HomeMy WebLinkAbout20050541.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Doug Ochsner,that the following resolution be introduced for approval by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1416
APPLICANT: William &Ann Stonebraker
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-3589; Pt of the NE4 of Section 28, T2N, R64W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Use by
Right, Accessory Use or Use by Special Review in the Commercial or
Industrial Zone District(Display Fireworks Storage and fireworks equipment
staging facility along with an office) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District
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 22-2-60. A.Goal 4 of the Weld
County Code states:"Conversion of agricultural land to nonurban residential,commercial and
industrial uses will be accomodated when the subject site is within an area that can support
such a development. Such development shall attempt to be compatible with the region."
Five (5) acres will be added to the existing USR for a fireworks storage facility approved
under USR-1416. The five (5) acre addition will encompass the proposed fireworks
equipment staging facility and office.The Development Standards, Conditions of Approval,
and Operations Standards will effectively mitigate any adverse impacts to surrounding areas.
b. Section 23-2-220.A.2--The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the A(Agricultural)
Zone District. Section 23-3-40 of the Weld County Code provides for Uses by Right,
Accessory Uses,or Uses by Special Review in the Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts
as a Use by Special Review in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
c. Section 23-2-220.A.3--The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with the existing
surrounding land uses. The site is located adjacent to Interstate 76 to the south and
agricultural land to the north, east and west. Existing single family residences are located
approximately%mile to the west and 1/2 mile to the north of the site. A truck and equipment
training facility, approved in April of 2004 under Use by Special Review Permit USR-1438,
is located to the west The Development Standards, Conditions of Approval,and Operations
Standards will effectively mitigate any adverse impacts to surrounding areas.
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 proposed Use by Special Review is not located within an existing urban
growth boundary/intergovernmental agreement area. However,the proposed Use by Special
Review is located within the three-mile referral areas for the Towns of Hudson and
Keenesburg. The Town of Keenesburg, in their referrals received 11/16/2004 and 3/28/2005
indicated no conflict with their interests. No referral has been received from the Town of
Hudson.
e. Section 23-2-220.A.5—Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the propose• s
lots will be required to adhere to the fee structure of the County Wide Road Impact Program
(Chapter 20, Article II of the Weld County Code)
,3;GD5 -C:5.9 /
Resolution AmUSR-1416
Stonebrakers
Page 2
f. Section 23-2-220.A.6--The applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort to conserve prime
agricultural land in the locational decision for the proposed use. This parcel is located on
land designated as"Other"and"High Potential Dry Crop"land according to the 1979 USDA-
Soil Conservation Service Important Farmlands of Weld County map. Five (5) acres will be
added to the existing USR for a fireworks storage facility approved under USR-1416.The five
(5)acre addition will encompass the proposed fireworks equipment staging facility and office.
The remainder of the parcel (approximately 140 acres)will remain available for agricultural
purposes.
g. 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 recording the plat:
A. The each sheet of the plat shall be labeled AMUSR 1416.(Department of Planning Services)
B. The plat shall be amended to delineate the following:
1) The attached Development Standards. (Department of Planning Services)
2) The approved Screening Plan. (Department of Planning Services)
3) The applicant shall indicate a parking and access plan. Appendix 23-B of the Weld
County Code requires 1 parking space per 1,000 square feet of warehouse area and
1 parking space per 500 square feet of office area. (Department of Planning
Services)
C. County Road 18 is designated on the Weld County Road Classification Plan as a local gravel
road,which requires 60 feet of right-of-way at full build out.There is presently 60 feet of right-
of-way. A total of 30 feet from the centerline of County Road 18 shall be delineated right-of-
way on the plat. This road is maintained by Weld County. (Department of Public Works)
D. The applicant shall submit a waste handling plan, for approval, to the Environmental Health
Services Division of the Department of Public Health and Environment. The plan shall
include at a minimum, the following:
A. A list of wastes which are expected to be generated on site (this should include
expected to be generated on site (this should include expected volumes and types
of waste generated).
B. A list of the type and volume of chemicals expected to be stored on site.
C. The waste handler and facility where the waste will be disposed(including the facility
name, address and phone number).
*Written evidence of Health Department approval shall be submitted to the Department
of Planning Services.
E. The applicant shall submit a Screening Plan for review and approval by the Department of
Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
Resolution AmUSR-1416
Stonebrakers
Page 3
F. The applicant shall enter into a Private Improvements Agreement according to policy
regarding collateral for improvements and post adequate collateral for transportation and
non-transportation requirements. The agreement and form of collateral shall be reviewed by
County Staff and accepted by the Board of County Commissioners prior to recording the plat.
(Department of Planning Services)
G. The applicant shall address the recommendations of the Weld County Sheriff's Office as
stated in their referral received November 30, 2005. (Weld County Sheriff's)
H. The applicant shall provide a recorded access agreement with the owners of Lot A of
Recorded Exemption 3589 allowing customers and employees of the facility to use the
existing 30-foot access easement that crosses Lot A of Recorded Exemption 3589. The
reception number for the access agreement shall be placed on the plat. (Department of
Planning Services)
The applicant shall enter into an offsite improvements agreement with the Weld County
Department of Public Works to address dust control on County Road 18. The offsite
improvements agreement and collateral shall be accepted by the Board of County
Commissioners. (Department of Public Works)
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 provide evidence of ATF approval or provide evidence that ATF
requirements are not applicable.
2. 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)
3. The Department of Planning Services respectively requests the surveyor provide a digital copy of this
Amended Use by Special Review. Acceptable CAD formats are .dwg, .dxf, and .dgn (Microstation);
acceptable GIS formats are ArcView shapefiles, Arclnfo Coverages and Arclnfo Export files format
type is .e00. The preferred format for Images is .tif (Group 4). (Group 6 is not acceptable). This
digital file may be sent to mapsco.weld.co.us. (Department of Planning Services)
4. Prior to Release of Building Permits:
A. A plan review is required for each building for which a building permit is required. Plans shall
include a floor plan. Plans shall bear the wet stamp of a Colorado registered architect or
engineer. Two complete sets of plans are required when applying for each permit. Provide
a Code Analysis Dates sheet provided by the Weld County Building Department which each
building permit application. Building plans shall also be submitted to the Southeast Weld Fire
Protection District for their approval. (Department of Planning Services)
B. A stormwater discharge permit may be required for a
development/redevelopment/construction site where a contiguous or non-contiguous land
disturbance is greater than or equal to one acre in area. Contact the Water Quality Control
Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment at
www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/PermitsUnitfor more information.(Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment)
Resolution AmUSR-1416
Stonebrakers
Page 4
5. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy:
A. An individual sewage disposal system is required for the proposed metal building(s)and shall
be installed according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
B. The septic system is required to be designed by a Colorado Registered Engineer according
to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations. (Department of Public Health
and Environment)
6. Prior to operation:
A. The applicant shall address the requirements of the Department of Building Inspection as
stated in their referral received January 23, 2003. Evidence of such shall be submitted in
writing to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Building Inspection)
7. 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
AMENDED SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Ann Stonebraker
AM US R-1416
1. A Site Specific Development Plan and Amended Use by Special Review Permit for a Use by Right,
Accessory Use or Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts (Display
Fireworks Storage and Fireworks Equipment Staging Facility along with an Office) in the (A)
Agricultural Zone District. (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.
A. This Use by Special Review Permit shall expire if it is transferred to any party that
is not a future heir of the applicant. (Department of Planning Services)
3. A future access point is indicated on the plat. When this future access is developed, the applicant
shall provide a Weld County Access Information Sheet to the Public Works Department for review
& approval of a safe and adequate access. (Department of Public Works)
4. The access and circulation pattern shall be surfaced with gravel. The gravel shall support semi truck
traffic and shall be graded to prevent drainage problems. (Department of Public Works)
5. All corners and intersections shall have adequate turning radius' to accommodate large trucks.
(Department of Public Works)
6. Any time that the gravel access road crosses a drainage pattern, the applicant shall accommodate
with a culvert crossing to provide an all weather access to the facility. (Department of Public Works)
7. The storage magazines, metal boxes, trailers, and the type four units should not block the historical
flow pattern. The historical flow pattern and run-off amounts will be maintained in such a manner that
will reasonably preserve the natural character of the area and prevent property damage of the type
generally attributed to the run-off rate and velocity increases, diversions, concentration and/or
unplanned ponding of storm run-off. (Department of Public Works)
8. Dust control applications shall be provided a minimum of twice per year and/or as needed on County
Road 18 in front of the neighboring property across County Road 18 to minimize impact to the
adjacent property owner. (Department of Public Works)
9. All liquid and solid wastes (as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act,
30-20-100.5, C.R.S.)shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that protects against
surface and groundwater contamination. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
10. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. This is not meant to exclude those
wastes specifically excluded from the definition of a solid waste in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites
and Facilities Act, 30-20-100.5, C.R.S. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
11. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust,
blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
12. Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions shall be controlled on this site. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
13. The facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Residential Zone
District as delineated in 25-12-103, C.R.S. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
14. The applicant shall operate in accordance with the approved "waste handling plan". (Department of
Public Health & Environment)
15. Adequate handwashing and toilet facilities shall be provided for employees and patrons of facilities.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
Resolution AmUSR-1416
Stonebrakers
Page 2
16. 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)
17. A permanent, adequate water supply shall be provided for drinking and sanitary purposes.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
18. 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)
19. If applicable,the applicant shall obtain a stormwater discharge permit from the Colorado Department
of Public Health and Environment,Water Quality Control Division. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
20. 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)
21. Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to adhere to
the fee structure of the County Wide Road Impact Program,Area 4. (Chapter 20,Article II of the Weld
County Code) (Department of Planning Services)
22. Sources of light shall be shielded so that beams or rays of light will not shine directly onto adjacent
properties; neither the direct nor reflected light from any light source may create a traffic hazard to
operators of motor vehicles on public or private streets;and no colored lights may be used which may
be confused with or construed as traffic control devices. (Department of Planning Services)
23. Screening on site shall be maintained in accordance with the approved Screening Plan.(Department
of Planning Services)
24. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of
Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code.
25. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of
Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code.
26. Personnel from 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.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. This operation shall be limited to a total of fifteen (15) employees as outlined in the application
materials. (Department of Planning Services)
30. Hours of operation shall be from 6:00 AM-7:00 PM except during the peak season (around the 4th of
July Holiday)when hours of operation shall be from 6:00 AM - 10:00 PM. (Department of Planning
Services)
31. Total vehicle trips shall be limited to eighty (80) during the peak season (around the 4'" of July
Holiday). (Department of Planning Services)
Resolution AmUSR-1416
Stonebrakers
Page 3
Motion seconded by John Folsom
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Michael Miller
John Folsom
Bryant Gimlin
Bruce Fitzgerald
James Rohn
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
James Welch
Tom Holton
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 April 5, 2005.
Dated the 5'" of April, 2005.
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
i -J2- xcc-
j QQetved
FEB 0 3 2005
3:s5t.pi.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld County
Conference Room,4209 CR 24 A, Longmont, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Michael
Miller, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin
John Folsom
James Rohn
Bruce Fitzgerald
Tonya Strobel Absent
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
James Welch Absent
Also Present: Chris Gathman, Jacqueline Hatch, Don Carroll, Char Davis
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on January 4,2005,
was approved as read.
The following items will be Continued:
CASE NUMBER: CZ-1067
APPLICANT: Villano Brothers Properties, Inc.
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt W2W2NW4 of Section 17, T1 N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agriculture)to 1-2 (Industrial).
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 27, south of and adjacent to CR 10.
CASE NUMBER: CZ-1068
APPLICANT: V &V Properties, Inc
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt W2SW4 of Section 17, T1 N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agriculture)to I-2 (Industrial).
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 27; north of and adjacent to CR 8.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting a continuance to February 15,
2005. The applicant would like to see the outcome of the Fort Lupton hearing in which annexations are being
reviewed.
Michael Miller asked if the annexations that are being reviewed have no bearing on these properties. Mr.
Gathman indicated there is a Villano property being considered but it is not the two before the Planning
Commission. There is the option of exploring annexation regarding these properties.
The following items are on the Consent Agenda:
— CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1416 S
APPLICANT: William &Ann Stonebraker
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-3589; Pt of the NE4 of Section 28, T2N, R64W of the l y
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. V
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Use by
Right, Accessory Use or Use by Special Review in the Commercial or
Industrial Zone District(Display Fireworks Storage and fireworks equipment
staging facility along with an office) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 18; % mile east of CR 53.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1405
APPLICANT: Aurora Organic Dairy
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NESE4, E2NE4 and part of the NE4NW4 of Section 31,T3N,R67W
of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Use by Special Review for a 28,803
square foot Milk Processing Facility with a future expansion of 19,000
square feet along with a Livestock Confinement Operation (1700 milking
cow dairy) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Hwy 66; Approx 3/4 mile east of CR 13.
James Rohn moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Bryant Gimlin seconded, Motion carried.
The following item will be heard:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1488
APPLICANT: John File, Farfrumwurkin LLP
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: E2SW2 & N2 SE4 &part of the W2W2 of Lot B of RE-3474; being
part of the W2W2 of Section 32, T2N, R68W; and part of the SE4 of Lot B
of RE-1775 of Section 31, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a mineral
resource development facility including dry open pit mining and materials
processing in the A (Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Hwy 52; west and east of and adjacent to CR 3-
1/4.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1488, reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
James Rohn asked about the Division of Wildlife response and what it included. Ms. Hatch indicated the
referral states that there will be no stripping of the topsoil between the months of April and July. The referral
also examined the existing vegetation on site and the wildlife that currently uses the site
Doug Ochsner asked where the homeowners that are in opposition to the application are located. Ms. Hatch
indicated Reflection Bay is located to the north of this site and Virginia Shaw's property is also located to the
north of the site.
Michael Miller asked Don Carroll, Public Works, about the transportation of materials across CR 3 '/. Mr.
Carroll stated he is not aware of the method but has asked for clarification with regards to the movement of
materials from one side of the road to the other.
John Folsom asked Mr.Carroll about Hwy 52 west of the interstate and will there be improvements to CR 3%
. Mr. Carroll stated there have been improvements along the section, there might be a slight turn land along
CR 3 Y but he is not aware of a turn slot. Mr. Carroll stated he would rely on what CDOT is asking for. Mr.
Carroll did not receive a copy of the referral from CDOT. Mr. Carroll stated the planner would receive the
referral response. Ms. Hatch stated it was in the original packet and their response indicated there needed to
be 100 feet of right of way north of the highway centerline. CDOT is currently installing southbound to
eastbound left turn exceleration lanes. CDOT is also requesting to see the traffic study. Mr. Folsom asked if
there was any provision in the requirements for the applicant to comply. Ms. Hatch indicated it was a Conditon
of Approval.
Peter Wayland,representative for the applicant, provided clarification on the proposal. Mr.Wayland would like
to address some of the issue brought forward from the surrounding residents. The applicant tried to get a feel
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, April 5, 2005
^
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2005, in the Weld County Department
of Planning Services, Hearing Room, 918 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair,
Michael Miller, at 1:30p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin
John Folsom
James Welch
James Rohn
Bruce Fitzgerald Absent
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
Thomas Holton
Also Present: Char Davis, Don Carroll, Sheri Lockman, Chris Gathman, Kim Ogle
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on March 15, 2005, was
approved as read.
The following is on the Consent Agenda:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1505
APPLICANT: Russell &Angela Reed
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
^ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: N2 SW4 Section 2, T8N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado
REUQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for an airstrip in the
A(Agricultural) Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 21; 1/4 mile north of CR 96.
Consent Agenda was approved.
The following cases will be heard:
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1416
APPLICANT: William &Ann Stonebraker
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-3589; Pt of the NE4 of Section 28, T2N, R64W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Use by Right,
Accessory Use or Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone
District(Display Fireworks Storage and fireworks equipment staging facility
along with an office) in the A(Agricultural) Zone District
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 18; '% mile east of CR 53.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services presented Case AmUSR-1416, reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
James Rohn asked Mr. Carroll about the truck traffic and if there were any plans to pave CR 18. Mr. Carroll
added it was not expected in next five yrs.
^ Chad Auer asked about an oil flare on site. Mr. Gathman indicated the locations on map provided. There are two
new ones located on the north side of 1-76 in both the south east and south west corner of the site.
Doug Ochsner asked Mr. Gathman about the location of the nearest house and the distance. Mr. Gathman
indicated there was a home across CR 18 and approximately 500 feet from the northwest corner of the site.
This home will be approximately 500-700 feet away from the buildings proposed. Mr. Ochsner asked if the other
agencies referred to had been contacted. Mr. Gathman stated that a referral was to the ATF followed up by an
attempt t contact by phone and by fax. There has been no response received. A referral was also sent to CDOT
John Folsom asked about the setback on the oil wells and if those apply to residences only or any type of activity,
the concern if for the oil wells should the fireworks start fire. Mr. Gathman stated the setbacks for residential and
this type of use are 150 feet from the well head and 200 feet from a tank battery. Colorado Oil and Gas regulates
if there is a building in place. Mr. Morrison added the maximum setback is 350 feet which is applied in high
density residential areas. Mr. Folsom asked if there was a regulation for setbacks for a hazardous activity. Mr.
Morrison indicated there was no provision.
Michael Miller asked about the new home and if it was owned by applicant. Mr. Gathman stated it was the
applicant daughter.
Beverly Schneider, applicant, provided clarification with regard to the proposal along with history of the business.
The business is 50 years old. They have grown from the Dacono site due to encroaching development and
would like to expand this site. These warehouses will be containing supplies for the displays that are sold to
communities and fire departments. This location on site will create the least impact on the agricultural in the site.
John Folsom asked if there have been any accidents in the 50 years. Ms. Schneider indicated there have been
grass fires but nothing with the operation. Ms. Schneider indicated the ATF has been spoken to and they
indicated no concern since there will be no overnight storage. Mr. Folsom asked about the storage and
employees working year round and if the final product that is stored on site or shipped of. Ms. Schneider stated
there will be no manufacturing. When the product is ordered it will be brought in from the storage area to these
warehouses for the communities to take possession.
Michael Miller clarified that the buildings are not for warehousing but are for assembly display, but there will not
be explosives. Ms. Schneider stated the displays will be in the storage buildings. The warehouses will have
storage of mortar tubes.
Doug Ochsner asked about the safety and if she could clarify this. Ms. Schneider stated it was very safe, the
employees are trained, there is an evacuation plan and the fire department has been spoken to with regard this
location. The fire district will not come onto the site for any fireworks related fire, their concern would be for the
safety of the surrounding properties.
Bryant Gimlin asked Ms. Schneider about her understanding with regard to having sprinklers in the building. Ms.
Schneider stated that sprinklers are not effective since there will be no fireworks in the building themselves. Mr.
Gimlin asked if sprinklers were required would there be enough water supply. Ms. Schneider indicated she was
not sure she would need to talk with the experts. Mr. Gimlin asked if there needs to be a permit from ATF. Ms.
Schneider stated it was discussed with them and since the offices are located at another space and the storage
will be at another location there will be no permit for this area. The operation is under one umbrella of the
company so there is no need for a separate permit. ATF has checked all the sites, about once a year sometimes
more depending on the government.
James Rohn asked rather this was the final intent for the site or will there be further improvements. Ms.
Schneider stated the plan was to have this as an auxiliary site. The intent was to have this be the site the
operations were done at since the Dacono site no longer has the capability of expansion due to construction in
the area. At this point this will take 5-10 years. At this time there is no anticipation for anything further but this
could change. Mr. Rohn asked how the employees are selected. Ms. Schneider stated the employees must
pass a background check, they are supervised, they come highly recommended.
Bryant asked about the well with a flare. Ms. Schneider indicated the oil company has been contacted and there
is no flare on location. That would not be something the applicant would want either. Mr. Morrison stated the
County has a GIS map that gives the location of flares. The Oil companies must contact the County before
installing them.
^ The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Christopher Ernst, representative for local residents, indicated their concerns. There is a concern with the setback in
addition to standard County setback being 350 feet. ATF has setback information and this information was submitted
to Mr. Morrison. There is a complex set of regulations that apply to this site. Mr. Ernst indicated the application is not
in compliance with the applicable codes of Weld County. Safety for the neighbors must be met by the applicant. The
Comprehensive Plan allows for agricultural related uses in the agricultural zone district. Mr. Ernst indicated there is a
lack of services for the area especially with the lack of water supply for the sprinklers. The concern is whether the
water supply can provide the ability to put out a fire should it happen. There are fire protection issues with regard to
safety and operation of this site. The commercial well will not be enough to take care of fire sprinkler system. The
regulations need to be met by the several different agencies.
Michael Miller clarified the buildings may need to contain a sprinkler system, the production of explosives will not
happen in the buildings and the well is commercial for indoor use only. Mr. Ernst stated there will be short term
storage of explosives for processing and shipment, it may not be overnight but it will still be stored there for a short
time. The building department will require a sprinkler system and the commercial well may not have the water to
supply a system.
John Folsom asked Mr. Morrison if Planning Commission has the responsibility for the compliance of other agencies,
the County has attempted to get responses so is it Planning Commission responsibility to continue until ATF
responds? Mr. Morrison stated that the other agencies are not enforced by Planning Commission but Planning
Commission must be assured those regulations are being addressed. There is no need to wait for ATF to respond.
Christine Curl, neighbor, indicated her concerns with the proposal. Ms. Curl showed the location of the surrounding
neighbors and area. This is a residential neighborhood and farm area. The intent that was presented to the
neighbors was for storage and no production. Ms. Curl would understand that assembly would include a fuse and
preparation for retail customer. CR 18 connects the Town of Keenesburg to Kersey and is used by several trucks.
The traffic study that was done missed some trips due to the counts being taken in the summer. This development
does not make sense in an agricultural area, this is an industrial use. The hours of operation are for seven days a
week and unreasonable. The applicant is asking to have the hours from 6:00am to 7:00pm and until 10:00 pm in the
high season and this is a neighborhood not an industrial area. The Town of Keenesburg has industrial sites in place
already for this type of use.
Randy Curl, neighbor, indicated his concerns. The original intent was a few buildings with storage and no expansion.
Manufacturing is different and assembly is manufacturing. Mr. Curl read from the minutes from the Board of County
"' Commissioners hearing. The neighbors have been misled. There will be three buildings about 30,000 square feet in
size.
Helen Reis, neighor, read an article regarding an accident that happened at a fireworks factory in Michigan. There is
some concern with the continuation of insurance for the adjacent properties. It is presumed the warehouses will be
heated with propane and this is a danger along with the fireworks. If there is an explosion, how fast will the response
time be for fire? This is a farming community where burning of ditches occurs and the embers will blow and catch
things on fire. The transporting from the storage to the warehouses will be in pick up trucks. The traffic trips will
increase and destroy the roads further. The concern is who is responsible to enforce the regulations?
Michael Miller asked if she had discussed the ramification of this with her insurance agent. Ms. Reis stated she had
not spoken to her personal agent but to another agent. Each policy is different and will apply differently.
Michael Miller indicated the article may not be a fair comparison since a factory may not be comparable to this. Ms.
Reis stated that most explosives come from out of country and need to assemble which will be done at this site.
Lynn Leeburg, representative for the applicant, provided further information regarding the proposal. There are two
issues, one surrounds land use which is a huge issue. There are concerns when things start to grow and things
change. The applicant is trying to follow rules and regulations that are in place. The original application was based
on what the applicant knew at the time and what was needed at that time. Things have changed which is what
controlled the need for the amended application. The applicant is aware that there are a number of controls, rules
and regulations which surround these buildings and is willing to adhere to all of them. For example, if a sprinkler
system is required it will be addressed.
Dave Carmichael, Secretary/Treasurer for the Southeast Weld Fire Protection, provided clarification with regard to
their approval and what they discussed. The district held a special meeting regarding this application and accepted
the plans for expansion with recommendations. Those recommendations include that the residential structure
maintain a 150 foot distance from staging and storage buildings according to ATF regulations. The second
recommendation was there be a NOX box at the front gate for emergency access and the district is allowed to inspect
and evaluate the facility during and after the construction. It is a mutual understanding between the Stonebrakers and
the Fire Department that firemen will not enter the facility to fight a fireworks related fire but will evacuate the area and
protect adjacent property.
Michael Miller asked about the safety of neighborhood and the exposure to this type of facility. Mr. Carmichael
indicated the members looked over the area and the property and did not see anything out of ordinary with the facility.
^ Mr. Miller asked for a worst case scenario explosion and what would happen. Mr. Carmichael indicated according to
their explosive expert it would not explode but would just burn.
Chad Auer asked about the response time and what would it be. Mr. Carmichael stated that they will evacuate and
protect them and the response time is approx 3-4 minutes.
Bryant Gimlin asked Mr. Carmichael what his understanding was of the buildings having sprinkler systems and the
water supply. Mr. Carmichael indicated they respond with tankers and there are four in the area. This equates to
approximately 8000 gallons per trip. There is some water in the summer with drafting. Mr. Gimlin asked if he is
aware of the buildings needing sprinkler systems. Mr. Carmichael indicated he has no information on this but is
aware that the only heat will be in the office not in the warehouses. Mr. Gimlin asked if there was any concern with
the warehouses and what was stored in them. Mr. Carmichael indicated they did not and the international code has
not been adopted.
Michael Miller asked for clarification with regard to overnight storage and the requirement of sprinklers. Mr. Gathman
indicated that a building official could assist in the clarification.
Chad Auer asked for clarification rather it is the opinion of the Fire District that there is very little impact to health
safety and welfare of residents in the area. Mr. Carmichael indicated that the information from the applicant does not
give the district any reasoning to the limitation of this proposal.
Frank Piancentino,Weld County Building Plans Examiner,provided clarification with regards to the sprinkler systems.
Mr. Piancentino stated that according to the International Code any building with fireworks is required to be sprinkled.
The code does not differentiate whether the fireworks are stored overnight or not. There is a table for physical
hazards and storage of them (Table 307 of the IBC, Item G). This would require a sprinkler system.
Jim Reis, neighbor, indicated concerns and provided information with regards to setbacks specifically from CDOT and
a map of the area. Mr. Reis addressed the information distributed. There has been no documentation provided for
the amount of footage needed for setback from roadways. Mr. Reis believes the original approval should be removed
due to the subsequent construction of the oil and gas wells and the building not meeting the setbacks. This proposal
will have explosives on location at some time or another. Mr. Reis indicated that each facility needs to have a license
with the ATF and each facility should be licensed through the State Division of Fire Safety. The gas wells have been
added since the inception of the original permit.
Bryant Gimlin asked if this table handed out applies to explosives. Mr. Reis indicated it includes Class B explosives
and is from the governing laws of state of Colorado.
Don Morgan, neighbor, provided separation distance tables from NFPS. Mr. Miller asked for clarification on the
tables. Mr. Morgan indicated these specifically deal with fireworks. There was extensive discussion with regards to
the amount of material stored on site and the amount of setback needed for it. The concern of blighted property may
need to be addressed. One of the requirements to consider property blighted is the existence of conditions that
endanger life or property by fire. The suggestion is to have ATF and EPA conduct inspections of the facilities for
safety of this application.
Nelly Morgan, neighbor, indicated concerns specifically with the original intent being storage only. Ms. Morgan
submitted into record a Fireworks Annual Report. There is a bus route and safety is a big concern. There is hunting
and shooting in area. The response time depends on train being on tracks or not. The 2004-2005 National Fire
Codes was submitted. Ms. Morgan would like to know who will enforce and determine if the requirements are being
met.
The Chair closed the public portion of hearing.
Lee Morrison clarified that the NFPA is not something enforced by the County. There is no county fire code
specifically for the County; each is enforced by the individual districts.
Beverly Schneider,applicant, responded that there have been no accidents in the 50 years the have been operating.
There will be no manufacturing on the site. Mr. Miller asked about the concern for the setbacks from the homes and
highways. Ms. Schneider stated ATF was on site at the end of construction of the first four units. ATF indicated at
that time all was fine. Ms. Schneider added that the amount of pounds relates to specific units and this would
determine the setback required. Mr. Miller asked about the other site, setback and pounds allowed. Ms. Schneider
indicated the there was 10,000 pound magazines at that facility and there are 7 units. ATF has visited this site and it
is fine. Mr. Miller indicated that this site is closer to buildings and roads. Ms. Schneider stated it was closer to the
--- County road.
Bryant Gimlin asked rather there was enough water supply for sprinkler systems for the warehouses. Ms. Schneider
stated that if it is required there are other means rather than water supply. The applicant is willing to work with the
Fire Department and any other County agency that needed to be involved. This application is just the beginning and
there are other issues with the building department that would need to be worked out.
Michael Miller indicated the table provided differentiates between barricaded and un-barricaded storage. Ms.
Schneider indicated the Keenesburg storage is not barricaded.
Chris Gathman asked if they intended to keep fireworks (temporarily) in any or all of the proposed building. Ms.
Schneider stated they have one building that is classified as a work building while the remaining building will be
nothing more than equipment. The work building would be the only one to have explosives in it during the day.
James Rohn asked how large the building is. Ms. Schneider indicated it was approximately 80x130 size.
Lynn Leeburg, representative for the applicant, indicated there are a number of rules and regulation that will have to
be adhered to.
Bryant Gimlin asked Ms. Davis if the commercial well was adequate for the office and the employees. Ms. Davis
stated the commercial well is sufficient for the office and employees. Mr. Gimlin asked for the rating of the well. Ms.
Davis stated it is listed as having a pumping rate of 15 gallons per minute with an annual rate of 1/3 acre feet. This
well is limited to drinking and sanitation with no amenities for lawn or landscape.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Carroll for the traffic count. Mr. Carroll indicated the count was done in 2004 and there was
an average of 116 -145 vehicles per day.
Michael Miller stated there was enough evidence received to not justify a continuance. The business is regulated by
several agencies. Mr. Auer added that if the case proceeded the applicant will still be responsible to adhere to the
regulations. Mr. Morrison stated they would and there are conditions that addressed that in the staff comments. Mr.
Gathman stated there could be a condition of approval added to address possible concerns with ATF. Mr. Gathman
suggested it be located in Prior to recording the Plan and the language is. "The applicant shall provide evidence of
ATF approval or provide evidence that ATF requirements are not applicable." Mr.Gathman added that Development
Standard#20 states that the applicant has to comply with all applicable regulations.
Doug Ochsner moved to add the recommend language proposed by staff in the memo and the condition of approval
further added in the minutes. James Rohn seconded. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner asked Mr. Carroll is there were any concerns with the importing and exporting of material on County
roads and are there any concerns that Public Works can regulate. Mr. Carroll stated it could not be dealt with. Mr.
Morrison added the County could not have separate regulations on transportation of materials on public roads; this
would violate the public interstate commerce laws.
James Rohn asked about the road trips per day and if Public Works is requiring any agreement with the applicant.
Mr. Carroll indicated Public Works is requiring the applicant to enter into an improvements agreement which will
supply dust control along the front of the facility to the adjacent property owner. This case is adding onto the dust
abatement requirement for the truck driving school.
Chad Auer asked about how standards and regulations will be enforced. Mr.Gathman indicated the County regulates
the special use permit and if there are concerns with compliance with Development Standard it is also under County
jurisdiction. Mr.Auer stated the process would be to call the County first then the other agencies. Mr. Morrison stated
the fire district could not be contacted because they do not have a County adopted fire code.
Michael Miller indicated that if this was approved and the neighbors feel the regulation are not being followed they
could contact the County and a violation will be begin. Mr. Gimin indicated this is like a land use case and the are
subject to regulations from outside agencies. Mr. Ochsner added that the public has brought forth good information
that staff must rely on. Mr. Folsom quoted Section 23-3-40 from the Weld County Code along with subsection R and
recommended approval. Mr. Miller stated safety and compatibility must be addressed. Traffic is a significant issue in
the county and attempts to mitigate this are done. There is enough regulation through Federal and State agencies
that will protect the public. Mr. Miller would support the application based on a land use basis. The location has
highway access and is next to a town. Mr. Rohn added that the past cases were reviewed based on a compliment to
the zone district. There is no compliment for this type of business in the agricultural zone district.
Michael Miller asked Ms. Schneider, the applicant, if she had read the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standard and if she was in agreement with them. Ms. Schneider indicated she is in agreement but would like to work
through the issues in a work session with the applicable agencies.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case AmUSR-1416, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval.
John Folsom seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom,yes;
James Welch, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Chad Auer, no; Doug Ochsner, yes.
Motion carried.
John Folsom commented he sympathizes with the neighbors but the code does allow this use. The only
objection would be subjective ones dealing with compatibility and intensity of use. As far as the safety issues the
Planning Commission must rely on the appropriate agencies.
James Rohn commented he does not believe it is compatible with the surrounding use but since the first part of
this was approved he will agree to it.
Chad Auer commented he appreciates private property rights and appreciates the rights to expand business.
Enforcement of codes and regulations will be enforced in the area. A fireworks use has a significant impact
especially with the attending fire district.
Bryant Gimlin commented he has concerns with the intensity but does believe it is located appropriately being
along an interstate.
Michael Miller commented that the addition of the warehouses is not a significant change that will affect the
health, safety and welfare of the neighbors.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1501
APPLICANT: Union Pacific Railroad
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the E2 of Section 29, T6N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a business
permitted as a use by right or an accessory use in the Industrial Zone District
(Railroad car loading area for recyclable materials from Andersen's Salvage
Yard) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: %mile north of O Street(CR 64), east of CR 39 '%and west of CR 41.
Michael Miller informed the Planning Commission members and audience of a possible conflict of interest
pertaining to the opposition's attorney. Neither the Planning Commission nor the audience considered this a
conflict.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1501, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the application
along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Mr. Andersen provided clarification on the
photos in the presentation.
Lee Morrison indicated a memo is in the record addressing the railroad (RR) governing. The RR is governed by
Federal Laws. If this operation is connected and operated by the RR it is Federal pre-emption over local
regulations. This does not mean that the RR can lease to a third party and let them operate. Mr. Miller asked if
that would require the RR to do the loading of the cars. Mr. Morrison indicated it was a factor as to how much
this was a RR operation versus a third party. The County does have jurisdiction over the application as
proposed.
James Rohn asked if this was strictly loading materials. Ms. Lockman stated there will be short term material on
site for storage. Ms. Lockman added the loader will be kept on site but the dump trucks could not be kept on site.
Hello