HomeMy WebLinkAbout20070579.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld County
Conference Room, 4209 CR 24.5, Longmont, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Chad
Auer, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Chad Auer-Chair
Doug Ochsner-Vice Chair
Paul Branham
Erich Ehrlich
Bruce Fitzgerald
Tom Holton
Mark Lawley
Roy Spitzer
James Welch
Also Present: Bruce Barker, Kim Ogle, Brad Mueller, Jacqueline Hatch, Michelle Martin, Don Carroll, Char
Davis, Donita May and Kris Ranslem.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on February 6,2007,
was approved as amended. Bruce Fitzgerald had a correction to the minutes at the top of page five. He said
he had recused himself from Case USR-1593, not because he was related to the applicant as the minutes
stated, but because he had advised the applicant with her application. Paul Branham motioned to approve the
minutes as amended. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. Motion carried.
The Chair called Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services, who said Planning Services and the
applicants for Case 3rd AmUSR-1002,were asking their application be pulled from the Consent Agenda and
be heard last under the Hearing Items.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that 3rdAmUSR-1002 be pulled from the Consent Agenda and heard today after the
fourth hearing item. Doug Ochsner seconded. Motion carried.
CONSENT ITEMS
1. CASE NUMBER: USR-1588; to include SUP-314, SUP-317, SUP-360, USR-707 &
AmUSR-707.
APPLICANT: Duke Energy Field Services
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part SW4 of Section 34 and part SE4 Section 33, T2N, R67W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for
a Mineral Resource Development Facility including a Natural Gas
Processing Facility in the A(Agricultural)Zone District and any
use permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use, or a Use by
Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone District
(Truck Terminal and Truck Transport Facility).
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 14 and east and west of and
adjacent to CR 19.1.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, said they were requesting this case remain on the Consent
Agenda. As there was no one in the audience wishing to speak regarding Case USR-1588, the Chair read
the next case into the record.
0 ..1ru.:, Qa7c ) 3-J- .;2C0 J 2007-0579
2. CASE NUMBER: USR-1591
APPLICANT: Gib Smith
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part E2 of the NE4 of Section 7, T2N, R66W' of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
•
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
Use Permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use, or a Use by
Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial zone districts (out
door storage for trucks, trailers, recreational vehicles, boats and
equipment) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 22.5 and east of and adjacent to CR
25.5.
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services, said they were requesting this item remain on the
Consent Agenda. As there was no one in the audience wishing to speak regarding Case USR-1591, the
Chair asked if there was a motion on the floor.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case USR-1588 and Case USR-1591 on the Consent Agenda,be forwarded to the
Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the
Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;Tom Holton,yes; Mark Lawley,yes; Roy Spitzer,yes;
Doug Ochsner, yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
HEARING ITEMS
3. CASE NUMBER: 2007-XX
APPLICANT: Weld County/Town of Hudson
PLANNER: Brad Mueller/Bruce Fitzgerald Barker
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Various Sections (Town of Hudson), Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Amendment to Hudson/Weld Coordinated Planning Agreement
(Intergovernmental Agreement).
LOCATION: Various Sections, Weld County, Colorado.
Brad Mueller, Department of Planning Services, briefly described the request by the Town of Hudson and
said Hudson had recently received a couple of annexation requests, one for a prison located to the
northwest and another for a business to be located to the southwest along 1-76. The change requested by
Hudson to the IGA(Inter Governmental Agreement)between Hudson and Weld County modifies the
boundaries shown in the current Code. Presently Weld County and Hudson enjoy an IGA that defines a
couple of areas; one of which presently defined a UGB (Urban Growth Boundary)and said lands inside
those areas were generally encouraged for urban development and the County would discourage non-
urban levels of development and refer those to Hudson for annexation consideration. Beyond that line
was another area that encouraged non urban development. The change could be characterized as a
technical amendment. Those areas included a half section almost due north of Hudson in Section 26 and
a small section southwest within the Town limits in Section 21 just to the west of 1-76. Department of
Planning Service's staff was recommending approval.
Bruce Barker, County Attorney, added that whenever they have had requests for an amendment, they
usually amend the agreement already in place, then both entities would sign off, and finally the Code
would be modified. Both processes were occurring with this application at once; the approval by the
Board of County Commissioners, and the changes being made to the Code. The changes to the Code
would be only to the map and the appendix would show a new map that would include the new areas
recently annexed.
2
Tom Holton asked if the basic agreement remained the same. Mr. Barker replied that it would. Mr.
Mueller said they anticipated other IGA amendments over time, and those more substantive in nature
would be presented in more detail, but he and Mr. Barker both agreed that this request was more
administrative in terms of its scope and scale. Mr. Barker agreed and added the Planning Commission's
role was to deny or recommend approval.
Doug Ochsner asked if this extended the current agreement. Mr. Mueller replied that the agreement
automatically renewed every year unless either party took action against it. Mr. Barker added that a yearly
automatic renewal to keep it perpetual was decided to be the best solution, unless either side wanted to
get out of the agreement. Mr. Mueller said the County has IGA's with about half of the larger
municipalities and those IGA's were all very similar and it was likely that future IGA's would probably be
more town specific, more site specific, rather than such broad documents.
Mr. Holton asked about the bulk standard requirements/differences and how much attention they had to
pay to them, and why private property owners did not seem to be involved or have any input in the
decisions. Mr. Mueller said they did not need to consider the bulk standards in this instance. He added
that the County takes two different approaches with municipalities: with about half of the municipalities
they would negotiate IGA's on a case by case basis; with the other half of the municipalities they have no
agreement and in those particular cases they had County designated UGB's that were defined per the
Code and all the UGB line did was say if landowner wanted to zone to a higher use, our Comprehensive
Plan would support that ability. Mr. Mueller said if an application was processed in a city, it must follow
their guidelines and if processed in the County, it must then follow County guidelines. Mr. Holton said it
was his understanding that the city gets first shot and if things did not work out then it came to the County.
Mr. Mueller responded that was true with IGA's but for UGB's they encouraged going to the towns for
annexation and cited Section 22-2-110 of the Code.
Mr. Mueller added this was a balancing act between IGA's, UGB's and private property rights and the off
site impacts that happen with land use. The goal of the Comprehensive Plan was to foster some level of
regional coordination and putting that into practice could be difficult. Municipalities and jurisdictions must
sit down and try to find a balance between the cities ability and the County's ability and recognize the
differences and similarities. Mr. Holton said towns like Hudson were willing to negotiate but many do not
and the loser was the private property owners and he did not want that to go unnoticed by the Board of
County Commissioners or the municipalities. Mr. Mueller responded the Board of County Commissioners
was aware of that and they hoped to develop a framework for additional IGA's to be created. Mr. Holton
asked about modifying agreements, how that process worked, and said the time involved (seven months)
seemed excessive. Mr. Barker responded that seven months was due to the annexation election
requirement and the petition process took that long, and regarding the Town of Hudson -they had notified
every property/landowner of meetings and the process at least two, maybe three times. Mr. Holton said
that if the Town of Hudson were to change the process, the property owners might not get notified.
Mr. Mueller cited Section 22-2-110 A.3. of the Code regarding notification to landowners. Bruce Fitzgerald
spoke about annexation time frames, but the bulk of his comments were inaudible
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak. The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that Case 2007-XX,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Tom Holton, yes ; Mark Lawley, yes ; Roy Spitzer,
yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
4. CASE NUMBER: 3rd AmUSR-1002
APPLICANT: Cannon Land Company/Encana Oil & Gas Inc
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of AmRE-1474, part of the S2 SW4 of Section 11, T2N,
3
R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for
Oil and Gas Support and Services (natural gas processing,
treating, compression and fractionation facility) and an Office for
training and meeting purposes in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 22; approximately 1 and 1/4 mile
east of CR 31.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services, said Cannon Land Company/Encana Oil and Gas Inc
do Rodney Barnes and William Crews have applied for a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special
Review Permit for an Oil and Gas Support and Services (Natural gas processing,treating,compression and
fractionation facility) and an Office for training and meeting purposes in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
The sign announcing the Planning Commission hearing was posted on February 10, 2007 by Staff.
The site is located North of and adjacent to CR 22 and approximately 1 and 1/4 mile east of CR 31 and consists
of approximately twenty five acres.
The site has been approved under god AMUSR-1002 for Oil and Gas Support and Services since April 26,
1993 and is currently in operation. The amendment is to expand the existing facility to include an office for
training and meeting purposes. The site is proposed to be serviced by an individual septic system and well.
The surrounding property is primarily agricultural with USR-211 for a gas compressor station(1975)and USR-
1291 for an oil and gas support facility(2006)to the south of the property. No letters have been received from
surrounding property owners. The Development Standards and Conditions of Approval will ensure
compatibility with adjacent properties.
The subject property is not within the three mile referral area of any municipality boundary.
Eleven referral agencies reviewed this case,two referral agencies had no comments,and six 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 Division of Wildlife, the Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission, or the Weld County Sheriffs Office.
The Department of Planning Services is recommending this application be approved.
Ms. Hatch said there were three changes to the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval per the
memorandum. The three new standards would be added after the current number eighteen and renumbered
accordingly.
William Crews,8203 W 20 St,Ste B,Greeley CO,applicant's consultant,accompanied by Rodney Barnes,the
Plant Manager,spoke about the amendments to the original USR,where the first was to add the scent to the
natural gas and the second was to add an office and training building. Mr.Crews said they were trying to avoid
coming before the Planning Commission again until future equipment would be required to augment the plant
and this should be the last request until they needed to add land to the USR. Mr. Crews then presented the
issues they would like to address: page three regarding item 1.A., the existing (4x6)sign at the facility, and
that they had no intent of adding any other signs so they did not believe there was a need for a signage plan;
item 1.B., regarding screening, and that they did not plan to do any further screening and they strongly
objected to the opaque fencing from a security standpoint as they must see out,in addition to which the facility
was currently fenced and had barbed wire at the top; item 1.B.,regarding additional landscaping,and that their
water permit prohibited them from using any live plants,and as the site was quite remote, it seemed wasteful
to spend money on additional landscaping or trucking in of water for landscaping; cited item 1.C., Mineral
Notification, and asked if the Department of Planning Services had received the letter from Kerr-McGee.
Ms. Hatch, regarding page three, item 1.A., asked the applicant to acknowledge this was the only sign they
had and the only one they intended to have and that Condition 1.A., page three remain as prior to the Board of
County Commissioners;that they also put something in writing regarding their landscaping/screening plan for
4
the Board of County Commissioner's reference;cited page three, item 1.B.and said Staff needs something in
writing from the applicant as to their fencing plan; regarding item 1.C., it should remain on the plat as a
Condition and be marked as completed once reviewed.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked Mr. Crews if it would be possible to transport water to the site for the landscaping.
Tom Holton asked if they were talking about existing landscaping or were they planning to build something
else. Mr. Barnes said there was no vegetative landscaping on the site except for what they had implemented
to prevent and maintain proper storm water run off. Ms. Hatch said landscaping/screening was a requirement
of the Code and was a standard note they put on all applications. The Planning Commission's task was to
approve/disapprove the applicant's request to omit landscaping and screening. The Board of County
Commissioners would make the final recommendation.
Mr. Holton asked how many employees there were presently on the site. Mr. Barnes replied there were
currently fifteen employees with ten to fifteen in training,for a total of thirty maximum. Mr. Barnes expressed
confusion as to how they were to determine the number of employees given that some were actual employees
and some were in training and asked for further clarification. Ms. Hatch said item 5.A. in their questionnaire
allowed up to seventy five total employees/trainees and parking needed to be provided for them, Staff was
comfortable with seventy five parking spaces. Mr. Barnes said the maximum number of people occupying the
building comfortably would be thirty to forty five so he felt providing parking spaces for seventy five people was
a bit too high for their requirements. Chad Auer felt that under their current plan they have inadequate
parking. Ms. Hatch said keeping the seventy five would prevent the applicant from coming before the
Planning Commission in the future, but the applicant could reduce parking numbers and number of employees
if need be.
Don Carroll,Department of Public Works,said this was a tight site and there was a problem with trying to park
seventy five vehicles there and that twenty five to thirty five was a more reasonable number given the present
site.
Mr. Crews then clarified item 2.C. prior to recording the plat,and that the well had been constructed and was
in use; they had a well permit but not potable water so they had drinking water delivered. Mr. Crews also
asked about further explanation regarding the odor abatement plan per the Department of Public Health and
Environment. Char Davis, Department of Public Health and Environment, said that after speaking to Phil
Brewer,also with the Department of Public Health and Environment,that the odor abatement issues were with
the mercaptin(scent added to natural gas)and the neighbors,and asked how the applicant planned to handle
this issue. Mr. Holton asked if there were any complaints from surrounding property owners. Ms. Davis
responded there were none at present. Mr. Barnes asked for direction and Ms. Davis said she would have Mr.
Brewer contact them with further information.
Erich Ehrlich asked Ms. Davis about Development Standard number fourteen on page nine regarding the
office building and was a septic system required. Ms. Davis said that it was. Mr. Barnes said they currently
had two permitted septic systems. Ms. Davis said the two existing were for thirty people total but with the new
building, the Code required an additional system to handle the additional people on the site. Mr. Ehrlich
wanted the applicant aware of Developmental Standard, page nine, item fourteen. Ms. Davis reviewed the
Code requirements for septic systems with Mr: Barnes. Mr. Barnes then asked for further clarification as to
who were employees—full time people assigned to the facility or those brought in short term. Ms. Hatch said
they needed to plan for the largest capacity,which would be seventy five people, no matter how little or how
long they were on the site. Ms. Davis said the septic must be sized to meet the maximum number of people
on site at any one time. Mr. Barnes said they would have to address that requirement and get back to the
Planning Commission with their decision. Mr. Crews added they were trying to cover all bases so they did not
need to come before the Planning Commission again in the near future to further amend the application.
Paul Branham asked if they understood that part of the approval included the additional septic system. Mr.
Barnes replied that had become clear today. Ms. Davis said if capacity were over twenty five people they
would also be required to go through the State primary drinking water regulations process for the well,test the
water, and the water quality must be adequate for drinking and that was outlined in item 7.C. under the
Conditions of Occupancy.
Mr. Crews said there was a mail mix-up and that he still had not received his permanent copy of the
5
recommendations and referrals, though Mr. Barnes had received his the day before. Ms. Hatch asked Mr.
Crews if he had received the information in question that she had faxed to him Friday, February 16,2007. Mr.
Crews replied that he had received the faxed Staff comments and referrals.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak. The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, asked if they were staying with seventy five parking spaces.
Chad Auer said that page eight, item four called out the number of employees, septic, water, and parking
spaces.
Paul Branham said he had heard nothing from the applicant about reducing their numbers so it should remain
as recommended by Staff.
Doug Ochsner motion to approve the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval as amended in the
memorandum submitted by Ms. Hatch February 20, 2007. Erich Ehrlich seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;Tom Holton,yes; Mark Lawley,yes; Roy Spitzer,yes;
Doug Ochsner, yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Tom Holton asked about item.1.B., page two, regarding screening and landscaping, and was everyone
satisfied. Mr. Auer said it was his understanding that was easily met by having the applicant agree on the
record or by letter stating they were not proposing any landscaping on site, and that would also suffice for the
sign plan. Ms. Hatch concurred.
Mr. Holton then asked the applicant if he understood that if the number of employees remained at seventy five,
then they must have parking spaces, sewer, new septic, water quality test with the State, for seventy five
people and were they agreeable with that. Mr. Barnes said anything over twenty five people would require that
anyway so they were in agreement. Ms. Davis said that was correct. Mr. Barnes said they would stay with the
seventy five and asked if they could have inside fence parking for employees and outside fence parking for
visitors. Mr. Carroll, Department of Public Works, said that was fine and the Department of Public Works
would also like parking labeled on the plat and they did not want any staging of parking on the county roads .
The Chair asked the applicant if he agreed with the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval as
amended. Mr. Crews recapped the changes and said he was in agreement.
Paul Branham moved they forward Case 3rdAmUSR-1002 to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval. Doug Ochsner seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;Tom Holton,yes; Mark Lawley,yes;Roy Spitzer,yes;
Doug Ochsner, yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
In other business, Bruce Fitzgerald nominated Tom Holton as technical advisory committee representative for
the 2007 Comprehensive Plan. Erich Ehrlich seconded. Seeing no other nominations, the Chair closed the
nominations and declared Tom Holton elected by acclamation.
Meeting adjourned at 2:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Donita May
Secretary
6
Hello