HomeMy WebLinkAbout20042608 SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld County
Conference Room,4209 CR 24%, 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: Pam Smith, Peter Schei, Don Carroll, Char Davis, Jacqueline Hatch, Chris Gathman
The following Cases will be continued:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1484
APPLICANT: James Stepanek
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-1285; Pt S2SW4 of Section 31, T4N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review for a Use by Right in
the Industrial Zone Districts (sandblasting business) in the A(Agricultural)
Zone District
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 1; Approximately 1 mile south of CR 40.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting a continuance to September 21,
2004 to allow for notification of mineral owners.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1475
APPLICANT: Samuel Clark
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pad of Lot B of RE-1917; being part of the NE4 of Section 13, T4N, R68W
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 accessory use in the Commercial Zone
District(Landscaping Materials Yard) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 46; west of and adjacent to CR 13.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting this case be continued
indefinitely. Required information has not been submitted. The business currently on site is being pursued
in a violation process.
The following Cases will be on the Consent Agenda:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1482
APPLICANT: Michael & Nicolette Thompson
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A RE-808; Pt SE4 of Section 16, T1 N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review for a Use by Right or
Accessory Use in the Industrial Zone District (storage of vehicles and
equipment associated with a tree trimming business)in the A(Agricultural)
Zone District
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 19; approximately 200 feet north of CR 8.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1482, 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.
John Folsom asked if the Development Standards had the hours of operation included in them? Mr.Gathman
stated that the scale of the business could include it, but it is not necessary. Mr. Folsom asked about
Condition 2D regarding the referral from Dacono and if those two Conditions had been addressed? One of
those recommendations is the property be annexed when it becomes eligible, should that be stated in the
Conditions? Mr. Gathman indicated it could be added but this is not something that has happened before.
There is a condition of approval that the applicant must attempt to address the recommendations from the
City of Dacono.
James Rohn asked how the violation was discovered? Mr. Gathman was not sure of whether it was found
by staff or from a complaint. Mr. Rohn asked if this application met Section 22-2-170.1.C Policy 1.2 which is
to minimize the cost to County taxpayers providing additional public services in rural areas, that requires
services on an urban scale such as paved roads? Mr.Gathman indicated there was a paved road in the area
and they are located close to the City of Dacono. The scale of the use is not urban but they are off a paved
road.
John Folsom asked if Tetra Tech has the authority to sign for the City of Dacono. Mr. Auer responded by
saying that as a past City Council Member they are a hired consultant. Mr. Folsom asked if there was a
violation on the property. Mr. Gathman indicated there was a pending violation.
Mike Thompson, applicant, added they are a small business. There are two trucks and two stump grinders.
There will be no work on the property the work is done on site. There will be no people on the property, he
works by himself. The business is very low scale.
John Folsom asked if the applicants sees the need for a bucket truck in the future? Mr.Thompson stated that
he does have a bucket truck listed in the application. Mr. Folsom stated that according to the USR they will
be limited to what is stated in the application. Mr.Thompson does not anticipate anything else. Mr. Folsom
asked what the difference between a stumper grinder and stump grinders. Mr. Thompson indicated he has
a large machine and small machine.
James Rohn asked if there was derelict vehicles that are part of a non conforming junkyard. Mr. Thompson
indicated he has a couple vehicles that will be removed from the site soon. Mr. Rohn added that there is a
Development Standards that states no outside maintenance or repair shall be done with the exception of
routine maintenance, where are the vehicles taken? Mr. Thompson stated that he does the routine oil
changes but they are taken off site for the larger problem. Mr. Miller added that the statement includes"with
the exception of routine maintenance"which covers the oil changes. The intent is to not bring in equipment
to fix other equipment.
John Folsom asked if there is a violation on this property. Mr. Gathman stated there is a violation pending
the outcome of this application.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one chose to speak.
John Folsom moved that Case USR-1482 , be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. James Rohn seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes;James Rohn,yes; Chad Auer,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-629
APPLICANT: Dallas & Marjorie Schneider
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2293; part of the NE4 of Section 30, T2N, R68W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to PUD (DalMar Estates)for nine (9)
lots with E(Estate)Uses(34 acres)and three(3)non-residential outlots(21
acres)open space.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 18; approximately 1/2 mile east of CR 1.
John Folsom moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Doug Ochsner seconded. Motion carried.
The following Cases will be Heard:
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-935
APPLICANT: Brittara Land Company LLC
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-1331; part of the E2 SW4 of Section 36, T4N, R68W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a business
permitted as a use by right or accessory use in the Commercial Zone
District(Landscaping Materials Yard, Agricultural and Supply Business) in
the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 38; approximately% mile west of CR 13.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services presented Case AmUSR-935, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending
denial of the application. If approved, staff is recommending the following changes to the Conditions of
Approval:
1. 2.A.1 Section 22-2-170.C C Goal 3—Address the compatibility of commercial land uses with adjacent
land uses. There are three homes in close proximity to the site and a minor subdivision for nine
residential lots (MF-1017 Stamp) is located directly to the north of the site. USR-935 was originally
approved in 1-999 1991 for an agricultural service establishment (agricultural and supply business).
Staff has noted that since August 2002 it does not appear that the site has been utilized. The
proposed amendment consists of expanding the use to include the storage and sale of landscape
material.
2. Development Standard 21. The applicant shall be responsible for applying dust suppressant
chemicals (magnesium chloride or calcium chloride) adjacent to the frontage of the operation and
on the haul route where there area any residential structure for approximately 300'on County
Road 38 that could be affected by heavy hauling from the site. The road shall be treated no less
than twice a year, as needed, or as directed by the Weld County Department of Public Works.
(Department of Public Works)
John Folsom asked if the reason for denial was based on compatibility? Ms. Hatch indicated that the use
has intensified with the addition of landscape and a retail component as well as the close proximity of
homes in the area. Mr. Folsom indicated that there are code sections that can go both ways. Mr. Folsom
quoted Section 22-260 B.a.4 and Section 23-3-40.R indicating both could be used in favor and against this
application. There is a counter balance as to which section is quoted.
James Rohn asked how it was determined the site was not utilized since 2002? Ms. Hatch stated that
when the Stamp Subdivision began in 2002, staff did not observe any operation at the time or since then.
Mr. Rohn asked about the homes in the area and why they are a concern in this case since the application
states it had prior approval to the homes being built. Ms. Hatch stated that there are three homes in close
proximity, two seem to be very new. Those homeowners are aware of the existing USR on site, this is a
growth of the existing USR and that is where the compatibility issue changes. Mr. Rohn indicated that
Section 22-2-60.A.3 states to allow commercial and industrial uses when services and infrastructure are
available. This site would be feasible because of the railroad spur and would this not be a industrial use?
Ms. Hatch indicated that adequate services are also considered roads, water supply, septic supply,
intensity of the use not just the railroad spur. Mr. Rohn asked if they are continuing with agricultural uses
on the property. Ms. Hatch stated there have been none observed but the applicant has indicated that
they are continuing with the uses originally approved under USR-935. Mr. Rohn asked if the Right to
Farm Act would not cover the additional uses that are being requested by the applicant? Ms. Hatch stated
that the approved USR is for agricultural supplies, the request is for addition of landscape materials as
well as a retail component. Staff considers this more of a business. Mr. Rohn stated that Development
Standards#16  are duplicates.
John Folsom asked Ms. Hatch about the opposition letter from Jeff Stamp and if the items requested in
the letter were addressed in the Development Standards. Ms. Hatch indicated she did not limit the
number of truck trips but the applicant has indicated they would like 15 trips per day, but it can be added
as a condition to limit those trips. Ms. Hatch indicated that the hours of operation have been addressed.
Mr. Folsom asked about the limitation to landscape materials that can be sold. Ms. Hatch stated that prior
to the Board of County Commissioners there is a note requesting a list of what will be on site and then it
would be limited to those specific items.
John Vazquez, applicant, provided clarification on the project. The USR that was adopted in 1991 and at
that time the opportunity to transload commerce was granted. The adjacent residential land uses were not
there when the original USR was approved. The land owners recognized there was a transloading
operation there. Agland has operated the facility since 1995 and Brittara has operated the site since 2002.
This is not a large scale operation and is currently being used as a staging area for the extension of water
lines along CR 38. The property has always been intended for transloading of commerce. The USR has
granted permission for the use, this application is to determine the allowable products. The allowable
products according to the existing USR are pinto beans, fertilizer, diesel fuels, petroleum products and
gasoline. This amendment would allow them to operate like the Gilcrest and Eaton facility. They are
moving timber products and construction products from those facilities now. Brittara decided to be
proactive and contacted staff to see what the procedure would be. There were two changes requested,
the first request was to include everything possible then it was revised to limit the materials. The second
change limited the materials to landscape and construction. The construction materials can include sand
and gravel. The revised list was determined a substantial change therefor staff required an amended Use
by Special Review. The owners still want to operate as an agricultural entity with a special use. There will
be no change in the use or zone district. It is just more of a defined product list. The original USR
allowed for transloading without violations.
Bryant Gimlin stated the significant change was the retail aspect. The retail aspect increases the traffic on
a county road as well as the facilities that will be there. Mr. Vazquez indicated that the original USR was
approved for 5-7 semi trucks per day with 30-50 dump trucks per day, the 15 requested is a significant
decrease. Mr. Gimlin indicated that the original USR was considered seasonal use for harvest. The
question with this application are the intentions with the retail facility. Mr. Vazquez stated that long term
Pioneer Sand and Gravel is the proposed operator and they have expressed an interest for distribution but
they would like the to opportunity for retail in the future. The idea is to ask for the retail now so a
substantial change does not have to be applied for at a later date to allow for the retail.
James Rohn asked Ms. Hatch what is the nearest haul route to a paved road? Don Carroll, Public Works,
indicated the need for a haul route to be identified and be a condition in the staff comments. The
reasoning is existing traffic exceeds the threshold of 200 vehicles for dust control. Mr. Carroll added the
choice for a haul route is back to CR 13 where there are residence that will require need dust control. If
the choice is made to haul to the west there are at least one half dozen residences that will be impacted.
In the questionnaire the number of vehicles mentioned, including trucks and retail vehicles, would be
approximately 90 trips per day and this would be an impact on the roadway.
James Rohn asked if the applicant would be opposed to paving CR 38 once the retail aspect of this
application is implemented or at least mitigate the issue. Mr. Vazquez stated that it is not an unreasonable
request and they would be willing to enter into an agreement with the County to pay an impact fee once
the retail component comes online. Mr. Vazquez indicated that the applicant is asking to be allowed to
operate under the current parameter with adding landscape materials to the product list. The retail will be
in the future.
John Folsom asked for clarification on the property including the ownership and leaser. Mr. Vazquez
indicated it would be a single user with variety of products. The products will be landscape materials for
residential purposes. Mr. Folsom asked for clarification on Brittara. Mr. Vazquez indicated Brittara is a
land development company. Mr. Folsom asked if Brittara intended to lease to any other use? Mr.
Vazquez stated the contract is written with Pioneer as a long term lease agreement with the option to buy.
Mr. Folsom asked why Pioneer wants this particular site. Wayne Brantley, Pioneer, indicated that they
want the site for future retail development in the area. There will be growth as far as subdivisions and
other retail in the area.
Michael Miller asked Mr.Vazquez if there is any intent to bring fly ash into the facility and is the intent to
bring most of the materials in by rail? Mr. Vazquez indicated that they would need to come back for a
substantial change if they were to bring fly ash on site and yes they intend to bring most materials in by
rail.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Chris Mathesen, neighbor to the east, indicated concern with the proposal. The grain bins have been
used and the use is seasonal. When the material is brought in there are several semi trucks, lots of dust
and a great deal of noise. The road also deteriorates substantially during this time. Mr. Mathesen added
that with the addition of retail there will be even more problems with noise, traffic and dust. The area is
residential with agricultural uses, they are horse properties and the prices of the homes in the area are
substantial. The fear is the property value will go down. The retail in a residential area is a major concern.
There is an industrial park at the Milliken/Johnstown exit which would be better suited for this type of
business. The area should remain agricultural with no retail to help minimize the road traffic in area.
There are questions about the hours of operation. Mr. Mathesen disagrees with there being retail in a
residential/rural area.
Michael Miller asked if this type of use should be placed in a low income area not high income? Mr.
Mathesen indicated that he believes that there is no accessability to the interstate and the facility should
not be located in rural/agricultural area. There is virtually no visibility to the site from the interstate.
James Rohn stated that if the application is denied they can operate with the existing USR and is this a
problem? Mr. Mathesen stated that if the operation stays as it is presently which is a seasonal operation
it would not be an issue. Mr. Rohn asked if the application was proposed without retail would that be
agreeable. Mr. Matheson stated that the neighbors have not seen the list of materials. There are still
issues with the dust, noise and an increase in traffic. Mr. Rohn stated the applicant is willing to work on
paving the road and would this help. Mr. Matheson stated that the homeowners need to be asked about
this but that would help with the dust issues.
Maybell Wilson, neighbor, indicated concern with the proposal. Ms. Wilson indicated she was never
notified of this proposal. Ms. Wilson would like to know what happens if the landscape business does not
stay, then is the land open to anything. There is no access onto 1-25 and the road is used seasonally.
Roxanne Harring, neighbor, indicated the paving was not something the neighbors want. The paving
would increase the traffic speeds in the area and create more danger. There are times when livestock
gets out and with pavement it would be more dangerous. Agland told them what they had in mind at the
time of the original USR and were told it was seasonal. Ms. Harring indicated this application will not
continue to be the same, it will increase several aspects. Ms. Harring added that during the winter the
road blows closed.
Michael Miller added that if the landscape business does not work out, a new application would be
submitted and a public hearing would be conducted again in this same forum.
Don Carroll asked when the paving came into play. Mr. Rohn indicated the applicant was asked if he
would be agreeable to assist in the paving of the roadways in the event retail was done.
Jennifer Kline, Great Western employee, added that with the encroachment of homes in the railroad
tracks is increasing. Ms. Kline indicated the traffic for delivery of materials would be substantially less
since the railroad tracks will be delivering materials.
Michael Sandborn, neighbor, indicated concern because of the children's safety in the area and the
increased traffic. The environmental issue of breathing diesel exhaust is a concern. The Stamp
Subdivision will be affected greatly regarding safety. The site is presently used minimally.
Phillip Wenta, Brittara, indicated the intent is to serve the region with construction materials. Fly ash is a
powder material and does not see the outside of car or truck, it is an additive to concrete in regard to road
improvements. Brittara is in the development business and is familiar with agreements and impact fees.
Brittara is in agreement with staff conditions which include impact fees. Mr. Wenta added that with the
developing areas of Berthoud, Mead and Johnstown this site is a great location for potential retail.
Pioneer's main interest is distribution and there are three main transportation corridors through Weld
County.
John Folsom asked if Brittara would be in agreement in paving CR 38 from the site to CR 13. Mr. Wenta
stated that for their portion of the impact they would agree to this.
Jeff stamp, neighbor, indicated concern with the project. Mr. Stamp has a minor subdivision approved for
9 lots. A question would be how is Pioneer considered agricultural related projects? Mr. Stamp would
like to see the site remain agricultural in use. The transshipping of agricultural related products is fine.
Mr. Stamp added it is difficult to deal with a seven day a week operation with this intensity of use.
Michael Miller interrupted the public portion of the meeting to take testimony for the next hearing from Les
Weimer, Weld County Sheriff, due to schedules. The testimony will be included at the beginning of the
next case.
Michael Miller continued with public testimony.
Carl Halloway, Great Western, stated they have been actively pursing a user for this property primarily for
the rail service aspect. The use suites the rail accommodation very well. Under the current application
there are a lot worse materials that can be used,jet fuels, ammonia, gasolines and fertilizers. Mr.
Halloway stated this use has minimal impact on the surrounding area.
John Folsom asked if there are any other sites that would work for this. Mr. Halloway stated that the
amount of growth in the area, the sites are currently being used and at maximum capacity.
The Chair closed public portion.
James Rohn asked Ms. Hatch about original approved uses. Ms. Hatch stated the resolution from the
Board of County Commissioners calls out agricultural service and supply business. The uses are not
called out without pulling the entire file. Mr. Vazquez stated that the USR states"pinto beans, scale
operation for weighing inbound and outbound products along with petroleum bulk products such as
propane, diesel fuel, motor fuels, other products supplied to the agricultural sector which is fertilizer
produces as well as herbicide and pesticide. The operation of these facilities and products shall be the
same as that which is currently being operated at Agland in Eaton and Gilcrest facilities."
John Vazquez added that he understands the concern. There is a commercial entity that has approval to
operate and there are residences that have developed next to the site. The USR was there before a
majority of the residential. The hours of operation are 6 days a week and that can be negotiated.
Michael Miller asked if this is a full mile of gravel road to CR 13? Mr. Carroll stated it is a full mile to 1-25
corridor and CR 13. Mr. Vazquez stated it was 3/4 mile from site to 1-25 and 1 1/4 mile to CR 13
John Folsom asked if the haul route would be to CR 13 then down the frontage road to 1-25 entrance. Mr.
Vazquez stated there are three different markets that can be utilized. The 1-25 access off CR 38 is not the
most convenient but it would depend on the market that needs to be delivered.
Bryant Gimlin stated he does not have a problem with the rail shipping but the big concern it the retail
aspect. The retail is urban and it does change the composition of the neighborhood with the traffic. The
retail was stated to be a future provision but would the applicant entertain the removal of the retail portion?
Mr. Vazquez stated that if removing the retail would gain approval from Planning Commission then the
retail can be removed. The retail is a provision, it was something that was suggested added so as not to
have to come before Planning Commission several times. Mr. Bryant indicated that since it was a
provision for the future that if there is urban development in the future it would be better received at that
time.
James Rohn asked about the industrial park at Johnstown and whether there is rail service. Mr. Vazquez
stated he was not sure if there was rail service. Mr. Rohn wants to see the retail come later not now.
John Folsom would like to have the retail aspect defined. Ms. Hatch stated that retail is open to the public.
Mr. Miller added that if the retail aspect was removed and the only trucks on site would be Pioneer.
James Rohn asked Mr. Morrison if it would be wrong to ask the public that testified earlier if it is agreeable
with them to take the retail aspect off and their opinion? Mr. Morrison stated dropping the retail would be
considered new evidence, the chair would have the agree. Mr. Miller stated it would be justified to re-open
strictly for the changes mentioned in the application.
Chair opened public portion for the removal of the retail changes only.
Chris Matheson stated he would like to see the case continued for another month for the homeowners to
get a presentation prepared for their side of the story.
Maybell Wilson indicated she has no change in opinion.
The Chair closed public portion.
Michael Miller objects to the retail portion. Weld County needs to develop the areas along the rail lines to
minimize the truck traffic in the county. The only way to alleviate this is to give an alternative means of
transportation. Mr. Millers initial objection was the traffic from the cars related to the retail. If the applicant
is willing to remove the retail aspect, he will be in favor of the application.
John Folsom asked Mr. Carroll about paving the road and the partial payment of such and if there needs
to be a traffic study. Mr. Carroll stated that the applicant will pay a percentage of the impact to the system.
Mr. Carroll stated that at this time the County would be responsible for 75% and that is not agreeable. Mr.
Folsom does not recall any requirement for treating the road. Mr. Carroll stated there is Development
Standard#21 which addresses dust abatement. Mr. Carroll has asked for dust abatement for 300 feet in
front of each residence on the haul route.
Michael Miller asked if any haul route has been established. Mr. Carroll stated it has not but they are
asking the applicant to identify one. There is a request in 2B for a road improvements agreement in which
the applicant identifies haul route from the site to nearest paved road. The agreement also has dust
control. Mr. Miller asked if Public Works would be in favor of a haul route east to CR 13. Mr. Carroll
stated that going to CR 13 would impact the least number of residences. Mr. Miller would recommend
directing all to CR 13. Mr. Carroll stated that would be the best situation for Public Works but there will still
be complaints that the trucks are hauling to the west.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Morrison if Planning Commission can specify a haul route. Mr. Morrison stated
the preference could be indicated. Mr. Miller would be in favor of the haul route being east to CR13 a
paved road.
Jacqueline Hatch suggested adding Development Standard#4 to state" No retail sales of material can
occur on this site"then re-number.
Bryant Gimlin moved to add Development Standard#4 and renumber. Chad Auer seconded.
Motion carried.
James Rohn moved to delete Development Standard #16, duplicate. Bryant Gimlin seconded. Motion
carried.
James Rohn moved to accept staff changes. Bryant Gimlin seconded. Motion carried.
James Rohn moved that Case AmUSR-935, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Bryant Gimlin seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
James Rohn commented the reason for approval is the applicant has complied with the sections quoted
by staff. Mr. Rohn added that the landscape material is less dangerous than some of the items that were
approved originally.
John Folsom commented the reason for approval are Section 23-2-220.A.1, Section 22-2-60.D.A.4 and
Section 23-3-40.R
Michael Miller commented that Section 22-2-170.C Goal 3 is met. Section 22-2-260.A.3 Policy 1.3 has
been met. This is a good use for a railroad spur which will decrease the traffic in the area. Section 22-2-
260.B.A Goal 2 has been met.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1483
APPLICANT: Martin & Berta Gutierrez
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots A& B RE-3375; Pt of the E2 Section 28, T2N, R66W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
Recreational facilities and uses including race tracks and race courses
(horse racing) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: Approximately 200 feet West of CR 31; approximately 1/4 mile South of
CR 18.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, provided information with regards to the referral from
the Sheriff's Department. The Deputy is available for questions regarding the referral or specific questions
in the area. The questions will be from the board. The referral discussed three major complaints received
from residents in the area, parking of vehicles along CR 31 creating a traffic hazard, parking in
neighboring driveways, spectators leaving property and urinating in public, spectators loitering or
trespassing. There are concerns for security onsite, lighting, safety and spectators who bring alcohol to
the events.
Les Weimer, Weld County Sheriff, provided additional information with regards to the proposal. There
have been several complaints received from the neighbors dealing with traffic problems, parking along the
roadway. Mr. Weimer's concern is there could be up to 1000 people and there are already concerns with
250 people it will only be worse. It will be a matter of time before there will be some major problems. Mr.
Miller indicated the application provided for adequate parking and restrooms, would those alleviate a lot of
the problems? Mr. Weimer stated it would alleviate the particular problems. The concern is sneaking
alcohol on site and leaving the event. The area only contains one deputy on duty and that is not adequate.
Mr. Miller asked if the suggestion for security on premises would assist. Mr. Weimer stated that is
essential but security can only do so much. Mr. Miller asked how big the area of the one deputy is. Mr.
Weimer stated it is approximately 1000 square miles. Mr. Weimer added that if an event is going on he
would spend more time there which takes away from the rest of the county citizens.
James Rohn asked if there is a concern about gambling. Mr. Weimer stated that illegal gambling is a
concern but more of a concern are the tempers that flare and fights that erupt. Gambling does not mix
with alcohol, it creates a volatile situation.
The Case Continued from the location:
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1483, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending
approval of the application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Staff
recommends the following changes:
The following conditions of approval shall be added to page 4 of the staff recommendation (Prior to
scheduling the Board of County Commissioners Hearing):
C. The applicants shall submit a traffic control plan to the Weld County Sheriff's Office,
Department of Planning Services and Department of Public Works. The traffic control plan shall be
approved by the Sheriff's Office or the applicant shall provide written evidence that an adequate
attempt has been made to address their concerns. (Department of Planning Services)
D. The applicants shall submit a security plan detailing how security will be provided at the
proposed horse racing events(who will be providing security, numbers of security personnel...)
To the Weld County Sheriff's Office and Department of Planning Services. The security plan shall
be approved by the Sheriff's Office or the applicant shall provide written evidence that an
adequate attempt has been made to address their concerns. (Department of Planning Services)
E. The applicants shall submit a lighting plan to the Weld County Sheriff's Office and Department
of Planning Services. The lighting plan shall be approved by the Sheriff's Office or the applicant
shall provide written evidence that an adequate attempt has been made to address their concerns.
(Department of Planning Services)
F. Evidence of liability insurance that will cover horse racing event held on the property shall be
submitted to the Weld County Sheriff's Office and Department of Planning Services. (Department
of Planning Services)
The following Development Standard shall be added as Development Standard #33 (page 9) (and
subsequent Development Standards renumbered accordingly):
"Sources of light shall be shielded so that beams or rays of light will not shine directly onto
adjacent properties; neither the direct nor reflected light from any light source may create a traffic
hazard to operators of motor vehicles on public or private streets;and no colored lights may be
used which may be confused with or construed as traffic control devices."(Department of
Planning Services)
James Rohn asked whether Development Standard #2 and Development Standard#34 seem to cancel
each other out. Mr. Gathman stated the Special Use Permit stays in tact as long as the property is owned
by the current owner, a non transferable clause can be done if the vesting language is needed. Mr. Rohn
asked about 2A and rather there will be restrooms other than port o potties along with hand washing
facilities. Char Davis, Weld County Health, stated this is an issue that the Health Department has been
dealing with, septic is being required for this site but vaults would be entertained. Hand washing would be
an issue that the Health Department would like to see. Mr. Miller indicated that public water is being
required. Ms. Davis indicated the well is not for commercial use but the applicant did want to provide
bottled water. Ms. Davis is not in favor of the bottled water unless they can ensure that every person
coming onto the site has access to water. There is the ability to get a commercial well permit. There will
be a lot of work to get quality water to the area. Mr. Rohn asked if the public hand washing facility is
something Planning Commission can request? Ms. Davis stated that the suggestion is septic system is
requested and hand washing will be an issue that will be dealt with accordingly.
Bryant Gimlin asked Mr. Carroll about the access road through the property to the parking in the back and
will this be adequate. Mr. Carroll stated there are two accesses a north and south. The south access
parallels the ditch to the tank battery with double gates, this appeared to be parking and it could be
expanded. Mr. Carroll added that an acre will equate to 100 vehicles for parking, there would need to be
10 acres designated for 1000 patrons for parking. Mr. Carroll suggests opening both access gates before
the race events to help alleviate parking on CR 31and no parking or staging on CR 31. Mr. Carroll asked
Mr. Morrison about the ability to post no parking signs. Mr. Morrison stated that he is unsure but it could
be asked of the Board of County Commissioners.
Char Davis added that they do have a livestock, irrigation and commercial well. Mr. Miller asked if the well
was specific to use? Ms. Davis stated there may be limitations through the state and the issue would be
water quality. Mr. Morrison stated that wells are broadly classified, one commercial use can be used for
another without having to go back to the State, the issue will be quality not classification.
John Folsom asked Mr. Carroll if there was adequate parking for 1000 visitors. Mr. Carroll stated that
there are 2-3 acres blocked off that looked temporary and the area could be expanded but it would be into
existing alfalfa or hay fields. Mr. Carroll stated that they have the area as long as it is identified as
overflow. Public Works would be more comfortable if the applicants utilize what they have now and
identify the overflow area on site. Mr. Folsom asked if there should be provisions for ADA requirements?
Mr. Gathman stated that the standard is 1 space per every 20 spaces. This raises some issues with the
addition of the buildings and vault restrooms how would you get to the facility? The area is an open space
other than the parking and possible temporary bleachers. Mr. Folsom asked if staff feels comfortable with
the standards regarding ADA parking requirements. Mr. Gathman stated that is not a specific condition
but it could be added.
Michael Miller stated that there is typically no variation from ADA standards when there is a gathering of
public. Mr. Gathman stated that if businesses were open to the public there needs to be ADA parking. It
needs to be addressed. Mr. Gathman indicated this is not a typical commercial venture, meaning this is
for fund raising. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Morrison about the commercial impact with regards to ADA. Mr.
Morrison stated the ADA requirements fall back to the operator of the facility and it is enforced on a
complaint basis and there is not an exception that would remove the requirement for this type of facility.
The ADA requirements can be brought before the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Miller asked
about the commercial aspect, if money changes hands it is a commercial venture regardless of the intent
of where the money goes. Mr. Morrison stated that in terms of the County it is viewed as commercial
rather it is not for profit or for profit. The not for profit relies on the ability to obtain special licensing for
things like liquor for one day events that cannot be done it the operation was for profit. The liquor code
drives the events to be not for profit.
John Folsom asked Mr. Carroll about his feeling on having a turn lane on CR 31, if there are 1000 people
there will be staging on CR 31 to get into the parking lots. Mr. Carroll stated to justify the turn lanes there
has to be a traffic identifying the number of users, peak hours, background traffic, how long staging and
turning. The need for turn lanes needs to be warranted, the application does not identify how often the
facility is used. Mr. Gathman added the applicants have indicated weekends, holidays and during the
week there may be some practicing. It does not specify if this is every weekend year around.
Martin Gutierrez, applicant, added that they do not want to do a commercial operation they would like to
continue helping those in need. There was a great need for those under privileged. They do not want do
to a commercial venture because it is more difficult to sell the property. The applicants indicated that if
they want to make this as simple as they can. Mr. Gutierrez added that they do not want commercial
because of septic systems and they want something that can be removed if need be. The request would
be for port o potties. Mr. Gutierrez stated they have State approval to use the water in a commercial way.
The intent it to take the water and place it by the bathrooms during the event and can also drink this. A
line will be utilized, the use will be on weekends only. The past problems with the traffic was due to the
limitations of spectators due to the request of the Sheriff's Department. The gates were closed and
everyone started parking on the roads. The spectators did not understand that there was a limit on the
number. They did not understand why some were in and some were not allowed in, the permit was for
200-300 people. Berta Gutierrez, applicant, added they also have a boarding and training license through
the State. There is enough land to board horses. They do have insurance that covers everything. There
are times there is traffic during the week due to the boarding facility. The events have been ceased since
the Sheriff approached them. The Sheriff mentioned friendly betting in not illegal but as owners there is
no gambling. There are misconceptions and this is really not what it is perceived as. Ms. Gutierrez added
they intend to address every issue including the traffic and security. There is no alcohol allowed on site.
The events do not always bring 1000 people, that is the maximum. This benefits all those that are in
need, the city and County because those people utilize the surrounding services for food and gas.
James Rohn asked Ms. Gutierrez is the maximum number of 1000 people would be too many for the
property or would it be better to scale down the number to 500 or 600. Ms. Gutierrez stated that there are
not always 1000 people, it depends on fund raiser as to the number of people. There is no way to tell how
many spectators will show up to an event.
Michael Miller asked if event parking filled up would they be willing to open the field for overflow. Ms.
Gutierrez stated they would open the fields to overflow parking. The only impact would be driving into the
overflow area because of the location, with both access roads open they should be able to handle plus
there will be traffic control. Mr. Miller asked about the water and sewer situation and the willingness to run
water and sewer to event area, and where would the water go if there. Mr. Gutierrez stated that a
container can be placed in the area. There is also a ditch they have permission from the ditch rider to
drain into. Mr. Gutierrez stated they can design a vault system. Mr. Miller asked Ms. Davis about event
that vary in number and how many port o potties would be needed. Ms. Davis stated there needs to be 1
per 20 people but maybe more. There would be approximately 10-20 facilities. Ms. Davis added there
are port o potties with hand washing and this would satisfy the Health Department. Also a
recommendation for drinking fountains in the area. The vaults would need to be pumped more often.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Yvonne Gonzalez, neighbor, indicated concerns with road. The vehicles are bumper to bumper and they
cannot get out of the driveway. There are times when they are parked in the driveway, getting out and
urinating on dumpster throwing beer bottles on road. The trash is left for her to clean up. There is
constantly trespassing due to lack of deputies. There is alcohol on the premises brought from the
separate vehicles. There is fighting on site regarding who will go in first. Before the gates are opened the
music is loud and there is partying. Who will be responsible for the clean up? Who directs the traffic
when can only go one way? Who accountable for all of this people, people should be accountable for
themselves. Do the owners need to be called every time this happens? The spectators do not follow the
rules of no parking. Who help the neighbor in the situation?
Michael Miller asked if adequate parking was provided would this alleviate the concerns. Ms. Gonzalez
does not agree with the proposal no matter it will not clear up no matter what the restrictions.
Adam Martinez, neighbor, indicated concerns with the traffic. Who will control the traffic? The owners are
in the arena therefor they do not know what is going on outside. The spectators could come in drunk and
should not be allowed to continue to drink. 1000 people cannot be controlled or monitored. There are
spectators with guns on site that are brought in. There are homes in close proximity with children and
their safety is a large concern. The benefits are good but there is gambling with fighting. There is no way
one deputy sheriff can control.
Benjamin Hansford Sr, neighbor, indicated concerns with the number of people attending. There is never
under 250 people attending. The gates are closed until certain times and the traffic before that time is
horrible. The roads have broken beer bottles and trash. The traffic is horrible on the weekends that this
occurs. There are drunks, music, fights and beer bottles everywhere in the area. The concern is not with
the benefit aspect but this cannot be controlled. There is no remedy as to the way this is being handled.
James Rohn asked how long this activity has been going on? Mr. Hansford stated at least 2 years on and
off.
Anita Owens, neighbor, indicated concerns with the fire hazard. The area is a fire hazard because of the
fields in the area. The fire department is small and there is a huge danger. Security has no enforcement
they cannot arrest and basically cannot do much.
Mary Golfus, neighbor, indicated concerns with the proposal. There was a video provided. Mr. Miller
stated that they have not seen this. There are several neighbors that are opposed to it. The question is if
Planning Commission does not want it across from their yard do not put it in ours.
Vera Bludgett, neighbor, indicated the concerns with this proposal. The traffic blocks CR 31 and Caroline
Avenues. The spectators park in the county shop until they can go into the gate. There are children
running up and down the road and this is a danger to them. The dust is a huge concern due to health
problems. Oppose this strongly.
John Ferrell, majority mineral owner, has two issues. The first issue is when the County built their shop it
was determined the existing oil well would be shut down because of safety. 1000 cars with the existing
wells or tanks would be a safety hazard. The second issue is he was never contacted by the operators,
either Merritt or Encana, when permission was granted and the are the lessors of the property. Mr. Ferrell
would not support commercial development that would infringe on the rights of the mineral owners. If an
exception is made for this to be a commercial then what other exceptions are going to be made. The
public needs to be represented. Planning Commission needs to represent the safety of the neighbors and
support the surrounding community.
Gaylord Meyer, neighbor to the north, indicated concerns. Alcohol was served once on the property once
and it was indicated it would never be done again. Mr. Meyers hayfield is north and trash has been picked
up in the field. There have been some spectators that climb the fence and go in and out on the north side.
The ditch road is for Fulton Ditch users only and there have been times people have been on this road.
They have turned around in the fields and destroyed parts of the field. There has been a fatality on
property, someone got kicked by horse. Was there any safety precautions taken by a commission to look
into? There have been syringes found on property to south. The area is not big enough for a race track to
handle safely. The waste water is not allowed in the waste ditch of the Fulton Ditch. The bottom ditch is
the waste ditch. Mr. Meyer opposes.
Dean Resdim, neighbor, agrees with everything that has been said. Who will control the traffic with that
many vehicles trying to get out of one land driveways? If there was an emergency situation no one would
be able to escape. The response time for the Sheriff is approximately 30-45 minutes. The event is out of
control and will not get any better especially when the numbers are increasing. Opposes this.
George Tendick, neighbor Hudson, member American Quarter Horse Association. Mr. Tendick added the
first time Arapahoe Park was opened all the roads in the area were completely blocked. There are several
types of events that block roads. There are occasions when the best planning goes bad and there are
times when unusual situations exist. There was trash in the road at the time as well as the area in
general. Traffic is a problem on CR 31, CR 16 and CR 18 but the horse racing is not responsible for all of
it, it adds to it no doubt. There is enough room on the road internally, there are two gates at 12 feet wide.
Everyone agrees that there is not enough police protection from the Sheriff. The Gutierrez's have an
enormous heart for giving. It does take time for people to acclimate to this way of doing things, but those
are criminal issues and not something that can be dealt with in a land use issue. Horse racing has gotten
a bad reputation, they have closed Centennial, Arapahoe has been taken far away from the community
and the racetrack has not done well due to governing. The locations for racing are limited. The
agricultural interests of the surrounding area has declined due to not having a place to race the horses to
race. The racing is an enjoyment and there have been several occasions that there have been no
problems that have been mentioned. If not a safe place to run would not run the horses. There are
accidents as with everything else in life. As long as confined to property and the applicants do everything
that is required of them the other issues will resolve themselves.
Melinda Short, neighbor, agree with the residents. There is not the infrastructure needed to support this
activity. The fund raiser is a noble cause but not in the area. There area is a quiet rural area and Ms.
Short would like to see it that way.
Florence Priest, neighbor, someone should look at the possibility of terrorism in the area. Ms. Priest has
nothing against the racing but does believe the traffic is a hazard.
The Chair closed public portion.
Chris Gathman indicated the video is ready and has been forwarded to a specific spot addressing the
parking on CR 31. Mr. Miller asked the Planning Commission if it was needed. Mr. Morrison stated that it
is only if the board wants to see this, the author is not present at the time. Mr. Miller indicated that it was
not needed.
James Rohn quoted from the Comprehensive Plan Section 22-2-100.6 and asked Mr. Gathman if he felt
this section has been meet. Mr. Gathman stated it is partially within the IGA and this is the reason for the
urban scale. The scale of the use is urban given the number of people. There is a commercial well
onsite, there is not public sewer or water. Technically from an infrastructure it is not urban but based on
scale of the use it is urban. Mr. Rohn commented when he is talking urban in infrastructure he is talking
roadways and if they can handle 1000 people. Mr. Carroll indicated CR 31 is classified as a minor arterial
roadway that can handle 1000 per day easily. Mr. Rohn quoted from the Comprehensive Plan Section 22-
3-50.B P. Goal 2 and asked if this section has been met. Mr. Gathman stated that roads, parking and
area needed for parking have been discussed. The bathroom facilities need to be addressed by the
Health Department. Mr. Rohn stated that the health safety and welfare of the current residents needs to
be reviewed in dealing with the aftermath of the events. Mr. Rohn continued with Section 23-2-220 and if
the intent has been met. Mr. Gathman stated that this type of facility is listed as a use by special review in
the agricultural zone district. The applicants do have the ability to apply for the use in this zone district.
Mr. Miller stated that staff has made their opinion as to whether it meets the criteria in the staff comments
the Planning Commission job is to make individual interpretations as to whether they have met the criteria.
Martin Gutierrez, applicant, added that he is sorry for the things that have happened but on those two or
three occasions they applicants have called the Sheriff to give them a hand. These problems occurred
when the gates were closed. The site is taken care of and he cannot control all the people off the
property. There have been Sunday mornings in which he has taken guys to clean the roads after the
events. The trash was his concern so he respected the health of the neighbors and he helped because it
was his event. Mr. G is trying his best to control the event. The traffic is one time a week when the events
are done. There will be no security the applicant will have the Sheriff Department deputies that work
overtime. They will hire what is needed. Mr. Gutierrez does not believe in security but he does believe in
the Sheriffs Department. There traffic is controlled once it leaves the premises, one car at a time is
released from the site. The applicants have been doing this for two years with one accident. There have
never been fights and no guns are allowed. They have searched for alcohol. It is impossible to search for
every car for everything. Mr. Gutierrez cannot control everything but he can control what happens on his
property. The intent was not to move to the area to trash the area, the site is a great place. The people in
the area live the way they want to and Mr. Gutierrez will not tell them to do differently, the trash is from
everyone. There are people doing the wrong thing in the area but he can only control what can on his
property. There will be six bathrooms, three for men and three for women. The applicants will spend
money out of their pocket to get the facility after that the money will go to charity. The applicants want to
continue to benefit those in need. The applicants will help anyone that needs help.
Chris Gathman indicated that a traffic control plan would need to be submitted. Mr. Miller pointed out
there is a request by Public Works for one. Mr. Gathman was not sure whether the ADA requirements
could be a part of that. Mr. Carroll stated that the ADA spots would need to be identified in the traffic plan
submitted.
Bryant Gimlin moved to accept staff changes. Doug Ochsner seconded. Motion carried
Bruce Fitzgerald commented this is too intense of use. It does not matter if this is once a day or once a
week, the traffic would still be to cumbersome. Mr. Fitzgerald cannot support this application.
James Rohn commented the applicants have been doing this in violation for two years and if they have not
been able to figure out how to do a parking plan, address the noise, trash, restrooms by now it will not get
fixed.
Bryant Gimlin commented that is the reason for the permit. It implements a parking plan, trash control
and security plan that has not been on site. It makes the events safer and better managed. It would
mitigate the impact on the surrounding neighborhood. The place is clean and the applicant does what he
can do to help others and controls the source of the problems. The biggest parking problem was when
the tried to shut gates and limit the number of people. The applicant is willing to have overflow with a
parking plan with Public Works. The dual access helps mitigate the concerns. Mr. Gimlin is in favor of the
applicant, they have a good thing going on.
Michael Miller asked if there was anything in the conditions that addressed medical response for
emergency services. Mr. Gathman stated he does not recall anything in the standards that addresses
this.
Doug Ochsner commented this plan does give the applicants rules to follow and if they do not live up to
them they will be in violation and will have to be shut down. The sole concern is if it has gotten too big and
to large for the area.
Chad Auer commented his concerns were around fire and emergency service access. The permit does
impose boundaries and rules but the use has such a significant with adverse impact on the health safety
and welfare of the citizens. The safety is not just a concern for those adjacent but those attending the
event. The motivations is good but there are a lot of ways to raise money for those in need. There are
ways that would not have such a negative impact on the community. Mr. Auer is not in support of the
proposal.
Michael Miller commented this is a tough case. It is an impact on community but the Development
Standard and conditions alleviate the concerns but not all of them. It needs to be understood there is a
mixture of cultures and it is difficult for some to grasp. It has been circulated how the migrant community
is a burden and does not contribute but this is a case where the Hispanic Community is making an
attempt to contribute in a manner that their culture understand and accepts. There are not very many fund
raisers in our culture that would draw this attention and the participation of the Hispanic Community. Mr.
Miller has never seen any fund raisers that have developed this amount of money that has this type of
participation from the Hispanic Community. Traffic is a huge concern but the applicant is working with the
Sheriff not some base line outfit. Mr. Miller believes the applicants deserve a chance to succeed not shut
the door. It is a unique opportunity and the applicants are making an attempt to help those in need. This
is a way to give back to our community. It is important to give them the opportunity. It is going to be a
process that others need to buy into to make work. Perhaps working with the applicant on suggestions to
alleviate the concerns would be a start. This seems to be a conflict of culture adverse to a legal situation
where someone is intentionally violating the law. There are things that are going on that need to be
changed. A possible options could be to sell a limited number of tickets to limit the number of people that
come.
Chad Auer asked for clarification "this support or not support for this is not support or not support for
benevolence or a cultural activity?"
James Rohn commented the drinking and gambling will be something that can get out of hand. Mr. Miller
added that the addition of the Sheriff's Deputy may change the situation.
Bruce Fitzgerald added that the use is too intense for population. It would basically double size of the
area. It is to close to a community and Mr. Fitzgerald does not believe it would work. Mr. Miller added it
will be a struggle, but in the event 1000 is deemed too many, sell fewer tickets at the next events. It will
take some time to determine what actually works. Mr. Miller is in favor of working on it until a workable
scenario is developed which could be a limited number of tickets sold. It seems to be heavy handed to
say they cannot do this. Mr. Fitzgerald stated there is nothing in the Development Standard that says a
limited number of tickets can be sold. The limit is to 1000 people. Mr. Miller added that if another event
occurs and the terms of the approval are violated with the Sheriff's Deputies being there, it is very easy to
revoke the permit.
James Rohn added he would rather put something in the terms to limit the amount of tickets rather than
allow them that large of number, 1000 people is not a good mix. Mr. Miller stated the limitations can be
done in the security portion of the plan that needs to be submitted to the Sheriff Department. Mr. Auer
added the idea of supporting this application is affording applicant the opportunity to try out and see what
works and it has not worked for the two years it has been going on. The applicant is not starting with a
fresh slate there is evidence the impact is adverse, perhaps another venue would be more appropriate.
John Folsom added it comes down to a choice as to what is right for the applicant and what is right for the
community. The real problem lies within the government in that it does not have the ability to enforce the
requirements that are placed on the USR. The intent is admirable, the overriding concern has to be for
the health, safety and welfare of the citizens. If the do not conform to the requirements the process to
revoke is a long process.
James Rohn moved Case USR-1483, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the
Planning Commissions recommendation of denial. Chad Auer seconded the motion.
Denial based on Weld County Code Sections:
22-2-100.B
22-3-50B
23-2-220 A.2-A.4 and A.7
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Michael Miller, no; Bryant Gimlin, no; James Rohn, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner, no;
Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried.
Bryant Gimlin commented that the application has meet the requirements of Section 23-2-260 and the
Development Standard and Conditions have mitigated any adverse impact to the surrounding community.
Michael Miller echoed Bryant Gimlin comments
Meeting adjourned at 5:30pm
Respectfully submitted
� L
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello