HomeMy WebLinkAbout20082818.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Department of
Planning Services, Hearing Room, 918 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by
Chair, Doug Ochsner, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Doug Ochsner I
Tom Holton
Nick Berryman ui
Paul Branham
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand _._;
Bill Hall
Cr'
Mark Lawley
Roy Spitzer
Also Present: Brad Mueller, Michelle Martin, Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services; Don Dunker,
Dave Snyder, Department of Public Works; Lauren Light, Department of Health; Bruce Barker, County
Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Robert Grand moved to approve the September 16, 2008 and September 30, 2008 Weld County Planning
Commission minutes, seconded by Paul Branham. Motion carried.
The Chair commented that the Planning Commission will first hear the update to the Comprehensive Plan and
then about 1:30 they will take a recess and then move into the other two agenda items which are to be heard.
Brad Mueller, Department of Planning Services, thanked the Planning Commission for giving staff an
opportunity again to go through the Comprehensive Plan. He commented that the first of the two planned
hearings was last week on Tuesday (September 30th) and added that they will essentially give the same
presentation. He further added that this is for the benefit of the people in the audience to give an overview of
the need for a Comprehensive Plan as well as the need for updating it. He mentioned that staff has received
some late public comments and referral comments that he would like to share with the Planning
Commissioners at the end of his presentation.
Mr. Mueller gave a presentation of some population statistics and what led to the development of the draft to
the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Mueller handed out some additional public comments as well as a letter from the Tri-Towns with some
suggestions.
Mr. Mueller pointed out three areas of the Draft Plan that need a response from the Planning Commission. He
commented that on Page 47, Section 22-3-10 there was an interest in looking at the financing mechanisms for
police and fire protection. He added that the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) had recommended the
Planning Commission revisit this area.
Mr. Mueller indicated that on Page 64, under Section 22-5-50 in the Open Space Section there was an interest
in defining whether the funding mechanisms for Open Space being considered as a strategy were private
funding or public funding.
Mr. Mueller stated that on Page 75 there was one item that was looked at by the TAC a number of months
ago. He added that they identified a potential conflict in the minutes about how that was to read. There was
some recommended additional language indicated there which is a qualifier about Dearfield. He mentioned
that he would be happy to go back through these three areas as part of the general discussion at the end of
the public hearing.
Pam Smith, Health Department, stated that she submitted some referral comments and added that she will
C�nvrttcq,�,t ;g, /O -ow- =P 2008-2818
give a similar presentation to the one that she gave at last week's hearing. Ms. Smith went through the
statistics taken by Weld County Health Department.
Ms. Smith stressed that the language should state very clearly what the vision is that the County intends.
Ms. Smith indicated that on Page 10 and Page 12 there was a recommendation of adding a statement which
said that Regional Urbanization Areas should provide an assessment of the impacts that promote a healthy
community. She stated that the Health Department would like the Planning Commission to consider inserting
that language into the Comp Plan.
Ms. Smith.noted that on Page 36 Item H "fixed income" was changed to "moderate income" as she had
requested at the last hearing. However she did not complete the rest of the statement which was"The inability
of some people to live in communities where they work may negatively affect the community's jobs/housing
balance and it can also have negative transportation and environmental consequences." She said that the
sentence had been removed and asked that it be re-inserted. Ms.Smith expressed that it helps the County as
well as the citizens of the County to understand why the Comp Plan is addressing workforce housing and that
they think it is important in recognizing that the lack of workforce housing does have detrimental affects in your
environment and communities.
Ms. Smith referred to Page 41, RUA Goal 1 and recommended adding another Recommended Strategy
(A.1.3.b)to read"Participate in a cooperative public private partnership between government,the appropriate
development, financial institutions, nonprofit organizations, neighborhood organizations and other essential
resources necessary to achieve infill success."
Ms. Smith reiterated support to Goal 8 on Page 66 given by the Regional Trails Advisory Group for trails.
Commissioner Berryman referred to the Health Impact Assessment(HIA). He inquired as to given our current
referral process how does utilizing an HIA change the current procedure. In addition, he also asked if it is
mostly to have one in place for more urban areas of the County? He also asked what the approximate cost
and time is as well as who pays for this study.
Ms. Smith said that it is probably not appropriate in every situation. It would probably be more appropriate
when you are doing some sort of an infill situation, but it could also apply if you are adding land to a RUA that
already has activities going on. She added that you would want to make sure that the new development is
compatible with the existing development.
Ms. Smith commented that with regard to who would pay for that it would probably be a private contractual
agreement between the developer and consultant.
Commissioner Berryman asked how long it takes to do a study. Ms.Smith replied that in the one that they did
they included in their document that it was a Rapid Health Impact Assessment. She said that there was a lot
of work done prior to the Health Department getting involved in the project but that it took approximately six
months.
The Chair invited the public to make any comments on the update to the Comp Plan.
Ed Meyer, 29975 CR 59, Greeley CO commented that he is involved in a Weld County Citizens Committee
and added that they have been reviewing the Comp Plan. He asked Mr. Mueller to hand out some copies that
his committee had some questions on. Mr. Meyer urged the Planning Commission to change the verbiage to
"individual property rights". He commented that property does not have rights and only people do;therefore
the verbiage of having "individual property rights" in the Comp Plan is very important.
Greg Flebbe, City of Greeley Planning Department, expressed appreciation for the opportunity to speak. He
wanted to give a background context with regard to the infrastructure and demographic elements. He
indicated that Mr. Mueller mentioned that there would be a 300,000 population increase over the next 27 years
and added that most of that will go into southwest portion of Weld County.
Mr. Flebbe stated that the area he indicated on a visual slide is approximately 1500 square miles and it
2
includes all of the cities except for Grover and New Raymer. He showed the three-mile boundary around each
of the cities in Weld County. He stated that the cities in the area he referred to accounts for 80%for the entire
Weld County population.
Mr. Flebbe presented a list of the top ten items of what the Greeley Planning Commission has recommended.
One of the top priorities that they are recommending is that soon after adoption of the Comp Plan that Weld
County adopt a Transportation Plan. He commented that there is a strong relationship between
Transportation Planning and Land Use Planning.
Mr. Flebbe stated that they also would like to suggest that the 35 acre consideration be delayed until the
Transportation Master Plan is adopted. He commented that they are not going to argue the issue that it is a
preservation of prime agricultural land or that the 80 acres is needed for viable farms. They are looking at it as
it is good for business overall. Mr. Flebbe referred to the area adjacent to the 3 mile boundary of the
municipalities and commented that currently there is approximately 3,200 parcels that are 70 acres or larger.
If you take those 3,200 acre parcels and divide them into 35 acre parcels then you've got about 12,500
parcels. Therefore you have a four-fold increase in the number of parcels. He expressed that when you are
not taking a look at issues like access you get into a lot of confusion and problems later on when trying to do
the infill development or any further development of that parcel. Mr. Flebbe continued to say that assuming
that you have the 12,500 parcels this would be ideal for putting a house on them. If you've got a house on it
then it makes it difficult for industry to develop the area in the future as you've essentially doubled the price of
that property.
Mr. Flebbe also suggested expanding the Section on the Highway 85 corridor to examine opportunities for
specific strategies to revitalize older adjacent Commercial and Industrial areas. He mentioned that this has
been requested by a variety of the communities along Highway 85.
Mr. Flebbe also suggested considering sub-area plans. He commented that this would make sense
particularly in the southwest portion of the County.
Mr. Flebbe stated that they also recommend retaining elements of health,safety,and quality of life. He added
that the current Comp Plan for Weld County has references to the health, safety and welfare and the draft
considered today does not include that. The Greeley Planning Commission recommended that it be a top
priority as part of the Guiding Principles.
Mr. Flebbe suggested the Planning Commission consider a vision statement of the Weld County aspirational
goals and how the county will look and function. He added that the vision statement would give a clear road
map to where you want to go as opposed to the general goals.
Mr. Flebbe added that they are suggesting to reaffirm the current Comp Plan policy that urban level scale and
density development should be directed to municipalities.
In addition, he recommended to clearly identify and provide for a collaborative relationship between municipal
three-mile plans, IGAs and Weld County RUAs. He said that they would like to reaffirm that urban level
development go to the communities.
Mr. Flebbe suggested working with the municipalities to provide for community separators/buffers.
He also recommended to be working with the municipalities as key partners in economic development and
land use. He expressed that he believed all of the communities would really like to work with Weld County on
this.
Mr. Flebbe congratulated the Planning Commission, TAC, Board of County Commissioners, and staff in
updating this Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Ochsner commented that the Planning Commission has talked about the Transportation Plan
and believes that it is something that is very important to the County. He also thanked Mr. Flebbe for his
comments.
3
The Chair called a recess at 1:33 p.m. and added that they will accept further public comments after the
hearing of two cases, USR-1668 and USR-1665.
Commissioner Ehrlich left the meeting at 1:33 p.m.
The Chair reconvened the meeting at 1:42 p.m. and started with the first Consent Agenda item.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1668
APPLICANT: Peter&Heather Valconesi
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Use by Special Review Permit for a Use
by Right or an Accessory Use in the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts,
provided 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 and one(1)single-family dwelling unit per lot(assemble wall
components for laundromats and a secondary residence)in the A(Agricultural)
Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-4254, Pt NE4 of Section 14,T4N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,Weld
County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 46 and approximately 3/4 mile east of 1-25.
The Chair asked if the Planning Commissioners would like this case to remain on the Consent Agenda. Mr.
Grand said that he would like to hear this case due to the response of two letters that were received regarding
a water issue and a road issue. Mr. Ochsner also stated that he would like to hear this case.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services,stated the applicant is represented by Sheri Lockman,with
Lockman Land Consulting, LLC.
The site is located south of and adjacent to County Road 46 and approximately 3/4 mile east of 1-25. The
property is within the three mile referral area of the Town of Berthoud, the Town of Johnstown and Larimer
County. The Town of Berthoud in their referral dated September 9, 2008 stated that the "Berthoud
Comprehensive Plan shows area as Low Density Residential, but the Town has no objection to proposal."
Larimer County returned a referral dated September 10, 2008 indicating no conflict, and the Town of
Johnstown did not return a referral.
This proposed facility is to be the manufacturing headquarters of High Mark Manufacturing, Inc, a
company that aassembles wall components and related furniture for Laundromats. The application
materials indicate a second single family residence is also requested.
At this time it is an unimproved parcel so there is no residence currently on the property. Mr. Gathman
stated that he understands under this application, the applicant would have the business and a residence
and then at some later time there would be another residence on the property.
The hours of operation are 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Saturday with occasional periods of 24
hour operation depending on material order. The site will have no more than six (6)employees on site at
any given time.
The proposed assembly structure is planned to resemble a horse barn with stucco siding, rock
wainscoting and large wood pillars. Living quarters will be on the second floor of this structure. Water is to
be provided by Little Thompson Water District and an ISDS system will handle the effluent flows. Site
lighting will be from wall mounted lights that are shielded.
The surrounding properties are agricultural in nature with rural residences. There are six parcels within
500 feet of the property.The Town of Berthoud has annexed the property to the southwest of the site and
these lands are approved for a residential subdivision, however, no development has occurred and land
continues to be farmed. The location of the assembly structure will have little if any affect on adjacent
neighbors given the topography.
Mr. Gathman indicated that the site slopes considerably to the south. The residences north of the location
will not be able to see the site, given the topography.
4
Fourteen referral agencies have reviewed this case and eleven offered comments, some with specific
conditions that have been incorporated into this recommendation.
Staff received one letter from a surrounding property owner dated September 30, 2008 objecting to the
proposed application citing compatibility and quality of life, specific to traffic, noise, dirt and dust, additional
light, and potential for additional crime.
Staff also received an email October 1, 2008 which states their concern of the amount of water that they
would be able to get from the Little Thompson Water District. This neighbor indicates that they have a
lack of water pressure and are concerned that this use would further aggravate the already low water
pressure problems. In addition their concerns are additional traffic on County Road 46 as well as air
quality, dust, noise and damage to County Road 46.
A handwritten letter was received October 1, 2008 from a neighboring property owner immediately to the
east of the site. The neighbor has an existing access and they are concerned if this access would be
shared with this proposed use. They request that their access remain as their own private access drive
and not be shared with this business. Mr. Gathman stated that under the proposal there would be a
separate access from County Road 46 and added that the applicant would not be sharing the access with
their neighbor.
The Chair asked if the applicant had any comments.
Sheri Lockman, 36509 CR 41, Eaton CO. Ms. Lockman stated that High Mark Manufacturing is currently
located in Johnstown and they assemble wall components for laundromats. She added that the panels
are built off-site then assembled with water lines, power boxes, conduit and wire on-site.
Ms. Lockman stated that the business will have a maximum of six employees. She added that the
applicant is planning to make the business look like a very attractive horse barn. They plan to have stucco
siding, rock wainscoting and large wood pillars.
Ms. Lockman stated that the surrounding properties are agricultural in nature with single family
residences. She commented that the Town of Berthoud has annexed the property southwest of the site
but stated it is being farmed at this time. She added that Johnstown and Berthoud indicated that they had
no concerns with this proposal nor had any interest in annexing this site.
Ms. Lockman expressed that careful consideration was given to the location of the buildings. She stated
that the site was chosen because it will have the least impact to the surrounding property owners. She
indicated that this site is screened from adjacent property owners.
Ms. Lockman commented that one of the letters of concern was from Albert and Lorane Michall and
indicated that they asked for reassurance that the proposal will not affect their private road, holding pond
or ditch. Ms. Lockman stated that Mr. and Mrs. Michall can be assured that the USR will not have any
affect whatsoever on their road, holding pond or ditch.
Ms. Lockman said that the other concerns that were raised included noise. The business does not
produce any noise which can be heard off-site, nor does it have any associated smell.
Ms. Lockman added that the lighting on the buildings will consist of one light near each door and they will
be shielded so that it is not a nuisance to the surrounding property owners.
The business will have a maximum of six employees along with two UPS type delivery trucks which only
come once a week. Ms. Lockman commented that this is not an excessive amount of traffic.
Mr. Valconesi will be submitting a dust abatement plan which will protect the adjacent neighbors from
dust. The plan includes applying an approved dust control chemical such as Magnesium Chloride to the
section of roadway that is generating the dust if the County deems necessary.
5
Ms. Lockman stated that the Little Thompson Water District has agreed to service the proposed uses and
commented that they are the experts and should know if they have the ability to furnish the water. She
added that Mr. Valconesi will have to comply with any upgrades that the water district deems necessary.
She stressed that the business and residence will not be very big water users. She asked the Planning
Commissioners to keep in mind that biggest water user by far will be single-family residence and that is a
Use by Right; he does not have to ask for permission to build that residence.
Ms. Lockman stated that the applicants wish to maintain the value and the residential quality of this
property. She indicated that they do not wish to turn this property into a Commercial/Industrial looking site.
Ms. Lockman showed some photos of the site.
She indicated that staff had asked for additional screening; therefore the applicants are proposing
additional bushes and trees along the south side of the property. They feel the screening on the other
three sides of the building is adequate given the drop in elevation and distance to the other homes.
Ms. Lockman said that the second part of the request is for an apartment within that building. The
apartment would be used by the applicant and his family for their single-family dwelling until they are able
to build the home at the top of the hill. She commented that it could be a few years. The final plan for the
apartment is to house the applicant's mother who intends to live on the site when her health reaches a
point where she requires additional care. Ms. Lockman commented that the applicant would have
preferred to do a Recorded Exemption for the additional home. However it is not eligible for an additional
split. Ms. Lockman stressed that this unit will not be used as a rental apartment at any time.
The Chair asked Public Works and the Health Department for their comments.
Dave Snyder, Public Works, commented that he looked at the traffic counts and found that it is well below
the dust abatement threshold for that section of road. It appears to be a very minimal impact.
Lauren Light, Health Department, stated that she received a well serve letter from Little Thompson Water
District and they stated that if there are any upgrades required it is the responsibility of the applicant to put
in the upgrades to that water line.
The Health Department is requiring a Dust Abatement Plan which will be for on-site dust. They are also
requiring a Waste Handling Plan and will have the applicant inquire with the State whether they will need
an Air Emissions Permit because there will be some wood cutting on the site. Ms. Light indicated that
there is a Development Standard which restricts the noise to the Commercial Zone. The Weld County
Code states that the Commercial and Residential Zone are the same; therefore the noise cannot exceed
what you find in the normal residential area.
Ms. Light stated that they do not have any concerns based on the Development Standards.
Commissioner Grand asked Ms. Light is she is comfortable that there will be an adequate water supply.
Ms. Light replied that according to the letter from the Little Thompson Water District she is comfortable.
Commissioner Ochsner asked if the Water District is aware of these concerns and further asked if it could
be forwarded to them. Mr. Gathman said that he could certainly send them their concerns.
Commissioner Grand asked for a copy of the Little Thompson Water District letter be sent to Mr. and Mrs.
Michall as well.
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 applicant if they read through the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval
and if they are agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1668, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
6
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, Nick Berryman seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, yes; Paul Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, absent; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, yes; Mark Lawley,
absent; Roy Spitzer, absent; Tom Holton, absent; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1665
APPLICANT: High Plains Disposal, Inc
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part N2 of Section 25,T5N, R65W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for Oil and Gas
Support Facility(Class II -Oilfield Waste Disposal Facility) in the A(Agricultural)
Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 54 and approximately 1/2 mile west of CR 49.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, stated that the site is located south of and adjacent to
County Road 54 and approximately 1/2 mile west of County Road 49.The proposed site is bordered by an
agricultural parcel to the east, a parcel with oil and gas production facility(tank battery and wellhead)to
the west, and agricultural land to the north (across County Road 54). The Union Pacific Railroad and
agricultural land along with oil and gas production facility is located immediately to the south. The three
nearest single-family residences are located approximately 1/4 to the west of the site. Development
Standards and Conditions of Approval will ensure compatibility with existing surrounding land uses.
Fifteen referrals were sent out; nine referrals were received and either indicated no concerns or are
addressed through development standards and conditions of approval. No referral responses were
received from the State of Colorado, Oil & Gas Conservation Commission, Division of Wildlife, LaSalle
Fire Protection District, Union Pacific Railroad, and State of Colorado Department of Health. Mr. Gathman
stated that he received a phone call from the EPA indicating that they do not review injection well permits.
The site is located within the three-mile referral area of the Town of Kersey.
No letters from surrounding property owners have been received. The Department of Planning Services
did receive a phone call from a nearby property owner who expressed concern in regard to traffic
accessing to and leaving the site. A primary concern expressed by this neighbor was how vehicles would
access onto County Road 54 without impeding oncoming traffic through the merging of large vehicles onto
County Road 54 without an accel/decel lane and also the potential for trucks swinging into the oncoming
lanes when leaving the site.
This application was submitted prior to the adoption of the new application review process. The applicant
requested that the application be reviewed under the old process; therefore no community meeting was
requested by the Department of Planning Services.
The following are Conditions of Approval and Development Standards addressing/mitigating concerns:
• The Department of Public Works is requiring a 60-foot radius access onto County Road 54.
• The Department of Public Works has designated a haul route based on where traffic is going to
and coming from.
• A lighting plan (because the applicant is proposing to haul until 10 PM)
• A landscape plan (clarifying the berming of the site)
Mr. Gathman referred to a memo that he handed out. He indicated that there were several recommended
changes to staff comments. He stated that under Condition of Approval 2.1, per Public Works'
recommendation they are suggesting to change it 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 WCR 49 and State Highway 34, WCR 47 and State Highway 34,
WCR 47 and WCR 54 and WCR 49 and WCR 54 based upon the applicant's proportion of overall use of
7
that intersection."
Additionally, Development Standard #24 shall be revised to read
"From the South: Trucks coming from the south shall travel northbound from County Road 49 and
turn onto WCR 44 westbound,which is an existing paved roadway. From County Road 44 the trucks
will turn onto County Road 43,an existing paved roadway,and travel northbound.From County Road
43, the trucks will turn onto County Road 54 eastbound wherein the site shall be accessed; and/or
trucks coming from the south shall travel northbound from County Road 49 and turn onto US34
westbound. From US34, the trucks will turn onto County Road 47 southbound and then onto County
road 54 eastbound wherein the site shall be accessed."
"Exiting the site: Haul trucks shall exit the site via the proposed access directly onto County Road 54.
From County Road 54, the trucks shall either travel northbound on County Road 47 and then enter
eastbound onto Highway 34, or travel southbound on County Road 43 then eastbound on County
Road 44 and southbound on County Road 49. For westbound,the trucks shall proceed northbound on
WCR 49 and then enter westbound onto Highway 34."
Staff is also requesting that Development Standard #26 be removed.
Staff is also requesting that Development Standard #27 be revised to read "The applicant shall pave 100'
minimum into the site from CR 54 and construct a double cattle guard set one right after the other to ensure a
complete revolution of the truck tires."
Mr. Gathman stated that they are also requesting that Development Standard #29 be removed.
Mr. Gathman commented that staff would like clarification on Development Standard #32 in regard to the
hours of operation and that it be revised to read"Hauling hours shall be limited to 7:00 Am to 10:00 PM daily."
Finally, staff is recommending that Development Standard #35 be added as stated "Should the amount of
truck trips exceed the amount of sixty(60)trips per day(as stipulated in the traffic study from Lamp,
Rynerson &Associates, Inc. dated September 8, 2008), the applicant/owner shall provide evidence of an
approved access permit from the Colorado Department of Transportation." Mr. Gathman indicated that
this is in result of an email that was received from the Colorado Department of Transportation dated
October 2, 2008.
The Chair asked if the applicant wished to make any comments.
Andy Cunningham, High Plains Disposal, 601 South Main St, Ste 215, Grapevine TX. He handed out
some pictures of their other facilities that they have to give the Planning Commission a better
understanding of the facility in motion.
Commissioner Berryman clarified if this was a saltwater by-product that is being disposed of. Mr.
Cunningham stated that it is a brine water, produced water from oil and gas production.
Commissioner Hall asked if there would be an injection well. Mr. Cunningham stated that there would be
an injection well.
Commissioner Ochsner asked Mr. Cunningham to clarify the hours of operation. Mr. Cunningham said
that it is their intent to take delivery of water between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. He indicated that the
facility will be manned 24 hours. He added that they plan to inject 24 hours a day. Mr. Cunningham
stated that they will only have truck traffic from 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
Commissioner Ochsner asked if there is a lot of truck traffic during the evening hours. Mr. Cunningham
said that previously they have run 24 hours a day and run trucks all night, but after visiting with staff they
believe that the hours from 7 AM to 10 PM would be more acceptable.
Commissioner Berryman asked what they intend for a lighting plan. Mr. Cunningham stated that they do
8
not intend to have any light pour over into any of the neighboring properties and will work with the County
to make sure that they comply with their regulations. He added that noise and lighting should not be a
concern from this property.
Commissioner Ochsner referred to the haul route established by staff and asked if the applicant is willing
to follow that route. Mr. Cunningham replied that they will follow that route. He added that with this
proposal there will not be a large increase of truck traffic.
The Chair asked Public Works and the Health Department for their comments.
Lauren Light, Health Department, said that Central Weld County Water District will provide potable water
to this site. A septic system has already been approved by the Board of Health.
She added that most of the conditions of approval and development standards address avoiding
contamination of ground water in the soils. The Health Department has specific design and operation
requirements that are required prior to the release of building permits.
The State Health Department may have some Air Emission Permitting regulations and is included in
Condition of Approval 1.D.
The Health Department is also requiring a groundwater monitoring plan. A Stormwater discharge plan
may also be required through the State.
Ms. Light stated that she checked the State Oil and Gas website yesterday to see if they had approved
this drilling permit and it is still in the process of being reviewed. She added that the biggest requirement
is the how the facility is constructed.
Commissioner Ochsmer asked if the County monitors the groundwater. Ms. Light said that if there is a
spill then the Health Department wants to have a plan on how that will be monitored.
Don Dunker, Public Works, stated that the access is off County Road 54 which is a two-lane paved
collector roadway. County Road 54 currently has a 60 foot right-of-way and will require an 80 foot right-of-
way at full build-out. The access will have 60 foot radiuses to accommodate the bigger trucks.
In May 2006 traffic counts on County Road 54 were 834 ADT. The applicant has indicated that the site
will add an additional 30 vehicles or 60 truck trips 24/7.
Due to the angle in which County Road 54 intersects with County Road 49 as well as the railroad tracks,
Public Works will not allow the trucks from this facility to turn onto County Road 54 from northbound traffic
on County Road 49. A haul route has been defined in Development Standard#24 for this business. Mr.
Dunker stated that all of the routes are on paved roads. A stop sign is required to be installed at the
access before entering County Road 54. The applicant is proposing a detention pond for this site. He
added that this site is not located within a FEMA 100 year floodplain.
Commissioner Grand complimented Mr. Dunker on the haul route plan.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
George Maxey, 26331 CR 49, stated that his residence can be seen from this site. He expressed his concern
with the traffic on County Road 54 and added that there have been a lot of accidents. Mr. Maxey indicated
that there are no aprons on the side of the road and the barrow pits are very deep. He commented that along
with the regular traffic there are also farmers who pull large pieces of equipment up and down that road. Mr.
Maxey stressed that the intersection of County Roads 49 and 54 is a very dangerous intersection and added
that it has had some serious accidents.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
Commissioner Ochsner asked to clarify if there are any accel/decal lanes. Mr. Dunker said that there are no
9
accel/decal lanes. The access is being widened out with 60 foot radius curves so that the trucks will not cross
over into the other lane.
Mr. Dunker commented that he looked up the accidents over the last three years and added that it appears
that there were three reported accidents each year at the intersection of County Roads 54 and 49.
Commissioner Berryman asked about the reported accidents at the intersection of County Roads 47 and 54.
Mr. Dunker said that he didn't find any and clarified that the ones he finds are ones that are reported through
the State Patrol, not necessarily those who haven't made any report.
Brad Curtis, Lamp, Rynearson and Assoc., 808 8`°St, Greeley, CO. Mr. Curtis said that the applicant is not
anticipating more than 30 trucks coming to and out of the site over a 15 hour period. He added that they did
include a detailed traffic study as required from Public Works and CDOT. Additionally,instead of the required
40 foot radius they are complying with the request from Public Works to have the 60 foot radius to make sure
that they are not crossing any lanes.
Commissioner Hall commented that he understands that there is possibly more development planned for this
area and asked Mr. Dunker how larger impacts of traffic would be dealt with. Mr. Dunker said that with each
application they will make sure that it fits into the master plan and will require the same conditions as this
application.
Paul Branham moved to amend the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards as recommended by
staff, seconded by Robert Grand. Motion carried.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions
of Approval and if they are agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Paul Branham moved that Case USR-1665, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval, seconded by Bill Hall.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, yes; Paul Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, absent; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, yes; Mark Lawley,
absent; Roy Spitzer, absent;Tom Holton, absent; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair called a recess at 2:41 p.m.
The Chair reconvened the meeting at 2:52 p.m. and continued with the public portion of the update to the
Comprehensive Plan.
Colleen Anthony, Trustee of the Town of Milliken. Ms. Anthony commented that she serves on a
committee for the Southwest Weld Economic Development Initiative and they recently did a swat analysis
of the County with regard to whether they would be attractive to primary employers. One of the issues that
came up was the cosmetic appearance of the area in a lot of locations.
Ms. Anthony noted Section 22-2-120, Page 29 with reference to unincorporated communities and historic
town sites. She cited Goal D, its Policies and Recommended Strategy and asked who would develop the
program as stated in the strategy. Additionally, she asked how the programs or policies would be
enforced and by whom. She further asked how the nonconformance to those standards would be
addressed.
Mr. Mueller said that the County currently has Zoning Compliance Officers who enforce the Zoning Code.
The Zoning Code defines things such as derelict structures, nonconforming junkyards, etc. The Weld
County Planning Department is the entity that administers that program and then enforces it through code
enforcement which is brought to the County Attorney's office for follow through and ultimate enforcement.
He pointed out that this is a complaint based process.
Mr. Mueller commented that the Recommended Strategy suggests programs which seem to suggest
10
something beyond what might exist in the code already. He noted that all of the recommended strategies
are action points that the County could follow up.
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services, commented that currently through the Planning
Department, they do initiate clean-up days in Weld County. She added that through this they focus on a
certain area in the County or certain subdivision where the residents can clean up the noncommercial
junkyards and use the County's dumpsters for free. Therefore this recommended strategy would expand
on that current program and potentially come up with new ones.
Ms. Anthony commented that when a site selector is looking in the County for a prime location for a
business this does have some influence.
Commissioner Ochsner asked if Ms. Anthony had any suggestions for them. Ms. Anthony replied that she
doesn't and added that she has the same issues as a Town Board member.
Mr. Mueller commented that the County has very specific standards for things like nonconforming
junkyards and reiterated that it is complaint based.
Commissioner Ochsner clarified that the Comprehensive Plan is saying that this is our goal and then the
next steps will be to develop that goal a little more and with the help of other community groups perhaps
be able to define more what that means.
Pam Shaddock, Greeley City Council, stated that she here in two capacities. The first capacity is as a
person who was appointed by the County Commissioners as one of the three municipal representatives to
the TAC. She indicated that she tried to bring a municipal perspective to the TAC. She added that if you
look at the appendix it sets out the population of 2006 in Weld County and it states that 81% of the
population lives in municipalities. She further added that 192,000 plus+ people of the 240,000 people live
in urbanized areas. Therefore we are on the cutting edge of urbanization and agriculture.
Ms. Shaddock expressed her disagreement with the creation of the Regional Urban Areas (RUA) and
added that she sees no need for them. She feels that it creates a City of Weld particularly in the
southwest area of the county. It essentially says that you want to control growth through these areas and
she stressed that you should control growth by working with the cities. She commented that the cities
have the infrastructure in place. She is asking that the Planning Commission first go to the cities and help
them succeed and then if there is an overriding reason why something can't happen then look at an RUA.
She reiterated that it is not clear that a priority is given to the cities. She asked for consideration to direct
growth to the municipalities first because it will create efficiency.
Ms. Shaddock expressed that she is also concerned about the Y mile. She indicated that Tom Holton
suggested the '/ mile in terms of urban growth boundary. She said that essentially what he said is that we
want a smaller boundary as it will force the cities to work out Intergovernmental Agreements with the
County. She added that the cities want IGAs but it takes two to agree, therefore it will take a while. She
feels that it punishes the cities to make it three blocks from their sewer lines is overly restrictive
considering that the State requires them to plan three miles out. Whatever is recommended from the
Planning Commission the cities have to plan for three miles and we need to involve those landowners and
send a message to the County to collaborate on the urban growth boundary.
Ms. Shaddock expressed her disagreement with the rural residential development section. She added
that it is all new and much better than what it was before in terms of density and size. The cities
recommend that you really look at appropriate densities. With regard to rural residential, the more we
subdivide the County the more we become a bedroom County and less an Industrial County. She urged
the Planning Commission to look at the definition of rural residential carefully and come up with something
that really means rural and not just another subdivision in the County. She stressed that this in no way
denigrates that agriculture is important to Weld County.
Ms. Shaddock also wished to talk about a group called Weld County Positive Partnerships in which she is
the Chair. She commented that they have people involved who care about land use and added that it
focuses on municipalities. She commented that the proposed Guiding Principles do not have the short
11
vision. She handed out a vision statement which was developed from their last meeting.
Ms. Shaddock indicated that two of the County Commissioners were present as well as many elected
officials and city planners. The themes that kept coming through are communication, collaboration and
cooperation. She handed out some specific ideas with regard to the Guiding Principles on Page 6. She
pointed out the first one which is Fostering Collaborative Relationships. She commented that some of
these ideas epitomize things that we should be doing in the County. She urged the Planning Commission
to look at this list carefully and see if they should be added to the Guiding Principles.
Ms. Shaddock expressed that these items are very, very important to them and indicated that it makes it
very clear. She commented that by some forethought she believes that it can alleviate some problems
and allows both the unincorporated and incorporated areas to prosper.
Commissioner Ochsner stressed that he really liked the point about cooperation with other towns and
cities. He added that it is really important. Mr. Ochsner commented that unfortunately sometimes this
Board has seen where the cooperation from the Towns hasn't been there. He said that it is important to
push the growth toward the municipalities but to also have an option to come through the County if the
municipalities are not interested.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
Karla Grieser, member of the TAC, commended Ms. Shaddock for being so persistent and appreciated
her input at the meetings. Ms. Grieser commented that she feels that as a TAC committee they have put
together a very good plan and added that the Guiding Principles have been the basis for everything they
have done and feels that they are sufficient.
Ms. Grieser expressed that she has appreciated serving on this committee and added that it has been a
really good opportunity to get to know the other TAC members. She said that they all have come to
respect each other and their opinions. She expressed her appreciation to the Planning Commission
members for the support given to the TAC for the work they've done.
Ms. Grieser commended the planning staff as they have been jewels in this process and the TAC wouldn't
have gotten through this without them.
Commissioner Hall commented that it was a pleasure to serve with Ms. Grieser on the TAC and added
that he appreciated her impeccable notes in keeping them on track. He reiterated the appreciation for the
planning staff and all their hard work.
Stan Everitt, Chairman of the TAC, thanked the Planning Commission and echoed Ms. Grieser's
comments on the support given and working with them to accomplish this process.
Mr. Everitt said that the latest response draft is an edited draft based on the TAC meetings of last week.
After the first hearing on September 30`h, the TAC met and went through the document which incorporated
comments from the various agencies. In their deliberations they held full discussions of everything that
was proposed to be added. The latest draft shows the TAC's recommendations of which there was added
language and refined comments.
Mr. Everitt indicated that from the last hearing Joe Gerdom had some very good points but felt that there
was a lot of editorializing and opinions. He commented that the TAC tried really hard not to put those
editorials in.
Mr. Everitt said that today Mr. Meyer approached the Planning Commission and handed out a page with a
statement from an editorial in Wisconsin and some additional statements from his group. Mr. Everitt said
that he felt the comments Mr. Meyer made were either already addressed in the plan, such as adding the
word "individual" to"private property rights. When the TAC had discussion on the Guiding Principle
regarding private property rights it was the conclusion of the committee that"individual", based on Mr.
Barker's recommendation, really was the same as private property rights. So rather than be redundant,
they felt to keep as it was.
12
Mr. Everitt referred to some of the other comments that Mr. Meyer gave on suggestions of the Comp Plan
update. In his opinion he has read through these and feels that these are subtle nuances to what has
already been incorporated into the plan. He is not trying to eliminate anything he suggested, however felt
that it seemed if it were added it would be redundant.
Mr. Everitt commented that a letter from a Tri-Town planner was received and in reviewing his comments
most of what he has asked has been either been incorporated or they are qualifiers He commented that
they are good suggestions but believes that they have already been addressed.
Mr. Everitt expressed that he believes that the TAC has addressed many of the comments in the latest
draft and added that they have discussed them in the TAC meetings. He reiterated that they have either
incorporated the comments into the document which felt addressed the issue or rejected them completely.
Commissioner Hall referred to the''% mile and commented that the reason the TAO went to that was because
of any extension of sewer service beyond that point was not economically viable. Mr. Everitt commented that
it was part of their rationale. He added that the costs of extending infrastructure these days are significantly
higher. He believes that the 'A mile became more of a realistic number particularly for smaller parcels that
may surround the community. He added that there was also an encouragement to have discussions that the
towns/cities can control their own destiny but doesn't necessarily mean that everyone surrounding them in the
county has to wait until they decide what their destiny is. It encourages the city to perhaps be more
cooperative with the County in forming an IGA that deals with the area three miles out.
Commissioner Ochsner referred to a point made by Ms. Shaddock about giving priority to municipalities. He
commented that he isn't comfortable with the word priority. He asked for clarification if it is stated that the
County wants to work with the municipalities or if our first option is to say go to the municipality. Mr. Everitt
said that it isn't articulated specifically and precisely that way. However every time it talks about urban
development it starts with"should be in the municipal boundaries",or if it can't happen anywhere else then it's
"where adequate services are available or reasonable obtainable". Mr. Everitt stated that the TAC had many
long discussions with regard to this and added that they heard Ms.Shaddock clearly many times express her
opinions. He said that it is a delicate issue but felt that the TAC tried their best to try and verbalize the priority
without actually stating the priority. From a practical standpoint, this document puts the County in the rural
development and agricultural development business. It doesn't continue with the urban development
mentality.
Commissioner Berryman commented that for being someone that deals with businesses both in the city and
county, he does know that there are entities that specifically try to avoid municipalities for whatever reason.
He doses support the encouragement of the applicants visiting with the municipalities and work with them
because they have the services available. However he added that he does not want to preclude that from
happening.
Mr. Everitt referred to the City of Greeley's comments and indicated that their first priority was to get a
Transportation Plan in place. He said that a Transportation Plan is essential and fully agrees with that.
Mr. Everitt didn't agree with the suggestion of delaying any of the other policies until the Transportation Plan is
in place. He added that this plan could take many years and could be a very broad scope. He felt that
delaying the discussion of changing from an 80 acre lot to a 35 acre lot until that is in place would probably not
serve the notion that you can do two things as once.
Mr. Everitt referred to the suggestion of the Highway 85 corridor and sub-area plans and commented that he
believes the County and the Town of Windsor and City of Greeley are right now working on the rail corridor
plan. He said that it is a great model to follow and it seems like we are already pursuing the wish list items that
Greeley had brought to them.
The vision statement again was discussed by the TAO quite a bit and it is helpful but by the time a group of
people agree on what that statement should be it is diluted to the point of being warm and fuzzy as opposed to
something that has tangible results. He indicated that the TAC came to the conclusion that they could spend
hours and come up with nothing.
13
Mr. Everitt referred to the comment of considering the municipalities as partners in economic development. It
is stated to some degree in the Economic Development Section and could be strengthened a bit but is self
evident to a certain degree.
Commissioner Ocshner asked Mr. Everitt to go back to the Highway 85 Corridor Plan. He indicated that there
was a section that was deleted from the old plan and didn't address it in the new plan. Mr. Everitt said that it is
in the more introductory part of the plan and not in the policies or goals.
Mr. Mueller said that the existing Comprehensive Plan Section 22-3-110 is one of several narrative sections
and read a portion of it. He pointed out that the draft that is being reviewed does include a newly inserted
policy(T.Policy 3.5)that says "Recognize Highway 85 as a key gateway into Weld County and support it's
improvement. Support adjacent commercial and industrial uses in a functional and attractive manner in order
to preserve jobs and take advantage of existing infrastructure."
In closing, Mr. Everitt said that the TAC feels that this is a very good document and has great potential for
improvement into the future. He asked the Planning Commissioners to consider adopting the plan in the final
revised version based on the review of analysis from the TAC committee.
Commissioner Ochsner asked if the recommendations from the Health Department were included in the plan
today. Mr. Everitt commented that Ms. Smith requested including a sentence on Page 36 and added that it
was not approved by the TAC. He believed that it became less of a policy and more of a statement. He
added that they felt that the addition of a Health Impact Assessment is a policy matter as opposed to a
Comprehensive Plan matter. Mr. Everitt stated that there were some other comments from the Health
Department which were accepted by the TAC.
Commissioner Branham expressed that Mr. Everitt and the Technical Advisory Committee had done a great
job and the analysis for the Planning Commission has been very beneficial to them. He agreed with Mr.
Everitt that most of public comments are already incorporated into the revised Comprehensive Plan to some
degree.
Commissioner Grand referred to the fire department,specifically the volunteer fire fighters,question he raised
from the meeting last week. He commented that he is not so much worried about the financing issue but is
more concerned with recognizing the volunteer fire department particularly in the rural areas. Mr. Grand
suggested adding a statement which reads "We encourage participation in local fire departments".
Mr. Everitt noted that they added several phrases which include fire protection. Commissioner Grand said that
he is specifically referring to the volunteer fire departments. Mr. Everitt suggested that Policy 2.6 would be the
appropriate place to put that. Mr. Grand stated that it impacts much of the rural area and suggested the new
policy to read "Encourage citizen participation in volunteer fire departments to provide adequate fire
protection." Mr. Mueller recommended making this a separate policy.
Mr. Grand echoed Commissioner Branham's appreciation to the TAC committee.
Commissioner Ochsner referred to Page 71,Section 22-5-100, Policy 1.3. He wished to clarify if all of the tax
revenue collected in one town, for example, would then return to that same town. Mr. Mueller said that this
comment was in response to the last Planning Commission hearing. The goal was to indicate that even
though you are receiving taxes from areas throughout the county, there are impacts that get concentrated in
certain areas. He added that any severance taxes that are gained from residents who live in a town, by law
have to go to those towns.
Commissioner Grand commented that he challenged the severance tax allocation process which gears
severance tax monies to towns where it's based on people working in the industry not necessarily where the
physical impact occurs. He is suggesting that the County Commissioners focus on looking at that issue so
that the County as a whole compared to other counties of the state get their fair share and also that within the
County we have a process that allocates it. Mr. Everitt commented that the authority that Weld County has to
address is probably somewhat limited.
14
Commissioner Grand said that the intention was to stimulate some thought. Mr. Mueller asked if this
additional language accomplish what they intended. Commissioner Grand said that it is a shot at it and
stressed that they are not mandating this to happen. Mr. Everitt agreed that the issue needs further
consideration.
After some further discussion, the Planning Commission liked the idea of a Recommended Strategy rather
than including it as a Policy.
Bruce Barker, County Attorney, commented that when the severance tax dollars come in to the County it all
goes into the general fund. There is no distinguishing the money. He believes that the directive is alright
because it says the money will be spent on where the most use of the roadways by the oil and gas companies
are creating the problems. However, that directive is basically saying to use general fund money to do so.
Mr. Baker pointed out that he is concerned with the first sentence which states"...distributed in Weld County
for local interests." He said that when severance tax money comes in there is a division that goes between
special districts, municipalities and counties. It almost makes it sound as though there is directive to take the
County's portion and divide it up to other entities. He doesn't believe that is the Commission's intent. The
intent is to keep it County money and to use our portion to mitigate these impacts.
Mr. Barker suggested ending the sentence after"..properly collected"and then the make the second sentence
a Recommended Strategy
Commissioner Berryman noted a concern from Commissioner Ehrlich about leaving off"individual" in the
property rights question raised earlier and whether or not that leaves property owners open to misconstruing of
rights in the future. Mr. Everitt said that the TAC had those discussions and felt that it was their final opinion
that the private property rights made the statement to adequately cover that. It is unlikely that the Guiding
Principles would be the foundation of any case in a court of law. Mr. Mueller added that they relied on Mr.
Barker for that issue. Mr. Barker commented that it is a distinction without a difference.
Mr. Mueller summarized the possible changes.
He pointed out Page 47 and referred to the language of adequate funding for fire and services. He indicated
that the TAC decided not to include it because it was accomplished through the referral comments.
Another point was on Page 64 regarding the funding mechanisms of open space especially in urbanizing
areas. There was discussion on whether that should only be private funding mechanisms, but the Planning
Commission agreed to leave it as stated.
Mr. Mueller also pointed out Page 75 with regard to the qualifier on Deerfield. He added that this is something
that the County Commissioners are actively working on.
Mr. Mueller referred to the addition of Policy 2.6 on Page 47 and to renumber accordingly. The new Policy
would read"Encourage citizen participation in volunteer fire departments in order to provide adequate service."
In addition, he pointed out Page 71 with regard to oil and gas. Mr. Mueller stated that Policy 1.3 would be
amended by ending the first sentence after"collected"and add a Recommended Strategy 1.3.a to read"Study
the distribution of tax revenue to determine where the greatest impacts from oil and gas activity are found,and
identify how those impacts can be mitigated."
Robert Grand moved to accept the revised update to the Comprehensive Plan as presented on October 7,
2008 including the amendments as stated by staff and forward to the Board of County Commissioners with the
Planning Commission's recommendation of approval. Included in his amendment was the ability for staff to
make only clerical corrections to the document. Nick Berryman seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, yes; Paul Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, absent; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, yes; Mark Lawley,
absent; Roy Spitzer, absent; Tom Holton, absent; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
15
Commissioner Ochsner thanked everyone for working on this update and believes that it is a very well thought
out plan. He stated that he is proud to represent it.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss.
Commissioner Ochsner noted the parking concerns that were brought up during the meeting today. He
commented that at one time the Planning Commissioners had designated spots in the parking facility which is
a block away from here. He added that he has now noticed that there are signs there that state "Permit
Parking Only". He asked if this could be addressed and if it was possible to have a temporary parking pass to
give to people to park in that lot or a place that the public can park without the fear of receiving tickets or
towing. Tom Honn, Planning Services, commented that he made a good point and he will research that.
Meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
•
16
Hello