HomeMy WebLinkAbout20061156.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,April 4, 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
Bruce Fitzgerald
Chad Auer Absent
Doug Ochsner
Tom Holton
Paul Branham
Also Present: Chris Gathman, Kim Ogle, Sheri Lockman, Don Carroll, Char Davis, Jesse Hein, Peter Schei
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on March 21,2006,
was approved as read.
The following Case will be continued:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1544
APPLICANT: Veterinary Properties LLC
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-2948; Pt SE4 of Section 26, T6N, R66W 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(70 foot monopole cellular tower).
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to O Street and 1/4 mile west of 35th Ave.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting a continuance to May 2, 2006
with the possibility that the case could be withdrawn.
The following items will be on the Consent Agenda:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1545
APPLICANT: Great Western Oil &Gas Company
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NW4 of Section 26, T6N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for an oil and
gas production facility(seven oil wells and one tank battery) in the I-1
(Industrial)Zone District.
LOCATION: /,mile west of CR 23 and south of and adjacent to CR 66.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1097
APPLICANT: Breakneck Weld Properties
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: N2NW4 of Section 6, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agriculture)to PUD for 9 lots with E (Estate)
Zone Uses.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 1; south of and adjacent to CR 38 Section
Line.
1 1
C��,,�<�t (1 -/9t &
2006-1156
Paul Branham asked about the open space requirement. Mr. Ogle indicated this was a non urban scale
so the open space is not considered a requirement.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; James Welch, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously
The following cases will be heard:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1546
APPLICANT: J&M Partnership
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SW4 of Section 20, T6N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for uses
permitted as a Use by Right, Accessory Use or Use by Special Review in
the Commercial or Industrial Zone District(Parking of trucks, trailers,
semi-trailers, recreational vehicles, construction equipment and farm
equipment. Warehousing and storage of equipment, machinery and
agricultural supplies. Minor assembling. Repairing manufacturing,
fabricating of agricultural supplies and equipment. All may be for
wholesale or retail for sale or lease to the general public.) In the A
(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 39 and north of and adjacent to CR 66.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1546, 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. J & M Partnership has
applied for a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for uses permitted as a Use by
Right, Accessory Use or Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone District in the
Agricultural Zone District. Specifically the parking of trucks, trailers, semi-trailers recreational vehicles,
construction equipment and farm equipment. Warehousing and storage of equipment, machinery and
agricultural supplies. Minor assembling. Repairing, manufacturing, fabricating of agricultural supplies and
equipment. All may be for wholesale or retail for sale or lease to the general public. The sign announcing
the Planning Commission hearing was posted March 21 by Planning Staff. The site is located East of
and adjacent to County Road 39 and north of and adjacent to County Road 66. Surrounding properties to
the north and east are agricultural with no homes in close proximity. South of the site is zoned Industrial,
however, no improvements have been placed on the property and it remains a producing farm. County
Road 39, railroad right-of-way and State Highway 85 lie to the west. A strip of property along the east side
of State Highway 85 is zoned Commercial. Big R Manufacturing is using this area to store their products
to the southwest of the site. Conditions of Approval and Development Standards will ensure compatibility
with these surrounding uses. 10 referral agencies reviewed this case, 9 responded favorably or included
conditions that have been addressed through development standards and conditions of approval and
there has been no correspondence from surrounding property owners.
The Weld County Department of Planning Services Staff is recommending approval of USR-1546. The
applicants request is unusual in that they do not have a specific business in mind for this location but wish
to keep their options open. The USR is intended to be site and use specific. Therefore staff has included
requirements that Prior to locating any additional uses on the site, information must be submitted to the
Department of Planning Services, the Eaton Fire Protection District and the Department of Building
Inspection to determine if the proposed use would constitute a substantial change to the approved Use by
Special Review Permit or if additional infrastructure will be required. The fire code and building code for a
warehouse and a retail shop could be completely different. This condition will allow the applicant his
flexibility and at the same time ensure that the original intent of the USR is maintained and that
health/safety issues can be addressed. Changes to staff comments include a typographical error in the
date of today's hearing and the inclusion of a late referral from the Colorado Department of
Transportation. These changes will not affect the conditions of approval and development standards.
2
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if there were presently any violations on site. Ms. Lockman stated yes but the
applicant has indicated they are no longer running the business.
Doug Ochsner asked that since this application addresses nothing specific, what would Planning
Commission be approving? Ms. Lockman stated the applicant is eligible to apply for a broad range of
uses. Staff limited the application as much as they could by code.
Michael Miller stated this is more of a change of zone adverse to a USR. Ms. Lockman stated that is an
option and a PUD would cover all of the uses. The applicant chose this route. Mr. Miller asked why the
need for the USR if they will do nothing more than continue what they were doing. Ms. Lockman stated
they are in an agricultural zone and the uses are allowed in the Commercial/Industrial zone.
Bruce Fitzgerald stated that staff has recommended approval so the list of possible uses must fit into this
range. Ms. Lockman stated that staff will review every proposed business use. Staff will make sure that
they remain within the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval. Staff has placed requirements
that each proposal will be reviewed by the fire districts, building inspection and planning to determine if the
use would be acceptable.
Erich Ehrlich added if the additional structure will need to come back in when it is proposed. Ms. Lockman
stated that the structure is part of the present USR and it will only need building permits.
Bruce Johnson, representative for the applicant, provided clarification on site. They have no intention to
use the property in a different way than it has been in the past. There have been several employees on
site depending on the need or the season. The applicant would like to keep the flexibility to do what is
needed and those needs seem to fit in the commercial & industrial zone district. Mr. Johnson indicated he
had received the comments from staff in a timely manner but there are some requirements that do not
apply to the site as it is presently but will eventually apply when the proposed uses are applied for.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked what business will be going to this location. Mr. Johnson stated it will not be much
different that what it has been in the past. The Monson family has done vegetable operations in the past.
The family does not want to lose the past abilities. Mr. Fitzgerald stated this is a wide range of choices.
Mr. Johnson stated this was the intent.
Michael Miller stated the family wants to keep the uses they presently do but the last line of the description
is a concern. Is the intent to sell the site and allow the purchasers several different business
opportunities? Mr. Johnson stated that there is presently nothing to sell. Mr. Miller is concerned that
Planning Commission is approving something they have no idea of what it is. Mr. Johnson stated all the
information was included in the packet.
Michael Miller added that this USR is limited to the 1.86 acres not the entire property. Ms. Lockman
stated it was limited to the fenced area. Mr. Miller asked for clarification on the process once this is
approved. Ms. Lockman stated the applicant would bring all uses to staff and staff would determine
whether is constitutes a substantial change. If a substantial change is determined it would need to go
back to the Planning Commission but if not it would be administratively approved. Staff recommended
waiting until they had proposed a business but the applicant chose this path.
Roy Spitzer asked if a substantial change can be done with a USR. Ms. Lockman stated there are
Development Standards that must be addressed with the current application and staff will determine
whether there is a substantial change when the uses are being applied for. At that time staff will
determine whether the substantial change will change the intent of the site or the Development Standards
that apply to the site.
Michael Miller added that technically anything additional to what is currently occurring would be considered
a substantial change. Ms. Lockman stated staff could determine the intent and whether it fits within the
Development Standards presented. There is nothing conceptual. Ms. Lockman added that Fritzlers Korn
Maze was the same type of application with open ended language.
Bruce Fitzgerald stated that at a substantial change will come before the Planning Commission.
Tom Holton stated that other than the recreational vehicles and wholesale business the uses were normal
3
for agricultural uses. Why not a use by right? Ms. Lockman stated the products are not the land owners;
they will be brought to site. The applicant is storing equipment for other people.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Bruce Johnson has questions regarding the required screening on the site. Ms. Lockman clarified that staff is
asking that the entire site be screened. Furthermore an improvements agreement needs to be completed or
the improvements need to be done at this time. There are presently outside trash,storage of vehicles in both
front and back and parking. Mr. Fitzgerald asked that the applicant submit a plan for landscaping as well as
opaque screening on site. Mr.Johnson's concern for this would be the wind tearing up the fencing and there
are no adjacent businesses that are presently screened. Screening would be a hardship that is meaningless.
Ms. Lockman added that the improvements agreement will include the screening. Mr.Johnson added the site
is located off of the main road so it will not be seen. Mr. Fitzgerald asked about the property to the south and
how it came about. Ms.Lockman stated there are trees and bushed along Hwy 85 frontage. The only recent
business was BMC site and screening was required. The Sheriff Department asked to not have screening to
the east(CR39)due to the site being vandalized. Mr. Ogle added that site is screened on three sides.
Michael Miller added the Planning Commission does not have any idea of what is being proposed as a
business on this location. There is no way to know whether screening will be needed due to the fact that there
is no idea of what will be there. The applicant is asking to have screening removed based on what has been
there historically but they are asking for several additional uses.
Erich Ehrlich stated the uses are between business and industrial. The applicant wants to be able to do any
one of those things. The landscape screening could be irrelevant unless the business is known.
Tom Holton asked if the screening would be part of the review process. Ms. Lockman stated it could be done
that way but this will take a lot of time for staff in the future to review. Each time different calculations will need
to be done in order to determine if they fall within the intent but also as the overall picture.
Erich Ehrlich questioned whether approval of this application by the Planning Commission is setting
precedence for future applicants to not specify their intended uses.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Barker whether this was more of a change of zone than a USR. Mr. Miller does not
support this based on concept of several possibilities. Mr. Barker stated there have been instances of when
this has been done. The code does not say an applicant cannot do this since they are all uses allowed in the
code. The applicant is not doing anything we do not prohibit. It seems as though Planning Commission is
more comfortable with a specific use. In this instance there is nothing that prohibits the applicant but it is more
difficult to approve. Mr. Miller stated that it is legally acceptable to apply for but it makes the approval process
difficult when the actual use is not known. The question is how to set standards with such a wide range of
possibilities.
Doug Ochsner agrees that approving anything would be wrong. The only possibility is this would allow a small
business. The preference is to have a designated use. Mr. Ochsner added that he does not see this getting
out of hand since there are standards that they must follow. The screening does not need to be done
completely since storage is behind a residence and all along the corridor is open.
Erich Ehrlich stated that the half section could end up with several different prospects. Mr. Miller added that
the concern is the standards requiring 40 parking spaces on 1.6 acres;this would take up to%:an acres. This
is huge burden on staff for separate specific businesses to be reviewed. The Planning Commission and
Board of County Commissioners should be making those decisions.
Bruce Fitzgerald stated the Planning Commission can go through the list the applicant would like to change or
look at the proposal as a whole. Mr. Barker stated that the concerns need to be heard from the applicant.
Bruce Johnson stated the applicant would rather have a recommendation for approval with the understanding
there are things that need more attention. The applicant may be less than 1-3 or C-3. The intent is to not have
to go through amending of USR's constantly. This would allow for uses without amending the USR. Mr.
Fitzgerald asked if an Improvements Agreement could be established to contain all the concerns. Mr.
Johnson stated staff has been open minded so there can be a reasonable approach. Most of this is in
4
compliance but screening was the issue. Mr.Johnson would like to see screening done with landscaping not
with fencings.
Bruce Johnson indicated he is in agreement with the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval but
not 100%. There will be open negotiation with staff on the items.
James Welch asked what would be allowed according to the list in the application and how will staff apply the
standards. Ms. Lockman stated this is a huge burden for staff and it has been done in the past. There could
be various departments that would need to sign off on the proposal. The submitted business will be sent to
the needed referral agencies for approval. Mr. Welch stated the major concern is this is broad enough that
there could be a need for more specific standards.
Tom Holton stated if this is approved it will go as presented. Ms. Lockman stated that should this be approved
she would be asking the applicant for additional information prior to the Board of County Commissioners
hearing. The applicant will not negotiate with staff on certain aspects. Mr. Holton stated it does not seem as
the applicant has gone through each of the items prior to the hearing and it may be beneficial to continue this
until the items have been addressed.
Roy Spitzer stated there are conflicts with some of the standards. Ms. Lockman stated there are lesser
standards taken with the understanding that the use is not certain so there is no standard to go off. Mr. Miller
added that all this could be for wholesale so there could be very few needs for parking spaces or for several
parking spaces. Ms. Lockman added staff reviews condominiums with different uses through the Site Plan
Review process on a regular basis. The different tenants are required to submit leases to make sure they still
meet the intent of the SPR. Mr. Miller stated there is an appropriate zone for this. Ms. Lockman stated it
depends on the use.
Doug Ochsner stated that to continue this indefinitely would not be a burden; it would allow the applicant to
have more time to work with staff. Mr. Miller stated that it may be better to continue so the applicant is in
complete understanding.
Tom Holton asked about the violation process if this were to be continued. Mr. Barker stated the normal
process would be upheld. The violation application is on hold until a decision has been made regarding this
application. Should this application be approved the violation would be void. Since an application is submitted
it shows diligence by the applicant. Mr. Holton questions the applicants understanding of the Development
Standards and Conditions of Approval. Mr. Barkers recommendation would be to allow the Board of County
Commissioners to decide whether Mr.Johnson is completely aware of the standards. It is part of the applicant
responsibility to learn this too. The recommendation can be made and he would need to make sure he
understands this. It may be unfair to the applicant to continue this based solely on his understanding.
Paul Branham stated there have been other similar requests approved but the way it is worded would allow for
current and future operations. The Development Standards and Conditions of Approval have been set but if
there is a change it will need to be brought back to staff.
James Welch added that the concept is agreeable. The Development Standards and Conditions of Approval
have been set. The struggle is to deal with the different possible scenarios. Ms. Lockman added that staff will
determine if a substantial change has been done at which time the applicant will need to go before the
Planning Commission.
James Welch asked Ms.Lockman for clarification on the possible submitted applications for businesses. Ms.
Lockman stated the new proposals would need to be reviewed by the applicable departments depending on
the requested use.
Michael Miller stated the concept of this seems to be fine but with this process it is like trying to hit a moving
target with the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval and those depend on the requested use.
This is a big burden on staff. The Planning Commission is being asked to approve a variety of uses. Any one
use might be fine but there could be several uses lumped that may not be compatible for a variety of reasons.
Mr. Miller does not agree with the entire concept of possible future uses that the applicant might want. This
should be done as a change of zone or a USR when a specific use has been determined.
Roy Spitzer added that there are no assurances that the historical uses will be done. What is the mechanism
5
to determine substantial change and how will staff find out about this.Ms.Lockman stated the applicant has to
submit information prior to business beginning operation on site. Ms.Lockman added that there is a condition
that could be added that states the use cannot be transferred.
Bruce Johnson added there have been several different uses on the property at various times in the past. If
there is a concern with the present number of parking spaces the applicant is willing to limit the number of
parking spaces to 20 for vehicles. There are several possible uses but limiting the application would be
difficult but the applicant is willing to work with the staff to attempt this. The applicant is not in agreement with
a condition stating they could not transfer the USR with the property. The additional Conditions would be
micro-managing.
Michael Miller moved that Case USR-1546, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the
recommendation of denial. 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;James Welch,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Tom Holton,yes, Doug Ochsner,yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Paul Branham, no. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner commented that the reason he is recommending denial is the application is unfinished and by
denying this application he is doing the applicant a favor. The Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval are so strong that it is not accomplishing what the applicant is intending. There is a better way to go
about this. There is the need to either limit or get a better idea of what is being asked for.
Paul Branham commented he trusts that the applicant would adhere to the Conditions of Approval and this
has been done in the past.
Michael Miller commented he agrees with Mr. Ochsner. Any of these suggested uses as individuals would
have been easy to approve. To ask to approve the entire potential is not fair to staff nor the Planning
Commission. This could have been done on a change of zone which would have allowed for the uses.
Tom Holton commented this is USR'S plural not a singular application. This would be a violation of Section
23-2-220.A.2 because it makes it incompatible with surrounding land uses.
Bruce Fitzgerald commented that any one of the uses may pass the board but the multi use issue is
overbearing.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1549
APPLICANT: Merit Energy Corporation
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part NW4 of Section 32, T4N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for mineral
resource development including oil and gas support services (land
treatment facility) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: Approximately 500 feet north of CR 38.5 and % mile west of Hwy 85.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, presented Case USR-1549, 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. Merit Energy has applied for a
Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Mineral Resource Development Facility
(Land Treatment Facility)in the A(Agricultural)Zone district. The site is located approximately 500-feet north
of County Road 38.5 and 1/2 mile west of U.S. Highway 85. The proposed USR is to be located on 20 acres of
a 147 acre parcel. The remainder of the parcel has residential improvements and outbuildings and farm
ground. Farmland is located to the west and east of the site. Two single family residences are located to the
south and southwest of the site (across County Road 38.5). An existing gas processing facility(USR-866)
currently operated by AKA energy is located to the north of the site. 12 referral agencies reviewed this case,
11 referral agencies have responded and conditions of approval and development standards are attached that
address comments/conditions outlined in the referral responses. One letter of opposition dated March 26,
2006 has been received from property owner (Diana Wolf) located to the south of the site (across County
Road 38.5-13292 CR 38.5). Concerns mentioned in the letter were negative impacts on prime farm ground,
6
and that there is a more appropriate location for the facility(the bulk of Merit Energy Wells are located within 5
miles of Kersey). Negative health impacts from noise, dust,odors and traffic conditions along with concerns
about the contaminants that are located within the remediate soils. Staff was notified that soil was being
stockpiled adjacent to this proposed USR site resulting from the remediation of an oil and gas well on an
adjacent property(separate from this land treatment facility application).The Department of Planning Services
and Health Department visited the site along with the Colorado Oil &Gas Commission. The property owner
has been permitted by the Colorado Oil & Gas Commission to stockpile soils on his property until soils are
removed to be used at other Merit Energy sites. The Department of Planning Services made the
determination that this use would not require a special use permit because 1)It is stockpiling associated with a
specific oil &gas well remediation and is a temporary situation (not a permanent land treatment facility). 2)
The oil &gas well remediation is permitted through the Colorado Oil&Gas Commission. and 3) Requiring a
special use permit prior to oil & gas remediation may allow further contamination to occur while the USR
process is occurring. This remediation was somewhat unique because the amount of soils removed required
storage on a separate property;typically remediated soils are stored on the same property as the remediation
site. The application indicates that land treatment facility will be used solely by Merit Energy Company and as
a result a Certificate of Designation for a solid or hazardous waste disposal site is not required through the
State of Colorado. The applicants are proposing five (5) acres of the site to be used for remediation of
contaminated soils to be surrounded by an earthen berm. The remaining fifteen (15)acres of the site would
be used for the stockpiling of remediate soils. Several conditions have been attached re: Environmental
Health Department requirements, also a condition of approval is attached requiring the applicant to address
the requirements of the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission. The Weld County Department of Planning
Services is recommending approval of this application with the attached conditions of approval and
development standards with the attached conditions and development standards will adequately address
concerns.
Tom Holton asked if all the dirt on the property was from one well. Mr.Gathman stated it was and the amount
is very unusual. The applicant can further address the amount of dirt.
Michael Miller stated there has been no maximum amount of material indicated on the site. Mr. Gathman
stated there is not standard but they are limited in the USR area to 20 acres. Mr. Miller asked if the five acres
is for remediation and the remaining 15 acres could be the stockpiling. There is presently all five acres
covered. Mr. Gathman stated presently the dirt is from the oil well remediation from another well. This is not
located on the proposed site for this land treatment. Mr. Miller stated that amount of dirt was from one well
and in the event there is more than one well there will not be adequate room. Mr.Gathman stated that the 20
acre land treatment site was what was specified in the application.
Tom Holton asked why the need for a USR. Mr. Gathman stated this facility will be used by taking material
from various sites on a long term basis. Mr. Gathman stated the present oil and gas remediation situation is
temporary.
James Welch asked about the letter from the Colorado Oil & Gas Commission (COGA) with a
recommendation to not approve this. Mr. Gathman stated there is an attached Condition of Approval requiring
those issues be addressed. There were several issues from COGA that were similar to the Weld County
Health Department. These conditions are included as Prior to Recording or Development Standards.
Frank Holubec,representative for Merit Energy,and Melissa Armer,JBR Environmental Consultants,provided
further information and clarification on the proposal. Mr. Holubec stated the application for the USR is for
general soil remediation. They will come from various wells in Weld County. The reason for the site is its
location in proximity to the operations. There are approximately 650 wells in Weld County and about 100 are
in the Kersey area. The goal is for Merit to clean up what was left by other producers in the area, thus the
reason for a central location. There was a lot of dirt removed from the contaminated well and 25% was
contaminated. The remainder was overburden to get to the actual material that needed remediated. 65-80%
had no contamination but was removed to get to the remainder.
Michael Miller asked if the surface will be sealed to prevent leaching. Ms.Armer stated the five acre area will
be plowed and turned to promote the natural degradation of the contaminates. There will be a berm
surrounding the site to prevent storm runoff. There will be a collection sump for the stormwater. The sump
will be designed to meet a 24 hour 100 year event. The 15 acres will contain the stockpiled soil. There will be
three to four months of the tilling of the soil with samples to determine the levels of contaminates. There will
be a liner on the location for the soil. The soil will be reused in Merit locations. The site will be graded to a
7
one percent slope towards the collections sump. There will be a liner but there has been no decision as to
which kind. The berm will surround the five acre site and at certain locations it will be six foot while at others it
will only be two foot. There will be groundwater monitoring wells that will include sampling. There is no intent
to make impacts to surrounding properties.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if the sump would be lined. Ms. Armer stated it would be required or a groundwater
discharge permit would be required. There are specific state requirements that must be met.
Doug Ochsner asked about the 15 acre area,how big will the stockpiles be and is dust control a problem. Ms.
Armer stated there will be water at the site and they will sprinkle the piles in an effort to mitigate the dust. The
height of the piles will be approximately 5-6 feet tall or less depending on the amount of soil. The only time it
will be stockpiled is when it does not have a predetermined site.
Michael Miller asked what the maximum capacity of treated soil was on the five acre site. Ms.Armer stated it
was done based on 129600 cubic feet per year and this is based on 3 spills that are similar to the existing spill
on site of 1600 cubic yards. The amount of stagnant time is hard to determine based on the nutrient levels in
the soils. If there is a need for more additives it can be added to move the process along. Mr. Miller asked
what the intent of the water in the sump is. Ms. Armer stated the intent is to sample and ship to offsite to a
disposal facility. There is the expectation of contaminants so they will dispose of it. Mr. Holubec stated that
the intent is to use the water that has met levels of safety but if there are contaminates it will be disposed of.
Michael Miller asked for the location of the nearest home to the site. Ms.Armer stated it was approximately
150 feet from the site. This is the owner that the agreement is with. The five acre portion is towards the south
end. Mr. Miller added that some of the soil has odor and how will that be addressed. Ms. Armer stated the
odors will be more prevalent with high winds so the intention is to not do any work in those situations.
Roy Spitzer asked if COGA would have access to all the test results. Ms.Armer stated they will as well as the
Weld County Health Department.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if these were available online. Ms.Armer stated they are and they can be searched by
name and/or location.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Diane Wolfe, neighbor, indicated her concerns. The proposed site has been farmed in the previous years.
The contaminated soil from the Wiedeman site is presently placed in close proximity to the ditch and her
residence. There are five windrows across from the house presently. The soil has the potential to blow in
high winds. There were photos provided to show the recent activity with the wind gusts. In 2005 there were
123 days with winds over 20 mph or higher. Generally the wind is out of the north in which the soil blows
directly across the adjacent property. There were several exhibits handed out identifying the present pile
locations and various dirt flying. A Mahoney Environmental Report was also submitted detailing the amount of
loads hauled on to the site for the Wiedeman spill. The loads have multiplied due to the addition of
composting materials to assist in the processing. There have been several trucks loading the dirt to the site
which makes for more dust. There is a nuisance and it is affecting the surrounding owners. The odor is a
concern along with the noise, dust and traffic. They want to preserve prime agricultural land. Ms. Wolfe
believes this should be on an alternative site. There are locations for this type of facility and the existing
facilities are located on dry lands with few residences. There are pets and wildlife in the area that may drink
from the sump area.
Doug Ochsner asked about the locations of the surrounding facilities. Ms. Wolfe stated she has provided
information with regards to the locations of those within a 15 mile radius of her home.
Kenny Dappin,neighbor,indicated his concerns. With the amount of wind that occurred recently there was a
lot of dust and that is a concern. The contamination of 140 acres seems ridiculous. Mr. Miller asked about
the odors. Mr. Dappin stated the site on CR 39 is bad but he did not detect any at that time.
John Donley,attorney for Ms.Wolfe,presented their objections. The applicant cannot meet the standards in
the zoning ordinance. There are also certain criteria that the applicant must meet,for example this proposal is
not consistent with Comprehensive Plan. This proposal has nothing to do with development it is a change to
an agricultural zoned property. This request reduces the prime agricultural land uses. The impact will not be
8
minimal since there could be several loads of dirt for this area. This proposal has nothing to do with
agriculture. There are potential dangers with the movement of this contaminated soil. There will be visual
pollution,as well as health concerns. The amount of possible loads to this area could be enormous. This will
increase traffic noise and dirt for the area. The Mahoney Report identified the wind, ground water table and
location of this site. The report was in direct correlation to the Wiedeman spill. There could be speculation as
to whether this site will contaminate the groundwater. There have been sites that have contaminated the
water. The intent of rules is for consistency. These impacts are not consistent with the adjacent neighbors.
Any activity of this type should not be allowed due to it not being compatible with the farming in the area.
There are other locations this would be better situated. Weld County zoning law should be a precedent over
the COCA regulations. Mr. Donley addressed the zoning criteria that should be applied to this proposal. Mr.
Donley argued that the application is not consistent with Sections 23-2-260.A, Section 23-2-220.A.3,Section
23-2-220.A.7 of the Weld County code. This use is better situated further to the east. The health,safety and
welfare of the neighbors are being compromised. There are other agencies that maintain the needed
regulations for safety. The COGA permitting process will address the safety issues. This application has no
permit from COCA. There needs to be a waste management permit. There is no operations plan that has
been reviewed by COGA so how can this be approved. The plan would address how contaminants will be
mitigated. There is a greater need for this type of facility closer to the wells. The other companies have gone
to the drylands. This is a series of tests all the requirements have been addressed but it is up to the Planning
Commission to determine whether they have gotten the needed approvals.
Erich Ehrlich asked about whether there was any input from Farmers Irrigation. Mr. Donley stated they had
not seen any. Mr. Ehrlich stated that the Town of Gilcrest indicated they would annex at a time in the future
when this proposal was approved. Mr. Donley stated anything is possible.
Paul Branham asked for clarification on the Wiedeman site and location. Mr. Donley stated the Merit site was
contaminated when it was purchased and there will be other sites that are purchased that will be
contaminated. There was an agreement between the land owner and Merit to move the dirt to this site
Michael Miller stated that Merit did not directly testify that they will be purchasing contaminated sites. There is
a 1%chance that the remainder wells will be contaminated. Mr. Donley stated that he did not intend to imply
that Merit would be purchasing contaminated wells only that this site will be the site where remediate the wells.
Tom Holton asked how the map of the wells was created. Ms. Wolf stated the information was from the
Colorado Oil & Gas Commission web site.
The Chair closed the public portion.
Frank Collenbeck provided a map that indicates the locations of the all wells around Weld County. Merit
Energy has 650 wells and there are a total of 15,000 wells in Weld County. Merit does not intend to dig 650
wells to the extent the Weidman operation was. The intent is to clean up the contamination and there is no
intent to have large stockpiles. There will be a six inch compacted clay liner for the piles to mitigate seepage.
There will also be monitoring wells to ensure the groundwater is protected. The winds are something the
applicant does not have control of but if there is something the applicant can do to mitigate like fencing they
would be more than willing. Sprinkling of the stockpiles will assist in this.
Michael Miller asked if the contaminated soil that was hauled to the Frank Farm had some type of liner
underneath so there would be limited seepage. Mr. Holubec stated the contaminated soils were placed on the
drilling site. The non contaminated soils were set off site. Mr. Miller asked if COGA specifically requires a
liner for the contaminated soil. Mr. Dudley stated if it is recommended it will be done. Mr. Miller asked
approximately how long the odor lasts. Mr. Holubec stated it lasts approximately one week to 10 days
depending on the saturation. Mr. Miller asked how the applicant intends address this. Troy Swain, Weld
County Department of Health,added that odor cannot be associated with the concentration. It depends on the
contaminant. Typically there are no odor problems at the land farms so a condition was not added. The
applicant is subject to the Air Pollution Control Regulations. The condition is only used when the facility is
exempt from the regulations. There is a device to determine odor but it is set to stricter regulations.
Tom Holton asked what is presently being used for soil contamination. Mr. Holubec stated there are some
facilities off of CR 43 and there are only two truck loads that have been dug out onsite. Mr. Holton asked
about the other sites and if there is the possibility of using those. Mr. Holubec stated they cannot utilize
9
another company's site.
Paul Branham asked if there are any other facilities like this. Mr. Holubec stated no. Mr. Branham asked
about the number of truck trips. Mr. Holubec stated there are only a few trucks that are being utilized to haul
contaminated soil.Mr. Branham asked if contaminated soil was being brought in. Mr. Holubec stated they are
not and there is nothing being placed on the permitted area.
Roy Spitzer asked if there is any site specific information on ground water levels. Mr. Holubec state the
information had not been obtained yet. Mr. Spitzer asked how a six inch barrier would be protected it seems
as a 3-4 foot liner would be more suitable. Mr. Holubec stated it will be in place and compacted. Mr.Spitzer
stated that according to COGA there needs to be a liner under the remedial soil piles as well. Ms. Armer
indicated the suggestion pertained to run off and run on and the suggestion was a berm but they can speak
with COGA to get clarification. Mr. Spitzer asked if a site could be chosen would have less permeable soils.
Ms. Armer stated the site could be designed to work.
Doug Ochsner asked about if the Planning Commission is safe in assuming that all the technicalities are in the
plans and it must be signed off by the COGA and Weld County Department of Health.The dust and odor are a
major concern and are those issues addressed in the staff recommendation. Mr. Swain stated they feel that
the Conditions of Approval are in the appropriate areas. The Development Standards are ongoing conditions
that must be met. There will be items that will be reviewed. There will still be a major amount of review for
this proposal.
Don Carroll, Public Works,added that the dust is addressed in Development Standards#21. This condition is
similar to other facilities. The applicant can legally haul material on public road. The reason for the USR is to
be able to mitigate and control the site.
Paul Branham asked how many facilities such as this are located in irrigated areas. Mr.Swain stated he does
not have that information at hand. The estimate is around 4 and possibly one more. They are all in the
dryland area.
Erich Ehrlich stated the concern is can there be any seeding or something on the piles that will limit the
amount of dirt that flies to the surrounding area. Mr. Holubec stated that when there is remediation the soil is
being turned to aerate and will be 14-18 inches deep.The applicant is planning on putting water on the piles to
keep the dust down and control with fences with the wind. Ms.Armer stated technicality there is not enough
time for the seed to take root before the aeration.
Mr. Holubec indicated he agrees to the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval
Michael Miller asked Mr. Swain if there were any health hazard in the area. Mr.Swain stated the applicant is
being required to file an air pollution emission notice. The applicant has done some testing to come up with a
universal number. VOC is a precursor to ozone. The existing problem could be addressed by the Health
Department. There are rules for fugitive dust and complaints can be made to the Health Department. There
is a condition for the present proposal to deal with air pollution.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the article stating Denver's pollution was caused by Weld County oil wells. Mr.
Swain added that land farms are a potential source so they want to make sure there is an accurate count.
The Health Department is reviewing tons of emissions in a year. If the material is heavy it will take longer to
evaporate and vice versa.
Michael Miller asked whether there is the potential for the neighbors to have health affects. Mr. Swain stated
there is no information on this. Typically when looking at hazardous materials it will be regulated on an
industry basis. The only thing the Health Department can do is make sure emission points are monitored.
Erich Ehrlich asked Mr.Gathman if he has spoken with Gilcrest to determine annexation. Mr.Gathman stated
he referred to the notice of inquiry and referral response received from the Town of Gilcrest.
Paul Branham stated he has four concerns. The removal of prime farm land is one concern. The wind will
spread contaminates to the remainder of the site. The second concern is the impact to the area and it is not
minimal. If this is approved it would give them permission to allow the use and then monitor to see how bad it
is. The third concern is the removal of irrigated land. Finally there is no limit on the amount of contaminated
10
soil that can be onsite. The will only be monitored quarterly. There are better sites for this and those could be
on dry land like the other facilities.
Bruce Fitzgerald added this is poor planning on Merits part. There was no site for remediation and this should
have been done well before this. This is not a good location.
Michael Miller stated there needs to be remediation but some is extremely toxic and the health risks are too
great. The other existing sites are located further away from neighbors.
Roy Spitzer commented this needs to be based on specific conditions like groundwater and soil. There are
better sites based on geological or technical conditions. Man made liners leak, compacted clay are better.
The liner would need to be 3-4 feet thick. They will be cleaned with bulldozers and such and a liner of six
inches will not be sufficient. There is never a guarantee with any waste facility. The biggest concern is the
blowing dust to the proximity of neighbors.
Chris Gathman recommended that the Planning Commission quote specific sections if they intend to motion
for denial.
Michael Miller moved that Case USR-1549, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the
Planning Commissions recommendation of denial. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The motion for denial is based on Sections 23-2-220.A.3
Sections 23-2-220.A.4
Sections 23-2-240
Sections 23-4-380.8
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy
Spitzer,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes;James Welch,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Tom Holton,yes, Doug Ochsner,yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 5:00pm
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
11
Hello