HomeMy WebLinkAbout20073103 SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, September 18, 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, Doug
Ochsner, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Doug Ochsner- Chair
Tom Holton -Vice Chair
Paul Branham
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Mark Lawley
Roy Spitzer
Also Present: Cyndy Giauque, County Attorney; Tom Honn, Planning Director; Jacqueline Hatch, Hannah
Hippely,Planners; David Snyder, Public Works Department;Char Davis and Pam Smith,Department of Public
Health and Environment; Donita May, Secretary.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on September 4,
2007, was approved as amended.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1620
APPLICANT: Southgate, Inc., c/o John Alles
PLANNER: Hannah Hippely
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2067; being part of the SE4 Section 22,T4N, R66W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for
an Oil and Gas Support and Service Facility (a hydro-static oil
pressure testing business) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to Highway 85 and North of and adjacent to
CR 42.
Hannah Hippely, Department of Planning, stated USR-1620 is an application by Southgate Inc. for a Site
Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for an Oil and Gas Support and Service (a hydro-
static oil pressure testing business)in the A(Agricultural)Zone. The property, located northeast of Gilcrest,
lies north of and adjacent to CR 42 and east of and adjacent to SH 85. The properties to the north, east and
south are all zoned agricultural while the properties to the west in the Southgate subdivision are zoned R-5,
which is Mobile Home Residential. USRs in the area include AmUSR-1268, USR-565, USR-1084, and
Am US R-548.
The sign announcing this Planning Commission meeting was posted by Staff September 7, 2007.
Eleven referral agencies reviewed this proposal. Eight responded and either stated that they did not have a
conflict with the use or expressed concerns that Staff has attempted to address through the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards.
Multiple letters from surrounding property owners in opposition to this proposal have been received. The
concerns raised by the letters include both nuisance concerns in regards to the additional traffic creating noise
and dust as well as public safety concerns in respect to the additional traffic on CR 42 conflicting with school
children waiting for the bus, as well as the intersection of CR 42 and Hwy 85 which is not signalized and
includes a railroad crossing.
Planning Staff is recommending approval of this application
1
�y,�i„lu.n, ' 'no /U -/- l 7 2007-3103
The applicant's representative is present and I can answer any questions you may have.
Commissioner Lawley asked Ms. Hippely about building location distances from the Southgate property and
what the uses were for existing USRs in the area. Ms. Hippely replied the buildings would be less than a
quarter mile away and USRs in the area included the Fritzler Corn Maze, additional farm housing, produce
processing and storage facilities,and an auto repair shop. Commissioner Branham asked for clarification on
the boundaries of the two and a half acres. Ms. Hippely said the facility is proposed for the lower corner.
Commissioner Ochsner inquired about the entrance to the facility. Ms. Hippely responded the applicants had
proposed to use an existing access adjacent to the property on the east, but if they want to use this access,
they must come to an agreement with the neighbors or relocate the access per Public Work's
recommendation. Commissioner Grand asked how far Ms. Hippely estimated the access was from the
Southgate development and she said an eighth of a mile. Commissioner Branham wanted to know
approximately how many residents resided in the area. Ms. Hippely replied that the development has
approximately thirty lots.
Tiffane Johnson, Landmark Engineering,applicant's representative,3521 W Eisenhower Blvd,Loveland,CO,
stated the applicant was proposing a hydrostatic oil testing facility that includes a two and a half acre building
envelope designated previously when the Recorded Exemption was processed. It is a fifty two acre site but all
improvements will occur within the two and a half acre building envelope; the proposed building is
approximately 6000 square feet;twelve to fifteen employees and twelve to fifteen trucks are proposed on site;
they are proposing a new access that will run along the property line; the majority of the operations for the
facility occur off site; the employees will drive in, park personal vehicles in the warehouse building which will
also include a small office and some truck bays for service and cleaning of the trucks,and will then leave the
site in those trucks. Ms. Johnson said the neighbor's complaints were generally traffic related but Public
Works did not require a traffic study and she asked the Planning Commission to give them time to conduct a
traffic study and address school bus safety concerns. She added they would also provide a traffic
memorandum prior to the Board of County Commission hearing.
Commissioner Branham asked when specifically the twelve to fifteen tanker trucks were coming and going at
the site. Ms.Johnson replied that employees arrive at 7 a.m.,the trucks are prepared between 7 a.m.and 9
a.m., and leave the site to return at the end of the day. The highest peaks for truck traffic would be at the
beginning and end of each day as the trucks do not return to the facility during the day.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Lynnette Kilpatrick, 20487 CR 33, stated: she owns property to the west and adjacent to the site and
expressed concerns about intersection traffic; both the highway and the railroad angle dramatically and it is
difficult to see oncoming traffic; there is increased traffic volume from high school activities in the area;
questioned if the truck size/length prevents them from clearing railroad tracks;asked if this intersection is not
used then would they go to the intersection at CR 42 and CR 33 and continue north, which would have the
same angle in the highway and could cause some of the same problems; spoke with the School District's
Transportation Director who expressed concern about safety issues on this route;expressed her dismay about
turning agricultural land into commercial or industrial uses.
Commissioner Ochsner clarified that the trucks would be either single or tandem axle, not semi-trucks or
trailers. Commissioner Holton asked Ms. Kilpatrick to point out her property on the map displayed.
Commissioner Lawley asked Ms. Kilpatrick which intersection she was most concerned about. She replied
CR 42 and Hwy 85 which has heavy high school and bus traffic. She added that if the access were moved to
CR 33, the angle present there could present the same problems.
Oliver Lorenz,CR 42, lives east of and adjacent to the Southgate Mobile Home Park and stated: many times
on CR 42 west, if there is a bus waiting for children it can take a lot of time before the bus moves on;as a bus
heads west it must stop at the railroad track and then must hesitate once again prior to crossing Hwy 85;
causes obstacles for buses and slows down car traffic; suggested a signal light to get traffic across Hwy 85
quicker; surfacing of the road is appreciated but additional traffic will cause increased maintenance and was
concerned that may not be implemented.
2
Commissioner Holton asked Mr. Lorenz to point out his property on the map displayed.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Ms. Johnson addressed the concerns of the public and said they recognized the concerns regarding the
children and the school bus access location and they would provide a traffic study to address concerns and
mitigate issues to the best of their ability. Commissioner Spitzer asked about previous approval of the two and
a half acre site and if it was included in the USR. Ms.Johnson replied the site originally had a two and a half
acre building envelope through its previous Recorded Exemption process,though the RE and the USR are not
necessarily related. She added that since irrigation water is not available, the USR offers the owners the
opportunity to make a living on the property from another venture and that the USR is only for the two and a
half acres and the fifty plus acres will still be farmed with what water is available. Commissioner Branham
asked if truck traffic could exit to the east and go north to Hwy 85 and not travel past the houses on CR 42.
Ms. Johnson said she was not qualified to make that determination, that their traffic engineer would best be
able to address those concerns.
Commissioner Holton asked about a sprinkler system for methanol/alcohol tanks in the building and
commented that he did not see that delineated on the site plan and would it be concentrated or mixed with
water.
Terry Weideman, 13434 CR 42, Platteville, owned the site that was for sale adjacent to Southgate and said
trucks go to the oil sites and pressure test tubing using straight water, except in the winter when they use an
additive to keep the water from freezing. This additive would be kept in the warehouse.
Commissioner Branham asked Public Works if they were comfortable with the traffic flow as suggested.
David Snyder, Public Works,said something that was inaudible. Commissioner Holton asked what triggered a
traffic study and if CDOT was considering a traffic light at the intersection. Mr. Snyder replied that a thirty to
forty percent increase in traffic triggers a study and he did not know if a traffic light was being considered.
Commissioner Grand asked Mr. Snyder about accidents at the intersection at CR 42 and was it a State or
County issue. Mr.Snyder said maybe ten to fifteen accidents have occurred at that intersection,but there was
not a huge increase in accidents in the past few years and that CDOT had jurisdiction. Commissioner
Ochsner asked Ms. Hippely about a CDOT referral and is there a need for it. Ms. Hippely agreed that the
more input the better and she would try to obtain that from CDOT. Commissioner Spitzer said apparently
there have been previous concerns about this intersection and perhaps it is something Public Works should
be addressing. Ms. Hippely responded it is a CDOT issue and also mentioned the Planning Commission
could make suggestions for traffic direction today. Commissioner Holton asked if a referral was only sent to
CDOT when the proposal is for direct access onto Hwy 85. Ms. Hippely said that was correct. Commissioner
Ehrlich asked if the County and the Town of Gilcrest could combine efforts to submit a memorandum to CDOT
and cited Section 23-2-220A.4. from the Code.
Commissioner Grand expressed concern with the number of accidents at the intersection of CR 42 and
Highway 85 and asked how that could be alleviated by sending them up CR 33. Ms.Johnson,the applicant's
representative,said she does not want a condition based on anything other than a traffic study by a qualified
engineer. Commissioner Grand agreed, but wants to be sure the County is aware of its responsibility. Ms.
Johnson then cited a pre-application letter with Carrie McCool,Town of Gilcrest,which addressed their traffic
concerns when and if that property is annexed by Gilcrest. Ms. Hippely said she didn't know if there was
anything they could do regarding the intersection since it is State regulated. Commissioner Grand suggested
they look hard at the number of accidents and if possible, do something reasonable to mitigate that.
Commissioner Spitzer suggested they consider moving traffic to the north entrance. Ms. Hippely said the
Board of County Commissioners will have the Planning Commission recommendation regarding moving the
traffic and can make their decision based on that information. Commissioner Holton said he would have liked
to have seen a traffic study as well as a referral from CDOT prior to this hearing. David Snyder,Public Works,
responded that they would contact CDOT and request their opinion, based on this development.
Commissioner Ochsner said it is clear we want a traffic study conducted and is it a Development Standard.
Ms. Hippely said it could be a condition added prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing.
Commissioner Branham said not he was not sure a traffic study was necessary, and suggested rather a
condition of approval that tankers do not use CR 42 west of their site or the intersection of CR 42 and Hwy 85.
Ms. Hippely suggested the Development Standard read, "Tanker trucks and other trucks over 10,000 gross
3
vehicle weight shall not be allowed on CR 42 at Highway 85." Commissioner Ochsner suggested the new
Development Standard be added.
Moved by Commissioner Branham to add the new Development Standard 35 which shall read,"Tanker trucks
and other trucks over ten thousand gross vehicle weight shall not be allowed on CR 42 at Highway 85."
Second by Commissioner Grand.
Commissioner Ochsner asked Cyndy Giauque,County Attorney,for her wording suggestions. Ms. Giauque
replied that if they are referring to tankers or heavy duty trucks, it should say just that. Ms. Johnson,
applicant's representative,wanted clarification that these limits would only be specific to this USR site as the
surrounding properties all have oil wells on them and they should not be limited as they conduct their daily
business. Commissioner Lawley asked Ms. Giauque if they could prevent the use of certain roads. Ms.
Giauque responded that as a condition of the USR, it could be done,and as far as how they use certain roads,
if she understood correctly, they were concerned specifically with heavy truck traffic on CR 42.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton, yes;
Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried.
Commissioner Ochsner then addressed the need for requiring a traffic study prior to the Board of County
Commissioner's hearing. Ms. Hippely said the applicant will provide a letter of memorandum and it would
become the first Condition of Approval regarding traffic. Moved by Commissioner Holton and second by
Commissioner Spitzer to include a 1.A., prior to Board of County Commissioner's hearing letter of
memorandum from a traffic engineer provided by the applicant and also a 1.B., written evidence that the
applicant has met with CDOT regarding access points.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton,yes;
Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried.
Commissioner Lawley then inquired if they needed to be concerned about dust abatement now that they have
changed the truck route. Ms. Hippely responded that Public Works may be better qualified to answer the
question. David Snyder, Public Works, said there was a Development Standard addressing that concern.
Commissioner Holton asked if the number of employees or trucks was being limited. Ms.Hippely replied that
at this time those limitations are not included in the Development Standards.
Commissioner Grand inquired if it was appropriate to limit the traffic as it could limit the business. Ms. Hippely
replied that if this is left as an open ended application, it will not limit the number of trucks or employees. Ms.
Johnson said the application specified twelve to fifteen employees as well as twelve to fifteen trucks.
Considering the number of employees and trucks, Commissioner Holton expressed curiosity about the
adequacy of the septic system if future numbers of employees increase and what would trigger that
evaluation. Char Davis, Environmental Health Department,said that in the event of an increase in employees,
the septic system would need to be re-evaluated. Ms. Hippely responded that if a substantial change over
what was approved were implemented, the applicant would then be in violation.
Commissioner Branham asked if there were a Development Standard to limit the number of tanker trucks to
fifteen and the applicant wanted to increase that,then what was the procedure. Ms. Hippely said the applicant
would come to Staff with their request for changes and Staff would evaluate them and make an administrative
decision at that time. Commissioner Spitzer asked if the applicant was happy with fifteen trucks. Ms.Johnson
said she was concerned about future growth of the business and asked if the Planning Commission was trying
to limit the growth of the business,the number of trucks,or the number of employees. Commissioner Holton
said the major impact was traffic and how growth in the area would affect the neighbors. Ms.Johnson stated
she was confident the traffic study would clarify for them some of the impacts this business might create.
Commissioner Holton moved to make a new Development Standard number four, to limit the number of
testing trucks to fifteen and renumber accordingly. Commissioner Branham seconded.
4
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton,yes;
Doug Ochsner, no. Motion carried.
Commissioner Ochsner asked Ms. Johnson if she had read and agreed to the amended Development
Standards and Conditions of Approval. Ms. Johnson responded that she had read them and did agree.
Commissioner Grand moved that Case USR-1627, 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. Commissioner 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; Robert Grand, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton, yes;
Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: CZ-1141
APPLICANT: Wright Investment Group Inc
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A&B of RE-4569, part of the NE4 SE4 SW4 of Section 1,T1 N,
R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)Zone District to 1-3(Industrial)
Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Highway 52 and approximately 3/4
mile east of CR 23.
Commissioner Holton said he had relatives living in the area and could recuse himself if anyone in the room
should request. There was no one that objected to his hearing this case.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning, stated Wright Investment Group Inc c/o Linn Leeburg, Leeburg
and Associates have applied for a Change of Zone from the A(Agricultural)Zone District to 1-3 (Industrial)
Zone District.
The sign announcing the planning commission hearing was posted on August 31, 2007 by Staff.
The site is located south of and adjacent to SH 52 and approximately 3/4 mile east of CR 23 and consists of
approximately 13.64 acres on Lots A and B of RE-4569, part of the NE4 SE4 SW4 of Section 1,Ti N, R67W.
The surrounding property is agricultural in nature.There are gravel operations located in close proximity to the
south, east, and west.The property is proposed to be served by individual septic systems and a commercial
well (#274246 &27427).
The Department of Planning Services is recommending that this application be denied for the following
reasons:
22-2-150.A. I.Goal 1. —"Conversion of agricultural land to industrial uses will be encouraged when the subject
site is located inside an approved intergovernmental agreement area, urban growth boundary area or Mixed
Use Development areas, urban development nodes, or where adequate services are currently available or
reasonably obtainable. This goal is intended to address conversion of agricultural land to minimize the
incompatibilities that occur between uses in the A(Agricultural)Zone District and other zone districts that allow
urban scale uses. In addition, this goal is expected to minimize the costs to County taxpayers of providing
additional public services in rural areas for uses that require services on an urban scale level."
The two parcels are not located inside an approved intergovernmental agreement area,urban growth boundary
area, Mixed Use Development area or urban development node. The parcels are located within the three mile
referral area for the City of Dacono,the City of Fort Lupton and the Town of Frederick. The City of Dacono did
respond to the referral request dated August 1,2007 and indicated that they have reviewed the request and find
no conflicts with their interests. No referral was received from the Town of Frederick.
The City of Fort Lupton in their referral dated August 7,2007 indicated that they have reviewed the request and
find that it does not comply with their Comprehensive Plan. The City also states that they have designated the
5
property as commercial and that the application does not meet Section 22-2-150 of the Weld County Code.
Section 22-2-150 are the Industrial development goals and policies.
The Department of Planning Services has received one letter from a surrounding property owner in opposition
to the requested Change of Zone due to the value of the adjacent properties,dust and noise and that there are
properties currently zoned Industrial where this use would be permitted.
Section 22-5-80.1.CM.Policy 1.1. - "Access to future mineral resource development areas should be
considered in all land use decisions in accordance with state law. No County governmental authority which has
control over zoning shall,by zoning,rezoning,granting a variance or other official action or inaction, permit the
use of any area known to contain a commercial mineral deposit in a manner which would interfere with the
present or future extraction of such deposit by an extractor."
The applicant has submitted a letter from Paul Banks with Banks and Gesso, LLC dated July 17,2007 stating
that the property contains approximately thirty feet(30')of sand and gravel, but due to the size of the parcel it
would not be a viable option to mine the sand and gravel. The Department of Planning Services concludes that
while this property is too small in size to be a viable option on its own,combined with adjacent properties mining
of sand and gravel may be a viable option.
Section 23-2-30.A.2. - The uses which would be allowed on the subject property by granting the change of
zone will be compatible with the surrounding land uses.
The property is located South of and adjacent to State Highway 52 and approximately%miles east of CR 23.
The surrounding property is agricultural in nature.There are gravel operations located in close proximity to the
South, East and West. USR-605 for gravel operations is located to the South,USR-695 for gravel operations is
located to the West,and USR-1608 for gravel operations is located to the east of side. Directly adjacent to the
east of the site is a Non Conforming Use (NCU-366)for commercial well operation.
The two parcels are currently vacant. There are mature trees on site and a new access has been installed.
The State of Colorado Division of Wildlife, in their referral dated August 16, 2007 recommends that the
applicant preserve the current trees on the property. This project site lies within the riparian corridor of the
South Platte River and the mature trees make up a part of the riparian corridor. The Department of Planning
Services has determined that the mature trees on site being part of the riparian corridor would be an area that
needs to be preserved and would not be compatible with Industrial uses.
Section 23-2-30.A.5.a. —"If the proposed Change of Zone is located within any Overlay District identified by
maps officially adopted by the County, that the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the County
regulations concerning Overlay Districts. Compliance may be demonstrated in a previous public hearing or in
the hearing concerning the rezoning application."
The proposed two parcels are located within the Floodplain as delineated on Federal Emergency Management
Agency FIRM Community Panel Map 080266 0981C dated September 28, 1982. The Department of Public
Health and Environment in their referral dated August 21, 2007 state that both Lot A and Lot B are located
entirely within the boundary of the 100 year floodplain. No septic systems are permitted to be installed within
the flood way as stated in Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment ISDS Guidelines Section VIII
(17)and in Section 30-5-20 of the Weld County Code. The flood way has not been delineated on the plat map;
therefore,the Department of Public Health and Environment cannot recommend for approval of this application
at this time. The applicant does have the option of determining and delineating the flood way boundary on the
plat map. The Department of Public Health and Environment recommends that the applicant designate a
primary and secondary septic envelope outside the designated flood way boundary for each lot.
Twelve referral agencies reviewed this case, two referral agencies had no comments, and seven referral
agencies included conditions that have been attempted to be addressed through the Development Standards
and Conditions of Approval. No comments were received from the Weld County Zoning Compliance Officer,
Town of Frederick, or Weld County Department of Building Inspection.
The Weld County Department of Planning Services is recommending that this application be denied.
The applicant is present and I will be happy to answer any questions.
6
Commissioner Ehrlich asked if the site was non-conforming for both Weld County and Fort Lupton and do we
have an IGA with Fort Lupton. Ms. Hatch replied that it was a non-conforming use for Weld County and that
the site was not located in the IGA for Fort Lupton. Commissioner Branham asked why this did not conform to
the Fort Lupton Comp Plan. Ms. Hatch explained it was her understanding that Fort Lupton's Comprehensive
Plan showed this property zoned for commercial not industrial, and they also do not believe that it meets
Section 22-2-150 of the Weld County Code,which is the entire industrial goals and policies. Commissioner
Branham requested specific clarification and Ms. Hatch said a representative from Fort Lupton was present
and could better answer his questions regarding their position. Commissioner Branham also asked about the
difference between floodway and floodplain. Ms. Hatch explained that we have it designated as a floodplain
per the FEMA maps,and it is the applicant's responsibility to delineate where the floodplain and the floodway
are,so you would have two separate areas. Their structures,septic,etc. must be out of the floodway and in
the floodplain. If it is in the floodplain, they would need a flood hazard permit. If it is in the floodway, there
would be no permit granted.
Linn Leeburg, Leeburg and Associates, 707 Hawthorne Av Ste 207, Boulder, CO, representing the Wright
Investment Group, stated they respect Staffs comments but they are confused and bewildered and their
intent today is to go through the COZ questionnaire point by point. Mr. Leeburg added that the Wrights have
been good citizens in the area for fifty years and intend to remain that way. Mr. Leeburg said he had looked at
all aspects of the COZ and questions how the proposed zoning is consistent with the Code. He believed that
in following the County's own rules, regulations and Comprehensive Plan: that the proposed change from
agricultural to industrial zoning reflects land use changes already in existence; encourages an industrial
economic base; that this is non urban use; that it is low density/low intensity; that it has minimal impact on
public facilities; brings jobs and a tax base to the area; is self funding; respects Fort Lupton planning goals;
respects private property rights; and it potentially supports agricultural production. Mr. Leeburg cited County
Code Section 22-1-150 and suggested the rezoning represents the conversion of agricultural land to non
urban industrial use and low density/low intensity use and this is not prime farm land even if irrigated. He
added that industrial development can be supported with adequate services and development and does bring
economic benefits. Mr. Leeburg said they respect private property rights and the economic benefits that
result. He continued that this application is compatible with land uses,as they have changed over the years.
Commercial/industrial endeavors exist on Hwy 52 presently,therefore making this a logical future location for
such uses. He said he believes the application is compatible to surrounding land uses and is asking this
Change of Zone be approved as it satisfies and complies with the Comprehensive Plan and would be a benefit
to the community and the County. He closed by saying the end result is that everyone gets a positive asset
as it adds jobs and increases the tax base
Commissioner Ehrlich asked Mr. Leeburg about letters regarding the Greenfield property south of this site and
how this application is similar to the Greenfield property. Mr. Leeburg said he had cited the Greenfield
property as an example and said the proposed Change of Zone to 1-3 would allow the applicants to build
speculation commercial buildings that could be rented. He added that he believed the Greenfield property
operates under the auspices of a Site Plan Review and is located on Hwy 85 approximately three miles from
town. Commissioner Ehrlich said he was still not clear on the similarities between the two properties and
perhaps the representative from Fort Lupton could clarify. Mr. Leeburg ended by requesting approval of the
applicant's application.
Commissioner Ochsner asked Ms. Hatch if this application were approved and they decided to build on the
site,would it come back through the Planning Commission. Ms. Hatch replied that a Site Plan Review would
be done administratively.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Tom Parko, Planning Director,City of Fort Lupton, 130 S McKinley Av, Fort Lupton,CO 80621,stated they did
receive a referral from Ms. Hatch. Regarding Section 22-2-150, the City of Fort Lupton should have been
more specific as they did not intend for their objections to include the entire section. Mr. Parko specifically
cited two policies and one goal, Section 22-2-150B.2., policy 2.1,which says,"accommodate new industrial
development within planned industrial areas." Mr. Parko said if he were to look at what exists in the area
within the current Weld County plan and Fort Lupton's Comprehensive Plan, he does not see any industrial
development out there. It is agricultural and there is some commercial zoning but nothing industrial. There is
7
industrial activity with gravel mining operations but that is just industrial in nature only. The gravel pits were
approved through agricultural zoning with a USR. To say that there is industrial activity or like uses in the area
may be correct,but there is no industrial zoning in the area. If zoning is changed to 1-3 it will not be compatible
with surrounding land use which is all agricultural in the area. Mr. Parko pointed out that if you change zoning
in a municipality next to incompatible land uses,it is considered spot zoning and that is not encouraged within
the planning profession. He added that he thought the applicant had provided a stable tax base,that the tax
base will not change if the zoning is changed to 1-3,and asked why the applicant couldn't continue to do what
they have been doing within the USR and not change the zoning. Mr. Parko said he knows and respects the
Wrights, respects their property rights, and also what they contribute to the community, but emphasized that
when you change the zoning,you change the character of the area now and for the future. Fort Lupton does
not want any industrial development occurring west of the South Platte River.The Fort Lupton Comprehensive
Plan is still a work in progress and has not yet been adopted by City Council. Mr. Parko ended by saying that
Fort Lupton wants to encourage the Planning Commission to really look at this case and weigh what is being
proposed and see if it can fit into a USR rather than go through a complete 1-3 zoning change.
Commissioner Grand asked Mr. Parko about any current document that specifically clarifies the use of the
property as well as the uses of the property in the non-conforming use area in the northeast corner of the site.
Mr. Parko said 1997 land use plans specify agricultural use for the whole area and that the northeast corner
was not a non-conforming use area for Fort Lupton. Ms. Hatch interjected it was a commercial water well.Mr.
Parko reiterated that Fort Lupton would highly support a USR in the agricultural zone rather than go through a
complete change to 1-3 zoning because that could then leave the door wide open for other property to come in
and be zoned industrial as well,which would then allow more intense uses because of the industrial zoning.
Commissioner Holton asked about Fort Lupton's gravel pits and how they will eventually fit into the County.
Mr. Parko explained that when those properties are reclaimed they are usually dedicated to open space or for
recreational activities. Commissioner Ochsner asked how Fort Lupton wanted the property to be zoned in
their Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Parko responded that though the document has not yet been adopted and is
still subject to change, the proposed uses in the Comprehensive Plan aren't just strictly agricultural but also
include mineral resources, mixed uses, neighborhood centers and some commercial along the highway. He
said he was confident that based on discussions that have occurred throughout their Comprehensive Plan
process, Fort Lupton does not want to see industrial development west of the South Platte River. He added
that they have IGAs with surrounding municipalities. Their current IGA boundary with Dacono only goes to CR
21 so anything west of CR 21 and south of SH 52 is really in Dacono's area. Fort Lupton recently agreed to an
IGA with Frederick at CR 19 so anything between CR 19 all the way up to the existing Fort Lupton city limits is
with Frederick. An IGA is pending with Firestone as well. Mr. Parko said he could not speak on behalf of
those municipalities, but being very familiar with the IGA process and their Comprehensive Plans, he did not
think any of them had any industrial use plans for those areas. Commissioner Ochsner asked Mr.Parko and
Ms. Hatch for an explanation of the difference between industrial and commercial. Mr.Parko replied it had to
do with the uses,specifically greater intensity. For example in Fort Lupton,an oil refinery could be allowed in
an 1-2 industrial district but not in a C-2 general commercial area,so a big box retailer could go into a C-2 zone
but an oil refinery could not. Ms. Hatch also gave specific examples of land uses allowed in the commercial
and industrial zone districts. Commissioner Lawley inquired if a USR could support an industrial use. Ms.
Hatch responded a USR in the agricultural zone district allows for all commercial and industrial uses.
Commissioner Spitzer asked Mr. Parko what their objection was to the 1-3 zoning. He responded that he felt it
would set a precedent for the area and attract more 1-3 zoning.
Commissioner Holton asked Mr. Parko what Fort Lupton's plans were with regard to the County, once they
had completed their Comprehensive Plan process. Mr. Parko said that once it is adopted by City Council,the
goal was to present it to the County and get the IGA amended.
Commissioner Ochsner thanked Mr. Parko for coming in and presenting Fort Lupton's opinion on the
application request.
Dorian Dozzett, 11952 Hwy 52, Fort Lupton, CO 80621, spoke for herself and her mother. Ms. Dozzett
addressed traffic on State Hwy 52 which she said is heavy and not controlled or patrolled early in the morning
and in the evening. Excessive trucks entering the well operation creates excessive dust and she provided
photos of the new entrance and the ensuing problems. Operations began quite early in the morning,as early
as 6 a.m. and cement breaking at this hour and heavy machinery backing up was quite a disturbance at this
8
hour. She added that extra security light installation could be an issue as well as additional tenants on the
property. She asked what the hours of access would be as well as commented on the additional noise and
trash accumulation. She and her neighbors are small scale farmers and want to maintain their lifestyle.
Industrial buildings and its additional tenants change the atmosphere of the area. She submitted photos to the
County Attorney for the record. Commissioner Grand asked her to point out her property location relative to
the application site. Commissioner Ochsner asked if the photos were of the existing activities or new activity
on the site. Ms. Dozzett responded they included some of each.
Donna Sanerub, 11902 State Hwy 52, Fort Lupton, CO 80521, stated her property directly adjoins the site
under discussion. She said she had written a letter to the Wrights and the Planning Commissioners
expressing her opposition to the application. Ms. Sanerub did not begrudge the Wrights making a living but
she would like the pastoral and agricultural setting in the area maintained as it is. She also pointed out where
her property is in relation to the site on the maps provided by the Planning Department.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Linn Leeburg, applicant's representative,stepped forward to address public concerns and said he respected
comments of the adjacent property owners and Mr. Parko from Fort Lupton. He said concern for the property
to the east has nothing to do with their application and also it does not seem that Fort Lupton has progressed
enough in their Comprehensive Plan process to change things. Mr.Leeburg continued that there seems to be
a misconception the business is already active, but the area is largely fallow and vacant. Mr. Leeburg said
they seemed to be talking semantics, and being a Kansas farm boy, he does not see this as an agricultural
area when he looks around. Commissioner Grand asked why they did not apply for a USR rather than a
Change of Zone,and was that because the 1-3 industrial zoning was the highest intensity they could be have,
thus maximizing the revenue for the property. Mr. Leeburg replied that was correct. They felt it was not
incompatible with uses in the area; there was also need: and they were engaging in semantics again as to
what the character of the area is now, versus commercial or gravel operations. He asked the Planning
Commission approve the application and pass it on to the Board of County Commissioners and added,"that in
all candor, this is an onerous, onerous process to get land entitlements in Weld County." Citing the County
Code Appendix 22-1, number four,"The USR process is too complicated to do without a consultant, unless
you have a lot of time." Mr. Leeburg said, "his point was that there are a whole cadre of redundant controls
that are completely onerous to the constituency of the County and if we can get it zoned, then there is some
flexibility to move forward and not. . . Commissioner Grand interjected that they had total flexibility with 1-3
zoning which is contrary to what Fort Lupton wants,given their concerns with potential growth in that area. Mr.
Leeburg said that may or may not happen, he didn't know, but the fact is there are a myriad of controls,
including site plan review, building permitting and all of the things that go with that plus the County's
compliance process, so they would like this application to move forward in order to benefit the community of
Fort Lupton and the landowner. Commissioner Grand repeated again the 1-3 zoning would allow the broadest
possible use, as opposed to the USR which would make them come back to the table, but would
accommodate the needs and desires of Fort Lupton. Mr. Leeburg said again it was all semantics at which
point Commissioner Ochsner interjected and suggested they move on.
Don Wright, 1892 Denver Av, Fort Lupton, CO 80621 stated they have been active in the area since 1972;
they have leased the water well since 1971 and purchased the land in 1998;they have relocated the existing
access to reduce traffic to mitigate any concerns of the neighbors;they provide dust abatement;have installed
a privacy fence;have posted signs to slow traffic and advise jake brakes are not allowed. Mr.Wright said he
had sent about twenty letters to surrounding property owners and had received five responses back that had
no objection to their application. He continued that they are requesting the 1-3 zoning so they do not have to
go through the process again for wells, septic etc. Mr. Wright explained they had referred to the Greenfield
property as they wanted to do something similar on their property and they have been asked by several small
businesses about locating on their property in order to be next to the 1-25 and SH 52 major arterials. He
concluded that there are several USRs, zoned C-3 in the area and did not feel their request was
unreasonable.
Commissioner Spitzer asked about the uses of the Greenfield property and what uses he saw for his property.
Mr. Wright replied the Greenfield property rents to Halliburton for fabrication work and there is a plumbing
business and an oil field business. For his property, Mr.Wright said he would say oil field related businesses
would be reasonable to expect or a small wire line service but not retail businesses. Commissioner Ehrlich
9
asked if in their conversations with Fort Lupton was there any conversation at the time of the property
purchase as to possible uses. Mr.Wright said they had not had any conversation with them. Commissioner
Grand asked if they would consider a USR. Mr. Wright said they would if they had too, but he thought a
Change of Zone to 1-3 would better solve the present and future needs.
Pam Smith, Department of Public Health and Environment, said the entire property is within a100 year
floodplain because the floodway has not been designated. A septic system can go in a floodplain but not a
flood way unless they go through the engineering process. Ms. Smith offered additional conditions for the
record,and added nine others,which will be caught when the property is actually developed and goes through
the site plan review process.
The Department of Public Health and Environment recommends approval with the following conditions: (in
addition to the conditions already in the Staff comments)
1. Water service for each lot shall be obtained from individual commercial wells.
2. The applicant should contact the Drinking Water Section of the Water Quality Control Division
of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment for the clarifications regarding
the potential water system requirements. The applicant should submit any response to any
review with the Site Plan Review application.
3. No septic systems are permitted to be installed within the flood way as stated in Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment ISDS Guidelines Section VIII (17)and in
Section 30-5-20 of the Weld County Code pertaining to septic systems.
4. The installation of any septic system within the 100-year flood plain shall comply with the Weld
County I.S.D.S. flood plain policy(attached). In accordance with the Colorado I.S.D.S.
Regulations, no septic systems shall be installed within the flood way.
5. Primary and secondary septic envelopes shall be placed on each lot outside the boundary of
the 100-year flood way. All septic system envelopes must meet all setbacks, including the
100-foot setback to any well.
6. Language for the preservation and/or protection of the absorption field envelopes shall be
placed in the development standards. The development standards shall state that activities
such as permanent landscaping, structures, dirt mounds or other items are expressly
prohibited in the absorption field site.
7. All liquid and solid wastes (as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act,
30-20-100.5, C.R.S., as amended)shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner
that protects against surface and groundwater contamination.
8. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. This is not meant to include
those wastes specifically excluded from the definition of a solid waste in the Solid Wastes
Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, 30-20-100.5, C.R.S., as amended.
9. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive
dust, blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions.
Mr. Leeburg said he had no problem with those requirements but was concerned that if this was approved
they had to make their peace with page seven, items A. through H.
Commissioner Branham motioned to add items one through nine, submitted by the Department of Public
Health and Environment,to the existing five specified by the Planning Department. Second by Commissioner
Holton. Motion carried.
David Snyder, Public Works,said Development Standard eight should be changed to read may be required to
will be required.
10
Commissioner Spitzer moved to accept the change in language to Development Standard eight,suggested by
Public Works. Second by Commissioner Ehrlich.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand,yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton,yes;
Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried.
Commissioner Ochsner asked the applicant's representative, Mr. Leeburg, if they had read and agreed with
the amendments to the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval.
Mr. Leeburg responded they had read and agreed with the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and requested no other changes.
Commissioner Lawley moved that Case CZ-1141,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 denial. Second by Commissioner Ehrlich.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes; Robert Grand, yes; Mark Lawley,yes; Roy Spitzer,yes; Tom Holton, yes;
Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried.
Commissioner Branham cited Section 22-2-150, policy 2.1 and 2.4 and goal 3.,and said he understood and
agreed with Fort Lupton's concern for re-zoning. He urged the applicant to come back and submit a USR for
an industrial use in that area.
Commissioner Ehrlich cited Sections 22-2-150A., Section 23-2-30A.5.a., and supported Fort Lupton as well.
Commissioner Grand cited Section 22-2-150, supported Fort Lupton's position, and added this was an
example of spot zoning and that transition for the area needed to be smoother.
Commissioner Lawley supported Planning Department's recommendations for denial.
Commissioner Spitzer agreed that agricultural is declining in the area but we must realize that these same
uses could be done under a USR. He added that he would like to see cooperation between the cities in South
West Weld County area and agreed with Fort Lupton's position.
Commissioner Holton thanked Mr. Parko, Fort Lupton Planning for attending and participating in today's
hearing. The way this application is set up for 1-3 it is not compatible for the area,even with gravel pits in the
area. Gravel pits are temporary and this is not, it would be forever.
Commissioner Ocshner said he agreed with all of the Commissioners. Agricultural land may be declining in
the area, but he did not think they should write a blank check and allow anything to come in as that was the
purpose of a Use by Special Review.
CODE CHANGES: Cyndy Giaugue, County Attorney for Bruce Barker, County Attorney
Cyndy Giauque,County Attorney, handed out a Code changes for the Commissioners to take home,read and
prepare from for discussion at the next Planning Commission hearing.
Commissioner Ochsner said that since their hearings seemed to be getting shorter, he would like to
recommend the Planning Commissioners offer Code change information to the Board of County
Commissioners, as that was well within the scope of their position.
Meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
11
0kA3')6 k\°"t3
Donita May
Secretary
12
Hello