HomeMy WebLinkAbout20092737.tiffSUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
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
Nick Berryman
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Roy Spitzer
Alexander Zauder
Jason Maxey
Also Present: Kim Ogle, Chris Gathman, Brad Mueller, Department of Planning Services; Don Carroll, Janet
Carter, Department of Public Works; Lauren Light, Troy Swain, Department of Health; Cyndy Giauque, Bruce
Barker, County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Robert Grand moved to approve the September 1, 2009 Weld County Planning Commission minutes,
seconded by Erich Ehrlich. Motion carried.
The Chair read the first case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1694
APPLICANT: Keith Thoene
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
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, Ti 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.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, commented that the applicant, Mr. Thoene, has applied for a USR that
requires a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) for his residence which is presently under construction. Given
that we do not have either a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) or CO for this project staff is
asking for a continuance until the December 1, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
The Chair read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1657
APPLICANT: Lafarge West, Inc
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for Mineral
Resource Development Facility, including Open Pit Gravel Mining and Materials
Processing, in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: E2 SE4 Section 25; NE4 Section 36, T6N, R67W; and W2 SW4 Section 30; NW4
Section 31, T6N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 64.5 and East and West of, and adjacent to CR 25.
1
('d r)4%l ,i,(tt::.,,:, 10 19- -)ccJ)
2009-2737
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, commented that Lafarge West, Inc. has asked for a continuance until November
3, 2009 so that they can address concerns from the Department of Public Works. Staff is asking for a
continuance of one month with anticipation that we may ask for another continuance until February of 2010.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
The Chair read the following case into record.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOCATION:
USR-1705
Land Airport LLC (Lloyd Land)
Chris Gathman
A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for an
extension or expansion of a non -conforming use (private airstrip/airport) in the A
(Agricultural) Zone District.
Parcel 1-5, located in the E2 of Section 31, T2N, R64W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
South of and adjacent to CR 16 and west of and adjacent to CR 51.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, commented that staff is requesting a continuance of this case to address
legal notification requirements. He stated that he has talked to the applicant regarding the continuance and is
requesting a continuance to the November 3, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.
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 December 1, 2009 Planning Commission
meeting and Cases USR-1657 and USR-1705 be continued to the November 3, 2009 Planning Commission
meeting, seconded by Roy Spitzer. Motion carried.
The Chair read the first case on the consent agenda.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1707
APPLICANT: Joel Mendez
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Home
Business (parking of two semi -trucks and trailers) in the Agricultural Zone
Districts.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE -2176 being part of the W2 SW4 in Section 25, Ti N, R65W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 31 and approximately Y mile north of CR 18.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, stated that staff is in favor of this case remaining on the consent
agenda.
The Chair asked if the applicant was available and if they wish for this case to remain on the consent
agenda. The applicant indicated that they wish for this item to remain on consent.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-861
APPLICANT: Petro -Canada Resources (USA) Inc.
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Amended Use by Special Review Permit
for a Mineral Resource Development Facility including Oil and Gas Support
Services (upgrade of Lilli Plant) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: W2NE4NW4/SW4NW4/W2SW4/NW4NW4 of Section 4, T8N, R58W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
2
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 96 and approximately 1 % miles west of CR 127.5.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, stated that the applicant requested that this case remain on the consent
agenda.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1712
APPLICANT: Petro -Canada Resources (USA) Inc.
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a
Mineral Resource Development Facility including Oil and Gas Support and
Services (equipment storage) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NW4NE4/E2NE4/SE4 of Section 5, T8N, R58W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 96 and approximately 1 3/4 miles west of CR 127.5.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, stated that the applicant requested that this case remain on the consent
agenda.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1711
APPLICANT: Tri-State Generation & Transmission Association, Inc
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Major
Facility of a Public Utility (a double -circuit 230-KV Transmission Line extending
.55 miles) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NE4 and NE4SE4 of Section 27, Ti N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
LOCATION: Approximately 1/4 mile North of CR 4 and approximately 1 mile (5,000 feet) East
of CR 31.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, stated that staff would like for this case to remain on the consent
agenda.
The Chair asked if the applicant is available and if they wish for this item to remain on the consent
agenda. The applicant replied 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.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1710
APPLICANT: Tanner & Sarah Hill
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a
Kennel (up to 39 dogs of a non-specific breed to include doggie daycare and
boarding) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A RE -1593 located in Part of the SW4 of Section 5, Ti N, R68W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: Approximately 3/4 miles south of State Hwy 52 and east of and adjacent to CR
3.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, stated that the applicant, Tanner Hill, wishes for this case to remain on the
consent agenda.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
3
Roy Spitzer moved that Cases USR-1707, AmUSR-861, USR-1712, USR-1711, and USR-1710, be forwarded
to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards
with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval, seconded by Erich Ehrlich. Motion carried
unanimously.
The Chair read the following case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1709
APPLICANT: Suncor Energy Inc
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for an
Oil and Gas Support Facility (Crude Oil Truck Unloading Facility) in the A
(Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of AmRE-2918 being Part of the NW4 of Section 20, T2N, R66W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 20 and East of State Hwy 85.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, stated that previously to working with Weld County she worked at Tetra
Tech and had worked on the Suncor project. She said that she has no ties to that project now. The Chair
asked the applicant if they have any concerns with Ms. Light reviewing this case. The applicant indicated that
they had no concerns.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, stated that the injection well facility will encompass approximately 6 acres
of the 37.3 acre property it is located on and will be located at the eastern end of the site adjacent to existing
oil and gas tank batteries.
The site is located to the east of three existing commercial/industrial/oil and gas use by special review permits.
SUP -359 (pump station facility) is located approximately 1,000 feet to the west of the site, USR-1459 (vehicle
sales and detailing) and USR-1227 (manufacturing facility) along with the Union Pacific Railroad are located
approximately 1,500 to 1,800 feet to the west of the site. An existing single-family residence is located
approximately 900 -feet to the west of the proposed site (across County Road 20). The proposed main access
to the facility will be located approximately 850 feet from the access to this single-family residence. Agricultural
land is located immediately to the north, south and east of the site. No phone calls or letters have been
received from surrounding property owners. However, there was a property owner who came in earlier today
with questions of hauling and asked if there would be any trucks that would be coming from the east on
County Road 20 versus coming from the west from Highway 85.
Fourteen Referrals were sent out and six referrals and comments were received in regards to this case.
Referral responses were not received from:
State of Colorado, Oil & Gas Conservation Commission
Weld County Code Compliance
Weld County Sheriffs Office
State of Colorado, Division of Wildlife
Weld County Ambulance Services
Platte Valley Fire Protection District
Union Pacific Railroad
Platteville Ditch
There are several Conditions of Approval and Development Standards attached to the staff report attempting
to address and mitigate concerns:
• A screening plan will need to be submitted and approved by the Department of Planning Services
prior to recording the plat.
4
• The applicant will also be required to submit a lighting plan to be reviewed and approved by the
Department of Planning Services. The lighting plan will need to meet the following requirements of the
Weld County Code:
"Sources of light, including light from high -temperature processes such as combustion or welding,
shall be shielded so that light rays will not shine directly onto adjacent properties where such would
cause a nuisance or interfere with the use on the adjacent properties; and
Neither direct nor reflected light from any light source may create a traffic hazard to operators of
motor vehicles on public or private streets and no colored lights may be used which may be confused
with or construed as traffic control devices."
• The application indicates that the facility will be operated 24 hours a day based on the nature of the
facility (oil drilling operations occur daytime and night-time). However, the site is located at the eastern
end of the property. The proposed main access to the facility will be located approximately 850 feet
from the access which assist in preventing nighttime traffic lights from shining directly into the
property.
• There are also number of road improvement requirements from Public Works to address the dust and
traffic impacts on County Roads associated with this operation.
The Department of Planning Services feels that the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval will
adequately mitigate any impacts associated with this use and recommends approval.
Commissioner Holton asked if the applicant is aware of the proposed amendments to the staff report. Mr.
Gathman replied yes and added that the applicant will be addressing those in their presentation.
Mr. Gathman stated that staff is proposing the following two revisions to the staff recommendation:
Condition 1.C.4: Add note: "U.S. Highway 85 Access Control Plan WCR 20 (MP 245.19): An existing
public road access is on the east side of U.S. 85. This access currently functions as a full movement,
unsignalized intersection. Left turn/right turn improved acceleration/deceleration lanes (medium
priority) are required. Verify with CDOT." (Department of Public Works)
Condition 1.F: Add this sentence to the end of condition 1.F (in bold): In the event the applicant
proposes to share the existing well on the adjacent property, the applicant shall submit a document
providing for shared well operation and maintenance by both parcels of land. The declaration shall be
recorded and the recordation number indicated on the plat. A joint access easement agreement for
the shared well shall be indicated on the plat. The applicant shall also provide an agreement with
the Platteville Ditch authorizing the waterline for the shared well to pass under the ditch.
Mr. Gathman stated that the applicants indicated that there is an existing commercial well adjacent to this
property which is also owned by Suncor. If they do share the well, the applicant needs to provide an
agreement that authorizes that water line to pass underneath the ditch so it can get over to where the facility
would be located.
Mr. Gathman added that he attached a copy of the referral letter from the Division of Water Resources
regarding their well proposal and the applicant has also provided a letter outlining what their proposed water
source is. They also provided information from the Division of Water Resources website detailing the type of
well that is currently on the adjacent Suncor oil storage facility.
Mr. Gathman commented that the applicant has responded to the City of Ft. Lupton in regard to paying
attention to screening and buffering from Highway 85. The applicant is stating that they are 1/2 mile from
Highway 85 and there are existing uses between the new facility and the highway and they don't feel the
additional screening or buffering would be necessary for this facility from Highway 85 given the nature of what
is out there already.
5
Commissioner Ehrlich asked how this works with Development Standard 24. Mr. Gathman said that staff is
still recommending that they have a screening plan. He added that there is a residence that is to the east of
all of the existing facilities and also residences further east of the site and they will be in proximity to this
facility. Given that it is a 24 hour facility there will be trucks running conceivably 24 hours a day and believes
that it is advisable to have a screening plan submitted for this facility.
Commissioner Ehrlich said that there was no referral from the ditch company and asked if the ditch company
will be made aware of the water line passing under the ditch. Mr. Gathman said the applicant would provide
evidence that they have the authorization from the ditch company.
Don Carroll, Public Works, commented that County Road 20 is a local gravel road with 60 feet of right -of- way.
The traffic counts taken are at 171 ADT. He added that Tetra Tech took their own count at 137 ADT. The
average speed is 41 mph which is under the posted 55 mph. Mr. Carroll said that currently there is 11 percent
of truck traffic out there.
Mr. Carroll said that it is a T -intersection coming into Highway 85. He has contacted CDOT and when it was
first introduced last year CDOT was doing improvements on Highway 85 in that particular area and they did
extend and improve the turn lanes.
Public Works is requesting the applicant to enter into an Improvements Agreement to upgrade and pave
County Road 20 from the entrance out to Highway 85 due to the heavy hauling and amount of trucks at full
build -out. He added that there will be a Maintenance Agreement where the applicant is responsible for what is
determined as their haul route. In addition, staff is asking for a stop sign coming off of the facility and that no
staging or parking of commercial vehicles is allowed on county roads. .
Commissioner Berryman asked for the projected number of vehicles to this site. Janet Carter, Public Works,
said that the applicant is proposing approximately 200 trips per day at full build -out. Mr. Berryman asked if this
number necessitated the accel/decel lane. Ms. Carter said it is based on the trip distribution that is proposed
within the traffic study. She added that under that criteria when you have more than 25 vehicles per hour
turning in a peak hour making a right hand turn into the site that triggers a right deceleration lane and the
same goes for a left hand lane. Ms. Carter added that internally, Public Works has been discussing this issue
because the applicant had presented to them that they really are not going to be at full build -out right.
Commissioner Berryman asked how often it is measured. Ms. Carter said that they would take traffic counts
at each roadway and watch the maintenance of the roadway. If it looks like it is starting to hit a lot of traffic out
there they would count the applicant's driveway and see what the volumes were. She stated that this could all
be worked out between the applicant and Public Works staff to determine when those triggers would be
developed.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, commented that water will be provided from an existing well at the
adjacent Suncor site or they can drill a well on their own site. The question raised with the adjacent site is that
staff has documentation that it is a domestic/commercial well; however they would need evidence that it could
be shared by both sites and then they would have to do a shared well agreement. The office building will not
be constructed for a few years and then they run into the issue of sanitation for people. Portable toilets are
allowed on a temporary or seasonal use and since this is a full time business they do not support the use of
portable toilets. If they do use the adjacent Suncor facility to the west they would have to have the septic
system reviewed by an engineer to see if it could handle the additional flow.
Ms. Light commented that the applicant indicated that there will not be any above or below ground storage
tanks; therefore Condition of Approval 1.H and Development Standard 8 could be deleted.
Ms. Light said that an air emissions permit is required from the State; however the applicant would like to
change that from "prior to recording the plat" to "prior to operation" and staff is satisfied with that.
Julie Cozad, Tetra Tech, 1900 South Sunset St, Ste 1-F, Longmont, CO. Ms. Cozad commented that Suncor
is a significant contributor to the Colorado economy and added that they produce oil, natural gas and clean
wind generated electricity and products for consumers for fuel, vehicles, home heating and power for schools,
6
hospitals and businesses. They are very environmentally responsible and deliver high -quality, competitively
priced and safe products.
Some assets in Colorado include the Commerce City refinery, crude oil pipeline systems, and 43 Denver area
retail stations known as Phillips 66. The refinery produces about 90,000 barrels per day and is located 6 miles
northeast of downtown Denver. They supply 35% of Colorado's gasoline and diesel fuel. They are a major
supplier of jet fuel to DIA. They also supply diesel to the Union Pacific Railroad and the refinery is the largest
supplier of paving grade asphalt in Colorado.
Ms. Cozad clarified that the location of the facility is % mile east of Highway 85. The area is a very rural
location and the majority of the uses surrounding the site are pasture and agricultural. There are a few
residences within the area with the closest one being approximately 900 feet to the west. Currently, it appears
that that residence is not occupied and is for sale. The property itself is zoned agricultural.
This is a truck unloading facility. The site is 12.3 acres. The entrance into the facility is from County Road 20.
They have modified the entrance to be a 45 foot turn radius to accommodate trucks turning in as well as
turning out.
Ms. Cozad stated that they have added a private road access and moved the gate location back so there is no
staging or parking on the county road.
There is a 3 by 4 foot sign at the entrance which provides contact information. The details of the sign are
shown on the USR plat. They are showing a detention pond area and will submit a Final Drainage Report.
At full build out they anticipate 10 bays. Ms. Cozad mentioned that all this is built on market conditions.
Initially they are planning to build the canopy with 4 bays, 12 inch pipeline, detention pond, security fencing and
gates, site grading, and lighting where necessary. They are not expecting to have any on -site personnel until
the office is built. The initial volume is expected to be about 10,000 barrels per day which would turn out to be
30 to 40 trucks per day.
At full build -out the remaining unloading bays would be constructed and they may either be phased or built all
at once, it depends on the market conditions. Future volumes are anticipated to be 25,000 to 32,000 barrels
per day and anticipating 15 employees. Other structures would be a 3500 square foot office, 1500 square foot
grind out shack, septic system for the office, either connecting to the existing well or drilling a new well.
Ms. Cozad mentioned that an engineer at Tetra Tech did a groundwater analysis at the site and did determine
that there is adequate water for a well if they chose to drill one. Right now they are leaning towards drilling a
well for the office but there is an existing well and if it works out they would like to have the opportunity to use
that.
The project does meet the Comprehensive Plan. The project is in compliance and will comply with the
Chapter 23 of the county code.
Ms. Cozad stated that they responded back to the Division of Water Resources addressing their concerns with
a copy of the well permit approved for commercial/domestic use. They also sent them a letter of the
groundwater monitoring report that they did.
There have been several meetings and conversations with the Colorado Department of Transportation
(CDOT). She clarified that the improvements on Highway 85 were not made by CDOT but rather by Suncor.
CDOT had sent a referral in the original application about 2 % years ago. The referral came back that there
was going to be some turn lanes required on Highway 85 and in good faith Suncor made those improvements
prior to coming before the Planning Commission. Subsequently the previous USR was withdrawn as it was
bigger and it did have storage. It was scaled down mainly due to market conditions.
A letter was submitted to the Building Department today. There was a letter sent to Public Works yesterday.
They have had several discussions with Environmental Health and they are in agreement with the conditions
made. An email was sent to the City of Ft. Lupton because they are located within three miles. Subsequent
7
correspondence indicates that Ft. Lupton has no concerns.
Ms. Cozad stated that they would like to have some discussion in regard to screening and landscaping for this
facility. Suncor is requesting that this condition (1.C.2, 1.K, and Development Standard 24) be removed. The
main reason why they are requesting that this condition be removed is because of the proximity to the closest
residence and because of the rural nature of the facility and the area. Also, there are some safety concerns
about having any type of live landscaping out there because of the type of facility that it is. There could be
some fire danger to that and if you screen anything then you can also have some safety concerns as well.
Commissioner Holton asked if this facility will be fenced. Ms. Cozad replied yes. Mr. Holton asked if it will be
an opaque fence. Ms. Cozad indicated that they were not planning on it because there are some safety
concerns of visually screening the facility since initially it will be an unmanned facility. Mr. Gathman
commented that he understands the safety concerns and added that they were looking at the aesthetics of it
rather than safety.
The Chair asked for staff's recommendation. Mr. Gathman said that given the location he is concerned with
the residence across the street. Although it may not be inhabited right now it is not very far from the facility
and it is a 24 hour facility running up to 200 trucks at full build out. There will also be headlights moving
around the site and staff feels like they would like to have this addressed. Mr. Holton asked if staff will take
the security and safety issues into consideration when reviewing the screening plan. Mr. Gathman replied that
they would.
Condition 1.C.4. is one of the conditions which staff would like to add. Suncor is requesting that it be removed
mainly because they have documentation from COOT in an email sent to Mr. Gathman on September 29,
2009 that verifies that all the improvements on Highway 85 have been completed and that they do not require
anything additional from Suncor.
Mr. Carroll commented that he was directed by the County Commissioners that any type of corridor plan or
anything to do with State Highways be placed on the plat. Ms. Cozad commented that they would not have
any problem with reference to the corridor plan as a note on the plat but believes that someone may interpret
that additional requirements be made by Suncor when they have already made the requirements that were
asked.
Roy Spitzer moved to add a new 1.C.4 according to staff recommendations and renumber, seconded by Nick
Berryman. Motion carried.
Condition of approval 1.C.5 and 1.L are the lighting conditions. The applicants don't have a problem with
doing a lighting plan; however they are suggesting that prior to recording the plat they show locations on the
plat and do a more detailed lighting plan at the time of building permit. The lighting will be designed as a part
of the office building, grind out shack and canopy and requested to move the requirement of the lighting plan
prior to building permits (5.E).
Mr. Gathman commented that the lighting plan under condition 1.L could be moved to 5.E. He added that
there is already language included that any lighting prior to them pulling a building permit shall be downcast
and stay on site.
Mark Lawley made a motion to move Condition of Approval 1.L to 5.E, seconded by Erich Ehrlich. Motion
carried.
Mr. Gathman suggested to change condition 1.C.5 to "Indicate pole light location". Ms. Cozad agreed and
reiterated "Show lighting locations".
Roy Spitzer moved to amend Condition of Approval 1.C.5 to "Show lighting locations", seconded by Robert
Grand. Motion carried.
Condition 1.D is the air pollution emissions notice. The applicant is suggesting that this be moved to "prior to
operation" rather than "prior to recording the plat". Ms. Light indicated that staff had no concerns.
8
Bill Hall made a motion to move Condition 1.D to 6.B as suggested, seconded by Robert Grand. Motion
carried.
Ms. Cozad said that with regard to Condition 1.G initially when the facility opens with the four bays the only
people going out to the site will be the truck drivers. So they will drive in, unload and leave. They are
requesting to allow for the temporary use of some portable toilets until the office is constructed.
Commissioner Grand asked how long they anticipate that to be. Ms. Cozad indicated that it depends on the
market and added that it could be 6 months up to 2 years. She added that the portable toilets would be
maintained and used very infrequently.
Ms. Light stated that it is the policy of the Health Department that 6 months or less is when they allow the use
of the portable toilets.
Ms. Cozad commented that a compromise could be made to waive the temporary use of 6 months and put a
timeframe on it and revisit it then. Commission Hall felt that it was a fair compromise to give them 6 months
and revisit the issue at that time. Commissioner Grand agreed to give a compromise.
Bill Hall moved to allow a temporary facility for the first 6 months to be reviewed at that time with a possible
extension of another 12 months, seconded by Robert Grand.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, no; Erich Ehrlich, no; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, yes; Alexander Zauder, yes; Jason Maxey, yes;
Roy Spitzer, no; Mark Lawley, no; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried.
Condition 1.H referred to a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan for tanks and since there are
no tanks on the site the applicant is requesting that this be removed. She added that she believes staff has no
concerns.
Roy Spitzer moved to delete Condition of Approval 1.H, seconded by Bill Hall, Motion carried.
Condition 1.1 is in regard to the Public Works referral. Ms. Cozad indicated that they would like to have some
discussion on these requirements. There was a pre -application meeting with Weld County which included
Don Carroll of Public Works and they were told in October 2008 that they needed to provide a Traffic Study.
Mr. Carroll recommended that another meeting be scheduled for additional Public Works staff to attend. A
meeting was scheduled on November 6, 2008 and various Public Works staff attended and they went through
a lot of the requirements for the application. There was a lot of discussion about County Road 20. At that time
they were told dust abatement is what would be required on County Road 20 and that they needed to submit a
Dust Abatement Plan with their application and therefore that is what they did. They also discussed a trigger
mechanism in the Improvements Agreement and at that time they were told 500 trips per day would trigger
paving in that area and that a proportionate share for paving would be negotiated during the Improvements
Agreement process.
They received comments from Public Works on August 13'" and were very surprised to see that now they
were being required to pave County Road 20 as well as the portions of the facility itself. A meeting was
scheduled on August 24th with Public Works to discuss these comments with them. After a lengthy discussion
staff asked them to put together a memo with the information because some of the people that were at that
meeting were new and were not a part of the previous discussion. The applicants provided supporting
documentation and a memo two days later to Public Works and staff said that they would take it to a staff
meeting. A staff meeting was then held on August 27'" and at that time Public Works staff did determine that
their comments still stood.
At this time, the applicants respectfully disagree with their determination of paving requirements on County
Road 20. They disagree that the improvements are required and are appropriate. Ms. Cozad read into the
record their response comments for their decision of why they feel this is not a necessary situation for this
facility. "Construction of the initial phases of the project will only generate 30 to 40 additional trips per day,
which when added to current background traffic provided by Weld County it is still well below the level of 200
9
trips per day at which dust mitigation requirements should be considered in accordance with Weld County's
Gravel Road Fugitive Dust Emissions Policy and Procedure in the Weld County Code Section 8-6-100.B. In
addition, if traffic associated with future phases of Suncor's project cause the 200 trips per day level to be
exceeded, Weld County's policy allows for dust mitigation techniques other than paving including surface
treatment, watering and speed limit reductions. As a result, Suncor objects to this condition. Requiring
Suncor to pave and widen County Road 20 from Highway 85 to the entrance to the facility does not have a
rational nexus to the impacts associated with the traffic that will be generated by the project and places an
undue burden on Suncor's development that provides a general benefit to the County and other property
owners in the area. Although Suncor will accept a condition that requires the implementation of reasonable
dust control measures to address the impacts associated with increased traffic to the proposed facility, it
objects to the requirement for paving County Road 20 including the onsite paving that would be associated
with such improvements."
Commission Holton commented that it states "construction drawings" and then enter into an Improvements
Agreement. He asked for clarification. Ms. Cozad believed that the condition also said that they need to
address Public Works' comments which are very specific about paving.
Janet Carter, Public Works, commented that there has been a similar use on County Road 18.5 which is also
a Suncor facility. From that facility, similar to what is being proposed on County Road 20, staff has found that
18.5 was wrapped and found that due to the large trucks being used at that facility it basically forced Weld
County to pave that. As she understands with the facility that is being proposed on County Road 20, right now
they are proposing 4 bays which is 30 to 40 trips per day. Staff did look into potentially doing an
unconventional type paving, such as something like a wrap; however after having discussions with their
operations group it was their determination that it would not be beneficial to the taxpayers of Weld County to
eventually have to deal with the maintenance issues that would have to go on with that road. They did
determine that perhaps they could work with the applicant on accel/decel lanes and work with that triggering to
help lessen the initial cost. As Ms. Cozad mentioned in six months they could upgrade their facility and add
bays so there is no real direct timeline as to when they would increase traffic on that roadway and that is
something we have to look to make sure that we are not burdening the other travelers.
Ms. Carter commented that in the original meeting the applicants were told 500 trips which was correct for the
time; however since that year has passed they have found that that number is actually more like 300 trips per
day on the roadway.
Commissioner Grand referred to the comment of the similar use on County Road 18.5 and asked how many
traffic numbers are there. Ms. Carter said that the traffic count is 92 ADT taken in 2008 and is currently a
paved section.
Commissioner Grand said if we are experiencing that kind of deterioration it would be foolish for them to not
ensure that we provide a road that can take the loads.
Ms. Cozad continued to condition of approval 3 in which the applicant is requesting to change the 60 day
requirement to record a plat to 120 days. Mr. Gathman stated that staff is in support of the request.
Roy Spitzer moved to amend Condition of Approval 3 from 60 days to 120 days, seconded by Robert Grand.
Motion carried.
Mark Lawley moved to delete Development Standard 8, seconded by Roy Spitzer. Motion carried.
Ms. Cozad would like to suggest some language to Development Standards 21 through 23. They are
suggesting that at end of each of those sentences "in accordance with the approved Improvements
Agreement" be added.
Robert Grand moved to amend Condition of Approval 1.F as recommended by staff, seconded by Roy Spitzer.
Motion carried.
Mr. Carroll, Public Works, stated that staff is comfortable with the addition language for Development
10
Standards 21 through 23.
Robert Grand moved to amend Development Standards 21 through 23 as suggested, seconded by Bill Hall.
Motion carried.
Ms. Cozad reminded the Planning Commission of the economics of the oil and gas industry. She thanked the
Planning Commission for the opportunity to present the project and requested approval of USR-1709. In
addition she thanked staff for the time and work and appreciated the meetings and interaction they have had.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Chris Nesmith, 13803 CR 20, stated that it appears that there has been a lot of work put into this. His concern
is the truck traffic coming from the east. He asked how it is determined how many trucks trigger the next
stage of abatement or paving. Ms. Carter said that what the applicant has proposed is the majority of the
traffic will be coming from the west. The amount of truck traffic coming from the east should be able to be
handled under their general maintenance that they do perform on County Road 20. That is one of the reasons
why they pushed the paving on County Road 20 to handle that impact.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
Ms. Cozad said that eventually when the County Road 20 facility is approved and constructed the County
Road 18.5 facility is planned to be closed. Therefore the trucks currently going there now would go to County
Road 20; however those numbers are accounted for in the Traffic Study.
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. Ms. Cozad referred to their legal counsel. Jamie Jost,
Corporate Legal Counsel for Suncor, stated that Suncor can say they are in agreement with the conditions that
they did not object to but at this point they cannot say that they are in full agreement with the conditions
regarding the paving and screening.
The Chair recommended holding meetings with staff regarding those items to work them out prior to the
County Commissioner hearing. Cyndy Giauque, County Attorney, advised that although the applicants may
not agree and the conditions remain that they would comply with the conditions and development standards
set forth. Ms. Cozad commented that if those conditions remain when they make their presentation to the
County Commissioners they will need to decide if they wish to proceed.
Ms. Giauque said that if the Planning Commission were to approve this case it would be on the assurance that
the applicant would comply with the conditions whether or not they agree with it.
The Chair called a recess at 3:21 p.m.
The Chair called the meeting back to order at 3:31 p.m.
The Chair again asked the applicant if they have read through the amended Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. Ms. Cozad said as stated by their legal
counsel there are some conditions that they would still like to work through with staff and go onto the County
Commissioners and have a discussion with them. She added that if this application is approved they will
follow the rules and regulations of the county code. She believes that they can work through the conditions as
they proceed with this project.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1709 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 Nick Berryman.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes with comment; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, yes; Alexander Zauder, yes;
Jason Maxey, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
11
Commissioner Ehlrich reminded the applicant of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan as indicated in
testimony today and referenced Sections 22-5-90.A, 22-5-90.B and 22-5-90.D recognizing oil and gas
development in the County as an integral part of the County economy and has a substantial direct and indirect
impact on current and future land use. Also, the County recognizes the substantial economic contribution of
oil and gas production in Northern Colorado.
(Erich Ehrlich left the meeting)
(Bruce Barker entered the meeting)
The Chair read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1708
APPLICANT: Lone Star LLC
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for Oil and
Gas Support Facility (Class II - Oilfield Waste Disposal Facility) in the A
(Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the N2 N2 NW4 of Section 18, T3N, R64W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 34 and East of and adjacent to CR 49.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, commented that the injection well facility will encompass approximately 6
acres of the 37.3 acre property it is located on and will be located at the eastern end of the site adjacent to
existing oil and gas tank batteries.
The facility is located immediately west of the Horton Feedlot (USR-1152 for up to 5,000 head of cattle
approved in 1999). The nearest residence is located approximately 825 feet to the west of the site on the north
of County Road 34. There are approximately seven residences along County Road 49 located approximately
2,300 feet to 3,300 feet from the site. Oil and gas improvements (tanks batteries) are located immediately to
the north of the proposed facility. Vacant land, with oil and gas improvements, are located immediately to the
north and south of this site. The applicant is proposing to place the facility in a location that is lower in
elevation than the adjacent battery tanks located immediately to the north. Attached Conditions of Approval
and Development Standards (screening plan, lighting plan) will help to ensure that the proposed use is
compatible with the surrounding area.
Ten referrals were sent out. Four (4) Referrals were received and either indicated no concerns or are
addressed through development standards and conditions of approval. No referral response was received
from Weld County Sheriff's Department, Platte Valley Fire Protection District, Colorado Division of Wildlife,
Colorado Oil and Gas Commission, and Weld County Ambulance Services.
Fifteen (15) letters and e -mails from surrounding property owners have been received. A summary of
concerns mentioned in this correspondence were:
• Traffic concerns (increasing traffic at an already busy, dangerous intersection, traffic noise, traffic
safety, hauling hours).
• Adverse impacts from the injection well operation (noise, dust, lighting, potential for contamination
of water wells in the area, potential for disruption for cell phone service during operations)
• Applicant is from out of state and has never operated an injection well facility.
• Incompatible with the surrounding agricultural area. This area already has a lot of impacts (with
Horton Feedlot) — this facility will only add to these impacts.
• Height and location of tanks disrupt the visual environment.
• There are already several injection well facilities in the vicinity of this site.
Some proposed mitigation proposed in surrounding property owner letters consisted of:
• Limit hauling to daytime hours (7 to 7)
12
• Place a berm around the facility.
• Screen site with trees and shrubbery (one variation would be to have the applicant provide well
started trees to neighbors within site of the operation so that the neighboring property owners
could grow the trees on their property — to provide screening.
• Dim lights of the facility during nighttime hours
• Place tanks on a less visually prominent location of the property.
• Prohibit use of jake brakes.
• Place a "bird cage" over the injection site (while injection is occurring) to reduce noise.
Due to the concerns expressed by the neighboring property owners. The Department of Planning Services
recommended that the applicant hold a community meeting with the neighboring property owners (or at a
minimum meet with neighboring property owners individually) in regards to this case.
The Department of Planning Services is recommending the following Conditions of Approval/Development
Standards to address or mitigate concerns:
• A screening plan will need to be submitted and approved by the Department of Planning Services
prior to recording the plat.
• Consistent with other injection well facilities recently approved in the county — A development
standard requiring: "Hauling hours shall be limited to 7:00AM until 7:00PM daily." Has been added.
• The applicant will also be required to submit a lighting plan to be reviewed and approved by the
Department of Planning Services. The lighting plan will need to meet the following requirements of the
Weld County Code:
"Sources of light, including light from high -temperature processes such as combustion or welding,
shall be shielded so that light rays will not shine directly onto adjacent properties where such would
cause a nuisance or interfere with the use on the adjacent properties; and
Neither direct nor reflected light from any light source may create a traffic hazard to operators of
motor vehicles on public or private streets and no colored lights may be used which may be confused
with or construed as traffic control devices."
It should also be noted that the site plan indicates that the facility will be located at the eastern end of the
property (furthest away from the majority of the residential properties in the area). The applicant is also
proposing to place the tanks in an area to the south of the proposed office building for the facility that will have
a ground level approximately 10 feet lower than the existing oil tank and pump site immediately to the north of
the proposed injection well site.
• The Department of Public Works has also proposed road improvements/mitigation to address
safety/road impacts associated with this proposed operation.
The Department of Planning Services feels that the development standards and conditions of approval will
adequately mitigate any impacts associated with this use and recommends approval.
Commissioner Maxey asked how the houses on the feed lot property play into this. Mr. Gathman indicated
that the houses are to the east and would be closer to the site.
Don Carroll, Public Works, commented that County Road 34 is a paved local road. County Road 34 is paved
out to the intersection of County Road 51 and was done about 10 to 12 years ago with the feedlot. Traffic
counts from County Road 49 to 51 are 275 ADT and the next mile from County Road 51 to 53 is 150 ADT. He
indicated that that stretch of road is a magnesium chloride road which took care of the dust problem and gave
it more stabilization. Staff doesn't feel that particular section of road will hold up to this proposed type of use.
Mr. Carroll said that there is a lot of oil and gas activity in the area. County Road 49 is a strategic roadway and
13
carries about 4000 vehicles per day. The average speed is 70 miles per hour and it is posted 65 mph. Truck
counts on County Road 49 is 35% trucks. Staff is asking for an Improvements Agreement for upgrades to
accommodate the facility between County Roads 51 and 53. They are asking for that mile to be paved for
heavy truck use which will be going to this facility. They are asking for improvements to the intersection of
County Road 49 and 34 in the way of accel/decel lanes. He added that the applicant is proposing 120 round
trips per day.
Through the Improvements Agreement there is a maintenance clause which states that any damage caused
to the road would be the applicant's responsibility.
Janet Carter, Public Works, showed an illustrated slide for the location of all the oil and gas wells near the site.
This site is a disposal site in which they are fracking wells and there will be trucks coming in to dispose of
water. Ms. Carter indicated that a few of these sites are permitted but not actually performing yet.
Staff is expecting quite a bit of traffic for this site. The applicant is proposing that the majority of traffic would
be coming from Gutterson Ranch to the east. Staff has asked the applicant to pave the portion that is not
paved to Gutterson Ranch which is from their site to the east. Staff also requested that the applicant install
accel/decel lanes on County Road 49 at County Road 34. She added that this is consistent with a lot of
projects in the past. Because the applicant is proposing that the majority of traffic is coming from east staff
asked that they put in a deceleration lane into the facility.
Commissioner Berryman asked how much of the traffic is coming from County Road 49 rather than from the
east. Ms. Carter said that currently in the applicant's traffic study they are not proposing much traffic from
County Road 49. She added that they have been making some adjustments to their traffic study. Ms. Carter
said that when they received the traffic study the applicant was proposing 120 trips per day and the majority of
the traffic would be coming from the east at Gutterson Ranch.
Commissioner Grand asked if there is any program that the Sheriffs Department can encourage adherence to
the speed limit. Ms. Carter said that they are working with the Traffic Division of the Sheriff's Department to
patrol that area as well as working with the school district to move the school bus stop signs on County Road
49 to alternate routes such as the side county roads.
Troy Swain, Environmental Health, commented that they recommended approval with some suggested
conditions which have been incorporated into the staff report.
Jim Lee, Lone Star LLC, Andrews, Texas, commented that they are requesting approval for fabrication of a
salt water disposal facility. Since acquiring the property he has done extensive cleanup of the site. The site
was previously a cow/calf operation and had a tremendous amount of waste on it.
Mr. Lee stated that they used the grade of the site to place these tanks. These tanks are very large diameter
and low profile to accommodate unobtrusiveness. The injection pumps will be housed and insulated to
minimize noise. With this design they have utilized the grading of the site and dropped the tanks seven (7)
feet lower to try and limit visibility. The applicant is proposing to pave the entire entrance facility to eliminate
dust.
Mr. Lee said that the system will be a completely closed system. There will be emissions but they will be
controlled and monitored.
A lighting plan will be submitted to the Planning Department. Mr. Lee noted that this site is adjacent to an
existing oil and gas battery on the north and south side of County Road 34.
Dan Hull, Lamp, Rynearson and Associates, 808 8th St, Greeley, CO. Mr. Hall said that the applicant is using
low profile tanks and will be doing some grading to mitigate the impact. He added that they are doing
everything they can to minimize visual impact.
The construction, approval, permitting of the well is all controlled by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission (COGCC). The well is approximately 10,000 feet deep. The producing formation is above the
14
injection formation so the oil production formation is at about 7,000 to 8,000 feet. The aquifer which most of
the wells pump out of is approximately 400 feet in elevation. According to the COGCC requirements, the
applicant has to provide a level of protection for the groundwater.
Mr. Hull stated that there will be secondary containment around the tank farm as well as for the off-loading
area. There will also be well monitoring installed around the facility to determine if there has been any
contamination to the surrounding area.
Mr. Hull commented that they do not agree with portions of condition of approval 1.G., specifically paving
WCR 34 between WCR 51 and WCR 53, a westbound left turn deceleration land on WCR 34, a southbound
left turn deceleration lane on SCR 49 onto WCR 34, a right turn acceleration lane on WCR 49, and a right turn
deceleration lane on WCR 49. He requested that those conditions he listed be removed from the staff report.
Mr. Hull said that Mr. Lee had a pre -application meeting with Weld County in 2008. Public Works did provide
comments at that time requiring that an accel/decel lane be installed on County Road 49. He indicated that
they expected that requirement but feel it is important to have a traffic study to make sure it is warranted. On
August 13, 2008, after application submittal, they received comments from Public Works and to their surprise
the improvements have increased dramatically. What started as an accel/decel lane has increased to what he
listed earlier. The project cannot move forward with the magnitude of these improvements.
The accel/decel lane would be approximately $100,000 worth of improvements on the lower end. Upon further
research he found that it could cost up to $690,000 worth of improvements. The improvements to add a left
turn lane to the facility would be approximately $100,000 worth of improvements. Paving one mile of county
road would be approximately $500,000 worth of improvements. With all of these improvements the total
comes to $1.3 million in improvements. This facility is not viable at this amount of improvements.
Mr. Hull added that after receiving these comments they met with Public Works staff and had felt that they
were moving in a positive direction but with no resolution. An updated traffic study was submitted to Public
Works as well as a letter stating their concerns.
Mr. Hull indicated that whether or not this facility is built the same amount of traffic will be there. The facility is
not creating the traffic; the applicant is only trying to capture the traffic that is already there.
Mathew Kruse, Lamp, Rynearson Associates, stated that from a traffic engineering standpoint this is a unique
site at there are numerous wells in this county and they have no idea on the exact route that they are going to
take every day. Therefore they used their best engineering judgment and good faith effort to estimate a trip
distribution that they are comfortable with. Originally the first submittal was that 40 percent was coming from
the west and 60 percent coming from the east. They have since revised that to show that 2/3 of the traffic is
coming from the east and 1/3 is coming from the west.
Mr. Kruse clarified that the 120 trips per day previously stated is incorrect. The permit limits the amount of
truck traffic on a daily basis to 60 round trips so that is 60 entering and 60 exiting for a total of 120 trips but
that is not a 120 round trips.
Commissioner Grand noted some tragic traffic accidents on County Road 49. He added that there are some
sensitivity issues in this area and the county is way behind where it should be on its roads from a safety issue
for the residents of the county. Mr. Kruse said that they do not want to discount safety. He added that they
have switched the location of the access drive for safety issues and safety is a big concern of theirs as well.
Hours of operation are from 7 am to 7 pm. The trucks need to go to the well facilities, load up and come back,
therefore they will miss the am peak hour and when they return they will miss the pm peak hour.
Commissioner Grand asked Mr. Lee if he is feeling burdened with solving a problem that is not solely his. Mr.
Lee agreed with those comments.
The Chair called a recess at 4:49 p.m.
15
The Chair called the meeting back to order at 4:59 p.m.
Commissioner Maxey appreciated the work on the traffic studies and clarified if these figures are just best
guesses. Mr. Kruse said that they know the amount of trucks coming to the site on a daily basis which is 60
trips in and out. Based on the location of Gutterson Ranch, this is the best engineering judgment of predicting
where the trips are going to come from.
Mr. Maxey calculated that it is about 250 feet east of the crest of the hill on County Road 34. He asked if the
applicant still believes that there shouldn't be a left turn lane into the facility based on a site distance
standpoint. Mr. Kruse said that they have a diagram that they can provide which shows the existing profile of
County Road 34 and where the location of the access is and how far back you can see in each direction. He
added that it satisfies the standards for site distance.
Commissioner Berryman asked to hear more about what is being proposed for the landscape/screening plan.
Mr. Hull commented that right now the plan doesn't show any trees or screening. He said that they are doing
the low profile tanks and grading in a manner that would reduce the visual impact. As far as trees, they have
not shown them yet but it is something that they would work with planning staff on what would be required.
Commissioner Holton clarified if the applicant had originally planned on installing the accel/decel lanes on
County Road 49. Mr. Hull said that they didn't plan on it, but that it was the original comment. The applicant's
response to that was to do a traffic study to see if it is warranted. He added that the original traffic study did
not support it.
Ms. Carter said that when there is a pre -application meeting, it is at a very preliminary stage. They have not
visited the site and don't know very much of what is going on in the area. Therefore they don't know a lot of
the requirements that will take place on the development at that point. Until they actually receive the submittal
materials like the traffic study, drainage report, and site plan they don't know what they will actually have to
require to make sure that that site is up to county code and standards.
It was mentioned that it would be $100,000 for the accel/decel lanes. Ms. Carter stated that they have no way
to confirm a price for something like that and they would never throw out a money value for what an
improvement would cost.
Ms. Carter said that the actual traffic data that was presented today, she has not had a chance to review.
They met with the applicant a month ago and the applicant had proposed to refigure some of their traffic count
data at her request. She did not receive an updated traffic study until the September 29th and has not had
adequate time to review it. Commissioner Holton clarified if all of these requirements are based on the recent
traffic study. Ms. Carter said that they are based off of the preliminary traffic study which they submitted but
not the recent study. Ms. Carter added that there is one thing that would not change, warranted or not, is the
accel/decel lanes on County Road 49 due to the safety issues.
Ms. Carter pointed out that the am peak hour on County Road 34 is actually at 9:30 am and 2:15 pm for the
pm peak hour. She added that it could be due to scheduling at the feed lots or various traffic within Gutterson
Ranch.
Commissioner Holton commented that it appears that we are taking it at the worst case scenario. He added
that there should be a trigger which states that after so many trips then it becomes paved. Ms. Carter said
that we get to a certain point with development in general that it becomes a point where it is needed and now
it's become a safety hazard because we didn't foresee it in advance. We reach a trigger and we didn't see the
trigger far enough in advance to ask for that improvement. Mr. Holton understood but felt that the burden was
put on one applicant.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Ray Nelson, 15950 CR 47.5, LaSalle CO, stated that he submitted a letter on September 28, 2009. He
appreciated that the tanks were moved down off of the highest portion of the property; however he is still
curious as the last drawing he saw had 36 feet tall tanks.
16
There was a community meeting a week ago and lighting was an equal concern to traffic. He asked what
shielded lights are and how it can be mitigated.
Mr. Nelson asked that the hours of operation be set in concrete.
He recommended that rather than putting trees on the site that trees be given to the local landowners. He
thought that if they are given to those that want to hide this from their view they will make sure those trees live.
Mr. Nelson is curious who monitors the wells and any groundwater spills.
He expressed appreciation for all of the traffic studies and diagrams. He commented that one more truck on
that road is dangerous. We need to have accel/decel lanes. Trucks that size tear up a gravel road in no time
and he believes it needs to be paved.
Jim Johnson, 16015 CR 49, LaSalle CO, agreed with Mr. Nelson. The traffic is his biggest concern. He has
had people take his gate out three (3) times due to the sun coming down and blinding the traffic. With regard
to the accel/decel lanes, he asked how much land he is going to lose. Mr. Johnson said that when that
intersection is changed he will need to find a different way out.
Kathryn Bank, 16201 CR 49, concurred with all the traffic issues. She asked what happens if the permit limits
are exceeded for the 60 round trips per day and how it is enforced.
Lonnie Ford, 16299 CR 49, stated that he has lived out there for 25 years and seen a lot of change to County
Road 49. He appreciated the work that has been done to try and make things better such as dropping the
tank height to possibly move the tank batteries further back. He shares the concerns of his neighbors. He
said that there is no guarantee that this facility will get the traffic from the Gutterson Ranch and will therefore
need business from other locations. He said that there may be more traffic from the west than what is
anticipated.
Linda Ratzlaff, 24249 CR 34, stated that she appreciated that the applicant wants to be a good neighbor;
however his home is in Texas. She commented that most of the traffic will come from Gutterson Ranch;
however he admitted to her that he is a business man and that he would not turn down companies coming
from the other direction. She is worried about the traffic as well.
Ms. Ratzlaff asked if there would be any water testing and if so how often. If there are trees purchased they
will not be big enough in her lifetime. She would like to see bigger, more established trees to cover the site.
Charlene Fridge, 15417 CR 49, commented that they can see the tanks from the feedlot and they get a lot of
dust from the feedlot. She is concerned with the dust they may be getting from the trucks. She is very
concerned about the traffic and added that the deceleration lanes are a must. She agreed with all the
previous comments made from her neighbors.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
Mr. Lee said that the proposed tanks are 16 feet tall and will be 7 feet below the unloading station. The tallest
tank on facility will be 10 foot lower than those tanks on the hill. This style of tank has not been seen in Weld
County.
Mr. Hull clarified the hours of operation. Truck off-loading will be from 7 am to 7 pm but the facility will operate
24/7. During off-loading times they will pump into the ground. Noise should be under the requirement.
The applicant is willing to work with the neighbors with landscaping. Mr. Lee said that he is willing to supply
trees to the neighbors but does not want to be responsible for them in the future years if they would die.
The applicants stated that the lights will be downcast to the site and they will submit a lighting plan to staff.
17
Mr. Lee said that the State will monitor the number of trucks every month when he sends in a report to them.
Mr. Kruse said that if in the future a right turn north bound deceleration lane and left turn deceleration lane on
County Road 49 is installed it may not solve all the problems. It could create different problems. If you think
about a truck getting into that lane and if there is a vehicle that is basically going the same speed just behind
them it is in the shadow or the blind spot of that vehicle. Therefore if a car turns out thinking that truck is going
to turn there is a possibility to have other accidents.
Commissioner Spitzer asked how often the COGCC checks the integrity of the well. Mr. Lee believed the well
is checked annually.
Mr. Spitzer asked how "jake brakes" will be handled in this operation. Mr. Lee said that that they can make a
requirement for the truck drivers to not use those.
Commissioner Lawley commented that in the past we have always done proportionate share of paving and
asked why it hasn't been introduced into this case. Ms. Carter said that they will look into something along
those lines if that is the Planning Commission's direction. She added that since the applicant's numbers have
changed from 120 to 60 trips per day they could look at wrapping the road instead of conventional paving.
She said that staff makes the recommendations off of the data that they receive. She added that they have
not had the chance to review the latest study so that is something that they can look into if that is the direction.
Mr. Lawley felt that these cases need to be addressed the way it has been done in the past. To be consistent
in the past, staff has always indicated proportionate share. Ms. Carter said she believes there may be some
flexibility with County Road 34 prior to the County Commissioner hearing upon review of the latest traffic study.
The Chair asked for any changes to the conditions of approval or development standards. Mr. Gathman
suggested adding Condition 7.A. "Prior to Operation" stating "The applicants shall notify drivers of large trucks
through the placement of a sign on the facility property that the use of jake brakes upon entering or existing
the facility is prohibited."
In addition, Mr. Gathman recommended adding Condition 7.B. which reads "A stop sign will be required to be
installed at the access before traffic will enter onto County Road 34."
Roy Spitzer moved to add Condition of Approval 7.A and 7.B as recommended by staff, seconded by Mark
Lawley. Motion carried.
Mr. Gathman stated that Development Standard 36 is a duplicate of Development Standard 17 and suggested
to remove number 36.
Roy Spitzer moved to delete Development Standard 36, seconded by Robert Grand. 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. Mr. Lee replied that they are in agreement but would like
to have further review of Condition 1.G and address that with the County Commissioners.
Mark Lawley moved that Case USR-1708 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 with comment; Erich Ehrlich, absent; Robert Grand, yes with comment; Bill Hall, yes with
comment; Alexander Zauder, yes with comment; Jason Maxey, yes with comment; Roy Spitzer, yes with
comment; Mark Lawley, yes with comment; Tom Holton, yes with comment. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Berryman commented that it is imperative that the County Commissioners review the testimony
today and attempt to deal with the issues of public safety as well as the improvements from a feasibility
standpoint. He believes that it is unreasonable to have the applicant bear the full burden of the proposed
improvements and there needs to be some effort to work with them.
18
Commissioner Grand commented that a close review of the paving and improvement requirements of the road
needs to be done in light of the new figures. In addition, he asked for consideration by the County
Commissioners of reducing the speed to 55 mph on County Road 49. He feels it is unfair to burden all of the
improvements on one customer and is concerned that it doesn't fix anything if the speed limit is not lowered.
Commissioner Hall commented that it seems the turn lanes are a reasonable request. He also feels that
paving of the extra mile is an unreasonable request. Individuals cannot support this; however it is common for
housing developments and other businesses to be required to do the turn lanes.
Commissioner Spitzer commented that he thinks it is reasonable that new industries share the incremental
costs of the improvements; however he is not sure that we can expect to burden them with the entire costs of
the improvements. Public safety is really our own responsibility and feels that the turn lanes are probably
warranted.
Commissioner Maxey agreed with Mr. Hall's comments regarding the unreasonable request of paving the mile
road between County Road 51 and 53. He added that he agrees with the turn lanes and feels that it is a
matter of public safety as well as development of property.
Commissioner Zauder agreed with Mr. Grand's comments.
Commissioner Lawley agreed with all of the Commissioner's comments.
Commissioner Holton commented that he would like the County Commissioner's to take a good look at
Condition 1.G. He would like to recommend reducing the speed limit on County Road 49.
The Chair reminded the public that the County Commissioners will hear this case on October 28, 2009 at 10
a.m.
The Chair read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
Code Ordinance 2009-8
Brad Mueller
In the Matter of Repealing and Reenacting, with Amendments, Chapters
22 Comprehensive Plan, 23 Zoning, 24 Subdivision, 26 Mixed Use
Development, and 27 Planned Unit Development, of the Weld County
Code, specifically the addition of language concerning the permitted use
of a Medical Marijuana Dispensary (Amend Section 23-1-90 Definitions;
and Add Section 23-3-230.D.10)
Brad Mueller, Planning Services, commented that some code changes were brought before the Planning
Commission earlier this year. He added that those changes were approved by this Board and then brought
before the County Commissioners for the first and second readings and have been approved. More recently a
couple of issues have come up that the County Commissioners felt needed immediate attention and therefore
staff has come back with an addendum to that set of code changes. The County Commissioners have
continued the third hearing to October 12, 2009.
The two topics we are discussing today are medical marijuana dispensaries and correctional facilities.
Medical marijuana was approved by the Colorado voters in 2000. Since that time about 9,000 patients have
registered in Colorado for medical marijuana use. The dispensaries not regulated; it is rather left to the local
jurisdictions. More recently there has been an increase in activity due to a decree earlier in the year which
lead to relaxation of federal enforcement of marijuana consumption and use. The registration of patients
within Colorado is projected to be about 15,000 by the end of the year and currently 400 in Weld County.
In light of this, staff and the County Commissioners are recommending that a new use be both defined and put
into the appropriate portions of the Weld County Code. Staff is recommending that the medical marijuana
dispensaries be listed as a use by special review in the C-3 zone district. There are currently 75 parcels in the
19
County that are zoned C-3. The intent for the C-3 zone district is to provide areas where goods and services
are available to the general public, or which require more space or traffic volumes to generate business. The
USR purpose is for uses which are more intense or have more potentially greater impact to the area.
The second item for consideration involves correctional facilities. The code does not speak to jails and
prisons; however there is a connection to the Weld County Charter. Essentially this requires that there be a
vote of the public in order to allow prisons in the County. Staff is recommending that prisons and correctional
facilities be allowed in all industrial zone districts as well as all agricultural zone districts within the County as
uses by special review. Concurrent with that is a definition of correction facilities.
Commissioner Maxey inquired why the C-3 zone was chosen rather than the C-2 zone district. Bruce Barker,
County Attorney, commented that we are interpreting that these places are high traffic, high volume because
they are drawing a lot of people in. Therefore that is why we are comfortable with addressing all those issues
in the C-3 zone district through a use by special review.
Robert Grand moved that Case Ordinance 2009-8 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation
of approval, seconded by Roy Spitzer. Motion carried.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss.
Commissioner Grand commented that the Chair has said that they have reviewed the USR fee structure and
will be introducing a tiered structure to the Planning Commission. He added the compliance staff has had
some direction from County Commissioners regarding the violation process.
Meeting adjourned at 6:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
20
Hello