SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Tuesday, October 2, 2018

Transcription

1 SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, October 2, 2018 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, Michael Wailes, at 12:30 pm. Roll Call: Present: Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Skip Holland, Lonnie Ford, Michael Wailes, Richard Beck, Tom Cope. Absent: Elijah Hatch, Gene Stille Also Present: Kim Ogle, Chris Gathman, Michael Hall, Angela Snyder, Department of Planning Services; Lauren Light and Ben Frissell, Department of Health; Evan Pinkham, Public Works; Frank Haug, County Attorney, and Michelle Wall, Secretary. Motion: Approve the September 18, 2018 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, Moved by Bruce Johnson, Seconded by Bruce Sparrow. Motion passed unanimously. CASE NUMBER: USR APPLICANT: GLENN DEWAYNE CECIL PLANNER: ANGELA SNYDER REQUEST: A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT FOR ONE (1) SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT PER LOT OTHER THAN THOSE PERMITTED UNDER SECTION A. (SECOND SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT) IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT A REC EXEMPT RE-2281; PART SW4 SECTION 32, T7N, R64W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO. LOCATION: NORTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 74, EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 51. Angela Snyder, Planning Services, presented Case USR , reading the recommendation and comments into the record. The Planning Department has received a letter from the applicant requesting to vacate Use by Special Review Permit SUP-315 covering the subject property for a 1000-head hog farm. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached conditions of approval and development standards. Commissioner Johnson asked if the second home was a manufactured home. Ms. Snyder responded that it is a permanent house on a foundation. The second home was permitted with a ZPMH permit for a mobile home for medical hardship. Commission Johnson asked if the USR permit is the proper permit for this case instead of a subdivision exemption for the second home. Ms. Snyder said the USR for a second dwelling will allow the property owner to keep both houses on the same property. The applicant wishes to keep both homes on the same parcel. The Chair asked for further explanation on the applicant vacating Special Review Permit SUP-315. Ms. Snyder explained it is Condition of Approval and that there will be a separate hearing for vacating the permit with the Board of County Commissioners. Evan Pinkham, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access to the site and drainage conditions for the site. Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on-site dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan. Sheri Lockman, Lockman Consulting, County Road 41, Eaton, Colorado. Ms. Lockman explained that the applicant would like to retain the existing modular home on his property as a second residence. Ms. Lockman said the property is not eligible for a recorded exemption or a subdivision exemption.

2 The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to speak. Ms. Lockman stated they have concerns with the Condition of Approval B.9. She stated that in the referral from Public Works they indicated that the existing access onto County Road 74 should be closed and the Lot B access be moved to County Road 51 which is on the neighboring property. Ms. Lockman said Public Works based their decision on the fact that the access onto County Road 74 does not meet spacing criteria and the neighboring property is owned by the applicant so he could grant the easement. She presented the Board with a photograph of the access of County Road 51. Ms. Lockman stated that neither of the accesses meet the spacing criteria stated in Condition of Approval B.9. The applicant believes the access onto County Road 74 is much safer. Ms. Lockman said there is no way the applicant can meet the turning radii of 60 feet on County Road 51. The access is 16 feet wide and is limited by the modular home, a large tree, a utility box and the front yard of the neighboring home. Part of the lot is in the floodplain and water runs across the road. The applicant would like to keep the access on County Road 74, as it is currently. Ms. Lockman would like the Condition of Approval B.9. to be amended to say Show and label the existing access location and the approximate turning radius of 25 feet on the site plan. Mr. Haug, County Attorney, explained that granting an access permit is a separate process that is not this board s decision to grant or deny an access permit. Mr. Haug asked Mr. Pinkham if there is an access permit. Mr. Pinkham said there is not an access permit in this location. In reviewing this case based on County Code, Public Works determined that access to County Road 51, a lower classified road, would be safer than access on County Road 74. He explained although these are existing access locations, they do not meet the spacing requirements set in County Code. As far as procedure, Mr. Pinkham said this topic can be discussed before the Board of County Commissioners at the hearing. Mr. Haug explained to the Board that the Planning Commission can ask to modify the language but cannot grant an access on a certain road. Commissioner Johnson stated that he has been through that intersection many times during his lifetime because he lived in that neighborhood. He would like to see the requirements drafted in such a manner that the existing accesses remain in the historic sites and dimensions. Commissioner Johnson said the roads have been safe and functional. Commissioner Beck said he is familiar with these roads and he sees no problem with the existing accesses. He doesn t see a reason to move the access to County Road 51 when it is on another property. Commissioner Beck feels it should be grandfathered as is. Commissioner Cope said he agreed with the other Commissioners comments. He referred to the Assessor s map and said there is one existing access that he feels should be grandfathered in. The other access being requested is on another property that happens to have the same owner. Commissioner Cope does not think it makes sense to put the access to this property from County Road 51. The Chair said when reading over the conditions of approval, he did not remember reading that one access point was favored over another access point. He asked Mr. Pinkham if that was correct. Mr. Pinkham explained that they made a recommendation for access in their staff comment. He said that is not a binding recommendation but the recommendation is based on code requirements. The Chair said he did not think the conditions of approval language should be changed at this hearing but discussed before the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Johnson stated that he thinks the Planning Commission should make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners that the existing situation does not change. The Chair replied that there is not verbage in the Condition of Approval that states it does need changed. Ms. Lockman said the Condition of Approval states approved access location. She has been told that the access permit is done along with a building permit. She explained there will not be a building permit submitted. Ms. Lockman is not sure when they will get the access permit. Commissioner Holland stated that he thinks the use of the access will change. He said that when the second dwelling becomes a residence with someone who is not connected with the family, it will become an issue. He agrees that the accesses should be grandfathered in. Commissioner Beck stated that changing the access from County Road 74 to County Road 51 flips the problem. Commissioner Holland said he agrees with that but the issue is the conflict still exists. Ms. Lockman explained that change of

3 use usually does not mean from residential to residential. Commissioner Holland said that is not the change of use he was talking about. He said he agrees with his colleague but thinks there is an access issue. Motion: Amend Condition of Approval B.9. to read Both existing accesses should be delineated on the plat as they are. Motion Moved by Bruce Johnson, Seconded by Richard Beck. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7). Yes: Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Lonnie Ford, Michael Wailes, Richard Beck, Skip Holland, Tom Cope. The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Development Standards and amended Conditions of Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement. Motion: Forward Case USR 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 Lonnie Ford. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7). Yes: Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Lonnie Ford, Michael Wailes, Richard Beck, Skip Holland, Tom Cope. CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: PLANNER: REQUEST: USR BLUE PILL, LLC AND TIMOTHY DITTMER MICHAEL HALL A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL FACILITY (35 SEASONAL COMMERCIAL CAMPING SITES), MORE THAN THE NUMBER OF CARGO CONTAINERS ALLOWED AS A USE BY RIGHT PER LEGAL LOT OR PARCEL (5 CARGO CONTAINERS), AND USES SIMILAR TO THE USES LISTED ABOVE (AGRITOURISM EVENT CENTER INCLUDING AN AMPHITHEATER AND COVERED STAGE AND AN AQUAPONICS AND HYDROPONICS GREENHOUSE AND CLASSROOM FACILITY) AS USES BY SPECIAL REVIEW AS LONG AS THE USE COMPLIES WITH THE GENERAL INTENT OF THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT, IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: E2NW4NW4/NE4NW4 AND EAST 15 FEET OF W2NW4NW4 OF SECTION 32, T1N, R66W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO. LOCATION: SOUTH AND ADJACENT TO COUNTY ROAD 4 (NEW ENERGY DRIVE); APPROXIMATELY 0.22 MILES EAST OF MAIN STREET. Michael Hall, Planning Services, presented Case USR , reading the recommendation and comments into the record. The City of Brighton s referral response expressed concerns with the USR. The referral outlined concerns that the site is incompatible with surrounding land uses, that adequate utilities may not be currently available to the site, that festival events will have a major impact to surrounding property owners, traffic, noise, light levels, hours of operation, odor and visual impacts. The Planning Department received one letter in opposition from a surrounding property owner. The letter outlined concerns with declining traditional agricultural practices, traffic, congestion, potential failure of the business, campground guests and their nuisances, and overall incompatibility with the area. The applicant has submitted a revised USR map that attempts to mitigate the City of Brighton s concerns and the concerns of the surrounding property owner. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached conditions of approval and development standards. Evan Pinkham, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access to the site and drainage conditions for the site. Commissioner Ford asked which way the expected traffic will leave the site after an event. Mr. Pinkham replied that he did not see a depiction on the expected traffic flow. He said he would expect more traffic will come from the east which will warrant the turn lanes. Mr. Pinkham said he thinks there will be an equal

4 distribution of traffic. Commissioner Ford asked if Public Works expects County Road 4 to be closed at Highway 85. Mr. Pinkham said he was not aware of that closing but can look at the list. Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on-site dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan. Commissioner Ford asked if these events with 300 people are going to use bottled water and portable toilets. Ms. Light said yes. Commissioner Ford asked how the 5 RV trailers are going to get their water. Ms. Light explained that if the trailer is self-contained, they can bring in their own water. She said it is a temporary use. Commissioner Ford asked if all the people camping in the tents will be using the bottled water. Ms. Light said that is what is listed on the application but suggested Commissioner Ford address the applicant with further questions. Kelsey Bruxvoort, th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado, is representing Timothy Dittmer and Blue Pill, LCC. The applicant is proposing a USR for an agritourism event center including an amphitheater and covered stage for up to 300 people with 35 camping sites that include 30 tent sites and 5 RV sites. There will be a greenhouse and classroom facility for up to 30 people. There will be 5 cargo containers on site. Ms. Bruxvoort explained that the site has been recently redesigned in response to the City of Brighton and Mr. Hiller s concerns. The location of the venue was moved further away and have provided more landscaping and berming. The applicant said the site will allow patrons to experience an agricultural setting and the tradition of Weld County. The greenhouse/classroom will allow research, testing, hydroponics and aquaponics cultivation, storage and sale of a variety of agricultural product. The hours of operation for the amphitheater will be from 7:00 a.m. through Midnight, April 1 st September 30 th, with a maximum of 5 events per week. The hours for the campground are 24 hours per day on weekends only from April 1st September 30 th. The hours of the classroom/greenhouse facility are 8:00 a.m. 8:00 p.m., year-round. The applicant expects to have approximately 4 full-time employees and support staff as needed. Water bottles and portable toilets will be used for the amphitheater and campground. There will be well and septic provided in the classroom. The applicant is proposing security personnel of 2 for the first 100 guests, and 1 additional security professional for each additional 100 people. They are also proposing emergency responders of 1 for every 150 guests. They plan to have an emergency tent where medical treatment may be rendered. Commissioner Ford asked the applicant if they need to get a permit for each event held at their amphitheater. Ms. Bruxvoort replied no and added that the events will be covered under the USR. Mr. Hall explained that the applicant is eligible to apply for 10 Temporary Seasonal Permits per year which will allow 350 patrons at those events, but the USR will cover any event with 300 patrons or less. Commissioner Ford expressed his concern about the welfare of all the people there who are using bottled water and portable toilets. The applicant stated it is in the property owner s best interest to provide adequate water and portable toilets and operate a clean operation. Commission Sparrow asked if most of the traffic will come from the east. Ms. Bruxvoort replied that is what is expected. She said that the Union Pacific Railroad is planned on being closed at County Road 4. There was discussion on all the roads that can be used to get to the site. Commissioner Sparrow asked the applicant what type of events are planned to be held at the amphitheater. Ms. Bruxvoort said it would be marketed for a variety of events that may include inspirational speakers, a church may rent the venue on Sunday mornings, but concerts will most likely be the typical use. Commissioner Cope asked if the amphitheater would be rented for each event. Ms. Bruxvoort said yes but it would still be managed by the property owners. Commissioner Holland asked the applicant if any type of event is allowed at the facility and does not have to be related to agricultural. Ms. Bruxvoort replied that she feels that events will be drawn to the site based on the agricultural nature. Commissioner Holland said he agrees with Commissioner Ford that he has concerns about the sanitary operation of this site with bottled water and portable toilets. Commissioner Beck asked the applicant about their feelings on the referral from the City of Brighton requesting annexation with them and that the proposal should be denied. Ms. Bruxvoort stated that in order to annex there needs to be a community of interest between the City and the property owner. She said there is not one in this case because Brighton will deny the proposal.

5 Mr. Pinkham, Public Works, gave an update on the closure of County Road 4. Union Pacific, CDOT and the City of Brighton will end up closing County Road 4 sometime in the future but the timeframe is unclear. 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 read Development Standard 9. He asked for clarification if there will be 7 security personnel at an event for 300 people. Mr. Hall said that is correct with how it reads. The Chair pointed out it does not state how many security guards are required for every 350 persons after that like it is worded in Development Standard 10. Mr. Hall agreed and said it should be consistent with the wording in Development Standard 10. The Chair told the applicant that he noticed in their presentation, they are requesting 2 security personnel for the first 100 and 1 additional for each 100 patrons. He also said they propose 1 emergency responder for every 150 participants. Ms. Bruxvoort stated they want more clarification on Development Standards 9 and 10. They need more clarification of requirements because there may be an event with 20 people or 100 people. There is a separation of events between the greenhouse, a concert and overnight camping. The applicant said they agree they need security for an amphitheater event, but not for a classroom of 30 participants. The Chair agreed that high security should not be needed for the classroom. Mr. Hall clarified that security is only for events, it does not pertain to the classroom. Commissioner Johnson asked about the plat map showing 2 existing augmentation ponds. He asked the applicant what they are augmenting for. Ms. Bruxvoort explained that is for the Central Colorado Water Conversancy District and it is not a part of this proposal. The ponds will be fenced off. Commissioner Cope asked if the access road into the site is a dirt road. Ms. Bruxvoort said that was correct. Commissioner Cope asked what the applicant is proposing for dust abatement. The applicant said they will provide watering of services when needed. They are also willing to provide additional tracking control if required. She added that there is currently tracking control provided at the entrance from the oil and gas company. Commissioner Cope asked who will decide when the watering is needed. Ms. Bruxvoort explained dust is required to be kept under control. Ms. Bruxvoort requested that Development Standard 9 be changed to read Two (2) security guards for the first 100 persons attending the event and one (1) additional security guard for each additional 100 persons. She is requesting Development Standard 10 be changed to read One (1) person trained in emergency medical technology for every 150 persons. The applicant read Condition of Approval 1.J.16. pertaining to approved access locations. She feels there is nothing stated to trigger a new access permit as it is directed to already permitted accesses. The applicant is requesting to keep the current accesses AP and AP the same. Commissioner Cope asked how much oil and gas traffic does the road currently take. Ms. Bruxvoort said she did not know; she would have to look at the revised traffic impact study. Commissioner Cope is concerned about the oil and gas traffic if the applicant is having an event at the same time. Mr. Pinkham, Public Works, said he didn t think there would be an issue with keeping access AP but a new access permit for this facility will need to be applied for and granted. The Board of County Commissioners can determine if the accesses can remain in the same locations. Ms. Bruxvoort is requesting that Development Standard 3 be changed to read The operator shall be in compliance with the annual Emergency Incident Action Plan. She would like to strike that they have to contact the Weld County Office of Emergency Management, Brighton Fire Protection District and Law Enforcement for all events. Since they will be having up to 5 events each week, they feel this would be cumbersome if they are already operating under the emergency response plan. The applicant read Development Standard 8 The minimum number of full-time employees shall be four (4). Ms. Bruxvoort said they expect there to be 4 full-time employees; however, depending on the event it could be operated with 2 full-time employees or they may need more than 4 for a larger event. Ms. Bruxvoort read Development Standard 11 One (1) ambulance shall be on site during any event. She said it does not specify what event means. Due to the closure of Road 2.5, an evaluation of emergency response was done for that area. The evaluation said there is an emergency response time of 6 to 7 minutes. She said they will have trained EMTs on site for amphitheater events and doesn t feel an

6 ambulance would need to be located on site. Ms. Bruxvoort is requesting to strike this development standard or amend with more clarification. The applicant read Development Standard 16 No weapons, contraband or illegal gambling shall be allowed on the property. Ms. Bruxvroot requests this development standard be struck. She said they are not requesting any illegal uses. The Dittmer family, owners of the property, should be able to exercise their second amendment rights. Commissioner Beck said he agrees with that. Ms. Bruxvroot read Development Standard 24 The Improvements Agreement for this site shall be reviewed on an annual basis, including possible updates. She said they have never been required to do an annual review before and wonders why this has changed. The Chair asked Mr. Hall for comment on Development Standard 3. Mr. Hall said it would be appropriate to amend the standard to read The operator shall be in compliance with the annual Emergency Incident Action Plan. He does not feel the applicant should have to notify all agencies of every event they hold. Motion: Amend Development Standard 3 to read The operator shall be in compliance with the annual Emergency Incident Action Plan. Motion Moved by Tom Cope, Seconded by Bruce Sparrow. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Wailes asked staff to comment on Development Standard 8. Mr. Hall explained that the number of 4 full-time employees was indicated in the application materials. He said the number of employees should not drop below that because of the number of people that can potentially be on the site. Mr. Hall said it would be appropriate be make a tiered approach if the Board so chose. The Chair suggested coming back to Development Standard 8 after discussing Development Standards 9 and 10. Commissioner Johnson asked if a security guard who is also trained as an EMT can cover both positions as one person instead of two. Mr. Hall said it would be better to keep the two entities separate. The Chair read Development Standard 9. Commissioner Cope suggested to have 2 guards for the first 100 and 1 guard for every 50 people after that. He brought up the issue of a fight breaking out. If the 4 guards were all tied up in breaking up the fight, what would happen if another emergency happened. Mr. Cope is concerned of not having enough security in a crowd of 300. Commissioner Holland asked staff if these numbers are based on standards. Mr. Hall said they are coming from similar uses. Commissioner Johnson said he agreed with Commissioner Cope s idea with the number of security but said he was concerned it could end up being short one security guard. Motion: Amend Development Standard 9 to read Two (2) security guards for the first 100 persons attending the event and one (1) additional security guard for each additional 50 persons after that shall be on site during any event. Motion Moved by Tom Cope, Seconded by Bruce Johnson. Motion passed unanimously. The Chair read Development Standard 10. He said the applicant is asking to amend it to read One (1) person trained in emergency medical technology for every 150 persons. Motion: Move to accept the applicant s recommendation. Motion Moved by Bruce Johnson, Seconded by Bruce Sparrow. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Wailes stated he agreed with the applicant s recommendation and this allows for fewer individuals if the event is smaller. The Chair asked for discussion on Development Standard 8. Commissioner Johnson said when he reads the development standard it sounds like there has to be 4 full-time employees on site at all times. He feels if no event is taking place, 1 employee may be sufficient and that the management of the facility should be able to decide how many employees are needed at what events. Ms. Bruxvoort stated they expect 4 employees but it could be they may operate just fine with 2 employees. Commissioner Beck said he doesn t see the need for the development standard to be there at all. Commissioner Cope agreed with Commissioner Beck to strike the standard.

7 Motion: Remove Development Standard 8. Motion Moved by Tom Cope, Seconded by Richard Beck. Motion passed unanimously. The Chair read Development Standard 11. The applicant asked the Planning Commission to strike the development standard or provide a definition on the word event. Commissioner Johnson suggested one ambulance should be on site in an event greater than 100 people. Commissioner Ford said he agreed with Commissioner Johnson. In the event of someone having a heart attack, the emergency response time for an ambulance to get to the event may take too long. Commissioner Cope stated that the applicant is required to have medical personnel on site who would be qualified to handle the situation of someone having a heart attack. He doesn t see the need for an ambulance unless the number of people is greater than 200 or 300 people. Commissioner Cope also said the road is wide enough for two-lane traffic so emergency equipment shouldn t have a hard time coming to the site. Commissioner Beck said he thinks it would be good to have an ambulance on site in case of a big emergency where all people are trying to leave the site and blocking the accesses. He thinks an ambulance should be required on site if there are 200 people or more. Motion: Amend Development Standard 11 to read One (1) ambulance shall be on site during any event where there are 200 persons or greater. Motion Moved by Tom Cope, Seconded by Bruce Johnson. Motion passed unanimously. The Chair opened discussion for Standard Development 16. Commissioner Sparrow asked why the development standard is in there. Commissioner Johnson said he is in favor of the standard remaining as is for safety purposes. Commissioner Beck asked staff when this development standard started being added. Mr. Hall, Planning Department said it has not been included in very many site plans or USRs but he did not have a time frame. Motion: Remove Development Standard 16. Motion Moved by Bruce Sparrow, Seconded by Richard Beck. Motion passed with Skip Holland casting a No vote. The Chair read Development Standard 24 and asked Mr. Pinkham to provide comment. Mr. Pinkham explained that this is a development standard added by one of Weld County s assistant attorneys. Ms. Bruxvoort said it is a completely new standard and added that the fear is the applicant may have an agreement one year, and something may not be acceptable the next year. Commissioner Sparrow agreed with her comment. He asked how you can run a business plan when you don t know what the future is going to be. Commissioner Beck asked staff when this standard was put into effect. Mr. Pinkham said he thinks it was implemented at the beginning of this year. Motion: Remove Development Standard 24. Motion Moved by Richard Beck, Seconded by Tom Cope. Motion passed with Skip Holland casting a No vote. Commissioner Holland believes this site has an access problem and a conflict with the oil and gas business. He feels it is an appropriate standard because Public Works is working to address these issues. Commissioner Beck said he doesn t feel there is enough staff to review each site annually and that issues should be complaint driven. Commissioner Holland said he feels Public Works should review the site annually because it may change in the future and that is how they can prevent serious traffic issues or major accidents. Commissioner Johnson said he agreed with Commissioner Beck that if there is a problem, someone will make a complaint. He agrees that the standard should be removed. Commissioner Sparrow said he agrees with Commissioner Beck. The Chair asked the applicant if the explanation from Public Works addressed their concerns on Condition of Approval J.16. Ms. Bruxvoort is asking for a recommendation from the Planning Commission as part of the record that the residential access remain as it is currently permitted and the oil and gas access be repermitted for the venue use. Commissioner Johnson asked about a third access on the map. Ms. Bruxvoort explained that they are asking for an emergency access under the City of Brighton s jurisdiction. Motion: Amend Condition of Approval 1.J.16. read The existing accesses that are in use will be identified on the plat in the manner in which they currently are.

8 Motion Moved by Bruce Johnson. Motion failed due to lack of second. The Chair said that the Condition of Approval 1.J.16. 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 USR to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and amended Development Standards with the Planning Commission s recommendation of approval, Moved by Bruce Johnson, Seconded by Tom Cope. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7). Yes: Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Lonnie Ford, Michael Wailes, Richard Beck, Skip Holland, Tom Cope. The Chair said that the applicant did a good job on presenting the case and application. He said she demonstrated that they met all seven conditions of approval for the Planning Commission. The Chair called a recess at 2:52 p.m. and reconvened the hearing at 3:05 p.m. CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: PLANNER: REQUEST: USR DISCOVERY DJ SERVICES, LLC CHRIS GATHMAN A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT FOR A GREATER THAN 12-INCH HIGH PRESSURE NATURAL GAS PIPELINE (20-INCH NATURAL GAS PIPELINE) APPROXIMATELY 15 MILES IN LENGTH IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: THE PIPELINE CROSSES SECTIONS 21, 25, 26, 27, AND 28, T1N, R65W; SECTIONS 25, 26, 27, 28,. 29, AND 30, T1N, R64W; AND SECTIONS 30, 31, AND 32, T1N, R63W; ALL OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO. LOCATION: PIPELINE WILL BE LOCATED BETWEEN COUNTY ROAD 8 ON THE NORTH, COUNTY ROAD 2 (WELD COUNTY LINE) ON THE SOUTH, INTERSTATE 76 ON THE WEST AND COUNTY ROAD 65 ON THE EAST. Chris Gathman, Planning Services, presented Case USR , reading the recommendation and comments into the record. The Planning Department received a letter of objection from the Wild Animal Sanctuary with concerns about the validity and the location of the easement. In response, the applicant provided the Planning Department with an affidavit of notice of right- of-way agreement. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached conditions of approval and development standards. Evan Pinkham, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access to the site and drainage conditions for the site. Lauren Light, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on-site dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan. Matt Norton, 3601 Stagecoach Road, Longmont, Colorado, representing the applicant. The East Lochbuie gas pipeline is a 20-inch pipeline transporting natural gas. The pipeline originates in Arapahoe County and crosses into Weld County at East 168 th Avenue and County Road 63. The length of the pipeline is approximately 12 miles long. The pipeline will extend north and west then terminate approximately 2,000 feet east of I-76, between the Towns of Hudson and Lochbuie, Colorado. The system is monitored 24/7 by trained operators. Commissioner Sparrow asked where the gas flowed from and to. Mr. Norton responded that the line could flow in either direction but the predominant location of flow will be from west to east.

9 The Chair asked the applicant to explain cathodic protection. The applicant explained that cathodic protection can be done in a couple different ways. The preferred method that they will be using is impressed current. The exterior of the buried pipeline is coated with a fusion bonded epoxy where the wells connect. Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Norton if they have their access for the pipeline. Mr. Norton said that is part of the right of way agreement. They are in the process of getting a couple right-of-way agreements. Commissioner Holland asked the applicant if they are required to obtain a permit from the Colorado Parks and Wildlife or US Fishing Wildlife Services for construction of the project. The applicant responded that if they were crossing any of their projects or existing land, then they would have a crossing agreement with them. Commissioner Holland asked Mr. Norton if they were crossing any wetlands or streams. The applicant said if they were open cutting then they would have to do a nation-wide permit but they are going to bore underneath it which does not require a crossing agreement. Surveys are done to make sure there are no threats to endangered species. Mr. Norton said they do have a Weld County floodplain permit. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. Pat Craig, 1946 County Road 53, Keenesburg, Colorado, Executive Director of the Wild Animal Sanctuary. Mr. Craig explained the pipeline is proposed to go across a portion of their recently acquired property. The previous landowner was in negotiations with the pipeline company at the same time he was selling the property. He said he would like the applicant to avoid their property for the concern of safety for the public, private property, disturbing wildlife and added that there are three residences near the pipeline. Mr. Craig would like them to re-route the pipeline. He said they do not have a right-of-way agreement with the applicant. Commissioner Ford asked Mr. Craig if there was anything on the land they just purchased. The applicant replied they have fenced the property and have one camel and some horses on the property. They plan to have lions and tigers on the property. Commissioner Ford asked him if he was concerned about the construction phase. Mr. Craig said they have had other pipelines go through their property before there were animals and he has seen the disruption that goes on and all the equipment that is used. The Chair asked the applicant to address Mr. Craig s concerns. The applicant said they make sure they do not disturb nesting eagles. Mr. Norton, said the easement has been recorded and goes with the land. He said the company has let the landowner know the cost associated with re-routing the pipeline to acquire a new right-of-way. The company would lose the money they have already invested with the current rightof-way. Mr. Norton said the landowner was aware of the easement and negotiation with the pipeline at the time they purchased the property. He said they have provided the Planning Department with an affidavit that attests to that. Commissioner Beck asked the applicant if they have a bought and paid for easement from the previous landowner. Mr. Norton replied that was correct. Commissioner Beck asked the applicant if they have shown the new landowner the easement. The applicant said they submitted an affidavit to the Planning Commission that the new landowner was made aware at the time of disclosure. Commissioner Beck asked how many easements there were. Mr. Norton said there are two easements that he is aware of. There is one easement they will follow along with a powerline and the easement for their pipeline. Commissioner Johnson asked if the date of the signed easement and the date of the property sale are within days of each other. The applicant replied he did not know how the two dates compare. Mr. Gathman said he would like to recommend one minor modification on Condition of Approval 1.D. Mr. Gathman would like to change the wording from lease agreements to easement agreements. The Chair asked the Planning Commission if they had an issue with the Staff making the correction of the Condition of Approval 1.D. to read easement agreements. Since there were none, the Chair stated the correction be made. 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.

10 Motion: Forward Case USR to the Board of County Commissioners along with the corrected Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission s recommendation of approval, Moved by Tom Cope, Seconded by Bruce Sparrow. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7). Yes: Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Lonnie Ford, Michael Wailes, Richard Beck, Skip Holland, Tom Cope. Commissioner Wailes believed that the applicant has shown compliance with Section Commissioner Ford left the hearing at 3:43 p.m. CASE NUMBER: USR APPLICANT: DANIEL STROH, C/O TRI-STATE GENERATION & TRANSMISSION ASSOCIATION, INC. PLANNER: KIM OGLE REQUEST: A SITE-SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT FOR A NON-1041 MAJOR FACILITY OF A PUBLIC UTILITY OR PUBLIC AGENCY (230 KV SUBSTATION), UP TO TWO (2) CONEX CONTAINERS, AND UP TO THREE (3) CONSTRUCTION AND OFFICE TRAILERS AND OTHER ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT FOR USE DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SUBSTATION IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT B REC EXEMPT RE-1987; PART N2NE4 SECTION 7, T4N, R68W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO. LOCATION: SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 48; WEST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 3. Kim Ogle, Planning Services, presented Case USR , reading the recommendation and comments into the record. The application materials indicated that the applicant had reached out individually to surrounding property owners. In the early stages of the application, the Planning Department received a phone call from a surrounding property owner who inquired about the screening and the impacts of the substation impacting his view of the front range. A second phone call was received from a property owner to the west of the property who notified the Planning Department that the sign on County Road 48 had fallen. Two letters were received from surrounding property owners. The current landowner, Dan Stroh, submitted a letter in support of the application. A letter of opposition was received from Douglas and Andrea Arnstad stating their concerns on how the substation will affect their quality of life. They are concerned about the constant thrum from the substation, health risks associated with EMFs, risk to wildlife, obstruction of their views, changing of the cropland into a substation site, and their property values. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application for a Non-1041 Major Facility of a Public Utility with the attached conditions of approval and development standards. Evan Pinkham, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access to the site and drainage conditions for the site. Ben Frissell, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on-site dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan. Mr. Frissell stated he would like to remove Development Standard 14 as it is a duplicate of Development Standard 16. Selina Koler, Senior Transmission Siting and Environmental Planner for Tri-State, 1100 West 116 th Avenue, Westminster, Colorado. The applicant is proposing a 230/115/12/47-kV substation. Ms. Koler said they are developing on approximately 20 acres of the 75-acre parcel. The substation will be on approximately 12.5 acres and 8 acres will be used for the drainage pond. The remainder of the site will continue to be farmed. The applicant completed raptor surveys a half mile around the property. They found four active hawk nests. The area will not be disturbed during construction. Ms. Koler stated they met individually with landowners on multiple occasions and worked to mitigate with their requests. Commissioner Johnson asked if the substation puts off electromagnetic fields. The applicant replied the electromagnetic fields measure less than 2mG at the substation fence and this is similar to the levels generated by a common appliance. The fence is 560 feet from the closest neighboring property. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to speak.

11 The Chair recognized the staff s request to remove Standard Development 14 as it was a duplicate of Standard Development 16 and said the correction could be made accordingly. 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: Approve USR along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards, Moved by Bruce Johnson, Seconded by Richard Beck. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7). Yes: Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Michael Wailes, Richard Beck, Skip Holland, Tom Cope. Commissioner Cope said the applicant is in compliance with Section of the County Code. CASE NUMBER: COZ APPLICANT: NGL WATER SOLUTIONS DJ, LLC PLANNER: KIM OGLE REQUEST: CHANGE OF ZONE FROM I-3 (INDUSTRIAL) ZONE DISTRICT AND A (AGRICULTURE) ZONE DISTRICT TO THE I-3 (INDUSTRIAL) ZONE DISTRICT LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT B 2ND CORR REC EXEMPT RE-3362; PART NE4 SECTION 30, T1N, R66W OF THE 6TH P.M., WELD COUNTY, COLORADO. LOCATION: WEST OF AND ADJACENT TO CR 27 (MAIN STREET) AND APPROXIMATELY 1300 FEET SOUTH OF CR 6 (CROWN PRINCE BOULEVARD). Kim Ogle, Planning Services, presented Case COZ , reading the recommendation and comments into the record. The Planning Department received a telephone call from Matt Sura, an attorney, who had questions about the project. Telephone calls were also received from several persons who were interested in the case. Planning staff also received three electronic mail letters; two in support of the Change of Zone and one with concerns about the potential use of the property. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application with the attached conditions of approval and development standards. Evan Pinkham, Public Works, reported on the existing traffic, access to the site and drainage conditions for the site. Ben Frissell, Environmental Health, reviewed the public water and sanitary sewer requirements, on-site dust control, and the Waste Handling Plan. Commissioner Cope asked Mr. Frissell if public sewer was within 400 feet. Mr. Frissell said that the 400- foot regulation is no longer in effect. Spence McCallie, 3773 Cherry Creek North Drive, Suite 1000, Denver, Colorado. The applicant is proposing to change the zone to Industrial (I-3) on the whole property; part of the property is already zoned Industrial and the other portion is zoned Agriculture. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. Jeri Yarbrough, County Road 6, Fort Lupton, Colorado. Ms. Yarbrough said she lives approximately a half mile away from this site. She offered her recommendation to the Planning Commission to approve the zoning change from Agriculture to I-3. She said the surrounding area on County Road 27 has become Industrial. Ms. Yarbrough also stated that if this case gets approved, the applicant will not build in front of her view. Toni Thieman, County Road 5.5, Longmont, Colorado, stated she is a realtor who lived in the proposed area in the 1980s. She has done a lot of business in the surrounding area. Ms. Thieman has noticed the change of development in the area. She feels the area along County Road 27 between Brighton and Fort Lupton has become industrial. Ms. Thieman believes this parcel is prime for this change of zone to Industrial.

12 Commissioner Beck commented it seemed the applicant has a lot of support except the support of the City of Brighton and Fulton Irrigation Ditch Company. Commissioner Johnson asked the applicant if they were going to address the issues from the Fulton Irrigation Ditch Company. The applicant said they have no intention of hampering their ability to carry water. Commissioner Johnson also asked if there was going to be an issue with development due to soft soils. The applicant said he is familiar with unstable soils. 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 COZ to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission s recommendation of approval, Moved by Bruce Johnson, Seconded by Bruce Sparrow. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7). Yes: Bruce Johnson, Bruce Sparrow, Michael Wailes, Richard Beck, Skip Holland, Tom Cope. Commissioner Cope said the case is compatible with the present use as well as future use in the area. The Chair asked the public if there were other items of business that they would like to discuss. No one wished to speak. The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss. No one wished to speak. Meeting adjourned at 4:31 pm. Respectfully submitted, Michelle Wall Secretary