HomeMy WebLinkAbout20162531.tiffSUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, August 2, 2016
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County
Administration Building, Hearing Room, 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado. This meeting was called to
order by Michael Wailes, at 12:30 pm.
Roll Call.
Present: Joyce Smock, Michael Wailes, Bruce Sparrow, Terry Cross, Bruce Johnson, Gene Stille, Cherilyn
Barringer, Tom Cope.
Absent: Jordan Jemiola.
Also Present: Kim Ogle and Diana Aungst, Department of Planning Services; Hayley Brown, Department
of Planning Services — Engineering Division; Lauren Light and Ben Frissell, Department of Health; Evan
Pinkham, Public Works; Bob Choate, County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
• Motion: Approve the July 19, 2016 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, Moved by Bruce
Johnson, Seconded by Joyce Smock. Motion passed unanimously.
Michael Wailes nominated Bruce Sparrow for Chair, Second by Bruce Johnson. Nominations were closed
and motion passed unanimously.
Bruce Sparrow nominated Joyce Smock for Vice Chair, Second by Gene Stille. Nominations were closed
and motion passed unanimously.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT.
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOCATION:
USR16-0016
SADDLE BUTTE ROCKIES STORAGE & TERMINAL
KIM OGLE
A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT FOR
MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES, OIL AND GAS STORAGE
FACILITY (CRUDE OIL POLISHING TERMINAL); TRANSLOADING, AND
OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS STORAGE YARD
IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
LOT B, RECORDED EXEMPTION NO. RECX13-0069 BEING PART OF THE
SW4 OF SECTION 26, T6N, R65W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, CO
NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 64, EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 45.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, presented Case USR16-0016, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application
with the attached conditions of approval and development standards.
Evan Pinkham, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic and access to the site.
- Hayley Brown, Engineering, reported on the drainage conditions for the site.
Ben Frissell, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -
site dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan,
Trent Miller, Saddle Butte Rockies Storage and Terminals, 1900 16th Street, Denver, Colorado, stated
that they have spoken with the FAA and the Greeley/Weld Airport Manager and they have indicated that
this proposed project will not impact their operations. Mr. Miller stated that this property was in agricultural
production; however when they purchased the property the agreement was that they were to give up all
water rights. Therefore, according to a clause in their contract the property will be dried up and no more
farming will be performed on the property. The project is a storage and terminal facility for distribution of
oil and gas.
60Yru unica Om
S-15- I Lo
1
ao(Co- a53
Commissioner Johnson asked where the irrigation water rights went. Mr. Miller said the previous owners
kept the water rights; therefore he does not know where the source was.
Christian Stoddard, Saddle Butte Pipeline, stated that prior to the purchase of the property the landowner
indicated that there was an agricultural well on the property; however it was no longer in use.
Commissioner Smock asked the applicant to explain what a crude polishing terminal is. Mr. Miller said that
polishing is the process of heating the liquid to a point to help separate other components of the crude that
comes in. Ms. Smock asked happens to the other products that are separated out. Cole Dougherty, Saddle
Butte Pipeline, stated that natural gas liquids are trucked out, the oil goes back into the pipelines, water is
trucked out and the lighter liquids will be incinerated on site.
Commissioner Wailes asked if 30 trucks per day would be the maximum number at full build -out. Mr. Miller
said that would be the maximum. He added that this terminal is not being designed to be a major truck
load and offload facility. The trucking would increase when the pipeline system would be shut down due to
power failure or maintenance on the pipeline.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Motion: Forward Case USR16-0016 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 Joyce Smock, Seconded by Bruce Johnson.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8).
Yes: Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Cherilyn Barringer, Gene Stille, Joyce Smock, Michael Wailes, Terry
Cross, Tom Cope.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOCATION:
USR15-0057
BRUCE SANDAU, CIO GREEN EARTH ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
DIANA AUNGST
A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL USE 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 (TRUCK AND VEHICLE STORAGE AND STAGING INCLUDING
LANDSCAPING EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS STORAGE FOR GREEN
EARTH ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., A STORM WATER MANAGEMENT,
LANDSCAPE, RECLAMATION, AND SOIL REMEDIATION SERVICE
COMPANY), PROVIDED THAT THE PROPERTY IS NOT A LOT IN AN
APPROVED OR RECORDED SUBDIVISION MAP OR LOTS PARTS OF A MAP
OR PLAN FILED PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF ANY REGULATIONS
CONTROLLING SUBDIVISIONS IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
LOT A REC EXEMPT RECX16-0066; PART SE4 SECTION 36, T6N, R65W OF
THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 62 AND ABOUT ONE-HALF MILE EAST OF
CR 47.
- Diana Aungst, Planning Services, presented Case USR15-0057, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application
with the attached conditions of approval and development standards.
Evan Pinkham, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic and access to the site.
Hayley Brown, Engineering, reported on the drainage conditions for the site.
2
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -
site dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Bruce Sandau, 32660 Vista Lake Road, Greeley, Colorado, purchased the property from an onion
grower and added that the building was vacant for at least two (2) years. The proposed business is a
reclamation, soil remediation and storm water management business. The building would store equipment
and material for their seeding operations. No soil is remediated on site and added that they store finished
compost on site; however they do not compost on site.
Commissioner Smock noted that it appears this has been in operation for about one year and asked why
the delay in submitting the application. Mr. Sandau said that the delay is due to an amendment to the
Recorded Exemption in regard to a lot line adjustment.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Motion: Forward Case USR15-0057 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.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8).
Yes: Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Cherilyn Barringer, Gene Stifle, Joyce Smock, Michael Wailes, Terry
Cross, Tom Cope.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
PLANNER:
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOCATION:
USR16-0019
CLAY KELLER
KIM OGLE
A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR ONE (1) SINGLE- FAMILY DWELLING UNIT PER LOT OTHER
THAN THOSE PERMITTED UNDER SECTION 23-3-20 A (SECOND SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING UNIT) IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT.
LOT B REC EXEMPT RE -4716; PART SW4NW4 SECTION 31, TBN, R67W OF
THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 13, APPROXIOMATELY 1500 FEET SOUTH
OF CR 88.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, presented Case USR16-0019, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application
with the attached conditions of approval and development standards.
Evan Pinkham, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic and access to the site. County Road 13
at this location is under the jurisdiction of Larimer County.
Hayley Brown, Engineering, reported on the drainage conditions for the site.
- - Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -
site dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Jaylee Dimick, 4014 South Lemay Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado, representing her brother-in-law,
stated that Mr. Keller intends to build this residence for his mother-in-law and added that in the future it will
be used as a rental unit.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
3
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 USR16-0019 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 Gene Stifle,
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8).
Yes: Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Cherilyn Barringer, Gene Stifle, Joyce Smock, Michael Wailes, Terry
Cross, Tom Cope.
CASE NUMBER
APPLICANT:
PLANNER
REQUEST:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOCATION.
USR16-0015
KENNETH & RANA BACHMAN, CIO TANNER HILL
KIM OGLE
A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT FOR
A KENNEL (UP TO 75 DOGS, SIX (6) MONTHS OF AGE OR OLDER OF A NON-
SPECIFIC BREED TO INCLUDE DOGGIE DAYCARE AND BOARDING), IN THE
A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT
LOT 1 BACHMAN CONVEYANCE PLAT; PART OF SECTION 18, T2N, R68W OF
THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 20.5; APPROXIMATELY 0.5 MILES EAST
OF CR 1.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, presented Case USR16-0015, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Four (4) letters of opposition were received which cited lower property values,
traffic, commercial business in agricultural area and barking of dogs. Mr. Ogle noted that several letters
were received in support of the proposed kennel. The Department of Planning Services recommends denial
of this application. Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of this application, staff
requested that the attached conditions of approval and development standards be included.
Commissioner Sparrow inquired if they are asked to make judgments on the legality of this use in a
conservation easement or on the compatibility with the conservation easement. Bob Choate, County
Attorney, said they need to decide if it is compatible with the conservation easement. He added that the
determination should be relevant to Chapter 23. Because the conservation easement is held by the City of
Longmont it is also relevant to the Coordinated Planning Agreement in Chapter 19 of the Weld County
Code.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the land itself is part of the conservation easement. Mr. Ogle replied that
the 3 acre parcel, which is no longer within the City of Longmont's jurisdiction, is part of that conservation
easement.
Evan Pinkham, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic and access to the site.
Hayley Brown, Engineering, reported on the drainage conditions for the site.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on -
site dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Tanner Hill, 11774 Quail Road, Longmont, Colorado, stated that this request is for an animal care
facility. He said that he currently operates an animal care facility in Weld County and has been operating
for about nine (9) years.
Mr. Hill said that there are only two (2) residencies surrounding the property. He visited both property
owners and discussed his proposal with them. In the initial discussion with Ms. Scarbrough, she was very
concerned with the project and at the end of the conversation it was important that she needed to discuss
it with her husband. After having a conversation with her husband it was a consensus that they were not
4
interested in having an animal facility next to them. He added that Mr. Moisan had no interest of having
dogs on a property near him.
Mr. Hill said that the biggest piece of the puzzle is the conservation easement and is only on this 3 acre
parcel. He said that because of the misunderstanding that the City of Longmont has about the proposed
use, they (Longmont) believe it violates the terms of the conservation easement and therefore
recommended that Weld County deny the use. Additionally, because the City of Longmont owns the
conservation easement the applicant must also adhere to the City of Longmont's codes. According to the
City of Longmont's terms of the conservation easement, the purpose of the easement is to limit the use of
the property into perpetuity to a single-family residence and agricultural uses. After speaking with Erin
Fosdick, City of Longmont Community Development and Planning, he added that from a planning stand
point Longmont has no issue with this project; however it is simply the conservation easement that is
attached to this property.
Commissioner Sparrow asked if this is a State conservation easement or does it belong to the City of
Longmont. Mr. Hill replied that it belongs to the City of Longmont.
Mr. Hill said that according to the City of Longmont's codes, they do not view a kennel as an agricultural
use. The City of Longmont currently allows kennels only as a conditional use in their general industrial
zoning district. The misunderstanding is that Weld County does not differentiate in their zoning code
regarding kennels; however the City of Longmont does. He added that in Longmont's definition of an
Animal Care Facility for dogs means a licensed facility providing household pet care and other similar
services that may include overnight boarding. The definition of Animal Kennel means a licensed facility
where household pets are kept for the purpose of sale and breeding. Mr. Hill stated that his proposal is
being referred to as a kennel; however this is not a kennel as there will be no breeding or sale of dogs. He
further added that Animal Care Facilities with no outdoor activity they are permitted as a use by right in the
agricultural zone district. If there are outdoor activities, an Animal Care Facility is subjected to limited use
review in the agricultural zone district requiring the Planning Department Director to determine whether the
use will impact surrounding properties and if so to impose conditions to mitigate those. He added that he
is willing and happy to mitigate any concerns or issues from surrounding property owners or the City of
Longmont.
Mr. Hill said he is proposing a daycare and boarding facility for dogs. He intends for the facility to look like
a farm. The boarding facility will be in a barn and the outside areas are equivalent to pastures. He added
that there will also be a residence located on site in which one of his employees will reside.
Commissioner Johnson asked why he is starting a new location. Mr. Hill said that the demand of his
services have shown a need for another location. He added that several of his customers have asked for
him to expand.
Commissioner Smock said she doesn't understand how Longmont carries a conservation easement in Weld
County. Mr. Choate said a conservation easement is a private property right and needs to be owned by a
governmental entity or a non-profit that is at least two years old. He added that it is not the City reaching
extraterritorially in zoning issues; however it is the City presumably having contract by purchasing of private
property right. He added that it has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of where it lies.
Commissioner Stille asked legal counsel about what he sees as an issue in regard to the Coordinated
Planning Agreement with Longmont. Mr. Choate said he doesn't anticipate that the decision made by the
Planning Commission or the Board of County Commissioners will have any bearing on the injunction that
might come after the decision is made. He reiterated that you are not here to decide whether this violates
the conservation easement but to decide if this complies with Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code. He
added that Chapter 19 contains all of the Coordinating Planning Agreements with the various municipalities,
including Longmont. The City of Longmont's referral states that they believe this is not compatible due to
the conservation easement. He added that the zoning code of Longmont has nothing to do with this, so his
discussion of the reasons why it is compatible is relevant but the discussion on the Longmont Zoning Code
is not.
5
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application.
Dan Wolford, City of Longmont Open Space Coordinator, 7 South Sunset, Longmont, Colorado, stated that
the response you heard from your attorney is the same they have heard from their attorneys as well. He
wants to look at the intent of the conservation easement. He added that the City of Longmont purchased
the 505 acre parcel in 2001 and the 3 acre parcel was pulled out to be subdivided for the intent of Mr.
Bachman. He added that Mr. Bachman was the accountant for Don Sherwood who sold this property to
the City of Longmont. Additionally, the City of Longmont owns several acres in the proximity and have
been able to preserve that as open space. In 2010, the conservation easement was an agreement between
Mr. Bachman and the City of Longmont. The City of Longmont's intent of agricultural uses are row crop
and grazing rather than the wide variety included in Weld County's code.
Commissioner Smock asked if it would be the same if he had chickens or sheep. Mr. Wolfort said that they
would have to review that from a perspective of an agricultural use and traffic volume.
Commissioner Cross asked if the City of Longmont would stop this after approval was given from the
Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Wolford said that they would likely pursue
an injunction.
Commissioner Stille asked why Longmont didn't purchase this property. Mr. Wolford said they purchased
the 505 acres surrounding this property and at the time this 3 acre parcel was held back for Mr. Bachman
to build a residence.
Aryn Scarbrough and Buck Scarbrough. Ms. Scarbrough said that they don't have a lot of acres but
it is their home. She added that the distance from her property line and the property line of the proposed
site is 60 feet. Ms. Scarbrough said that the realtors they have spoken to said that having a dog kennel so
close to their home will impact their property value. She also expressed concern regarding the wildlife in
the area.
Buck Scarbrough reiterated that there is currently a lot of wildlife in the area and added that commercial
property does not belong next to a residential property.
Commissioner Wailes said that he appreciated their position; however of the uses allowed in Weld County,
he believes this is a low impact. According to the Weld County Code a dairy operation would be allowed
and a variety of other intense uses could be located there and he added that he believes a kennel is a low
impact business. He asked Mr. and Mrs. Scarbrough what they would like to see on this property. Mr.
Scarbrough said that when they purchases their property they were told that this proposed site was going
to be a residence and that is what they would like to see. Ms. Scarbrough said that the barking is a big
issue and the decrease in their property values.
Mr. Hill said that the Scarbrough's concerns are a real issue for him and he wants to work with them
and try and mitigate their concerns. He said the 75 dogs and the proposed site plan are not set in stone.
He has asked the Scarbroughs and the City of Longmont to meet and discuss options on the layout of the
property to benefit all. He said that in the development standards they are required to house the dogs at
certain hours and added that they do not provide daycare on the weekends. Mr. Hill said that the dogs will
bark but they will make every effort to keep them from not barking and preventing the neighbors from
enjoying their quality of life.
Commissioner Wailes asked if there are any requirements for the dogs to go through prior to boarding or
daycare. Mr. Hill said that there is an interview prior to accepting the dogs and a socialization period with
other dogs at the facility's dog playground. This is set for the safety for staff as well as the other dogs. The
owner also is required to fill out an application and provide vaccination records.
Commissioner Cope asked what the distance is from the centerline of the road to the outdoor dog area.
Mr. Hill estimated that it is approximately 150 feet from the road.
6
Commissioner Barringer asked if he would be willing to put up a privacy fence next to the road to eliminate
the dogs running or barking. Mr. Hill replied that he would be happy to put up a 6 foot privacy fence.
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 USR16-0015 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions
of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval,
Moved by Michael Wailes, Seconded by Joyce Smock.
Commissioner Wailes cited Section 23-3-40.H and Section 23-3-40.J and added that this is permitted in
Weld County in the agricultural zone district. In the way the applicant has described how he will operate
the facility, he believes it could fall under Section 23-3-40.C.5 which is under the recreational aspect of a
guest farm or hunting lodge. Mr. Wailes added that by approving USR14-0004 which is very close to this
property for a reptile sanctuary and was located in a subdivision set a precedent for this. He added that it
is the best interest of the applicant to have those animals be happy, healthy and safe including surrounding
properties. He added that this is a very low impact compared to what could occur on site in the agricultural
zone district.
Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 5, No = 3, Abstain = 0).
Yes: Cherilyn Barringer, Joyce Smock, Michael Wailes, Terry Cross, Tom Cope.
No: Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Gene Stille.
Commissioner Cross encouraged the applicant to do as much as he can to satisfy the neighbors and their
concerns.
Commissioner Johnson complimented the applicant on his proposal and existing operation. However, he
doesn't feel that the contract between the landowner and the City of Longmont should be breached.
Commissioner Stille agreed with Mr. Johnson's comments and added that it is not compatible with the
surrounding uses.
Commissioner Cope understands the neighbor's concerns. However, he doesn't feel that dog kennels
should be located in industrial areas as it is stressful for dogs. He understands the Coordinated Planning
Agreement between Weld County and the City of Longmont and added that we take that very seriously;
however he believes this is the right location for the proposed project. He believes it is still an agricultural
use in Weld County.
Commissioner Smock agreed with Mr. Cope's comments.
Commissioner Sparrow said that he doesn't feel it is compatible with the surrounding area.
The Chair asked the public if there were other items of business that they would like to discuss. No one
wished to speak.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss. No one
wished to speak.
Meeting adjourned at 3:17 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
\Ibbit-1()
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
Digitally signed by Kristine Ranslem
Date: 2016.08.04 10:56:04 -06'00'
7
Hello