HomeMy WebLinkAbout20082980.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Mark Lawley,that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning
•
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1670
APPLICANT: Northern Colorado Disposal
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Solid
Waste Disposal Site and Facility(Recycling Facility/Transfer Station)in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-449, Section 33,T6N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,
Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 64(O Street)and west of and adjacent to 59th Ave.
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 23-2-260
of the Weld County Code.
2. It is the opinion of the 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. Section 22-2-60 B. A.Goal 2. states:
"Conversion of agricultural land to urban scale residential, commercial and industrial uses
will be considered when the subject site is located inside an approved intergovernmental
agreement area, urban growth boundary area, Mixed Use Development areas or urban
development nodes, or where adequate services are currently available or reasonably
obtainable. This goal is intended to address conversion of agricultural land to minimize
• the incompatibilities that occur between uses in the A(Agricultural) Zone District and
other zoned districts that allow urban uses. In addition, this goal is expected to contribute
to minimizing the costs to County taxpayers of providing additional public services in rural
areas for uses that require services on an urban scale."
This proposed use is located within the urban growth area of the city of Greeley and will
provide recycling services for trash generated predominately by urban scale residential
and commercial areas in the county.
B. Section 23-2-220.A.2 --The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the A
(Agricultural)Zone District. Section 23-3-40.1 of the Weld County Code provides for Solid
Waste Disposal sites and facilities (for a(Recycling Facility/Transfer Station)as a Use by
Special Review in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
C. Section 23-2-220.A.3--The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with the
existing surrounding land uses. Single family residences along with industrial uses
associated with the railroad are located approximately 1/8 mile to the west of the site.
Single family residences are also located approximately 1/8 to % mile east of the site.
Existing railroad tracks and undeveloped land with the exception of an oil and gas
production facility is located to the south of the site. Agricultural land is located to the
north of the site.
The applicants are proposing to install a six-foot privacy fence along the perimeter of the
property for screening purposes. The Department of Planning Services is requiring a
landscaping and screening plan as a Condition of Approval for this proposal to ensure
compatibility with the surrounding area.
• EXHIBIT
(AS2 *ono
joid --`ND
Resolution USR-1670
Northern Colorado Disposal
Page 2
D. Section 23-2-220.A.4--The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with future
• development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning and with the
future development as projected by Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code and any other
applicable code provisions or ordinances in effect, or the adopted Master Plans of
affected municipalities. The proposed facility is located within the urban growth boundary
and three-mile referral area for the City of Greeley.The municipal limits of the City of
Greeley are located immediately to the northeast and east (59` Avenue)of the facility.
The City of Greeley, in their referral received September 30, 2008, recommended
approval of this Use by Special Review Permit as long as their comments were
satisfactorily addressed. The City of Greeley requirements included screening of the site
with opaque fencing along with landscaping, that right-of-way for future expansions of O
Street and 59th Avenue be dedicated, evidence that the building meets City of Greeley
design standards, and that emergency access onto 59th Avenue be gated at all times.
E. Section 23-2-220.A.5--The application complies with Section 23-5 of the Weld County
Code.
Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to
adhere to the fee structure of the County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11)
Effective August 1, 2005, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots 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)
F. Section 23-2-220.A.6 --The applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort to conserve
prime agricultural land in the locational decision for the proposed use. Section 22-2-60 I.
A.Goal 9. states: "The minimum lot size of parcels in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
should remain at eighty(80) acres to encourage parcels large enough to retain viable
• farming operations or to accommodate modern agricultural equipment and irrigation
practices."The site is only 6 acres in size which limits its feasibility to be used for farming
operations.
G. 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), Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards ensure that there are adequate provisions for the protection of
health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and County.
H. Sec. 23-4-380. Solid waste sites and facilities or hazardous waste disposal sites.
A. Certificates of designation for solid or hazardous waste disposal sites and facilities as
required by Colorado Revised Statutes and Code of Colorado Regulations shall not be
deemed approved until or unless a Use by Special Review Permit has been approved by the
Planning Commission or the Board of County Commissioners where required by this
Chapter.The Board shall be guided in its review of a certificate of designation by state statute
and regulations contained in Colorado Revised Statutes and Code of Colorado Regulations.
A certificate of designation is not required for this facility.
B. Applicants for activities reviewed pursuant to Article II, Division 4 of this Chapter for any
Solid Waste sites and facilities or Hazardous Waste disposal sites shall have the burden
of proof to demonstrate that there is a need for the facility within the proposed area of
service, and the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall be
satisfied that a need exists as part of the determinations for any such permit.
The applicant has demonstrated compliance with supplementary regulations and criteria
applying to solid waste disposal sites. The application states that 239 residential trash
trucks would be accessing the site monthly with anticipated loads leaving the facility of 57
• loads headed for the landfill and 28 loads transferred to other facilities for recycling. This
would result in an anticipated reduction of 182 loads headed for the landfill.
Resolution USR-1670
Northern Colorado Disposal
Page 3
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.
The Department of Planning Services met with the applicant on September 26, 2008 to discuss the referrals
received.Additionally the applicants held a community meeting on October 9,2008 that was attended by three
(3)surrounding property owners.The Conditions of Approval outlined below are the remaining items that still
need to be addressed.
The Planning Commission recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following:
1. Prior to recording the plat:
A. The plat shall be amended to delineate the following:
1. The attached Development Standards. (Department of Planning Services)
2. O Street is a major arterial road, which requires a 140-foot right-of-way at full build
out.There is presently a 60-foot right-of-way.A total of 40-feet additional right-of-way
(70-feet from centerline in total)shall be dedicated to Weld County on this USR plat.
This road is maintained by Weld County. Pursuant to the definition of SETBACK in
the Weld County Zoning(23-1-90),the required setback is measured from the right-
of-way line. (Department of Public Works)
3. An additional 37.5 feet of right-of-way for 59th Avenue shall be dedicated on this
plat. This road is maintained by the City of Greeley. (City of Greeley)
4. The approved Landscaping and Screening Plan. (Department of Planning
• Services)
5. The approved lighting plan (if applicable). (Department of Planning Services)
6. A minimum 60-foot turning radius shall be indicated. (Department of Public
Works)
7. A total of 28 parking spaces shall be indicated on the plat per Appendix 23-B of
the Weld County Code. At least one parking space shall be an ADA handicapped
parking space. (Department of Planning Services)
8. One off-street loading space shall be indicated on the plat per Section 23-4-50 of
the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
9. The emergency access gate shall be indicated. (City of Greeley)
10. The plat shall be labeled USR-1670. (Department of Planning Services)
B. The Operations Plan submitted in the application materials shall be amended to address
the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Hazardous Materials and
Waste Management Division's October 9, 2008 comments. This amended plan shall
then be submitted to and approved by the Hazardous Materials and Waste Management
Division and the Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment. Evidence of
such shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Health
and Environment)
C. A fugitive particulate emissions control plan (dust control plan)shall be submitted and
• approved by the Weld County Dept. of Public Health & Environment. Evidence of such
shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Public Health
and Environment)
Resolution USR-1670
Northern Colorado Disposal
Page 4
• D. Applicant shall demonstrate through their Operations Plan that all process wastewater will
be collected and disposed of in accordance with the Colorado Water Quality Control
Commission and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regulations. Evidence of such
shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Public Health
and Environment)
E. The facilities Fire Protection Plan shall be approved by the Union Colony Fire Rescue
Authority and be included in the Operations Plan. Evidence of such shall be provided to
the Departments of Public Health and Planning Services. (Department of Public Health
and Environment)
F. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements of the City of Greeley as outlined
in their referral received September 30, 2008. Written Evidence of such shall be provided
to the Department of Planning Services. (City of Greeley)
H. The applicant shall address the requirements of the Department of Planning Services
Landscape referral dated September 5, 2008. Written evidence of such shall be provided
to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
The applicant shall address the requirements of the Department of Public Works as
outlined in their referral dated October 6, 2008. Written evidence of such shall be
provided to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Public Works)
J. The applicant shall provide evidence to the Department of Planning Services that they
have addressed or made a good faith effort to address the requirements/conditions of the
City of Greeley as stated in Exhibit 12 submitted at the November 4, 2008 Planning
Commission hearing. (Department of Planning Services)
• K. The applicant shall submit two(2) paper copies of the plat for preliminary approval to the
Weld County Department of Planning Services. (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 thirty(30) 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 maos(c�co.weld.co.us. (Department of Planning Services)
4. Prior to release of building permits:
A. A building permit application must be completed and two sets of complete plans including
engineered foundation plans must be issued prior to start of construction. (Department of
Building Inspection)
B. A letter from the Union Colony Fire/Rescue Authority shall be provided indicating whether
or not a fire district permit is required. (Department of Building Inspection)
•
Resolution USR-1670
Northern Colorado Disposal
Page 5
5. Prior to operation:
• A. Evidence shall be submitted to the Weld County Department of Public Health &
Environment and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Hazardous
Materials and Waste Management Division that demonstrates the recycling facility was
constructed in accordance with the approved design. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
6. The Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on
the property until the Special Review plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County
Clerk and Recorder. (Department of Planning Services)
Motion seconded by Roy Spitzer.
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 November 4, 2008.
Dated the 4th of November, 2008.
!� Ldp/„F arty,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
•
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Northern Colorado Disposal
USR-1670
1. The Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit is for a Solid Waste Disposal Site and
Facility(Recycling Facility/Transfer Station) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District, as indicated in the
application materials on file and subject to the Development Standards stated hereon.(Department of
Planning Services)
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. Hours of operation shall be from 6 AM to 6 PM Monday through Friday and occasional Saturday
mornings. (Department of Planning Services)
4. The facility shall have a maximum of twenty(20)employees. (Department of Planning Services)
5. The emergency access point onto 59th Avenue shall remain gated at all times and shall only be used
in an emergency situation. This emergency access shall not become a long term access point but
rather only as long as needed to make the main access functional again. (City of Greeley)
6. The property owner or operator shall comply with the applicable sections of the Regulations
Pertaining to Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities (6 CCR 1007-2)and operate in compliance
with the approved Operations Plan. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
7. The facility shall comply with the approved Fire Protection Plan and any additional requirements of
the Union Colony Fire Rescue Authority. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
8. Volume records shall be maintained, which include solid waste processed, solid waste shipped for
• disposal, and the amounts and types of materials shipped for recycle. An annual report shall be
submitted to the Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment and the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment Hazardous Materials and Waste Management
Division by May first of each year. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
9. Only residential and commercial solid waste may be accepted at this facility. No medical waste,
hazardous waste, special wastes, asbestos waste, contaminated soils or demolition/construction
wastes may be accepted for processing. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
10. All material received at the facility shall be processed within 24 hours. After processing all solid
waste shall be stored in closed containers. After processing all recyclable materials shall be
stored under cover on an impervious surface or in closed containers. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
11. The property owner or facility operator shall notify the Weld County Department of Public Health &
Environment, Department of Planning Services and the Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment in the event of any deviations from or proposed changes to the facilities
Operations Plan or Fire Protection Plan. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
12. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
13. Any liquid or solid wastes (as defined in the Regulations Pertaining to Solid Waste Disposal Sites
and Facilities", as promulgated by the Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, Title 30,
Article 20, part 1, 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)
•
Resolution USR-1670
Northern Colorado Disposal
Page 7
14. The facility shall be operated and maintained in a manner to prevent nuisance conditions from the
• attraction, breeding and emergence of birds, rodents, insects and other vectors. Additional
control measures shall be implemented at the request of the Weld County Department of Public
Health & Environment. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
15. Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions shall be controlled on this site. The facility shall
comply with their approved fugitive dust control plan. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
16. The maximum permissible noise level shall not exceed the light industrial limit of 70 dB(A), as
measured according to Section 25-12-102, CRS. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
17. There shall be no shredding, melting, grinding or other secondary material processing.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
18. Exhaust removal systems shall be installed in enclosed areas and for dust producing processes
and equipment. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
19. Visible stack emissions from exhaust removal and material processing shall not exceed 20%
opacity(measured in accordance with EPA Reference Method 9). There shall be no visible
emissions from any building openings (measured in accordance with EPA Reference Method 22).
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
20. In accordance with the Colorado Air Quality Control Commissions Regulation Number 2, odor
detected off site shall not exceed the level of seven-to-one (7:1)dilution threshold. (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
21. The Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment, Weld County Department of Public
Health & Environment and the public shall be provided with notification in the event of temporary
or permanent closure. Upon closure, the facility shall follow the closure plan portion of the
Operations Plan. All solid waste, wastewater and recyclables shall be removed and properly
disposed of. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
22. Waste materials, not specifically addressed by other development standards, shall be handled,
stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust, blowing debris, and other potential
nuisance conditions. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
23. An individual sewage disposal system (I.S.D.S.) is required to dispose of sewage from the facility
and must be designed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer and in accordance with
Weld County I.S.D.S. Regulations. Any I.S.D.S. on the property shall be permitted, installed,
maintained and operated in compliance with Weld County I.S.D.S. Regulations. No process
wastewater may be disposed of in this system. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
24. Process wastewater(such as floor drain wastes)shall be captured in a watertight vault and hauled
off for proper disposal. Records of installation, maintenance, and proper disposal shall be
retained. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
25. The applicant shall obtain stormwater discharge permit coverage from the Colorado Department of
Public Health & Environment, Water Quality Control Division. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
26. This facility shall comply with the laws, standards, rules and regulations of the Water Quality
Control Commission, Air Quality Control Commission, Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste
Division, and any other applicable agency. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
•
Resolution USR-1670
Northern Colorado Disposal
Page 8
27. Pursuant to Chapter 15, Articles I and II of the Weld County Code, if noxious weeds exist on the
• property or become established as a result of the proposed development, the applicant/landowner
shall be responsible for controlling the noxious weeds. (Department of Public Works)
28. Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to adhere to
the fee structure of the County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11) (Department of Planning
Services)
29. Effective August 1, 2005, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots 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)
30. The landscaping on site shall be maintained in accordance with the approved Landscape&Screening
Plan. (Department of Planning Services)
31. 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)
32. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of
Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code.
33. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of
Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code.
34. Personnel from the Weld County Departments of Public Health and Environment, Planning Services
and Public Works 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.
35. 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.
36. 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.
37. The applicant shall submit an improvements agreement that addresses the timing and scope of the
applicant's participation in paying the costs of improvements to the intersection of Weld County Road
64 and 59th Avenue based upon the applicant's proportional share of current traffic counts taken at
the time of intersection upgrades. The agreement shall expire 10 years after the Board of County
Commissioner approval if intersection upgrades have not been constructed.
i
kg- 2OO7
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to 59th Ave and approximately 1/4 mile south of O Street.
• The Chair asked Mr.Gathman if he wishes for this case to remain on consent. Mr.Gathman stated that staff
has received one letter of concern in regard to prairie dogs. He added that staff has not received any phone
calls or any other correspondence from surrounding property owners. Unless there are people in the audience
who object, staff recommends it stays on consent.
The Chair asked if the applicant was available and if they wish for this case to remain on consent. Dave
Bauer, Public Works, stated that he wishes for this case to remain on consent.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
The Chair asked if any of the Planning Commissioners wished to pull this item from consent. No one wished
to speak.
The Chair read the next case on the Consent Agenda into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1659
APPLICANT: DeRoy&Cathy Turley
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for one(1)Single-
Family Dwelling Unit Per Lot other than those permitted under Section 23-3-20.A
(Section 23-3-40.L)and any use permitted as a Use by Right,An Accessory
Use, or a Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts,
provided that the property is not a Lot in an approved or recorded subdivision
plat or lots parts of a map or plan filed prior to adoption of any regulations
controlling subdivisions(Section 23-3-40.R)(Tank Repair, Agricultural Millwork
and a second single family dwelling unit).
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SE4 NE4 Section 22,T6N, R62W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
• LOCATION: Approximately Yz mile south of CR 68; East of and adjacent to CR 79.75.
The Chair asked Mr. Ogle if he wishes for this case to remain on consent. Kim Ogle, Planning Services,
stated that staff does wish for this item to remain on consent. He added that they received one letter in
support from an adjacent property owner.
The Chair asked if the applicant was here and if they wish for this to remain on consent. Mr. Ogle indicated
that they are here and wish for this case to remain on consent.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
The Chair asked the Planning Commissioners if they wish to pull this case from the consent agenda. No
one wished to speak.
The Chair read the third case on the consent agenda into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1670
APPLICANT: Northern Colorado Disposal
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Solid
Waste Disposal Site and Facility(Recycling Facility/Transfer Station)in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-449,Section 33,T6N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 64(O Street)and west of and adjacent to 59th Ave.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, stated that this case was listed on consent. He added that there was a
• community meeting in early October with surrounding property owners and they received positive feedback.
He indicated that there are representatives from the City of Greeley and believes that they ma
discuss some issues on this case. EXHIBIT
2008-2980 /1
The Chair asked if the applicant was present and if they wish for this case to remain on consent. The
• applicant indicated that they do wish for this case to remain on consent.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Jana Easley, Planning Manager for the City of Greeley, 1100 10th St, Suite 202, Greeley. Ms. Easley
expressed appreciation for the opportunity to comment on cases within their long range growth boundary. She
added that in this case they are requesting some additional items such as landscape screening,a certain type
of fencing and some upgrades to the exterior building materials. She commented that they are requesting that
this case be pulled from the Consent Agenda to discuss these issues more in depth.
Ms. Easley indicated that the applicant did come to Greeley and visit with them earlier in the year. She added
that there are in agreement for most of the items but would like the opportunity to further solidify some of the
City's request as it relates to this site.
The Chair asked the Planning Commissioners if they would like to pull this item from the consent agenda.
Commissioner Grand asked that since the agreement has almost been reached, can we leave it in the hands
of staff to work out with the applicant and the City of Greeley.
Mr. Gathman commented that there are a couple of conditions of approval for this case already. One is a
requirement for a landscaping and screening plan. There is another condition that the applicant must attempt
to address the requirements of the City of Greeley in their referral. From a planning staff standpoint we can
deal with it either way. He added that there have already been considerable discussions between the
applicant and the City of Greeley on these issues. He asked the Commissioners to keep in mind that this is
located in the urban growth boundary for the City of Greeley. The City of Greeley did annex 59th Avenue and
now the proposed site is fairly close to the boundaries of the City of Greeley.
• Commissioner Lawley asked if the applicant and the City are working on this or if they have they come to
some kind of an agreement. If so, he would support a continuation to let them work out the details and bring it
back to us. If not, then he would support a hearing. Mr. Gathman commented that with this case it is time
sensitive. It is scheduled with the Board of County Commissioners next Wednesday, November 12th. If we
continue the case we are looking at least a couple of weeks out. He commented that the applicant and the
City of Greeley have had some discussion on these issues. He mentioned that in talking with both the
applicant and the City of Greeley he is confident that they can reach an agreement.
Commissioner Spitzer asked Mr. Gathman if he recommends hearing the case today. Mr. Gathman replied
that he would recommend hearing the case today so that it can be resolved prior to the Board of County
Commissioners hearing next week.
The Chair asked Ms. Easley if they have read the development standards for the case. Ms. Easley stated that
they have read through them. She added that comments were provided from their administrative review team
to the applicant. The response to comments on several of the items was simply stated as"Noted", which to
them didn't really say yes or no to the requested action. Therefore they are seeking a resolution to those
questions and proposed requirements, rather than just a statement of"Noted". Ms. Easley indicated that they
are just a little unclear as to whether or not the applicant has agreed to these items.
The Chair asked if the Planning Commissioners wish to pull this item from consent. Commissioner Spitzer
and Commissioner Grand wished to pull this case from the consent agenda to be heard.
Mark Lawley moved that the Consent Agenda which includes Case USR-1671 and USR-1659, be forwarded
to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards
with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval, seconded by Roy Spitzer.
• The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, yes; Paul Branham, absent; Erich Ehrlich, absent; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall,yes; Mark Lawley,
yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, absent. Motion carried unanimously.
3
The Chair called a recess at 1:52 pm for staff to prepare for the hearing.
• The Chair called the meeting back to order at 1:57 p.m. and read the case back into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1670
APPLICANT: Northern Colorado Disposal
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Solid
Waste Disposal Site and Facility(Recycling Facility/Transfer Station)in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-449,Section 33,T6N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,
Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 64(O Street)and west of and adjacent to 59th Ave.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, commented that this is a Site Specific Development Plan and Special
Review Permit for a Solid Waste Disposal Site and Facility(Recycling Facility/Transfer Station)for
Northern Colorado Disposal in the Agricultural Zone District.
The site is located south of and adjacent to O Street and west of and adjacent to 59th Avenue.
The applicant is proposing a building where the majority of the recycling would be. They would also have
an area for the public to bring their trash which would be sorted by Northern Colorado Disposal.
There is a requirement for a future right-of-way to be dedicated for O Street as well as for 59th Avenue.
The applicant is proposing to place a fence 10 feet inside the edge of the future right-of-way. In addition,
the applicant would have some landscaping in the 10 feet between the fence and the edge of right-of-way
for both O Street and 59`h Avenue.
According to the referral comments from the City of Greeley, they would like to see opaque screening
• along the boundary of the facility. Mr. Gathman indicated that he understands the preferred material
would be vinyl or possibly cedar. There was some discussion of requiring less opaque screening if the
applicant agrees to put in conifers, pines, spruces, etc versus a deciduous type material. He commented
that this addresses the specifics on the landscaping issues.
Mr. Gathman noted that there is a proposed condition of approval from Public Works dealing with road
improvements. He added that Mr. Snyder from Public Works can address that specifically.
The Chair asked Pubic Works for their comments.
David Snyder, Public Works, commented that this site is on O Street and 59th Avenue. He added that they
are accessing via a paved entrance and then onto a gravel area inside.
There is stacking for four tracks on their property so they will not have any back up on the County Roads.
The traffic impact will be very minimal. The last count for O Street was 2700 ADT. He concluded that
they have no concerns with this application.
The Chair clarified if Public Works wishes to make this addition as a Development Standard. Mr. Snyder
replied yes.
The Chair asked Public Health if they had any comments.
Troy Swain, Environmental Health, commented that they recommended approval. He added that their
comments are reflected in Development Standards 6-25.
Mr. Swain stated that the applicant will be submitting an Operations Plan which is required by the State
• Solid Waste Rules. He added that the Health Department did go with the option of having the applicant
submit the plan to the State Health Department for their approval and it will be required to be approved by
the State Health Department as well as by Weld County Health Department prior to recording the plat.
4
The Chair asked if the applicant would like to make any comments.
• David Peek, Drexel) Barrel, 6513 W 4'"Street, representing Northern Colorado Disposal. Mr. Peek
referred to the additional development standard from Public Works. He commented that he was not
aware of the addition until about 11:45 this morning and added that they are not clear of the details on how
that is going to work out financially in the short or long term. The statement doesn't really say anything
about how the applicant's percentage will be contributed whether it is based on the number of trucks
through the intersection or by contiguous acres and how the applicant would have to pay for that once the
intersection is improved. Mr. Peek commented that this is new to them and it makes them somewhat
uncomfortable adding this as a requirement of approval without some details. He added that the applicant
isn't afraid to pay his fair share but wants to make sure that he is not committing himself to something in
the future that would be excessive for him.
Mr. Peek submitted the list of requests with regard to the landscaping and building materials from the City
of Greeley. He said that Item 1 was that the building setback be pushed back from 20 feet to 25 feet. Mr.
Peek stated that the applicant is in agreement with that.
Item 2 is that the exterior building materials should be a mix of materials as suggested and added that the
applicant is in agreement with that based on the other options the City of Greeley presented for screening.
Mr. Peek commented that the City of Greeley has indicated that if the applicant can fix up the building
they will allow a non-opaque fence with some landscaping. He read from their letter which states that the
type of screening could vary depending on the manner that the building exterior is treated. The City of
Greeley would like to see improved facade utilizing open vinyl, plasticized, chain link fence, dark brown in
color. He added that if the applicant chose not to do the upgrades on the exterior building then they would
like to see a standard opaque fence such as a vinyl or cedar fence.
Mr. Peek continued to state that in all cases the City of Greeley has asked the applicant to utilize a buffer
yard and substitute some deciduous trees and shrubs with evergreens. Finally, the City has requested
•
that the applicant would work within the city's standards for a buffer yard B which is listed in their letter.
Mr. Peek indicated that the applicant agrees with all of the items listed and would be willing to work with
the City of Greeley and the County to finalize both building elevations and fencing and buffer yard that
would be in agreement with all three entities involved.
Commissioner Lawley asked if there is a development standard included to address this issue. Mr.
Gathman stated that there is a development standard which talks about some of those issues but not
specifically. He added that if the applicant is agreeable to it they could include that as a condition of
approval.
The Chair asked Mr. Gathman to work on the language for this while they discuss the maintenance
contract from Public Works.
Commissioner Holton said that the applicant has made comments about not being comfortable with this
contract being open ended. He asked Mr. Snyder if they would be willing to change the language so that it
will be like most of the other maintenance contracts that they see. Don Dunker, Public Works,
commented that the applicant will only be required for their proportionate share. Right now the applicant
estimates 22 trips per day; therefore it would be 22/2700 would be their proportionate share. He added
that before the intersection would be upgraded new counts would be taken and their proportionate share
would be determined by that number. Mr. Holton asked if we could include language in the development
standard so that it would state"their proportionate share". Mr. Dunker replied that it is currently stated in
the last sentence but he could change it for better clarification.
Mr. Snyder read the amended development standard "The applicant shall submit an improvements
agreement that addresses the timing and scope of the applicant's participation for paying the costs of the
improvements to the intersection of Weld County Road 64 and 59` Avenue based upon the applicant's
• proportional share of current traffic counts taken at the time of intersection upgrades."
Mr. Gathman read the amended condition of approval "The applicant shall provide evidence to the
5
Department of Planning Services that they have addressed or made a good faith effort to address the
requirements/conditions of the City of Greeley as stated in Exhibit 12 submitted at the November 4, 2008
• Planning Commission Hearing."
The Chair asked Ms. Easley if they are comfortable with the amended conditions of approval. Ms. Easley
said that she believes that it is a good solution to it.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
The Chair asked Mr. Peek if the applicant is in agreement with amended development standard from
Public Works and the amended condition of approval from the Planning Department. Mr. Peek asked if
Public Works could give a general idea of the costs that it would be at the time and when the intersection
is proposed for improvement. Mr. Snyder commented that it is difficult to answer. There are no plans yet
therefore they are not sure how much the improvements would be. Mr. Dunker added that it would
depend on what improvements would be made at the intersection however he couldn't' give an amount at
this time. He added that there is nothing scheduled at this time.
Mr. Peek asked Mr. Dunker if this agreement has a sunset on it, such as a 10 year agreement. Mr.
Dunker replied that it does not have a sunset on it but it is something that could be discussed.
Commissioner Lawley asked how come there isn't a timeline on this agreement like most public
improvement agreements. Mr. Dunker replied that there are some intersections they have no idea on
when they need to improve them. With more traffic and businesses that come in and use this they are
seeing a need to have something.
Commissioner Lawley asked how you can encumber the applicant for doing an improvement that might be
done in 30 years. He added that he is concerned with how the applicant plans for it and asked that it be
consistent with the time frame on other public improvements agreements. Mr. Dunker replied that they
would be willing to place a sunset on the agreement and added that the other agreements that they have
•
are at 10 years. Mr. Peek commented that the applicant would be agreeable to that. He asked if the
agreement would be transferable to the City of Greeley if it became annexed. Mr. Holton commented that
it would depend on the terms of the annexation agreement. Mr. Dunker stated that they would add "to
expire within 10 years after Board of County Commissioner approval" at the end of the sentence.
Mr. Peek said that with regard to the items requested from the City of Greeley the applicant agrees with
the amended language as presented by Mr. Gathman.
Robert Grand moved to add Condition of Approval 1.K and re-letter accordingly to read "The applicant
shall provide evidence to the Department of Planning Services that they have addressed or made a good
faith effort to address the requirements/conditions of the City of Greeley as stated in Exhibit 12 submitted
at the November 4, 2008 Planning Commission hearing." Mark Lawley seconded the motion. Motion
carried unanimously.
Robert Grand moved to add Development Standard#37 to read "The applicant shall submit an
improvements agreement that addresses the timing and scope of the applicant's participation in paying
the costs of improvements to the intersection of Weld County Road 64 and 59th Avenue based upon the
applicant's proportional share of current traffic counts taken at the time of intersection upgrades. The
agreement shall expire 10 years after the Board of County Commissioner approval if intersection
upgrades have not been constructed." Nick Berryman seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Mark Lawley moved that Case USR-1671 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 Roy Spitzer.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
• Berryman, yes; Paul Branham, absent; Erich Ehrlich, absent; Robert Grand,yes; Bill Hall,yes; Mark Lawley,
yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, absent. Motion carried unanimously.
6
The Chair asked for any new business.
• Brad Mueller, Planning Services, commented that he has some items to discuss. He stated that the first
item is for you to consider and adopt the Planning Commission hearing dates for 2009. He added that
there are no exceptions provided for in this next year so it is the typical 1 n and 3"'Tuesdays of the month
at the regularly scheduled times.
Robert Grand moved to approve the 2009 Planning Commission hearing dates as presented, seconded
by Bill Hall. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Mueller commented that today was previously scheduled for a retreat. However because today was
scheduled for a joint luncheon with the Board of County Commissioners we have postponed that retreat.
He asked direction if they want to try and fit in another retreat this calendar year and also if they are still
interested in having the quarterly retreats next year.
Commissioner Lawley commented that he would support starting the retreats over after the first of the
year. The Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Lawley. Mr. Mueller commented that he would bring
some potential dates for retreats at an upcoming meeting.
Mr. Mueller invited the Planning Commissioners to the annual holiday luncheon. It is scheduled on
December 2nd at 11:30 a.m. at The Harvest in St. Michael's square. Additional information will be sent.
Mr. Mueller handed out some detailed information on the upcoming Summit scheduled in December. He
commented that the speakers should be outstanding. Commissioner Lawley asked if this is similar to the
"Your Town"workshop which was held in Windsor. Mr. Mueller replied that it is the same model that will
be followed. Mr. Lawley expressed that he felt it was a good process. Mr. Mueller asked that they let him
know him know in the next couple of weeks if they will be attending. Commissioner Holton and
Commissioner Grand indicated that they would attend.
• Tom Honn, Planning Director, commented that there is a small fee which covers the cost. He added that
it is their intent that they would cover that cost for those from the Planning Commission who plan to attend.
Meeting adjourned at 2:52 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
•
7
Hello