HomeMy WebLinkAbout20050899.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Bryant Gimlin, that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1493
APPLICANT: Stephen Brancucci/do Glen Droegemueller
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt NE4 SE4 and Lot B of RE-3932; Section 30, Ti N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Use by
Special Review in the Industrial Zone District (Commercial Junkyard or Salvage
Yard) in the 1-3 (Industrial)Zone District
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 27(Hwy 85 Business); approximately 1/4 mile north
ofCR4.
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 23-2-260 of the
Weld County Code.
2. It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the applicant has shown compliance with Section 23-2-
220 of the Weld County Code as follows:
a. Section 23-2-220.A.1 -- The proposed use is consistent with Chapter 22 and any other applicable
code provisions or ordinance in effect. Section 22-2-150B.4 I Policy 2.4 states: "Promote
industrial development that is appropriately located in relation to surrounding land uses and that
meets necessary environmental standards". Development standards and conditions of approval
will ensure that the proposed use will be compatible with the region. A single family home and
USR-1402 for a maintenance shop and storage are located to the north of the site. USR-969 for
a water ski club is located to the west of the site. The properties to the south are zoned 1-3
(Industrial). The Union Pacific railroad is located to the east of the site along with Greenleaf
Wholesale Florist, Inc.
b. Section 23-2-220.A.2 -- The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the 1-3 (Industrial) Zone
District. Section 23-3-330.D.3 of the Weld County Code provides for a commercial junkyard or
salvage yard as a Use by Special Review in the 1-3 (Industrial) Zone District. The Special Use
Permit is for COPART an insurance company for the processing and selling intact insurance
damaged vehicles.
c. Section 23-2-220.A.3 -- The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with the existing
surrounding land uses. The site currently has a single family home on the property and is in
agricultural practices. A single family home and USR-1402 for a maintenance shop and storage
are located to the north of the site. USR-969 for a water ski club is located to the west of the site.
The properties to the south are zoned 1-3 (Industrial). The Union Pacific railroad is located to the
east of the site along with Greenleaf Wholesale Florist, Inc. The applicant shall submit a
Screening Plan for the outdoor storage of vehicles, equipment or materials from adjacent
properties and future rights-of-way.
d. Section 23-2-220.A.4 -- The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with future
development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning and with the future
development as projected by Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code and any other applicable code
provisions or ordinances in effect, or the adopted Master Plans of affected municipalities. The
site is located within the three mile referral area for the Town of Brighton and Adams County.
Adams County in their referral dated November 9, 2004 stated that they had no concerns with the
application. The Town of Brighton did not respond to the referral indicating no concern with their
interests.
B
2005-0899
Resolution USR-1493
Stephen Brancucci
Page 2
e. Section 23-2-220.A.5 --The site does not lie within any Overlay Districts.
Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to adhere
to the fee structure of the County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11)
f. Section 23-2-220.A.7 --The Design Standards (Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code), Operation
Standards (Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code), Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards ensure that there are adequate provisions for the protection of health, safety, and
welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and County.
This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application materials submitted by the applicant,
other relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral entities.
The Planning Commission's recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following:
1. Prior to Board of County Commissioners hearing:
A. Section 22-5-100.A of the Weld County Code states "oil and gas exploration and production
should occur in a manner which minimizes the impact to agricultural uses and the environment
and reduces the conflicts between mineral development and current and future surface uses."
Section 22-5-100.B of the Weld County Code states "...encourage cooperation, coordination and
communication between the surface owner and the mineral owner/operators of either the surface
or the mineral estate." Section 22-5-100.6.1 of the Weld County Code also states "new
development should be planned to take into account current and future oil and gas drilling activity
to the extent oil and gas development can reasonably be anticipated." The applicant shall
indicate that an agreement can be reached between the mineral holders at least five days prior to
the Board of County Commissioners hearing. In the alternative the applicant would show
evidence that an adequate attempt has been made to mitigate the concerns. If that cannot be
proven the Board of County Commissioners has the option of denying the Use by Special Review
application. (Department of Planning Services)
2. Prior to recording the plat:
A. The applicant shall provide the Department of Public Works with a storm water drainage report
and erosion control plan for review and approval. The proposed detention/water quality control
pond shall be located outside the future right-of-way identified for County Road 27. Evidence of
approval shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Public
Works)
B. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements (concerns) of the Greater Brighton Fire
Protection District, as stated in the referral response dated November 5, 2004 and February 3,
2005. Evidence of such shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning
Services. (Department of Planning Services)
C. The applicant shall submit to the Department of Planning Services Screening Plan for review and
approval. The plan shall include the method of screening the outdoor storage of vehicles,
equipment or materials from adjacent properties and future rights-of-way. Given that the
landscape treatment is established, staff will not require additional landscape treatment. The
applicant shall maintain compliance with Section 23-2-250.B.7 of the Weld County Code at all
times. (Department of Planning Services)
D. The applicant shall submit to the Department of Planning Services with a property maintenance
plan for review and approval. The maintenance plan shall be in compliance with Section 23-2-
250.6.7 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
E. In the event, the applicant intends to wash vehicles or equipment on site the following shall apply:
Resolution USR-1493
Stephen Brancucci
Page 3
The applicant shall provide evidence that any vehicle washing area will be designed and
constructed to capture all effluent and prevent any discharges from the washing of vehicles or
equipment in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Water Quality Control
Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency. Evidence that there will or will not be any
vehicles or equipment washing on site shall be submitted to the Department of Public Health and
Environment for review and approval. Evidence of approval from the Department of Public Health
and Environment shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
F. The mobile home on the property shall be removed or re-permitted as a security/caretaker home.
Evidence of such submittal shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Planning Services)
G. The applicant shall submit a waste handling plan, for approval, to the Environmental Health
Services Division of the Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment. Evidence of
approval from the Department of Public Health and Environment shall be submitted to the
Department of Planning Services. The plan shall include at a minimum, the following:
1. A list of wastes which are expected to be generated on site (this should include expected
volumes and types of waste generated).
2. A list of the type and volume of chemicals expected to be stored on site.
3. The waste handler and facility where the waste will be disposed (including the facility
name, address, and phone number). (Department of Public Health and Environment)
H. The septic system serving the existing warehouse/onion shed shall be reviewed by a Colorado
Registered Professional Engineer. The review shall consist of observation of the system and a
technical review describing the systems ability to handle the proposed hydraulic load. The review
shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Services Division of the Weld County Department
of Public Health and Environment. In the event the system is found to be inadequately sized or
constructed the system shall be brought into compliance with current regulations. Evidence of
approval shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
The plat shall be amended to delineate the following:
1. All sheets shall be labeled USR-1493 (Department of Planning Services)
2. The attached Development Standards. (Department of Planning Services)
3. County Road 27 is designated on the County Road Classification Plan as major arterial
road, which requires 140 feet of right-of-way at full build out. There is presently 60 feet of
right-of-way. A total of 70 feet from the centerline of County Road 27 shall be delineated
on the plat as right-of-way reservation for future expansion of County Road 27. This road
is maintained by Weld County. (Department of Public Works)
4. The existing north access by the office building shall be abandoned near the proposed
parking area. Evidence of closure shall be submitted to the Department of Planning
Services. (Department of Public Works)
5. The three acres adjacent to the existing office and warehouse area shall be paved. The
paving shall match the existing grades. The remaining storage lot for vehicles shall be
surfaced with a minimum of six inches of gravel and shall be delineated on the plat.
(Department of Public Works)
Resolution USR-1493
Stephen Brancucci
Page 4
6. The applicant shall submit a plan demonstrating the turning radiuses onto and off of
County Road 27 to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. Evidence of
approval shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. The plat shall
delineate the approved adequate turning radiuses onto and off of County Road 27.
(Department of Public Works)
7. The plat shall delineate all on-site circulation as approved by the Department of Public
Works and the Greater Brighton Fire Protection District. (Department of Planning
Services and Greater Brighton Fire Protection District)
8. The forty-one (41) parking spaces as outlined on the plat shall be appropriately striped
and equipped with wheel guards where needed to prevent vehicles for extending beyond
the boundaries of their space and coming into contact with other vehicles, walls, fences,
sidewalks, or plantings. (Department of Planning Services)
9. The applicant shall provide a Lighting Plan. Should exterior lighting be a part of this
facility, all light standards shall be delineated on the plat and be in accordance with
Section 23-3-250.6.6 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
10. The location of the dumpster shall be delineated on the plat. Areas used for trash
collection shall be screened from public rights-of-way and all adjacent properties. These
areas shall be designed and used in a manner that will prevent wind- or animal-scattered
trash as outlined in Section 23-3-250.A.6 of the Weld County Code. (Department of
Planning Services)
11. The four acre "non-standard vehicle area" shall be identified on the plat along with the
proposed markers. (Department of Planning Services)
J. The applicant shall submit two (2) paper copies of the plat for preliminary approval to the Weld
County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
K. The applicant shall complete all proposed improvements including those regarding landscaping,
screening, access improvements and parking lot requirements or enter into an Improvements
Agreement according to policy regarding collateral for improvements (access drive, parking
areas, plant materials, fencing, screening, etcetera) and post adequate collateral for all required
materials. The agreement and form of collateral shall be reviewed by County Staff and accepted
by the Board of County Commissioners prior to recording the USR plat. (Department of Planning
Services)
3. Upon completion of 1. and 2. above the applicant shall submit a Mylar plat along with all other
documentation required as Conditions of Approval. The Mylar plat shall be recorded in the office of the
Weld County Clerk and Recorder by Department of Planning Services' Staff. The plat shall be prepared
in accordance with the requirements of Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld County Code. The Mylar plat and
additional requirements shall be submitted within thirty (30) days from the date of the Board of County
Commissioners resolution. The applicant shall be responsible for paying the recording fee. (Department
of Planning Services)
4. The Department of Planning Services respectively requests the surveyor provide a digital copy of this Use
by Special Review. Acceptable CAD formats are .dwg, .dxf, and .dgn (Microstation); acceptable GIS
formats are ArcView shapefiles, Arclnfo Coverages and Arclnfo Export files format type is .e00. The
preferred format for Images is .tif (Group 4). (Group 6 is not acceptable). This digital file may be sent to
maps@co.weld.co.us. (Department of Planning Services)
r-.
Resolution USR-1493
Stephen Brancucci
Page 5
r
5. Prior to the issuance of building permits:
A. The applicant shall provide a written sign-off from the Greater Brighton Fire Protection District to
the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
6. The Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the
property until the Special Review plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and
Recorder. (Department of Planning Services)
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Stephan Brancucci
USR-1493
1. The Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for a use permitted as a Use by Special
Review in the Industrial Zone District (Commercial Junkyard or Salvage Yard) in the 1-3 (Industrial) Zone
District, as indicated in the application materials on file and subject to the Development Standards stated
hereon. (Department of Planning Services)
2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 23-8-10 of the Weld County
Code. (Department of Planning Services)
3. All liquid and solid wastes (as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, 30-20-100.5,
C.R.S., as amended) shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that protects against
surface and groundwater contamination. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
4. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. This is not meant to include those
wastes specifically excluded from the definition of a solid waste in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and
Facilities Act, 30-20-100.5, C.R.S., as amended. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
5. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust, fugitive
particulate emissions, blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
6. The applicant shall operate in accordance with the approved "waste handling plan". (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
7. Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions shall be controlled on this site. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
8. This facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Industrial Zone as
delineated in 25-12-103 C.R.S., as amended. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
9. Adequate handwashing and toilet facilities shall be provided for employees and patrons of the facility.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
10. Any septic system located on the property must comply with all provisions of the Weld County Code,
pertaining to Individual Sewage Disposal Systems. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
11. A permanent, adequate water supply shall be provided for drinking and sanitary purposes. (Department
of Public Health and Environment)
12. All potentially hazardous chemicals must be stored and handled in a safe manner in accordance with
product labeling and in a manner that minimizes the release of hazardous air pollutants (HAP's) and
volatile organic compounds (VOC's). (Department of Public Health and Environment)
13. If applicable, the applicant shall obtain a stormwater discharge permit from the Colorado Department of
Public Health & Environment, Water Quality Control Division. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
14. If applicable, the applicant shall comply with all provisions of the Underground and Above Ground
Storage Tank Regulations (7 CCR 1101-14). (Department of Public Health and Environment)
15. If applicable, any vehicle washing area(s) shall capture all effluent and prevent discharges in accordance
with the Rules and Regulations of the Water Quality Control Commission, and the Environmental
Protection Agency. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
Resolution USR-1493
Stephen Brancucci
Page 2
16. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the State and Federal agencies
and the Weld County Code. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
17. A building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction of any new building, addition or remodel of
existing buildings. A building permit is required for change of use of any existing buildings. (Department
of Building Inspection)
18. The buildings will probably be classified as follows: Mixed Use B (Office) and S-1 (Warehouse)
occupancies. Mixed use S-1 (Warehouse) and S-2 (Vehicle Storage). Fire resistance of walls and
openings, construction requirements, maximum building height and allowable areas will be reviewed at
the plan review. Setback and offset distances shall be determined by the Weld County Code.
(Department of Building Inspection)
19. Buildings shall conform to the requirements of the various codes adopted at the time of permit application.
Currently the following has been adopted by Weld County: 2003 International Building Code; 2003
International Mechanical Code; 2003 International Plumbing Code; 2003 International Fuel Gas Code;
and the 2002 National Electrical Code and Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Building
Inspection)
20. Building height shall be measured in accordance with the Building Code for the purpose of determining
the maximum building size and height for various uses and types of construction and to determine
compliance with the Bulk Requirements from Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code. Building height shall
be measured in accordance with Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code in order to determine compliance
with offset and setback requirements. Offset and setback requirements are measured to the farthest
projection from the building. (Department of Building Inspection)
21. Building height, wall and opening protection and limitations and separation of buildings of mixed
occupancy classifications shall be in accordance with the Building Code. Setback and offset distances
shall be determined by the Weld County Code. (Department of Building Inspection)
22. The maximum amount of indoor and outdoor storage of nonflammable solids and nonflammable and non
combustible liquids shall not exceed the amounts in Table 414.2.4 of the International Building Code.
(Departments of Building Inspection and Planning Services)
23. The site will be limited to the storage of a range of vehicles assigned to the user of the property by
insurance companies for potential sale. Those vehicles have included: cars, trucks, sport utility vehicles,
vans, recreational vehicles, buses, semi's, tractor-trailers, trailers, motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles,
scooters, mopeds, boats, jet-skis, small tractors, backhoes, and heavy equipment as indicated in the
application material. (Department of Planning Services)
24. The hours of operation are 7:00am to 6:00pm Monday through Friday. There shall be no weekend hours
as indicated in the application material. (Department of Planning Services)
25. The site shall not have more then twenty (20) employees on site at any given time as indicated in the
application material. (Department of Planning Services)
26. No vehicle dismantling, crushing, or sale of parts shall occur on site. (Department of Planning Services)
27. Parking of vehicles shall be limited to exterior surface parking only, no stacking of vehicles is allowed.
The warehouse structures shall not be utilized to store vehicles or vehicle parts. (Department of
Planning Services)
Resolution USR-1493
Stephen Brancucci
Page 3
28. The Special Use Permit was originally granted to COPART (a company that provides services to
insurance companies relating to the processing and selling of intact insurance damaged vehicles). This
Special Use Permit may be transferred by COPART to any company which acquires COPART and
intends to continue the operation of the Property without change from those conditions identified in this
Special Use Permit. In the alternative, COPART may transfer this Special Use Permit to any "Related
Entity" which is defined to mean an entity in which COPART is a shareholder, member of a limited liability
company, or an owner of a company which is a subsidiary of COPART or a related entity of COPART
provided that COPART delivers to Weld County a Notice of Transfer 30 days prior to the completion of
that transfer and identifies the relationship or ownership interest that COPART will have in the related
entity. No other transfer by COPART of this Special Use Permit shall be permissible. Any other transfer
of interest of the prescribed property shall cause automatic termination of the Use by Special Review.
(Department of Planning Services)
29. The application does not propose any portion of the site to be leased to another party. In the event that a
portion of the building is proposed to be leased to another party in the future, the applicant shall submit a
copy of the lease agreement and information regarding the proposed use of the leased portion to the
Weld County Building Inspection Department, Greater Brighton Fire Protection District and the
Department of Planning Services for review. Based upon the proposed use and/or impacts of the leased
portion, the Department of Planning Services may require an Amended Use by Special Review
application. This condition shall not prevent COPART from leasing a portion of a building as an office to
an insurance company with whom COPART regularly conducts business. COPART shall notify Weld
County of any such lease and provide Weld County with a copy of the lease, but such leasing shall not
require an Amended Use By Special Review Application. (Department of Planning Services)
30. All outdoor storage materials exceeding eight (8) feet in height shall be located within the four acre "non-
standard vehicle area" as shown on the plat for the screening of the outdoor storage. (Department of
Planning Services)
31. The four acre "non-standard vehicle area" shall be identified and maintained on site at all times.
(Department of Planning Services)
32. Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the lot will be required to adhere to the fee structure
of the Weld County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11) (Department of Planning Services)
33. The landscaping on site shall be maintained in accordance with the approved Screening Plan.
(Department of Planning Services)
34. The property owner shall allow any mineral owner the right of ingress or egress for the purposes of
exploration development, completion, recompletion, re-entry, production and maintenance operations
associated with existing or future operations located on these lands. (Department of Planning Services)
35. Larger equipment, semi tractor trailer rigs — low boys, shall not utilize County Road 6 to access the site.
(Department of Public Works)
36. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of Section
23-2-240, Weld County Code.
37. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of
Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code.
38. Personnel from the Weld County Government shall be granted access onto the property at any
reasonable time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the Development
Standards stated herein and all applicable Weld County regulations.
Resolution USR-1493
Stephen Brancucci
Page 4
39. The Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the foregoing
standards and all applicable Weld County regulations. Substantial changes from the plans or
Development Standards as shown or stated shall require the approval of an amendment of the Permit by
the Weld County Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans or Development
Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the Department of Planning
Services.
40. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing Development
Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Development Standards may be reason for
revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners.
Motion seconded by Doug Ochsner
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Michael Miller
John Folsom
Bryant Gimlin
Bruce Fitzgerald
James Rohn
Tonya Strobel
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
James Welch
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this case
to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Voneen Macklin, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution, is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County,
Colorado, adopted on February 15, 2005.
Dated the 15th of February, 2005.
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
- 15 - aocz5
CASE NUMBER: USR-1493
APPLICANT: Stephan Brancucci/c/o Glen Droegemueller
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt NE4 SE4 and Lot B of RE-3932; Section 30, Ti N, R66W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Use
by Special Review in the Industrial Zone District (Commercial Junkyard
or Salvage Yard) in the 1-3 (Industrial)Zone District
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 27(Hwy 85 Business); approximately 1/4
mile north of CR 4.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1493, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending
approval of the original application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
The applicant will provide an updated list of the changes they are requesting. If the changes are taken
into consideration, staff requests the case be continued to February 15, 2005 to allow time for the referral
agencies to review the requested changes. Staff does believe these changes are substantial. Staff does
recommend Condition 1 A be removed as this item has been met.
Glen Droegemueller, representative for the applicant with Otis, Goan & Stewart LLC, provided additional
clarification on the proposal. Mr. Droegemueller added the changes the applicant is offering are not
substantial changes which would require a continuance. Mr. Droegemueller presented an overview of the
items then discussed each item. The items are as follows: 1A which has been deleted. The applicant
would also like 1B deleted so the application could be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners
for hearing. Mr. Miller indicated the Planning Commission hearing procedure is the applicant presents his
case then make amendments to the conditions and Development Standard after the case is heard. Mr.
Miller asked if there was anything further the applicant would like to add to staff presentation. Mr.
Droegemueller stated there will be small comments on each issue the applicant would like to present. Mr.
Droegemueller stated the case was self explanatory and this is not a commercial junkyard because the
vehicles are not crushed. They are vehicles which have been damaged that come to the property with all
fluid removed. The vehicles are stored there and the company offers them for sale over the internet.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if the applicant is intending to do all sales online in auction form so there will never
be a group of bidders on site. Mr. Droegemueller stated that all sales will be done by internet, there will
be no bidders on site. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if the technology has been proved to work on other sites. Mr.
Droegemueller stated it has worked.
Bryant Gimlin asked if the distribution of the vehicles both in and out is done during regular daytime
business hours. Mr. Droegemueller stated it was. Mr. Gimlin asked if the trucks were limited to light
trucks or are semi's included. Mr. Droegemueller stated semi's are occasionally there. The applicant
has indicated hat 85% of the vehicles are auto, pick ups and SUV, 15% could be semi, trailers or small
backhoes and small tractors. The applicant would like the ability to store and are willing to adjust the site
or construct the site so there would be no visibility from surrounding properties. Screening can be done
on site. There is no way to give the number of semi's on site because it is not known.
Doug Ochsner asked if the vehicles are sold as units or sold as parts. Mr. Droegemueller stated they are
sold as a unit then the buyer decides whether they want to part them out.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
David Padgett, Patina Oil & Gas, indicated there is no agreement but discussions have occurred. There
has been contact and there is a letter of intent for future drilling. The blanks are not filled in but the
agreement should be in the near future. The letter of intent includes a date in which indicates the
agreement must be done by and if the date is not met Patina Oil & Gas will oppose the proposal. Patina
is not opposed to the applicant setting a Board of County Commissioners hearing date because they feel
the agreement can be done by that time.
er
3
Michael Miller asked Mr. Padgett if he would be in agreement with deleting 1 B which deals with the
mineral agreement. Mr. Padgett stated there needs to be an agreement prior to the Board of County
Commissioners meeting.
The Chair closed public portion.
Glen Droegemueller presented the following concerns that the applicant would like to see changed. They
are as follows:
1 B- the applicant is asking for an amendment to 1B as written which would indicated that an agreement
can be reached between the mineral holder at least five days prior to the Board of County Commissioners
hearing. In the alternative the applicant would show evidence that an adequate attempt had been made
to mitigate the concerns. If that cannot be proven the Board of County Commissioners has the option of
denying the USR.
Bryant Gimlin asked if it would be agreeable to change 1 to Prior to the Board of County Commissioners
Hearing as opposed to Prior to Scheduling the Board of County Commissioners Hearing. Mr.
Droegemueller stated that would be agreeable.
Bryant Gimlin moved to change Condition 1 to Prior to Board of County Commissioners Hearing. Bruce
Fitzgerald seconded. Motion carried.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. James
Welch, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tonya Strobel, yes; Doug Ochsner,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Glen Droegemueller continued with:
Development Standard 25- concerning the number of employees, the applicant would like to increase the
number from 10 to 20. The client has changed the operations manager from the time the application was
submitted and there will be a consolidation of operations which are now operating in Denver. Mr. Miller
asked Mr. Carroll if this would change the traffic evaluation. Mr. Carroll, Public Works, indicated it does
not. Mr. Droegemueller commented that the additional employees would require additional parking and if
this is the case the applicant would provide a note on the plat addressing the concern. Mr. Carroll added
there are 41 paved spots which is adequate. Mr. Droegemueller indicated the second concern with the
increase of employees is the affect on the existing septic tank. Mr. Brancucci, the property owners, has
indicated the septic tank was designed as a 1000 gallon tank which would accommodate the original 10
employees. The applicant is willing to add a Condition of Approval that they submit evidence to the
County an engineered system to accommodate the increase. This Condition would be done Prior to
Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Miller asked if there was a Condition that the system be evaluated.
Ms. Davis stated there is not a Condition because there is a permit for 10 people which did meet the
applied for number of employees, now it is not and the system will need an evaluation. Ms. Davis
indicated she has language to address the concern.
James Rohn asked Ms. Hatch the reason for staff request for a continuance if the suggested revisions
were addressed. Ms. Hatch stated there are numerous items that the applicant would like to change.
Staff concurred that many of the changes were significant and were not in the original application. The
referral agencies should review these proposed changes. Mr. Rohn indicated there were several referral
agencies and they should have an option to review the changes. Ms. Hatch indicated that there are
additional items that are of concern for staff and they felt those referral agencies deserve the chance to
re-review because the new use is more intense. Mr. Gimlin asked if the referrals could be sent out again
and would there be enough time for staff prior to the Planning Commission hearing.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Morrison if the decision on whether the changes were significant was a call the
Planning Commission needed to make because there are no guidelines. Mr. Morrison stated there are no
guidelines because everything is determined on a case by case basis. Planning Commission needs to
look at what the changes do to the analysis of the USR and that goes to compatibility with adjacent
properties. If Planning Commission is seeing changes that could affect that decision that could be part of
the reason to accept staff recommendation for continuance.
Glen Droegemueller continued with:
pg 5#B- concerning addressing the greater Brighton FPD concerns. There are three issues presented by
increasing the number of employees: accommodation on site in terms of parking, affect on the sanitary
service and whether there is an increase in the fire risk because of the number of employees increasing.
The hours of operation remains the same as does the use. Mr. Droegemueller indicated he believes this
is a difference of perspective, it is not significant when you look at the application. Mr. Miller asked if it
was safe to say with the doubling of employees there will be a doubling the amount of activity coming to
the site. Mr. Droegemueller stated he does not believe they will be doubling the activity on site. Mr. Miller
asked if it was not previously represented that there be a consolidation of operations on site. Mr.
Droegemueller stated some operations will be consolidated but they will not double what is coming onto
the site. Mr. Miller stated that by consolidating operations they are changing the impact that was
represented in the original application.
James Rohn asked if Planning Commission could speak to a representative from Copart and find out
what the consolidation means with the use. Mr. Droegemueller stated Mr. Brancucci is the property owner
and Copart did not provide a representative. Mr. Droegemueller is the representative for both.
Michael Miller asked Ms. Davis if she had standard language for the evaluation of the septic system. Ms.
Davis, Public Health and Environment, indicated it was the standard language. Mr. Miller clarified that if
Planning Commission approved the increase in employees they would also need to add the Condition
concerning an engineered septic system. Mr. Fitzgerald added he believes it is fine.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to change Development Standard 25 to increase the number of employees from
10 to 20 and add a new H consisting of language from the Health Department regarding the septic
system. Doug Ochsner seconded. Motion carried.
James Rohn asked if these changes receive approval then the Planning Commission will not continue the
case. Mr. Miller stated Planning Commission is addressing each request then addressing the substantial
change regarding the continuance.
Glen Droegemueller continued with:
Development Standard 23 regarding the storage of equipment on site. Mr. Droegemueller handed out the
applicants suggestions for modification on both Development Standard 23 and Development Standard 28.
Mr. Droegemueller added the applicant would be willing to add language regarding screening so none of
the items could be seen by adjacent property owners.
Michael Miller asked if there are screening requirements. Ms. Hatch indicated Department of Planning
Services is asking for a screening plan. The original plan was for an eight foot fence around the property.
Mr. Miller clarified that if this was approved the screening plan would require screening any size of vehicle
on the property. Ms. Hatch indicated Condition 2 C discusses screening and possible landscape
treatments. Mr. Gimlin indicated the application does not indicate what type of trucks and this request
goes past the screening. There will be different traffic impacts because there will now be semi and low
boys. These will be hauling backhoes and such which is a significant difference. The original application
does not represent this type of impact in the original application. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Droegemueller how
screening was done on other locations. Mr. Droegemueller stated at other locations there have been
areas where pine trees and lower ground locations have been created to screen the larger vehicles. Mr.
Droegemueller indicated he has not actually seen this. Mr. Miller agrees with Mr. Gimlin that beyond the
screening issue which is feasible this drastically changes the type of traffic that will be entering the site.
This opens the door for anything that is involved in an insurance situation to be stored here. There could
be mobile homes and just about anything hauled in. The road is not suitable for this type of increase. Mr.
Rohn added the proposed changes should be considered by the referral agencies.
Michael Miller asked the Planning Commission their feelings on changing Development Standard 23 to
the proposed language. Mr. Fitzgerald added that this opens the door and he would not agree to moving
forward with this. Mr. Ochsner indicated this is what the company wants, Planning Commission needs to
agree to the requests while reserving the right to vote on the continuance. Mr. Gimlin added if this is what
the company wanted then they should have placed this in the application. Ms. Strobel added it should be
left the same because without referrals she has no idea what the scope of the impact would be. Mr. Miller
presented all the possible options and his preference is to consider the application that was submitted and
if there are these changes a new application should be submitted. Mr. Droegemeuller added he shares
the concern for complete information and he wonders if it would be possible to continue the hearing on
this issue, Development Standard 23, so Copart can get here and the input from the required agencies
can be obtained. Mr. Miller indicated he is not leaning towards continuing any portion of the hearing. He
believes the entire application needs to be continued and the applicant needs to decide what they are
applying for. It is disturbing for the applicant to apply for one thing then show up to the hearing with a
completely different request. Mr. Miller is encouraging Planning Commission to continue this application.
Mr. Droegemueller indicated 30 days would be adequate. Ms. Hatch indicated staff has suggested
February 15 which is a little over 30 days. Mr. Droegemueller stated that would be acceptable.
Bryant Gimlin stated this is an obvious attempt to circumvent the Planning Commission.
James Rohn asked Ms. Hatch when the changes were proposed. Ms. Hatch stated that she had spoken
to Mr. Droegemueller on December 17 and there were changes on the vehicles and that the list
requesting the changes was received January 3, 2005 and there is an updated list that was received
today.
Doug Ochsner indicated he would be agreeable with February 15, 2005. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if there was
time to get referrals back from the agencies in that time frame. Ms. Hatch indicated there was a 28 day
turn around so this should be adequate.
James Welch asked if the application being sent back out for referral would include the changes
requested by the applicant so the agencies would not be reviewing the same application. Ms. Hatch
stated she would update the referral sheet, provide the additional information and include a memo
describing the situation at hand. The referral agencies will be able to contact staff if an entire packet is
needed.
James Rohn moved to continue USR-1493 to February 15, 2005. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. James
Welch, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tonya Strobel, yes; Doug Ochsner,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
James Rohn commented he requests to get the Fire Department and CDOT referrals back before the
case is heard again.
Michael Miller commented he would encourage the applicant to have a complete application including all
the possible modifications.
- y- zub5
developing IGA's with the municipalities. The IGA puts unnecessary restrictions on the land owner and
gives way to much control to one entity and that being the town.
Bruce Fitzgerald commented there is a need to keep the number of poles in the County to a minimum.
— CASE NUMBER: USR-1493
APPLICANT: Stephan Brancucci/c/o Glen Droegemueller
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt NE4 SE4 and Lot B of RE-3932; Section 30, Ti N, R66W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Use
by Special Review in the Industrial Zone District(Commercial Junkyard
or Salvage Yard) in the 1-3 (Industrial)Zone District
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 27(Hwy 85 Business); approximately 1/4
mile north of CR 4.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1493, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending
approval of the original application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
The applicant will provide an updated list of the changes they are requesting. If the changes are taken
into consideration, staff requests the case be continued to February 15, 2005 to allow time for the referral
agencies to review the requested changes. Staff does believe these changes are substantial. Staff does
recommend Condition 1 A be removed as this item has been met.
Glen Droegemueller, representative for the applicant with Otis, Coan & Stewart LLC, provided additional
clarification on the proposal. Mr. Droegemueller added the changes the applicant is offering are not
substantial changes which would require a continuance. Mr. Droegemueller presented an overview of the
items then discussed each item. The items are as follows: 1A which has been deleted. The applicant
would also like 1B deleted so the application could be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners
for hearing. Mr. Miller indicated the Planning Commission hearing procedure is the applicant presents his
case then make amendments to the conditions and Development Standard after the case is heard. Mr.
Miller asked if there was anything further the applicant would like to add to staff presentation. Mr.
Droegemueller stated there will be small comments on each issue the applicant would like to present. Mr.
Droegemueller stated the case was self explanatory and this is not a commercial junkyard because the
vehicles are not crushed. They are vehicles which have been damaged that come to the property with all
fluid removed. The vehicles are stored there and the company offers them for sale over the internet.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if the applicant is intending to do all sales online in auction form so there will never
be a group of bidders on site. Mr. Droegemueller stated that all sales will be done by internet, there will
be no bidders on site. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if the technology has been proved to work on other sites. Mr.
Droegemueller stated it has worked.
Bryant Gimlin asked if the distribution of the vehicles both in and out is done during regular daytime
business hours. Mr. Droegemueller stated it was. Mr. Gimlin asked if the trucks were limited to light
trucks or are semi's included. Mr. Droegemueller stated semi's are occasionally there. The applicant
has indicated hat 85% of the vehicles are auto, pick ups and SUV, 15% could be semi, trailers or small
backhoes and small tractors. The applicant would like the ability to store and are willing to adjust the site
or construct the site so there would be no visibility from surrounding properties. Screening can be done
on site. There is no way to give the number of semi's on site because it is not known.
Doug Ochsner asked if the vehicles are sold as units or sold as parts. Mr. Droegemueller stated they are
sold as a unit then the buyer decides whether they want to part them out.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
David Padgett, Patina Oil & Gas, indicated there is no agreement but discussions have occurred. There
has been contact and there is a letter of intent for future drilling. The blanks are not filled in but the
agreement should be in the near future. The letter of intent includes a date in which indicates the
agreement must be done by and if the date is not met Patina Oil & Gas will oppose the proposal. Patina
is not opposed to the applicant setting a Board of County Commissioners hearing date because they feel
the agreement can be done by that time.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Padgett if he would be in agreement with deleting 1 B which deals with the
mineral agreement. Mr. Padgett stated there needs to be an agreement prior to the Board of County
Commissioners meeting.
The Chair closed public portion.
Glen Droegemueller presented the following concerns that the applicant would like to see changed. They
are as follows:
1B-the applicant is asking for an amendment to 1B as written which would indicated that an agreement
can be reached between the mineral holder at least five days prior to the Board of County Commissioners
hearing. In the alternative the applicant would show evidence that an adequate attempt had been made
to mitigate the concerns. If that cannot be proven the Board of County Commissioners has the option of
denying the USR.
Bryant Gimlin asked if it would be agreeable to change 1 to Prior to the Board of County Commissioners
Hearing as opposed to Prior to Scheduling the Board of County Commissioners Hearing. Mr.
Droegemueller stated that would be agreeable.
Bryant Gimlin moved to change Condition 1 to Prior to Board of County Commissioners Hearing. Bruce
Fitzgerald seconded. Motion carried.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. James
Welch, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tonya Strobel, yes; Doug Ochsner,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Glen Droegemueller continued with:
Development Standard 25-concerning the number of employees, the applicant would like to increase the
number from 10 to 20. The client has changed the operations manager from the time the application was
submitted and there will be a consolidation of operations which are now operating in Denver. Mr. Miller
asked Mr. Carroll if this would change the traffic evaluation. Mr. Carroll, Public Works, indicated it does
not. Mr. Droegemueller commented that the additional employees would require additional parking and if
this is the case the applicant would provide a note on the plat addressing the concern. Mr. Carroll added
there are 41 paved spots which is adequate. Mr. Droegemueller indicated the second concern with the
increase of employees is the affect on the existing septic tank. Mr. Brancucci, the property owners, has
indicated the septic tank was designed as a 1000 gallon tank which would accommodate the original 10
employees. The applicant is willing to add a Condition of Approval that they submit evidence to the
County an engineered system to accommodate the increase. This Condition would be done Prior to
Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Miller asked if there was a Condition that the system be evaluated.
Ms. Davis stated there is not a Condition because there is a permit for 10 people which did meet the
applied for number of employees, now it is not and the system will need an evaluation. Ms. Davis
indicated she has language to address the concern.
James Rohn asked Ms. Hatch the reason for staff request for a continuance if the suggested revisions
were addressed. Ms. Hatch stated there are numerous items that the applicant would like to change.
Staff concurred that many of the changes were significant and were not in the original application. The
referral agencies should review these proposed changes. Mr. Rohn indicated there were several referral
agencies and they should have an option to review the changes. Ms. Hatch indicated that there are
additional items that are of concern for staff and they felt those referral agencies deserve the chance to
re-review because the new use is more intense. Mr. Gimlin asked if the referrals could be sent out again
and would there be enough time for staff prior to the Planning Commission hearing.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Morrison if the decision on whether the changes were significant was a call the
Planning Commission needed to make because there are no guidelines. Mr. Morrison stated there are no
guidelines because everything is determined on a case by case basis. Planning Commission needs to
look at what the changes do to the analysis of the USR and that goes to compatibility with adjacent
properties. If Planning Commission is seeing changes that could affect that decision that could be part of
the reason to accept staff recommendation for continuance.
Glen Droegemueller continued with:
pg 5#B-concerning addressing the greater Brighton FPD concerns. There are three issues presented by
increasing the number of employees: accommodation on site in terms of parking, affect on the sanitary
service and whether there is an increase in the fire risk because of the number of employees increasing.
The hours of operation remains the same as does the use. Mr. Droegemueller indicated he believes this
is a difference of perspective, it is not significant when you look at the application. Mr. Miller asked if it
was safe to say with the doubling of employees there will be a doubling the amount of activity coming to
the site. Mr. Droegemueller stated he does not believe they will be doubling the activity on site. Mr. Miller
asked if it was not previously represented that there be a consolidation of operations on site. Mr.
Droegemueller stated some operations will be consolidated but they will not double what is coming onto
the site. Mr. Miller stated that by consolidating operations they are changing the impact that was
represented in the original application.
James Rohn asked if Planning Commission could speak to a representative from Copart and find out
what the consolidation means with the use. Mr. Droegemueller stated Mr. Brancucci is the property owner
and Copart did not provide a representative. Mr. Droegemueller is the representative for both.
Michael Miller asked Ms. Davis if she had standard language for the evaluation of the septic system. Ms.
Davis, Public Health and Environment, indicated it was the standard language. Mr. Miller clarified that if
Planning Commission approved the increase in employees they would also need to add the Condition
concerning an engineered septic system. Mr. Fitzgerald added he believes it is fine.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to change Development Standard 25 to increase the number of employees from
10 to 20 and add a new H consisting of language from the Health Department regarding the septic
system. Doug Ochsner seconded. Motion carried.
James Rohn asked if these changes receive approval then the Planning Commission will not continue the
case. Mr. Miller stated Planning Commission is addressing each request then addressing the substantial
change regarding the continuance.
Glen Droegemueller continued with:
Development Standard 23 regarding the storage of equipment on site. Mr. Droegemueller handed out the
applicants suggestions for modification on both Development Standard 23 and Development Standard 28.
Mr. Droegemueller added the applicant would be willing to add language regarding screening so none of
the items could be seen by adjacent property owners.
Michael Miller asked if there are screening requirements. Ms. Hatch indicated Department of Planning
Services is asking for a screening plan. The original plan was for an eight foot fence around the property.
Mr. Miller clarified that if this was approved the screening plan would require screening any size of vehicle
on the property. Ms. Hatch indicated Condition 2 C discusses screening and possible landscape
treatments. Mr. Gimlin indicated the application does not indicate what type of trucks and this request
goes past the screening. There will be different traffic impacts because there will now be semi and low
boys. These will be hauling backhoes and such which is a significant difference. The original application
does not represent this type of impact in the original application. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Droegemueller how
screening was done on other locations. Mr. Droegemueller stated at other locations there have been
areas where pine trees and lower ground locations have been created to screen the larger vehicles. Mr.
Droegemueller indicated he has not actually seen this. Mr. Miller agrees with Mr. Gimlin that beyond the
screening issue which is feasible this drastically changes the type of traffic that will be entering the site.
This opens the door for anything that is involved in an insurance situation to be stored here. There could
be mobile homes and just about anything hauled in. The road is not suitable for this type of increase. Mr.
Rohn added the proposed changes should be considered by the referral agencies.
Michael Miller asked the Planning Commission their feelings on changing Development Standard 23 to
the proposed language. Mr. Fitzgerald added that this opens the door and he would not agree to moving
forward with this. Mr. Ochsner indicated this is what the company wants, Planning Commission needs to
agree to the requests while reserving the right to vote on the continuance. Mr. Gimlin added if this is what
the company wanted then they should have placed this in the application. Ms. Strobel added it should be
left the same because without referrals she has no idea what the scope of the impact would be. Mr. Miller
presented all the possible options and his preference is to consider the application that was submitted and
if there are these changes a new application should be submitted. Mr. Droegemeuller added he shares
the concern for complete information and he wonders if it would be possible to continue the hearing on
this issue, Development Standard 23, so Copart can get here and the input from the required agencies
can be obtained. Mr. Miller indicated he is not leaning towards continuing any portion of the hearing. He
believes the entire application needs to be continued and the applicant needs to decide what they are
applying for. It is disturbing for the applicant to apply for one thing then show up to the hearing with a
completely different request. Mr. Miller is encouraging Planning Commission to continue this application.
Mr. Droegemueller indicated 30 days would be adequate. Ms. Hatch indicated staff has suggested
February 15 which is a little over 30 days. Mr. Droegemueller stated that would be acceptable.
Bryant Gimlin stated this is an obvious attempt to circumvent the Planning Commission.
James Rohn asked Ms. Hatch when the changes were proposed. Ms. Hatch stated that she had spoken
to Mr. Droegemueller on December 17 and there were changes on the vehicles and that the list
requesting the changes was received January 3, 2005 and there is an updated list that was received
today.
Doug Ochsner indicated he would be agreeable with February 15, 2005. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if there was
time to get referrals back from the agencies in that time frame. Ms. Hatch indicated there was a 28 day
turn around so this should be adequate.
James Welch asked if the application being sent back out for referral would include the changes
requested by the applicant so the agencies would not be reviewing the same application. Ms. Hatch
stated she would update the referral sheet, provide the additional information and include a memo
describing the situation at hand. The referral agencies will be able to contact staff if an entire packet is
needed.
James Rohn moved to continue USR-1493 to February 15, 2005. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded.
r
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. James
Welch, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tonya Strobel, yes; Doug Ochsner,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
James Rohn commented he requests to get the Fire Department and CDOT referrals back before the
case is heard again.
Michael Miller commented he would encourage the applicant to have a complete application including all
the possible modifications.
Meeting adjourned at 3:30pm
Respectfully submitted
\I)utai2A-P-1a
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello