HomeMy WebLinkAbout20061757.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
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, Bruce
Fitzgerald, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chad Auer
Paul Branham
Erich Ehrlich
Tom Holton •
Michael Miller
Doug Ochsner-Absent
Roy Spitzer •
James Welch
Bruce Fitzgerald
Also Present: Don Carroll, Department of Public Works; Char Davis, Department of Public Health and
Environment; Cyndy Giauque, County Attorney; Jacqueline Hatch and Michelle Martin, Department of
Planning.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on May2,2006,was
approved as read.
The Chair said the format of the hearing would be changed and the fourth case of the day would become the
first.
1. CASE: USR-1553
APPLICANT: Jeff Gregg for Hall Irwin Corporation, 301 Centennial Drive, Milliken CO
80543.
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL: SE-656 pt SE4; Lot A RE-2070 pt SE4 and Lot B RE-1352 pt SW4 NE4 all in
Section 36; of Ti N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, CO.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Mineral
Resource Development facility including Gravel Mining,export of materials
and a Landscaping Sales Yard in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: Multiple parcels generally located East of and adjacent to CR 23.5, North of
and adjacent to CR 2 (Baseline Road), and South of CR 23.75.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning, said the applicant, Jeff Gregg for Hall Irwin, has requested a
continuance of USR-1553 to provide them extra time to meet with the county attorney to discuss the importing
of materials to the neighboring gravel site, Baseline, USR-1172, and to give them additional time for re-
notification for the import of materials to this site. Planning staff is in support of this request for continuance to
the July 18, 2006 hearing.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this continuance. No
one wished to speak.
Mike Miller moved that Case USR-1553, be continued to the July 18, 2006 hearing date. Chad Auer
seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Chad Auer,
yes; Paul Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; James
1
n
� v 7`r`cle, aao 2006-1757
Welch, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Specific time for public input has been set aside for discussion on the following items:
2. CASE: AMUSR-1259
APPLICANT: Riverbend c/o Eric Reckentine with Lafarge West, Inc.
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL: N2 Section 13; SE4 NW4 Section 12; E 30 acres SW4 SE4 Section 12; S2
of E 60acres SW4 Section 12;W4 SW4 SE4 Section 12; NW4 SE4 Section
12; E 30 acres NE4 SW4 Section 12; Pt N2 NE4 Section 24; E2 SE4 Section
12; of T1 N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, CO.and W2 NW4 Section
18; W2 SW4 Section 18; Lot A and B RE-2347 Pt NW4 Section 19; Lots 1
and 2 SW4 Section 19; Pt W2 SE4 Section 19;Pt NW4 SE4 Section 19;W2
SW4 Section 7; of T1 N, R66W of the 61h P.M., Weld County, CO.
REQUEST: An amended Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review
Permit for a Mineral Resource Development facility including a Concrete
and Asphalt Batch Plant, Concrete Casting Facility, Recycling Plant,
Materials Blending, Import of Materials and Gravel Mining in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: General vicinity is East of and adjacent to CR 23, North of and adjacent to
CR 6, and West of and adjacent to State Highway 85.
The Chair asked the applicant to step forward as a member of the Planning Commission, Tom Holton, had
some questions. Mr. Holton asked Mr. Reckentine if the area that Thornton owned was presently permitted.
Mr. Reckentine replied that it was presently permitted under a separate USR. Mr. Holton wondered if he
needed to recuse himself due to his five percent ownership in the three hundred twenty(320) acres to the
north. He is an adjacent landowner, even though the property was currently being annexed by Fort Lupton.
Mr. Holton added that his family would not gain from this application being either approved or denied.
Mr. Reckentine responded that he did not have a problem with Mr. Holton hearing the case. Cyndy Giauque,
County Attorney, suggested the record show what Mr. Holton's interest was in the property, and that
another member of the Planning Commission needed to recuse himself. Roy Spitzer said the firm he works
for currently has contracts with LaFarge and felt it prudent to recuse himself from this case.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services. Eric Reckentine with Lafarge West Inc.represented by
Jennifer Vecchi have applied for an amended Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit
for a Mineral Resource Development facility including a Concrete and Asphalt Batch Plant,Concrete Casting
Facility, Recycling Plant, Materials Blending, Import of Materials and Gravel Mining in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District.
The sign announcing the planning commission hearing was posted on May 4, 2006 by staff.
The site is generally located east of and adjacent to County Road 23, north of and adjacent to County Road 6,
and west of and adjacent to State Highway 85.
The operation will process approximately two million tons of aggregate per year and mine approximately forty
to fifty acres per year. At this rate it is anticipated the mining and reclaiming of the site would be thirty four
years, however the rate of mining and overall life of the mine is dependent upon demand and market
conditions-the life of the mine may extend beyond the thirty four years. The operation is planned for a total of
nine phases that the applicant will go into more detail with in their presentation.
The processing area will be located on approximately forty acres in the southeastern portion of the property by
the CR 6 and State Highway 85 respectively and will be the last portion to me mined
The site contains two gravel operations currently (SUP-310 & USR-1259) The proposed use would be
2
compatible with surrounding properties which include gravel operations to the south(AmUSR-921 &AmUSR-
905)and to the north east(USR-603&USR-695)and agricultural uses to the west. State Highway 85 is to the
east of the site. The applicant is proposing to install a vegetated berm on the south and east sides of the
plant side area to shield the operations from surrounding landowners and traffic on State Highway 85. The
existing cottonwood gallery to the west and north of the plant site is proposed to remain to buffer the
landowners located west of the site.
The City of Brighton in their referral dated August 8,2005,suggested that the applicant include a primary trail
as part of the site. The City of Fort Lupton in their referral dated August 23, 2005 recommended approval of
the application but do request that the screening blend into the site and that the County continue to provide the
City with updates and be aware of the future traffic issues at County Road 6 and State Highway 85.The City of
Fort Lupton in their referral dated April 13, 2006 requested that the applicant enter into an annexation
agreement prior to the Board of County Commissioner's hearing. No referral was received from Adams
County.
The total area within the permit as outlined in their application is 1,152 acres (640 acres to be disturbed).
The property will be reclaimed as unlined groundwater-fed ponds, lined water storage reservoirs as well as silt
basin wetland and upland areas. The deposit will be dry mined through the use of dewatering trenches and
pumps.
There will be a maximum of two shifts and forty employees working on the site. Section 23-4-290.8 of the
Weld County Code limits the hours of operation for sand and gravel operations to the hours of day light except
in the case of public or private emergency or to make necessary repairs to equipment.Hours of operation may
be extended with specific permission from the Weld County Board of County Commissioners.This restriction
shall not apply to operation of administrative and executive offices or repair and maintenance facilities located
on the property.
The facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Industrial Zone as delineated
in 25-12-103 C.R.S., as amended.
Twenty referral agencies included conditions that have been addressed through the development standards
and conditions of approval. Two letters from surrounding property owners have been received.
The Department of Planning Services would like to request two changes to the conditions of approval: item
2.F. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements of the City of Brighton,as stated in their referral
response dated April 28, 2006. Evidence of approval shall be submitted in writing to the Department of
Planning Services; and item 1.D. presently in "prior to Board of County Commission" be moved to"prior to
operations" and added as a new number five and re-numbered accordingly.
The Department of Planning Services has reviewed case number amusr-1259 and recommends approval to
the Planning Commission, with the attached Conditions and Development Standards as amended.
Mr. Holton asked about the annexation to Fort Lupton and would that occur in the future. Ms. Hatch replied
Fort Lupton is asking for an annexation agreement prior to scheduling the Board of County Commissioners
hearing and it would be on just the properties owned by the applicant, not the entire property.
Mr. Ehrlich asked about the Kerr-McGee agreement and where it stands. Ms. Hatch said they had received
correspondence from the oil & gas entities on the site stating they are working with the applicants, and
we have a condition, prior to scheduling the Board of County Commissioners, that those annexation
agreements are complete. (Page 5, 1.A.)
Eric Reckentine, 1800 No Taft Hill Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80526, Area Manager Northern Colorado
Aggregates Division, stepped forward and said he appreciated the opportunity to present the Riverbend
application to the Planning Commission today. Their goals are to mine natural resources and return them
back to nature. La Farge is the largest diversified supplier of construction materials in the United States and
3
Canada. LaFarge is the world leader in building materials and is located in seventy(70)countries throughout
the world. Their chief products include aggregate, asphalt and concrete. They have received numerous
industry awards and pride themselves on their reclamation achievements. Their plan is to work together to
create a comprehensive plan with Weld County and the Fort Lupton community. They plan to expand their
two existing permitted gravel sites located adjacent to the South Platte River on County Road 6 and south of
State Highway 52. Their goal is to concurrently mine and reclaim the site from south to north, creating: silt
basin wetlands; lined ponds for water storage; unlined ponds;wildlife habitat;re-vegetation;future parks,trails
and open space;fishing ponds; river corridor enhancement; and passive recreation. The company goal is to
protect the aquifer, minimize traffic impacts and create a beautifully reclaimed site for the future. Mr.
Reckentine outlined the site boundaries, talked about the existing ditches and that they would not be
relocated, and pointed out the various plants to be located on the site. He said all materials would be
conveyed from north to south and plant access would be on County Road 6 exclusively. All commercial traffic
would travel down County Road 6, enter into the site, load and come back out on County Road 6. The
majority of traffic would continue south down Highway 85 to the Denver market area. All mined materials
would be conveyed from north to south. They would establish a conveying network and as they mined out a
property, materials would be conveyed down to the stationary plant and processed. They plan to have a
gravel processing plant, a concrete batch plant and an asphalt batch plant. He addressed berming and
planting and said a key feature of the site was that they are shielded from public view due to the South Platte
River and the riparian corridor they will protect, and the large cottonwood trees on the site,excluding the plant
site area. They intend to create a twenty five foot berm in the area and vegetate it prior to mining, thus
establishing a riparian corridor that would tie into the existing corridor and create a shield of the plant site
location from view.
Gene Coppola, 9323 Ermindale Dr, Lonetree, CO, traffic consultant for the project, gave background on the
traffic studies conducted in the area. In late 1999, early 2000, these three major facilities; Aggregate
Industries, Asphalt Paving and LaFarge, realized they would be expanding their facilities served by County
Road 6 west of Highway 85. A joint traffic study was conducted which assessed not only the background
traffic growth but also the build-out scenario for each of those facilities. That study resulted in the
determination that a right turn lane was necessary along the south side of County Road 6 leading to
southbound Highway 85. In conjunction with that lane, an acceleration lane would be brought up to current
standards along the west side of Highway 85. Additionally, the northbound left turn lane,from Highway 85 to
County Road 6, would be lengthened and traffic signals would be necessary at some point in the future.
Those improvements were implemented when Aggregate Industries increased production at their facility. It
was a joint venture among the three operators. In conjunction with this project, LaFarge has updated the
traffic study which confirmed that County Road 6 and Highway 85 remain functional and will serve future traffic
needs. That study determined the only improvement necessary would be the west bound right turn lane from
County Road 6 into the site ingress. As a part of the referral process, Colorado Department of Transportation
(CDOT) has also requested LaFarge look at lengthening the right turn lane southbound on Highway 85 to
County Road 6, and they have agreed to consider that request.
Mr. Reckentine continued with landscaping plans and said they will establish a berm along the east side of
the property to create a visual barrier from view of Highway 85, adjoining property owners and Fort Lupton.
The berm will be established and vegetation in place prior to installation of any of these plants along County
Road 6.
Jennifer Vecchi,Vecchi&Associates, PO Box 1175, Longmont, CO 80504, reclamation specialist, said that
LaFarge has put considerable attention and detail into developing the mining plan, and they gave equal
thought and energy to the reclamation plan. Long after this property is mined, the reclaimed site will
remain. LaFarge began working about two years ago with representatives from Fort Lupton,the city council
and the planning commission, and they hosted neighborhood meetings. Three important points came out of
those many conversations: preservation and enhancement of the riparian corridor; connecting ditch areas;
and the site proximity to Fort Lupton. LaFarge had talked to Fort Lupton about annexation but they are not
contiguous and do not meet the state statutory requirements for annexation. LaFarge will pursue an
agreement for pre-annexation prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing for the properties as
contiguity becomes possible. Lafarge will mine the site to the southeast,where the majority of the activity will
4
take place. The berm will be established along the eastern and southern boundaries at the beginning of the
project prior to bringing any equipment into the site. Elements of the reclamation plan will include the
development of wetlands, with special attention to the protection and enhancement of wildlife habitat, lined
and unlined ponds for future water storage, upland pasture lands, re-vegetation of the river corridor, potential
trails, open spaces, potential fishing ponds, civic uses, and passive recreation. There is a limited
development potential around some of the lakes later on, but it would have to be consistent with the County's
and Fort Lupton's Comprehensive Plans. The view from Highway 85 across the road includes a mobile home
park on the northeast corner and we have allowed for landscaping and berming to mitigate the view to and
from the site. Concurrent reclamation will be practiced,where only forty to fifty acres will be mined at a time,
reclaimed, and then another forty or fifty acres will then be mined. There will be progressive reclamation
throughout the life of the mine.
Mr. Reckentine gave an overview of the mine plan and concurrent reclamation plan,saying the plant site will
be stationary throughout the life of the site. LaFarge will reclaim phase one as mining in two is starting,
reclaim two as mining in three is starting, etc. Mr. Reckentine closed by saying that this presentation
represented seven years of work on their behalf and they believed they have presented a mine plan that will
maximize gravel extraction and provide the community with a reclamation plan that will add value to the
community.
Mr. Miller inquired about the south to north phasing plan and said it seems like development will occur around
the northern boundary of the property. He wondered if it wouldn't make more sense to begin there and move
south to minimize the impact on the Fort Lupton development area, and asked if that would be a possibility.
Mr. Reckentine said it was considered and was not an impossibility, though they don't know what kind of
development may occur to their north. The mine plan was established to minimize the outlay of the conveyor
up front and if there was development up north there would be no issue with running the conveyor the entire
length and mining the northern areas and moving south.
Mr. Miller asked if the import of materials was for asphalt and where would those materials be stored. Mr.
Reckentine said the materials would be stored in the same processing area as the plant due to proximity for
recycling but that they might at some point bring in a portable facility as well.
Mr. Miller inquired about the number of truck trips and if they were included in the traffic study. Mr. Reckentine
replied he believed they were included in the traffic study but the actual numbers would depend upon the
construction in the area but would be handled through the way the peak traffic flow and operation hours are
set up.
Mr. Miller asked Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, if there was a point in the evaluation of the traffic
study where the acceptable traffic levels would be exceeded. Mr. Carroll deferred to Mr. Coppola, LaFarge
traffic engineer,to address the question. Mr. Coppola said the traffic study assumes roughly ninety(90)trucks
in and out per hour, but they do not expect to ever exceed that. As far as the adequacy of County Road 6 and
Highway 85, most of those lanes were built for this design load and also some of the lanes in existence were
not traffic volume sensitive. For instance,the east bound right turn going south on Highway 85,the design of
that acceleration lane is a constant whether we have two hundred (200)or five hundred (500) cars an hour.
The design will not change even if traffic changes. Mr. Miller said his concern was that there were loaded
trucks going both in and out thereby doubling the volume and road capacity would be exceeded, especially
when material import and export from the two additional proposed facilities was factored in. Mr.Coppola said
he did not see that happening, as this was the largest operation, the other two would be smaller, and even if
volume was doubled, they would still be well within acceptable limits.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Dorothy Gandleman, DJR Well Service, 12563 CR 6, Brighton, CO, located on the corner of Highway 85 and
County Road 6. Her business is located just in front of this proposed development and she expressed
concern with traffic as her business will have slow moving vehicles entering County Road 6 at the same time
as the LaFarge vehicles. She wants the speed limit such that it provides safe entry for all. Ms. Gandleman
5
expressed concern about dust and plans for abatement, as well as requesting that the prairie dog colony be
disposed of properly and not relocated to her property. She appreciated the addition of berms to mitigate
views. Mr. Miller asked Ms. Gandleman if she had experienced any difficulties so far. She replied that
Aggregate Industry trucks do not obey stop signs and her trucks always need to sit and make sure it is clear
prior to entering the road.
Henry Teener, County Road 22, said he was involved in an accident on County Road 6 where he dealt with
CDOT, who told him that Highway 85 is a high speed road between Denver and Greeley. Mr. Teener said
rush hour traffic is horrendous, and when you put a truck on the road that is carrying eighty five thousand
(85,000)pounds, the speed up lane was not long enough to get a truck up to any sort of speed. When they
come out of Brighton and proceed north, there is a train of trucks at this point, and this business will impact
safety and traffic tremendously during commute hours and CDOT is pushing this route as an alternate route to
1-25.
Carl Eiberger, 754 CR 23.75, said he had never seen a concurrent reclamation plan, thought it was a great
idea and supported it.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
Mr. Reckentine responded to community concerns: Lafarge manages prairie dogs year to year to mitigate the
problem; a dust mitigation plan exists for the proposed site; the majority of processing would be on the
Rittenhouse property; irrigation would be provided for tree planting;sprayers would be located in several areas
for dust abatement; truck traffic on County Road 6 is per Fort Lupton's request and would be safer located
away from future building. Mr. Coppola added that turn lanes on Highway 85 and County Road 6 are a truck
design and meet CDOT standards for truck designs for expressways,which is the classification for Highway
85, so acceleration and deceleration have been accounted for. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if the south bound lane
had a stop sign. Mr.Coppola said it is not a sheltered turn lane,that traffic would stop on red and proceed on
green.
The Chair asked the applicant if they had read and agreed with the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval. Mr. Reckentine replied yes.
Ms. Hatch said currently there is a note regarding the Brighton Ditch that the applicant needs to address. She
suggested an addition on page 7, a new item I.and re-letter accordingly to read,"The applicant shall submit to
the Department of Planning Services,a copy of site agreements with the Lupton Bottom Ditch Company." Mr.
Reckentine agreed to that term.
Mr. Miller asked Ms. Hatch for clarification about the addition of the new item I. and would it be the same as
existing item H except it was addressed to Lupton Bottom. Ms. Hatch replied they had received a referral from
Brighton Ditch so currently item H. says"they shall address". Since they do not have a referral from Lupton
Bottom, they are asking for an agreement with them.
Mr. Ehrlich asked Ms. Hatch if items H. and I. could be moved from "prior to recording the plat"to "prior to
scheduling the Board of County Commissioners hearing". She replied that they could be moved. Mr. Ehrlich
said something else that was inaudible. Mr. Miller said that could potentially delay scheduling the hearing if
they don't respond promptly. Mr. Ehrlich's response was inaudible. Mr. Miller responded they could schedule
the hearing before they got a response from the Lupton Bottom Ditch. If we put it"prior to recording the plat",
they could proceed with scheduling the Board of County Commissioner's hearing and move forward with the
application and add that agreement in prior to recording the plat.
Mr. Fitzgerald asked if production could begin prior to recording the plat. Ms. Hatch said no. Mr. Fitzgerald
said that would cover the Lupton Bottom and that was all that was required.
The Chair asked for discussion or a motion.
Mike Miller moved to add a new letter I.on page 7 and renumber accordingly,referencing the acquisition of a
6
signed agreement between the applicant and the Lupton Bottom Ditch. Tom Holton seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Chad Auer,
yes; Paul Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Roy Spitzer, abstained;
James Welch, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried.
Mike Miller moved to accept staff language regarding item 2.F., page 7 addressing the requirements of the
City of Brighton and also move item 1.D., page 6 to page 10, number 5. and renumber accordingly. Tom
Holton seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Chad Auer,
yes; Paul Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Roy Spitzer, abstained;
James Welch, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried.
The Chair asked the applicant if he was still in agreement with the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval. Mr. Reckentine replied that he agreed.
Mr. Holton asked Mr. Reckentine about a letter from the Fort Lupton Fire Department and a location for a
future station location. Mr. Reckentine said Fort Lupton Fire was vague as to a future station location but
LaFarge is willing to negotiate when Fort Lupton narrows that down in the future. The only concern that
LaFarge has is that this is an MSHA(Mine Safety Health Administration)regulated site and anyone working or
walking around the site needs to have MSHA certification,so basically is has to be in an area of post mining.
Mr. Holton said they are basically looking at a fill site rather than a station. Mr. Reckentine said there was no
definitive answer yet.
Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, clarified that the light at County 6 and Highway 85 is a free right, a
non-stop condition to keep trucks rolling and is probably marked as a yield. The idea is to keep the trucks
rolling and up to speed and merge them in so as not to impede traffic. Mr. Carroll said he had heard mention
of County Road 10 being used, but there is no access to Highway 85. We do not have any right of way
because that was more than likely homesteaded prior to our 1889 resolution. One would also have to cross
the river to get to County Road 10.
Mr. Fitzgerald asked if there were plans to make County Road 10 go through to Highway 85. Mr.Carroll said
they had no right of way on County Road10.
Mr. Holton asked Ms. Hatch why on the PUD's under Section 22-5-30.H., regarding oil and gas, why is that
different than what we are seeing on this USR, and isn't that more consistent with what we are trying to do in
the county than what is referenced under Section 22-5-100.A. Ms. Hatch said she will check into that,though
that is the shell they have always used but maybe the Code could be changed. Mr. Holton said Section 27-5-
30.H. contained more consistent language with what we are trying to do here rather than Section 22-5-100.
He would like to see language from Section 27-5-30.H. and maybe the attorney or the Board of County
Commissioners could look at changing this. Ms. Hatch replied that Section 22-5-100 pertains to oil and gas
operations and Section 27-5-30.H. references PUD's and this is a USR, not a PUD. Mr. Holton said he
understood that but why would the language be different from one section to the next when they both deal with
the same subject. Ms. Hatch responded that she would have to compare the two sections side by side. Mr.
Holton said the basic difference at the end between the two is that Section 27-5-30 says, "OR shall provide
written evidence that an adequate attempt has been made to mitigate the concerns of the mineral owners on
the subject property." Ms. Hatch said they do allow that. If an applicant is having a hard time getting an
agreement with a specific mineral owner they can provide evidence they have been trying for a specific period
of time and go before the Board of County Commissioners with that evidence and the Board can make the
determination at that time. Mr. Holton asked if that should be referenced in the application versus what is in
Section 22-5-30.H.which is not very specific, saying you only need to provide evidence rather than a written,
signed agreement. Ms. Hatch said they needed to provide an agreement or show the drill envelopes in a
USR.
7
Mr. Fitzgerald asked the County Attorney if that was something that could be changed at this time. Ms.
Giauque replied that they needed to abide by what staff had recommended.
Mr. Miller said staff has the ability to accept evidence of an attempt to negotiate,as it is written now,whether it
is written in the Code or not.
Mr. Fitzgerald asked Ms. Hatch if she could assure them this will happen if the mineral owners do not come
forth with an agreement. Ms. Hatch replied the applicants have that option, over so many years, if they still
have not reached an agreement but have been attempting to make one. Currently the mineral owners on the
site have been working with LaFarge and she sees no problem.
The Chair asked the applicant if he was still in agreement with the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval. Mr. Reckentine replied that he agreed.
Chad Auer moved that Case AmUSR-1259, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval. Erich Ehrlich seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Chad Auer,
yes; Paul Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Roy Spitzer, abstained;
James Welch, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried.
Mike Miller complemented LaFarge on a very complete application and their willingness to step into the twenty
first century and address issues up front rather than wait for resolution by the Planning Commission.
Bruce Fitzgerald echoed Mr. Miller's comments and said that working with the city of Fort Lupton and the
neighbors is a good step in establishing a good relationship.
2. CASE: USR-1555
APPLICANT: Tsunami Communications Inc.
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL: Part NW4 of Section 33, T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Major
Facility (two 1.5 Million Gallon Water Storage Tanks) of a Public Utility or
Public Agency in the A(Agricultural)Zone District).
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 17 and south of CR 16.
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services, presented a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special
Review Permit for a Major Facility (two 1.5 Million Gallon Water Storage Tanks) of a Public Utility or Public
Agency in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
The sign announcing the Planning Commissioners hearing was posted May 2, 2006 by Planning Staff.
The site is located East of and adjacent to County Road 17 and south of County Road 16.
The facility will not have an undue adverse effect on existing and future development of the surrounding area
as set forth in applicable Master Plans. The subject property lies within the three-mile referral area of the City
of Dacono,Town of Firestone and Town of Frederick. The City of Dacono in their referral dated April 10,2006
stated that they had no conflicts with the request. No response has been received by the Town of Firestone.
The Town of Frederick in their email dated April 21,2006 is requesting the tank be painted to blend in with the
environment. The following Conditions of Approval and Development Standards address the Town of
Frederick's concern.
Mr. Fitzgerald asked if the new tower presently under construction was under USR-1508. Ms. Martin replied
8
that is was.
The proposed facility will be compatible with surrounding land uses. While there are predominantly
agricultural uses in the area,there are existing water tanks to the west of the property in question USR-1116
and communication towers to the north USR-776 and USR-1508. The proposed Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards will minimize negative impacts on the surrounding area.
The Department of Planning Services has not received any letters from surrounding property owners.
Seventeen referral agencies reviewed this case. Eleven responded favorably or included conditions that have
been addressed through development standards and conditions of approval.
The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of this application along with the Conditions
of Approval and Development Standards.
Mr. Fitzgerald asked Ms. Martin about the sign postings and their location.
Mr. Miller asked about the tank shown in the presentation and if that is the type the applicant intends to
build on the site. Ms. Martin deferred to the engineer for water tank construction plans.
Mr. Holton asked if this site was within the Fort Lupton Fire District. Ms. Martin replied yes it is.
Dave Lindsey,TST Consulting Engineers,748 Whalers Way, Fort Collins,CO,civil engineering consultant for
the Town of Firestone and the design engineer for the project,said there is a lease purchase agreement with
the current landowner, but ultimately Firestone will own both sites.
Mr. Fitzgerald asked Mr. Lindsey why they chose that site and design. Mr. Lindsey replied that particular site
and design were chosen because they needed a site that was elevated enough so they could obtain a
minimum 40 psi (pounds per square inch)pressure and it was the highest site available in the tri-town area.
They needed more elevation and there was not a location within Firestone's current corporate limits or within
the Urban Growth Boundary that would accommodate it, even with an elevated tank it would have been
difficult to do and would have required a pump station, so that is why the location in unincorporated Weld
County was chosen. The new tank will be of similar construction to those of Central Weld County Water, but
this one, called a standpipe, will be much taller, up to one hundred feet.
Mr. Miller asked if the tower was the same diameter from top to bottom. Mr. Lindsey said it was a constant
cylinder all the way up and will be painted light tan, the same as the Central Weld County Water tanks.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Mr. Holton asked Ms. Martin about fire protection and would it be shared with the town. Ms. Martin replied
the site was within Fort Lupton boundaries and they would provide fire protection.
The Chair asked Mr. Lindsey if he had read and was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards. Mr. Lindsey replied that he had no objections.
Mr. Miller said he assumed that since this is an application for a major facility of a public utility,they have the
final say and this application will not be going on to the Board of County Commissioners. Ms. Martin said that
if the application was approved by Planning Commission.
Mike Miller moved that Case USR-1555, be approved along with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Roy Spitzer seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Chad Auer,
9
yes; Paul Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; James
Welch, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
3. CASE: USR-1550
APPLICANT: Anna Motz, 10167 County Road 13, Longmont, CO 80504.
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL: Part of the E2 SE4 of Section 12, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,
CO.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a
business permitted as a use by right or accessory use in the Commercial
Zone District (outdoor storage of equipment, tools and material) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 13 and approximately '% mile north of CR 22.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services,Anna Motz has applied for a Site Specific Development Plan
and a Special Review Permit for a business permitted as a use by right or accessory use in the Commercial Zone
District (outdoor storage of equipment, tools and material) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
The sign announcing the planning commission hearing was posted on May 4, 2006 by staff. The site is located
West of and adjacent to CR 13 and approximately % mile north of CR 22. The area consists of approximately
10.75 +/-acres.
The site is currently in violation(VI-0300290)due to the storage of commercial equipment and commercial junkyard
since 2003. If this Use by Special Review application is approved the property will be in compliance. If denied,all
commercial equipment shall be removed from the property,otherwise,the violation case will proceed accordingly.
The surrounding area is primarily single family homes. There is an existing kennel (SUP-89)located directly to the
south of the site.The Town of Firestone has annexed the properties directly to the north,east and west of the site.
Existing built out subdivisions are located to the north and east of the site. There is a proposed subdivision to be
located to the west of the site within the Town of Firestone. There is an existing (6) six foot cedar fence
surrounding the property but due to the topography in the area many of the surrounding properties view the storage
area.
The home is currently utilizing an on-site septic system and the water is provided by a well. The applicant is
required to obtain a commercial well permit for the existing well on site.
The State of Colorado in their referral dated February 22, 2006 state "according to the submitted information no
water will be required to serve the proposed open storage. If the existing well will not be used to provide water to
the open storage operation, including drinking and sanitary use for the employees or landscape watering for the
operation, a commercial well will not be required."
The Weld County Health Department is requesting that as Development Standard (#13 and #14) that water for
drinking and sanitary purposes shall be available to employees working on the site and the employees working on
the site shall be allowed to use the handwashing and toilet facilities located at the applicants'residence. Therefore,
the applicant is required to obtain a commercial well permit.
Two letters from surrounding property owners have been received by the Department of Planning Services. One of
the letters has no concerns with the USR for outdoor storage but does have concerns regarding the weeds on the
property. The other letter is opposed to the USR application. The property owner is concerned that the outdoor
storage area will adversely impact the aesthetics of the neighborhood and surrounding area and also having a
detrimental impact on the surrounding property values.
Twelve (12)referral agencies reviewed this case, six (6) referral agencies had no comments, and six(6)referral
agencies included conditions that have been addressed through the Development Standards and Conditions of
10
Approval.
The subject property is within the three-mile referral area for the Town of Firestone, Frederick and Mead. The
Town of Mead and Frederick have no concerns with the application. The town of Firestone in their referral
indicated that an annexation agreement be submitted and accepted by the Town of Firestone prior to scheduling
the Board of County Commissioner's hearing.
The Department of Planning Services is requesting the following changes to the staff comments as outlined in the
memo provided to you today:
2.F and re-number accordingly
All vehicles located on the property must be operational with current license plates, or be screened
from all adjacent properties and public rights of way, or be removed from the property.All other items
considered to be part of a noncommercial junkyard must also be removed from the property or
screened from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way.
The Department of Planning Services has determined that the special use permit, USR-1550,is not compatible with
the surrounding properties and recommends denial of the application.
Mr. Fitzgerald asked when the violation was initiated and what has occurred since then. Ms. Hatch replied the
violation was initiated in 2003 and she has been working with the applicant the past six to eight months to obtain a
response from Firestone regarding their IGA(Inter Governmental Agreement). We have received correspondence
from Firestone saying they wanted an annexation agreement prior to scheduling the Board of County
Commissioner's hearing. Mr. Fitzgerald asked what the result will be if the annexation agreement is reached prior
to the Board of County Commissioner's hearing,will the Commissioners still hear this because it is in violation. Ms.
Hatch replied that it could just be an agreement, which means that once surrounded or once feasible, they will
annex the property. That is something the town will work out with the applicant so they could proceed with the
County.
Mr. Fitzgerald inquired about a dog kennel adjacent to this site. Ms. Hatch said the kennel was still in operation but
she had not researched it.
Mr.Welch asked Ms. Hatch for clarification as to what equipment was business related and what was personal on
the site. Ms. Hatch said it was her understanding that it was storage of equipment, tools and materials for the
business. She said certain things,like recreational vehicles or trailers,can be stored on the site as long as they are
licensed, but if there are derelict vehicles or items not pertaining to the business, those items need to be removed
or screened from surrounding property. The problem is that the new homes sit higher than the applicant's site.
Mr. Welch asked how much stuff stays if they approve this, because this is zoned agricultural and this site looks
like many other agricultural properties he has seen. Ms. Hatch said, if approved, not much would be allowed to
remain and that much of the material would need to be stored or screened from view.
Mr. Fitzgerald said he was at the site that morning and the site looks like industrial storage to him,as there were six
to eight un-operable vehicles, a crane, pipes, large drill bits, and one hundred to one hundred fifty pieces of
apparatus half the size of the table we are sitting at.
Mr. Branham asked Char Davis, Department of Public Health and Environment, to elaborate regarding the
reference on page 3, Item B.,which says"cannot ensure adequate conditions for health, safety and welfare". Ms.
Davis said the application information states there would be people on site intermittently to pick up and drop off
equipment for a site they work out of in Fort Lupton. Her concern was that there were restroom facilities available
on site if needed because we cannot allow the use of portable toilets. When Ms. Hatch received a letter from the
state saying there was more use on the site than was readily apparent, that caused concern.
Mr. Miller asked if they could allow portable toilets,as they have been allowed for various facilities with intermittent
uses (water towers and cell phone stations etc.) in the past, and couldn't we do that for this application and avoid
11
the whole problem with the commercial well. Ms. Davis said that was what she was trying to do until she received
information about the numbers of people on site and the Code will not allow them to do that for permanent uses.
Ms. Davis questioned if the house was included as a part of the USR so that it could be used for restroom and
handwashing facilities. Ms. Hatch said the house is not included in the USR presently,and if they were to use it, it
would need to be included in the USR.
Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, said he had visited the site and there appeared to be several boring
machines or augers, and oil and gas activity in the very back.
Sara Spencer Workman,8547 E Arapaho Rd, Unit J-430, Greenwood Village, CO,applicant's representative,said
she realized the property is in IGA and assured them Firestone would rezone the parcel if it was annexed. Though
Firestone would like to see this property annexed,they would not like to see the use continued in perpetuity.They
would like it rezoned for mixed use or multi-family related. Regarding the history of this parcel,the home was built
by the family where they farmed, raised hogs and greyhounds. At her husband's death, Mrs. Motz was no longer
able to farm the property so she rented the property to a Denver company, Evergreen Caissons, for storage of
equipment,tools and materials for their work in the area. Evergreen Caissons has no wish in creating an aesthetic
imposition on the community and understands the nature of what the community character is as well as maintaining
a compatibility with adjacent uses. Mrs. Motz needs to make an income from her property and if this present use is
not allowed,which is an aesthetic imposition and something we will need to work to resolve, she will have to revert
to the agricultural use and begin raising hogs. We are here today to work with the Planning Commission and the
County in terms of reaching resolution and being accurate in identifying development standards that would be
feasible for the site to ensure that it looks and feels the way it needs to be in order to maintain a benign use, such
as an outdoor storage yard on the site so Mrs. Motz can continue to earn an income and so that Evergreen
Caissons, a local company, can continue to perform their work in the area, and obviously to approach the future
annexation with the Town of Firestone. Evergreen Caissons and Mrs. Motz have been in contact with and met the
concerns of Mountain View Fire, Environmental Services for Weld County,and the Weed Services of Weld County
which has visited the site and identified that there are no noxious weeds on the site and a simple weed
management plan would need to be in place. The Town of Firestone has written a letter supporting the annexation
of this property and the future use of this particular land and what that would look like. Our goal is to comply with
the County Development Standards until this land is annexed by Firestone and for Mrs. Motz to be allowed to
continue to earn a living on her property through the outdoor equipment storage.
Mr. Fitzgerald asked when the storage yard was established and when it came into violation. Ms.Workman said it
was established in 2001 and we were notified in 2005 of the violation.
Mr.Auer asked Ms.Workman if he was correct that if the applicant was denied, she would have no alternative but
to begin farming hogs. Ms. Workman said if this application is not approved, Mrs. Motz'only option is to resort to
agricultural zoning and the historic use of the property, which was hog farming.
Mr. Miller said the applicant needs this use to generate income, however if approved and annexed into Firestone,
they would stop this use and she would be in the same boat she is in now. Ms.Workman responded that the use
would no longer be in perpetuity, and as we all understand the way the real estate market works, it would get
rezoned, at the time it is rezoned it has a different value.
Mr. Miller then said if the property were annexed and rezoned she would lose her income anyway, so would she
then be open to subdividing. Ms.Workman said Mrs. Motz would recoup her income through the sale of her land if
that was an offer put on the table. Mr. Miller asked if that was presently an option for Mrs. Motz. Ms. Workman
said it was not presently an option as Firestone has not yet agreed to annex her property.
Mr. Miller asked Cyndy Giauque, County Attorney, if it was possible to approve this application without an
annexation agreement to allow Mrs. Motz to continue that use and in the event they annexed her,would they then
be required to allow the existing use to continue. Ms. Giauque replied that she was not familiar with all of the
agreements.
Ms. Hatch replied that currently Firestone was asking for an annexation agreement which may happen in six
12
months or five years, and may stipulate that if approved by the Board of County Commissioners this use could
continue, or it may not.
Mr. Miller added Firestone could force the applicant to sign an annexation agreement with whatever language they
want in it because you are required to sign an annexation agreement based on what was approved by the Planning
Commission and based on the IGA.
Mr. Fitzgerald said the way he understood it was that if they changed the use it will go to Firestone with the use
because they have to honor our USR's.
Ms. Workman responded that Firestone does not, when the property is annexed it is rezoned and the use
disappears, and this could happen anytime from now up to five years.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one
wished to speak.
Kirby Smith, Kirby Smith and Associates,6201 S Hudson Ct, Centennial, CO, had a letter to present regarding the
forty acre Sable Glen subdivision,west of the Motz property, and their request for denial. Mr.Smith said,based on
the County zoning ordinance, a Use by Special Review must ensure that they are established and operate in a
manner compatible with existing and planned land uses in the neighborhood,which include the Booth Farms and
Sable Glen (84 homes)subdivisions. Mr.Smith spoke to views of homeowners in the development of which eight
of these proposed homes will look out directly over the Motz property. The property is currently being used for all
manner of commercial/industrial construction storage and staging, including heavy equipment, construction
vehicles,trailers, construction materials and storage tanks on an unpaved and dusty site. These uses, in addition
to being extremely unsightly from the adjacent properties, are also potentially dangerous to the surrounding
properties and their residents. It is an attractive nuisance as the items on this property are extremely dangerous to
neighborhood children venturing onto the property to play. Truck mounted tank and free standing tank contents
could potentially drain onto surrounding property as there is currently no accommodation for detention or site
drainage, though Patina Oil and Gas does have a containment berm around it. We are asking that the applicant
follow County criteria and requirements and must demonstrate the proposal is consistent with the intent of the
district within which the use is located. In this case, the sites uses are not consistent with an agricultural zoned
district. These uses would be more suitable to a commercial or industrial zoned district, not directly adjacent to
single family residential uses. The applicant must also demonstrate the uses are compatible with the future
development of the surrounding area per the County Comprehensive Plan, existing zoning and adjacent master
plans of affected municipalities. In addition to the Booth Farms and Sable Glen subdivisions, the Firestone
Comprehensive Plan calls for additional residential and mixed use development on the surrounding areas. Finally
the applicant must demonstrate that there is adequate provision for the protection of the health, safety and welfare
of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and the county. This proposed use poses many questions;fire protection
and access, stormwater detention and water quality control, fuel storage and management of other hazardous
materials, fugitive dust mitigation and security fencing to keep neighborhood children safe. This proposed use is
not appropriate in this location and does not comply with the county regulations and criteria and most likely the
landowner would probably be the one to undertake annexation. In order for Firestone to annex the property,other
committments would need to be made in regard to water and sewer and development plans would need to be
agreed upon by the owner and the developer. Mr. Smith closed by asking the Planning Commission to deny the
application.
Mr. Miller asked if Mr. Smith what he was assuming was being stored in the fuel tanks he mentioned were on the
applicant's property and if he was familiar with the County's Right to Farm covenants. Mr. Smith said he did not
know what was in or could be in some of those tanks and that he was only somewhat familiar with the Right to
Farm covenants. Mr. Miller reminded Mr.Smith that what was being stored on the property was very similar to farm
equipment and with a use by right the owner could store agricultural related materials. Mr.Miller asked if Mr.Smith
would be agreeable to a farm on the property. Mr. Smith said he would be fine with agricultural uses.
Mr.Spitzer asked if the Sable Glen property had been annexed to Firestone. Mr.Smith replied that it was and they
had just recently been approved for their final plats and final development plan and anticipate beginning
13
construction yet this year.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
Sara Spencer Workman,applicant's representative, stepped up to address issues that had been raised. She said
in all fairness, Mr. Smith has a right to be concerned because there is mis-education on what the exact use of the
property will be and they are there to define that and make sure the use meets Weld County requirements and is in
compliance with the Development Standards. She wanted to note for the record that Evergreen Caissons follows
OSHA guidelines so they are required to carry potable water. She asked for further discussion on the sanitation
issues. Ms.Workman also pointed out that if this application is approved today,it is the requirement of the property
owner, per Weld County's IGA, for the applicant to seek annexation into Firestone within the next five years.
Mr. Fitzgerald asked about the handout. Ms. Workman said it was a copy of the response to the preliminary
Development Standards and responses by Evergreen Caissons and Firestone's letter regarding annexation and
rezoning as well as information from Weld County Weed Services regarding a weed management plan for the
property.
The Chair asked Ms. Hatch if she needed more time to review the information. Ms. Hatch replied that it appears
they have addressed the Development Standards, but if approved, they would actually be addressing the
Conditions of Approval. The first three pages are verbatim and the remaining pages are responses to the
Development Standards and some may correspond with the Conditions of Approval.
Ms.Workman responded that they have agreed to all of the conditions proposed and have simply provided detailed
descriptions for each of the Development Standards and some of them overlap with the Conditions. The applicant
agreed with the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval except they would like more discussion with
the Health Department regarding water and sanitation issues for the employees.
Ms. Davis said she did not address a water source as she did not think there was a big enough use to require a
commercial well and septic system.
Mr. Fitzgerald asked Ms. Davis if there was time after the hearing for her to resolve those issues. Ms. Davis replied
that there was and that the problem stems from the request that the applicant submit evidence of a commercial well
permit, and she did not feel they needed a commercial well.
Mr. Miller said he thought it was overkill to require the applicant to have a commercial well permit and a septic
system and could be easily handled by the requirement of a portable toilet on site. The property will be annexed
into Firestone in the next five years so this is a temporary use, though a long term temporary use and he was in
favor of eliminating the requirement of a commercial well and handwashing facilities as this was a storage yard.
Mr. Branham said he thought item 14, in the preliminary Development Standards covered the problem of toilet and
handwashing facilities adequately, and that we could eliminate item E. on page four.
Mr. Miller wants to hear from the applicant if workers are allowed to use facilities in house just to mollify County
requirements, but he leaned toward Mr. Branham's suggestion and deleting item 1.E. and item 13 in the
Development Standards.
Ms. Workman responded to the Planning Commission's concerns and said the applicant was open to
recommendations.
Mr. Branham said this is not a family operation so one would be more comfortable with portable facilities.
Mike Miller moved to delete item 1.E., page four,calling for a commercial well, and delete Development Standard
13 and 14 on pg 8 and replace with the statement that"the applicant shall provide temporary restroom facilities".
Paul Branham seconded the motion.
14
The Chair asked if Ms. Davis agreed. Ms. Davis said handwashing facilities would be preferable and that they do
not like portable toilets for this long of a time period,and if they do allow this, the portable toilets must be properly
maintained.
Mr. Spitzer inquired how such facilities were handled for gravel pits and scale houses. Ms. Davis responded they
require permanent facilities unless the uses are temporary, which is considered to be six months or less.
Mike Miller moved to amend his motion to delete item 1.E., page four, calling for a commercial well, and delete
Development Standard 13 and 14 on pg 8 and replace with a new item 14 stating that,"The applicant shall provide
temporary toilet and handwashing facilities for the use of employees. Those facilities shall be maintained on a
weekly basis." Roy Spitzer seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Chad Auer,yes;
Paul Branham,yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes;Tom Holton,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Roy Spitzer,yes;James Welch,yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked the applicant if they agreed with the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval. Ms.
Workman replied that they did.
Mr. Auer asked Ms. Hatch about the Firestone letter delivered by the applicant and was that the extent of
correspondence from Fireston. Ms. Hatch said they had received an email from Bruce Nickerson saying Firestone
wanted an annexation agreement and would address land use matters at that process.
Mr. Auer added that he felt the right to farm and individual property rights were certainly important considerations.
He said he also found it ridiculous that no one from Firestone was present at the hearing, especially considering
this particular piece of property was in the middle of Firestone and was a shameful handling of the situation. He
said he did not think anyone would ague that the highest and best use of the property was in transition and that the
annexation agreement seems to him to mitigate some of the concerns and as written seemed supportable.
Mr. Holton asked where the annexation in five years was layed out.
Mr. Branham replied it was in the letter from Firestone.
Mr. Miller added that this was a classic case of subdivisions and county uses and need to find balance with the
needs of the landowners. He emphasized to the applicant that it is very important to clean up the property and
keep it that way to mitigate concerns of the adjacent landowners. The Planning Commission had gone out of their
way to make this work, assuming it gets approved, and asks that the owner go out of their way as well to
demonstrate that the correct decision was made.
Mr. Holton said he had a problem with the violation as he had been by the property and it had not been cleaned up.
He also agreed with Commissioner Auer that since no one from Firestone showed up at this hearing and for that
reason alone, he had no problem with the application, other than the property should have been cleaned up.
Mr. Branham said he was struggling and wondered why more people weren't present in opposition. Staff had
pointed out that this application was not compatible with surrounding uses and cited possible fire from fuel storage,
vermin, and abandoned vehicles,as well as the fact that Firestone would annex the property within five years. He
felt the application was more difficult to determine than at first glance and again expressed his surprise that very
few surrounding property owners were in attendance to make their wishes known.
Mr. Welch addressed compatibility and surrounding uses, which were very different from the applicant's use. He
had trouble seeing the difference between tractors for agricultural use and the caisson equipment,so he struggled
with the two sides. If the caisson equipment were for agricultural use, it would have been allowed. He did say he
wished the site was cleaner. If it were tractors on the property rather than caissons,we would not have even had
this conversation.
15
Mr. Auer asked Mr. Holton if his five year question was answered.
Mr. Branham said the letter dated August 26,2005,was in the packet and quoted,"This letter shall serve as notice
to Weld County and the property owner of the legal parcel indicated above that the Town of Firestone requires an
annexation agreement be perfected with the town no later than 5 years from the date of this letter."
Mr.Spitzer asked for clarification if it is annexed, is the land use really mitigated and could it go commercial,remain
the same, be residential, or be something different. Ms. Hatch said that would be up to the municipality and the
applicant to determine land use matters and the mitigation of the current condition of the property and the terms of
the agreement would be required to be negotiated during the annexation process. The annexation agreement
would set forth the timing of the annexation of the property into the town limits.
Mr. Miller said a ten acre parcel would not become a subdivision. It could remain a storage facility of a different
kind, a recreational vehicle or mini storage area but Firestone will address that when they annex the property.
Mr.Spitzer wondered about weed clean-up and fire potential and would like to see that cleaned up and added as a
Development Standard.
The Chair asked Ms. Hatch if the ground cover issue was covered. Ms. Hatch replied there was a Development
Standard regarding noxious weed mitigation,number 2.E.on page four. Ms. Hatch said staff also requested a new
2.F. and renumber accordingly, and shall read, "All vehicles located on the property must be operational with
current license plates,or be screened from all adjacent properties and public rights-of-way,or be removed from the
property. All other items considered to be a part of a noncommercial junkyard must also be removed from the
property or screened for adjacent properties and public rights-of-way."
Mike Miller moved to include the above statement in the application under"prior to recording the plat." Erich Ehrlich
seconded the motion. Motion carried.
Mr. Fitzgerald said he had driven by the property under discussion earlier that morning and there were houses
entirely along the north end of the fence and two sites on the west end with no house on them. This application
should have come to them in 2001 for a use by special review,or even in 2003 or 2005.The Planning Commission
was looking at it now because the property was in violation and Mr. Fitzgerald said he had a problem with
businesses starting up and then the County has to deal with the consequences. In 2001 or 2003 he might have
voted for this, but this request was not compatible with surrounding uses and he would vote against it.
The Chair asked the applicant if she was in agreement with the amendments made to the Development Standards
and Conditions of Approval. Ms. Workman replied that they were in agreement, and also with item 2.F. as it
stands.
Mike Miller moved that Case USR-1550, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval. Roy Spitzer seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Chad Auer,no;
Paul Branham, no; Erich Ehrlich, no; Tom Holton, no; Michael Miller, yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; James Welch, yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, no. Motion failed.
Chad Auer commented he voted no based on Section 22-2-150B.5., I. Policy2.5.B.,based on compatibility and the
lack of participation from Firestone.
Paul Branham commented that he agreed with Staff that this was not compatible with the Weld County Code
presently and would only increase in the very near future.
Erich Ehrlich commented citing Section 23-2-120.A.
16
Tom Holton commented referencing Section 22-2-150.B.5.saying that it was caisson material presently but it could
be oil field material for the next five years.
Chad Auer moved that Case USR-1550, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
denial. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Chad Auer,yes;
Paul Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Michael Miller, no; Roy Spitzer, no; James Welch, no;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion passed.
Meeting adjourned at 4:39 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
6503
Donita May
Secretary
17
Hello