HomeMy WebLinkAbout20042398 BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by John Folsom, that the following resolution be introduced for denial by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1458
APPLICANT: Kenneth Shannon
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW4 of Section 29, Ti N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a use
permitted as a Use by Special Review, (Oil & Gas Support& Services) in
the A (Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to Hwy 85 business (CR 27); approximately 1/4 mile
south of CR 6.
be recommended unfavorably 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 staff that the applicant has not 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 NOT consistent with Chapter 22 and any other
applicable code provisions or ordinance in effect.
Section 23-2-30.A.1. - The proposed Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review
Permit for a mineral resource development facility(Oil and Gas Support and Services)in the
(A) Agricultural Zone District is not consistent with Article XII, Coordinated Planning
Agreements for the City of Fort Lupton. Section 19-12-10 states"This Coordinated Planning
Agreement is made and entered into effective as of the 14th day of November, 2000, A.D.
between the County of Weld, State of Colorado,whose address is 915 10th Street, P.O. Box
758, Greeley, CO 80632, hereinafter called the "County," and the City of Fort Lupton, a
Colorado Municipal corporation, whose address is 130 S. McKinley, P O. Box 148, Fort
Lupton, CO 80621, hereinafter called the "municipality."
Section 19-12-50, titled Planning Coordination states "This Agreement is intended to be a
Comprehensive Development Plan adopted and implemented pursuant to Section 29-20-
105(2), C.R.S. Following the execution of this Agreement by both parties, County
Development approvals in the municipality's Referral Area will be processed and determined
in accordance with the following:
Section 19-12-50.B Development outside Urban Growth Area, states "To the extent legally
possible, the County will disapprove proposals for Urban Development in areas of the
Municipal Referral Area outside the Urban Growth Area."
This application was reviewed utilizing the definitions outlined in the Inter-Governmental
Agreement (IGA) for the City of Fort Lupton. By definition, this application is considered
development,as stated in the IGA, "Any land use requiring regulatory approval by the elected
governing body of the applicable party in the Urban Growth Area...." Given this condition,the
Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of the application.
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.
Planning Commission recommends the following be attached as Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards:
1. Prior to scheduling a Board of County Commissioners hearing: EXHIBIT
2004-2398
Resolution USR-1458
Kenneth Shannon
Page 2
A. The applicant shall submit a detailed signage plan to the Weld County Department of
Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
B. The applicant shall provide the Department of Planning Services with a lease agreement with
the Union Pacific Railroad for the use of the Railroad right-of-way. (Department of Planning
Services & Union Pacific Railroad)
2. Prior to recording the plat:
A. The applicant shall submit a revised Landscape/Screening Plan for review and approval to
the Department of Planning Services addressing the concerns in the referral received
January 19, 2004 from Kim Ogle, Planning Manager. (Department of Planning Services)
B. The applicant shall submit to the Department of Planning Services a maintenance plan in
accordance with Section 23-2-250.6.7 of the Weld County Code for review and approval.
(Department of Planning Services)
C. The applicant shall submit a dust abatement plan for review and approval, to the
Environmental Health Services, Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
D. The applicant shall submit evidence to the Department of Planning Services, from the
Colorado Division of Water Resources,demonstrating that the well is appropriately permitted
for the commercial use. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
E. The applicant shall submit a waste handling plan,for approval,to the Environmental Health
Services Division of the Weld County Department of Public Health& Environment. The plan
shall include at a minimum, the following:
1) A list of wastes which are expected to be generated on site (this should include
expected volumes and types of waste generated).
2) A list of the type and volume of chemicals expected to be stored on site.
3) The waste handler and facility where the waste will be disposed(including the facility
name, address, and phone number). (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
F. In accordance with the Underground and Above Ground Storage Tank Regulations(7 CCR
1101-14) a spillage retention berm shall be constructed around the oil or fuel tanks. The
volume retained by the spillage berm should be greater than the volume of the largest tank
inside the berm. Alternative protective measures may be allowed provided they comply with
the Above Ground Storage Tank Regulations. Alternately, the applicant can provide
evidence from the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment(CDL&E),Oil Inspection
Section that they are not subject to these requirements. Evidence of approval from the
Department of Public Health and Environment shall be provided to the Department of
Planning Services. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
G. Section 23-3-250.A.1 of the Weld County Code states that users of land shall provide and
maintain storm water retention facilities designed to retain the storm water runoff in excess of
historic flow from the undeveloped site. The storm water retention facility on a developed site
shall be designed for a one-hundred-year storm. The storm water retention facility shall be
designed and operated to release the retained water at a quantity and rate not to exceed the
quantity and rate of a five-year storm falling on the undeveloped site. The application
materials state that the storm water will run into a Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way. The
Union Pacific Railroad in their referral received January 26, 2004 stated they"will not allow
the use of the right-of-way as a detention pond or site for storage of waste motor oil is AST's.
Any development of the adjacent property must include the location of the detention ponds
Resolution USR-1458
Kenneth Shannon
Page 3
and AST's off of Railroad property." The applicant shall provide the Department of Planning
Services with evidence that a solution has been reached to the satisfaction of the Department
of Public Works. (Department of Planning Services & Union Pacific Railroad)
H. The applicant shall attempt to meet with the Weld County Sheriffs office to discuss"Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design". This program reduces the likelihood of criminal
activity at a specific location by"hardening" it to crime. (Sheriffs Office)
The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements(concerns)of the Greater Brighton
Fire Protection District,as stated in the referral response dated January 16,2004. Evidence
of such shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Planning Services)
J. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements(concerns)of the City of Fort Lupton,
Planning Department,as stated in the referral response dated February 10,2004. Evidence
of such shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Planning Services)
K. The West Adams Soil Conservation District has provided information regarding the soils on
the site. The applicant shall review the information and use it to positively manage on site
soils. (Department of Planning Services)
L. The applicant shall enter into an Improvements Agreement according to policy regarding
collateral for improvements and post adequate collateral for all transportation(access drive,
parking areas, etcetera)and non-transportation (plant materials,fencing, screening,water,
signage etcetera). The agreement and form of collateral shall be reviewed by County Staff
and accepted by the Board of County Commissioners prior to recording the USR plat. Or the
applicant may submit evidence that all the work has been completed and approved by the
Department of Planning Services and the Department of Public Work. (Department of
Planning Services)
M. The plat shall be amended to delineate the following:
1. All plats shall be labeled USR-1458 (Department of Planning Services)
2. The Use by Special Review Plat shall be prepared in accordance with Section 23-2-
260.D of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
3. The attached Development Standards. (Department of Planning Services)
4. County Road 27 is designated on the Weld County Classification Plan as a collector
status road requires an 80 foot right-of-way at full build out. There is presently a 60
foot right-of-way. A total of 40 feet from the centerline of County Road 27 shall be
delineated on the plat as right-of-way reservation for future expansion of County
Road 27. This road is maintained by Weld County. (Department of Public Works)
5. Both access points onto County Road 27 shall be located to match with the existing
access on the west side of County Road 27. The access points shall have a width of
at least 24 feet and have adequate turning radiuses to accommodate two-way traffic.
Written evidence of an approved access configuration form the Department of
Public Works shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Public Works & Department of Planning Services)
6. The access gates shall be set back from County Road 27 and fenced at the future
right-of-way line creating additional space for customers or employees to pull off
County Road 27 if the gate is not open. (Department of Public Works)
Resolution USR-1458
Kenneth Shannon
Page 4
7. The north approach shall be paved from the existing asphalt on County Road 27 with
adequate turning radiuses through the gate for approximately 50 feet. The south
approach shall be paved adjacent to County Road 27 with adequate turning radiuses
through the gate to the office area with a small parking lot to accommodate up to six
visitors or customers. The parking lot shall conform to all standards of the American
with Disability Act. (Department of Public Works)
8. Off-street parking spaces shall be surfaced with gravel, recycled asphalt, or the
equivalent and shall be graded to prevent drainage problems. Each parking space
shall be equipped with wheel guards or curb stops where needed to prevent vehicles
from extending beyond the boundaries of the spaces and from coming into contact
with other vehicles, walls, fences, or plantings. (Department of Public Works)
9. The proposed facility has office, warehouse and storage uses. The parking
requirement for office uses are one space for every two employees plus one space
per 500 SF. The area delineated on the drawings submitted is 2800 SF,with written
documentation stating that the number of employees on premises will be five (5),
therefore nine (9) parking spaces are required for the office area. The warehouse
area requires one space for every 1000 SF of area. The area delineated on the
drawings submitted is 40000 SF, therefore forty(40)spaces are required, plus one
for every three employees. The application materials state the numbers of
individuals utilizing the site daily is fifteen. Per Code, the total number of parking
required for this facility is 49 parking spaces of which one must meet the
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Given the number of employees
for this facility,staff will require twenty parking spaces, including the Americans with
Disabilities Act parking space. (Department of Planning Services)
10. The location of loading zone shall be in compliance with Section 23-4-50 of the Weld
County Code and be delineated on the plat for review and approval from the
Department of Public Works and the Department of Planning Services. (Department
of Planning Services)
11. Section 23-3-250.A.6 of the Weld County Code addresses the issue of trash
collection areas. Areas used for storage or trash collection shall be screened from
adjacent public rights-of-way and all adjacent properties. These areas shall be
designed and used in a manner that will prevent wind or animal scattered trash.
(Department of Planning Services)
12. Section 23-3-250.A.9 of the Weld County Code addresses outside storage. Uses
involving outdoor storage of vehicles, equipment or materials when permitted shall
be screened from public rights-of-way and all adjacent properties. The application
materials and supporting drawings do not indicate that a fence is located at the
perimeter of the property. Given the nature of this proposed business,a perimeter
opaque fence is required. The applicant shall submit documentation as to how the
outside storage will be screened from public rights-of-way and all adjacent properties
for review and approval. (Department of Planning Services)
13. Should exterior lighting be a part of this facility,all light standards shall be delineated
on the Site Plan Review Plat for review and approval by the Department of Planning
Services. (Department of Planning Services)
14. The plat shall delineate a ten(10)foot wide utility easement around the perimeters of
the properties. (United Power)
15. The applicant shall address the site distance at both driveways associated with the
Stutz and Sipres properties for adequate site distance in both directions
O. 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)
Resolution USR-1458
Kenneth Shannon
Page 5
3. Upon completion of 1. and 2. above the applicant shall submit a Mylar plat along with all other
documentation required as Conditions of Approval. The Mylar plat shall be recorded in the office of
the Weld County Clerk and Recorder by Department of Planning Services' Staff. The plat shall be
prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld County Code. The
Mylar plat and additional requirements shall be submitted within thirty(30)days from the date of the
Board of County Commissioners resolution. The applicant shall be responsible for paying the
recording fee. (Department of Planning Services)
4. The Department of Planning Services respectively requests the surveyor provide a digital copy of this
Use by Special Review. Acceptable CAD formats are.dwg, .dxf,and .dgn(Microstation); acceptable
GIS formats are ArcView shapefiles,Arclnfo Coverages and Arclnfo Export files format type is .e00.
The preferred format for Images is.tif(Group 4). (Group 6 is not acceptable). This digital file may be
sent to mads(o)co.weld.co.us. (Department of Planning Services)
5. Prior to Building Permit:
A. The applicant shall submit evidence of a Colorado Discharge Permit System or
CDPS permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
(DCPS&E),Water Quality Control Division,to satisfy requirements as delineated in
5 CCR-1002-61. Alternately, the applicant can provide evidence from CDPH&E
that they are not subject to the CDPS requirements. (Department of Public Health
and Environment)
B. Scaled elevational drawings of the structures shall be provided to the Department of
Building Inspection. The setback and offset shall be verified given the existing
proposed site conditions. Evidence of compliance shall be submitted to the
Department of Planning Services. (Department of Building Inspection)
6. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy:
A. An individual sewage disposal system s required for the proposed facilities and shall
be installed according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
B. The septic system(s) is/are required to be designed by a Colorado Registered
Professional Engineer according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal
Regulations. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
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
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Kenneth Shannon
USR-1458
1. The Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a mineral resource development
facility (Oil and Gas Support and Services) in the (A)Agricultural Zone District., as indicated in the
application materials on file and subject to the Development Standards stated hereon.(Department of
Planning Services)
2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 23-8-10 of the Weld
County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
3. Hours of operation are 6:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. as stated in the application material. (Department of
Planning Services)
4. The site is limited to no more than five (5) employees as stated in the application material.
(Department of Planning Services)
5. Uses shall be located,designed and operated in accordance with the air quality standards established
by the Colorado Air Pollution Control Commission. The applicant shall meet the established
standards set by the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment. (Department of
Planning Services)
6. Property shall be maintained in such a manner that grasses and weeds are not permitted to grow
taller than twelve (12) inches. In no event shall the property owners allow the growth of noxious
weeds. (Department of Planning Services)
7. Should noxious weeds exist on the property or become established as a result of the proposed
development the applicant/landowner shall be responsible for controlling the noxious weeds,pursuant
to Chapter 15, Articles I and II of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
8. Sources of light shall be shielded so that light rays will not shine directly onto adjacent properties
where such would cause a nuisance or interfere with the use on the adjacent properties in
accordance with the plan. 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. No colored lights may be
used which may be confused with or constructed as traffic control devices. (Department of Planning
Services)
9. The historical flow patterns and run-off amounts will be maintained on site in such a manner that it will
reasonable preserve the natural character of the area and prevent property damage of the type
generally attributed to run-off rate and velocity increases,diversions,concentration and/or unplanned
ponding of storm run-off. (Department of Public Works)
10. 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)
11. The applicant shall operate in accordance with the approved"waste handling plan". (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
12. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. This is not meant to include those
wastes specifically excluded from the definition of solid waste in the Solid Waste Disposal Sites and
Facilities Act, 30-20-100.5, C.R.S., as amended. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
13. 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)
Resolution USR-1458
Kenneth Shannon
Page 2
14. Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions shall be controlled on this site. The facility shall be
operated in accordance with the approved dust abatement plan at all times. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
15. The facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Commercial Zone
District. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
16. Adequate hand washing and toilet facilities shall be provided for employees and visitors.(Department
of Public Health and Environment)
17. 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)
18. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of the Underground and Above Ground Storage Tank
Regulations (7 CCR 1101-14). (Department of Public Health and Environment)
19. 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)
20. A permanent, adequate water supply shall be provided for drinking and sanitary purposes
(commercial well). (Department of Public Health and Environment)
21. If applicable, the applicant shall obtain a Storm Water Discharge Permit from the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment,Water Quality Control Division.(Department of Public
Health and Environment)
22. Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to adhere to
the fee structure of the Weld County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11) (Department of
Planning Services)
23. The landscaping on site shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape/screening
plan. (Department of Planning Services)
24. The property owner shall allow any mineral owner the right of ingress or egress for the purposes of
exploration development,completion,recompletion,re-entry,production and maintenance operations
associated with existing or future operations located on these lands. (Department of Planning
Services)
25. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of
Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code.
26. The applicant shall permit the neighbor access to the existing septic system for maintenance
purposes. When the septic system fails the new septic system shall be placed on the respective lot
27. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of
Section 23-2-250,Weld County Code.
28. Personnel from the Weld County Government shall be granted access onto the property at any
reasonable time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the
Development Standards stated herein and all applicable Weld County regulations.
29. 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.
Resolution USR-1458
Kenneth Shannon
Page 3
30. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing
Development Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Development Standards may be
reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners.
Motion seconded by James Rohn
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Michael Miller
John Folsom
Bryant Gimlin
Stephen Mokray
Bruce Fitzgerald
James Rohn
Tonya Strobel
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
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.
.r.
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 July 20, 2004.
Dated� yth� �
e 20th of July,, 2004.
�
b
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
- < c -
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, July 20, 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 _.l)
Bryant Gimlin Absent Y i 1 L.12
John Folsom C) r.a -J
Stephan Mokray Absent
James Rohn
Bruce Fitzgerald F, 1
Tonya Strobel Absent
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
Also Present: Char Davis, Pam Smith, Don Carroll, Peter Schei, Jacqueline Hatch
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on July 6,2004,was
approved as read.
The following item will be continued:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1475
APPLICANT: Samuel Clark
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part 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 a requesting a continuance to August 17,
2004 to allow the applicant time to notify mineral owners..
The following item will be removed from the consent agenda and continued due to notification error:
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 '/:mile east of CR 1.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services, gave a brief explanation of the circumstances
surrounding this continuance. The legal notification was incorrect. The case will be continued to August 17,
2004.
The following items are on the Consent Agenda: `* -
CASE NUMBER: USR-1458
APPLICANT: Kenneth Shannon
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW4 of Section 29, TIN, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a use
permitted as a Use by Special Review, (Oil & Gas Support& Services) in
the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to Hwy 85 business (CR 27); approximately 1/4 mile
south of CR 6.
James Rohn moved to accept the Consent Agenda. Doug Ochsner seconded. Motion carried.
The following Items will be Heard:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1480
APPLICANT: Mildred Mae Sarchet LLC/Arrested Oil Field Services
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B RE-3668; pt of N2 NW4 of Section 35, T3N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Mineral
resource development facility including an oil and a gas support,and service
facility in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 21 Y; and south of and adjacent to CR 28.
Jacqueline Hatch,Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1480,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 letter from the neighbor indicating the operation has been there, but there was
no indication from Ms. Salzman, Zoning Compliance Officer, there was a violation. Ms. Hatch stated there
was an approved RE and with the site inspection of that RE it was determined a business was operating. The
property owner was then instructed to apply for a USR to address the business.
John Folsom asked if there was documentation in the packet that gives Mr. Brown authority to sign for the
application. Ms.Hatch indicated that Mr.Sarchet has the authority to sign and he is the owner of the property,
the Browns are leasing the property. Mr. Folsom asked about the questionnaire indicating three employees
and there being no signatures. Ms. Hatch indicated they are not required to sign the questionnaire, but Mr.
Sarchet has signed the application.
Bruce Fitzgerald stated the application was submitted by the tenant and the comments indicate a vested
property right, but who would the vested property right be for? Ms. Hatch stated Mr. Sarchet was told a USR
would need to be done but since this was not his business he had the tenant do the paperwork. Mr.Sarchet
did review the paperwork and sign off on it. Mr. Sarchet, the owner of the property if fully aware of the
business and it operation. Mr. Fitzgerald asked for clarification with regard to the property right. Ms Hatch
indicated the vested right goes with the property.
Michael Miller asked if there was a condition indicating the USR is for the existing tenant only,when or if he
leaves the USR will be no longer valid. Ms. Hatch stated there is not a condition in place now but one can be
added as a Development Standard.
Michael Miller asked about 2A addressing a reasonable attempt to be compatible with the area. Ms. Hatch
indicated that was from the code.
Robert Sarchet, property owner, indicated he does have the authority. The letter of objection came from the
home to the east. They would like for nothing to happen on the ground due to their view to the west,the view
could be disrupted. The Browns described the business operation in the submittal though Mr.Sarchet did get
the well permit and the cost was split because that would be a benefit to both. The operation is nicely kept
and maintained. Mr. Brown has a small operation and really no desire to increase.
John Folsom asked how long the business was in operation on the site. Mr. Sarchet was not aware before
he applied for the RE. Mr. Folsom asked if "at any point were you not aware that this type of operation
3 - i& - actoc/
dedicate it to the county when completed.
James Rohn asked if the oil and gas company would pay for the maintenance on the internal road that they
utilize. Mr.Miller stated that a normal oil and gas lease is required to maintain access roads to the wells,this
would be hard thing to enforce if the applicant tried to force them to maintain the quality of the asphalt. Mr.
Rohn commented the trucks would be harder on the asphalt. Mr. Miller stated the grade to the site is not
significant to support or cause the need for paving. Mr. Rohn stated that Public Works has required other
subdivisions interior roads to be the same as the connecting exterior road. It would be beneficial if the
applicant would meet the paving requirement at some point in the future.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if the applicant has to pay a road impact fee. This would be$18,000 from the property
owners when permits are pulled. How much more involvement over and above this money is the developer
going to need. Mr. Schei stated that the traffic impact fees go to the major arterial. These are the strategic
corridors not any county road in the system. Public Works recommendations are based on their policy. The
fees are hard on the developers but the public as a whole will be taxed to keep the infrastructure up to a
certain level. There was continued discussion on paving of the interior roadway and Planning Commissions
ability to determine something other than the recommendation by Public Works. Mr.Morrison stated that the
Planning Commission can chose rather to forward Public Works recommendation or make one of their own
regarding the paving.
Michael Miller asked if the county would pave an entry way into the site or strictly the roadway when the time
comes for CR 16 '%to be paved. Mr. Schei stated there would not be accommodation for the access.
John Folsom asked about paving CR 16 '/:. Mr. Schei stated that in 2007 the road will be paved and this is
part of the established budget.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to grant waiver for internal road to be gravel. The recommendation is to amend 2E
on page 4 to stated"The typical roadway section of the interior roadway shall be shown as two 12-foot gravel
lanes with 4 foot gravel shoulders on the change of zone plat." Doug Ochsner seconded. Motion Carried with
John Folsom voted no.
Jacqueline Hatch stated that 2E page 4 is not a condition. Additional language can be added to Condition 2B
to address the same concern. Mr.Miller stated that it has been established that Public Works has denied the
paving waiver but Planning Commission has recommended that the internal roadway be changed to a gravel
surface. The referral agencies will have to accept the recommendation for gravel also. Mr.Schei stated that
a separate item will need to be added as a condition. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Morrison if Planning Commission
recommends the waiver for paving the layout still needs to be acceptable to the referral agencies. Mr.
Morrison stated that the layout must be adequate. There needs to be nothing changed because the layout
is the same the surface is the only change.
Michael Miller commented that the code indicated that if the internal roadway enters onto a paved surface it
must also be paved, but the code does not indicated it has to be paved. Mr. Schei stated that a minor
subdivision does not have to be paid but a PUD does have the requirement of paving. A waiver can always
can be requested.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case PZ-629, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes;Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes;James Rohn,yes;Doug Ochsner,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1458
APPLICANT: Kenneth Shannon
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW4 of Section 29, Ti N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a use
permitted as a Use by Special Review, (Oil & Gas Support & Services) in
the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to Hwy 85 business (CR 27); approximately 1/4 mile
south of CR 6.
Jacqueline Hatch,Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1458,reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of the
application.
James Rohn asked about question 5F on the application questionnaire regarding trips per day. The amount
requested by the applicant does not seem sufficient. Ms. Hatch stated that staff did not indicated the number
of trips allowed as a Condition, there is a limit of the number of employees and the hours of operation.
Michael Miller stated the applicant has requested 6:30am - 5:00pm.
Kenneth Shannon, proposed purchaser of the land and the owner of the pipeline company, provided
clarification on the project. This business is a small construction company that lays pipe for the gas and oil
industry. They also do plant construction and some concrete work. The outdoor storage of equipment will
be in pipe racks, nothing will be on the ground. Mr. Miller asked about the number of truck trips per day. Mr.
Shannon stated that most of the employees work in the field. There may be four to five people in this facility
during the day.
John Folsom asked the applicant if there were on call 24 hours a day? Mr. Shannon stated the company
works from 6:30am - 5:00pm, five days a week.
Michael Miller asked if the only reason staff is recommending denial is the IGA with Fort Lupton. Ms. Hatch
stated that the IGA was the main reason but there are concerns with compatibility with the surrounding area.
The close proximity of the proposed buildings to the neighbors to the north was a concern. Landscaping may
not be able to mitigate this.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Shannon about the discharge of runoff onto the railroad right of way. Mr. Shannon
stated that there will be a retention pond on site which will contain the runoff on the property.
John Folsom asked about concerns from the surrounding property owners concerning well contamination.
Mr. Shannon stated this is a small company and there should be no problems.
Stephen Mokray asked Ms. Hatch about a letter from Union Pacific (UP) about this being two parcels of
ground. Ms. Hatch stated that there are two parcels and the proposal is to connect these by the railroad right
of way. That is why they are being reviewed at the same time. When Mr. Shannon purchases the property
a new lease agreement will need to be done with UP. The existing agreement is non transferrable. Staff has
requested moving the condition to have a lease agreement with UP from prior to recording to prior to Board
of County Commissioners Hearing. Mr. Mokray asked how this will work if Union pacific rejects the
agreement. Ms. Hatch stated that if an agreement is rejected Mr. Shannon will still be ok because he is
moving the retention onto his site. There will be two separate sites not connected but still under one Use by
Special Review. Mr. Miller clarified that the agreement will not matter because of the pond location. There
is a condition to provide a copy of this agreement if he cannot do this what happens? Ms. Hatch stated that
if an lease cannot be obtained, the applicant will provide staff with a letter indicating they have attempted to
comply. The applicant will then go to the Board of County Commissioners.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services, stated that she had indicated that the USR could be done
without the railroad right of way. Ms. Lockman asked Mr. Morrison if this application should be on two
separate USR if the right of way cannot be obtained? The Union Pacific right of way is the attaching piece,
without this there would be two separate parcels. Mr. Morrison asked if they would be operated together or
as separate functions. Ms. Hatch stated it would be the same business. Mr. Morrison added there has been
past cases in which the USR is not all on a contiguous property. Legally it can remain in one USR but other
issues may be presented.
Michael Miller asked for clarification with regard to the agreement, stating it would be beneficial for internal
connectivity and is there any reason for not obtaining the lease. Mr.Shannon stated that the lease would be
beneficial but not a necessity. The only objection from the UP was the detention pond.
James Rohn asked if the applicant can modify his use due to the references quoted in staff comments
referring to mineral resource development facility. Ms. Hatch stated this application is considered a mineral
resource development facility, if something were to change a new use by special review would need to be
submitted.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Richard Stutz,neighbor,indicated concerns with possible well contaminations. Any retention pond in the area
will go into the gravel beds. The pond will be upstream of his well. Mr. Stutz indicated that he holds the
railroad lease on the section behind his house. There is a concern that equipment in yard will drain or spill
any material which will go to the retention ponds. Another concern is the location of the big building, it will be
next to their bedroom. Mr.Stutz would like to see the building relocated to the back of the property. Another
concern is the fence, the applicant proposes the location will be 15 feet from house on the north, this will
create a blind corner next to the driveway. The house was built in 1956 and the septic tank is in the power
line right of way. If the fence were to be built it would not allow them to access the septic tanks. They have
historically used the power line right of way to access their backyard and the fence would not allow them to
access either the septic or their backyard.
James Rohn asked Mr. Stutz about the lease with the railroad and if he had any documentation. Mr. Stutz
indicated there is documentation but he has none with him.
Gene Tadehara, neighbor, indicated concern with the location of the proposed building being next to his
residence on the north. The building could be more centralized away from the existing residences. Another
concern is rather there will be on site storage for fuel? Ms. Davis indicated there was a regarding onsite fuel
storage.
Terry Wheland,spoke on behalf of the Sasaki's, indicated that the purchase contract is contingent on getting
the special use permit. The Sasakis would like to see the concerns of the neighbors addressed.
Michael Miller asked if Mr.Wheland could address the railroad lease and who has possession of the lease.
Mr.Wheland is not sure who has the lease,the Sasaki's have been farming for 20 some years and the water
has been sold off the land so it will no longer be used as agriculture.
Mary Cypress, property owner to the south, asked about the location of the fence and if it around the entire
property.
Don Claps, indicated that the applicant will do what he can to mitigate the concerns of the neighbors. Their
current business is well maintained and clean,they will be a positive attribute to the neighborhood. The lease
is separated into three sections. The Sasaki's own the lease on the north end while Mr. Stutz has a year to
year lease behind his property. The southern end is also owned by the Sasaki's. The railroad did offer the
lease behind Mr. Stutz property to Mr. Shannon for a 20 year period.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
Ken Shannon provided clarification with regards to some of the concerns that have been expressed by the
neighbors. Mr. Shannon indicated the buildings will not be next to the fence. George Pallsburg, Alles &
Associates, representative, indicated the building will be approximately 40 feet from property lines for both
buildings. The fence that will be built will not obscure the vision triangle needed to exit the property. Mr.
Pallsburg stated the fence will be located at the 80 foot from center line, this will give an extensive site
distance triangle. Mr Carroll stated CR 27 has an 80 foot of right of way at full build out.
Don Carroll from Public Works would like to enter N on page 5 stating that"the applicant shall address site
distance at the proposed property lines to accommodate driveway access to neighboring properties,this way
the site distance triangle will be utilized." Mr. Miller asked about the access to the septic system. The historic
access for maintenance is the power line right of way. Mr. Shannon pointed out that the septic system is on
the property he is attempting to acquire. Mr.Miller pointed out that historically Mr.Stutz has used the property
and it would not be fair to remove that use due to maintenance needs of the septic system. The intent is not
to remove the ability of the neighbor to maintain the septic system.
Michael Miller asked if there will be fuel on site. Mr. Shannon stated there will be fuel on site in a contained
vault. It will be in the center of the property. Char Davis stated there is a condition addressing the above and
under ground storage tanks for fuel and there will be used oil on site. The septic system was in place in the
50's before regulations. There is not much that can be done at this point, but if the system fails it will need
to be relocated on the owners property.
James Rohn asked Mr. Morrison about the right of way lease and if there is anything the County can do about
this. Mr. Morrison stated that there is conflicting testimony. Mr. Miller added there is a 5 year lease to Mr.
Stutz but UP has offered a 20 year lease to Mr. Shannon. Mr. Morrison stated that Planning Commission
would not know the status of the lease prior to a decision. Staff wrote the comments according to the
information provided. Mr. Rohn asked for clarification with regard to the Planning Commission reviewing this
proposal as two parcels with one USR since there are different owners of the UP leases. Mr. Morrison stated
it should be viewed as two lots under one USR because it is unclear as to what the status of the lease will be.
Mr. Rohn indicated his concern of having one USR with two lots and once access. The trucks will exit the site,
utilize county roads to gain access to the other site creating more trips per day. Mr. Morrison stated that was
a consideration for Planning Commission but not a legal issue.
James Rohn moved to relocate Condition 2H to Condition 1B. Stephen Mokray seconded. Motion carried.
James Rohn moved to accept Public Works language into Condition N#15 consisting of"the applicant shall
address the site distance at both driveways associated with the Stutz and Sipres properties for adequate site
distance in both directions." Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. Motion carried.
Michael Miller asked if there is a need to create a Development Standards for access to the existing septic
system.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to have language for an agreement for access for maintenance of the septic system
by Mr. Stutz. Char Davis stated that if the leach field fails they will not be able to repair it. Mr. Miller clarified
this is strictly for the maintenance of the existing system. Ms. Hatch suggested the following language be
added to a Development Standards#25 with language consisting of"The applicant shall permit the neighbor
access to the existing septic system for maintenance purposes. When the septic system fails the new septic
system shall be placed on the respective lot." James Rohn seconded. Motion carried.
James Rohn commented his concern is for the railroad right of way and for the neighbor not being able to
access out of his property.
John Folsom stated the neighbor will access from CR 27.
Michael Miller commented that largest concern is the IGA with Fort Lupton. This is a signed agreement that
states"at any time legally possible"reject urban development in a non urban area. The question is what is
legally possible as far as denying the application. Mr. Gimlin stated this property does not have the same
logistics as some of the previous proposals that we were recommending denial on. This lot has more of a
potential for agricultural uses or other types of uses. This purpose may not be the best use.
Michael Miller added that the whole corridor is prone to industrial development. The area lends itself to
industrial uses. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Morrison about the IGA and could this be a reason for denial. The IGA
is the only thing that pushes the Planning Commission toward denial. Mr. Morrison stated that the findings
for another case was there was no other use that was feasible.The avenue that must be evaluated is rather
there is some other reasonable use for the property. If there is no other reasonable use there, there could
be a legal base for approving the application despite the IGA.
John Folsom stated that legally possible leading to a higher and better use does not enter into this. The
Planning Commission must abide by the IGA.
Doug Ochsner asked if there is a definition of urban scale development.This does not seem to be an urban
use.
Stephen Mokray stated that on a previous case the vote was based on the premiss it was the best use of the
land,the same thing applies here. This is an industrial area and this type of business fits into the area. The
only difference is the neighbors.
Michael Miller commented that in the event the right of way is not granted there are two separate parcels and
traveling from one to another is not a good situation.
James Rohn commented that the towns need more credit at times. He has a large concern with these
properties not being connected.
Bryant Gimlin commented that storage, noise and buildings are urban as oppose to agriculture.
James Rohn moved that Case USR-1458, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the
Planning Commissions recommendation of denial. John Folsom seconded the motion.
Doug Ochsner commented that his reasoning for denial is based on compatibility not because of the IGA.
James Rohn commented that by the time this case reaches Board of County Commissioners it is
recommended that the railroad right of way lease be settled.
Stephen Mokray commented that this is an industrial area and meets the need for the property.
Bryant Gimlin commented that he agreed with the same comments and the compatibility of the proposed use
with the neighbors.
Michael Miller commented the denial is based on Section 19-12-50 B regarding the IGA with Fort Lupton and
that this use is not safe for the general public due to the different accesses. Along with the proposal not being
compatible with the surrounding area and the lack of the railroad lease.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,no; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes;James Rohn,yes; Doug Ochsner,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 4:30pm
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello