HomeMy WebLinkAbout20143027.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
J 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: Benjamin Hansford, Bruce Sparrow, Jason Maxey, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Michael
Wailes, Nick Berryman, Terry Cross.
Absent/Excused: Bruce Johnson.
Also Present: Kim Ogle, Chris Gathman, Diana Aungst, Department of Planning Services; Don Carroll
and Janet Lundquist, Department of Public Works; Lauren Light, Department of Health; Brad Yatabe,
County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Motion: Approve the September 2, 2014 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, Moved by
Joyce Smock, Seconded by Bruce Sparrow. Motion passed unanimously.
ir CASE NUMBER: USR14-0023
APPLICANT: COULSON EXCAVATING COMPANY, C/O VARRA COMPANIES, INC.
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT FOR A
MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING OPEN PIT MINING
(SANDS, GRAVELS AND STONES), AND MATERIALS PROCESSING
INCLUDING CONCRETE OR ASPHALT BATCH PLANTS AND/OR
RECYCLING OPERATIONS IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT B REC EXEMPT RE-3197; PART NE4 SECTION 10, T5N, R65W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO EAST 16TH STREET, WEST OF AND ADJACENT TO
FERN AVENUE.
SrKim Ogle, Planning Services, requested that this case be continued to the October 7th Planning
Commission so that the applicant can meet the 30 day Mineral Notice requirement.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
continuation. No one wished to speak.
/"` Motion: Continue Case USR14-0023 to the October 7, 2014 Planning Commission hearing,
•
Moved by Nick Berryman, Seconded by Benjamin Hansford.
(OmIY w Ca.! /c 2014-3027
/0 I-I`)
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8).
Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Bruce Sparrow, Jason Maxey, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Michael
Wailes, Nick Berryman, Terry Cross.
$' Brad Yatabe, County Attorney, stated that he provided a handout regarding the selected sections
of the Weld County Code purely for reference in terms of looking at the criteria to consider for these
cases.
The Chair read the case into the record:
CASE NUMBER: USR14-0027
APPLICANT: MICHAEL DECKER, C/O MILLER HFI, LLC
PLANNER: Diana Aungst
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for Mineral Resource
• Development facilities including Oil and Gas Support and Service (an oil and
gas roust-a-bout to include a 16,500 square foot shop, parking for commercial
and employee vehicles) in the A (Agricultural)Zone District
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT B REC EXEMPT RE-4174; PART W2NW4 SECTION 1,T3N, R67W of the
6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 38; approximately 0.75 mileS west of CR 25.
Mr. Yatabe said that this case was heard by the Planning Commission on August 19th by five (5)
members of the Planning Commission. At that time, there was a motion to forward this case with a
recommendation of approval. That motion failed and subsequently there was no additional motion
made to recommend denial. That case was forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a
Non-Recommendation at their September 3rd hearing. In this case, noting that the vote was not a tie
vote, the County Commissioners are seeking clarity on that as they depend on the recommendation
coming from the Planning Commission. Therefore. the County Commissioners referred the case back
to the Planning Commission with the same 5 members present and that no new evidence would be
reviewed.
Motion: Forward Case USR14-0027 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation
of denial Moved by Bruce Sparrow, Seconded by Joyce Smock.
The Chair asked Commissioners Sparrow and Smock to amend their motion so to include a reason for
denial since the staff recommendation is for approval.
Commissioner Sparrow stated that he didnt think Platteville had dealt with this case properly since it is
bordered on 2 sides by Platteville. He added that he heard that Platteville was interested in annexing
this property and until that process is settled he is not in favor of it.
Commissioner Smock cited Section 23-2-220.A.3 as it is incompatible with the surrounding uses.
Mr. Yatabe referred to Commissioner Sparrows comments and understands the verbal reasoning;
however he asked that Mr. Sparrow cite a specific criteria for denial. Commissioner Sparrow said that
he cant point to a County Code but feels that Platteville should have the ability to address this case
first.
Mr. Yatabe said that the criteria that the Planning Commission judges cases whether to recommend
approval or denial is based on a finite set of particular criteria as laid out in the Code. Mr. Yatabe
asked Mr. Sparrow if he shares Commissioner Smocks opinion as to the compatibility issue. Mr.
Sparrow believes that the road was put in for commercial use and doesnt disagree with the
compatibility as much as he would like to see the City of Platteville deal with it.
Commissioner Sparrow amended his motion by citing Section 23-2-220.A.3 that the site is not
compatible with surrounding land uses. Commissioner Smock seconded the motion.
Mr. Yatabe said that since a motion was made and seconded and there has since been an amendment
to the original motion, he asked that they vote on the amendment to the motion first. Secondly, he
asked that they vote on the recommendation itself.
Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 3, No = 2, Abstain = 3).
Yes: Bruce Sparrow, Jason Maxey, Joyce Smock.
No: Michael Wailes, Terry Cross.
Abstain: Benjamin Hansford, Jordan Jemiola, Nick Berryman.
Commissioner Wailes voted no with the same opinion as stated on August 19th.
Commissioner Cross voted no with the same opinion as stated on August 19th.
•
Motion: Forward Case USR14-0027 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions
of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of denial
citing Section 23-2-220.A.3, Moved by Bruce Sparrow, Seconded by Joyce Smock.
Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 3, No = 2, Abstain = 3).
Yes: Bruce Sparrow, Jason Maxey, Joyce Smock.
No: Michael Wailes, Terry Cross.
Abstain: Benjamin Hansford, Jordan Jemiola, Nick Berryman.
The Chair called a short recess at 1-51 pm and reconvened the hearing at 2-00 pm.
�' CASE number: PUDZ14-0002
APPLICANT: GODDARD INVESTMENTS LLC
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A CHANGE OF ZONE REQUEST FROM THE A (AGRICULTURAL)ZONE DISTRICT TO
PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) FOR 16 RESIDENTIAL LOTS WITH
ESTATE ZONE USES ALONG WITH ONE (1)ACRE OF OPEN SPACE AND
A 0.06 ACRE OUTLOT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT B REC EXEMPT RECX12-0025; ParT N2SE4 section 8, t2n, r67w of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 17; 0.25 miles north of CR 22.
Y Chris Gathman, Planning Services, presented Case PUDZ14-0002, reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. Mr. Gathman noted that 2 letters were received from a surrounding
property owner concerned with some access easements that cross his property. Mr. Gathman said
that the accesses the letter referred to are not part of the proposed PUD and has clarified that with the
surrounding property owner. Additionally, the surrounding property owner is requesting a 300 foot
landscape buffer. The PUD will comply with the E (Estate) Zone District requirements with the
exception that one of the lots (Lot 16) will be less than 2.5 acres in size. Additionally, the applicants are
requesting waiver from the 15% common open space requirement for this PUD. One (1) acre is
proposed as open space for this PUD. Mr. Gathman indicated that staff is recommending that the
proposed drainage easements along the west side of the PUD be designated as open space lots. This
would bring the amount of open space up to 7-8% of the total site. Staff is recommending this and feels
that this is a reasonable compromise based on the fact that this PUD is proposing more than 9 lots, is
adjacent to an existing urban scale subdivision (Enchanted Hills) and borders the Town of Firestone at
the very northwestern tip of the property. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval
of this application with the attached conditions of approval.
f" Janet Lundquist, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access and drainage conditions and
the requirements on site.
D' Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements,
on-site dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
fr Sheri Lockman, 36501 CR 41, Eaton, Colorado. stated that the applicant is requesting a 16
residential lot subdivision that essentially follows the Estate Zone District. Ms. Lockman said that the
applicant has chosen not to plan for the 15 percent requirement of open space. She added that they
debated the need for open space and decided that any additional space would in the end not be used
by the homeowners and become an issue to maintain the open space. Additionally. she recognized
that this site is adjacent to another subdivision but it is an older subdivision with large lots and
Firestone has not built out to this location. She emphasized that they are worried that there will be
open space that will be a burden to maintain. She added that they would rather see this open space
utilized for pasture for the individuals that own the lots.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application.
Cheryl Susbauer, 1041 CR 17, stated that she purchased the property and enjoys the peace and view
of the area. She wants to ensure that her property will remain agricultural as she does have animals
on her property. Additionally, she is concerned that the 500 feet buffer is still too close to her property.
The Chair stated that Ms. Susbauer is able to maintain her animals on her land as it is agricultural
zoned property and will remain agricultural.
r Ms. Lockman reassured Ms. Susbauer that these proposed lots are very similar in zoning to her
lot. She added that these proposed lots will have a little more strict zoning but for the most part they
will be very similar. With regard to buffering between the two lots, they are like uses and the 2
residences will be similar. The access between those lots will be specifically for oil and gas and these
potential landowners are not allowed to use that access.
Ms. Lockman requested that Condition of Approval 1.D be removed as they understand the
construction standards set by the Mountain View Fire District and added that those standards will be
met and requested that that condition be placed at the Final Plat Stage.
• Additionally, Ms. Lockman requested to remove Condition of Approval 1.B which refers to entering into
an agreement with the propertys mineral owners or show evidence that an adequate attempt has been
made. Ms. Lockman said that they have worked closely with Encana representatives to ensure that all
of their concerns are met and has submitted emails for review. She added that Encana has indicated
that they will not enter into an agreement with them as they were told by Encanas Legal Counsel that
they will not support any subdivision because they are opposed to the State Law requiring that they
enter into separate agreements with each property owner.
Ms. Lockman referred to Condition of Approval 1.E.9 regarding open space and requested that it be
removed.
The Chair said that Condition of Approval 1.B states that an attempt should be made and feels that
with the submitted emails that item has been addressed.
> Motion: Delete Condition of Approval 1.D, Motion by Benjamin Hansford, Seconded by Jordan
Jemiola. Motion carried unanimously.
With regard to Condition of Approval 1.E.9, Commissioner Maxey said that the Code is here for a
reason and staff does a very good job with mitigating these issues and coming to a compromise.
However he has a little difficulty when this is proposing a one or two percent open space. He added
that with staffs suggestion of allowing the drainage easements to be used as open space is a valid
compromise as it still does get to the 15 percent open space requirement. Mr. Maxey understands the
applicants point; however it seems that these drainage easements would then be of the benefit for a
couple lots, whereas the community couldnt go to this open space to ride their horse if they choose not
to ride it on their property. Ms. Lockman said that the need is questionable but whether that outweighs
the weed maintenance. cost to irrigate and the issues that come with maintaining that area and feels
that the practical use for this is pasture.
Commissioner Jemiola said that he understands with 4 acre lots there is enough space for recreational
activities. He asked if there no open space to take care of then what is the purpose of an HOA. Ms.
Lockman said that the HOA maintains the internal roads, design criteria of the homes, agreements with
the County to maintain county roads.
W" Tommy Ray, Panorama Estates owner, stated that they did discuss open space quite a bit
throughout this process. He said that he owns a 3 acre lot and added that there is enough space that
he doesnt go to a public park. He would like to see one homeowner own it and be able to graze his
horses or cattle on it to maintain it. He doesnt think the burden should be that of all the landowners but
of that one owner to keep their animals on.
The Chair asked Mr. Gathman what staffs opinion is with regard to this request and the designation of
the PUD and the open space and why it is required. Mr. Gathman said that essentially you are
creating a community and that a park is usually associated with these communities. Staff recommends
that there should be some open space that the community should be allowed to use. He added that
staff has compromised with the applicant to include these drainage easements and bringing the total to
7 or 8 percent of the required 15 percent open space.
Commissioner Wailes said that each lot may be used differently, some may have horses or cattle and
others might have grass. After hearing the concerns of the neighbor, he feels that having the property
under a single owner might better serve the neighbors since there will be more control. The Chair
clarified that the surrounding property owner does not live next to this site and that the applicant is
referring to the drainage easements located on the western portion of the property.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission if they wish to amend or remove the Condition of Approval
1.E.g. No one wished to make any changes; therefore Condition of Approval 1.E.9 will remain.
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 PUDZ14-0002 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
amended Conditions of Approval with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval.
Moved by Jordan Jemiola. Seconded by Bruce Sparrow.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes= 8).
Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Bruce Sparrow, Jason Maxey, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Michael
Wailes, Nick Berryman., Terry Cross.
r CASE number: USR14-0035
APPLICANT: RURAL LAND CO INC, C/O AKA ENERGY GROUP
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for an Oil and Gas
Support and Service Facility (Natural Gas& Condensate Separator facility and
Compressor facility) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: S2/NE4 SECTION 31. T4N, R65W of the 6th P.M.. Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: Approximately 1,000 feet north of CR 38 and approximately 1 mile west of CR 39.
r Chris Gathman, Planning Services, presented Case USR14-0035, 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.
0" Don Carroll, Engineering, reported on the existing traffic, access and drainage conditions and the
requirements on site.
0 Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements,
on-site dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
°' Gregg Wurtz, Aka Energy Group, 65 Mercado Drive, Durango, Colorado, stated that it is an 80
acre parcel that they purchased and added that they will impact 8 acres of the total 80 acre parcel.
The liquids will be stored on site and transported off site by truck. The site will operate 24/7 but it will
only be manned during daylight hours.
0 The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application.
Steve Ludwig, 17978 CR 39, asked the Planning Commission to consider the residents that live near
this property as there are several residences that are very near to this facility. The houses located
west of this proposed facility are surrounded on three sides by compression plants. He recommended
that this facility be moved one-half mile north. He cited concerns regarding air pollution. light pollution,
noise pollution, oil spill and health standards.
Dave Ludwig, 18010 CR 38, stated that he lives approximately one-half mile south of this property.
He stated that he is neither for nor against this proposal. He has had good relationships with Kerr
McGee and PDC (Petroleum Development Corporation): however his concerns are in regard to
lighting. noise, traffic, and air quality along with the contributing pollution from the existing surrounding
facilities.
0- Joe Knaub, 17915 CR 39, stated that she has land across from this site and it has been in their
family for three generations. She said that the existing traffic is terrible and is concerned with the
added traffic.
0' Mr. Wurtz stated that the noise was considered when they designed the facility and that is why
they chose electric compression. He added that they will have a building around each of the
compressors to help reduce the noise as well. Additionally, because it is electric compression, there
will be no air pollution. The air will be captured and brought back into the system through a closed
loop system. With regard to the concern of oil spills, Mr. Wurtz stated that they will comply with all the
requirements including the submission of the SPCC Plan along with internal policies. He said that they
did look at surrounding residences and tried to stay outside of the existing pipelines and felt this
location was the best place. There will be some security lighting and they will be pointed down as
required by the county code.
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.
r Motion: Forward Case USR14-0035 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation
of approval, Moved by Benjamin Hansford, Seconded by Jordan Jemiola.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8).
Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Bruce Sparrow, Jason Maxey, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Michael
Wailes, Nick Berryman, Terry Cross.
Commissioner Smock expressed to the audience that they do listen to their comments and
encouraged them to attend the Board of County Commissioner hearing regarding this case.
Commissioner Maxey concurred with Commission Smocks comments and added that the development
standards and conditions of approvals mitigate many of these concerns.
The Chair called a recess at 3:56 pm and reconvened the hearing at 4:12 pm.
0- CASE NUMBER: USR14-0042
APPLICANT: ANADARKO E&P COMPANY LP, C/O KERR-MCGEE GATHERING, LLC
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT FOR A NON-
1041 MAJOR FACILITY OF A PUBLIC UTILITY (20-INCH HIGH PRESSURE
NATURAL GAS PIPELINE) APPROXIMATELY SIX (6) MILES LONG
CONNECTING INTO THE PIPELINE PERMITTED UNDER USR13-0035 (24-
INCH DIAMETER HIGH PRESSURE GAS PIPELINE) NEAR THE VOLLMAR
COMPRESSOR STATION TO THE ST. VRAIN COMPRESSOR STATION
(USR14-0013) IN THE A(AGRICULTURAL)ZONE DISTRICT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: THE PIPELINE WILL BE SIX (6) MILES LONG AND RUN IN A NORTH BY
NORTHWESTERLY DIRECTION. THE PIPELINE WILL CROSS MULTIPLE
SECTIONS INCLUDING SECTIONS 1, 2, 11 AND 12, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH,
RANGE 67 WEST AND SECTIONS 15, 22, 27, 34, 35 AND 36 IN TOWNSHIP
3 NORTH, RANGE 67 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. WELD COUNTY.
LOCATION: GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF CR 25, WEST OF CR 22; NORTH OF CR 19;AND
EAST OF CR 34.
r Kim Ogle, Planning Services, presented Case USR14-0042, 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.
Don Carroll, Engineering, reported on the existing traffic, access and drainage conditions and the
requirements on site.
r Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements,
on-site dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
lir Nathan Keiser, Anadarko Petroleum, said that he is available for any questions.
Commissioner Berryman asked if the easements have been acquired. Mr. Keiser said that they have
acquired all of the easements for this route.
Commissioner Maxey asked how long it would take to install this length of pipeline. Mr. Keiser
indicated that most of the pipeline is constructed as there are other pipelines located in the same
easement. He said that they are waiting on approval to begin pressure testing the line and added that
it will not be in operation until all of the compression sites are up and running.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application.
Richie Pyeatt, 13895 CR 21, stated that he has two farms that these pipelines are going through. He
said that he wants to know for sure if the pipelines in the ground are the ones that we are speaking
about today.
10' Mr. Keiser said that this is the same pipeline that we are talking about today.
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.
r• Motion: Approve Case USR14-0042 along with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards, Moved by Bruce Sparrow, Seconded by Michael Wailes.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8).
Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Bruce Sparrow, Jason Maxey, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Michael
Wailes, Nick Berryman, Terry Cross.
'CASE NUMBER: USR14-0037
APPLICANT: RODNEY&TAMMY DE FOE
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT FOR A
HOME BUSINESS (DEFOE'S ROOFING COMPANY) AND FOR
ACCESSORY BUILDINGS WITH GROSS FLOOR AREA LARGER THAN
FOUR PERCENT(4%) OF THE TOTAL LOT AREA PER BUILDING ON LOTS
IN AN APPROVED OR RECORDED SUBDIVISION PLAT OR LOTS PART
OF A MAP OR PLAN FIELD PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF ANY REGULATIONS
CONTROLLING SUBDIVISIONS IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE
DISTRICT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 3 BLOCK 62 2ND ARISTOCRAT RANCHETTES; BEING PART OF
SECTION 27, T2N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO GOOD AVENUE, NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO
BARLEY AVENUE AND EAST OF HART STREET.
fist' Brad Yatabe, County Attorney, noted that the applicant is not present today. He recommends that
the Planning Commission consider continuing this case so that the applicant is present. Alternatively,
he offered an option to move forward with staff presentation and see if there is any public comment;
however that does not allow you to ask any questions of the applicant. Kim Ogle, Planning Services,
stated that staff would prefer that this case move forward since it is a violation case and staff has not
received any opposition to this case. He added that the applicant was notified of this hearing.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application. No one from the public responded.
Commissioner Hansford stated that he knows the applicant and has had a working relationship with
them but feels that he can be fair and impartial in this case. The Planning Commission had no issues
with Mr. Hansford remaining on the Advisory Board.
The Planning Commission discussed the continuance and felt that this case should be continued so
that the applicant can attend the hearing.
Motion: Continue Case USR14-0037 to the October 7, 2014 Planning Commission hearing,
Moved by Benjamin Hansford, Seconded by Jordan Jemiola.
L___ -
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8).
Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Bruce Sparrow, Jason Maxey, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Michael
Wailes, Nick Berryman, Terry Cross.
r CASE number: USR14-0041
APPLICANT: SCOTT KOSKIE, C/O WELD COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
PLANNER: Diana Aungst
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a mineral resource
development including open pit mining (sands, gravels and stones), and
materials processing including stockpiling, crushing and screening, recycling
operations, and importing of raw and recycled materials in the A (Agricultural)
Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: E2 SECTION 12, T10N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 120 and approximately one-half mile west of CR 23.
Diana Aungst, Planning Services, presented Case USR14-0041, 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.
0 Don Carroll, Public Works, 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.
Clay Kimmi, Public Works, stated that this site is needed as they are running out of their gravel
resources. He added that he believes the life of this facility will be less than 10 years.
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 USR14-0041 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation
of approval, Moved by Jordan Jemiola, Seconded by Benjamin Hansford.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8).
Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Bruce Sparrow, Jason Maxey, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Michael
Wailes. Nick Berryman, Terry Cross.
" CASE number: USR14-0038
APPLICANT: MELVIN AND JULIE ELLIS, CIO SCOTT MCBRIDE
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 (RV and boat storage, an office
building, and a 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 in the A (Agricultural)
Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT A REC EXEMPT RE-5078; PART E2NW4/W2NE4 SECTION 30, T6N,
R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 27 and approximately 0.3 miles south of CR 66.
it" Diana Aungst, Planning Services, presented Case USR14-0038, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Ms. Aungst noted that staff has received a petition signed by 27
surrounding property owners and three letters that outline objections to this request. The concerns are
in regard to traffic, lights, decrease in property value, and obstruction to views to the west. She added
that the applicant is proposing a landscaping plan to mitigate these concerns. The Department of
Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached conditions of approval
and development standards.
*- Don Carroll, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access and drainage conditions and the
requirements on site.
fr Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements,
on-site dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Scott McBride, 2200 San Miguel Drive, Severance, Colorado, stated that they are looking to serve
the Greeley and Windsor areas. They intend to focus on serving the high end user and added that
they will provide water and a dump station for RVs. All vehicles will be licensed, registered and
insured. Additionally, there will be an onsite caretaker of the property and the access will have a
controlled access keypad.
In 2013 this site was irrigated farmland; however in 2014 it went through a dry-up covenant and was
taken out of production for primary agricultural land. Mr. McBride stated that he went door to door and
was not able to meet with 2 or 3 of the surrounding landowners within 500 feet. The feedback from the
majority of the landowners was that it was a better option than other industrial uses. There was one
house for sale and he mentioned that he was working on a lease to own option and Mr. McBride asked
that they pass along his proposal to the new potential owners.
He does recognize the surrounding property owner concerns and said that this property was for sale
since 2012 with or without water. It was under contract prior to them for development of a crushing
facility of rock and asphalt. He said that they will be planting trees with shrubs around the perimeter of
the site to provide an attractive view from the outside. In response to concern with hours of operation
they have limited the hours to 6 am to 10 pm from April to September and from 6 am to 8 pm during
the winter and fall months. He added that after those hours it will need to be by appointment only. It is
a seasonal business with low traffic impact.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application.
Kent Schraeder, 31552 CR 27, said that the demand for RV storage does not justify the compatibility.
He added that the close proximity to residential homes makes it incompatible. Additionally, he is
concerned with the light and noise pollution and traffic.
r Jeff Cook, 12691 CR 64.5, said that he is the closest resident to this facility and doesnt believe the
landscaping will be sufficient to block the lights from his property.
The Chair said that if there is a landscaping plan required, the applicant needs to comply with it. If the
landscaping is not completed it may be brought before the Board of County Commissioners for
revocation.
r Judy Firestein, 30951 CR 27. stated that she is opposed to this project because it is not compatible
with surrounding land uses. She is concerned with safety and the impaired visibility to the entrance
and exit of the facility because of a small hill and the railroad tracks. She is also concerned with the
amount of traffic as well as the long term plans of the facility and this corridor becoming more
industrial.
r Kathy Schraeder, 31552 CR 27, said that light industrial is not compatible with the agricultural
neighborhood. She is concerned that if this is approved that more industrial businesses will be located
here.
r Lisa Antuna. 12598 CR 64.5. said that they have seen so much change in the last 35 years since
they have moved out there. She believes that opening the neighborhood for industrial will open up
more industrial businesses.
Commissioner Maxey asked Ms. Antuna what the mining was like that since she has lived there for a
while. Ms. Antuna said that it was horrendous with the noise but now that it has been reclaimed it is
fine.
Commissioner Maxey asked if there is any mitigating factors that would help make this request
acceptable. Ms. Antuna said that traffic patterns could be changed but she is concerned that by
changing this zoning it is opening the door for so much more industrial.
The Chair clarified that this is not a change of zone but a Use by Special review, which if approved,
allows the landowner to operate a business. He reassured her that the zoning will remain agricultural.
' Gary Firestein said that he owns property within 25 feet of this proposal. He expressed that he is
opposed to this facility.
r Melvin Max Ellis, 1616 Fairacre Drive, Greeley, Colorado, stated that he currently owns this
property and has owned this property for 13 years. He added that they have had this listed several
times and has only received two offers for a commercial interest. He said that when someone has
looked at this for residential property the railroad creates a major problem.
Jeff Cook stated that he is concerned with a decrease in property values. He added that there are
no offers because it has been tied up in other situations.
Commissioner Sparrow asked how often the railroad comes through. Mr. Cook said that it doesnt
happen very often and the railroad was there first.
r Les Gelvin, 40719 Remington Road, Ft. Collins, Colorado, stated that he is a real estate broker
and reiterated that they look at property values and the highest and best use of properties. He agrees
that this property would not likely be sold and used for residential. He believes that if this request does
not go through it will be brought before you as a commercial property again.
r Mr. Schraeder said that he knows a couple who want to buy this property and build a home but
they cant because this is tied up.
Mr. McBride explained the material he gave to the surrounding property owners when he visited
with them and provided a copy to the Planning Commission. He included his phone number on the
information given to them and has not received any letters or phone calls.
Mr. McBride said that there was a mention of bribery. He stated that he noticed RVs on their property
and offered them the use of the dumpstation. Also, he offered storage space to use at a discounted
rate and felt that was a neighborly thing to do. He added if that is bribery he apologized.
Mr. McBride said that he recognizes light is an issue. The new lighting technology reduces a lot of light
pollution. He can provide photometrics that shows the lighting does not leave the property and is open
• to further suggestions.
Mr. McBride mentioned that when County Road 23 was under construction it redirected a lot of traffic
to County Road 27.
Commissioner Sparrow asked if the lighting will be on all night or can they be controlled. Mr. McBride
said he has asked his contractor to see if he could control the lights and believes that they can
accommodate those concerns.
Commissioner Maxey asked to clarify the hours of operation. Mr. McBride replied that they have
amended their hours from April to September from 6 am to 10 pm and 6 am to 8 pm in the winter and
fall months.
Commissioner Maxey asked with the additional traffic is there any improvements that could help with
safety. Mr. Carroll said that high traffic numbers trigger different requirements. There will be a Road
Improvements Agreement for this site and added that they will evaluate the numbers for a year and if
they are warranted, the numbers will trigger improvements according to the agreement.
Ms. Aungst recommended amending Development Standard 4 to reflect the amended hours of
operation. The amended Development Standard 4 would read "The hours of operation are 6 am to 10
pm April 1st through September 30th and 6 am to 8 pm from October 1st through March 31st."
Motion: Amend Development Standard 4 as stated by staff, Moved by Benjamin Hansford,
Seconded by Bruce Sparrow. 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 Jemiola said it may be the highest use but not the best use of the property and feels
that it is not compatible with the surrounding property.
Commissioner Berryman believes that the applicant has supplied the necessary information to go
through this process and complies with Weld County Code. The issue comes down to compatibility.
Speaking as a Realtor he does believes that industrial development will be in this corridor. He added
that the existing residential development has a strong sense of community.
Commissioner Maxey said that traffic is a concern and thinks that future plans could help this out. He
said that this is the most well thought out plan and most screened plan he has seen for an RV facility.
He believes that the applicant has done a lot of due diligence with the surrounding property owners.
Commissioner Wailes talked about compatibility issues and mitigating them and added that he
believes the applicant has gone to great length with mitigating those issues.
Commissioner Cross said that the railroad doesnt appear to affect the traffic. He doesnt believe in this
case that compatibility is an issue and the traffic doesnt seem to be an issue with him. Its not the ideal
site but Planning Staff recommended approval and believes that this site is compatibile.
Commissioner Sparrow said the applicant has tried working with the surrounding property owners and
he would much rather prefer this facility to the dairy.
Commissioner Smock said that compatibility seems to be an issue but concurs with Commissioner
Sparrow and said that this is a much better option than other possibilities.
Commissioner Hansford doesnt believe that it is a big compatibility issue and added that there is
engineered lighting today that focuses light and keeps it from going onto surrounding property.
r Motion: Forward Case USR14-0038 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of denial, Moved by Jordan Jemiola and he cited Section 23-2-220.A.3 for his reason
for denial. There was no second motion; therefore the motion died.
Motion: Forward Case USR14-0038 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval, Moved by Michael Wailes, Seconded by Benjamin Hansford.
Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes= 7, No = 1, Abstain = 0).
Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Bruce Sparrow, Jason Maxey, Joyce Smock, Michael Wailes, Nick
Berryman, Terry Cross.
No: Jordan Jemiola.
0 Brad Yatabe, County Attorney, stated that Case USR14-0037 was previously continued since the
applicant was not present. Since the Planning Commission took action on this matter earlier today and
we are in the same session, there needs to be a motion for reconsideration. If there is a motion for
reconsideration and it is seconded and the vote prevails then the Planning Commission will be back in
the position of reconsidering the motion to continue.
Motion: Reconsider hearing Case USR14-0037, Moved by Jordan Jemiola, Seconded by Nick
Berryman.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8).
Yes: Benjamin Hansford, Bruce Sparrow, Jason Maxey, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Michael
Wailes, Nick Berryman, Terry Cross.
Mr. Yatabe stated that now the motion is on the table for continuance and now you need to take a vote
to hear this case. He clarified that a yes vote would be to continue this case and a no vote would allow
this case to be heard today.
The Chair asked if there was any discussion to continue this item. Seeing there is no discussion to
continue this case, the Chair called for the vote.
Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 0, No = 8, Abstain = 0).
No: Benjamin Hansford, Bruce Sparrow, Jason Maxey, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Michael Wailes,
Nick Berryman, Terry Cross.
Benjamin Hansford left the meeting at 6:59 pm.
The Chair read the case into record:
CASE NUMBER: USR14-0037
•
APPLICANT: RODNEY&TAMMY DE FOE
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT FOR A
HOME BUSINESS (DEFOE'S ROOFING COMPANY) AND FOR
ACCESSORY BUILDINGS WITH GROSS FLOOR AREA LARGER THAN
FOUR PERCENT(4%) OF THE TOTAL LOT AREA PER BUILDING ON LOTS
IN AN APPROVED OR RECORDED SUBDIVISION PLAT OR LOTS PART
OF A MAP OR PLAN FIELD PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF ANY REGULATIONS
CONTROLLING SUBDIVISIONS IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE
DISTRICT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 3 BLOCK 62 2ND ARISTOCRAT RANCHETTES; BEING PART OF
SECTION 27, T2N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO GOOD AVENUE, NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO
BARLEY AVENUE AND EAST OF HART STREET.
® Kim Ogle, Planning Services, presented Case USR14-0037, 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.
r Don Carroll, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access and drainage conditions and the
requirements on site.
q s to
r Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements,
on-site dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan.
Rodney De Foe, 15814 Good Avenue, Ft. Lupton, stated that staff explained the site very well.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application. No one wished to speak. Mr. Yatabe noted for the record that when this case was
originally called up there was no public who wished to speak at that time as well.
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 USR14-0037 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval, Moved by Jordan Jemiola, Seconded by Joyce Smock.
Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 7, No = 0, Abstain = 1).
Yes: Bruce Sparrow, Jason Maxey, Jordan Jemiola, Joyce Smock, Michael Wailes, Nick Berryman,
Terry Cross.
Abstain: Benjamin Hansford.
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 7:08 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Digitally signed by Kristine
y2t Ranslem
Date: 2014.09.24 07:34:19-06'00'
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
Hello