HomeMy WebLinkAbout20062173.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, June 6, 2006
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2006, in the Weld County
Department of Planning Services, Hearing Room,918 10th Street,Greeley,Colorado. The meeting was called
to order by Chair, Bruce Fitzgerald, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Erich Ehrlich
Roy Spitzer
James Welch Absent
Bruce Fitzgerald
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
Tom Holton
Paul Branham
Also Present: Brad Mueller, Wendi Inloes, Kim Ogle, Monica Mika, Don Carroll
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on May 16, 2006,
was approved with one correction.
PLANNER: Monica Mika/Wendi Inloes
PROPOSAL: Changes to Weld County Code Chapter 20, Road Impact Fees.
Bruce Barker provided clarifications on the proposed language. The language is an attempt to try and
work out a fair situation for replacing existing dwelling units that have been occupied for at least six
months. The new language is intending to replace existing dwelling for which the applicant/owner can
provide adequate documentation that the dwelling has been occupied continuously for an immediate
previous six months will not require the payment of a road impact fee. Staff has found that there are some
applicants who are looking at replacing the existing unit or purchase one that they believe they can move
into. Staff determined it was not fair to be charging the fee when there was just a replacement. The
provided language does what staff had intended: "The replacement of an existing dwelling for which the
applicant/owner can provide adequate documentation that the dwelling has been occupied continuously
for the immediate previous six (6)months will not require the payment of a road impact fee."
Paul Branham indicated the language is acceptable and moved to have Section E on page 5 be amended
to reflect the proposed language. Michael Miller seconded. Motion carried.
Paul Branham indicated his concern with duplicate paragraph regarding the rate of inflation specific to the
April date and should there be a specific date. on page 4 on the bottom that is highlighted. Mr. Barker
stated it should have been April 1. Mr. Branham continued by asking if there were any conflicts with
mentioning the dates. Mr. Barker stated no since it applies the increase and after this the inflation factor
will be reviewed on April 1 of each year. The later part will apply at the next April 1 date of 20O7. Mr.
Branham added he does not see where it gives a specific date to look at the rate of inflation. Mr. Barker
stated the CPI index as of April 1 will be utilized and that rate will be used. Mr. Barker stated the
information is included in the language. Mr. Barker indicated that at the end of the second sentence it
could be added or its successor index on April 1 of every year
Michael Miller asked if the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is not issued in March of every year. Mr. Barker
indicated that this was the reason for utilizing the April 1 date.
Paul Branham moved to amend the bottom of page 4 and to top of page 5 in the highlighted text. The first
sentence adds as of April 1 of each year. As well as in the last sentence. Tom Holton seconded.
Michael Miller stated he does not know if this is appropriate since the Federal Government issues the
inflation number in March and that should be the number used not what is stated on specifically April 1.
dmand e S 7 ° 2006-2173
The numbers could be different. Mr. Barker stated the CPI index is updated in March and whatever it is it
will be that number. It may not be necessary to add that April 1 date. The mechanics is in there to utilize
the rate provided in the CPI. Mr. Barker added either way would work.
Paul Branham added that if there was ever a time in which there was an increase the rate would stay the
same.
Motion carried for the previously stated motion.
Michael Miller moved to approve the amendment to Chapter 20 as amended. Chad Auer seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Tom Holton, yes, Doug Ochsner, yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: MF-1081
APPLICANT: Walter Huang
PLANNER: Brad Mueller
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: N2NW4 of Section 16, T8N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Final Plat for nine (9) residential lots in the (E) Estate Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 29, south of and adjacent to vacated CR 94.
Brad Mueller, Department of Planning Services presented Case MF-1081, reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. There will be two items for
discussion; one will be the naming of the internal roadway,y as well as the maintenance of the road and
ownership of it.
Tom Hann, representative for the applicant, provided additional clarification on the proposal. In the
previous hearing there were two adjacent property owners who expressed concern with the flood plain
issues. The plat has been redone, putting the floodplain into an open space outlot, and the issues have
been addressed. There is also an additional 100 foot setback from the north property line to further
address the concerns from those neighbors. In the north portion of this subdivision there is a neighbor
whose driveway runs on this property. The applicant has provided an easement for that driveway to come
off of CR 29 and into their property. They have the right to continue to use that easement so there will be
no need for new driveway. The Shellers have expressed an interest in a lease for dry land farming on the
open outlot to the east. The internal roadway will be paved and the maintenance is being supported by
the county. It was the applicants understanding that they were moving forward with this. The applicant
has not provided anything in draft covenants for the homeowner's maintenance of the road. The Fire
Protection District requested the internal road be on the grid system of the county. The post office will use
individual mail boxes and the school district will use the cul-de-sac for the turn around. Prior to Board of
County Commissioners Mr. Hann agrees to get the written responses from those agencies addressing
those issues if needed. The other conditions are standard and agreeable.
Michael Miller asked if CR 29 is gravel. Mr. Hann stated it was approximately 1 '/<mile from CR 90 to the
south.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Peter Schei, Public Works, stated that typically when the internal roadway is paved the county is willing of own
and maintain it. This is a different case due to the fact the applicant is willing to pave and not wanting a waiver
from paving. The language in the code is typical of the minor subdivisions and that is a requirement of paving.
It is reasonable that the county take maintenance of the interior roadway, as long as it is built to county
standards. County roads names are never incorporated into a subdivision;a specific named road is needed.
Mr. Fitzgerald asked if this was written into the standards. Mr.Schei stated there is a Conditions of Approval
to rename the roadway and the applicant can address this with the fire department. If Public Works needs to
be involved they can do this also.
Bruce Fitzgerald added that there were not many subdivisions in area that would affect that particular Fire
Protection District. Mr. Mueller stated that the naming of the road should be one of precedence and
2
convenience. There are no code requirements with regards to the naming of the roads.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Schei about traveling from a gravel road onto a paved road and vice versa. Mr.
Schei added the County will only maintain a paved roadway for a subdivision not a gravel surface. Mr. Miller
added that Planning Commission has typically looked favorably on not paving the internal roadway if they
request it. This situation is the opposite. Mr. Schei added that it is a good question as to whether the county
is going to get into the business of maintaining small sections of internal roadways that are not adjacent to
larger paved roads. This area is an area of growth. Mr. Miller indicated his concern was that the vehicles will
be going from a gravel system to a paved system and the entrance will be destroyed along with the fact this
does not seem to be a beneficial situation for the county. It does not seem beneficial to go down a gravel
road a distance in order to get to a paved internal road to maintain it. Will this pose any problems for Public
Works? Mr. Schei stated there are no standard to base a denial request upon. If the applicant paves the
internal road and builds it to standards,the county will accept. There have been times in the past in which the
subdivision will come back and petition the county to maintain the roads once they are up to standards. Mr.
Miller asked if this presents any challenges for the grader operator in the area. Mr. Schei indicated he was
unaware of any.
Pam Smith, Department of Public Health and Environment,would like to add language back into covenants to
protect secondary leach fields. This can be added as condition 1.B.6 and that language is added to preserve
and protect the septic envelopes from future developments.
Michael Miller moved to accept the proposed language for 1 B 6 to read "The applicant shall revise the
covenants to preserve and protect the secondary septic envelopes for the septic systems." Roy Spitzer
seconded. Motion carried
Discussion followed on the internal roadway and the naming of it. Public Works would prefer the internal
roadway to have a name and not be a part of the county grid system.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Hann if the intent of paving the roadway was to get the county to take it over. Mr.
Hann stated it is a responsible marketing tool to future owners to have a paved roadway. In the process of
doing this it was appropriate to ask that it be maintained by the county. Future owners are looking for space
but appreciate the paved street more. With the county maintaining the roadway there will be no need for the
HOA to maintain which in turn doubles the benefits to having it paved. Mr. Miller does not agree with the
county taking on the maintenance for something that is two miles away from a paved roadway. The paving of
the internal road is out of character in the area and seems out of place and unnecessary. This seems to be a
burden on the county to maintain.
Tom Hann added he has no problem going back to the fire protection district and telling them the internal road
will be named and not a part of the county system. The applicant has no concern in calling the internal road
Gold Stone Creek, Drive or Road depending on what is appropriate. However they will do whatever is worked
out between the County and the Fire Protection District.
Paul Branham added the precedence has been set to be consistent with past practices. It does not seem
appropriate to give numbers to such small internal roads. Mr.Miller added that the addition of the subdivision
and the naming of the road could be addressed at one fire department meeting. There should be no
significant issues.
Doug Ochsner agreed that the language should be left as staff requests and if the fire district needs further
clarification Public Works will address. Mr. Ochsner asked if there was a need to delete item H. Mr. Mueller
indicated that was approval criteria and would not need to be amended, but Condition of Approval L.12 may
need to be amended. Conditions of Approval L.13 will need to be deleted also. Mr.Barker added his concern
on having those changes since this is a criterion for approval. There is not much enforcement with the second
sentence of L.13. The plan to maintain the roadway needs to be developed between the owners. If the county
is not maintaining the road someone has to do. It can be the HOA or the individual homeowners. Mr.
Ochsner added that according to Public Works they want to maintain the road. Mr.Barker added the question
is when to you require them to provide some indication as to how their going to go about doing that. The legal
document is an agreement between the property owners or a covenant that addresses the concern. Mr.Miller
added Planning Commission needs to agree on rather the county should take over maintenance of the road.
If there is no agreement then the HOA will need to address the issue. Mr. Schei added that according to
Section 24-3-60.1.8 the context is a minor subdivision and typically they do not have paved roadway. It is
inconsistent to read the section and apply for it when they already have a paved roadway. If a paved road is
not approved the residents can come back in the future and petition for the county to take this over.
3
Further discussion ensued on rather the county should take maintenance of an internal roadway on a
subdivision that is not adjacent to a paved roadway.
Roy Spitzer added that if the internal road is paved the maintenance will be limited. There will not be much
work to be done. Mr. Schei stated that would be the goal.
Michael Miller indicated he is not in favor of the county taking the maintenance of this internal road due to
location and it not being beneficial for the county. The transition from a paved road to a gravel road is a
concern, if a corner of the pavement gets torn off then a county employee is required to go fix the situation.
This does not seem to be appropriate for a nine lot subdivision. Mr. Branham agrees that if the applicant
wants to pave the roadway they should be able to but the county should not be required to maintain it. The
Public Works would be the one that has the final decision on whether they want to take it over. Public Works
should review very closely before agreeing to take the maintenance over. Mr.Schei added that Public Works
could not say no due to the language in the code.
Michael Miller moved that Case MF-1081, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Tom Holton, yes, Doug Ochsner, yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Erich Ehrlich commented he emphasized Section 24.3.60.1.8
Paul Branham commented he does not think the county should take over the maintenance of the paved road
until such time as the adjacent county road has been paved.
Tom Holton commented the applicant has done a good job working with the neighbors to get the issues
resolved.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1467
APPLICANT: Petro Canada Resources (USA) Inc.
PLANNER: Brad Mueller
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Portions of Section 26, 27 34, 35, T6N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for a Oil & Gas
Production Facility(21 oil and gas wells &6 tank batteries) in the I-1
(Industrial)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to State Highway 257; west of CR 23 and north of
Cache La Poudre River
Brad Mueller,Department of Planning Services presented Case AmUSR-1467, reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of the
application based solely upon the code interpretation of no development within the floodplain.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if the floodway was based on a 100 year flood. There have been 500 year floods but
we are presently in a drought situation. If the well heads were a foot above flood stage would they be allowed
with regards to the criteria for approval? Mr. Mueller stated the criteria states there can be no development in
floodway except for agricultural exempt buildings. Oil and Gas production facilities are not agricultural exempt
buildings. In minutes from the original USR application it was noted that FEMA did not have concern with such
structures being in the floodway or floodplain. If this was approved any structure in flood plain or way would
need to get a Flood Hazard Permit.
Michael Miller indicated he is presently in negotiations with Broe Company on a piece of property and this
presents a potential for conflict of interest. Broe Company is the land owners of this property. Mr. Barker
stated there are close connections and asked who would stand to benefit from your vote. Mr. Miller stated he
may not benefit from approval of the land use application but the appearance is there that he might. Mr.
Barker stated that in this instance it is an individual decision. Mr. Miller chose to rekuse himself from the
proceedings at this time.
4
Erich Ehrlich asked about the Windsor referral and their plan showing the area as heavy industrial on a portion
of the land use map. Mr. Mueller stated he is not familiar with the specifics of the Windsor growth area and
the County does not recognize the boundary in any formal or legal fashion. It is different than the IGA
boundary. There is nothing formal that the County needs to acknowledge in those terms. The referral is
simply acknowledging that this is consistent with what Windsor is planning for the area. Mr. Ehrlich stated that
what the town is envisioning and what is happening are two different things. The area was slated for
commercial but has since been changed to residential.
Roy Spitzer asked for clarification with regards to construction in the floodway and the exceptions for
agricultural exempt buildings. FEMA would approve this construction in the floodway. Mr.Mueller added that
FEMA was not contacted as a part of this process, per past minutes it was not an issue.
Dave Bauer, Public Works provided some clarification on the floodway. This is considered a split estate
between the mineral and surface owners as being separate. The mineral interest owners cannot be denied
access to extract the resource. There are requirements that bottom hole locations be 450 feet apart and the
surface locations be offset by 400 feet where possible. Denying access to drill the wells will impact the mineral
and royalty interest owners as well as have an economic impact on Petro Canada. The flood way should not
be developed and most of FEMA's regulations are based on what are insurable structures. The wells and tank
batteries are not insurable structures. FEMA does not insure those, their regulations are based on the uses.
The agricultural exempt buildings, in situations,are not insurable structures. This is an acceptable use in
the floodway and plain.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked what would happen in an event of a 500 year flood. Mr. Bauer stated flows are large
but due to snow melt as opposed to rain fall. The definition of a 100 year flood in the area is approximate.
This area is not as well defined and may not even be reflective of the current topography. The 100 year storm
is equivalent to a 1%chance in one year whereas a 500 year flood is a 0.2%chance in a year. This does not
mean it will not happen but the chances are limited. Typically tank batteries are anchored and well heads are
sealed. They could be under water but the pipe is underground. There are possible vents on the tanks. A
flood is a short term event and there is the potential but the safeguards in place.
Erich Ehrlich asked about the Flood Hazard Permit and whether it addresses when the ground is being
disturbed and if there is any compromise. Mr. Bauer stated there are requirements for an insurable structure
to be raised with fill and this will divert flow around and the structure will be an island. These facilities have
fences if needed to keep cattle out and berming around tanks for spill.
Susan Alderidge, representative for Petro Canada, provided clarification with regards to the proposal. The
original USR had 9 wells and 5 were in the floodplain. This will add 12 wells, 6 in the floodway and 4 in the
floodplain. The actual drill dates have not been determined. Four wells have been applied for to the Colorado
Oil & Gas Commission. The surface use belongs to Broe & Company, Kodak and Great Western. Some
wells will be directionally drilled to minimize the surface impact. The main issue for denial seems to be the
floodway issue. The applicant has submitted the request for a Flood Hazard Permit and there is a letter from
Mr. Bauer conditionally approving that permit. The original nine wells have been drilled within this area. There
has been a consulting firm hired to do an analysis of the floodplain and they found that there should not be any
problems. The wells are 10 x 10 and approximately 5 feet high and have casing at the top of the well head so
no water can enter or gas to escape. Typically the 100 year flood statistic is what is addressed. Petro Canada
agrees to the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. An application for air pollution has been
submitted.
Doug Ochsner asked if there will be any new wells or tank batteries near the Poudre Trail or will affect it. Beau
Fritz,representative from Petro Canada, indicated there will be wells closer. The three directional wells will go
north and south but the path is south of this. Eastman Kodak is agreeable to these locations and the wells will
not be impacting the path in any way.
Roy Spitzer asked if there are provisions for batteries,well heads and permanent facility that will be there after
the drilling. Ms. Alderidge stated that the only facility in the area is one tank battery in the floodway and the
size is 140 ft x 50ft. FEMA does not indicate these structures would be impacted in floodway or plain. Dave
Gibson, supervisor for Petro Canada, added the tanks are anchored along with a berm to prevent leaching.
The berming is designed to hold the capacity of tanks. Mr. Spitzer asked how. Mr.Gibson stated it would be
a dead man and cable design. Mr. Spitzer questioned whether the tanks would float away if they were ever
empty. Mr.Gibson stated the tanks are never completely empty. The have 25-30 barrels in them at all times
so not float away.
5
Doug Ochsner asked if what would happen if the well heads were under water. Mr. Gibson stated the units
are completely sealed.
Chad Auer asked if there was a Development Standards for fencing around any facility given the proximity to
the trail. Mr.Mueller stated there was not but language could be added under Conditions of Approval 1.F. Mr.
Auer asked if there were any typical standards for this. Mr. Mueller added that the Oil&Gas Commission may
have standards that the applicant can better address. Ms. Alderidge added that typically they put chain link
fences around high density areas. In the previous minutes it was also debated as to whether fencing would be
necessary. The thought was FEMA might not approve of this an interrupting the flow. Petro Canada will put
fencing if needed.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Brad Mueller added that it has come to staff attention that one tank battery is on a separate section therefore,
the number of tank batteries on the application should be at five. This needs to be amended throughout the
staff comments.
Paul Branham moved to change the number of tank batteries from six to five. Roy Spitzer seconded. Motion
carried.
Susan Alderidge clarified that the amendment only applies to two of the tank batteries. The other three were a
part of the previously approved USR.
Chad Auer would like to add an item 1.F.5 to delineate fencing around the facilities that are within 60 feet of
the public trail. Mr. Barker asked if there was still an issue with fencing with FEMA. Would the fencing cause
any problems with any debris coming down and damming the flow? The County has an emergency plan with
the City of Greeley so the fencing can be taken down. Mr. Auer stated his intent with the motion was to
address the public nuisance and public safety concerns. Mr. Bauer added the obstruction of flow in the flood
way can be an issue. The applicant's original photos show something similar to cattle gates around the well
heads. The fencing is more chain link in design to not obstruct the flow.
Brad Mueller added that if part of the goal was aesthetic the Planning Commission might want to consider
opaque fencing.
Chad Auer withdrew the previous motion and moved to add a 1.F.5 with language consisting of"The applicant
shall delineate chain link fencing around facilities that within 60 feet of the public trail." Tom Holton seconded.
Motion carried.
Brad Mueller added that all references to USR-1462 need to be removed from the staff comments since staff
corrected a mapping error and determined that no element of that USR where within the scope of this one.
Doug Ochsner moved to delete any reference to USR-1462. Roy Spitzer seconded. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner commented that it is hard as Planning Commission member,who are told to uphold the code
that states nothing should be built in floodway when there are other staff members that state it was allowed.
As a Planning Commission member it is harder to vote with two versions; one from staff and the other from a
previous decision by the Board of County Commissioners members. This needs to be clarified better and
defined more. If FEMA has control then the County regulations should be consistent.
Paul Branham added it is hard to get a code to cover everything. The intent and interpretation needs to be
reviewed.
Paul Branham added"he thinks for a number of reasons this request shall be approved. The Board of County
Commissioners approved the original one with some of the same existing concerns with wells in the
floodplain. There is probably thousands of these oil and gas wells in floodplains in Weld County. FEMA,
Colorado Oil and Gas had no concerns with this because this is not an insured structure. We have Conditions
of Approval that will be met by the applicant. The Flood Hazard Permits will be obtained for any structures.
The other concern with the actual flooding to occur, I think because of the way that the wells are constructed
and sealed and the height of the wells that there is very little to no threat to the surrounding community."
Paul Branham moved that Case AmUSR-1467, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
6
with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation
of approval. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer,yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Chad Auer,yes;Tom Holton,yes, Doug Ochsner, no; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;
Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner commented that he believes all is good with the presentation and he does not believe there a
public safety issue nor any problems that cannot be mitigated but he has to go back to what was
recommended by staff and stated in Section 23.5.250.B. No development shall occur in the floodway. With
this one criterion he must vote no.
Meeting adjourned at 345
Respectfully nn submitted
,
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
7
Hello