HomeMy WebLinkAbout20051237.tiff •
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, April 5, 2005
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2005,in the Weld County Department
of Planning Services, Hearing Room, 918 10th Street,Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair,
Michael Miller, at 1:30p.m.
ROLL CALL J
Michael Miller - -'
Bryant Gimlin
John Folsom
James Welch ='
James Rohn
Bruce Fitzgerald Absent
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
Thomas Holton
Also Present: Char Davis, Don Carroll, Sheri Lockman, Chris Gathman, Kim Ogle
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on March 15, 2005, was
approved as read.
The following is on the Consent Agenda:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1505
APPLICANT: Russell &Angela Reed
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: N2 SW4 Section 2, T8N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado
REUQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for an airstrip in the
A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 21; 1/4 mile north of CR 96.
Consent Agenda was approved.
The following cases will be heard:
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1416
APPLICANT: William &Ann Stonebraker
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-3589; Pt of the NE4 of Section 28, T2N, R64W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Use by Right,
Accessory Use or Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone
District(Display Fireworks Storage and fireworks equipment staging facility
along with an office) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 18; ''A mile east of CR 53.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services presented Case AmUSR-1416, 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.
James Rohn asked Mr. Carroll about the truck traffic and if there were any plans to pave CR 18. Mr. Carroll
added it was not expected in next five yrs.
Chad Auer asked about an oil flare on site. Mr. Gathman indicated the locations on map provided. There are two
new ones located on the north side of 1-76 in both the south east and south west corner of the site.
Doug Ochsner asked Mr. Gathman about the location of the nearest house and the distance. Mr. Gathman
indicated there was a home across CR 18 and approximately 500 feet from the northwest corner of the site.
ao-D. .rs Awo q- 18-ZOOS 2005-1237
This home will be approximately 500-700 feet away from the buildings proposed. Mr. Ochsner asked if the other
agencies referred to had been contacted. Mr. Gathman stated that a referral was to the ATF followed up by an
attempt t contact by phone and by fax. There has been no response received. A referral was also sent to CDOT
John Folsom asked about the setback on the oil wells and if those apply to residences only or any type of activity,
the concern if for the oil wells should the fireworks start fire. Mr. Gathman stated the setbacks for residential and
this type of use are 150 feet from the well head and 200 feet from a tank battery. Colorado Oil and Gas regulates
if there is a building in place. Mr. Morrison added the maximum setback is 350 feet which is applied in high
density residential areas. Mr. Folsom asked if there was a regulation for setbacks for a hazardous activity. Mr.
Morrison indicated there was no provision.
Michael Miller asked about the new home and if it was owned by applicant. Mr. Gathman stated it was the
applicant daughter.
Beverly Schneider, applicant, provided clarification with regard to the proposal along with history of the business.
The business is 50 years old. They have grown from the Dacono site due to encroaching development and
would like to expand this site. These warehouses will be containing supplies for the displays that are sold to
communities and fire departments. This location on site will create the least impact on the agricultural in the site.
John Folsom asked if there have been any accidents in the 50 years. Ms. Schneider indicated there have been
grass fires but nothing with the operation. Ms. Schneider indicated the ATF has been spoken to and they
indicated no concern since there will be no overnight storage. Mr. Folsom asked about the storage and
employees working year round and if the final product that is stored on site or shipped of. Ms. Schneider stated
there will be no manufacturing. When the product is ordered it will be brought in from the storage area to these
warehouses for the communities to take possession.
Michael Miller clarified that the buildings are not for warehousing but are for assembly display, but there will not
be explosives. Ms. Schneider stated the displays will be in the storage buildings. The warehouses will have
storage of mortar tubes.
Doug Ochsner asked about the safety and if she could clarify this. Ms. Schneider stated it was very safe, the
employees are trained, there is an evacuation plan and the fire department has been spoken to with regard this
location. The fire district will not come onto the site for any fireworks related fire, their concern would be for the
safety of the surrounding properties.
Bryant Gimlin asked Ms. Schneider about her understanding with regard to having sprinklers in the building. Ms.
Schneider stated that sprinklers are not effective since there will be no fireworks in the building themselves. Mr.
Gimlin asked if sprinklers were required would there be enough water supply. Ms. Schneider indicated she was
not sure she would need to talk with the experts. Mr. Gimlin asked if there needs to be a permit from ATF. Ms.
Schneider stated it was discussed with them and since the offices are located at another space and the storage
will be at another location there will be no permit for this area. The operation is under one umbrella of the
company so there is no need for a separate permit. ATF has checked all the sites, about once a year sometimes
more depending on the government.
James Rohn asked rather this was the final intent for the site or will there be further improvements. Ms.
Schneider stated the plan was to have this as an auxiliary site. The intent was to have this be the site the
operations were done at since the Dacono site no longer has the capability of expansion due to construction in
the area. At this point this will take 5-10 years. At this time there is no anticipation for anything further but this
could change. Mr. Rohn asked how the employees are selected. Ms. Schneider stated the employees must
pass a background check, they are supervised, they come highly recommended.
Bryant asked about the well with a flare. Ms. Schneider indicated the oil company has been contacted and there
is no flare on location. That would not be something the applicant would want either. Mr. Morrison stated the
County has a GIS map that gives the location of flares. The Oil companies must contact the County before
installing them.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Christopher Ernst,representative for local residents,indicated their concerns. There is a concern with the setback in
addition to standard County setback being 350 feet. ATF has setback information and this information was submitted
to Mr. Morrison. There is a complex set of regulations that apply to this site. Mr. Ernst indicated the application is not
in compliance with the applicable codes of Weld County. Safety for the neighbors must be met by the applicant. The
Comprehensive Plan allows for agricultural related uses in the agricultural zone district. Mr. Ernst indicated there is a
lack of services for the area especially with the lack of water supply for the sprinklers. The concern is whether the
water supply can provide the ability to put out a fire should it happen. There are fire protection issues with regard to
safety and operation of this site. The commercial well will not be enough to take care of fire sprinkler system. The
regulations need to be met by the several different agencies.
Michael Miller clarified the buildings may need to contain a sprinkler system, the production of explosives will not
happen in the buildings and the well is commercial for indoor use only. Mr. Ernst stated there will be short term
storage of explosives for processing and shipment, it may not be overnight but it will still be stored there for a short
time. The building department will require a sprinkler system and the commercial well may not have the water to
supply a system.
John Folsom asked Mr. Morrison if Planning Commission has the responsibility for the compliance of other agencies,
the County has attempted to get responses so is it Planning Commission responsibility to continue until ATF
responds? Mr. Morrison stated that the other agencies are not enforced by Planning Commission but Planning
Commission must be assured those regulations are being addressed. There is no need to wait for ATF to respond.
Christine Curl, neighbor, indicated her concerns with the proposal. Ms. Curl showed the location of the surrounding
neighbors and area. This is a residential neighborhood and farm area. The intent that was presented to the
neighbors was for storage and no production. Ms. Curl would understand that assembly would include a fuse and
preparation for retail customer. CR 18 connects the Town of Keenesburg to Kersey and is used by several trucks.
The traffic study that was done missed some trips due to the counts being taken in the summer. This development
does not make sense in an agricultural area, this is an industrial use. The hours of operation are for seven days a
week and unreasonable. The applicant is asking to have the hours from 6:00am to 7:00pm and until 10:00 pm in the
high season and this is a neighborhood not an industrial area. The Town of Keenesburg has industrial sites in place
already for this type of use.
Randy Curl, neighbor, indicated his concerns. The original intent was a few buildings with storage and no expansion.
Manufacturing is different and assembly is manufacturing. Mr.Curl read from the minutes from the Board of County
Commissioners hearing. The neighbors have been misled. There will be three buildings about 30,000 square feet in
size.
Helen Reis,neighor, read an article regarding an accident that happened at a fireworks factory in Michigan. There is
some concern with the continuation of insurance for the adjacent properties. It is presumed the warehouses will be
heated with propane and this is a danger along with the fireworks. If there is an explosion, how fast will the response
time be for fire? This is a farming community where burning of ditches occurs and the embers will blow and catch
things on fire. The transporting from the storage to the warehouses will be in pick up trucks. The traffic trips will
increase and destroy the roads further. The concern is who is responsible to enforce the regulations?
Michael Miller asked if she had discussed the ramification of this with her insurance agent. Ms. Reis stated she had
not spoken to her personal agent but to another agent. Each policy is different and will apply differently.
Michael Miller indicated the article may not be a fair comparison since a factory may not be comparable to this. Ms.
Reis stated that most explosives come from out of country and need to assemble which will be done at this site.
Lynn Leeburg, representative for the applicant, provided further information regarding the proposal. There are two
issues, one surrounds land use which is a huge issue. There are concerns when things start to grow and things
change. The applicant is trying to follow rules and regulations that are in place. The original application was based
on what the applicant knew at the time and what was needed at that time. Things have changed which is what
controlled the need for the amended application. The applicant is aware that there are a number of controls, rules
and regulations which surround these buildings and is willing to adhere to all of them. For example, if a sprinkler
system is required it will be addressed.
Dave Carmichael, Secretary/Treasurer for the Southeast Weld Fire Protection, provided clarification with regard to
their approval and what they discussed. The district held a special meeting regarding this application and accepted
the plans for expansion with recommendations. Those recommendations include that the residential structure
maintain a 150 foot distance from staging and storage buildings according to ATF regulations. The second
recommendation was there be a NOX box at the front gate for emergency access and the district is allowed to inspect
and evaluate the facility during and after the construction. It is a mutual understanding between the Stonebrakers and
the Fire Department that firemen will not enter the facility to fight a fireworks related fire but will evacuate the area and
protect adjacent property.
Michael Miller asked about the safety of neighborhood and the exposure to this type of facility. Mr. Carmichael
indicated the members looked over the area and the property and did not see anything out of ordinary with the facility.
Mr. Miller asked for a worst case scenario explosion and what would happen. Mr.Carmichael indicated according to
their explosive expert it would not explode but would just burn.
Chad Auer asked about the response time and what would it be. Mr. Carmichael stated that they will evacuate and
protect them and the response time is approx 3-4 minutes.
Bryant Gimlin asked Mr. Carmichael what his understanding was of the buildings having sprinkler systems and the
water supply. Mr. Carmichael indicated they respond with tankers and there are four in the area. This equates to
approximately 8000 gallons per trip. There is some water in the summer with drafting. Mr. Gimlin asked if he is
aware of the buildings needing sprinkler systems. Mr. Carmichael indicated he has no information on this but is
aware that the only heat will be in the office not in the warehouses. Mr. Gimlin asked if there was any concern with
the warehouses and what was stored in them. Mr. Carmichael indicated they did not and the international code has
not been adopted.
Michael Miller asked for clarification with regard to overnight storage and the requirement of sprinklers. Mr.Gathman
indicated that a building official could assist in the clarification.
Chad Auer asked for clarification rather it is the opinion of the Fire District that there is very little impact to health
safety and welfare of residents in the area. Mr.Carmichael indicated that the information from the applicant does not
give the district any reasoning to the limitation of this proposal.
Frank Piancentino,Weld County Building Plans Examiner,provided clarification with regards to the sprinkler systems.
Mr. Piancentino stated that according to the International Code any building with fireworks is required to be sprinkled.
The code does not differentiate whether the fireworks are stored overnight or not. There is a table for physical
hazards and storage of them (Table 307 of the IBC, Item G). This would require a sprinkler system.
Jim Reis, neighbor, indicated concerns and provided information with regards to setbacks specifically from CDOT and
a map of the area. Mr. Reis addressed the information distributed. There has been no documentation provided for
the amount of footage needed for setback from roadways. Mr. Reis believes the original approval should be removed
due to the subsequent construction of the oil and gas wells and the building not meeting the setbacks. This proposal
will have explosives on location at some time or another. Mr. Reis indicated that each facility needs to have a license
with the ATF and each facility should be licensed through the State Division of Fire Safety. The gas wells have been
added since the inception of the original permit.
Bryant Gimlin asked if this table handed out applies to explosives. Mr. Reis indicated it includes Class B explosives
and is from the governing laws of state of Colorado.
Don Morgan, neighbor, provided separation distance tables from NFPS. Mr. Miller asked for clarification on the
tables. Mr. Morgan indicated these specifically deal with fireworks. There was extensive discussion with regards to
the amount of material stored on site and the amount of setback needed for it. The concern of blighted property may
need to be addressed. One of the requirements to consider property blighted is the existence of conditions that
endanger life or property by fire. The suggestion is to have ATF and EPA conduct inspections of the facilities for
safety of this application.
Nelly Morgan, neighbor, indicated concerns specifically with the original intent being storage only. Ms. Morgan
submitted into record a Fireworks Annual Report. There is a bus route and safety is a big concern. There is hunting
and shooting in area. The response time depends on train being on tracks or not. The 2004-2005 National Fire
Codes was submitted. Ms. Morgan would like to know who will enforce and determine if the requirements are being
met.
The Chair closed the public portion of hearing.
Lee Morrison clarified that the NFPA is not something enforced by the County. There is no county fire code
specifically for the County; each is enforced by the individual districts.
Beverly Schneider,applicant,responded that there have been no accidents in the 50 years the have been operating.
There will be no manufacturing on the site. Mr. Miller asked about the concern for the setbacks from the homes and
highways. Ms. Schneider stated ATF was on site at the end of construction of the first four units. ATF indicated at
that time all was fine. Ms. Schneider added that the amount of pounds relates to specific units and this would
determine the setback required. Mr. Miller asked about the other site, setback and pounds allowed. Ms. Schneider
indicated the there was 10,000 pound magazines at that facility and there are 7 units. ATF has visited this site and it
is fine. Mr. Miller indicated that this site is closer to buildings and roads. Ms. Schneider stated it was closer to the
County road.
Bryant Gimlin asked rather there was enough water supply for sprinkler systems for the warehouses. Ms.Schneider
stated that if it is required there are other means rather than water supply. The applicant is willing to work with the
Fire Department and any other County agency that needed to be involved. This application is just the beginning and
there are other issues with the building department that would need to be worked out.
Michael Miller indicated the table provided differentiates between barricaded and un-barricaded storage. Ms.
Schneider indicated the Keenesburg storage is not barricaded.
Chris Gathman asked if they intended to keep fireworks (temporarily) in any or all of the proposed building. Ms.
Schneider stated they have one building that is classified as a work building while the remaining building will be
nothing more than equipment. The work building would be the only one to have explosives in it during the day.
James Rohn asked how large the building is. Ms. Schneider indicated it was approximately 80x130 size.
Lynn Leeburg, representative for the applicant, indicated there are a number of rules and regulation that will have to
be adhered to.
Bryant Gimlin asked Ms. Davis if the commercial well was adequate for the office and the employees. Ms. Davis
stated the commercial well is sufficient for the office and employees. Mr.Gimlin asked for the rating of the well. Ms.
Davis stated it is listed as having a pumping rate of 15 gallons per minute with an annual rate of 1/3 acre feet. This
well is limited to drinking and sanitation with no amenities for lawn or landscape.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Carroll for the traffic count. Mr.Carroll indicated the count was done in 2004 and there was
an average of 116 -145 vehicles per day.
Michael Miller stated there was enough evidence received to not justify a continuance. The business is regulated by
several agencies. Mr. Auer added that if the case proceeded the applicant will still be responsible to adhere to the
regulations. Mr. Morrison stated they would and there are conditions that addressed that in the staff comments. Mr.
Gathman stated there could be a condition of approval added to address possible concerns with ATF. Mr.Gathman
suggested it be located in Prior to recording the Plan and the language is. "The applicant shall provide evidence of
ATF approval or provide evidence that ATF requirements are not applicable." Mr.Gathman added that Development
Standard #20 states that the applicant has to comply with all applicable regulations.
Doug Ochsner moved to add the recommend language proposed by staff in the memo and the condition of approval
further added in the minutes. James Rohn seconded. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner asked Mr. Carroll is there were any concerns with the importing and exporting of material on County
roads and are there any concerns that Public Works can regulate. Mr. Carroll stated it could not be dealt with. Mr.
Morrison added the County could not have separate regulations on transportation of materials on public roads; this
would violate the public interstate commerce laws.
James Rohn asked about the road trips per day and if Public Works is requiring any agreement with the applicant.
Mr. Carroll indicated Public Works is requiring the applicant to enter into an improvements agreement which will
supply dust control along the front of the facility to the adjacent property owner. This case is adding onto the dust
abatement requirement for the truck driving school.
Chad Auer asked about how standards and regulations will be enforced. Mr.Gathman indicated the County regulates
the special use permit and if there are concerns with compliance with Development Standard it is also under County
jurisdiction. Mr.Auer stated the process would be to call the County first then the other agencies. Mr.Morrison stated
the fire district could not be contacted because they do not have a County adopted fire code.
Michael Miller indicated that if this was approved and the neighbors feel the regulation are not being followed they
could contact the County and a violation will be begin. Mr. Gimin indicated this is like a land use case and the are
subject to regulations from outside agencies. Mr. Ochsner added that the public has brought forth good information
that staff must rely on. Mr. Folsom quoted Section 23-3-40 from the Weld County Code along with subsection R and
recommended approval. Mr. Miller stated safety and compatibility must be addressed. Traffic is a significant issue in
the county and attempts to mitigate this are done. There is enough regulation through Federal and State agencies
that will protect the public. Mr. Miller would support the application based on a land use basis. The location has
highway access and is next to a town. Mr. Rohn added that the past cases were reviewed based on a compliment to
the zone district. There is no compliment for this type of business in the agricultural zone district.
Michael Miller asked Ms. Schneider, the applicant, if she had read the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standard and if she was in agreement with them. Ms. Schneider indicated she is in agreement but would like to work
through the issues in a work session with the applicable agencies.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case AmUSR-1416, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval.
John Folsom seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom,yes;
James Welch, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Chad Auer, no; Doug Ochsner, yes.
Motion carried.
John Folsom commented he sympathizes with the neighbors but the code does allow this use. The only
objection would be subjective ones dealing with compatibility and intensity of use. As far as the safety issues the
Planning Commission must rely on the appropriate agencies.
James Rohn commented he does not believe it is compatible with the surrounding use but since the first part of
this was approved he will agree to it.
Chad Auer commented he appreciates private property rights and appreciates the rights to expand business.
Enforcement of codes and regulations will be enforced in the area. A fireworks use has a significant impact
especially with the attending fire district.
Bryant Gimlin commented he has concerns with the intensity but does believe it is located appropriately being
along an interstate.
Michael Miller commented that the addition of the warehouses is not a significant change that will affect the
health, safety and welfare of the neighbors.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1501
APPLICANT: Union Pacific Railroad
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the E2 of Section 29, T6N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a business
permitted as a use by right or an accessory use in the Industrial Zone District
(Railroad car loading area for recyclable materials from Andersen's Salvage
Yard) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: Y mile north of O Street(CR 64), east of CR 39 '%and west of CR 41. •
Michael Miller informed the Planning Commission members and audience of a possible conflict of interest
pertaining to the opposition's attorney. Neither the Planning Commission nor the audience considered this a
conflict.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1501, 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. Mr. Andersen provided clarification on the
photos in the presentation.
Lee Morrison indicated a memo is in the record addressing the railroad (RR) governing. The RR is governed by
Federal Laws. If this operation is connected and operated by the RR it is Federal pre-emption over local
regulations. This does not mean that the RR can lease to a third party and let them operate. Mr. Miller asked if
that would require the RR to do the loading of the cars. Mr. Morrison indicated it was a factor as to how much
this was a RR operation versus a third party. The County does have jurisdiction over the application as
proposed.
James Rohn asked if this was strictly loading materials. Ms. Lockman stated there will be short term material on
site for storage. Ms. Lockman added the loader will be kept on site but the dump trucks could not be kept on site.
John Folsom asked who the owner of the site was. Ms. Lockman indicated it was Union Pacific Railroad.
Michael Hein, Picket Engineering, representative for applicant, provided clarification on the proposal. The
applicant is asking for the industrial noise level to be applied. There will be no loading approximately 900 feet
west of the east property line. The RR right-of-way is recognized to be able to contain industrial uses. The stock
piles will be no more than 6 feet in height and the fencing has been changed. There have been discussions with
the surrounding property owners and these changes reflect those owner's requests. There has been a letter of
intent submitted addressing the concerns with the Hungenbergs. There will be no storage shed and the irrigation
lateral will be relocated off property. The hours of operation will be modified to Monday-Friday from 8:00 am—
5:00pm. Highway 85 will be the main hauling route for the materials. Mr. Hein described the haul routes
Dean Andersen, Andersen Salvage, provided clarification with regard to the proposal. The intent is to use the RR
specifically at this site. Union Pacific RR wants this site especially for the movement of RR cars. The present
site utilizes the crossing at Hwy 85 and 16th Street in Greeley which is extremely dangerous. Mr. Andersen is
doing several things to mitigate the impact on the neighbors. Hungenberg is the most affected but there is a
letter of intent that will be finished at the Board of County Commissioners. This application will be approximately
20-22 RR cars per month if all the materials are shipped by rail. The time frame is approximately 20-22 hours a
month for loading. It is determined at the beginning of the month if the RR will be used for shipment. If this is the
case the materials will be brought to the site and loaded onto the cars. There will be no long term storage on site.
Normally the material is shipped by truck but the RR gives another option.
Bryant Gimlin asked about the concern with regard to auto fluid. Mr. Andersen stated the cars go through a
shredder, then through a conveyor where water is sprayed to clean them. There will be no fluids from material at
all. The shred looks like pile of gravel.
Michael Miller asked what the biggest material that will be delivered to site is. Mr. Andersen stated it would be#1
steel which is no wider then 33 inches and 2-3 feet long. Mr. Miller indicated the concern of the noise level. Mr.
Andersen stated that the largest variable is the operator. Dropping material from a high level increases the noise.
Mr. Miller asked what the percentage of the material is the largest size. Mr. Andersen stated it was#1 grade
which is 30-35%of what would be shipped; the vast majority will be shred. Mr. Miller asked rather the RR track
has been removed and was the right-of-way retained. Mr. Andersen stated it has been owned by Union Pacific
RR(UPRR)since 1909.
Don Carroll asked about the truck traffic delivering material. Mr.Andersen stated there would be approximately 4
trucks a day of shred at the worst case scenario. Mr. Andersen added their impact would be far less than the
surrounding businesses.
Michael Miller asked what noise level they are anticipating. Mr. Andersen stated they are asking for an industrial
noise level. Mr. Andersen added that all RR right-of-way should be considered as industrial according to
information submitted. Mr. Andersen identified the location of the uses proposed on site in comparison to the
surrounding neighbors.
John Folsom asked if the tracks currently exist on the spur. Mr. Andersen indicated the UPRR wants to upgrade
the area. The existing track has been pulled and a contractor is changing the elevation so the track can be re-
installed.
James Rohn asked for clarification on the hours of operation. Mr. Andersen indicated that during a meeting with
the neighbors he voluntarily agreed to 8:00am —5:00pm.
Char Davis, Department of Public Health and Environment,when she reviewed the case the Commercial noise
level was determined due to the residences but with the additional information as to the location of the equipment
and where the noise will be generated she agrees that the noise level at the residence will not be very high.
Greg Larsen, Union Pacific Railroad, real estate, indicated there is a letter of understanding with Mr. Andersen.
Mr. Larsen provided information with regard to UPRR's intent for the tracks. Additional information with regard to
the location of the current track and what will happen with the new addition of tracks was provided. The north
side of the track is being leased for agricultural purposes while the south side of the track is utilized by the
Hungenbergs for employee parking. Mr. Miller asked rather this application will infringe on the historical uses.
Mr. Larsen indicated the lease agreement with the Hungenberg's is a 30 day termination by either party.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Melvin Dinner, representative for some surrounding neighbors, provided the objections of the surrounding property
owners. There is a letter of intent with the Hungenbergs but this is not an agreement. The application is in violation of
the zone district. Compatibility is the main issue with the area,this type of use does not compliment residences in the
area. This is an agricultural zone with numerous residences. This is a safety and health issue for the neighbors. Mr.
Dinner indicated this would create a junkyard in the midst of a residential area. Mr. Dinners stated some of the
neighbors have young children so safety is a concern. Once this site is sold to the Andersen's the RR regulations will
not apply. The loader which will load the material is a 50 ton magnet. The loading will be controlled by Andersen and
this spur is different from the Hungenberg spur. Mr. Dinner provided historical information with regard to the area.
The RR is attempting to place the spur back into a residential development within an agricultural zone. Mr. Dinner
showed pictures of the residences in the area of where the spur will be located along with improvements that have
been done to the area. This application will be placing a junkyard it in the middle of the homes. There was no
support for this application from the surrounding property owners. The land use is detrimental in terms of what will
occur if the application is approved. Mr. Dinner referred to the administrative review of the site plan for this
application. The area cannot support a development of this nature. The screening will be elevated but the RR cars
will not be screened. There are areas located in this proposal that include the City of Greeley Growth Pattern, and
that pattern is for agricultural and residential. The decibel rating for industrial is 80 decibels; the applicant will not
meet the 60 decibel rating for commercial,therefore the reason for the industrial noise level request. The noise study
should have been done prior to the Planning Commission. A dust abatement plan should have been submitted prior
also. Some of the property is within a flood zone and this has not been addressed either. It is premature to deal with
this application when all the information has not been submitted. Mr. Dinner added that Mr. Andersen has made
attempts to mitigate the concerns of the neighbors and Mr. Andersen will have final control not the RR.
Chad Auer asked if the applicant has a right to exercise the property rights because the use is undesirable and
incompatible according to the surrounding property owners. Mr. Dinner stated the applicant cannot do what is being
requested because the County Code states that the use must have a relationship to agricultural operations, a
junkyard does not have this. Ms. Lockman clarified that there is a Goal or Policy in the Comprehensive Plan that is
directly related to or dependent upon agriculture, but there are others that support it not having to be related to
agriculture. Mr.Auer asked Mr. Dinner if the lack of responses from surrounding land owners was reason to deny the
application. Mr. Dinner stated they did not respond but the ones opposing were the respondents. Mr. Dinner added
additional information cited from the County Code.
Chad Auer asked Mr. Morrison if the implication of a Development Standard stating commercial noise level was to be
understood as a reason to deny the application. Mr. Morrison stated that as a matter of law that was not the case.
The applicant's reference to the noise statute is confusing. The RR right-of-way is addressed and there are other
regulatory agencies that also provide for the safety of the County.
Michael Miller asked if the abandonment of the RR right-of-way has an effect on the right to return it to use. Mr.
Morrison stated the abandonment of the RR right-of-way was not due to lack of use. Mr. Miller asked about the RR
right-of-way being subject to industrial zone regulations and if Mr.Andersen purchases the land does it change the
industrial noise level. Mr. Morrison stated the issue is rather there is a distinction between the RR and Andersen
operating. If the application is to operate at that level then that is what the decision needs to be based on.
James Rohn asked Ms. Lockman about the zoning surrounding this property. Ms.Lockman indicated the zoning and
uses surrounding the property on a map provided. Ms.Lockman added staff is requesting the applicant to take the R-
1 Zoning area out of the application.
John Watson, neighbor, indicated his concern with the zoning. The agricultural zone is one that needs to be
preserved. The residences will be affected immensely. The people in the agricultural area need to be protected.
This is not compatible to the area.
Tom Trout, neighbor, indicated opposition. His home looks right onto the site. The other concern is the loader and its
location. Mr. Trout suggests moving the loader further to the west. The property value will be affected. Mr. Trout
would like to eventually split his land for a residence to the north and this will make selling of the property difficult.
There is a large concern for the safety of the children in the area.
The chair closed the public portion.
James Rohn asked what were the approved USR's on CR 39'/:. Ms.Lockman indicated the uses along CR 39'%are
allowed in the Industrial Zone District therefore, there was no need for any Special Use Permits.
Michael Hein, Picket Engineering,addressed the concerns from the public comment. The berm is located outside the
FEMA firm maps so there will be no impact to flood plain. The Greeley Growth Pattern and studies were not left out
intentionally. Mr. Larsen, UPRR, added he has deeds that show the property is in order. Mr. Larsen indicated Mr.
Andersen will not have control over the cars the RR will. The switching of the cars will be done by the RR. There are
two sets of tracks and there are currently operations on the western track of the RR. The RR intended to add the
track for storage for the industrial companies located to the west. The cars will go on the new track and Mr.
Hungenberg's tracks will be removed so they will have additional room for employee parking. Mr. Rohn asked how
Mr.Andersen is being presently served. Mr.Andersen stated the RR cars are being loaded at Western Sugar at 16th
Street and 1st Ave. UPRR wants to get rid of this site due to danger. Mr.Andersen added there is a letter of intent but
they are working in good faith. They will be giving Mr. Hungenberg a better arrangement than UP is presently. The
present agreement has a 30 day termination, whereas Mr. Andersen will be giving him full access and rights in
perpetuity. Mr.Andersen added there will be no dumping within 1000-1200 feet of where the neighbors are located.
There will be a storm water filtration for the site which exceeds what the State requires. There will be a secure 6 foot
fence around the operational area of the property. The site to the north will remain agriculture. The loader is a heavy
machine but the same as what would be on a construction sites,the newer ones are quieter and safer. Mr.Andersen
added that he would be willing to park the loader at the west end to mitigate the Trouts concerns. The applicant does
need the industrial noise level. The Hungenbergs agreed to support with the letter of intent. Mr.Andersen added that
a lot of the material they receive is agricultural scrap; it will either lie all over the County or be brought to them for
recycling. This proposed site is not agricultural land. The north part of the site is presently agriculturally farmed by
Hoshiko and Mr.Andersen will release the area to him to continue doing so. Mr.Andersen indicated the Trouts will be
getting approximately$3000 worth of trees for their property to screen the site. Mr.Andersen is willing to move the
rail cars and loader to the west end of the property to mitigate the additional concerns.
John Folsom asked how many homes are within%of a mile of the site. Mr.Andersen listed the names of the owners
closest with the help of the audience. Mr. Folsom asked if they plan to buy the property. Mr.Andersen indicated they
will buy the property; this will also limit the use since they will be the only ones allowed to use it.
Chad Auer asked about the Greeley Pattern boundary. Ms. Lockman indicated the site boundary lies within the long
range growth boundary which would be the next twenty years.
John Folsom asked if there was an adopted IGA with the City of Greeley. Ms. Lockman stated there is no present
agreement but staff takes into consideration the information presented. Mr. Auer indicated Greeley did respond.
Sheri Lockman indicated the hours of operation need to be amended to what the applicant is requesting which is 8:00
am to 5:00 pm Monday—Friday which is Development Standard#23. Ms. Lockman added the information required
for the flood plain was due to the changing of the berms. The residential section will be removed once the final
drawings are recorded. Ms. Lockman indicated the industrial noise level needs to be addressed in Development
Standard#11.
Chad Auer moved to change Development Standard#23 to indicate hours of operation to be Monday-Friday,8:00am
to 5:00pm. Bryant Gimlin seconded. Motion carried.
Michael Miller indicated the applicant is requesting a noise level to industrial. Mr.Welch added that 20 hours a month
is no different that a tractor in the fields. Mr. Gimlin added the distance to the property line will negate a great deal of
the noise concerns. Mr.Auer added that the applicant will be adding the trees for the neighbors to help with the visual
aspect.
James Rohn moved to change Development Standard #11 to indicate an industrial noise level. James Welch
seconded. Motion carried.
James Welch asked if the Development Standard referencing the building could be deleted. Ms.Lockman indicated
she would rather not, staff is asking for restroom facilities and this will require permits.
Michael Miller added there have been several comments concerning neighbor safety and noise. The equipment on
site is not the type that will generate a tremendous amount of noise. The material is small along with the distance will
mitigate the noise for the surrounding neighbors. Mr. Ochsner added it is a RR site and there are several industrial
type operations within a mile of this location and this is not a junkyard. There is a need to recycle the materials. Mr.
Rohn stated he reviewed the health safety and welfare of the residents and believes this is a better location. Mr.
Folsom added the use will be controlled by the terms of this USR. Mr. Folsom quoted Section 23-3-40 quoted. Mr.
Folsom added there will be clashes between the uses since the County is growing.
Michael Miller asked if Mr.Andersen had reviewed the Conditions and Development Standard and is in agreement
with them. Mr. Andersen stated he was.
James Rohn moved that Case USR-1501, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval.
Doug Ochsner seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom,yes;
James Welch,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes; James Rohn,yes; Chad Auer,yes; Doug Ochsner, yes;
Tom Holton, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Doug Ochsner commented this USR is compatible. Mr. Ochsner added he compliments the applicant for all the
work with the surrounding neighbors and trying to mitigate any problems.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1500
APPLICANT: Marcum Midstream/Conquest Disposal
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot C RE-4022; being part of Section 29, T4N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST USE: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for an Oil and Gas
Support Facility(Class II Oilfield Waste Disposal Facility) in the A(Agricultural)
Zone District
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 40 and east of SH 60.
Kim Ogle,Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1500,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 is recommending the deletion of Development Standard
#19 due to it being a duplication of Development Standard#37.
Dale Butcher, Conquest Oil, provided clarification to the proposal. The water disposal is a critical part of this type of
operation and that is the purpose of this application.
Bryant Gimlin asked about the concrete secondary containers and do they need to be sealed. Mr.Butcher indicated
they will be sealed and professionally engineered.
James Rohn indicated his concern with the hours being until 10:00 pm seven days a week. Mr. Butcher stated they
have these hours at three facilities with the other facility being open until 900 pm. Water is collected in the late
afternoon and evening so there is a need to have those hours.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Sam Frank,neighbor, indicated concerns with this proposal. There was information requested regarding the proposal
and none was provided. There are concerns with water taps on his mother's farm, Viola Frank. A major concern is
the loss of pressure since the size of the pipe has not been identified. The water line does not go down CR 40 so it
dead ends and there will be no way to gain additional pressure. There may be no way to get the water from the line
making it difficult to possibly sell the property. Dust is a concern and the road will not be maintained. This operation
needs to be regulated.
James Rohn asked Mr. Ogle for clarification with regard to the location of the Town of Gilcrest. Mr.Ogle stated the
physical town limits were approximately% mile to east.
The chair closed the public portion.
Dale Butcher responded that there is a Development Standard that requires them to have a road maintenance
agreement;they will be applying magnesium chloride to the affected road. They are not sure how large the water tap
will be, it will depend on the Fire Department and Central Weld County Water District.
Kim Ogle added Development Standard #30 needs to be modified to read, the hours of operation shall be from
7:00am-10:00pm which is applicable to the other sites. Mr.Carroll added there will be an improvements agreement
addressing dust abatement and maintenance of the road.
Michael Miller asked if the were in agreement with the Conditions of approval and Development Standard. Mr.
Butcher indicated he was.
Bryant Gimlin moved to delete Development Standard #19 and amend Development Standard #30 to identify the
hours of operation be 7:00am to 10:00pm. James Rohn seconded. Motion carried.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case USR-1500, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval.
John Folsom seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom,yes;
James Welch, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Tom Holton, yes.
Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 6:45 pm
R spectfully submitted el—)
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello