HomeMy WebLinkAbout20031576.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, May 20, 2003
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2003, in the Weld County
Public Health/Planning Building, (Room 210), 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was
called to order by Vice Chair, Bryant Gimlin, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL C',
Michael Miller Absent 1., _
Bryant Gimlin
James Rohn
Fred Walker •
John Folsom
Stephan Mokray i r?
John Hutson
Bernard Ruesgen
Bruce Fitzgerald
Also Present: Char Davis, Don Carroll, Chris Gathman, Jacqueline Hatch, Monica Mika, Sheri Lockman
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on May 6, 2003,
was approved as read.
The following items are continued:
CASE NUMBER: 2n°AmUSR-842
APPLICANT: Jarrald A. &Jaye L. Jamison
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: S2 SE4 and Lot A& Lot B of RE-1367; also described as the S2 N2 SE4
of Section 32, T3N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for a Commercial
Junkyard and Salvage Yard (tire landfill, storage and recycling facility) in
the 1-3 (Industrial)Zone District .
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to WCR 41 and North of and adjacent to WCR 26
section line.
Sheri Lockman read a letter requesting a continuance due to additional time for additional information
submitted. A request for the July 15, 2003 date is being asked for.
The following items are on the Consent Agenda:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1398
APPLICANT: Rodney and Susan Cole
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-3159; part of the NW4 of Section 1, T1 N, R64W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for a Use by Right
in the Industrial Zone District (parking of vehicles & trailers) as a use by
special review in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to WCR 59; '/2 mile north of Highway 52.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1426
APPLICANT: Vista Ridge Development/Todd&Cant 4* Page -1-
6 /(o :2OO 3 2003-1576
PLANNER: Monica Mika
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part S2 Section 33, T1 N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
Recreational Facility to include two soccer fields, one baseball and track
field in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: Approximately 1/4 mile north of State Hwy 7; 3/4 mile south of CR 4; and
adjacent to Sheridan Blvd., located within the Town of Erie.
James Rohn moved to accept the consent agenda. Stephen Mokray seconded. Motion carried
The following items are on the Hearing Agenda:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1425
APPLICANT: Pilgrim Communications Inc. & Global American Enterprises Inc.
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A. RE-2838; part SW4 Section 30, T4N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for a Major
Facility of a Public Utility (199 foot Monopole Antenna Tower) in the (A)
Agricultural Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 13; South of CR 42.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1425, 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.
Bernie Ruesgen arrived.
Lauren Light, representative for the applicant, provided more clarification with regard to the project. Pilgrim
communications is working with Shultz farm with the design of the equipment. The structures are being
designed to match the subdivision that Shultz farm is developing to the south. There were no complaints
from the adjacent property owners.
John Folsom asked about the possibility of co locating with AT& T. Ms. Light indicated that there is a list
in the packet that contains a list of the closest towers. The lists shows why they would not be compatible.
James Rohn asked about farming in the area. Ms. Light said there was a sod farm to the east,tilled ground
to the west. Mr. Rohn stated that the rule on the light at the top of the tower is 200 feet. Mr. Rohn stated
he felt"they were doing the 199 feet to avoid the light." Is the light so expensive that the applicant cannot
afford to put the light on. Ms. Light stated the height was not due to expense it was due to compatibility
issues with the surrounding area. It has yet to be finalized whether there will need to be a light.
Ronald Kriger, applicant, indicated that if there is a light on the tower then it is a requirement to monitor and
have systems available for maintenance. A 232 foot tower would have been preferred but working with the
surrounding property owners they tried to have the least amount of impact possible. The applicant felt that
not having the light would be better suited. The FAA determination indicates that a light will be required at
this time even though it is under 200 feet. Mr. Rohn stated that while reading the documents provided "it
seemed like you were going the one foot under so you would not have to do the light as a way of saving
money." Mr. Kriger stated they would rather have the taller tower with the light. This was more negotiated
with the land owners to have the least amount of impact.
Bryant Gimlin asked if the light was required would the additional height be added. Mr. Kriger stated the
tower cannot exceed 199 feet under the present determination of no hazards. The way it is written now a
light is required.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Page -2-
Bernie Ruesgen asked Don Carroll, Public Works, about the 40 foot right of way for build out. Mr. Carroll
stated that as of the 1s' of the year there have been major arterial approved in the area. Public Works is
asking to reserve an additional 40 feet for a total of 70 from center line. This will ensure room for widening.
Lauren Light indicated that at the time the road is widened Public Works will have an agreement indicating
the additional 20 foot because the plat delineates 50 feet now. Public Works agrees with this.
Bryant Gimlin asked if it will need to be on the plat. Public Works would like to see the 70 foot delineated
on the plat. The reason for this is there is a copper screen that is buried that will encroach on the future right
of way. The proposal is to move the screen when the road is widened. This is acceptable to Public Works.
Lauren Light would like to see additional language to 2 B 3. Mr. Carroll would add the following language
to the end of the paragraph. The language would state"for a total of 70 feet from the center line/section
line."
James Rohn moved to accept the language. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case USR-1425, be recommended approval along with the Development
Standards and Conditions of Approval. John Folsom seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Fred Walker, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James
Rohn, yes; Bernie Ruesgen, yes; John Hutson, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
— CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1276
APPLICANT: Stromo, LLC
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the W2 of the SW4, Section 26, T3N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review for a Solid Waste
Disposal Site and Facility (Composting Facility) .
LOCATION: Approximately 1/2 mile South of WCR 30 and 1 mile East of WCR 43.
Chris Gathman,Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1416,reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked Mr. Gathman about the reports from health officials and why the application does
not continue to another Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Gathman indicated that Mr. Haren wanted to
continue on with the case. The health review is more of a technical review but there is no guarantee that
planning issues will not arise once the review is completed and recommended.
Trevor Jiricek,Weld County Health and Environment,said that they have not provided a referral to planning
department. Health Department has not proceeded on a case to Planning Commission when there was not
certificate of designation,without the State referral and the subsequent referral from the Health Department.
The State referral is in process. They have asked for additional information from the applicant in order to
complete their review. The State has not formally made a recommendation on the application and neither
has the Health Department. Mr. Fitzgerald noted that the Health Department is relying on information from
the State before they will make their final determination. The States role is to review the proposal with the
Solid Waste Act.These contain a series of technical requirements for example the construction and how it
is maintained. Mr. Fitzgerald asked about the time line with regard to the application. Mr. Jiricek clarified
that the State has 180 days from submittal but each time they request more information it is as though the
time line starts back up again. It can be lengthened by the amount of time the applicant takes to respond.
James Rohn wants to continue the application and go to the Board of County Commissioners with a
recommendation of approval not denial. Mr. Haren will address this. The applicant has some time issues
Page -3-
for themselves. They are having a concern with the additional delay. The proposal has been continued once
before. Mr. Rohn asked what kind of cost to the delay is there. Mr. Haren indicated that it is costing the
client a potential contract with Longmont Foods for the composting turkeys. Mr. Haren added that the
application was submitted 8 months ago to the State. The came back in March with comment. The delay
is costing the client a potential contract of 40 thousand a month. It was originally applied for as a class 3.
The site is set up to compost dairy stuff but to compost turkey requires a class one permit. The turkey farm
would not have to do nothing if they were doing the composting. The applicant has added storm water,
monitoring wells that are monitored quarterly due to the requirements of the process. The issues with the
State are more like conditions not issues that need to be resolved. The application is not planning to do bio
solids. The State wanted new survey which is done. There have been several improvements especially for
the drainage and the monitoring wells. There are some details that need to be finished. Those items will
be finished and the applicant will have final approval from the State before the Board of County
Commissioners hearing. This is a zoning issue with the Planning Commission and what is being planned
is not out of line with the requirements of the county. There is not technical issues that are foreseen.
James Rohn asked what the difference of a continuance versus denial and if that would place the applicant
back to the same spot. Mr. Haren stated that if the Planning Commission was going to go with a denial a
continuance would be preferred. There would need to be 30 -45 days for publication if the applicant had
to back through the Planning Commission again. There is no reason that the issues cannot be addressed
prior to Board of County Commissioners.
Fred Walker indicated that in the Comprehensive Plan there is the intent to be supportive to agriculture. It
is the applicants choice to proceed forward. It is the Planning Commission job to look at the land use and
apply this to the application. The project can always be remanded back to Planning Commission if the Board
of County Commissioners deems the need for review of additional land use issues.
Lee Morrison added that the applicant is aware that if the States recommendation comes back with a
substantial change and the County Commissioners thought it required more input on the Planning
Commission part it would come back. There is always the possibility, it is up to the staff and applicant do
determine the best way to proceed. This would be the worse case scenario for the applicant.
Trevor Jiricek added that there have been no complaints and it is inspected on quarterly basis. The
application is in compliance with the rules of the current USR,the infrastructure will not change. It is already
in place and will no change besides some minor constructions. The only issue is the waste issue from the
State and physical changes down the road if the applicant agrees to take a different waste product. The
State will come back eventually with conditions from them.
Mr. Haren stated that he expects no surprises from State or he would not take the risk by having the project
heard.
John Folsom asked if State comments have been done. Mr.Haren said that all conditions are not formalized
in writing. The biggest issue from the State was the survey and this is done. They have also required
improvements to the drainage,this will be done as the compost site is leveled. Mr. Folsom asked about the
monitoring wells. Mr. Haren indicated that they wanted boring logs from the monitoring wells. Mr . Haren
does not expect major surprises.
Tom Haren requests that an additional standard be added that indicates the applicant will have a signed
agreement with the State before the Board of County Commissioners.
Bernie Ruesgen asked how many turkeys. Mr. Haren indicated that it could be 10 million pounds annually.
The applicant will be limited by regulations in the application for the amount of material. The modality is
from the barns. Mr. Ruesgen asked if the applicant was going to accept any other livestock. Mr. Haren
stated that they will accept other material as long as they stay within the cubic yard regulations. Mr. Ruesgen
asked what the possible additional volume they could handle with the mortality of the turkeys being foremost.
Mr. Haren indicated that the primary issue for the class 3 is to work with Longmont Foods. The turkeys will
be transported in a covered semi tractor.
Page -4-
James Rohn asked about the finish product and where go. Mr. Haren indicated that the compost and dairy
gets sold. There will be limitations on mortality compost,which is required to stay. Some will end up on the
farm ground. Mr. Rohn asked about accepting sludge, bio solids. Mr. Haren said class one covers some
bio solids. The application to the State did not include this. There are some tests on site for mortality.
Bernie Ruesgen asked about a truck washout on site. Mr. Haren said that there is a plan to have a washout
for the trucks in the northwest corner. The inside of the trailers will be washed. Mr. Ruesgen asked about
the lagoons and where come from. Mr. Haren indicated it was storm water run off and was tested.
Bernie Ruesgen asked about the mortality compost and the increase nuisance level. What quantity will be
on hand and how long on site before compost. Mr. Haren indicated that was a State response and it states
that anything other than manure must be incorporated at the time of receipt.
James Rohn asked how far closest neighbor is. Mr. Haren indicated it was approximately 1/2 to 3/4 mile
away. There have been no complaints on the facility.
Fred Walker asked how it was to be delivered. Mr. Haren indicated that it would be one or two trucks. The
internal road will have a dust abatement.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
James Rohn moved to add 2B Condition of Approval that states "the applicant shall have a signed
agreement with the State prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing."
Bryant Gimlin indicated that 2A already states the condition.
James Rohn moved that Case AmUSR-1276, 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; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Fred Walker, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James
Rohn, yes; Bernie Ruesgen, yes; John Hutson, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
— CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1031
APPLICANT: Green Mill Sportsman Club
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: N2 SW4 Section 20, T1 N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a
Shooting Range in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to WCR 3; 1/4 mile North of Garfield Road.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services presented Case AmUSR-1031, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending
denial of the application. Weld County Environmental Health Services indicated several concerns.The first
concern was related to the need for potable water.The application materials state that potable water is not
needed. Environmental health has recommended that the site be serviced by a publicwater system because
of the numerous people using the site and the close proximity to a community water system.The department
believes a permanent water supply is important because hand washing is the single most important step to
help stop the spread of disease and in this case, inadvertent lead poisoning. The second concern stated by
Environmental health was that the application did not address the negative environmental and health effects
associated with the use of lead shot and bullets at outdoor shooting ranges. The concerns stated by
Environmental Health have been addressed in the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval.
Staff has also taken the Town of Eries request into consideration.The Town has consistently been concerned
about the area around the site changing to urban uses. In fact during the review of the original USR the Town
Page -5-
requested that the site be reviewed yearly.The USR was approved with the condition that the site be review
every 5 years.At this time, the applicants have requested that the site be allowed to remain without further
review for a period of ten years. Because the surrounding area is becoming more urbanized, Planning staff
does not believe that the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards can ensure the health,safety,
and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and County for the next ten years. Through the review
of the original USR,which was approved on January 8, 1995, the Planning Commission required the Weld
County Sheriffs Office to review the plan and make recommendations for safety. Deputy B. Wagner with
the Sheriffs Office stated the following: "I feel that when the future drill site operations get underway, this
range should be closed down entirely until these drill sites are completed. It is also an area of concern of
mine that the future tank battery, that will most likely be placed there, may stand the potential for stray
rounds or potential ricochets.Tank battery sites and the surrounding equipment seem to take a lot of abuse
in other areas of the County." Oil and gas facilities are currently on the site.
James Rohn asked when the shooting range opened. Ms. Lockman stated it was approved 1995 and has
been evaluated every 5 years. They were evaluated in 2000 and approved at that time. The subdivision
is a new development presently being built. If the amendment is denied the gun club does not have to close.
Ms. Lockman stated that they are still in the review period for 2000 and they would stay as is.The shooting
ranges has review periods and their next review is in October 2004. At that time certain issues as the
continuation of the gun club would be addressed. There is a condition of approval for potable water. There
is also a condition for a lead removal plan. Ms. Lockman stated that Weld County Health and Environment
included this condition.
John Folsom asked Ms.Lockman about the review in 2000. Ms.Lockman stated that the review in 2000 was
approved and the club could go on for another 5 years.
Brad Stohl,Director of Planning for City of Longmont as representative for the applicant,provided additional
clarification on the proposal. This application is to expand the facility to create a law enforcement facility.
The addition of 100 and 200 yard rifle ranges and a 50x50 pistol range. These will be east of the existing
facilities. The request for the 10 year time frame is due to the proposal being a budgeted item within the City
of Longmont Capitol Improvement Plan. It is not intended as a permanent facility, a length of 10 years is
thought to be appropriate. One reason being to secure a law enforcement firearms training facility in this
area and the period of time it takes to realize the investment. The area law enforcement agencies are
having a difficult time finding facilities that are close by. There are a couple of agencies using the facility
informally. The proposal will include a new access road that will not interfere with club activities and will
direct traffic to the north of the club entrance. There is an existing rifle ranges and pistol range. The site
is unique due to the drainage basin at the bottom of the site. A proposed parking area and building are
located north of the existing pistol range. The building will be a training classroom. The berming will be
constructed according to the Weld County requirements. The existing ranges have been enclosed with
berms for noise abatement in conjunction with the subdivision. This was a condition imposed by Erie when
the subdivision was approved. The rifle range could be enclosed also. The berming and topography will
dissipate the noise to the subdivision. The distance from the existing subdivision and where the pistol range
will be sufficient to abate the noise. The mineral service owners do not object to this proposal. They want
to be involved in the design phase for safety. The property is fenced and has a solid track record regarding
safety considerations.
Stephen Mokray asked if this would be exclusive for law enforcement. Mr. Stohl indicated it would not be
exclusive to the City of Longmont, other law enforcement agencies would utilize the facility. The City of
Longmont is taking the lead because it would be beneficial to them to locate sooner than later. A scheduling
arrangement would be made with other agencies. The expansion facilities would not be open to the public.
Steve Olander, Longmont police department, provided information with regard to the need for facilities for
law enforcement. The interest is extreme. There is always a liability concern when it comes to shooting,
qualifying, practice and training. City of Longmont shoots approximately 2-4 times a month. Officers are
required to qualify twice a year. There is also training for rifle,shotgun and general training for all personnel
and new recruits. SWAT will train 18 days a year. City of Longmont will train 28 days a year. City of
Longmont Police Department sent out 21 letters informing area law enforcement about the proposal and
Page -6-
received 10 responses with only one being not interested. The City of Broomfield has just built a facility.
Nine expressed some level of interest. There is a need to train with rifle and shoot guns.
John Folsom asked about the reasons for Mile High shut down. Mr. Olander stated Mile High shut down
because of surrounding development. Mr. Folsom asked where Longmont is conducting practice. Mr.
Olander said they use Adams County range which is down close to Brighton. Mr. Folsom asked if the
Boulder Rifle Club facility would be a possibility. Mr.Olander indicated that Boulder Rifle has an agreement
with Boulder Police and Boulder Sheriff. Longmont has never been involved with this.It was understood that
they did not want any more departments using the facility. Boulder has acquired adjacent land for a specific
law enforcement range but the timing is not known. This is an alternative but feasibility cannot be assessed.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if there are any other facilities within drive distance that have been used. Mr.
Olander could not think of any,there are facilities a greater distance away. Mr. Fitzgerald asked how far the
facility is from Longmont. Mr. Olander guessed it was approximately 15 minutes.
John Folsom asked about a range in Platteville. Mr.Olander is not acquainted with this range. Fort Lupton
was training approximately 1 hour drive away, east of Ault.
John Hutson asked about night shooting and affect on surrounding community. Is there any restrictions.
Mr.Olander stated that most agencies have a desire to train on night shoots. Longmont does it once a year
typically in the fall depending on the weather conditions. There is an increase amount of darkness at this
time. This is an issue since half of the time spent working is at night. There is a big difference between
shooting during the day and night.
Bryant Gimlin asked how the night shooting is done. Mr. Olander stated that the distance ranges from 25
yards to 3 yards away from a set target. Revolver training is not done in a building. The intent is to construct
similar enclosures that KB Homes required of Green Mill rifle range. A pistol range is different due to the
movement.
John Folsom asked about Fort St.Vrain range in Platteville. Mr. Olander is not acquainted with the range.
Fred Walker stated that there is a need for this type of training. Was there any exploration of developing
a site within Boulder County. Mr. Olander indicated that they have been looking but have not come up with
anything.The issue is the availability of land. Mr.Walker asked if the Boulder Rifle Club was contacted with
regard to using the facility or if a letter was received from them indicating this. Has Boulder Rifle club gave
a letter indicating they were not interested, and how far is it from Longmont to Boulder? Mr. Olander
guessed it was approximately 14-15 miles from Longmont. The communications are through the sheriffs
office facilitated by chief. There is nothing in writing that he is aware of.
John Folsom asked about the possibility of an errant shot going outside the boundaries of the facility. Is the
barricade dirt berm enough? Mr. Olander indicated that the lay of the land is unique due to the drainage
basin. There are backstops to the south of the shooting line and south of this is the face of the landfill. The
property is entirely fenced. The main concern is to protect the tank battery on the east.
JR Titus,applicant/owner,provided clarification with regard to the range. Lafayette, Erie,Colorado Division
of Wildlife, 4H Clubs and the Boy Scouts all use the facility. There has been interest shown to use the law
enforcement area of the range. The club will stay private with strictly a law enforcement range with pistol
and rifle ranges. The law enforcement will contain 20 turning targets.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the type of insurance they carry. Mr. Titus said liability.
John Folsom asked if the existing facility would still be used by private parties. The new facility would be
restricted to law enforcement agencies. Mr.Titus indicated that was correct. Right now night shooting is not
allowed on the property. Erie law enforcement has used the facility since 1997 and they wanted to night
shoot. Mr. Titus said that if Erie received approval from the town trustees then night shooting would be
allowed by the club for them only. They have been the only ones to do night shoots at the property. Erie's
referral was concerned with canine dogs and there are no dogs on site.
Page -7-
Bernie Ruesgen asked about the number of members and if they pay annual dues that cover the cost of
maintenance and upkeep of the facility. Mr.Titus indicated that there were approximately 250 members and
the dues pay for the upkeep, targets, taxes and general maintenance. The range is open to the public
September through October for sighting in rifles for hunting season. There are range officers present at all
times. These officers are members that volunteer. Mr. Ruesgen asked if an annual fee will be charged to
the law enforcement agencies. Mr.Titus stated an annual fee would be assessed or daily fee. The details
have not been worked out. Mr. Ruesgen asked what the estimated cost of the facility would be. Mr. Stohl
indicated that through Longmont Capitol improvement they have allocated 1.2 million dollars. It may not
take the entire amount. Mr. Ruesgen stated he was trying to figure the cost relative to the request for the
10 year review periods.
James Rohn asked about the odds of bullet hitting the tank battery. Mr.Titus indicated it would be very slim.
A berm will be built on the north side of the pistol range. The law enforcement officers will provide there own
range officers. There will be regulations for safety.
Fred Walker asked if the club went through one review and if anything changed. Mr.Titus stated the review
was in August and there was nothing changed at the facility. The only concern was alleviated.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Richard Donas, 4H leader Boulder County, indicated that the facility is used to train 4H leaders. Those
leaders are the ones assisting the children at the range for the 4H Shooting Sports. There have been
successful training courses for the last two years. The facility is vital to the Shooting Sports program along
the front range.
Fred Walker asked why the clubs do not use the Boulder Rifle Club. Mr. Donas will not let the kids shoot
22 rifle because of time constraints on their members. The only place that they shoot in Boulder County is
the local American Legion.
Jerry Wiggins,watch commander for Louiseville police, their agency uses the facility on a exclusive basis.
The Denver Metro area is in need of training facilities. In 32 years there has never seen better located
geographically and for safety reasons for firearms training. The lay of the land is perfect. Is accessible to
25-30 departments that will be using. Louiseville will use it 24 days a year for general training for all officers.
It would be used 6-12 times a year for special operations, SWAT/Tactical teams. The Boulder Rifle Club
has limited the use to Boulder Police and to Boulder Sheriff. They have cut down the training days to them.
Fred Walker asked about the SWAT training. Mr. Wiggins explained the dynamics of SWAT. It covers a
broad area of potential risk. The team will practice tactical movements and cover fire with handguns and
rifle. Mr. Morrison asked for clarification with regard to the practice at the facility for SWAT. Mr. Wiggins
indicated they practice tactical movements and marksmanship.
The Chair closes the public portion
Fred Walker asked Ms.Lockman about the notification to KB Homes. Ms. Lockman indicated there was no
response.
John Folsom asked about the staff objection to the noise. Some of the facilities will be in enclosures. Is this
still a concern. Ms. Lockman stated that was not listed as staffs concern. Ms.Lockman stated it was a factor
but not one for recommendation of denial.
James Rohn commented that Erie is against this because of tax incentive for homes. It is getting to the point
where the ranges are being forced out because of the safety. This is not a major upset except for the town
of Erie. The homes came in after the range was in existence.
John Folsom asked Mr.Carroll if Public Works has any concerns with traffic and access. Mr. Carroll stated
that there is no right of way on the section line. They are asking for a dedication or deed for the right of
way/easement.
Page -8-
Brad Stohl, indicated the issues with the permanent water system. The nearest water system is owned by
Erie and they do not want the facility as it is. The line is several thousand feet away for construction. The
club is willing to provide hand washing to the extent necessary. They will also work with the fire district to
determine alternative means for fire protection. The preference is to not connect to the public water system.
It does put the facility in the hands of Erie with regard to the matter of moving forward because of the water
issue. The investment is in the million dollar range and this is a 50+year infrastructure improvement for a
facility that may be temporary. The recovery cost is not there even in a 10 year extension. The club has
to work with Mountain View Fire Protection and will continue to do so. The applicant is requesting a vault
restroom facility if the connection to public water is eliminated. Staff would like to see a 5 year time frame.
The time necessary to locate, develop and coordinate to then utilize takes a considerable amount of effort.
The 10 years gives the law enforcement agencies that are using the facility time to look for another facility
when the life of this one is runs out.
Char Davis, Weld County Public Health and Environment, indicated they would like to see the connection
to public water. There will be a number of people at the facility at a time. Ms. Davis asked the applicant if
there was an option of a well?
Phil Young indicated that there were wells and the water became non potable.The wells pulled from the side
of the aquifer. Erie has an agreement with Left Hand Canyon Water District and it says they can only serve
those within the city limits. Ms. Davis is not familiar with ground water wells in the area. The biggest
concern is hand washing and accidental lead poisoning. They could provide hand washing station at all
times. It needs to be a sanitary facility. Mr. Gimlin stated it does not have to be linked to a specific water
source but they need to provide an adequate water source. Ms. Davis indicated that the vault system would
be acceptable. Mr. Gimlin indicated that the Fire District would need to be addressed regarding the fire
hydrant. Mr. Stohl stated that they have had conversations with regard to the current and applicable fire
codes. There are alternative possibilities beside a fire hydrant. The classroom facilities would need to be
deferred until a resolution is reached. Mr. Gimlin asked if they would check into well possibilities. The City
of Longmont and the club will look at the well opportunity.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked how many participants will be on site at one time. Mr.Olander stated that there will
be 3-4 range safety officers and 6-8 participants. This would be for 1-2 hours depending on how the shoot
will be structured. Mr. Fitzgerald would expect to have more than just law enforcement on site. There could
be 12-15 agencies using the site. Mr.Titus stated that there are approximately 6-10 club members on site
unless 4H shows up.
Fred Walker stated that this was proposed as a temporary use for a 5 year time frame. The 10 years takes
away from it being a temporary facility. With this there should be a permanent water supply. If this stays
a five year things can be worked out but they are expanding a bunch with no water.
James Rohn asked Ms. Davis about the possibility of a cistern. Ms. Davis stated that is something that can
be looked at but the possibility of a well needs to be reviewed first. Mr. Rohn wants to know where the water
aquifer is located at. Mr. Young indicated that they are to the north of the site 2 miles. They were on the
edge and picking up minerals. They had to purchase water rights from Windy Gap delivered by Left Hand
Canyon Water District. Mr. Rohn wants to know if they are on the north or south edge of the aquifer. Mr.
Young indicated they were probably closer to the western edge because it goes to Omaha.
John Folsom suggests the condition that the Department of Health has placed regarding the water source
be left as it stands. It will be up to the applicant to provide a pure water source no matter what the source
would be. Mr. Rohn main concern beside the water is a plan for lead removal. He would like to see them
be more stringent. Ms. Davis indicated that the standard included the submittal of a management program
using the EPA practices for lead at outdoor shooting ranges.
John Folsom indicated the last issue of concern was the sewer. Ms. Davis is satisfied with the vault system
but still would like to see that the well possibility and public water are explored.
Fred Walker wants to talk about hours of operation. The standard is to broadly written, the hours are fine
but it can be done 7 days a week. There is increase potential for use. The night time shooting should have
Page -9-
some notification. It could happen during the middle of the week and not on the weekends. Does not need
to be seven days a week. Law enforcement could use one day of weekend,then the rest of the time can be
used during the week. Mr. Titus would like to see Monday thru Friday for law enforcement. The members
use all week long. September through October is the busiest time of the year. The range is operated from
8-5 for the public. The evening shooting done by Erie only and it is done twice a year. Night shooting for
law enforcement during the week only.
Bryant Gimlin asked if there was a permit mechanism for the night shooting. Ms. Lockman stated that
assembly permits are with 500 people and not applicable.
John Folsom asked if law enforcement agencies have any problems with restricting their activities to the
days of the week excluding Sunday. Mr.Olander stated that the agency would have issues with that because
of the reserve officer program. The weekend is the only time they are available to qualify. There has been
no time the officers have shot on the weekend other than for the reservists.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the night shooting in the fall. Mr. Olander stated they try to schedule in
October or November due to the additional night hours. Mr.Fitzgerald asked if restricting the night shooting
to October and November and during the week would be acceptable. Mr. Olander stated it would work for
his unit but possibly not others.
Bernie Ruesgen indicated that restricting it to two months a year might be difficult due to the number of
agencies that are in need of the facility. Mr. Olander stated that there was some interest included in the
packet for the night shooting.
Sheri Lockman indicated that enforcement will be done by staff and if there are different hours of operation
for some then others it will be difficult to enforce. The neighbors will have a hard time. The hours of
operation would need to be overall not separated for the club and the law enforcement.
Fred Walker proposed that Development Standard be changed to"hours of operation shall be from 8:00am
to 5:00pm. Law enforcement night shooting shall be limited to week nights only with a maximum number
of night shootings of 2 per month and 9:00pm.
Mr. Olander indicated that it will be difficult for multiple agencies. Mr. Walker is concerned with the scope
of the facility. Is this going to be a full blown facility or as proposed a temporary facility. Mr. Olander asked
for clarification with regard to two nights per month for all the agencies. There is only one agency on the
range at a time due to the safety concerns.
Bryant Gimlin indicated that the number would be total of club and enforcement. Limit the hours of operation
to 8:00pm. In the fall there will be more possibilities for night shooting due to the extended nighttime hours.
James Rohn moved that Development Standard#25 be changed to say,"Hours of operation shall be from
8:00am to 5:00pm. Law enforcement night shooting shall be limited to week nights only and no later than
9:00pm. No second
Bryant Gimlin indicated that the hours need to be specified. During the fall and winter days there will be
more time for night shooting due to the extended nighttime.
Bernie Ruesgen indicated that Green Mill will be the enforcers of the regulations. This is Law enforcement
training center, these are people who defending street and are responsible for the handling of a weapon.
They should be afforded a little latitude for the professionals they are.
Fred Walker agree that they deserve some latitude, however there needs to be a little more mitigation. Mr.
Ruesgen stated that there is not one member of Erie or the immediate community that is here to oppose the
project. There has been not one negative thing spoken. Planning Commission is second guessing those
that have no complaints and trying to impose restrictions based on this.
JR Titus indicated that when they were approached for the night shooting by Erie it would not be approved
Page -10-
by the club unless the town trustees gave their approval. There have been no complaints against the club.
Stephen Mokray moved that Development Standard#25 shall read"Hours of operation shall be from 8:00am
to dusk. Night shooting shall be limited to law enforcement and allowed to 10:00pm"James Rohn seconded
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Fred Walker, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James
Rohn, yes; Bernie Ruesgen, yes; John Hutson, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Stephen Mokray moved to add Development Standard#28 to state"The property owner or operators shall
be responsible for complying with the supplementary regulations for outdoor shooting ranges as listed in
Section 23-4-370 of the Weld County Code. John Hutson seconded
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Fred Walker, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James
Rohn, yes; Bernie Ruesgen, yes; John Hutson, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
James Rohn moved to change Development Standard#24 from five years to ten years. No second
John Folsom moved that Case AmUSR-1031, along with the amendments, 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; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Fred Walker, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James
Rohn, yes; Bernie Ruesgen, yes; John Hutson, . Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at
Respectfully submitted
)
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Page -11-
Hello