HomeMy WebLinkAbout20180074.tiffBOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO
TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC MEETING
IN RE: APPEAL CONCERNING THE DECISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS TO DENY ACCESS PERMITS FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW, SPR17-0014
(LOT 5) AND SPR17-0015 (LOT 8) - PECKHAM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION /
WELD COUNTY INDUSTRIAL PARK, CIO MARK GOLDSTEIN
The above -entitled matter came for public meeting before the Weld County Board of
County Commissioners on October 18, 2017, at 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado, before
Stephanie Frederick, Deputy Clerk to the Board, and TRANSCRIBED by Esther Gesick, Clerk to
the Board.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the attached transcript is a complete and accurate account
of the above -mentioned portion of the public meeting.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
&za,„s‘,;k,
Esther E. Gesick
Clerk to the Board
ees-mme.tel; GQ cm,a)
/— $ —02O/ g
2018-0074
P[..al41
APPEARANCES:
ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Commissioner Julie A. Cozad, Chair
Commissioner Steve Moreno, Pro -Tern
Commissioner Sean P. Conway
Commissioner Mike Freeman
Commissioner Barbara Kirkmeyer
ALSO PRESENT:
County Attorney, Bruce T. Barker
Assistant County Attorney, Frank Haug
Clerk to the Board, Esther Gesick
Deputy Clerk to the Board, Stephanie Frederick
Public Works Department representative, Elizabeth Relford
Public Works Department representative, Evan Pinkham
APPELLANT: '
Mark Goldstein, Appellant
Jim Martel, Attorney
Gene Coppola, Traffic Engineer
1 PROCEEDINGS
2
3 CHAIR COZAD: Item number 2: Consider Appeal Concerning the Decision of the
4 Department of Public Works to Deny Access Permits for Site Plan Review, SPR17-0014 (Lot 5) and SPR17-
5 0015 (Lot 8) — Peckham Development Corporation / Weld County Industrial Park, c/o Mark Goldstein.
6 [Pause] Good morning.
7 ELIZABETH RELFORD: Good morning, Commissioners. Elizabeth Relford, Public Works.
8 Just one second. [Pause] Good morning, Commissioners. Weld County Public Works, as stated in the
9 Agenda, has denied the Access Permit for Site Plan Review, SPR17-0014 for Lot 5, and SPR17-0015 for Lot
10 8 of the Weld County Industrial Park, which is located in the Peckham area, which is east of US 85, between
11 Weld County Road 33 and 44. The map that is projected up here right now does reflect the subdivision
12 layout. US 85 is at a skewed angle to the subdivision. This is Weld County Road 44 on the north and this
13 is Weld County Road 33 on the west. Niobrara Boulevard is the internal subdivision road for the
14 subdivision that runs through the property. It is privately maintained and, in accordance with our Code
15 requirements, the applicant is required to get an access permit in accordance with Section 12-5-30. The
16 applicant did provide a Traffic Narrative for Lots 5 and 8, which is included in your materials. The attached
17 — I guess it's not attached up here but — the Traffic Narrative for Lots 5 and 8, the traffic engineer who
18 performed this narrative for this Site Plan Review is the same traffic engineer that did the overall traffic
19 study for the subdivision, as well as any of the amendments and, essentially, all of the traffic narratives
2 0 for all of the SPR applications.
21 What they identified for this lot — Lot 5 — the ones we're referring to are the ones in red
22 — Lot 5 and Lot 8 — the Traffic Narrative for both of those lots, essentially identified a 50/50 split
23 distribution for the traffic. Unfortunately, this connection here to County Road 44 has never been
24 completed. So, essentially, the entire subdivision is using the traffic — all of the traffic for all of the SPR
1
1 lots are using our access onto County Road 33. The Traffic Studies, however, do not reflect that 44 has
2 never been — the connection of Niobrara to 44 has never been completed, yet the narratives that
3 continuously submitted are recognizing that trip distribution. So, essentially, we're not really addressing,
4 maybe, the safety impacts that are occurring with all of the traffic accessing at the County Road 33
5 intersection. Because essentially that's the only location that all of the traffic can use.
6 Let's see, we kind of covered some of this. Because all of the traffic is using the
7 intersection right here at 33, essentially, the developer was required to pave this portion of 33 connecting
8 to US 85, as well as put in a new railroad crossings. You may recall us coming to you and having the PUC
9 application for upgrading the railroad crossing for that subdivision, because all of the traffic, essentially,
10 is coming out of here, making a right turn and going up north to US 85. The traffic is not allowed to go
11 south; they essentially have signage that is posted that says that they have to go north. That means that
12 all the traffic coming off of US 85 at the same time has to make a left-hand turn into the subdivision off of
13 33, and there are no auxiliary turn lanes constructed to meet that peak hour demand. So, essentially, all
14 the traffic — we don't have the safety improvements in place for the auxiliary left-hand turn lane to
15 accommodate all the traffic that's going into the subdivision off of 33. So, again, it's a safety issue that
16 we feel like the traffic studies and narratives haven't been addressing.
17
18 lane?
19
CHAIR COZAD: Can you show us on the map where you're talking about with the left -turn
ELIZABETH RELFORD: Sure. Actually, I have a picture. So, this is County Road 33. Highway
20 85 is pretty much just right here. You can see the railroad tracks and the Stop sign is essentially where
21 Highway 85 is. This is the entrance into Niobrara Boulevard, so they've — like I said — they paved from
22 Highway 85, essentially, to the entrance to the subdivision, but all the traffic has to come in this way. So,
23 you can see that, essentially, it's just a two-lane road right there.
2
1 CHAIR COZAD: Ok. And you're saying that the traffic from the subdivision now is
2 triggering left turn lanes on 33?
3
4
5
6 go ahead.
7
ELIZABETH RELFORD: Correct.
CHAIR COZAD: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER CONWAY: What's the ADT on this? Are you going to get into that? Ok,
ELIZABETH RELFORD: Obviously, there could potentially be safety issues that are out of
8 our concern. Obviously, we have no control if UP is going to stack a train across County Road 33 that could
9 potentially block this intersection and no access from the subdivision. Essentially, all access would have
10 to go to the south, which is not part of their haul route for their subdivision. So, it potentially can
11 exacerbate another safety issue, not to mention that since this is the only subdivision access, not only is
12 the safety issue for Public Works and any accidents that could occur at that intersection, it's a first
13 responder safety issue with only having one access to the subdivision.
14 CHAIR COZAD: Commissioner Conway.
15 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So, we made, as part of this agreement, we made him pave
16 this road — the applicant paved the road.
17 ELIZABETH RELFORD: Correct. Originally, he was supposed to connect Niobrara Boulevard
18 all the way to County Road 44 wasn't going to have to pave the road because, essentially, the distribution
19 of the traffic would hit 33 and 44 to where the traffic counts didn't require it. But, because it's never been
20 made and all of the traffic is solely using 33, he met the triggers for paving.
21 CHAIR COZAD: Go ahead.
22 ELIZABETH RELFORD. The SPR application that came before us for Lots 5 and 8 is for
2 3 storage of oil and gas equipment. The previously approved — so there was a previously approved SPR16-
2 4 0007 and -0008 — and that was for Lots 5 and 2. This request is for 5 and 8, but it was a similar request on
3
1 Lots 5 and 2 for oil and gas storage. But, that application only had two trips per day. So, now the request
2 for Lots 5 and 8 has been submitted with an increase of traffic from two trips per day to 30 truck trips per
3 shift, which is approximately an additional 60 trips per day.
4 Going back to the map, we did go ahead and show you all of the SPR lots and the traffic
5 narratives that were submitted, over on the table over here on the right, showing you the amount of
6 traffic that was approved with all of those SPR application. So, essentially, I guess whether or not a use is
7 occurring or not, there's approximately 1,379 trips that have been permitted for this subdivision, to date,
8 solely using this access. I can't tell you, obviously, if that's how much traffic is using the subdivision,
9 because Niobrara is privately maintained, so we don't actually count that one and we haven't — our
10 current counts have been south of the intersection, so I don't feel that I have a good ADT count for you
11 because all of our counts to the south were south of the intersection. And our traffic counts south of the
12 intersection were approximately 283 vehicles per day.
13 CHAIR COZAD: And you're saying the intersection of 33 and Niobrara Boulevard going
14 south? And what was the number again?
15 ELIZABETH RELFORD: 283. And then it drops down to 238. I don't think that was a
16 transposed number [laughter] but it came out that way.
17 CHAIR COZAD: Ok. Go ahead Commissioner Conway.
18 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I'm sorry. Can you repeat those numbers again. I apologize.
19 ELIZABETH RELFORD: 283, and then down on 33, between 40 and 42 was 283, further
20 south, I don't even have it on this aerial.
21 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: 283 ADT was north or south of the intersection?
22 ELIZABETH RELFORD: I don't have a count north, not since 2010, when it was like 289.
23 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay.
4
1 ELIZABETH RELFORD: Urn, I would say that since the Traffic Narrative isn't currently
2 reflecting the traffic operations, that's really where our safety concern came into, and that's why staff did
3 recommend denial of the Access Permits on Lots 5 and 8, because we keep increasing the traffic using one
4 sole intersection. Obviously, no having information to support even auxiliary turn lanes, it just seems like
5 we don't have enough information to feel comfortable we're not exacerbating an existing safety issue.
6 So, we recommended denial of the Access Permit. So, obviously, I have a few more pictures I can go
7 through. Public Works has denied the Access Permit, in accordance with Section 12-5-130, denial of an
8 access permit goes to the Board of County Commissioners where you get to act as the Board of Appeals
9 for the final determination, obviously, either issuing the access permit or denying it. So, essentially —
10 CHAIR COZAD: Just to be clear, your recommendation — or your denial of the Access
11 Permit by Public Works were based on, primarily, safety reasons?
12 ELIZABETH RELFORD: We're increasing the traffic, correct. So, every SPR we approve has
13 increased traffic, so now we have — let me go back to that one — the subdivision, the only lots after 5 and
14 8 that wouldn't be developed are Lots 7 and 9. The subdivision would be built out. So, essentially, we've
15 added traffic with every SPR application and we seem to continue to be approving those and — which just
16 increases the opportunity or chances for accidents at the intersection of 33. Because, obviously — this is
17 an industrial subdivision that's zoned 1-3, so you do have big trucks and heavy industrial use for the
18 subdivision.
19 CHAIR COZAD: And then — I don't know if now is the appropriate time, but can you talk
20 about the Improvements — can you go back to the other map and talk about the Improvements Agreement
21 and what was supposed to trigger improvements on County Road 44? Because one of my questions is,
2 2 you have an access permit, it looks like, at the intersection of 44 — that's for what?
5
1 ELIZABETH RELFORD: That's our old Kersey Grader Shed. So, this Access Permit was part
2 of the original subdivision. So, originally, we issued an Access Permit here and an Access Permit here for
3 the RE lot before it went through the Subdivision process.
4 CHAIR COZAD: Is there an Access Permit for this subdivision?
5 ELIZABETH RELFORD: I would say the original — so before we used to just do for the
6 subdivision. Since the Code has changed, back in 2016, we actually issue an access permit per lot now.
7 CHAIR COZAD: Onto a private road.
8 ELIZABETH RELFORD: Correct. But the access permit is actually issued at where we
9 publically maintain the road. So, that's why you see — even though there's all these access permits over
10 here, we put the dots over by the intersection because that's where they access our publically-maintained
11 road.
12 CHAIR COZAD: So, the actual access permit is for the intersection of our County Road and
13 the Niobrara Boulevard. So, it's the same thing on the north side — there hasn't been any access permits
14 that have been applied for that would be a part of that intersection. But, could you go back — actually, my
15 question was on the Improvements Agreement. So, can you go back to that? Did you have a question?
16 BRUCE BARKER: No, I'm not certain that's part of the appeal though.
17 CHAIR COZAD: Well, but I think it is; to me it is. I just would like to know if there were
18 requirements as part of the Improvements Agreement, to make improvements to the County roads that
19 either are on County Road 44 or 33.
20 ELIZABETH RELFORD: They are. I would say that our evaluation of the Site Plan Reviews
21 was separate from that. So, we've been working the Improvements Agreement simultaneously. It is in
22 their hands to sign the updated one. I feel like they have been working to obtain the right-of-way. They
23 have ran into utility conflicts to relocate the utilities, but I would say that they have been making an effort
24 to get new collateral and new Improvements Agreement to us — we do not have one in place at this time.
6
1 CHAIR COZAD: Okay. Commissioner Kirkmeyer.
2 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I just want to be clear. What we're talking about here is
3 the denial of two Access Permits, and its access to Weld County 33.
4 ELIZABETH RELFORD: Correct.
5 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: And you're saying that you denied that and it's coming
6 before the Board for safety issues. I want to be sure I've got all my numbers correct in that you said the
7 number of trips that have actually been permitted to use this access at this point would be 1,379.
8
9
10 33.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
ELIZABETH RELFORD. Correct.
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So, that's how many trips would be accessing Weld County
ELIZABETH RELFORD: Correct.
CHAIR COZAD: But, 60 of them are part of 5 and 8, so we've already approved 1,319.
ELIZABETH RELFORD: Correct. Yes, I did include the 60 for —
CHAIR COZAD: Because the 60 have not been approved because you denied the 60.
ELIZABETH RELFORD: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Thank you.
CHAIR COZAD: Did you want to show us some additional —
ELIZABETH RELFORD: I can do that. Okay, so again, this is County Road 33 at the
19 intersection of Niobrara. This is Niobrara Boulevard and Lot 1, so I'm just going to take you through the
20 subdivision. This is Lot l's access off of Niobrara. This is Lot 3 — I skipped — sorry my pictures are kind of
21 out of order. This is the injection well loading facility. This is the other side of it off of Lot 2. Lot 4 has a
22 couple of accesses — this one and this one. So, the thing that I guess I wasn't aware of at the time was,
23 originally with their first SPR application for Lot 5, they did construct the access. So, the access for Lot 5
2 4 is existing. It does have a smashed culvert on the end, so I guess if the Board does consider allowing the
7
1 Access Permit for Lot 5 to be issued, that we would request that they have to fix this culvert, replace the
2 end, and then fix the access.
3 CHAIR COZAD: You said Lot 5 was part of a previous Site Plan with Lot 2.
4 ELIZABETH RELFORD: Yes, correct.
5 CHAIR COZAD: And that access was approved as a part of that?
6 ELIZABETH RELFORD: Correct.
7 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: The access was approved to Lot 5?
8 ELIZABETH RELFORD: When it was two trips per day, yeah, it was last year in 2016.
9 CHAIR COZAD: So, that's probably why they built the access.
10 ELIZABETH RELFORD: Um, hum. So, this is Lot 6 and it has two accesses as well. This is
11 Lot 8, so it is not constructed. This is the dead end where the connection to 44 would be. That's our old
12 grader shed on the left. This is the RE lot; the RE lot has three accesses, I believe.
13 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Are those all off of 33?
14 ELIZABETH RELFORD: No. Those are — that's right before —
15 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: That's a private road?
16 ELIZABETH RELFORD: Urn, hum. That's still off of Niobrara. So, this is what it looks like
17 coming off of Niobrara onto 33. So, essentially, they're not supposed to be going left. All traffic is going
18 right. So, essentially, that's — again the concern is that we have very specific traffic movements here that
19 they don't have any options. You have to turn left -in; you have to turn right -out. Evan went and did a
2 0 windshield screen. He's here and he can speak to it. He sat out there for an hour and witnessed,
21 essentially, about 30 trucks going in and out and 20, essentially, we would be meeting our safety triggers
22 for requiring a left turn land into the subdivision.
23 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So? Can I ask a question?
24 CHAIR COZAD: Go ahead. Commissioner Kirkmeyer.
8
1
2
3
4
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I'm sorry. Commissioner Freeman had a question first.
COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Go ahead.
CHAIR COZAD: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: My question — so I guess I'm going back to the permitted
5 number of trips that are in there. I get all that. So, I guess my question would be, if we haven't had a
6 traffic count between 85 and this intersection since 2010, how do we know traffic count and triggers have
7 been met? That's where I'm a little -
8 ELIZABETH RELFORD: Right. So, like I said. We have to assume all the traffic, based on
9 what's posted and what's out there, is that they all have to go right and they all have to go left in. So,
10 that's why I did ask Evan to just do — because the traffic narratives and stuff — we're not getting the
11 numbers that, I guess, identify how much traffic is actually using everything to the north since the road
12 has been paved. To be able to have enough information to say Yes or No to either. So, again, just based
13 on Evan going out there in a peak hour and observing traffic movements, um, they meet the traffic turn
14 trigger for ten vehicles in an hour going into the subdivision.
15 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So, it's just an observance.
16 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: I guess I'm just curious why we haven't done a count there
17 so we'd actually have ADT numbers.
18
19 know.
20
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: To me, that's supposed to be in a Traffic Study, so I don't
CHAIR COZAD: Go ahead.
21 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So, again, I just want to make sure I'm correct here. So,
22 there's a sign from Niobrara Boulevard as you get to Weld County Road 33, that says you can't turn left
23 to go south. And, it's forcing all of them to go north —
24 ELIZABETH RELFORD: Correct.
9
1 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: - to the intersection at 33/44 essentially and Highway 85?
2 ELIZABETH RELFORD: Correct.
3 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: The reason for the connection was to take traffic and take
4 the impact off of a very dangerous intersection at 44/33 and Highway 85. I mean, if we all —so if everybody
5 — I'm pretty sure you all know. If you take south on 33, you do down to 42, you can enter Highway 85 at
6 a traffic signal. And, there's a reason the traffic signal was put in those places and the improvements
7 made to Highway 85 was to improve safety.
8 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: So, can I ask a question?
9 CHAIR COZAD: Go ahead, Commissioner.
10 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Is this our haul route?
11 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: No, well that's why I'm asking. No, the haul route's not
12 part of this. I'm just asking, where the heck'd we come up with that you can't turn left on 33? You gotta
13 go north to one of the most unsafe intersections on Highway 85.
14 CHAIR COZAD: Did we require that?
15 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: No. We did not, because I know this USR and I know
16 Highway 85, and I know why Niobrara Boulevard was there and why the connection was required between
17 44 down to 33, was to take that tension off of that intersection. This isn't even in play with what we were
18 talking about, not the USR, when we were talking about this land use application.
19 CHAIR COZAD: Well, I think we need to hear from the applicant on that too. Urn,
20 Commissioner Conway, did you —
21 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I just had a clarifying question. The sign that says: No Left
22 Turn — is that required by us, or is the applicant?
23 ELIZABETH RELFORD: My understanding -
24 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: The applicant can speak to that if that's not ours.
10
1 ELIZABETH RELFORD: I think that would be fine. I think that the applicant, because of the
2 amount of traffic generated, didn't want to have to make more improvements south.
3 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Oh, and so it was to avoid the triggering. I mean, I'll let the
4 applicant speak to that. Maybe it was for other reasons.
5
6
7
8
COMMISSIONER MORENO: That's our sign though?
CHAIR COZAD: No, that's theirs.
COMMISSIONER CONWAY: That's what I wanted to make sure of. Thank you.
CHAID COZAD: Okay. Alright, Elizabeth did you have anything else? Frank did you have
9 anything you wanted to add? Evan, would you like to add anything?
10
11
12
EVAN PINKHAM: No, thank you.
CHAIR COZAD: Any other questions of the Board? Yes, Bruce.
BRUCE BARKER: Just one clarification. This is an appeal, so they're not applicants —
13 they're applicants for the permit, but they're actually — call them the Appellant. So, at this point you'll be
14 taking the Appellant's testimony on the reasons why they're asking you to grant their appeal.
15 CHAIR COZAD: Okay. Alright, so if Appellant or their representative would like to come
16 either up to the table or to the podium — either one. Please, put your name and address on the record
17 and give us some comments on the appeal of these access permits.
18 ELIZABETH RELFORD: Do you need to plug in, Mark?
19 MARK GOLDSTEIN: I need to tie into the computer -
2 0 {Side comments coordinating electronics and seating arrangements.}
21 MARK GOLDSTEIN: My name's Mark Goldstein. I'm with Peckham Development.
22 JIM MARTEL: My name's Jim Martel and I'm an attorney and I represent Peckham
23 Development.
11
1 MARK GOLDSTEIN: We would like to thank you for the opportunity, thank staff and the
2 Board of County Commissioners for the opportunity to speak today. So, we have a number of
3 representatives in the audience here today available to answer questions as we go through the process.
4 So, again, my name is Mark Goldstein with Peckham. We have Jeff Donaldson with Peckham
5 Development; Phil Osier is our Construction Manager; Jim Martel is our attorney. We also have Andy
6 Reese; he is the Civil Engineer who designed all of the 44 improvements that have been approved. We
7 have Eugene Coppola; he is our Traffic Engineer. He has done some updated Traffic Studies which we will
8 be submitting today with actual traffic counts from the crossing. We have Kevin Barney; he is a Civil
9 Engineer and Land Planner who has been involved in the Site Plan application for Lots 5 and 8. And then
10 we also have John Pottorff and Mike Brewen from Hallmark and Peyton International; they are the
11 company that would be occupying Lots 5 and 8 for outdoor storage, should it be approved.
12 The next slide here is — you know, this Park has had a lot of moving parts since it was first
13 approved in 2012. So, we wanted to take an opportunity to go through the history. So, the nine -lot minor
14 subdivision was approved with only a County Road 33 access in December of 2012. The subdivision plat
15 was recorded in January 2014. We did do an interim Road Maintenance Agreement, temporarily in 2014.
16 The whole point with County Road 44 — the grader shed was not part of the minor subdivision. We had
17 discussions about one day connecting that to County Road 44, but we didn't actually have an exchange
18 agreement with Weld County to exchange the grader shed property for Outlot A of the Minor Subdivision
19 until two years after this subdivision was approved. So, just for clarification, the intent was to use County
20 Road 33. There was some discussions about the haul route —the actual Improvements Agreement shows
21 95% of the traffic is supposed to go north to US 85 and only 5% is supposed to go south to County Road
22 33. The intent at the — and we did go ahead and obviously pave that as we hit the triggers. Urn, going on
2 3 down the line here. We did pave it in 2015; we did upgrade the railroad crossing in May of 2017; the on -
2 4 site improvements were approved by Weld County in March of 2017, and then the Exchange Agreement.
12
1 There were a couple of moving parts there. The way that that was structured was that Peckham, as the
2 Developer, gave the County Outlot A and approximately $181,000 to build their shed. Weld County
3 maintained occupancy of the grader shed property until their building was constructed and they were
4 able to move over there. As part of that agreement, Weld County issued — and that is in the Appeal
5 application that we filed — Weld County issued an Industrial Access Permit for Niobrara and County Road
6 44. The same Access Permit, which is AP12-0008, was also the Industrial Access Permit for County Road
7 33 and Niobrara. This is just — to Commissioner Kirkmeyer's point about the traffic light here — this kind
8 of outlines, here's the subdivision, 33 and 85, the future connection to County Road 44, and then where
9 the Stop light at 33 to 42 is located.
10 JIM MARTEL: Just to respond to your question about the haul road going north; the
11 Improvements Agreement, which was signed February 24, 2014, specifically provided that all vehicles shall
12 enter or exit the property at the approved access points on County Roads 33 and 44. All vehicles will
13 travel on 33 north to US 85 for further dispersal, and on County Road 44 east or west to disperse further.
14 So, that was the original plan for whatever reason.
15 MARK GOLDSTEIN: So, as we get into this — first and foremost — the staff's done a great
16 job. They raised a safety issue. We have done some additional investigation; I think as we go through
17 today we can illustrate where there's a lot less traffic than what was projected and that there's really not
18 a material safety issue. So, I think part of the issue has been the number of SPRs and amended SPRs that
19 have been going on out there at the Park the last several years. This diagram is just to give you a depiction
2 0 of the various SPRs and what has changed. Lot 1 is the Water Depot, Lot 2 was originally the Disposal Well
21 location, but then that was moved to Lot 3, and then this SPR for outdoor storage was done on Lot 2. Lot
22 3 has actually had two SPRs. Lot 4 has one, Lot 5 had the original one in 2016 and the pending one in
2 3 2017, and so forth. There have been a number of Traffic Narratives that have been submitted with each
2 4 of the SPRs, adding to the — to get to the cumulative traffic.
13
1 The Lot 5 and 8 — to give you some background — the Amended SPR that we're doing for
2 Lot 5 is still an outdoor storage concept. The only thing that we are adding is a modular office and a couple
3 of storage units. And that's why we did the actual Amended SPR. The traffic volumes we submitted — we
4 have the actual referral comments from Public Works were two employees per day, but there was also
5 15-30 truck trips included in addition for traffic associated with equipment being dropped off. Lot 8 is for
6 a new SPR for outdoor storage.
7 The Public Works' denial of an Inventory Access Permit really doesn't have a change of
8 use as defined by the Code. Then we've cited the Code section below. Where I think the confusion has
9 stemed is related to — what is the actual traffic count going on out there. We have Gene Coppola here
10 today to also speak to his traffic studies, and we have a new — urn, we did have Gene do a new report
11 yesterday when we got Elizabeth's comments so that we could bring actual data to the meeting here
12 today.
13 So, what this table depicts here today is the — the column the second to the left, urn,
14 second to the right — is the projections from the SPR applications, which give you an accumulative total of
15 1,379. Actual traffic counts as of October the 12th, are 554. These are actual traffic studies that were
16 done to give us a real number of what is a true traffic count going on out there.
17 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Clarifying?
18 CHAIR COZAD: Yeah, go ahead Commissioner Conway.
19 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: When was that traffic count done? Did you say —
2 0 MARK GOLDSTEIN: October 12th of 2017.
21 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay, over a period — what period of time? Just one day?
2 2 MARK GOLDSTEIN: That was a 24 -hour period. They also did a count on August 23rd, and
23 I've got — if I'm allowed to submit these —
24 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Yep.
14
1 CHAIR COZAD: You can submit those to the County Attorney. Thank you.
2 {Pause while items handed out.)
3 MARK GOLDSTEIN: So, a couple of things that came up in the presentation this morning
4 were: 1) What were the actual traffic counts; and 2) Has there been an actual left -turn trigger? At this
5 time — Gene you wanna come up and — you know, Gene can speak to the —
6 CHAIR COZAD: If you'll go ahead and identify yourself.
7 GENE COPPOLA: Gene Coppola. I'm a Traffic Consultant working for the applicant, or
8 Appellant. We did some counts out there and the County did some counts earlier this year. And, I think
9 if you look at this first page, the County count in March of this year was only 224 vehicles on 33 and that's
10 over the course of a day. We counted it over the last few weeks and came up with about 950.
11
12
13
14
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: 950 vehicles, I'm sorry, where?
GENE COPPOLA: North of Niobrara.
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: On 33.
GENE COPPOLA: On 33. An, we got in the question of the left turn lane — uh, there's going
15 to be like 28 left turns, southbound onto Niobrara from 33 in a peak hour. Using the CDOT warrant, their
16 threshold is ten; however, their ten vehicles — you need to consider the opposing traffic as well. So, if
17 you've got someone coming this way, if there's no one blocking them they can turn freely. The
18 northbound traffic is only ten vehicles, based on the count we did. So, that southbound, left turn can
19 virtually be made at -will, and the CDOT threshold where the opposing traffic needs to be 100 or more.
20 So, by CDOT warrants, that left turn lane is not warranted.
21 CHAIR COZAD: Okay, questions for Gene?
22 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Thank you.
23 MARK GOLDSTEIN: I have one supplement to Gene. The 900+ north of Niobrara, that
24 includes background traffic. We arrived by 554 by subtracting the southbound flow through traffic from
15
1 the northbound traffic. So, we had to count north of Niobrara to 85, then we have a count from Niorbara
2 south on 33. To get the 554, if you look at the traffic counts, you take the 980 +/-, minus the 390, which
3 is the flow through traffic going south and you get the 554.
4 CHAIR COZAD: So the 944 is total traffic —
5 GENE COPPOLA: Total.
6 CHAIR COZAD: -- including background traffic.
7 JIM MARTEL: Can I ask Mr. Coppola just to clarify one thing? From the presentation by
8 Public Works, there seemed to be some confusion about whether your studies already assume that
9 County Road 44 is open.
10 GENE COPPOLA: They do not. So, there's alternate routes available, it assumed all traffic
11 used 33 north of Niobrara, so they're very conservative.
12 MARK GOLDSTIEN: And to supplement what Gene just said, there was some discussion
13 about the sign forcing traffic to the north. The Weld County Park Association did install that sign in an
14 effort to maintain compliance with the Improvements Agreement. It required 95% of the traffic to go
15 north to 85, so that was our attempt to guide the drives out there to be in compliance.
16 JIM MARTEL: Yeah, in fact, the Improvements Agreement required that the developer
17 post appropriate signage.
18
19 development?
20
CHAIR COZAD: So, if traffic is supposed to go north, how does the 5% go south out of the
MARK GOLDSTEIN: Well that was the challenge because we don't have someone out
21 there directing. You know, there's a few that don't listen to the sign because we've watched them.
22 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Well because the sign doesn't talk {laughter} — a talking
23 sign.
16
1 MARK GOLDSTEIN: - have gone south, but if you look at the counts that we've done, it
2 illustrates the majority of them are following the rules. We haven't had any complaints from the
3 neighbors about traffic going south on 33. So, great question; it's a little hard to allocate exactly.
4 CHAIR COZAD: But your traffic — where the traffic is going to go was based on a Traffic
5 Study, wasn't it? Saying that 95% of your traffic was going to go north, and 5% was going to go south. But
6 if then — so I guess I'm just a little confused about that, so maybe staff — when we get back to staff
7 questions, maybe if we can address that. Because, um, generally the Traffic Study is based on where you
8 think traffic is going to be going and which directions. And, if it was — if the Traffic Study said 5% was going
9 to go south, I guess some of my questions for staff will be: 1) Did we say that 100% of the traffic needed
10 to go north and require the sign, or 2) If traffic changed from what was anticipated and more traffic went
11 south than north, would that have triggered additional improvements. I guess that would be my question.
12 I don't know, Gene, if you want to answer that.
13 GENE COPPOLA: Well, I can chime in a little bit. We did counts out there and, basically,
14 everyone is going north in the peak hours. I don't know if it's really because of the sign, which I tend to
15 doubt, or it's the preferred route. The other thing to keep in the back of your mind is, next year, when
16 the connection is made to 44, most of that traffic will go to the signal at 44.
17
18
19 44.
20
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: What signal at 44?
GENE COPPOLA: We'll have a new connection next year from the site up to County Road
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Sure. And what signal? You said a signal at 44. Did I
21 misunderstand you? Didn't he say signal?
22 COMMISSIONER MORENO: Yeah, he said signal.
23 GENE COPPOLA: I said — I'm sorry — we'll be able to distribute more traffic between the
24 two routes, so that 33 will become less emphasized.
17
1
2
3
4
CHAIR COZAD: But the signal's at 42.
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Correct.
GENE COPPOLA: Yes, the signal is at 42. I'm sorry.
MARK GOLDSTEIN: I think maybe what the reference is — is once 44 is opened that some
5 will go 44 east to 359 down to the Stop light on 22. Here we can illustrate it — one more. So, I think what
6 Gene's referring to is once 44 is open here, you'll have traffic going in either direction on 44 and some
7 may go 35 down to 42 to the Stop light.
8 GENE COPPOLA: Just depending on where they're coming from within the site, I think.
9 CHAIR COZAD: Okay. Go ahead and finish your presentation.
10 MARK GOLDSTEIN: So, Public Works had voiced safety concerns that the approved traffic
11 volumes are too high for one access point. The left turn lane would be warranted based on the peak hour
12 counts and the potential to block UP at 33. When the Minor Subdivision was approved, La Salle Fire was
13 a part of the referral agencies and they did approve the subdivision, in 2012, with one access point. Also,
14 with all the subsequent Site Plan Reviews, they've all been required to go through La Salle Fire's referral
15 agency process, and they've all sent back comments without having any concerns. The other thing that —
16 you know, in the case that — and this has come up a couple times with road improvements — in cases like
17 emergencies for road construction, there has been a temporary haul route agreement. You know, like
18 when repairs were being made to a County road. And this has been coordinated with Rich Hastings and
19 Janet Lundquist in the past. So, to the extent a train needed to stop there — there was an issue with the
2 0 rail — there was a coordination effort to redirect traffic.
21 So, a couple of just straight facts, there have been no accidents in the last four years at
2 2 County Road 33 and Niobrara Boulevard. We did pull the Weld County Sherriff's Department records and
2 3 can submit those.
18
1 JIM MARTEL: We have submitted them. We submitted additional documentation this
2 morning so that everything that Mark is discussing, we have provided the documentation to Mr. Barker.
3 MARK GOLDSTEIN: Peckham did upgrade the railroad crossing at 33 and 85. It didn't go
4 quite as fast as we had hoped because of the {inaudible}. There have been multiple developments in
5 Weld County approved with one point of access. Another one that we were involved in was Union Colony
6 Industrial Park in Greeley — now that was, of course, annexed to Greeley, but it was approved in Weld
7 County with a single point of access on 62. I think where they — and, you know, it's a legitimate concern
8 based on the data that was available, you know, the projected traffic of 1,300+ vehicles. It's not actually
9 what's going on out there. The actual traffic is less than half. I completely understand where staff raised
10 a concern based on the data that they were looking at.
11 I wanted to talk about, briefly, County Road 44. Peckham is fulling committed to building
12 out 44. We've worked diligently with multiple departments through the years on our various entitlements
13 and we've worked very diligently with public works to get 44 approved. Urn, where are we at with 44?
14 The construction drawings were approved on September 24, 2017. We have submitted Letters of Credit
15 for County Road 44; the originals are on the County hands and the templates were approved by Frank
16 Haug of Weld County. There's one Letter of Credit that's been submitted; we're just waiting for BOCC
17 approval for the $740,000.00 for 44 and $105,942.00 which is the warranty for the on -site improvements.
18 The on -site improvements were approved by staff in the spring, and there's currently a $700,000+ Letter
19 of Credit. We did submit a new one for the warranty period. We have an updated Improvements
2 0 Agreement essentially ready to sign; Jim Martel and the County have been working on that. We have
21 purchased all right-of-way for the approved construction drawings. We're just waiting for the BOCC
22 process so that can be accepted. The developer has dedicated all of the right-of-way necessary that
23 Peckham owns today for 44. We have coordinated with utilities. Um, we have always intended to build
2 4 44, in fact, we built the Weld County — or the Western Mutual Bridge back in 2016, which has also been
19
1 approved. You know, we would not have invested this time and money if we did not intend to build 44.
2 It's a value for Weld County; it's a value for our lots because it will have potential access.
3 The issue that we had — we had intended to go to construction right now, and the problem
4 that we have is an Xcel delay. In your packet, we have a letter from Xcel saying, look, we've diverted a lot
5 of crews to Hurricane relief and we're backed up. That's the issue; we want to get this built. We'd like to
6 have it built now. The issue is that there are Xcel power lines on the north side of 44 and on the south,
7 that have to be relocated. One option that we considered to try to go ahead and get this built, was a
8 phasing alternative. We can go ahead and connect Niobrara to 44 today and then build out the turn lanes
9 in the spring. That's one option that we did present to Public Works and my understanding was that was
10 not something they were in favor of. The other thing that we tried to do with Xcel — you know, we're a
11 small fish in the bowl — is to see if Public Works would help accelerate the utility relocate. When we did
12 County Road 33, there was an Xcel gas line that had to be lowered in the right-of-way, and Public Works
13 did submit a letter which did accelerate the Xcel process. I understand on this — on these powerlines are
14 the right-of-way and staying in the right-of-way, with the location that — you know, that is not something
15 that the County or Public Works is interested in doing. My being is, you know, we're trying to find ways
16 to get 44 on as quickly as possible.
17 The issue that we have is one of timing. We've submitted the exhibits for the budget and
18 for the building of 44 in the spring. They're ready to go with the Improvements Agreement. Xcel is telling
19 us February for the utility relocates. We hope to be constructing by April and be out of there sometime
20 this summer. We do have a contractor — it's Mountain Constructors — they are ready to go. The problem
21 we've got is, like I said, the utility relocates. So the issue that we have between the timing of Lot 5 and 8
22 Site Plan approval and the construction is about a 4- to 8 -month process or gap. Where we have our
23 tenant, who needs to be move now and we have an Xcel delay stopping the 44 improvements.
20
1 I wanted to briefly introduce Hallmark and Payne. Hallmark and Payne is an international
2 drilling company. They are the largest in the nation. They are currently in Kersey, Colorado. They are
3 here today if you guys want to listen to them directly. They can give you a little bit of background on their
4 needs. John, you wanna come up and introduce?
5
6
7
8
CHAIR COZAD: Is that relevant?
COMMISSIONER CONWAY: It's relevant to the —
CHAIR COZAD: Bruce?
BRUCE BARKER: It's up to you. This is a appeal of a denial of access permits onto Weld
9 County Road 33 and it's up to you. If you believe that that testimony would be relevant to that issue.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 relevant --
18
19
CHAIR COZAD: Is your testimony relevant to the denial of the access permit?
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: He doesn't need to answer. He needs to answer.
JIM MARTEL: I believe it is, yes. They are the tenant.
CHAIR COZAD: Can you explain why that would be relevant to the appeal?
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Madame Chair, may I just say something?
CHAIR COZAD: Go ahead, Commissioner Kirkmeyer.
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: The fact that 44 hasn't been constructed, that's not even
CHAIR COZAD: No, it's not.
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: - to this appeal. So, I mean, we're talking about access onto
20 County Road 33, essentially. And so, all of the testimony should be directed towards that, not when we
21 think things are going to get done, or what's going on at 44. None of that is relevant to this hearing.
22 CHAIR COZAD: Commissioner Conway.
23 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So, --
24 MARK GOLDSTEIN: It is ---
21
1 CHAIR COZAD: Hold on just a second.
2 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Hold on, I'm going to ask a question. So, is this relevant to
3 the development of the lot and the timing, in terms of this, that you put into testimony as part of the
4 appeal?
5 MARK GOLDSTEIN: Yes, sir, it's relevant to the timing of getting 5 and 8 built so that H
6 and P can move in.
7
8
9
10
11
COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I think that's relevant.
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: No. No.
COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Well, I do.
CHAIR COZAD: Commissioner Kirkmeyer.
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: That's relevant to their development and relevant to the
12 timing of when they can get a tenant in place; it's not relevant to the issues at hand as to why you get an
13 access permit. Timing of the construction of the construction of their development is not relevant to this
14 access permit.
15 CHAIR COZAD: Okay, Mr. Martel.
16 JIM MARTEL: The reason 44 is relevant and the tenant is relevant, is that that is the
17 condition that is placed on this access permit. We're appealing the condition that this access permit not
18 be issued until 44 is completed. So, 44 is relevant because that's the condition Public Works placed on
19 the permit. And, this tenant is relevant because the tenant has a lease for this property, so they are the
20 property owner whom you are denying access to. You're denying access to the tenant to their property.
21 That's why it's relevant, and it's important to hear why it's important for them to get to their property.
22 BRUCE BARKER: You don't put a condition on a denial of a permit. So, I don't think that's
23 what Public Works did. I think they denied the permit because they said Weld County Road 44 is not
22
1 complete, and so that cannot work as an access. So, they have to come out on 33; the question is: Is it
2 safe? That's the issue.
3 CHAIR COZAD: That's why I asked the question about why the permit was denied by
4 Public Works. It's the — the reason for the denial is the safety of additional traffic going north on County
5 Road 33 it sounded like. That's the reason for the denial of the permit. So, I think the testimony should
6 be relative to that.
7 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Correct.
8 BRUCE BARKER: You may want to ask Elizabeth. Elizabeth, is that correct?
9 ELIZABETH RELFORD: Correct.
10 CHAIR COZAD: I think I asked you that already, but I think that's fine that that's again on
11 the record. And so, again, I'd ask the question to the Board. I guess back to Mr. Martel too — is their
12 testimony relevant to the denial of the access permit related to the safety on County Road 33, which is
13 the reason why we denied it.
14 MARK GOLDSTEIN: I can speak to —
15 CHAIR COZAD: Go ahead.
16 MARK GOLDSTEIN: So, I can speak to that. So, the H&P, the actual — when we get back
17 to the numbers — the actual traffic that they would be generating, if you go back to — so, the key question
18 here is safety and traffic. As it relates to H&P, they do have a timing issue. Their proposed traffic — and
19 it's also shown in the updated Traffic Narrative, we're looking at 50 trips a day until they get the
20 equipment moved. Once the equipment is moved, it drops to about 20 a day. They would be moving in
21 January; we're going to be constructing in the spring. So, the relevance of the denial is, is there a safety
22 issue? Or the relevance, Commissioner Cozad, is the traffic being generated by them is so well below
23 what's actually going on out there. And, if you look at what's already been approved of 1,379, they're
24 additional 50-60 trips — 60 is what Public Works is interpreting the location to be — and what we've
23
1 updated with the traffic study we put in today, if you add that you're still only at 614 trips, which is still
2 less than half of the 1,379. All of which is going to County Road 33. The studies never disperse traffic or
3 assume traffic going in two directions. That's, to your point, the relevance of why the tenant and their
4 lease is applicable. But, in an effort to move this along, and I don't want to take any more of your guys'
5 time, Jim, let's just hand these out. We have a couple of solutions here on the next slide.
6 So, I guess on our studies, based on our traffic counts, the traffic is obviously substantially
7 less than what's out there. But, a couple of options that we can look at to help mitigate the concerns of
8 Public Works are as follows: 1) We can go ahead and extend, if it's okay with the County, Niobrara to
9 County Road 44. We would then come in and put in the turn lanes in the spring once the utilities have
10 been relocated. The other option is a temporary solution which would allow 5 and 8 to move forward;
11 it's just to amend the current haul route; send traffic in two directions on 33 only for about four or five
12 months, until 44 access has been opened up. This was done several years ago. When we first started this
13 development, we did do an Interim Road Maintenance Agreement where the developer maintained 33
14 until the project was up and running. The other component to that is, you know, the developer is happy
15 to have Public Works select the contractor that they would like to use, at the developer's expense. The
16 other thing to help with that is, we can provide traffic control and flaggers when there is equipment being
17 moved to this site as another added safety measure. We're fully committed to getting 44 built. At the
18 end of the day we don't believe, you know, there's never been accidents at Niobrara and 33, the traffic
19 count is half of what was projected, we can provide this temporary solution to even mitigate further until
20 we get 44 built. We just don't think that there's a material or provable safety issue to deny 5 and 8's
21 access permit, based on the data that we've presented here today.
22 And, in closing, everything is in place for 44; all the mechanisms are in place to build 44
23 and the current traffic counts - not just off the study we did in October, but we also did it in August and
2 4 you all did it in March — supports that the traffic is well below the projections that were being utilized for
24
1 the basis for denying the access. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today — we appreciate it. Sorry
2 we ran over our allotted time.
3 JIM MARTEL: I'd just like to —
4 CHAIR COZAD: Go ahead.
5 JIM MARTEL: -- to say a couple things. We don't dispute that those were the numbers
6 that were originally projected when the people made their applications for the lots. In fact, we have
7 provided to you, all of the applications that show those numbers - the total of 1,349. The issue is that
8 those numbers were unrealistic projections and the actual traffic counts are less than half of that, so
9 adding 60 to 540 still doesn't even get you to half of what has been approved. And, if they approved 1,390
10 as being safe, then why are 540 not safe? The second thing is that the permits are very unique in this
11 situation because we have an opinion that the County does not issue permits onto privately maintained
12 roads, so, what the County is saying is, all of these permits are really issued at the intersection of 33 and
13 Niobrara. If you take that approach, then by analogy let's think about owning a house on a cul-de-sac and
14 you come in — you obviously have access to your house — you come to the County and you say I'd like to
15 add to my garage and the County says, "Ok, you're requesting a change. We're now taking away your
16 access." And that's what's happening in this case. We're taking away your access because we believe the
17 end of your cul-de-sac is now no longer safe. I don't think that's the appropriate remedy, even in the
18 County believes that this access is unsafe. I think in my cul-de-sac example you would go to everyone on
19 the cul-de-sac and say, 'How can we make this more safe?' We're not going to shut off one person; we're
2 0 not going to do it by lottery and say one person can no longer drive. We're going to do some kind of group
21 effort, and that's what we're recommending here is a solution to 33, temporarily, until 44 can be built
2 2 that would allow the access to go south, take some of the pressure — if there is any, off of that intersection
23 and have flaggers. Have people standing there directing traffic. I think that does solve the problem.
24 We're only talking about a problem for six months. I don't think there is any possibility in the world that
25
1 the traffic out of Niobrara would double in six months, but if it does, we've proposed a solution that would
2 resolve the problem temporarily. And, that's what we're asking for — to approve the permit to solve the
3 short-term problem. Thank you.
4 CHAIR COZAD: Okay, are there any questions for either Mark, Jim or Gene Coppola?
5 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I have a clarifying question for Elizabeth. So, Elizabeth, we're
6 talking about 5 and 9 —
7 ELIZABETH RELFORD: 5 and 8.
8 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: -- 5 and 8. So, 7 and 9 would need to come back under the
9 new. So, let's say, in a hypothetical and I'm not saying — let's say the applicant doesn't meet what they're
10 saying here today — there would be an opportunity when those lots develop to come back and revisit this
11 issue. Is that correct, in terms of the development of 9 and 7? In terms of access permits? In terms of
12 getting that permitted?
13 ELIZABETH RELFORD: We review it for every SPR applicant.
14 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Correct. So, if the applicant today — who I think is trying to
15 solve the problem and is trying to come up with solutions — doesn't fulfill their commitment to the Board,
16 that would then be part of those discussions when those came back up, correct?
17 ELIZABETH RELFORD: It would only come back to you if staff denied the access permit.
18 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay. And the only reason you would deny it is if they didn't
19 fulfill what they're saying here.
20 ELIZABETH RELFORD: If we believed there was a safety issue —
21 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Right.
22 ELIZABETH RELFORD: — if there was some issue tied to why we had concerns with them
23 meeting the criteria.
24 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay.
26
1 ELIZABETH RELFORD: So, the criteria today is that we are witnessing — we actually went
2 out and witnessed ten left-hand turn trips in a peak hour into the subdivision. That meets the threshold
3 of the turn lane requirement. That's a safety issue.
4 CHAIR COZAD: I'm going to ask a follow-up question. And did you have a question too,
5 Commissioner Kirkmeyer?
6 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Sure, I have comments to make too.
7 CHAIR COZAD: Okay. Urn, one of the things that we're hearing is that the projected traffic
8 counts were actually — um, what has been approved to date would have been 1,319.
9 ELIZABETH RELFORD: The original traffic study said 5,000 trips.
10 CHAIR COZAD: I know, but what I'm saying is the permits that have been approved, the
11 access permits that would have been approved — the actual number it shows 1,379 — that includes 60.
12 But, what we've actually approved to date, um, if you take that 60 out, is 1,319. Correct? Urn, and have
13 we had a safety concern with approving those accesses previously? Or, is it just these two?
14 ELIZABETH RELFORD: I'm not sure I can speak to that. Just with our staffing changes, I
15 can only go off of the referrals and the communications that have occurred between the applicant which
16 identified the thresholds that were being met.
17 CHAIR COZAD: You know, the reason why I'm bringing it up is because the Appellant
18 brought it up that, you know, the access permits we've already approved add up to 1,319 and the actual
19 traffic counts are far below that at 554.
20 ELIZABETH RELFORD: Correct, but again, I'm going back to the trigger that we observed
21 is ten vehicles in a peak hour making a left-hand turn into the site, which we witnessed 20 vehicles doing
22 that, so double the threshold for the safety improvement required for the turn lane on County Road 33.
23 So, I can't really say if 44 was connected, and they met their split distribution, assuming all the traffic is
2 4 coming into the subdivision — they're meeting that threshold.
27
1 CHAIR COZAD: The other thing I think Mr. Cappola brought up is the left turns and the
2 amount of traffic that's coming the south, going north. Urn, that that also has an effect on triggering a
3 left turn lane. Can you address that?
4 ELIZABETH RELFORD: Say that again. Because I'm just talking about the traffic turning
5 into the subdivision.
6 CHAIR COZAD: I think Mr. Capolla's testimony said even if there are ten trucks that would
7 be turning, it also is dependent on the number of traffic — the number of trips going north.
8 ELIZABETH RELFORD: Per our criteria on the State Access Code, we are essentially looking
9 at the turning movements that's been in every improvements agreement that we've entered into with
10 them, where if you are going greater than ten vehicles per hour, urn —
11 CHAIR COZAD: So, it doesn't have anything to do with traffic on the road itself; it just has
12 to do with ten vehicles turning within a peak hour?
13 ELIZABETH RELFORD: Correct.
14 CHAIR COZAD: Okay, because I think I heard Mr. Capolla say something different.
15 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: I think he said the CDOT thing said there needed to be 100
16 vehicles going the other way.
17
18
19
20 triggers?
21
CHAIR COZAD: Exactly, I think that's what he said, but I guess —
ELIZABETH RELFORD: But, their traffic study also said their —
CHAIR COZAD: Hand on just a second. So, are we following CDOT standards on turn lane
ELIZABETH RELFORD: We originally did the State Access Code since then. Since 2016 the
22 Board has adopted our own criteria, which the thresholds I'm referring to are in our code.
28
1 CHAIR COZAD: Okay, so we don't follow — when we made that change — we're not
2 following the CDOT standards for that other traffic. Is that what you're saying? {Silent nod} Okay, alright.
3 Urn, Commissioner Kirkmeyer.
4 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: {Sigh} Um, sure. I don't know that I really have any
5 questions. I just have a few comments to make. First of all, I was here during the approval of the
6 Subdivision, and my recollection of why Niobrara Road was being built and what was supposed to be
7 happening at 44 and at 33 are not the exact same as Mr. Goldstein's. But, I'm not sure that any of that is
8 even relevant to today's discussion. I'm not even sure that — well I am sure — that the analogy is not
9 relevant to today's discussion either. Urn, we're not talking about a cul-de-sac in a Residential
10 development. We're talking about one property, essentially, even though it has eight or nine lots
11 potential in it. It's still considered one property and we're are talking about — so the only thing that's
12 relevant is the access onto County Road 33. But, again, I would just say this: The intent with the approval
13 of the subdivision is that the connection would be made. Because I know I'm the one that said the road
14 had to be there. But the connection would be made at 44 and at 33 so that trucks going south out of the
15 subdivision could use 33 and go down to 42 and use a traffic signal and enter the highway at a safe location
16 for both that traffic and the traveling public on 85. The trucks going north could then go up to 44 and go
17 in and go north on Highway 85, which is just a big right turn and continuous turn that CDOT is looking to
18 build.
19 So, anyways, with all that being said, here's — urn, with regard to evaluating whether or
20 not an access should be approved at 33: It meets warrants and it's triggering improvements. The
21 evaluations and the traffic studies and the two that were presented to us and I looked through really
22 quickly. There's one on the Tri-Town water disposal services and it says they are looking at — in their
23 conclusions they have things about the relocation of the County Road 44 intersection. So, acceptable
24 operating levels of service are expected with future plan modifications along US 85, including relocation
29
1 of the County Road 44 intersection. In the Hickman development, again I just went to the conclusions, it
2 states here very specifically, again at built out — and this is for the Hickman development: "The Hickman
3 site will generate 700 morning highway peak hour trips, 678 afternoon highway peak hour trips, or 5,000
4 trips a day. These trips can be served by CDOT planned improvements at US 85 and then also at County
5 Road 44." So, it appears — oh, and then it goes on to say: "At County Road 44, an eastbound right turn
6 lane will be warranted." So, it does appear that our staff has gone through and evaluated these studies
7 and it does appear that they're correct in that the evaluation of the subdivision traffic is not applicable
8 because it's showing a distribution of traffic at an intersection that isn't even completed — that isn't
9 constructed. So, that would just put more traffic onto 33 and more traffic at an intersection at 33 and 85,
10 which was never intended, by the way. Urn, so I haven't seen anything relevant through the discussion of
11 denying an access onto County Road 33 from the appellant. I don't know what everybody else has, but I
12 can't find it and I'm looking through here and listening to staff and the presentation in front of us.
13 Permitted traffic is 1,319, um, there's 950 vehicles north of Niobrara on 33, 554 of them are apparently
14 associated with this. Those are their own counts; those are high traffic numbers. So, I guess I just don't
15 see anywhere — anything that has been brought forward that would allow us to approve an access onto
16 33.
17 CHAIR COZAD: Okay. Other comments. Commissioner Freeman.
18 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Well, I think where I struggle with is the fact that we've
19 already permitted for 1,319 and we're only at 544. So, we've essentially already permitted more than
20 what's there. So, it almost appears that isn't actually a new access permit, it's a continuation of one that's
21 still below where we've already actually permitted. That's where I struggle a little bit.
22 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: If I may?
23 CHAIR COZAD: Go ahead, Commissioner Kirkmeyer.
30
1 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: And those numbers aren't doing anything to improve
2 safety. And they probably shouldn't have been permitted in the first place. Because the whole premise
3 of this subdivision was that there'd be connecting points at 44 and 33, and that hasn't occurred. So, the
4 accumulation keeps building up, so whether its 1,319 or 544, neither one are safe. Neither one are adding
5 to the safety at 33. So, going over 554, if that's what the actual number it — I mean, staff is just
6 demonstrating how bad it could actually get with 1,319 already permitted — up to 1,319. I'm not sure why
7 those accesses weren't denied, other than we were trying to work with the then applicant to help him get
8 his subdivision going, with the anticipation that he was going to build the intersection at 44 and Niobrara
9 Boulevard. This was approved in January of 2012; we're almost to the end of 2017. That's five years. The
10 discussion with regard to the grader shed was one where the County was trying to work with the applicant,
11 and due to the applicant's issues, the transfer took longer than it needed to to get in place. And it had to
12 do with haggling. So, again, none of that is even relevant. What's relevant is: Will the increase in traffic
13 that by these studies is showing was supposed to be distributed between 44 and 33, which is cannot. So,
14 the increase in traffic from — on this access point, does it warrant — it's warranting triggers, but it is safe
15 and should we be allowing that access? That's it. That's the question. And, our staff, I think, has proved
16 that there's a safety concern. And, I think even if you look at these traffic studies, which are demonstrating
17 that 95% of the traffic on one of these — I can't remember which one it is now — I can read through here
18 again real quick — they're going to send their traffic north on 33! It was supposed to be going to 44!
19 CHAIR COZAD: Did you have anything further?
20 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: No. I don't disagree with anything that you've said. I think
21 the issue — my struggle is that 44 has never been built, it hasn't been built, it still wasn't built, and yet we
22 still permitted all of this amount of truck traffic on 33, which is still less than what it is. Whether that's
2 3 safe or not, urn, I don't know how we go retroactively and take away permits that were the number
2 4 permitted, urn, traffic that was already there. That's where I struggle with. I'm not disagreeing, maybe
31
1 we never should have permitted to the 1,319 in the first place, but being the fact that we already did, I
2 struggle going backwards when we're way underneath of that currently. But, I understand what you're
3 saying as far as that it was intended to be on 44. But, these permits were given without that being open.
4 That's where I struggle.
5 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So maybe I can try to simplify it.
6 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Okay.
7 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: The question before us is: Will the traffic generated by this
8 access permit allow for the intersection at 33 and Niobrara Boulevard to be safe? It doesn't matter what's
9 been permitted previously. That's not what's in play today. I'm not asking, and no one's saying we should
10 go back and take away permits. No one has said that. What it is — is the access for today for what's going
11 on right now and adding additional traffic to that intersection. We know it's at 544. Adding additional
12 trips per day, when we already know it warrants left turn lanes, is not a safe condition. That's what's
13 before us. It doesn't matter what was permitted before. It's done — that's done. That's not the question
14 in front of us today.
15 CHAIR COZAD: I agree with what you're saying, but I agree with Commissioner Freeman.
16 Because the thing is, we have already approved access permits for up to 1,319 trips. While those were
17 very conservative numbers, we're actually at 544. And, with these additional uses we could be up to 614.
18 I do think that one of things I would like to have discussion about is: If we're going to go down a path of
19 maybe overturning this denial, urn, I would like to have some discussion about a temporary solution.
20 Because if this is truly a four to eight month temporary situation until County Road 44 does get
21 constructed, could there be some things that we put in as conditions? And one of them may be a left turn
22 lane if 44 doesn't get done. I guess I'm asking the Board what direction they would like to go. Because I
23 think if it does get denied, I think there's some things — I think if we overturn the denial, I think there's
24 some things that we need to put in that — I think there were some things that were suggested by the
32
1 applicant, that I think one of the other things would be if this isn't done that left turn lanes be constructed.
2 But, I think the fact is that we have permitted access permits up to 1,319 trips already. So, I agree with
3 that point that Commissioner Freeman made. Commissioner Conway.
4 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So, I'll tell you where I'm at. I agree with Commissioner
5 Freeman and Chairwoman Cozad. I mean, the applicant has demonstrated they are significantly under
6 what has already been permitted. 614 under 1,379 — is that the permitted? Is half of what this was
7 originally permitted. That horse left the barn. That decision was done. I guess the question I have for the
8 County Attorney is: The applicant has put forth some solutions. Are we allowed, if we overturn this per
9 Commissioner Cozad's question, to put some conditions in? I think the applicant has said, look, we want
10 to get this done. There are some conditions that have delayed us, in terms of utility relocation. I think in
11 terms of the County building County Road 49, we're well aware of those challenges in terms of dealing
12 with utilities, uh, ditch companies and other things that we've had to deal with in terms of the County.
13 So, I would remind my Commissioners we've had to go through that process too in terms of delays. What
14 can — I guess I'd like some guidance, per Commissioner Cozad — because I do think the applicant has
15 suggested some suggestions. I think he's willing to work with us. I just would like to know as part of this
16 process, are we allowed to do that?
17 BRUCE BARKER: I don't think so. I mean, the access permit is to allow access onto a
18 maintained county roadway. It doesn't say you can condition it on this and that and whatever. The
19 problem is, those conditions are a temporary fix and fun counter to what you have in the Improvements
20 Agreement. I mean, we have to go back and, you know, really if we're in fact that's something you want
21 to do, we need to go back and have it so that you — just like we did about a week, either on Monday or
22 last week - where you amended a temporary — you created a temporary haul route. I mean, we can do
23 that, but this is not the mechanism to get that done.
33
1 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Our decision today is whether the applicant has
2 demonstrated that they're, from a safety standpoint, they're significantly under what we've already
3 permitted —
4 BRUCE BARKER: - that it's safe.
5
COMMISSIONER CONWAY: - and that it's safe. Number two, there is an opportunity, as
6 I asked Elizabeth earlier, there are two lots: Lot 9 and 7, correct? That would have to come back to you,
7 have to be looked at from a safety standpoint, and if you denied it would come before the Board, correct?
8 ELIZABETH RELFORD: Correct.
9 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: So, if there were safety concerns, if for example —
10 ELIZABETH RELFORD: He can amend his IA too. He hasn't given us his signed
11 Improvements Agreement yet, so we could always go back and amend the Improvements Agreement.
12 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Okay, so there are — my point is this, there are options which
13 we can hold the applicant, or the appellant to —
14 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: When is 9 supposed to get done?
15 BRUCE BARKER: We can get that done.
16 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: We can get that done, so there are options here to ensure
17 that the appellant does follow through and gets this done. I think Mr. Goldstein has said, look, he knows
18 he's going to probably have to work with our staff on Lots 7 and 9, and he knows that if our staff
19 determines that as part of the proceedings, some of the comments that you've said and you know what,
20 if the things in terms of the timing of this, those don't get done, we're going to be back here having this
21 same discussion.
22 CHAIR COZAD: I appreciate that. I think there's a little bit of concern about the timing of
23 the Improvements Agreement, versus the access permit. Commissioner Kirkmeyer, did you have
24 something that you wanted to add, and then we'll go back to the appellant?
34
1 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: If that's the case, I mean, because quite frankly we've been
2 waiting on the applicant five years. So, if that's the case that it's just a matter of getting a road
3 improvements agreement up to date to address the concerns and get the solution in there and actually
4 get the improvements completed, then I would suggest that we continue this matter and give the
5 appellant and Public Works the opportunity to get a road improvements agreement worked out. So that
6 we can all feel assured that the intersection is going to occur at 44 and Niobrara, and that we can all be
7 assured that the safety improvements that are necessary and that we are safe -guarding the safety at that
8 intersection. I'm okay with that. Let's give them a couple weeks and get that figured out. We can continue
9 this matter.
10 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I thought I just heard the County Attorney say that those kind
11 of conditions —
12 CHAIR COZAD: What Commissioner Kirkmeyer is saying is continue this matter on the
13 appeal of the permits and then have the Improvements Agreement get finished and then we can bring it
14 back. I think that's what — and then we can put those solutions in. Because we can't put those solutions
15 into the access permit, but we could put them into the Improvements Agreement.
16 BRUCE BARKER: Again, going back to the issue that's before you today —
17 CHAIR COZAD: The Appeal of the permits —
18 BRUCE BARKER: -- it's about the safety onto Weld County Road 33. If, in fact, in the
19 course of the Improvements Agreement it's worked out such that certain things are stated that makes it
20 so that, in fact, you can then say, "Yeah, we think okay with that we're safe getting onto 33." So, you can
21 overturn the denial.
22 ELIZABETH RELFORD: Commissioners?
23 CHAIR COZAD: Go ahead.
35
1 ELIZABETH RELFORD: In accordance with Section 2-4-10.D, the Board of County
2 Commissioners shall hear the available facts pertinent to the incident and you may schedule a second
3 hearing within 30 days following the initial hearing if the Board determines such a need and shall render
4 a determination within 30 days of the final hearing.
5 COMMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay, so let's give them all time to work out and get the
6 temporary solution done.
7
8 your hand up.
9
CHAIR COZAD: So, I'll go back to the appellant. Mark, you said you had — both of you had
JIM MARTEL: We're happy to put it in the Improvements Agreement. In fact, I think Mr.
10 Haug and I talked about putting some solution in that agreement, depending on how this hearing went.
11 That's why it hasn't been signed. Because we are willing to do that — we don't have a problem with that.
12 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Great.
13 CHAIR COZAD: How long do you think that will take you?
14 JIM MARTEL: A week. I mean, we have passed two drafts back and forth. We just would
15 need to add, basically, one paragraph —this condition.
16 CHAIR COZAD: I think we could bring this back pretty quickly. Like within two weeks.
17 Commissioner Conway.
18 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Well, I have a question for the appellant. Obviously, there's
19 a timing issue here. That's why you appealed this. Does that impact, since we didn't hear testimony from
20 the potential owner, or the owner of the lot —
21 MARK GOLDSTEIN: The applicant does have a timing issue. They have to be out of their
22 other location and we're trying to keep them in Weld County. They're headed to Grand Junction. But,
23 first and foremost, we're happy to stick the temporary solutions in the Amended IA. And, the County is
24 protected. We've posted the Letter of Credit.
36
1 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Right.
2 MARK GOLDSTEIN: And the amended IA says you can call that Letter of Credit if we don't
3 build it this spring — it's already in there. If we could go ahead and get a release of the grading permits so
4 that we could at least start grading the site, um before the weather changes, while we finalize the
5 amended IA, that would be great.
6 CHAIR COZAD: Well, that doesn't have anything to do with what we're here for today. I
7 think you'll have to go work that out. But, I think the issue that's before us today is either to overturn the
8 denial of the access permits and agree with our staff, or we can continue this for two weeks and give you
9 the opportunity to work with staff and get the Improvements Agreement with the solutions in it. Then,
10 you know, we can have that in place prior to our next hearing.
11
12
13
COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Madame Chair?
CHAIR COZAD: Yeah?
COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I'm not sure I got an answer to my question. Is that two weeks
14 going to interfere? I mean, what I hear from you is you're ready to sign it today. Is that correct?
15 CHAIR COZAD: Sign the Improvements Agreement with all the solutions in it?
16 JIM MARTEL: Well, but we don't have this in there, but the Improvements Agreement —
17 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: I just don't want to cause a timing problem and loose a Weld
18 County company because we're unable to get this solved. That's where I'm at, so I need some direction
19 from the Appellant in terms of what your timing constrictions are.
20 MARK GOLDSTEIN: We have a timing issue. If we could maybe do a week. If we can
21 literally insert the temporary solution in the agreement, it's ready for signature. The two attorneys have
22 already agreed on it. I think two weeks is too long.
37
1 CHAIR COZAD: I think the soonest we could probably do it is gonna be the 30th, because
2 Commissioner Kirkmeyer is out next week and I think all five of us should be here, unless you're okay with
3 us moving forward.
4
5
6 days.
7
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I'd prefer to be here.
CHAIR COZAD: So we could do the 30th, which is less than two weeks — it's about ten
COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Does ten days keep the company here in Weld County? If
8 you want to confirm.
9 CHAIR COZAD: I think that has no relevance with what we're doing here today. We have
10 to make a decision about either denying the access permit, or overturning, or continuing this. So, those
11 are our three options.
12 MARK GOLDSTEIN: If we could keep this within ten days, agree on what the temporary
13 solution is so the two attorneys can go ahead and insert it in today at the hearing, that would be great —
14 that would be just fine.
15 CHAIR COZAD: Okay, what's the pleasure of the Board? Commissioner Kirkmeyer.
16 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Madame Chairwoman, I would move that we continue this
17 matter to October 30th at 9:00 a.m.
18 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Second.
19 CHAIR COZAD: Motion by Commissioner Kirkmeyer; second by Commissioner Conway, to
20 continue this matter until October 30th at 9:00 a.m. Is there any further discussion? Go ahead.
21 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: Just a comment. First and foremost, I hope we're able — I
22 think staffs heard here what we need to get accomplished. Please, let's get this done. I would hate to
23 lose — and I know that's not part of this, but it is in reality a company— a Weld County company that wants
38
1 to do business here. I think that coming back to some of the comments, and I'll reserve them for when
2 we pull them up on the 30th. I think the applicant has made a case. So, with that —
3 CHAIR COZAD: Okay.
4 COMMISSIONER CONWAY: The only reason I'm voting for this continuance is the
5 applicant is fine with it, otherwise —
6 CHAIR COZAD: Is there any further discussion?
7 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Sure.
8 CHAIR COZAD: Go ahead Commissioner Kirkmeyer.
9 COMMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Madame Chairman, I'm willing to vote for it and try to
10 work out a compromise, but I'm just going to remind everybody that when we're in land use hearings and
11 we vote for approval, we put conditions on things. Part of those conditions are to ensure the health,
12 welfare and safety, not necessarily just of the applicant, but of the surrounding property owners and the
13 people of Weld County. So we made a promise in January of 2012, that we would ensure the safety of
14 the people that live in that neighborhood, because there were a lot of them here protesting this
15 application. And, there were a lot of them here who heard us talk about Weld County Road 44, 33,
16 Highway 85 and the need for the connection with the Niobrara Boulevard and that roadway. So, I think
17 our promise hasn't been kept since 2012, and that's why I'm willing to at least try and figure out a solution.
18 But, to try and put the timing on the Board I think is ridiculous. The timing is on the developer of the
19 property, it's not on us.
2 0 CHAIR COZAD: Okay, any other comments? All those in favor say Aye.
21 UNANIMOUS: Aye.
22 CHAIR COZAD: Opposed? {No Response.} Motion carries. So, we'll hear this again on
23 October 30th at 9:00 a.m. Thank you all for coming.
24
39
1 [End of discussion/action on Appeal Concerning the Decision of the Department of Public Works to Deny
2 Access Permits for Site Plan Review, SPR17-0014 (Lot 5) and SPR17-0015 (Lot 8) — Peckham Development
3 Corporation / Weld County Industrial Park, c/o Mark Goldstein, during 9:00 a.m. Public Hearing ending at
4 10:53 a.m.]
5
40
1 CERTIFICATE
2
3 STATE OF COLORADO)
4 ) ss
5 COUNTY OF WELD)
6
7 I, Esther E. Gesick, Clerk to the Board and Notary Public within and for the State
8 of Colorado, certify the foregoing transcript of the digitally recorded proceedings, In Re: Appeal
9 Concerning the Decision of the Department of Public Works to Deny Access Permits for Site Plan
10 Review, SPR17-0014 (Lot 5) and SPR17-0015 (Lot 8) — Peckham Development Corporation /
11 Weld County Industrial Park, c/o Mark Goldstein, before the Weld County Board of County
12 Commissioners, on October 18, 2017, and as further set forth on page one. The transcription,
13 dependent upon recording clarity, is true and accurate with special exceptions(s) of any or all
14 precise identification of speakers, and/or correct spelling or any given/spoken proper name or
15 acronym.
16 Dated this 19th day of December, 2017.
18
19
20
21
22
Esther E. Gesick, Notary
Weld County Clerk to the Board
ESTHER E. GESICK
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF COLORADO
NOTARY ID 19974016478
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPT. 29, 2021
41
ORIGINAL ( )
CERTIFIED COPY ()()
1 INVOICE
2 (Recording/Transcribing)
3
4 WELD COUNTY CLERK TO THE BOARD
5 do Esther Gesick, Clerk to the Board
6 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado 80631
7 (970) 400-4226 (Office) - (970) 336-7233 (fax)
8 egesick@weldgov.com
9
10 Date: December 19, 2017
11
12 RE: Transcript of October 18, 2017, in RE: Appeal Concerning the Decision of
13 the Department of Public Works to Deny Access Permits for Site Plan Review, SPR17-0014
14 (Lot 5) and SPR17-0015 (Lot 8) — Peckham Development Corporation / Weld County Industrial
15 Park, do Mark Goldstein.
16
17 5.25 hours of staff time @ $60.00 per hour - $315.00
18 40 pgs. @ $4.25 $170.00
19 TOTAL, due on receipt, please $485.00
42
Hello