HomeMy WebLinkAbout961650.tiff CORRECTED MINUTES
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, August 20, 1996
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held August 20,1996, in the County
Commissioners' Hearing Room (Room#101), Weld County Centennial Building, 915 10th Street, Greeley,
Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chairman, Ann Garrison.
Tape 508
Glenn Vaad Present
Fred Walker Present
Shirley Camenisch Present
Cristie Nicklas Present
Jack Epple Present
Marie Koolstra Present
Arlan Marrs Present
Ann Garrison Present
Rusty Tucker Present
Also Present: Monica Daniels-Mika, Director;Todd A. Hodges, Lead Planner, Keith A. Schuett, Lead Planner,
Shani L. Eastin, Current Planner, Kerri D. Keithley, Current Planner, Department Planning Services; Lee
Morrison, Assistant County Attorney; Trevor Jiricek, Supervisor, Weld County Health Department; Jill
Boshinski, Secretary.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on August 6,1996,
was approved as read.
1. Election of officers.
Shirley Camenisch moved to appoint Ann Garrison as Chairman. Ann Garrison declined the nomination.
Cristie Nicklas moved to appoint Arlan Marrs as Chairman. The Vice-Chairperson asked the secretary to poll
the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Glenn Vaad - yes; Cristie Nicklas-yes; Fred
Walker-yes; Marie Koolstra-yes; Jack Epple-yes; Rusty Tucker-yes; Shirley Camenisch-yes;Ann Garrison-
yes; Arlan Marrs-Abstained. Motion carried unanimously.
Shirley Camenisch moved to appoint Jack Epple as Vice-Chairman. The Vice-Chairperson asked the
secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Glenn Vaad-yes; Cristie Nicklas-
yes; Fred Walker-yes; Marie Koolstra-yes; Jack Epple-Abstained; Rusty Tucker-yes; Shirley Camenisch-yes;
Ann Garrison-yes; Arlan Marrs-yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1091 (continued from the October 17, 1995, regular scheduled meeting).
PLANNER: Todd A. Hodges
APPLICANT: Hirsch Dairy
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a 2,000 Head Dairy
in the A(Agricultural)zone district.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Located in Section 24, T7N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
LOCATION: North and adjacent to Weld County Road 78; approximately 1/4 mile east of Weld County
Road 23.
11:411-
961650
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 20, 1996
Page 2
Todd Hodges requested that the Planning Commission grant a continuance for Case USR-1091, to October
15, 1996. This will allow time for the applicant's representative to be present and to address issues with the
Weld County Health Department. Mr. Hodges stated that the Weld County Health Department has concerns
on the applicant complying with the Confined Animal Feeding Operation Regulations of this facility.
A letter received from Kenneth Lind, representative, of a concerned party, states that the October 15, 1996,
hearing date would be an acceptable date.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Glenn Vaad moved for continuance of Case USR-1091 to October 15, 1996. Ann Garrison seconded the
motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision.
Glenn Vaad-yes;Cristie Nicklas-yes; Fred Walker-yes;Marie Koolstra-yes;Jack Epple-yes; Rusty Tucker-yes;
Shirley Camenisch-yes;Ann Garrison-yes; Arlan Marrs-yes. Motion carried unanimously.
3. CASE: Z-500 (continued from the August 6, 1996, regular scheduled meeting).
PLANNER: Shani L. Eastin
APPLICANT: Kevin McCarty (Little Thompson Valley Estates)
REQUEST: A Change of Zone from Agricultural to PUD (Agricultural and Estate).
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Located in the E2 of the SE4 of Section 21, T4N, R68W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Weld County Road 7; north of and adjacent to Weld County
Road 42.
Shani Eastin presented a brief summary of the proposal and entered the favorable recommendation of the
Department of Planning Services into the record as written. Shani Eastin referenced the referral response
received from the Town of Berthoud and their concerns with conflicts to the motor cross track located to the
east of the property and the effect on surrounding farms. The Department of Planning Services'staff believes
that the concerns of the motor cross track is covered with the applicant providing a tree belt buffer on the
eastern portion of the development. Staff also believes that the effect on the surrounding farming operations
is covered in Condition of Approval#9.
The Department of Planning Services' staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Case
Number Z-500, with the ten Conditions of Approval.
Kevin McCarty, the applicant, gave an overview of this property and read a letter from his wife into the record.
Mr. McCarty explained that the prior owners had applied for a recorded exemption that split off seven and half
acres of sub-irrigated alfalfa ground north of the river. This piece is very productive with three to three and
half tons of alfalfa produced per acre. The area south of the river is very unproductive and is covered in bind
weed and rye. Mr. McCarty explained that they propose to make this property as agriculturally productive as
they can. The applicant feels that with the sale of the lots they will be able to improve the rest of this property.
A water decree was acquired for a dry pond located on the property and their plans are to establish more
pasture with a side role system if funds are available. The applicant is proposing pasture in front of the
development with leasing options to property owners. Mr. McCarty stated that the covenants will not allow
property owners to have pastures on their lots. Loafing sheds and a small corral will be allowed, and horses
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 20, 1996
Page 3
are only allowed when property owners lease pasture land from the applicant.
The area north of the road to the applicant's home is proposed for alfalfa, grass or hay. Mr. McCarty stated
that they will escrow money from the sale of the lots to establish a tree belt along the east, north and south
sides of the lots. The applicant is proposing four percent funds to interior lots and six percent to the end lots.
Cristie Nicklas asked if this land is currently in wheat production. Mr. McCarty explained that it was in wheat
production.
Arlan Marrs asked how long the proposed covenants would cover this development. Mr. McCarty stated that
he was considering in perpetuity, but nothing has been finalized with their attorney at this time.
Arlan Marrs had concerns with the use of the motor cross track east of the property. Mr. McCarty stated that
it is used and generally does not create much noise.
Shirley Camenisch asked what types of trees would be used in establishing the tree belt. Mr. McCarty stated
that Cedar, Austrian Pines and Lilac Trees would be planted.
Ann Garrison had concerns on the lot sizes and what the applicant proposed the property owners would use
this area for since it would not be allowed for pasture use. Mr. McCarty stated that this area would be used
for open space or to cut hay. Mr. McCarty stated that the covenants will address landscaping possibilities.
Shirley Camenisch asked if there is enough water available for these lots to be irrigated for the alfalfa. Mr.
McCarty stated no irrigation was available for the lots. Domestic water is the only water supply for the lots.
Arlan Marrs asked if the water decree that was obtained will allow enough irrigation to the remaining acreage.
Mr. McCarty stated that it would not irrigate all of the acreage at one time. The applicants are proposing to
plant grass under the assumption this will be dry land.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
The Chairman asked the applicant if they were in agreement with the ten Conditions of Approval. Mr. McCarty
stated they were in agreement.
Ann Garrison motioned that Case Number Z-500, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with
the Conditions of Approval with Planning Commissions recommendation for approval. Rusty Tucker seconded
the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Glenn
Vaad-yes; Cristie Nicklas-yes; Fred Walker-yes; Marie Koolstra-yes; Jack Epple-yes; Rusty Tucker-yes;
Shirley Camenisch-no; Ann Garrison-no; Arlan Marrs-yes. Motion carried 6 to 2.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 20, 1996
Page 4
4. CASE NUMBER: COMPAMEND-9
DIRECTOR: Monica Daniels-Mika
PLANNER: Kern D. Keithley
PROPOSED CHANGES:
1. Change the wording from conceptual to structural
2. Modify and change heading categories
3. Change Mixed Use Development Area Map#2
4. Show annexed properties with a hatch mark
5. Change table numberings
6. Add additional language
Monica Daniels-Mika introduced Kerri Keithley. Ms. Mika explained that the Department of Planning Services
has been in the process of updating the 1995 Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Mika distributed copies of all the
previous maps from the Comprehensive Plan dealing specifically with the MUD area. She explained that there
have been some changes in the area since 1987, and she gave an overview of the changes. Ms. Mika
explained that the first map is the original map adopted by the County in 1987. In 1992, the Comprehensive
Plan was amended to include a portion of ground in the southern portion of the MUD area designated as low-
density residential development. In 1994, the Comprehensive Plan was updated, there was a series of
property owners who requested for inclusion into the MUD area. On November 7, 1995, the Planning
Commission approved the inclusion of 1,003 acres. The MUD area was changing,with areas being included
that didn't have a conceptual land use designation. Since November, there have been properties in the MUD
area that were patch-worked together.
The consultants of Balloffett and EDAW have been working toward a master plan to help alleviate these
problems. The master plan was presented to the Department of Planning Services in June of 1996, however,
do to the length of time the study took(18 months), the information is now but of date. The Department of
Planning Services is in the process of rewriting components that were originally included in the MUD area
Plan. At the hearing two maps were presented, one from the existing Comprehensive Plan, and the other a
proposed modification to the plan. This proposed map is a concept of a structural land use plan, which is
different from what the Department of Planning Services' had before. In a conceptual land use plan any
activities that occur in those specifically designated areas need to be conceptually appropriate. The structural
land use plan is based on specific elements.
The five major principals addressed in the structural plan are: 1) employment center, includes industrial,
commercial and even mixed residential uses combined in one site; 2)interconnection of community, sense
of place [community parks, etc.] 3) consistent land use standards, transportation, larger setbacks; 4)
appropriate mix of zoning, PUD concept as long as the design consideration have been dealt with up front;
5) planned transportation network,traffic impacts and projections.
Ann Garrison asked how the Weld County Planning Department perceives the current and future annexations,
affecting the land use in that area. Ms. Mika stated that in order to have an effective regional type of
governmental cooperation, they need to enter into intergovernmental agreements to ensure appropriate land
use standards. The Towns of Frederick, Firestone, Dacono, Erie, City of Longmont and Weld County are
coming together to determine how this area should look.
Ms. Mika explained that one of the major reasons the MUD area was developed was due to the transportation
system. Another unique factor that is located in the MUD area is the Saint Vrain Sanitation District. Four
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 20, 1996
Page 5
different water districts intersect this area and services are readily available.
Arlan Marrs asked if the reason why the MUD area has not extended to the south to Highway 52 or the county
border was due to the availability of sewer and water services. Ms. Mika stated the MUD area initially
correlated to the St. Vrain Sanitation Districts boundaries, but overtime the district's boundaries have
expanded while the MUD has remained constant. There has not been a lot of interest or follow through as
far as petitioning into or expanding the MUD area. In 1994, the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Board chose
not to look at expansion to this area. After public hearings were held they tied it down to major arterials.
Fred Walker asked if a person can petition into the this area. Ms. Mika stated that a person can petition into
this area twice a year. These times are in April and November and there is no application fee associated with
it. People have recently petitioned into this area for a specific land use designation.
Arlan Marrs asked that if you are an individual owner in this area what advantages or disadvantages do you
have to develop your property as compared to what the county directs for the MUD area. Ms. Mika stated with
the Structural Plan a person can propose any land zoning use. The intensity would need to correlate to the
particular land use categories.
Fred Walker had concerns with verbiage in the Comprehensive Plan additions. Further discussion followed
between Planning Commission members and Ms. Mika.
Fred Walker motioned that the verbiage"preservation" in the MUD Structural Land Use Plan should read as
"conservation". Cristie Nicklas seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against these changes.
No one wished to speak.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Glenn
Vaad-yes; Cristie Nicklas-yes; Fred Walker-yes; Marie Koolstra-yes; Jack Epple-yes; Rusty Tucker-yes;
Shirley Camenisch-yes; Ann Garrison-yes; Arlan Marrs-yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Ann Garrison moved that the COMPAMEND-9 with verbiage changes be sent to the Board of County
Commissioners with Planning Commission recommendation for approval. Cristie Nicklas seconded the
motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Glenn
Vaad-yes; Cristie Nicklas-yes; Fred Walker-yes; Marie Koolstra-yes; Jack Epple-yes; Rusty Tucker-yes;
Shirley Camenisch-yes; Ann Garrison-yes; Arlan Marrs-yes. Motion carried unanimously.
5. CASE NUMBER: USR-1123
PLANNER: Keith A. Schuett
APPLICANT: Rescar Industries, Inc.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Railcar
Maintenance and Repair Facility to include Railcar Inspection, Maintenance,
Cleaning, Dismantling, Railcar Storage, and Surface Coating in the A(Agricultural)
zone district.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the N2 of Section 2, T1 N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
LOCATION: 22400 1-76 Frontage Road.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 20, 1996
Page 6
Keith Schuett stated that this application is for a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit
for a Railcar Maintenance and Repair Facility in the agricultural zone district. This application is located on
approximately 85 acres. This property had a previous use for a railcar repair facility under Special Review
Permit Case Number USR-821, and that the applicant was not a part of the original application.
This facility is located in the urban growth boundary area of the Town of Hudson and their planning
commission had no conflicts with this application. Mr. Schuett referenced a memorandum dated August 18,
1996, from the Weld County Health Department that this referral has been reviewed and they have included
twenty three additional standards that have been incorporated into the Department of Planning Services'
staffs recommendation. Staff feels that with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards that this
use will be compatible with the existing and future surrounding land uses.
The Department of Planning Services' staff is recommending approval with the three Conditions of Approval
and thirty-four Development Standards.
Ann Garrison asked if this will be a more intense use to the land as compared to when Rocky Mountain
Railcar occupied this facility. Mr. Schuett explained that this would be a more intense use, because the
applicant is expanding uses to include railcar cleaning. Due to the location of this property the Department
of Planning Services' does not believe there will be any problems.
Glenn Vaad had concerns on the hazardous materials removal that was addressed in a memorandum
received on August 1, 1996, from the Weld County Health Department. Mr. Schuett stated that in the latest
memorandum received from the Weld County Health Department that it does address the concerns of
cleaning standards and removal that would be acceptable.
Trevor Jiricek explained that the process will include storage up to 90 days on-site and then removal of the
residues off site. Mr. Jiricek explained that part of this proposal is the construction of a complete self-
contained recycling facility where the applicants will be recovering some of the residues on site. The
applicants have agreed to the review of the recycling facility prior to any construction.
Jerry Charaska, representative for Rescar, Inc. explained that this company has been in the railcar business
for 26 years. The applicants have over 60 locations in approximately 20 States. Several of these shops have
both cleaning and repair capabilities. Rescar, Inc. operates three switching operations and are the largest
privately held contract repair shop in the United States. The applicants are proposing this site in Colorado
to open up the needs of a high quality railcar repair facility. Mr. Charaska gave a listing of some of the
national and local customers associated with their company. The applicants are proposing service to repair
coal cars and to provide a full service shop. The full service shop will include: 1)cleaning tank cars, 2) repairs
to hopper cars, and 3) the application of coating to these cars.
The applicants' have over a hundred mobile trucks in the United States that repair cars. The proposed site
in Hudson will cover approximately five states. Rescar, Inc estimates they will employ approximately 80 to
120 people. They are annually inspected by the Bureau of Explosives, the Federal Railroad Administration
and the American Association of Railroads.
Ann Garrison asked what the vacuum extraction flare system was. George McDermott, Director of
Environmental Administration and Regulatory Administration explained that in evacuating volitiles from a tank
car or from any closed vessel to the extent that they are not sufficient to pressurize to equalize themselves
to the flare for combustion or to another control device they would use a wetring vacuum. It pulls the vacuum
to ensure all the volitiles are removed from the car or from what ever vessel we happen to be evacuating.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 20, 1996
Page 7
Arlan Marrs asked if these gases will be flared off and what amount will be flared off. Mr. McDermott
explained that most of the gases will be flared off and some will go through carbon absorption devices
depending on volatility and other characteristics. The flare would provide a 98 percent destruction removal
efficiency.
Arlan Marrs had concerns with the Weld County Health Departments recommendations of the flaring off of
the gases. Mr. Jiricek stated that they have concerns, but that flare and emissions are dealt with at the State
level.
Ann Garrison asked who monitors the flaring off of the gases. Mr. Jiricek explained that the State monitors
it to some extend, but that Weld County Health Department does contract with the Air Pollution Control
Division to do inspections at their request.
Arlan Marrs asked what provisions would be made for the Town of Hudson residences if deemed a nuance.
Mr. McDermott explained that they work within the law. At one of Rescar, Inc. locations they have a hospital
nearby and at another location there is a Holiday Inn, and that they have not received any complaints in these
areas.
Cristie Nicklas asked if this business responds to any emergencies for railcar accidents. Mr. McDermott
explained that Rescar, Inc. does not portray themselves as emergency responders under the law, but that
they are employed by emergency responders to assist them and bring support equipment.
Glenn Vaad had concerns on who keeps control on the total volume on what was put in the tank car. Mr.
McDermott explained that there are some imprecise situations that due occur, but they have committed to
ensure that cars would not be accepted on site above the D.O.T. requirements for an empty car. Mr.
Charaska stated that at the loading facilities the Bureau of Explosives and the Federal Railroaders conduct
inspections of loading facilities.
Jack Epple asked if the applicants had acquired an on-site environmental study. The representatives
explained they have acquired an on-site environmental study. Mr. McDermott explained they are registered
as a generator with the State for a less than 90 day storage category.
Arlan Marrs asked what they do with the products they clean out of tankers from petroleum customers. Mr.
McDermott explained that if the customers want the virgin product they would containerize, label it on-site,
and seal it with an approved Department of Transportation container. They would then transport the container
to the customer.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Ron Maynard had concerns on easements rights. Mr. Maynard explained that there is litigation on the
easement agreements across the property and the interchange agreement with Burlington Northern. Mr.
Maynard asked the Planning Commission to take into consideration the litigation on the two individual tracks
across the railcar property.
Mr. Schuett gave an overview of the location of the easement and felt this had no bearing on the application
for a Special Use Permit. Mr. Schuett explained that the courts will need to determine who has the right for
use.
Beth Brown an Attorney who represents Rescar, Industries gave a copy of the complaint that has been filed
in Federal Court and a certified copy from the Weld County records of the switching and easement
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 20, 1996
Page 8
agreements which have been incorporated into the record.
Jack Epple motioned for approval of Case Number USR-1123, with the Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards to the Board of County Commissioners. Ann Garrison seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Glenn
Vaad-yes; Cristie Nicklas-yes; Fred Walker-yes; Marie Koolstra-yes; Jack Epple-yes; Rusty Tucker-yes;
Shirley Camenisch-yes; Ann Garrison-yes; Arlan Marrs-yes; Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 3:25p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Ji I Boshinski
Secretary
Hello