HomeMy WebLinkAbout20080261.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, November 20,2007
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld County Conference Room,
4209 CR 24.5, Longmont, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Doug Ochsner, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Doug Ochsner- Chair CD
Tom Holton-Vice Chair
Paul Branham
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand
Bill Hall '"'" U,
Mark Lawley
Roy Spitzer I • i'�5--{
_ _ ..
Also Present: Tom Honn,Chris Gathman,Michelle Martin,Planning Department;Cyndy Giauque,CountyAttorney;Brian
Varrella,Don Dunker and David Snyder,Public Works Department;Trevor Jiricek and Char Davis,Environmental Health
Department and Donita May, Recording Secretary.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on November 6, 2007, was
approved as read.
The Chair read case AMPZ-1035 into the record and explained to the audience that it was on the Consent Agenda which
meant that two Planning Commissioners must ask for the case to be removed from the agenda to be heard.
CASE NUMBER: AMPZ-1035
APPLICANT: Red Baron Development
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 7 of Red Baron Estates PUD,part of the SE4 of Section 30,T2N, R65W of the
6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: An Amended Change of Zone from the E (Estate) Zone District to C-2 (General
Commercial)Zone District for one lot within Red Baron Estates PUD.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 39 and approximately 1 mile south if CR 18.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application remaining on the
Consent Agenda. No one wished to speak.
The Planning Department and the applicant were requesting this application remain on the Consent Agenda. No
Commissioners requested it be heard.
The Chair read case AMUSR-1193 into the record and explained to the audience that it was on the Consent Agenda
which meant that two Planning Commissioners must ask for the case to be removed from the agenda to be heard.
CASE NUMBER: AMUSR-1193
APPLICANT: Gary Novotny
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NW4 NE4 of Section 27,T2N, R62W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a junkyard and
salvage yard in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 18 and approximately 1/4 mile west of CR 81.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application remaining on the
Consent Agenda. No one wished to speak.
The Planning Department and the applicant were requesting this application remain on the Consent Agenda. No
Commissioners requested it be heard.
The Chair read case USR-1624 into the record and explained to the audience that it was on the Consent Agenda which
meant that two Planning Commissioners must ask for the case to be removed from the agenda to be heard.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1624
APPLICANT: Encana Oil & Gas
1
&TYL/kLW9) wnO i-a/-g-m08 2008-0261
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B RE-1595 and Part of Lot A RE-641; located in part of the SE4 of Section 28,
T1N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for Mineral resource
development facilities including:oil and gas storage facilities(crude oil storage)and
oil and gas support and service(natural gas processing,odorization,land farming,
office use, storage, pipe fabrication, research & development lab, measuring
equipment repair and calibration)in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 4 and west of and adjacent to CR 19.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application remaining on the
Consent Agenda. No one wished to speak.
The applicant's representative,William J.Crews,8203 W 20 St Ste B,Greeley,CO,80634,requested this application be
removed from the Consent Agenda so they could reach final agreement with the Planning Department Standards of
Development and Conditions of Approval prior to the BOCC hearing. Two Commissioners agreed to remove it from the
Consent Agenda.
The Chair moved Case USR-1624 to the end of the Hearing Agenda.
Tom Holton moved to approve the Consent Agenda and forward it to the Board of County Commissioners. Mark Lawley
seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul Branham,yes;
Bill Hall,yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer,yes;Tom Holton,yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried.
The Chair read case USR-1629 into the record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1629
APPLICANT: A. Dale Slater Trust B
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SE4 of Section 28,T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for a Major Facility of a
Public Utility or Public Agency(Electrical Substation), subject to the provisions of
Section 23-4-420 in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 28 and west of and adjacent to CR 7.
Michelle Martin, Planning Department, said United Power had requested this case be continued.The Chair asked Ms.
Martin when she became aware of this request. Ms. Martin replied the applicant had made the request yesterday,
November 19, 2007.
Dean Hubback,500 Cooperative Way, Brighton,CO 80603,Consumer Relations Electric Design Manager and applicant
representative from United Power, said they were requesting the continuance in order to mitigate concerns with
surrounding property owners. He asked the case be continued to the December 18, 2007 date as he had prior
commitments on the January 15,2008 hearing.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against the continuance of this
application. There were two members indicating they wished to address the Board. The Chair asked whether this could
be moved to the December 4,2007 hearing in Greeley due to the number of cases already scheduled for the December
18, 2007 hearing.
Commissioner Holton asked if it would be possible to hear it at the January 8,2008 hearing in Greeley due to the number
of cases already scheduled for the December 18, 2007 hearing,.
The Chair opened the hearing to the public to specifically address the continuance of the application.
David Foster, 621 17 St Ste 1900, Denver CO, 80293, attorney and representative for CENTEX Homes and the area
HOA,said he had notified all the homeowners possible in the short amount of time they were given once they learned of
the continuance but that actually the continuance works in the best interest of both parties. He requested the case be
heard in its entirety at a future date rather than piece meal.
Keith Sarris, 13643 Saddle Dr, Liberty Ranch homeowner,reiterated Mr.Foster's comments that residents were told by
the HOA not to appear today so basically no one came. Mr.Sarris requested a later hearing for full representation of the
community so that all concerned parties would be able to express their views. He supported pushing the hearing into
2
January if necessary in order to get the most representation at the hearing.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Commissioner Lawley asked if the Planning Commission was the final voice on this case. The Chair replied they were.
Commissioner Spitzer asked what the January 15,2008 calendar looked like. Ms.Martin responded there were currently
five cases scheduled.
Commissioner Branham said this was a positive situation in that both the applicant and the property owners wanted to
work together and were willing to set the hearing for a future date. He asked Mr.Hubback if he could have someone else
present to represent them if they scheduled the continuance for the January 15,2008 hearing. Mr. Hubback said they
wanted to expedite this application in order to provide service into the area and he guaranteed someone would be there
January 15, 2008 in his absence.
Commissioner Holton said he preferred hearing the case in December, but if United Power could guarantee their
participation in the January 15, 2008 hearing, he would agree to that.
Paul Branham moved that Case USR-1629,be continued until the January 15,2008 hearing. Tom Holton seconded
the motion. Motion carried.
The Chair read Case PZ-1098 into the record.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1098
APPLICANT: Wayne Harsh and Randy Lamp
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot C of RE-3453&Lot B of RE-4583 of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Clustered Planned Unit Development Change of Zone for eight(8)lots with Estate
uses, four (4) common open space outlots (2.35 acres), and two (2) agricultural
outlots (137.87 acres).
LOCATION: South of CR 30 and West of and adjacent to CR 47.
Michelle Martin, Planning Department,said Wayne Harsh and Randy Lamp have applied for a Clustered Planned Unit
Development Change of Zone for eight(8)lots with Estate uses,four (4)common open space outlots(2.35 acres),and
two(2)agricultural outlots(137.87 acres). The sign announcing the Board of County Commission hearing was posted on
November 1,2007 by staff. The site is located South of County Road 30 and West of and adjacent to County Road 47.
Surrounding properties to the north, east and west are agricultural with a few residents in the area. Fourteen referral
agencies reviewed this case. Thirteen referral agencies included conditions that have been addressed through the
development standards and conditions of approval. No comments were received from the School district.
The applicant has chosen to adhere to the bulk requirements of the E (Estate)Zone District except for the size of the
sign. The applicant has requested the subdivision entrance sign to be 224'square feet. The Estate Zone District allows
for a 32 square foot sign. The proposed development is not located within the three mile referral area for any
municipality. The applicant has met the criteria of a Cluster Planned Unit Development. More than the required
two-thirds of the total area of the tract has been reserved in perpetuity for agricultural purposes.The Agricultural outlots
will restrict public access. Further,the density of the Planned Unit Development does not exceed two(2)residential units
for each thirty-five (35)acres.
In the Department of Public Works'referrals dated September 4,2007 they state they have some concern regarding the
drainage. The applicant did submit a revised drainage plan on November 5, 2007 for review to the Weld County
Department of Public Works. Brian Varrella with the Department of Public Works is here to discuss this matter in more
detail.
No comments have been received from surrounding property owners.
The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of this application. The applicant's representative
Karen Kittel is present.
Commissioner Branham said if he understood correctly,the applicant had agreed to adhere to the bulk requirements of
the Estate Zone except for a waiver for the size of the sign. Ms.Martin replied that was correct. They were requesting a
larger sign but had agreed to meet bulk standards per the Code. Commissioner Branham then asked Ms.Martin if it was
the responsibility of the Planning Commission to initiate a development standard to grant a variance for the sign. Ms.
Martin replied that it was.
Commissioner Hall inquired what the lots sizes were and how much of the lot coverage would be designated for the
residential homes. Ms.Martin replied that the largest is eleven acres and the smallest is four acres;137 acres have been
3
retained in agricultural land that could be leased,farmed forever,and placed in a conservation easement;regarding the
individual lots in the estate zone district,accessory structures cannot exceed 4%of the total lot area;and the minimum
square footage of a single family dwelling unit is 1200 square feet in the Estate Zone District. Commissioner Holton
asked if the property was currently under violation. Ms. Martin responded that the violation quoted in the referral is on
property that was no longer a part of this development.
Karen Kittle, Park Engineering Consultants, 420 21 Av, Longmont, CO, representing the applicants, said they were
working on resolution of the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Holton asked about their plans for the sign size. She
said the sign was a non-issue as far as they were concerned as the applicants were not set on any particular sign design.
Ms.Kittel said they had requested a larger sign just to make the subdivision name more prominent but nothing was set
in stone per the sign size.
Commissioner Ochsner inquired about the irrigation ditch that runs through the property and had they reached an
agreement with them yet. Ms.Kittel said they have nothing in writing but will comply with the request to put no water into
the ditch. The ditch company will use the subdivision's cul-de-sac road as their ditch rider road and they just need to
finalize details on that agreement. Commissioner Ochsner asked if future access would be available for ditch cleaning.
She replied that it would.
The Chair asked the Public Works Department to address the drainage issue.
Brian Varrella, Public Works Department, Storm Water Drainage Division, said the original agreement did not
demonstrate the ability to safely retain water on site without injury to surface water rights, which fall under State
jurisdiction. Recently, new data has been provided to Public Works that has not been reviewed at this time.
Conversations with the applicant's engineers have indicated they have determined a way to make the drainage plan
workable for the Change of Zone. As a general rule,Staff cannot approve retention,however the applicant does have
the right to request the variance from the BOCC to retain on site,so long as they can prove the retention pond does not
hold water any longer than 72 hours,that no down stream water surface rights have been injured and that the plan is not
in violation of any State or Federal regulations. In light of the new information (which has been discussed, but not yet
reviewed) Public Works could recommend approval of this application under the condition the applicant and their
engineer prove that retention ponds,as designed,will drain in 72 hours or less;will not cause injury to water rights;and
will follow State and Federal regulations.
Commissioner Holton asked where the 72 hour stipulation came from regarding retention ponds and was it a State
statute. Mr.Varrella said it was incorporated into Ordinance 2006-7 in November, 2006 after a work session with the
BOCC and the State Engineer's Office and is a new regulation which is now part of County ordinance. Commissioner
Holton then asked about culvert requirements and where the flow would go. Mr.Varrella added that every culvert has to
prove that it does flow,through a computer program or hand calculations, but drainage facilities must be designed and
supported with engineering calculations. Mr.Varrella continued he thought that information was in his memorandum
dated September 4,2007. Commissioner Holton then asked about"act of God"situations. Mr.Varrella responded that
he was not a lawyer and could not offer legal advice. Commissioner Holton felt they should know legally what
determined an"act of God". Mr.Varrella said he was not sure how to answer that question but cited Section 24-7-130D
of the Code regarding the issue.
Commissioner Hall said they are talking urban, yet lot sizes are three to eleven acres and were they taking into
consideration ground coverage percentages. It seemed they were taking this to a standard beyond what was really
necessary. Typically they do not need a retention pond and were the engineering plans addressing those. Mr.Varrella
said they were.
Commissioner Branham asked Mr.Varrella if Condition K.needed to be amended to include other information or was it
okay as it was stated. Mr.Varrella replied that as it was presently stated he would be satisfied.
The Chair asked if the Environmental Health Department had anything to add.
Trevor Jiricek, Environmental Health Department, responded that the residences were on individual wells and septic,
leech fields,etc. and he saw no problems with the application.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished
to speak.
Commissioner Holton asked if they did not make a motion about changing the sign standard would it remain at thirty two
square feet. Ms. Martin replied that was correct but that the applicant could also ask the BOCC for a variance from the
sign size.
Commissioner Spitzer asked Mr. Jiricek about water supply and wells and how thorough were they in follow up as to
water availability for both quantity and quality. Mr.Jiricek replied he assumes they meet criteria because quantity/quality
was not regulated on a residential scale. It is usually a buyer beware type of issue. They do not get involved in quality
4
issues related to wells.
The Chair asked the applicant's representative if she had read and was in agreement with the Development
Standards and Conditions of Approval as stated. Ms. Kittel responded they were but issues still needed to be
resolved with Public Works regarding drainage because they felt they had complied with the Code and this was
overkill for their project. She added that if it was just a matter of approval,they would comply in order to get the
application approved, even though it was ridiculous in their opinion to over analyze large acreage lots on sandy soil
to the extent it had been.
Mark Lawley moved that Case PZ-1098,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;
Bill Hall, yes; Mark Lawley,yes; Roy Spitzer, yes;Tom Holton,yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried.
Meeting recessed from 2:25 to 2:35 p.m.
The Chair called the meeting back to order and read Case USR-1624 into the record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1624
APPLICANT: Encana Oil &Gas
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B RE-1595 and Part of Lot A RE-641; located in part of the SE4 of Section 28,
Ti N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for Mineral resource
development facilities including:oil and gas storage facilities(crude oil storage)and
oil and gas support and service(natural gas processing,odorization,land farming,
office use, storage, pipe fabrication, research & development lab, measuring
equipment repair and calibration)in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 4 and west of and adjacent to CR 19.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning,said this amended special use permit was located on an existing oil and gas
facility site. This permit incorporated existing uses on the facility along with some additional uses that were
proposed/have occurred since the original 2n°AMUSR-589 permit approved in July of 1994.This proposed amended
special use permit was to incorporate a land farming(land treatment)facility and new gas compressors.An existing office
building on site was also proposed to be used by an outside company/contractor engaged in oil and gas drilling research
and development.Outside storage of pipes,oil and gas tanks and equipment was also incorporated with this application.
The Chair asked for further clarification of the application. Mr. Gathman added that after additional research, he had
discovered a Conquest Oil injection well facility on the property that was not part of this application. Planning was
recommending the case be numbered 3AMUSR-589 to follow previous cases and said this was adding the land farm and
new oil and gas compression facilities.
William Crews,8203 W 20 St Ste B,Greeley,CO 80634,applicant's representative,said essentially when the gas plant
was present and operating it was quite a different facility than what they were looking at today. The land farm was added,
the offices were part of the gas plant and in the middle was the Conquest facility for water disposal. The reason for the
excessive uses was to be farsighted for future uses. They may add odorization. Some were dreams,others were very
much based on reality but they were trying to cover all foreseeable uses. There were a variety of oil field related activities
on the site, including pipe fabrication and a metering lab. Mr. Crews addressed the Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval and cited an issue they had with prior to recording the plat in item C. He asked if a permit was
required and suggested it not be based on emissions and wanted to change the condition that they will measure amount
of emissions and then apply for a permit as necessary,but not prior to recording the plat. It would be a condition of use.
The other issue was that if they were to apply for a permit today,the backlog was such that a permit wouldn't be granted
for at least twelve to eighteen months even if everything were perfect in the application.He added that the land farm was
operating but does not turn the land over. It is turned once. A capsule or hard coating is formed on the ground and
bacteria are left to break down the hydrocarbon substances in the soil so emissions are not released into the air as they
would be if the soil were repeatedly turned.
The Chair asked if they were requesting to move item C. to "as required" and asked Mr. Gathman how it would be
monitored. Mr. Jiricek said he thought they would make application prior to recoding the plat for the emissions permit.
Commissioner Holton stated that basically this was the same as the process for gravel permits. Mr.Jiricek suggested the
first nine words be deleted and replaced with"an air pollution emission notice shall be submitted to". Mr. Jiricek also
suggested a corresponding Development Standard and item six be deleted and replaced with,"The facility shall comply
with any emissions permit required by the Colorado Department of Health and Environment'. Mr.Jiricek said he felt that
5
would satisfy both his department and the applicant. Mr. Crews agreed that it would.
Mr.Gathman noted a couple of housekeeping issues regarding Development Standard nine and eleven in that they are
the same so number eleven could be deleted.
Tom Holton moved to amend item C. and delete number eleven, following Staff recommendations for wording. Roy
Spitzer seconded the motion. Motion carried.
Mr.Crews addressed the next issue involving the odor abatement plan and said they did not want to submit a plan until
they have an actual engineered odorization plan in place and asked they consider it be moved to a prior to construction
or prior to approval of a building permit as it would likely be one of the last things installed on the site in the distant future.
Mr.Jiricek said the problem with moving a Development Standard was that they never hear from the applicant again
until something goes wrong so it was prudent to have this plan up front. He suggested amending item D. prior to the
certificate of occupancy or prior to issuance of the building permit and added that in the course of performing their job,
when the applicant applies for a building permit, the USR should be pulled for examination as well.
Mr. Gathman said that as the resolution presently reads, under prior to release of building permits, it would be on the
resolution, not on the plat. If you wanted to do it as a Development Standard it would be on the plat. Mr. Jiricek
suggested the language in item D. be prefaced with prior to the issuance of a building permit for the odorization facility.
Commissioner Hall asked about dust mitigation and whether it was only relevant during the construction phase or was it
for the surrounding roads. Mr. Jiricek said on site dust mitigation was a responsibility of the Environmental Health
Department and applied to the land farm facility and on site truck traffic. Commissioner Hall then asked if magnesium
chloride application was called for in this instance. David Snyder,Public Works said it was not relevant in this instance.
Roy Spitzer moved to accept Staff comments for item D. in the Conditions of Approval and move it to the Development
Standards and the new item would read,"Prior to issuing a building permit,the applicant shall submit an odor abatement
plan for the natural gas odorization etc." and omit current item D. Second by Mark Lawley. Motion carried.
Mr.Crews asked if item H.could go away. Mr.Jiricek said the document had not been reviewed and suggested leaving it
as is for now,but the applicant could make the same request at the BOCC hearing. Mr.Crews then cited item 12.in the
Development Standards and suggested instead,"No disposal of waste,other than non-hazardous hydrocarbon-affected
soil from the exploration and production and pipeline activities from Encana Oil and Gas properties and Weld County".
Mr.Crews added they were not asking for soils from any other company be brought on site,just those from the activities
of Encana from their exploration and production arm and from their pipeline division.
Tom Holton moved to change Development Standard twelve to read,"No disposal of waste,other than non-hazardous
hydrocarbon-affected soil from the exploration and production and pipeline activities from Encana Oil and Gas properties
and Weld County". Mark Lawley seconded the motion. Motion carried.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished
to speak.
Commissioner Branham inquired about the numbering sequence in his packet materials. Mr.Gathman clarified the order
for him.
The Chair asked the applicant if they had read and agreed with the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval.
Mr. Crews replied they agreed.
Mark Lawley moved to forward amended Case USR-1624 to the Board of County Commissioners with their
recommendation for approval. Paul Branham seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul Branham,yes;
Bill Hall, yes; Mark Lawley,yes; Roy Spitzer, yes;Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 3:02 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Its
Donita May
Secretary
6
Hello