HomeMy WebLinkAbout20090079.tiffSUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 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, Doug Ochsner, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Doug Ochsner - Chair
Tom Holton - Vice Chair
Nick Berryman
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Paul Branham
Mark Lawley
Roy Spitzer
Also Present: Michelle Martin, Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services; Don Dunker, Dave Snyder,
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 December 16, 2008 Weld County Planning Commission minutes,
seconded by Nick Berryman. Motion carried.
The Chair commented that the agenda has changed a little and they will start with the third hearing item
because it will be continued. He read the following case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1675
APPLICANT: Ruscoe Land & Cattle
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Use by Special Review Permit for a
Livestock Confinement Operation (expansion of an existing feeding operation for
a total of 9,000 head of cattle, new pens, working areas, commodity area, feed
mill, feed storage area, and associated storm water retention ponds) in the A
(Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the E2 of Section 26, T7N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
LOCATION: Southwest of and adjacent to the intersection of County Roads 78 and 35.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, stated that the applicant is requesting a continuance for this case as they
need to meet notification requirements for mineral interest holders per Colorado State Statute. The applicant
is requesting that this case be continued until the February 3, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. Mr.
Gathman commented that it is still within the required 30 days; however the applicant is confident that they can
get a written notice of a waiver of the 30 day notification requirement by the February 3`d hearing. Right now
there are three interests on the property and the applicant was unable to obtain a waiver from one of the
mineral interest owners but they are confident that they could have that by the end of the week.
Tom Haren, AgProfessionals, commented that they had a material defect in the mineral notification. His client
owns 2/5 of the minerals, his client's partner owns 1/5 and the family trust of the previous landowner owns the
other 2/5. There are currently no leases on the property and there is also no oil and gas production on the
property right now. Mr. Haren commented that they feel that it will be acceptable to get a waiver. He added
that it is 27 days until the February 3rd hearing which does not meet the state statute but they feel confident
that they will have a waiver in short order.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against having this case
continued. No one wished to speak.
Mr. Gathman asked that anyone at the hearing today leave their contact information so that staff can notify
L1
rryixnunr tv tc- iti) l - / % . ac7c 9
,Ocl(—ov/
them when the new Board of County Commissioners hearing will be scheduled for this case.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1675, be continued to the February 3, 2009 Planning Commission
meeting, seconded by Roy Spitzer. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1667
APPLICANT: Mark Brinkman
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Use
Permitted as a Use by Right, Accessory Use, or Use by Special Review in the
Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts (landscaping company) in the A
(Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part NW4 Section 22, T6N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Highway 392 and West of CR 21.
Commissioner Ehrlich recused himself from this case for matters of a business relationship.
Michelle Martin, Planning Services, stated that a sign announcing the PC hearing was posted December
11, 2008 by planning staff.
The site is located south of and adjacent to State Highway 392 and approximately 1/2 mile west of County
Road 21. The site is located within the urban growth boundary for the Town of Windsor.
Planning staff is recommending denial of the application because the applicant has not shown compliance
with Section 23-2-220 of the Weld County Code as follows:
Section 23-2-220.A.1 -- The proposed use is not consistent with Chapter 22 and any other applicable
code provisions or ordinance in effect.
22-2-110.C.1 UGB.Policy 3.1. The County may consider approving a land use development
within an urban growth boundary area if all of the four specified criteria are met. The
applicant has not met two out of the four criteria.
a. UGB.Policy 3.1.1. The adjacent municipality does not consent to annex the land or
property in a timely manner or annexation is not legally possible.
The Town of Windsor in their referral dated August 15, 2008 indicted that the
property should be annexed and developed within the Town of Windsor. The Town
of Windsor has annexed several of the properties near the property in question.
b. UGB.Policy 3.1.3. The proposed use attempts to be compatible with the adjacent
municipality's comprehensive plan.
The Town of Windsor in their referral dated August 15, 2008 states that the property
is depicted as Neighborhood and General Commercial per their Growth
Management Plan. The property is also located within the Windsor -Severance
Cooperative Planning Area and within the "gateway" to the Towns of Windsor and
Severance. According to the Town of Windsor's zoning code the proposed use is
classified as heavy industrial and therefore is not compatible.
The Town of Severance in their referral dated August 18, 2008 states that the
property in question is located within the Cooperative Planning Area (CPA) of
Severance and Windsor as outlined in the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)
between the two towns. The Town is recommending denial of this case because the
proposed use does not meet the requirements of the IGA.
Section 23-2-220.A.4 -- The Uses which would be permitted will be compatible with future
2
development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning and with the future
development as projected by Chapter 22 of this Code or Master Plans of affected municipalities.
The Towns of Windsor and Severance have both indicated in their referrals that the
proposed use is not compatible with the Towns Cooperative Planning Area (CPA) as
depicted in the Town's Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). The Town of Windsor
also stated in their referral dated that the property is question is located within the
Town's Growth Management Area (GMA) and the proposed use is not compatible
with the future uses of the area.
Future Plans for the area indicated the property would be utilized for
Neighborhood and General Commercial allowing for a variety of commercial
activities. The proposed use is classified as heavy industrial according to the
Town of Windsor and therefore would not be compatible.
Because of these reasons, Planning Staff is recommending denial of the application.
Ms. Martin commented that the applicant does not intend to erect any new buildings but will utilize the
ones that are currently on site for their operation.
Directly to the north of the site across Highway 392 is a landscaping business.
Commission Grand referred to UGB Policy 3.1.3 and the Town of Windsor's classification of heavy industrial.
He commented that he understands that this is a landscaping business. Ms. Martin said that it is a
landscaping company and she understands that the applicant will mainly do maintenance or installation on
commercial type of properties. She added that they don't necessarily sell sod or materials for the residential
public but that they actually do the maintenance. Mr. Grand commented that in his opinion heavy industrial
would include a petroleum refinery operation. He asked if the Town of Windsor considers this as heavy
industrial. Ms. Martin replied that the Town of Windsor indicated that given the nature of the business and
outdoor storage that according to their zoning code it would be classified as heavy industrial.
Commissioner Ochsner asked to clarify the Town of Severance's referral. He commented that there is a
referral dated July 29, 2008 which states that they find no conflict; however on August 18, 2008 there is
another referral from them indicating that they now oppose this application. Ms. Martin said that these
referrals were received at two separate times. The August 28, 2008 referral is the one that the Town of
Severance wishes to supersede the previous one.
Commissioner Spitzer asked what the County would classify this as. Ms. Martin doesn't believe it would be
classified as heavy industrial but more of a commercial/industrial type of use. The applicant's do have some
outdoor storage. They are not necessarily retail because they don't sell anything from the site; however they
do offer a service.
Nate Caldwell, 6908 Barbuda Dr, Ft. Collins, CO. He indicated that he is one of the owners of the landscaping
company who is applying for the use.
Shane McCoy, 3222 Seagull Ct., Loveland, CO. He stated that he is a co- owner of the landscaping company.
Mark Brinkman, 9734 CR 70, Windsor CO. He stated that he is current owner of the property.
Artie Gesick, 1212 8th Ave, Scott Realty Company. Mr. Gesick commented that he has the property for sale
and these gentlemen are trying to purchase it. He indicated that they have met with the Town of Windsor a
couple of times. He added that the biggest thing that his clients have are 3/4 ton pickups that pull trailers with
lawnmowers on them.
Mr. Caldwell commented they are a landscape maintenance company which provides a service for
homeowners associations, apartment complexes, etc. They do sprinkler maintenance, mowing, trimming, and
maintain properties throughout northern Colorado.
3
Their business has grown over the last 10 years and they are now looking to acquire an office and some shop
space. This property came to them and they were excited about the opportunity as it provides a central
location and potential for growth in the area.
On an annual basis they employ over 40 employees. They would spend over $1 million in the area if they
would be allowed to move their business to this location.
They are looking to buy a property as an asset to their business. He added that this property will not generate
revenue but will be more of a home based operation to house some equipment and have an office.
Mr. Caldwell commented that they take pride in their business. It reflects in the appearance of their vehicles
and staff and with the relationships with the communities. He added that community service is something that
they have been passionate about. They donated a lot of time and effort into some of the subdivisions that they
maintain in Windsor after the tornado damage.
Mr. Caldwell commented that they are looking to come into an area and have a shop/office and be an asset to
the community.
As part of the conditions they have to install a screened area to keep their vehicles and trailers at night. He
commented that the screened area would be approximately 400 feet from the road so it wouldn't be an
eyesore.
Mr. Caldwell reiterated that they will be keeping the property as is. They plan to make a couple offices in the
house and use the existing shed. They do not plan to erect any new structures. He added that they do not
have clients coming to the property to buy material, unlike the landscaping business across the highway from
them.
Mr. Caldwell indicated that they have no problems with the referral agencies comments. The main point of
contention is with the Windsor, Severance and Greeley Intergovernmental Agreement and Cooperative
Planning Area. He commented that in Windsor's referral it indicates that they would like to see their buildings
look similar to the west side of Windsor — very uniform nice commercial buildings.
The applicants attempted to come to an understanding with the Town of Windsor and they concluded that
Windsor wanted an all or nothing compliance with their plans for the area. The applicants believe it limits their
proposed use of the area. They would have liked to negotiate something if it comes to a point that they are
surrounded by growth then they can talk about annexation.
Mr. Caldwell mentioned the Big Horn Landscaping Company which is across the highway from the proposed
site. He stated that they have a USR-1497 in which they had the same recommendations and issues from the
Town of Windsor and Severance regarding their proposed use. TUSR-1497 was approved on June 16, 2006
by the Planning Commission stating that they have done their best to meet the concerns of the area. The
applicants feel they would go hand in hand with the landscaping business across from their site.
Commissioner Holton asked what the plans are for the property such as planting grass and landscaping with
trees. Mr. Caldwell replied that there is an irrigation system around the house and it is currently well
maintained and surrounded by native grass.
The Chair asked for comments from the Department of Public Health.
Lauren Light, Public Health, commented that water to the property is provided by North Weld County Water
District. Staff received a letter from the water district indicating that the existing tap is sufficient for the
business.
There is an existing septic system on the home and it will require an engineering evaluation because there are
35 employees which come to the site.
The applicant indicated in a letter dated October 2008 that they will not be washing vehicles on the site;
therefore Condition of Approval 1.E could be deleted.
4
The applicants submitted a Dust Abatement Plan as well as a copy of their Commercial Applicator's License;
therefore Conditions of Approval 1.A and 1.D can be deleted.
Ms. Light added that the applicants did submit a Waste Handling Plan; however staff needs some more
information on it.
Noise is restricted to the residential level. In the Weld County Code residential and commercial noise levels
are the same.
Development Standard 13 requires that any septic system should comply with the Weld County Code but
there is also a septic permit that is called out in that Development Standard. Ms. Light said that if they would
install a new septic system it would be under a different number. However if there is a sewer line within 400
feet of this property they would be required to hook up to that sewer line or get a letter from the municipality
saying that they do not have to hook up. She suggested that the first sentence indicating the septic permit
number be deleted since staff does not have an engineered evaluation and does not know if the existing septic
system for that house would handle the additional hydraulic load.
The Chair asked for comments from Public Works.
Don Dunker, Public Works, said that this property is accessed from State Highway 392. CDOT has
jurisdiction over all accesses onto Highway 392. The latest CDOT traffic counts near this site indicate 8,200
ADT taken in 2007. This application will add approximately 70 vehicles per day plus service truck trips with
the maximum amount of employees on site.
The access off of State Highway 392 shall be a 90 degree angle and will be required to be 20 foot wide in
width.
A water quality feature will be required for the parking areas, buildings and drive.
The northeast corner of the property is within the 100 year floodplain. The area within the floodplain is about
.02 acres. The remainder of the property is out of the 100 year floodplain.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Diana Aungst, Town of Windsor, stated that in August of 2008 the Windsor Planning Commission reviewed
this application and a written recommendation was sent to the Weld County Planning Department. She
commented that she is here to reiterate the recommendation and to answer any questions.
The denial was due to the property not being site planned in the spirit of the Windsor/Severance IGA
Cooperative Planning Area and Development Plan which would result in the respective gateways into both
Windsor and Severance being severely compromised because the design criteria and development standards
which are outlined in and required by the Windsor/Severance IGA have not been used in the proposed design
of the subject property.
Commissioner Grand said that he understands they are not planning to change what is already there. He
asked that in order to comply with the Town of Windsor they would have to tear down what is existing and
construct according to the specifications as defined by the Windsor plan.
Ms. Aungst replied that was correct in addition to annexing to the Town of Windsor.
Commissioner Ochsner referred to the gateway and asked Ms. Aungst to describe what Windsor envisions as
the gateway as far as design standards. Ms. Aungst said that it is referred to as the gateway to Windsor
because it is their far eastern point and it is also the far southern point for Severance so it is also referred to
the gateway for Severance. She added that Windsor also has an IGA with Greeley which refers to it as the
gateway into Greeley because it is the far western point. Windsor does not have a specific gateway design
standard but they have an East Main Street Corridor Design Standards and the gateway design would have to
comply with the East Main Street Corridor design.
5
Commissioner Berryman asked what Windsor's plans are for annexing property in that area. Ms. Aungst
commented that Windsor will annex when the property owner requests to be annexed. Right now there are no
annexations out there. She added that some of the area surrounding the property in question is essentially
undeveloped at this time but has recently been annexed into the Town of Windsor.
Commissioner Berryman asked if the undeveloped areas are planned to have something sometime soon. Ms.
Aungst said that Eastbrook is residential so they will be coming in with some residential; however the other
properties do not have a proposal at this time.
Zach Ratkai, Town of Severance, commented that the first review by Severance was conducted without the
Cooperative Plan taken into account. This property lies outside of Severance's Growth Management Area;
therefore there was no comment on the original review. Upon correspondence with the Town of Windsor they
realized that it is part of the plan that they have supported with the Town of Windsor and part of the
Intergovernmental Agreement so they then submitted a letter for the support of the plan.
Commissioner Ochsner asked if the Town of Severance would be interested in annexing this property. Mr.
Ratkai replied that they would not consider annexation because it is so far outside of their main town core as
well as outside of their growth management area.
Tom Holton moved to delete Conditions of Approval 1.A, 1.D, 1.E and the first sentence in Development
Standard 13, seconded by Roy Spitzer. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Brinkman commented that the applicants wish to use the property as is. He can sell it residential but it will
look the same. He said that they visited with the Town of Windsor however it ended without resolution.
Commissioner Holton asked that since there are concerns from the municipality is there something that we
can put on it that this USR is not transferrable. Bruce Barker, County Attorney, replied that it was done in the
past and would be acceptable to do so.
Ms. Martin pointed out Development Standard 3 which states that the Special Use Permit shall not be
transferrable to any successors in interest to the prescribed property and shall terminate automatically upon
conveyance or lease of the property to others for operation of the facility.
The Chair asked the applicants if they read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are agreement with those.
Mr. Caldwell said that in Development Standard 4 regarding the hours of operation it was listed 7:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. on the original application; however after talking with Ms. Martin they later revised that and it wasn't
included. They would like to revise their hours to reflect 7 am to 7 pm. He added that they also do snow
removal in the winter time and indicated that it be revised to 24 hours in the wintertime.
Commissioner Spitzer asked what the applicants would like the hours of operation to be. Mr. Caldwell replied
7 a.m. to 7 p.m. with the exception in the winter time for snow removal operations to be 24 hours. He
commented that Ms. Martin and himself have tried to come up with some language as he doesn't want it to
sound like they are open 24 hours a day.
Commissioner Hall clarified that it would be for occasional use when there is snow.
Commissioner Ochsner asked if the days would change from Monday through Friday as currently stated. Mr.
Caldwell said that on occasions they do also work on Saturdays so that would need to be changed as well.
Ms. Martin suggested changing Development Standard #4 to read "Normal hours of operation shall be from 7
am to 7 pm Monday through Saturday with the exception of snow removal operations"
Tom Holton moved to amend Development Standard 4 as recommended by staff, seconded by Robert Grand.
Motion carried unanimously.
6
The Chair asked the applicant if they read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are agreement with those. The applicant replied they are in agreement.
Commissioner Ochsner said that he drives by this location quite often and as far as compatibility it fits ideally
where it is. He considers this area light industrial and not heavy. He added that it is unfortunate that the Town
of Windsor does not want to annex it. The stipulations put an undue burden on the private property rights in
the Urban Growth Plan for Windsor and Severance.
Commissioner Holton agreed with Mr. Ochsner and said it won't change the gateway because they will not
change how the property looks. He referred to the Industrial Goals in the Comp Plan Section 22-2-80 and said
in his opinion it meets all of the requirements.
Commissioner Hall agreed with the previous comments and added that there will be little to no change. It will
be a farmhouse with mowers stored behind it.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1667, 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 based upon Section 22-2-80, 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; Paul Branham, absent; Erich Ehrlich, abstain; Robert Grand, yes with comment;
Bill Hall, yes; Mark Lawley, absent; Roy Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes with comment.
Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Berryman commented his vote is due to the recent precedent with USR-1497 granted by
the County across Highway 392.
Commissioner Grand commented that we want to be supportive of our relationships with the towns;
however in this case it places an undue restriction on individual property rights which he doesn't think is
appropriate.
Commissioner Ochsner cited Section 22-2-110.C.1 which states that the County may consider approving
a land use development within an Urban Growth Boundary if all four specific criteria are met.
Unfortunately, staff came up with UGB Policy 3.1.1 that the adjacent municipality does not consent the
annex land or property in a timely manner or annexation is not legally possible. Mr. Ochsner believes that
the applicant has proved that a timely manner and undue restrictions would make annexation impossible.
Mr. Ochsner also cited UGB Policy 3.1.3 "The proposed use attempts to be compatible with the adjacent
municipality's comprehensive plan." He added that as far as compatibility it fits the area extremely well
and he believes the applicant will be a benefit to both the County and to the city it neighbors.
The Chair read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOCATION:
USR-1679
JLW Investment, LLC
Chris Gathman
A Site Specific Development Plan and a Use by Special Review Permit for an Oil
and Gas Support Facility (Class II - Oilfield Waste Disposal Facility) in the A
(Agricultural) Zone District.
Lot B of RE -748; Part NE4 of Section 18, T6N, R63W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
North of and adjacent to State Hwy 392 and approximately 1/4 mile east of CR
61.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, stated that the proposed facility is located approximately 500-600 feet from
three existing residences within the platted townsite of Barnsville and approximately 250-300 feet north of
an existing residential lot. Unimproved parcels are located to the north and east of the site. An agricultural
parcel is located to the south, across State Highway 392. Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval will ensure compatibility with existing surrounding land uses.
7
The applicant is proposing to haul predominately during daylight hours, 7 am to 7 pm. The application
limits the total number of truck trips to 30 per day (any further increase in trips will require CDOT approval)
and will be accessing the site via a State Highway.
Nine referrals were sent out; seven Referrals were received and either indicated no concerns or are
addressed through development standards and conditions of approval. No referral responses were
received from the State of Colorado, Oil & Gas Commission and the Galeton Fire Protection District.
The site is not located within the 3 -mile referral area of any municipality.
No letters or phone calls from surrounding property owners have been received.
The site is currently in violation (ZCV08-00110). If this Use by Special Review application is approved and
the plat is recorded the property will be in compliance. If denied the violation case will proceed
accordingly.
The applicant, Jesse White, has indicated that he has had discussions with the neighboring property
owners immediately to the west in regard to this use with the exception of a property that was recently
foreclosed.
The Department of Planning Services is requiring a landscape and screening plan and a lighting plan be
submitted as a condition of approval for this case.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached
development standards and conditions of approval.
Commissioner Holton said the application states an irrigation facility and asked if it is an injection well. Mr.
Gathman clarified that it is an injection well.
Jesse White, JLW Investments, said the facility will be operated by his oil company which is Apollo
Operating. When this property was acquired in March 2007 it essentially was a junk yard and they have
since then cleaned up the property and have had lots of discussion with the surrounding property owners
and they are very happy with that.
The facility is similar in nature to some other hearings that the Planning Commission has had recently.
The surrounding area is predominantly oil and gas. There are oil and gas wells surrounding the entire
area. There is a trend of oil and gas exploration in this direction of Highway 392 to the northeast.
Commissioner Hall wished to clarify that this disposal facility was constructed without obtaining a permit
first. Mr. White said that was correct. He added that they consulted with their attorneys who researched
the Weld County Code and they suggested to him that he did not need a USR. In connection with that his
company Apollo does a lot of business with another local oil company in Weld County who also has their
own disposal facility which does not have a USR either. Through those two courses of investigation they
initially determined that they did not need a USR, however through a number of different discussions and
complaints it was then determined that they needed a USR which they immediately applied for. He also
indicated that they have had numerous discussions with the Board of County Commissioners on the same
matter as well.
The Chair asked for comments from Public Health.
Lauren Light, Public Health, stated that staff received a copy of the applicant's commercial well permit;
therefore condition of approval 1.G can be deleted.
The application states that a portable toilet will be used which is not acceptable as this is not a seasonal or
temporary use. The applicant did apply for a septic permit on July 7, 2008. The Health Department did
not issue the permit; however staff did go out there and couldn't find the perk holes as they were not
marked or were blown over. Therefore the applicant needs to request another site inspection and make
sure that everything is marked and then staff will come out and get that process going. She added that
8
this will also have to go through the Board of Health because it is a commercial business.
The State Health Department will probably have air emission permitting regulations.
Ms. Light did research through the State Oil and Gas Commission website and found approval of the
injection well application on November 4, 2008.
Because of these types of facilities, Public Health has specific design and operation requirements that are
required prior to the release of building permits. Every injection well facility that comes in is subject to the
same standards. Since this facility was built prior to staff knowing about it there was numerous
conversations which did take place between the Director of Environmental Health and the applicant. Ms.
Light noted that conditions of approval 4.A and 4.8 are a little different. In 4.A it talks about how an
engineer can verify that a structure similar to concrete that has the same ability as concrete could be
used. She indicated that normally what you see is concrete and they can't use anything else.
Condition of approval 4.6 indicates that the applicant must show staff that nothing will be leaking off of the
unloading pad. Ms Light said that there is no leak detection system required in but that the applicant will
need to submit a plan to Environmental Health which will be reviewed.
Ms. Light said that condition of approval 4.1 and 4.C are the same and recommended deleting condition of
approval 4.1.
Commissioner Hall asked if this is a commercial or private disposal facility. Mr. Gathman understands
that it is a commercial facility and that there would be outside haulers.
Commissioner Ehrlich asked if there is something disclosed to the County when the Colorado Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission receives or grants a permit. Mr. Gathman said that there was a lot of
discussion about this and some work sessions with the Board of County Commissioners. There was a
work session with the Board where the applicant was granted early release of building permits out there;
however there was a lot of discussion about the nature of the facility in regard to if it was it going to be a
commercial facility or was it going to be exclusively for use by the applicant.
Mr. Gathman commented that the Board said at that time if it is just for your use only and you don't have
outside haulers that it is a different type of operation and no USR would be required. The applicant has
decided to apply with a commercial permit to allow outside haulers.
Bruce Barker, County Attorney, commented that he spoke with the individual who is in charge of
processing the permits for the injection wells with the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Mr. Barker
indicated that the individual said that he doesn't think that the commission would be referring to any
counties. If they receive the permit application they will process it without referring it to the county to see if
it is violation. The Oil and Gas Commission considers that to be our requirement.
Mr. Barker continued to say that with respect to if they were doing it on their own property that it is a use
by right according to our interpretation. He believes that the new Board of County Commissioners will
probably be discussing whether to continue with that because as we do know there are other companies
who have not sought to obtain a USR. In this instance there were complaints about the property that staff
followed up on and that is how the enforcement action occurred.
Commissioner Holton asked that even if it is their own company it is still a commercial operation isn't it?
Mr. Barker said that he made a good point and that is exactly the issue in the discussion that staff had with
the State. He added that the marker that you use is what type of effects does this have on neighboring
properties as well as compatibility.
The Chair asked for comments from Public Works.
Dave Snyder, Public Works, commented that the site is located off of State Highway 392 which is under
the jurisdiction and maintenance of CDOT so they have the access permit and requirement through their
office.
9
Mr. Snyder commented that they are requiring the applicant to have larger radiuses in the driveway so
they can move their trucks easier. Traffic counts were at 1300 ADT. The applicant would be adding 60
trips per day so there is a very low impact.
Commissioner Hall asked if the only road they will have is a private road on their own property. Mr.
Snyder replied that was correct.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Randy Hammerstrom, 33667 CR 61.75, Gill, CO. Mr. Hammerstrom commented that he purchased the
property which was in foreclosure and they closed on the property a couple of months prior to the drilling
of the injection well. He is concerned with all the domestic wells in the area and asked if this is going to be
a detriment to his drinking water.
He is also concerned with property values. He asked if they will be installing more tanks and adding more
truck traffic. He indicated that the entrance road to their property is approximately 300 feet from his front
door.
Mr. Hammerstrom said that the lighting facilities are lit 24 hours a day and he is concerned about that. He
commented that he met the applicant for the first time today so maybe some of this can be handled
between them.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
Mr. White said that he shares some of the same concerns as Mr. Hammerstrom. He also has a water
well on the property and certainly does not want to destroy its value that it adds to the property nor does
he want to destroy the value of his property either.
Mr. White commented that he can't say with 100% that nothing will ever happen; however he can tell
everyone that every safeguard to protect the water is in place. He indicated that the formation in which
they would inject in is approximately 8000 feet below the Larimer Fox Hills which you encounter at about
400 feet. The formation that they will be injecting into is encountered at this location at about 8600 feet.
Mr. White continued to say that this particular well boar has 3 different layers of protection as far as steel
piping, concrete, etc. There is an initial layer of surface casing which is an 8 5/8 inch pipe that is put down
through concrete. Inside of that pipe there is also another 5'A inch pipe with a huge burst rate and 14,000
psi which is also cemented inside there down to 9000 feet. Inclusive of that there is another 2 7/8 inch
pipe cemented inside of that. There are many levels of protection inside of this well boar that you will
never see any type of migration of fluids or anything into a potable formation.
Mr. White pointed out the existing wells on site on a visual slide.
Mr. White commented that as far as the lighting he is willing to work with Mr. Hammerstrom to cure that
problem right away.
Mr. White clarified with regard to secondary containment, they are talking about some type of
impermeable layer for secondary containment that is concrete or as sufficient as concrete.
He also wished to clarify the time of use to be from 7 am to 7 pm; however in the oil and gas industry there
may be some emergencies. He hopes that it is understood that the emergencies are an implied situation
with such a facility.
Mr. White indicated that they do plan to install permanent sewer facilities.
Mr. White indicated that they have hired Ronnie Lap who lives in the area and who is very familiar with the
area. Mr. Lap is a member of the Galeton Fire District and he believes that Mr. Lap will ensure that every
aspect of public health and safety is taken into account.
10
Commissioner Hall recognized another oil disposal operator in the audience. Mr. Hall commented that he
is concerned with the residences right there and if this turns into a 24 hour disposal facility it will hurt their
property value. He added that this was done without the typical permitting process and is concerned
about that as well. He asked if it would be appropriate to ask Mr. Butcher, who is in the audience, about
the availability of disposal on a 24 hour basis from some of their facilities. Mr. Barker deferred that to the
Chairman if he would accept additional testimony.
Commissioner Ochsner clarified with the applicant if they are requesting a 24 hour operation. Mr. White
replied that they are not requesting a 24 hour operation.
Commissioner Hall said that he sees that but his concern is from the emergency basis. One day it is an
emergency and the next day it is forever. He further asked if there would be an opportunity that the
applicant has other facilities that they could take their water to outside of the hours of the 7 am to 7 pm
operation.
Commissioner Ochsner asked if there are other facilities if there was an emergency. Mr. White
commented that this is the only facility that Apollo has. He added that the thing that encouraged them to
endure this undertaking is that they couldn't dispose of water at the other commercial locations.
Sometimes their truck drivers would be waiting on end to get into their facilities, sometimes they would be
rejected all together. He added that a facility such as this is needed in Weld County.
Mr. Gathman clarified the hauling hours and how it relates to other injection wells that have been
permitted through the county. The limit for hauling hours are from 7 am to 7 pm. It doesn't mean that they
can't inject outside of those hours but they cannot haul in materials to inject.
Commissioner Holton asked about the landscaping plan. Mr. White commented that they have built a
berm which somewhat shields those properties from the west from the noise and view of the facility.
Commissioner Holton asked if these trucks belong to the applicant. Mr. White said that every single
operator in this basin contracts the hauling of their water for the most part.
Commissioner Holton said that he is concerned as he lives next to a trucking facility and the jake brakes
are obnoxious to homeowners. He asked if there something that can be added to control that or if it can
be controlled through the applicant's operators. Mr. White replied that he is not sure what jake brakes are
and asked if he could explain it to him. Mr. Holton said that when trucks come to a stop they don't use
their brakes, instead they use a compression system in the engine which changes the cam and so it pops
and they are very noisy. Mr. White commented that he doesn't think that he could ensure that because
this is all third party. He doesn't believe that he could tell anybody how to run their business or their
trucks. The only alternative here is to say the hours of operation are 7 am to 7 pm. The abuse of
emergency situations is never the intent and would not be his intent. He is simply asking that in the event
of an emergency that it would be understood that they would not be in violation albeit they would not be
bringing in trucks in here 5 times a night. It would be very limited in nature if that were to happen.
Mr. Gathman asked to clarify what an emergency would be. Mr. White gave an example of a water pit
about to overflow, a flowback tank about to overflow causing further environmental issues elsewhere on
another lease.
Commissioner Grand asked how often these emergencies happen. Mr. White said it is very uncommon
and it depends upon the well.
Commissioner Holton asked how long this facility has been operating. Mr. White replied that they have
been operating since November 4, 2008.
Tom Holton moved to amend conditions of approval 4.A and 4.b and delete conditions of approval 1.G
and 4.1, seconded by Erich Ehrlich. Motion carried unanimously.
There was some discussion on the signage for jake brakes. Janet Carter, Public Works, commented that
according to MUTCD standards there is no sign for "no jake brakes"; however the applicant can produce a
11
sign and place it outside of the CDOT right-of-way which would notify trucks so that they cannot use their
jake brakes. Commissioner Holton clarified it if would have to be in the applicant's facility. Ms. Carter said
yes and would have to be paid for by the applicant.
Mr. Gathman commented that we could add a Development Standard. Commissioner Holton said he
would like to see a Development Standard as well.
Mr. White commented that he has no problem placing this sign but he thinks that it will not be effective
because where the brakes will be used and where the sign would be posted. Commissioner Holton said
that it would help because when they come in and out of the facility they will see the sign.
Mr. Barker suggested adding a Development Standard 42 which states "The applicant shall notify drivers
of large trucks, through the placement of a sign on the facility property, that the use of "fake brakes" upon
entering or exiting the facility is prohibited."
Tom Holton moved to add Development Standard 42 per staff's recommendation, seconded by Robert
Grand.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, no; Paul Branham, absent; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, yes; Mark Lawley,
absent; Roy Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried.
Mr. White indicated that he will make sure that the neighbors will not be disturbed; however he wished to
clarify that it is not considered Apollo or JLW's fault if someone does use a jake brake. Commissioners
Ochsner and Holton said that it is just a notification to not use the jake brakes. Mr. White said that he will
be happy to install the sign.
The Chair asked the applicant if he has read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if he is in agreement with those. The applicant replied that he is in agreement.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1679, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval, seconded by Tom Holton.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, yes; Paul Branham, absent; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, yes; Mark Lawley,
absent; Roy Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton, yes with comment; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Holton commented that he thinks the Commissioners need to look at their review of these
injection wells to see whether or not we are going to let them do it as a use by right or as a USR.
The Chair asked the public if there were other items of business that they would like to discuss. Mr.
Hammerstrom said that to this point he has no issue with truck traffic but he asked if they are planning to
increase truck traffic into this facility or just maintain what they have. The Chair said that is a question that Mr.
White and Mr. Gathman can answer.
Being no further public comment, the Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss.
Commissioner Holton said that he would like to get some feedback from the Planning Commission members.
He commented that the County Commissioners keep talking about shovel ready ground and one of the
requirements at this point is if you want to change the zone on a piece of ground to commercial or industrial it
also has to have a water supply, which means that you will have to change the designation of that irrigation
well for that application. By changing the designation of the irrigation well that will change how they will be
able to operate that chunk of property in the future. If that's the case he would like to see the code changed to
read somehow that they can still operate that well but that maybe there is a trigger.
Tom Honn, Planning Services, commented that shovel ready dirt can mean several different things. It doesn't
12
necessarily mean that the land is zoned so that tomorrow they can just pull a building permit. That is one of
the levels and in which case it probably would require the water supply, in the event it was a well, to be in that
position. However those could also be conditions that are applied and what we have to investigate exactly is
how we can work with the state engineer's criteria if it is a well. He added that where either zoning can be
done or if it is through a comprehensive planning process, land can be designated as appropriate to those
uses and that makes it simpler to come in and rezone as long as you follow the process. Depending on the
circumstances some of those items can be done as conditional that have to be done prior to that use actually
beginning on that property.
Commissioner Holton said his questions are specifically what he has seen down by Vestas. He added that if
you have this facility with a USR and it will be annexed under certain conditions to Brighton but then you also
have a lot of other properties surrounding this facility that think it is still within Weld County. He gave an
example that if someone wants to change the zone on 50 acres to 1-3 and they have no plans to do anything,
in order to get that 1-3 designation they have to convert their well. Mr. Honn said that he is not sure if it is a
requirement to convert the well just to get the zoning. The well conversion would be a condition prior to being
able to use the property industrially and that is what staff needs to evaluate so that there may be different
levels of how shovel ready dirt is defined.
Commission Holton said that if the code can be interpreted differently than what he is indicating that is fine but
if the code specifically states that as part of the requirement for this application then it is something to look into
changing. Mr. Honn agreed with Commissioner Holton. He added that he doesn't know that he can address
the State Engineer specifically in that sense of what they call a well but if there is an issue in our code that
says it has to be commercial he is happy to take a look at that and determine if that is something that we need
to put into our list of changes.
Commissioner Holton asked Mr. Honn to research that and come back to the Planning Commissioners with
his findings.
Commissioner Ochsner asked about the parking issue which was mentioned at a previous meeting. He said
that they previously had designated spots in the parking lot to the east of here and asked Mr. Honn to check
into the availability of that again. Mr. Honn said that he will investigate that.
Meeting adjourned at 3:36 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
13
Hello