn't fly into them. Staff has asked the applicant to address the comments and send a reply to the
Division of Wildlife.
Commissioner Holton asked what the license agreement is that is being referred to. Ms. Cozad said that
there is a license agreement for the lease which is lease between Mr. Wardell and Noble Energy. It is to
utilize the access road and the four sites as explained by Mr. Pickerel. She added that these four little
areas are 900 square feet total so to include the entire area it would be much more land that he will have
to renegotiate with Mr. Wardell.
Mr. Barker tended to agree with the applicant and not include the guy wires. He stated that if there is a
reference on the plat to the lease in where these wires are located it should be adequate. He understands
that it may have been the way it was done in the past but doesn't see the benefit.
Commissioner Ochsner said if Mr. Wardell sells his property can the new owner say that those guy wires
need to be removed. Mr. Barker said no and added that they are included in the lease agreement. He
further added that as pointed out by Ms. Hatch the Subdivision Exemption is there until the tower is there.
Ms. Cozad noted that it is a 99 year lease and because it will be a recorded document it will follow the
chain of title.
11
Mr. Barker recommended amending condition of approval 2.G.4 to read "The plat shall reference the
recording information for the lease on the property, including descriptions of the placement of guy wire
base locations and the access road."
Robert Grand moved to amend Condition of Approval 2.G.4 as suggested per staff and delete 2.G.5,
seconded by Tom Holton.
Don Carroll, Public Works, agreed with what Ms. Cozad had provided them along with all the changes.
However, he expressed that they are not being consistent with what had been done previously in that the
guy wires have been included in the entire USR boundary.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, stated that since it is an unmanned facility there is no issue with
permanent water and sewer.
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.
Robert Grand moved to approve Case USR-1700 along with the amended Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards, 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, yes; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, yes; Mark Lawley, absent; Roy Spitzer, absent;
Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously. .
The Chair called a recess at 3:47 p.m. and reconvened at 3:53 p.m.
CASE NUMBER: 2009-XX
PLANNER: Brad Mueller
REQUEST: Code Changes for Chapter 23, Chapter 24, and Chapter 26.
Brad Mueller, Planning Services, commented that the Planning Commission made a recommendation on a
package of code changes on June 2, 2009. Staff had recognized that there were some additional items that
were overlooked the first time. He added that there were two specific items that they wish to bring back for
reconsideration.
The first item is an item that has a timeliness associated with it in regard to the processing of new Regional
Urbanization Areas (RUAs). Mr. Mueller commented that the Board of County Commissioners would like to
see more specific submittal requirements on the occasion that someone would propose a new RUA. The new
text represents an accumulation of the existing submittal requirements for amendments to the RUAs. The
time sensitive nature of this is that RUAs can be submitted twice a year in either February or August. He
noted an interest from a metropolitan district in which they are anticipating to submit an RUA.
Mr. Mueller commented that staff is bringing back the topic of USRs to the Planning Commission for
reconsideration. He reminded the Commissioners of the discussion last month where the original language
which was discussed talked about termination taking place at the time the use ceased. He indicated that it
was a concern expressed by the members of the Planning Commission; however staff recognized that by
taking out that clause and leaving it open-ended it was much more permissive than what the current code is.
Mr. Mueller added that there is a section on vested rights. Vested rights are defined by state statutes and are
intended to protect the property owner and to define a beginning and an end for certain types of rights. It is
often associated with zoning but also associated very specifically with state statutes with conditional uses.
Currently the County Code Section 23-8-30 says that a vested right is a property right which has been vested
as provided by a process and shall not be extended by any amendments to the site specific development plan
unless expressly authorized by the Board of County Commissioners. In summary, this indicates that any
property right that is vested through a Use by Special Review, in this case, cannot be extended by any
12
amendment to the Use by Special Review unless it is authorized by the Board of County Commissioners.
Mr. Mueller commented that the language that is proposed is a rewrite of the language from last month.
Subsection B on page 5 talks about a special use terminating when the use is discontinued for a period of
three consecutive years. Then it goes onto the items that the Planning Commissioners had expressed more
interest in with regard to the use of the land changing or the time period established by the Board.
Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission reconsider this clause in light of their recognition of the
vested right section of the current code as well as the current practice in the code of three consecutive years.
It was a concern expressed at the last meeting that a landowner had to proactively respond to a comment
from the County notifying them that their USR has terminated. Therefore there is proposed text in subsection
C and D.
Commissioner Grand referred to the discussion from last month which centered on identifying what they felt
was an inherit property right with the approval of the USR. Mr. Barker said that it is not a taking of the property
right when you have set up a process for due process.
Mr. Barker said that a USR is a permit and that permit is good as long as the conditions have been met.
Because it is a permit or, in essence a license, which can be revoked by the Board of County Commissioners,
there is due process which is built in.
Mr. Grand clarified that it is not a guaranteed right. Mr. Barker said that is correct and added that it is a right to
use and not a property right that is the landowner's forever. The Planning Commissioners felt better knowing
that there is a due process involved.
The next item was a correction in terms of the use "permitted" versus "allowed" through the accessory use
section that is found for agricultural uses in Section 23-3-30.
In Section 23-3-40 it was discovered that the changes in the cargo container numbers which was
recommended last month needs to be reflected in the code as well. Commissioner Holton asked why a
building permit needs to be issued for a cargo container. Mr. Mueller stated that it has been in our code for
some time because they are a seen as a structure when used for storage. Ms. Martin commented that a
building permit for this would be approximately $125.00 and its just to make sure that they are tied down
correctly for the wind load and that they won't cause any damage to anyone else's property.
Mr. Mueller moved on to the Temporary Seasonal Permit. The appeal process for this permit would be
brought to the Board of Adjustment; however after some discussion staff realized that all zoning permits of the
administrative type are appealed to the Board of County Commissioners.
Mr. Mueller pointed out some typo errors in Sections 23-4-930 and 23-4-980 that they wish to correct.
The last item was discussed at the June Planning Commission hearing and staff is asking for reconsideration
on this. In the PUD section of the County Code is a set of requirements that plats be recorded within a certain
time frame. Staffs recommendation was to bring those same requirements to the subdivision processes
(Major and Minor subdivisions). The discussion from last month resulted in that construction take place within
a three-year period rather than one year after the plat is recorded. In cases where a subdivision has been
approved but not built on creates a situation where there can be attempts to try and sell the individual lots
without the improvements being there. It basically sterilizes that land until those improvements are done.
Staffs opinion is that you don't want to draw out that process. The surety would still be in place to make sure
that the road gets put in.
Another concern is when staff has to administer them from year to year. In the interest of government
efficiency, they note that having unbuilt subdivisions results in time which is taken to re -review the case and
continue to maintain surety. Therefore staff is asking for reconsideration on this item.
Commissioner Hall said he understands the concept but that typically if the market justifies it those
improvements will be made faster than not.
13
Michelle Martin, Planning Services, commented that with having the one year time frame it keeps the
developer on track with their Improvements Agreement. Another concern is that the sureties that were posted
years ago are not enough if they were to collect on them now to put in those improvements because it hasn't
factored in inflation.
Commissioner Hall expressed his concern of the amount of time and expense to put the improvements and
surety in place.
Mr. Mueller moved onto Section 26-1-50 where staff is asking for reconsideration to keep this section in. He
added that they need further direction from the attorney's office and the Board of County Commissioners office
about how the underlying zoning functions in the MUD.
The Chair asked the Planning Commissioners if there was any further concern on the USRs. Mr. Grand said
that with Mr. Barker's clarification he has no concerns.
The Chair asked if there were any concerns with the reconsideration from three years to one year for the
commencement of subdivisions. Mr. Holton commented that he appreciates staff's concerns but he is still in
favor of the three years. The Planning Commissioners agreed with Mr. Holton.
Commissioner Holton asked why the semi -trailers are not consistent with the cargo containers. There was
further discussion of the difference between semi -trailers as accessory structures and cargo containers.
When asked about building permits related to these storage containers Janet Carter, Public Works, pointed
out that with the building permit they verify whether or not this container is placed in a floodplain which can be
a hazard if it is not tied down properly. Another concern is that it needs to be located according to the proper
setbacks so it is not within the road right-of-way. A building permit just verifies that it is correctly located on the
property and that it will not be hazardous to the surrounding property owners. Mr. Holton understood Ms.
Carter's points.
Tom Holton moved to approve all of the recommendations and reconsiderations, with the exception of
Sections 24-3-80 and 24-4-70, of the 2009-XX Code Changes and that these be forwarded to the Board of
County Commissioners along with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval, seconded by
Nick Berryman.
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; Mark Lawley, absent; Roy Spitzer, absent;
Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss.
Brad Mueller, Planning Services, updated the Planning Commission on the East Greeley Study that staff has
been working on. About one and a half years ago an opportunity was presented for a Department of Local
Affairs grant that was awarded to Greeley and Weld County jointly to study this area of Greeley which is from
Highway 85 to the confluence of the two rivers. This is an area which has experienced a significant amount of
growth in the last five years. He also pointed out that there is an approved highway plan for an alignment of
County Road 49.
Mr. Mueller gave key highlights, but emphasized that there was much more information. This study has
resulted in a 75% reduction in the stormwater fees for the unincorporated residents only in this area. This
study also identified the need for sidewalks to the Bella Romero Elementary. There is also a potential
Intergovernmental Agreement between the city and the county in regard to our referral process. Staff
anticipates bringing some of the 60+ recommendations of the study to the Planning commission and Board of
County Commissioners over time in the next several years, for possible follow-up.
Robert Grand mentioned that he sent a letter out to the Planning Commission as well as County
Commissioner Rademacher raising a question on the compliance process. He expressed concern that when
he joined the Planning Commission he was told that 95% of compliance issues are specifically reported
through complaints which leaves 5% generated by staff; however his last discussion with Tom Honn, Planning
14
Director, was that there was 30% of staff generated compliance issues. In the letter he had asked if there was
a fundamental change and he had received no response. Mr. Grand's opinion is that complaints generated by
citizens should be investigated but violations should not be initiated by staff.
Another large concern he voiced is the current USR fee structure. He added that there is a flat fee and for
some folks it is an economic burden as it doesn't matter if you are applying for a 5 dog kennel or a public
utility. He is concerned that in today's economic environment is a truly horrific burden for those who are losing
their jobs or potentially losing their homes. He would like to ask staff to do some research on what our
neighbors do in terms of USR fees. Ms. Carter commented that the Board of County Commissioners are
looking into the fee schedules for all departments. Mr. Grand said that his concern is for the person who has a
violation initiated by staff and doesn't have the money to go through that process and as a result is now faced
with losing their business. It is very unreasonable for the County to ignore that issue and not have some kind
of mitigation process for hardship.
Bill Hall agreed with Mr. Grand's comments and added that enforcement should be complaint generated. If
staff is initiating the violation then there is an animosity between staff and the general public. He doesn't
believe that it is the job of government.
Mr. Grand stated that he has written the letter and expects a response. He further asked for the support of the
Planning Commission with regard to this issue. Erich Ehrlich mentioned that he forwarded Mr. Grand's letter
to Commissioners Conway and Long and also talked in person to Conway with regard to this matter. Mr.
Holton agreed that staff needs to look into the fee structure for USRs. Mr. Mueller said that he is committed to
taking this concern to Commissioner Rademacher and express the interest that staff perform research on the
fees of neighboring counties.
Mr. Mueller reminded the Planning Commissioners of the 11:00 a.m. meeting time on August 4, 2009 for a
retreat on uranium. He added that the Board of County Commissioners will be part of that training session as
well as staff.
Meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
1
Y'lALA t' - f i;,.Y,.t'fr-1
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
15
Hello