HomeMy WebLinkAbout20161511.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
ID' A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County
Administration Building, Hearing Room, and 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado. This meeting was called
to order by Chair, Jordan Jemiola, at 12:30 pm.
Roll Call.
Present: Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Gene Stille, Jordan Jemiola, Michael Wailes, Nick Berryman,
Terry Cross.
Absent: Benjamin Hansford, Joyce Smock.
Also Present: Chris Gathman, Diana Aungst, Michelle Martin, and Tom Parko, Department of Planning
Services; Wayne Howard, Department of Planning Services— Engineering Division; Lauren Light and Ben
Frissell, Department of Health; Janet Lundquist, Public Works; Bob Choate, County Attorney, and Kris
Ranslem, Secretary.
Motion: Approve the April 5, 2016 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, Moved by Bruce
Sparrow, Seconded by Bruce Johnson. Motion passed unanimously.
Dr' CASE NUMBER: USR16-0006
APPLICANT: RED OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC
PLANNER: DIANA AUNGST
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES, OIL AND
GAS SUPPORT AND SERVICE, (OFFICE/SHOP AND PARKING AND
STORAGE OF VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT) IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL)
ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT A REC EXEMPT RE-3015; PART E2NE4 SECTION 28,Ti N, R66W OF THE
6TH P.M.,WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: WEST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 31 AND APPROXIMATELY TWO-TENTHS
OF A MILE SOUTH OF CR 6.
Diana Aungst, Planning Services, presented Case USR16-0006, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Ms. Aungst noted that one (1) letter was received from a surrounding property
owner in objection to this case. Additionally, a letter was received from Anadarko Kerr McGee and staff
requests that a condition of approval be attached to address their concerns. The Department of Planning
Services recommends approval of this application with the attached conditions of approval and
development standards.
ID' Janet Lundquist, reported on the existing traffic, and access to the site.
De" Wayne Howard, Engineering, reported on the drainage conditions and the requirements on site.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on-
site dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
D. Chad Cox, Western Engineering Consultants, 20 South 5th Avenue, Brighton, Colorado, stated that
the applicants purchased the property with some pre-existing conditions that they were not aware of, such
as the unpermitted mobile home and unpermitted septic system. The applicants have done their best to
comply with Weld County regulations and request approval of this USR (Use by Special Review).
Mr. Cox stated that it is a family owned business with (7) seven employees. He said that oilfield pickup
trucks are stored on site. He added that the applicant's ultimate dream layout includes a 7200sf shop
building.
2016-1511
C Om 1 ca±i
Commissioner Sparrow asked if the chain link fence surrounds the property. Mr. Cox said that the fence
does surround the perimeter of the site.
D The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application.
James Massey, 15013 CR 6, stated that he owns the 80 acres south of and adjacent to this site and added
that he has lived in the area since 1948. He expressed concern over losing agricultural land. He noted
that there is commercial property to the north of this site.
• Barron Davis, 14995 CR 6, stated that he owns 47 acres adjacent to Mr. Massey. He said that the
area is a peaceful, residential, agricultural community and that is how they would like to see it stay. Mr.
Davis feels that it if this business is allowed it will detract from the quality of life that he has come to enjoy
as well as impact his property values. He said that this use is not consistent with the existing agricultural
community.
N" Keith Tomson, 14989 CR 6, said that they are new to this area. He said that they expect their
neighbors to play by the rules and added that this fence is something you might see surrounding a
correctional institute. He added that there is a lot of traffic going to their property.
ID' Cindy Fortenberry, 15600 CR 6, agreed with the neighbors comments. She added that they do not
want to see commercial property move into the area.
Jerry Scott, 15511 CR 6, stated that he lives a quarter-mile northeast of this site. Mr. Scott said that
this community gets along really well and everyone lives out there for the peaceful, agricultural community.
He reiterated that this business should be located onto commercial property.
D"' Paula Stueve, 13576 CR 6, Ft. Lupton, said that when she first saw what was going on she thought
they really cleaned up the property and then the fence went in and it really changed the perspective of that
area. She added that when the train is stalled across the railroad track it stops all the truck traffic from
Vestas down to County Road 31.
Ms. Stueve said that she is concerned that what the applicant is applying for is true because of two (2)
German-Shepard dogs that patrol the perimeter of the fence. She asked the Planning Commission to
respect the Right to Farm and keep this area agricultural.
DP"` Mr. Cox said it sounds like there is some heavy truck traffic that exists; however he added that this
business does not propose truck traffic. Mr. Cox said that the applicants did not try to operate this
commercial business in violation of the zoning code. He added that once they were notified they were in
violation they promptly complied with the Weld County Code.
Mr. Cox stated that the applicants are proposing to operate, initially seven (7) oilfield pickup trucks, with
potentially up to 20 trucks, when oil activity increases.
Mr. Cox said that the proposed use is consistent with the intent of the Weld County Code. He added that
the lighting requirements were studied and they will comply with the requirements of the Weld County Code.
Commissioner Johnson asked why this particular site is in the agricultural community and not on
commercial zoned property. Mr. Cox said that he couldn't answer that question as he wasn't part of this
project until after the applicants realized there were issues with this request. However, he added that the
applicants have not meant to undermine the existing way of life. Mr. Johnson asked if it would be a hardship
for the applicants if they were asked to relocate to a commercial or industrial area. Mr. Cox said that the
applicants have invested a substantial amount of money into the property for this request so it would be a
financial hardship. He added that there was a very involved neighborhood meeting and the applicants
received a lot of compliments with the clean-up that they have done on the property.
2
Commissioner Stille inquired why the applicants installed that type of fence as well as the dogs patrolling
the fence. Mr. Cox said that the fence they chose is typical of what they saw on other oilfield service sites.
He added that he has three (3) large dogs himself.
The Chair asked staff about the recommended condition of approval addressing Anadarko Kerr McGee's
comments. Ms.Aungst said that staff did receive a letter from Anadarko Kerr McGee; however no condition
of approval will be placed on the staff report.
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 USR16-0006 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions
of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval,
Moved by Bruce Johnson, Seconded by Terry Cross.
Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 6, No = 1, Abstain = 0).
Yes: Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Gene Stille, Jordan Jemiola, Michael Wailes, Terry Cross.
No: Nick Berryman.
Commissioner Berryman said that although he believes this could fit into the Code as it is currently written;
there is a high burden that as a violation case it tries to fit in with the neighborhood around it. He added
that the applicant needs to try and make every effort to have a good relationship with the neighbors and he
had seen some demonstrated opposition to the change of use in the character of this neighborhood.
Therefore for compatibility reasons, he is not in favor of this location.
Commissioner Cross said that this application does meet the County Code and added that he has a lot of
faith in staffs recommendation.
Commissioner Jemiola said that the applicants made a great effort to clean up this site. He believes it is
important to work with the neighbors and highly encouraged the applicant to talk to the neighbors and
mitigate their concerns.
CASE NUMBER: USR16-0007
APPLICANT: HANS WIMMER
PLANNER: DIANA AUNGST
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 IN THE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL
ZONE DISTRICTS(INDOOR AND OUTDOOR STORAGE OF RVS, BOATS,AND
TRAILERS, WITH AN OFFICE/STORE, AND RV DUMP STATION) 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 AND ONE
(1) SINGLE- FAMILY DWELLING UNIT PER LOT OTHER THAN THOSE
PERMITTED UNDER SECTION 23-3-20.A (SECOND SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING UNIT) TO BE USED AS A THE CARETAKER RESIDENCE IN THE
A(AGRICULTURAL)ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT B REC EXEMPT RE-3428; PART SW4 SW4 SECTION 28, T2N, R67W OF
THE 6TH P.M.,WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 17 AND APPROXIMATELY 360 FEET NORTH
OF CR 16.
Diana Aungst, Planning Services, presented Case USR16-0007, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Ms. Aungst noted that no letters were received from surrounding property
owners; however a letter from Anadarko Kerr McGee was received in opposition to this case. The
Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached conditions of
approval and development standards.
Janet Lundquist, reported on the existing traffic, and access to the site.
3
Wayne Howard, Engineering, reported on the drainage conditions and the requirements on site.
DID' Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on-
site dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Db` Sheri Lockman, Lockman Land Consulting, 36509 CR 41, Eaton, noted that at their pre-hearing
meeting an item was brought up that if someone was to park their car while they travel with their RV they
would like to be allowed to do that. She clarified that it would not be used as permanent storage of the car
but as a swap out for when they are on vacation.
Ms. Lockman said that the applicant has had correspondence and meetings with Anadarko for over a year
and although initially they were not on board with Anadarko's comments they now feel that they can come
to an agreement. She added that they plan to have this agreement prior to the Board of County
Commissioners hearing.
In reference to Condition of Approval 1.D,the Stanley Ditch Company requested a review fee of$5000 and
an application fee of$500. Additionally, they had some concerns with the site plan submitted; therefore
the applicant made some adjustments on the site plan. Ms. Lockman explained that they are not crossing,
encroaching, boring or draining any water into the ditch.After the changes to the site plan,the Stanley Ditch
Company requested that the applicant enter into a Seepage Easement Agreement, which Ms. Lockman
provided to the Planning Commission. Ms. Lockman said that they understand that the ditch company has
historic rights for seepage and they don't plan to interfere with those rights. However they do not believe it
is in the best interest of the applicant to sign this document and could be detrimental to him in the future
because of some statements in the agreement. Therefore, Ms. Lockman asked the Planning Commission
to consider Condition of Approval 1.D as completed as the applicant has attempted multiple times to meet
the ditch's concerns.
Commissioner Johnson asked why the ditch company thinks they need the Seepage Agreement. Hans
Wimmer stated that the water drains away from the ditch to his property and believes that the ditch is
concerned with causing damage on his property.
Ms. Lockman referred to Condition of Approval 1.C and said that they have talked with Janet Lundquist,
Weld County Public Works, and Sarah Higgins, Town of Frederick and they determined that it would be
best for all of them to meet prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing and discuss the
improvements agreements that Weld County and the Town of Frederick are wanting.
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 staff if there are any changes to the staff report. Ms. Aungst said that they have no
changes.
Ms. Lockman requested removal of Condition of Approval 1.D as they have tried to address the ditch's
concerns.
Motion: Delete Condition of Approval 1.D, Moved by Bruce Johnson, Seconded by Nick Berryman.
Motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Lockman stated that they did submit a letter with regard to Condition of Approval 1.8 and requested
that this condition be noted as completed. Ms. Aungst stated that the applicant did submit evidence in
writing that they would address all the concerns outlined by the Ft. Lupton Fire Protection District; therefore
staff has no concerns with the removal of this condition.
Motion: Delete Condition of Approval 1.B, Moved by Terry Cross, Seconded by Gene Stille. Motion
carried unanimously.
4
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 USR16-0007 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 Nick Berryman.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7).
Yes: Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Gene Stille, Jordan Jemiola, Michael Wailes, Nick Berryman, Terry
Cross.
The Chair called a recess at 1:38 pm and reconvened the hearing at 1:50 pm.
ID' CASE NUMBER: USR16-0008
APPLICANT: IVAR & EVELYN JORDAN CHILDREN'S TRUST, C/O BERVEN INDUSTRIES
LLC dba NEW DEAL DEICING LLC
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 IN THE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL
ZONE DISTRICTS (OFFICE, MANUFACTURING AND WAREHOUSE FACILITY
FOR AIR FIELD DE-ICING PRODUCTION COMPANY), 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: SE4SE4 SECTION 27, T1N, R65W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY,
COLORADO.
LOCATION: NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 4 AND WEST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR
45.
ID" Chris Gathman, Planning Services, presented Case USR16-0008, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Mr. Gathman noted that 14 letters and emails were received in opposition to
this case. Concerns in the correspondence include potential impacts to air and water quality, guarantees
in place for manufacturing of hazardous materials, not compatible with surrounding area, set a precedent
for other commercial uses to locate in this area, potential for exposure to noise and air pollution, county
roads are not adequate to support the increase of traffic, lack of law enforcement,fire-fighting infrastructure,
water and sewer infrastructure, lack of federal oversight in regulation of the facility, potential of
contamination of water wells, and decrease of property values. A neighborhood meeting was held on April
13, 2016 with four(4) households attending the meeting. The summary of the meeting indicates that there
were two (2) primary suggestions received during the meeting: 1) screening of the entire facility with trees
and vegetation and 2) install a temporary barrier or wall during construction to mitigate construction noise.
Mr. Gathman said that he spoke with the Hudson Fire Protection District and they stated that the facility
would be required to adhere to the Fire Codes of the Hudson Fire Protection District at time of building
permit submittal. Additionally, Mr. Gathman noted that he spoke with the Weld County Emergency
Management Coordinator, Roy Rudisill, and recommended adding a Condition of Approval and
Development Standard for the applicant to provide an Emergency Action and Safety Plan with the Office of
Emergency Management and the Fire District.
After discussing their request/application with staff, the applicants have decided to modify their hours of
operation to unlimited as they occasionally receive deliveries during the night and over the weekend. They
have also requested to increase the total number of employees to fifteen (15) to account for the possibility
of future expansion.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached conditions
of approval and development standards.
5
In response to Commissioner Jemiola's inquiry, Mr. Gathman stated that this property is in agricultural
production.
Janet Lundquist, reported on the existing traffic, and access to the site.
DD" Wayne Howard, Engineering, reported on the drainage conditions and the requirements on site.
." Ben Frissell, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on-
site dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Ifr` Laura Miao and Jeremy Berven, 12015 East 46th Avenue, Denver, Colorado, stated that New Deal
Deicing is a small, locally owned company serving the airport industry for eight (8) years. They sell
environmentally safe airfield deicing product to be used on the airport runway, taxi ways and ramp areas.
She added that they are one of four companies in the United States that supply this product.
The product is currently produced and imported from China. Because this product is critical to aviation
users they need a production facility that is days away from their customers instead of months away.
Production will consist of raw materials (salt) shipped in, blended, packaged and then shipped out. The
products used are sodium formate and sodium acetate organic salt, which are the only two compounds
allowed by the FAA for airfield deicing because it is safe to aircraft,concrete and asphalt. Ms. Miao provided
samples of the products for the Planning Commission. She stated that it is limited to aviation because it is
very expensive unlike road salt or rock salt that is mined from the ground. She added that it has very low
corrosion to metal. Sodium acetate is used in foods and pharmaceuticals and sodium formate is used in
shampoos and laundry detergent. She added that these products are completely biodegradable.
Ms. Miao said that they want to be good neighbors and want to blend into the community. Additionally, she
provided a summary of the dialogue that they provided to their neighbors.
l"' Jeremy Berven, New Deal Deicing, said that the concerns of the surrounding landowners relate to
that this business is not agriculturally based. He said that they are proposing to impact seven percent of
this parcel and the remaining 35 acres will remain in agricultural farmland. During the neighborhood
meeting it was suggested that they screen all sides of the building with evergreen type trees and they intend
to honor that request.
Mr. Berven said another large concern was that this facility would pollute the surrounding area. He said
that this project is a processing facility for blending and packaging environmentally safe deicing product.
He added that they will be not using any hazardous chemicals in the production process or performing any
chemical reactions on the site. Additionally, no EPA listed hazardous air pollutants will be emitted during
the process, including any smoke or fumes. The building will resemble an agricultural building and farmland
will remain in place. All activity will take place inside the metal building.
Mr. Berven gave a brief description of the process of manufacturing the product. He said that there would
be 160 truck trips per year to the site. The facility will use a small capacity non-exempt commercial well.
Water usage would consist of domestic use for the employees and light irrigation of the front, sides and
rear of the building. He clarified that the production process does not require any water usage.
Mr. Berven said that they met with the Hudson Fire Protection District to discuss fire preparedness. From
this discussion, this facility will be equipped with a commercial fire alarm system and a building wide
sprinkled fire suppression system. Additionally, because of the location of the site the NFPA requirements
dictate that there be approximately 50,000 gallons of underground water storage to serve the fire sprinkler
system. He added that they will also provide the use of this cistern by the Hudson Fire Department for use
for other emergencies in the community.
Commissioner Jemiola asked why this site was selected. Mr. Berven said that this site provided enough
acreage to provide an agriculture buffer from surrounding residences and this property cost less than
industrial land.
6
Commissioner Jemiola asked what their safety concerns would be with this site. Mr. Berven said it would
be the possibility of fire and added that is why they are installing the fire suppression system. Commissioner
Johnson asked what would cause a fire at the facility. Mr. Berven said that the charging station for electric
fork lifts is a possible source or possibly something exploding such as an aerosol can. He added that the
equipment itself does not generate a lot of heat so that is not a high fire risk. The applicants provided a
description of the chemical process generated when combining the products.
Mr. Berven said that they have no intention of harming anyone's way of life or their property. He added
that they welcome any dialogue with the community and are willing to listen to any suggestions. He said
that they want to make this project compatible with the surrounding land use and request approval of this
project.
D' The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application.
Nick Appelhans 1174 CR 45, stated that he lives directly across the road. Mr. Appelhans stated that he is
concerned with this business as it will greatly affect many families in the community. He submitted a petition
of over 90 signatures to the Planning Commission of the community members in opposition to this case.
He is also concerned that if this is approved it will allow more industrial facilities to move in.
ID' Karen Grillos, 21512 CR 4, stated that this application is a misuse of the Use by Special Review
process. She believes that if this request is granted the applicants will be permitted indirectly to do what
they could not accomplish directly, by cloaking their request for a zone change as a special use request.
She is concerned that the agricultural lands are turning into extended industrial zones and is an abuse of
the USR process and a way to get around proper rezoning unrestrained.
Ms. Grillos noted concerns with noise, potential fire risk, dust, hours of operation,traffic, lighting, restrictions
to dictate maximum seismic vibration, and environmental contamination. She stated a solid wall of trees
and sound walls should be required. Commissioner Sparrow asked if she received any comfort in the
description of the process provided by the applicants. Ms. Grillos replied no.
Gary Osadchuk, 20764 CR 4, said he is also concerned that once industrial comes in more industrial
businesses will also come in. He inquired why they couldn't operate in an area nearer to the airport.
Wade Specht, 21395 CR 2, said that he has been a large aircraft mechanic for 35 years and has
never heard about sodium on an aircraft. He added that sodium is detrimental to aircraft equipment. He
said that this business should be located with other industrial properties.
Commissioner Wailes asked to clarify if they use this at airports. Mr. Specht said he works at DIA and
hasn't seen it. He added that there are 200 pieces of equipment to move snow for DIA and they do not put
anything on the runways.
"D` Rogelio Nunez, 21649 CR 4, stated that they live next to this proposed facility. He said that according
to the MSDS Sheets for sodium acetate and sodium formate, they are flammable products and doesn't
want that near his family and residence. He doesn't understand why this isn't located closer to the airport.
IP" Rex Kennedy, 21317 CR 4, said that he has lived here for 30 years. He asked why this industrial
chemical factory is allowed on agricultural land when there are industrial properties along Highway 85 or in
Hudson. Mr. Kennedy said that this use does not meet the approval criteria in Section 23-2-220.A of the
Weld County Code. He respectfully requested denial of this application.
JD' Rod Thoma, 21495 CR 4, stated that his biggest concern is the water. There is upscale housing and
everyone has a well. He added that this project is not consistent with this area. He is opposed to this and
asked for denial of this application.
7
I*" Julie Ramirez, 825 CR 47, objects to this case as there is no precedent for this type of business in
this community. She added that they want to keep this as an agricultural community. She said that sodium
acetate is flammable and spontaneously combustible and expressed concern that the Fire Department
does not have adequate equipment and training for this type of business. She feels the company is not
being honest as the hours of operation and number of employees have changed through this process.
DD" Brad Schmeh,655 CR 47,agreed to all the previous comments. Mr. Schmeh stated that the applicant
said that they didn't want to locate in an industrial area surrounded by homes so why would they want to
locate in this area surrounded by homes. He said that this is an agricultural area and not an industrial area.
Al Banta, 20080 CR 4, stated that he is opposed to this.
ill" Mike Grillos, 21512 CR 2, asked what the seismic transmission of this process through the soils out
to the respective residences will be. He said that when trains go along 1-76 you can feel the vibration. He
said that he would like to have a development standard that addresses seismic transmission from
propagating throughout the soils.
Nick Di Paolo, 3511 CR 47, asked if the well will be a normal domestic well or if it will have a larger
volume requirement. Mr. Gathman said that they applicant is applying for a non-exempt well for domestic
use and some irrigation of proposed landscaping on the site. Mr. Di Paolo inquired if there is an
augmentation plan to replenish that water. Mr. Gathman said that according to the Division of Water
Resources referral the applicant will be required to obtain a non-exempt well permit allowing up to 5.6 acre
feet of water per year available. The applicant may apply may be able to obtain a well permit without a plan
for augmentation from the Water Court.
ID' Judy Humphrey, 21608 CR 8, stated that she didn't know this was going to be bringing in industrial
use into Weld County. She is concerned with traffic and the possible accidents. She said her husband
works for DIA and during the summer the deicing goes into the ponds and when the heat reaches it the
odor is terrible. She added that she doesn't understand why this facility is not closer to DIA.
Commissioner Stille asked what deicing product material is washed into the ponds. Ms. Humphrey said
she doesn't know.
The Chair called a recess at 3:43 pm and reconvened the hearing at 3:57 pm.
DID" Juan Ramirez, 825 CR 47, stated that he has been working on pumps and water wells for 23 years.
He said that this application is for an 8 inch water well so why does it need to be so big if they are only
using it for potable water and some irrigation. Commissioner Jemiola said that according to Environmental
Health Policy, a commercial water well permit is required.
D`" Glen Davis, 22401 CR 4, stated that the mechanical process has to generate heat and asked if this
product is so benign where is the MSDS sheet. What placards do the trucks carry? He added that this has
always been agricultural and he doesn't want industrial business in the area.
0" Dave Lanning,20359 CR 4, said he and his wife like to ride bicycles and is concerned with the increase
in traffic. He asked how many trucks come in and go out per day.
Ms. Miao thanked everyone for their comments. She said that they proposed one (1) truck per day
on an annual basis. She explained that because of the seasonal operation during the winter and fall more
product is shipped out and in; however during the summer they may not have any trucks coming. She said
that the MSDS sheets of the products are available on the website and is provided to all of their users.
As a small business owner she invested everything in this project and needs to be conservative on the cost.
She added that they evaluated many locations in Colorado, including industrial sites and decided Weld
8
County is a good place to locate. She commented that the industrial property they had evaluated was
surrounded by residences so they felt that was not a suitable location. In regard to the comment that more
industrial businesses will locate here, Ms. Miao said that they are not rezoning the property into an industrial
park. She added that only 3 of the 35 acres will be impacted by the deicing facility.
Mr. Berven referred to the comment that sodium is corrosive to metal and added that this product is highly
restricted and tested to ensure that it does not corrode metal. He added that United Airlines, Frontier
Airlines and DHL at DIA use this product currently.
The product is flammable and will burn like sugar but it does not emit toxic gases. He said that the smoke
from a burning house would be more toxic than this product. Mr. Berven said that these products do not
generate enough heat to spontaneously combust.
Commissioner Jemiola asked if any water from the commercial well will be added to this product in the
process. Mr. Berven said that the blue dye, which is added, is in a liquid form so that adds a little moisture.
Additionally, there is water content in the sodium formate so that is typically enough to pelletize the
combined products.
Commissioner Sparrow said that in reviewing the chemical make-up of sodium acetate it has a flash point
of 480 degrees and asked if they are concerned with fire happening. Ms. Berven said that the heat
generated from the process is about 140 degrees. Ms. Miao added that once the pellets are created it is
then cooled. Additionally, the building will be sprinkled. Commissioner Wailes commented that although
the product is flammable it is not inherently flammable.
Commissioner Berryman asked about the seismic transfer from the manufacture process. Mr. Berven said
that some of the equipment does vibrate but they would need to talk about the transfer. Ms. Miao said their
architect can provide more information; however the concrete foundation will be very thick under the
equipment that will absorb the vibration from the equipment. Mr. Berven said the process is similar to
making feed for livestock.
Keith Conrad, 1485 Foxtail Drive, Broomfield, Colorado, said that the compression equipment is on
an isolation slab separate from the structure of the building. A vacuum system will collect any dust and the
building is insulated which gives a certain amount of sound attenuation. Water is not part of the
manufacturing process; however it may be used in the clean-up of the floor. Everything in the facility is
self-contained so any runoff is collected in a vault and disposed of properly.
Commissioner Stille asked what the decibel level would be in the community. Mr. Conrad said that the
sound will not leave the building and will not be noticeable by the neighbors. He added that it is not a
pounding operation; it is a grinding and pressing into pellets process. Mr. Stille asked if the building will
blend into the agricultural community. Mr. Conrad said that the intent is to mimic an agricultural building in
the community.
Commissioner Jemiola asked if they have purchased this site. Ms. Miao replied no and added that the
property is currently under contract.
MD" The Chair asked staff to review the changes to the staff report. Mr. Gathman noted the applicant
provided a written response to the Colorado Division of Water Resources referral; therefore staff requests
that Condition of Approval 1.C be removed.
Additionally, Mr. Gathman recommended that a new Condition of Approval 6 Prior to Operation be added
to read "The applicant shall submit an Emergency Action and Safety Plan with the Office of Emergency
Management and the Fire District. The plan shall be reviewed on an annual basis by the facility operator,
the Fire District and the Weld County Office of Emergency Management. Submit evidence of acceptance
to the Department of Planning Services."
Motion: Add Condition of Approval 6, as recommended by staff, Moved by Terry Cross, Seconded by
Nick Berryman. Motion carried unanimously.
9
Mr. Gathman also recommended adding a new Development Standard 7 to read "The property owner or
operator shall provide written evidence of an approved Emergency Action and Safety Plan on or before
March 15th of any given year signed by representatives for the Fire District and the Weld County office of
Emergency Management to the Department of Planning Services."
Motion: Add Development Standard 7, as recommended by staff, Moved by Bruce Johnson, Seconded
by Terry Cross. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion: Delete Condition of Approval 1.C, Moved by Nick Berryman, Seconded by Michael Wailes.
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.
ID' Motion: Forward Case USR16-0008 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the amended
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
denial, Moved by Michael Wailes citing Section 23-2-200, Seconded by Gene Stille.
Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes =4, No = 3, Abstain = 0).
Yes: Gene Stille, Jordan Jemiola, Michael Wailes, Nick Berryman.
No: Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Terry Cross.
Commissioner Johnson believed that the applicants and staff have done everything possible to make it fit
into Section 23-2-220.A.2 and health, safety and welfare have been satisfied by the applicant and staff. He
believes that the applicant's intent to fit in and make it as compatible as possible has been honorable.
Commissioner Cross felt that the applicant has demonstrated that they wish to do the right thing for the
community and provide a safe environment for their product and their employees.
Commissioner Sparrow said that it is flammable but he doesn't see anything toxic about it and it won't be
heated so he is satisfied and doesn't see it as a problem. There is not a lot of traffic involved with this
project and it appears there is a large buffer between them and anyone else.
Commissioner Berryman cited Section 23-2-220.A.3 and added that he was sufficiently comfortable with
the application in the sense of the business and it's minimal impact on their planned facility; however as it
relates to this Section of the Code he doesn't believe it is compatible to the area.
Commissioner Stille said that he appreciates all the research that the staff has done and the business and
the opportunity that Weld County has for this business. He is also concerned with Section 23-2-220.A.3 in
regard to compatibility. He wished the applicants the best in getting this business established in an
industrial area.
Commissioner Wailes said that he is sold on the application of the business and believes it is low impact
and non-toxic and added that there is a lot of fear based on a misunderstanding of what it is that this
business actually does. He said that one of the neighbors said it best that this USR for this type of facility
in this type of environment is working against and undermining the planned zoning that exists in the County.
If we allow USR's to continue to be developed in this manner he believes we are working against the intent
of what that USR was set forth for. He added that he wished this was a change of zone case as he would
have voted in favor of it because he loves the idea of it; however he just doesn't think this is the right location
for it.
Commissioner Jemiola said that the applicant provided an excellent presentation; however he is concerned
with the compatibility nature in the area and cited Section 23-2-220.A.3.
The Chair called a recess at 4:37 pm and reconvened the hearing at 4:48 pm.
CASE NUMBER: ORDINANCE 2016-04
PRESENTED BY. TOM PARKO
10
REQUEST: IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING AND REENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS,
CHAPTER 19 COORDINATED PLANNING AGREEMENTS, OF THE WELD
COUNTY CODE.
• Tom Parko, Planning Services, presented Ordinance 2015-27 and provided a brief explanation of the
Coordinated Planning Agreement between Weld County and the Town of Ault.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this Ordinance.
No one wished to speak.
• Motion: Forward Ordinance 2016-04 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 Terry Cross, Seconded by Bruce Johnson. Motion carried unanimously.
DID' CASE NUMBER: ORDINANCE 2015-27 REVISED
PRESENTED BY: MICHELLE MARTIN
REQUEST: IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING AND REENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS,
CHAPTER 21 AREAS AND ACTIVITIES OF STATE INTEREST AND CHAPTER
23 ZONING, OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE
• Michelle Martin, Planning Services, presented Ordinance 2015-27 and provided a brief explanation of
the proposed code changes relating to drainage criteria. Ms. Martin stated that there were some combined
recommendations from the Weld County Public Works Department and Weld County Planning Department.
Ms. Martin also provided an explanation of the proposed code changes relating to solar facilities. This was
initially brought before the Planning Commission where it was proposed that solar facilities be located in
the Industrial Zone Districts under the Use by Special Review process and the Planning Commission
recommended denial of this Ordinance.
As a result from additional meetings with the solar industry and the Board of County Commissioners, they
have made adjustments to these proposed changes. Therefore, these changes will include three (3)
different categories of solar facilities and the land use permitting process corresponding to those categories.
Commissioner Jemiola believes that acreage is the best way to categorize the size and scale because you
can have more efficient panels and recommended following the acreage rather than megawatts.
Commissioner Berryman asked what rationale was used to separate the three (3) levels into acreages and
megawatt sizes. Ms. Martin said that they listened closely to the comments from the public and the industry
and the Board of County Commissioners hoping to find a happy medium. She added that this was the
comfort level that was reached with the County Commissioners based on the comments heard from the
public.
Commissioner Jemiola said that he struggles with regulations and doesn't want to add more regulations to
an industry and discourage solar development in the County. He understands that screening may be
required on a 200 acre solar panel field; however he feels the industrial location is excessive.
Commissioner Johnson said he has talked with the industry the last couple of years and he keeps hearing
that 3 megawatts can be squeezed onto 16 acres but they would prefer it on 20 acres. He said that over
time he believes that they will be more efficient to where either larger systems will fit on the same amount
of land or they will use less land. Mr. Johnson said that when comparing the 3 megawatt to 30 megawatt
the land size is only increasing four times and it seems to be out of balance. He commended staff on the
proposed categories as they impact the neighborhood differently.
Ms. Martin said that they understand the parcel may be 20 acres or larger; however if the equipment and
facilities can fit on 16 acres they would be able to meet the criteria under the small solar scale facility
definition.
11
Commissioner Jemiola said he would like to encourage more solar development in the County. He added
that the language was drafted wonderfully; however he believes it is more of a policy issue and he doesn't
agree with the policy of adding regulations to any industry.
Commissioner Sparrow said that this could be a survival tool for a family farm and that is what he likes
about solar facilities.
Ms. Martin said that currently there is nothing in the Weld County Code that talks about solar; therefore
they are trying to put something in the code to provide clarification, specifically to solar facilities.
Commissioner Jemiola suggested that it should be a Use by Right up to 20 acres. He said that he doesn't
want to limit it to Industrial or require a USR to put it in agricultural land. He added that he wants to allow
that farmer to augment his income with solar or any other form of energy he can develop on his land.
Commissioner Stille said that it should be limited to the number of acres and allow property to be used for
financial benefit.
Commissioner Berryman asked if there are examples from other counties in Colorado that have done this.
Ms. Martin provided a chart which showed what other counties and municipalities have done in Colorado.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Jerry Marizza, Energy Program Coordinator with United Power, said that United Power agrees with
everything that is written and appreciates the different categories. He referred to the medium scale with an
80 acre limit and said that the standard is 8 to 10 acres per megawatt. He said for the maximum 30
megawatts to fit on 80 acres is difficult. He added that these systems require a certain amount of acreage
and agreed with the comments that as technology evolves that acreage will come down. Therefore, they
recommended to leave the language for the exception of the small scale as they would prefer to use the 10
acres per megawatts so they would like to increase the 16 acres to 30 acres and with the medium scale
they would like to see it changed from 80 acres to 300 acres.
Commissioner Sparrow said that one of the concerns is soil erosion and weed control and asked him to
explain the effect of the panels on growing any vegetation. Mr. Marizza said that in some regulated areas
the solar panels were affecting the way rain was hitting the ground. Therefore they have had to collect
water differently but for the most part these farms have to mow the grass and manage the site.
Commissioner Berryman asked if locating on industrial property would add to the cost of projects and
understands it would depend on how close it would be to substations as well. Mr. Marizza said that location
is really critical to them and as they get to the medium scale they have to be closer to their substations.
Therefore that is why they didn't like the idea of industrial and agricultural and making that determination.
Commissioner Johnson said that he would like to see 3 megawatts with no acreage limit to encourage the
use of solar on agricultural land. He said that 80 acres in Weld County is a standard and common
measurement and suggested that no megawatt limit be placed. Beyond that we are looking at quarter-
sections and half-sections and that is a large impact on the neighborhood. Commissioner Jemiola said that
he doesn't want to limit the industry by production and is in favor of having 20 acres as a Use by Right in
the agricultural zoned districts and 40 acres as a Use by Right in industrial zoned districts.
Bruce Barker, County Attorney, said that any proposed solar facilities currently requires a Use by Special
Review Permit and it would remain a Use by Special Review in the small and medium facilities in the
Agricultural Zone and a Use by Right for the small scale in the Industrial Zone Districts. All large facilities
will require a 1041 Permit. Commissioner Jemiola asked if there is any kind of administrative process we
could have for the smaller facilities in the agricultural zone district. Mr. Barker said that the issue is
compatibility and the Use by Special Review takes into consideration the compatibility with the
neighborhood. Commissioner Jemiola feels solar is a very benign industry in terms of impact.
Tom Parko, Planning Services, said that solar wasn't allowed at all in the code so we have had some solar
facilities that have come in and we have taken them through the USR process. He add that there isn't a
12
mechanism right now to have an administrative process. Commissioner Jemiola asked if there is a
regulation agency that regulates the solar industry. Mr. Barker said that the PUC (Public Utilities
Commission) regulates the system itself but not the zoning. He added that there is no state agency that
deals with zoning type concepts. Mr. Jemiola said that his concern with solar would be causing a problem
for motorists or a massive field of having that light directed into someone's line of sight. He added that he
doesn't want to regulate megawatts because if they were to make panels more efficient they would replace
the panels and have to come through the process again.
r`' David White, Poudre Valley REA, 7649 REA Parkway, Ft. Collins, Colorado, said that this has been
a great discussion. He agrees that the best approach would be to do nothing but feels it should align with
the technology today and should match up with the acreage. He agreed that the 8-10 acres per megawatt
is standard. He asked for clarification on Section 23-4-1030.F. Ms. Martin said that this is not intended for
the construction phase; however it is for any panels that would be removed when not working and stored
on site. Mr. Barker said the better word would be unused panels.
D1' Rich Werner, Upstate Colorado Economic Development, concurred with the testimony today in regard
to thanking the staff in revisiting this issue that is more acceptable to promoting additional projects and
having a system that relates to that 8-10 acre industry standard.
Gene Stille left the meeting at 6 pm.
Regan Farr, Nashville, Tennessee(via phone), said that they are property owners in Weld County and
currently have proposed projects with Poudre Valley REA and United Power. He said that they have two
(2) recommendations to the proposed code changes: 1) deploy solar on industrial properties under the
USR process and 2) allow solar facilities on agricultural zoned property through a USR permit.
DI"` Richard Miller, Clean Energy Collective, said that they build small scale solar facilities, up to 2
megawatts. He said that they were concerned with being excluded out of the agricultural zone districts as
they can't afford industrial land. He said that he has permitted facilities throughout Colorado and added
that Garfield County requires a 1041 process, which is excessive for what they are proposing. Jefferson
County allows small solar facilities on all land uses with a Site Plan Review process. Mr. Miller said that
these proposed code changes are headed in the right direction and added that it is important that a Use by
Special Review is required under the agricultural zone district because that does allow you to put conditions
that are specific to that location.
Dave Kisker, 6681 Apache Road, Johnstown, Colorado, said that he is a user of solar and familiar
with it. After listening to the testimony, he came to the conclusion that there may be two (2) sets of
regulation, one regulation for agricultural and another regulation for industrial. On agricultural land, he
suggested that the small scale systems should not have a megawatt limit with a size limit of up to 25 acres.
He added that the medium scale facilities should be regulated by size of land rather than power. On
industrial properties, he suggested that small solar facilities be allowed as a Use by Right and require a
USR for medium solar facilities.
Commissioner Wailes asked where the power requirement came from for these proposed changes. Ms.
Martin said after talking with the Board of County Commissioners and looking at different examples and
drafts it was a way to regulate the size of the facility.
I'" John Marcarelli, Silicon Ranch, Nashville, Tennessee (via phone), stated that they like the discussion
of picking the acreage that aligns with the industry standard. It is consistent and doesn't discriminate based
on where technology is today or where it may be headed tomorrow. He said that 300 acres seems like it
would be impactful on the neighborhood and believes that is why the USR process is in place.
i► Paula Stueve, 13576 CR 6, stated that as a realtor she has been working with a solar company and
also three (3) landowners. She said that allowing solar would keep the ground in the family name without
the need of selling the property. She said that having it as a Use by Right in the agricultural zone district
and not having to rezone it is critical for long term retention of our farms.
13
The Chair asked if the Planning Commission is comfortable making amendments now or continuing
this case for further review. He added that he prefers Commissioner Johnson's suggestions of allowing up
to 25 acres as a Use by Right, 26-299 acres as a Use by Special Review and 300 acres or more through
the 1041 process. Mr. Barker recommended changing the 299 acres to 320 acres because it is a half-
section.
Motion: Continue Ordinance 2015-27 Revised to the May 3, 2016 Planning Commission hearing, Moved
by Bruce Sparrow, Seconded by Terry Cross. Motion carried unanimously. The Chair requested that
this case be placed first on the May 3, 2016 Planning Commission agenda.
Meeting adjourned at 6:44 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Digitally signed by Kristine Ranslem
Y'>A.a Date:2016.04.25 10:17:12-06'00'
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
14
Hello