HomeMy WebLinkAbout20050051.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by James Rohn, that the following resolution be introduced for denial by the Weld County
Planning Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1483
APPLICANT: Martin & Berta Gutierrez
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots A& B RE-3375; Pt of the E2 Section 28, T2N, R66W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
Recreational facilities and uses including race tracks and race courses
(horse racing) in the A (Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: Approximately 200 feet West of CR 31; approximately 1/4 mile South of
CR 18.
be recommended unfavorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
The following sections were quoted for denial:
1. Section 22-2-100.B
2. Section 22-3-50B
3. Section 23-2-220 A.2-A.4 and A.7
This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application materials submitted by the
applicant, other relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral entities.
Should the Board of County Commissioners recommend approval of the application the Planning
Commission's recommends the following Conditions:
1. Prior to scheduling a Board of County Commissioners hearing:
A. The applicant has not delineated any on-site sign(s). If applicable, and an on-site sign(s)
is desired, the applicant shall submit a sign plan to the Department of Planning Services.
If no sign plan is submitted the site shall adhere to Section 23-4-90.A and .B of the Weld
County Code which states one identification sign per principal use shall be allowed,
provided that the sign does not exceed sixteen (16) square feet in area per face...
(Department of Planning Services)
B. The applicant shall either submit to the Weld County Department of Planning Services a
copy of an agreement with the properties mineral owners stipulating that the oil and gas
activities have adequately been incorporated into the design of the site or show evidence
that an adequate attempt has been made to mitigate the concerns of the mineral owners.
(Department of Planning Services)
C. The applicants shall submit a traffic control plan to the Weld County Sheriff's Office,
Department of Planning Services and Department of Public Works. The traffic control
plan shall be approved by the Sheriff's Office or the applicant shall provide written
evidence that an adequate attempt has been made to address their concerns.
(Department of Planning Services)
D. The applicants shall submit a security plan detailing how security will be provided at the
proposed horse racing events (who will be providing security, numbers of security
personnel...) To the Weld County Sheriff's Office and Department of Planning Services.
The security plan shall be approved by the Sheriff's Office or the applicant shall provide
written evidence that an adequate attempt has been made to address their concerns.
(Department of Planning Services)
EXHIBIT
tale *1443 2005-0051
Resolution USR-183
Martin Gutierrez
Page 2
E. The applicants shall submit a lighting plan to the Weld County Sheriffs Office and
Department of Planning Services. The lighting plan shall be approved by the Sheriff's
Office or the applicant shall provide written evidence that an adequate attempt has been
made to address their concerns. (Department of Planning Services)
F. Evidence of liability insurance that will cover horse racing event held on the property shall
be submitted to the Weld County Sheriffs Office and Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Planning Services)
C.
2. Prior to recording the plat:
A. Each plat sheet shall be labeled USR-1483. (Department of Planning Services)
B. The applicant shall submit a dust abatement plan for review and approval, to the
Environmental Health Services, Weld County Department of Public Health &
Environment. Evidence of Health Department approval shall be submitted to the
Department of Planning Services. (Department of Public Health & Environment)
C. The potable water system shall comply with the Colorado Primary Drinking Water
Regulations (5 CCR 1003-1). The applicant shall submit evidence to the Weld County
Department of Public Health and Environment of compliance from the Water Quality
Control Division (WQCD), Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.
(Department of Planning Services)
D. The applicant shall submit a waste and manure handling plan, for approval, to the
Environmental Health Services Division of the Weld County Department of Public Health
& Environment. The plan shall include at a minimum, the following:
1) A list of wastes which are expected to be generated on site (this should include
expected volumes and types of waste generated).
2) A list of the type and volume of chemicals expected to be stored on site.
3) The waste handler and facility where the waste will be disposed (including the
facility name, address, and phone number).
Evidence of Health Department approval shall be submitted to the Department of
Planning Services. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
E. The plat shall be amended to delineate the following:
1. The attached Development Standards. (Department of Planning Services)
2. The approved screening plan. (Department of Planning Services)
F. The applicant shall submit a screening plan for review and approval by the Department of
Planning Services. The screening plan shall address screening from adjacent residences
to the north, east and west. The screening plan shall also address the following:
* Section 23-3-250.A.6 of the Weld County Code addresses the issue of trash collection
areas. Areas used for storage or trash collection shall be screened from adjacent public
rights-of-way and adjacent properties. These areas shall be designed and used in a
manner that will prevent wind or animal scattered trash.
Resolution USR-1483
Martin Gutierrez
Page 3
*The applicant shall address the issue of on-site lighting, including security lighting if
applicable. Subsection F. states "any lighting ... shall be designed, located and operated
in such a manner as to meet the following standards: sources of light shall be shielded so
that beams or rays of light will not shine directly onto adjacent properties...." (Department
of Planning Services)
G. The applicant shall submit a traffic control plan for review and approval by the
Department of Planning Services and Weld County Sheriff's Office. The plan shall
address how parking of vehicles and trailers will be conducted. (Department of Planning
Services)
H. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements outlined in the referral response
received July 20, 2004 from the City of Fort Lupton. Evidence of such shall be provided
to the Department of Planning Services. (City of Fort Lupton)
An individual sewage disposal system is required to the installed according to the Weld
County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations. The septic system is required to be
designed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer. In the event the septic
system(s) requires a design capacity of over 2,000 gallons of sewage per day the
applicant shall provide evidence that all requirements of the Water Quality Control
Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment have been
satisfied. Evidence of compliance shall be provided to the Weld County Department of
Public Health and Environment. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
J. The applicant shall submit evidence of an Underground Injection Well (UIC)Class V
Injection Well permit from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)for any large-
capacity septic system (a septic system with the capacity to serve 20 or more persons
per day). Alternatively, the applicant can provide evidence from the EPA that they are
not subject to the EPA Class V requirements. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
K. The applicant shall submit two (2)paper copies of the plat for preliminary approval to the
Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
3. Upon completion of 1. and 2. above the applicant shall submit a Mylar plat along with all other
documentation required as Conditions of Approval. The Mylar plat shall be recorded in the office
of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder by Department of Planning Services' Staff. The plat shall
be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld County
Code. The Mylar plat and additional requirements shall be submitted within thirty (30) days from
the date of the Board of County Commissioners resolution. The applicant shall be responsible for
paying the recording fee. (Department of Planning Services)
4. The Department of Planning Services respectively requests the surveyor provide a digital copy of
this Use by Special Review. Acceptable CAD formats are .dwg, .dxf, and .dgn (Microstation);
acceptable GIS formats are ArcView shapefiles, Arclnfo Coverages and Arclnfo Export files
format type is .e00. The preferred format for Images is .tif(Group 4). (Group 6 is not acceptable).
This digital file may be sent to mapsco.weld.co.us. (Department of Planning Services)
5. Prior to the release of Building Permits:
A. If construction of a new building is required, a building permit shall be obtained prior to
the construction of any new building. (Department of Building Inspection)
Resolution USR-1483
Martin Gutierrez
Page 4
B. A plan review is required for each building for which a building permit is required. Plans
shall include a floor plan. Plans shall bear the wet stamp of a Colorado registered
architect or engineer. Two complete sets of plans are required when applying for each
permit. Provide a Code Analysis Data sheet provided by the Weld County Building
Department with each building permit application. (Department of Building Inspection)
C. Each building will require an engineered foundation based on a site-specific geotechnical
report or an open hole performed by a Colorado registered engineer. Engineered
foundations shall be designed by a Colorado registered engineer. (Department of
Building Inspection)
D. Buildings shall conform to the requirements of the various codes adopted at the time of
permit application. Currently the following has been adopted by Weld County: 2003
International Building Code; 2003 International Mechanical Code; 2003 International
Plumbing Code; 2003 International Fuel Gas Code; and the 2002 National Electrical
Code and Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Building Inspection)
E. Building height shall be measured in accordance with the 2003 International Building
Code for the purpose of determining the maximum building size and height of various
uses and types of construction and to determine compliance with the Bulk Requirements
from Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code. Building height shall be measured in
accordance with Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code in order to determine compliance
with offset and setback requirements. Offset and setback requirements are to the
farthest projection from the building. (Department of Building Inspection)
6. The Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued
on the property until the Special Review plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld
County Clerk and Recorder. (Department of Planning Services)
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Martin & Berta Gutierrez
USR-1483
1. The Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit is for recreational facilities and uses
including race tracks and race courses (horse racing) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District, as
indicated in the application materials on file and subject to the Development Standards stated
hereon. (Department of Planning Services)
2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 23-8-10 of the Weld
County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
3. A maximum of 1,000 visitors will be allowed on site during horse racing events as outlined in the
application materials. A maximum of 50 visitors will be allowed on site during weekdays (horse
training). (Department of Planning Services)
4. Both north and south access gates shall be opened before racing events so as to not back up,
stage, or park overflow traffic on County Road 31. (Department of Public Works)
5. The off-street parking including both access drives shall be surfaced with gravel or the equivalent
and shall be graded to prevent any drainage problems. (Department of Public Works)
6. There shall be no parking or staging of vehicles on County Road 31. (Department of Planning
Services/Department of Public Works)
7. Horse racing events shall only be held on weekends and holidays. During weekdays the facility
shall be used for training purposes only as no horse racing events will be allowed. (Department of
Planning Services)
8. Horse racing events shall be held only for charitable and/or non-profit purposes as outlined in the
supplemental information provided in the application materials. (Department of Planning
Services)
9. Hours of operation shall be from 10:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. during weekends and holidays and from
8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. during weekdays as outlined in the application materials. (Department of
Planning Services)
10. No alcoholic beverages shall be allowed on-site nor shall alcohol be served during horse racing
and practice events. (Department of Planning Services)
11. Animal and feed wastes, bedding, debris and other organic wastes shall be disposed of so that
vermin infestation, odors, disease hazards, and nuisances are minimized. Such wastes shall be
removed at least weekly from the facility and disposed of by a commercial hauler. (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
12. All liquid and solid wastes (as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, 30-
20-100.5, C.R.S.) shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that protects against
surface and groundwater contamination. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
13. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. This is not meant to include those
wastes specifically excluded from the definition of a solid waste in the Solid Wastes Disposal
Sites and Facilities Act, 30-20-100.5, C.R.S. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
r-.
Resolution USR-1483
Martin Gutierrez
Page 2
14. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust,
blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
15. The applicant shall operate in accordance with the approved "waste handling plan". (Department
of Public Health and Environment)
16. Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions shall be controlled on this site. The facility shall be
operated in accordance with the approved dust abatement plan at all times. (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
17. The applicant shall have sufficient equipment available to implement dust control as required by
the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment. (Department of Public Health
and Environment)
18. The facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in Commercial Zone
District as delineated in 25-12-103, C.R.S. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
19. Adequate handwashing and toilet facilities shall be provided for the volunteers and attendees.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
20. Any septic system located on the property must comply with all provisions of the Weld County
Code, pertaining to Individual Sewage Disposal Systems. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
21. A permanent, adequate water supply shall be provided for drinking and sanitary purposes.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
22. The water system shall comply with the requirements for a community water system as defined in
the Primary Drinking Water Regulations (5 CCR 1003-1). (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
23. The applicant shall comply with Colorado Retail Food Establishment Rules and Regulations
governing the regulation of food service establishments. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
24. Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the subject site will be required to adhere to
the fee structure of the Weld County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11) (Department of
Planning Services)
25. The landscaping on site shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan.
(Department of Planning Services)
26. There shall be no open burning conducted on the site, with the exception to burning defined as
"agricultural open burning" as defined by Regulation No. 9 of the Colorado Air Quality Control
Commission Regulations. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
27. If construction of a new building is required, a building permit shall be obtained prior to the
construction of any new building. (Department of Building Inspection)
28. A plan review is required for each building for which a building permit is required. Plans shall
include a floor plan. Plans shall bear the wet stamp of a Colorado registered architect or
engineer. Two complete sets of plans are required when applying for each permit. Provide a
Code Analysis Data sheet provided by the Weld County Building Department with each building
permit application. (Department of Building Inspection)
Resolution USR-1483
Martin Gutierrez
Page 3
29. Each building will require an engineered foundation based on a site-specific geotechnical report
or an open hole performed by a Colorado registered engineer. Engineered foundations shall be
designed by a Colorado registered engineer. (Department of Building Inspection)
30. Buildings shall conform to the requirements of the various codes adopted at the time of permit
application. Currently the following has been adopted by Weld County: 2003 International
Building Code; 2003 International Mechanical Code; 2003 International Plumbing Code; 2003
International Fuel Gas Code; and the 2002 National Electrical Code and Chapter 29 of the Weld
County Code. (Department of Building Inspection)
31. Building height shall be measured in accordance with the 2003 International Building Code for the
purpose of determining the maximum building size and height of various uses and types of
construction and to determine compliance with the Bulk Requirements from Chapter 27 of the
Weld County Code. Building height shall be measured in accordance with Chapter 23 of the
Weld County Code in order to determine compliance with offset and setback requirements.
Offset and setback requirements are to the farthest projection from the building.
32. Fire resistance of walls and openings, construction requirements, maximum building height and
allowable areas will be reviewed at the plan review. Setback and offset distances shall be
determined by Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Building Inspection)
33. Sources of light shall be shielded so that beams or rays of light will not shine directly onto
adjacent properties; neither the direct nor reflected light from any light source may create a traffic
hazard to operators of motor vehicles on public or private streets; and no colored lights may be
used which may be confused with or construed as traffic control devices." (Department of
Planning Services)
34. The bleachers, when built, shall be built to standard ICC/ANSI 300-2002. (Department of Building
Inspection)
35. The Special Use Permit shall not be transferable to any successors in interest to the prescribed
property and shall terminate automatically upon conveyance or lease of the property to others for
operation of the facility. (Department of Planning Services)
36. The property owner shall allow any mineral owner the right of ingress or egress for the purposes
of exploration development, completion, recompletion, re-entry, production and maintenance
operations associated with existing or future operations located on these lands. (Department of
Planning Services)
37. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of
Section 23-2-240,Weld County Code.
38. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards
of Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code.
39. This operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of State and Federal
agencies and the Weld County Code. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
40. Personnel from the Weld County Government shall be granted access onto the property at any
reasonable time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the
Development Standards stated herein and all applicable Weld County regulations.
Resolution USR-1483
Martin Gutierrez
Page 4
41. The Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the
foregoing standards and all applicable Weld County regulations. Substantial changes from the
plans or Development Standards as shown or stated shall require the approval of an amendment
of the Permit by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the
plans or Development Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of
the Department of Planning Services.
42. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing
Development Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Development Standards may
be reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners.
Motion seconded by Chad Auer
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Michael Miller
John Folsom
Bryant Gimlin
Bruce Fitzgerald
James Rohn
Tonya Strobel
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of
this case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Voneen Macklin, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
the above and foregoing resolution, is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld
County, Colorado, adopted on August, 17 2004.
Dated the 17th of August, 2004.
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
8 / 1—c;2001-/
CR 13. Mr. Carroll stated that would be the best situation for Public Works but there will still be complaints
that the trucks are hauling to the west.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Morrison if Planning Commission can specify a haul route. Mr. Morrison stated
the preference could be indicated. Mr. Miller would be in favor of the haul route being east to CR13 a paved
road.
Jacqueline Hatch suggested adding Development Standard#4 to state" No retail sales of material can
occur on this site"then re-number.
Bryant Gimlin moved to add Development Standard#4 and renumber. Chad Auer seconded.
Motion carried.
James Rohn moved to delete Development Standard#16, duplicate. Bryant Gimlin seconded. Motion
carried.
James Rohn moved to accept staff changes. Bryant Gimlin seconded. Motion carried.
James Rohn moved that Case AmUSR-935, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Bryant Gimlin seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes; James Rohn, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
James Rohn commented the reason for approval is the applicant has complied with the sections quoted by
staff. Mr. Rohn added that the landscape material is less dangerous than some of the items that were
approved originally.
John Folsom commented the reason for approval are Section 23-2-220.A.1, Section 22-2-60.D.A.4 and
Section 23-3-40.R
Michael Miller commented that Section 22-2-170.C Goal 3 is met. Section 22-2-260.A.3 Policy 1.3 has
been met. This is a good use for a railroad spur which will decrease the traffic in the area. Section 22-2-
260.B.A Goal 2 has been met.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1483
APPLICANT: Martin&Berta Gutierrez
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots A& B RE-3375; Pt of the E2 Section 28, T2N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
Recreational facilities and uses including race tracks and race courses
(horse racing)in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: Approximately 200 feet West of CR 31; approximately 1/4 mile South of
CR 18.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, provided information with regards to the referral from the
Sheriff's Department. The Deputy is available for questions regarding the referral or specific questions in
the area. The questions will be from the board. The referral discussed three major complaints received
from residents in the area, parking of vehicles along CR 31 creating a traffic hazard, parking in neighboring
driveways, spectators leaving property and urinating in public, spectators loitering or trespassing. There are
concerns for security onsite, lighting, safety and spectators who bring alcohol to the events.'
BIT
Les Weimer, Weld County Sheriff, provided additional information with regards to the proposal. There have
been several complaints received from the neighbors dealing with traffic problems, parking along the
roadway. Mr. Weimer's concern is there could be up to 1000 people and there are already concerns with
250 people it will only be worse. It will be a matter of time before there will be some major problems. Mr.
Miller indicated the application provided for adequate parking and restrooms, would those alleviate a lot of
the problems? Mr. Weimer stated it would alleviate the particular problems. The concern is sneaking
alcohol on site and leaving the event. The area only contains one deputy on duty and that is not adequate.
Mr. Miller asked if the suggestion for security on premises would assist. Mr. Weimer stated that is
essential but security can only do so much. Mr. Miller asked how big the area of the one deputy is. Mr.
Weimer stated it is approximately 1000 square miles. Mr. Weimer added that if an event is going on he
would spend more time there which takes away from the rest of the county citizens.
James Rohn asked if there is a concern about gambling. Mr. Weimer stated that illegal gambling is a
concern but more of a concern are the tempers that flare and fights that erupt. Gambling does not mix with
alcohol, it creates a volatile situation.
The Case Continued from the location:
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1483, reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Staff recommends the
following changes:
The following conditions of approval shall be added to page 4 of the staff recommendation (Prior to
scheduling the Board of County Commissioners Hearing):
.-� C. The applicants shall submit a traffic control plan to the Weld County Sheriff's Office,
Department of Planning Services and Department of Public Works. The traffic control plan shall be
approved by the Sheriff's Office or the applicant shall provide written evidence that an adequate
attempt has been made to address their concerns. (Department of Planning Services)
D. The applicants shall submit a security plan detailing how security will be provided at the
proposed horse racing events(who will be providing security, numbers of security personnel...) To
the Weld County Sheriff's Office and Department of Planning Services. The security plan shall be
approved by the Sheriffs Office or the applicant shall provide written evidence that an adequate
attempt has been made to address their concerns. (Department of Planning Services)
E. The applicants shall submit a lighting plan to the Weld County Sheriffs Office and Department
of Planning Services. The lighting plan shall be approved by the Sheriff's Office or the applicant
shall provide written evidence that an adequate attempt has been made to address their concerns.
(Department of Planning Services)
F. Evidence of liability insurance that will cover horse racing event held on the property shall be
submitted to the Weld County Sheriff's Office and Department of Planning Services. (Department of
Planning Services)
The following Development Standard shall be added as Development Standard #33 (page 9) (and
subsequent Development Standards renumbered accordingly):
"Sources of light shall be shielded so that beams or rays of light will not shine directly onto adjacent
properties;neither the direct nor reflected light from any light source may create a traffic hazard to
operators of motor vehicles on public or private streets;and no colored lights may be used which
may be confused with or construed as traffic control devices."(Department of Planning Services)
James Rohn asked whether Development Standard#2 and Development Standard#34 seem to cancel each
other out. Mr. Gathman stated the Special Use Permit stays in tact as long as the property is owned by
the current owner, a non transferable clause can be done if the vesting language is needed. Mr. Rohn asked
about 2A and rather there will be restrooms other than port o potties along with hand washing facilities.
Char Davis, Weld County Health, stated this is an issue that the Health Department has been dealing with,
septic is being required for this site but vaults would be entertained. Hand washing would be an issue that
the Health Department would like to see. Mr. Miller indicated that public water is being required. Ms. Davis
indicated the well is not for commercial use but the applicant did want to provide bottled water. Ms. Davis
is not in favor of the bottled water unless they can ensure that every person coming onto the site has
access to water. There is the ability to get a commercial well permit. There will be a lot of work to get
quality water to the area. Mr. Rohn asked if the public hand washing facility is something Planning
Commission can request? Ms. Davis stated that the suggestion is septic system is requested and hand
washing will be an issue that will be dealt with accordingly.
Bryant Gimlin asked Mr. Carroll about the access road through the property to the parking in the back and
will this be adequate. Mr. Carroll stated there are two accesses a north and south. The south access
parallels the ditch to the tank battery with double gates, this appeared to be parking and it could be
expanded. Mr. Carroll added that an acre will equate to 100 vehicles for parking, there would need to be 10
acres designated for 1000 patrons for parking. Mr. Carroll suggests opening both access gates before the
race events to help alleviate parking on CR 31and no parking or staging on CR 31. Mr. Carroll asked Mr.
Morrison about the ability to post no parking signs. Mr. Morrison stated that he is unsure but it could be
asked of the Board of County Commissioners.
Char Davis added that they do have a livestock, irrigation and commercial well. Mr. Miller asked if the well
was specific to use? Ms. Davis stated there may be limitations through the state and the issue would be
water quality. Mr. Morrison stated that wells are broadly classified, one commercial use can be used for
another without having to go back to the State,the issue will be quality not classification.
John Folsom asked Mr. Carroll if there was adequate parking for 1000 visitors. Mr. Carroll stated that there
are 2-3 acres blocked off that looked temporary and the area could be expanded but it would be into
existing alfalfa or hay fields. Mr. Carroll stated that they have the area as long as it is identified as overflow.
Public Works would be more comfortable if the applicants utilize what they have now and identify the
overflow area on site. Mr. Folsom asked if there should be provisions for ADA requirements? Mr. Gathman
stated that the standard is 1 space per every 20 spaces. This raises some issues with the addition of the
buildings and vault restrooms how would you get to the facility? The area is an open space other than the
parking and possible temporary bleachers. Mr. Folsom asked if staff feels comfortable with the standards
regarding ADA parking requirements. Mr. Gathman stated that is not a specific condition but it could be
added.
Michael Miller stated that there is typically no variation from ADA standards when there is a gathering of
public. Mr. Gathman stated that if businesses were open to the public there needs to be ADA parking. It
needs to be addressed. Mr. Gathman indicated this is not a typical commercial venture, meaning this is for
fund raising. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Morrison about the commercial impact with regards to ADA. Mr.
Morrison stated the ADA requirements fall back to the operator of the facility and it is enforced on a
complaint basis and there is not an exception that would remove the requirement for this type of facility.
The ADA requirements can be brought before the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Miller asked about
the commercial aspect, if money changes hands it is a commercial venture regardless of the intent of where
the money goes. Mr. Morrison stated that in terms of the County it is viewed as commercial rather it is not
for profit or for profit. The not for profit relies on the ability to obtain special licensing for things like liquor for
one day events that cannot be done it the operation was for profit. The liquor code drives the events to be
not for profit.
John Folsom asked Mr. Carroll about his feeling on having a turn lane on CR 31, if there are 1000 people
there will be staging on CR 31 to get into the parking lots. Mr. Carroll stated to justify the turn lanes there
has to be a traffic identifying the number of users, peak hours, background traffic, how long staging and
turning. The need for turn lanes needs to be warranted, the application does not identify how often the
facility is used. Mr. Gathman added the applicants have indicated weekends, holidays and during the week
there may be some practicing. It does not specify if this is every weekend year around.
Martin Gutierrez, applicant, added that they do not want to do a commercial operation they would like to
continue helping those in need. There was a great need for those under privileged. They do not want do to
a commercial venture because it is more difficult to sell the property. The applicants indicated that if they
want to make this as simple as they can. Mr. Gutierrez added that they do not want commercial because
of septic systems and they want something that can be removed if need be. The request would be for port
o potties. Mr. Gutierrez stated they have State approval to use the water in a commercial way. The intent
it to take the water and place it by the bathrooms during the event and can also drink this. A line will be
utilized, the use will be on weekends only. The past problems with the traffic was due to the limitations of
spectators due to the request of the Sheriffs Department. The gates were closed and everyone started
parking on the roads. The spectators did not understand that there was a limit on the number. They did
not understand why some were in and some were not allowed in, the permit was for 200-300 people. Berta
Gutierrez, applicant, added they also have a boarding and training license through the State. There is
enough land to board horses. They do have insurance that covers everything. There are times there is
traffic during the week due to the boarding facility. The events have been ceased since the Sheriff
approached them. The Sheriff mentioned friendly betting in not illegal but as owners there is no gambling.
There are misconceptions and this is really not what it is perceived as. Ms. Gutierrez added they intend to
address every issue including the traffic and security. There is no alcohol allowed on site. The events do
not always bring 1000 people, that is the maximum. This benefits all those that are in need, the city and
County because those people utilize the surrounding services for food and gas.
James Rohn asked Ms. Gutierrez is the maximum number of 1000 people would be too many for the
property or would it be better to scale down the number to 500 or 600. Ms. Gutierrez stated that there are
not always 1000 people, it depends on fund raiser as to the number of people. There is no way to tell how
many spectators will show up to an event.
Michael Miller asked if event parking filled up would they be willing to open the field for overflow. Ms.
Gutierrez stated they would open the fields to overflow parking. The only impact would be driving into the
overflow area because of the location,with both access roads open they should be able to handle plus
there will be traffic control. Mr. Miller asked about the water and sewer situation and the willingness to run
water and sewer to event area, and where would the water go if there. Mr. Gutierrez stated that a container
can be placed in the area. There is also a ditch they have permission from the ditch rider to drain into. Mr.
Gutierrez stated they can design a vault system. Mr. Miller asked Ms. Davis about event that vary in
number and how many port o potties would be needed. Ms. Davis stated there needs to be 1 per 20 people
but maybe more. There would be approximately 10-20 facilities. Ms. Davis added there are port o potties
with hand washing and this would satisfy the Health Department. Also a recommendation for drinking
fountains in the area. The vaults would need to be pumped more often.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Yvonne Gonzalez, neighbor, indicated concerns with road. The vehicles are bumper to bumper and they
cannot get out of the driveway. There are times when they are parked in the driveway, getting out and
urinating on dumpster throwing beer bottles on road. The trash is left for her to clean up. There is
constantly trespassing due to lack of deputies. There is alcohol on the premises brought from the separate
vehicles. There is fighting on site regarding who will go in first. Before the gates are opened the music is
loud and there is partying. Who will be responsible for the clean up? Who directs the traffic when can only
go one way? Who accountable for all of this people, people should be accountable for themselves. Do the
owners need to be called every time this happens? The spectators do not follow the rules of no parking.
Who help the neighbor in the situation?
Michael Miller asked if adequate parking was provided would this alleviate the concems. Ms. Gonzalez
does not agree with the proposal no matter it will not clear up no matter what the restrictions.
Adam Martinez, neighbor, indicated concerns with the traffic. Who will control the traffic? The owners are
in the arena therefor they do not know what is going on outside. The spectators could come in drunk and
should not be allowed to continue to drink. 1000 people cannot be controlled or monitored. There are
spectators with guns on site that are brought in. There are homes in close proximity with children and their
safety is a large concern. The benefits are good but there is gambling with fighting. There is no way one
deputy sheriff can control.
Benjamin Hansford Sr, neighbor, indicated concerns with the number of people attending. There is never
under 250 people attending. The gates are closed until certain times and the traffic before that time is
horrible. The roads have broken beer bottles and trash. The traffic is horrible on the weekends that this
occurs. There are drunks, music, fights and beer bottles everywhere in the area. The concern is not with
the benefit aspect but this cannot be controlled. There is no remedy as to the way this is being handled.
James Rohn asked how long this activity has been going on? Mr. Hansford stated at least 2 years on and
off.
Anita Owens, neighbor, indicated concerns with the fire hazard. The area is a fire hazard because of the
fields in the area. The fire department is small and there is a huge danger. Security has no enforcement
they cannot arrest and basically cannot do much.
Mary Golfus, neighbor, indicated concerns with the proposal. There was a video provided. Mr. Miller stated
that they have not seen this. There are several neighbors that are opposed to it. The question is if Planning
Commission does not want it across from their yard do not put it in ours.
Vera Bludgett, neighbor, indicated the concems with this proposal. The traffic blocks CR 31 and Caroline
Avenues. The spectators park in the county shop until they can go into the gate. There are children running
up and down the road and this is a danger to them. The dust is a huge concern due to health problems.
Oppose this strongly.
John Ferrell, majority mineral owner, has two issues. The first issue is when the County built their shop it
was determined the existing oil well would be shut down because of safety. 1000 cars with the existing
wells or tanks would be a safety hazard. The second issue is he was never contacted by the operators,
either Merritt or Encana, when permission was granted and the are the lessors of the property. Mr. Ferrell
would not support commercial development that would infringe on the rights of the mineral owners. If an
exception is made for this to be a commercial then what other exceptions are going to be made. The public
needs to be represented. Planning Commission needs to represent the safety of the neighbors and support
the surrounding community.
Gaylord Meyer, neighbor to the north, indicated concerns. Alcohol was served once on the property once
and it was indicated it would never be done again. Mr. Meyers hayfield is north and trash has been picked
up in the field. There have been some spectators that climb the fence and go in and out on the north side.
The ditch road is for Fulton Ditch users only and there have been times people have been on this road.
They have turned around in the fields and destroyed parts of the field. There has been a fatality on property,
someone got kicked by horse. Was there any safety precautions taken by a commission to look into?
There have been syringes found on property to south. The area is not big enough for a race track to handle
safely. The waste water is not allowed in the waste ditch of the Fulton Ditch. The bottom ditch is the
waste ditch. Mr. Meyer opposes.
Dean Resdim, neighbor, agrees with everything that has been said. Who will control the traffic with that
many vehicles trying to get out of one land driveways? If there was an emergency situation no one would
be able to escape. The response time for the Sheriff is approximately 30-45 minutes. The event is out of
control and will not get any better especially when the numbers are increasing. Opposes this.
George Tendick, neighbor Hudson, member American Quarter Horse Association. Mr. Tendick added the
first time Arapahoe Park was opened all the roads in the area were completely blocked. There are several
types of events that block roads. There are occasions when the best planning goes bad and there are
times when unusual situations exist. There was trash in the road at the time as well as the area in general.
Traffic is a problem on CR 31, CR 16 and CR 18 but the horse racing is not responsible for all of it, it adds
to it no doubt. There is enough room on the road internally, there are two gates at 12 feet wide. Everyone
agrees that there is not enough police protection from the Sheriff. The Gutierrez's have an enormous heart
for giving. It does take time for people to acclimate to this way of doing things;but those are criminal
issues and not something that can be dealt with in a land use issue. Horse racing has gotten a bad
reputation, they have closed Centennial, Arapahoe has been taken far away from the community and the
racetrack has not done well due to governing. The locations for racing are limited. The agricultural interests
of the surrounding area has declined due to not having a place to race the horses to race. The racing is an
enjoyment and there have been several occasions that there have been no problems that have been
mentioned. If not a safe place to run would not run the horses. There are accidents as with everything else
in life. As long as confined to property and the applicants do everything that is required of them the other
issues will resolve themselves.
Melinda Short, neighbor, agree with the residents. There is not the infrastructure needed to support this
activity. The fund raiser is a noble cause but not in the area. There area is a quiet rural area and Ms. Short
would like to see it that way.
Florence Priest, neighbor, someone should look at the possibility of terrorism in the area. Ms. Priest has
nothing against the racing but does believe the traffic is a hazard.
The Chair closed public portion.
Chris Gathman indicated the video is ready and has been forwarded to a specific spot addressing the
parking on CR 31. Mr. Miller asked the Planning Commission if it was needed. Mr. Morrison stated that it
is only if the board wants to see this, the author is not present at the time. Mr. Miller indicated that it was
not needed.
James Rohn quoted from the Comprehensive Plan Section 22-2-100.6 and asked Mr. Gathman if he felt this
section has been meet. Mr. Gathman stated it is partially within the IGA and this is the reason for the
urban scale. The scale of the use is urban given the number of people. There is a commercial well onsite,
there is not public sewer or water. Technically from an infrastructure it is not urban but based on scale of
the use it is urban. Mr. Rohn commented when he is talking urban in infrastructure he is talking roadways
and if they can handle 1000 people. Mr. Carroll indicated CR 31 is classified as a minor arterial roadway
that can handle 1000 per day easily. Mr. Rohn quoted from the Comprehensive Plan Section 22-3-50.3 P.
Goal 2 and asked if this section has been met. Mr. Gathman stated that roads, parking and area needed
for parking have been discussed. The bathroom facilities need to be addressed by the Health Department.
Mr. Rohn stated that the health safety and welfare of the current residents needs to be reviewed in dealing
with the aftermath of the events. Mr. Rohn continued with Section 23-2-220 and if the intent has been met.
Mr. Gathman stated that this type of facility is listed as a use by special review in the agricultural zone
district. The applicants do have the ability to apply for the use in this zone district. Mr. Miller stated that
staff has made their opinion as to whether it meets the criteria in the staff comments the Planning
Commission job is to make individual interpretations as to whether they have met the criteria.
Martin Gutierrez, applicant, added that he is sorry for the things that have happened but on those two or
three occasions they applicants have called the Sheriff to give them a hand. These problems occurred
when the gates were closed. The site is taken care of and he cannot control all the people off the property.
There have been Sunday mornings in which he has taken guys to clean the roads after the events. The
trash was his concern so he respected the health of the neighbors and he helped because it was his event.
Mr. G is trying his best to control the event. The traffic is one time a week when the events are done.
There will be no security the applicant will have the Sheriff Department deputies that work overtime. They
will hire what is needed. Mr. Gutierrez does not believe in security but he does believe in the Sheriffs
Department. There traffic is controlled once it leaves the premises, one car at a time is released from the
site. The applicants have been doing this for two years with one accident. There have never been fights
and no guns are allowed. They have searched for alcohol. It is impossible to search for every car for
everything. Mr. Gutierrez cannot control everything but he can control what happens on his property. The
intent was not to move to the area to trash the area,the site is a great place. The people in the area live
the way they want to and Mr. Gutierrez will not tell them to do differently,the trash is from everyone. There
are people doing the wrong thing in the area but he can only control what can on his property. There will be
six bathrooms, three for men and three for women. The applicants will spend money out of their pocket to
get the facility after that the money will go to charity. The applicants want to continue to benefit those in
need. The applicants will help anyone that needs help.
Chris Gathman indicated that a traffic control plan would need to be submitted. Mr. Miller pointed out there
is a request by Public Works for one. Mr. Gathman was not sure whether the ADA requirements could be
a part of that. Mr. Carroll stated that the ADA spots would need to be identified in the traffic plan submitted.
Bryant Gimlin moved to accept staff changes. Doug Ochsner seconded. Motion carried
Bruce Fitzgerald commented this is too intense of use. It does not matter if this is once a day or once a
week, the traffic would still be to cumbersome. Mr. Fitzgerald cannot support this application.
James Rohn commented the applicants have been doing this in violation for two years and if they have not
been able to figure out how to do a parking plan, address the noise,trash, restrooms by now it will not get
fixed.
Bryant Gimlin commented that is the reason for the permit. It implements a parking plan, trash control and
security plan that has not been on site. It makes the events safer and better managed. It would mitigate
the impact on the surrounding neighborhood. The place is clean and the applicant does what he can do to
help others and controls the source of the problems. The biggest parking problem was when the tried to
shut gates and limit the number of people. The applicant is willing to have overflow with a parking plan with
Public Works. The dual access helps mitigate the concerns. Mr. Gimlin is in favor of the applicant,they
have a good thing going on.
Michael Miller asked if there was anything in the conditions that addressed medical response for
emergency services. Mr. Gathman stated he does not recall anything in the standards that addresses this.
Doug Ochsner commented this plan does give the applicants rules to follow and if they do not live up to
them they will be in violation and will have to be shut down. The sole concern is if it has gotten too big and
to large for the area.
Chad Auer commented his concerns were around fire and emergency service access. The permit does
impose boundaries and rules but the use has such a significant with adverse impact on the health safety
and welfare of the citizens. The safety is not just a concern for those adjacent but those attending the
event. The motivations is good but there are a lot of ways to raise money for those in need. There are
ways that would not have such a negative impact on the community. Mr. Auer is not in support of the
proposal.
Michael Miller commented this is a tough case. It is an impact on community but the Development
Standard and conditions alleviate the concerns but not all of them. It needs to be understood there is a
mixture of cultures and it is difficult for some to grasp. It has been circulated how the migrant community is
a burden and does not contribute but this is a case where the Hispanic Community is making an attempt to
contribute in a manner that their culture understand and accepts. There are not very many fund raisers in
our culture that would draw this attention and the participation of the Hispanic Community. Mr. Miller has
never seen any fund raisers that have developed this amount of money that has this type of participation
from the Hispanic Community. Traffic is a huge concern but the applicant is working with the Sheriff not
some base line outfit. Mr. Miller believes the applicants deserve a chance to succeed not shut the door. It
is a unique opportunity and the applicants are making an attempt to help those in need. This is a way to
give back to our community. It is important to give them the opportunity. It is going to be a process that
others need to buy into to make work. Perhaps working with the applicant on suggestions to alleviate the
concerns would be a start. This seems to be a conflict of culture adverse to a legal situation where
someone is intentionally violating the law. There are things that are going on that need to be changed. A
possible options could be to sell a limited number of tickets to limit the number of people that come.
Chad Auer asked for clarification"this support or not support for this is not support or not support for
benevolence or a cultural activity?"
James Rohn commented the drinking and gambling will be something that can get out of hand. Mr. Miller
added that the addition of the Sheriffs Deputy may change the situation.
Bruce Fitzgerald added that the use is too intense for population. It would basically double size of the area.
It is to close to a community and Mr. Fitzgerald does not believe it would work. Mr. Miller added it will be a
struggle, but in the event 1000 is deemed too many, sell fewer tickets at the next events. It will take some
time to determine what actually works. Mr. Miller is in favor of working on it until a workable scenario is
developed which could be a limited number of tickets sold. It seems to be heavy handed to say they
cannot do this. Mr. Fitzgerald stated there is nothing in the Development Standard that says a limited
number of tickets can be sold. The limit is to 1000 people. Mr. Miller added that if another event occurs
and the terms of the approval are violated with the Sheriffs Deputies being there, it is very easy to revoke
the permit.
James Rohn added he would rather put something in the terms to limit the amount of tickets rather than
allow them that large of number, 1000 people is not a good mix. Mr. Miller stated the limitations can be
done in the security portion of the plan that needs to be submitted to the Sheriff Department. Mr. Auer
added the idea of supporting this application is affording applicant the opportunity to try out and see what
works and it has not worked for the two years it has been going on. The applicant is not starting with a
fresh slate there is evidence the impact is adverse, perhaps another venue would be more appropriate.
John Folsom added it comes down to a choice as to what is right for the applicant and what is right for the
community. The real problem lies within the government in that it does not have the ability to enforce the
requirements that are placed on the USR. The intent is admirable,the overriding concern has to be for the
health, safety and welfare of the citizens. If the do not conform to the requirements the process to revoke is
a long process.
James Rohn moved Case USR-1483, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the
Planning Commissions recommendation of denial. Chad Auer seconded the motion.
Denial based on Weld County Code Sections:
22-2-100.B
22-3-50B
23-2-220 A.2-A.4 and A.7
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Michael Miller, no; Bryant Gimlin, no; James Rohn, yes; Chad Auer,yes; Doug Ochsner, no;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried.
Bryant Gimlin commented that the application has meet the requirements of Section 23-2-260 and the
Development Standard and Conditions have mitigated any adverse impact to the surrounding community.
Michael Miller echoed Bryant Gimlin comments
Meeting adjourned at 5:30pm
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello