HomeMy WebLinkAbout20143822.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
D' 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: Bruce Johnson.
Also Present: Kim Ogle, Chris Gathman and Tom Parko, Department of Planning Services; Wayne
Howard and Jennifer Petrik, Department of Engineering; Elizabeth Relford and Janet Lundquist,
Department of Public Works; Lauren Light, Department of Health; Brad Yatabe, County Attorney, and
Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
D` Motion: Approve the November 18, 2014 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, Moved by
Bruce Sparrow, Seconded by Michael Wailes. Motion passed unanimously.
Do'CASE NUMBER: USR14-0045
APPLICANT: BARTS VENTURE LLC,CIO RANDY KNEEBONE
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR ANY
USE PERMITTED AS A USE BY RIGHT, AN ACCESSORY USE, OR A USE
BY SPECIAL REVIEW IN THE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ZONE
DISTRICTS (TRUCKING AND TRUCK REPAIR SHOP FOR KNEEBONE
EXCAVATING & TRUCKING COMPANY ALONG WITH OUTSIDE
EQUIPMENT, VEHICLE STORAGE AND STAGING; AND RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE, BOAT AND CAMPER TRAILER STORAGE), 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: PART SW4 SECTION 22, 1N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 19,0.5 MILES SOUTH OF CR 8.
Commissioner Hansford stated that he was not in attendance at the last hearing where this case was
presented; therefore he would like to recuse himself for this case.
60mmurucQ iUYfj
/ 2- /0 --/L1- 2014-3822
' Kim Ogle, Planning Services, presented Case USR14-0045, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Mr. Ogle noted that since the continuance from the last hearing, the
applicant has removed the RV component from the application and has amended the site plan to move
the residence from the south end of the property to the north end which will be located closer to the
existing residences. Additionally, the proposed shop is located to the south end of the property, as
requested by the surrounding property owners. The Department of Planning Services recommends
approval of this application with the attached conditions of approval and development standards.
0' Jennifer Petrik, Engineering, recommended amending Condition of Approval 1.J.9 by removing the
second to last sentence "If the right-of-way cannot be verified, it shall be dedicated." Additionally, she
requested to amend Condition of Approval 1.J.11 to read "Show on the map the approved tracking
control". Ms. Petrik also suggested amending Condition of Approval 1.J.13 to read "Show 60 foot
adequate turning radius and tie into County Road 19 at the same grade."
D" Lauren Light, Environmental Health, stated that they have no concerns with removing the RV
component.
P' Randy Kneebone, 1384 Reliance Court, Erie, Colorado, said that since the last hearing he has met
with Mr. Barry Maars who lives directly north of the property. He added that he has amended his site
plan to be more compatible with the surrounding neighbors.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application.
Barry Maars, 2528 CR 19, stated that he lives directly north of the proposed site. He thanked Mr.
Kneebone for his willingness to work with him. He added that with the amended plan he feels that the
potential impacts have been minimized as much as possible and are satisfied with this plan. Mr.
Maars asked the Planning Commission to consider eventual numbers with this project. He has no
problem with what Mr. Kneebone is proposing for equipment; however this USR stays with the property
and is concerned that if left open those numbers might increase with a potential different business in
the future.
The Chair asked what maximum limit he would be satisfied with. Mr. Maars said that he would be
agreeable to 10 over the road trucks and then possibly a 10 percent increase in equipment.
" Mr. Kneebone said that he would agree to the 10 truck limit. Currently he has 35 pieces of
excavation equipment of which 90% is not typically on site. After further clarification on the breakdown
of number of trucks and trailers, he requested 10 trucks and 10 trailers along with the excavation
equipment. Commissioner Sparrow asked if it would be easier to limit the parking to a certain number
of acres. Ms. Petrik said that it could be limited to the number of acres; however it would affect the
drainage on site as the impervious area is larger and might require additional drainage requirements.
Commissioner Maxey asked if this could be worked out before the Board of County Commissioner
hearing. Mr. Ogle replied yes.
Ms. Petrik noted that at the last hearing a Condition of Approval 1.J was added to read "Drainage
analysis is required by a Colorado Professional Engineer to determine a design to maintain historic
flows on site". Since the RV component is no longer part of this application, Ms. Petrik recommended
that this condition no longer be required.
Brad Yatabe, County Attorney, stated that since it was voted on at the last hearing it should be voted
on to remove that requirement as well.
Motion: Delete Condition of Approval 1.J as was amended at the last hearing, Moved by Nick
Berryman, Seconded by Bruce Sparrow. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion: Amend Condition of Approval 1.J.9 as stated by staff, Moved by Bruce Sparrow, Seconded
by Michael Wailes. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion: Amend Condition of Approval 1.J.11 as stated by staff, Moved by Nick Berryman,
Seconded by Bruce Sparrow. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion: Amend Condition of Approval 1.J.13 as stated by staff, Moved by Bruce Sparrow,
Seconded by Michael Wailes. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Yatabe recommended that since the RV, boat and camper trailer component have been withdrawn
from the application that it also be deleted in the staff report.
Motion: Delete all references regarding RV, boat and camper trailers from the staff report, Moved by
Bruce Sparrow, Seconded by Joyce Smock. 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 USR14-0045 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 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.
Ds°CASE NUMBER: PUDZ14-0003
APPLICANT: SCHRAGE LIVING TRUST
PLANNER:Chris Gathman
REQUEST: Request for a Minor Amendment to PZ-1079(The Meadow Estates PUD)to remove building
envelopes on Lots 1-5 of Meadows Estates PUD change of Zone plat.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOTS 1, 2, 3,4, 5 OF MEADOW ESTATES PUD; PART OF SECTION 6, T4N,
R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to STATE HIGHWAY 60 and approximately 550 feet west of CR 3.
DChris Gathman, Planning Services, presented Case PUDZ14-0003, reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this
application with the attached conditions of approval.
D` Wayne Howard, Engineering, recommended that the approved CDOT access and the internal
roadway system be identified on the plat.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements
and added that staff has no concerns with this request.
D' Dennis Messner, 1355 North Cleveland Avenue, Loveland, Colorado, stated that he represents the
Schrages. He said that at time of contract for some of the lots it was discovered that the building
envelopes existed and they conflicted with some of the homeowners documents.
Commissioner Sparrow asked if it conflicts with where they want to build. Mr. Messner said that there
is an existing home on one of the properties and there are some provisions in the homeowners
documents that control views from the existing home. Therefore some of the building envelopes are in
direct conflict with those views.
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 PUDZ14-0003 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval, Moved by Joyce
Smock, 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.
CASE NUMBER: USR14-0065
APPLICANT:WAGISTICS LLC,c/o Select energy services
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
(water depot) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT A OF RECORDED EXEMPTION RECX14-0049; BEING PART OF E2SW4
OF SECTION 6, T6N, R64W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY,
COLORADO.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 60.5 and 0.25 miles east of CR 49.
Commissioner Maxey noted that this site is on a direct route that he takes coming into Greeley;
however he did not perform any site visit.
Brad Yatabe, County Attorney, noted for the record that one of the landowners of the property is Trevor
Jiricek, who currently is a Weld County employee. The Chair asked if any of the Planning Commission
members talked with Mr. Jiricek regarding this case or received any financial benefit. The Planning
Commission indicated no.
'' Chris Gathman, Planning Services, presented Case USR14-0065, 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.
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.
John Tufte, Lamp, Rynearson and Associates, 4715 Innovation Drive, Ft. Collins, Colorado, stated
that the operator/applicant is Select Energy Services. He added that there was a disclosure letter
included in the application from Trevor Jiricek, who is a Weld County employee.
Mr. Tufte stated that the existing pond on site was built for augmentation purposes and the water is
released back to the river. This is the primary use of the pond. He added that the secondary use of
the pond is for the proposed water depot.
Commissioner Sparrow asked if there will be 15 trucks in a day. Mr. Tufte said that he believed it was
15 trucks during three (3) shifts in a 24 hour period.
Todd Bean, Wagistics, said that the primary use of the pond is to bring water in and out of the river for
fracking wells. The majority of the water in the pond will be returned to the river and the river will be
used to transport the water to these sites. The load out facility is included on the site in case there are
situations where they need to truck water off-site. Mr. Bean said that the traffic peak is around 150
trucks.
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.
O' Motion: Forward Case USR14-0065 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.
The Chair asked the public if there were other items of business that they would like to discuss. No
one wished to speak.
D.The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss.
The Chair asked for clarification if this is for information only or if there will be any action taken. Brad
Yatabe, County Attorney, stated that this is for information only and the Planning Commission is not
expected to pass a Resolution regarding this matter.
Commissioner Maxey disclosed that he grew up along County Road 49 as well as has family that lives
along the road. He added that is a member of the RE-7 School Board which has bus stops along this
road and it is a topic of this Plan. He said that he is happy this is information only because if they
needed to take action he would need to recuse himself.
Commissioner Sparrow said that he has attended these meetings for the past three years. Since this
is information only he believes that he can hear this.
The Chair called a recess at 2:29 pm and reconvened the hearing at 2:42 pm.
p' Elizabeth Relford, Public Works, presented the Draft County Road 49 Access Control Plan. She
stated that the 2011 Transportation Plan had a recommendation to have an Access Control Plan on
multiple arterial roads. The purpose of this project was to look at accesses along the 20 mile corridor
on County Road 49 from 1-76 to US Highway 34. There is a lot of traffic on this corridor and this is to
ensure that anyone living along this corridor is able to access County Road 49 in a safe manner.
Ms. Relford noted that she and Janet Lundquist did travel on the buses for both RE-7 and RE-3J
School District bus routes to get an understanding of the bus stops. There are safety concerns that
came out of the school bus stops being on County Road 49 with not having multiple lanes that they
can pull off of, hills, site distance issues, and no passing zones. Ms. Relford said that the Elected
Officials and the Policy Advisory Committee felt very strongly that the school bus stops should be
removed from County Road 49 for safety. She added that RE-3J has removed their bus stops since
the start of this Plan and have relocated their bus stops off of County Road 49. Additionally, she said
that they are still in discussion with RE-7 School District regarding their bus stops.
Ms. Relford stated that another recommendation from this Plan is shared accesses. Anytime new
development comes in, rather than creating a new access, we would try to share an existing access.
There are over 200 accesses on this roadway and the goal of this Plan is to not have any more new
accesses. She added that it is a safety issue and the more accesses you add the more potential
conflict you add to the corridor.
Ms. Relford stated that they are finding that the intensity of the use has been changing where a lot of
the field accesses have been modified to oil and gas or heavier commercial/industrial type of
accesses. That is a Change of Use and the applicant needs to go through the permitting process to
determine if that access gets to stay or not.
Another discussion was in regard to load-limiting. The Town of Hudson has annexed the one mile of
County Road 49 from 1-76 to County Road 18. She added that the Elected Officials felt strongly that
they didnt want any community load-limiting the roadway.
Ms. Relford said that they recognize that the recommendations as part of the Plan were related to
redevelopment of the corridor. She said that the group feels very strongly that it is important to work
with the adjacent property owners as the corridor redevelops to ensure that these accesses are
located in the safest location possible.
Ms. Relford announced that the County Road 49 Access Control Plan will be heard before the Board of
County Commissioners on December 15th and added that if there are any suggestions to let her know
before then.
Commissioner Maxey asked how this Plan can be adopted if some of these things, like school bus
stops, have not been decided yet. Ms. Relford said the County Commissioners dont need this Plan to
approve or deny school bus stops on County Road 49. She recommended that the School District
attend the December 15th meeting to present their comments. Janet Lundquist, Traffic Engineer,
added that there is a process that someone can make a request and show evidence to support an
amendment to their access. Mr. Maxey asked how something can be approved if the School District or
landowners have not been approached yet. Ms. Relford said that she has mailed notification to every
adjacent property owner on the corridor for the open houses and for this Plan. She added that they
have been working on this for three years and finds it hard to believe that nobody knows about this.
Ms. Relford said that they are currently in negotiations with the property owners to purchase right-of-
II way for the widening of County Road 49 and as we are doing that we also discuss their accesses.
Commissioner Maxey commented that although the accesses will be shared you still have the same
amount of traffic. He asked what studies or information is there regarding the safety impacts for those
consolidated accesses. Ms. Lundquist said that as traffic is concentrated then improvements will need
to be made to the roadways. She added that consolidation is better for traffic rather than several
separate accesses.
D. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application.
Danny Kipp, Mayor of Keenesburg, 140 South Main Street, Keenesburg, stated that he applauded the
County for taking the initative to try and make it a safer road for all. He understands how difficult this
will be for the property owners.
Agnes Schmerge, 22643 CR 49, stated that the school issue is big since there is a lot of traffic and
the traffic laws are not always abided. She asked about the purple indication on County Road 29 if
there are no buildings there. Ms. Relford said that the purple arrow identifies it as a potential future
access. She added that in looking at this area, it appears the way it was platted that there could be a
future road behind all those lots. Ms. Schmerge said that there is a back access from the Easton
Airport to allow separate access for landowners. Additionally, she noted that the back access is where
they had their children picked up for school.
D' Daniel Cooper, represents the Cooper Family LLP, stated that they own the northeast corner of l-
76 and County Road 49. This property is zoned for business and it is still their intent to sell this
property for commercial business. He added that it could be any business from a truck stop to a mall.
He stated that the current access is right in the corner of the property and they would like to keep it an
entrance only access. Additionally, he said that they would like to have a second access to exit from
the property.
Commission Maxey noted that they received a copy of the letter he submitted. He noted that in Ms.
Lundquists reply she states that it is most likely that they will not be granted a second access. Ms.
Lundquist noted that Mr. Coopers access is so close to 1-76 and is highly unlikely that an access point
would be allowed there and will have to relocate that access. She added that they will have to work
with Encana for the oil and gas access.
Commissioner Sparrow asked what happens when a site is annexed. Ms. Relford said that the goal is
to have Kersey, Hudson, Keenesburg and Weld County adopt an Intergovernmental Agreement which
recognizes the Plan, which means we are all working together in enforcing what is identified in the
Plan.
Di" Keith Maxey, 26114 CR 49, stated that he appreciated the effort by Weld County to identify all the
accesses but there was no effort to have discussions with the landowners to resolve possible issues
with your accesses. He feels it is unfortunate that the discussion about your access isnt going to
happen until the right-of-way acquisition. When you attach a quick time frame to it, it has potential to
escalate a few emotions as you try to resolve some issues. He is happy to hear about the 5th lane as
it will resolve a lot of access issues. He referred to the safety on the road and one of the most critical
places where there is safety concerns are the railroad tracks. He added that he hasnt seen any plan
or heard any discussion as far as what can be done to resolve that.
Ms. Relford said that at the beginning of this Plan the County Road 49 widening project was all
conceptually identified in the project list. Now that the County has gotten serious about widening the
roadway the time frame has been condensed as well as the opportunity to have those discussions with
the landowners. She stated that the County has hired a consulting firm who will assist them in
selecting a design-build team and will follow up with the property owners along the corridor. She said
that also includes the ditch companies and the railroad. She added that they have had discussions
with the railroad and they are not considering removing the track at this time.
George Maxey, 26331 CR 49, stated that he farms on both sides of County Road 49. It is pretty
critical to them to have the accesses as they are now. His son, Jeff Maxey, lives on County Road 49
and asked if Access E-5 will be closed. Ms. Relford said that his access is not to be closed; however
she pointed out W-5 and W-6 across the road and said that those are close together and may be
consolidated.
Mr. Maxey asked how you consolidate accesses where there are irrigation canals. Ms. Lundquist said
that you may not need to consolidate those accesses because they are agricultural accesses so they
are seasonal and not high volumes.
Commissioner Maxey referred to future amendments to this Plan and added that a lot of this could be
taken care of before adoption so there wont be a lot of amendments after its in place. He asked how
the County is prepared to do all this in such a short time period. Ms. Lundquist said that there are
amendments that can be made that are in line with the purpose of this document. She added that
consolidation, relocation, and elimination are all things that are guidelines and are covered within the
document. So if the County begins negotiations with a landowner who has multiple access points and
we can narrow them down, no amendment to the Plan is needed. However you will need an
amendment in a situation similar to Mr. Coopers case where an additional access is needed.
The Chair asked what the best way to contact someone regarding these issues would be. Ms. Relford
replied that they can send an emailtoerelford@weldgov.com orjundquist@weldgov.com orby phone
970-304-6496.
D. Scott Dechant, 11521 CR 49, referred to the statements regarding safety of the drivers, but he
asked about the safety of the homeowners. He said that by widening the road the traffic will be closer
to the homes. Ms. Relford said that the intent is to have additional lanes so hopefully they are not
running off the road. The purpose behind the safety improvements is to help the flow of traffic.
Mr. Dechant noted that according to the map one of his accesses is identified as a dangerous access
but across the road it is not a dangerous access. While Ms. Relford was looking up the access,
Commissioner Sparrow asked Mr. Dechant what his solution is to the increase of traffic. Mr. Dechant
said that in his opinion he would like to see other county roads open up. Ms. Relford said that they do
look at other alternatives. She added that since this road is existing and is already an issue it was
determined that the investment needs to go toward this roadway. In following up with Mr. Dechants
question regarding his access, Ms. Relford said that identifying it as a safety issue may not be the right
term, but there are multiple loop accesses in this area with oil and gas on both sides. The intent is to
work out consolidation with the oil and gas company. In further review, Ms. Relford noted that it
appears there is another access here and they will need to add it to the Plan.
Mr. Dechant asked why a landowner or someone who deals with the traffic on County Road 49
everyday is not on the committee. Ms. Relford said that they would love to have property owners on
the committee. Mr. Dechant said that they dont hear anything until they receive a postcard in the mail.
Commissioner Jemiola stated that there are small parcels on County Road 49 but then there are large
pieces of land also on County Road 49 and believes that there should be two (2) accesses for each
section.
Mr. Dechant stated that a large concern is trying to get farm equipment from one side of the road to the
other as they farm on both sides of County Road 49. Commissioner Sparrow understands the concern
and said that he doesnt see any solution to help him.
D° John Smith, 11250 CR 49, stated that the access he has is shared with five (5) other families
behind him. He added that this access is at the bottom of the hill and he is concerned with the safety
of this location. He asked how much damage there will be to his property and how much it will cost
him. Ms. Relford said that currently there is an 80 foot right-of-way. The future right-of-way is 140
feet. She added that the road will not necessarily stay centered on section line. There are some
things that they try to avoid such as peoples homes and there will be sections of the road that they will
be shifting and might need more right-of-way on one side than on the other side.
Agnes Schmerge asked if there would be any stop lights on County Road 49. She would prefer
stop lights to slow people down. Ms. Relford said that the Plan states that they will do a warrant study
to determine if a signal is warranted and then it will be reviewed by the County Commissioners.
The Chair closed the public portion of this hearing.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission if they had any additional questions or comments for Ms.
Relford. Ms. Relford thanked everyone for their comments and appreciated all of the feedback.
Tom Parko, Planning Director, provided a handout on information regarding 1041 and Non-1041
Permits. He informed the Planning Commission that there is a request on December 16th to consider
a designation on the 1041 Permits. The BOCC has held discussion on including pipelines such as
crude oil and high pressure transmission lines into the 1041 regulations. Mr. Parko said that the
County Commissioners wish to consider including pipelines that are exempted from the County Code
and permitted by a federal agency, such as DOT (Department of Transportation) or FERC (Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission). This designation hearing on December 16th will be whether or not to
consider including pipelines into the 1041 process. Following that recommendation it will be heard by
the Board of County Commissioners. On January 6, 2015 the Planning Commission will then see
proposed code changes in Chapter 21 and Chapter 23 to include pipelines into the 1041 process.
Meeting adjourned at 4:52 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Digitally signed by Kristine Ranslem
� � Date: 2014.12.08 08:00:46-07'00'
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
Hello