HomeMy WebLinkAbout20080948.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Roy Spitzer, that the following resolution be introduced for approval by the Weld County Planning
• Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1642
APPLICANT: Lucerne Commons, LLC c/o Ag Professionals, LLC
PLANNER: Hannah Hippely
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parts of the SW4 of Section 17,T6N, R65W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for an Oil and
Gas Support and Service facility(fracking company),Agricultural Service
Establishment(commodity storage and drying), Use allowed in the Commercial
or Industrial Zone District(recycling business)in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Highway 392 and east of and adjacent to CR 39.
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
1. It is the opinion of the Weld County Planning Commission that the applicant has shown
compliance with Section 23-2-220 of the Weld County Code as follows:
A. Section 23-2-220.A.1 --The proposed use is consistent with Chapter 22 and any other
applicable code provisions or ordinance in effect.
Sec. 22-2-60.AGoal1.Policy 1.3. Allow commercial and industrial uses, which are directly
related to, or dependent upon agriculture, to locate within the A(Agricultural)Zone District
when the impact to surrounding properties is minimal, and where adequate services and
infrastructure are currently available or reasonably obtainable.
• B. Section 23-2-220.A.7 That there is adequate provision for the protection of the health,safety
and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and the County.
C. Section 23-2-220.A.7--The Design Standards (Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code),
Operation Standards (Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code),
This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application materials submitted by the
applicant, other relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral entities.
An active zoning violation, commenced in 2007, is associated with the activities on this site (ZCV07-
01157). If approved, the violation will be corrected, however, if the application is denied the violation case
will proceed accordingly.
The Weld County Planning Commission's recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following:
1. Prior to recording the plat:
A. The plat for Subdivision Exemption 1118 shall be submitted to the Department of
Planning Services and be recorded by the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. (Department
of Planning Services)
B. The applicant shall construct the approved accesses to State Highway 392 in compliance
with the conditions of the access permits (permit#407141 and 407142) issued by the
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). All other access to Highway 392 shall
be permanently closed.
• �t R
2008-0948
Resolution USR-1642
Lucerne Commons, LLC
Page 2
C. The applicant shall address to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works all the
•
concerns and requirements outlined in the referral dated Wednesday, January 2, 2008
and subsequent email dated Friday January 25, 2008. Written evidence from the
Department of Public Works stating that this conditions have been met shall be submitted
to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Public Works)
D. The applicant shall address the concerns of The New Cache La Poudre Irrigation
Company as outlined in their referral dated December, 17 2007. Written evidence stating
that this condition has been met shall be submitted to the Department of Planning
Services. (Department of Planning Services)
E. The applicant shall address the requirements and concerns as outlined in the Department
of Planning Services Landscape referral dated November 26, 2007, including the
submittal to the Department of Planning Services, a Landscaping and Screening plan that
adequately addresses the Landscape referral, for review and approval,. (Department of
Planning Services)
F. The applicant has proposed a single tap which will be used to provide water service to the
three buildings located on the site. A commercial tap is required to serve this commercial
use. The applicant shall provide evidence that a commercial tap has been purchased
from the North Weld County Water District or evidence of a master meter shall be
supplied. (Department of Planning Services)
G. The applicant has indicated that there is a well located inside one of the buildings on site.
The applicant shall submit evidence to the Department of Planning Services from the
Colorado Division of Water Resources, demonstrating that the well is appropriately
permitted for the commercial use(or otherwise appropriately permitted). (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
•
H. The applicant shall submit a waste handling plan, for approval, to the Environmental
Health Services Division of the Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment.
The plan shall include at a minimum, the following:
1) A list of wastes which are expected to be generated on site (this should include
expected volumes and types of waste generated).
2) A list of the type and volume of chemicals expected to be stored on site.
3) The waste handler and facility where the waste will be disposed (including the
facility name, address, and phone number).
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
Adequate sewage disposal system(s)shall be provided for all portions of the operation.
1) The existing septic system serving the proposed oil and gas support service
facility/maintenance shop is not appropriately permitted. This system must either
be permitted or a new system installed. If this system is utilized, it must be shown
that the system meets all setbacks as outlined in the Individual Sewage Disposal
System (ISDS) regulations.
2) The portable office units proposed to serve the east end of the proposed oil and
gas support service facility/maintenance shop and the recycling business are
intended as permanent structures. In accordance with Section 30-2-10 of the
Weld County Code these structures shall be served by approved permanent
• ISDS systems.
Resolution USR-1642
Lucerne Commons, LLC
Page 3
3) The commodity storage building is intended for seasonal use(approximately 2
•
times per year/2 months each). Because of this seasonal use(less than 6
months per year)the Department is not opposed to portable toilets for this
building.
Department of Public Health and Environment)
J. The applicant shall submit evidence of an Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class V
Injection Well permit from the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)for any vehicle
maintenance facility located on the site that is equipped with a floor drain. Alternately, the
applicant can provide evidence from the EPA that they are not subject to the EPA Class V
requirements. (New EPA rule effective 4/5/2000). (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
K. The applicant shall address the concerns of the Weld County Building Inspection
Department as outlined in their referral dated December 11, 2007. Written evidence
indicating that the Department's concerns have been addressed shall be submitted to the
Department of Planning Services. The applicant shall apply for all necessary building
permits as required by Weld County Code. (Building Inspection Department)
L. The applicant shall address the concerns of the Eaton Fire Protection District as outlined
in their referral dated December 10, 2007. Written evidence indicating that the District's
concerns have been addressed shall be submitted to the Department of Planning
Services. (Department of Planning Services)
M. The applicant shall either submit to the Weld County Department of Planning Services a
copy of an agreement with the properties mineral owners/operators stipulating that the oil
and gas activities have adequately been incorporated into the design of the site or show
evidence that an adequate attempt has been made to mitigate the concerns of the
•
mineral owners. (Department of Planning Services)
N. The applicant shall obtain a discrete address for each of the buildings located on the
property. The address shall be clearly posted on the buildings. (Department of Planning
Services)
O. The plat shall be amended to delineate the following:
1. The plat shall be labeled USR— 1642. (Department of Planning Services)
2. The attached Development Standards. (Department of Planning Services)
3. Accesses to State Highway 392 as approved by the Colorado Department of
Transportation, the access permit numbers shall be shown on the plat.
4. An additional forty-five (45)feet from the edge of the current State Highway 392 right
of way shall be shown as State Highway 392 future right of way. There shall be no
facilities or storage placed in the future right of way.
5. County Road 39 is classified as a major arterial which requires one hundred and forty
(140)feet of right of way at full build out. Currently, there is sixty(60)feet of right of
way, the applicant shall delineate and additional forty(40)feet of right of way on the
plat for future County Road 39. There shall be no facilities or storage placed in the
future right of way.
•
Resolution USR-1642
Lucerne Commons, LLC
Page 4
6. Spaces reserved for the parking of vehicles and all loading zones shall be delineated
• on the plat. The total number of on-site parking for this facility shall be forty-one (41)
spaces. Each parking space shall be equipped with wheel guards or curb stops
when necessary to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the boundaries of the
space and from coming into contact with other vehicles,walls,fences, or plantings.
The location of all curb stops in the parking areas per Section 23-4-30.D of the Weld
County Code shall be delineated on the plat. A detailed site access and circulation
plan that addresses the concerns and requirements of the Landscape referral dated
November 26, 2007. (Department of Planning Services)
7. Areas used for trash collection shall be screened from public rights-of-way and all
adjacent properties. These areas shall be designed and used in a manner that will
prevent wind-or animal-scattered trash. The plat shall be amended to address this
issue. (Department of Planning Services)
8. Uses involving outdoor storage of vehicles, equipment or materials when permitted
shall be screened from public rights-of-way and all adjacent properties. The applicant
shall submit a screening plan which indicates the type and height of the fencing for
review and approval by the Department of Planning Services. The plat shall be
amended to delineate the approved screening plan. (Department of Planning
Services)
9. The approved Landscape and Screening Plan. (Department of Planning Services)
10. The location of the septic systems shall be identified on the plat.
P. The applicant shall submit a Private Improvements Agreement according to policy
regarding collateral for improvements and post adequate collateral for all landscaping,
• transportation (access drive, parking areas, etcetera)and non-transportation (plant
materials, fencing, screening, water, signage etcetera). The applicant shall submit to the
Department of Planning Services an itemized landscaping bid for review. The agreement
and form of collateral shall be reviewed by County Staff and accepted by the Board of
County Commissioners prior to recording the Use by Special Review plat. Or the
applicant may submit evidence that all the work has been completed and approved by the
Department of Planning Services and the Department of Public Works. (Department of
Planning Services)
Q. The applicant shall submit two (2) paper copies of the plat for preliminary approval to
the Weld County Department of Planning Services. The plat shall be prepared in
accordance with the requirements of Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld County Code.
(Department of Planning Services)
2. Upon completion of 1. and 2. above the applicant shall submit a Mylar plat along with all other
documentation required as Conditions of Approval.The Mylar plat shall be recorded in the office
of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder by Department of Planning Services' Staff. The plat shall
be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld County
Code. The Mylar plat and additional requirements shall be submitted within one hundred and
eighty(180)days from the date of the Board of County Commissioners resolution. The applicant
shall be responsible for paying the recording fee. (Department of Planning Services)
3. The Department of Planning Services respectively requests the surveyor provide a digital copy of
this Use by Special Review. Acceptable CAD formats are .dwg, .dxf, and .dgn (Microstation);
acceptable GIS formats are ArcView shapefiles, Arclnfo Coverages and Arclnfo Export files
format type is .e00. The preferred format for Images is .tif(Group 4). (Group 6 is not acceptable).
•
This digital file may be sent to mapst7a,co.weld.co.us. (Department of Planning Services)
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Lucerne Commons, LLC
• USR- 1642
1. The Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit is for a use permitted as a Use by Right
Accessory Use or Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone District (fracking
company, commodity storage and drying, and a recycling business) in the A (Agricultural) Zone
District.
2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 23-8-10 of the Weld
County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
3. All signs on site shall adhere to Article IV Division 2 of the Weld County Code as it relates to signs in
the A(Agricultural)Zone District. (Department of Planning Services)
4. The commodity storage building use is considered temporary and is intended for seasonal use
(approximately 2 times per year/2 months each);agricultural harvest periods and market conditions
determine the use of this structure. Use of the building is limited to no more than 6 months per
calendar year. (Department of Planning Services)
5. The number of employees on site shall be limited to thirty-one(31).
6. Adequate portable toilet facilities shall be provided for the commodities storage building users during
the periods of seasonal use. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
7. All liquid and solid wastes (as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, 30 20
100.5, C.R.S., as amended)shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that protects
against surface and groundwater contamination. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
• 8. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. This is not meant to include those
wastes specifically excluded from the definition of a solid waste in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites
and Facilities Act, 30 20 100.5, C.R.S.,as amended. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
9. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust,
fugitive particulate emissions, blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions. (Department
of Public Health and Environment)
10. The applicant shall operate in accordance with the approved"waste handling plan". (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
11. This facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Commercial Zone as
delineated in 25-12-103 C.R.S., as amended. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
12. Adequate handwashing and toilet facilities shall be provided for employees and patrons of the facility.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
13. Any septic system located on the property must comply with all provisions of the Weld County Code,
pertaining to Individual Sewage Disposal Systems. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
14. The facility shall utilize the North Weld County Water District. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
15. Any I.S.D.S for the proposed facility and shall be installed according to the Weld County I.S.D.S.
Regulations. The septic system is required to be designed by a Colorado Registered Professional
Engineer according to the Weld County I.S.D.S. Regulations. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
•
Resolution USR-1642
Lucerne Commons, LLC
Page 6
16. Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to adhere to
• the fee structure of the Weld County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11) (Department of
Planning Services)
17. Effective August 1, 2005, Building permits issued on the subject site will be required to adhere to the
fee structure of the Capital Expansion Impact Fee and the Stormwater/Drainage Impact Fee.
(Ordinance 2005-8 Section 5-8-40)(Department of Planning Services)
18. A building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction of any structure,the change of use of any
existing structure, and for the location of temporary structures on site as required by Weld County
Code. (Department of Building Inspection)
19. A plan review is required for each building for which a building permit is required. Plans will be
required to bear the wet stamp of a Colorado registered architect or engineer.Two complete sets of
plans are required when applying for each permit. (Department of Building Inspection)
20. Provide letter of approval of building plans from the Eaton Fire Protection District to the Weld County
Building Department prior to the issuance of any building permit as evidence of adequate fire
protection. (Department of Building Inspection)
21. All landscaping and screening on site shall be maintained in accordance with the approved
Landscape and Screening Plan. (Department of Planning Services)
22. The property owner shall allow any mineral owner the right of ingress or egress for the purposes of
exploration development, completion,recompletion, re-entry,production and maintenance operations
associated with existing or future operations located on these lands. (Department of Planning
Services)
• 23. The property owner acknowledges that mineral owners and lessees have real property interests that
entitle them to surface use in accordance with Colorado State Statutes and applicable Colorado Oil
and Gas Conservation Commission regulations. (Department of Planning Services)
24. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of
Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
25. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of
Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
26. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the State and Federal agencies
and the Weld County Code. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
27. Personnel from the Weld County Government shall be granted access onto the property at any
reasonable time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the
Development Standards stated herein and all applicable Weld County regulations.
28. The Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the foregoing
standards and all applicable Weld County regulations. Substantial changes from the plans or
Development Standards as shown or stated shall require the approval of an amendment of the Permit
by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans or
Development Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the
Department of Planning Services.
29. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing
Development Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Development Standards may be
• reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners.
Resolution USR-1642
Lucerne Commons, LLC
Page 7
Motion seconded by Robert Grand.
• VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Tom Holton
Doug Ochsner
Erich Ehrlich
Roy Spitzer
Paul Branham
Mark Lawley
Nick Berryman
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this
case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Kristine Ranslem, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission,do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County,
Colorado, adopted on March 4, 2008.
Dated the 4th of March, 2008.
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
•
homeowners have some negative exposure. He added that the County Attorney has said that in his opinion,
• legally this case should proceed.
Commissioner Holton commented that this was handled very poorly and there should have been some
communication between the land owner and the current residents. He added that he doesn't believe that it is
fair to the current owner that everything to south be tied up when they could be doing something to it. Mr.
Holton said that this is unusual and is not fair to both sides but could have been handled a lot better.
Commissioner Berryman commented that we are charged to approve or deny this application based on the
County Code and from his understanding if it is denied what do we base it on regarding the code that staff has
outlined. He added that it is an interesting dilemma apart from the issue of fairness.
Robert Grand moved that Case AmPZ-516, 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, Roy Spitzer seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman,yes; Paul Branham, no; Erich Ehrlich,yes with comment;Robert Grand,yes;Bill Hall,abstain;Mark
Lawley, yes with comment; Roy Spitzer, yes with comment; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion
carried.
Commissioner Ehrlich cited County Code Section 27-2-140 and also commented that to the current Avery
Acres Association as well as the current landowner that communicating now is going to be the issue that is
going to be impactful because of what you heard today with the southern property.
Commissioner Branham commented that he has not heard enough evidence to overrule the former resolution.
Commissioner Lawley commented that he believes that it is consistent with the existing County Code.
• Commissioner Spitzer commented that these are two additional lots to a five-lot subdivision and he thinks that
it is within the rights of the property in accordance to the current County Code. He is not thrilled by it because
of the fairness issues involved but he thinks that realistically it shouldn't result in any new regular traffic to the
existing homeowner's out there and it shouldn't result in a huge change in their lifestyle if it is done properly.
The Chair reminded the public that this was a recommendation by the Planning Commission and it will be
heard before the Board of County Commissioners and that is where the decision will be made and urged them
to attend that meeting.
The Chair called a recess at 3:08 p.m. EXHIBIT
The Chair called the meeting back to order at 3:16 p.m.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1642
APPLICANT: Lucerne Commons, LLC do Ag Professionals, LLC
PLANNER: Hannah Hippely
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parts of the SW4 of Section 17,T6N,R65W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for an Oil and Gas
Support and Service facility(fracking company),Agricultural Service Establishment
(commodity storage and drying),Use allowed in the Commercial or Industrial Zone
District(recycling business)in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Highway 392 and east of and adjacent to CR 39.
The Chair pointed out that this case was continued from the February 5, 2008 meeting and Commissioner
Branham was not there to hear the case so he will not be able to vote on this case.
Hannah Hippely, Department of Planning Services,highlighted some points to the Commissioners again. The
• site location is at the corner of County Road 39 and State Highway 392. Currently the site has three existing
structures on it that the applicant is intending to repurpose for Commercial and Industrial uses.
9
She reminded the board that the issue that was left outstanding and the reason that staff had recommended
• denial of this application was that the septic issues were not adequately addressed and did not meet County
Code, nor were the storm water management facilities planned for. Ms. Hippely stated that they had
requested the applicant supply the Department of Public Works and the Health Department with some
additional information and she commented that she believes that the applicant has done so.
The Chair asked Mr. Dunker with the Department of Public Works if he has received a drainage report. Don
Dunker, Department of Public Works,commented that he received a pdf file, not a stamped drainage report,
and he did review the preliminary report from the pdf file. He stated that Public Works does not agree with all
the numbers within the report; however he believes that it can be done on site. He added that they need to
move outside of the future right-of-way of CDOT, but believes that they can make the retention in this case.
Commissioner Holton asked Mr. Dunker if he is satisfied with their efforts. Mr. Dunker replied that he is.
Lauren Light, Department Public Health, stated that they received an initial perk test and the layout of where
they will put the septics in. She commented that they will need to do engineered systems. Ms. Light
commented that based on the information that the applicant provided to them it looks like it would work.
Commissioner Lawley asked if there are any changes to the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Ms. Hippely stated that they covered everything they need, however she is still concerned about
fitting all the things that need to go on this site. She added that once the applicant has determined where
these septic systems are best suited to go, she would like to see them located on the plat.
Ms. Hippely suggested to add to the Conditions of Approval on Page 6, letter O(the plat shall be amended to
delineate the following)#10 "the location of the septic systems shall be identified on the plat." Ms. Hippely
stated that the intent is not to limit where they place them it is just to have on here that once they have placed
them somewhere to let them know where that is.
• Mark Lawley moved to accept the addition of O.10"The location of the septic systems shall be identified on
the plat"to the Conditions of Approval, seconded by Erich Ehrlich.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, yes; Paul Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, no with comment; Mark
Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried.
Commissioner Hall commented that the reason he voted no is because one of the things that he sees as a
long term problem would be the fact that they are not talking about a septic envelope,they are talking about a
system. So then they will need to change it if the system fails and it won't be accurate. He suggested a septic
envelope rather than the actual location of the septic systems.
Commissioner Ehrlich mentioned that CDOT and the right of way with relationship to the septic systems was
discussed at the February 5th meeting and asked Mr. Dunker if they are still going to be okay. Mr.Dunker said
that they will need to move it outside of the future CDOT right-of-way of 75 feet from the centerline.
Dusty McCormick,AgProfessionals,4350 Highway 66, Longmont CO. He stated that upon approval from the
Board of County Commissioners hearing, his client will execute an agreement with Cache la Poudre on
reserving their new enlarged right-of-way.
He commented that CDOT's original comments were 75 feet from centerline and then were readjusted to 45
feet from the edge of the existing pavement, which in this case is approximately 15 feet. Mr. McCormick
stated that he would really like to see the language stay the same. Mr. Dunker stated that he needs to work
that out with CDOT.
Mr. McCormick stated that he doesn't feel that septic envelopes are necessary to put on the plat, however,
they would be happy to do that as it is very minor.
• Mr. McCormick commented that he has an objection to one of the Conditions of Approval which is on Page 6,
O.6 which states that the total number of on-site parking spaces for this facility shall be seventy-one (71)
10
spaces. Mr. McCormick stated that seventy-one (71) spaces for thirty-one (31) employees is somewhat
• excessive. He proposed to change that to allow for 10 additional visitors which are not anticipate nor planned
for bringing the total to forty-one(41) parking spaces which he believes to be adequate for this facility.
Ms. Hippely said that the parking is determined based on the use and square footage of the building. She
added that we could lower the number of spaces if we could add a development standard limiting the number
of employees on-site to thirty-one (31). Ms. Hippely stated that we could base it on how many people are
going to use the site or we can base it on the square footage and use of the building.
Commissioner Ochsner asked Mr. McCormick if they think they will ever have more than thirty-on (31)
employees. Mr. McCormick replied that it is difficult to say and added that they allowed for a 15% growth
above what the tenants said they would have. Mr. McCormick stated that he would like to see the parking
determined on the use.
Commissioner Spitzer asked Mr.McCormick if he would agree to a limited number of employees on-site. Mr.
McCormick replied that they would agree and would ask for forty-one (41) parking spaces.
Ms. Hippely recommended to amend O.6 to read forty-one (41) spaces and strike the sentence that reads
"The facility shall adhere to the number of on-site parking spaces indicated in Appendix 23-B of the Weld
County Code", because we are not complying with that.
Ms. Hippely stated that we can add development standard #5 and renumber accordingly that reads "The
number of employees on-site shall be limited to thirty-one(31).
Tom Holton moved to accept staffs recommendation to add Development Standard #5 and amending
Condition of Approval O.6, seconded by Mark Lawley. Motion carried.
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 that they are in agreement.
Roy Spitzer moved that Case USR-1642, 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 as the following Sections: 23-2-220.A.1,23-2-220.A.7,23-2-220.A.7 have been
met, Robert Grand seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman,yes;Paul Branham, abstain;Erich Ehrlich,yes; Robert Grand,yes;Bill Hall,yes;Mark Lawley,yes;
Roy Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton, yes with comment; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Holton sited Section 23-2-240 and Section 23-2-250.C.
Doug Ochsner needed to excuse himself from the meeting at 3:48 p.m. due to a prior commitment. Vice
Chair Tom Holton took over the meeting.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1644
APPLICANT: Jack&Vicki Pierson
PLANNER: Roger Caruso
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot C of RE-3345;Part of the NE4 of Section 34,T4N,R66W of the 6th P.M.,Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for a KENNEL (to
accommodate 120 dogs)and one(1)single-family dwelling unit per lot other than
those permitted under Section 23-2-30.A in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 40 and 1/4 mile west of CR 33.
Roger Caruso, Department of Planning Services, stated that they would like the request to be changed to
a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a kennel (to accommodate 120 dogs)
• and one (1) single-family dwelling unit per lot other than those permitted under Section 23-2-30.A in the A
(Agricultural)zoned district.
11
12- -hocx
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• Tuesday, February 19, 2008
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld County Conference Room,
4209 CR 24.5, Longmont, 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
Paul Branham
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Mark Lawley
Roy Spitzer
Also Present:Tom Honn,Kim Ogle,Jacqueline Hatch,Michelle Martin,Hannah Hippely,and Roger Caruso;bepar erft
of Planning Services; Don Carroll,Don Dunker,David Snyder, Department of Public Works; Lauren Light,.D partinent
of Environmental Health; Cyndy Giauque, County Attorney, and Donita May,Secretary.
Robert Grand moved to approve the February 5,2008 Weld County Planning Commission minutes. Second by Mark
Lawley. Motion carried.
CONTINUED ITEMS
CASE NUMBER: USR-1647
APPLICANT: Public Service Company of Colorado
• PLANNER: Hannah Hippely
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parts of Section 3 and Section 10 of T3N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit and 1041
Permit for a Major Facility of a Public Utility (Fort St. Vrain Generating
Facility and associated natural gas pipelines)in the 1-3(Industrial)and A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 34,and adjacent to the east and west of CR
19.5.
Hannah Hippely, Department of Planning, requested this case be continued due to the legal notification not being
published within the prescribed time period. Continuation date will be March 4,2008 to be held in the Greeley Planning
Department hearing room.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished
to speak.
Paul Branham motioned to continue case USR-1647 to the March 4, 2008 hearing date. Second by Nick Berryman.
Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1642
APPLICANT: Lucerne Commons, LLC do Ag Professionals, LLC
PLANNER: Hannah Hippely
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parts of the SW4 of Section 17,T6N,R65W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for an Oil
and Gas Support and Service facility (fracking company), Agricultural
Service Establishment(commodity storage and drying),Use allowed in the
Commercial or Industrial Zone District (recycling business) in the A
• (Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Highway 392 and east of and adjacent to
CR 3.
1
Hannah Hippely, Department of Planning, requested this case be continued to allow the applicants more time to
• complete additional information necessary for the application. Continuation date will be March 4,2008 in the Greeley
Planning Department hearing room.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished
to speak.
Bill Hall motioned to continue case USR-1642 to the March 4, 2008 hearing date. Second by Tom Holton. Motion
carried.
CASE NUMBER: AMUSR-1394
APPLICANT: Zadel Family LLLP
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 3-7, part of Lot 11 and all of Lot 12 in Lupton Meadows Subdivision,
together with the former right of way of the Denver Larimer and
Northwestern Railroad all in Section 24,T2N,R67W of the 6th P.M.,Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Mineral
Resource Development Facility including a Concrete and Asphalt Batch
Plant, Materials Blending, Import of Materials and Gravel Mining in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District. (NCCI Pit#1)
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 18 and west of and adjacent to CR 25.
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning, said the applicants in their email dated February 7,2008,were requesting a
continuance until the March 18,2008,in order to notify the mineral owners/lessees thirty days prior to the hearing. The
hearing will be held in the Southwest Weld Planning hearing room.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
William Gee, 8995 CR 25, Fort Lupton, said the NCCI gravel mining is adjacent to his property on two sides, which
• makes him a peninsula. He expressed interest in where the asphalt plant would be physically located on the property as
well as the hours of operation. He concluded by saying he might not be opposed to it if he knew what was going on.
Robert Kerr, 11104 CR 20,expressed concern for increased traffic and noise from the trucks as well as the hazard they
present to children living in the area. It was also agreed that when CR 20 was put in it would never be used by the
County.
The Chair asked Mr. Kerr to attend the March 18,2008 hearing to present his testimony and if he could not attend the
future hearing, he could submit his concerns in writing.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Ms. Martin repeated the new hearing date, March 18, 2008.
Tom Holton motioned to continue case AmUSR-1394 to the March 18, 2008 hearing date. Second by Mark Lawley.
Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1646
APPLICANT: Dannie&Gail Cito
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1 of SE-664,being part of the SW4 of Section 3,TIN,R68W of the 6th
P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Use by
Right, an accessory use, or a Use by Special Review in the Industrial
Zone District (Steel Fabrication Company) in the A (Agricultural) Zone
District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 7 and approximately IA mile south of State
Highway 52.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning,said this was originally set for consent but was moved from consent to the
• continued agenda in order to allow the applicant additional time to complete mineral notification requirements. This case
will be heard March 18,2008 in the Southwest Planning hearing room.
Roy Spitzer motioned to continue USR-1646 to the March 18, 2008 hearing date. Second by Nick Berryman. Motion
2
- -r ~
acceptable to both parties in that area. She added that they are quite pleased with that. She understands
that it sounds like a large area but the concrete wall would be decorative.
• Commissioner Ochsner expressed his appreciation to Ms. Easley for coming and representing the City of
Greeley.
Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, asked what the City of Greeley is proposing for the future right-
of-way for the expansion of 83`d Avenue. Ms. Easley replied that the future right-of-way expansion was
taken into consideration in meeting the setbacks that they asked for in the area. She indicated that she
does not have the figures but referred him to talk to Joel in their Engineering Department for that question.
Wade Hill, 8952 Gander Valley Lane, Windsor CO. Mr. Hill stated that they worked closely with Joel of the
City of Greeley and the answer to the future expansion of 83rd Avenue is 150 feet wide. Therefore they
have located their pipeline outside the expansion area to the east along 83rd Avenue and also south of 4th
Street in the event that it expands.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
The Chair asked the Department of Public Health for any comments. Lauren Light commented that it is
their understanding that there won't be any employees on site so they are asking for bottled water and
portable toilets during construction of the site. She added that there won't be any emissions other than
when they are constructing the site with just regular engine exhaust so there is no reason for air
permitting. She added that they have included Development Standards to address any dust and noise
issues.
Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, stated that they are proposing one(1) new access to the site
which is off of 83rd Avenue. He added that they do need to have the applicant pull a right-of-way permit
from their department for the access and the installation of the culvert.
Commissioner Ochsner asked Mr. Gathman if are any graffiti standards or how that is addressed since
• this is a concrete wall. Mr. Gathman said that was a good question; however there is not anything specific
in the code that deals with graffiti.
Commissioner Ochsner asked the applicant how they will address it if there is graffiti on the wall. Mr.
Sears replied that since they don't have these walls as a standard for their facilities they don't have a lot of
experience with graffiti. However, by agreement with the City of Greeley, upon construction they will coat
the walls with some type of anti-graffiti that will allow for an easy removal process. He added that they will
have more discussions about how that is going to be handled. He commented that they don't want to have
graffiti on their walls, but if there is some that occurs they would try to take it off.
The Chair asked the applicant if they read through the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval
and if they are agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are.
Robert Grand moved to approve Case USR-1643, seconded by Nick Berryman.
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,yes;
Roy Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1642
APPLICANT: Lucerne Commons, LLC do Ag Professionals, LLC
PLANNER: Hannah Hippely
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parts of the SW4 of Section 17,T6N, R65W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for an Oil and
Gas Support and Service facility(fracking company),Agricultural Service
•
Establishment(commodity storage and drying), Use allowed in the Commercial
or Industrial Zone District(recycling business)in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District.
4
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Highway 392 and east of and adjacent to CR 39.
Hannah Hippely, Department of Planning Services, read the case into record.
• The property is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of State Highway 392 and County Road
39.
The sign announcing this Planning Commission meeting was posted by staff January 24, 2008.
The adjacent properties are zoned agricultural except to the southwest the zoning is Commercial. The
nearest residences are located in the subdivision of Lucerne which is directly to the west of the property
and there is also a home on the property directly north of the site.
Twelve referral agencies reviewed this proposal. Nine responded and either stated that they did not have
a conflict with the use or expressed concerns that should this application be approved staff has attempted
to address through the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Planning Staff is recommending the denial of this application due to its inconsistency with Sections of the
Weld County Code. Specifically:
Sec. 22-2-60.AGoal1.Policy 1.3. Allow commercial and industrial uses, which are directly related to, or
dependent upon agriculture, to locate within the A(Agricultural)Zone District when the impact to
surrounding properties is minimal, and where adequate services and infrastructure are currently available
or reasonably obtainable.
In this case, the applicant has been unable to demonstrate that there is adequate infrastructure for
stormwater management facilities and in regards to the provision of adequate sewer services.
Missing these two components also means that this application does not comply with the following
Sections of the Code:
• Section 23-2-220.A.7 That there is adequate provision for the protection of the health, safety and welfare
of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and the County.
Section 23-2-220.A.7--The Design Standards (Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code), Operation
Standards (Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code),
For these reasons, staff is recommending denial of this application.
Ms. Hippely commented that the proposal doesn't really add much to the site. They are proposing two
office trailers; otherwise the applicant is proposing to re-use the existing structures on site.
Commissioner Holton asked what is being recycled. Ms. Hippely said that she believes it is different types
of paper and paperboard and cardboard but the applicant can address that more in his presentation.
Commissioner Grand asked why this is a USR. Ms. Hippely replied that it is an Agriculturally zoned piece
of property, so Commercial operations are a Use by Special Review. She added that all three of these
buildings were historically used for Ag-related storage, drying, or personal use by the owner. Now we are
changing the use for two of the buildings.
Commissioner Berryman asked about the pit or the detention pond. Ms. Hippely said that there is a pit
there but was not constructed for stormwater drainage facilities and she doesn't believe that it is
operational for those purposes at this point. However, she pointed out that Don Dunker with the
Department of Public Works could answer that.
Commissioner Spitzer asked about the surfacing around the buildings. Ms. Hippely replied that it is
gravel.
• Commissioner Hall asked if they are changing the surfacing. Ms. Hippely replied they are not. She added
that historically, because this was an Ag property it wasn't required to have stormwater management
5
facilities. The change of use necessitates that those facilities be installed.
Commissioner Berryman asked where the access point is from Highway 392. Ms. Hippely stated that the
• applicant has two approved accesses from CDOT. She indicated on the map where these accesses are
located.
Commissioner Grand asked where the current restroom facilities are located. Ms. Hippely replied that
currently there is a septic system associated with the office building. She indicated that there may be
some facilities in the office trailer.
Dusty McCormick, 4350 Hwy 66, Longmont CO. Mr. McCormick stated that a lot of what Ms. Hippely
presented was correct but he would like to make a few clarifications. Mr. McCormick gave a brief
presentation to the Planning Commission.
Mr. McCormick commented that the request is to continue to use the site,just more efficiently. He added
that they don't want to change the site but to re-use the buildings. He commented that in the building to
the west they are going to have a small office, shop and storage. The building in the middle will continue
to be used as storage for potatoes. The biggest change of this facility is to convert the building to the east
to a recycling building. He mentioned that the question earlier of what is going to be recycled there is
going to be primarily office pack, cardboard and some wood. Mr. McCormick added that the client has
found a tenant for the building of whom is National Recycling and two of their largest clients are Wal-Mart
and Budweiser. There is no shredding on site and there will be no stacking of products outdoors. It all
happens inside the building.
Mr. McCormick clarified that the recycling facility does have drainage capabilities. It was graded and
designed for everything to run down to the pond. This pond was also used for process water that they
would take in and out of the potatoes but other than that this pond was built to handle all the water from
this facility. Mr. McCormick commented that he does not know if it was designed at the standard that it
needed to be back then.
• Mr. McCormick stated that there is going to be approximately 31 employees of which in the first few years
there would be approximately 21 people there on a daily basis. He added that 10 of the employees are
truck drivers where they would come in and get their truck, leave for the week in some instances and
come back, park their truck in the building and then be gone.
Mr. McCormick stated that the drainage plan as submitted is very conceptual. He added that everything
does channel and flow generally toward the pond. There is very minimal grading that would have to occur.
Mr. McCormick stated that what they are proposing at this point is a retention facility. What type of
structure they are going to use to release that water at the rate that it needs to has not been designed yet.
He added that what they are asking for today is the faith from this Board and the resolution that Ms.
Hippely has put together to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners and those
conditions and development standards adequately address having the applicant comply with that. Having
a drainage study done now is not the wishes of the applicant before he gets an approval or denial.
Commissioner Holton asked where it discharges to now. Mr. McCormick replied that right now everybody
discharges to the applicant's site. He added that the options of releasing the water is to 1) perk the water
back into the ground, 2)work an agreement to regrade the neighboring property, or 3)take it under the
road into the public right-of-way ditch on the south side of Hwy 392.
Commissioner Grand asked why they do not have a drainage report as requested by the County. Mr.
McCormick stated that his client would rather not incur the cost of stamping an engineered drainage report
if he is not going to be approved for this plan.
Commissioner Grand asked if he would agree as a condition of approval that before it is approved by the
Board of County Commissioners there would be a certified drainage study to the satisfaction of the
• County. Mr. McCormick replied his client fully intends to comply with that if he is approved.
Mr. McCormick stated that if they can get a recommendation of approval from the Planning Commission
today, sometime in the next 60 days they will get their hearing with the Board of County Commissioners.
6
From that point if the Count Commissioners approve it then they have 180 days, per this resolution, to get
that drainage study completed and get that plat recorded.
• Ms. Hippely stated that was incorrect and clarified that it would be to get all those facilities installed and
functioning, not the drainage report.
Commissioner Spitzer stated that the drainage report would have to be implemented within 180 days and
before they record the plat. Ms. Hippely stated that was correct, unless they decide to post the
improvements agreement and go that direction. However, in this case she would prefer to see the
facilities installed. Ms. Hippely added that the reason is because they are already in operation as this use
right now and will continue to function as this use up until these conditions are met.
Commissioner Spitzer asked how they are handling the sewage issue right now.
Mr. McCormick stated that on site today there were approximately eight(8) people there. He added that
as stated there is an office trailer and it does have a self-contained septic system. It is pumped
approximately once a week. Also in one of the pictures, there is a port-a-potty on the north end of the
property and there is an existing septic system. The unfortunate part of that septic system is that it is not
a legal ISDS system at this time. It was applied for, and engineered but never inspected. Mr. McCormick
commented that in working with Pam Smith of the Department of Health, they feel very comfortable in
moving forward in that there is adequate room for ISDS systems on this site and if approved his client is
willing to build any septic system to house the employees.
Commissioner Spitzer said that currently there were eight (8) employees on site but presumably there is
going to be 31 employees coming and going. He added that is a pretty intense use for one trailer system,
one port-a-potty and one septic system that we don't know anything about.
Mr. McCormick stated that we do know that the septic system was designed for approximately six (6)
people at the time.
• Commissioner Spitzer said that you are using that much more now with the potential of 31 people coming
and going.
Mr. McCormick said that would be correct if we had 31 people coming and going right now. He
commented that the numbers in the application give the current tenants room to expand their operations.
Right now, because of the zoning violation the tenants are running what would be considered "ghost
operations". The recycling company is basically using this temporarily as they are leasing and operating
their major facility in Loveland. He added that what they would like to do is get this permit approved, make
some improvements and get people moved over there. Right now there are 2 people there to make sure
the commodities and the storage of their goods are there.
The Chair asked the Department of Health for their comments. Pam Smith said that in 2001 there was a
septic system applied for and issued for a design capacity of 6 people. From what we know, apparently
that septic system was installed but was never inspected by their department before it was covered up.
She added that in conversations with Mr. McCormick it appears that there is a well in the office building
that was never disclosed to the Health Department at the time that the septic permit was issued.
Therefore there is the added complication of having the setbacks met between the well and the existing
septic system.
Commissioner Spitzer asked if the well is the drinking water supply for the site. Ms. Smith stated that it
might have been at the time, but she added that the applicant has applied for a tap from North Weld
County Water District and they are going to convert the property to North Weld Water. She further added
that they will keep the well because of the historic water rights and they don't want to give them up. Ms.
Smith stated that she doesn't have a problem with that but they need to know where the septic system is
and if it meets capacity.
• Ms. Smith commented that this case is not uncommon to what you have seen in other applications. They
have see a lot of applications where there is an undocumented septic system or have a septic system that
has gone from a house to some kind of Commercial use and needs to be re-evaluated.
7
Ms. Smith said that as far as the commodity storage building, because it is seasonal use, they don't have
a problem with them using portable toilets up to six(6) months per year. The issue that the Health
Department has a concern with is the two self-contained office trailers which are very similar to
• construction trailers. She added that it would be a full-time use and the objection that they have with it is
the maintenance of those.
Mr. McCormick commented that in the condition of approval 1.1.2 it states"that portable office units
proposed to serve the east end of the proposed oil and gas support facility maintenance shop and the
recycling business are intended as permanent structures." He stated that they are in agreement with
using those and hooking them up to installed ISDS systems.
The Chair asked the Department of Public Works for their comments.
Don Dunker, Department of Public Works, commented that County Road 39 is an arterial road and they
will be taking an additional 40 foot of right of way. He added that CDOT has requested an additional 45
feet of right-of-way for Highway 395. He continued to add that the Greeley#2 canal is located north of the
site and when it is running for several months he is not sure about where the ground water is and how
those septic systems would work or the pond as well.
Mr. Dunker stated that there are currently berms along some of the sides of the pond to not allow any of
the water to get into the pond so he is not sure if it is processed water or storm water that is in there.
Commissioner Spitzer asked which way the site slopes. Mr. Dunker said that it slopes from the Greeley
#2 canal to the pond.
Mr. Dunker commented that back in September 2007 there was a meeting between AgProfessionals, the
Health Department, Public Works Department and the Eaton Fire Department. It was brought up that the
site was serviced by a % inch water tap and the main water line in the road way to the site was also'A
inch. He added that he only brought this up because the site is very tight and he doesn't know how all the
stormwater retention/detention, septic tanks, leach fields and possible external underground tanks for fire
•
flows will fit.
Mr. Dunker stated that the Department of Public Works is requiring the applicant to provide water quality
for this site which includes detaining the developed 10-year storm, releasing it at the 5-year historic rate
and no additional buildings or impervious service could be added to this site. He added that the pond
would also be required to have a water quality feature to settle out the sediments and oils.
Commissioner Grand asked in terms of the pond, will the CDOT right-of-way requirement eliminate the
pond or take a big chunk of it away? Mr. Dunker said that it will. Mr. Grand then asked what they would
use for a retention pond. Mr. Dunker said that he doesn't know, they may have to redesign it in a different
spot.
Commissioner Hall asked if CDOT has requested the right-of-way already. Mr. Dunker replied that they
have and added that he doesn't know when it is scheduled to be widened but they have requested for it in
the future.
Pam Smith commented that the septic permit that was issued at the end of July 2001 so the perk test
would have been done either early in July or probably sometime in June. At that time, the perk rate was
just under 40 minutes per inch and ground water was greater than 8 feet.
Commissioner Ochsner commented that by observation he has never seen any problem with drainage.
He added that the parking lot is mostly dry and there have been major storms when he has driven by the
area and the pond is full but the area around the buildings has been dry.
Commissioner Ehrlich referred to the applicant currently being in violation and asked Ms. Hippely about
the timeline on the USR and the violations. Ms. Hippely said that they are in violation for the operation of
• these businesses. Nothing will happen with the violation until they go to a Board of County
Commissioners hearing. She added that it would happen 45-50 days after the hearing today. Once that
hearing occurs the result of that hearing will determine what happens with the violation. Should the board
decide to approve this USR, the violation goes away.
8
Commissioner Ehrlich commented that we are getting into more of what we need to and the biggest issue
is that the applicant doesn't have any type of drainage report done at this time. He stated that is in favor
• of still denying the application the way it is presented and forwarding it to the Board of County
Commissioners. He suggested that the applicant see how fast they can get some type of drainage report
prior to the Board of County Commissioner's hearing and put that into our developmental standards.
Mr. McCormick commented that all these uses fit into this area and is aware that they need to work out
some engineering to make it all work. He added that he would hesitate to have this board forward a
recommendation of denial to the Board of County Commissioners and would much rather, if approved
here, have a condition of approval prior to scheduling a Board of County Commissioners hearing to have a
preliminary drainage report done. He further added that with the simple sake of timing of this application,
it is imperative with the zoning violation that we keep this think moving forward. Mr. McCormick reiterated
that his client is willing to do whatever it takes to complete this process and to do the engineering that is
needed as long as there are some assurances that this can move forward.
Commissioner Spitzer expressed concern with the numbers and asked what if you find that the drainage
won't work with the approved approaches for capturing and releasing the 10-year storm at the 5-year rate.
He added that it seems to him the engineering should come first just to make sure that your client is
protected and this project is really feasible.
Commissioner Holton said that the problem that he has with this application is that it is not complete and
would have really liked to have seen the drainage report. He added that usually the applicant is working
with the Department of Public Works and Department of Health and those things are put into the packets
for the members of the Planning Commission to see.
Commissioner Hall commented that in his opinion we could move forward on this with a condition of
approval that this engineering has to be done before they even get a chance to go to the County
Commissioners.
• Commissioner Lawley stated that he agreed with what Commissioner Ehrlich had commented earlier. He
asked if a continuance would be appropriate in order for the applicant to provide the information. Ms.
Hippely said that if the applicant would like to request a continuance instead of having the Board make a
decision at this point they can.
Commissioner Holton commented that he believes this is a good use for this property however he doesn't
feel the application is complete.
Mr. McCormick stated that they are not opposed to a continuance as they want to do what is in the best
interest of this project. He asked that if they can get a preliminary stamped engineered drainage report,
could they have this meeting in two(2)weeks in the south office.
Ms. Hippely said no and apologized as Public Works needs adequate time to review this and believes that
it is only fair to the staff that this be continued to the next hearing in this office.
Commissioner Holton asked Public Works what they thought. Mr. Dunker said that he would definitely
need a couple of weeks to review it and it would be best to wait until the March hearing.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Commissioner Ochsner commented that although the application is not complete there are conditions of
approval in place. He added that although he may review the drainage report it is not going to convince
him one way or the other. If Public Works or Public Health approves it, then that is all he needs. Mr.
Ochsner expressed concern that if by delaying this application it would be a hardship to the existing two
businesses out there and he doesn't want to lose those businesses. He stated that as far as a land use
• issue, it meets all the criteria. He agreed that as a last option it would be best to go ahead and continue
this application if it will not cause a hardship to the tenants.
Commissioner Holton commented that they are operating now and doesn't believe that will change. He
9
added that he feels they have a duty to the Board of County Commissioners that we send them completed
cases and this one is not complete. If we gave them another two weeks, and the applicant seems to be
on board with that, and if staff feels that they don't have enough time within those two weeks to make the
• February 19, 2008 meeting then we can move it to the March 4, 2008 meeting.
Commissioner Spitzer stated that he is in favor of the continuance just so they could have a little more
information and know that they are going to be giving the County Commissioners something that is really
going to fit with the code.
The Chair asked Mr. McCormick if continuing it out one month will cause any hardship on the applicant. Mr.
McCormick replied that it is better than being denied.
Tom Holton moved to continue Case USR-1642 to the February 19, 2008 Planning Commission meeting,
seconded by Roy Spitzer.
Commissioner Lawley stated that he wants the applicant to understand what needs to be submitted. Mr.
McCormick stated that he understands he needs to have 1) preliminary perks of the location of where the
septic systems will be located and 2) preliminary drainage report complete and stamped.
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 with comment; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, yes;
Mark Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Ehrlich commented that he needs clarity on the drainage report and also how that
coincides with the Cache la Poudre Irrigation Company. He added that is not too sure about building
codes and the Eaton Fire District and that goes to the denial that the Planning Staff put in which is Section
23-2-220.A.7.
The Chair called a recess at 3:25 p.m.
• The Chair called the meeting back to order at 3:34 p.m.
Weld County Code Changes
Staff: Roger Vigil
Items: Building Codes
Tom Honn, Director of Planning Services, stated that there are two basic code changes that we are
processing to be adopted by mid-summer as dictated by State Legislature. He pointed out that one of
changes is revisions to the Electrical Code and the other has to do with the Energy Code conditions.
Mr. Honn mentioned that the Building Department has reviewed this through the Building Code Advisory
Group and added that they also sent letters out to contractors that operate within the County and invited them
to a public meeting.
Roger Vigil, Department of Building Inspection, stated that there are three changes to Chapter 29 that are
being proposed: 1)Adoption of the 2008 National Electric Code with amendments, 2)Adoption of the 2006
International Energy Conservation Code, and 3) Changes to Section 29-3-70 Moved Buildings.
Mr. Vigil commented that they invited a number of people to a public meeting because there are three
changes in the National Electric Code that are going to directly impact contractors and homeowners. He
added that the Energy Code mandated by the State is going to really present a new way to insulate dwellings
and to meet the code.
Mr. Vigil stated that the only change to the National Electric Code is the date from 2005 to 2008. The
amendments are all staying the same.
Mr. Vigil commented that with regard to the Energy Code, they are asking to adopt the 2006 International
• Conservation Energy Code. It is going to be adopted with two amendments. The first amendment will be to
substitute the adopted Electrical Code for the ICC Electrical Code and the other amendment is going to allow
the permanent certificate to be in a conspicuous place. The 2006 Energy Code requires that it be affixed to
10
Hello