HomeMy WebLinkAbout20090837.tiffSUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Department of
Planning Services, Hearing Room, 918 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by
Chair, Doug Ochsner, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT
Doug Ochsner - Chair
Tom Holton - Vice Chair
Nick Berryman
Erich Ehrlich
Robert Grand
Mark Lawley
Paul Branham
Bill Hall
Roy Spitzer
Also Present: Kim Ogle, Chris Gathman, and Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services; Dave
Snyder and Don Dunker, Department of Public Works; Lauren Light, Department of Health; Bruce Barker,
County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Robert Grand moved to approve the March 17, 2009 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, seconded
by Mark Lawley. Motion carried.
The Chair announced that the first case on the agenda is requesting to be withdrawn. He read the case into
record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1692
APPLICANT: QM Company
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Use
Permitted as a Use by Right, Accessory Use, or Use by Special Review in the
Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts (masonry contractors shop) in the A
(Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: S2NW4 of Section 18, T5N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 13 and Yz mile north of CR 56.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, stated that the applicant was in the process of purchasing
the property for this use; however that purchase has fallen through and therefore the applicant is requesting
withdrawal of this application.
The Planning Commission accepted the withdrawal of USR-1692.
The Chair read the first consent item into record.
CASE NUMBER: 3RD AMUSR-542
APPLICANT: DCP Midstream
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development and Third Amended Use by Special Review for a
Mineral Resource Development Facility, including an Oil and Gas Support and
Service Facility (oil and gas processing facility) in the A (Agricultural) Zone
District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SE4 and more particularly described as Lot B of Corrected RE -3203
of Section 35, T4N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 38; west of and adjacent to CR 35.
The Chair asked Mr. Ogle if he wishes for this case to remain on consent. Mr. Ogle replied yes.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
Ct,ll1 n1 (kg I C-A-lt ova s
one wished to speak.
The Chair asked the members of the Planning Commission if they wish to pull this item from consent to be
heard. No one wished to speak.
CASE NUMBER: 4TH AMUSR-552
APPLICANT: Duke Energy Field Services
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Fourth Amended Use by Special Review
Permit for a Mineral Resource Development Facility for Oil and Gas Support and
Service, including a Natural Gas Processing Facility, in the A (Agricultural) Zone
District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A and B of RE -614 (located in part of the W2SE4) and a portion of a strip of
land 150 feet wide, being 75 feet each side of centerline located in part of the
W2SE4 both in Section 28, T6N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: 1/2 mile north of CR 64; approximately 1/8 mile west of CR 43
The Chair asked Mr. Ogle if he wishes for this case to remain on consent. Mr. Ogle replied yes.
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 members of the Planning Commission if they wish to pull this item from consent to be
heard. No one wished to speak.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1682
APPLICANT: Ready Mixed Concrete
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for Mineral
Resource Development Facilities including a Concrete Batch Plant, Recycled
Concrete and Gravel Mining, and the importation of mineral resource material
from USR-1608 Holton Lakes in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B RE -1525 being part of the SE4 of Section land the NE4 of Section 12,
Ti N, R67W; together with a Non -Exclusive easement and right-of-way for
ingress and egress purposes as granted at Reception No. 02005215 and all
right of access, ingress and egress for agricultural purposes over and across
existing traveled roads delineated on Lot A of RE -835 being part of the SE4 of
Section 1, T1N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: Generally located 0.25 miles South of SH 52; 0.5 miles East of CR 23; and West
of and adjacent to CR 25 Section Line and approximately 0.5 miles North of CR
10.
Tom Holton wished to recuse himself from Case USR-1682 as his family is involved in USR-1608. He
also requested that an individual vote be taken of the Planning Commissioners for the consent agenda.
The Chair asked Mr. Ogle if he wishes for this case to remain on consent. Mr. Ogle replied yes.
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 members of the Planning Commission if they wish to pull this item from consent to be
heard. No one wished to speak.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1690
APPLICANT: HP Farms Holding LLC
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for an Oil
and Gas Production Facility in Pioneer Communities PUD with Commercial,
Residential, Open Space, Agricultural, Schools, Parks and Water, and
Wastewater Storage Zone Districts.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of SE4 being in Section 12, T2N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
LOCATION: West of CR 49 and north of and adjacent to CR 22.
2
The Chair asked Ms. Hatch if she wishes for this case to remain on consent. Ms. Hatch replied yes.
The Chair asked the applicant if they also wish for this case to remain on consent. The applicant indicated
yes.
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 members of the Planning Commission if they wish to pull this item from consent to be
heard. No one wished to speak.
Commissioner Grand asked if the Hudson Fire District responded to the request. Ms. Hatch replied that
they did not respond.
Robert Grand moved to approve the Consent Agenda which includes Cases 3"d AmUSR-542, 4th Am USR-552,
USR-1682, and USR-1690 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval,
seconded by Nick Berryman.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, yes; Paul Branham, absent; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, absent; Mark Lawley,
yes; Roy Spitzer, absent; Tom Holton, abstain; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair read the following case into record.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1687
APPLICANT: Journey Ventures, LLC
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for Mineral
Resource Development Facilities including: Open Pit Mining and Materials
Processing and Asphalt and Concrete Batch Plants along with the importation of
resource material in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots A & B of RE -4744; located in the SE4 and SE4NE4 of Section 7, T5N,
R64W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 51 and North of and adjacent to CR 58.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services, stated that eleven mining phases are proposed. The
application indicates that groundwater will not be exposed until mining phase 3. As a result, a
development standard is attached that indicates a well permit, substitute water supply plan or
augmentation plan shall be submitted prior to the exposing of groundwater.
The nearest residence is located immediately to the southwest of the site, another residence is located
approximately % mile to the west of the site, and a third residence is located approximately Y4 mile to the
north of the site. The proposed batching and processing area is located in an area below an existing
bench that the two residences to the south and west are located upon. The batching/processing area is
also located at a location on the property that is furthest from the adjacent residences to mitigate
noise/compatibility issues. The access to the site will be off of County Road 58 immediately to the east of
a property containing a single-family residence. The Department of Public Health and Environment is
requiring and the applicant has submitted Noise and Dust Abatement plans be submitted as a Condition of
Approval for this proposed operation. The Department of Planning Services is requiring a landscape and
screening plan be submitted to address impacts associated with mining of the site on adjacent properties.
Sixteen referrals were sent out; eleven Referrals were received and either indicated no concerns or are
addressed through development standards and conditions of approval. No referral response was received
from the City of Greeley, Petroleum Development Corporation, Central Weld County Water District, and
AT & T.
There were three (3) letters from surrounding property owners which have been received. Concerns
mentioned in two of the letters were:
3
• Potential for pollution of the South Platte River and neighboring wells.
• Potential for damage to farming operations.
• Potential for damage to wildlife due to drying up sloughs
• Potential for drying up wetland areas
• No Environmental Impact Study has been done for this proposal.
The remaining surrounding property owner letter mentioned concerns with:
• Whether there is a need for the gravel operation (an operation was approved to the west of
this site 3 years ago that has not begun mining).
• No definite timeframe on when the slurry wall will be constructed and the potential for impacts
on the water table (how will the surrounding property owners be compensated for damages)
• Weed Control
• What type of odor control will be used on the asphalt operations?
• Potential for dust blowing from gravel and overburden stockpiles.
• Traffic impacts and safety on County Roads 53 and 58.
•
The applicant submitted a letter of response dated April 1, 2009 addressing the concerns of the Plumb
Irrigation Company and to also one of the surrounding property owners (Mr. Baker). This letter has been
submitted as an attachment. The applicant has received a sign -off from the Plumb Irrigation Company
withdrawing their objection to the DM&R Permit and also received a withdrawal from the surrounding
property owner, Mr. Baker as well.
The applicant has indicated that they have nearly finalized an agreement with the on -site oil and gas
operator (Petroleum Development Corporation). The agreement is anticipated to be signed before the
scheduled April 22, 2009 Board of County Commissioner hearing.
There are some Conditions of Approval and Development Standards that are attached which attempt to
address potential impacts of this application.
• A landscape & screening plan. The applicant is proposing to plant trees adjacent to the residence
by the entrance of the facility. If there are any nighttime operations, the applicant would consider
installing a fence to provide additional screening for that property owner.
• Hauling hours/processing hours are limited to daylight hours, unless hours are specifically
extended with the permission of the BOCC.
The Department of Planning Services feels that the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval
will adequately mitigate any impacts associated with this use and recommends approval of this
application.
Mr. Gathman added that there is a proposed amendment to the Staff Comments. The Department of
Public Works is requesting that the following language be added as Condition of Approval 1.L "The
applicant shall enter into a (Public) Long -Term Maintenance and Improvements Agreement according to
policy regarding collateral for improvements and post adequate collateral for all required materials. The
Long -Term Maintenance Agreement shall include all required off -site improvements including the
following:
1. Applicant shall install a Trucks Turning sign east of the proposed entrance for west bound traffic
complying with MUTCD Standards. Contact the Weld County Public Works Traffic Engineer for proper
placement of the sign.
2. Applicant shall construct a left turn slot on WCR 53 for North bound traffic turning West onto WCR 58.
The left turn slot shall be 400' in length including the beginning taper, the redirect taper will be additional.
Applicant shall provide construction drawings stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer licensed to
practice in the State of Colorado.
Commissioner Berryman asked if County Road 51 is paved. Mr. Gathman said it is not paved.
4
J.C. York, J&T Consulting represents the applicant Journey Ventures, LLC. The USR boundary is 85 acres
and the size of the proposed mining operation is approximately 70 acres. It will be mined in eleven phases.
The first two phases will not be exposing groundwater; therefore they will not have a substitute water supply
plan prior to phase 3.
The main concerns with some of the surrounding property owners deal with groundwater issues. They have
installed piezometers around the perimeter of the mine permit boundary and have been taking monthly
measurements on those since August. They intend to increase the monitoring to weekly measurements
based on the agreements with the Plumb Irrigation Company.
Mr. York commented that they will install recharge ditches around the perimeter of any phase that is mined
such that they can dewater to those recharge ditches in order to keep the aquifer surrounding the mine to the
same level it has been or close to it. During mining they intend to install a slurry wall prior to mining phase 8.
Once the slurry wall is installed they will continue to monitor ground water.
The life of the mine based on the maximum product being removed is 20-25 years depending on market
conditions.
The applicant will provide landscaping along the access road adjacent to the nearest residence.
They have a dust abatement plan where they will utilize a water truck and sprinklers for any of the product
stockpiles to keep dust from leaving the site. The access road will be paved from County Road 58 to the
existing cattle guards. The remainder of the access road will be watered and will be maintained from keeping
any dust from coming off site.
The applicant is proposing portable batch plants along with the aggregate processing facility located in the
northwest corner. The residence there will be used for their scale house and office. The concrete batch plant
will have a recycle facility next to it where any loads that come back that are unused will be recycled and put
back into the plant to be utilized again.
The applicant does have a finalized agreement with Petroleum Development Corporation and intends to
record it within the next week.
The remaining permits in which the applicant will need to obtain will be the discharge permit for stormwater
and dewatering, air pollution emission notice (A.P.E.N) for the pit, screening/crushing facility as well as the
concrete and asphalt batch plants, and also the sewage disposal system.
A Traffic Study was prepared for this site and was submitted to the County. It indicated that no additional
improvements were needed at the access with regard to accel/decel lanes. Mr. York commented that they
received the additional conditions of approval regarding the turn lane from Weld County Public Works. He
commented that they would like to request that they could have their Traffic Engineer evaluate it as well. He
believes that they are agreeable to work with staff to come to a conclusion to what needs to be included in the
long-term maintenance and public improvements agreement.
Commissioner Grand expressed concern about the description of the landscaping with regard to the adjacent
property owner in terms of adequacy and asked who decides what is reasonable for landscaping to protect the
adjacent landowner. Mr. Gathman said it is a condition that the applicant would submit a landscape plan. He
added that staff not only looks at the adjacent property owner but they also look at screening around the
processing area with regard to the impact from the noise, etc. Mr. Grand asked if he would be comfortable
that what is being proposed would adequately protect the property owners. Mr. Gathman replied yes.
Commissioner Ochsner asked if there is an adequate water supply to get this landscape plan started and
maintained. Mr. Gathman said it is included in the conditions of approval. He added that the applicant has a
Central Weld County Water District tap available.
Mr. York said that the water service comes in on the north side of the property (CR 51). He indicated that they
would propose to hand water the trees from the water truck available on site.
Dave Snyder, Public Works, stated that County Road 58 is classified as a collector road and has 80 feet of
right-of-way at full build out. County Road 51 is a local gravel road with only 60 feet of right-of-way.
5
Public Works is requiring larger radiuses at the entrance to accommodate the larger trucks.
The site is not located in a FEMA regulated floodplain.
The latest traffic counts on County Road 58 are 358 with 18% being trucks. Any work in the right-of-way will
need to be permitted.
Commissioner Berryman asked what the estimated traffic trips are to the site. Mr. Snyder said that there
would be a total of 60 to 70 vehicles per day.
Commissioner Holton asked when it was determined to install turning lanes. Mr. Snyder commented that they
received a complaint from a resident last Friday and staff evaluated the intersection. When approaching
County Road 58 from County Road 53 there is slight hill and downward curve; therefore after looking at it they
determined that it could be a possible hazard of trying to see oncoming traffic. Mr. Holton commented that he
would have liked to have seen this happen sooner so the applicant would have had a chance to have their
engineer evaluate it as well.
Commissioner Ochsner requested to place a stop sign at the access for safety reasons. Commission Holton
also requested to install a sign not allowing jake brakes.
Lauren Light, Environmental Health, said that the potable water will be provided by Central Weld County Water
District and there is a condition of approval from the district stating that they will provide the water.
There is an existing septic system for the house sized for four people. If they use that system for more than
four people the applicant will need to provide staff with an engineer report or install a new septic system.
The applicant has submitted noise, dust and waste handling plans and they have been approved. The
applicant will have a water truck available to control the on -site dust and will also have a reduction of vehicle
speeds.
Ms. Light stated that they have no concerns with this application.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Donovan Sharp, 27266 CR 49.5, commented that he lives south and a little west of the proposed site. Mr.
Sharp commented that County Road 49.5 is a gravel road and is heavily traveled by truck traffic.
Mr. Sharp expressed concern on the haul route for this application. He understands that there is a haul route
established but doesn't believe that it will be followed. He asked how it will be regulated to keep the trucks on
the designated haul route. He has heard that there will be up to 120 trucks per day and believes that they will
have some really bad dust and traffic problems.
Jerry Lemons, 24725 CR 58. Mr. Lemons is the property owner adjacent to the access. He commented that
he has talked to Journey Ventures to come up with a happy medium.
He added that there is a pit'/ mile away and nothing is happening there and therefore is not sure why it is
going in their backyard.
Mr. Lemons is concerned with what blows up the hill as it will affect where he lives. He added that he has
requested to install a solid fence along the side and back of his property to protect what he has. It is a safety
issue for him and his family.
Mr. Lemons expressed concern on the amount of traffic so close to his home. He commented that he has
seen the proposed landscaping and screening but doesn't believe that it will do much good with the small trees
being planted when the first three phases of mining are right behind his house.
Commissioner Ocshner asked Mr. Lemons what he would like to see there. Mr. Lemons commented that he
would like to see a solid fence installed along the back and side of his property for protection. He added that
the applicant is proposing to pave the access to the cattle guard but with the amount of heavy traffic doesn't
6
believe it will be enough.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
Mr. York commented that the haul route is posted at the pit. As far as regulating it, if anyone is seen taking a
different road not included in the haul route they will be told to not take that route and if they do they will not be
allowed to enter that pit. He asked that if any resident sees that to contact them to make sure that it doesn't
happen again.
Mr. York commented that they are agreeable to try and make a compromise with the screening. The trees
that are proposed will not be small trees that will be planted. They intend to plant trees that are at least 6 feet
in height.
Commissioner Grand asked how the compromise will work for the fence. Commissioner Holton asked what
the distance is for the fence. Mr. York said it is 300 feet on the back side of the property and maybe 400-500
feet along the side.
Mr. Grand recognized it is expensive but would like the resident to have some protection for safety reasons.
He believes that it is the applicant's obligation to minimize the impact to the residential owner.
Commissioner Grand commented that the Sheriffs Department can enforce the traffic violations.
Commissioner Ochsner added that the best way to monitor that would be for the residents to contact Mr. York
or the applicant if they see any problems.
Commissioner Ochsner said that there has been a little confusion on the number of trucks per day and asked
Mr. York for clarification. Mr. York commented that the trips per day for the aggregate mining is 8 trips for
passenger/pickups, 5 trips for 16 ton gravel trucks, 13 trips for 22 ton gravel trucks, 2 trips for mechanic trucks
which total 28 trips for the aggregate processing facility. For the concrete batching facility when it is
operational there will be 8 trips for passenger/pickups, 19 trips for mixer trucks, 2 trips for product delivery
trucks and 4 trips for the mechanics trucks with a total of 33 trips. The asphalt batching facility will have 8 trips
for the passenger/pickups, 18 trips for 16 ton haul trucks, 14 trips for the 22 ton haul trucks, 14 trips for the
product delivery trucks, and 2 trips for the mechanics trucks which total 56 trips.
Commissioner Ochsner suggested adding a development standard with regard to the fence. Commissioner
Holton commented that he would like to see that they have a plan prior to the Board of County Commissioner
hearing on April 22, 2009.
Public Works suggested adding new Development Standard 35 to read "A stop sign shall be placed per
MUTCD standards at the access for southbound traffic." Development Standard 36 should read "A sign
stating that no Jake Brakes Allowed shall be placed on USR-1687 property near the access."
Tom Holton moved to add Development Standards #35 and #36 per staff recommendations and renumber
accordingly, seconded by Robert Grand. Motion carried.
Mr. Gathman suggested adding Condition of Approval 1.A Prior to Board of County Commissioner Hearing
"The applicant shall submit a screening plan to the Department of Planning Services addressing screening of
the property to the west of the site (adjacent to the entrance off of CR 58). Acceptable screening shall be
installed prior to construction. The screening plan shall address safety and visual impacts."
Mark Lawley moved to add Condition of Approval 1.A Prior to Board of County Commissioners Hearing as
stated by staff, seconded by Robert Grand. Motion carried.
Mark Lawley moved to add Condition of Approval 1.L to read "The applicant shall enter into a (Public)
Long -Term Maintenance and Improvements Agreement according to policy regarding collateral for
improvements and post adequate collateral for all required materials. The Long -Term Maintenance
Agreement shall include all required off -site improvements including the following:
1. Applicant shall install a Trucks Turning sign east of the proposed entrance for west bound traffic
complying with MUTCD Standards. Contact the Weld County Public Works Traffic Engineer for proper
placement of the sign.
7
2. Applicant shall construct a left turn slot on WCR 53 for North bound traffic turning West onto WCR 58.
The left turn slot shall be 400' in length including the beginning taper, the redirect taper will be additional.
Applicant shall provide construction drawings stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer licensed to
practice in the State of Colorado."
The motion was seconded by Nick Berryman. Motion carried.
Mr. Gathman commented that the amendment from Public Works is listed in the Condition of Approval Prior to
Recording and if it is to be required Prior to Operation then for clarification the amendment should also be
included in Condition of Approval 6 Prior to Operation. He commented that this would eliminate any ambiguity
as to when those improvements need to be in. It needs to be made clear that those improvements have to go
in before they begin operation.
Tom Holton moved to add a new Condition of Approval 6.6 and 6.C including the language from Public Works,
seconded by Erich Ehrlich. Motion carried.
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. Mr. York commented that with the short notice, with
regard to the turn lane, he would like to have the ability to review it with their traffic engineer and then meet
again with staff to discuss it further. Mr. York added that they are in agreement.
Mark Lawley moved that Case USR-1687 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval, seconded by Tom Holton.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick
Berryman, yes; Paul Branham, absent; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Robert Grand, yes with comment; Bill Hall, absent;
Mark Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer, absent; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Grand commented that the purpose of this whole process is not to make the planning staff
or the board happy. It is to have an agreement that is viable between the applicant and the neighbors and
it's up to everyone to adhere to an agreement that basically comes out of that process.
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.
The Chair commented that they have received the proposed revised Planning Commission Hearing Dates.
Tom Holton moved to adopt the revised 2009 Planning Commission Hearing dates, seconded by Robert
Grand. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 2:54 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Shibkle/x.t faIAtil--,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
8
Hello