HomeMy WebLinkAbout20071232.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,April 17,2007
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, Chad Auer,at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Chad Auer-Chair
Doug Ochsner-Vice Chair co no$
Paul Branham 70
Erich Ehrlich Ill 45 3m
Bruce Fitzgerald 0 _a
Tom Holton N N
Mark Lawley m —O
Roy Spitzer C z Z
James Welch m rn--1
Also Present: Kim Ogle, Chris Gathman, Michelle Martin, Cyndy Giauque, Pam Smith, Jesse Hein and Dotita
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on April 3,2007,was approved
as read. Motion to approve by Bruce Fitzgerald, second by Doug Ochsner. Motion carried.
The Chair read the following two cases into the record:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1601
APPLICANT: Russell Pope
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-1823; Pt NE4 of Section 8m T7N, R67W of the 6th
P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
business permitted as a use by review or accessory use in the
Commercial or Industrial Zone District (weddings, wedding receptions,
wedding seminars, honeymoons, meetings, reunions, religious
ceremonies,private parties,dinner parties,picnics;business conferences,
lectures, seminars and training sessions; trade shows, car shows, art
exhibits; recreational activities including badminton, basketball, croquet,
golf driving range, horseshoes and volleyball; outdoor events including
Easter egg hunt,hay/straw wagon rides, pumpkin patch,sleigh rides and
surrey rides; holiday parties and community gatherings along with
accessory uses including bar service and catering)in the A(Agricultural)
Zone District.
LOCATION: Y:mile north of State Hwy 14;west of and adjacent to CR 17.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services,said this was continued from April 4,2007 because Planning had not
received a written request for withdrawal from the applicant. After consulting with Bruce Fitzgerald Barker, County
Attorney, Planning Staff will be sending Mr. Pope a letter regarding the withdrawal and if they do not hear from him,
Planning Commission will withdraw the case at their next hearing May 1,2007.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1605
APPLICANT: Oscar Favela
LANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2716 being part of the W2 of the SW4 of Section 22, T2N,
R66W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for A Use
Permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use, or a Use by Special
Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts, (outdoor
storage/parking of semi cabs,trailers,and vehicles)in the A(Agricultural)
Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 31 and approximately 1/4 mile north of CR 18.
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services, said they had received a letter from Mr. Favela April 12, 2007,
indicating he was requesting withdrawal of his application.
2007-1232
Bruce Fitzgerald asked that street addresses be included with these applications to aid them in finding the property when
they make their site inspections.
The Chair read the following consent case into the record and asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to
speak for or against it. As there was no one,the public portion of the hearing was closed.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1607
APPLICANT: Henry Johnston
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part NW4 of Section 25, T1N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Use
Permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use, or a Use by Special
Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts,(outdoor and indoor
storage of RV's, boats, including a dump station, wash-bay, air, water,
vacuum, office, lounge, retail store, and a 24-hour rental kiosk) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 6 and approximately%:mile west of CR 13.
Doug Ochsner moved that the Consent Agenda be approved and Case USR-1607,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. Tom Holton seconded the motion. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1604
APPLICANT: Marcum Midstream 1995-2 Business Trust/Conquest Oil Co
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: S2 SE4 of Section 30,T3N, R65W of the 6th P.M.,Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for
an Oil and Gas Support Facility(Class II Oilfield Waste
Disposal Facility)in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 39; approximately 2 miles south of
CR 32.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, said this application is USR-1604, a Site Specific Development Plan and
Special Review Permit for an Oil and Gas Support Facility located on approximately 34 acres of an 80 acre parcel in the
agricultural zone district. The applicant is Conquest Oil Company and is represented by Jim Goddard and Dale Butcher.
The site is located west of and adjacent to CR 39 and approximately 2 miles south of CR 32(North of and adjacent to CR
28—section line road). The property is outside the three mile referral area of a municipality.This application is for a new
facility having 11 tanks, and one building for the pumps and office. There are normally two employees on site when
accepting trucks,which is from 7AM to 10PM daily. On average 15 different transport trucks weighing up to 40 tons will
visit the facility approximately 4 times each day.
Surrounding lands are predominately agricultural with single family residences, associated with agriculture in the
immediate vicinity. Large agricultural tracts and limited recorded exemption parcels are prevalent in the area.
A Commercial well provides potable water for the facility and the Health Department is requiring an ISDS septic system
for effluent flows.
Primary access is from CR 39,a local paved two lane road. The primary haul route into and out of the facility will be from
CR 39 and heading north or south. Internal roads and the facility yard are graveled and graded.
The applicant states each of the locations or facilities is basically operated the same. Independent water haulers bring in
brine water to the facility, at the time of their arrival Conquest Oil inspects each load before pulling the water off their
trucks.The water is put into the primary tanks for filtering,with the oil skimmed for resale.The remaining liquid,which is
brine water is filtered and re-injected into either the Lyons formation or the Fountain formation.This facility will be the fifth
in operation in Weld County should this application be approved.For further information on operation of the facility,the
applicant is present to provide additional detail.
The sign for today's hearing was posted at least ten days prior to the hearing by Planning Staff and is evidenced by
photograph and affidavit and provided to the Attorney.
Ten referral agencies have reviewed this case and nine offered comments,some with specific conditions. There have
2
been no letters received from surrounding property owners,however,one individual,has reviewed the case file twice and
is present at this hearing.
There are oil and gas encumbrances on the property. Kerr-McGee operates the oil&gas facilities and has submitted the
letter provided to you today stating that they are working on an agreement but it has not been finalized at this time and is
requesting that the Planning Commission withhold plat approval until the parties have executed and recorded a surface
use agreement.
Staff is requiring that the applicant shall either submit a copy of an agreement with the property's mineral
owner/operators stipulating that the oil and gas activities have been adequately incorporated into the design of the site or
show evidence that an adequate attempt has been made to mitigate the concerns of the mineral owner/operators. Drill
envelopes can be delineated on the plat in accordance with the State requirements as an attempt to mitigate concerns.
Staff is requiring at a minimum to have the plat amended to include any possible future drilling sites.
Staff is also in receipt of several electronic mailings between K-M Anadarko and the applicant's concerning this facility.
The most recent email dated April 16,2007 from Kerr-McGee to Conquest states:
"The applicant and I have been communicating here recently and I feel very confident that we will be able to work out an
agreement.Their planned operation has very little impact on AKMG's assets."
The Weld County Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached Conditions
of Approval and Development Standards. Troy Swain is here from the Health Department and Jesse Hein is present
from Public Works.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked Mr.Ogle about a similar application request they had approved recently in the same vicinity. Mr.
Ogle responded that the most recent USR for Conquest Oil was AMUSR-729 for property east of the Greeley Airport. Mr.
Fitzgerald then inquired if Conquest was accepting all companies brine water. Mr. Ogle said he believed they were
accepting all companies, but said the applicant could answer the question. Tom Holton asked if this was the same
property previously heard for a horse racing facility. Mr.Ogle replied that it was. Mr. Holton then asked a question that
was inaudible. Mr.Ogle's response was that the applicant would not be using Section Line 28 for access but would come
off CR 39 directly into the facility.
Dale Butcher, 1024 49th Ave, Greeley, CO, applicant said they had been conducting the same type of business for a
number of years,since 1993,and has four facilities with five deep water injection wells between them. They had been in
front of the Planning Commission in the last two years for an application at CR 60 and CR 47 but determined the
formation at that location would not accept water so they abandoned that project. Jim Goddard said he was available as
well to answer any questions the Planning Commission might have.
Erich Ehrlich questioned the applicant about aquifer seepage on the property brought up by the Platte Valley
Conservation in their referral. Mr. Butcher talked about the three different preventative measures they took to prevent
water from getting into the aquifer. They drill the wells to ten thousand feet and inject the water into a one hundred foot
deep dry sandstone formation with steel casing,which is cemented place from the bottom of the well to the surface and
inside of the casing is tubing, making three preventative measures to prevent water seepage into the aquifer. If there
was ever a problem detected, the well would be shut down immediately. From a surface standpoint, they place
monitoring wells at four different locations on each facility to monitor the groundwater flow as it comes into the facility,
flows through the facility,and before it leaves the facility and this is performed semi annually. Water twenty to forty feet
immediately under the facility is monitored and Mr. Butcher was confident they had no problem with seepage.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Nancy Frase,Frase Consulting Group,Inc,Fort Collins CO,represented about twenty five neighbors in the area and she
said: one of the neighbors could not find the posted sign yesterday;they have invested blood, sweat,tears,time and
money to create a safe and peaceful shelter for their family and this commercial development threatened that tranquility;
concerned with size and appearance of the facility and creates an eyesore; truck noise (60 trucks per day, 7 days a
week)disturbs the residents; concern for environmental contamination even with regulations, particularly the drinking
water; property values effected by commercial facility proximity; incompatible with the area and request the Planning
Commission recommend denial;on the flip side Jim Goddard, project manager proactively contacted the surrounding
property owners and expressed a willingness to meet with them regarding their concerns and offered to do so at an April
25, 2007 meeting.
Doug Ochsner asked Ms. Frase about proximity of the nearest homes to the proposed facility.
Nancy Hilty Brunson, 13471 CR 39,Platteville CO,80651:asked about the length of time involved in pulling the pipe for
maintenance and repair and/or replacement and was under the impression it would be 24 hours a day for three weeks
solid;noted that they have very deep wells at 775 feet so that groundwater is hit at 150 feet but suitable for livestock only,
3
not people; asked about procedure if there was spillage from a truck; she pointed out that the applicant had another
facility on CR 39 and CR 40 and questioned why they required another facility in such close proximity.
Roy Wardell,owns ranch adjacent to applicant's property on CR 39: asked if Planning Commission was aware of former
owner of the facility to the north that had been incarcerated recently due to fraudulent chemical disposal.
Jill Bailey, 13723 CR 39, Platteville, CO, 80651: inquired about their mitigation options regarding testing of the water;
and impact from hazardous materials to livestock and crops when the wind blows from the south to the north.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Mr. Butcher addressed the property owner's concerns: trucks bringing water to this facility are already on the road
delivering water to our other facilities and this will minimize to some degree,the mileage/trips of those trucks;said they
are good neighbors and challenged them to talk to neighbors in the area of their operations; area is relatively industrial,
with Tire Mountain being only a mile away and they plan to maintain their facility so that it blends into the environment
and it will be painted a tan color yearly; bought the facility at CR 39 and CR 40 from Mike Cervi and they have covered
whatever costs incurred since the sale to mitigate the problems left by Mr.Cervi;they understand what it takes to run a
facility like this that is environmentally sensitive; they limit 24 hour crews as much as possible but is necessary on
occasion;spills from trucks do happen,though rarely,and if more than three barrels are involved it must be reported to
the State Oil and Gas Commission, and if caught quickly water table saturation is mitigated; there would be no well
contamination and can't imagine that happening as they will not let that happen;any odors from the facility are from the
hydrocarbons,which is a faint smell of oil,which dissipates quickly and would not harm animals or vegetation;they plan
to have as minimal of an impact on the area as possible and pride themselves on that fact.
Mr.Spitzer asked about additional separation of oil and water. Mr.Butcher said they having a skimming process where
they remove the oil from the water and they also test water into the well semi annually and oil going into the well is
absolutely miniscule.
Mr. Branham inquired about the frequency of pipe replacement and whether it produced any noise or odor. Mr.Butcher
responded they work over their wells on average every other year and in some cases they do work twenty four hours a
day, seven days a week to repair and maintain pipeline.
Mr. Fitzgerald pointed out that Mr. Butcher said they work twenty four hours a day, seven days a week but their
application has different information regarding hours of operation,from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Mr. Ogle said the hours of
operation were to accept the brine water from 7 a.m.to 10 p.m. Mr. Butcher said they do operate the pump 24 hours a
day but no truck traffic occurs between 10 pm and 7 am. Mr. Ogle said they take in water 7 a.m.to 10 pm,but they are
allowed to operate the pump twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. Tom Holton asked about trucks and jake
brake usage. Mr.Butcher said their truck contractors do not allow jake brakes and their specific company policy for their
facilities is the same.
Mr. Holton then asked about landscaping requirements. Mr. Ogle responded that there was a screening plan
requirement in the Conditions of Approval and Standards of Development, number two, item"O".
Erich Ehrlich quoted the application regarding property reclamation and the land being returned to farmland etc. and
asked if the actual drilling of the well would require the ten month period as spelled out in their application. Mr.Butcher
said they hope to do it in five months but have allowed a maximum ten months for completion. The only 24 hour drilling
operations will be the actual well drilling for about a two week period and the remainder of construction would occur
during daylight hours. Reclamation would take from fifty to one hundred thousand dollars and would definitely occur as
the funding for that would come from the salvage value of the millions of dollars worth of equipment that had been used
at the facility.
Mr. Fitzgerald asked Mr. Butcher again about the hours of operation from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. spelled out in their
application,and said if they now need a twenty four hour window to drill,then the application was inaccurate. Mr.Butcher
said absolutely they needed the twenty four hour window to drill but that the application was not inaccurate because they
are drilling a well under the guidelines of the Oil and Gas Commission and that once you begin drilling a well you cannot
stop. Mr.Fitzgerald emphasized again that the hours of operation needed to be clarified. Mr.Butcher said that once you
begin drilling a well of this magnitude,you can't stop until you are done and that is absolute common practice on any well
site. Mr.Ogle interjected that this land use application was permitting surface use approval to operate this facility on the
site and when the trucks come and go they are restricted to the hours of 7am to 10pm. The construction of any facility,
including this one, is not regulated by the hours of operation. Its construction is regulated by the Colorado Oil and Gas
Commission to ensure that the well is drilled appropriately and properly and we do not have any purview in that
application process.
Mr.Spitzer asked Mr.Ogle a question that was inaudible. Mr.Ogle responded that it was regulated by the Colorado Oil
and Gas Commission.
4
Mr.Holton asked Mr.Butcher if this well would be operated like the thousands of other oil and gas wells in the County,as
far as drilling and work over rigs,instead of pumping product out,they were pumping product in. Mr.Butcher replied that
was correct.
Mr. Ehrlich asked Jesse Hein, Department of Public Works, about acceleration and deceleration lanes on CR 39 and
would the applicant be required to set aside money for improvements on CR 39. Mr.Hein replied that prior to recording
the plat there was a long term maintenance and improvements agreement in item N., page six,for CR 39 that must be
met. Mr. Ogle said item D., page five, also pertained to Mr. Ehrlich's question.
James Welch inquired about current traffic counts for the area. Mr.Hein said the last count in 2004 varied between 600
and 800 vehicles per day.
The Chair asked the applicant if he had read and agreed with the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval.
Mr.Butcher said he had read them but there was a stipulation from Public Works regarding road improvement that they
pave the access road from CR 39 west to the facility and we have requested they consider allowing us to put ninety feet
of pavement from the west side of CR 39,west ninety feet and put ground asphalt to further create the road from their,
and they would also commit to magnesium chloride application for dust abatement.
Jesse Hein, Department of Public Works, said something that was inaudible. Mr. Ogle asked to amend item seven,
page four to read, "The applicant shall pave the first 90 feet with an asphalt(bituminous)surface. The applicant will
be required to provide a pavement design for the entrance and a mixture design for the asphalt pavement prior to
construction."
Doug Ochsner moved to amend item number four, page 7 to read as Mr. Ogle recommended. Tom Holton seconded.
Motion carried. Mr. Holton asked if the Board needed to modify the hours of operation in number twenty eight of the
Development Standards. Mr. Ogle said his interpretation of the application is that they want to be able to accept brine
water from 7 am to 10 pm.
The Chair asked the applicant if he had read and agreed with the amended Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval. Mr. Butcher agreed as amended.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case USR-1604, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, Roy Spitzer seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul Branham,yes;
Erich Ehrlich,yes;Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;Tom Holton,yes;Mark Lawley,yes;Roy Spitzer,yes;James Welch,yes;Doug
Ochsner,yes; Chad Auer,yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Chad Auer reminded the audience that the Planning Commission only made recommendations to the Board of County
Commissioners and they could contact their office for date and time of the next hearing pertaining to this case.
The Chair called for a brief break and reconvened at 2:30 p.m.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1120
APPLICANT: Willard &Linda Owens
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-3479;located in part E2NE4 of Section 23,T6N,R67W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to PUD for nine(9)residential lots
with E (Estate) Zone uses (with the exception that uses by right and
accessory uses be restricted to the following:one(1)single family dwelling
per lot;accessory uses for garages,carports and parking areas;swimming
pools, tennis and similar recreational facilities; service buildings and
facilities;and any other structure or use clearly incidental and accessory to
a use allowed by right;and that no animal units as defined in Section 23-1-
90 of the Weld County Code be allowed) along with 7.55 acres of open
space.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 23 and approximately 300 feet south of SH
392.
Doug Ochsner asked Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services,why this case was being heard at the South
building rather than in Greeley. Mr.Gathman said it was due to allowing referral agencies more response time,as the
application had changed since its original presentation. Mr. Gathman said surrounding property owners had been re-
5
notified of the changes as well.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning,said this application is PZ-1120(Sunset PUD),a Planned Unit Development
Change of Zone,to create nine(9)single-family residential lots for Estate uses along with an elementary school site and
7.55 acres of open space.The applicants/property owners are Willard and Linda Owens and are represented by David
Shoup of David L. Shoup Consulting.
The site is located on Lot B of RE-3479;located in part E2NE4 of Section 23,Township 6 North,Range 67 West in Weld
County.
The site is about 300 feet south of State Highway 392 and west of and adjacent to County Road 23.
The Willow Springs Subdivision is located east of and adjacent to the site(and would share the County Road 23 access
off of Highway 392).
Seventeen referral agencies have reviewed this case and fifteen referral agencies offered comments in favor of the
proposal or with conditions of approval that are addressed in staff comments.
Four letters from neighboring property owners have been received. Concerns mentioned re: Who is responsible for
maintenance repair of the entrance road (Stagecoach Rd. — County Road 23), additional drainage created by the
proposed development adversely impacting Willow Springs Subdivision and traffic and other impacts associated with a
proposed event facility that was originally proposed as a part of this PUD.
It should be noted that the applicants have revised their application and have removed the proposed banquet facility that
was a part of the original application.
This site is located within the urban growth boundary(within 1/2 mile of existing sewer facilities)of the Town of Windsor
and is not located within the 3-mile referral area of the City of Greeley.
The proposed PUD is to be served by the North Weld County Water District and Individual Septic Systems.
There are three mineral interest owners that hold interests to minerals under the property(the applicant is one of the
parties). There are no leasehold interests,nor existing oil and gas facilities(wellheads&tank batteries)on the property.
The applicant was proposing to waiver from the R-1 residential zoning requirements. The E (Estate)lots shall comply
with all(Estate)requirements with the exception uses by right and accessory uses be restricted to the following:one(1)
single-family dwelling per lot, accessory uses for garages, carports and parking areas, swimming pools, tennis and
similar recreational facilities, service buildings and facilities, and any other structure or use clearly incidental and
accessory to a use allowed by right;and that no animal units(horses,cattle...)as defined in Section 23-1-90 of the Weld
County Code be allowed.
Section 27-6-80.8.7 states: "All urban scale development PUD's containing a residential element shall provide for a
fifteen-percent common open space allocation,unless otherwise stated in Chapter 26 of this Code." Approximately 2.94
acres of the designated common open space area,under this application,is located within the right-of-way of the Greeley
No.2 Ditch. This area is under the control of the Greeley No.2 Ditch and is not considered common open space.As a
result,4.61 acres of the site is considered common open space. This is only 14%of the total site.
Mr.Gathman had spoken to the applicants'representative re:this requirement and he has indicated that they will modify
the PUD to meet this 15% requirement.
The proposed PUD has two proposed access points due to on-site constraints(the size of the parcel). Section 24-3-60.1
states:"That no additional access to a county,state or federal highway will be created"for subdivisions.
The proposed site is located within the urban growth boundary for the Town of Windsor(within 1/2 mile of existing sewer
facilities) and is located within the 3-mile referral area of the City of Greeley. Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code
states:
UGB.Policy 3.1.The County may consider approving a land use development within an urban growth
boundary area if all of the following criteria are met:
a. UGB.Policy 3.1.1. The adjacent municipality does not consent to annex the land or property in a
timely manner or annexation is not legally possible.
b.UGB.Policy 3.1.2.The proposed use,including public facility and service impacts,is compatible with
this Chapter and with other urban type uses.
6
c. UGB.Policy 3.1.3. The proposed use attempts to be compatible with the adjacent municipality's
comprehensive plan.
The Town of Windsor, in their referral received March 5, 2007, indicated that this site is located within the "Town of
Windsor Growth Management Area"as identified in the Windsor Comprehensive Plan,the"East Side Industrial Sub area
Plan(ESISP)Area",and the Cooperative Planning Area as defined in an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Town of
Windsor.Windsor indicates this property is delineated as General and Neighborhood Commercial and Light Industrial on
the Town of Windsor's Land Use Map. Windsor also indicates that the Cooperative Planning Area(depicted in Windsor's
IGA with the Town of Severance) anticipates commercial and industrial development of the property. The Town of
Windsor goes on to state that the proposed development, if developed in Windsor, would not in compliance with the
Town of Windsor Municipal Code in regards to minimum required lot sizes for individual septic systems and that the
development would exceed its maximum allowable closed-end street length requirement. As a result, the Town of
Windsor is requesting denial of this application and asks that the applicant pursue annexation to the Town of Windsor in
accordance with the land use depictions indicated in its comprehensive plan and in its Cooperative Planning Area IGA
with the Town of Severance.
Sec.27-2-70.Compatibility—Section 27-2-70 states:"The density,design and location of land uses within and adjoining
a PUD shall be designed to be compatible with other uses within and adjoining the PUD. Compatible uses shall be
determined by evaluating the general uses,building height,setback,offset,size,density,traffic,dust,noise,harmony,
character,common open space,screening,health,safety and welfare of the PUD in relation to surrounding uses."(Weld
County Code Ordinance 2003-10)
The proposed PUD would be located 1/4 mile north of existing 1-3 (Industrial)zoned land. The (Owens Illinois Bottling
Plant)and proposed uses(Vesta Wind Turbine plant)could adversely impact this proposed PUD. The proposed PUD
would not be compatible with these existing uses the character of existing and future surrounding uses as outlined under
adjacent comprehensive Plans and IGA's. As a result,the Department of Planning Services is recommending denial.
Scott Ballstadt,Town of Windsor, is also available for questions today.
Pam Smith is the Health Department representative and Jesse Hein is here from Public Works.
Chad Auer asked Mr. Gathman if the applicants had approached the Town of Windsor regarding annexation. Mr.
Gathman replied they had and deferred to the Town of Windsor for further explanation. Bruce Fitzgerald asked if the
County had a current IGA with the Town of Windsor. Mr.Gathman replied that the County does not. Tom Holton asked
where Owens Illinois was in relation to the applicant's property and if Willow Springs had two accesses. Mr. Gathman
said they have one access point and the rest is internal.
Dave Shoup, 1060 Milano Point, #1123, Colorado Springs CO, applicant's representative, said this was a nine lot
residential subdivision with access off Stagecoach Road. It is not adjacent to CR 23. CR 23 from the north comes down
and stops at Hwy 392 and then picks up farther to the west of their project and comes down the other side so CR 23
splits there,so the proposed subdivision is actually between the two pieces of CR 23. They have met and addressed the
SPO concerns and their opposition to the commercial lot,so it has been dropped from the plan. The 2.94 acres of open
space in Lot C that run along the ditch is an easement agreement with#2 Ditch Company for a trail easement, so Mr.
Shoup wondered why that was not classified as open space in their proposal. They are a little over a quarter acre short
of meeting open space requirements but feel they can make that up with the reduction in Lot C. They have met with
Windsor regarding annexation but contiguity prevents that. Mr.Shoup said there was a letter in the packet regarding the
outcome of their meeting with Windsor. There are no imminent plans for any development in the area. They have met
with Public Works who suggested the two access points and they recommended approval of the application as did the
Environmental Health Department.
Kent Bruxvoort, Engineer, QED Associates, 204 Walnut St., Fort Collins, CO said it was appropriate to consider the
broader neighborhood rather than just the property to the south, and that the property adjacent to the east and to the
west should also be considered when evaluating compatibility. Mr.Shoup added that they had met with Department of
Public Works,who recommended approval and suggested two access points for the nature and shape of the subdivision.
Pam Smith,Environmental Health Department,has recommended approval of the application as well. So the linchpin is
back to the annexation question with Windsor and Mr.Shoup said he feels they have exhausted that possibility at this
point.
Doug Ochsner asked for more detail about the agreement to share the road with the adjacent subdivision. Mr.Shoup
said they understood it was truly a private road,not a state highway or County road,and their HOA would draft language
and fee structure to aid in the repair and maintenance of that road if that time comes to pass. Mr.Ochsner then asked if
the current homeowners,that now own that road,would have their responsibilities change. Mr.Shoup said they would
change and get less for the current homeowners as the road responsibilities of the proposed subdivision increased. Mr.
Ochsner asked Mr.Shoup if they had had dialogue with the current owners in the subdivision and he replied they had not
7
specifically addressed that topic at this point,but had discussed it with some of them today during the short recess. Mr.
Ochsner asked Jesse Hein,Department of Public Works,about the agreement and internal road maintenance. Mr.Hein
said that CR 23(Stagecoach Road)is designated as an arterial road that will connect to CR 23 in the future. The internal
roads would remain private and be maintained by the HOA. Mr.Ochsner asked about what percentage of improvements
to CR 23 would be born by the PUD. Mr. Hein replied it would be up to the subdivision as they would be using that
roadway primarily as a secondary access point. Mr.Shoup said the improvement of the road would be born one hundred
per cent by their subdivision. Erich Ehrlich inquired if they had gone back to the Town of Windsor with the PUD since the
removed the banquet facility. Mr.Ehrlich also inquired about the September,2006 letters and if the application had eight
lots with the commercial lot,or when they went back to the Town of Windsor did it have nine lots. Mr.Shoup said they
had not gone back with the nine lot proposal,that there was not a possibility of annexation because it was not contiguous
to the Town of Windsor, and therefore did not feel the outcome with the Town of Windsor would change. Mr. Ehrlich
asked how the Town of Severance had responded and Mr.Shoup said there was no response from them as they were
not listed as a referral in the information they received from the County, or they would have asked them. Mr. Ehrlich
asked something that was inaudible. Mr.Shoup deferred to Mr.Gathman who said he had spoken to Amelia Tuttle and
that Severance held the same position as Windsor regarding annexation. Mr. Shoup said that was news to him. Mr.
Gathman responded that he had contacted her by phone.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Mark Olson,32570 Stagecoach Road,Willow Springs Subdivision:said he and other residents in the area did not want
an industrial area between the two subdivisions and would like to see it as a PUD with estate lots rather than light
industrial between the two subdivisions; was confident they could come to agreement on roads and drainage; also
requested the lighting in this subdivision have the same look and feel as the Willow Springs subdivision subdivision.
Chris Godlefsky,32791 Stagecoach Road, Willow Springs subdivision: said she would like clarification regarding the
access road on Highway 392 , because in talking with the County they were under the impression the repair,
maintenance, and signage of Stagecoach road was entirely that of the Willow Springs subdivision and if Public Works
would take over road maintenance if the new subdivision did not maintain and repair the road and if that is not the case;
how would it be handled regarding repair and maintenance cost distribution and would there be a legal document
outlining those responsibilities;issues regarding drainage and wants clarification on the plan and drain water mitigation.
Mr. Hein, Department of Public Works,said future plans call for CR 23 to go straight through at some point in time and
that was the basis for the eighty foot right of way,but to be privately maintained until then,at which point the County will
take over repair and maintenance. Once the County took over repair and maintenance of CR 23, the internal CR
23/Stagecoach Road would still be maintained by the subdivision homeowners. The only road we are talking about is
between the said properties.
Gary Castleman,32723 Stagecoach Road,agreed with the proposal as it was laid out and did not want Windsor to come
into the area with light industrial development;expressed concern about the Owens Illinois facility and how it has reduced
property values and was so poorly done that it would not even be acceptable in Beijing, China.
Scott Ballstadt, Senior Planner, Town of Windsor, 301 Walnut Street, Windsor, CO, said: the subject property was
located within the Town of Windsor's growth management area and was delineated as general and neighborhood
commercial and light industrial on the Town's land use map and was also located within the Town's east side industrial
sub area plan; the subject property was located within the cooperative planning area as depicted in the Town's IGA with
Severance who concurs with the Town of Windsor's recommendation;the proposed residential lots are inconsistent with
Windsor's commercial and industrial plans for the area; he had an agreement showing some of the existing and
proposed industrial uses in the area which he passed out to the Board;Windsor has been working with Weld County,
Upstate Colorado Economic Development and the Great Western Development Company to develop a new rail served
industrial park in the area;that development began with Owens-Illinois and would be served by Windsor infrastructure
and there is an agreement in place that the facility would be annexed to Windsor in the next year in return for the
infrastructure provided to them;following Owens-Illinois,came the Front Range Energy Ethanol Plant,soon to be joined
by Vestas Blades; Windsor recently approved a maintenance facility and water needs for Connell Resources in
unincorporated Weld County and they were told they would need to be annexed by Windsor in order to receive water
service and they may be exploring their options with Weld County;a nine lot subdivision is contrary to development goals
for the area given the number of industrial uses, both existing and proposed ;given the complaints they have received
from residents in the Willow Springs subdivision regarding industrial use in the area, it seems reasonable that adding
residents to existing adjacent industrial uses is not a logical extension;and based on these reasons,the Windsor town
board is also recommending denial of the application. Mr. Ballstadt added that the applicant did attend two Planning
Commission meetings with Windsor and they did have a meeting with staff regarding several questions they had. Mr.
Ballstadt said to date,Windsor has not received any formal request for application or petition of annexation to the Town
and they request the property be developed within Windsor.
Chad Auer asked Mr.Ballstadt if removing the commercial component was a substantial change. Mr.Ballstadt stated the
amended application was reviewed by the Planning Commission and there was no change from Windsor's original
8
referral comments. Mr.Auer asked what the process was for incorporating SPO input and if the Willow Springs residents
were included in that process. Mr. Ballstadt replied Windsor held several open houses conducted at various locations
with Willow Spring's residents and surrounding areas in attendance.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked when their Comprehensive Plan was redone and if the zoning for the property was also changed
within that time period. Mr.Ballstadt said it was changed within the last two years. Mr.Fitzgerald then asked if Windsor
were to receive a request from the applicant for annexation today,when could Windsor annex the property and could
they request a zoning change. Mr. Ballstadt responded that the process was fluid and could proceed quickly once the
owner submitted plans and the owner could ask for a zoning change. Mr.Fitzgerald said Windsor's recommendation,for
him, would be stronger if they had an IGA with Weld County and asked that Mr. Ballstadt relay to Windsor that their
position would be stronger if they had an IGA with Weld County. Mr. Ballstadt said Windsor has IGA's with Severance
and Larimer County.
Roy Spitzer asked if it were accurate they were trying to limit conflict between growth and development by focusing on
light industrial. Mr.Ballstadt said more residential developments could create conflicts with future industrial development.
Mr.Spitzer said this property lends itself to estate development due to the east and west developments,the shape of the
property seems to preclude industrial development from locating there,and wouldn't the applicant's development make
more sense.Mr.Ballstadt replied they would try to buffer/mitigate impacts on the existing property owners but to go out
and continue to rezone small residential subdivisions adjacent to what is planned as industrial and commercial
development seems contrary to the common goal to develop the Great Western Industrial Park. Mr.Spitzer asked how
flexible their Comprehensive Plan was,and could it accommodate this subdivision which was a unique parcel between
areas that are already developing as residential. Mr. Ballstadt said it would be based on the logic of the proposal. Mr.
Spitzer said the application makes sense to him to,based on the existing uses adjacent to the west and the east. Chad
Auer made comments regarding residential developments and industrial complaints that were inaudible.
Erich Ehrlich said he appreciated Windsor's participation in today's hearing and also asked that Mr.Ballstadt relate to his
Board the need for an IGA with Weld County. Mr. Ehrlich asked Mr. Ballstadt about the East Side Industrial Sub-area
plan boundaries and Mr. Ballstadt replied the boundary is an eighth of a mile either side of SH 392 and is projected as
commercial with light industrial projected further to the south. Mr. Ehrlich then said something else that was inaudible.
Mr. Ballstadt replied they would have the land use depiction in place and they would have to annex,go through zoning
and then proceed through the site plan process. Mr. Ehrlich then asked about a sewer line. Mr. Ballstadt replied that it
was currently serving the Owens-Illinois plant however that is a forced main with a lift station and is not something that
could be accessed by the applicant, however the proposed Vestas blades factory is south of and adjacent to Owens-
Illinois and they will be serviced by Windsor sewer. The new system would be a gravity system from that area down to
the property by the river.
Tom Holton asked several questions that were inaudible. Mr.Ballstadt said through the site plan process,they would do
whatever they could to mitigate any adjacent land uses. Paul Branham asked how long ago Willow Springs was
approved by Weld County. Mr. Ballstadt replied it was 1993. Tom Holton inquired about something regarding the
Comprehensive Plan with Severance and the IGA,and expressed concern that property owners will not have much say.
Mr. Ballstadt replied that the Windsor Planning Commission took into account surrounding property owner's comments
just as this Planning Commission does.
Dave Genay,32841 Stagecoach Road,Willow Springs resident: said he supports this application and would welcome
them as neighbors; said light industrial does not make sense in the area as it would be adjacent to residential on both
sides;and in his opinion it would be a travesty to approve it for light industrial,especially when you have someone who
wants to put the land to good use..
Mr.Shoup thanked Mr.Ballstadt,representing Windsor for attending and helping to make their case.Mr.Shoup said that
it makes no sense to put two residential areas on either side of a light industrial area and thanked the surrounding
property owners for their support today. He said the problem remains that Weld County has no IGA with Windsor and
that Weld County was their last hope. Mr. Shoup said the access road needs further clarification from Public Works.
Drainage was developed by QED Associates and deferred to Mr. Bruxvoort, who said they had prepared a couple of
drainage reports suitable for the stage the process is in; 100 year flood would be detained at the historic five year level;
they would place a diversion ditch on the west side of the new road to remove surface drainage and redirect it to the
three or four acre tract at the southern edge of the property; in terms of groundwater, they will put appropriate notes
regarding high ground water levels and drainage on the plat for future home owners.
Mr. Holton asked why if the County and Windsor both require 2.5 acres for septic systems, why make a plan that will
allow something below those standards. Mr. Shoup said he understood two acres was allowed by the Environmental
Health Department. Pam Smith, Environmental Health Department, stated that the PUD meets minimum lot size
requirements for septic. Mr. Holton asked if internal roads would be paved. Mr. Ochsner asked if Public Works was
recommending street lights and did that require further discussion. Jesse Hein,Department of Public Works,said they
were requiring a stop sign at each entrance roadway but no street lights.
9
Mr. Ehrlich asked if future plans for Stagecoach Road to connect to CR 23 were based on future build out. Mr. Hein
replied plans for CR 23 to extend would be based on future development of properties to the south of the PUD.
Mr. Spitzer asked if the Planning Commission needed to address open space. Mr. Gathman said the applicant will
address this at final plat stage and no conditions are needed at this time.
Mr. Branham said he had looked at the site this morning and quite frankly was surprised that Windsor would have plans
for it to be a commercial/industrial site in the future and agreed it was a peninsula and this was the best use for the
property now and in the future.
Mr.Ochsner echoed Mr. Branham's comments and added this was a unique situation and they need to take each case
individually rather than just draw a line on a map. The applicant has proven compatibility with the surrounding area,this
is a good quality application and he would support it.
Mr. Fitzgerald said this was a classic conflict between a city and County and the argument should have been with
Windsor when they did their Comprehensive Plan. Mr.Fitzgerald supported the request but wants cities to control their
growth and said the Planning Commission was brought into an area that Windsor should have controlled.
Mr.Auer agreed with Mr. Fitzgerald regarding the County approving residential and Windsor approving light industrial.
The lack of an IGA goes both ways and certainly there are different perspectives and if the application moves forward it
still does not alleviate coming situations and an IGA with Windsor would certainly be a benefit.
Mr. Ochsner added this was a perfect example why they have Boards and that system works much better. He did not
feel IGA's were the answer because they give 100 percent complete power to either the County or the Town or whatever
the entity in the IGA. He said he was satisfied with the way the system is working and not be so concerned with the
IGA's.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that Case PZ-1120, 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. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul Branham,yes;
Erich Ehrlich,yes;Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;Tom Holton,yes;Mark Lawley,yes;Roy Spitzer,yes;James Welch,yes;Doug
Ochsner,yes; Chad Auer,yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Paul Branham commented that our motion is in conflict with the recommendation of the Planning Department and
cited Chapter 27 of the Code, Section 27-2-70 regarding compatibility as the reason for his vote to approve the
application.
Erich Ehrlich cited Section 27-6-120.6.C.
Bruce Fitzgerald cited compatibility with the existing or future development of the surrounding area.
Tom Holton cited Section 22-1-120 and Section 23-2-220 and added this Board was here to protect the rights of
individuals that live within the County. Citizens that live within other municipalities already have those options.
People that live within the County often do not and he thinks it is the job of the Board to protect the rights of the
citizens.
Mark Lawley said the use was compatibility with the surrounding area,that he appreciated Windsor's concerns and
involvement but this was a unique situation and believed it was compatible.
Roy Spitzer cited compatibility with the existing or future development of the surrounding area.
James Welch cited compatibility with the existing or future development of the surrounding area.
Doug Ochsner cited compatibility with the existing or future development of the surrounding area, specifically UGB
Policy 3.1,3.1.1, 3.1.2, and 3.1.3. Mr. Ochsner also said the applicant had made their case because Windsor has
said they will not annex the property. He added it may be the municipality's Comprehensive Plan that is not
compatible with the surrounding area as proven in Section 27-6-120 6.C.and therefore all three policies or
guidelines have been met.
Chad Auer cited compatibility with the existing or future development of the surrounding area, more specifically
Section 27-2-70.
10
Meeting adjourned at 4:02 pm.
Respectfully
submitted,
Donita May
C
Secretary \)
11
Hello