HomeMy WebLinkAbout20073051.tiff Esther Gesick
oorom: ray[joyra@frii.com]
nt: Monday, September 17, 2007 3:02 PM
: Hannah Hippely
Cc: Rob Masden; Esther Gesick
Subject: Case Number USR-1620
Dear Ms. Hippley, please accept this email as my objection to approval of USR-1620. This
as I understand it would allow a business with multiple vehicles used in its operation in
an area Zoned A (agriculture. ) I live within 500 feet of this property and I do not feel
that this operation is in the best interest of the area. It will bring many many more
vehicles to road that are unpaved which will increase the dust within the area
exponentially. But most important is the issue of public safety. There is a school bus
stop within 100 years of this sight and the increased traffic of the hydro-static oil
pressure testing business will increased the odds of a child/auto accident to he Nth
degree. Also important to the individuals whom will be working at this location if it is
approved is the danger posed by the blind turn off Hyway 85 on to WCR 42 which crosses the
railroad track. This intersection has nearly a 45 degree angle rather than the standard
90 degree. The problem with this intersection as well as WCR 44 and the one just south of
Gilcrest is well known. Just recently a driver was killed on the south one. At literally
the same time this driver was killed an accident occurred at the 44 interchange. And an A
& W water truck was struck and destroyed (the driver survived) last summer on the 42
interchange. All of this in one year all because the turn from 85 on to WCR 42 and many
others from Platteville to LaSalle takes a driver immediately from Hyway 85 into the path
of a train. Then when turning from 85 onto 42 from a dangerous corner with in a few
hundred feet is the bus stop. So if a driver misses a train is he or she going to be
concentrating of children that may run out in front of him or her? Please do not approve
this request! It is simply in the wrong place and will endanger workers at the facility
and school children. FOR SAFETY IT IS THE WRONG LOCATION! Thanks you for considering
is request. Ray Peterson 20595 WCR 33 LaSalle 80645IV 737 0385
• ma
I
1 2007-3051 Le512!' k/4Zo
•
L a 6L/ S z
c.mte_ zvede (2idc kifyiot
4 29Leiax deolediii i9/ szkez.e_
ptheyncj Zelic /6 -)941C-te_ 75y((e_,
ir 2.
use
17L , ��
•
•
•
GerUw�/� IL ivie7 a '1 tr72
.14. °-3-rl 3 3 , jam
CA./14,-o( *M d I'e c _t :lc gyp"
•
c( & + w ufri+ vvipG-e-- ra-rfic
�vr oc <r aria �. j ' Code r lei
C5b O4- # ! 1 6 e Gc dccS-l- � SD.
•
•
2 1 f E2CLyL� rair)C Lei 11-C-
/,
g 5E � "� u �Uu •1 e✓��;,LyIrt tc< flt
"
LAD k L L •C L O� o A 66-65 / f
jAeAc
]y� LtT /L r ? � y2•
O-ct // �� ' '-,fly�,
�-� .TL"u2> .2 <"` L `i .
Sy:e.i„Le 1�� �p7 id,55e A 67v ne 'l
d1/2/re 47 atno e c_ fl'
k_514,77/' `-Ya//7e,V Vryi 4de,E 6-troy u��o' ('%i4 (4; 7fet 33
G%7i1411 V /Lljlyn 7�t ( . z-Ve a/NTh r( (A `v im
fro-677 4 AA/Pie? eg7O- `>
✓ 2(727 /riga( /ifs l%ke s .64/5,ness
(sVaec"Mee Ov/ &rein
Free/ filer on A- . (eo q/.;gyp I( loz.n + / 33 s , w�, .2
9
�� S� //e J
(AA and- Du ctAtf OILLA
o _U CCu
I U,a �e� . rh-ecn-cA_
i o 4-S Lc.) G IZ 3 .3
Scce , C
< :'n l ct' t4- 'U (L7t# �,y _,L-1 ,,->1.Gres:) 41176 1.1c_
1/4 1/4I •
A ,,,
L 51Jx- -�(
84305 „ e
f 'h 's<ry 7+nf/;: +/// i'Y i°7 /
z , %z<
Acti4c MEMORANDUM
• 'lige TO: Board of County Commissioners
DATE: September 25, 2007
COLORADO
FROM: Hannah Hippely
SUBJECT: USR-1620 CDOT Referral
CDOT was not included on the list of referral agencies when this case was first set up by staff,
as the proposal did not include a direct access to Highway 85. At the Planning Commission
hearing it was apparent that there were concerns regarding both the intersection of County Road
42 and Highway 85 and County Road 33 and Highway 85. In response staff sent CDOT a
referral. CDOT's referral response is attached.
•
EXHIBIT
• U52-it 162O
Page l of 2
Hannah Hippely
Ili From: Bilobran, Timothy [Timothy.Bilobran@DOT.STATE.CO.US]
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 4:27 PM
To: Hannah Hippely
Subject: RE: Referral Request
Hannah,
I've spoken with Gloria after we got off the phone regarding your issues, and this is a summary of
all of our comments:
!. Having the traffic go to WCR 33 may be problematic, since the Hwy 85 Access Control calls for
this intersection to he closed in the future, with a frontage road allowing WCR 33 traffic to reach
WCR 44, and then reach Highway 85.
2. As previously stated. if the projected traffic counts generated by this site increase the
intersection traffic of VCR 42 and Highway 85 by more than 20%,a new access permit will be
required, which will open the door for roadway improvements. The burden of proof necessary to
prove this proposal does/does not activate these triggers falls upon the developer.As such,the
developer will have to provide CDOT with traffic numbers regarding their proposal, and the
traffic numbers of the intersection. Some sort of traffic study would have to be completed.
• Please call or e-mail me back with any questions.
970-350-2163.
Tim
From: Hannah Hippely [mailto:hhippely@co.weld.co.us]
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 9:40 AM
To: Bilobran, Timothy
Subject: Referral Request
I-Ii Tim,
I am processing a case where the property is located east of Highway 85. Since the proposed
access was not onto Highway 85 I did not send you a referral request_ The case went to Planning
Commission yesterday and the intersections of Highway 85 and CR 42 and Highway 85 and CR
33 became a hot issue. The applicant is proposing a business which would employ 12 people who
arrive onsite in the morning pick up a truck which they would then drive off site to service oil and
gas wells. The trucks would return at the end of the day, employees would then leave in their
personal vehicles. The applicant is scheduled fora Board of County Commissioners hearing next
week and I would like to be able to gist the Board an idea if what if any concerns CDOT might
have in regards to this project.
I have attached a copy of the referral form and have faxed the application to your office, I would
really be grateful if you could take a look at this for me and provide a referral response. If you
would like to lax that over to me the number is 970-304-6498 or of course You could email it.
09/25/2007
• ' ( , Lcve-.maf 9/06676286
Larsdrrsa.r11e 3011Rce I B66-179-62S]
lax 9:066]6298
1 r , t f , ' t 1 , , Web .w.vaaantlnyv Lltd<om
3521 West Eisenhower Blvd.
I oveland.Color ado 80537
November 5, 2007
Board of County Commissioners
915 Tenth Street
P. O. Box 758
Greeley CO 80632
Re: Mr. Ron Schwindt, H/S Testing, Inc., Case Number USR-1620
Gentlemen:
On behalf of the applicant, Ron Schwindt, H/S Testing, Inc., we would like to formally withdraw Case Number USR-1620.
The application being withdrawn is for a Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for an Oil and Gas
Support and Service Facility in the Agricultural Zone District located north of and adjacent to County Road 42 and east of
State Highway 85.
Mr. Schwindt has been a resident and business owner in Weld County for many years. His intent was to purchase
property that would allow him to permanently move his business, H/S Testing, to an area more centrally located to his
customers.
H/S Testing, Inc. is an off-site hydro-static oil pressure testing company with 15 employees. H/S Testing requested
approval of a Use by Special Review to allow for a 6,000 S.F. warehouse building for an operation office, truck storage,
servicing and equipment storage to be located within a 2.5 acre building envelope on a 52+ acre site. The majority of H/S
lbTesting services are conducted off-site for the primary purpose of pressure testing oil wells. We anticipated the proposed
business would have minimal impact to the site and surrounding area, with the majority of the site (50± acres) remaining
agricultural.
In addition to improvements required for H/S Testing, Mr. Schwindt made a significant investment in the purchase of
additional water and improved sprinkler systems to maintain and increase farming production.
On September 4, 2007, the project was scheduled for Planning Commission with a recommendation for approval. At the
hearing, concerns from neighbors were brought to the attention of the applicant, staff, and Planning Commission that had
not been discussed as part of the review process. These concerns centered primarily on traffic impacts and safety.
Neighbors were concerned with the project's proximity to a nearby residential development, County Road 42/Highway
85 intersection and a rail road crossing. Planning Commission deliberated on the issue and made a condition that
restricted west bound truck traffic to Highway 85 as a result of not having been provided any referral comments from
Colorado Department of Transportation. In addition to restricting west bound traffic, Planning Commission required by
condition,that the applicant have a Traffic Memorandum prepared prior to the Board of County Commissioner.
Mr. Schwindt understands his neighbors concern regarding the impacts of truck traffic to the residential neighborhood
and the intersection of CR 42 /1-85. He intends to continue farming the 52+ acres and would like to maintain a good
relationship with his neighbors. He also feels that whatever results a Traffic Memorandum will provide; neighbors will not
have the assurance they desire to be supportive of his business. Therefore, Mr. Schwindt determined to forego the
preparation of the Traffic Memorandum as required prior to the Board of County Commissioner hearing and withdraw
the application.
We would like to thank Weld County staff and Weld County Planning Commission for their time and effort in reviewing
the Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit application. Please contact us if you have any additional
• questions.
Respectfully, EXHIBIT
LANDMARK ENGINEERING LTD. 1 j
Tiffane Johnson USe-t Ooze
Hello