HomeMy WebLinkAbout20072161.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld County
Conference Room, 4209 CR 24.5, Longmont, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Chad
Auer, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Chad Auer- Chair
Doug Ochsner-Vice Chair 23 a; n
Paul Branham f C"s c 3r
Erich Ehrlich C w+ r—
Bruce Fitzgerald f< ry a
Tom Holton — ° cnn
Mark Lawley M D oc
Roy Spitzer Y�"d zZ
James Welch
Also Present: Bruce Barker, County Attorney; Tom Honn, Planning Director; Kim Ogle, J ca queline Hatch,
Chris Gathman, Hannah Hippely, Planners; Don Carroll, Public Works Department; Char Davis,
Environmental Health Department; Donita May, Secretary.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on July 3,2007,was
approved as read.
Commissioner Holton recused himself from the Consent Agenda.
The Chair read the Consent Agenda cases into the record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1613
APPLICANT: Warren & Deborah Smith
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NE4 of Section 9, T1N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for A Use
Permitted as a Use by Right,an Accessory Use,or a Use by Special Review
in the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts, (Gutter Business) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 12 and West of and adjacent to CR 7.
The Chair asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the application. No one stepped
forward.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1608
APPLICANT: Ready Mixed Concrete Company
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B, RE-4381 being part of the NW4SW4 Section 6, Ti N, R66W; SW4
Section 6, T1N, R66W; W2NW4 Section 7, T1N R66W exc
S2SE4SW4SW4 of Section 6, T1N, R66W and also exc NE4NW4NW4
Section 7,Ti N, R66W; NE4NW4/NE4NW4NW4 and Part NW4NE4 lying W
of Westerly R-O-W Lane SH 85 Section 7, T1N, R66W and the
S2SE4SW4/SE4SW4SW4 and part S2SW4SE4 lying W of Westerly R-O-W
Lane SH 85 Section 6,Ti N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,Colorado.
REQUEST: Resource Development Facilities including Concrete, Recycled Concrete
1
/1
`-enunc „ is 7-3O aoo 7 2007-2161
and Gravel Mining in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: Generally located South of and adjacent to SH 52;West of and adjacent to
SH 85; East of and adjacent to CR 25 Section Line and approximately 0.5
miles North of CR 10.
The Chair asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the application.
Jerry Sitzman,area homeowner,residing east of Hwy 85 and adjacent to the gravel pit,said they have a pond
on their property and he is concerned that when water is pulled off into the gravel pit, his pond will dry out as it
is maintained by underground water levels; he added that his pond also holds the run off from the Fort Lupton
city streets;and without proper maintenance,it will be a stale pond as they have no other way of getting water
into it. Commissioner Ochsner pointed out that public concerns can be addressed without hearing the entire
case. Mr. Sitzman added that since the applicant has to pump the water out during mining,they could pump
the water into the highway underpass pipe. The Chair said that ultimately this board makes only
recommendations and the Board of County Commissioners decide the final outcome, but they can collect
items to be addressed. Mr. Sitzman asked if he would be notified of the future Board of County Commission
hearing. The Chair said that he would absolutely be notified.
Mike Hart, 2255 Meadow Ave, Boulder, CO, represents Ready Mix Concrete. Mr. Hart addressed Mr.
Sitzman's concerns regarding the mine dewatering on his pond on the east side of Hwy 85 and said: they
proposed to install a soil bentonite slurry wall around the mining stage that is immediately west of Mr.
Sitzman's pond before anything is dewatered, so basically they intend to protect the surrounding alluvial
aquifer by sealing off the mine stage from anything outside of that mine stage before anything is dewatered;
once the slurry wall is installed then the area to be mined within the perimeter of the slurry wall would be
dewatered but there would be no impact on any groundwater elevations outside of the mining area;and closed
by saying that he was very confident that all of Mr. Sitzman's concerns would be addressed, based on the
mine plan.
The Chair suggested Mr. Hart contact Mr. Sitzman and provide him with all of that information prior to the
Board of County Commission hearing.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1618
APPLICANT: Justin &Jennifer Frank
PLANNER: Hannah Hippely
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the E2 SE4 Section 6, T4N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a use
permitted as a Use by Right, and Accessory Use, or a Use by Special
Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone districts (Dance and
Gymnastics Studio) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 15 (Telep Avenue)and approximately 0.125
mile North of State Highway 60 (W. South 1st Street).
The Chair asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the application. No one stepped
forward.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-217
APPLICANT: Kerr-McGee Gathering, LLC
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SW4 SW4 Section 23,T2N, R65W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Mineral
Resource Development Facility including a Natural Gas Processing Facility
and one or more microwave or other communication transmission or relay
tower over seventy(70)feet in height in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 18,and East of and adjacent to CR 45 Section
Line.
2
The Chair asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the application. No one stepped
forward.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1616
APPLICANT: Mountain States Line Constructors
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-4578; part of SE4 of Section 32, Ti N, R65W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a use
similar to the uses listed as a Use by Special Review(Trade School) in
the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 2 and approximately-Vz mile east of CR 39.
The Chair asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the application.
John Spillane, 5460 South Quebec, Suite 110, Greenwood Village, CO, the manager of Highland Equities
and with the Bromley Companies, which own thought they were on the list to be notified, he had not seen
any notice regarding the application; that he had hoped to hear about the applicant's plan this afternoon;
and that he would be bringing his 600 acres to Lochbuie as a residential development later this year. Mr.
Spillane expressed interest in hearing the Planning Commission's view on this application.
The Chair told Mr. Spillane that whether the case was pulled or not, he was entitled to review all of the
application materials prior to the BOCC hearing. The Chair asked the Commissioners if any of them
wished to pull the application. Commissioner Ochsner responded that he was agreeable to Case USR-
1616 remaining on the consent agenda.
The Chair asked if there were any Commissioners who wished to pull this case from the Consent Agenda.
There were none.
Doug Ochsner moved that the Consent Agenda,including Cases USR-1613, USR-1608,USR-1618,AMUSR-
217 and USR-1616, 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, Mark
Lawley seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Tom Holton, recused; Mark Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Doug
Ochsner, yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
HEARING ITEMS
The Chair read the case into the record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1617
APPLICANT: James Warner
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot D RE-3983; located in the NW4 of Section 5, T4N, R68W 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 facility(commercial water tap used by oil and gas
specific equipment and transportation vehicles to service off-site oil and
gas operations) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 3 and south of and adjacent to State Highway
60.
3
Chris Gathman,Department of Planning,said James Warner on behalf of Ryan Warner has applied for a Site
Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a an oil and gas support facility(commercial water
tap used by oil and gas specific equipment and transportation vehicles to service off-site oil and gas
operations)in the A(Agricultural)Zone district.
The site is located east of adjacent to County Road 3 and south of and adjacent to State Highway 60.
Thirteen referral agencies reviewed this case,eleven referral agencies responded and included conditions that
have been addressed through development standards and conditions of approval.
The USR-1617 site encompasses approximately 5 acres of a larger(120 acre)agricultural parcel.
The site is adjacent to a single-family residence to the west and the Garcia PUD to the southwest(across CR
3). A single-family residence is located just to the east of the proposed access point into the facility(across
State Highway 60). The site is immediately adjacent to agricultural land to the east and south. La Hacienda
PUD is located approximately%-1/2 mile to the east.
The site is currently in violation(VI-0700110)if this Use by Special Review application is approved and the plat
is recorded the property will be in compliance. If denied, use of the commercial water tap shall cease,
otherwise, the violation case will proceed accordingly.
The use consists of an existing commercial water tap that is used by Magpie Oil(who also contracts to outside
water carriers such as A&W Water)to obtain water to be used in off-site oil and gas facilities.It is essentially a
staging area where trucks go to the site to fill up with water and then leave to go to other sites.The applicant is
proposing to relocate the access point from CR 3(where there are two existing access points)to an existing
oil and gas access onto State Highway 60 in order to address dust and traffic impacts on the adjacent
residence and PUD off of CR 3. The proposed access point (an existing oil and gas access road) is
approximately 700-feet from the intersection of CR 3 and State Highway 60. The applicant has applied and
has been granted an access permit by the Colorado Department of Transportation for this access point(this
access permit covers a specified location,the access location cannot be changed through this permit, It would
take a new access permit application).
Two letters of opposition/concern has been received from surrounding property owners.
The property owner across Highway 60(adjacent to the proposed access)indicated in their letter dated July 9,
2007 that they use the existing lateral ditch that runs along the south of the proposed USR site and want to
make sure that the access road will not interfere with the continued use of and access to this ditch. Other
issues mentioned were concerns with dust impacts generated to be generated by the use, concerns with
increased noise and glare from truck headlights coming from trucks accessing State Highway 60 adjacent to
the residence, and concerns with the safety of trucks entering and exiting onto State Highway 60. Also,this
property owner feels that they should be given as much consideration as the residences off of CR 3 in regards
to environmental quality and transportation safety (this house has been on-site much longer than the
residences to the west).
The property owner adjacent to the site (across CR 3) indicated in his letter dated July 10, 2007 that this
proposed use is not consistent with the weld county comprehensive plan and zoning code.The letter mentions
that the operation does not meet state and national air quality standards (due to dust and fumes from idling
trucks), that historically truck trips have exceeded the 10 trip per day average listed in the application... The
property owner feels that it is not possible to condition this application to make it consistent with Weld County
Code requirements.
The Department of Planning also received a letter today from a property owner in the La Hacienda PUD and is
included in your packet. The property owner expressed concerns over traffic safety and compatibility with the
area.
The Department of Planning Services is proposing several conditions of approval and development standards
to address compatibility concerns generated by this use:
4
A.4—The Department of Public Works is requiring that the site be surfaced with recycled asphalt,
asphalt, concrete or the equivalent(no gravel).
1.D—The Department of Health & Environment is requiring a dust abatement plan.
1.J — The Department of Planning Services is requiring a landscape and screening plan which
requires the vehicle parking and turn-around area to be screened from all adjacent properties. A
minimum of 10-off street parking spaces will be required.
1.P—The Department of Planning Services is requiring a ditch crossing/access agreement with the
users of the lateral ditch or evidence that an adequate attempt has been made to address their
concerns.
Development Standards:
7. Hours of Operation (hauling hours) shall be limited from 7 AM to 5 PM, with the exception of
emergency situations, including life and safety.
8. Water transport vehicle trips to the site shall be limited to a total of ten (10)trips/trucks per day.
(The application has indicated that average truck trips to and from the site in 2006 were 10 trips per
day. However, an average of 10 truck trips per day could mean no truck trips on one(1)day and up to
twenty(20)trips during the next day. The Department of Planning Services has been provided with a
spreadsheet from the applicant outlining water usage on a monthly basis(from December 2004 until
May 2007). The applicant indicated he has placed copies of the water receipts upon which the
spreadsheet is based upon in the mail on Friday.As of this hearing this information has not yet been
received. The Department of Planning Services estimated average truck trips on a monthly basis
based on the water usage information given(1 truck= 8,000 gallons)and a range from a maximum
average of 18.5 truck trips per day in June of 2005 to a minimum average of 5.9 truck trips per day in
December 2006. When truck trips are averaged for the entire period(removing the months with "no
data"and May 2007)—the average number of truck trips over the entire period is 10.9 trips per day.
Given the concerns regarding the potential fluctuations (and potential increase) in truck trips in the
future, the Department of Planning Services has placed a ten (10) truck trips per day limit on this
facility.
9. Water usage totals involving the commercial tap shall be provided by the applicant to the
Department of Planning Services on a monthly basis. (A way to verify that truck trips match the ten
(10) truck trips per day limit).
The Department of Planning Services believes the attached conditions of approval and development
standards adequately address the impacts that would be generated by this use and recommend approval of
this application.
Ryan Warner(on behalf of this applicant) is available and I would be happy to answer any questions at this
time.
Commissioner Fitzgerald asked how long has this been in operation and why the additional access request.
Mr. Gathman said according to the Little Thompson Water District, the tap had been relocated to the site in
the early 1990's and the additional access was proposed due to dust and staging of vehicles on CR 3 and the
applicants were trying to address impacts and respond to neighborhood concerns.
Ryan Warner, applicant, 2707 S CR 11, Loveland, CO, said: they have operated the tap for a number of
years,since 1993 or 1994;they have 120 acres on site,five of which is related to the hydrant but naturally cut
off by the ditch, the remainder is hay for their farming business; they are not trying to convert the site but to
improve it and want to work with the neighbors; they are trying to adapt the site to the uses around it; they
have had no problems until recently and no negative referrals have been received; Larimer County,Berthoud
and Johnstown have not expressed any concerns; they are moving the entrance from CR 3 due to the
proximity to homes;they have a permit from CDOT with approval for the new access and would build to CDOT
standards for type and amount of volume;traffic volume records came from their accounting records and Little
5
Thompson and averages ten trucks a day but would vary as that is the nature of the business; parking would
be included per Weld County standards for ten spaces;they have staggered fill times so trucks do not back
up;they will have Air Pollution Control Division sign off as they currently don't meet guidelines but with the new
plan they will;they will set up a dust abatement plan;fencing and landscaping will be done with evergreens for
screening dust, noise and visual and will provide landscaping to County standards; weed abatement is
already done through their farming operation;will place a sign on the property per Sheriffs office request;they
are not intensifying or changing the use of the property, rather improving it.
Commissioner Lawley asked Mr.Warner if they had been using the tap since 1993-1994, and Mr. Gathman
when the Garcia and Hacienda PUD's were approved. Mr. Warner replied yes, but to the level they have
currently requested. Mr. Gathman said the Garcia PUD and Hacienda application were approved within the
past two to five years.
Commissioner Branham asked how many people in each truck and how long to pump a truck. Mr. Warner
said one per truck and twenty minutes to fill each truck. Commissioner Branham asked if it was common to
have two to three trucks stacked up and if the new parking plan would eliminate parking on CR 3. Mr.Warner
responded there may be a couple of trucks backed up and the new parking area would eliminate parking on
CR 3.
Commissioner Fitzgerald asked Mr.Gathman if item eight of the development standards limit trips to ten per
day or an average of ten per day. Mr. Gathman replied it would be ten trips per day maximum. Mr. Warner
said he wants more trips per day, up to eighteen, but was willing to make concessions. Commissioner
Fitzgerald reminded Mr. Warner that the standard will not support the number of truck trips per day he is
requesting and if approved today,they would be topped out at ten trips per day. Mr. Gathman interjected that
the number eighteen was calculated this morning as the maximum average for one month in 2005, but the
overall average was between ten and eleven. However,they do not want to leave it at an average,they want
to determine an absolute number of truck trips per day. Commissioner Ochsner said the applicant can ask for
more truck trips and they will vote on it at that point. Mr. Warner said they want more but will abide by what
the Planning Commission and the County feel is appropriate. He added that if they were to put a cap on the
month,they could meet that, but ten per day would inhibit the way they do business. Commissioner Ochsner
then said they were trying to assuage the neighbors concerns of numerous trucks waiting to enter the site and
that arriving at an average was difficult. He asked Mr. Warner if he would you lose business if he needed
eighteen trips per day and was limited. Mr. Warner said they would lose business and would have to delay
some trips for slower days.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Roger Kenney, 23955 CR 3, Loveland, CO 80537, presented numerous photos to the Commissioners and
said: he moved out there fifteen years ago and this business did not exist at that time;pointed out his home's
proximity to the applicant's operation and said he lives less than 100 feet away from the proposed use; the
truck traffic was only occasional seven years ago but now he can wake up to as many as ten trucks idling on
the road in the morning and this is an industrial filling station adjacent to residences and yet the applicant
wants to intensify the use; he corrected information about landscaping and said they have weeds on the
property and there are no types of evergreens that could hide the use on the property and according to the
County standards, screening would need to enclose the entire site to make it screened from roads,
residences,etc.;spoke about the closest industrial uses which are Gerard Excavating,Murdoch Trailer Sales
and the Johnstown Industrial site,where an operation of this magnitude would logically locate;the applicant's
site is completely surrounded by residential developments;the area is not compatible with the County Comp
Plan regarding future uses; addressed safety and welfare of the public and that trucks are a hazard and the
only way access will work onto Highway 60 is with accel/decel lanes; talked about the Weld County traffic
study which cited 30.3 trips per day/average not the ten trips per day the applicant is claiming; he contracted
with a company that said there were 325/day and then 308/day or 125 trucks first day and 108 trucks second
day minus car traffic when they conducted their study; the busiest days are Saturday and Sunday and cited
number of total fill ups for each day of the week for a total of 409 fill ups for a five day period;this is not a small
operation but a full fledged industrial operation; he has removed screens from his home and installed air
conditioning to mitigate, dust, odor and noise; trucks run constantly, whether warm or cold; highlights of an
ambient air report said 150 micrograms per meter is safe limit—at his front door it was 350 micrograms; he
had decided to sell his property two years ago and value of his property due to truck traffic on CR 3 was
6
$675,000, if truck traffic were terminated, it would rise to$760,000;closed by saying there is no way to stretch
the Comp Plan and say this is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Commissioner Holton asked for an explanation about the picture of the trees. Mr. Kenney said the picture was
at the corner of his property on Hwy 60 and CR 3 where a truck couldn't make the corner and slid off and hit
his tree.
Commissioner Branham asked for clarification of the two day traffic survey numbers of 125 and 108. Mr.
Kenney said he believed March 3, 2007 and when Weld County did their report, they missed many of the
truck trips due to placement of hoses,however the County did come back and conduct a more accurate count.
Trips for trucks would be half of 125 and 108 because it is two trips per truck.
Commissioner Auer asked about the residential developments in the area. Mr. Kenney replied everything
north of state Hwy 60 in Larimer County was zoned residential. Mr. Kenney then reviewed the Development
Standards and Conditions of Approval: citing Section 22 of the County Code, which says it will ensure
adequate provisions for the protection of the health,safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood
and the County and he interprets that to mean they will not know the business is there; so they should not see
it, hear it or smell it; questioned how it could predate any of the subdivisions when this application has not
been approved and has been operating under illegally for the past four or five years, so it predates nothing as
it is not approved; condition four, page four, where the word "gravel" was eliminated and wants recycled
asphalt and recycled concrete be removed as well,he prefer it be paved; regarding item E.,he has not seen a
letter from the Sheriffs Department; remove the second half of item F. removed to deny new business; item
G."attempt to"should be stricken as anybody can attempt to do something, but this should be required to be
done;item K.exterior lighting should not required or needed if the hours of operation are limited and does not
want industrial lighting in the area; limit the days of operation to Monday—Friday for the neighbors; number
five and special activity should be changed to"until all improvements are made"; also concerned about who
will police this-will there be an officer and a gate and the gate closes after ten truck trips have been exceeded;
applicant does not even propose a sanitary facility for the drivers, rather they are proposing portable toilets;
landscaping needs to be irrigated and that has not been addressed; fugitive dust and emissions and smell
need to be addressed.
Commissioner Spitzer asked Mr. Kenney when he moved there. Mr. Kenney replied in 1992.
Ed Padillo,2941 E Hwy 60: does not think this is a good idea at all; has witnessed and almost been a part of
many accidents coming out of his own driveway; trucks do not slow down until just past his house; trucks
exiting have also presented opportunity for accidents; smell and sound are unpleasant; concerned for his
animal's and family's health and he is a heart patient;trucks travel 65 mph or better and more than ten trucks
a day come by the house; the trucks lay on their brakes in front of his house; and would rather not see road
directly in front of his house.
Brad Baird, 23481 CR 3, Loveland CO: lives a quarter mile south of the proposed development; has lived
there only a couple of years but is native to the area;with the prior owner of this business,there were three or
four trucks per day but this has exploded with the new owner;more residences are proposed for the area;this
is driving down property values and therefore the County tax base; not consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan; he is a business owner and supports business that makes sense; not against the applicants making a
living,this is just the wrong location;no way to make roads safe with this amount of truck traffic; his wife runs
on CR 60 and has had to endure lewd comments from truck drivers; truck drivers have urinated in public;
school buses have had difficulty maneuvering the traffic; if running only ten trucks per day the applicant will not
make money and say they must have more truck traffic than that to make money;he didn't sink his life savings
into a rural property to see his investment destroyed; recommended another location for this facility.
Commissioner Auer said he understood this is complaint driven and once the application is approved,there
are standards attached and violations are followed up on, therefore the Sheriff cannot police the property.
Theodore Schrage, 23505 CR 3, Loveland CO: opposed the application; owns 80 acres on the west side of
CR 3 and south side of Hwy 60;sold Mr. Kenney his lot and understands his frustration with the operation; in
2001 he sold 29 acres to Frances Garcia for a PUD and 5 large homes;has counted as many as thirty trucks
in a day and as many as eight trucks on site at a time; before the"no parking"signs were put in place,trucks
7
parked on each side of CR 3 and it is almost impossible to maneuver on the road;tremendous potholes 200 to
300 feet prior to entrance of site;diesel fumes are horrible;and why is treated domestic water being used in oil
and gas drilling.
Commissioner Branham asked how many trucks per day Mr. Schrage had counted. Mr. Schrage replied as
many as thirty a day.
Stan Elmquist,representing Elmquist Brothers Partnership,87241-25 Frontage Rd East: wrote a letter in May,
2007,and based his comments on applicant's information submitted at that time. Mr. Elmquist had concerns
and wanted clarification as to why this business had presumably been moved from Larimer County to this site
as it was incompatible with the surroundings. He also had concerns regarding the hard surfacing of the drive,
ditch water maintenance, and he appreciated having a limit of ten/trucks per day from 7am to 5 pm.
Anthony Sanchez,4501 CR 3, Berthoud CO,has lived there fourteen years and expressed his concern about
the facility and the parking of trucks on CR 48 to avoid monitoring;has to use CR 3 and CR 12 for farming and
they have impaired his use; heavy dust produced; he raises horses and likes to ride on CR 3 and CR 48 but
no longer does as it is a safety hazard. Commissioner Auer asked about the trucks on CR 48. Mr. Sanchez
said at times there were a couple of trucks parked and perhaps waiting to be called to the site. He felt the
trucks travel too fast and was concerned for his safety and equipment when he must use the road. Access
onto the interstate goes by the facility but he must be careful to get on Hwy 60 or back onto CR 3.
Commissioner Auer asked how far CR 48 was from Hwy 60. Mr. Sanchez said one mile.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Ryan Warner, applicant, returned to address citizen concerns said: he had written a letter to the Elmquist
brothers which he read into the record; new access is designed to keep traffic where it is supposed to be and
keep it safe per CDOT standards;truck traffic will be controlled and he was willing to make concessions for
the neighbors; State Hwy 60 is more than ample to carry traffic; more than 2000 vehicles on Hwy 60 on any
given day so his 20 to 30 is minimal; addressed Mr. Schrage and his concern for traffic and said it takes 20
minutes to fill a truck,therefore no more than 36 trucks could be filled in a twelve hour period; limited hours of
operation are fair, daylight hours would be followed and there would be no headlights; there would be no
industrial lighting as no evening operation would occur; he did not feel a septic system was warranted as
drivers are on site less than thirty minutes; the business has been on the site since 1993 and they are
changing the access for large trucks;fencing and landscaping is required as part of the County Plan;he would
follow the dust abatement program per Weld County; hours of operation would be limited to daylight; no
increase in trucks,just the way they access the property,therefore the type of traffic is unchanged;truck traffic
in the area is for an oil and gas well placed on the property, not just related to their business, and this is a
county road utilized by many people and types of businesses; in January 1976 the water tap was moved to
present location in 1993; the traffic numbers he provided were based on trucks on site pulling water; he was
comfortable with a cap on the number of trucks as long as it is reasonable; they are not currently exceeding
any air quality levels;facility is downwind from where air quality levels were measured, but changing access
will mitigate that; trucks are not supposed to use jake brakes; do not intend to sell property for residential
development, intend to continue the present business as well as continuing to grow hay on the property;
surrounding properties are zoned agricultural; the site includes five acres for this business and 115 acres for
the agricultural business;they feel fortunate they have this water resource on their property as it contributes to
the oil and gas business in Weld County;offered market value of property by a real estate service which said
the appraisal report obtained by Mr. Kenney was inaccurate;moved the tap in 1993;their oil pipelines are not
pressurized therefore they do not blow up;will provide weed control and landscaping;will be compatible with
future agricultural uses; and will control what is within his power.
Commissioner Holton asked how many trucks they owned personally. Mr. Warner said they contract out for
the trucks as they are too expensive to maintain.
Commissioner Fitzgerald asked if James Warner was his father and did he live on the property and then
asked Ryan Warner where he lived. Ryan Warner said his father James lives in Weld County,but not on the
property and he resides in Larimer County.
Commissioner Branham inquired in the number of truck trips had increased in the past two to three years?
8
Mr. Warner replied they had peaked in 2005 at a maximum of twenty something but it is in decline and is
documented in their application.
Commissioner Auer pointed out that a real estate market value study is different from an appraisal.
Commissioner Branham asked Mr.Gathman about the two day period when the County monitored the trucks
and if that was accurate. Don Carroll, Public Works,replied traffic counts were performed by the County and
he doesn't dispute the numbers of ours or the applicant but what they should look at today is that truck traffic
should be utilizing Hwy 60. The intent is to remove traffic totally from CR 3, staggered in a five acre parking
area and on site and 30.3 is an accurate trip per day average.
Commissioner Ochsner asked Mr.Carroll if he had seen designs for the new access and was he comfortable
with it. Mr. Carroll said they had been provided with the access permit from the State and CDOT agreed to
access from State Hwy 60. The applicants are not asking for excel/decel lanes,but do want adequate turning
radiuses.
Commissioner Fitzgerald asked Char Davis, Environmental Health, about septic requirements. Ms. Davis
replied the site does not have a structure for septic facilities nor does it have a real reason to have one.
Regulations require a structure for septic but they could put in a vault.
Commissioner Branham asked if the survey completed by the County said 30 trucks,with trucks backed up,
and could we require some sort of a septic system. Ms. Davis said they could and it would be reasonable
under the circumstances. Ms. Davis recommended a vault type system,which is permanent and much like a
campground facility. Commissioner Branham said he would like a requirement for a septic system and
motioned to add an iteml8 to require a vault septic system be added.
Commissioner Holton inquired why a vault system rather than a septic system and would it be cheaper in the
long run. Ms. Davis said if they have water,they could have a regular septic system and Environmental Health
could add that condition.
The Chair asked Commissioner Branham if he wanted to withdraw his motion. Commissioner Branham said
he would amend the motion if necessary.
Commissioner Holton asked Mr. Carroll if access to CR 3 was remaining the same. Mr. Carroll replied that
the access on CR 3 would be closed and the only access would be on State Hwy 60 with the loop road in
there. He added that Public Works is recommending recycled gravel, asphalt, and concrete with adequate
treatment if they use recycled gravel to keep the dust down.
Commissioner Lawley asked Mr. Carroll if dust abatement would still be required on CR 3. Mr. Carroll
responded that traffic would be using SH 60 to keep traffic on the pavement as much as possible,so as not to
cut through gravel roads, but he was not sure how to monitor the road use.
Commissioner Spitzer asked Mr. Gathman about the number of trucks per day,as it seemed the crux of the
matter and where do they go from here. Mr. Gathman said the applicant was willing to work on a weekly
number and look at it again when operation actually occurs.
The Chair asked the applicant back up to the podium to explain the Monday through Friday operation. Mr.
Warner replied it was a seven day a week operation and that ninety five percent of their people were there
Monday through Friday but there were trucks on Saturday and Sunday. To a certain extent it is five days a
week but is not limited to that.
Commissioner Spitzer asked Mr.Gathman to compose language to replace the ten trucks per day presently in
the application.
The Chair asked Ms. Davis about the septic system requirement. Ms. Davis said they could require a septic
system prior to recording the plat. Commissioner Holton asked if prior to operating was feasible. Bruce
Barker, County Attorney, pointed out that recording is the final step of the process.
9
Commissioner Branham motioned to require a septic system prior to recording. Second by Bruce Fitzgerald.
Motion carried.
Mr. Gathman reviewed the hours of operation in the development standards and suggested 7am to 5pm
weekdays and 10am to 5pm Saturday and Sunday. Truck trips would be limited to a total of 70 trips per week
which averages 10 trips per day over 7 days. Commissioner Fitzgerald asked Mr. Gathman where the ten
trips per day number came from. Mr. Gathman replied they came from the application.
Commissioner Spitzer moved to require the hours of operation be from 7 am to 5 pm weekdays and 10 am to
5 pm Saturday and Sunday and truck trips would be limited to a total of 70 trips per week which averages 10
trips per day over 7 days id development standards seven and eight. Mr. Barker reminded Mr.Gathman that
he needed to have the applicant's agreement. Second by Tom Holton. Commissioner Holton asked if they
could get monthly documentation from the applicant. Mr. Gathman said if there were continuing issues,
talking to a Planner would be the best recourse.
The Chair asked Commissioners Spitzer and Holton if they would agree to strike the Saturday and Sunday
hours and leave it Monday through Friday. No changes were agreed upon and the motion remained in its
original form.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham,no; Bruce Fitzgerald,no;Tom Holton,yes;Mark Lawley,no; Roy Spitzer,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes;
Chad Auer, no. Motion failed.
Commissioners Branham, Fitzgerald, Lawley and Auer cited the Saturday and Sunday operating hours as the
reason for their denial.
Mr. Gathman addressed item A.4. and that at a minimum it is to be recycled asphalt, so gravel has been
removed from that condition. Commissioner Auer asked Mr.Carroll if he needed language added. Mr.Carroll
said the reference to treated materials was covered in development standard number five.
The Chair said Staff had asked for a revision to the memorandum
Doug Ochsner motioned to strike the word"gravel"from number four,page four. Second by Bruce Fitzgerald.
Motion passed.
Commissioner Lawley asked Mr. Gathman about access and CR 3. Mr. Gathman said that would be going
away if this application was approved.
Doug Ochsner motioned to remove condition 1.F. Second by Roy Spitzer. Motion passed.
Doug Ochsner motioned to remove condition 1.K. Second by Roy Spitzer. Commissioner Auer asked if the
applicant could put lighting in at some point. Mr.Gathman said they could,but it must be downcast,not shine
onto neighboring properties,or become a traffic hazard and the assumption was they would not have lighting.
They are not prevented from doing so as long as it is not a nuisance. Commissioner Auer asked Mr.Gathman
to define"nuisance". Mr.Gathman responded"nuisance"was outlined in Section 23-2-250 addresses lighting
standards. Motion passed.
Commissioner Ochsner asked Ms. Davis about the health,safety and welfare addressed by Mr.Kenney and if
pollution is three times the norm, how will that be mitigated/monitored. Ms. Davis replied she did not know if
the report was valid and honestly did not know how to handle as far as health hazards from dust and diesel
fumes. Dust and fumes are required to stay on the property and the dust abatement plan typically provides for
that. Commissioner Ochsner said this needs to be addressed prior to BOCC hearing. Ms. Davis said she
would ask their air quality specialist to visit the site to monitor it and make recommendations. Commissioner
Auer asked Mr. Barker, County Attorney, if that was sufficient. Mr. Barker said it was.
The Chair called the applicant back up to the podium and asked if he had read and agreed with the Conditions
of Approval and Development Standards. Mr. Warner asked if it was a five day week versus a seven day
week. The Chair said items seven and eight read as originally submitted. Commissioner Ochsner clarified
10
that as it reads now it is seven days a week, but limited to ten trips per day. Mr.Warner said he would agree.
The Chair said he was ready to entertain a motion.
Commissioner Fitzgerald reminded the room that this case was before them today because it was an un-
permitted business, a filling station, whether it be gas or water, the applicant gets proceeds from filling the
water trucks. The use is too intense for the neighborhood today, though it probably wouldn't have been ten
years ago and would not support the application.
Commissioner Branham agreed with Commissioner Fitzgerald and added that if today were the first time to
look at this application he would not approve it as there are too many residences in close proximity,as well as
the additional noise,dust,fumes and congestion. It has been there illegally for seven years creating problems
and it is time to eliminate the problem.
Commissioner Holton agreed with Commissioners Branham and Fitzgerald and added that he has lived next
to A&W Water Service and it is a miserable existence, especially with this number of homes,and this is not
the right location for this type of business.
Commissioner Ochsner cited the intensity of use. At ten trips per day, is that industrial or not. Thirty trips per
day, it is a significant business. Though it is still agricultural on several sides, the intensity of the use is a
determining factor.
Commissioner Lawley agreed with Commissioners Holton and Branham that compatibility is an issue and
impacts the neighborhood.
Commissioner Spitzer agreed with what has been said and added that if this had been applied for fifteen years
ago, he would have approved it. Now it is too much for a residential area.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that Case USR-1617,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. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham,yes;Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;Tom Holton,yes;Mark Lawley,yes; Roy Spitzer,yes; Doug Ochsner,no;
Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried.
Commissioner Branham cited compatibility as a reason for denial and Section 23-2-220A.3.
Commissioner Fitzgerald also cited Section 23-2-220A.3. of the Code.
Commissioner Holton cited Section 22-2-60A.3. of the Code.
Commissioner Lawley also cited Section 22-2-60A.3. of the Code.
Commissioner Ochsner said he voted no since they have left it at ten trips per day he believed the impact
would be minimal.
Commissioner Auer cited Sections 22-2-220A.3., 23-2-220A.3. and 23-2-220A.4.
The Chair said that for those interested,there would be a BOCC hearing regarding this case at a date in the
future.
Mr.Gathman said that the recommendation to the BOCC will be for denial. The Clerk to the Board office will
schedule the hearing for the BOCC and will send a letter to the applicant asking them if they wish to proceed.
Char Davis, Environmental Health,expressed concern about getting accurate readings on dust and fumes at
the site but said her department would make their best attempt.
11
The Planning Commission broke for a short recess. For the record, the Chair said that Commissioners
Ochsner and Fitzgerald had left the hearing.
Tom Honn, Director of Planning Services,took a few minutes to recognize Chad Auer and Bruce Fitzgerald for
the service they have given to the Planning Commission, since their terms were ending today. He said all of
you that have put in the time understand this is a pretty serious commitment and there are very serious issues
heard here that go on to the BOCC. Mr. Hann said that he honored their time commitment, expressed his
appreciation for their service and ended by saying how much we have enjoyed having them here.
The Chair read the case into the record.
CASE NUMBER: 2007-XX
APPLICANT: HF Holdings, LLC; do Grimshaw& Harring, P.C.
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: S2 of Section 27, T3N, R68W; N2 NW4, E2 SW4, and E2 of Section 34,
T3N, R68W and NW4 NE4 of Section 3, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Waterfront at Foster Lake Metropolitan District Nos. 1-3.
LOCATION: 0.5 mile south of SH 66, east of and adjacent to CR 7; west of and
adjacent to 1-25, north of and adjacent to the St. Vrain River.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning, said Marcus McAskin of Grimshaw & Harring, P.C., representing
Waterfront at Foster Lake PUD do Linda Sweetman King have applied for a request for Service plan for the
proposed Waterfront at Foster Lake PUD
The submitted Service Plan and supporting Financing Plan are proposed to provide a part or all of the Public
Improvements necessary and appropriate for the development identified as Waterfront at Foster Lake PUD.
Three Districts are proposed, District 1 and District 2 include residential development and District 3 includes
commercial development. The Districts will jointly or individually finance the public improvements for the
project.
Water and Sanitary Sewer improvements will be provided by St. Vrain Sanitation District and Longs Peak
Water District will provide potable water.
The St. Vrain Sanitation District Notice of Court Order of Inclusion, received May 22, 2007, for real property
identified as the Anderson/Waterfront at Foster Lakes properties, effectively includes the real property
described in the Order located within Weld County,Colorado into the St.Vrain Sanitation District boundaries.
Further, the referral dated July 5, 2007,from the St.Vrain Sanitation District states". . . pursuant to Section
32-1-107,C.R.S.,the District's Board of Directors must adopt a formal resolution of consent to the overlapping
district."
The referral dated July 13, 2007, from the Longs Peak Water District states "t]he Service Plan limits the
potable water powers of the proposed district to financing and construction of necessary lines, and therefore
the Longs Peak Water District will probably have no objections to the formation of this metro district.
Nevertheless, pursuant to Sec.32-1-107, C.R.S., this District's Board of Directors must adopt a formal
resolution of consent to the overlapping district."
Planning Services has accepted the Change of Zone application for a PUD [PZ-1126]with Residential and
Commercial uses and continuing Oil and Gas Production Uses in the Mixed Use Development Overlay
District. The subdivision is sited on approximately 587 acres with 1355 single-family detached homes, 425
multi-family residences, 100,000 SF of commercial development with 204.1 acres of park and open space as
outlined in the Metro District Consolidated Service Plan.
The applicant has indicated in their application that the financing plan and the content of the service plan
describe the overall development plans for the project. The estimated cost of the public improvements,
including engineering and contingency,to be financed,acquired,constructed, installed and completed by the
District is expected to exceed 28,000,000.00,in 2007 dollars,with all improvements completed by December
12
2039.
It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services'staff that the applicant has shown compliance with
Section 32-1-203(2)and Section 32-1-203(2.5), C.R.S. and Section 2-14-20 through Section 2-14-70 of the
Weld County Code.
The referral dated June 8, 2007 addresses the concerns of Don Warden, Director of Finance. Mr. Warden
states, "The Financial Plan prepared by Piper Jaffray & Company appears to be financially feasible and
prepared in accordance with Weld County Code Section 2-14-20(I). The maximum mill levy of 65 mills with
50 mills maximum for debt service and up to 15 mills for operations and maintenance is consistent and in
compliance with Weld County Code Section 2-14-20 (H). The maximum debt mill levy imposition term is
consistent and in compliance with Weld County Code Section 2-14-30."
Thirteen referral agencies reviewed this case,nine responded favorably or included conditions that have been
addressed through development standards and conditions of approval. No written comments have been
received from:
• Weld County Attorney's Office
▪ Town of Firestone
• Town of Frederick
• Town of Mead
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of the Service Plan and supporting Financing
Plan as submitted. Marcus McAskin of Grimshaw& Harring P.C., the applicant's representative, along with
representatives from Piper Jaffray&Company,Tetra-Tech RMC and others are present to answer questions
of the Board.
The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the Service Plan and supporting Financing
Plan as submitted. The Applicants and their representatives are present.
For the record, the Chair noted that Bruce Barker, County Attorney left the hearing.
Marcus McAskin, applicant's representative, said they are proposing the formation of three districts, two of
which will support residential development and one for commercial development. In accordance with article
fourteen, Chapter two of the Weld County Code, multiple district formats are authorized if there are multiple
land uses projected for the project as well as the seizing of the public improvements that will be installed and
will occur over a multiple year process. He introduced their project team and then asked the Planning
Commission if they had specific questions.
Commissioner Branham asked for a simple explanation of exhibit G and how 55 million dollars becomes 28
million dollars. Mr. McAskin replied that there are 55 million dollars worth of public improvements associated
with the project. The district at build out, according to the Piper Jaffray financing plan,will only support up to
28 million dollars. There is only so much a project can finance. The 55 million dollars was just to give an idea
of the total public improvements associated with the project,knowing that only 28 million dollars will actually be
financed by the district. The developer will finance the difference.
Commissioner Holton said they had not received referrals from Firestone,Frederick or Mead and asked if they
had talked to any of those entities, especially about annexation into Mead.
Linda Sweetman King,4 Inverness Ct,Terra Visions,said they had many meetings with Mead but this project
has been totally inside the MUD so they elected to apply through the County rather than Mead.
Commissioner Spitzer asked for clarification on the districts providing water and sewer. Ms.Sweetman King
said water and sewer will be provided by St Vrain and Longs Peak, who will review and approve all of their
construction plans. Once the developer has completed those infrastructures they get deeded over to St Vrain
and Longs Peak for long term maintenance. Commissioner Spitzer then asked about street maintenance.
13
Ms. Sweetman King said that as they know, the County no longer maintains streets in urban level areas so
that is a part of the reason they requested the metro district so there is a body that can maintain those streets
long term.
Commissioner Auer asked about annexation to Mead when appropriate, and how would plan and build out
make annexation feasible. Ms.Sweetman King said since they were processing with the County,annexation
was not likely with Mead because they do not want to provide basic services. Mead will be approving their
construction drawings for CR 7. If annexation occurs in fifteen or twenty years, you will have all of those
homeowners who have to agree to the annexation.
Bruce Barker,County Attorney,said the creation of a metro district does not prohibit annexation at a later date.
Typically you need consent of the landowners unless you have an enclave situation.
Tom Honn Director of Planning, addressed Commissioner Auer and said the County urban standards for
drainage etc. are not inconsistent with most urban areas standards, so from that standpoint you would have
compatibility. Because you have a special district servicing water and sewer, is also not uncommon that a
municipality may annex a piece or property and there are many instances of special districts serving the water
and sewer and not necessarily the municipality, so those things can happen.
Ms. Sweetman King said they were meeting all of the design standards of the County, which are pretty
standard for the municipalities.
Commissioner Holton asked if this were approved,would they see it again. Kim Ogle replied they would not.
Mr. McAskin said Mr. Barker was correct that there is nothing in these districts that would prohibit annexation
down the road if that became an option. Under Title 32 if annexation did occur,the districts would petition the
Town of Mead, as an example, to become the approving authority for the districts so that Mead would then
process any future service plan amendments or district related issues. So there is that mechanism
contemplated in Title 32 that allows the districts to continue to function in the event of annexation.
Commissioner Branham asked if that were to happen,would there be any financial burdens to residents of the
area. Mr. McAskin responded that if the future residents petitioned to annex into Mead,then they would be
subject to whatever municipal responsibilities Mead had,but that would occur prior to the annexation process.
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 asked the applicant if he agreed with the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval. Mr.
McAskin said that he did.
Paul Branham 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; Tom Holton, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
1.. t1411\2k
ita May
Secretary
14
Hello