The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20091383.tiffSUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, June 2, 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 Tom Holton Nick Berryman Robert Grand Bill Hall Mark Lawley Paul Branham Erich Ehrlich Roy Spitzer Cfl Also Present: Kim Ogle, Chris Gathman, and Brad Mueller, and Tom Honn, Department of Planning Services; Don Carroll, Don Dunker, and Clay Kimmi, Department of Public Works; Lauren Light, Department of Health; Bruce Barker, County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary. Robert Grand moved to approve the May 5, 2009 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, seconded by Bill Hall. Motion carried. The Chair read the first case into record. CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: PLANNER: REQUEST: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOCATION: USR-1694 Keith Thoene Jacqueline Hatch A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Use Permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use, or a Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone Districts (storage of construction materials - steel doors and frames) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. Lot B RE -3050 being part of E2 NE4 in Section 25, Ti N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. West of and adjacent to CR 49 and south of and adjacent to CR 6. Chris Gathman, Planning Services, stated that the applicant is requesting a continuance of this case. Staff is recommending that the case be continued to July 7, 2009. Mr. Gathman commented that the applicant is out of town and added that there are some discussions that will need to take place between the Planning Department and the applicant in regard to the nature of his application and how he would like to proceed with his application. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to speak. Robert Grand moved to continue USR-1694 to the July 7, 2009 Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mark Lawley. Motion carried. The Chair read the following case into record. CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: PLANNER: REQUEST: USR-1691 Marcos Sanchez Chris Gathman 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 (recreational vehicle storage) in L_tMVI'Vt,i \I CntA'Thw 6,- /5- U9 2009-1383 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOCATION: the A (Agricultural) Zone District. Part NW4SW4 of Section 23, T5N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. East of and adjacent to CR 35 and approximately Y mile south of State Hwy 34. Chris Gathman, Planning Services, commented that staff just received a letter from the applicant's consultant requesting a continuance as they are exploring annexation into the City of Evans. Staff is recommending that this case be continued to the August 4, 2009 meeting to allow them sufficient time to discuss that issue and come to some arrangement. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to speak. Robert Grand moved that Case USR-1691 be continued to the August 4, 2009 Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Nick Berryman. Motion carried unanimously. The Chair read the first case on the consent agenda into record. CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-954 APPLICANT: Colorado Engineering Experiment Station, Inc PLANNER: Kim Ogle REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Permit and an Amended Use by Special Review Permit for an expansion of a Non -Conforming Use (flow metering facility) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SE4 of Section 36, T10N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: Approximately 1 mile north of CR 108 and west of and adjacent to CR 37. Kim Ogle, Planning Services, stated that the applicant wished for this case to remain on consent and added that the applicant has agreed to these terms. 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 Planning Commissioners if they wish to hear this case. No one wished to speak. CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: PLANNER: REQUEST: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOCATION: AmUSR-1105 Kelly & Anna Berndt Chris Gathman A Site Specific Development Plan and Amended Use by Special Review Permit for the expansion of a shotgun shooting and sporting club to include rifle and pistol shooting ranges, archery ranges, and outdoor lighting; to move and expand the existing clubhouse (including food service facilities); and add RV parking and hookups, in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. Lot D of RE -4466, located in the NW4 of Section 11, TBN, R66W and the W2 NE4 of Section 11, T8N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. South of and adjacent to CR 96 and approximately 650 feet east of CR 33. The Chair asked Mr. Gathman if he wishes for this case to remain on consent. Chris Gathman, Planning Services, stated that they wish for this case to remain on consent. He commented that there is a representative from Anadarko here who may wish to make a statement. He said that staff has received letters from Anadarko and added that there is a condition of approval requiring an oil and gas agreement prior to recording the plat. The Chair asked the applicant if they wish for this case to remain on consent. The applicant replied yes. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. David Bell, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, stated that he is attending the hearing on behalf of Anadarko Land Corp and Anadarko ENP Company with respect to the application for the amendment to the use. Mr. Bell commented that the Anadarko entities own all minerals that underline the property. They have submitted 2 an objection letter to the County dated May 26, 2009 entitled "Notice of Oil and Gas Interests Owned by Anadarko Land Corp and Anadarko ENP Company LP An Objection". He stated that they would like to make the objection letter a part of the record in these proceedings. Anadarko entities also sent a letter dated May 26, 2009 to Chris Gathman in which they waived not having receiving timely notice of this hearing. He noted that Anadarko Land Corp is not objecting to the application because of hard rock minerals interests that it owns for the property. The objection is limited to the oil and gas interests that the Anadarko entities own for the property. The oil and gas interests are subject to an exploration agreement between Anadarko and Rubicon Oil and Gas LP pursuant to which Rubicon has a right to drill oil and gas wells on the property and earn an oil and gas lease. The Colorado Oil and Gas Commission rules and regulations provide for four (4) drilling windows in a quarter section where the property is located. Anadarko regularly works with developers to reach agreements for the compatible development of the surface estate and oil and gas estate. Mr. Bell stated that they have already begun discussions with the Berndt's on this property and feel very comfortable that they will reach an agreement with them. Anadarko feels that to reach an agreement they understand that the Berndt's will stipulate on the record to an agreement with Anadarko as a condition to the approval of the application. Mr. Bell requested that the County include as a condition for the approval of the application that the applicants and the Anadarko entities reach an agreement for the compatible development of the surface estate and the oil and gas estate. He reiterated that they all feel comfortable that they can get this worked out with no problems. Seeing no further public testimony, the Chair closed the public portion. Commissioner Ochsner clarified with Mr. Gathman that the stipulation is included in the condition of approval. Mr. Gathman replied that the standard language is included in the resolution. The Chair asked the Planning Commissioners if they wish to have this case pulled from the consent agenda. No one wished to speak. The Chair read the following case into record. CASE NUMBER: 2ND AMUSR-897 APPLICANT: Aggregate Industries WCR Inc (Riverview Resource) PLANNER: Kim Ogle REQUEST: 2nd AmUSR-897- A Site Specific Development Plan and Second Amended Use by Special Review Permit for Mineral Resource Development, including Open Pit Mining and Materials Processing, including Concrete and Asphalt Recycling, and a Concrete and Asphalt Batch Plant facility in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The W2SW4 and Part of Lot A of RE -247 being part of the E2SW4 Section 29, T6N, R66W. All that part of the N2 and the N252; A portion of the E2NE4 of Section 32, T6N, R66W together with a parcel in the SW4 NW4 of Section 33, T6N, R66W also known as Lot B, RE -1539; together with a parcel in NW4 SW4; and Lots A and B of RE -978 being the NW4NW4 of Section 33, T6N, R66W; part of the NE4 of Section 32, T6N, R66W; and a parcel of land in the SE4 NE4 of Section 32, T6N, R66W all in of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: North and south of CR 64, East of CR 27; South of the Union Pacific Railroad. Kim Ogle, Planning Services, stated that they wish for this case to remain on consent. He added that staff has received two (2) letters from surrounding property owners and feels that they have been addressed through the conditions of approval and development standards. The Chair asked if the applicant wishes for this case to remain on the consent agenda. The applicant indicated yes. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. 3 Kim Davis, 30856 Rocky Road. Ms. Davis commented that she resides in the Orr Minor Subdivision. The research that she did online indicates that they may be mining right up to her property lines on the east side of the subdivision. She added that if that is the intent, there is an agreement with this company that says they will not do that and it is on file with the County and State. Dave Goetzel, 13451 CR 64, Greeley, CO. Mr. Goetzel commented that his property is surrounded by the mining operation. It currently is being mined on the other side of County Road 64 and will completely surround his property. This is an agricultural area and the noise, dust, etc. will make it impossible to have any kind of livestock. He added that it will drastically reduce the price of the property and the heritage of what it is. He commented that he is opposed to this application. Ray Sears, 13644 CR 64. Mr. Sears commented that he sent a letter on Friday. He wished to make a correction to the second paragraph in which it states that the east and south property line border the gravel pits being presently mined. He stated that it should have read the west property line. Mr. Sears wished to reiterate the points in his letter. Their greatest concerns are the redirection of surface and underground water that has taken place as a result of disruption to underground drain tiles that naturally drain water through his property. That water fed some ponds that he has on his site as well as the site next to him. Ultimately it dumps out into the Poudre River but historically they did have this drain tile connected. Mr. Sears commented that Aggregate has provided them with an underground water pipe which supplies water to those ponds right now; however if there is a disruption in the pumping then his water levels go down. He added that they have fish in that pond and it would put them in jeopardy. The berms that surround the gravel mining are a bit of an eye sore. The last three years it has been a real cause of blowing sand and dirt. The berm line that is on the west part of his driveway provides a really nice wind tunnel that funnels tumble weeds down into their property. In Aggregates defense, Mr. Sears commented that they did some hydro seeding on those berms yesterday. He added that unfortunately it implicates that those berms were there for a while and will continue to be there. He commented that in talking with an Aggregate representative today it was confirmed that until business picks up there won't be the necessary reclaiming of knocking that berm down. The biggest devastation to his property has been the loss of trees that surround his property. He pointed out that the cause of the destruction of these trees is obviously the lowering of the water table significantly. The Chair interrupted Mr. Sears and asked if there were any Planning Commissioners who wished to have this case pulled from the consent agenda to be heard. Robert Grand and Nick Berryman stated that they would like to hear this case. The Chair commented that they will hear this case after Item B on the Hearing Agenda. Robert Grand moved to approve the amended Consent Agenda including AmUSR-954 and AmUSR-1105 and that they 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 Tom Holton. Motion carried unanimously. The Chair read the following case into record. CASE NUMBER: USR-1684 APPLICANT: Zapien Brothers Concrete PLANNER: Kim Ogle REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Use by Special Review Permit for a Use by Right, an Accessory Use, or a Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone District (Parking and Storage for a Concrete Company) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part NE4 Section 25, T1N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: East of and adjacent to Grace Av, North and South of Frederick Street; Townsite of Wattenberg 4 Kim Ogle, Planning Services, stated that this application is for the parking and storage of vehicles, equipment and associated business related activities for the Zapien Brothers Concrete Company located on approximately 1 acre in the Agricultural Zone District. The applicant is Joel Zapien. This site is located east of adjacent to Grace Avenue, North and South of Frederick Street, adjacent to the Wattenburg townsite. The site is located within three miles of the City of Fort Lupton and Adams County. The City of Fort Lupton responded in their referral indicating no conflicts with their interests; Adams County did not respond. The surrounding property is predominately residential and agricultural with multiple homes located in close proximity. There are thirty-seven property owners on fifty-two parcels within 500 feet of the property, predominately to the west, north and south. In the near vicinity there are lands permitted for mineral resource extraction to the East and South (AmUSR-421 Asphalt Paving; USR-1350 Aggregate Industries). The property is currently in violation (ZCV07-01039) due to the storage and operation of a commercial business and equipment storage without first obtaining the necessary land use permits. If this application is approved the violation will be corrected. If this application is denied the commercial business and equipment storage shall be immediately removed from the property; otherwise, the violation case will proceed accordingly. Wattenburg Improvement Association is the water service provider for potable water and there is an ISDS sewage disposal system associated with this facility. The site is formerly a pickle dock and more recently a commercial business for an insulation company. Primary access is from Grace Avenue, formerly utilized as a rail track before being converted to its current condition of a local paved road. Access drives and the facility yard are graveled and graded. The existing improvements consist of a single concrete block building with access doors for persons and vehicles. There is an existing perimeter fence on the property. The entire property is encumbered by floodplain and is in a Special Flood Hazard Area as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The sign for today's hearing was posted at least ten days prior to the hearing by staff and is evidenced by photograph. Fourteen referral agencies have reviewed this case and ten offered comments, some with specific conditions. There has been one letter received from a group of surrounding property owners with concerns of the existing plant operations, traffic, and speed of vehicles. One electronic mail was received from another individual who held similar concerns. Commissioner Ochsner asked what was in this location prior to this application. Mr. Ogle said that it was occupied by someone who did insulation services and then prior to that it was a pickle dock. Commissioner Ochsner asked if there was a previous USR on this property. Mr. Ogle replied that there was a USR for the insulation company. Joel Zapien stated that he bought the property four (4) years ago as a commercial building. He added that he is applying for the permit as required by Weld County. Clay Kimmi, Public Works, commented that back in February, Mr. Zapien applied for Flood Hazard Permit for the outdoor parking of vehicles. This Flood Hazard Permit was conditionally approved upon the approval of the USR application by the Board of County Commissioners. If the application is denied this Flood Hazard Permit will go away. It was issued only for the outdoor storage of vehicles parked overnight. Any of the storage of concrete blankets or forms would not be allowed to be outside because it is a floatable material that poses a hazard to the public during a flood. If there is any remodeling on the building the applicant will be subject to additional floodplain regulations that will require him to elevate that 5 building substantially higher than it is now. Commissioner Berryman asked that in the event of a remodel it has to be 1 foot above the base flood elevation. Mr. Kimmi replied yes and added that it appears that there would be 3 to 4 feet of water across that property so he would have to elevate it at least 4 to 5 feet to get above the base flood elevation. Don Carroll, Public Works, commented that Grace Avenue and Frederick Street are locally paved roads within Wattenburg, posted at 25 mph. The applicant has indicated no more than 14 employees on site. The site is gated and located on the curve of the road where the two roads intersect. Mr. Carroll commented that during their site visit they noted that most of the traffic going out of the facility was going north from site and not going through the town. Lauren Light, Environmental Health, commented that Wattenburg Improvement Association provides water and there is an existing septic system sized for 13 people. Since there are 14 employees they will need to have the septic system reviewed by an engineer for additional flow. Dust Abatement and Waste Handling Plans are required. If the applicant will be washing any commercial vehicles or equipment on site they will need to contain all the discharges from that. Ms. Light commented that back in November the applicant came in and talked to one of the staff members and indicated that there was a floor drain in the building that discharges through a pipe to the outside and staff was suppose to receive a picture that the pipe was cemented in; however they have not received one to date. Therefore that is a requirement of Condition 1.K. Commissioner Ochsner clarified that since there are 14 employees the septic system needs to be evaluated by an engineer. Ms. Light replied that is correct because the septic permit on file states it is designed for 13 people. 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 Mr. Zapien if he understands the requirement by the Health Department regarding the number of employees designed for the septic system. Mr. Zapien replied that he would like to change the number of employees to 13. The Chair asked the applicant if he has read through the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval and if he is in agreement with those. The applicant replied that he is in agreement. Commissioner Holton asked how many employees the insulation company had. Staff could not answer that but the septic permit indicated that it was installed in 1978 and was designed for 13 people. Mark Lawley moved that Case USR-1684 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 Robert Grand. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick Berryman, yes; Paul Branham, absent; Erich Ehrlich, absent; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer, absent; Tom Holton, no with comment; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried. Commissioner Holton commented that he is familiar with this small town. He stated that he doesn't feel it is compatible to have that much traffic going through there with all the kids in the residential area. The Chair read the next case into record. CASE NUMBER: USR-1697 APPLICANT: Wade & Shannon Lutz PLANNER: Chris Gathman 6 REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Kennel (up to 40 dogs) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE -2560; located in the S2 SE4 of Section 26, T10N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 112 and west of and adjacent to CR 23. Chris Gathman, Planning Services, commented that originally this case was on the consent agenda; however there are two issues that have come up as items of discussion. This is a land use application for a kennel for up to 40 dogs of a non -specified breed. The site is located north of and adjacent to County Road 112 and west of and adjacent to County Road 33. Under this application, the applicant is proposing a portable toilet facility and hand washing units for customers and water to be hauled in from the Town of Wellington. This water would be used just for the kennel only and not the customers. Additionally the applicant has indicated that they will provide bottled water for customers as the applicant's water from their existing well does not taste very good. Mr. Gathman added that the issue with the water is that the Health Department has a policy that they require permanent water and septic or at a minimum vault facilities for these types of operations. Based on that policy there are conditions of approval and development standards included which specify that. The applicant is requesting to receive a waiver from those requirements. Commissioner Lawley asked to clarify if the applicants are still hauling water in although they have an existing domestic water supply. Mr. Gathman commented that the applicant does have a well; however they use bottled water themselves and assumes that they use the well just for an association for their lavatory. Mr. Gathman added that the customers are on an appointment basis only. Lauren Light, Environmental Health, stated that in a case where there is a domestic well permit and if they would use their house for anyone who comes in they can't use the water for the restroom in the house because we are back to where the State Division of Water Resources requires them to re -permit their well because it is for a commercial use. Typically, when the well is re -permitted to commercial no outside watering is allowed; it is for household use only. There is also a policy that 6 months or less is considered a temporary use which is acceptable for bottled water and portable restroom facilities; however this case is a permanent use. Commissioner Grand said that with a kennel particularly by appointment only, although it is a full time use it is not an 8 hour use in the course of the day. In terms of our evaluation process, since these are small business people, do we revisit this issue since it is not by definition a full time 8 hour day for their customers. Ms. Light commented that in their policies they treat every business the same which is why they can ask for a waiver from the Board. Shannon Lutz commented that they have lived on this property nine (9) years. She raises and shows Labs. She indicated that it is on rare occasion that they have people come out to the property. The dogs stay for breeding and showing purposes which fall into the commercial end of this. Ms. Lutz stated that they cannot re -permit their well because she has horses and livestock. In the 9 years they have done this they have not had anyone ask to use their restroom. She indicated that typically when someone comes to the site they are there five or ten minutes. She requested that this condition be waived. She added that they have checked into having their septic system enlarged; however it will not meet the standards that the county requires it to have people using it all the time. Ms. Lutz expressed that she cannot afford to do it as she has tried to obtain a small business loan and couldn't get one. Commissioner Holton asked how many people come in a month. Mrs. Lutz said that possibly five or ten people at the most as it varies depending on the number of shows or litters. Commissioner Holton asked how deep the well is. Ms. Lutz said that they hit water at 34 feet and stopped at 42 feet. She added that they are able to have up to three taps and it is a good well. Mr. Lutz commented that they considered using one of the taps for the commercial end but was unsuccessful. 7 The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to speak. Commissioner Holton stated that he believes that requiring the commercial well permit is an undue burden considering the use. He added that he would like to eliminate the conditions for the well and septic system. Commissioner Hall agreed with Mr. Holton and added that when you have guests at your home it typically would be greater than the amount of customers. He understands staff's position as they have to abide by regulations; however their job is to allow variances for these specific cases. Commissioner Holton asked staff if amending conditions of approval 1.G, 1.H and deleting Development Standards 16 and 17 cover their intentions. Ms. Light suggested adding "(portable toilet)" after "facilities" in Development Standard 15. Ms. Light suggested deleting the first sentence in Development Standard 16 but keep the remaining language so that way if they sell the property in the future it notifies the new buyers that if they do anything to the septic system they have to get a permit. Mark Lawley moved to delete Conditions of Approval 1.G, 1.H, Development Standard 17, and the first sentence in Development 16, seconded by Robert Grand. 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. The applicant replied that they are in agreement. Tom Holton moved that Case USR-1697 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 Robert Grand. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Nick Berryman, yes; Paul Branham, absent; Erich Ehrlich, absent; Robert Grand, yes; Bill Hall, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer, absent; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously. The Chair called a recess at 2:26 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 2:36 pm. The Chair read the next case into record. CASE NUMBER: 2ND AMUSR-897 APPLICANT: Aggregate Industries WCR Inc (Riverview Resource) PLANNER: Kim Ogle REQUEST: 2nd AmUSR-897- A Site Specific Development Plan and Second Amended Use by Special Review Permit for Mineral Resource Development, including Open Pit Mining and Materials Processing, including Concrete and Asphalt Recycling, and a Concrete and Asphalt Batch Plant facility in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The W2SW4 and Part of Lot A of RE -247 being part of the E2SW4 Section 29, T6N, R66W. All that part of the N2 and the N2S2; A portion of the E2NE4 of Section 32, T6N, R66W together with a parcel in the SW4 NW4 of Section 33, T6N, R66W also known as Lot B, RE -1539; together with a parcel in NW4 SW4; and Lots A and B of RE -978 being the NW4NW4 of Section 33, T6N, R66W; part of the NE4 of Section 32, T6N, R66W; and a parcel of land in the SE4 NE4 of Section 32, T6N, R66W all in of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: North and south of CR 64, East of CR 27; South of the Union Pacific Railroad. Kim Ogle, Planning Services, stated that this application is for 2nd AmUSR-897 for open pit gravel mining and materials processing including concrete and asphalt recycling, and a concrete and asphalt batch plant facility in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. The applicant's are Connie Davis and Mike Refer, represented by Barb Brunk of Resource Conservation Partners, LLC, consultants. The site is located generally east of and adjacent to County Road 27 (83rd Avenue); north and south of and adjacent to County Road 64 ("O" Street); west of County Road 29 (71m Avenue) and north of the Cache La 8 Poudre River. The proposal is within the three mile referral area for the City of Greeley and the Towns of Severance and Windsor. The City of Greeley in their referral dated December 12, 2008 and updated referral of May 14, 2009 requested that the applicant discuss the location of the access to the conveyor crossing; reclamation of the land near the river and mining to ensure integrity of the Greeley sewer line. The Town of Windsor returned a referral dated November 17, 2008 indicating no conflict with their interests and the Town of Severance did not return a referral. The site consists of irrigated farmland and pasture land with a majority of the site located within the 100 - year floodplain. An amended Flood Hazard Development Permit number AmFHDP-359 has been submitted and is conditionally accepted by the Department of Public Works addressing all issues associated with the Cache La Poudre Floodplain. There are riparian areas composed of wetland and woody plant material adjacent to the Cache La Poudre River. There are improvements in the form of the concrete and asphalt batch plants on the site. Surrounding property uses include farmland and rural residential developments to the north, east and west. The Orr Minor Subdivision, located on Rocky Road, is directly south of County Road 64 and one half mile east of County Road 27; to the south is the Poudre River Ranch residential PUD within the City of Greeley's Corporate City Limits. West of County Road 27 (83rd Avenue) is an existing Hall -Irwin asphalt and concrete batch plant (AmUSR-1125), and to the east of County Road 29 (71st Avenue) is the Buxman gravel mine (USR-900) and the former Lowell -Paul Dairy. The applicant is proposing to install a vegetated berm adjacent to the permit boundary. There are several rural residences in the general vicinity. Per the application materials, there are twenty-eight property owners on 40 parcels within 500 feet of this application. The amendment to this permit includes an additional 156 acres bringing the total acreage to 470 acres of which 273 acres will be mined. There are numerous oil and gas encumbrances managed by Orr Energy LLC and Noble Energy, Inc. and several high pressure gas lines maintained by DCP Midstream among others. The applicant, Aggregate Industries, have indicated that this will be a dry pit mine operation which they will operate. There will be a maximum of 35 employees working two shifts during daylight hours Monday through Saturday. The materials mined will be moved using front end loaders and a conveyor system that will transport the resource to the existing processing facility located south of County Road 64 and east of County Road 27. Conveyance of mined material from lands north of County Road 64 will be via a 12 foot by ten foot in height box culvert under County Road 64. Site reclamation will conform to the requirements of the MLRB Permit. Reclamation activities will be concurrent with the mining operation to minimize the area of disturbance of the site as much as possible. Impacts to the wildlife habitat will be minimized during mining. The reclamation plan is for unlined and lined ponds, upland wetlands bank and riparian habitat. The proposed reclamation plan is in harmony with the goals of the 1998 Greeley Open space System Plan. The applicant proposes that all traffic enter and exit the property onto County Road 27 (83rd Avenue) and proceed north or south. The primary haul route will be from County Road 27 (83rd Avenue) to State Highway 34 (10th Street). A temporary access is proposed along County Road 29 (71st Avenue) and will be closed post mining. Aggregate Industries has indicated that noise levels will comply with the requirements of the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment. All activities will be regulated by (MSHA), the Mine Safety and Health Act and (OSHA) the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Twenty-seven (27) referral agencies reviewed this case; thirteen (13) agencies responded with eleven agencies providing comments with the remaining agencies not responding. 9 There has been four items of correspondence received from surrounding property owners; Corabelle Goetzel penned a letter dated December 29, 2008 with concerns of the mining operations relative to her property. She requested a setback of 200 feet, thereby protecting her from noise, dust and relief from negative impacts. Alternatively she would be open to selling her property at a fair price. Charles Cannon in a letter dated December 30, 2008 expressed his objections and identified concerns. Mr. Cannon inquired as to why an Environmental Impact Study was not conducted; why a sand mine was permitted in the agricultural zone district and concerns of property valuation for his residence and for the environment adjacent to the Poudre River. Kim Lawrence of Lind Lawrence & Ottenhoff in an undated letter without enclosures, received electronically on Thursday May 28, 2009 spoke of concerns with the Bracewell PUD lake and the effects of dewatering on this lake, thereby depleting the water in the lake. Ray and Sally Sears in a letter dated May 28, 2009 held concerns of noise, dirt and invasion of their property through the use of their residential driveway without permission. Other concerns addressed include the destruction of the 12 acre woods and trees surrounding the residence, the rerouting of underground water supplies, and the method of mining and reclamation occurring on the Aggregate property. The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application to the Planning Commission with the attached Conditions and Development Standards. Commissioner Ochsner asked to clarify the request of the second amendment to this application. Mr. Ogle stated that the existing facilities and the uses for this permit are the same as during the original USR; however this second amendment increases the amount of land to be mined by 156 acres. He added that the applicant intends to mine out the area south of County Road 64 and then come across County Road 64 as the last phase of the application. Commissioner Holton asked if these pits are going to be sealed. Mr. Ogle referred the question to the applicant. Barb Brunk, Landscape Architect, Resource Conservation Partners, PO Box 1522, Longmont Colorado. Ms. Brunk commented that the commitment for the setback from the adjacent subdivision remains in place. Therefore the mining limits have not changed. Ms. Brunk commented that Aggregate Industries has an existing long-standing working relationship with Mr. Sears and rather than go through his issues individually they would like to be able to meet with him before the Board. Ms. Brunk stated that the existing application remains active and in place. All of the facilities will stay in place; the idea is to add resource. The material from the additional sites will be conveyed to the existing operation. Traffic patterns will stay the same so that it stays with the existing operation. Ms. Brunk showed on a visual slide that some land north of County Road 64 will be added to the permit as well as the corner of County Roads 29 and 64. This site will be mined in phases. The applicant will finish cell 3. She indicated that that particular site is reclaimed approximately two thirds of the way. There is a pile of material in the middle of the cell that has yet to be mined. The pile of material which Mr. Sears was speaking about on the eastern edge of the site is topsoil that has been segregated to put back in the hole once reclamation is complete. Aggregate needs the overburden from that mineral resource in the center of that hole to put that slope back. So that is why that pile of dirt is still there. Ms. Brunk commented that with what is going on with the economy they are not pulling as much material out of that site as they have historically, but hopefully when that turns around that will be the first part to finish. Aggregate actively pursues concurrent mining and reclamation. Ms. Brunk commented that with regard to the Goetzel's concerns, as they go forward and by the time they get to mining beside them the area south of the road will be reclaimed. Therefore they will have mining on 10 one side of their property and on the north side of their property there is an existing oil and gas facility so there is an additional 300 foot setback because of the circle for oil and gas development. She added that they have planned to put some seeded berms between the active mining area and their yard to the west which is the best visual and sound barrier. When it is finished it will be a lake front lot. Ms. Brunk stated that they agree with staff recommendations. She added that there are a couple of items in which they would like to talk to Public Works about prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing. These items include Condition of Approval 2.A. She commented that they wanted to let the Planning Commissioners know that they are working with Public Works on that. In addition, Ms. Brunk commented that for all of the County Roads where the County has requested additional right-of-way they are requesting a reservation rather than a dedication because those are regional transportation corridors and this property is going to end up as open space so it would seem reasonable that at the time the person who needs the regional transportation corridor wants the land and they may be able to compensate the landowner for that. Therefore they would like to talk to the Board about that at some point in the future. In addition, Item 2.1 the County has requested that prior to recording the plat collateral is put up for that box culvert under the highway; they are requesting that is put aside until the building permit. They will not disturb the road until they put that in. It is very expensive for the applicant to put up a letter of credit for something that may not be built for two years. Therefore they request that item gets pushed to prior to issuance of building permit for the box culvert that will go under the road to convey the material. Ms. Brunk answered Mr. Holton's question and said that the ponds are not lined. They left the opportunity for the pond on the north with the option with the MLRB to line or not line it. At this point it is shown as an unlined pond but they did want to have the ability to line it in the future so that if anyone comes along and wants water storage there it will be lined facility. Commissioner Hall asked if the property north of County Road 64 will be a pond. Ms. Brunk replied yes. Mr. Hall asked if there are any plans in addressing the neighbors concerns about their water level. Ms. Brunk commented that before mining on a piece of property they install monitoring wells so they establish a really good baseline of where the groundwater is before they start mining. In addition to that they monitor all wells during the mining process. She added that they do not anticipate that they will impact them but if they do there is a standard setup through the DRMS permit to address those issues. The Chair asked Public Works for any comments. Don Carroll, Public Works, commented that County Road 27 is a strategic roadway and at full build -out will be 140 foot right-of-way. He added that County Road 64 (O Street) is a major arterial. There is a new O Street corridor which was approved in October 2008 and future plans show that it connects to Crossroads Boulevard by the Budweiser Event Center to 1-25. 7151 Avenue is an arterial road with 140 foot right-of- way at full build -out. The proposal is to put the conveyor under the road in a box culvert and move the material from the north to the south. Mr. Carroll indicated that there are attached conditions of approval that when the box is installed there will be some electronic bulletin boards notifying the public that the road will be closed temporarily to make that installation. Mr. Carroll commented that there is a current Maintenance Agreement and they are requesting the applicant to renew a new Maintenance Agreement because of the O Street corridor plans and the additional requirements on widening the rights -of -way. He added that they will be meeting with the applicant prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing to work out redrafting the Road Maintenance Agreement. Commissioner Holton referred to Condition of Approval 1.F and asked about the difference of reserved and dedicated. Mr. Barker said that reserved is used to show on the plat that it is there and in essence, it requires the County to purchase it at a later date. Dedication is typically required where as part of the 11 development that dedicated right-of-way is going to be necessary. Commissioner Holton asked for legal advisement for Condition of Approval 2.1. Mr. Barker agreed with the request. He added that there have been a number of situations where we have been holding collateral and have been asked to release it because they are not doing anything right now. So making the collateral at the time of issuance of building permits would be logical and fair to the applicant. Mr. Holton asked if condition 2.1 could be moved to 4.B. Mr. Barker replied yes. Tom Holton motioned to move Condition of Approval 2.1 to 4.B, seconded by Mark Lawley. Motion carried. Don Dunker, Public Works, commented that the applicant has submitted a drainage report to address all the off -site flows and they will be handled by using swales to go around the site and then the swales will go into the pit and then will be pumped to the river. There are two Flood Hazard Development Permits. The original permit dealt with the old site. The amended Flood Hazard Development Permit addresses the new mining site and is based on the 2003 Army Corps of Engineer Study of the Cache La Poudre River from the City of Greeley. Both are approved and they show no impact. From the mining operation the topsoil and overburden stockpiles will be placed outside of the floodplain. The material that is actually mined will be stored on the south part of the site. They will use the conveyor to go under County Road 64 and stockpile it in the same areas as before. Lauren Light, Environmental Health, commented that Sharktooth Pipeline Company supplies the water and there is an existing septic permit for four people so they will need to have it evaluated for the 35 employees. She added that they can use portable toilets and bottled water at the working face of the mine because those are temporary uses. Noise is restricted to the industrial zone limit. Dust Abatement and Waste Handling Plans were submitted with their application and have been approved. The applicant has also submitted an Air Emissions Permit from the State and a discharge permit from the State. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application Ray Sears, 13644 CR 64. Mr. Sears commented that his property is located east, north and a little south of the present gravel mines. He expressed that his major concern is the lowering of the water table because their property has been dramatically affected by that. He indicated that Aggregate Industries has provided him readings of their test pits since they were drilled in 2001. He commented that in looking back through some of the readings he understands now why some of his trees have died. Mr. Sears stated that the readings for test pit #4 started with 15.9 feet water level below surface of ground and in 2005 and 2006 it dropped down to 32.5 feet. Test pit #5 started at 8.86 feet water level and in 2008 it is now 13.6 feet lower than it was. Test pit #6 which borders the west part of his property has fluctuated from 4 feet below ground surface to 9 feet. As a result, they have lost approximately 70% of a little thicket next to test pit #5. They had a pasture surrounded by trees and he estimated that 70% to 80% of those trees are now dead. He added that it is pretty pertinent that the water level affects their trees. Mr. Sears commented that he is very interested in talking with Aggregate Industries about how they can help him restore what has been lost but to also talk about the process of reclamation. Mr. Sears expressed that they have had a berm along his driveway that is topsoil and was just seeded yesterday after three years. When the wind storms pick up they have had a lot of blowing dirt and sand. Mr. Sears commented that originally he didn't have an objection to having a gravel pit in his backyard. In 1999 when this was first proposed he saw in the future that this would improve his land with regard to his property value. In retrospect, it has done damage up to this point. If mitigation is being proposed it needs to be followed through with. 12 Mr. Sears stated that over the last two to three years he has seen very little reclamation to the south of them and the ongoing mining that is taking place to the north and west of them. They have noticed that the operations for Aggregate Industries have ground to a halt and to expect that reclamation is going to take place when money is not being generated by the operation is questionable. He would like to see some kind of ongoing reclamation. Commissioner Grand asked if the original USR approved in 1999 included a reclamation declaration addressing the water issue. Mr. Sears stated that he could not recall. Mr. Grand said that we are looking to proceed for an amendment when we haven't seen the provisions of meeting the original USR. He expressed concern to have the first addressed before looking at the second. Mr. Sears agreed. Commission Lawley asked if there are provisions in the USR that would allow him to come back to the County and file a complaint because they have not met the provisions of the original USR. Mr. Ogle stated that is correct. Mr. Lawley stated that would be a direction for Mr. Sears to go back to the County and get those issues addressed. Mr. Ogle commented that he could file a complaint with the County or the State. Mr. Sears commented that they are here today because of the proposed expansion. He added that they have been patient awaiting reclamation to take place and haven't raised a lot of fuss about it although they see the ongoing death to the trees. What really prompted him to attend today was the anticipation that there will be future development when existing development is not being taken care of. Stewart Klady, 30867 Rocky Road. Mr. Klady stated that he is concerned with the ground water and dust abatement and noise. He inquired as to how they will be transporting the material from the east pit to the existing batch plant. He understands that they have talked about the conveyor under the road; however no one has addressed the issue from the east pit. The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting. Ms. Brunk commented that the material from the eastern gravel mine will be conveyed across the river back into the site. There will be no truck traffic as it is another conveyor system. She added that there is an existing easement in place. She further added that they will need a building permit for that and will come forward as they proceed with that mining. Ms. Brunk stated that she understands Mr. Sears concerns about ground water because those issues are serious. There have been a lot of research on where the feeder roots of trees are; they are in the top 12 to 18 inches of the soil. She added that there maybe a root system that is an anchor and stabilizes those trees, but where the roots collect moisture is in the top 12 to 18 inches. Prior to mining on this site, the groundwater was below the level of those trees. Ms. Brunk commented that in the last five years it has been very, very dry and there is a place on this river right near this piece of property that's a zero point in the river when the Greeley Canal starts irrigating they take the water; therefore the hydrology of that area is also drastically transformed at the time of irrigation. Connie Davis, Aggregate Industries, 131 N 35th Ave, Greeley CO. Ms. Davis clarified that there was a groundwater mitigation and monitoring plan associated with the previous amendment. At that time the bigger issue was the concern of whether or not there would be a rise in the groundwater levels because the original plan called for some of the upper cells to be lined reservoirs and he was concerned that there might be a mounding effect when they put the compacted clay liner in. That plan was geared more to if the water table rose to within 18 inches of the water surface. Ms. Davis stated that the more current plan developed over the years address broader issues surrounding dewatering as well as mounding and shadowing effects of slurry walls and addresses decreases in groundwater levels. Typically if the groundwater level drops more than a couple of feet we look into the issue to try and determine if mining is the significant factor in that reduction in the groundwater level. Ms. Davis added that the mitigation that they have proposed and progressed over the past three years was to divert some of their dewatering water into a pond and a pipe to feed those ponds. She added that they continue to do that. They are doing intermittent work there and have not completely ceased operations at this site so they need to keep it dewatered. Ms. Davis commented that where they are mining now they have done 13 concurrent reclamation The Chair asked the members of the Planning Commission if they had any comments or questions. Mr. Barker referred to the change on Condition of Approval 2.1. He thought he got carried away with moving that to prior to construction as he believes all they wanted to do was postpone the posting of collateral and not the Improvements Agreement. That is something we typically do prior to recording the plat. He added that we wouldn't require the collateral at that time but it is typically a matter of making certain that we get those things lined out as to what is going to be constructed. Ms. Brunk said that it was fine to move it; however she feels that the specifics of how much it will cost to build it they won't know until it is designed. She added that as long as an agreement can be worked out that says that there is no issue of posting the collateral after the fact. She commented that she believes they just need to work out the language with Public Works on how they do the agreement. Mr. Barker commented that he would like to have the agreement prior to recording the plat but in the agreement itself we can give some flexibility to exactly how big it would be and that can be postponed until the time before we issue the building permits and the posting of the collateral. Mr. Barker recommended moving back the first sentence to 2.1 to read "The applicant shall complete an Improvements Agreement according to policy regarding collateral for improvements", and then keep the remaining language as condition 4.B. Robert Grand moved to have staff and the applicant work out a new 2.1 and 4.b, seconded by Tom Holton. 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. The applicant replied that they are in agreement with the exception of discussing the matter of reservation and dedication at the Board of County Commissioner hearing. Commissioner Grand expressed that the surrounding property owners have an expectation on the original USR and from their perspective that hasn't been fulfilled. He feels that a sincere effort by Aggregate would be appropriate to address their concerns. Commissioner Ochsner commented that he has some of the same concerns as well. He isn't sure if Aggregate has fulfilled all the requirements in the original USR and then now they are asking for expanding their operation and are now willing to negotiate. He doesn't like business that way and wishes some of their promises would have been followed through with. Commissioner Lawley agreed with the previous comments. He added that he believes that there is a provision for the landowners under the original USR to go back and address their concerns by filing a complaint with the County or the State. Mark Lawley moved that Case 2nd AmUSR-897 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, absent; Robert Grand, yes with comment; Bill Hall, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Roy Spitzer, absent; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Grand commented that he is concerned with the way Aggregate worked to solve the issues with the landowners consistent with their original USR agreement. Commissioner Ochsner urged Aggregate Industries to work closer with the neighbors. He does believe that some damage has been done and urged the public to file some complaints as they can help you. The Chair called a recess at 3:52 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 3:46 p.m. 14 The Chair read the last case into record. CASE NUMBER: 2009-XX PLANNER: Brad Mueller REQUEST: Code Changes for Chapter 23, Chapter 24, and Chapter 26. Brad Mueller, Planning Services, commented that staff attempts to do code changes a couple of times a year. This is in response from comments that we get from the public, members of Planning Commission, Board of County Commissioners, and staff. Mr. Mueller added that consistent with their policies in the past this was brought before the Board of County Commissioners at a very conceptual level on the substantive items to make sure that they are generally supportive of staff exploring that with the Planning Commissioners in greater detail. There was public notice provided as required by Chapter 23 of the code as well as a courtesy press release. Mr. Mueller started with the proposed changes to the Use by Special Reviews (USR). Currently we have over 200 or so USRs compiled in a notebook which is essentially on the books but have reason to suspect that don't actually exist in the field. We either know that as we have driven by or haven't seen or heard any activity. Right now it is rather cumbersome to clean these up as we have to get permission from the landowner who has to proactively ask for that change, staff sets up a board hearing and then we go through that process. What we are trying to do is make termination of the use more clearly defined. Right now it is somewhat vague as there is a vacation process of the plat and the exhibit and map and permit itself; however the use actually terminating is not real clearly defined. Therefore this would attempt to define when the use actually terminates by observation of staff or when the landowner states to staff that the use is no longer happening. At that point it is deemed terminated and we would send notification to the landowner via certified mail and then if they don't respond staff follows up with the action of actually vacating the permit. Following that there is a Board Resolution which closes the loop since they granted the permit. Commissioner Berryman wished to clarify and gave an example that if a landowner has a 2000 head feedlot and decides that he will shut operations down for 5 years or so and as long as he intends to possibly use that again at his discretion he can keep that USR open even if staff has driven by and noticed that it was empty. Mr. Mueller referred to Page 8 Section B and commented that the use actually would terminate when the use of the land changes or its not occurring anymore. He added that the reason for that rationale is that if the use is concluded even if there is an intention of starting that operation up in the future it is open-ended and there is every practical reason to think that the circumstances surrounding that situation might have changed which would merit looking at that again. So in the example given there are some mitigation things that might need to be done to the soil and if the operation would start up again there might be changes in the intensity and access, those types of things. Mr. Berryman asked what if it is a shorter duration of a year. He added that similar to market conditions similar to what we have been seeing now. Mr. Mueller said that one thing to recognize too about the use is the use is the combination of the activity on the site as well as the physical structures on the site. The goal of most of this regulation is to work under the circumstances where there is landowner consent in a situation. Commissioner Holton asked to clarify whose decision it would be to vacate the USR. Mr. Mueller said that ultimately it would be the Board of County Commissioners decision. He said that if staff observed that there is nothing there and the landowner writes back saying that they do have something going on, staff still interprets that they believe it is closed, then they have an option to go to the Board and make their case. Mr. Mueller commented that there will have to be some discretion but there is a safety valve for the landowner that they do get to make their point to the board. Commissioner Grand commented that in today's economic environment we have folks who are 15 contracting their business, giving up their downtown site and going into their agricultural area and setting up their business there. This has generated additional USR activity perhaps in terms of people being in violation. He is concerned after speaking with Mr. Honn that we don't seem to have any kind of degree so that if you have the 5th dog you have to qualify for a USR which is the same for 150 dogs. He asked if there is any thought process that somehow there is a value of where a small person is trying to do something and he is faced with having to get a USR with all of the associated fees. He commented that he had an individual talk to him where he was overwhelmed. He asked if when they are struggling not to lose their house and to survive and they need additional monies for a USR, do we offer folks some type of approach where there is another way to do it and not just black and white. Mr. Mueller said that Mr. Grand raised some important questions and is not sure that they are in the scope of what they are attempting to do with this language but they are very important. He wondered if a Use by Special Review which is complicated, time consuming and expensive appropriate for all of the types of things that we want to see through a permitting process because it is not just appropriate to just do it administratively. He felt that there are those types of uses that could be identified. Commissioner Grand commented that another concern of his is the violation process. In visiting with Mr. Honn, he asked him what the percentage is of complaints on USR violations and it was pointed out that there is approximately 70% based on complaints and about 30% were by observation. He understands we have a regulatory issue but is concerned that it is in the generating work position. He believes that we need to be sensitive to that particularly in today's economic environment. Mr. Mueller agreed with Mr. Grand and added that our policy is that we only go after violations when there is a complaint and he believes that the 30% represents situations where we have seen something that either is a health or safety concern from our observation or there is a clear fairness issue where maybe somebody immediately next door was subjected to something. Mr. Grand said maybe it was seen in a publication where the person advertised. His concern is that there are folks who are intimidated and they should not be afraid of their government. Commissioner Holton said that the small business owners who come to these meetings and are intimidated need some help through the process. Mr. Mueller commented that those are all good points and doesn't have an easy solution today but we could as a staff brainstorm those issues and then as part of the Planning Commission meeting discussion try to identify some ways to address that. He believes that this office is always very sensitive to customer service. Commissioner Ochsner expressed that if a landowner has spent the money and was approved for a USR and unless you want it to be terminated he doesn't think he should be forced to vacate the permit. Even If the business has stopped the USR adds value to the property for someone wanting to sell it to someone for the same business. Mr. Mueller asked to clarify if he understands that the intention is that the USR should be somewhat of a vested right that runs with the land unless otherwise specified at the time the permit is approved. The Planning Commissioners agreed with that statement. Commissioner Lawley asked if the concern is that there are all these USRs out there not operating. Mr. Mueller replied yes. Mr. Lawley asked why you want to know that. Mr. Mueller commented that it is confusing when you have maps and documents and at some basic level it is a housekeeping issue that if there are all of these out there and it's not valid data it becomes confusing and misleading to the public. Commissioner Hall reiterated that it seems to be everyone's concern here for staff to come and say they don't believe the use is happening and should be terminated. Mr. Mueller suggested deleting "the use is no longer occurring" in the first sentence of Section 23-2-290.B on Page 8 as it addresses the concerns that have been raised. Commissioner Grand also suggested removing "or when Planning Services observes that the use has 16 been terminated" in the same section. Mr. Mueller commented that we would want to keep that because we can contact the landowner to send a letter but there is no motivation on their part to proactively send a letter. Mr. Grand commented that as a landowner he has the right to have the USR because that is what he paid for. He expressed great concern that by this action a property right is taken away from the landowner if the USR was paid and approved. Mr. Mueller suggested to amend it to read "...or when Planning Services observes that the use may have terminated". Mr. Grand said that he believes that it is inserting Planning Services in a process where he is not sure it should be. Mr. Mueller commented that they are trying to address a practical problem that exists right now. Tom Honn, Planning Director, commented that the biggest factor is it's a public health and safety issue when a Use has not been utilized on the property. He gave an example of a feedyard that has quit operating for a period of time and the rules may change over time dealing with design or how it is operated. The neighborhood has changed during that course and they have also now come to have a certain expectation of what it should be. Those are the places where we see those conflicts and the reason for this discussion. Mr. Grand understood the discussion but his point is that new folks need to do their homework in terms of not depriving folks who have gone through the process. He added that if there is a stipulation requiring USRs which said you need to be current with the applicable State or Federal regulations that apply to you he has no problem with that. However he believes that the USR that states you are approved for this Use, is for life. Commissioner Holton said he can understand that as long as the landowner has a right to appeal but does not want it terminated by staff. Mr. Barker commented that it is not a taking of a property right because they are given due process in that regard. Mr. Grand believes that this is an overextension of government's process. It is the landowner's right to have the Use. Mr. Mueller commented that this was an attempt to proactively manage these permits that have been issued and which there is no activity there. He added that they thought they had come up with something that is common in looking at best practices in other jurisdictions and also practical without being onerous to a landowner by saying that we have observed this, are you okay with that and they say no then we are done, if they say yes then we get to take one off the books. Commissioner Hall understands what is trying to be accomplished and added that with a business you are busy with eight other things and if you receive a letter in the mail which says this and then in ten days if you don't respond it will be changed. He asked if there was some more time that could be given rather than the 10 days. Mr. Mueller replied yes. Commissioner Berryman said that something longer than 10 days would be more appropriate and suggested 30 days. Commissioner Hall suggested formatting the letter so that the landowner can simply mark on the original letter that they have no objection and send it back. Mr. Mueller commented that there will be an opportunity at the end of the discussion to make modifications to the motion. He suggested moving on to the next proposed changes. One substantive proposed change to the Site Plan Reviews is that after you've received approval if you don't start construction after three (3) years the permit would go away. In areas where Site Plans are done, which are in commercial and industrial areas, things do change on a fairly regular basis and it would be appropriate to re-evaluate the circumstances surrounding that. The next item is concerning cargo containers. Currently, in the agricultural district right now you can only have one (1) cargo container as an accessory use. This proposal is to make it more lenient to allow for additional ones essentially on larger acreages. He added that there is no permitting process with this; it is strictly a use by right. Mr. Mueller moved onto the next item of Temporary Seasonal Permits. These uses already exist for fireworks and Christmas tree stands. This proposal expands the uses to include seasonal fruit or vegetable stands. 17 Mr. Mueller commented that there are different kinds of zoning permits that are administrative in nature, such as mobile homes, small wind generators, commercial vehicles, etc. There is a substantive change for the semi -trailers as accessory storage. Right now it is spread out in different parts of the code and it is very easy to overlook portions of that. Commercial vehicles are actually a point that remains in discussion with the Board. The Board had flagged this for the last six months as an issue for staff to look at. Mr. Mueller commented that he does not have a complete recommendation for the Planning Commission at this time and suggested that the Planning Commissioners recognize that there may be additional changes as proposed directly by the Board at their hearing. He continued to say that right now all the changes that are proposed are logistical and textual to clean up language. Those changes specifically are to add approval criteria, to recognize that there is a referral process, an allowance that if 30% or more of neighbors have opposition to the proposal then it goes to the Board hearing, and also clarifies the Board's role in hearing that and making a determination. Mr. Mueller continued with the next proposed change. Right now outdoor storage is an accessory use to a wide variety of things. Many of the Use by Special Reviews you review include outdoor storage which is typically screened or put off to the side. Sometimes, however, we get an actual use that is simply outdoor storage such as an RV storage lot. Because there is not a specific definition in the code, one is being proposed now that defines outdoor storage and also proposes as a Use by Right in the C-3 (Commercial) and 1-2 and 1-3 (Industrial) Zone Districts. We discovered a year or so ago that if you want to come in with a dance or a pottery school or truck school that use is not allowed anywhere in the county. It has to do with the definition of schools. So this is an attempt to define commercial schools as it centers around an idea of it being both for-profit and not part of a complete curriculum. The recommendation is that these be a Use by Right for indoor only within the C-1, C-2, C-3 (Commercial) and I-1 (Industrial) zone districts. Because of the potential for more intensity, driving school and outdoor uses the Use by Special Review permits would be required in the 1-2 and I-3 districts. Right now we require two different permits if you want to put a mobile home on a commercial zone district. First you have a USR or Site Plan Review, depending on the use, and then technically you are also supposed to get a separate administrative mobile home for that as well. That really is not necessary and in practice staff doesn't require that of people. Therefore this is an attempt to clean that up and make it clear. There is also not a clear allowance to extend the temporary use so there is language proposed that would give the Director of Planning the ability to extend that temporary use up to two additional periods of six months for a total of 18 months. There are a series of changes proposed relative to the Board of Adjustment that all of which have to do with the fact that there were bylaws approved a year or more ago and make it consistent with the County Charter and now this is a change to the code which would make it consistent as well. Right now if you do a Planned Unit Development (PUD) there is a series of requirements that the PUD final plat be recorded within a certain time after it gets approved at the Board of County Commission. It states that the construction commence after a year and that you have to comply with the plat. Those things exist for the PUDs and it only seemed equitable to apply those to final plats for either the minor or major subdivision process as well. Commissioner Ochsner commented that the timeframe that is suggested is one year and he feels that it is a little too quick. Most of the minor subdivisions are not that strong of an impact on the surrounding environment and so if they are not built for 3-5 years he doesn't see that as a problem. Whereas with the major subdivisions and PUDs if those plans change in 1-3 years he can see that affecting the entire community. He doesn't see the need for the one year time limit for construction. Mr. Mueller commented that he didn't disagree with him and that this was an attempt to be consistent. He added that you do have the opportunity to a time extension as well. He recommended that if the Planning Commission is interested in varying the time frame that there be a recommendation that that same change be made in the PUD section too. 18 Commissioner Lawley commented that given all the extensions that the Commissioners are making it may be good to just make the change across the board to three years and they may request for an additional extension from the County Commissioners. The last topical item to discuss is changing the reference in Chapter 26 from Mixed Use Development (MUD) to Regional Urbanization Areas (RUA) to be consistent with what was adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan. There are other substantive changes proposed for Chapter 26. One change is that currently within the RUAs there is a requirement that you do a PUD whenever you subdivide land. The way the text is written is confusing and seems to suggest that if even you want to do just a Use by Special Review you have to do a PUD. This change is simply suggesting that the requirement that the subdivision be always processed as a PUD go away and allow them to do it as a minor subdivision or major subdivision instead of a PUD. The other change is to add language in the RUA section that says there is really no presumption of incompatibility if you have a non -urban use. RUAs are planning areas that are generally planned for urbanized uses; however they have underlining zoning. This is to make it clear that the presumption of incompatibility is not there just because you happen to be in a RUA. After going through the substantive changes, Mr. Mueller briefly went through the rest of the memo by section highlighting some items. Mr. Mueller handed out a staff report and some material on commercial vehicles. In addition he handed out three (3) changes to the memo. The first is in the USR section. In the original memo there is a reference to the idea that the resolution that is required can be put on the Board of County Commissioners Consent Agenda. It was brought to his attention that it cannot be a consent item so that sentence is proposed to be taken out. On Page 2 of the handout he received feedback that commercial vehicles should be capitalized throughout that section. As a matter of practice throughout the code, capitalized terms mean that there is a definition at the beginning of the zoning code. (Bill Hall left the meeting at 5:17 p.m.) Finally, on the bottom of Page 3 is language in Chapter 26 which is the development standards for the 1-25 MUD, specifically that speak to setbacks based on landscaping and screening. These are regulations that have been in there for many years and are also consistent with an intergovernmental agreement that had existed with Firestone, Frederick and Dacono. Firestone is no longer in that IGA so it only exists with Frederick and Dacono. The current language seems to suggest that you need a setback of 130 feet from the road right-of-way to any development. That is an extremely large amount and is not the intent of the language. It is also an extreme hardship for any of the businesses in the Del Camino area along Highway 119 or 1-25 who may want to build. Mr. Mueller commented that there were several items that they were not able to completely refine before bringing it to the Planning Commission. He asked for some feedback on the Planning Commissioners concerns if they have some modifications both with the recommendations made today and some additional research staff does and takes to the Board. Mr. Mueller indicated that one item deals with commercial vehicles as the Board has asked for some changes to that but hasn't been specific about what they would like to do with it. Another item is the submittal requirements for a new RUA which are not spelled out in detail. If there is a modification to the RUA that process is clearly spelled out but if you are proposing a new one it says you should submit any of the items for the other types of processes as determined by staff. Because there are discussions and landowners who have indicated that they may be wanting to come in the next 6 months to a year with a RUA type plan changes there has been a desire expressed to try to specify that. He added this probably is the most substantive thing that could potentially be brought to the Board without Planning 19 Commission recommendation The animal board section is another item how there are some aspects of compatibility that staff may need to look a little bit more on that. Another item listed is that staff has attempted to clean up a lot of duplication in Chapter 23 regarding PUDs; however staff was not able to get all of that pulled together. It is more of a housekeeping item. Another item is the USRs for major facilities. Mr. Mueller commented that right now the code specifies that those end with the final decision by the Planning Commission; however the Board has expressed an interest in having those continue on to the Board for final determination. . The last item is that some of the zoning language like intent, criteria and the referral process could also apply to the wind generation as well as some of the mobile homes. One thought was that staff might try to button that up and bring to the Board. He asked the Planning Commissioners how they comfortable they felt with staff advancing some of those ideas to the Board without the Planning Commission having had the opportunity to see those. Commissioner Lawley stated that he would like to see them. Commissioner Ochsner asked what the reasoning is to skip them. Mr. Mueller replied that it is simply a timing issue. To get that pulled together would mean that it would be delayed in getting it to the Board. Given the volume of things it seems prudent to keep moving these items through. Mr. Mueller added that the alternative if you don't feel comfortable with staff bringing these items to the Board is to wait on Chapter 23 until the next go -around which will be this fall. It's possible that the Board on their own initiative would ask for staff to bring something on the RUA submittal as well as the commercial vehicles because that is something they've mentioned. Commissioner Holton asked what the deal is with the commercial vehicles. Mr. Mueller commented that it is all part of the discussion as there are concerns in Wattenburg about trucks going through. There are discussions about concerns either based on weight, number of wheels, size, etc. Some of the direction from the Board has been mixed and they want to do it based on the impact of the road system. However, on the other hand there is an interest of not having them in agricultural subdivisions. Mr. Mueller added that the other option on those two items (Chapter 22 and commercial vehicles) that we continue to try and get those ramped up and as we bring those to the Board of County Commissioners we advise the Planning Commissioners as well and pass along any concerns you might have and then they can remand those specific items back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Grand felt that you lose some input value in terms of the Board, Planning Commission and staff and added that it is a good three-way piece. If you cherry pick in between he believes that some value is lost. Mr. Mueller agreed with him and added that the balancing act here has been moving things forward in a timely manner but at the same time getting it all done. Commissioner Berryman asked if prior to going to the Board as some of this material is available you could email it for comment. Mr. Mueller said that he could do that or he could get some interpretation from Mr. Barker or the Board about what happens if they bring some segments to the Planning Commission between the first and second hearing of the Board. He said that he could bring the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Board forward and say to them that the commercial vehicle and those things will need to wait. He added that it would be their purview to say that they want it right now versus later. Mr. Honn added that in that case our goal would then be to bring it back to the Planning Commission in July, then after that it would be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners and it may be inserted as an addition even though they have already advertised it. It would basically become something that gets thrown in the there and discussed prior to the second reading. Commissioner Lawley commented that the Board would have a lot of that discussion at the first reading. Mr. Honn said that it is not impossible to insert something after the first reading. Mr. Mueller added that 20 we could advise the Board at the first reading that we anticipate additional discussion coming from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Lawley stated that he would like to see it before it goes to the Board. He feels that if it is taken to the Board between the first and second reading then you just as well leave the Planning Commission out of the process because they have already had a lot of discussion on particular points and we would only be convoluting the process at that point. Mr. Honn commented that the section wouldn't be in there during the first reading. Mr. Lawley said that you just said there are three readings and they will discuss that particular change in the code three times before they approve it. Mr. Honn said that they have three readings to discuss code amendments; however it's just during that process between the first and the second this new information can be inserted so it becomes discussed. Mr. Mueller added that it is similar to an item that you heard and discussed and then it got continued to next month's hearing the applicant might bring changes in between and you would look at those. Mr. Holton added that at each hearing there is public input. Commissioner Ochsner stated that he feels it is important to bring it in front of the Planning Commission even if it is later because it sets a bad precedence of skipping things. He asked to clarify if the code states that code changes have to be brought to the Planning Commission. Mr. Mueller replied yes, specifically chapter 23 ones. He expressed that he didn't disagree with them and added that it has been a timing challenge. If it wasn't a substantive issue it was pretty much administratvie it was just a change that needed to be made you make look at that and say that's fine, we understand what you are doing. Certainly if it is a substantive issue he believes that it is very critical to have that conversation and have the input from the Planning Commission before it goes forward. He added that they wanted to give the Planning Commissioners the opportunity if you looked at it and didn't feel it was substantial enough that it is okay for it to move forward. Commissioner Lawley appreciated that but agrees with Mr. Ochsner that it sets a bad precedence. Mr. Mueller commented that they do consider this an important part of the process because a lot of the stuff we get bedded with. Mr. Lawley commented that they see a lot of the things that the County Commissioners don't see because they deal with a lot of it at this level so when they get the applications it is cleaned up. He added that we may have insight to some things that they might not necessarily have insight to. Mr. Mueller commented that if it is the Planning Commission's desire to recommend approval for these changes he reminded them that the changes include the addendum in which he handed out to them. In addition, he said the other items identified were changes in the language on Page 8 and then whatever resolution on this item of the final plats. Mark Lawley moved to change the timeline required of PUD final plans from one (1) year to three (3) years in all sections listed by staff and corresponding references in Chapter 27, seconded by Robert Grand. Motion carried. Robert Grand moved to delete "the use is no longer occurring" in the first sentence of Section 23-2-290.B In addition, replacing "has been" with "may have" and changing the ten (10) days to thirty (30) days of receipt. Tom Holton seconded the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Holton noted that on Page 19, Section 23-4-950.B.3 "....in harmony with the character of the neighborhood" really leaves it open. Mr. Mueller commented that this language is taken from similar zoning permit section so it is not particularly unique or new in that regard. He added that it is one of the items that has allowed the Board to say no they don't think it should be allowed in this specific circumstance. Mr. Holton commented that Section 23-4-950.B.4 says basically the same thing as well. Mr. Mueller commented that it does and that language was taken from other areas in the code to try and be consistent. Tom Holton moved to amend Section 23-4-950.B.3 to read "The COMMERCIAL VEHICLE is compatible with the surrounding area", and delete Section -23-4-950.B.4. In addition he moved to amend Section 23- 21 4-900.B.10 to read "The semi -trailer used for accessory storage is compatible with the surrounding area", and delete 23-4-900.B.11. Mark Lawley seconded the motion. Motion carried. Robert Grand moved that 2009-XX Code Changes as amended and along with the addendum as presented by staff, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval, seconded by Tom Holton. Motion carried unanimously. 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 had any further business to discuss. Meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, te6kuit_kit f/ELvt Lii ) Kristine Ranslem Secretary 22 Hello