HomeMy WebLinkAbout20252826.tiffSummary of the Weld County Planning Commission Meeting
Tuesday, September 2, 2025
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Administration
Building, Hearing Room, 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado. This meeting was called to order by Vice Chair
Michael Waailes, at 1:33 p.m.
Roll Call
Present: Barney Hammond, Cole Ritchey, Hunter Rivera, Michael Biwer, Michael Palizzi, Michael Wailes,
Virginia Guderyahn
Absent/Excused: Butch White, Calven Goza
Also Present Diana Aungst, Molly Wright, Angela Snyder, Jim Flesher and Maxwell Nader, Department of
Planning Services, Mike McRoberts, Development Review, Karin McDougal, County Attorney, and Kris
Ranslem, Secretary.
Motion: Approve the August 5, 2025.x ld County Planning Commission minutes, Moved by Michael
row.
by Hunter Rivera. on passed unanimously.
Case Number: USR25-0014
Applcant: Lembke Family Preserve, LLC
Planner: Holly Wrght
Request: Use by Special Review Permit for Keeping of Exotic Animals outside of
subdivisions and historic townsites in the A (Agricultural) Zone District
Legal Description: Part of Section 33, township 5 North, Range 62 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
Location: Approxiely 4 miles east of County Road 69; approximately 3.5 miles north of
U.S. Higmathway 34.
Molly Wright, Planning Services, presented Case USR25-0014, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Ms. Wright noted that no written correspondence or telephone calls were
received regarding this application. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this
application along with conditions of approval and development standards.
Mike McRoberts, Development Review, reported on the existing traffic, access to the site and drainage
conditions for the site.
Brian Aucone, 2300 Steele Street, Denver, Colorado, stated that the Denver Zoo Conservation Alliance
has been in operation for 127 years in their current location, which is in the middle of the City of Denver.
He added that this site is on approximately 84 acres; however, they are limited on space and do not have
the ability to expand. Therefore, they have been looking fora place that shares their vision and mission
and are proposing the Lembke Family Preserve. They have approximately 1.7 million people who come
through the zoo every year. The need for the second campus is due to additional space for breeding
population and holding animals before they are moved. Additionally, this campus would support the
updates to their infrastructure at the zoo by temporarily housing animals from the zoo during construction.
Mr. Aucone stated that this proposed site is approximately 576 acres and the area will not be open to the
public. There will be a series of animal holding barns and outdoor spaces that will be constructed in phases.
Additionally, there will be a perimeter fence separated from the animal holding areas. Mr. Aucone said that
there will be emergency response plans in place based on the species. He added that what they are
proposing is not considered dangerous but will have an emergency response plan in place in the event
somethin, were to happen. There will be cameras on site for monitoring and staff will be on site 24/7.
Cbmmu, c. S
iu\ au Ms
2025-2826
Commissioner Hammond asked if there are any concerns with anyone cutting fences or if the fences will
be monitored. Mr. Aucone said that there will be cameras on site and the public will not have direct access
to the fences. Staff will be checking those fences regularly.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Motion: Forward Case USR25-0014 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval,
Moved byMchael Biwer, Seconded by Hunter Rivera.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7).
Yes: Barney Hammond, Cole Ritchey, Hunter Rivera, Michael Biwer, Michael Pali., Michael Wailes,
Virginia Guderjahn.
Case Number: USR23-0041
Applcank DCP Operating Company, LP
Planner: Molly Wright
Request: Use by Spedal Review Pennd for Oil and Gas Support and Service (compressor
station) outside of subdivisions and historic tawnsites in the A (Agricultural) Zone
District.
Legal Description: Part of the SW1/4 of Section 25, Township 4 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
Location: Approximately tiT miles east of County Road 35; approximately 0.25 miles north
of County Road 40.
Molly Wrght, Planning Services, presented Case USR23-0041, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Ms. Wright noted that one letter was received from a surrounding property owner
outlining concerns of the owner's son being extremely sensitive to noise. Additionally, a surrounding
property owner came to the Planning Office with questions regarding the project. The Department of
Planning Services recommends approval of this application along with conditions of approval and
developmert standards.
Mike McRoberts, Development Review, reported on the existing traffic, access to the site and drainage
conditions for the site.
Patrick Groom, 822 r Street, Greeley, Colorado, stated that he is representing the applicant, DCP
Operating Company. In April of 2023, P66 (Phillips 66) acquired the DCP Companies. Mr. Groom stated
that DCP operates 3,500 miles of pipelines, 10 natural gas processing plants and 16 compressor stations.
Beoause of the increase in drilling activity there is a need for compression within the DCP system. This
site is to capture production in the area and transport it to the Mewboume processing plant and to other
locations_
Mr. Groom said that at this Pintail site it will be an electric motor driven compressor and there will be only
one (1) compressor station. He added that this will be DCP's first fully electric plant in Weld County and
that has significant benefits both from a noise standpoint and from an emissions standpoint. Because of
concerns -about property owners to the south they are directing all traffic to come to the site from the north
along County Road 35 and that will avoid traffic along County Road 40, which is where the property owner
expressed wncems about their son's noise sensitivities. The site consists of 40 acres, but only 10 acres
will be deāeloped by the compressor station. Mr. Groom said that the major equipment will be housed in
an insulated building to mitigate noise. He added that this facility will be able to operate under the residential
noise standard, which is 55 dBa during the day and 50 dBa during the night.
Commissioner Hammond asked if there will be much flaring from this site. Mr. Groom said that they do not
and added there may be occasional flaring but it not a processing plant.
Commissioner Wailes expressed excitement about the all -electric component of this facility to help mitigate
with noise and exhaust and asked what the backup plan is if there is no power. Mr. Groom said that there
will be a gas driven generator on site if there is no electricity. He added that in their discussions that Xcel
will have available supply of power, but the generator will be used if there is an emergency.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
The Chair asked if Staff had any changes to the Resolution. Mr. Groom said it is unclear if a Road
Maintenance Agreement would be required during all operations or just during construction and added that
because it is an unmanned facility they request to limit that to just construction. Mr. McRoberts said that
he thinks this would be appropriate in this case and requested an amendment to Condition of Approval 1.B
to read that "A Road Maintenance Agreement, for construction only, is required at this location. Road
maintenance includes, but is not limited to, dust control and damage repair to specified haul routes."
Motion: Amend Condition of Approval 1.6 as recommended by Staff, Moved by Michael Palizzi, Seconded
by Barneytdemmond. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the amended Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in
agreement.
Motion: Forward Case USR23-0041 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval,
Moved by Virginia Guderjahn, Seconded by Cole Ritchey.
Votes Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7).
Yes: Bamey Hammond, Cole Ritchey, Hunter Rivera, Michael Biwer, Michael Palizzi, Michael Wailes,
Virginia Guderjahn.
Case Number:
Appicant:
Ramer:
Request:
Legal Description:
Location:
OZ25-0005
Sheldon and Jeanne Kyne
Angela Snyder
Change to Zane from the A (Agricultural) Zone District to the C-3 (Business
Commercial) Zone District.
Part of the E1/2 SE1/4 ro Section 14, Township 6 North, Range 65 West of the 6th
P.M, Weld County, olorado.
North of and adjacent to State Highway 392; west of and adjacent to County Road
47.
Angela Sttyder, Planning Services, presented Case COZ25-0005, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Ms. Snyder stated that the applicant had expressed that residential use of the
property is no longer ideal due to the high level of traffic and noise. Staff was initially skeptical of the request
based on the prime farmland nature of the property and the lack of other commercial uses in the area;
however, a site visit to the property confirmed the changing nature of the area, the incredible level of traffic
at that intersection and the noise that comes with it and did in the end support the change of zone to
commercial. Ms. Synder noted that no written correspondence or telephone calls were received from the
surrounding property owners. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this
application along with conditions of approval and development standards.
Mike McRoberts, Development Review, reported on the existing traffic and access to the site.
Eric Wemsatan, 16493 Essex Road South, Platteville, Colorado, stated that they feel this property is very
suitable to ttis change of zone. This intersection serves a lot of traffic and removes someone wanting to
live therebecause of the heavy traffic.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Bruce Johnson, 801 81' Street, Greeley, Colorado, stated that his family has owned the property to the
south of this site. Mr. Johnson said that he is not for or against this application but has some concerns. He
added that there is a quite a flood issue from time to time up past the house to the south of this parcel. The
floodplain from Lone Tree Creek is significant. Mr. Johnson expressed concern with the traffic and noted
several accidents at that intersection.
The Chairasked the applicant if they have anything they wish to address from Mr. Johnson' comments.
Mr. Wernsman said that there is a large portion through the middle of the property that is in the floodplain
but the development will likely be located on the opposite comer of that.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Motion: Forward Case COZ25-0005 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval,
Moved by Michael Palizzi, Seconded by Cole Ritchey.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7).
Yes: Barney Hammond, Cole Ritchey, Hunter Rivera, Michael Biwer, Michael Palizzi, Michael Wailes,
Virginia.derjahn.
Case Number:
Arpicant:
Ramer:
Request:
Legal Description:
Location:
COZ25-0006
Affordable Owner, LLC
Diana Aungst
Change of Zone from the A (Agricultural) Zone District to the I-2 (Medium
Industrial) Zane District.
Lot A of LLA25-0013; being part of the SW1/4 of Section 25, Township 1 North,
Range 68 West of the 6thWeld County, Colorado.
East of and adjacent to County Road 11; approximately 0.25 miles north of County
Road 4.
Diana Aungst, Planning Services, presented Case COZ25-0006, reading the recommendation and
comments nto the record. Ms. Aungst noted that no written correspondence or telephone calls were
received regarding this application. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this
application along with conditions of approval and development standards.
Commissioner Wailes said that Central Weld County Water District is changing some of their boundaries
and where they supply water and asked if this will affect this site. Ms. Aungst said that Central Weld County
Water Distr. has been providing water at this location for many years.
Mike McRoberts, Development Review, reported on the existing traffic and access to the site.
Vince Haas, Baseline Corporation, 112 N Rubey Drive, Golden, Colorado, said that the desire is to
eliminate the need for future modifications to the existing USR and to comply with the future plans for Weld
County and the established opportunity zone. This site is located within an opportunity zone and is logical
for rezoning land to commercial and industrial development. Mr. Harris said that they believe they meet
the critere required in the Weld County Code and request a recommendation of approval to the Board of
County Commissioners.
Zach Johnson said that the company Go Home Port was started in 2021 and they have done improvements
to every property they have developed. He thanked Weld County for their support.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
The Cha asked the applicant if they have read through the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approvaland if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Motion: Forward Case COZ25-0006 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval,
Moved by Michael Biwer, Seconded by Hunter Rivera.
Vote: Motbn carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7).
Yes: Barney Hammond, Cole Ritchey, Hunter Rivera, Michael Biwer, Michael Palizzi, Michael Wailes,
Virginia Gaderyahn.
Case Number: Ordinance 202,11
Planner: Jim Flesher/Maxwell Nader
Request: h the Matter of Repealing and Reenacting with Amendments, Chapter 23 Zoning
of the Weld County Code (Miscellaneous)
Jim Flesher, Planning Services, presented Ordinance 2025-11 and provided a brief overview of the
proposed caie changes, specifically the requirements on the number and size of semi -trucks and trailers
in the varioas zone districts and the removal of the zoning permits for office trailers and unoccupied
manufactured homes. He added that currently there are two classes of home occupations, both allowed by
zoning permit. However, Staff is recommending to consolidate and simplify the permits into one home
business permit which would be allowed in the Ag, Estate and R-1 zone districts. The Department of
Planning Services recommends approval of this Ordinance.
Commissoner Palizzi referred to the email submitted from Hanna Dutrow of AgProfessionals and asked if
this wraps into the less than 1 acre that is required indoors. Mr. Flesher said that a home business would
not be pemitted in R-2 through R-5 zones and added that it would be limited to the Ag, Estate and R-1
zone districts. Mr. Palizzi asked Staff to speak to the reasoning behind the proposed change as the letter
speaks to piano teachers or accountants. Mr. Flesher said that if no one complains about the neighbor who
has a home business, we won't know about it. He added that Staff doesn't look for violations and will verify
if a compleiat comes in from the public if it warrants compliance action to be taken.
Maxwell Nader, Planning Services, said that currently you can have a Class I Home Business Permit but
during this code update process Staff felt that there should be a limit to the residential zone districts as
there would not be separate classes of permits anymore. He added that there is not a large amount of R-
2 or denser zoned properties in the county as most of those get incorporated into municipalities.
Commissioner Biwer referred to Section 2313-990 regarding the requirement for fencing fora home
business and asked if that authority is typically given to the Director to waive or make those decisions. Mr.
Flesher said that the code requires a fence, but if circumstances warrant, for example if there are no houses
around this home business it would allow the Director to waive that requirement. He added that this was
added after a worksession with the Board of County Commissioners.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this Ordinance.
Mary Rose Cullen, 13617 Elmore Road, requested that the change to home businesses only applies to Ag
and not R-1 or Estate. She said it states no more than 10 people will be on site at any given time. However,
during the business day you could have up to essentially 100 people coming through the door. She added
that it increases traffic for the neighborhood and decreases the quality of life for R-1 zoning. When you
open up R-1 or Estate zoning to commercial business you ruin exactly what the zoning was setup for. She
said that there will be unintended consequences such as an increase in crime, increase in traffic, and road
damage from heavy trucks.
Bruce Johnson, 801 8th Street, stated that he thinks by regulating a problem it creates more of a problem
and added that they should define what should be non -uses as to an acceptable use. He added that we
have created nightmares like recorded exemptions which have expanded beyond their use. The trouble is
enforcing the landowners to keep within their requirements of what they can do.
Commissioner Biwer said that the issues he has can be resolved with some enforcement and allows the
Director to make some choices. He added that he does believe it tightens it up although it may appear to
be an expansion but it does put some framework around what's expected. In general, he is in support of
it.
Commissioner Palizzi said that we should look at allowing it in the R-2 through R-5 zone districts, however,
he doesn't know that it's enough for him to say no to this but it is worth talking about.
Commissioner Ritchey agreed with Mr. Palizzi's comments and added that it is not enough for him to say
no but recommended further review with regard to the R-2 through R-5 zone districts.
Commissioner Hammond said that adequate parking should be reviewed in these applications.
Motion: Forward Ordinance 2025-11 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Planning
Commission's recommendation of approval,
Moved by Michael Biwer, Seconded by Barney Hammond.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7).
Yes: Barney Hammond, Cole Ritchey, Hunter Rivera, Michael Biwer, Michael Palizzi, Michael Wailes,
Virginia Gudert'ahn.
Commissioner Palizzi stated that he would like to have further discussion with regard to the R-2 through R-
5 zone districts.
Commissioner Wailes agreed that further consideration for R-2 through R-5 zone districts should be made.
The Chair asked the public if there were other items of business that they would like to discuss. No one
wished to speak.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss. No one
wished to speak.
Meeting adjourned at 3:28 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
Hello