HomeMy WebLinkAbout20073040.tiff RESOLUTION OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Moved by Robert Grand that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
• CASE NUMBER: USR-1620
APPLICANT: Southgate, Inc., c/o John Alles
PLANNER: Hannah Hippely
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2067; being part of the SE4 Section 22,T4N, R66W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for
an Oil and Gas Support and Service Facility (a hydro-static oil
pressure testing business) in the A (Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to Highway 85 and North of and adjacent to
CR 42.
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 23-2-260 of
the Weld County Code.
2. It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the applicant has shown compliance with Section
23-2-220 of the Weld County Code as follows:
A. Section 23-2-220.A.1 -- The proposed use is consistent with Chapter 22 and any other
applicable code provisions or ordinance in effect.Section 22-5-100.A(OG.Goal 5.)states"Oil
and gas support facilities decisions which do not rely on geology for locations shall be
subjected to review..." This proposal has been reviewed by the appropriate referral agencies
and it has been determined that the attached Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards ensure that there are adequate provisions for the protection of the health, safety
and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and county.
•
B. Section 23-2-220.A.2--The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the A(Agricultural)
Zone District.Section 23-3-40.A.2 of the Weld County Code provides for oil and gas support
and service facility as a Use by Special Review in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
C. Section 23-2-220.A.3--The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with the existing
surrounding land uses. The applicant proposes to use a 2.5 acre portion in the southeast
corner of the property to the proposed facility. The remainder of the property will remain in
agriculture. Agricultural uses exist to the south, east, and north while a residential area
zoned R-5(mobile home residential) is located west of the property. Conditions of Approval
and Development Standards will ensure that that this use will be compatible with surrounding
land uses.
D. Section 23-2-220.A.4 -- The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with future
development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning and with the future
development as projected by Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code and any other applicable
code provisions or ordinances in effect, or the adopted Master Plans of affected
municipalities. The property lies within the IGA area for the Town of Gilcrest. The Town of
Gilcrest did not respond to the referral request however, the applicant provided with the
application materials a copy of the Town's response to the Notice of Inquiry, dated June 20,
2007. The Town's concerns in regards to future annexation, traffic impact mitigation and
screening of outdoor storage have addressed through the Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards.
E. Section 23-2-220.A.5--The application complies with Section 23-5 of the Weld County Code.
• Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to
adhere to the fee structure of the County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11)
EXHIBIT
2007-3040
USE *Roza
Resolution USR-1620
Southgate, Inc.
Page 2
• Effective August 1, 2005, Building permits issued on the subject site will be required to
adhere to the fee structure of the Capital Expansion Impact Fee and the
Stormwater/Drainage Impact Fee. (Ordinance 2005-8 Section 5-8-40)
F. Section 23-2-220.A.5--The site does not lie within any Overlay Districts.
G. Section 23-2-220.A.6 --The applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort to conserve prime
agricultural land in the locational decision for the proposed use. Although the property is
classified as Prime Irrigated Farm land according to the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Map,
dated 1979 the applicant proposes to use 2.5 acres for the business;given that the entire site
is not currently under production the proposed facility will have little impact on agricultural
production.
H. Section 23-2-220.A.7 -- The Design Standards (Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code),
Operation Standards (Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code), Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards ensure that there are adequate provisions for the protection of
health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and County.
This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application materials submitted by the applicant,
other relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral entities.
The Planning Commission's recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following:
1. Prior to Board of County Commissioner's hearing:
A. The applicant shall submit a letter of memorandum from a traffic engineer.
• B. The applicant shall provide written evidence that the applicant has met with CDOT regarding
access points.
1. Prior to recording the plat:
A. The applicant shall submit a Private Improvements Agreement according to policy regarding
collateral for improvements and post adequate collateral for all landscaping, transportation
(access drive, parking areas, et cetera) and non-transportation (plant materials, fencing,
screening, water, signage et cetera). The applicant shall submit to the Department of Planning
Services an itemized landscaping bid for review. The agreement and form of collateral shall be
reviewed by County Staff and accepted by the Board of County Commissioners prior to recording
the Use by Special Review plat. Alternatively,the applicant may submit evidence that all the work
has been completed and approved by the Department of Planning Services and the Department
of Public Works. (Department of Planning Services)
B. The applicant shall enter into an Improvements Agreement According to Policy Regarding
Collateral for Improvements (Public Road Maintenance). The agreement and form of collateral
shall be reviewed by County Staff and accepted by the Board of County Commissioners prior to
recording the Use by Special Review plat. Once approved, the applicant shall submit a signed
copy of the Improvements Agreement along with the appropriate collateral. (Department of
Public Works)
C. The applicant shall submit evidence to the Department of Planning Services that an annexation
agreement with the Town of Gilcrest has been reached. (Department of Planning Services)
D. The plat shall be amended to delineate the following:
• 1. The plat shall be labeled USR-1620 (Department of Planning Services)
Resolution USR-1620
Southgate, Inc.
Page 3
•
2. The attached Development Standards. (Department of Planning Services)
3. The plat shall be prepared per Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld County Code. The scale
for the site plan shall be changed from 1" = 150' to 1" = 100' the enlarged detail is
acceptable at 1" =40'. (Department of Planning Services)
4. The legal description of the parcel shall be changed to include "Lot B of RE-2067".
(Department of Planning Services)
5. The applicant shall clearly delineate the Use by Special Review boundary. (Department
of Planning Services)
6. The outdoor storage of equipment, trailers, parking of vehicles, and including the trash
dumpster associated with this facility which shall be fully screened from adjacent
properties and the public rights-of-way. The screening shall be opaque and fully screen
the facility from rights-of-way and adjacent properties in accordance with Sections 23-3-
250A.5.B. and 23-3-250.A.9. of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning
Services)
7. The applicant shall submit a detailed Landscape Plan to the Department of Planning
Services for review and approval. The portion of the lot which abuts the public right of
way shall be landscaped for a distance of ten (10)feet, measured at a right angle from
the edge of the right of way towards the interior of the lot. The Landscaping Plan shall
address the maintenance of the landscaping and screening, as well as the replacement
• of dead,dying or decaying plant materials. Further,staff requests the incorporation of an
irrigation system for the establishment of the proposed plant materials. Staff will require
an approved weed management plan and a reseeding/post construction plan to facilitate
soil stabilization and plant material growth.
8. The applicant has not indicated that there will be any lighting on site. If lighting is
intended a Lighting Plan, including cut sheets of the intended lights,shall be provided to
the Department of Planning Services for review and approval. The lighting plan shall
adhere to the lighting requirements for off-street parking spaces per Section 23-4-30.E of
the Weld County Code and shall adhere to the lighting standards, in accordance with
Section 23-2-250.D of the Weld County Code. Further,the approved Lighting Plan shall
be delineated on the plat. (Department of Planning Services)
9. The label calling out County Road 42 as an 'existing two lane asphalt road' shall be
removed as County Road 42 is a gravel road. (Department of Public Works)
10. Existing and proposed contours shall be added to the plat.(Department of Public Works)
11. The redesigned access to County Road 42 as approved by the Department of Public
Works. (Department of Public Works)
12. Spaces reserved for the parking of vehicles shall be delineated on the plat. The total
number of on-site parking for this facility shall be facility shall be twelve (12) spaces.
Each parking space shall be equipped with wheel guards or curb stops when necessary
to prevent vehicles from extending beyond the boundaries of the space and from coming
into contact with other vehicles,walls,fences,or plantings.The location of all curb stops
in the parking areas per Section 23-4-30.D of the Weld County Code shall be delineated
• on the plat. (Department of Public Works)
13. The area enclosed in the fence and access drive shall be surfaced with recycled asphalt,
Resolution USR-1620
Southgate, Inc.
Page 4
• gravel, recycled concrete,asphalt,concrete or an equivalent all weather surfacing material.
The plat shall delineate the location and type of surfacing material. (Department of Public
Works)
E. In the event, the applicant intends to wash vehicles or equipment on site the applicant shall
provide a detailed design and operation plan for the area used for equipment or vehicle washing.
The washing area shall be designed and constructed to capture all effluent and prevent any
discharges in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Water Quality Control
Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency. Evidence that this plan has been
approved by the Department of Public Health and Environment shall be provided to the
Department of Planning Services. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
F. In the event, the applicant intends to install floor drains at the maintenance building site the
applicant shall submit evidence of an Underground Injection Control (UIC)Class V Injection Well
permit from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for any vehicle maintenance facility
located on the site that is equipped with a floor drain. Alternately, the applicant can provide
evidence from the EPA that they are not subject to the EPA Class V requirements. Written
evidence shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services.(Department of Public Health
and Environment)
G. The applicant shall submit to the Department of Public Health and Environment written evidence
of an Aboveground Storage Tank permit from the Colorado Department of Labor and
Employment(CDL&E),Oil Inspection Section for any aboveground storage tanks located on the
site. Alternately, the applicant can provide evidence from the (CDL&E), Oil Inspection Section
that they are not subject to these requirements. Evidence that this condition has been met shall
be submitted in writing to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Public Health
•
and Environment)
H. The applicant shall submit a dust abatement plan for review and approval,to the Environmental
Health Services, Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment. Evidence that this
condition has been met shall be submitted in writing to the Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
I. The applicant shall submit a waste handling plan, for approval, to the Environmental Health
Services Division of the Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment. Written
evidence of approval of the plan shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services.The
plan shall include at a minimum, the following:
1) A list of wastes which are expected to be generated on site (this should include
expected volumes and types of waste generated).
2) A list of the type and volume of chemicals expected to be stored on site.
3) The waste handler and facility where the waste will be disposed (including
the facility name, address, and phone number).
J. The proposed access to County Road 42 shall be redesigned to address the requirements of the
Department of Public Works as stated in the memo dated July 19, 2007. Evidence that the
Department of Public Works has reviewed and approved the new access design shall be
submitted in writing to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Public Works)
K. The applicant shall address the Weld County Department of Public Works Drainage Division
• concerns/requirements outlined in the Department of Public Works referral dated July 23,2007.
Written evidence from the Department of Public Works stating that all concerns have been
sufficiently addressed shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services.(Department of
Resolution USR-1620
Southgate, Inc.
Page 5
• Public Works)
L. The applicant shall provide evidence of the purchase of a commercial tap from the Central Weld
County Water District. (Department of Public Health and Environment)(Department of Planning
Services)
M. The application proposes the use of an existing farm road for access to the site. The recorded
plats for RE-2067 (reception #2570335) and RE-3189 (reception # 2921546) show that the
proposed access may not be located on the applicant's property. The location of this access
must be clarified; evidence of its location shall be submitted to the Department of Planning
Services. If in fact the access is located on the adjacent property an access easement shall be
recorded, the easement and its reception number shall be located on the plat. (Department of
Planning Services)
N. The applicant shall submit two (2) paper copies of the plat for preliminary approval to the Weld
County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
2. Upon completion of 1. above the applicant shall submit a Mylar plat along with all other
documentation required as Conditions of Approval. The Mylar plat shall be recorded in the office of
the Weld County Clerk and Recorder by Department of Planning Services' Staff. The plat shall be
prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld County Code. The
Mylar plat and additional requirements shall be submitted within thirty(30)days from the date of the
Board of County Commissioners resolution. The applicant shall be responsible for paying the
recording fee. (Department of Planning Services)
3. The Department of Planning Services respectively requests the surveyor provide a digital copy of this
•
Use by Special Review. Acceptable CAD formats are .dwg, .dxf,and .dgn(Microstation); acceptable
GIS formats are ArcView shapefiles,Arclnfo Coverages and Arclnfo Export files format type is .e00.
The preferred format for Images is .tif(Group 4). (Group 6 is not acceptable). This digital file may be
sent to mapsco.weld.co.us. (Department of Planning Services)
4. In accordance with Weld County Code Ordinance 2005-7 approved June 1,2005, should the plat not
be recorded within the required sixty(60) days from the date the Board of County Commissioners
approval was signed a $50.00 recording continuance charge may be added for each additional 3
month period. (Department of Planning Services)
5. Prior to Release of Building Permits:
A. A stormwater discharge permit may be required for a development site where a contiguous or
non-contiguous land disturbance is greater than or equal to one acre in area.The applicant
shall inquire with the Water Quality Control Division(WQCD)of the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment at www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/PermitsUnit if they are required
to obtain a stormwater discharge permit. Alternately,the applicant can provide evidence from
WQCD that they are not subject to these requirements. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
B. A building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction of structures placed on the parcel
including any sign. An electrical permit will be required for any electrical service to
equipment. A plot plan shall be submitted when applying for building permits showing all
structures with accurate distances between structures, and from structures to all property
lines. (Department of Building Inspection)
• C. A plan review is required for each building for which a building permit is required. Plans shall
bear the wet stamp of a Colorado registered architect or engineer. Two complete sets of
plans are required when applying for each permit. (Department of Building Inspection)
Resolution USR-1620
Southgate, Inc.
Page 6
•
D. Building height shall be measured in accordance with the 2006 International Building Code
for the purpose of determining compliance with the Bulk Requirements from Chapter 27 of
the Weld County Code. Building height shall be measured in accordance with Chapter 23 of
the Weld County Code in order to determine compliance with offset and setback
requirements. Offset and setback requirements are measured to the farthest projection from
building. (Department of Building Inspection)
E. The applicant shall provide a letter of approval from Platteville/Gilcrest Fire Protection District
prior to any new construction or placing of new equipment. (Department of Building
Inspection)
6. The Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the
property until the Special Review plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk
and Recorder. (Department of Planning Services)
7. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on the proposed structure:
A. An individual sewage disposal system is required for the proposed warehouse building and
shall be installed according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations. The
septic system is required to be designed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer
according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations. A copy of the finaled
septic permit shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services Building Division.
•
•
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
• Southgate Inc, c/o John Alles
USR- 1620
1. The Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit is for an Oil and Gas Support and
Service Facility(a hydro-static oil pressure testing business) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District, as
indicated in the application materials on file and subject to the Development Standards stated hereon.
(Department of Planning Services)
2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 23-8-10 of the Weld
County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
3. Hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday through Friday. (Department of
Planning Services)
4. All liquid and solid wastes (as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, 30 20
100.5, C.R.S., as amended)shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that protects
against surface and groundwater contamination. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
5. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. This is not meant to include those
wastes specifically excluded from the definition of a solid waste in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites
and Facilities Act,30 20 100.5, C.R.S.,as amended. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
6. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust,
fugitive particulate emissions, blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions. (Department
of Public Health and Environment)
• 7. The applicant shall operate in accordance with the approved "waste handling plan". (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
8. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of the Underground and Above Ground Storage Tank
Regulations (7 CCR 1101-14). (Department of Public Health and Environment)
9. Any vehicle washing area(s)shall capture all effluent and prevent discharges from drum washing and
the washing of vehicles in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Water Quality Control
Commission, and the Environmental Protection Agency. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
10. Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions shall be controlled on this site. The facility shall be
operated in accordance with the approved dust abatement plan at all times. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
11. This facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Commercial Zone as
delineated in 25.12.103 C.R.S., as amended. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
12. Adequate handwashing and toilet facilities shall be provided for employees and patrons of the facility.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
13. Sewage disposal for the facility shall be by septic system. Any septic system located on the property
must comply with all provisions of the Weld County Code, pertaining to Individual Sewage Disposal
Systems. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
• 14. The septic system is required to be designed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer
according to the Weld County I.S.D.S. Regulations. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
15. The facility shall utilize the existing public water supply. (Central Weld County Water District)
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
16. All potentially hazardous chemicals must be stored and handled in a safe manner in accordance with
• product labeling and in a manner that minimizes the release of hazardous air pollutants(HAP's)and
volatile organic compounds (VOC's). (Department of Public Health and Environment)
17. If applicable,the applicant shall obtain a stormwater discharge permit from the Colorado Department
of Public Health & Environment, Water Quality Control Division. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
18. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the State and Federal agencies
and the Weld County Code. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
19. All materials indicated in the approved Landscape/Screening Plan shall be maintained at all times.
Dead or diseased plant materials shall be replaced with materials of similar quantity and quality at the
earliest possible time. (Department of Planning Services)
20. The applicant shall adhere to the approved Lighting Plan and maintain compliance with Section 23-2-
250.D of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
21. There shall be no parking or staging of vehicles on County roads. (Department of Planning Services)
22. A building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction of structures placed on the parcel
including any sign. An electrical permit will be required for any electrical service to equipment. A plot
plan shall be submitted when applying for building permits showing all structures with accurate
distances between structures, and from structures to all property lines. (Department of Building
Inspection)
23. A plan review is required for each building for which a building permit is required. Plans shall bear the
wet stamp of a Colorado registered architect or engineer. Two complete sets of plans are required
• when applying for each permit. (Department of Building Inspection)
24. Building height shall be measured in accordance with the 2006 International Building Code for the
purpose of determining compliance with the Bulk Requirements from Chapter 27 of the Weld County
Code. Building height shall be measured in accordance with Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code in
order to determine compliance with offset and setback requirements. Offset and setback
requirements are measured to the farthest projection from building. (Department of Building
Inspection)
25. The applicant shall provide a letter of approval from Platteville/Gilcrest Fire Protection District prior to
any new construction or placing of new equipment. (Department of Building Inspection)
26. Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to adhere to
the fee structure of the Weld County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11) (Department of
Planning Services)
27. Effective August 1,2005, Building permits issued on the subject site will be required to adhere to the
fee structure of the Capital Expansion Impact Fee and the Stormwater/Drainage Impact Fee.
(Ordinance 2005-8 Section 5-8-40) (Department of Planning Services)
28. The property owner shall allow any mineral owner the right of ingress or egress for the purposes of
exploration development,completion, recompletion,re-entry,production and maintenance operations
associated with existing or future operations located on these lands. (Department of Planning
Services)
29. The property owner acknowledges that mineral owners and lessees have real property interests that
• entitle them to surface use in accordance with Colorado State Statutes and applicable Colorado Oil
and Gas Conservation Commission regulations. (Department of Planning Services)
30. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of
Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code.
31. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of
• Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code.
32. Personnel from the Weld County Government shall be granted access onto the property at any
reasonable time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the
Development Standards stated herein and all applicable Weld County regulations.
33. The Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the foregoing
standards and all applicable Weld County regulations. Substantial changes from the plans or
Development Standards as shown or stated shall require the approval of an amendment of the Permit
by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans or
Development Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the
Department of Planning Services.
34. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing
Development Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Development Standards may be
reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners.
35. Tanker trucks and other trucks over ten thousand gross vehicle weight shall not be allowed on CR 42
at Highway 85.
Motion seconded by Tom Holton.
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
• Doug Ochsner—Chair
Tom Holton—Vice Chair
Paul Branham
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Mark Lawley
Roy Spitzer
The Chair declares the resolution passed and orders that a certified copy be placed in the file of this case to
serve as a permanent record of these proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Donita May, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County,
Colorado, adopted on September 18, 2007.
Dated the 18th of September, 2007.
Donita
Secretary
•
1 y -cx_c9.7
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
•
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Department of
Planning Services, Hearing Room, 918 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by
Chair, Doug Ochsner, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Doug Ochsner-Chair
Tom Holton -Vice Chair
Paul Branham
Erich Ehrlich
Bill Hall
Robert Grand
Mark Lawley
Roy Spitzer
Also Present: Hannah Hippely, Roger Caruso, Tom Honn and Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services;
Don Carroll, Department of Public Works;Char Davis,Department of Health;Cyndy Giauque,County Attorney
and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Roy Spitzer moved to approve the August 21, 2007 Weld County Planning Commission minutes,seconded by
Tom Holton. Motion carried.
The Chair read the case into record.
• CASE NUMBER: USR-1620
APPLICANT: Southgate, Inc., c/o John Alles
PLANNER: Hannah Hippely
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2067; being part of the SE4 Section 22, T4N, R66W
of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit
for an Oil and Gas Support and Service Facility(a hydro-static oil
pressure testing business) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to Highway 85 and North of and adjacent to
CR 42.
Hannah Hippely, Department of Planning Services, stated that planning staff is requesting this case be
continued to the September 18, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. Sign announcing this hearing was
not posted and staff requests the case be continued so that the sign may be posted as required by
Section 23-2-210 B.4 of the Weld County Code.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Delia Corral Hernandez, Southgate Trailer Park. Ms. Hernandez asked if this has to do with piping or
drilling or how this permit for oil and gas affects Southgate in any part. She added that they have septic
tanks and asked if they have to drill underneath to get where they need to at that location? Ms. Hippely
stated that the application is for a business to be located on the southeast corner of the property adjacent
to where you live. It is not an application for drilling anything as they want to construct a building and
operate a business out of the building.
Ms. Hernandez asked why everyone in Southgate received a letter and indicated that is why they are here.
• Mr. Ochsner replied that it is a standard letter that anybody within 500' of the property gets informing them 4 that something is going on and if they have questions to either call or attend the meeting as you did.
However, in this case there will be no drilling there will just be a building that will be constructed, CSI
` 1
Ms. Hernandez asked to clarify that it doesn't affect Southgate Trailer Park in any way. Ms. Hippely stated W v
/� that no, the application is for something on the property next to you. Mr. Ochsner mentioned that you will
(:.ornaudwatu',� g-/7-c2Oo'7 anal
• be able to see it and that's how it affects you. He added that is why they send out information.
Ms. Hernandez stated that as long as there is no contamination or anything that is going to affect them.
Mr. Ochsner replied that it should be covered by all the stipulations that they have to meet with they apply
for the application.
Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1620, be continued to September 18, 2007. Mark Lawley seconded the
motion. Motion carried.
The Chair read the case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1619
APPLICANT: Andrea, William & Edwardo Neidig c/o Alberto Loya
PLANNER: Roger Caruso
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: N2 of the SE4 of Section 17, T10N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for
One(1) or more microwave, radio, television or other
communication transmission or relay tower over seventy(70)feet
in height per lot including a transmission building in the(A)
Agricultural Zone District.
LOCATION: 1/4 mile north of the Section Line for CR 116 and west of and
adjacent to State Highway 85.
Roger Caruso, Department of Planning Services, presented Case USR-1619.
A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a one (1)or more microwave, radio,
television or other communication transmission or relay towers over seventy(70)feet in height per lot
• specifically three guyed AM Broadcast Towers approximately 395 feet in height in the A(Agricultural)
Zone District.
The sign announcing the Planning Commission hearing was posted August 21, 2007 by Planning Staff.
The site is located west of and adjacent to State Highway 85 and '/ mile north of the section line for
County Road 114; the nearest municipality, the Town of Nunn, is located approximately 5 miles to the
south.
The surrounding property to the north, south, east and west are primarily agricultural with one single family
home approximately 850 feet to the south. There are 4 property owners within 500 feet of the property in
question. The Department of Planning Services has received two letters from the same surrounding
property owner. One dated August 10, 2007 and one received August 21, 2007 with the signatures of 24
surrounding property owners objecting to the approval of this Special Review Permit.
Thirteen referral agencies reviewed this case, nine responded favorably or included conditions that have
been addressed through development standards and conditions of approval.
The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of this application along with the
conditions of approval and development standards.
Mr. Caruso added that there is one change in talking with the applicant as one of the items, specifically
1.A Prior to Planning Commission, there should have been an investigation fee paid for the violation
occurring and Mr. Caruso stated that the applicant indicated that he has paid and can now supply a
receipt.
• Paul Branham referred to page 3, item C, second paragraph; it says "The required offset to property
boundaries is 100% of the tower height". Mr. Branham stated that he knows in the discussion there is
reference that if it did fall it probably would not fall all out but by code they have to be offset 100%of the tower
height. Mr. Branham further added that in the commentary the offsets from the surrounding properties would
be approximately 400 feet and is not sure he is comfortable with that. Commissioner Branham said that he
thinks that it should say at least the height of the tower. Mr. Caruso replied that staff put approximately 400
-i9- Ic1�
• SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld County
Conference Room, 4209 CR 24.5, Longmont, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Doug
Ochsner, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Doug Ochsner- Chair
Tom Holton -Vice Chair
Paul Branham
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand
Bill Hall
Mark Lawley
Roy Spitzer
Also Present: Cyndy Giauque, County Attorney; Tom Honn, Planning Director; Jacqueline Hatch, Hannah
Hippely,Planners; David Snyder,Public Works Department;Char Davis and Pam Smith, Department of Public
Health and Environment; Donita May, Secretary.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on September 4,
2007, was approved as amended.
— CASE NUMBER: USR-1620
• APPLICANT: Southgate, Inc., do John Alles
PLANNER: Hannah Hippely
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2067; being part of the SE4 Section 22,T4N, R66W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for
an Oil and Gas Support and Service Facility (a hydro-static oil
pressure testing business) in the A (Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to Highway 85 and North of and adjacent to
CR 42.
Hannah Hippely, Department of Planning, stated USR-1620 is an application by Southgate Inc. for a Site
Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for an Oil and Gas Support and Service (a hydro-
static oil pressure testing business)in the A(Agricultural)Zone. The property, located northeast of Gilcrest,
lies north of and adjacent to CR 42 and east of and adjacent to SH 85. The properties to the north,east and
south are all zoned agricultural while the properties to the west in the Southgate subdivision are zoned R-5,
which is Mobile Home Residential. USRs in the area include AmUSR-1268, USR-565, USR-1084, and
AmUSR-548.
The sign announcing this Planning Commission meeting was posted by Staff September 7, 2007.
Eleven referral agencies reviewed this proposal. Eight responded and either stated that they did not have a
conflict with the use or expressed concerns that Staff has attempted to address through the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards.
Multiple letters from surrounding property owners in opposition to this proposal have been received. The
concerns raised by the letters include both nuisance concerns in regards to the additional traffic creating noise
and dust as well as public safety concerns in respect to the additional traffic on CR 42 conflicting with school
• children waiting for the bus, as well as the intersection of CR 42 and Hwy 85 which is not signalized and
includes a railroad crossing.
Planning Staff is recommending approval of this application
1
• The applicant's representative is present and I can answer any questions you may have.
Commissioner Lawley asked Ms. Hippely about building location distances from the Southgate property and
what the uses were for existing USRs in the area. Ms. Hippely replied the buildings would be less than a
quarter mile away and USRs in the area included the Fritzler Corn Maze, additional farm housing, produce
processing and storage facilities,and an auto repair shop. Commissioner Branham asked for clarification on
the boundaries of the two and a half acres. Ms. Hippely said the facility is proposed for the lower corner.
Commissioner Ochsner inquired about the entrance to the facility. Ms. Hippely responded the applicants had
proposed to use an existing access adjacent to the property on the east, but if they want to use this access,
they must come to an agreement with the neighbors or relocate the access per Public Work's
recommendation. Commissioner Grand asked how far Ms. Hippely estimated the access was from the
Southgate development and she said an eighth of a mile. Commissioner Branham wanted to know
approximately how many residents resided in the area. Ms. Hippely replied that the development has
approximately thirty lots.
Tiffane Johnson, Landmark Engineering,applicant's representative,3521 W Eisenhower Blvd,Loveland,CO,
stated the applicant was proposing a hydrostatic oil testing facility that includes a two and a half acre building
envelope designated previously when the Recorded Exemption was processed. It is a fifty two acre site but all
improvements will occur within the two and a half acre building envelope; the proposed building is
approximately 6000 square feet;twelve to fifteen employees and twelve to fifteen trucks are proposed on site;
they are proposing a new access that will run along the property line; the majority of the operations for the
facility occur off site;the employees will drive in, park personal vehicles in the warehouse building which will
also include a small office and some truck bays for service and cleaning of the trucks,and will then leave the
site in those trucks. Ms. Johnson said the neighbor's complaints were generally traffic related but Public
Works did not require a traffic study and she asked the Planning Commission to give them time to conduct a
traffic study and address school bus safety concerns. She added they would also provide a traffic
• memorandum prior to the Board of County Commission hearing.
Commissioner Branham asked when specifically the twelve to fifteen tanker trucks were coming and going at
the site. Ms. Johnson replied that employees arrive at 7 a.m., the trucks are prepared between 7 a.m.and 9
a.m., and leave the site to return at the end of the day. The highest peaks for truck traffic would be at the
beginning and end of each day as the trucks do not return to the facility during the day.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Lynnette Kilpatrick, 20487 CR 33, stated: she owns property to the west and adjacent to the site and
expressed concerns about intersection traffic; both the highway and the railroad angle dramatically and it is
difficult to see oncoming traffic; there is increased traffic volume from high school activities in the area;
questioned if the truck size/length prevents them from clearing railroad tracks;asked if this intersection is not
used then would they go to the intersection at CR 42 and CR 33 and continue north,which would have the
same angle in the highway and could cause some of the same problems; spoke with the School District's
Transportation Director who expressed concern about safety issues on this route;expressed her dismay about
turning agricultural land into commercial or industrial uses.
Commissioner Ochsner clarified that the trucks would be either single or tandem axle, not semi-trucks or
trailers. Commissioner Holton asked Ms. Kilpatrick to point out her property on the map displayed.
Commissioner Lawley asked Ms. Kilpatrick which intersection she was most concerned about. She replied
CR 42 and Hwy 85 which has heavy high school and bus traffic. She added that if the access were moved to
CR 33, the angle present there could present the same problems.
Oliver Lorenz, CR 42, lives east of and adjacent to the Southgate Mobile Home Park and stated: many times
on CR 42 west, if there is a bus waiting for children it can take a lot of time before the bus moves on;as a bus
heads west it must stop at the railroad track and then must hesitate once again prior to crossing Hwy 85;
• causes obstacles for buses and slows down car traffic; suggested a signal light to get traffic across Hwy 85
quicker; surfacing of the road is appreciated but additional traffic will cause increased maintenance and was
concerned that may not be implemented.
2
Commissioner Holton asked Mr. Lorenz to point out his property on the map displayed.
•
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Ms. Johnson addressed the concerns of the public and said they recognized the concerns regarding the
children and the school bus access location and they would provide a traffic study to address concerns and
mitigate issues to the best of their ability. Commissioner Spitzer asked about previous approval of the two and
a half acre site and if it was included in the USR. Ms.Johnson replied the site originally had a two and a half
acre building envelope through its previous Recorded Exemption process,though the RE and the USR are not
necessarily related. She added that since irrigation water is not available, the USR offers the owners the
opportunity to make a living on the property from another venture and that the USR is only for the two and a
half acres and the fifty plus acres will still be farmed with what water is available. Commissioner Branham
asked if truck traffic could exit to the east and go north to Hwy 85 and not travel past the houses on CR 42.
Ms. Johnson said she was not qualified to make that determination, that their traffic engineer would best be
able to address those concerns.
Commissioner Holton asked about a sprinkler system for methanol/alcohol tanks in the building and
commented that he did not see that delineated on the site plan and would it be concentrated or mixed with
water.
Terry Weideman, 13434 CR 42, Platteville, owned the site that was for sale adjacent to Southgate and said
trucks go to the oil sites and pressure test tubing using straight water, except in the winter when they use an
additive to keep the water from freezing. This additive would be kept in the warehouse.
Commissioner Branham asked Public Works if they were comfortable with the traffic flow as suggested.
David Snyder,Public Works,said something that was inaudible. Commissioner Holton asked what triggered a
traffic study and if CDOT was considering a traffic light at the intersection. Mr. Snyder replied that a thirty to
• forty percent increase in traffic triggers a study and he did not know if a traffic light was being considered.
Commissioner Grand asked Mr. Snyder about accidents at the intersection at CR 42 and was it a State or
County issue. Mr.Snyder said maybe ten to fifteen accidents have occurred at that intersection,but there was
not a huge increase in accidents in the past few years and that CDOT had jurisdiction. Commissioner
Ochsner asked Ms. Hippely about a CDOT referral and is there a need for it. Ms. Hippely agreed that the
more input the better and she would try to obtain that from CDOT. Commissioner Spitzer said apparently
there have been previous concerns about this intersection and perhaps it is something Public Works should
be addressing. Ms. Hippely responded it is a CDOT issue and also mentioned the Planning Commission
could make suggestions for traffic direction today. Commissioner Holton asked if a referral was only sent to
CDOT when the proposal is for direct access onto Hwy 85. Ms. Hippely said that was correct. Commissioner
Ehrlich asked if the County and the Town of Gilcrest could combine efforts to submit a memorandum to CDOT
and cited Section 23-2-220A.4. from the Code.
Commissioner Grand expressed concern with the number of accidents at the intersection of CR 42 and
Highway 85 and asked how that could be alleviated by sending them up CR 33. Ms.Johnson,the applicant's
representative, said she does not want a condition based on anything other than a traffic study by a qualified
engineer. Commissioner Grand agreed, but wants to be sure the County is aware of its responsibility. Ms.
Johnson then cited a pre-application letter with Carrie McCool,Town of Gilcrest,which addressed their traffic
concerns when and if that property is annexed by Gilcrest. Ms. Hippely said she didn't know if there was
anything they could do regarding the intersection since it is State regulated. Commissioner Grand suggested
they look hard at the number of accidents and if possible, do something reasonable to mitigate that.
Commissioner Spitzer suggested they consider moving traffic to the north entrance. Ms. Hippely said the
Board of County Commissioners will have the Planning Commission recommendation regarding moving the
traffic and can make their decision based on that information. Commissioner Holton said he would have liked
to have seen a traffic study as well as a referral from CDOT prior to this hearing. David Snyder,Public Works,
responded that they would contact CDOT and request their opinion, based on this development.
Commissioner Ochsner said it is clear we want a traffic study conducted and is it a Development Standard.
• Ms. Hippely said it could be a condition added prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing.
Commissioner Branham said not he was not sure a traffic study was necessary, and suggested rather a
condition of approval that tankers do not use CR 42 west of their site or the intersection of CR 42 and Hwy 85.
Ms. Hippely suggested the Development Standard read, "Tanker trucks and other trucks over 10,000 gross
3
vehicle weight shall not be allowed on CR 42 at Highway 85." Commissioner Ochsner suggested the new
• Development Standard be added.
Moved by Commissioner Branham to add the new Development Standard 35 which shall read,"Tanker trucks
and other trucks over ten thousand gross vehicle weight shall not be allowed on CR 42 at Highway 85."
Second by Commissioner Grand.
Commissioner Ochsner asked Cyndy Giauque, County Attorney,for her wording suggestions. Ms. Giauque
replied that if they are referring to tankers or heavy duty trucks, it should say just that. Ms. Johnson,
applicant's representative,wanted clarification that these limits would only be specific to this USR site as the
surrounding properties all have oil wells on them and they should not be limited as they conduct their daily
business. Commissioner Lawley asked Ms. Giauque if they could prevent the use of certain roads. Ms.
Giauque responded that as a condition of the USR, it could be done,and as far as how they use certain roads,
if she understood correctly, they were concerned specifically with heavy truck traffic on CR 42.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton, yes;
Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried.
Commissioner Ochsner then addressed the need for requiring a traffic study prior to the Board of County
Commissioner's hearing. Ms. Hippely said the applicant will provide a letter of memorandum and it would
become the first Condition of Approval regarding traffic. Moved by Commissioner Holton and second by
Commissioner Spitzer to include a 1.A., prior to Board of County Commissioner's hearing letter of
memorandum from a traffic engineer provided by the applicant and also a 1.B., written evidence that the
applicant has met with CDOT regarding access points.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
• Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand, yes; Mark Lawley,yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton, yes;
Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried.
Commissioner Lawley then inquired if they needed to be concerned about dust abatement now that they have
changed the truck route. Ms. Hippely responded that Public Works may be better qualified to answer the
question. David Snyder, Public Works, said there was a Development Standard addressing that concern.
Commissioner Holton asked if the number of employees or trucks was being limited. Ms. Hippely replied that
at this time those limitations are not included in the Development Standards.
Commissioner Grand inquired if it was appropriate to limit the traffic as it could limit the business. Ms.Hippely
replied that if this is left as an open ended application, it will not limit the number of trucks or employees. Ms.
Johnson said the application specified twelve to fifteen employees as well as twelve to fifteen trucks.
Considering the number of employees and trucks, Commissioner Holton expressed curiosity about the
adequacy of the septic system if future numbers of employees increase and what would trigger that
evaluation. Char Davis, Environmental Health Department,said that in the event of an increase in employees,
the septic system would need to be re-evaluated. Ms. Hippely responded that if a substantial change over
what was approved were implemented, the applicant would then be in violation.
Commissioner Branham asked if there were a Development Standard to limit the number of tanker trucks to
fifteen and the applicant wanted to increase that,then what was the procedure. Ms. Hippely said the applicant
would come to Staff with their request for changes and Staff would evaluate them and make an administrative
decision at that time. Commissioner Spitzer asked if the applicant was happy with fifteen trucks. Ms.Johnson
said she was concerned about future growth of the business and asked if the Planning Commission was trying
to limit the growth of the business, the number of trucks,or the number of employees. Commissioner Holton
said the major impact was traffic and how growth in the area would affect the neighbors. Ms.Johnson stated
she was confident the traffic study would clarify for them some of the impacts this business might create.
• Commissioner Holton moved to make a new Development Standard number four, to limit the number of
testing trucks to fifteen and renumber accordingly. Commissioner Branham seconded.
4
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
• Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton, yes;
Doug Ochsner, no. Motion carried.
Commissioner Ochsner asked Ms. Johnson if she had read and agreed to the amended Development
Standards and Conditions of Approval. Ms. Johnson responded that she had read them and did agree.
Commissioner Grand moved that Case USR-1627, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners
along with the amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval. Commissioner Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; Tom Holton, yes;
Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: CZ-1141
APPLICANT: Wright Investment Group Inc
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A&B of RE-4569,part of the NE4 SE4 SW4 of Section 1,T1 N,
R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)Zone District to I-3(Industrial)
Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Highway 52 and approximately 3/4
mile east of CR 23.
Commissioner Holton said he had relatives living in the area and could recuse himself if anyone in the room
• should request. There was no one that objected to his hearing this case.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning, stated Wright Investment Group Inc c/o Linn Leeburg, Leeburg
and Associates have applied for a Change of Zone from the A(Agricultural)Zone District to 1-3 (Industrial)
Zone District.
The sign announcing the planning commission hearing was posted on August 31, 2007 by Staff.
The site is located south of and adjacent to SH 52 and approximately 3/4 mile east of CR 23 and consists of
approximately 13.64 acres on Lots A and B of RE-4569, part of the NE4 SE4 SW4 of Section 1,Ti N, R67W.
The surrounding property is agricultural in nature.There are gravel operations located in close proximity to the
south, east, and west.The property is proposed to be served by individual septic systems and a commercial
well (#274246 & 27427).
The Department of Planning Services is recommending that this application be denied for the following
reasons:
22-2-150.A. I.Goal 1. —"Conversion of agricultural land to industrial uses will be encouraged when the subject
site is located inside an approved intergovernmental agreement area, urban growth boundary area or Mixed
Use Development areas, urban development nodes, or where adequate services are currently available or
reasonably obtainable. This goal is intended to address conversion of agricultural land to minimize the
incompatibilities that occur between uses in the A(Agricultural)Zone District and other zone districts that allow
urban scale uses. In addition, this goal is expected to minimize the costs to County taxpayers of providing
additional public services in rural areas for uses that require services on an urban scale level."
The two parcels are not located inside an approved intergovernmental agreement area,urban growth boundary
area, Mixed Use Development area or urban development node. The parcels are located within the three mile
referral area for the City of Dacono,the City of Fort Lupton and the Town of Frederick. The City of Dacono did
respond to the referral request dated August 1,2007 and indicated that they have reviewed the request and find
no conflicts with their interests. No referral was received from the Town of Frederick.
The City of Fort Lupton in their referral dated August 7,2007 indicated that they have reviewed the request and
find that it does not comply with their Comprehensive Plan. The City also states that they have designated the
5
Hello