HomeMy WebLinkAbout20182962.tiffSUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, September 4, 2018
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,
Gene Stille, at 12:30 pm.
Roll Call.
Present: Bruce Sparrow, David Stahl, Sr., Elijah Hatch, Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford, Richard Beck, Tom Cope.
Absent: Bruce Johnson, Michael Wailes
Also Present: Kim Ogle, Chris Gathman, Diana Aungst, Michael Hall, Angela Snyder, Department of
Planning Services; Lauren Light and Ben Frissell, Department of Health; Evan Pinkham, Public Works;
Frank Haug, County Attorney, and Michelle Wall, Secretary.
Motion: Approve the August 21, 2018 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, Moved by David Stahl,
Sr., Seconded by Elijah Hatch. Motion passed unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR18-0054
APPLICANT: PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO
PLANNER: KIM OGLE
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL
REVIEW PERMIT FOR A NON -1041 MAJOR FACILITY OF A PUBLIC
UTILITY (ONE (1) 230KV TRANSMISSION LINE EXTENDING
APPROXIMATELY 1.2 MILES IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE
DISTRICT, WELD COUNTY, COLORADO AND TERMINATING AT A
NEW 230KV ELECTRIC SUBSTATION WITHIN THE TOWN OF
WINDSOR MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: COMMENCING AT THE PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY 230KV
TRANSMISSION LINE LOCATED IN THE SE4 OF SECTION 19, T7N,
R67W THEN HEADING IN A SOUTHERLY DIRECTION TO THE
MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF THE TOWN OF SEVERANCE, COLORADO.
LOCATION: GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF CR 76; WEST OF CR 15; SOUTH
OF CR 80; EAST OF CR 13
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, presented Case USR18-0054, reading the recommendation and comments
into the record. This is a continuation from the August 21, 2018 Planning Commission Hearing. At the last
hearing, there was discussion of the alignment of the transmission line. It was questioned if the line was
supposed to be located further to the east on the Blehm's property. The Blehm's were asked to attend
today's hearing and to provide testimony on what the agreed to alignment was with Xcel Energy. The
Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached conditions of
approval and development standards.
Evan Pinkham, Public Works, stated he did not have any additional comments from last hearing.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, stated she did not have any additional comments to make from last
hearing.
Derek Holscher, Public Service of Colorado - Xcel Energy, 1800 Larimer Street, Suite 400, Denver,
Colorado, stated that the project is for a 230 kV transmission line and associated substation. He said that
the transmission line is 1.5 miles long in Weld County and is located on the Blehm's property. He said that
they will be tapping into the existing Platte River Power Authority 230 kV transmission line. The structures
will vary between 100 to 130 feet in height and be single steel monopole.
The applicant explained although the substation will be located in another jurisdiction, the information about
the substation has been updated on their website. Xcel Energy plans to provide additional public outreach
about the project in the coming weeks.
(nylon; cgfio s 1
9/(7/1'e
2018-2962
Mr. Holscher stated that they are having difficulties serving their existing load areas and this will deliver
electricity to the load centers where energy needs are the greatest. He said that they intend to have the
substation and transmission line in service by February 2020.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Rosalyn Leautaud, 36933 CR 15, Windsor Colorado, is concerned with the proposed substation located
within the Town of Windsor. She expressed concern that there has not been any communication from Xcel
Energy regarding the substation. Ms. Leautaud asked for clarification on what the distance is of the
proposed substation from the Roth Subdivision. She provided correspondence that she submitted to the
Town of Windsor and Xcel Energy as exhibits.
Julie Brandt, 6489 CR 78, Windsor, Colorado, owns land to the west side of the property. Ms. Brandt has
lived on her property for 25 years. She expressed concern that they will not be able to build another house
near the proposed transmission line. Ms. Brandt proposed that the alignment should be placed further to
the east or on County Road 15 as she feels it would not impact anyone in the area. She asked the Planning
Commission to reconsider allowing Xcel Energy to put up the transmission line.
Angela Johnson, on behalf of Josh Richardson, 6165 CR 78, stated that the transmission line does not
seem logical and they do not support the proposed alignment. She said they are not happy with the
communication they have received from Xcel Energy.
Fred Walker, 37026 Mountain Meadows Drive, Severance, Colorado, said he didn't think the proposed
transmission line should go down County Road 15 because it ends at County Road 78. He added that he
has four Recorded Exemption lots on the south side of County Road 78 that he plans to have his family live
on.
Mike Mitchell, 6771 Steven Street, Windsor, Colorado, questioned the process of the proposed
transmission line and substation. Mr. Ogle explained if the substation is not approved by the Town of
Windsor at that location then Xcel Energy will need to reevaluate the plan.
Ron Blehm, 6835 CR 78, Windsor, Colorado, stated that he is the land owner where the transmission line
is proposed. Mr. Blehm expressed they are not happy with the power line and understand how the
neighbors feel. He referenced the alternate routes suggested in public testimony; however, they don't
agree with those suggestions because they do not want the power line to run along all three sides of his
property. Mr. Brehm added that the best route is along the ditch.
The Chair asked the applicant to address the concerns. Mr. Holscher stated that the importance of this
hearing is to hear about the section of the transmission line in Weld County. He added that the application
for the proposed substation has not been submitted to the Town of Windsor yet. Mr. Holscher said that the
transmission line will not prevent anyone from building on their property. He said he has been trying to
reach Mr. Richardson but has not been successful. Mr. Holscher said they selected the best route that
affects the least amount of property owners.
Commissioner Beck asked how much of an area will be served in Larimer County compared to Weld
County. Mr. Holscher provided the general area served on the visual slide.
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: Approve Case USR18-0054, Moved by Elijah Hatch, Seconded by Lonnie Ford.
Commissioner Beck emphasized that is needs to be understood that the line we are approving in Weld
County is not the final determination of what happens. He added that those individuals who are opposed
to the placement of the substation will need to speak to that site when it comes before that jurisdiction.
Commissioner Stahl stated that he feels the applicant has complied with Section 23-2-260 and Section 23-
2-400.A through Section 23-2-400.N.
2
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7).
Yes: Bruce Sparrow, David Stahl, Sr., Elijah Hatch, Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford, Richard Beck, Tom Cope.
CASE NUMBER: USR18-0055
APPLICANT: DCP OPERATING COMPANY, LP
PLANNER: CHRIS GATHMAN
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL
REVIEW PERMIT FOR A 16 -INCH HIGH PRESSURE NATURAL GAS
PIPELINE APPROXIMATELY ONE (1) MILE IN LENGTH IN THE A
(AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: THE PROPOSED PIPELINE WILL BE LOCATED IN THE S2 OF
SECTION 31, T5N, R64W AND THE SE4 OF SECTION 36, T5N, R65W
OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: THE PIPELINE IS LOCATED IN AN AREA NORTH OF CR 50, SOUTH
OF CR 52, EAST OF CR 47 AND WEST OF CR 51.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, presented Case USR18-0055, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application
with the attached conditions of approval and development standards.
Evan Pinkham, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access to the site and drainage conditions for
the site.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -site
dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Patrick Groom, 822 7th Street, Suite 760, Greeley, Colorado, stated he is the attorney representative for
DCP Operating Company LP. Mr. Groom said the pipeline is proposed to run from the expanded O'Connor
Processing Plant which was recently permitted by the Planning Commission and the Board of County
Commissioners as 2MJUSR18-12-1792. He said this is a residue line that will take product that is
processed at the O'Connor plant and carry that north and directly west to the Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas
Pipeline. The pipeline is approximately 1 mile in length and 16 inches in diameter. Mr. Groom said the
pipeline will be rated to 1,285 PSIG (pounds per square inch gauged); however, the actual pressure in the
pipeline is going to range between 900 and 1,200 PSIG. DCP monitors the pipeline and the pressures in
the pipeline remotely, by driving the route and by flyovers.
Commissioner Sparrow asked what the depth of the pipeline was and if any further precautions are taken
for a line with the amount of pressure. Mr. Groom explained the pipeline is buried 4 feet below the surface
of the ground.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Commissioner Cope stated that he understands that 4 feet is optimum, but Weld County requires a
minimum of 20 -foot depth going under County Road 49. He wondered if there were any problems with that.
Groom explained the 4 -foot depth is for plowed and cultivated fields. The County stipulates greater depth
for boring underneath atrial roads and county roads. Mr. Groom explained that depth has not been
determined yet but would like the depth to be reflected in the development standards from Public Works.
Commissioner Stille asked if the pipe thickness gauge change when it is buried 20 feet underground. Mr.
Groom explained that it does not.
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 if
Development Standard 16 is amended to what Public Works determines the depth will be.
Motion: Amend Development Standard 16 to read "Any oil and gas pipeline crossing a county road shall
be bored to a minimum depth as presented by the Public Works Department at the time of the Resolution
of the USR", Moved by Tom Cope, Seconded by David Stahl, Sr.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7).
3
Yes: Bruce Sparrow, David Stahl, Sr., Elijah Hatch, Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford, Richard Beck, Tom Cope.
Motion: Forward Case USR18-0055 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the amended
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, Moved by Bruce Sparrow, Seconded by Elijah Hatch.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7).
Yes: Bruce Sparrow, David Stahl, Sr., Elijah Hatch, Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford, Richard Beck, Tom Cope.
Commissioner Sparrow stated that he is concerned with all the pipelines being put in Weld County, but this
a mile -long line that is going to give us access to get gas out of the County and be put in use.
CASE NUMBER: USR18-0057
APPLICANT: DCP OPERATING COMPANY, LP
PLANNER: CHRIS GATHMAN
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL
REVIEW PERMIT FOR A 16 -INCH HIGH PRESSURE NATURAL GAS
PIPELINE 4.47 MILES IN LENGTH IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE
DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CROSSES SECTIONS 2, 11, 14, 23, AND
26, T6N, R65W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: THE PROPOSED PIPELINE IS LOCATED NORTH OF CR 64.5, SOUTH
OF CR 74, EAST OF CR 45 AND WEST OF CR 47.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, presented Case USR18-0057, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application
with the attached conditions of approval and development standards.
Commissioner Stille asked for the depth of the bore under the ditch. Mr. Gathman said he would defer that
question to the applicant.
Evan Pinkham, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access to the site and drainage conditions for
the site.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -site
dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Patrick Groom, 822 7t" Street, Suite 760, Greeley, Colorado, stated he is the attorney representative for
DCP Operating Company LP. Mr. Groom explained that Mr. Frank, a land owner whose property the
pipeline crosses, asked if the pipeline was included in his easement agreement. Mr. Groom believes it is
but will get back to Mr. Frank later with that answer.
The applicant stated that the pipeline is intended to connect the Northstar Booster Station (recently
permitted by the County under USR18-0018) to DCP's existing pipeline and then divert that gas to the
O'Connor processing plant and/or the Mewbourn processing plant. The pipeline will be 4.47 miles in length.
Mr. Groom explained that during the hearing for USR18-0055, Commissioner Sparrow and Commissioner
Cope had some questions regarding pipeline. In reference to their questions, DCP's operational staff stated
that if pipeline is bored at a 20 -foot depth, a thicker wall pipe is used for that segment in order to insure
safety due the increased load above that pipeline. The depth that pipeline is normally bored under a ditch
is at least 5 feet below the lowest point of the ditch unless the ditch company requires a greater depth. Mr.
Groom said that pipeline system helps keep truck traffic off the roads, and it provides a more efficient way
to transfer product.
Commissioner Sparrow stated that he agrees pipelines keep trucks off the road, but it is impossible to truck
natural gas. Mr. Groom explained not all DCP's pipelines are natural gas pipelines, some as natural gas
liquids and those could be trucked. Natural gas coming out of the wellhead needs to be piped or flared.
Mr. Groom said flaring is not the desired result.
4
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 if
Development Standard 16 is amended to what Public Works determines the depth will be.
Motion: Amend Development Standard 16 to read "Any oil and gas pipeline crossing a county road shall
be bored to a minimum depth as presented by the Public Works Department at the time of the Resolution
of the USR", Moved by Tom Cope, Seconded by Elijah Hatch. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion: Forward Case USR18-0057 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the amended
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, Moved by Elijah Hatch, Seconded by Tom Cope.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7).
Yes: Bruce Sparrow, David Stahl, Sr., Elijah Hatch, Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford, Richard Beck, Tom Cope.
The Chair called a recess at 1:57 p.m. and reconvened the hearing at 2:15 p.m.
CASE NUMBER: USR18-0056
APPLICANT: DCP OPERATING COMPANY, LP
PLANNER: CHRIS GATHMAN
REQUEST: A SITE -SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL
REVIEW PERMIT FOR A 20 -INCH HIGH PRESSURE NATURAL GAS
PIPELINE 7.47 MILES IN LENGTH IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE
DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CROSSES SECTIONS 36, T6N, R65;
SECTION 1, T5N, R65W; AND SECTIONS 6, 7, 18, 19, 30 AND 31, T5N,
R64W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: EAST OF CR 47, WEST OF CR 51, NORTH OF CR 50 AND SOUTH OF
CR 64.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, presented Case USR18-0056, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application
with the attached conditions of approval and development standards.
Evan Pinkham, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access to the site and drainage conditions for
the site.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -site
dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Patrick Groom, 822 7th Street, Suite 760, Greeley, Colorado, stated he is the attorney representative for
DCP Operating Company LP. The proposed 20 -inch discharge line that will run from Libsack Compressor
Station to the O'Connor Plant. The expansion of the plant will allow DCP to divert production and compress
gas from the Libsack Station to the O'Connor Natural Gas Processing Plant. The pipeline is 7.47 miles in
length. There will be multiple ditch crossings. Mr. Groom explained how DCP has to work with each ditch
owner. There are different legalities to deal with depending upon the type and nature of the ditch, such as
whether there is a fee interest in the land, if it's a prescriptive ditch or an easement. Ditch crossing
agreements will be entered into between DCP and the ditch owner.
Commissioner Sparrow asked what the depth is to bore pipeline under a river. Mr. Groom explained that
is determined by engineers. River crossings tend to be deeper. Commissioner Sparrow expressed concern
about a farmer losing their ditch. Mr. Groom explained that is why DCP and the ditch owner negotiate to
come to agreeable terms.
Commissioner Stille asked if any of the three ditch companies mentioned are prescriptive easements. Mr.
Groom said it is his understand that the Irons Lateral Ditch is not a mutual ditch company, not organized as
5
a ditch company and there are no documents of record indicating fee owners or interested parties. He
believes Lower Latham has a fee owner and DCP is negotiating a crossing agreement with them. Mr.
Groom said that DCP is also negotiating a crossing agreement with Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Dennis Hoshiko, 1811 38th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. Mr. Hoshiko read his statement and he said he will
provide a copy for the record. He feels that many pipeline companies disregard the rights and wellbeing of
many Weld County historic irrigation ditch owners. Mr. Hoshiko stated that the companies have already
built or plan to build their pipelines underneath ditches without informing some ditch owners of the location
or depth of the pipelines. Mr. Hoshiko said that the historic irrigation ditch easements are lawfully
established and legally recognized right of ways that convey court decree water rights to specific lands.
Mr. Hoshiko stated he is the dully authorized agent of the owners for Irons Lateral Ditch which was built in
the late 1800s. A few months ago, he heard through the grapevine about DCP's plans to build the pipeline
underneath the Irons Lateral Ditch, but he was only contacted by a DCP representative last week. Mr.
Hoshiko said he intends to provide DCP with the same ditch crossing easement that four other pipeline
companies recently agreed to before they built their pipelines.
Commissioner Sparrow asked if the Irons Lateral Ditch is shown on any County maps or whether the ditch
has just been used over the years. He also asked if there was an easement for the ditch. Mr. Hoshiko said
the Lower Latham Ditch Company has mapping showing the ditch. He is not aware of any County maps.
Hoshiko said that DCP is aware of their existence because they have worked with them in the past.
Commissioner Beck asked if there are any deeds or easements of record. Mr. Hoshiko answered that there
are. Beck asked for the width of the ditch and what is needed to maintain the ditch. Mr. Hoshiko said the
ditch is 10 — 15 feet wide and it is required to irrigate several hundred acres of land.
Commissioner Stille asked Mr. Hoshiko if he has a preference for the depth of the bore? Mr. Hoshiko said
it has to be deep enough to preclude the rupture of the bore, if it is going to be bored. He does not feel four
feet is adequate.
Dan Swanson, 3000 56th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado, questioned why the documentation he has seen
mentions the Libsack delivery pipeline. Through the entire length of the pipeline, there is a second proposed
pipeline shown. Mr. Swanson wonders why the second line has not been mentioned in the verbal portion
of the presentation.
Chair asked the applicant to address concerns. Mr. Groom explained a crossing agreement is not an
easement. A crossing agreement is a contractual agreement between a ditch company and a pipeline
company that determines how the crossing is going to occur. He said the holder of a prescriptive easement
does not have the right to demand an easement agreement to cross underneath their ditch; they do have
interest though and those interests should be accommodated. Mr. Groom said one of the challenges when
dealing with prescriptive easements, there are not always adequate records in public records. DCP plans
to enter into a crossing agreement with Irons Lateral Ditch.
In terms to the second pipeline, Mr. Groom said there is a low pressure 20 -inch line that is being installed.
Because it does not meet the definition of a pipeline under the code, there is no requirement for a USR.
Mr. Groom stated that the Planning Department is aware of this pipeline.
Commissioner Sparrow commented that if DCP would work with Mr. Hoshiko and explain what the plans
are for crossing under the ditch, it would solve a lot of the problem. Mr. Groom said that is what DCP is in
the process of trying to do.
Commissioner Cope asked how long the design process for the pipeline has been going on. Mr. Groom
said the need for the pipeline didn't arise until the O'Connor Plant's need for expansion. Commissioner
Cope asked why DCP only contacted Mr. Hoshiko last week; he said it seems Mr. Hoshiko should have
been contacted months ago. Mr. Groom explained typically before DCP can cross ditches, they negotiate
a crossing agreement. In the case of the Irons Lateral, DCP was not sure who they were supposed to
contact. A Statement of Authority, that has not been recorded, was signed by Mr. Hoshiko and submitted
6
to the Planning Department along with his referral comments. Once DCP saw this information, they had a
contact to reach out to.
Commissioner Stille asked when DCP is reviewing easements going across a property, and they come
across a prescriptive ditch, do they contact the landowner or the contact person for the ditch. Mr. Groom
said they believe when a prescriptive ditch crosses someone's property, the only legal permission needed
to cross underneath the ditch is the consent of the land owner who owns the fee interest in the land.
Commissioner Stille asked if DCP has negotiated with the land owner who has the ditch on his property
and Mr. Groom replied they have.
Motion: Amend Development Standard 16 to read "Any oil and gas pipeline crossing a county road shall
be bored to a minimum depth as presented by the Public Works Department at the time of the Resolution
of the USR", Moved by Tom Cope, Seconded by David Stahl, Sr. 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 with the amended Development Standards.
Motion: Forward Case USR18-0056 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 Bruce Sparrow, Seconded by Lonnie Ford.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7).
Yes: Bruce Sparrow, David Stahl, Sr., Elijah Hatch, Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford, Richard Beck, Tom Cope.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOCATION:
PUDZ18-0001
COLSON, INC., C/O MARK BOWMAN (AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE FOR 7 LOTS)
MICHAEL HALL
AMENDED PUD CHANGE OF ZONE OF LONGS PEAK ESTATES (Z-
543) TO ALLOW TWO HOMES PER LOT IN THE PUD AND REMOVE
SEPTIC ENVELOPES
LOTS 1 THROUGH 7 OF LONGS PEAK ESTATES PUD, BEING PART
OF THE N2 OF SECTION 9, T1 N, R68W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD
COUNTY, COLORADO.
SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 12; WEST OF AND ADJACENT TO
AVERY CT; NORTH AND SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO DAWN
COURT.
Michael Hall, Planning Services, presented Case PUDZ18-0001, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Planning Department received five letters in opposition to this case from
four surrounding property owners and one letter from outside the surrounding property owner area. The
Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached conditions of
approval and development standards.
Commissioner Sparrow asked Michael about the term "maximum foundation length" and wondered if that
was because the property is located above mines. Michael said it is a requirement from the Colorado
Geological Survey and they want any one foundation wall length to be under sixty feet; if it jogs, it can go
over that.
Commissioner Cope asked of the seven lots, how many homes are already built or under construction. Mr.
Hall answered that two houses are built, and one is under construction.
Evan Pinkham, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access to the site and drainage conditions for
the site.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -site
dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
7
Commissioner Cope asked what is the intent for having an additional septic system envelope. Ms. Light
said it could be because of how the envelopes were created on the original plan because it really restricts
the owner on where they can place the house.
Mark Bowman, 15711 Rito Alto Road, Broomfield, Colorado, said this plat was started in 1999. His son and
he acquired this from the developer in 2016. It was put in the covenants and recorded that a guest
house/carriage house could be built on each lot. The applicant was advertising that a guest house/carriage
house could be built on each lot because it was stated in the covenants. Mr. Bowman was told that he
could not do that with the current zoning of the property. He stated that many of the surrounding properties
have additional buildings built on their properties.
Commission Sparrow asked if all the people who have purchased a lot are under the understanding that
they can build a second home. Mr. Bowman said that was correct.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Chad Leese, 4652 Peakview Street, Erie, Colorado, said that the original developer, Darrell Propp, spoke
to the neighborhood and everyone came to the agreement that five lots would be along the back and two
lots would be on County Road 12. Mr. Leese was unaware of the second home allowed in the convenance.
He said the neighborhood is concerned that allowing a second home on each lot could add another five
single family homes to the area causing a lot more traffic to the small road. They are also concerned about
safety and dust. Mr. Leese said many of the homes do have additional agricultural buildings on their lots
that are used for their livestock.
Adison Leese, 4651 Peakview Street, Erie, Colorado, stated he moved to his property forty-eight years ago.
He is concerned because they were told there would be five homes and now there may be ten homes. Mr.
Leese feels if this is allowed, then he should also have the right to build another home on his property.
Barbara Jean Nelson, 4701 Peakview Street, Erie, Colorado, said this will affect her property values if the
second dwelling size isn't limited. Her extra buildings are for agriculture, not more people who bring more
traffic. Ms. Nelson is concerned about noise and safety of the animals and children. She wonders if there
will be a stipulation on the size of the second home; can it be a full 3,000 square -foot residence or can it be
smaller.
The chair asked the applicant to come forward to address the concerns. Commissioner Beck asked if there
are any square foot limitations for the house size of the second home. Mr. Bowman explained there are
not any limitations in the current convenance. Mr. Bowman stated that Lot 5 was sold, and the owners are
not going to build a second home on the property; they are going to build a barn. He doesn't have anyone
that has specifically asked to build a second home at this time.
Commissioner Stahl asked the Planning Department if it would be appropriate to put a limitation on the size
of the second home. Mr. Hall replied that the Planning Commission could consider that change.
Commissioner Stahl asked the applicant if he would be willing to set a limitation on the size of the second
home. The applicant replied that he would be willing to do that.
Commissioner Stille asked Mr. Hall if there were any Development Standards that the Planning Commission
needed to be addressed. He explained if they would like to include a Development Standard to limit size
of the second home they could add it to Development Standard 1.D.1.(1) to read "The PUDZ allows for
Estate Zone District bulk requirement and uses plus one (1) second residence per each residential lot that
shall be limited to". There was discussion to limit the second home to 1,500 square feet.
Motion: Amend Development Standard 1.D.1. to read "The PUDZ allows for Estate Zone District bulk
requirement and uses plus one (1) second residence per each residential lot that shall be limited to 1,500
square feet, Moved by Tom Cope, Seconded by David Stahl, Sr.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7).
Yes: Bruce Sparrow, David Stahl, Sr., Elijah Hatch, Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford, Richard Beck, Tom Cope.
8
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 PUDZ18-0001 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 David Stahl, Sr., Seconded by Lonnie Ford.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7).
Yes: Bruce Sparrow, David Stahl, Sr., Elijah Hatch, Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford, Richard Beck, Tom Cope.
Commissioner Cope stated that he is always against placing a second home on a property in a subdivision
because he feels the intent of the subdivision is to build one house per lot. He feels this is a different
situation because of the original discussion of allowing a second home.
The Chair called a recess from 3:43 p.m. and the meeting resumed at 4:00 p.m.
Tom Cope left the hearing at 4:00 p.m.
CASE NUMBER: USR18-0042
APPLICANT: CHERYL SWEET TRUST
PLANNER: DIANA AUNGST
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL
REVIEW PERMIT FOR A BREWERY, BREWPUB, A SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLING UNIT PER LOT OTHER THAN THOSE PERMITTED UNDER
SECTION 23-3-20 A. AND ANY USE PERMITTED AS A USE BY RIGHT,
AN ACCESSORY USE, OR A USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW IN THE
COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICTS (A RESTAURANT,
COFFEE SHOP, EVENT BARN, AND RETAIL STORE) PROVIDED
THAT THE PROPERTY IS NOT A LOT IN AN APPROVED OR
RECORDED SUBDIVISION PLAT OR LOTS PARTS OF A MAP OR
PLAN FILED PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF ANY REGULATIONS
CONTROLLING SUBDIVISIONS DISTRICT AND TWO BUILDING
MOUNTED SIGNS ONE FOR THE RESTAURANT AND ONE FOR THE
COFFEE SHOP IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT B REC EXEMPT RE -4682; PART W2NE4 SECTION 5, T6N, R67W
OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 74 AND APPROXIMATELY 0.25
MILES WEST OF STATE HWY 257 (CR 17).
Diana Aungst, Planning Services, presented Case USR18-0042, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Planning Department received correspondence from two surrounding
property owners who are concerned about traffic, public safety, location of detention pond, size and
availability of the septic systems, noise, lights and dust. A phone call was received on August 24, 2018,
from a surrounding property owner who had concerns about shared access point shown on the revised
plans. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached
conditions of approval and development standards.
Commissioner Sparrow asked staff if the Town of Windsor doesn't care to annex, the Town can still require
the applicant to follow all their conditions. Mrs. Aungst answered that was correct. The Town of Windsor
submitted a very detailed referral agency response stating they would like their design standards followed.
It is up to the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners as whether to accept that as a
condition of approval.
Evan Pinkham, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access to the site and drainage conditions for
the site.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -site
dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
9
Matthew Smith, 7672 CR 74, explained the project of Windmill Farms. The property is approximately 13.9
acres. The applicant is proposing a second home along with commercial business buildings. The steel
commercial buildings will be built to resemble farm buildings. The applicant is proposing a 1,626 square -
foot upscale, family -friendly restaurant. The restaurant will have 53 indoor seats and there will be an
outdoor patio. They also want customers to be able to pick up food to go. The building will also have a
kitchen and full bar. Hours of operation will be Friday through Saturday from 11:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m., and
Sunday through Thursday from 11:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m. In the same building, there will be a 783 square -
foot coffee shop/bakery that will have 16 indoor seats and access to the outdoor patio. It will be open daily
from 6:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. There will be a 4,500 square foot event barn that will hold up to 175 people.
The event barn will be used for weddings, charity events, high -end specialty dinners and reunions. Mr.
Smith explained the event barn will close at midnight on Friday and Saturday evenings. There will be a
bridal suite and restrooms in event center. Applicant is proposing a 2,827 square -foot taproom with 15
indoor seats. There will be an outside grain bin gazebo and the applicant is proposing live acoustic music
one or two times a week. Mr. Smith said there will a working two -acre farm and they will raise chickens.
They would like students to come to their site for school field trips.
Assistant County Attorney Frank Haug asked who the applicant/property owner was. Cheryl Sweet stated
she was the applicant/property owner and that she is in support of the project.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Ken Hall, 7554 CR 74, Windsor, Colorado, stated he lives on the property to the west. He has lived there
for thirty years. The area has grown tremendously and as a result, County Road 74 (Harmony Road) has
very heavy traffic. Traffic is often backed up and it is difficult for Mr. Hall to get out of his driveway. County
Road 74 is a two-lane road with no turning lanes. He stated that safety is his biggest concern. There have
been many accidents including fatalities on this road; he feels the traffic situation needs resolved. Mr. Hall
does not think that adding this business in the neighborhood would work with the already existing traffic.
He is also concerned about his quality of life, his property values and the noise from the events. Mr. Hall
questioned that if the project is approved, how is it regulated that the applicant is following the hours of
operation, noise regulations, the number of events, etc.
Commissioner Ford asked if Mr. Hall shared the driveway between these two properties. Mr. Hall explained
that there are three properties that share the one -lane driveway. Mr. Hall said he saw a drawing that the
driveway would be used by the business as well. He stated that there is no way sharing this driveway with
the business will work.
Commissioner Sparrow asked staff if the traffic was out of Weld County's hands. Mrs. Aungst, Planning
Department, explained that since County Road 74 is annexed by the Town of Windsor, Weld County does
not have a say in where the access point is going to be located. The Town of Windsor did recommend that
the access point be moved off of County Road 74. The Town of Windsor is requesting a traffic impact study
because of the development to the north. CDOT may also require a traffic impact study.
Commissioner Stille asked staff if they knew what the future plans are for County Road 74. Mr. Pinkham,
Public Works, stated that the only plans that they are aware of are associated with the Rocky Mountain
Sports Park and that they will be expanding County Road 74. They do not have a timeline.
Robb Nelson, 7755 Valley View Circle, Windsor, Colorado, said that he is the President of the home owner's
association. There are twelve lots in the subdivision. He stated that the property owners purchased their
lots to live in a rural development. They share an easement where they can walk or ride their horses. Mr.
Nelson said his biggest issue is the traffic. He is also concerned about property values and the noise impact
from the events. Mr. Nelson asked the Planning Commission to consider the neighbors because no one
in the subdivision is in favor of it.
Jim Seeton, 7680 CR 74, Windsor, Colorado, said that he shares the same concern that safety is the
biggest issue. There have been a lot of traffic accidents that include fatalities. Mr. Seeton does not think
that adding a business with employees and that many customers will work with the traffic in that area without
a traffic light. He is also concerned and his quality of life and the impact on his livestock.
10
David Colemere, 7739 Valley View Circle, Windsor, Colorado, stated that he is concerned about safety on
the road, security, and noise. The property is agriculture and he does not want cars, motorcycles, lights
and does not wish to hear cheering crowds. His children go to bed at 8:30 p.m. He also does not want to
see parking lots as his view. Mr. Colemere said he likes the concept of the project; he just doesn't want to
live next to it.
Bonita Sterk, 7511 CR 74, Windsor, Colorado, said she opposes the project and feels the same as the
other neighbors. She said they purchased their home thirty-four years ago to live in rural area and open
views. Ms. Sterk feels the business is using the rural setting as a benefit for their business but take away
those benefits from the actual people who live there.
Rosalyn Leautaud, 36933 CR 15, Windsor, Colorado, stated that she lives 1.25 miles away from this
property. She shares the same concern of the traffic and the rural atmosphere. Ms. Leautaud asked if the
coffee shop will have a drive-thru that will cause more traffic.
Crystal Spencer, 7739 Valley View Circle, Windsor, Colorado, submitted a packet of information with
comments.
Chair asked applicant to come forward to address the concerns. Cheryl Sweet said she still needs to have
the discussion with the Town of Windsor about the access road onto their property. CDOT did a study and
responded that they did not think that it would impact additional traffic by more than by 20%. Ms. Sweet
said they want it to be safe. The applicant said they would like their own access with a turn lane, but the
Town of Windsor will make that determination. Ms. Sweet said she did not know how the hours of operation
would be regulated and asked staff for the answer. Diana Aungst, Planning Department, explained the
applicant would agree to hours of operation in the USR guidelines. If it was determined that the applicant
was operating outside of those hours of operation, then they would be put into violation until the violation
was corrected. The applicant would also have the option to amend their USR to increase business hours.
Commissioner Stille stated that usually it is the neighbors who complain. Mrs. Aungst said usually a
neighbor contacts the office to report the situation and the Planning Department will inspect the site.
Commissioner Sparrow pointed out that if the applicant was not following the guidelines in the approved
resolution, the Board of County Commissioners could revoke the USR permit. Ms. Sweet addressed the
issue of forty-nine employees. She said that all employees would not be there at one time and some of
those employees will be part-time. Ms. Sweet said that she feels their business would be a far distance
from the neighbors' homes. She said there are no plans for a drive thru on coffee shop. The chickens will
be used for their eggs only. Ms. Sweet said she does not expect cheering crowds, they will not be having
concerts. They just want to have light acoustic music played at certain times. Commissioner Stille asked
the applicant is she has any plans for a privacy fence. The applicant does not think a privacy fence will
make a difference because of the property being higher, so they plan on using landscaping for screening.
Ms. Sweet said their civil engineer Chad Cox is present to discuss the detention pond. He has also
designed the septic system.
Chadwin Cox, Civil Engineer for the applicant, 127 South Denver Avenue, Fort Lupton, Colorado, said they
are following the code to detain the develop storm and release it at the five-year historic rate. He said there
are 11.5 cfs calculated for the whole property and the release for the property is .54.
Commissioner Stille asked staff if there were any development standards that needed to be addressed.
Diana Aungst, Planning Department, said we could add a development standard which stated no more than
350 guests or visitors shall be allowed on site at any one time. She said we could also add a condition of
approval addressing traffic which states the applicant shall develop a traffic control plan which shall be
approved by the Department of Planning Services at the Department of Public Works.
Commissioner Stahl, Sr. stated he is not in favor of adopting a plan that has to be approved by the Planning
Commission if we don't have control over the ultimate plan. If the Town of Windsor wants to do something,
they will do it.
Commissioner Beck said he thinks it is a great project, but he sympathizes with the neighbors because he
lived out in the area in the past. He understands the traffic issues on County Road 74. Because County
Road 74 is annexed with the Town of Windsor, Commissioner Beck said he does not feel that he can
approve a project that needs more road access than what is available.
11
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 USR18-0042 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 David Stahl, Sr., Seconded by Elijah Hatch.
Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 4, No = 2, Abstain = 0).
Yes: Bruce Sparrow, David Stahl, Sr., Elijah Hatch, Lonnie Ford.
No: Gene Stille, Richard Beck.
Absent: Tom Cope
Commissioner Stille based his vote on Section 23-2-220.A.2 and Section 23-2-220.A.3. which has to do
with compatibility with the existing surrounding area. Mr. Stille feels that area will soon be annexed by the
Town of Windsor.
CASE NUMBER: USR18-0023
APPLICANT: LES MATSON CONSTRUCTION, INC., C/O BRIAN HARTMAN
PLANNER: ANGELA SNYDER
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL
REVIEW PERMIT FOR ANY USE PERMITTED AS A USE BY RIGHT, AN
ACCESSORY USE OR A USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT IN THE
COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICTS (TRUCK AND
EQUIPMENT PARKING AND STORAGE FOR CONSTRUCTION
BUSINESSES) PROVIDED THAT THE PROPERTY IS NOT A LOT IN AN
APPROVED OR RECORDED SUBDIVISION PLAT OR LOTS PARTS
OF A MAP OR PLAN FILED PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF ANY
REGULATIONS CONTROLLING SUBDIVISIONS IN THE A
(AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT B REC EXEMPT RECX17-0143; PART NW4 SECTION 35, T5N,
R65W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 52, EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO
CR 45.
Angela Snyder, Planning Services, presented Case USR18-0023, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application
with the attached conditions of approval and development standards. Ms. Snyder said it should be noted
that a portion of Development Standard 18 was accidentally deleted in the staff report. Planning
recommends that Development Standard 18 be updated to match the standard recommended by the
Department of Environmental Health.
Evan Pinkham, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access to the site and drainage conditions for
the site.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -site
dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan. Ms. Light mentioned that a portion of her Development Standard
6 from her referral which addresses portable toilets was left out of the draft resolution. Ms. Light
recommended adding the verbiage back into the resolution.
Les Matson, 6929 Poudre River Road, mentioned that Brian Hartman who leases the property has spoken
with the Division of Wildlife regarding the bald eagles in the area. The Department of Wildlife is aware of
the business and they have a verbal agreement with them. Mr. Matson said they have the infiltration pond
in place for the drainage.
Commissioner Beck asked staff if the applicant is currently under violation. Angela Snyder, Planning
Department, said that was correct. They are in violation for commercial storage without a permit.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
12
Donna Stevenson, 22260 CR 52, Greeley, Colorado, stated she lives directly to the east of the property.
The entire west boundary of her property line goes right along the road. Ms. Stevenson is upset because
she goes to her home for sanctuary and does not want to be next to a business. The road is less than a
hundred feet from her property line. The truck traffic trips cause dust and noise that has a significant impact
on her property and other neighbors. She does not feel the road is designed to support the amount of traffic
or the kind of traffic. Ms. Stevenson requested some stipulations be put in the guidelines of the permit.
She said that semi -truck trips be limited to six trips per day. Ms. Stevenson does not want the number of
trucks stored on the property to increase in number. Employee trips need to be limited to four trips per day.
She also does not want any commercial use of storage in the building including commercial truck
maintenance. A permanent solution needs to be done for the dust. She also requested that no other
vehicle be allowed on the property in addition to what is currently on the property. No more commercial
vehicles, other vehicles allowed then what is already there. Ms. Stevenson stated that she will be a good
neighbor if guidelines are met.
Scott Stevenson, 22260 CR 52, Greeley, Colorado, stated that some of their neighbors asked him to speak
on their behalf. Neighbors are concerned about the road damage to County Road 52 as well as the bridge.
Mr. Stevenson said that road maintenance and dust mitigation have not been done for the past two years
that the trucks have been using the road. A brief neighborhood meeting was held in December where
neighbors expressed their concerns about the dust and other concerns and the applicant has done nothing
to correct the issues.
Brian Hartman, 2413 27th Avenue Court, Greeley, Colorado, said he is purchasing property from Les
Matson. Mr. Hartman said that he moved the steel off the property and moved a shed at the neighbor's
request. He will have two trucks on the property and he will be the only driver.
Chair asked applicant to address concerns. Mr. Matson explained the road is also used by a ditch company
and an oil and gas company. There is one person who drives a truck and he makes between one and three
trips per day. He said they do not drive the trucks east on County Road 52 because of damage made to
the bridge by County vehicles when they were repairing County Road 52.
Commissioner Beck asked the applicant how many truck trips they make a day. Mr. Matson said they
sometimes have two or three trips per day. He said pickups also use the road. Commissioner Beck asked
what the hours of operation are. Mr. Matson said between 7:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. Commissioner
Beck asked if the applicant could work on the dust situation and limit their truck trips to six per day.
Angela Snyder, Planning Services, stated that Development Standard 8 will need to be amended to read
the number of vehicle roundtrips shall be limited to six trips. She also said Development Standard 6 could
be amended to change the hours of operation.
The applicant would like to leave the hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Motion: Amend Development Standard 8 to read the number of vehicle trips shall be limited to six (6) trips,
as recommended by Staff, Moved by Bruce Sparrow, Seconded by Richard Beck. Motion carried
unanimously.
Motion: Amend Development Standard 18 to include the wording that was deleted back into the resolution,
as recommended by Staff, Moved by Bruce Sparrow, Seconded by Richard Beck. Motion carried
unanimously.
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 USR18-0023 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 Lonnie Ford, Seconded by Bruce Sparrow.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 6).
Yes: Bruce Sparrow, David Stahl, Sr., Elijah Hatch, Gene Stille, Lonnie Ford, Richard Beck.
Absent: Tom Cope
13
The Chair called a recess from 5:49 p.m. to resume at 6:00 p.m.
CASE NUMBER: USR18-0034
APPLICANT: LUIS MARTINEZ
PLANNER: CHRIS GATHMAN
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL
REVIEW PERMIT FOR ANY USE PERMITTED AS A USE BY RIGHT, AN
ACCESSORY USE OR A USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT IN THE
COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICTS (COMMERCIAL
VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT STORAGE ASSOCIATED WITH A
CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS) PROVIDED THAT THE
PROPERTY IS NOT A LOT IN AN APPROVED OR RECORDED
SUBDIVISION PLAT OR LOTS PARTS OF A MAP OR PLAN FILED
PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF ANY REGULATIONS CONTROLLING
SUBDIVISIONS IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT A REC EXEMPT RE -3292; PART NW4 SECTION 12, T3N, R68W
OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 36 AND 0.60 OF A MILE WEST OF
CR 13.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, presented Case USR18-0034, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application
with the attached conditions of approval and development standards. Due to the applicant being in
violation, the applicant held a neighborhood meeting held on March 23, 2018 and four surrounding property
owners attended the meeting. Seven letters of concern or opposition have been provided in response to
this application. Concerns expressed include that the storage and parking area looks unsightly, increased
dust, increased traffic, road damage to County Road 36, noise, concern the business is not operated by
the property owner but is leased from an outside party, traffic safety concerns, trash, concerns it is not in
compliance with the County Code and security concerns.
Evan Pinkham, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access to the site and drainage conditions for
the site.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -site
dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Sheri Lockman, 36509 CR 41, Eaton, Colorado, explained that the applicant is in violation and requested
her to help him come into compliance with the County Code. Ms. Lockman said the storage area will be
confined. She submitted documents that contained pictures of the site for the board to view. The six-foot
fence will be extended to screen all sides of the area. The parking of the trucks and trailers will be behind
the shed. A neighbor complained about the condition of the fence; Ms. Lockman said the fence is in nice
condition. Mr. Martinez and Mr. Marquez have asked the truck drivers to drive slowly on County Road 36.
There are three trucks and three personal vehicles that use the site.
Commissioner Sparrow asked about the noise caused by the trucks. Ms. Lockman replied they do not work
on the site, so there would just be noise when the truck is warming up, leaving and returning.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Tom Neiley, 5416 CR 36, Platteville, Colorado, said that this is an agricultural and residential area. He does
not feel the concrete construction business and is not agricultural. Mr. Neiley can see equipment from over
top of the fence. There have been complaints from neighbors about the trucks speeding. Mr. Neiley said
there have been two complaints about livestock harassment. He said the road is in bad shape and there
is a dust problem. Mr. Neiley has heard horns honking at 4:30 a.m. He feels the property looks like junk
yard. Mr. Neiley is also concerned about the safety issues.
Becky Zipp, 5745 CR 36, Platteville, Colorado, said she purchased their farm in 1998. Ms. Zipp moved to
the country to live a rural lifestyle. Ms. Zipp does not want this business in the middle of the neighborhood.
14
She is concerned about the increase of traffic on County Road 36. Ms. Zipp said her horses get spooked
from traffic. Trash has become an issue. Ms. Zipp asked the Planning Commission to please protect her
agricultural property.
Cathy Sprague, 5008 CR 36, Platteville, Colorado, said she shares the same concerns as all the other
neighbors. She said there was one access to the road and they added a second access for the business.
Ms. Sprague stated that Mr. Martinez is leasing the property to another business in order to earn money.
She feels the situation would be different if Mr. Martinez, himself, was running the business. Ms. Sprague
said she believes the trucks are making more than three trips per day.
Joe Zipp, 5745 CR 36, Platteville, Colorado, said he did some research on the County website regarding
this application. Mr. Zipp does feel this application supports the Weld County Mission Statement, the
definition of Special Use or the Special Review guidance for Weld County. He does not feel the business
is compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Zipp can see the storage area from his deck.
Kevin Murphy, 5200 CR 36, Platteville, Colorado, said he lives with wife and daughter on his property. He
is concerned about the noise, increased dust, road damage, the one -ton trucks with big trailers, and
concerned about safety on the road. There is a blind hill and his wife had to quickly move to the shoulder
to get out of a truck's way. They have noticed the trucks drive fast on County Road 35. Mr. Murphy has
noticed the truck drivers honk and yell at the livestock. He is concerned about the lack of respect for their
neighborhood and lifestyle. Mr. Murphy has noticed the trucks are making more than three truck trips per
day at random times.
The chair asked the applicant to address concerns. Ms. Lockman said the truck traffic count is based on
an average. The business is a seasonal business. There is more traffic now and there will not be much
traffic in the Winter. She said she was unaware of the livestock harassment; it was never addressed at the
neighborhood meetings. She wished that they would have been made aware of this sooner. Ms. Lockman
does not think the property looks like a junk yard and explained that is why she brought along pictures of
the property. She feels it is well maintained and it will be completely screened. Ms. Lockman said that she
held a community meeting with the surrounding property owners. She felt the complaints she heard were
mostly a misunderstanding of what the County Code allows. She said a property owner has the right to
ask for a commercial use on an agriculture zoned piece of land by having a Special Use Permit. Ms.
Lockman explained that Mr. Martinez is allowed to lease his property to the business operator.
Commissioner Ford asked if Mr. Martinez works for the company or if he just leases the land. Ms. Lockman
explained he leases a portion of the property to Mr. Marquez for storage.
Commissioner Stille asked the applicant to address the concerns about noise, honking and livestock
harassment. Ms. Lockman asked Jose Marquez to address those concerns.
Jose Marquez, 1064 Janna Drive, Loveland, Colorado. He is the business operator who is leasing a portion
of the property for storage. Mr. Marquez apologized and said he will talk to the truck drivers about the
concerns of the neighbors.
Commissioner Stille asked what the hours of operation are. Mr. Marquez said usually between 6:00 a.m.
to 6:00 p.m.
Ms. Lockman asked if the Development Standard could be amended to three trucks instead of two.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, said the applicant is requesting to modify Development Standard 5 to
read "three (3) gooseneck trailers" instead of two.
Motion: Amend Development Standard 5 to read three gooseneck trailers instead of two, as recommended
by Staff, Moved by Bruce Sparrow, Seconded by Richard Beck. Motion carried unanimously.
Commission Beck commented that the business operator needs to address his truck drivers to slow down
and be respectful to the neighbors.
15
Michelle Wall
Secretary
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 USR18-0034 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of
Approval and amended Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, Moved by Elijah Hatch, Seconded by Richard Beck.
Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 5, No = 1, Abstain = 0).
Yes: Bruce Sparrow, David Stahl, Sr., Elijah Hatch, Lonnie Ford, Richard Beck.
No: Gene Stille.
Absent: Tom Cope
Commissioner Sparrow commented it is hard to make these decisions because of every person involved
and their rights as land owners.
Commissioner Stille based his reason of voting no on Section 23-2-220.A.1 through Section 23-2-220.A.4
regarding compatibility in the rural setting.
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.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:49 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
16
Hello