HomeMy WebLinkAbout20052629.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld County Conference Room,
4209 CR 241/2 , Longmont, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Bruce Fitzgerald, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bruce Fitzgerald
Tom Holton
Chad Auer Absent
Doug Ochsner
James Welch
Roy Spitzer
Erich Ehrlich Absent
Also Present: Robert Jacobs, Char Davis, Peter Schei, Don Carroll, Pam Smith, Keith Meyers, Cindi Etcheverry, Chris
Gathman, Kim Ogle
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on August 2,2005,was approved
as read.
CASE NUMBER: 2AmUSR-1198
APPLICANT: Marcum Midstream 1995-2 Business Trust
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of AmRE-3308; Pt N2NW4 of Section 32,T4N, R65 of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Amended Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for an Oil and Gas
Support Facility(Class II Oilfield Waste Disposal Facility and a Solids Recovery System) in the
A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 40 and 250 feet more or less east of CR 39.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services presented Case 2AmUSR-1198, 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.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if there was a screening plan approved with the original application in 1998. Mr. Ogle stated
there is a fence along the west side screening those neighbors closest to the facility.
Dale Butcher, applicant, Vice President of Marcum Midstream and Conquest, provided clarification with regards to the
proposal. The process begins with placing water and sand at high pressure into the formation. The water breaks up the
rock while the sand fills cracks so more oil and gas exit. When the water is brought to the facility there is a small part of
sand incorporated into it. The sand settles at the bottom of the tanks and at least once a year it needs to be removed.
The material has hardened so it needs to be removed with high pressure clean water by an OSHA certified contractor.
When this is complete there is sand and fresh water and a small amount of hydrocarbons remaining. The water is
currently disposed of at a facility in Bennett which is costly. The applicant would like to remediate the material at this
facility. The proposal is to build a concrete basin at this facility for the sand and water. The sand and water will be
brought to this basin where they will separate naturally. The water will be placed back into the tanks and the sand will
remain. The remaining water and hydrocarbons on the sand will be left to evaporate. The sand will then be taken to a
landfill and disposed of at a far less cost.
Mr. Miller asked how much of the sand is disposed of annually. Mr. Butcher indicated it would be an increase of
approximately 30-35 trucks per year. Mr. Miller asked if the well was adequate. Mr. Butcher stated the well use will not
be increased.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to
speak.
Mr. Butcher indicated his concerns with Development Standard #23 limiting the number of trucks to 60 per year. The
existing USR does not have a limit. Mr. Ogle indicated staff is in agreement with the deletion of that language.
1
Orb-
J O3 +1 . - 9-7-OM 5 2005-2629
Michael Miller asked if there will be a different landscape plan from the original approval, a letter was received requesting
more of a buffer. Mr. Ogle stated staff intends to leave the facility as originally approved regarding the landscaping.
Doug Ochsner moved to strike the above references language from Development Standard#23 "no more than 50 times
each day." Michael Miller seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer,yes;James
Welch, yes; Michael Miller,yes;Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Tom Holton asked Ms. Etcheverry about the past violations dealing with the drinking water. Ms. Etcheverry stated the
violations' regarding the drinking water was done by the previous owner. That owner has been charged and is presently in
court. The violations have been repaired by this applicant and are currently under remediation. This applicant provides a
quarterly report as well as maintains monitoring wells.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked how the Planning Commission feels about the landscape issue. Mr. Miller stated he does not
believe additional landscaping will be a solution but there could be some type of sound buffering. Mr. Ochsner asked if
adding this process will increase sound to this facility. Mr. Butcher stated this is insignificant and would add very little noise
to the facility. There will not be a large increase to the number of trucks either.
Roy Spitzer asked if there would be changes to the hours of operation. Mr. Butcher indicated it would not.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if the trucks would be dump trucks or tanker. Mr. Butcher stated they are 100 barrel or 130 barrel
trucks. They are the ones that look like the milk trucks. The water is pumped into the tanks which is the same process
used now.
Michael Miller moved that Case 2AmUSR-1198, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Tom
Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer,yes;James
Welch,yes; Michael Miller, yes;Tom Holton,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1071
APPLICANT: Melody Homes- DR Horton
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt SW4 and Pt.SE4 of Section 33 and Part of the SW4 of Section 34,T3N, R68W of the 6th
P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Application for a change of zone from A(Agriculture)for PUD 833 single family residential lots
along with an elementary school site and 70.08 acres of open space
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 28 and east and west of and adjacent to CR 7.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-1071, 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.
This application is PZ-1071 (Adler Estates PUD), a Planned Unit Development Change of Zone, to create eight hundred
thirty three(833)single-family residential lots for Estate uses along with one(1)elementary school site and 70.08 acres of
open space. The applicants are Melody Homes/DR Horton c/o Land Architects. The property owners are Floyd &Marian
Adler. The site is located in the easterly 120 acres of the NE4 and part of the SE4 (approx. 68.5 acres)of Section 33,and
part of the SW4 (approx. 111 acres)of Section 34, Township 4 North, Range 68 in Weld County. The site is south of and
adjacent to County Road 28,east of and west of County Road 7 extending south almost to County Road 26 on the west side
of County Road 7.
Agricultural(cropland)is located to the north,east and west of the site. Three(3)single-family residences are located to the
north and south of the proposed Phases 4&5 (east of CR 7&CR 26, east of CR 7&south of CR 28). Liberty Gulch runs
along the west side of the proposed PUD(forming the western border). The Centex Homes subdivision being developed'''A
mile to the north, and the Elms @ Meadowvale/Meadowvale Farms subdivisions is located '% mile to the southwest. A
future high school site for school district RE-1J is located adjacent to Adler Estates Subdivision (east of CR 7 and north of
future CR 26.5). This site has been annexed to the Town of Mead. Twenty-Three(23)referral agencies have reviewed this
case and seventeen referral agencies offered comments in favor of the proposal or with conditions of approval that are
addressed in staff comments. Two(2)referral agencies(Town of Mead and City of Dacono)objected to the development or
2
expressed concerns with the urban scale development in a county area. No letters from surrounding property owners have
been received.
This site is located within the boundaries of the Mixed Use District{(MUD)(which allows urban scale development)}and the
site is not located within an intergovernmental agreement area. The site is located within the three-mile(3)referral area for
the cities of Longmont& Dacono and the towns of Frederick, Firestone and Mead. The City of Longmont, in their referral
dated 5/13/2005, recommended a minimum 300-foot buffer on the east side of Liberty Gulch from the PUD. The Town of
Mead indicated that they objected to this being an unincorporated PUD and wants the applicant to petition for annexation
(5/16/2005). The Town of Mead indicated in a follow up referral (5/23/2005)they would like to see improvements to CR 7
and State Highway 66 intersection completed prior to Certificates of Occupancies being issued on Phase/Filing I of the
project. The Town of Frederick indicated no conflict with its interests and the Town of Dacono indicated that this
development was not appropriate for an unincorporated area. Recommendations/requirements for the City of Longmont&
Town of Mead are addressed through Development Standards & Conditions of Approval.
The proposed PUD is to be served by the Longs Peak Water District (for Public Water) and the Saint Vrain Sanitation
District (for Public Sewer). The applicants are proposing an irrigation system (for the open space areas) that will be
provided through the Longs Peak Water District. The applicants are proposing to develop the PUD in five (5) phases
starting from the north and running to the southeast.
The applicants indicated that the applicant wishes to enter into an agreement with Anadarko to purchase surface rights for
($5,000.00). Anadarko indicated in previous correspondence no objection to this development. The applicant is in the
process of negotiating an oil&gas agreement with Kerr-McGee/True Oil. An agreement will need to be in place or evidence
that an adequate attempt to reach an agreement has been made will be required prior to scheduling the Board of County
Commissioners hearing.
The Weld County Department of Planning Services is recommending this request be approved and has determined that the
submitted materials are in compliance with Section 27-6-120.C of the Weld County Code as follows:
The proposal is consistent with the Weld County Code,specifically Section 22, (Comprehensive Plan), Section 26(MUD)if
applicable, Section 24 (Subdivision) and any Intergovernmental Agreement in effect influencing the PUD.
Section 27-6-80.b.7 of the Weld County Code states: "All urban scale development PUDs containing a residential element
shall provide for a fifteen percent(15%)common open space allocation,unless otherwise stated in Chapter 26 of this Code.
The applicants have met the fifteen 15%open space requirement. The applicants are proposing a community pool along
with an outdoor roller hockey rink,two(2)smaller parks(with tot lots),a larger community park with a tot lot and basketball
court, trails (crusher fine & concrete)and open space (native plantings) running along the exterior and connecting to the
residential portions of the development.
The Conditions of Approval and Development Standards ensure compliance with Section 27-2-20 through and including
Section 27-2-210 of the Weld County Code. The Department of Planning Services is in support of this request.
Chris Gathman indicated that staff has the following amendments to the comments:
1. Amendment#1 Page 5 (Section 27-2-40— Paragraph #2): amend this paragraph to read as follows: "The
Department of Planning Services is requiring that building setback envelopes be designated within this
subdivision per the attached Conditions of Approval. The applicants are proposing to vary from the R-1 offset
requirement of one (1)foot for each three (3)feet of building height by proposing a minimum five (5)foot clear
zone with an additional 21/4 foot zone to include any appurtenances (counter forts, eaves...)"
Michael Miller asked for clarification on the side setback variance request, the building would be five (5)feet from the
property line while the eaves will be 2 %feet. Mr. Gathman stated there would be a five foot setback that is considered
a clear zone; nothing will encroach in this area which would include the eaves. Mr. Miller asked what the current
requirement is. Mr. Gathman stated the current requirement is one foot for every three foot of building height. The
height of the house determines the setback. The applicant is proposing to vary from this by stating the following:
2. Amendment#2 Page 6 (Section 27-2-40 -- Paragraph #3): The applicant has also proposed a deviation from
the 350-foot setback for oil and gas production facilities as required for R-1 (Low Density Residential) uses
under Section 23-3-160.F of the Weld County Code. Proposed lots and playground facilities will be setback a
minimum of(200)two-hundred feet from existing oil and gas production facilities.
(This setback is based on correspondence from Kerr-McGee but an agreement has not been submitted).
3
Michael Miller asked if the current regulations were two hundred feet(200)from a tank battery and one hundred fifty
feet (150)from well head. Mr. Gathman indicated they were actually three hundred fifty(350)feet in the R-1 district.
3. Amendment#3 Page 9 (Item G—Paragraph #1): The Colorado Geological Survey, in their referral letter dated
May 16, 2005 indicated concerns with groundwater/drainage on the site (referring to a supplemental
Geotechnical Investigation by Terracon (12-14-04), and a letter and map regarding the Groundwater
Management/Soil Treatment of the Adler Property by Terracon (1-17-05). Their referral states, "Groundwater
was found at depths of 2 to 13 feet throughout the property. Terracon recommends against basement
construction in the center of the property due to shallow groundwater. This should be on the plat notes and be
a condition of plat approval. The site specific subsurface investigations should note depth to groundwater and
make recommendations for subsurface construction." This is addressed through the attached conditions of
approval.
Staff recommends that the following statement be added: The engineering report dated December 14, 2004
and subsequent letter dated January 17, 2005 from Terracon indicates that an under drain system will be
installed within the subdivision to draw down the water table. In addition, fill will be placed in areas of shallow
groundwater to provide a minimum 1-3 foot clearance between the groundwater table and the bottom of the
basements. Perimeter drains are planned around all basements.
4. Page 12 (Item 1.B)should be removed.
5. Page 13 (Item 4.1)should be amended to read: County Road 26.5 is classified as a collector roadway which
requires 80-foot of right-of-way.
6. Page 13 the following condition (Item 4.J) should be added: "The wellhead setback radius' as indicated on the
plat shall be amended from 300-feet to 200-feet."
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the change in elevations and how the County will enforce the height restrictions when
there will be multiple builders. Mr. Gathman stated there could be a floor area ratio or place a height standard. Mr.
Fitzgerald stated there is currently a height standard for each district that could be added. This would give the County a
measure of control.
Michael Miller asked if this site was located in the MUD. Mr. Gathman stated it was.
Ken Poncerelli, Land Architects, provided a PowerPoint presentation regarding the proposal. Mr. Poncerelli provided
an overview of the history of the proposal in process and what the intentions are. The presentation included locations
of the various amenities within the proposed development. The intent has been the same since the original inclusion
into the MUD to the Sketch Plan and onto this process. There are several parks, trails, and amenities. The
developments utilize 23% open space versus the required 20%. There are seventy(70)acres of open space of which
ten (10) is irrigated turf. The remainder will be irrigated but will be limited once the vegetation is established. There will
be irrigation amendments to take care of the master plan community for a better and more economical benefit. There
will be guidelines included in the covenants with regards to the landscaping of the lots with the intent is to make this a
water wise community by utilizing different methods of water conservation. There will be pedestrian and school zone
flashers at the appropriate locations.
There are five (5) phases to this development and maps were shown depicting those individual filings. Each phase will
have different home types along with specific amenities associated with the individual phases. Those can include
landscaping, entrances, native plantings along with park improvements. Each phase will have different elements within
the actual phase. There will be fencing adjacent to the open space throughout the development while the interior lots
will be allowed a six (6)foot privacy fence and the lots that backup to the open space will be a split three (3) rail fence.
The pool facility will be in Phase Three. Phase Two will include an inline skate park and parking lot that will be shared
for the pool in Phase Three. Mr. Poncerelli addressed each phase and the requests for variances regarding setback,
lot size, well head set back and the sign variance. The side yard setback request is defined as fifteen (15)feet
foundation to foundation but there will be a five (5)foot clear zone in which nothing will be obstructing including the
eaves of the houses. There will be ten (10)foot side yard setback on corner lots. The variance request for the well
head was due to a typographical error by the applicant. The Oil & Gas Company is in agreement with this variance and
sees no issues with it. Kerr McGee and staff are comfortable with the setback distance. The applicant would like to
exclude any animal units as well as carports or parking areas (in addition to drive ways)of any type.
The applicant is considering the three (3)foot section that actually depicts the sign adverse to the entire sign for the
variance. The obelisk will have three (3)faces that provide the name of the subdivision. Mr. Poncerelli presented
some examples of possible elevations. There have been several agencies that the applicant has been in contact with
including the school district. A future elementary school site has been provided and the impact fees have been
4
addressed for the school district. Becky Eustice, engineer from Tetra Tech, presented information regarding the
roadways. There will also be phases with the roadway system. The applicant will be reimbursed by other
developments as they begin to develop. There will be improvements to the intersection of Hwy 66 and CR 7 including a
north and south bound turning lane. The applicant will pave CR 7 to CR 26 which will start with two (2) lanes and be
adjusted according to incoming development. CR 26 and CR 28 will be paved and the intersection at CR 28 and CR 7
will also be improved. CR 26 %to the east will be paved in Phase Two of the development. Phase Three will be an
interior road, Phase 4 & 5 will complete CR 26 %and improvements to either the intersection of CR 5 '%and Hwy 119
or the connection of CR 7 to Hwy 119. CR 28 and CR 7 will be built out as a 140 foot wide arterial cross section; the
internal streets will be 60 foot local right-of-way. CR 26 1/2 will be an 80 foot urban collector as well as some of the
interior roads. The village green will be a 40 right-of-way local street. The south traffic circle will be a 60 foot right-of-
way round a bout.
There was no sanitary sewer in the area so St. Vrain Sanitation District was approached for service. There will be
major infrastructure to the area including tying into a line east of 1-25 and running it under Interstate 25 to the north to
connect into the Centex subdivision. St. Vrain Sanitation District will take on the project with funding from Centex due
to their immediate needs. Longs Peak Water District will provide potable water. The system will be owned and
maintained by Longs Peak. There will be a storage tank and the end project will include 3300 taps. This project will be
a water design therefore using the Highland Ditch shares as well as the delivery route to have irrigation ponds and a
pump system. This will provide water for the development. Longs Peak Water District will provide potable water for the
development to have a drip system for the trees and HOA areas during the winter months when there is no irrigation.
This will be utilized for both the HOA and the individual yards. The historic drainage for the area was utilized in the
design for the irrigation. There will be no detention on site and there are three (3) release points. Kerr McGee has
agreed to use the existing sites and will use directional drilling if any future sites are desired. The existing sites will be
screened with landscape and berming. There are some existing lines that have easements and the utility service
providers have been contacted with regards to this area.
Michael Miller asked if the reduction of lot size was to accommodate an increase in lots. Mr. Poncerelli stated it was to
provide a variety of housing types and some of the homes are an alley product. This was also to comply with the MUD
for a variety of housing types. Mr. Miller stated the homes in the presentation were two (2) stories and when the
variance for smaller lot size and smaller setback would be to place a larger home on them. Mr. Poncerelli stated the
presented home elevations are at approximately thirty one and a half(31%)feet without a walkout or garden level.
There is fifteen (15)feet between the houses with a ten (10)foot clear zone, five (5)foot on each property line. There
could be air conditioning units, bay window and such in the two and a half(2%)feet clear area from the foundations.
Chris Gathman clarified that the existing building height under the R-1 Residential is thirty(30)feet.
Michael Miller asked rather the variance request for reduction of setbacks was from wellheads or tank batteries. Mr.
Poncerelli stated they were from both and they are requesting two hundred (200)feet.
Doug Ochsner asked about the maintenance and operation of all the parks and recreational facilities. Mr. Poncerelli
stated the HOA will maintain all the native open space, parks, streetscapes, swim pools, inline parks as well as the tot
lots
Roy Spitzer asked if the setback from the oil and gas was for safety reasons. Mr. Poncerelli stated it was a safety zone
and Kerr McGee is comfortable with this request. There could be a requirement of three hundred fifty(350)foot for
gathering areas including elementary schools but this are residences which is acceptable. The elementary school site
and gathering areas are further than three hundred fifty(350)feet from any existing oil and gas facility.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to
speak.
Ken Poncerelli provided clarification on the sign variance request in that the applicant does not believe the entire sign should
be included in the dimensions of the lettering for the sign. Mr. Poncerelli provided a photo in the presentation of what the
obelisk would resemble. The primary entrances will be twenty(20)foot tall with a simple design. There would be a total of
twenty seven (27) square foot of signage per obelisk. There are four(4)signs which are twenty(20)foot in height and a
smaller one of ten (10) feet at the pool facility. Mr. Gathman stated staff includes the entire structure not just where the
signage will be in the sign size calculation. The number may be of a concern but there are limited regulations regarding the
number of signs available. There is one sign allowed of thirty two (32)square feet for this type of development. This will
require a variance to the size as well as the number of signs. Mr. Gathman indicated it would seem logical to allow more
signs due to the size of the development. Mr. Miller stated the request was reasonable since the signs are not obtrusive.
Mr. Gathman stated additional language could be added to 5.A, but staff recommends there be one sign per entrance into
the PUD. Mr. Poncerelli stated there will be four(4)entrance signs, plus one(1)community identifier at CR 7 and CR 28.
5
There will also be a small one at the pool. Mr. Miller stated he is not in favor of placing this in 5.A due to the other variance
requests.
Mr. Poncerelli handed out a letter addressing clarifications to staff comments. The letter includes the variances and the
requested changes to staff comments. A copy of the body of the letter has been inserted.
Variances from R-1 Zoning:
1. Applicant Requests a minimum size of 5,500 s.f. for single family residential lots.
2. Applicant requests residential side yard setbacks be 5 feet in width as opposed to the bulk\plane requirements.
3. Applicant requests a 200' setback from oil/gas facilities to residential lots and recreational amenities including
trails, sport courts/fields, restrooms, and playground facilities.
4. Applicant requests that livestock animal units and/or associated kennel facilities be prohibited in the Adler
Estates PUD.
5. Applicant requests that carport and/or parking areas be prohibited on residential lots within the Adler Estates
PUD.
6. Applicant requests the Adler Estates PUD be allowed the proposed signage concept that is in excess of the
allowable signage area per Code (23-4-80).
Requested changes to Planning Staff's report:
1. P.6, B, 27-2-40; Change to... "Proposed lots will be setback a minimum of(200) two—hundred feet from
existing oil and gas production facilities."
2. P.7, B, 27-2-200; Remove sentence stating... "The Final Plat application will be heard by the Board of
County Commissioners for final approval and action."
3. P.7, C; Remove note referencing City of Longmont referral comment regarding setback from Liberty Gulch. The
Applicant has addressed this concern in the Sketch Plan process and in the Change of Zone, Specific Guide
Narrative.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked what the minimal design is now. Mr. Poncerelli stated it was 50 feet from the property line
and approximately 100 feet to the center of Liberty Gulch
4. P.9, G; Remove note referencing Colorado Geological Survey(CGS) referral comments regarding groundwater
and drainage. The Applicant has addressed this concern through a second submittal to the CGS which
supplied a supplemental report and letter explaining measures that will be used to mitigate the concerns.
5. P.12, 1, B; Remove item B that states... "The applicant shall submit building elevations indicating the
height of each proposed housing model." This item is no longer necessary as it has been determined that
the side yard setbacks will not be determined by the height of the residential structure.
Additionally, housing models are continually changing and several lots will be built on by outside builders. There are not
standard housing model elevations that will cover all possible housing designs.
6. P.12, 2, E; Remove note referencing City of Longmont referral comments as the Applicant has addressed the
concern in the Sketch Plan process and in the Change of Zone, Specific Guide Narrative.
7. P.12, 2, F; Remove note referencing County Sheriffs referral comments as the Applicant has addressed the
concerns in the Change of Zone submittal.
8. P.12, 2, G; Remove note referencing Longmont Soil Conservation District referral comments as the Applicant
has addressed the concern in the Change of Zone submittal.
9. P.12, 2, I-I; Remove note referencing Colorado Geological Survey referral comments as the Applicant has
addressed the concerns in the Change of Zone submittal.
6
10. P.12, 2, I; Remove note referencing Colorado Geological Survey(CGS) referral comments as the Applicant has
addressed this concern through a second submittal to the CGS which supplied a supplemental report and letter
explaining measures that will be used to mitigate the concerns.
11. P.13, 4, I; Change to... "County Road 26 is classified as..."
12. P.14, 5, I; Provide further clarification for"...shall be signalized." to define a flashing light and signage at
pedestrian crossings, not to be confused with a signalized vehicular traffic intersection.
13. P.15, 5, O; Remove part of item O that states... "... to determine compliance with the Bulk Requirements
from chapter 23 of the Weld County Code." This item is no longer necessary as it has been determined that
the side yard setbacks will not be determined by the height of the residential structure.
14. P.15, 5, R; Change to... "... in the form of additional lanes on the north and south legs of the intersection of
County road 7 and State Highway 66..."
15. P. 16, 5, AA; Remove part of item AA that states... "... maintenance of open space, streets, private utilities..."
Local streets will be maintained by the county.
16. P.16, 6, A; Change to... "The volume must be conducted as the 2-year storm with a 24-hour drain time, or
other approved system."
Linda Sweetman-King, TerraVisions, indicated that DR Horton is not a custom home builder ,therefore the company is
unable to adhere with the County's Bulk Standards. Those will need to be amended due to the fact that the homes will be
chosen by the individual lot owners and will not be preset for the specific lots. The products that have been presently
chosen can change over time. There are homes presently on the list that are at 30'6"and 31'. The bulk standards limit the
ability of the developer to be flexible with the individual lot owners and their choices for homes. Mr.Gathman added that the
offset is measured by 1 foot of building height for every three(3)foot of offset. There is a maximum building height in R-1 of
thirty(30)feet.
Michael Miller asked how the building height was measured. Mr.Gathman stated the maximum building height according to
the IBC (International Building Code) is measured to the center line of the roof pitch. Mr. Morrison stated the IBC is
measured from the existing grade. There is a note on the Development Standard that addresses the building height.
Michael Miller questioned the Development Standard and referencing the Weld County Code Chapter 23 as opposed to the
IBC. Mr.Gathman stated that building height shall be measured in accordance with Chapter 23 of the Weld County code in
order to determine compliance with offset and setbacks only. Mr. Miller added that the condition indicates offsets and
setbacks are measured from the farthest point on the building which would be the eaves.
Ken Poncerelli added that twenty(20) percent open space is the minimum requirement in the MUD and this proposal is
utilizing twenty three(23)percent which equates to ten (10)acres over. That increase was a part of the PUD process with
the understanding that smaller lots with smaller setbacks were not a concern in the beginning to Mr. Ogle or Ms. Mika.
Chris Gathman stated that the memorandum he distributed could be cross referenced to the letter from the applicant. Mr.
Gathman addressed his memo that has been previously included in the minutes. Mr. Fitzgerald suggested addressing each
item separately so a motion could be made on each.
1. Item 1 is a clarification on the proposed change to the offset requirement. The applicant would like a minimum five
(5) foot clear zone with and additional two and a half (2%) foot zone to include any appurtenances. Staff is in
agreement with this suggestion.
Michael Miller commented he does not agree. The setbacks were established to provide adequate distances between
houses. The applicant is proposing to take a fifty five (55) foot wide lot and reduce the setback in order to make the lot
work. That is not the intent of the code. Mr. Morrison stated the PUD process allows for the applicant to not have to abide
by the zone district regulations, but they can essentially create their own with setbacks, density and other requirements
within that PUD. Mr. Miller stated that the product on the lots and the end result that does not fit in the environment. Mr.
Fitzgerald added that the additional open space could compliment the homes which would be an added buffer. Mr. Miller
stated that all the yard is in back and none is between the homes causing a crammed in look. This is not appropriate in this
type of a rural setting. Mr.Ochsner indicated he agrees with Mr. Miller on the homes being larger with smaller lots and that
smaller lots should have smaller homes. Mr. Holton asked how large of homes will be placed on the smaller lots. Ms.
Sweetman-King stated the homes would be approximately 1500-2300 square feet which is what will fit with the variance
7
request. A ranch home takes up more space then two (2) stories and it is difficult to determine the homes and limit the
square footage of the homes when the product is ever changing.
Michael Miller stated he does not feel the standards need to be amended to fit the applicants designed lot sizes. Mr.
Fitzgerald indicated that there was no motion so it will be treated as such. Mr. Miller pointed out that the applicant is
requesting this as a part of his application and if there is no motion to amend, then there will need to be a vote on the
application as a whole. Mr. Morrison asked if this language was in the application. Mr. Gathman stated it is a part of the
application request. Mr. Morrison asked for clarification on staff recommendations based on the request of the applicant.
Mr. Gathman stated that staffs recommendation was based on the variance being included and approved. Mr. Morrison
stated the application must be dealt with as submitted and approved as submitted with no amendments to it.
Discussion about the application follows including the variance requests. Since the request for variances is included in the
application there would need to be a motion to delete the variance request for amendments to the setback and offset
requirements. Staff has recommended approval based on those variance requests being included therefore the application
would then need to be voted on as a whole. If the included requests are determined to be substantial then the application
could be voted for denial as a whole. The Planning Commission cannot make changes to the application in hopes that the
applicant will accept them. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if the application could be approved with exceptions made to those
conditions. Mr. Morrison stated that staff has accepted the recommendations. Mr. Ochsner stated that if staff changes
were accepted there was still the ability to vote at the end to accept that recommendation or not.
Mr. Morrison stated there are two categories for the application. The first category is one that is essential to the application.
The applicant has designed this according to the existing product line and how this is put together. This is the way they
would like it done. The second category is non essential elements to the application. There is no need to modify the
application for the applicant.
Mr. Morrison asked Mr. Gathman if the items in the August 16, 2005 letter from the applicant were included in his memo.
Mr.Gathman indicated items one(1)and two(2)from the applicants letter was addressed in the memo. Item three(3)was
also addressed. Item four (4) was not addressed in staffs memo. The applicants did not outline this in the original
application. Item five (5) was not addressed either. Mr. Morrison stated those are not elements that are integral to the
application. Item six(6)has been addressed. Mr. Morrison stated that if items 1-3 are accepted it will make the application
consistent. Mr. Morrison stated that during the final vote it is determined by the individual Planning Commission members
that the above referenced items are significant then it can be decided by them at that point.
Mr. Gathman indicated staff was in agreement with setback reduction to two hundred (200)feet in the oil &gas setback.
This request is in the original application. Mr. Morrison stated this would be dealt with later at the last vote.
Roy Spitzer asked what the industry standards for oil&gas setbacks. Mr.Morrison stated it was one hundred fifty(150)feet
from well head and two hundred (200)feet from tank battery. There is a high density rule in which a circle is drawn around
the facility to determine the density of homes to more than one (1)per two and a half(2%)acres. Oil &Gas Commission
recommends three hundred fifty(350)foot standard when structure is there and the house are then put in. It has not been
determined to be a safety issue by the County to be one hundred fifty(150)feet when agreed upon by the on site oil&gas
operators.
Chris Gathman continued with Item three (3) on his memo. The Geological Survey condition was to provide additional
information. It is addressed as a condition later in the comments. The latest referral from Colorado Geological Survey
stated that there was high ground water and that Terracon recommends against basement construction in the center of the
property. A letter submitted by Terracon further addresses groundwater issues and the construction of basements. The
current referral does not talk about the follow up report. Mr. Gathman indicated his concern would be to remove this without
something in writing from the Geological Survey.
Michael Miller asked if there is language that there will be engineered foundations. Mr.Gathman indicated there is language
and it will be done at final plat stage.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if Condition 1.B should be deleted. Mr.Gathman thought this would need to be revisited. There was
a copy of a lot matrix from the sketch plan included in the packets. This matrix referred to where the footprints were going
to fit on the lots based on the size of the lots. Staff is requesting an updated matrix that shows the footprint of the buildings
on the lot. This would include the largest possible footprint that would fit. Included with this would be a color coded map
that refers to the various lot types. Mr. Gathman would like to have the applicant provide building envelopes for all three lot
types within the subdivision along with a map of where the various lot sizes are located. Mr.Gathman suggests keeping 1.B
and adding the above referenced language to this.
8
Michael Miller moved to add the following language to Condition 1.B"The applicant shall submit a housing and lot matrix for
each lot type with in Adler Estates along with a overall map of subdivision that refers to each lot type." This is just for
clarification.
Linda Sweetman-King asked for clarification on the request. She indicated they could provide a matrix map showing the
different lot sizes including the largest footprint possible on them. The elevations are too much of a variable at this time to
provide. Mr. Gathman indicated that this would be fine.
Michael Miller indicated this would go back to the height of the home and the setback issue. There is no way to know what
type of home is going to be built on the lot hence the formula for setbacks. Mr. Ochsner stated that if the setback variance
is accepted the height does not matter since it will revert back to the code for the R-1 district. Mr. Fitzgerald indicated he
believes that item 1.B should be removed because each element is covered in another section of the conditions. Mr.
Gathman stated that the clear zone shows the setback. The reason to show the envelopes is so there is not further
concerns for a larger home and a need to decrease the setback further. Mr. Gathman recommends getting an updated
matrix for each lot type as referenced above.
Chris Gathman asked Mr. Poncerelli about the 5 foot clear zone that is proposed for the 55x100 foot lot side setback which
was proposed at sketch plan, was at 5 'A feet and larger lots would be at six (6) feet. Why the need to change? Mr.
Poncerelli indicated it was due to not knowing who about the builders. The applicant has worked very close with staff and
has gone the direction suggested to them regarding all the issues.
Chris Gathman suggested rewording the condition. The applicant shall submit a building envelope diagram along with a
building footprint for each lot type within the subdivision including the maximum allowable lot footprint. Mr.Gathman clarified
the envelopes will deal with the setbacks and the footprints will deal with the location.
Michael Miller moved to place the following language in Condition 1.B "The applicant shall submit a revised building
envelope diagram and maximum building footprint for each proposed lot type." Roy Spitzer seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer,yes;James
Welch,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Tom Holton,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Gathman continued with Item five (5)on his memo. The reference to CR 26 has been changed to CR 26.5.
Doug Ochsner moved to add the proposed language. Michael Miller seconded. Motion carried.
Mr. Gathman indicated that Item six (6) needs to be added as Condition 4.J then renumbered. Mr. Miller asked about it
being specifically addressing the well head and rather it should state oil&gas facilities. Mr.Gathman agreed that should be
changed.
Tom Holton moved to accept the above referenced language. Doug Ochsner seconded. Motion carried.
Planning Commission proceeded to address the letter from Land Architects. The letter has been entered into the minutes
previously.
Lee Morrison stated that Items 1-3 need to have a motion made. If they do not then there will be a conflict with the
application. Those will need to be included whether the final vote in approval or not. Mr. Fitzgerald clarified that the items
need to be included and then the application considered. Those elements are essential to the application. Mr. Morrison
added that staff comments should have been written with these in mind. They will be added in with the understanding it may
not get approval.
Mr.Gathman indicated that the first item dealing with setbacks and offsets was for clarification purposes. He was trying to
clarify what the applicant was asking for. The essence of what was being asked was included in the staff comments. Item 1
seems to be the only significant concern in the application.
Discussion continued with regards to the items that have been addressed in the memo that was requested by Land
Architects. Mr. Gathman stated that Item two(2)from the letter would not be a substitution but a possible amendment to the
code. Mr. Miller added the code states setback is established as farthest point of house. Mr. Morrison added that a PUD
can write their own codes when comes to setbacks. Mr.Ochsner added that if Planning Commission accepts the language
to be consistent with the application there is still the opportunity to vote on the application as a whole.
Mr. Morrison added that Planning Commission needs to accept Items 4-6 so the County could enforce. Mr. Gathman
9
suggested adding this in 5.A.
Doug Ochsner moved to add Items 4-6 from the Land Architect letter. Tom Holton seconded. Motion carried.
Planning Commission then addressed the requested changes to planning staffs recommendations outlined in the letter from
Land Architect.
Mr. Gathman stated that Item one(1)has been covered; Item two(2) staff has no concerns because the Board of County
Commissioners will ultimately determine whether this is applicable. The Planning Commission would like to see this at final
plat. Mr. Gathman continued with item 3 and the applicants attempt to address the concerns. This is nothing more than the
standard language. Mr. Welch does not feel comfortable removing any of items that refer to removing notes from the
Conditions of Approval. Mr. Gathman indicated this would not prohibit the applicant from moving ahead in the process. Mr.
Miller agrees with Mr. Welch and added there is nothing detrimental to the applicant. Item 11 has been addressed. The
applicant would like clarification on item 12 that it not be a signaled intersection but a flashing light signage at a pedestrian
school crossing. Public Works is not looking for a stop signal at the intersections. Item 13 is the large issue pertaining to
setbacks.
Mr. Gathman stated that the building height would be to the IBC code standard. The building height is measured at six(6)
feet from the building at grade to the middle of the peak. If a slope is present then the average slope is taken. Item 13 is in
conflict with the bulk requirements. Mr. Miller stated this needs to be addressed due to the conflicts with what the applicant
is asking for. Mr. Gathman stated the building height still needed to be met with the thirty (30) foot requirement. Ms.
Sweetman-King would like to make the language adhere to the IBC codes not the Weld County Code. This will make it
easier for the building inspectors as they would know what regulations to adhere to. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if this could be
addressed prior to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Ochsner stated it would go back to code should something not
be worked out which would not be to the benefit of the applicant. Mr. Fitzgerald continued with Item 14 regarding State
Highway 66. Public Works is in agreement with this suggestion.
Michael Miller moved to amend 5.R to the suggested language. Tom Holton seconded. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner moved to amend 5.AA to the suggested language. Michael Miller seconded. Motion carried.
Mr. Fitzgerald continued with Item 16 addressing the drainage concern. Public Works is in agreement with the suggestion
and the applicant will be adding additional language to further clarify. Ms. Eustice suggested the following language"As an
alternative to the WQCB 2 year storm and 24 hour drain time sedimentation base and sand filtration beds, vegetation
filtration beds and other passive and natural filtration systems may be used. Public Works is agreeable to this language.
Michael Miller moved to accept the above referenced language in 6.A. Tom Holton seconded. Motion carried.
Ken Poncerelli agrees with the Development Standard and Conditions of Approval as amended. Ms. Sweetman-King
indicated her concerns with the statement that final plat should be reviewed by the Board of County Commissioners. Mr.
Morrison stated that the Board of County Commissioners will address the issue of the Final Plat at their hearing.
Ms. Sweetman King asked for a copy of the minutes as quickly as possible.
Michael Miller indicated his concern is still with the setbacks. In reviewing the map of the subdivision the perimeter is lined
with the smaller lots so the view will be of the smaller lots. This will be the first impression and this is not the place where
the homes should be placed so closely together. This is not an area where the Code should be amended because a dense
development does not make for a good neighborhood. Mr. Miller added that he is in appreciation of the intent for a
secondary water system for irrigation. This is a good application, but the applicants designed the lot sizes therefore it is not
the Planning Commission's job to amend the Code to make it fit this application. Mr. Miller will not be in support of the
proposal for those reasons. This is based on the bulk requirements under Section 27-2-40 of the Weld County Code.
Doug Ochsner stated he is torn, he agrees that the lot sizes are a concern, but the applicant has followed all the rules. This
being a PUD,they are allowed to make changes and variances from the overall master plan of the Code. It is not his right to
deny someone the option of purchasing a smaller lot.
Tom Holton agrees with Mr. Miller to an extent. There are condos and town homes that are packed in like that. This is a
great plan, but he would like to see the lots bigger and the setbacks larger.
Roy Spitzer indicated he would like to see the lots as larger but does not feel it is the Planning Commission responsibility to
10
deny the application based on personal opinion. Mr. Spitzer added there should be smaller homes on the smaller lots.
James Welch indicated he would not purchase the smaller lots but this is assuming the worst case. The smaller homes on
the lots will fit into the setback requests but the builder will want an attractive neighborhood for the sales. He would like to
see larger setbacks but the applicant has gone through the right process and has done what needed to be done therefore
he does not see this as a reason to deny.
Bruce Fitzgerald stated that the Planning Commission has not seen this type of development very often. He would rather
this be done in a municipality with their planners but the MUD does allow for this. This is a good project and there has been
a great deal of detail with what is being planned.
Tom Holton moved that Case PZ-1071, 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. Roy Spitzer,yes;James
Welch, yes; Michael Miller, no; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried.
Michael Miller commented he does not believe that this is the place to lower the standards rather it should be a place to
develop higher standards. Higher and better quality developments need to be brought to this area not ones that diminish the
existing standards. This is a step backwards.
Commissioner Doug Ochsner had to leave due to a prior commitment.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1519
APPLICANT: Glen&Virginia Van Oerveren
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A RE-2345; Pt NE4 of Section 14,T2N, R65W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a use permitted as a Use by
Special Review(Home Business, Parking and Maintenance of Trucks and Trailers)in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 22;west of and adjacent to CR 47 Section Line.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1519, 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.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the violation. Mr. Ogle indicated there was a trucking business without a USR. Mr. Fitzgerald
asked what a use by right would be. Mr. Ogle indicated it would be a maximum of one truck.
Virginia Van Oerveren, applicant, provided clarification on the project. There are some questions with regards to the
conditions and Development Standard. Van ovary is a subcontractor for Halliburton. There is some concern for the hours
of operation being 6:00am to 6:00pm because there have been times in which those hours could not be adhered to. The
operation is a small mom and pop operation with no intent to grow any further. They want to be good neighbors and will do
whatever is necessary to accomplish this and they have asked the drivers to be good neighbors also. There is no intent to
have any additional trucks. There are presently 18 trucks with 7 of them at this location. Six are owned while the
remainders are contractors. There is no disposal of waste on site,the trucks are taken out. The oil from the maintenance
that is done on site is used in an oil furnace in the shop. The applicant is willing to use magnesium chloride for dust
abatement.
Michael Miller asked about the Development Standard limiting the number of trucks to 10 when there is a total of 18. Ms.
Van Oerveren stated the 18 trucks would not be at the site at the same time, the most there will be is 8 in the yard. Mr.
Miller stated the Development Standard limits it to 10 at any time. Ms.Van Oerveren stated they do not want all the trucks
in the yard at the same time but it could happen. Mr. Miller asked about the hours of operation. Ms.Van Oerveren was not
sure what would work and would like some assistance on this. The trucks leave between 6:00 a.m. -6:30 a.m. and are
back around 6:00 p.m. but there are times in which that does not work. There needs to some exceptions that occur on a
rare basis.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Ogle about the agricultural building exempt from building permits and if this is the one that has
electricity and heat. Mr. Ogle stated those buildings would need to be brought up to code since it is being used as
something other than an AG exempt building. It is being used as shop maintenance not the original intent. Ms. Van
Oerveren indicated that the barn in the back does have a dirt floor. The gentleman that built the shop in the front was to get
11
the correct permits and it will be fixed if this was not correct. Mr. Fitzgerald asked about the buildings on site. Mr. Ogle
stated there were permits for AG exempt pole barn of 1500 square foot with dirt floor and no electric that will be used for hay
storage. There is another permit for a 400 amp service for the maintenance/pole barn. The business was identified when
the inspector went for the electrical permit inspection. Ms.Van Oerveren indicated the building in front has never had a dirt
floor. Mr. Ogle stated that there may have never been a permit for this and it will need to be addressed.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to
speak.
Carol Girkin, neighbor, submitted a letter to Planning Commission indicated concerns with the proposal and would like this
denied. This is in violation of the County Codes and her personal rights. The business bought the land with the intention of
doing the business there. All the buildings are listed as AG buildings but this has been a business from the very beginning.
There has been more than one truck causing the noise pollution to be extreme. There are equipment with back up beepers
that are very annoying. The hours of operation are a concern since they do not adhere to them. Her main concern is if they
get this permit who monitors and makes sure that the Development Standard and Conditions are done. There are other
industrial zone districts that this should be done in.
The Chair closed the public portion
Michael Miller asked Ms. Davis about the restroom facility for 8 employees. Ms. Davis stated that the permit for the home
would allow for 8 occupants and the numbers of employees are the same. The employees do not use the bathroom much
since they will be picking up the trucks and leaving. Mr. Miller stated that was a 2400 square foot maintenance shop that will
have employees in it. Ms. Davis stated it was her impression that only minor maintenance would be done on site. Mr.
Fitzgerald asked about the water supply. Ms. Davis stated there is a letter from the State that indicates the supply is good.
The water will be used in compliance with the permitted uses. If the remains the case there will be no need to re-permit the
well to commercial.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the use of the waste oil in an oil furnace. Ms. Davis stated that this was done regularly within
EPA approved furnace.
Tom Holton asked Mr.Carroll about CR 22 and the potential damage as addresses in the Carol Girkin letter. Mr.Carroll did
not see any damage upon site visitation. A follow up can be done to determine if there is damage. The traffic count is
between 400-600 vehicles on this section of road and it is considered a collector. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if there was damage
could the use the USR to require the applicant to fix or improve.
Kim Ogle suggested adding the following language to 1.D. "The applicant shall submit evidence of an Aboveground Storage
Tank permit from the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment(CDL&E),Oil Inspection Section for any aboveground
storage tanks located on the site. Alternately,the applicant can provide evidence from the CDL&E, Oil Inspection Section
that they are not subject to these requirements."
Michael Miller moved to approve the suggested language. James Welch seconded. Motion carried.
Kim Ogle addressed some minor corrections in the staff comments. Mr. Ogle indicated the applicant had some concerns
with Development Standard#3 designating the number of trucks on site. Ms.Van Oerveren stated there are 8 pneumatic
trailers not six. They are hoping Halliburton will take the two that belong to them back. Ms. Van Oerveren would like to
change the hours of operation to 5:00am to 10:00pm, Monday thru Saturday. They will do everything with in their power to
not use the jake brakes. The back up beepers are required. The drivers will be told to leave quietly and not use the jake
brakes. Mr. Fitzgerald indicated that no activity would be done outside of this time frame. Ms. Van Oerveren stated that
maintenance is done on the weekends. They have an employee that comes in sometimes in the evenings and on Sunday
when he has time. Mr. Miller stated that hours of operation in gravel pits generally refer to the operation with the exception
to the maintenance. Mr. Ogle stated that gravel pits hours generally are addressed by dawn to dusk which is seasonal
changing. This case the applicant is asking for extended hours with maintenance on the weekends. The wording will need
to be clarified. Mr. Ogle added that gravel pits have been allotted special circumstances due to government jobs. Mr.Miller
stated that is generally addressed as a public emergency and Halliburton would not constitute a public emergency if they do
not get their loads.
Char Davis would like some clarification on the maintenance of the vehicles. Ms. Van Oerveren stated that the jobs that
take the time are contracted out. The only thing that is done is oil changes, greasing drive lines and maybe windshields.
Mr. Miller stated that this type of maintenance will require someone to be in the shop on a lengthy time frame which
indicates the need for sanitary services. Ms.Van Oerveren stated he comes in the evenings for a few hours and on Sunday
when he is able to. Ms. Davis stated that someone will come in but the application did not suggest a substantial use of the
12
shop. There may be a need for a bathroom in the shop or the evaluation of the restroom in the home. The shop seems to
fall within the required 200 feet from the shop.
Michael Miller moved to approve staff corrections that consisted of amending 2.1, 2.K, Development Standard #12,
Development Standard#3, and add Development Standard#19 with the following language'The applicant shall comply with
all provisions of the Underground and Above Ground Storage Tank Regulations(7CCR 1101-14)." Tom Holton seconded.
Motion carried.
Michael Miller stated the hours of operation are difficult to accommodate since this type of business is on demand. Mr.
Fitzgerald asked how it works with the oil company. Mr. Miller stated Halliburton will call for a load and either they bring it or
someone else will. Mr. Miller asked how many homes were in the vicinity. Mr.Ogle stated there are five within a mile. Ms.
Van Oerveren stated there are other trucking business up the road. Mr. Miller stated the applicant has asked for hours to be
5:00a.m to 10:00 p.m.
Michael Miller moved to amend Development Standard #6 to state the hours of operation shall be 5:00am to 10:00pm
Monday through Saturday with the exception of maintenance. Roy Spitzer seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer,yes;James
Welch, no; Michael Miller, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, no. Motion carried.
Char Davis proposed the following language in 1.E"The septic system serving the home shall be reviewed by a Colorado
professional engineer and the review shall consist of observation of the system and a technical review describing the
systems ability to handle the proposed hydraulic flows and the review shall be submitted to the Environmental Health
Services Division of the Weld County Department of Health and Environment. In the event the system is found to be
inadequate in size or construction it shall be brought into compliance with current regulations."
Michael Miller moved to accept the above referenced language. James Welch seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer,yes;James
Welch, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried.
Don Carroll suggested adding the following language to Development Standard#23 and re-number"The applicant shall be
responsible for any damage and repair adjacent to the access area associated with the heavy hauling of the USR."
Michael Miller moved to accept the language. James Welch seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer,yes;James
Welch, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried.
James Welch stated that the extended hours could cause some concern for the proposed noise level and there is no
requirement for mitigation of noise. Ms. Davis stated there is a Development Standard for the commercial noise level. If
they exceed the commercial limit staff does noise readings. Mr. Miller stated there will be no way to mitigate the noise in this
type of environment.
Bruce Fitzgerald indicated that if the neighbors have a noise issue they would contact the Health department specifically Phil
Brewer, while all other concerns can be dealt with through the Department of Planning Services, specifically Bethany
Salzman. The Sheriff could be contacted if there is an ongoing issue.
Roy Spitzer asked if Planning Commission was setting up something that is not realistic concerning the noise issue. Ms.
Davis stated what is on site is more of the concern. Ms. Van Oerveren stated she will enforce the noise level with the
drivers with the threat of their jobs.
Virginia Van Oerveren indicated she agrees with the amended standards and Conditions of Approval.
Michael Miller stated this is a tough case when smaller operations get complaints. This operation has 10 trucks and does
not seem compatible with the location or the area. The number of trucks and the hours of operation are a concern and
justification for denial. There is no way of creating standards that they can live with that would mitigate the problem.
Tom Holton stated that one or two trucks would not be a concern but 10 trucks is not compatible and this needs to be in an
industrial area.
James Welch stated this is a good sized operation and if it could be further limited it would be more compatible.
13
Bruce Fitzgerald stated this was described as a mom and pop operation but this has grown from this.
Michael Miller moved that Case USR-1519,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions
of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of denial. Tom Holton seconded
the motion
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer,yes;James
Welch, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 7:00pm
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
14
Hello