HomeMy WebLinkAbout20080262.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, December 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
Nick Berryman
Paul Branham v' ,
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand V
Bill Hall _<
Mark Lawley — "'
Roy Spitzer
Also Present: Tom Honn, Kim Ogle, Chris Gathman, Jacqueline Hatch, Michelle Martin, Hannah Hippely,
Roger Caruso, Department of Planning Services; Don Dunker, David Snyder, Department of Public Works;
Pam Smith, Department of Environmental Health; Bruce Barker, County Attorney; Donita May, Secretary.
Roy Spitzer moved to approve the December 4, 2007 Weld County Planning Commission minutes. Second
by Tom Holton. Motion carried.
CONTINUED ITEMS
CASE NUMBER: USR-1627
APPLICANT: Cambodian Cultural Center Non-Profit Corporation
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the S2 S2 NE4 of Section 33, T1N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for Public and quasi-
Public Buildings including a Church and a Private School (Cambodian Cultural
Center) in the Agricultural Zone District.
LOCATION: North of State Highway 7 and west of CR 7.
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning,said the applicant, in emails dated December 4,2007 and December
5, 2007, was asking for a continuance to the February 19, 2008 hearing date in order to address issues
primarily concerned with access.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Paul Branham moved that Case USR-1627, be continued until the February 19, 2008 hearing. Roy Spitzer
seconded the motion. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: 2ndAMUSR-1405
APPLICANT: Aurora Dairy Corporation
PLANNER: Hannah Hippely
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NE4 of the SE4 and E2 of the NE4 of Section 30,T3N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a 98,000 square foot
milk processing plant in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Hwy 66 and approximately 1 mile east of CR 13.
1
& u.?,tn,twr,a /-G2/- 'a8 2008-0262
Hannah Hippely, Department of Planning, said the applicant had requested in a letter dated December 10,
2007, that this case be continued. Staff was recommending continuance to the February 19, 2008 hearing
date.
Tom Haren,AGPROFESSIONALS,4350 Hwy 66, Longmont,CO,applicant's representative,said they agreed
to a continuance subject to getting on the January 15, 2008 agenda rather than the February 19, 2008
agenda. He added that originally CDOT's referral did not have any comments and they were notified two
weeks ago by CDOT that they would like a traffic study. Mr. Haren said they have worked with Planning Staff
to settle on dates and the traffic study is well under way. They have commitments that the traffic study as well
as the storm water drainage study will be complete and adequate in time to meet the January 15, 2008
Planning Commission hearing date. Additionally,they have submitted a letter concurring with the continuance
subject to the availability of getting on the January 15, 2008 agenda.
Ms. Hippely expressed concern about the timeline and thought more time was needed for appropriate review
of the studies and receipt of necessary referral comments. Tom Holton asked if it was set for the January
15,2008 hearing date,could it not be continued again if necessary. Ms.Hippely said the alternative was that if
they do not have an adequate review of the studies and proceed on January 15, 2008 without that information
included in the Staff review, the case may have to be continued.
Robert Grand asked Mr. Haren if he was comfortable they could meet the deadline. Mr. Haren responded he
was. He said they expect to have everything turned in and complete next week and was confident they could
meet the deadline prior to the January 15, 2008 hearing.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Doug Ochsner said he felt comfortable with placing it on the January 15, 2008, and if necessary it could be
continued again if Staff was not satisfied with the time given for review. Ms. Hippely added there were six
cases scheduled for the January 15, 2008 hearing.
Robert Grand moved that Case 2ndAMUSR-1405, be continued until the January 15, 2008 hearing. Tom
Holton seconded the motion. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: AMUSR-1353
APPLICANT: Kerr-McGee Gathering LLC
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW4 of Section 14,T2N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Amended Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Mineral
Resource Development Facility including Oil and Gas Support Services and one or
more microwave or other communication transmission or relay towers over seventy
feet in height(120 foot Radio Tower) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 22 and approximately 1 mile east of CR 31.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services, said Staff had requested a continuance to the January
15, 2008 hearing date to allow for appropriate mineral notification. The applicant agreed to the continuance.
Tom Holton inquired about the number of cases presently on the January 15,2008 agenda. Ms. Hatch replied
this would bring the number to eight. Mr. Holton inquired about the possibility of moving it to the January 8,
2008 hearing in Greeley. Ms. Hatch said they would not have mineral notices complete by that date so it
needed to remain on the January 15, 2008 agenda.
Doug Ochsner pointed out there was a good chance this case would be on the consent agenda for the
January 15, 2008 hearing. Ms. Hatch concurred.
Paul Branham moved that Case AMUSR-1353, be continued until the January 15,2008 hearing. Mark Lawley
seconded the motion. Motion carried.
2
The Chair read the Consent Agenda cases into the record and explained to the audience that two Planning
Commissioners must ask for a case to be removed from the Agenda for it to be heard. The public would be
given the opportunity to voice concerns prior to the Commissioner's decision.
CONSENT ITEMS
CASE NUMBER: USR-1626
APPLICANT: Jeff Seewald
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-1710, part of the S2 SW4 of Section 6, T3N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Use by Right, an
accessory use, or a Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone
District(heavy duty truck and equipment repair)in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 13 and approximately 1/4 mile north of CR 36.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning, said Staff and the applicant requested this case remain on the
consent agenda. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience with a concern. No opposition was
voiced by any member of the audience. None of the Planning Commissioners voiced a concern. The Chair
said Case USR-1626 would remain on the consent agenda.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1630
APPLICANT: Rejoice Lutheran Church
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 5, Block 4, Ranch Eggs Subdivision, Filing 2,being a part of the NW4 of Section
34, T1 N, T68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a public and
quasi-public building (Church) in the A (Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Lowell Lane, approximately 1/2 mile east of CR 7 and
approximately 1/2 mile north of CR 2/Baseline Rd.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning, said Staff and the applicant requested this case remain on the
consent agenda. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience with a concern. No opposition was
voiced by any member of the audience. None of the Planning Commissioners voiced a concern. The Chair
said Case USR-1630 would remain on the consent agenda.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1635
APPLICANT: Elaine Stuart& Larry Speer
PLANNER: Roger Caruso
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 7, Block 66, 2"° Filing, Aristocrat Ranchettes, being part of the SW4 of Section
27, T2N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for accessory buildings with
gross floor area larger than four percent(4%)of the total lot area on a lot, part of a
map or plan filed prior to adoption of any regulations controlling subdivisions in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Barley Avenue and 1/4 mile east of CR 31.
Roger Caruso, Department of Planning, said Staff and the applicant requested this case remain on the
consent agenda. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience with a concern. No opposition was
voiced by any member of the audience. None of the Planning Commissioners voiced a concern. The Chair
said Case USR-1635 would remain on the consent agenda.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1636
APPLICANT: Roger& Diane Andreason
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part SW4 of Section 31, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
3
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a kennel (to
accommodate 150 dogs and 15 cats, along with training classes and a pet supply
retail component) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Highway 52 and approximately 1/4 mile west of CR 1.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning, said they had received two letters of opposition but Staff was
comfortable with it remaining on consent. The applicant agreed to the case remaining on consent.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience with a concern.
Richard Armstead, 219 Hwy 52, Erie, CO, residing just west of the applicant's property, said he sent a fax to
the Planning Department yesterday and suggested today that notification to surrounding property owners
should be more than 500 feet due to the noise from the barking dogs. He also expressed his concern over his
reduced property value and opposed the application.
Vernon Bauer, 389 Hwy 52, Erie, CO,voiced his opposition to the approval of the application. He said he lives
just to the north of the applicant's property and also cited the noise from the barking dogs. Mr. Bauer pointed
out that he and the applicant share a common driveway which was paved at his (Mr. Bauer's)expense. He
expressed concern over additional traffic on the shared driveway as well as Hwy 52 and added that he had
sent a letter of opposition to Mr. Gathman.
Susan Bauer,389 Hwy 52, Erie, CO,said she resides on the back ten acres and the applicant's have the front
fourteen acres, all of which used to be one property. She also spoke about the shared drive and added that
she objected to the smell and noise from the neighboring business, that she has severe allergies, was
concerned for their lower property value due to the gravel pit and the kennel in the area and she does not
support the application.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
The Chair asked the Commissioners if they wished to hear the case. Tom Holton asked about the shared
driveway and if there was an easement or access problem. Mr. Gathman explained that the access
agreement originated in 1988 when the lot line adjustment was made. At the time when the back ten acres
were removed from direct access onto State Hwy 52,there was a thirty foot access easement designated to
access the back lot. It was undefined and does not specify who/what can or cannot use the easement. It just
designates a thirty foot access easement at this point.
The Chair and another Commissioner were in favor of hearing the case so it was removed from the consent
agenda and added to the hearing agenda.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1625
APPLICANT: Aurora Dairy Corporation
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the N2 of Section 29, T3N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for agricultural service
establishments primarily engaged in performing agricultural, animal husbandry or
horticultural services on a fee or contract basis, including; veterinary clinics or
hospitals, livestock confinement operation for a 3,000 head dairy and multiple single-
family dwelling units per lot other than those permitted under Section 23-3-20A and
multi-family dwellings for persons principally employed at or engaged in farming,
ranching or gardening in the agricultural zone district.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Highway 66 and west of CR 17.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning,said Staff and the applicant were requesting it remain on the consent
agenda. He clarified the request and said the veterinary clinics/hospitals were referring specifically to the
hospital/barn facilities associated with the dairy. Also currently there were eighteen modular homes and a
couple of stick built houses on the site but he believed all were single family dwellings. Mr. Gathman said he
would revise the description prior to the BOCC hearing to clarify the uses,though the uses would not intensify
4
the use above and beyond what was in the present description. In fact, it may decrease it so they did not feel
it was a substantial change to what was shown today and that was the reason for recommending it remain on
the consent agenda.
Doug Ochsner asked Mr. Gathman why this specific USR was necessary when they were already operating
and they were requesting less usage today. Mr. Gathman explained that Staff determined it was a substantial
change based on additional structures put on the site so the decision was that a special use permit was
required at this time. Mr. Gathman said prior to today there was no special use permit for the property.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience with a concern. No opposition was voiced by any
member of the audience. None of the Planning Commissioners voiced a concern. The Chair said Case USR-
1625 would remain on the consent agenda.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1634
APPLICANT: Reynaldo & Mayra Bonilla do Larry Carroll with the Carroll Group
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW4 of Section 10,T2N, R65W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Use by Right, an
accessory use, or a Use by Special Review in the Industrial Zone District (truck
parking, maintenance and office) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: Approximately one mile north of CR 22 and approximately one and a half miles east
ofCR41.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning, said Staff and the applicant requested this case remain on the
consent agenda. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience with a concern. No opposition was
voiced by any member of the audience. None of the Planning Commissioners voiced a concern. The Chair
said Case USR-1634 would remain on the consent agenda.
Tom Holton moved the amended Consent Agenda 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. Paul Branham seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman,yes; Paul Branham,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes; Robert Grand,yes;Bill Hall,yes;Mark Lawley,yes; Roy
Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Specific time for public input has been set aside for discussion on the following items:
HEARING ITEMS
CASE NUMBER: USR-1636
APPLICANT: Roger& Diane Andreason
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part SW4 of Section 31, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a kennel (to
accommodate 150 dogs and 15 cats, along with training classes and a pet supply
retail component) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Highway 52 and approximately 1/4 mile west of CR 1.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning, said Roger & Diane Andreason, being represented by Dennis
Drumm (Associated Land Consultants)have applied for a Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review
Permit for a kennel(to accommodate 150 dogs and 15 cats,along with training classes and a pet supply retail
component) in the A(Agricultural)Zone district.
The site location was north of and adjacent to State Highway 52 and approximately 1/4 mile east of County
Road 1.
5
Thirteen referral agencies reviewed the case. Nine referral agencies responded favorably or included
conditions that have been addressed through Development Standards and Conditions of Approval.
The proposed kennel facility would be approximately 1/8 of a mile south of the nearest residence and 1/8 of a
mile from the nearest residences to the west and east of the site.The site was well screened by mature trees
from State Highway 52. The site was adjacent to the town limits of Erie to the east.There was an access to a
gravel facility/proposed treatment plant in this location.The site was well screened from State Highway 52 by
mature trees.
The applicants have indicated that the facility will use public water(Left Hand Water District).
Two letters of opposition had been received from surrounding property owners to the north and west of the
site. Concerns outlined in the letters re: barking dogs and traffic.
The site utilized a shared access with the property to the north.The access easement was created through a
subdivision exemption for a lot line adjustment to allow access to the northern parcel. The access was
indicated as a 30-foot access easement. No uses were specified under this easement so it was undefined.
The applicants were proposing to place trees for screening along the north and west sides of the site. Due to
the noise concerns raised by neighboring property owners, the Department of Planning Services
recommended the exercise area on the west side of the proposed kennel/office be screened by opaque
fencing material. Currently it was proposed to be a chain link fence.
There was an attached Development Standard number six which says dogs and cats would be kept inside
during night time hours, from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. Hours of operation, as proposed in the application, would be
from 8 a.m.to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,with extended hours until 5:30 p.m.for day care. If classes were
being held, operation hours would extend to 9 p.m. Weekend hours would be from 8 a.m.to 3 p.m.Saturday
and 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. on Sunday, per the application materials.
The access permit would need to be obtained prior to the construction of this facility.
The Department of Planning Services feels that the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards were
sufficient to mitigate the concerns of surrounding property owners and referral agencies and recommended
approval of this application.
Robert Grand asked if there had been discussion between the applicant and the Bauer's(who had paid for the
road)regarding future road maintenance,considering the increased use of the facility with this application. Mr.
Gathman said he did not know if there had been discussion and would defer to the applicant for that answer.
Paul Branham asked Mr.Gathman about the change to the proposed fencing. Mr.Gathman suggested chain
link fencing with opaque screening material that blocks views of the exercise area or an opaque wooden
fence. Mr. Gathman said noise was of greater concern than views.
Doug Ochsner asked Mr.Gathman about dog confinement and was it inside a kennel or inside a building. Mr.
Gathman said his understanding was that dogs and cats were contained indoors.
Dennis Drumm,3405 Penrose PI, Boulder, CO, 80301,applicant's representative, said out of respect for the
Commissioners time, he wanted to address neighbor concerns, if the Commissioners agreed. Mr.Andreason
has run a similar facility in Broomfield for twenty eight years and has dealt with many of the same concerns
expressed today at the Broomfield facility. That speaks to the Andreason's ability to run a considerate
operation. Mr. Drumm said he was certain Mr. Andreason would be amenable to changing the fencing
materials as requested. He then addressed the view to the west saying that soil from the pond in the area
was proposed to be used in earthen berms in that area to provide noise diffusion and provide screening.
Roger"Pat"Andreason,applicant,342 North Shore Cr,Windsor,CO, said on the day of Mr.Armstead's visit it
was a snowy day and the dogs had been confined indoors and were therefore quite noisy when they entered
the building in which they were contained. He cited his Broomfield facility and said they had never exceeded
6
the noise level allowed there and doubted the dogs barking at the proposed facility could be heard over the
trucks moving about the adjacent gravel operation or over the traffic on Hwy 52.
Robert Grand asked about the Bauer's paving the road at their expense and would he be agreeable to setting
up a mechanism with them,given the incremental traffic that would now be traveling on his portion of the road.
Mr. Andreason said the road access needed to be expanded and widened. He felt his business would
increase the value of the property due to improvements made to the property.
Tom Holton asked about intent of the earthen berm on the west side of the operations area. Mr.Andreason
said an earthen berm with trees on top for visual and noise screening was what they had proposed. Mr.
Holton suggested they might contact the neighboring gravel pit if they needed more dirt for the earthen berm.
Bill Hall asked what height they were anticipating the earthen berm to be. Mr. Andreason said five feet. Mr.
Hall then asked how tall the kennels were at their Broomfield facility. Mr.Andreason replied the buildings at
the Broomfield facility were two story buildings with apartments on the top level. The proposed facility would
be a one story building.
Tom Holton asked if a height requirement/limit of five feet for the berm on the west side would be agreeable to
him. Mr. Andreason said he would agree to that.
Paul Branham asked how many animals were at the Broomfield facility and what other modifications had he
made. Mr.Andreason responded that currently numbers could go to 150 or more over a holiday season. Mr.
Branham asked if a five foot berm would be high enough to control noise from the barking dogs. Mr.
Andreason said it would.
Don Dunker, Department of Public Works, said that since this property was in a flood plain, the applicant
would need to berm with caution so as not to increase the flood risk to neighboring properties.
Dennis Drumm, applicant's representative, said they were aware of the grading permit requirements for
berming, but the house was removed from the floodplain by a letter of map amendment. The letter was
careful to say that it only applied to the house, so the option available to the property owner was to request a
second letter of amendment for the kennel portion of the property. The flood level that was cited was forty
eight feet at elevation and the lowest point on the property was fifty one feet. It would appear that the elevation
of almost all of the entire cite was three feet above flood stage, which might bode well in this discussion
regarding the berm's location and whether or not it was in the floodplain. Mr.Andreason planned to pursue a
letter of map amendment for the kennel portion of the property as well.
The Chair opened the floor to the public.
Richard Armstead,219 Hwy 52, Erie, CO, said he bought the property to the west thirty seven years ago and
the first year he owned it before he built there, the entire property was under water, including the applicant's
property. If the application was approved, he requested the kennels be moved to the back of the building to
the west. Mr.Arm stead also said he felt a five foot berm would not stop the noise and suggested evergreens
rather than deciduous trees.
Kenneth Schell, 833 State Hwy 52, Erie, CO, lives east and north of the applicant's property and was most
concerned about road traffic due to gravel mining and said there was a free for all fight to get onto the
roadway. Mr. Schell said his driveway was right next to truck traffic driveway and it was a disaster and there
was no control over traffic. Traffic has been known to back up from CR 1 to CR 5 over two miles. The noise
from the dogs was most evident in the summer. Mr.Schell said if he purchased property near an existing dog
kennel, then it was his fault, but if he owns property and they come in and build a kennel, then he feels a
responsibility to speak against it. They are moving into our territory, we are not moving into their territory.
Vernon Bauer, 389 Hwy 52, Erie,CO, moved out there seven years ago for the peace and quiet of the country,
expecting to have cows and horses and peace and quiet. A gravel pit has come in since and will leave at
some point, but the dog kennel could be forever. Mr. Bauer did not feel a widened drive would alleviate
increased traffic which would still impede his ability to get in and out of his own driveway.
7
The Chair closed public portion of the hearing.
The applicant's representative, Dennis Drumm, stepped forward to address concerns. Mr. Drumm said they
understand resident's concerns but the Broomfield facility proves this type of facility can and does work in a
more urban area. Noise levels established by the State have never been breached. He added there may be
an impact but past evidence says there hasn't been at the Broomfield facility and he was confident they could
all coexist at the proposed facility.
The Chair asked Public Works about traffic issues. David Snyder, Public Works Department, said
unfortunately it was CDOT's area and they had no input.
Pam Smith, Department of Environmental Health, shared noise level information and septic system
information. The decibel level for commercial zoning was sixty from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. A sixty decibel limit
would sound something like an air conditioner at twenty feet or normal speech. From 7 p.m. to 7 a.m., it was
fifty five decibels. Fifty five decibels was also the residential noise limit from 7 a.m.to 7 p.m. From 7 p.m.to 7
a.m. the level was a fifty decibel limit, which was equivalent to light auto traffic at one hundred feet. She did
not have an equivalent for fifty five decibels,but this should give them an idea of the range. Seventy decibels,
which she believed was light industrial, would sound like a vacuum cleaner.
Roy Spitzer asked if there were decibel limits for the agricultural zone district. Ms. Smith responded there
were not, they included only residential, commercial, light industrial and industrial.
Ms. Smith said the existing house on the property does have a septic permit from 1988. The new kennel
office would have its own septic system per the Staff comments and would be designed by an engineer for the
standards and the uses they would have. The septic system would have to be designed to accommodate the
employees and the visitors and the uses at the kennel, but would not be an uncommon septic system for this
type of operation.
Tom Holton asked who the neighbors contact if there was excessive noise. Ms. Smith said they should call
the Environmental Health Department and they would dispatch someone to the site to record the noise levels.
Roy Spitzer asked how that would be monitored. Ms. Smith cited Development Standard fourteen which
addresses that issue.
Bill Hall asked about the difference between pine trees and broad leaf trees regarding sound baffling. Ms.
Smith said conifer or evergreen would offer greenery year round to buffer sound as opposed to deciduous
trees that lose their leaves in the fall. Mr. Hall asked if the applicant would be amenable to providing a
different type of tree. Mr. Drumm said they would commit to doing the most effective type of landscape
screening possible and would follow any landscape plan suggested. Trees would be planted in such a manner
that noise/screening would be maximized. Mr. Hall asked how far the facility was from the closest neighbor to
the south. Mr. Drumm said about 800 to 850 feet to the house on west and the house to north was maybe
1000 feet from the kennel. Mr. Drumm added that CDOT told them they would need an access permit due to
the use of the property changing, but the mount of traffic would not warrant any major changes as traffic would
not be increased that much.
Tom Holton asked Mr.Gathman about additional landscaping requirements/recommendations. Mr.Gathman
said Kim Ogle, Department of Planning,would make additional landscape recommendations concerning types
of planting and configuration. Mr. Gathman also suggested adding a condition, 1.K. and renumber, that the
applicant shall submit a landscape screening plan for Staff review and approval.
Tom Holton asked if the landscape screening would be in combination with the berms. Mr.Gathman said the
Department of Public Works had a condition regarding the flood plain that might affect the berming. They
would all have to tie in together. Mr. Holton inquired about two sided berming. Don Dunker, Public Works,
said berming would need to be parallel to the water flow and they would have to look at the plan and make
sure they didn't create a flood risk to surrounding properties.
Roy Spitzer asked for restatement of commercial noise levels. Ms. Smith replied the decibel level for
commercial zoning was sixty from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. A sixty decibel limit would sound something like an air
conditioner at twenty feet or normal speech. From 7 p.m.to 7 a.m., it was fifty five decibels. Fifty five decibels
8
•
was also the residential noise limit from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. From 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. the level was a fifty decibel
limit,which was equivalent to light auto traffic at one hundred feet.
Robert Grand inquired about the decibel level of a barking dog. Ms. Smith said she did not have that
information as most of the literature does not have that information. Perhaps it could be equated to a vacuum
cleaner which is a seventy decibel level.
Paul Branham asked if a decibel meter set 850 feet from the property line on the west could measure noise
levels. Ms. Smith said that could be done.
Bill Hall said that since traffic would be increasing on the access to the property and the road had been paved
by the neighbor, had any concessions been made by the applicant with the neighbor for repair and
maintenance of the road. Mr. Drumm said CDOT had done nothing regarding regulation of the mining
operation, excel/decel lanes, or right hand turn lanes. Mr. Hall reminded him that the Bauer's had paved the
road. The applicant would use that access to get on the highway and the applicant should make some kind of
arrangement for maintenance with the Bauer's. Mr. Drumm said the applicant had acknowledged
responsibility as to widening the access, etc., as they would have the majority of the use.
The Chair asked Staff if an agreement between all users was required or could they make improvements
without approval. Bruce Barker, County Attorney, said the applicant could make improvements as long as it
was not changed to the point that it was inaccessible and the neighbors did not object. He added they have
every right to go ahead and do so.
Doug Ochsner asked Mr. Gathman about the landscaping plan and additional verbiage. Mr. Gathman
suggested changes to page 6; add an item 1.K.,and renumber,which shall say,"The applicant shall submit a
landscape screening plan for review and approval by the Department of Planning." He added they could
specify that the landscape and screening plan shall address the screening from the north and west sides of
the property. Mr. Oschner asked if the berming issue could also be addressed or was it represented
elsewhere.
Tom Holton suggested landscaping and noise level mitigation be added. Mr. Gathman's response was that
the landscape and screening plan shall also address noise reduction and mitigation.
Robert Grand asked if the kennel could be located further away from the surrounding property owners and
would it be feasible to provide an increased buffer for the neighbors if the facility moved closer to Hwy 52. Mr.
Gathman said buildings to the south were to be torn down and they might be able to shift it a bit.
Tom Holton motioned to accept the Staff recommendation to add an item 1.K., page six, and renumber
accordingly, which shall say, "The applicant shall submit a landscape and screening plan for review and
approval by the Department of Planning Services. The plan shall address noise buffering and noise mitigation
issues through potential techniques such as fencing and berming." Mark Lawley seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman,yes; Paul Branham,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes; Robert Grand,yes; Bill Hall,yes;Mark Lawley,yes; Roy
Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Bill Hall asked again about an agreement regarding maintenance of the driveway.
The Chair asked if traffic needs to be specifically addressed regarding maintenance. Bruce Barker, County
Attorney, suggested a maintenance agreement because if one were not in place then they won't know who
should do what or who should pay what. An easement agreement or any agreement means that two parties
were willing to consent to an agreement. They participate in good faith to achieve cooperation, which was
implied.
Mr. Gathman suggested item L. and renumber accordingly to read, "The applicant shall enter into a joint
access and maintenance agreement for the thirty foot access agreement for the neighboring property to the
north or provide evidence an adequate attempt to reach agreement has been made."
9
Roy Spitzer motioned to accept the Staff recommendation to add an item 1.L., page six, and renumber
accordingly,which shall say,"The applicant shall enter into ajoint access and maintenance agreement for the
thirty foot access agreement for the neighboring property to the north or provide evidence an adequate
attempt to reach agreement has been made." Mark Lawley seconded the motion. Motion carried.
Mr. Drumm was asked if he had read and understood the amended Development Standards and Conditions
of Approval and was he in favour. He responded they were.
Bill Hall moved that Case USR -1636, 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. Paul Branham seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman,yes; Paul Branham,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes; Robert Grand,yes;Bill Hall,yes; Mark Lawley,yes; Roy
Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Robert Grand commented that the neighbors have a right on the noise standard issue to pursue that if in fact it
is in violation and secondly, on the traffic issue, it is another example where we have a CDOT question and a
County question and it falls in no man's land. He reiterated that we need to be more careful and figure out a
process that allows for better input so the neighbors can deal with the traffic problems. We can help them
rather than ignore them.
CASE NUMBER: Highways 1041 Regulations
PRESENTER: Bruce Barker, County Attorney
Bruce Barker,County Attorney, reviewed the Highways 1041 Regulations and said they are a result of House
Bill 1041. Specific applicable sections are 2465.1.
Mr. Barker said that in looking at the title of regulations, there were massive descriptions including arterial
highways, interchanges,collector highways, including private toll roads and toll highways, mass transit, rapid
transit terminals, stations and fixed guide ways and areas around those, which come directly from State
statutes. The County has added private toll roads and toll highways. We have set up specific items we can
regulate and modified them and limited it to private toll roads and toll highways. We have taken what the State
has given us and have pared it back. The County was targeting private tool roads and private highways and if
you looked at the two exemptions, the specific one would be in 21-4-100. State statutes 7-45-101 and 38-2-
101 were added in 2006 and modified later. If you compared these regulations to electrical regulations(21-3-
100)you would see the same general format,as we want them to be consistent throughout. Section 21-4-100
talked about a variety of general topics and protected private properties. The regulations were not intended to
stop private toll roads or toll highways but give much more protection to private property owners,which was of
prime concern to the BOCC. Specifically it provides protections for agricultural lands, irrigation ditches and
irrigation systems, existing county roadways.
Mr. Barker continued that page six deals with permits and prohibition on site selection and construction. We
need to add in paragraph A., 24-1-300, after"or fixed guide way, as defined herein and specifically as limited
pursuant to Sections 24-4-100 and 24-4-120 of this article,within the unincorporated portions of this County
without first obtaining a permit pursuant to the terms of this Article IV." The same language would be added to
item B.just after fixed guide way,"as defined herein and specifically as limited pursuant to Sections 21-4-100
and 21-4-120 of this article,wholly or partially within the unincorporated portions of this County." That puts the
limitation on it but also makes it so that a permitting process must be followed. Mr. Barker added he would be
surprised if they ever got an application of this type, but wanted the Planning Commission prepared never the
less. In the event of an application, the Planning Commission would hear the request and make a
recommendation as they do with electrical permits and they would then send it on to the BOCC. The PUC
(Public Utilities Commission)does not regulate these permits but they can overturn, by State statute, BOCC
decisions. In this particular instance,the PUC does not have that capability,which was a benefit,and makes a
distinction between the two. Mr. Barker said Sharon Croghan,who worked on these regulations with him,had
some suggestions for changes: further down on page six, Section 21-4-310, B.1., say instead "significant
environmental or economic damage",which would include devaluation of property due to a"Super Slab"going
in. The BOCC could then look at economic damages to surrounding property owners and make mitigation
recommendations. Ms. Croghan's next recommendation was that page ten, Section 21-4-410, G.3., be
10
changed to read,"Changes caused by the Proposed Project in the cost of providing education,transportation
networks, water treatment and waste water treatment, irrigation delivery systems, emergency services, or
other governmental services or facilities."
Tom Holton asked if a motion was required for each modification. Mr. Barker said they could vote on the
items in one motion.
Ms. Croghan's last recommendation was that page fifteen, Section 21-4-420, I., be changed to read,
"significant adverse effect on farm or ranch lands" and remove "on prime or unique farmland". One of the
Commissioners inquired if the assumption was that if in fact that happened,they would be offsetting value to
the owner. Mr. Barker replied that was correct and reminded them that the BOCC were currently having the
Comprehensive Plan revised and the word"prime"was still a major point of discussion. Mr. Barker asked if
they want to limit it so that impact was limited only to prime or unique farm or ranchlands and added he
thought it was a good suggestion that it was open to all of those and that any that were impacted should be
subject to being made whole.
Nick Berryman asked if this made it harder to define what's prime or unique. Mr. Barker agreed that it did and
said that takes out the subjective element. Commissioner Grand interjected the assumption being that if it
went to some kind of arbitration process. Mr. Barker replied it would be very hard to define"unique".
Bill Hall asked if these standards were normal and similar to what CDOT would encounter. Mr. Barker said
they were,only in the sense that if CDOT was looking at doing a condemnation of a highway. Mr. Barker said
again that he would be surprised if they ever saw an application of the sort they have been discussing, but if
they did, they would have standards in place to follow.
Tom Holton asked if this could be amended like the other codes at some point in time. Mr. Barker said it
could.
Doug Ochsner asked about mass transit and would it inadvertently include railroad passenger trains and
would they fall under the same rules. Mr. Barker said it could if it was within the same swathe. The one that
would be most applicable would be RTD coming in, and we would agree to it if it were to be in that corridor.
The idea with"Super Slab"was to have not only the"Super Slab"but also a corridor for other things,including
mass transit, trains, freight,fiber optic cable, and super utility lines. They would be limited to those corridors
only that would be in conjunction with the toll road or toll highway. Mr.Ochsner asked if it would be applicable
to a railroad shipping yard in the County. Mr. Barker said no because it would not fit within those statutes,
which are in conjunction with private toll roads and toll highways.
Robert Grand asked if this basically enhances the rights of the property owners. Mr. Barker agreed that it was
the goal to address property rights.
Paul Branham said he thought it was appropriate to have these regulations in place to protect and to mitigate
adverse impact on County citizens. It was comprehensive and he commended the BOCC and County Staff for
their efforts in taking the initiative and having the foresight to develop this document to protect them in the
future.
Tom Holton said this keeps it consistent with the other codes in protecting property rights but we will need new
ones down the road.
Paul Branham moved to accept the Highway 1041 Regulations as amended.
Page six, Section 24-1-300.A., should read, "No person may locate and construct an arterial highway,
interchange or collector highway(including private tool road or toll highway), mass transit and/or rapid transit
terminal, station as defined herein and specifically as limited pursuant to Sections 24-4-100 and 24-4-120 of
this article, within the unincorporated portions of this County without first obtaining a permit pursuant to the
terms of this Article IV."
Page six, Section 24-1-300.B., should read,"No local authority, including Weld County, may issue a building
permit for purposes of selecting a site for and constructing an arterial highway, interchange,collector highway,
11
mass transit and/or rapid transit terminal, station, or fixed guide way as defined herein and specifically as
limited pursuant to Sections 21-4-100 and 21-4-120 of this article,wholly or partially within the unincorporated
portions of this County."
Page six, Section 21-4-310, B.1., should read, "If, as a result of the meeting, the Planning Department
determines that the nature or extent of the Proposed Project involves the potential for significant
environmental or economic damage or warrants examination of specific less environmentally damaging
alternatives, the Planning Department may request that the applicant evaluate present information on such
alternatives as part of the application. This shall not preclude a similar request following the pre-application
conference."
Page ten, Section 21-4-410, G.3., should read, "Changes caused by the Proposed Project in the cost of
providing education, transportation networks,water treatment and waste water treatment, irrigation delivery
systems, emergency services, or other governmental services or facilities."
Second by Nick Berryman.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman,yes; Paul Branham,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes; Robert Grand,yes; Bill Hall,yes; Mark Lawley,yes; Roy
Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
/ )
Donita
Secretary
12
Hello