HomeMy WebLinkAbout20151900.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
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 Chair, Jason Maxey, at 1:30 pm.
Roll Call.
Present: Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Jason Maxey, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Michael Wailes,
Nick Berryman, Terry Cross.
Absent: Benjamin Hansford.
Also Present: Kim Ogle, Chris Gathman, and Tom Parko, Department of Planning Services; Wayne
Howard, and Jennifer Petrik, Department of Planning — Engineering Division; Lauren Light and Heather
Barbare, Department of Health; Brad Yatabe, County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Motion: Approve the June 2, 2015 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, Moved by Joyce
Smock, Seconded by Nick Berryman. Motion passed unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR15-0020
APPLICANT: WADE CASTOR AND DELAND TODD CASTER, C/O WHITING OIL AND GAS
PLANNER: CHRIS GATHMAN
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
FOR MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES, OIL AND GAS
SUPPORT AND SERVICE (NON-COMMERCIAL CLASS II OILFIELD WASTE
DISPOSAL FACILITY - SALTWATER INJECTION FACILITY) IN THE A
(AGRICULTURAL)ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: S2 SECTION 16, T9N, R59W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY,
COLORADO.
LOCATION: WEST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 115 AND NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO
CR 104.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, presented Case USR15-0020, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this
application with the attached conditions of approval and development standards.
Commissioner Smock asked why we see a lot of cases where there is a large parcel but the impact is
only on 10 acres. Mr. Gathman said that the applicants will be leasing the land from the owner. He
added that the applicant submitted a subdivision exemption application and it is being processed
concurrently with this USR. The Subdivision Exemption will be required to be recorded prior to the Board
of County Commissioners hearing.
Wayne Howard, Engineering, reported on the existing traffic, access and drainage conditions and
the requirements on site.
Commissioner Smock referred to the 800 plus vehicles on that road and according to the application the
triggers require improvements. She asked why this roadway is not paved. Mr. Howard said that the
status of this road as being a gravel road and believes that there are variations of that. He added that
there are improvements to County Road 104 through the HARP program that Public Works utilizes. With
that high traffic, Mr. Howard assumed this is one of those areas. Ms. Smock commented that last year
this road was in pristine condition but right now it is being torn up again. Mr. Howard said that this facility
is looking to remove traffic from the existing roadways by staying within their internal boundaries.
Heather Barbare, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements,
on-site dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan. Ms. Barbare recommended amending Development
Standard 10 to read "A leak detection system shall be designed and installed beneath concrete unloading
Cernatin 2015-1900 1
pad(s), piping, and sump(s). The unloading pad shall be kept in good condition and leak detection and
unloading pad plans shall be onsite and available upon request."
She requested amending Development Standard 18 to replace the words "shall" with "should" and
amending Development Standard 19 to add "or with all other applicable state noise statutes and/or
regulations"to the end of the existing sentence.
Additionally, Ms. Barbare requested to delete Development Standard 20 as the applicants are not going
to have a truck wash on the property and are not permitted to conduct washing activities on the property.
Kevin Pittman, Whiting Oil and Gas, 1700 Broadway, Suite 2300, Denver, Colorado, stated that they
are proposing a salt water injection well. He added that this facility is designed to help reduce the amount
of trucking. Currently without having their own disposal wells, Whiting Oil and Gas has to truck to other
disposal sites ranging anywhere from 22 to 53 miles away. Mr. Pittman added that they plan to pipe the
majority of the water to this location as well. There are 4 off-loading bays and 2 oil loading bays and they
will be installing three (3) groundwater monitoring wells.
Commissioner Smock asked where the trucks will be coming from. Mr. Pittman said that most of
Whiting's Oil and Gas development is to the northeast of this site so most of the trucks will be coming
from there.
Commissioner Sparrow wished to clarify the number of trucks per day. Mr. Pittman said that the facility
can hold up to 50 trucks per day but they expect less than 10 trucks per day. He added that they would
only truck this water if the pipeline system was down for any reason.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Motion: Amend Development Standard 10 as stated by staff, Moved by Nick Berryman, Seconded
by Bruce Johnson. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion: Amend Development Standard 18 as stated by staff, Moved by Nick Berryman, Seconded by
Bruce Johnson. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion: Amend Development Standard 19 as stated by staff, Moved by Nick Berryman, Seconded by
Bruce Johnson. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion: Delete Development Standard 20 as requested by staff, Moved by Terry Cross, Seconded by
Bruce Johnson. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the amended Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in
agreement.
Motion: Forward Case USR15-0020 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 Johnson, Seconded by Joyce Smock.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8).
Yes: Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Jason Maxey, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Michael Wailes, Nick
Berryman, Terry Cross.
Commissioner Smock expressed concern with the state of the roads so anything that can be done to get
trucks off the road is a real help to the County.
CASE NUMBER: USR15-0021
APPLICANT: RJM LAND COMPANY LLC, O/O WHITING OIL AND GAS
PLANNER: CHRIS GATHMAN
2
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
FOR MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES, OIL AND GAS
SUPPORT AND SERVICE (NON-COMMERCIAL CLASS II OILFIELD WASTE
DISPOSAL FACILITY - SALTWATER INJECTION FACILITY) IN THE A
(AGRICULTURAL)ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ALL OF SECTION 19 &W2NW4 SECTION 20, T10N, R57W OF THE 6TH P.M.,
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 133 AND IMMEDIATELY SOUTHEAST OF
THE INTERSECTION OF CR 116 AND CR 133.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, presented Case USR15-0021, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Mr. Gathman noted that two (2) letters were received concerning the traffic
and the noise of trucks braking at the intersection of County Road 116 and County Road 133. The
Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached conditions of
approval and development standards.
Jennifer Petrik, Engineering, reported on the existing traffic, access and drainage conditions and the
requirements on site.
Commissioner Maxey referred to a letter that was received about a potential road coming in from County
Road 127 and asked if that is a viable option. Ms. Petrik said she will research that.
Commissioner Wailes asked what the traffic counts were. Ms. Petrik said that the traffic counts for
County Road 116 were from October 2014 and are 1075 vehicles per day and a little further to the west it
was 1064 vehicles per day. Commissioner Smock said that again this is way over the triggers and asked
why nothing is required. Ms. Petrik read into record an email reply from Janet Lundquist, Public Works,
which stated that "After careful evaluation of roadways in this area and realizing the temporary nature of
the oil and gas industry, we determined that paving of many of these roads would be an unfair cost to the
taxpayers to have long term maintenance of the paved roads." Commissioner Smock asked then what
the County or the oil companies going to do. Ms. Petrik stated that it sounds like they are not planning to
pave these roads at this time due to unfair costs to the taxpayers for maintaining these paved roads.
Commissioner Maxey noted that a lot of times there are improvements agreements that should
theoretically help with that. Ms. Petrik stated that she will request Ms. Lundquist to attend for further
comments.
Heather Barbare, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements,
on-site dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan. Ms. Barbare recommended adding a Development
Standard 8 to read "Analytical waste data and environmental monitoring data shall be made available to
Weld County Department of Health and Environment upon request. The Weld County Department of
Health and Environment reserves the right to acquire additional monitoring."
Ms. Barbare also recommended amending Development Standard 10 to read "A leak detection system
shall be designed and installed beneath concrete unloading pad(s), piping, and sump(s). The unloading
pad shall be kept in good condition and leak detection and unloading pad plans shall be onsite and
available upon request."
Additionally, Ms. Barbare is recommending to amend Development Standard 18 to read "Fugitive Dust
and fugitive particulate emissions should be controlled on this site. Fugitive Dust should attempt to be
confined on the property. Uses on the property should comply with the Colorado Air Quality
Commission's air quality regulations".
Ms. Barbare also recommended amending Development Standard 19 to by adding "or with all applicable
state noise statutes and/or regulations"to the end of the existing sentence.
In addition, Ms. Barbare is requesting to delete Development Standard 20 and to remove "pesticides,
fertilizer, and other" in the first sentence of Development Standard 21.
3
In response to Commissioner Maxey's inquiry regarding County Road 127, Ms. Petrik said that in
looking at the map and the right-of-way layer it appears that it would be about 3.5 miles of unmaintained
section line right-of-way that they would need to construct and maintain versus what they are proposing
which is 1.5 miles.
Commissioner Smock said that there were 1075 vehicles per day on County Road 116 and
according to the guidelines the triggers show that there should be paving or improvements and said that
we are well over that. Janet Lundquist, Public Works, said that they did an evaluation on County Roads
127 and 129 and looked at the overall cost for long term maintenance. She added that the cost of
maintaining a gravel road over a 20 year period is $1500 to $5000 on average. To maintain a mag
chloride road it is about $16,000 to $20,000 on average. To maintain a paved road it is about $27,000
per mile per year. Ms. Lundquist said that with the temporary nature we have with the oil and gas
industry and with them moving around so much to put in that investment it could potentially be a financial
risk for the county taxpayers. Ms. Lundquist indicated that paving a gravel road costs about $1,000,000
per mile. She added that they have decided to monitor this traffic and if the traffic is maintained for about
5 years then they will pave this road.
Ms. Barbare recommended an additional change to Development Standard 17 to read "Waste
materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed of in a manner that controls fugitive dust, fugitive
particulate emissions, blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions. The facility shall operate
in accordance with the accepted Waste Handling Plan and Chapter 14 Article I of the Weld County Code,
at all times".
Kevin Pittman, Whiting Oil and Gas, said that the design is similar to the last case that was just
heard. He added that the truck route from County Road 127 has been changed so the truck traffic on
County Road 116 should be greatly reduced. The applicant was able to obtain a road easement that runs
from County Road 127 to the east and accesses on the County Road 133 Section Line in the vicinity of
the County Road 133 and County Road 114 Section Line intersection. He showed on a visual slide the
revised truck route.
In light of new information, Ms. Petrik recommended adding Condition of Approval to reflect that an
access permit is required for access on County Road 127. Additionally, she requested to amend
Condition of Approval 1.E.10 to read "Show and label the approved access(es) and access permit
number(s) on the map will be provided".
Ms. Petrik suggested adding Condition of Approval 1.E to read "An Access Permit is required for access
from County Road 127".
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Motion: Add Development Standard 8 as stated by staff, Moved by Bruce Sparrow, Seconded by
Bruce Johnson. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion: Amend Development Standard 10 as stated by staff, Moved by Nick Berryman, Seconded by
Bruce Sparrow. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion: Amend Development Standard 17 as stated by staff, Moved by Bruce Sparrow, Seconded by
Bruce Johnson. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion: Amend Development Standard 18 as stated by staff, Moved by Bruce Sparrow, Seconded by
Bruce Johnson. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion: Amend Development Standard 19 as stated by staff, Moved by Joyce Smock, Seconded by
Bruce Johnson. Motion carried unanimously.
4
Motion: Delete Development Standard 20 as stated by staff, Moved by Nick Berryman, Seconded by
Joyce Smock. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion: Amend Development Standard 21 as stated by staff, Moved by Bruce Johnson, Seconded by
Bruce Sparrow. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion: Add Condition of Approval 1.E as stated by staff, Moved by Bruce Sparrow, Seconded by Nick
Berryman. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion: Amend Condition of Approval 1.E.10 as stated by staff, Moved by Bruce Sparrow, Seconded
by Nick Berryman. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the amended Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in
agreement.
Motion: Forward Case USR15-0021 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 Jordan Jemiola, Seconded by Bruce Johnson.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8).
Yes: Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Jason Maxey, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Michael Wailes, Nick
Berryman, Terry Cross.
CASE NUMBER: USR14-0068
APPLICANT: LASALLE RENTAL PROPERTY ONE LLC, C/O HERSCHEL HOLLOWAY
PLANNER: KIM OGLE
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
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 (TRUCKING AND TRUCK REPAIR ALONG WITH OUTSIDE
EQUIPMENT, VEHICLE STORAGE AND STAGING; AND MATERIALS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS), 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 AND
MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES INCLUDING OIL AND
GAS SUPPORT AND SERVICE (STORAGE OF CLEAN EMPTY FRAC TANKS)
IN THE A(AGRICULTURAL)ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT C REC EXEMPT RECX14-0016; BEING PART OF THE NW4 OF SECTION
8, T4N, R65W OF THE 6TH P.M.,WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE SOUTH OF CR 50 AND EAST OF AND ADJACENT
TO CR 39.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services, presented Case USR14-0068, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Mr. Ogle noted that the Planning Director received a comment from an
adjacent landowner that the applicant is operating without the necessary land use permit. The
Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached conditions of
approval and development standards.
Wayne Howard, Engineering, reported on the existing traffic, access and 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.
Sheri Lockman, Lockman Land Consulting, 36519 CR 41, Eaton, Colorado, stated that the applicant
is proposing the parking and maintaining of trucks. Mr. Holloway has included a storage area for frac
tanks on site that he owns as well. The existing access over the Western Mutual Ditch has been a
5
challenge. Therefore they have made an agreement with the Ditch Company to access the property to
the north of the property rather than on the county road. Ms. Lockman said that they understand Mr.
Jerke's concerns and have attempted to try to address all of them.
Herschel Holloway, 44367 CR 77, stated that he has 25 frac tanks but he is requesting 42 frac tanks. He
said that the frac tanks have never been on site; however they put them in the request in the event they
might be located on site.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application.
Bill Jerke, 22911 CR 39, LaSalle, Colorado stated that his property is the closest to this subject site. He
added that they are not allowed to open their east windows in the summer because of the noise and the
headlights shining in. He understands that the applicant is proposing screening that may be effective but
until this is installed they won't know how effective it is.
Mr. Jerke said that this is really a 24/7 operation as he has seen trucks going in and out in the middle of
the night. He proposed that they work during daylight hours and suggested no operations on Sundays,
as well as, Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's Day and the 4th of July.
Mr. Jerke noted that according to Public Works, when development occurs the entrances should match
up for safety purposes. However, because of the wide swings that the trucks have to make it means that
they take out a hunk of his property to make those turns. He said that the applicants have done a good
job of moving the entrance to the north of the site to remedy this problem.
Mr. Jerke expressed concern with property values, road impact fees from this property, the amount of
traffic and the safety of the access. He added that there is a 'For Sale' sign on this subject property which
leaves him wonder what is happening. He added that he would like to see this business on this property
and see that it can be mitigated.
Commissioner Sparrow asked Mr. Jerke if he has talked with the applicant about these concerns. Mr.
Jerke replied that he spoke to him a few months ago and again just before the hearing. Mr. Sparrow
appreciated his perspective on this case.
The Chair asked staff what the road impact fees might be for the applicant. Mr. Ogle said that Wendi
Inloes, in the Planning Department, calculates those fees at the time of building permit issuance and
added that it could be as low as $1090 per 1000 square feet up to about $2100 per 1000 square feet. Mr.
Jerke said that this is a work location and the road impact fee based on the square footage of
improvement doesn't make much sense with respect to the potential it may well have on the county
roads.
Chuck Jerke, 1711 Glen Meadows Drive, Greeley, stated that he owns agricultural land across from
this site. He stated that he supports the new entrance to the north of the existing access as the existing
access is a real safety hazard. He added that he would like to see the County put additional speed limit
restrictions on County Road 39.
Ms. Lockman said that screening this site completely is impossible just because of the drop in
elevation from the road. She said that they have spoken to Bill Jerke about the lights shining into his
home and added that the dirt berm on the property does screen most of the property. She added that
they would like to put a 6 foot fence over the existing access to prevent the headlights shining into his
house.
Ms. Lockman stated that the existing access is not adequate for the required turning radius and the new
proposed access will comply with the required turning radius and will accommodate that concern.
6
Ms. Lockman stated that there was so much trouble with the ditch company over the access, so Mr.
Holloway placed a 'For Sale' sign in case they could not come up with an adequate access and this case
would be denied.
Mr. Holloway said that he understands his neighbors' concerns. With removing the existing access
he proposes to install a 6 foot privacy fence in that area that will eliminate the headlights shining into Mr.
Jerke's house. He added that the dirt berm along the majority of the west side of the property is as high
as the existing fence.
Mr. Holloway said that he cannot change the hours of operation because the oil industry operates 24/7.
He added that most of the operations are from 6 am to 8 pm; however he does operate a night crew.
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 USR14-0068 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 Terry Cross.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8).
Yes: Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Jason Maxey, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Michael Wailes, Nick
Berryman, Terry Cross.
Commissioner Sparrow commented that the neighbors and the applicant are willing to work together and
solve these issues and encouraged them to do that before the County Commissioner hearing.
Commissioner Smock said that the neighbors have offered some suggestions and Mr. Holloway has
recognized that and it is a workable situation.
Commissioner Jemiola echoed Mr. Sparrow's and Ms. Smock's comments and added that it is great that
both parties are willing to work together to mitigate these concerns.
Commissioner Wailes concurred with the previous statements and commended Mr. Jerke for his forward
thinking and appreciated how he approached this situation.
Commissioner Maxey expressed concern with compatibility but after hearing the comments from the
Jerkes' made him believe it can be worked out. He added that he would support a solid piece of
screening along the front and hopes that the screening and hours of operation can be worked out prior to
the County Commissioner hearing.
The Chair called a recess at 4:05 pm and reconvened the hearing at 4:22 pm
CASE NUMBER: USR14-0084
APPLICANT: DONALDSON AND COMPANY LLC
PLANNER: CHRIS GATHMAN
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR A USE PERMITTED AS A USE BY RIGHT, AN ACCESSORY
USE, OR A USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW IN THE COMMERCIAL OR
INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICTS (OUTDOOR TRUCK STORAGE AND
STAGING), PROVIDED THAT THE PROPERTY IS NOT A LOT IN AN
APPROVED OR RECORDED SUBDIVISION PLAT OR LOTS PARTS OF A
MAP OR PLAN FILED PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF ANY REGULATIONS
CONTROLLING SUBDIVISIONS IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE
DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT B REC EXEMPT RE-5106; BEING PART OF THE W2SW4 OF SECTION
22, T6N, R65W OF THE 6TH P.M.,WELD COUNTY, COLORADO.
LOCATION: NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 66 AND EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO
CR 43.
7
Commissioner Berryman stated that he has a business relationship with the applicant on a completely
unrelated property; therefore he would like to recuse himself from this case.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, presented Case USR14-0084, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Mr. Gathman noted that there were two (2) letters received with concerns
regarding noise, light pollution, compatibility, impact on property values, increased traffic, no other
industrial uses in the vicinity and concerns about the hours of operation being extended. He added that
the applicant and their representative responded in writing to these letters. The Department of Planning
Services recommends approval of this application with the attached conditions of approval and
development standards.
Jennifer Petrik, Engineering, reported on the existing traffic, access and 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.
David Skarka, Winters, Hellerich & Hughes, 5401 West 10th Street, Greeley, stated that the
applicant is proposing a parking area for vehicles and equipment on 2.5 of the 75 acres. He asked the
Planning Commission to picture this as a park-n-ride since there will be no on-site personnel. He added
that the development consists of a parking lot for truck drivers returning from delivery or picking up their
trucks to make a delivery.
Mr. Skarka said that they feel this is consistent with Weld County's Comprehensive Plan given the
proximity to Highway 85 and to Highway 392 and it is compatible with the future development of the
surrounding area. He added that this location falls into the City of Greeley's long range expected grown
area.
Troy Jones, Planner and Architect Consultant for the project, stated that there is quite a bit of oil and gas
activity in the vicinity. He added that the City of Greeley has created a Growth and Service Area Map and
this location is included in that area. Mr. Jones said that there is a natural gas plant in the vicinity as well.
Commissioner Cross asked if the product will be hauled out of state. Mr. Jones said that they do not
have any contracts but the user they are currently talking with hauls modular homes out of state.
Commissioner Maxey clarified that there are no contracts or agreements but added that there could be
multiple operators for this site. Mr. Jones said that was correct and added that they would have to satisfy
the limits of this permit. Mr. Skarka added that it could be a variety of operators.
Commissioner Wailes asked to clarify the types of trailers. Mr. Skarka said that they didn't intend to limit
it to flatbed trailers and added that it could be a variety of trailers. Mr. Wailes asked if they are requesting
to change the type of trailers. Mr. Skarka replied yes and added that they would like to include the
parking of personal vehicles as the driver picks up his truck for delivery.
Commissioner Maxey commented that given the large property he suggested moving the impact further
north to mitigate some of the concerns in these letters and is curious to the layout proposed. Mr. Jones
said that they plan to submit a PUD application for an industrial subdivision on the remainder of the
property.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application.
Troy Gray, 21113 CR 66, stated that he does not see this use being consist with the current surrounding
agricultural uses. He added that this property has been designated as prime farm land; however it has
not been used as such. Mr. Gray said that he understands the need for growth but there is no way to tell
that it growth will come that way and when.
8
Mr. Gray said that traffic will be an issue. He noted that this was the first time he heard that the entrance
had been changed to County Road 43 and added that this is more of a concern than from the original
proposal off of County Road 66.
Mr. Gray commented that the noise and light pollution will be an issue. He doesn't know how the
landscaping and screening will work until it is in place. He added that there are a lot of inconsistencies
with this application. He referred to the PUD application mentioned by the applicants and feels that if this
is approved it will be easier for the PUD to get in place as well.
Mr. Gray submitted 18 letters of opposition from neighbors, landowners, citizens and residents of the
area. He added that he has talked to several others and will be submitting those into the record prior to
the Board of County Commissioner hearing.
Commission Sparrow referred to his statement of inconsistencies and asked for clarification. Mr. Gray
referred to the way the applicants described some of the established industrial locations in close proximity
to this site. He added that in his opinion, close proximity is not two (2) miles away. Additionally, after
listening to the applicant's presentation there are inconsistencies on the trailers and who is going to be
there.
Commissioner Maxey asked how he felt about the hours of operation. Mr. Gray said that the hours of
operation are great until there are emergencies. Mr. Maxey said that the amount of traffic is limited and
asked for his thoughts on that. Mr. Gray said that this doesn't seem like a lot but when you approve the
next one and the next one then it will be a lot of traffic. Maxey asked what additional mitigation could be
done. Mr. Gray said that there isn't anything that could be done because of the future that they are trying
to bring to this area.
Hendrik Craig, 21081 CR 66, agreed with Mr. Grays concerns. He stated that he lives east of and
adjacent to the proposed site. He works for the railroad and is concerned with the noise since he works
different shifts. He added that this intersection is not safe with the existing traffic and the speeds traveled.
Commissioner Sparrow asked if anything could be mitigated to change his mind. Mr. Craig replied no.
Sean and Annette Jaehn, 20767 CR 66. Mr. Jaehn stated that they live 0.25 miles away and there
are a lot of special use permits in the area that they have to live with.
According to the growth plan map provided by the applicant, Ms. Jaehn said that this location is in the
white area and that doesn't appear to be in that growth area. She added that Greeley is moving west and
north and not east. The Highway 85 corridor does have industrial uses but that is 2 miles away. She
added that they have restored a historical home and are trying to get on the historical registry and don't
care to look over a park and ride, as it was referred to.
Mr. Jaehn asked what the process is if they don't follow through with the limits of this permit. The Chair
said that if the applicants are violating the limits of the permit, you can call and then a violation process
would be started and the USR could potentially be revoked. Mr. Jaehn encouraged a recommendation of
denial.
Commissioner Sparrow asked if there is anything that could be done to mitigate these concerns. Mr.
Jaehn replied no.
Mr. Skarka showed on a visual slide that this site is included in the growth area. He added that
there are mixed uses within the anticipated growth area, such as the beat dump and the natural gas plant.
He further added that along Highway 85 there are mixed commercial and industrial uses which show this
is compatible with the surrounding uses within that growth area.
Mr. Skarka said that he did not have a chance to read the 18 letters submitted so he does not know the
type of information those people have been given. He added that he doesn't know if they have read the
application or if they know what the development standards are so it is hard to gauge what their objection
9
is without knowing their basis of knowledge. Mr. Skarka commented that the Right to Farm doesn't mean
the right to make your neighbor farm and he hasn't heard any objection that goes to the point that this
parking lot would interfere with any established farming in the area.
Commissioner Maxey expressed some concern that this is part of a bigger plan that they haven't seen yet
and makes it hard to judge only this case. Mr. Jones said that the USR process is a lot faster and they
have a potential user that is ready to get started if approved. He said that they decided to go this way
before the PUD process.
Commissioner Sparrow asked if the water was sold and if this land is part of a dry up agreement with the
ditch company. Mike Donaldson, 4980 Valley Oak Drive, Loveland, stated that he still has water rights to
this land and farms it right now. He added that he has a well to irrigate that area.
Commissioner Wailes clarified if it is currently being farmed. Mr. Donaldson said it is planted to grass
now and plans to put trees down by the creek to make a wildlife area.
Mr. Skarka clarified that there will be 6 employee parking spaces. The Chair asked if this can be included
in Development Standard 4. Mr. Gathman replied yes.
Commissioner Maxey asked about thoughts of limiting the hours of operation from just 6 am to 9 pm. Mr.
Jones said that he understands the neighbors concerns but it is hard to say that there would never be a
time that there is an extraordinary circumstance after 9 pm.
Mr. Howard wished to clarify that the emergency access is for fire emergency access only, as is
understood in the application. Mr. Jones said that it would be a fire emergency access only and that the
fire department would only have the key.
Mr. Gathman suggested amending Development Standard 4 to read "Six (6) semi-trucks, nine (9)
semi-trailers and six (6) personal vehicles will be allowed to be parked at the site and up to five (5)
storage containers will be located on the site at any one time according to the application materials".
Motion: Amend Development Standard 4 as stated by staff, Moved by Bruce Johnson, Seconded by
Terry Cross. 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.
Commissioner Sparrow noted that it appears four of the 18 letters are residents of the area; however
there may be landowners of the area as well.
Commissioner Johnson said that he respects the applicants proposing this project prior to finding this as
part of the violation process, as they often times see. However he believes that this is a commercial
activity and does not belong there. He added that the sugar beet dump, oil and gas activities, and the
augmentation pond are not a commercial use. He stated that he is struggling with the compatibility issue.
Commissioner Sparrow agreed with Mr. Johnson's comments and is concerned with prime agricultural
land being lost.
Commissioner Smock shared their concerns and said that this is a commercial activity. The sugar beet
dump and oil and gas uses are all over the county. She expressed concern that it is a compatibility issue.
Commissioner Wailes said that he doesn't know if the talk of the PUD has confused the issue but it
appears pretty specific to what this USR is calling for. He believes that this site will only be used as a
parking site and feels that this impact will be minimal.
Commissioner Cross agreed with Mr. Wailes in that we are talking about this USR and not the PUD
today. He added that six (6) trucks are not very many. It is very vague on where the trucks are coming
10
from and the tenant on the property. If the trucks are gone as proposed they won't be around for most of
the time and the traffic will be minimal.
Commissioner Jemiola understands the concerns of the neighbors and added that it would be prudent for
the applicants to consult with those neighbors. It is a fairly large site and doesn't foresee any products
being on site. He added that this proposal could work and would be compatible.
Brad Yatabe, County Attorney, said that you have to look at the application before you, which is the USR
application and not the PUD application. He added that the USR request is being considered under
Section 23-3-40.S in the Weld County Code.
Commissioner Maxey said that he supports private property rights and they should be able to do what
they want within the confines of the law as long as it doesn't harm the neighbors. He added that there
may be compatibility issues and some cases made that this will be harmful. He believes that six (6)
trucks are not that big of an issue when looking at this one case. Mr. Maxey chastised the applicants for
not reaching out to thepublicprior to the hearings because it could circumvent the issues that we are
9
dealing with today. He encouraged the applicants to meet with the neighbors and have a serious
conversation about what may be compromised on prior to the County Commissioner's hearing.
Motion: Forward Case USR14-0084 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 Jordan Jemiola.
Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 5, No =2, Abstain = 0).
Yes: Bruce Sparrow, Jason Maxey, Jordan Jemiola, Michael Wailes, Terry Cross.
No: Bruce Johnson, Joyce Smock.
Absent: Nick Berryman.
Commissioner Sparrow said that he also believes in private property rights but the conflict is does your
use cause your neighbors to lose their benefit. He added that this is a close call but doesn't feel that the
applicant is hurting the neighbors.
Commissioner Smock said that she believes it is a compatibility issue and cited Section 23-2-220.
Commissioner Jemiola said that he believes this is a low intensity use and it can be a support for
agricultural uses. He encouraged the applicants to work with the neighbors and mitigate their concerns.
The Chair called a recess at 6:09 pm. (Jason Maxey left the meeting)
Vice-Chair Jemiola reconvened the hearing at 6:21 pm.
CASE NUMBER: COZ14-0007
APPLICANT: MERLE LUTHER& LUTHER RENTALS 1510 LLC
PLANNER: CHRIS GATHMAN
REQUEST: CHANGE OF ZONE FROM THE C-3 (BUSINESS COMMERCIAL) ZONE
DISTRICT TO THE I-1 (INDUSTRIAL)ZONE DISTRICT.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PART OF LOT 1 SW4SW4 SECTION 10, T5N, R65W AND PART OF LOTS 2 &
5 IN SW4SW4 SECTION 10, T5N, R65W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY,
COLORADO.
LOCATION: SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO EAST HIGHWAY 34 AND APPROXIMATELY
325 FEET EAST OF CHERRY AVENUE.
CASE NUMBER: USR15-0014
APPLICANT: MERLE LUTHER AND LUTHER RENTALS 1510 LLC
PLANNER: CHRIS GATHMAN
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT FOR A MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT FACILITY,
INCLUDING AN OIL AND GAS SUPPORT AND SERVICE FACILITY(PARKING
AND STAGING OF OIL AND GAS TRUCKS AND EQUIPMENT, OFFICE AND
TRUCK AND EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE) IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL)
ZONE DISTRICT. THIS APPLICATION IS BEING PROCESSED IN
11
CONJUNCTION WITH COZ14-0007 (A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE
FROM C-3(BUSINESS COMMERCIAL)TO1-1 INDUSTRIAL.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PART OF LOT 1 SW4SW4 SECTION 10, T5N, R65W AND PART OF LOTS 2 &
5 IN SW4SW4 SECTION 10, T5N, R65W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY,
COLORADO.
LOCATION: SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO EAST STATE HIGHWAY 34 AND
APPROXIMATELY 325 FEET EAST OF CHERRY AVENUE.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, presented Case COZ14-0007, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this
application with the attached conditions of approval.
Chris Gathman, Planning Services, presented Case USR15-0014, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Mr. Gathman noted that a letter was received with concerns of increased
traffic on 18th Street, noise, hours of operation, lights shining on surrounding property and diminished
property values. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the
attached conditions of approval and development standards.
Wayne Howard, Engineering, reported on the existing traffic, access and 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. Ms. Light recommended deleting Condition of Approval
1.6 as it is covered under Development Standard 9. Additionally, she recommended amending
Development Standard 10 by replacing the word "shall" with "should" and amending Development
Standard 9 to replace the last sentence with "The facility shall operate in accordance with Chapter 14
Article I of the Weld County Code". Ms. Light suggested reviewing Development Standard 11 as it talks
about the noise level in the Commercial Zone; however since this is being rezoned to Industrial you may
want to change it to the Industrial Zone level.
Terry Peltes, Energes Services, 33247 Hwy 85, Lucerne, stated that they were under the impression
they could use this site for this type of business and apologized for any violations that were started. He
emphasized that they want to do this the right away. He commented that he has talked to the person who
submitted the letter and they will try to make sure her concerns are taken care of.
Commissioner Sparrow asked if any painting is done on site. Mr. Peltes said that no painting is done on
this site.
Commissioner Smock referred to Greeley's concern regarding the proximity of the school. Mr. Peltes said
that the school is pretty far away and believes that screening may help.
Commissioner Smock clarified if 200 employees will access the site. Mr. Peltes said that they have 400
employees within the company between three (3) different locations and this site will be a home base to
about 150 employees.
Todd Hodges, Todd Hodges Design, 2412 Denby Court, Ft. Collins, Colorado, stated that they
discussed with staff the difference of going to a different level of industrial zoning to make this a use by
right in the 1-2 Zone District. However they chose to go to the I-1 Zone District with a Special Use Permit
where there is more control of uses within that site. He stated that there is a lot of traffic in the area and
other industrial uses in the area so they believe it is compatible with the area.
Mr. Hodges stated that this is a 24 hour operation and would like to amend Development Standard 2 to
emphasize that. He added that the language "may occasionally" may be interpreted differently by other
people. Mr. Gathman said that the hours are important and understands that the oil and gas business
operates 24/7 but there are residential uses directly south of the site and not far west of the site so he
doesn't feel comfortable with changing it to a 24/7 operation.
12
Mr. Hodges said that they would like to request removal of Development Standard 3 as they don't wish to
be limited to the exact types of trucks. He added that they do not intend to change the traffic but they
may have an additional dump truck or water truck or other equipment.
Additionally, he requested amending Development Standard 5 to allow 20 full-time employees.
Mr. Hodges stated he also agreed with staff's recommendation of amending Development Standard 11 to
the Industrial Zone District noise level.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Brad Yatabe, County Attorney, asked the Planning Commission to consider the Change of Zone
application prior to the USR application.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Conditions of Approval and if they are in
agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Motion: Forward Case COZ14-0007 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, Moved by Bruce Sparrow, Seconded by Bruce Johnson.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7).
Yes: Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Michael Wailes, Nick Berryman,
Terry Cross.
Absent: Jason Maxey.
Motion: Delete Condition of Approval 1.B as stated by staff, Moved by Terry Cross, Seconded by
Bruce Sparrow. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion: Amend Development Standard 9 as stated by staff, Moved by Bruce Sparrow, Seconded by
Michael Wailes. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion: Amend Development Standard 10 as stated by staff, Moved by Bruce Johnson, Seconded by
Bruce Sparrow. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Howard asked the Planning Commission to keep in mind that these vehicles access onto a state
highway. Passenger vehicles versus trucks bring different problems and CDOT does provide passenger
car equivalents when determining issues surrounding access onto their roadways. Mr. Howard
recommended not to be specific to the type but to be consistent with what the referral process has been
through which would be 50 passenger vehicles and 30 trucks. He added that then they are not specific to
what type of trucks or pickup trucks.
Mr. Peltes said that they are growing and are getting close to reaching the 50 passenger vehicles. He
added that this would not leave them any room for growth. Mr. Howard cautioned that CDOT may not
waive a right turn lane, which is a safety issue, if there was unlimited access. Mr. Hodges said that the 50
pickup trucks are not the employee's personal vehicles and the employee vehicles are not included in this
count. Commissioner Jemiola thought that it would be prudent to leave the numbers and address it with
the County Commissioners.
Motion: Amend Development Standard 3 to reflect 75 passenger vehicles and 40 other vehicles
used in oil and gas production, Moved by Terry Cross. Motion died due to lack of second motion.
Mr. Hodges said that the traffic study took the 200 total vehicles into account. He added that they are not
changing the 200 number but asking for flexibility of the types of equipment on site. Mr. Hodges stated
that they will talk with the traffic engineer and meet with CDOT and bring the changes to the Board of
County Commissioner hearing.
13
Motion: Amend Development Standard 11 as stated by staff, Moved by Bruce Johnson, Seconded by
Michael Wailes. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion: Amend Development Standard 5 to reflect 20 full-time employees, Moved by Bruce Johnson,
Seconded by Michael Wailes. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion: Amend Development Standard 2 to read "Per the application materials, posted hours of
operation are from 5:30 am to 7:30 pm, 7 days a week. Access to the site (including work vehicles
entering and leaving the site) shall be allowed, as necessary, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week", Moved by
Michael Wailes, Seconded by Bruce Johnson. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the amended Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in
agreement.
'- Motion: Forward Case USR15-0014 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval, Moved by Bruce Sparrow, Seconded by Bruce Johnson.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7).
Yes: Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Michael Wailes, Nick Berryman,
Terry Cross.
Absent: Jason Maxey.
CASE NUMBER: ORDINANCE 2015-12
PRESENTED BY: TOM PARKO
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 2015-12, adding that this is a Coordinated
Planning Agreement between Weld County and the Town of Milliken.
Jordan Jemiola noted that he serves on the Milliken Town Board; however he abstained from the Town
meeting as he had discussions on a county level with this agreement.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Motion: Forward Ordinance 2015-12 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 Sparrow.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7).
Yes: Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Michael Wailes, Nick Berryman,
Terry Cross.
Absent: Jason Maxey.
CASE NUMBER: ORDINANCE 2015-1
PRESENTED BY: TOM PARKO
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.
Tom Parko, Planning Services, presented Ordinance 2015-1, and stated that this has been continued
over the past three months as staff has held three (3) stakeholder meetings with the oil and gas industry.
He said that initially he was directed by the Board of County Commissioners to look at designating
pipelines carrying crude, petroleum derivatives or high pressure gas under Chapter 21 of the Weld
14
County Code. However, after these meetings the Board has agreed to not pursue the 1041 process for
these pipelines and the proposed changes are only being considered to Chapter 23.
Mr. Parko said that the current code states that if the pipelines are regulated, licensed or permitted under
the federal regulations then it would be exempt from obtaining any permit through Weld County. The
proposed code change would remove this language from the Non-1041 process and require a standard
USR permit. He noted that electric transmission lines and substations will still be required to follow the
Non-1041 process.
In response to Commissioner Sparrow's inquiry, Mr. Parko stated that when these pipelines cross state
lines they fall under the Colorado Department of Transportation regulations.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application.
Kim Cooke, Anadarko Petroleum, 1099 18th Street, Denver, Colorado, stated that she also represents
Kerr McGee Gathering. Ms. Cooke stated that Anadarko and Kerr McGee support the draft that has been
proposed. She expressed appreciation to staff for considering their recommendations through the
stakeholder meetings.
Patrick Groom, 822 7th Street, Suite 760, Greeley, stated that he is the attorney representative for
DCP Midstream LP. He also commended staff for the effort they put into making a constructive dialogue
take place between the stakeholder industry and the County. Mr. Groom said that DCP generally
supports the proposed code changes. He clarified that intrastate pipelines can also be federally regulated
pipelines and currently there are FERC lines that do not cross state lines that are not submitted under the
current code to the Planning Commission for approval. Under this proposed code change, those
pipelines will be submitted to the Planning Commission along with interstate pipelines that are regulated
by the Department of Transportation. He believes that there is a question of whether the County has
jurisdiction to regulate those pipelines and it may be addressed potentially in court if there turns out to be
a conflict between a federal permit and the denial of the County of a USR.
Mr. Groom noted that another concern is the provision regarding weed maintenance and noxious weeds.
He added in most pipeline agreements the pipeline company simply installs the pipeline and has no
control over the surface. He believes it is problematic to impose that as either a review or development
standard in the final USR. He added that after further discussion with Michelle Martin, Planning
Department, they both agree that whether this provision is in the code change or not the County
Commissioners can impose that as a development standard and it may be more appropriate to address
that in the actual permitting process.
Commissioner Johnson said that the surface owner is not a party to the USR, therefore they can't be held
responsible for weed control. He believes that it needs to be addressed in the contract agreement
between the pipeline company and the surface owner. Mr. Groom agreed and added that currently the
code requires that the surface owner maintains the surface of noxious weeds. What this does though, is
create a standard and it could lead to the revocation of the USR for a pipeline for conditions beyond the
pipeline control.
Commissioner Sparrow said that there should be a timeframe and can see where the pipeline is
responsible for the seeding and controlling the weeds up to a certain point but 20 years down the road
seems unreasonable.
Commissioner Jemiola said that he is always skeptical of regulations. He asked, from an industry
standpoint, how this makes the process cheaper, faster or how does it improve relations with citizens. Mr.
Groom said that this will not expedite the process as this will add time to the process because it is adding
another layer of review by the Board of County Commissioners. However, he added that it is not an
undue burden on the industry. Mr. Parko said that by moving this to a standard USR there are a lot less
requirements in that process than they had to go through in a Non-1041 process.
15
Commissioner Jemiola asked if it is regulated through FERC or the Department of Transportation, does
the County have any real authority not to allow that pipeline to exist. He added that some of the
complaints brought to this Board and the Board of County Commissioners were complaints driven by
companies threatening eminent domain. He doesn't' believe these changes will help that process at all
because those very same companies will still have the ability to threaten eminent domain. He added that
if we don't have the ability to solve the problem, then what good is more regulation going to do. He
understands that this eases the regulations on the Non-1041 process but as a whole he sees this as a
little more cumbersome. He appreciated the public outreach to the industry.
Mr. Groom said that this proposal is, by far, superior to the county declaring this to be an area of
statewide concern and making this a 1041 process. He added that there is a legal question of whether
the County can impose standards for approval. However, he commented that this proposed procedure is
more preferable than it would be to go under the 1041 process.
Chelsey, EIS Solutions, 9300 East Union Avenue, Suite 930, Denver, Colorado, stated that she
worked through the process, on behalf of Magellan Midstream, and wanted to add their appreciation to
the input and dialogue.
Ms. Martin requested to make a change to Section 23-2-520.6.1 to read "Development standards
governing the location, design, construction and operation of the proposed pipeline".
Ms. Martin noted a typographical error on Page 6 under Section 23-2-480.A.7 and requested to replace
"know" with "known".
Motion: Amend Section 23-2-480.A.7 as stated by staff, Moved by Joyce Smock, Seconded by
Bruce Johnson. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion: Amend Section 23-2-520.6.1 as stated by staff, Moved by Bruce Johnson, Seconded by Joyce
Smock. Motion carried unanimously.
Vice-Chair Jemiola asked if anyone would like to change Section 23-2-480.A.4 or Section 23-2-530.D
regarding maintenance of noxious weeds. Commissioner Johnson believes that it needs to stay because
the landowners are not a party to this process.
Motion: Forward Ordinance 2015-1 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
amendments made and 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, Joyce Smock, Michael Wailes, Nick Berryman, Terry Cross.
No: Jordan Jemiola.
Absent: Jason Maxey.
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 at 8:55 pm.
adjourned
Respectfully submitted,
Digitally signed by Kristine Ranslem
Date: 2015.06.19 15:28:51 -06'00'
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
16
Hello