HomeMy WebLinkAbout20060988.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, March 21, 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
Michael Miller Absent
Bruce Fitzgerald
Tom Holton
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
James Welch
Roy Spitzer Absent
Erich Ehrlich
Paul Branham
Also Present: Kim Ogle, Chris Gathman, Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services; Don Carroll,
Department of Public Works; Trevor Jiricek, Char Davis, Department of Environmental Health and Public
Welfare; Bruce Barker, County Attorney.
Erich Ehrlich pointed out there was a correction to the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning
Commission held on March 7,2006. In the last case heard,AmPF-354,the vote was recorded as unanimous,
but there was actually one"no" vote.
Hearing items to be continued:
1. CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1476
APPLICANT: Fusaro LLC
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 4 of Althen Boyer Subdivision, part SW4 Section 23, Ti N,
R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for
a business (commercial junkyard or salvage yard, the leasing
and sales of vehicles and equipment, and vehicle service/repair)
in the C-3 (Commercial)Zone District.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, speaking on behalf of Michelle Martin, requested Case
AmUSR-1476 be continued to April 18, 2006 in order to meet the ten day legal notification and allow the
applicant to meet the thirty day mineral notification.
2. CASE NUMBER: PZ-1110
APPLICANT: Charles and Theresa Hellmer
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-3492; part E2NE4 Section 30, T3N, R68W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Change of Zone from the R-1 (Low Density Residential)Zone
District to PUD to allow for storage of landscaping equipment and
materials along with uses by right in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 3 and approximately 1/4 mile south
of Highway 66.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, requested Case PZ-1110 be continued to April 18,
izak,d l .z�_ y .� .z�c 2006-0988
2006 in order to meet the fifteen day legal notification.
3. 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: A Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)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.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, requested a continuance to April 4, 2006, in order to meet the
fifteen day legal notification required for a PUD (Planned Unit Development). The applicant, Tom
Radigan, is present and has agreed to the continuance.
Doug Ochsner asked the reason for the continuances- was it a staff or applicant mistake and would the
continuances cause any hardship for the applicants. Mr.Ogle replied that it was due to a staff mistake where
the two recording secretaries were training together and failed to submit the legal notifications when they
should have. Mr. Ogle said there would be no hardship involved for the applicants, and that a tertiary legal
notification system had been put in place to assure this did not occur in the future.
The Chair asked if there was any discussion for or against these continuances. No one wished to speak.
Paul Branham moved that Cases Am USR-1476 and PZ-1110 be continued to April 18,2006, and Case PZ-
1097 be continued to April 4, 2006. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. James
Welch, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Paul Branham, yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Consent items:
4. CASE NUMBER: USR-1547
APPLICANT: Charles and Penny Myers
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2450, part NE4 Section 14, T3N, R68W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit
for a Home Business (animal/pet crematory) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 34; approximately 1 mile east of
Interstate 25.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services, said the applicants wished to remain on the consent
agenda. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application. No one wished to speak.
5. CASE NUMBER: USR-1538
APPLICANT: Matthew& Kristi Morrision
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Northmoor Acres Subdivision, 2n° Filing, Lot 8, Block 4, being
part of the SW4 of Section 24, T4N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
Home Business (Morrison Engineering) in the (A)Agricultural
Zone District.
2
LOCATION: East of Northmoor Drive on Sage Court, and 300 feet north of
CR 42.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, said he had provided the board, prior to this hearing, with a
memorandum dated March 21, 2006, saying the HOA(Home Owners Association) had come to an
agreement with the Morrisons. This case was continued from January 17, 2006 at the request of the
Morrisions so that they could address the concerns of the HOA. Mr. Ogle said exhibit ten, from the
Northmoor Acres HOA and signed by Jim Russo, HOA president, stated the HOA is in support of the
application as proposed and they have no issues with the applicant's request. Mr. Ogle said planning staff
is requesting it remain on the consent agenda and the applicant is in support of this request.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Tom Holton moved that Case USR-1547 and Case USR-1538, be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning
Commissions recommendation of approval. Chad Auer seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. James
Welch, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Paul Branham, yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Specific time for public input has been set aside for discussion on the following items:
6. CASE NUMBER: 3rdAmUSR-842
APPLICANT: Tire Recycling Inc.
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots A& B of RE-1367; part S2N2SE4 and N2S2SE4 Section 32,
T3N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: 3rd Amended Site Specific Development Plan and Special
Review Permit for a solid waste disposal site and facility
(commercial junkyard and salvage yard including tire landfill,
storage, shredding and recycling facility)
manufacturing/processing facility(cryogenic processing/crumb
rubber)and a mobile home for housing in the 1-3 Zone District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 41 and approximately 1 mile south of
CR 28.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services, said Dwain Immel/Tire Recycling Inc. has applied for an
Amended Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a solid waste disposal site and facility
(commercial junkyard and salvage yard including tire landfill, storage, shredding and recycling facility), heavy
manufacturing-processing facility(cryogenic processing—crumb rubber)and a mobile home for housing in the
1-3 Zone District.
This case was continued at the March 7, 2006 Planning Commission hearing to today to allow for the
Environmental Health Department to provided comments regarding this application. The Environmental Health
Department referral was received by the Planning Department March 15,2006, and has been incorporated into
the staff comments.
The sign announcing the planning commission hearing was posted on February 23, 2006 by staff.
The site is located west of and adjacent to County Road 41 and north of and adjacent to County Road 26
(section line).
The area consists of approximately 120 acres and is currently being utilized as a Commercial Junkyard and
Salvage Yard (tire landfill, storage and recycling facility) along with a Certificate of Designation and a mobile
home for housing of tire purchasers in the 1-3 (Industrial)Zone District.
3
The surrounding property consists of an auto salvage yard to the north and agricultural property to the east south
and west.
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards will ensure that the use will be compatible with the
neighborhood and surrounding area.
Twelve referral agencies reviewed this case,two referral agencies had no comments, seven referral agencies
included conditions that have been attempted to be addressed through the development standards and
conditions of approval. No comment was received from the Weld County Emergency Management,the Platte
Valley Soil Conservation District and the State of Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
regarding this application
No comments have been received from any surrounding property owners.
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has determined that the Special Use Permit, Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards will make the proposal consistent with the Weld County Code and ensure
that there are adequate provisions for the protection of health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the
county.
Ms. Hatch said the applicants and their representative are available to answer questions and that she has a
video of the New York production site,which has been moved here for the cryogenic process, if they would like
to view it.
Mike Venditto,12311 CR 41, employee of Tire Recycling, spoke briefly about the process as the video played.
The Chair asked Ms. Hatch is there were presently any violations on the site. Ms. Hatch replied that there
were none with either the Planning Department of the Environmental Health Department.
The Chair asked if there were any other questions for staff. There were none.
Dwain Immel, 7000 W Princeton Av, Denver, CO 80235, president of Tire Recycling Inc, formerly known
as Tire Mountain. Mr. Immel said the facility has been historically used as a salvage yard operation and a
tire storage/landfill site for the past twenty-plus years. They plan to continue these operations, but their
primary interest is in the addition of an active tire recycling operation that will shred the one to two million
tires they take in every year. Mr. Immel said most are recycled as fuel products, utilized in the asphalt
business or incorporated into artificial turf fields. Mr. Immel then said they ultimately hope to have a plant
with a crumb rubber capacity of twenty thousand tons per year, which about equals the tires they receive
at their site each year. Long term, they hope to see the capacity increase to forty thousand tons, thereby
processing tires already on site and alleviating their current inventory. Mr. Immel said they can live with
most of the requirements presented to them by the Planning Department, but they do have a few concerns
they would like to address.
The Chair asked the applicant where the major source of his product originated. Mr. Immel replied that it
came from retail suppliers on the front-range, from Cheyenne on down, the Denver metro area, landfills,
and some from the western slope. The Chair asked what percentage of their business was resale of
usable tires. Mr. Immel said substantially less than five percent was generated from resale of tires. The
Chair asked if they were moving a plant here from another state. Mr. Immel said yes, the plant had been
disassembled and trucked from New York to their present site at CR 41, about seven miles due north of
CR 52. The Chair asked about other uses for the tires in the pits on their site and if this was the only
technology available to reclaim those tires. Mr. Immel replied that the majority of the three hundred million
tires generated every year are recycled into a tire dry fuel which is used as boiler fuel for cement plants,
paper and pulp mills, and power generation; around thirty-five percent is used in the asphalt rubber
business where they are ground down into crumb rubber and added to the hot asphalt; and artificial turf
fields use probably ten to fifteen percent of the crumb rubber produced. Mr. Immel closed by saying that
less than five percent is recycled into a fine powder, mixed with glue and used for rubber molding
products, floor mats, and flower pots.
4
The Chair asked if the Planning Commissioners had any questions for the applicant. There were none at that
time.
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. Immel then addressed item 1. D., page 4, regarding fencing of the site. Mr. Immel said he understands
that large tires are not a traditional method of fencing, however the Board of County Commissioners have
approved this method for the past twenty-five years. They have not had any problems with the public trying to
access the site outside of business hours and to fence 120 acres would be a very expensive proposition and
he does not see the benefit since they are in such a rural area. The Chair agreed that fencing 120 acres is a
bit much.
The Chair asked the Planning staffs recommendation. Ms. Hatch said staff has consistently asked for
screening from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way and for off-street parking to meet setbacks,which
are all requirements in the County Code.
The Chair asked when this issue was last before them. Ms. Hatch said Sheri Lockman, Department of
Planning Services,reviewed the case about three and a half years ago in the 2ndAmUSR. The Department of
Planning Services reviews the entire site for compliance each time it comes in for an amendment.
The Chair asked if the Planning Commissioners had any questions. Mr. Branham referred to fencing in 1.D.
and then section 2.A. which addresses landscape/screening and wondered what the difference was. Ms.
Hatch replied that they are very similar, but they are asking for landscape and screening prior to recording the
plat and the fencing was required prior to scheduling the Board of County Commissioner's hearing. Ms. Hatch
then said that because there is not much water on site for any landscaping, the screening becomes more
predominant.
Mr. Auer asked whether berms would be a possibility along CR 41 towards the public property. Ms. Hatch
said they do accept berms. Mr. Immel asked if that would be required around the whole property. Trevor
Jiricek, Department of Public Health and Environment, said that given the topsoil in the area and the lack of
water, it would be problematic to stabilize and maintain berms.
The Chair then expressed his concern about the change of use from storage and a recycling facility to a
factory, and are they adding another building. Mr. Immel responded that the building is up for the new
warehouse and they had obtained a building permit. The Chair reminded Mr. Immel that he was changing the
historic use of the site, and that was why they were all here today.
Mr. Holton asked about the amount of frontage they had on CR 41. Mr. Immel said roughly half a mile, or
twenty-five hundred linear feet.
Mr. Branham asked if there were any complaints from area landowners regarding the use of tires as fencing.
Ms. Hatch said there had been no complaints received by the Department of Planning Services.
Mr.Welch said that personally, he has no issue with the tires,the junkyard is significantly worse,and he sees
no reason to require a fence around the area.
Mr.Ochsner pointed out that recycling is currently operating on the site and they are basically just expanding
the recycling business, so is the operation and the use really being changed. Ms. Hatch explained that when
the applicant submitted their letter and request for adding the cryogenic/crumb rubber processing, Planning
staff reviewed it and determined that because of the increased number of employees,and that it would now be
a twenty-four hour operation, that the intensity is increased, and it would be a significant change in the use of
the site and why Planning staff asked for a third amendment to the Use by Special Review.
The Chair asked Mr. Barker if they needed a motion to amend allowing tires for exterior fencing. Mr. Barker
responded that they should have an amendment for each item
James Welch moved to delete item 1.D., page four. Doug Ochsner seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
5
Mr. Immel then addressed notification of mineral owners of the property regarding the activities currently
taking place or occurring in the future. He said they have notified mineral owners and identified the various oil
and gas wells and drill site envelopes on the plat,they will continue to work with the oil and gas operators,and
they will obtain something in writing prior to the Board hearing. Mr. Immel said there is one other proposed
drill site location yet to be drilled that is available, but none of their existing buildings or operations currently
interfere with the drilling or envelopes of the oil and gas facilities. Ms. Hatch responded that Planning wants
agreements in writing between mineral owners and property owners that the new facility will not affect the
existing surface agreements, prior to the Board of County Commissioner's hearing.
Mr. Immel then addressed 1.C. regarding signage and said they are not anticipating any change in their
signage due to the new operation. Ms. Hatch said Mr. Immel needs to submit a letter saying they were not
making any changes to signage if this is what they want.
The Chair asked Mr. Immel if they were still requiring patrons to sign a waiver before accessing the site. He
replied that they still do require a signed waiver for liability purposes.
In regards to item 1.B., Ms. Hatch said Planning still needs something in writing from the Fire Protection
District and the Division of Water Resources regarding the applicant's fire suppression methods prior to
scheduling the Board of County Commissioner's hearing. Mr. Immel addressed fire suppression on his site
and said if tires catch fire,the most effective method to put out the fire is to cover it with dirt,not put it out with
water. Tire pits are designed today to limit a fire to a single cell and fire would not jump from cell to cell. The
Chair asked if the Fire Marshall is comfortable with their fire plan. Mr. Immel said the Fire Protection District
had in fact helped in developing the fire plan.
Mr.Ochsner asked Ms. Hatch if they changed 1.B., page 4 requiring the applicant to provide written evidence
from the Platteville/Gilcrest Fire Protection District of adequate fire protection, would that be sufficient. Ms.
Hatch replied that it could,but it depended on what the adequate fire suppression is: for the tires it is sand;for
the new building Mr. Immel has suggested a foam release rather than water;the wells on the Moser property
are not regulated as fire protection,they are for agriculture only. Planning wants something in writing from the
state and something from the Fire Protection District and they do not presently have those. Mr. Ochsner
asked if they said they need written evidence for adequate fire protection from those two entities,would that be
sufficient. Ms. Hatch said that would be agreeable and then suggested changes to the verbage in 1.B.
The Chair asked if the Fire Protection District would dictate the procedure and the State would then approve
the water source. The Chair asked if there was a fire hydrant on the site. Mr.Immel responded that there was
no hydrant, only two wells on the site for domestic service and they have no emergency fire hook up. Mr.
Immel said they had purchased their own fire truck to be used for dust abatement and it could also be used for
emergency purposes. The Chair asked if the use of the fire truck is included in the agreement with the Fire
Protection District. Mr. Immel said they would be happy to let the Fire Protection District use the truck.
Mr.Ochsner said they can't waive fire requirements and will require evidence that the Fire Protection District is
agreeable to the applicant's plan. Mr. Immel said they were not requesting a waiver for any fire suppression
protection but rather some flexibility in the language that would give them an alternative to water for fire
suppression.
The Chair asked if they had worked this out with the Fire Protection District. Mr. Immel replied they had.
The Chair asked for verbage for 1.B. Mr. Barker suggested verbage for 1.B. to say "The applicant shall
provide written approval/evidence to the Department of Planning Services from the Gilcrest Fire Protection
District that adequate fire protection has been provided".
Doug Ochsner moved that 1.B. be changed to read"The applicant shall provide written approval/evidence to
the Department of Planning Services from the Gilcrest Fire Protection District that adequate fire protection has
been provided". Chad Auer seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair then addressed the signage plan and what Mr. Immel was requesting. Mr. Immel said he had no
6
problems with the requirements.
Mr. Immel addressed item 2.A., prior to recording the plat, and questioned the landscaping and screening
requirements. He said they plan to re-seed areas not currently in use, with natural grasses to mitigate dust
and stabilize the soil. Ms. Hatch responded that if that were put in writing, it would then be acceptable to
Planning staff.
Mr. Immel then addressed item 2.C.,regarding the lighting plan and that it will not change except for additional
lighting over the doors of the new buildings. The Chair said that with the new building, there could be safety
issues with the increase in employees. Mr. Immel said they had it covered. Ms. Hatch said Planning is asking
that be shown on the plat.
The Chair asked Mr. Barker about item 2.D.regarding hazardous materials. Mr.Barker suggested elimination
of the third sentence. Ms. Hatch said staff requested the last sentence remain.
Chad Auer motioned that the third sentence in item 2.D., which reads "Second, a letter providing a
professional opinion of the gallons per minute each well is able to provide for fire flow located on the Moser
Farms Property for fire protection" be omitted. Tom Holton seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Immel addressed item 2.G. regarding parking lot requirements and collateral improvements and
suggested the spaces be reduced from 46 to 20, as there will be no more than 12 to 19 employees on site at
any given time. Ms. Hatch clarified that Mr. Immel was speaking of page 6, item O.5.,and that 46 spaces is
per the Weld County Code. Ms. Hatch then said that if there are two shifts there is an overlap of employees,
requiring 24 spaces.
The Chair asked Mr. Immel if increased production will at some point in time increase the employees. Mr.
Immel said it would probably require the addition of two employees. Mr. Branham asked the applicant about
the overlap of shift employees and would that not require at least 24 spaces and would he be comfortable with
that. Mr. Immel said there would be about twelve daytime employees and six at night, therefore they don't
need 46 spaces, but could live with 24 spaces.
Mr.Welch asked Ms. Hatch regarding the 46 spots delineated on the plat and what happens if they don't build
all 46 spaces. Ms. Hatch said that would be part of the improvements agreement and the County would hold
money for that.
Mr. Auer asked Mr. Immel if they could live with 30 spaces because at some point in time if 24 spaces was
too tight then expansion plans would require them to come back and make changes to their application. Mr.
Immel said he could live with 30 spaces.
Chad Auer motioned to change the minimum number of parking spaces from 46 to 30 in item O.5., page 6.
Tom Holton seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Immel asked for clarification of item N., page 5 and asked if this could include portable toilets for
employees at various locations. Due to the large size of the facility, Mr. Immel felt it made sense to have
portable toilets on site in closer proximity to the employee's work areas. Mr. Jiricek, Department of Public
Heath and Environment,said portable facilities are not supported for permanent operations and because the
systems are designed for a per day basis, if there are more than twelve employees the system would need to
be reviewed by a professional engineer who could make the determination that the system was indeed
adequate. Mr. Holton asked what would happen if the system was too small, would they come in and make
adjustments. Mr. Jiricek replied that the system should be adequate from the outset. The Chair suggested
that portable toilets were acceptable in addition to the septic system. Mr. Jiricek replied that permanent
operations require permanent facilities, which include both handwashing and domestic waste disposal
systems, per Weld County policy, so portable toilets would not be an option as there are no handwashing
facilities with them.
Mr. Immel said the last issue to address is on page 7, item 6. He would like an exception made to the
requirement that all permits must be issued prior to any production, as that would cause a problem with
contracts he has to fill beginning in May and waiting an additional two to three weeks would put them in a bind.
7
He would like to begin the assembly of the equipment, recognizing the full scale operation permit would be
subject to approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Barker said this request was made at the
last meeting, and the applicant could ask the Board of County Commissioners to issue permits prior to the
Board hearing of the USR,and the Board would entertain that request. This request is outside the perview of
the Planning Commission to make that recommendation or determination. Ms. Hatch said Mr. Immel has
provided a written request for early release of the building permits and that has been sent on to the Board of
County Commissioners. The Chair repeated they cannot change item 6., page 7, that the decision must be
made by the Board of County Commissioners
The Chair asked Mr. Immel if he had read and was in agreement with the Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval as amended. Mr. Immel replied that he had read them and was in agreement.
The Chair asked for further discussion.
Mr. Ochsner said he thought it was a great project and he was anxious to see something done with all of the
scrap tires.
The Chair said there has been a need to remove tires from landfills for many years and understands the need
for this business. He said he is certain this will be a viable business and was in favor of their application.
Chad Auer moved that Case 3rd AmUSR-842, 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. James Welch seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. James
Welch, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Paul Branham, yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Donita May 3(3
Secretary
8
Hello