HomeMy WebLinkAbout20083212.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld County
Conference Room, 4209 CR 24.5, Longmont, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Doug
Ochsner, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Doug Ochsner- Chair
Tom Holton -Vice Chair
Nick Berryman
Paul Branham
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Mark Lawley -
Roy Spitzer
Also Present: Michelle Martin, Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services; Don Dunker, Don Carroll,Janet
Carter, Department of Public Works; Lauren Light, Department of Health;Bruce Barker,County Attorney,and
Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Robert Grand moved to approve the November 4, 2008 Weld County Planning Commission minutes,
seconded by Tom Holton. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: CZ-1148
APPLICANT: Glaze Industrial Properties LLC
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
REQUEST: Change of Zone from the A(Agricultural)Zone District to the 1-3(Industrial)Zone
District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part NW4 of Section 20,Ti N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 8 and East of and adjacent to CR 27.
The Chair asked Ms. Martin if she wishes for this case to remain on consent. She replied yes.
The Chair asked if the applicant was here. The applicant was not available.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
The Chair asked if any of the Planning Commissioners wished to hear this case. No one wished to speak.
Bill Hall moved that Case CZ-1148, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, seconded by Erich Ehrlich. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair read the following case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1658
APPLICANT: Michael Aberle
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for a Use
Permitted as a Use by Right,Accessory Use, or Use by Special Review in the
Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts(construction business)in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-4217 being part of the NE4 of Section 31 and NW4 of Section 32 all
in TIN, R66W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 4 and east of State Highway 85.
Ldmxrwn:is w o 1,2 g- ,2Ocg 2008-3212
Michelle Martin, Planning Services, stated that the sign announcing the Planning Commission hearing was
posted November 1, 2008.
The site is located south of and adjacent to County Road 4 and east of State Highway 85.
Section 22-2-60.F of the Weld County Code (A.Goal 6)states, "Public facilities and services such as
sewer, water, roads, schools, and fire and police protection, must be provided and developed in a timely,
orderly and efficient manner to support the transition of agricultural land to other development uses. In
evaluating a land use application, County representatives and the applicant will consider the public
facilities and services goals and policies."
A.Policy 6.2. "Applicants for development are responsible to determine the status of a water well through
the State Division of Water Resources and shall be aware that ownership of a parcel of land with a well
does not guarantee the use of the well. The State Division of Water Resources shall be contacted by the
applicant."
The applicant is proposing to utilize a domestic well for the proposed business. According to the State of
Colorado, Division of Water Resources in a letter dated April 1, 2008 the only well on site is Well Permit
No. 241019-A which is permitted for fire protection, ordinary household purposes inside not more than 1
single family dwelling, irrigation of not more than 1 acre of home gardens and lawns, and the watering of
domestic animals. The Division of Water Resources also states that the well can not be used for the
business including the contractors/employees accessing the site. The Division of Water Resources in a
letter dated October 1, 2008 state that the applicant would need to apply for a commercial well which
would allow water for the business but not outside irrigation. The applicants, at this time, have not applied
to change the existing well to commercial. Therefore the proposed development does not have an
adequate supply of water as required by Section 23-2-260.E.2 of the Weld County Code.
Currently the property is in violation (ZCV08-00020)for operating a commercial business on the property
without an approved and recorded Use by Special Review(USR).
Planning Staff is recommending denial of the application at this time due to the inadequacy of water
supply.
Ms. Martin indicated on a visual slide that the majority of the operation of the business is conducted in the
rear of the site or south of the house.
This area is primarily agricultural in use.
Ms. Martin stated that the applicant is here to answer any questions, as well as Public Works and the
Health Department.
Mike Aberle, 12988 CR 4, purchased the property two years prior to receiving a letter in order to come into
compliance with the business. He added that since then he has worked very hard and has complied with
everything; however the water seems to be the biggest problem.
Mr. Aberle stated that he has some subcontractors which come to the property and access the site for
approximately five minutes. He added that he doesn't use anybody full-time; they are only subcontractors.
They are there for a few minutes at a time to pick up the materials that he has stored. He is requesting to
provide a port-a-potty or something similar that would satisfy the concern. He added that for the two years
prior to this no one has ever used his bathroom. He understands it is a Weld County code issue but has
checked on pricing and it is very economical for him to provide bottled water and a port-a-potty at this
time.
Mr. Aberle commented that he wishes to continually make improvements to the property but as a small
business owner he can only afford to do these improvements in steps. He added that he will submit the
Well Permit Application to the State Water Department if it is his only option to turn this well into a
commercial use. He commented that according to the State it would take approximately two weeks to
process. He expressed that he does not wish to do that because it will keep him from watering his outside
2
property and added that he has some newly planted trees and grass which he wishes to keep.
Commissioner Ochsner asked Mr. Aberle to point out on the map presented in the slides where his
landscaping is located. Mr. Aberle pointed out the area north and west of the house.
Commissioner Ocshner asked if the house on the property belonged to the applicant. Mr. Aberle replied
yes.
The Chair asked the Health Department for their comments.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, commented that since this isn't a temporary use they do not support
bottled water or portable toilets. Environmental Health only supports that when it is for seasonal use or if it
is six (6) months or less. Since this is a full-time year round use no matter how many employees there are
the Health Department requires a permanent water source and permanent sewage disposal system.
Unfortunately even if he would use the bathroom in his house for the employees he would still have to re-
permit his well because there is water going towards the business.
Ms. Light stated that they received a letter from Mr. Aberle dated September 23, 2008 indicating that there
is not going to be any washing of vehicles on site and that there is no floor drains. Therefore if approved,
Conditions of Approval 1.F and 1.H could be deleted.
Ms. Light added that the applicant submitted a Dust Abatement Plan, and a Waste Handling Plan;
however she will need some more information on those items.
Ms. Light commented that there is a noise standard which is restricted to the commercial level.
She added that Development Standards 4-14 address Environmental Health items.
Commissioner Holton asked what the landscaping plan entails. Ms. Martin said that Mr. Aberle is planning
to screen the business with a fence.
The Chair asked for comments from Public Works.
Don Carroll, Public Works, commented that County Road 4 is a paved collector road. Most recent traffic
counts reflect 885 ADT so it is heavily used.
The access is existing for the residence and the construction business. The circulation pattern appears to
be adequate. He added that there is plenty of room for off street parking.
The applicant did supply Public Works with a Stormwater Drainage Report which they have reviewed and
find acceptable.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Steve Shrek, 16225 E 107th Place, Commerce City. Mr. Shrek commented that professionally he is involved
with regulatory compliance but he is here as a friend of Mr. Aberle. He stated that the issue is the bathroom
and handwashing. He asked if it would be a possible to grant a variance on those issues which would allow
this to go forward and then the Board of County Commissioners could revisit that at a later date.
Commissioner Ochsner understands the applicant's dilemma as there is very minimal use. He asked if there
were any options with regard to the water and sewage system. Ms. Light asked the Commissioners to keep in
mind that Development Standard #19 states 12 employees on the site.
Commissioner Branham commented that the employees are only coming or going. Ms. Light said that they
look at it any time that there is a business and it's a full-time business no matter how many people are coming
in and out. They require it as a policy of the Health Department. Ms. Light indicated that it doesn't mean you
can't waive that.
3
Commissioner Holton asked if the 12 employees are based on potential future expansion. Ms. Martin
commented that the applicant has indicated that the primary employees would be subcontractors but that it
doesn't preclude him from having full-time employees in the future. She said that staff has no way of
monitoring the length of time the employees are there. She added that the couple times she has visited the
site to take pictures there has been at a minimum 2-3 people on site for approximately 15 minutes or longer.
Commissioner Ochsner asked if the Planning Commission has the ability to waive the standard or what
options they may have. Bruce Barker, County Attorney,commented that when you look at the standard it is a
requirement that the applicant has to prove that in their application. In essence you weigh the evidence on
both sides and make a determination if they have met that requirement. The requirement says that they are
suppose to provide supporting documents that proof of adequate water supply will be available in terms of
quantity, quality and dependability. He said that the Planning Commission is the determiner of whether or not
it is adequate for the purpose to which the property is being used. Short answer is that the Planning
Commission does have the ability not to waive the requirement but to find whether it has been met.
Commissioner Holton clarified that the code doesn't specifically state that this well has to be a commercial well
as recognized by the State. Mr. Barker replied that it does not and added that it just says the water supply will
be available which is adequate in terms of quantity, quality and dependability. He added that the evidence you
have from the State is that the well that is there is not sufficient for a business.
Commissioner Ehrlich wished to clarify if the applicant indicated on the application that he operates seasonally
and based on that if he would be allowed to have bottled water and portable toilets. Ms. Light stated that this
is a full-time business year round. Mr. Ehrlich understood that but commented that the applicant indicated on
his application that he was seasonal.
Commissioner Branham asked that instead of a port-a-potty or bottled water,can he have a more permanent
system such as a vault. Ms. Light commented that when water is available the Health Department does not
support a vault.
Ms. Martin clarified that according to the application the applicant's business peak time is in the summer and
indicated that there were more employees in the summer versus the winter months. However, it is a full year
round operation.
Commissioner Ochsner asked if the applicant could address the habits of his employees.
Mr. Aberle stated that when he started filling out the application he was told to use higher numbers for any
future expansion. He commented that according to his records there were 11 subcontractors and including
himself he arrived at the 12 employees. Mr.Aberle expressed that never in one day would all 12 employees
be on site.
Commissioner Grand said that according to the applicant the amount of equivalent man hours on site would
be significantly below 12 times 8 hours. Mr. Grand recognized the use as a part time use of the facility rather
than a 12 person full-time daily operation and asked staff if that made a difference. Ms. Martin stated that it
does not and it is up to the applicant to determine how long the employees are on the property. She added
that staff cannot regulate the length of time that they are there. We just need to make sure that when those
employees are on site that they have a means to use a restroom and water while they are there. The State
does not distinguish the difference in terms of usage of the well if they are there 15 minutes on site or if they
are there for a few hours. If the well is being used for any type of activity associated with the business it needs
to be re-permitted.
Commissioner Grand commented that he understands the regulatory issue but added that in this case it is a
significantly different application of activity at the site versus the theoretical. He added that there should be
some means of adjusting that.
Mr. Aberle commented that his business is semi-seasonal. He does work year round but during the winter
months it is significantly less, specifically 1-2 employees. He added that the possibility for all 12 employees
coming to the site in one day is highly unlikely.
4
Commissioner Branham asked the applicant how long he has operated the business and how he has handled
the water issue previously. Mr. Aberle replied that he has had the property for two (2)years and no one has
used the bathroom once just because they are not there long enough. He added that if the employees would
have asked to use a restroom he would have allowed them to utilize his personal bathroom. He commented
that if a port-a-potty would be readily available it may get used a few times.
Commissioner Branham asked Mr. Aberle if he would be comfortable providing a port-a-potty and bottled
water if required. Mr. Aberle replied yes and does plan to continually make improvements to the property
including re-permitting the well to commercial use.
Commissioner Holton asked Ms. Light to clarify if the existing septic system can be used. Ms. Light said that if
the applicant uses the existing one it goes back to the water issue because it is supplied by that well.
Everything is tied to that commercial well permit.
Commissioner Branham referred to Condition of Approval 1.A on Page 4 and suggested amending it to say
that the applicant shall provide adequate bottled water and portable toilets.
Commissioner Grand added that in addition to that implying the temporary nature of the work force on the site
be included so that if the applicant eventually went to a full-time position it would have to be revisited.
Commissioner Holton asked how that would be controlled.
Commissioner Ehrlich asked if there was something that could be added in the Development Standards which
would say that to a certain degree if the applicant's business was to grow that it would bring him back because
the use has changed.
Commissioner Holton referred to Mr. Barker's comment with regard to showing that the water supply is
adequate. He feels that the State's definition of the commercial well is very limited just to drinking water and
sanitary services. He commented that if the County is going to require landscaping,which may include plants
and you have a commercial well, how are you going to do that.
Robert Grand moved to delete Development Standards 12 and 13 and amend#11 to read"Adequate drinking,
handwashing, and toilet facilities(bottled water and portable toilets)shall be provided for subcontractors and
patrons of the facility, at all times." Paul Branham seconded the motion
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, absent; Paul Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand, yes ; Bill Hall, yes with comment;
Mark Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer,absent;Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner,yes with comment. Motion carried.
Commissioner Hall commented that he believes this is an unusual situation that staff does not have the
leeway to interpret it this way; however he believes that this is a proper use of the actual use of the property.
Commissioner Ochsner urged the applicant to pursue the commercial well in the future where he has the
ability to do more with it. He believes that it will be a good temporary fix for the business and would like to
encourage new business.
Commissioner Grand suggested amending Development Standard#19 to read"12 part-time persons"rather
than "12 persons"to reflect the reduced usage of the facility as opposed to staff's original interpretation.
There was a lengthy discussion on amending Development Standard 19, specifically with regard to the
number of persons and intensity on site. The Planning Commission concluded to leave Development
Standard #19 as written.
Commissioner Holton asked staff if they would support bottled water on a temporary basis to allow the
applicant to establish his trees and then obtain a commercial well permit within 12 months. Ms. Martin said
that staff's ultimate goal is to get him to have a permanent water supply. Therefore if we need to have a
temporary situation she commented that staff would be in more support of him having a commercial well now
or in a few months versus providing the bottled water and port-a-potties.
5
Paul Branham moved to delete Condition of Approval 1.A and re-letter accordingly, seconded by Robert
Grand.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, absent; Paul Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, no; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, yes; Mark Lawley, no;
Roy Spitzer, absent; Tom Holton, no; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried.
The Chair asked the applicant if he has read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if he is in agreement with those. Mr. Aberle replied that he is in agreement.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1658, 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 Paul Branham.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, absent; Paul Branham,yes with comment; Erich Ehrlich, no; Robert Grand,yes with comment; Bill
Hall,yes; Mark Lawley, no with comment; Roy Spitzer, absent;Tom Holton,no with comment; Doug Ochsner,
yes with comment. Motion carried.
Commissioner Grand said that due to the unique circumstances of this facility and nature of operation it
matches the spirit of Section 23-2-220.A.1.
Commissioner Branham reiterated Mr. Grand's comments. He added that he believes that the adequate
water is present now.
Commissioner Lawley commented that the approval of this application creates problems in the future in the
event that the owner sold the business or the current business being conducted on site changes.
Commissioner Holton commented that this really needs to be fixed with a commercial well permit. He
understands the applicant's problem and does not agree with the way that the State has restricted use on the
commercial well.
Commissioner Ochsner cited Section 23-2-260.E.2 and believes that there is an adequate water supply. He
added that he agrees with Commissioner Holton that a commercial well needs to be on this place but the
State's interpretation of that well is something that we cannot argue with. Therefore this is the best way to
satisfy the application.
The Chair called a recess at 2:36 p.m.
The Chair called the meeting back to order at 2:45 p.m. and read the next case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1676
APPLICANT: Vestas Wind Systems A/S
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Use
Permitted as a Use by Right,Accessory Use,or Use by Special Review in the 1-3
(Industrial)Zone District, including research, repairing, manufacturing,
fabricating, processing, assembling, or storage nature(Industrial manufacturing
facility-Vestas)in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part NW4, Lying East of Union Pacific Railroad; N2SW4, East of the RR also
part NE4SW4; and a portion of Lot B of AmRE-1058 being part NE4SW4
together with a portion of the NW4SE4 Section 29,TIN, R66W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 6; East of CR 27; 0.25 miles north of CR 4,
generally East of and adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, stated that this application is for a Site Specific Development Plan and Special
Use Permit for Vestas Blades America, Inc who seek approval for their Brighton Blades and Nacelle campus
facility. The application is being processed through Weld County with annexation into the City of Brighton
6
slated for late summer 2009,yet prior to approving the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for any structure
located on the Vestas Campus. Representatives for Vestas and their consultant, Nolte Associates are present
today as well as individuals from the City of Brighton and City of Ft. Lupton.
The site is south of and adjacent to County Road 6;east of County Road 27; 0.25 miles north of County Road
4, and generally east of and adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad.
The site is located within the three mile referral area for the Cities of Brighton and Fort Lupton, Town of
Lochbuie and Adams County. The City of Fort Lupton returned a referral dated October 31, 2008 indicating
full support of the project.Their support is based on the 2005 Interim Growth Plan,while not formally adopted
by the Cities of Brighton and Fort Lupton,which designates the area as rural transitional,however, Fort Lupton
states"because this property is adjacent to rail it makes logical sense that the rural uses are better suited for
industrial and commercial uses."Further, Fort Lupton's 2007 Land Use plan delineates extensive employment
areas north of the proposed Vestas campus site.
The City of Brighton returned a referral dated November 3, 2008 stating "The City of Brighton effusively
supports the project and is desirous of setting forth the city's future intentions for the area and the facility. . . ."
No other municipal or county referrals have been received.
Twenty-one (21) referral agencies reviewed this case; twelve (12)agencies provided comments with the
remaining nine agencies, including CDOT and the Union Pacific Railroad not responding to the referral
request.
The site currently is vacant. The surrounding property is primarily agricultural in nature with a few homes
in close proximity, with a commercial greenhouse to the south, the Union Pacific Railroad main line track
to the west with industrial uses and residential structures located west of the main track, agricultural lands
to the north with a few homes located in close proximity to the east. There are 25 parcels within 500 feet
of the property. The City of Brighton's municipal boundary is located ' miles south of the site and the City
of Fort Lupton's municipal boundary is located 1/4 mile to the northwest of the site.
The three properties that make up the Vestas Campus were part of three parcels that were originally
under review for the future Union Pacific Railroad classification yard. The Brighton parcel is immediately
south of and adjacent to County Road 6, with the RTD parcels adjacent to the Brighton parcel to the
south. For the purposes of this application, planning staff considered all three parcels as one unit. There
are improvements on the site that are slated for demolition and removal.
There are no oil and gas encumbrances located on site; however, Anadarko does own the coal resources
that underlie the property. In a letter received from Molly Buchanan, counsel for Anadarko, dated
November 14, 2008, it is indicated that they wish to give notice to the County of the coal interests that it
owns under the property and objects to the approval of a final application for development until an
agreement is reached between Anadarko Land and the applicant. Staff was provided with a letter from
Anadarko and the applicant's counsel stipulating that an agreement has been tendered for the purchase
of the coal resource and for the waiver of the 30-day mineral notification as required by State statute.
There are two power lines that traverse the property west to east. The Western Area Power
Administration has a 115kV Transmission line to the north and United Power has a 115kV transmission in
the south half of the site. At a date uncertain in the future both lines are slated to be upgraded under the
1041 application process.
The proposal requests approval for two primary structures and two additional structures, including a wash
bay building and a warehouse/material storage structure.
The Nacelles Building will be located in the southwestern part of the site adjacent to the Union Pacific rail
corridor. The Nacelle building is a factory assembly facility, constructing the generator portion of the wind
turbine. The wash bay building is associated with the Nacelle factory providing a high pressure washer to
clean the dirt from the housing unit prior to assembly. The materials storage building adjacent is utilized to
store waste materials associated with the Nacelle assembly prior to disposal by a specialty waste hauler.
7
The other primary structure will be the Blades Building which is located south of and adjacent to County
Road 6 in a north-south orientation. This factory produces the 44 meter blade that will attach to the hub of
the nacelle. The structure provides for areas of fabrication, painting and storage of materials utilized in
both the production and painting processes. Administrative offices for all on site activities are also located
at this location.
The Nacelles factory facility will employ 750 persons in two shifts likely to be from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
and 3:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m.
The blades factory facility will also employ 750 persons in three shifts, likely to be from 6:00 a.m. to 2:30
p.m., 2:00 p.m. to10:30 p.m., and 10:00 p.m. to 6:30 a.m.
The entire Vestas Blades and Nacelle Factory campus is a secured facility with monitored vehicular and
man access gates, security fencing and monitoring of all on-site activities.
The applicant proposes that all employee traffic associated with the Nacelle factory enter the site from
County Road 4 via a privately maintained access road into the facility. The exact location is under review
as several alternative alignments are being considered by the City of Brighton.
County Road 4 is currently 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. An
additional 10 feet is required to accommodate the right-of-way needs.
The applicant proposes that a majority of the employee traffic associated with the Blades factory enter the
site from County Road 6.
County Road 6 is currently designated on the Weld County Road Classification Plan as a local gravel road
with 60 feet of right-of-way. The City of Fort Lupton, in their adopted 2007 Transportation Plan identifies
County Road 6 as an Arterial road posted at 35 MPH which requires 90 feet of right-of-way at full build out.
The City of Brighton stated in their referral that 80 feet of right-of-way is required at full build out to
accommodate two travel lanes, one in each direction and a continuous turn lane.
County Road 27 is currently designated on the Weld County Road Classification Plan as a major arterial
road, which requires 140 feet of right-of-way at full build out. There is presently 60 feet of right-of-way, an
additional 40 feet is required to accommodate the right-of-way needs.
In the referral received by the City of Brighton, dated November 3, 2008 the city states, ". . . as agreed to
by the City of Brighton and Vestas Blades America, Inc., via the purchase and sale agreement, as the pre-
annexation agreement had not been finalized. The Vestas properties shall be annexed into the City of
Brighton, and zoned 1-2 (Heavy Industrial). The City will also annex County Road 27 north of the existing
city limits north to the intersection of County Road 6; also, County Road 4 east of County road 27 to the
alignment of the new southern access road and County Road 6 east of County Road 27 to the
easternmost point of the Vestas Campus.
All roadway upgrades are being financed by the City of Brighton through a portion of sale proceeds from
the land, and via grants being requested through DOLA and EDA.
The DOLA grant is for Energy Impact monies and the EDA, Economic Development Administration grant
is from the US Department of Commerce. This agency provides grant monies to support the construction
or rehabilitation of essential public infrastructure and facilities necessary to generate, retain, attract
private sector capital, and promote regional competitiveness, including investments that expand and
upgrade infrastructure to attract new industry, support technology-led development, redevelop brownfield
sites and provide eco-industrial development.
The US 85 Highway corridor will also be impacted by this facility. Condition 1.P under prior to recording
the plat requires the applicant to contact the Colorado Department of Transportation to verify the access
permit status or for any additional requirements that may be needed to obtain or upgrade a current
8
permit. The City of Fort Lupton in their referral dated October 31, 2008 referenced the US 85 Access
Control Plan 1-76 to County Road 80, dated December 1999 prepared by Felsburg Holt and Ullevig,
specific to page 38 of this document which discusses the future treatment of County Roads 4, 6, 6.25 and
8. The long term priority is to close the County Road 4 intersection when interchanges at County Road 2
or County Road 6 or County Road 8 are constructed. The applicant has indicated that the integrity of the
plan will remain and adherence to the long term goals associated with the 1999 Access Control Plan will
not be compromised by their proposed development.
The City of Brighton, per the purchase and sale agreement has agreed to provide the proper
infrastructure, i.e., city water, city sewer and roadways, to be in place in order for the Vestas facility to be
operational by September 2009. Presently, United Power has indicated that there is adequate electrical
service to bring the facility on-line. At a future date uncertain there will be the construction of a terminal
substation to provide additional power to this facility. The substation is proposed to be sited in the
southeastern corner of the easternmost RTD parcel.
The Union Pacific main line rail and associated rail siding improvements to the east and adjacent to the
Vestas Campus are under review and design by representatives for UP, Vestas and Nolte Associates.
The applicant also has indicated that they are in negotiations with representatives of the Union Pacific
Railroad and will soon have formal conversations with the Public Utility Commission concerning the
required upgrades to these crossing locations. Union Pacific has indicated that they will be ready to
serve the Vestas Campus at start-up. To facilitate efficient rail service, Vestas will likely install airpumps
at both the County Road 4 and County Road 6 areas to power up the loaded trains before forward
movement from the facility onto the mainline UP track. A finalized agreement between Union Pacific
Railroad and the property owner will be required prior to recording the USR plat.
Given the jurisdiction of this application, the Department of Public Works has requested that the applicant
address and resolve the requirements/concerns, as stated in the referral response dated October 29,
2008, including but not limited to public road improvements, internal access, additional traffic analysis,
stormwater drainage, geo-technical issues and a transferable Long-Term Maintenance and
Improvements Agreement. Specific requirements are addressed in staff comments.
As part of the public process element, two neighborhood meetings were held. The first with the
surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the site and the second with the community at-large. The
first meeting was held September 29, 2008 and the second October 15, 2008. Concerns voiced by
surrounding property owners included noise, light and traffic issues as they related to this proposed
development of the Vestas Brighton campus. Both the County and the City of Brighton are requiring a
Landscape and Screening Plan which addresses the issues associated with this proposed facility,
including but not limited to berming, landscaping and other mitigation techniques to address the concerns
raised. Planning Services is requiring a Landscape and Screening Plan for the site. The plan shall
include the method of screening the blade storage area, the Nacelles staging area, the employee and
vendor parking and staging areas, and trailer parking from adjacent and neighboring properties and future
rights-of-way and the break-up of the long monolithic wall component associated with the Blades
production facility. Additionally staff will require a mitigation plan to address this wall for review by both the
Building Department and Planning Services.
There has been one item of correspondence received from Mr. Warner, an adjacent property owner to the
east. Staff has received multiple telephone inquiries from interested parties concerning the development
in the surrounding area as well as the proposed Vestas site. To staff's knowledge, there has not been a
physical review of the case file in the Greeley Planning office.
The Department of Planning Services has reviewed case number USR 1676 and recommends approval to
the Planning Commission with the attached Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Mr. Ogle referred to the agreement in which he spoke of earlier between Anadarko and the
representatives for Vestas. He indicated that Anadarko is requesting a statement be read into record.
This is something that has been agreed to by the attorneys for Vestas and by Molly Buchanan who
represents Anadarko. The statement reads:
9
"Anadarko Land Corp. has filed an objection letter with the County dated November 14, 2008 in which
it objects to the application filed by Vestas Blades America, Inc. because of the coal interests
Anadarko Land owns under the portion of the property included in Section 29, Township 1 North,
Range 66 West, and Anadarko Land also indicates in the objection letter the failure of the applicant to
provide a timely notice of this hearing.
Anadarko Land and the applicant have asked me to inform you they have reached an agreement that
will resolve potential conflicts between the development of the surface estate and the severed coal
interests which they will put in final form prior to the hearing scheduled before the Board of County
Commissioners on December 10.
The parties have exchanged e-mil correspondence which I am asking be made part of the record
concerning their agreement and their stipulation.
They ask the Planning Commission to include as part of its recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners a statement that Anadarko Land and the applicant agree and stipulate to enter into an
agreement prior to the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners on December 10, 2008.
Anadarko Land has also agreed to waive timely notice of this hearing as indicated in a letter with
today's date that I would like included in the record and as set forth in the letter."
Mr. Ogle stated that prior to his comments he handed out a packet of information. Included in that packet
is a copy of the statement which he just read. Also included is a letter dated November 18, 2008 from
Molly Summerville Buchanan stipulating to the statement which he just read. In addition there are
materials that speak to who Vestas is and some correspondence received and identified as Staff
Memorandum dated November 17th which includes the legal notice as well as electronic mail.
Mr. Ogle concluded his presentation with photo images of the proposed site.
The Chair asked for comments from the Health Department.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, said that there is adequate water and sewer. At the time of
annexation the City of Brighton will serve the development.
Environmental Health is asking for a Dust Abatement Plan for on-site dust as well as a Waste Handling
Plan.
Development Standards 3-15 address Environmental Health items. Ms. Light indicated that Development
Standards 13 and 15 are the same and suggested deleting Development Standard 15.
Ms. Light stated that Environmental Health has no concerns with this request.
Tom Holton moved to delete Development Standard 15, seconded by Mark Lawley. Motion carried
unanimously.
The Chair asked for comments from Public Works.
Don Dunker Public Works, stated that due to the size and complex issues of this application Don Carroll
and Janet Carter have also contributed to the review as well. He stated that a Preliminary Drainage
Report was submitted and contains two (2) large retention ponds with a total volume of approximately 45
acre feet. The off-site basin is very large, about 3.12 square miles, that will have flows reporting to the low
area near County Road 6 and east of the railroad tracks. These off-site flows will be diverted around the
site or through the site to follow the historical pathways. Public Works agrees with the concept of the
design; however details still need to be worked out in the final drainage report.
A number of conditions shall apply to this application prior to recording the plat as well as Development
Standards and many red line comments returned to the applicant's engineer representative within the
reports and drawings.
10
Of particular importance is the Long Term Maintenance Improvements Agreement. A summary of these
includes the applicant's and/or the City of Brighton's obligation for upgrades and long term maintenance of
County Roads 4, 6, 27, and State Highway 85. These upgrades will include improvements to the affected
intersections, paving, traffic signals, railroad crossing including safety arms, deceleration/acceleration and
turn lanes at the access points of the facility.
A preliminary Traffic Study was also submitted. There are several issues that need to be addressed
regarding the report and Janet Carter can address any of the specific questions you may have. Don
Carroll has reviewed the traffic flow patterns on-site and off-site. Many issues still need to be worked out.
Commissioner Ochsner asked if all the items mentioned that aren't finished yet are included in
development standards. Mr. Dunker stated yes and expects responses back prior to the Board of County
Commissioner hearing. He added that the issues can be worked out; they just need to submit the
required material.
Janet Carter, Public Works, reported that in the past four(4)years there have been 5 accidents at the
intersection of County Roads 6 and 27 with 1 injury; 10 accidents at the intersection of County Roads 4
and 27 with 6 injuries. Therefore traffic is an issue that needs to be resolved.
In the preliminary Traffic Study a few items were not included. A Comprehensive Plan for future traffic
volumes and turn movements. This is to show the future phase of what Vestas has planned and then
perhaps support services that will develop around and in those areas.
Turn Lane 1 analysis including storage capacities and links for turn lanes needs to be included within the
Traffic Study. Due to the large size of the vehicles Public Works would like some suggested storage
capacities and links for these turn lanes, as well as where they feel these turn lanes would be warranted.
A Signal Warning analysis at the different various intersections of County Roads 6 and 27, 4 and 27, and
also at County Roads 6 and 4 at Highway 85 will be required.
Analysis of site distance near the site is also needed. During site visits Public Works have noticed that as
you are traveling on County Roads 4 and 6 approaching the site there are some different topographic
areas that may create site distance issues for large vehicles turning out into the roadways.
The applicant did not identify safe routes for pedestrians, bicycles, and transit within or near their sites.
Ms. Carter stated that she has spoken with the applicant's traffic engineer and he indicated that he will be
working with his client and the other consultants on the project to get these items taken care of prior to the
next submittal of the traffic study.
Commissioner Grand asked Ms. Carter is she anticipates resolution satisfactorily for all the issues that
she raised. Ms. Carter replied yes. She believes that the applicant's traffic engineer is working to the best
of his ability to get these issues resolved so that they can move forward in their process.
Commissioner Ochsner asked to explain how Public Works is viewing this traffic study compared to
normal traffic studies due to the incredible size of the blades and towers that will be shipped. Ms. Carter
stated that she is holding the applicant to the same standard that she would hold for any traffic study. The
information that is different with this project is that she wants a little more emphasis on the storage
capacity and links for the turn lanes. She believes that will be absolutely crucial.
Don Carroll, Public Works, stated that County Road 27 is the north/south road; County Road 6 is adjacent
to the northern part of the site. County Road 6 is a local gravel road and has been soil stabilized. County
Road 27 is classified as an arterial road.
The applicant is proposing five (5)access points off of County Road 6. Public Works is requesting to
upgrade and pave County Road 6 to accommodate those access points. Mr. Carroll indicated that they
are working with the applicant on those access points. Public Works is asking for some additional details
on the plat drawings to identify how they are going to work as well as adequate radiuses.
11
Public Works is requiring Long Term Maintenance and Improvements Agreements to the site which would
be transferrable to anyone who annexes this facility.
The Chair asked if the applicant wished to make any comments.
David Mirc, Nolte Associates, 8000 South Chester St Suite 200, Centennial, CO 80112. Mr. Mirc
commented that Vestas is the world's leading supplier of wind power solution. They currently have
operations in Windsor. Their plans for this development are to expand their North American
manufacturing operations to Weld County with the development for the blades and nacelle factory.
Vestas has chosen the Front Range, more specifically the proposed site due to the close proximity to their
existing facility, rail access, highway access, and the quality of work force. Production capacities are
anticipated to be approximately 1400 units per year for the nacelle and 1800 units for the blades. He
added that it would encompass up to 1500 jobs for the economy which would support the local, regional
and national economy with this development.
Commissioner Ochsner referred to the rail traffic versus the truck traffic and asked Mr. Mirc to explain the
supplies coming in versus product going out. He further asked if rail is used more versus truck. Mr. Mirc
commented that the intent is to use rail for delivery of finished product to site. There will also be truck
traffic with delivery of finished product. It is preferred to deliver with rail. The delivery trucks will access
from County Road 6 through the north end of the site.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Dick McClain, City of Brighton, 15194 Overland Trail, Brighton. Mr. McClain commented that Brighton is very
excited about this project and pleased with the collaboration of so many different entities. He added that so
many people were apart of enabling Vestas to come to this location. He commented that they are pleased
with the spin off that will result in jobs for the people living in their area. The lifestyle in their community will be
improving as 70%of their citizens right now leave in the morning and come back in the evening and now they
will have an opportunity to work close to home. Mr. McClain said that it is a great opportunity for so many to
benefit by such a large project. He thanked them for their consideration of this project.
Ray Gonzales, 36 South Main Street. Mr. Gonzales stated that he is the President/CEO of the Brighton
Economic Development Corporation and on behalf of the Board of Directors he wished to express their
support of this application. They request that this application be approved.
Mary Falconburg, Community Development Director, City of Brighton, 22 South 4th Ave. Mr. Falconburg
stated that he has been working with staff as well as members from Vestas on this project. He added that
they support the project. He indicated that they are working on the funding from DOLA and EDA to construct
the roads. Brighton's plan is to annex County Roads 27, 6, and 4 to the edge of the property. The volume of
the traffic is not that large, however the size of the loads are fairly large and it will require substantial
improvements to the roads to handle that.
Commissioner Ehrlich asked to explain the City of Ft. Lupton's Planning and Building Department in which
they expressed some concerns about what a timeline would be for a pre-annexation agreement between
Vestas and the City. In addition he also asked what the scope is in terms of joint cooperation with the Ft.
Lupton Fire Department with regard to joint cooperation.
Mr. Falconburg said that they are working with the City of Ft. Lupton and have developed some interim
agreements. In terms of the Fire District he said that they are in support of the project as well. He
understands that there are capacity issues that need to be worked out.
Tom Parko, Planning Director, 130 S McKinley Av, Ft. Lupton. Mr. Parko stated that he is here on behalf of
the City of Ft. Lupton to support the Vestas project. He believes that this is a great project for the entire
region.
Pete Gunderson, 790 Niagra St, Denver CO. Mr.Gunderson is one of the owners of a piece of property to the
12
west of the proposed development. He supports this project and feels that the quality of the applicant and
development process is of the highest development principles. He added that many of the land owners in the
immediate area will benefit from this development. In looking at today's current economy and job market it
appears that to have a credit neighbor such as Vestas is an opportunity that comes along once in a blue
moon. The positive impact of the Vestas development will be a tremendous boost to the local economies of
Brighton, Ft. Lupton, Weld County and the State of Colorado.
Robert Sakata, 662 Rose Dr, Brighton CO. Mr. Sakata felt it appropriate to express that the City of Brighton
has been good neighbors. He appreciates what the County is doing with the flow patterns. He is on the Board
of Directors for the Fulton Irrigation Ditch which runs along County Road 27 and hopes that there are
conversations going on to include that.
Larry Warner, 13502 CR 6. Mr. Warner's west property boundary is the east property boundary of the
proposed improvement. He does support this project. He believes that the jobs,etc which will come from this
project will be a great improvement.
However, he does have issues living next to it. He commented that the lane on the east side of the property
includes three(3)houses that will be impacted by this. He is the third house and the traffic will be 50 feet from
his door.
Mr.Warner commented that he has been in negotiations with Nolte asking for a berm to protect some of the
noise, runoff and access on his road. He indicated that he has been trying to talk to the consultants at Nolte to
not put the fence right on the property line until they can reach some agreement on this. So far this has failed.
He has heard that there is suppose to be a berm there and a swale to handle the water runoff but to date has
not received anything in writing. The property line takes up the west half of their access road and he has
asked to move the fence back from the property line 12 feet to maintain their road and indicated that he was
told last Tuesday that the fence would be on the property line. When he was told that the fence would remain
there is when the negotiations broke down. As of Friday last week he is now speaking with Brighton's City
Attorney to see what they can do. At this point they will end up filing a claim for adverse position on the
access road which will disrupt Vestas's plans. The attorney for the City of Brighton has given them some hope
to work out an agreement.
He concluded by saying that he is in support of this project and hopes that they can come into an agreement
with the stated items.
Commissioner Holton asked who the negotiations are with. Mr.Warner said that they were negotiating with
Nolte but now they are working with the attorney who has been working on this issue with Vestas.
Mr. Warner brought up a traffic issue at County Road 6 and Highway 85 in which there is trailer park. The
access comes out approximately 20 feet to the east of Highway 85. He added that the access into and out of
the trailer court will need to be addressed.
Mr.Warner commented that he went to the community meeting in October and brought up several concerns.
He indicated that he had talked to Mr. Ogle after the meeting and was inquiring about this process. He said
that Mr. Ogle assured him that the only thing allowed to happen on this property was dirt work. Based upon
those comments from Mr. Ogle he backed off the issues he had as he realized it was going to come up for
review. This week he found out that the Planning Department issued Vestas another permit that will allow
them to put foundations and footings in. He commented that he has not had cooperation from the Planning
Department.
Richard Schiara, 13713 CR 6, Ft. Lupton. Mr. Schara commented that he is a neighbor to the proposed
development. He believes that this project will be good for the community and region as well as the State. He
is concerned with the projected traffic and commented that attention needs to be given to the road east of the
proposed development.
Nick Febraro, 13512 CR 6. Mr. Febraro commented that he would like to be aware of the activity happening
so that they can work with the Company or prepare an opposition to the proposal.
13
The Chair asked the applicant to come back up and address the comments stated.
Mr. Mirc thanked the audience for their comments. He realizes that there are a lot of technical details that
need to be addressed and they are working towards resolution on all of them. In regard to the concerns of the
neighbors he stated that they are committed to a resolution; however he needs to defer to their associates
relative to the negotiations. As far as the trailer park access,that will be addressed with the improvements to
County Road 6 and in conjunction with the City of Brighton.
The site development is intended to be screened as required by the County for the storage areas.
The distance between the property line and the road currently exceeds 60 feet which includes a swale that
takes care of the drainage coming onto the property.
Commissioner Grand said that it is a large project and wished to compliment everyone for pulling it together;
however sometimes as in Mr.Warner's case the individual falls through the crack in the multitude of tasks that
have to be done. He added that he understands that in listening it sounds as though the applicant is tracking
that for resolution.
Mr. Mirc commented that his associates have been working with Mr.Warner over the past months to come to
an agreement on the rights of that piece of land. He believes that those negotiations will continue.
Joseph Culkin, Nolte Associates, 8000 South Chester, Centennial CO. He has been working with Mr.Warner
and Mr. Febraro over the past months. He assured them that they have not broken up negotiations. He
added that they are re-evaluating what their questions are and re-evaluating how they are addressed. The
City of Brighton has requested that the City Attorney discuss these issues with these gentlemen and that Nolte
Associates steps out of it for the time being.
The Chair asked Public Works to address some of the concerns stated.
Mr. Dunker said that the access into the trailer park will be part of the overall improvements at Highway 85 and
County Road 6. He added that it is tight in there and something will have to be resolved. He commented that
they have not seen any details to know exactly how that will be resolved at this time.
Commissioner Holton understood that the majority of the employees will be coming in on County Road 4 and
not County Road 6. Ms. Carter said that this is an item in which she has a red line within their traffic report.
The applicant needs to evaluate 1 mile east and west of their site as well as north and south of their site to see
where oncoming traffic is coming. What they would have coming westbound is probably pretty minimal but
that is something that they need to analyze within their report and again is one of the issues that they will have
to know to do their turn lane warn analysis and signal analysis.
Ms. Carter added that she has asked for a Comprehensive Plan for future traffic flow and volume and turning
movements. This is a big project and traffic will be impacted. We want to make sure that Weld County
citizens as well as Brighton and Ft. Lupton citizens are accounted for. They are trying to do the best review
they can to look at all the options and the impacts that they will have on them so that they can hopefully have
Vestas mitigate those problems.
Commissioner Lawley asked if there will be cost share agreements. Mr. Carroll replied that he believes the
applicant will cover the entire cost on this particular development either through their Long Term Maintenance
Improvements Agreement. Once they are annexed into a municipality then they will have to work that out with
them but right now development pays their own way.
Commissioner Ehrlich asked how long the annexation agreements take. He further asked if there will be
maintenance on the roads that the county will incur until the annexation takes place. Mr. Carroll commented
that annexations come through the city and they have indicated September 2009 would be the anticipated
annexation date. Once the annexations occur through the city council meetings and recorded in the County
then that particular section of right-of-way, road, or property comes off of the county system.
Commissioner Ehrlich asked about CDOTs involvement with Highway 85 with regard to improvements. Ms.
14
Carter said that right now the plan is proposing that an interchange will be built at County Road 2,6, or 8 and
when that happens they will shut down County Road 4. As far as to what CDOT is going to be requiring she
can't guess that right now but at previous meetings for the US 85 Access Control Plan if they are going to
make adjustments to that access control plan they will have to make an amendment at that time.
Commissioner Lawley asked if the foundation and grading permits are usually issued before a project like this
gets through. Mr. Ogle replied that they are. They are issued at the applicant's own risk. Presently there are
two permits which have been released—one for the grading plan and the other for the temporary set up of the
GE modulars for their conference room and construction trailers. He added that the Footings and Foundations
Permit has not been released.
Mr.Ogle pointed out a correction that needs to be made on Page 12 of staff comments. Item 14 speaks to the
issue of parking and it is an incorrect number. Mr. Ogle requested that Item 14 be stricken and address the
parking requirement in Item 17 and renumber accordingly.
Tom Holton moved to delete Condition of Approval AG.14, seconded by Mark Lawley. Motion carried
unanimously.
The Chair asked Mr. Mirc if they have read through the amended Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are agreement with those. Mr. Mirc replied that they are in agreement.
Mark Lawley moved that Case USR-1676, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval, seconded by Tom Holton.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, absent; Paul Branham,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes with comment; Robert Grand,yes with comment; Bill
Hall, yes; Mark Lawley,yes; Roy Spitzer,absent;Tom Holton,yes with comment;Doug Ochsner,yes. Motion
carried unanimously.
Commissioner Grand wished to compliment staff and the municipalities involved as an example of cooperation
which can be accomplished.
Commissioner Ehrlich cited Section 22-2-150.6.1 Goal 2.
Commissioner Holton commented that this area has needed something like this and is glad to see it come.
He expressed that he would like to have the applicant continue to work with their neighbors on these
concerns.
The Chair asked the public if there were other items of business that they would like to discuss. No one
wished to speak.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss. Mr.Ochsner
reminded the Planning Commissioners that there will be a luncheon at 11:30 a.m.on December 2,2008 at the
Harvest restaurant in Greeley.
Meeting adjourned at 4:09 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
f,yL" C( ti hiLi 1 "',.k /-7„,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
15
Hello