HomeMy WebLinkAbout20080087.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
• Moved by Michael Miller, that the following resolution be introduced for denial by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1546
APPLICANT: J&M Partnership
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SW4 of Section 20, T6N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST:. A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for uses
permitted as a Use by Right, Accessory Use or Use by Special Review in
the Commercial or Industrial Zone District(Parking of trucks,trailers,semi-
trailers,recreational vehicles,construction equipment and farm equipment.
Warehousing and storage of equipment, machinery and agricultural
supplies. Minor assembling. Repairing manufacturing, fabricating of
agricultural supplies and equipment. All may be for wholesale or retail for
sale or lease to the general public.) In the A (Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 39 and north of and adjacent to CR 66.
be recommended unfavorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
Section 23-2-220.A.3-The uses which would be permitted will not be compatible with the existing surrounding
land uses.
Should the Board of County Commissioners chose to approve this proposal the Planning Commission
recommends the following conditions:
The Planning Commission's recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following:
• 1. Prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing:
1) Application materials indicate that signage on site will comply with the Weld County Code except
that two(2)signs will be allowed.The applicant shall submit a sign plan for review and approval
by the Board of County Commissioners. The plan shall delineate the location, size, and type of
construction of each sign. Upon approval the signs shall be delineated on the plat(Department
of Planning Services)
2. Prior to recording the plat:
A. All sheets of the plat shall be labeled USR-1546. (Department of Planning Services)
B. The plat shall be amended to meet all requirements of Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld County
Code. (Department of Planning Services)
C. County Road 66 is designated on the Weld County Road Classification Plan as a collector road,
which requires 80 feet of right-of-way at full build out. There is presently 60 feet of right-of-way.
A total of 30 feet from the centerline of County Road 66 shall be delineated right-of-way on the
plat.An additional 10 feet shall be delineated as future road right-of-way.This road is maintained
by Weld County. (Department of Public Works)
D. The applicant shall submit written evidence to the Department of Planning Services that the
following requirements have been met to the satisfaction of the Weld County Department of
Public Health and Environment:
1) The applicant shall submit a dust abatement plan for review and approval, to the
• Environmental Health Services,Weld County Department of Public Health&Environment.
2) In the event,the applicant intends to wash vehicles or equipment on site,the fo
apply: R
ES
2008-0087
Resolution USR-1546
J&M Partnership
Page 2
A. The applicant shall provide evidence that the washing area will be designed and
•
constructed to capture all effluent and prevent any discharges from the washing of
vehicles or equipment in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Water
Quality Control Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency.
3) The existing septic system serving the commercial building is designed for 5 persons
(permit# G19880196). The application materials indicate that a maximum of 20 people
may work at the site. Therefore, the existing septic system shall be reviewed by a
Colorado Registered Professional Engineer. The review shall consist of observation of the
system and a technical review describing the systems ability to handle the proposed
hydraulic load.The review shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Services Division
of the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment. In the event the system
is found to be inadequately sized or constructed the system shall be brought into
compliance with current Regulations.
4) In accordance with the Underground and Above Ground Storage Tank Regulations(7 CCR
1101-14) a spillage retention berm shall be constructed around the tank battery. The
volume retained by the spillage berm should be greater than the volume of the largest tank
inside the berm. Alternative protective measures may be allowed provided they comply
with the Above Ground Storage Tank Regulations.
5) The applicant shall submit evidence of an Aboveground Storage Tank permit from the
Colorado Department of Labor and Employment(CDL&E), Oil Inspection Section for any
aboveground storage tanks (660 to 40,000 gallons) located on the site. Alternately, the
applicant can provide evidence from the(CDL&E), Oil Inspection Section that they are not
subject to these requirements.
• 6) The applicant shall submit evidence of an Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class V
Injection Well permit from the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)for any 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.
7) 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:
A. A list of wastes which are expected to be generated on site (this should include
expected volumes and types of waste generated).
B. A list of the type and volume of chemicals expected to be stored on site.
C. The waste handler and facility where the waste will be disposed(including the facility
name,address, and phone number). (Department of Public Health&Environment)
5) The applicant shall submit building permits for any change of use for all existing buildings as
required by the Weld County Building Inspection Department.The applicant shall submit evidence
to the Department of Planning Services that all required building permits have been submitted
to the satisfaction of the Building Inspection Department. All buildings will require:
1) Plot plan showing exact location of buildings on property.
2) Floor plan of each building, with dimensions of each portion of the building.
3) Description of specific uses of all area, existing and proposed.
4) Type of construction for each building.
5) Type of heating equipment.
• 6) Size of electrical service. (Building Inspection)
6. The applicant shall submit an Improvements Agreement that addresses all improvements
associated with this development (curb stops, screening, gravel/pavement, landscaping
materials, signage and stormwater features, etcetera) per compliance with Section 24-9-10 of
Resolution USR-1546
J&M Partnership
Page 3
the Weld County Code, or complete all improvements to the satisfaction of the Weld County
•
Departments of Public Works and Planning Services. The agreement shall be approved by
County Staff and accepted by the Board of County Commissioners prior to recording the plat.
(Department of Planning Services)
7. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements (concerns) of the City of Greeley, as
stated in the referral response dated February 15, 2006. Evidence of such shall be submitted
in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services.
8. The applicant shall comply with the following Commercial District Performance Standards as
indicated in Section 23-3-250 of the Weld County Code.
1. Section 23-3-250.A.1 - Stormwater Management. All users of land shall provide and
maintain stormwater retention facilities designed to retain the stormwater runoff in excess
of historic flow from the undeveloped site. The stormwater retention facility on a developed
site shall be designed for a one-hundred-year storm. The stormwater retention facility shall
be designed and operated to release the retained water at a quantity and rate not to
exceed the quantity and rate of a five-year storm falling on the undeveloped site. The
applicant shall contact the Weld County Storm Water Drainage Department to determine
any requirements for storm water drainage referring to Section 24-7-120 and Section 23-3-
250.A.1 of the Weld County Code. The applicant shall submit written evidence from the
Weld County Storm Water Drainage Department indicating that all requirements have been
met and the plat has been amended to show any required storm drainage area.
(Department of Planning Services and Public Works)
2. Section 23-3-250.A.2 — Parking. Sufficient screened, off-street parking areas shall be
provided to meet the requirements of employees, company vehicles, visitors and
• customers of the Uses Allowed by Right and Accessory Uses. The applicant shall indicate
the proposed parking areas for trucks and equipment,farm equipment and standard sized
vehicles. Appendix 23-A describes the design requirements for parking spaces and
Appendix 23-B delineates the number of parking spaces required by use for this property.
The plat shall indicate a minimum of 40 standard sized parking spaces. The off-street
parking including the access drive shall be surfaced with gravel or the equivalent and shall
be graded to prevent drainage problems. Each standard size parking space shall be
equipped with a wheel guard or a curb stop where needed to prevent vehicles from
extending beyond the boundaries of spaces and coming into contact with other vehicles,
buildings or fences. The applicant shall submit a parking plan to the Departments of
Planning Services and Public Works for review and approval. The applicant shall submit
evidence of Public Works approval to the Department of Planning Services.(Departments
of Planning Services and Public Works)
3. Section 23-3-250.A.3-Street Access. Lots shall have safe access to an approved public
or private street. The design designation of any street or highway as to type shall be in
conformance with that shown on the county thoroughfare plan and/or the master plan of
the affected municipality.The applicant has identified a gated access to the proposed USR.
Utilize this access point with adequate turning radiuses to accommodate larger trucks,
semi-trailers, and recreational vehicle movement. A stop sign should be installed at this
entrance to control traffic entering on to County Road 66,a collector status road. Evidence
of Public Works approval of the revised plat shall be submitted to the Department of
Planning Services. (Departments of Planning Services and Public Works)
4. Section 23-3-250.A.6—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)
5. Section 23-3-250.A.9 — Outside Storage. 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
Resolution USR-1546
J&M Partnership
Page 4
• 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)
6. Section 23-2-250.B.6—Light. Any lighting,including light from high temperature processes
such as welding or combustion, shall be designed, located and operated in such as
manner as to meet the following standards: sources of light shall be shielded so that
beams or rays of light will not shine directly onto adjacent properties; neither the direct nor
reflected light from any light source may create a traffic hazard to operators of motor
vehicles on public or private streets; and no colored lights may be used which may be
confused with or construed as traffic control devices. The application materials did not
include a Lighting Plan. Should exterior lighting be a part of this facility,all light standards
shall be delineated on the plat. (Department of Planning Services)
A. The plat shall be amended to delineate the following:
1. The attached Development Standards. (Department of Planning Services)
2. All public rights-of-way with dimensions. (Department of Public Works)
3. The existing fuel tanks,any ditches or easements associated with the proposed USR,the
dimensions describing meets and bounds of the proposed USR area and any existing or
proposed septic areas. (Departments of Planning Services and Public Works)
4. Setbacks from oil and gas structures as required by Section 23-3-50.E of the Weld County
Code shall be delineated on the plat. (Departments of Planning Services)
• B. 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)
3. Prior to operation:
A. If interested,the applicant shall contact the Weld County Sheriffs Office to discuss development
of a security plan for the site free of charge. (Sheriffs Office)
4. 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)
5. In accordance with Weld County Code Ordinance 2005-7 approved June 1, 2005, should the plat not
be recorded within the required thirty(30)days from the date of the Board of County Commissioners
resolution a $50.00 recording continuance charge shall be added for each additional 3 month period.
(Department of Planning Services)
6. 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)
• 7. 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)
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
J & M Partnership
• USR-1546
1. The Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit is for uses permitted as a Use by Right,
Accessory Use or Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone District (Parking of
trucks, trailers, semi-trailers recreational vehicles, construction equipment and farm equipment.
Warehousing and storage of equipment, machinery and agricultural supplies. Minor assembling.
Repairing, manufacturing, fabricating of agricultural supplies and equipment.All may be for wholesale
or retail for sale or lease to the general public.) 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. Prior to locating any additional uses on the site, information must be submitted to the Department of
Planning Services, the Eaton Fire Protection District and the Department of Building Inspection to
determine if the proposed use would constitute a substantial change to the approved Use by Special
Review Permit or if additional infrastructure will be required. The information shall include the type of
business, copy of a lease if applicable, number of employees, area to be used or leased by the
business, and any additional information deemed necessary by the Department of Planning Services.
Substantial changes will require an amendment to the Use by Special Review permit. (Department of
Planning Services)
4. Parking spaces including the access drive shall be surfaced with gravel, asphalt, concrete, or the
equivalent and shall be graded to prevent drainage problems. (Department of Public Works)
• 5. The historical flow patterns and run-off amounts will be maintained on site in such a manner that it will
reasonably preserve the natural character of the area and prevent property damage of the type
generally attributed to run-off rate and velocity increases, diversions, concentration and/or unplanned
ponding of storm run-off. (Department of Public Works)
6. As indicated in application materials, the number of employees on site shall not exceed twenty (20).
(Department of Planning Services)
7. As indicated in application materials, traffic from the site shall not exceed 40 round trips per day.
(Department of Planning Services)
8. The future uses of buildings may be limited by setbacks to oil and gas structures. Section 23-3-50.E of
the Weld County Code states "No building or structure, as defined and limited to those occupancies
listed as Groups A, B, E, F, H, I, M and R in Section 302.1 of the 2003 International Building Code,shall
be constructed within a two-hundred-foot radius of any tank battery or within a one-hundred-fifty-foot
radius of any wellhead. Any construction within a two-hundred-foot radius of any tank battery or one-
hundred-fifty-foot radius of any wellhead shall require a variance from the terms of Section 23-3-10 of
this Code". (Departments of Planning Services)
9. 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)
10. 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)
• 11. 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)
Resolution USR-1546
J&M Partnership
Page 2
12. The applicant shall operate in accordance with the approved "waste handling plan". (Department of
•
Public Health and Environment)
13. Any vehicle washing area(s) shall capture all effluent and prevent discharges in accordance with the
Rules and Regulations of the Water Quality Control Commission, and the Environmental Protection
Agency. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
14. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of the Underground and Above Ground Storage Tank
Regulations (7 CCR 1101-14). (Department of Public Health and Environment)
15. Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions shall be controlled on this site. The facility shall be
operated in accordance with the approved dust abatement plan at all times. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
16. 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)
17. Adequate handwashing and toilet facilities shall be provided for employees and patrons of the facility.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
18. The handwashing and toilet facilities shall be made available to all users of the site during business
hours. (Department of Planning Services)
19. 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)
20. The facility shall utilize the existing public water supply. (North Weld County Water District).
• (Department of Public Health and Environment)
21. All potentially hazardous chemicals must be stored and handled in a safe manner in accordance with
product labeling and in a manner that minimizes the release of hazardous air pollutants (HAP's) and
volatile organic compounds (VOC's). (Department of Public Health and Environment)
22. 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)
23. Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the lot will be required to adhere to the fee
structure of the County Road Impact Program.(Ordinance 2002-11)(Department of Planning Services)
24. 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)
25. A plan review is required for any additional building. Plans shall 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)
26. Buildings shall conform to the requirements of the various codes adopted at the time of permit
application. Currently the following has been adopted by Weld County: 2003 International Building
Code,2003 International Mechanical Code,2003 International Plumbing Code,2002 National Electrical
Code and Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Building Inspection)
27. Each building will require an engineered foundation based on a site-specific geotechnical report or an
open hole inspection performed by a Colorado registered engineer. Engineered foundations shall be
• designed by a Colorado registered engineer. (Department of Building Inspection)
28. Building height, setbacks and offset distance shall be determined by Chapter 23 of the Weld County
Code. Separation of buildings of mixed occupancy classifications shall be in accordance with Sec.
R309.2 of the International Residential Code. (Department of Building Inspection)
Resolution USR-1546
J&M Partnership
Page 3
29. Building heights shall be measured in accordance with the Building Code for the purpose of determining
•
the maximum building size and height for various uses and types of construction and to determine
compliance with the Bulk Requirements from Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code. Building height
shall be measured in accordance with Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code in order to determine
compliance with offset and setback requirements. When measuring buildings to determine offset and
setback requirements. Offset and setback requirements are measured to the farthest projection from
the building. (Department of Building Inspection)
30. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of Section
23-2-240, Weld County Code.
31. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of
Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code.
32. Weld County Personnel 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.
33. 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.
34. 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.
Motion seconded by Doug Ochsner
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Michael Miller
Bruce Fitzgerald
Erich Ehrlich
Roy Spitzer
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
James Welch
Tom Holton
Paul Branham
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,Voneen Macklin, 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 April 4, 2006.
• Dpted the 4th of April, 2006.
' fY c& L
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Paul Branham asked about the open space requirement. Mr. Ogle indicated this was a non urban scale
so the open space is not considered a requirement.
•
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; James Welch, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously
The following cases will be heard:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1546
APPLICANT: J&M Partnership
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SW4 of Section 20, T6N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for uses
permitted as a Use by Right, Accessory Use or Use by Special Review in
the Commercial or Industrial Zone District(Parking of trucks, trailers,
semi-trailers, recreational vehicles, construction equipment and farm
equipment. Warehousing and storage of equipment, machinery and
agricultural supplies. Minor assembling. Repairing manufacturing,
fabricating of agricultural supplies and equipment. All may be for
wholesale or retail for sale or lease to the general public.) In the A
(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 39 and north of and adjacent to CR 66.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1546, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
• application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. J & M Partnership has
applied for a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for uses permitted as a Use by
Right, Accessory Use or Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone District in the
Agricultural Zone District. Specifically the parking of trucks, trailers, semi-trailers recreational vehicles,
construction equipment and farm equipment.Warehousing and storage of equipment, machinery and
agricultural supplies. Minor assembling. Repairing, manufacturing, fabricating of agricultural supplies and
equipment. All may be for wholesale or retail for sale or lease to the general public. The sign announcing
the Planning Commission hearing was posted March 21 by Planning Staff. The site is located East of
and adjacent to County Road 39 and north of and adjacent to County Road 66. Surrounding properties to
the north and east are agricultural with no homes in close proximity. South of the site is zoned Industrial,
however, no improvements have been placed on the property and it remains a producing farm. County
Road 39, railroad right-of-way and State Highway 85 lie to the west. A strip of property along the east side
of State Highway 85 is zoned Commercial. Big R Manufacturing is using this area to store their products
to the southwest of the site. Conditions of Approval and Development Standards will ensure compatibility
with these surrounding uses. 10 referral agencies reviewed this case, 9 responded favorably or included
conditions that have been addressed through development standards and conditions of approval and
there has been no correspondence from surrounding property owners.
The Weld County Department of Planning Services Staff is recommending approval of USR-1546. The
applicants request is unusual in that they do not have a specific business in mind for this location but wish
to keep their options open. The USR is intended to be site and use specific. Therefore staff has included
requirements that Prior to locating any additional uses on the site, information must be submitted to the
Department of Planning Services, the Eaton Fire Protection District and the Department of Building
Inspection to determine if the proposed use would constitute a substantial change to the approved Use by
Special Review Permit or if additional infrastructure will be required. The fire code and building code for a
warehouse and a retail shop could be completely different.This condition will allow the applicant his
flexibility and at the same time ensure that the original intent of the USR is maintained and that
• health/safety issues can be addressed. Changes to staff comments include a typographical error in the
date of today's hearing and the inclusion of a late referral from the Colorado Department of
Transportation. These changes will not affect the conditions of approval and development st
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if there were presently any violations on site. Ms. Lockman stated yes but the
applicant has indicated they are no longer running the business.
• Doug Ochsner asked that since this application addresses nothing specific, what would Planning
Commission be approving? Ms. Lockman stated the applicant is eligible to apply for a broad range of
uses. Staff limited the application as much as they could by code.
Michael Miller stated this is more of a change of zone adverse to a USR. Ms. Lockman stated that is an
option and a PUD would cover all of the uses. The applicant chose this route. Mr. Miller asked why the
need for the USR if they will do nothing more than continue what they were doing. Ms. Lockman stated
they are in an agricultural zone and the uses are allowed in the Commercial/Industrial zone.
Bruce Fitzgerald stated that staff has recommended approval so the list of possible uses must fit into this
range. Ms. Lockman stated that staff will review every proposed business use. Staff will make sure that
they remain within the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval. Staff has placed requirements
that each proposal will be reviewed by the fire districts, building inspection and planning to determine if the
use would be acceptable.
Erich Ehrlich added if the additional structure will need to come back in when it is proposed. Ms. Lockman
stated that the structure is part of the present USR and it will only need building permits.
Bruce Johnson, representative for the applicant, provided clarification on site. They have no intention to
use the property in a different way than it has been in the past. There have been several employees on
site depending on the need or the season. The applicant would like to keep the flexibility to do what is
needed and those needs seem to fit in the commercial & industrial zone district. Mr. Johnson indicated he
had received the comments from staff in a timely manner but there are some requirements that do not
apply to the site as it is presently but will eventually apply when the proposed uses are applied for.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked what business will be going to this location. Mr. Johnson stated it will not be much
different that what it has been in the past. The Monson family has done vegetable operations in the past.
• The family does not want to lose the past abilities. Mr. Fitzgerald stated this is a wide range of choices.
Mr. Johnson stated this was the intent.
Michael Miller stated the family wants to keep the uses they presently do but the last line of the description
is a concern. Is the intent to sell the site and allow the purchasers several different business
opportunities? Mr. Johnson stated that there is presently nothing to sell. Mr. Miller is concerned that
Planning Commission is approving something they have no idea of what it is. Mr. Johnson stated all the
information was included in the packet.
Michael Miller added that this USR is limited to the 1.86 acres not the entire property. Ms. Lockman
stated it was limited to the fenced area. Mr. Miller asked for clarification on the process once this is
approved. Ms. Lockman stated the applicant would bring all uses to staff and staff would determine
whether is constitutes a substantial change. If a substantial change is determined it would need to go
back to the Planning Commission but if not it would be administratively approved. Staff recommended
waiting until they had proposed a business but the applicant chose this path.
Roy Spitzer asked if a substantial change can be done with a USR. Ms. Lockman stated there are
Development Standards that must be addressed with the current application and staff will determine
whether there is a substantial change when the uses are being applied for. At that time staff will
determine whether the substantial change will change the intent of the site or the Development Standards
that apply to the site.
Michael Miller added that technically anything additional to what is currently occurring would be considered
a substantial change. Ms. Lockman stated staff could determine the intent and whether it fits within the
Development Standards presented. There is nothing conceptual. Ms. Lockman added that Fritzlers Korn
Maze was the same type of application with open ended language.
• Bruce Fitzgerald stated that at a substantial change will come before the Planning Commission.
Tom Holton stated that other than the recreational vehicles and wholesale business the uses were normal
3
I
for agricultural uses. Why not a use by right? Ms. Lockman stated the products are not the land owners;
they will be brought to site. The applicant is storing equipment for other people.
• The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Bruce Johnson has questions regarding the required screening on the site. Ms. Lockman clarified that staff is
asking that the entire site be screened. Furthermore an improvements agreement needs to be completed or
the improvements need to be done at this time. There are presently outside trash,storage of vehicles in both
front and back and parking. Mr. Fitzgerald asked that the applicant submit a plan for landscaping as well as
opaque screening on site. Mr.Johnson's concern for this would be the wind tearing up the fencing and there
are no adjacent businesses that are presently screened. Screening would be a hardship that is meaningless.
Ms.Lockman added that the improvements agreement will include the screening. Mr.Johnson added the site
is located off of the main road so it will not be seen. Mr. Fitzgerald asked about the property to the south and
how it came about. Ms. Lockman stated there are trees and bushed along Hwy 85 frontage. The only recent
business was BMC site and screening was required. The Sheriff Department asked to not have screening to
the east (CR39) due to the site being vandalized. Mr. Ogle added that site is screened on three sides.
Michael Miller added the Planning Commission does not have any idea of what is being proposed as a
business on this location. There is no way to know whether screening will be needed due to the fact that there
is no idea of what will be there. The applicant is asking to have screening removed based on what has been
there historically but they are asking for several additional uses.
Erich Ehrlich stated the uses are between business and industrial. The applicant wants to be able to do any
one of those things. The landscape screening could be irrelevant unless the business is known.
Tom Holton asked if the screening would be part of the review process. Ms. Lockman stated it could be done
that way but this will take a lot of time for staff in the future to review. Each time different calculations will need
to be done in order to determine if they fall within the intent but also as the overall picture.
• Erich Ehrlich questioned whether approval of this application by the Planning Commission is setting
precedence for future applicants to not specify their intended uses.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Barker whether this was more of a change of zone than a USR. Mr. Miller does not
support this based on concept of several possibilities. Mr. Barker stated there have been instances of when
this has been done. The code does not say an applicant cannot do this since they are all uses allowed in the
code. The applicant is not doing anything we do not prohibit. It seems as though Planning Commission is
more comfortable with a specific use. In this instance there is nothing that prohibits the applicant but it is more
difficult to approve. Mr.Miller stated that it is legally acceptable to apply for but it makes the approval process
difficult when the actual use is not known. The question is how to set standards with such a wide range of
possibilities.
Doug Ochsner agrees that approving anything would be wrong. The only possibility is this would allow a small
business. The preference is to have a designated use. Mr. Ochsner added that he does not see this getting
out of hand since there are standards that they must follow. The screening does not need to be done
completely since storage is behind a residence and all along the corridor is open.
Erich Ehrlich stated that the half section could end up with several different prospects. Mr. Miller added that
the concern is the standards requiring 40 parking spaces on 1.6 acres;this would take up to 1/2 an acres. This
is huge burden on staff for separate specific businesses to be reviewed. The Planning Commission and
Board of County Commissioners should be making those decisions.
Bruce Fitzgerald stated the Planning Commission can go through the list the applicant would like to change or
look at the proposal as a whole. Mr. Barker stated that the concerns need to be heard from the applicant.
Bruce Johnson stated the applicant would rather have a recommendation for approval with the understanding
• there are things that need more attention. The applicant may be less than 1-3 or C-3. The intent is to not have
to go through amending of USR's constantly. This would allow for uses without amending the USR. Mr.
Fitzgerald asked if an Improvements Agreement could be established to contain all the concerns. Mr.
Johnson stated staff has been open minded so there can be a reasonable approach. Most of this is in
4
compliance but screening was the issue. Mr.Johnson would like to see screening done with landscaping not
with fencings.
• Bruce Johnson indicated he is in agreement with the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval but
not 100%. There will be open negotiation with staff on the items.
James Welch asked what would be allowed according to the list in the application and how will staff apply the
standards. Ms. Lockman stated this is a huge burden for staff and it has been done in the past. There could
be various departments that would need to sign off on the proposal. The submitted business will be sent to
the needed referral agencies for approval. Mr. Welch stated the major concern is this is broad enough that
there could be a need for more specific standards.
Tom Holton stated if this is approved it will go as presented.Ms. Lockman stated that should this be approved
she would be asking the applicant for additional information prior to the Board of County Commissioners
hearing. The applicant will not negotiate with staff on certain aspects. Mr. Holton stated it does not seem as
the applicant has gone through each of the items prior to the hearing and it may be beneficial to continue this
until the items have been addressed.
Roy Spitzer stated there are conflicts with some of the standards. Ms. Lockman stated there are lesser
standards taken with the understanding that the use is not certain so there is no standard to go off. Mr. Miller
added that all this could be for wholesale so there could be very few needs for parking spaces or for several
parking spaces. Ms. Lockman added staff reviews condominiums with different uses through the Site Plan
Review process on a regular basis. The different tenants are required to submit leases to make sure they still
meet the intent of the SPR. Mr. Miller stated there is an appropriate zone for this. Ms. Lockman stated it
depends on the use.
Doug Ochsner stated that to continue this indefinitely would not be a burden; it would allow the applicant to
have more time to work with staff. Mr. Miller stated that it may be better to continue so the applicant is in
complete understanding.
• Tom Holton asked about the violation process if this were to be continued. Mr. Barker stated the normal
process would be upheld. The violation application is on hold until a decision has been made regarding this
application. Should this application be approved the violation would be void. Since an application is submitted
it shows diligence by the applicant. Mr. Holton questions the applicants understanding of the Development
Standards and Conditions of Approval. Mr. Barkers recommendation would be to allow the Board of County
Commissioners to decide whether Mr.Johnson is completely aware of the standards. It is part of the applicant
responsibility to learn this too. The recommendation can be made and he would need to make sure he
understands this. It may be unfair to the applicant to continue this based solely on his understanding.
Paul Branham stated there have been other similar requests approved but the way it is worded would allow for
current and future operations. The Development Standards and Conditions of Approval have been set but if
there is a change it will need to be brought back to staff.
James Welch added that the concept is agreeable. The Development Standards and Conditions of Approval
have been set. The struggle is to deal with the different possible scenarios. Ms.Lockman added that staff will
determine if a substantial change has been done at which time the applicant will need to go before the
Planning Commission.
James Welch asked Ms. Lockman for clarification on the possible submitted applications for businesses. Ms.
Lockman stated the new proposals would need to be reviewed by the applicable departments depending on
the requested use.
Michael Miller stated the concept of this seems to be fine but with this process it is like trying to hit a moving
target with the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval and those depend on the requested use.
This is a big burden on staff. The Planning Commission is being asked to approve a variety of uses. Any one
use might be fine but there could be several uses lumped that may not be compatible for a variety of reasons.
• Mr. Miller does not agree with the entire concept of possible future uses that the applicant might want. This
should be done as a change of zone or a USR when a specific use has been determined.
Roy Spitzer added that there are no assurances that the historical uses will be done. What is the mechanism
5
to determine substantial change and how will staff find out about this.Ms.Lockman stated the applicant has to
submit information prior to business beginning operation on site. Ms.Lockman added that there is a condition
that could be added that states the use cannot be transferred.
• Bruce Johnson added there have been several different uses on the property at various times in the past. If
there is a concern with the present number of parking spaces the applicant is willing to limit the number of
parking spaces to 20 for vehicles. There are several possible uses but limiting the application would be
difficult but the applicant is willing to work with the staff to attempt this. The applicant is not in agreement with
a condition stating they could not transfer the USR with the property. The additional Conditions would be
micro-managing.
Michael Miller moved that Case USR-1546, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the
recommendation of denial. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes;James Welch,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Tom Holton,yes, Doug Ochsner,yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Paul Branham, no, Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner commented that the reason he is recommending denial is the application is unfinished and by
denying this application he is doing the applicant a favor. The Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval are so strong that it is not accomplishing what the applicant is intending. There is a better way to go
about this. There is the need to either limit or get a better idea of what is being asked for.
Paul Branham commented he trusts that the applicant would adhere to the Conditions of Approval and this
has been done in the past.
Michael Miller commented he agrees with Mr. Ochsner. Any of these suggested uses as individuals would
have been easy to approve. To ask to approve the entire potential is not fair to staff nor the Planning
Commission. This could have been done on a change of zone which would have allowed for the uses.
• Tom Holton commented this is USR'S plural not a singular application. This would be a violation of Section
23-2-220.A.2 because it makes it incompatible with surrounding land uses.
Bruce Fitzgerald commented that any one of the uses may pass the board but the multi use issue is
overbearing.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1549
APPLICANT: Merit Energy Corporation
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part NW4 of Section 32, T4N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for mineral
resource development including oil and gas support services (land
treatment facility) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: Approximately 500 feet north of CR 38.5 and 1/2 mile west of Hwy 85.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, presented Case USR-1549, reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Merit Energy has applied for a
Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Mineral Resource Development Facility
(Land Treatment Facility)in the A(Agricultural)Zone district. The site is located approximately 500-feet north
of County Road 38.5 and 1/2 mile west of U.S. Highway 85. The proposed USR is to be located on 20 acres of
a 147 acre parcel. The remainder of the parcel has residential improvements and outbuildings and farm
ground. Farmland is located to the west and east of the site. Two single family residences are located to the
south and southwest of the site (across County Road 38.5). An existing gas processing facility(USR-866)
currently operated by AKA energy is located to the north of the site. 12 referral agencies reviewed this case,
• 11 referral agencies have responded and conditions of approval and development standards are attached that
address comments/conditions outlined in the referral responses. One letter of opposition dated March 26,
2006 has been received from property owner (Diana Wolf) located to the south of the site (across County
Road 38.5—13292 CR 38.5). Concerns mentioned in the letter were negative impacts on prime farm ground,
6
Hello