HomeMy WebLinkAbout20042768 BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by James Rohn, that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County
Planning Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: 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.
THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES' STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS REQUEST BE
APPROVED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
The following Sections were quoted for approval:
1. Section 23-2-220.A.1
2. Section 22-2-60.D.A.4
3. Section 23-3-40.R
4. Section 22-2-170.C Goal 3
5. Section 22-2-260.A.3 Policy 1.3
6. Section 22-2-260.B.A Goal 2
Should the Planning Commission choose to approve the Use by Special Review Permit, Planning Staff
recommends the following be attached as Conditions of Approval and Development Standards:
1. Prior to scheduling a Board of County Commissioners hearing:
A. The applicant shall submit a detailed signage plan to the Weld County Department of
Planning Services. If applicable, and an on-site sign(s) is desired, the applicant shall
submit a sign plan to the Department of Planning Services. If no sign plan is submitted
the site shall adhere to Section 23-4-90.A and .B of the Weld County Code which states
one identification sign per principal use shall be allowed, provided that the sign does not
exceed sixteen (16) square feet in area per face. (Department of Planning Services)
B. The applicant shall submit to the Department of Planning Services a complete list of
products associated with this facility. (Department of Planning Services)
2. Prior to recording the plat:
A. The applicant shall address the concerns of the Mountain View Fire Protection District as
stated in their referral dated July 9, 2004. Evidence of approval shall be submitted to the
Department of Planning Services. (Mountain View Fire Protection District)
B. The applicant shall submit to the Department of Public Works a haul route from the site to
the nearest paved road. Evidence of an approved route by the Department of Public
Works shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. (Departments of
Public Works and Planning Services)
C. The applicant shall enter into an off-site Public Road Maintenance and Improvements
Agreement with the Weld County Public Works Department for any off-site improvements
associated with the proposed use. (Department of Public Works)
EXHIBIT
r8
2004-2768 Aka #135
Resolution AmUSR-935
Brittara Land
Page 2
D. The applicant shall enter into a Private Improvements Agreement according to policy
regarding collateral for on-site improvements and post adequate collateral for all
landscaping, 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)
E. The applicant shall submit a dust abatement plan for review and approval, to the
Environmental Health Services, Weld County Department of Public Health &
Environment. Evidence of approval shall be submitted to the Department of Planning
Services (Department of Public Health and Environment)
F. An individual sewage disposal system is required for the scale house and shall be
installed according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations. The
septic system is required to be designed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer
according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations. Evidence of
approval and installation shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
G. The applicant shall submit a waste handling plan, for approval, to the Environmental
Health Services Division of the Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment.
Evidence of approval shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. The
plan shall include at a minimum, the following:
1) A list of wastes which are expected to be generated on site (this should include
expected volumes and types of waste generated).
2) A list of the type and volume of chemicals expected to be stored on site.
3) The waste handler and facility where the waste will be disposed (including
the facility name, address, and phone number). (Department of Public Health
and Environment)
H. The applicant shall provide evidence that the existing structure meets the offset
requirements outlined in Section 23-3-250.A.4 of the Weld County Code. If the structure
doesn't meet required setbacks the applicant shall submit a Non-Conforming Use of a
Structure(NCU)application. (Department of Planning Services)
J. The applicant shall submit a property maintenance plan in accordance with Section 23-2-
250.B.7 of the Weld County Code to the Department of Planning Services. (Department
of Planning Services)
K. The applicant shall provide an agreement with Great Western Railroad outlining the
storage of material in the right-of-way, uses, and crossings. (Department of Planning
Services)
L. The plat shall be amended to comply with the following Commercial District Performance
Standards as indicated in Section 23-3-250 of the Weld County Code.
1. Section 23-3-250.A.1 — Stormwater Management. The historical flow patterns
and run-off amounts will be maintained on site in such a manner that it will
reasonably 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. If located
on the site, the plat shall indicate the drainage area. (Departments of Planning
Services and Public Works)
Resolution AmUSR-935
Brittara Land
Page 3
2. Section 23-3-250.A.2 — Parking. Sufficient screened, off-street, paved parking
areas shall be provided to meet the requirements of employees, company
vehicles, visitors and customers. Appendix 23-A describes the design
requirements for parking spaces and Appendix 23-B delineates the number of
parking spaces required by use for this property. Thirty-five parking spaces shall
be provided. Should the number of equipment, structures or employees increase
the parking requirements shall be delineated according to this section. The plat
shall indicate the appropriate parking spaces. The site shall also meet ADA
parking requirements. Circulation pattern including the access drives shall be
surfaced with recycled gravel or a treated gravel to keep the dust under control.
(Departments of Planning Services and Public Works)
3. Section 23-3-250.A.3 - Street Access. Lots shall have safe access to an
approved public or private street. The design designation of any street or
highway as to type shall be in conformance with that shown on the county
thoroughfare plan and/or the master plan of the affected municipality. The
applicant has identified two access points to the facility. Both accesses to the
site need to be redesigned to enter off of County Road 38 at a 90 degree angel
for a minimum of one tractor trailer length to provide adequate sight distance in
both directions. (Department of Public Works)
4. Section 23-3-250.A.4— Required Yards - Setback. County Road 38 is designated
on the Weld County Road Classification Plan as an arterial road, which requires
a 140-foot right-of-way at full build out. Presently there is a 60-foot right-of-way.
A total of 70 feet from the centerline of County Road 38 shall be delineated right-
of-way on the plat. This road is maintained by Weld County. Off-street parking
areas may be permitted in the required setback area when the area is screened
from direct view of persons on the public rights-of-way. Fences over six (6) feet
in height are not required to comply with the minimum setback and may be
located on the property line. Fences located on corner lots abutting public right-
of-way shall not obstruct the view of vehicular traffic at an intersection.
(Departments of Public Works and Planning Services)
5. Section 23-3-250.A.6 — Areas used for trash collection shall be screened from
public rights-of-way and all adjacent properties. These areas shall be designed
and used in a manner that will prevent wind- or animal-scattered trash. The plat
shall delineate the screened enclosure as outlined in this Section of the Code.
(Department of Planning Services)
6. Section 23-3-250.A.7 — Water Supply. Uses shall have an adequate source of
potable water. The applicant shall provide current evidence that the facility has
an adequate water supply (i.e., well or community water system). (Department of
Planning Services)
7. Section 23-3-250.A.8 - Sewage Disposal. Uses shall have adequate sewage
disposal facilities. An individual sewage disposal system is required for the
existing office and shall be installed according to the Weld County Individual
Sewage Disposal Regulations. The septic system is 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)
8. Section 23-3-250.A.9 —Outside Storage. Outdoor storage of vehicles, equipment
or materials when permitted shall be screened from public rights-of-way and all
adjacent properties. The applicant shall submit a landscape/screening plan in
compliance with Section 23-3-250.A.5.A of the Weld County Code to the
Department of Planning Services for review and approval. (Department of
Planning Services)
Resolution AmUSR-935
Brittara Land
Page 4
M. The plat shall be amended to delineate the following:
1. All pages of the plat shall be labeled AMUSR-935. (Department of Planning
Services)
2. The plat shall be prepared in accordance with Section 23-2-360.D of the Weld
County Code. The plat scale shall be 1" = 50'. Staff will waive the Vicinity Map
scale of 1" = 2000' and permit 1" = 1000'. (Department of Planning Services)
3. The attached Development Standards. (Department of Planning Services)
4. The applicant shall verify with Great Western Railroad the associated right-of-
way with the two track lines on the property and shall delineated them on the
plat. (Department of Planning Services)
5. The fire hydrant on site needs to be illustrated on the plat. (Department of Public
Works)
N. 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)
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.O 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 mapsaco.weld.co.us. (Department of Planning Services)
5. Prior to the issuance of building permits:
A. All plans for the construction/installation of new buildings must be approved by the
Mountain View Fire Protection District. (Mountain View Fire Protection District)
B. The applicant shall verify that the setback requirements per Section 23-3-250.A.4 of the
Weld County Code have been addressed. (Department of Planning Services)
C. In the event that 1 or more acres are disturbed during the construction and development
of this site, the applicant shall inquire with the Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) of
the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment if they are required to obtain
a stormwater discharge permit. Alternately, the applicant can provide evidence from
WQCD that they are not subject to these requirements. (Department of Public Health
and Environment)
D. A plan review is required for each building for which a building permit is required. Plans
shall include a floor plan. Plans shall bear the wet stamp of a Colorado registered
architect or engineer. Two complete sets of plans are required when applying for each
permit. Provide a Code Analysis Data sheet provided by the Weld County Building
Department with each Building permit application. (Department of Building Inspection)
Resolution AmUSR-935
Brittara Land
Page 5
E. Buildings shall conform to the requirements of the various codes adopted at the time of
permit application. Currently the following has been adopted by Weld County: 2003
International Building Code; 2003 International Mechanical Code; 2003 International
Plumbing Code; 2003 International Fuel Gas Code; and the 2002 National Electrical
Code and Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Building Inspection)
F. Each building will require an engineered foundation based on a site-specific geotechnical
report or an open hole inspection performed by a Colorado registered engineer.
Engineered foundations shall be designed by a Colorado registered engineer.
(Department of Building Inspection)
G. The structure will probably be classified as a mixed use, B (offices) and M (Retail Store)
occupancy. Fire resistance of walls and openings, construction requirements, maximum
building height and allowable areas will be reviewed at the plan review. Setback and
offset distances shall be determined by the Weld County Code. (Department of Building
Inspection)
H. Building height shall be measured in accordance with the 2003 International Building
Code for the purpose of determining the maximum building size and height for various
uses and types of construction and to determine compliance with the Bulk Requirements
from Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code. Building height shall be measured in
accordance with Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code in order to determine compliance
with offset and setback requirements. Offset and setback requirements are measured to
the farthest projection from the building. (Department of Building Inspection)
6. The Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued
on the property until the Special Review plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld
County Clerk and Recorder. (Department of Planning Services)
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Brittara Land Company LLC
AMUSR-935
1. The Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a business
permitted as a use by right or accessory use in the Commercial Zone District (Landscape
Materials Yard) 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. The hours of operation shall be limited to daylight hours, Monday through Saturday.
Hours in the winter months (November through April) will be 7:00 am to 5:00 pm and in
the summer months (May through October) will be 7:00 am to 7:00 pm. (Department of
Planning Services)
4. No retail sales of material can occur on this site
5. 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)
6. No parking or staging of vehicles are permitted within the public right-of-way on County
Road 38. (Department of Planning Services)
7. 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)
8. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. This is not meant to
include those wastes specifically excluded from the definition of a solid waste in the Solid
Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, 30-20-100.5, C.R.S., as amended.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
9. 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)
10. The applicant shall operate in accordance with the approved "waste handling plan".
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
11. 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)
12. The facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the
Commercial Zone District as delineated in 25-12-103, C.R.S. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
Resolution AmUSR-935
Brittara Land
Page 2
13. Adequate handwashing and toilet facilities shall be provided for employees and patrols of
the facility. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
14. An I.S.D.S is required for the facility and shall be installed according to the Weld County
I.S.D.S. Regulations. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
15. The facility shall utilize the existing public water supply. (Little Thompson Water District)
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
16. All pesticides, fertilizer, and other 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)
17. If applicable, the applicant shall obtain a stormwater discharge permit from the Colorado
Department of Public Health & Environment, Water Quality Control Division.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
18. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the State and
Federal agencies and the Weld County Code. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
19. A building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction of any new building.
(Department of Building Inspection)
20. Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the subject lot will be required to
adhere to the fee structure of the Weld County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-
11) (Department of Planning Services)
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)
22. The historical flow patterns and run-off amounts will be maintained on site in such
manner that it will reasonably 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)
23. The landscaping on site shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape
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.
Resolution AmUSR-935
Brittara Land
Page 3
26. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation
Standards of Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code.
27. 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.
28. 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.
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
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Michael Miller
John Folsom
Bryant Gimlin
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.
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 August 17, 2004.
Dated the 17th of August, 004.
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
x 17- )-<'t`/
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 4999 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 1 ,
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 "Al
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 concem.
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
Sheriffs 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.
Hello