HomeMy WebLinkAbout982067.tiff CORRECTED
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, September 15, 1998
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held September 15,1998, in the County
Commissioners' Hearing Room (Room#101), Weld County Centennial Building, 915 10th Street, Greeley,
Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Marie Koolstra, at 1:45 p.m.
ROLL CALL G�
Marie Koolstra Present -4
Jack Epple Present C (-) r
Glenn Vaad Present — t.
Cristie Nicklas Present rn m0
n
Fred Walker Absent o x c..
Bruce Fitzgerald Present ;y
Michael Miller Present c .)
Stephan Mokray Absent o
Arlan Marrs Present
Also Present: Monica Daniels-Mika, Director, Scott Ballstadt, Planner II, Julie Chester, Planner, Eric Jerman,
Planner,Ann Best Johnson, Long Range Planner, Department of Planning Services; Cyndy Giaque, Assistant
County Attorney; Don Carroll, Public Works; Sheble McConnelogue,Trevor Jiricek, Health Department;Wendi
Inloes, Secretary.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on August 18, 1998,
was approved as read.
CASE NUMBER: Z-514
APPLICANT: Dale and Loretta Burman
PLANNER: Eric Jerman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-1805 Weld County, Colorado
REQUEST: Planned Unit Development Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) to E (Estate).
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Weld County Road 48; west of and adjacent to Weld County Road
53.
Eric Jerman, Department of Planning Services, asked that Case Z-514, be continued to the October 20, 1998,
hearing, to give the applicant more time to make changes to their application.
Glenn Vaad moved that Case Z-514, be continued to the October 20, 1998, hearing. Arlan Marrs seconded
the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Marie
Koolstra, yes; Glenn Vaad, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes; Jack Epple, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: 3rd AmUSR-877 (Continued from August 18,1998, hearing)
APPLICANT: Andrea Bigelow/Frank Scott Trust Trustee and Living Trust
PLANNER: Julie A. Chester
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Gravel Mining
Operation
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Sections 7 and 8, and parts of Sections 17 and 18, T2N, R68W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado
LOCATION: North of Weld County Road 20-1/2 and south of Highway 119, one mile west of Weld County
Road 7 and east of Weld County Road 1
�O7toer apija-_ 982067
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
September 15,1998
Page 2
Julie Chester, Department of Planning Services, presented Case 3rd AmUSR-877. Julie stated that Condition
of Approval#J, has been added to staff comments, regarding endangered species. Julie explained that 2nd
AmUSR-877, had been approved by the Commissioners on April 26, 1995. It was determined through the
review process that conditions of approval had not been met and the plat had never been recorded. To
correct this, 3rd AmUSR-877 has included all Conditions of Approval and Development Standards, and the
plat map will include both amendments. The Department of Planning is recommending approval of this
application. The applicant had a lease agreement with the City of Longmont, and issues regarding additional
right-of-way, endangered species and reclamation, have been resolved.
Cristie Nicklas asked Julie if there was currently mining going on without the recorded plat. Julie stated that
there had been mining and that there had been a condition with Public Works regarding the improvements
agreement, and the applicant has been working with Public Works on that issue.
Mike Refer, applicant, explained the road improvements agreement with Public Works have been made, and
the agreement is with three or four other land owners in the area, and signatures had not been collected for
the plat, therefore it had not been recorded. Mr. Refer also stated that a final version with additions had been
made to the improvements agreement with Public Works.
Glenn Vaad asked about the travel route. With the changes to the improvements agreement and an
agreement with the City of Longmont, Mr. Refer stated that the route runs both directions. WCR 7 and Hwy
119 is not a controlled intersection and WCR land Hwy 119 is a controlled intersection.
Mike Miller asked Mr. Refer to point out the existing batch plants on the map, and asked if they have plans
to move the batch plant. Mr. Refer stated the plant site is not moving.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Paula Fitzgerald, City of Longmont, verified the fact that they are in a lease agreement with CAMAS, and
would be available for questions.
The Chair asked Mr. Refer if he was aware of the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards, and
in agreement with them. Mr. Refer stated he was in agreement.
Jack Epple asked Don Carroll about the road maintenance agreement, and if Public Works was in agreement
with them. Don stated they are in agreement and will re-work the agreement, addressing the haul route to
reflect leaving the entrance going west on WCR 20-1/2 and additional work on the acceleration lane.
Glenn Vaad moved that Case 3rd AmUSR-877, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards, with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Michael Miller seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Marie
Koolstra, yes; Glenn Vaad, yes;Arlan Marrs, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes; Jack Epple, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1198 (Continued from the September 1, 1998, hearing)
APPLICANT: Enviro-Cycle LLC/ Howard Boatright
PLANNER: Scott Ballstadt
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review permit for an Oil and Gas
Support and service facility (brine water disposal) in the A(Agricultural) zone district.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NW4 NW4 of Section 32, T4N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Weld County Road 40 and east of and adjacent to Weld County
Road 39.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
September 15,1998
Page 3
Glenn Vaad wanted the Board to be aware that Ms. Johnson, representing Mr. Boatright, is a member of his
campaign committee and contributor to his campaign. Glenn stated he has no conversation regarding this
case, and asked if anyone would have a problem with him working on the case. The Chair asked if members
of the Board or members of the audience had a problem with Glenn's request, which no one spoke.
Scott Ballstadt, Department of Planning Services, presented Case USR-1198. Scott stated that there had
been new Conditions of Approval and Development Standards which had been updated. The additions
addressed Public Works concerns. Scott then read the recommendation into the record, and stated that the
Department of Planning is recommending approval of the application.
Mike Miller asked what facilities currently exist on the site. Scott said there is a couple of oil and gas facilities
with tank batteries, but would refer to the applicant to verify what exactly is on site.
Jack Epple asked if the application was currently in operation. Scott stated this USR was not in operation.
Jackie Johnson, representative of the applicant. Ms. Johnson stated there were currently four wells on site
as well as a tank battery on the far east site of the property. Mr. Boatright has applied with the Oil and Gas
Commission for a new well site to be used for the brine water disposal.
Mike Miller asked to point out on map where existing wells and the proposed facility will be. Mr. Boatright
pointed this out to the Board on the map, stating there was currently four producing wells, and two tank
batteries. Ms. Johnson then explained the route that the trucks will be using, and the process of the dumping
onto a concrete pad.
Arlan Marrs asked about dumping of loads onto the pads, and why it was being done this way. Ms. Johnson
explained that the operator will be able to see what is being disposed and they are trying to prevent settling.
Arlan was concerned with the trucks driving through the waste. Ms. Johnson stated that do not feel there will
be much for the trucks to drive through, and that the pad is designed to slope with disposal going into a grated
area. Arlan asked the Health Department about Class 2 waste. Trevor Jiricek explained that class two
includes fluids derived from exploration production of oil and gas, and if wanted a different waste plan, would
have to go through a different type of permitting process with the OGCC and EPA.
Glenn Vaad asked about the operation of a biocide. Mr. Boatright explained that a small chemical pump that
is used to prevent the growth of bacteria and controls odor. Mr. Boatright explained to have odor you have
to have a pool of water that stands for a period of time to allow the bacteria to appear. The water will be
treated and into the injection well within 24 hours.
Arlan asked who is responsible for determining any problems caused by the injection process leaking out into
different layer. Mr. Boatright explained they have to have mechanical integrity test of the well to make sure
there are no leaks, and the surface is observed daily.
Mike Miller asked why they have chose to openly dump material out into a pit. Mr. Boatright explained that
it is to observe the fluid to make sure they are getting the type of fluid they are permitted for. Mike also had
concerns about the dumping material and driving on the same site. Mr. Boatright stated the system designed
with a four foot wide canal, which the fluid will flow out of immediately, flowing to a settlement tank which is
drained immediately by a pump. The oil will be separated as it goes into the system into a heater treater.
Jack Epple asked how they will clean what settles. Mr. Boatright explained they will remove the sand and the
finds from the fluid manually, disposing them at a proper disposal facility.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Mark Magnuson, spoke against application with concerns with safety regarding traffic on WCR 39, proposed
developments in the area which will increase traffic, water contamination of absorption into the ground,
decrease of property value, dust, and the hours of operation.
,-(1 ,;)(•)('‘, 7
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
September 15,1998
Page 4
Arlan asked where his property is located. Mr. Magnuson pointed out where he was located.
Ms. Johnson addressed the concerns of the disposal, and explained the emergency exit proposed will only
be used for emergency purposes only. A dust abatement plan is also in place. The applicant stated they are
in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Arlan asked about where the hours were located and what they were. Scott stated that Development
Standard#6 refers to the hours, but had been left out, and should be 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., with the entire
facility being locked when not in operation.
Arlan Marrs moved to add to Development Standard#6 the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Cristie Nicklas
seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Marie
Koolstra, yes; Glenn Vaad, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes; Jack Epple, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Mike asked about the traffic concerns on WCR 39. Don Carroll stated that he has visited the site and
although it is not best intersection, it does meet minimum requirements. Accident records have been reviewed
showing a total of two in 1992 and 1993. Traffic counts for WCR 39 were 584 in 1997, and WCR 40 were 140
in 1996. Don stated there will be development within a mile of south of the operation, and they are working
with those applicants on WCR 36. Paving for the emergency exit is not being required to be paved to it being
an emergency exit only.
Glenn asked if the intersection was a T-Intersection. Don stated he believed it was and believes it is
controlled by one stop sign.
Mike asked if WCR 39 be main access for the new development. Don stated it was the main north/south
road, and traffic studies on the subdivision show most traffic will go south. Don suggested that they could post
signs northbound that would be appropriate for the situation on the truck traffic.
Arlan asked if an acceleration lane headed north was warranted. Don stated it was not.
Arlan Marrs moved that Case USR-1198, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards, with the amendment to #6, with the Planning
Commissions recommendation of approval. Cristie Nicklas seconded the motion.
Arlan made comment to the applicant that he feels they need to re-evaluate their design for the off-loading
before going before the Commissioners.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Marie
Koolstra, yes; Glenn Vaad, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Cristie Nickles, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes; Jack Epple, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: Z-515
APPLICANT: Bill Hall/Lindies Lake
PLANNER: Scott Ballstadt
REQUEST: Planned Unit Development Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to E (Estate).
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW4 of Section 20, T6N, R64W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Hwy 392; east of and adjacent to Weld County Road 51.
Scott Ballstadt, Department of Planning Services, presented case Z-515, stating that the Department of
Planning is recommending denial of this application, and read the recommendation into the record.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
September 15,1998
Page 5
Arlan Marrs asked if the biggest problem was the request for seven lots instead of five lots. Scott stated this
was the primary concern.
Glenn Vaad asked about the Galeton Fire request. Scott stated they are requesting a dry fire hydrant, which
would be using lake water.
Bill Hall, applicant, explained to the Board the reason for the request of seven lots instead of five. Mr. Hall
stated that he had considered five lots and a dirt road, however; he felt that seven lots and a paved road would
be a better option, reducing dust and other traffic concerns. Mr. Hall also stated that seven lot owners would
be able to better maintain open space and control weeds with more funds. Mr. Hall feels that they meet a
great deal of the goals in the PUD requirements. On the taking of prime farm ground, Mr. Hall feels that the
ground is not prime farm land as a good portion is in weeds, and the plan is to increase the number of acres
and put it into pasture land.
Arlan asked Mr. Hall to point out on the map where the open space will be, where the ditch is located and the
trail system. Mr. Hall explained the proposal pointing out on the map the areas, and stated they are trying to
keep the area as natural as they can. Arlan asked about the ditch company not wanting them to the use ditch
right-of-way for the trail. Mr. Hall explained that he has talked with the ditch company about liability concerns,
and feels that with more discussion, they will be able to come up with a solution.
Marie Koolstra asked who owns water in the lake. Mr. Hall explained that the water is owned by a combination
of people. Mr. Hall owns a portion, the homeowners would own a portion, and other portions belong to a land
owner to the south. Marie asked how it is divided out. Mr. Hall stated that he has two shares, and farm next
to him has six shares, and have storage rights, but the ditch company has not given a specific answer on what
the acre amount is.
Mike Miller asked about lots 2,3,4,5 and 7, and if these lots go all the way to the lake, and how these lot
owners will have access to the open space. Mr. Hall explained that they these lots are to the lake, and
indicated on the map that accessibility would be from an access off the end of the cul-de-sac.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Keith Brumley, spoke for the application. Mr. Brumley himself is interested in living at the proposed site as
he feels this is a great place to raise children. He also said he understood the concerns for controlling urban
spread, but feels there are exceptions which can benefit the county.
Richard Foose , was not against the proposal, but did have some concerns. Mr. Foose represents the ditch
and soil district. Mr. Foose had concerns with the open space proposal and the liability with children, wildlife,
flooding on lots one and two, and the lake water. Mr. Foose explained that the irrigation water, known as river
water, is used daily and cannot be stored,therefore Mr. Halls two shares could not be stored. Mr. Foose also
explained that if you own reservoir water, this could be transferred from one reservoir to another if someone
owns stock.
Cristie Nicklas asked how many cfs is a share. Mr. Foose said it was one to a share.
Glenn Vaad asked Mr. Foose if he kept his access road to the ditch locked. Mr. Foose stated he did not.
Arlan asked Mr. Foose who owns storage rights in the lake, and if there would be potential of the lake drying
out from use. Mr. Foose did not know, but it has historically held water, and probably would not dry out.
Arlan also asked about the flooding and what that was caused from. Mr. Foose stated it was from heavy rain.
If needed, they could use the lake for flood control, but have not needed it.
%,52o 7
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
September 15,1998
Page 6
Mr. Hall asked the Board if the water issue was a concern, and if it was, he would like to come back with
proper representation addressing such issues. Mr. Hall explained the water is stored in the lake for the
adjacent farms. Mr. Hall stated he had payed a fee to the ditch company to allow them to run flood water into
the dam, but he did not understand what the fee was for.
Monica Daniels-Mika, explained the applicant does have the right to ask for a continuance, but at this time
in a hearing, having already received public testimony, it is highly unusual.
Arlan stated that his concern with the water and the lake is not as much as a concern today as it is for the
developer.
Mike Miller asked about dredging the lake to improve storage, if he has no water rights, what is he going to
store. Mr. Hall stated he does have water rights, which is an issue he is trying to clarify with the ditch
company. Mr. Hall understands that when the river is running and there is ability to store, you are able to do
so for use at a later time.
Cristie Nicklas asked about the lake being used for recreation. Mr. Hall explained that it will be used as it has
been historically for recreation. Cristie then asked who is going to be liable. Mr. Hall said that the homeowners
association will have a liability policy. Cristie asked if the other share owners of the lake will have to participate
in the liability insurance. Mr. Hall stated not as far as recreation, and would not be liable to his knowledge.
Mr. Hall has consulted with a water attorney to work on water issues.
Cristie asked if covenants are proposed as part of the application. Mr. Hall explained that they are working
on them, but are still in the process of being written.
Scott Ballstadt explained that covenants are normally asked for at the final plat stage.
Cristie asked Trevor Jiricek about the septics. Trevor stated that any septics would need to comply with the
county and state regulations, and does not see anything different besides some additional setbacks.
Mr. Hall added that they would be requiring both soils testing and perc testing on each lot.
Mike Miller asked about water augmentation. Scott stated he did not have the information on this issue.
Arlan asked Scott to address the issue of the requirement to pave on 7 lots verses 5 lots and paving. Scott
explained that the definition of urban vs. non-urban is where the requirement takes place. Non-urban states
5 lots or less have the option to propose non-paved roads, and with urban if six lots or more, the applicant is
required to pave.
Glenn Vaad asked Mr. Hall why he is still going forward with his proposal when the planning staff made him
aware they were recommending denial because of the urban scale. Mr. Hall explained that he originally
considered five lots, but decided it may not work. He had spoken with Scott Ballstadt, and Scott indicated that
seven lots would require a paved road, as well as a PUD application. Mr. Hall then received his Sketch Plan
comments which indicated a recommendation for denial. Mr. Hall indicated that he had spoken to a member
of the Planning Commission and was told that a variance to the non-urban scale development standard may
possibly be granted, so he decided to proceed with seven lots.
Glenn asked Scott if paving was an issue, and was this what the decision was based upon. Scott explained
that the reason for recommending denial was a staff decision, and proposing six lots or more is urban scale
development, which is discouraged outside an urban growth boundary area. Paving was also a related issue.
The Chair asked Mr. Hall if he was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards,
if this should be approved. Mr. Hall stated he was in agreement.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
September 15,1998
Page 8
Arlan Marrs made a comment that in this case, there should be an exception to the policies, and allow seven
lots.
Arlan Marrs moved that Case Z-515, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. There was no second to the motion.
Glenn Vaad moved that Case Z-515, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning
Commissions recommendation of denial. Cristie Nicklas second to the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Marie
Koolstra, yes; Glenn Vaad, yes; Arlan Marrs, no; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes; Jack Epple, yes. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
essppectffullysubmitted
062Atal
Wendi Inloes
Secretary
97
Hello