HomeMy WebLinkAbout20060559.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Paul Branham,that the following resolution be introduced for approval by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1533
APPLICANT: Asphalt Paving Company
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part NW4 of Section 25,Ti N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado
REQUEST: PUD Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Mineral
Resource Development facility including a Concrete and Asphalt Batch Plant,
Recycling Plant, Materials Blending, Import of Materials and Gravel Mining in the
A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 6 and east of and adjacent to CR 23.
be recommended for denial to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 23-2-260 of the
Weld County Code.
2. It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services'staff that the applicant has shown compliance with
Section 23-2-220 of the Weld County Code as follows:
A. Section 23-2-220.A.1 --The proposed use is consistent with Chapter 22 and any other applicable
code provisions or ordinances in effect. Section 22-5-80.A(CM Goal 1) states: "Conserve lands
which provide valuable natural mineral deposits for potential future use in accordance with state
law." The proposed mine area contains a valuable sand and gravel deposit,therefore, permitting
of this site for this use will ensure that material is available to meet future needs. Further, Section
22-5-70.A states"The County recognizes that mineral resource extraction is an essential industry.
The availability and cost of materials, such as sand and gravel, have an economic affect on the
general construction and highway construction industry." Permitting of this site for this use will
ensure that material is available to meet future needs.
Section 22-5-80.B (CM.Goal 2) states, "Promote the reasonable and orderly development of
mineral resources."The proposed Use by Special Review(USR) proposes to mine the additional
lands as existing mineral reserves are depleted from the Perry Pit(AMUSR-921). The Perry Pit is
east of and adjacent to the unincorporated townsite of Wattenberg and is currently being mined by
Asphalt Paving Company.
Section 22-5-80.C (CM Goal 3)states: "Minimize the impacts of surface mining activities on
surrounding land uses, roads and highways." The applicant states there will be no change in the
permitted truck count or average production rate between the existing Perry Pit and proposed
Wattenberg West site. The access location change will be accompanied by road improvements
equal to the proposed impact. The referral received from Weld County Department of Public
Works dated November 9, 2005, states"A joint traffic study including Aggregate Industries and
Mobile Pre-Mix along with Asphalt Paving was submitted to the county as a part of the
improvements agreement for the operation of the pits on County Road 6. The application indicates
that there will be no increase in the truck count or average production rate just transporting the
material from Perry Pit to the proposed Wattenberg West site;therefore, a new traffic study will not
be required if annual production would not increase." The applicant shall enter into a new Long-
Term Road Maintenance and Improvement Agreement for the Wattenberg West facility with the
Weld County Public Works Department for the upgrade of paving and maintenance of the County
Roads which are associated with the pit and any additional intersection impacted by the heavy
hauling.
B. Section 23-2-220.A.2--The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the A(Agricultural)Zone
District. Section 23-3-40.A and Section 23-3-40.A.4 of the Weld County Code provides for a
Mineral Resource Development facility including a Concrete and Asphalt Batch Plant, Recycling
Plant, Materials Blending, Import of Materials and Gravel Mining in the A(Agricultural)Zone
EXHIBIT
2006-0559
GtS2 4/53
Resolutions USR-1533
Asphalt Paving Company
Page 2
District.
C. Section 23-2-220.A.3--The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with the existing
surrounding land uses. Existing land uses surrounding the property are typically agricultural and
rural residential in use. Additionally,there is the unincorporated townsite,Wattenberg, located
east of and adjacent to the proposed gravel operation. There are twenty-seven (27)property
owners within five hundred (500)feet of this proposed application. Weld County has received four
(4) letters from surrounding property owners indicating the following concerns: depreciation of
property value,the effect on the existing water quality, noise, lighting, hours of operation,traffic,
and air pollution. Planning Staff determined the proposed use would be compatible with
surrounding properties which include gravel operations to the east(AMUSR-921Asphalt Paving
Company,AMUSR-905 Aggregate Industries Inc.,and USR-1259 Mobile Pre-Mix). The applicant
is proposing to install clumps of evergreen trees and deciduous shrubs adjacent to County Road 6.
The areas adjacent to Wattenberg will have clumps of canopy trees to shield the operations from
surrounding landowners. The Department of Planning Services is requesting the applicant submit
a landscape and screening plan prior to scheduling the Board of County Commissioners hearing
that includes berms and landscaping along the north, east and west sides of the proposed
development and the batchplant 10 feet below road grade.
D. Section 23-2-220.A.4--The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with future
development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning and with the future
development as projected by Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code and any other applicable code
provisions or ordinances in effect, or the adopted Master Plans of affected municipalities.The
subject property lies within the three-mile referral area of the City of Fort Lupton, City of Brighton,
and Adams County. The City of Fort Lupton and the City of Brighton returned a referral stating
they had reviewed the request and find no conflicts with their interests. Weld County has not
received a referral from Adams County regarding this proposal. Planning Staff believes that,with
the endorsement of the Conditions of Approval, contained in this recommendation,the approval of
this use will not jeopardize the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding property owners.
E. Section 23-2-220.A.5--The application complies with Section 23-5-230 of the Weld County Code.
The proposal is not located within the Flood Hazard Overlay District area as delineated on FIRM
Community Panel Map#080266-983C dated September 28, 1982.
Effective January 1,2003, Building Permits issued on the subject site will be required to adhere to
the fee structure of the County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11)
Effective August 1, 2005, Building permits issued on the subject site will be required to adhere to
the fee structure of the Capital Expansion Impact Fee and the Storm water/Drainage Impact Fee.
(Ordinance 2005-8 Section 5-8-40)
F. Section 23-2-220.A.6--The applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort to conserve prime
agricultural land in the locational decision for the proposed use. The subject site is classified as
"Prime Irrigated Farmlands of National Importance"as delineated on the Important Farmlands of
Weld County map, dated 1979. A portion of the site is currently being farmed. Section 22-5-
80A.1.CM.Policy 1.1. states"access to future mineral resource development areas should be
considered in all land use decisions in accordance with state law. No County governmental
authority which has control over zoning shall, by zoning, rezoning, granting a variance or other
official action or inaction, permit the use of any area known to contain a commercial mineral
deposit in a manner which would interfere with the present or future extraction of such deposit by
an extractor."
Resolutions USR-1533
Asphalt Paving Company
Page 3
G. Section 23-2-220.A.7--The Design Standards (Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code), Operation
Standards(Section 23-2-250,Weld County Code), Conditions of Approval,and Development
Standards ensure that there are adequate provisions for the protection of health, safety, and
welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and County.
H. Section 23-4-250—Additional requirements for open-mining have been addressed through this
application and the Development Standards will ensure compliance with Section 23-4-250 Weld
County Code.
This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application materials submitted by the applicant,other
relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral entities.
The Department of Planning Services'staff recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following:
1. Prior to scheduling the Board of County Commissioners hearing:
A. Section 22-5-100.A of the Weld County Code states"oil and gas exploration and production
should occur in a manner which minimizes the impact to agricultural uses and the environment
and reduces the conflicts between mineral development and current and future surface uses."
Section 22-5-100.6 of the Weld County Code states"...encourage cooperation, coordination and
communication between the surface owner and the mineral owner/operators of either the surface
or the mineral estate." Finally, Section 22-5-100.B.1 of the Weld County Code states"new
development should be planned to take into account current and future oil and gas drilling activity
to the extent oil and gas development can reasonably be anticipated: The applicant shall either
submit a copy of an agreement with the property's mineral owner/operators stipulating that the oil
and gas activities have been adequately incorporated into the design of the site or show evidence
that an adequate attempt has been made to mitigate the concerns of the mineral owner/operators.
The plat shall be amended to include any possible future drilling sites. (Department of Planning
Services)
B. The applicant shall submit a Landscape Plan identifying the number, size and species of all plant
material to the Weld County Planning Department for review.This plan shall include specifications
of the berms. The berms will mitigate impacts to surrounding properties and adjacent road rights-
of-way. The applicant shall use breaks in the berm with landscaping to fill the void, culverts, or
some other method that will allow water to flow freely. Included in the Landscape Plan the
applicant shall screen with berms and landscaping the north, east and west sides of the proposed
development. In addition the Landscape Plan shall also indicate the batchplant 10 feet below
adjacent road grade, as discussed with applicants. (Department of Planning Services)
C. The plat shall indicate how the proposed landscaping will be irrigated. (Department of Planning
Services)
2. Prior to recording the plat:
A. The plat shall be amended to delineate the following:
Resolutions USR-1533
Asphalt Paving Company
Page 4
1. All sheets shall be prepared in accordance with Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld County Code.
(Department of Planning Services)
2. All sheets shall be labeled USR-1533(Department of Planning Services)
3. All existing and future oil and gas drill envelopes. (Department of Planning Services)
4. The Development Standards associated with this application. (Department of Planning
Services)
5. A minimum of ten (10)feet of clearance from any existing power line or future power line shall
be maintained at all times as outlined by State Statute. (Department of Planning Services)
6. The location of any on-site signs, including all appropriate stop signs, speed limit signs, haul
route designation signs shall be posted at both entrances. (Department of Planning Services)
7. County Road 6 is classified by the County as a collector road,which requires a 80 foot right-of-
way at full build out. The applicant shall verify the existing right-of-way and the documents
creating the right-of-way. If the right-of-way cannot be verified, it shall be dedicated.The plat
shall delineate the existing right-of-way and the documents which created it along with any
additional right-of-way reservation required. (Department of Public Works)
8. County Road 23.5 is classified by the County as a local gravel road,which requires a 60 foot
right-of-way at full build out. The applicant shall verify the existing right-of-way and the
documents creating the right-of-way. If the right-of-way cannot be verified, it shall be dedicated.
The plat shall delineate the existing right-of-way and the documents which created it.
(Department of Public Works)
9. The location of all permanent structures, i.e., scale house,truck scale, all buildings and/or
structures and known areas for"portable" machinery associated with this land use application.
(Department of Planning Services)
B. The applicant shall submit evidence of an Air Pollution Emission Notice(A.P.E.N.)and Emissions
Permit application from the Air Pollution Control Division, Colorado Department of Health and
Environment. Evidence of the Weld County Department of Public and Environment approval shall
be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
C. The applicant shall submit a dust abatement plan for review and approval,to the Environmental
Health Services, Weld County Department of Public Health& Environment. Evidence of such shall
be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
D. The applicant shall submit evidence from the Colorado Division of Water Resources demonstrating
that the proposed well water is appropriately permitted for drinking, irrigation of proposed
landscaping, and sanitary uses. Bottled water shall be provided to employees at the temporary
Resolutions USR-1533
Asphalt Paving Company
Page 5
locations of the working face. Evidence of the Weld County Department of Public and
Environment approval shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
E. The applicant shall submit evidence of a Colorado Discharge Permit System (CDPS)from the
Water Quality Control Division of the Colorado Department of Health and Environment for any
proposed discharge into State Waterways. Evidence of the Weld County Department of Public
and Environment approval shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
F. The applicant shall submit a waste handling plan,for approval,to the Environmental Health
Services Division of the Weld County Department of Public Health& Environment. Evidence of
such shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. The plan shall include at a
minimum,the following:
1) A list of wastes which are expected to be generated on site.This should include
expected volumes and types of waste generated.
2) A list of the type and volume of chemicals expected to be stored on site.
3) The waste handler and facility where the waste will be disposed (including the facility
name, address, and phone number). (Department of Public Health and Environment)
G. The applicant shall submit a Landscape Plan identifying the number,size and species of all plant
material to the Department of Planning Services for review and approval.This plan shall include
specifications of any proposed berm's, if required.The proposed berms will be extended to
mitigate impacts to surrounding properties and adjacent road rights-of-way. (Department of
Planning Services)
H. The applicant shall enter into a Road Maintenance and Improvements Agreement for the
designated haul route and all intersection improvements. The applicant shall also address all
transportation and non-transportation improvements associated with this application. The
Improvements Agreement shall be approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
(Department of Public Works, Department of Planning Services)
The applicant shall attempt to meet with the Weld County Sheriffs Office to discuss the
applicant's security plan. (Weld County Sheriff)
J. The applicant shall submit a Lighting Plan to the Department of Planning Services for review and
approval. (Department of Planning Services)
K. The West Adams Soil Conservation District has provided information regarding the soils on the
site.The applicant shall review the information and use it to positively manage on-site soils.
(West Adams Soil Conservation District)
Resolutions USR-1533
Asphalt Paving Company
Page 6
L. The applicant shall provide written evidence that all issues involving water rights, including a water
court approved plan for augmentation or substitute water supply plan has been approved by the
State of Colorado, Division of Water Resources. Written evidence of approval or obtaining
approval from the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology(DMG)for a permit to mine the
resource shall be submitted to the Weld County Department of Planning Services prior to mining of
the mineral resource. (Department of Planning Services)
3. Prior to operation:
A. The applicant shall provide evidence of being in receipt of the Division of Minerals and Geology
Permit, Mined Land Reclamation Permit 112 to conduct surface extraction of construction
materials and reclamation of said lands identified as the Wattenberg West Sand and Gravel Mine
Site. (Department of Planning Services)
B. Proper building permits shall be obtained in accordance with the Weld County Building Inspection
Department, prior to any construction, demolition, or excavation. Part of the permit application
process includes a complete plan review. (Department of Planning Services)
C. A stormwater discharge permit may be required for a development/construction site where a
contiguous or non-contiguous land disturbance is greater than or equal to one acre in area.The
applicant shall inquire with the Water Quality Control Division (WQCD)of the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment at www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/PermitsUnit if they
are required to obtain a stormwater discharge permit. Alternately,the applicant can provide
evidence that they are not subject to these requirements. The applicant shall provide evidence of
such to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
D. An individual sewage disposal system is required for the proposed scale house and shall be
installed according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations. (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
E. The septic system is required to be designed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer
according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
F. The applicant shall have the Greater Brighton Fire Protection District review and approve all
construction plan. (Greater Brighton Fire Protection District)
4. The Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building permits be issued on the property until the
Special Review plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder.
(Department of Planning Services)
5. In accordance with Weld County Code Ordinance 2005-7 approved June 1, 2005,should the plat not be
recorded within the required sixty(60)days from the date the Board of County Commissioners resolution
was signed a$50.00 recording continuance charge may be added for each additional 3 month period.
(Department of Planning Services)
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Asphalt Paving Company
USR-1533
1. Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Mineral Resource Development facility
including a Concrete and Asphalt Batch Plant, Recycling Plant, Materials Blending, Import of Materials and
Gravel Mining in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. (Department of Planning Services)
2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 23-8-10 of the Weld County Code.
(Department of Planning Services)
3. All liquid and solid wastes(as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act,30-20-100.5,C.R.S.,
as amended) shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that protects against surface and
groundwater contamination. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
4. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. This is not meant to include those wastes
specifically excluded from the definition of a solid waste in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act,30-
20-100.5, C.R.S., as amended. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
5. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust, fugitive
particulate emissions, blowing debris,and other potential nuisance conditions. (Department of Public Health
and Environment)
6. The applicant shall operate in accordance with the approved "waste handling plan". (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
7. Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions shall be controlled on this site. The facility shall be operated
inaccordance with the approved dust abatement plan at all times. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
8. This facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Industrial Zone as delineated in
25 12 103 C.R.S., as amended. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
9. Adequate handwashing and toilet facilities shall be provided for employees and visitors of the site. (Department
of Public Health and Environment)
10. Any septic system located on the property must comply with all provisions of the Weld County Code,pertaining
to Individual Sewage Disposal Systems. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
11. Portable toilets may be utilized on sites that are temporary locations of the working face and portable processing
equipment, etc.for up to six months at each location. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
12. A permanent, adequate water supply shall be provided for drinking and sanitary purposes. (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
13. Bottled water shall be provided to employees at the temporary locations of the working face at all times.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
14. The applicant shall obtain a stormwater discharge permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health &
Environment, Water Quality Control Division. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
15. In the event washing of vehicles will occur on site the applicant shall ensure that any vehicle washing area(s)
shall capture all effluent and prevent discharges in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Water
Quality Control Commission, and the Environmental Protection Agency. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
16. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the State and Federal agencies and the
Weld County Code. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
17. The site will be graded to insure that all storm water run-off that comes in contact with disturbed areas will be
directed into the mining areas or settling ponds. (Department of Public Works)
18. The applicant must take into consideration storm water capture/quantity and provide accordingly for best
management practices.(Department of Public Works)
19. The applicant shall obtain and maintain all state water quality permits associated with the gravel mining
operation. (Department of Public Works)
20. The operation shall comply with the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). (Department of Planning
Services)
21. The site shall comply with the Mine Safety and Health Act(MSHA). (Department of Planning Services)
22. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the Colorado Division of Minerals and
Geology. (Department of Planning Services)
23. Should noxious weeds exist on the property or become established as a result of the proposed development,the
applicant/landowner shall be responsible for controlling the noxious weeds, pursuant to Section 15-1-180,
Articles I and II. (Department of Planning Services)
24. Building permits shall be obtained prior to the construction or placement of any structure such as a scale,
concrete and asphalt plant,office, recycling plant,office trailer and any other structures placed on the parcels.
An electrical permit will be required for any electrical service to equipment. A plot plan shall be submitted when
applying for building permits showing all structures with accurate distances between structures, and from
structures to all property lines. (Department of Building Inspection)
25. A plan review is required for each building for which a building permit is required. Plans shall bear the wet stamp
of a Colorado registered architect or engineer. Two complete sets of plans are required when applying for each
permit. (Department of Building Inspection)
26. Buildings shall conform to the requirements of the various codes adopted at the time of permit application.
Currently the following has been adopted by Weld County:2003 International Building Code;2003 International
Mechanical Code;2003 International Plumbing Code;2002 National Electrical Code;2003 International Fuel Gas
Code and Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Building Inspection)
27. Each structure set on a foundation will require an engineered foundation based on a site-specific geotechnical
report or an open hole inspection performed by a Colorado registered engineer. Engineered foundations shall be
designed by a Colorado registered engineer. (Department of Building Inspection)
28. Building wall and opening protection and limitations and the separation of buildings of mixed occupancy
classifications shall be in accordance with the Building Code. Setback and offset distances shall be determined
by the Weld County Code. (Department of Building Inspection)
29. Building height shall be measured in accordance with the Building Code for the purpose of determining the
maximum building size and height for various uses and types of construction and to determine compliance with
the Bulk Requirements from Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code. Building height shall be measured in
accordance with Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code in order to determine compliance with offset and setback
requirements. Offset and setback requirements are measured to the farthest projection from the building.
(Department of Building Inspection)
30. All excavation shall meet the requirements of the International Building Code and stormwater drainage design
and technical data. (Appropriate Colorado State and County agencies should be consulted for additional
regulations or requirements.) (Department of Planning Services)
31. Drawings for any building or related projects shall be submitted to the Greater Brighton Fire Protection District.
(Department of Planning Services)
32. Additional requirements or changes may be required when building applications or plans are reviewed by the
Weld County Building Inspection Department,the Fire District,or other State agencies.(Department of Planning
Services)
33. Where topsoil is removed, sufficient arable soil shall be set aside for respreading over the reclaimed areas.
(Department of Planning Services)
34. If any work associated with this project requires the placement of dredged or fill material, and any excavation
associated with a dredged or fill project,either temporary or permanent,in waters of the United States which may
include streams,open water lakes,ponds or wetlands at this location,the applicant shall obtain a Department of
Army,404 Clean Water Act permit. (Department of Planning Services)
35. All gravel trucks transporting materials out of the area on county roads shall ensure that their loads are covered,
thus reducing loose materials on the roadway and the amount of damage to vehicles. (Department of Planning
Services)
36. "No Trespassing"signs shall be posted and maintained on the perimeter fence at all points of ingress and egress
to clearly identify the boundaries of the site. (Department of Planning Services)
37. Lighting provided for security and emergency night operation on the site shall be designed so that the lighting will
not adversely affect surrounding property owners. (Department of Planning Services)
38. Section 23-4-290.C of the Weld County Code limits the hours of operation for sand and gravel operations to the
hours of day light, Monday through Saturday, except in the case of public or private emergency or to make
necessary repairs to equipment. Hours of operation may be extended with specific permission from the Weld
County Board of County Commissioners. This restriction shall not apply to operation of administrative and
executive offices or repair and maintenance facilities located on the property.(Department of Planning Services)
39. Existing trees and ground cover shall be preserved,maintained,and supplemented,if necessary,for the depth of
the setback in order to protect against and/or reduce noise,dust,and erosion.(Department of Planning Services)
40. The historical flow patterns and run-off amounts will be maintained on site in such a manner that will reasonably
preserve the natural character of the area and prevent property damage of the type generally attributed to run-off
rate and velocity increases,diversions,concentration and/or unplanned ponding of storm run-off.(Department of
Planning Services)
41. The landscaping on site shall be maintained in accordance with the approved Landscape,Screen and Buffering
Plan. (Department of Planning Services)
42. The number of on-site employees shall be limited to twenty (20) as stated in the application materials.
(Department of Planning Services)
43. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of Section 23-2-
240, Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
44. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of Section 23-2-
250, Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
45. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Open-mining Standards of Section
23-4-250, Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
46. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the Colorado Division of Minerals and
Geology. (Department of Planning Services)
47. Personnel from the Weld County Government shall be granted access onto the property at any reasonable time
in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the Development Standards stated herein
and all applicable Weld County regulations. (Department of Planning Services)
48. The Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the foregoing standards
and all applicable Weld County regulations. Substantial changes from the plans or Development Standards as
shown or stated shall require the approval of an amendment of the Permit by the Weld County Board of County
Commissioners before such changes from the plans or Development Standards are permitted. Any other
changes shall be filed in the office of the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
49. In accordance with Section 23-2-200.E of the Weld County Code, if the Use by Special Review has not
commenced from the date of approval or is discontinued for a period of three(3)consecutive years, it shall be
presumed inactive. The county shall initiate an administrative hearing to consider whether to grant an extension
of time to commence the use or revoke the Use by Special Review. If the Use by Special Review is revoked,it
shall be necessary to follow the procedures and requirements of Division 4 of the Weld County Code in order to
reestablish any Use by Special Review. (Department of Planning Services)
50. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing Development
Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Development Standards may be reason for revocation of
the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners. (Department of Planning Services)
51. Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to adhere to the fee
structure of the County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11) (Department of Planning Services)
52. Effective August 1, 2005, Building permits issued on the subject site will be required to adhere to the fee
structure of the Capital Expansion Impact Fee and the Stormwater/Drainage Impact Fee. (Ordinance 2005-8
Section 5-8-40) (Department of Planning Services)
Motion seconded by Mike Miller
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Michael Miller
Bruce Fitzgerald
Erich Ehrlich
Roy Spitzer
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
James Welch
Tom Holton
Paul Branham
The Chair declared the resolution failed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this case to the
Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Donita May, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the above and
foregoing resolution,is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County, Colorado,adopted on
January 17,2006.
Dated the 17th of January,�/ 2006.ouit(Dorn Mau
Secretary
I I7- ZCLO�
most critical with a date certain for those in attendance. Mr.Morrison asked Mr.Ogle about the length of the
mailing list. Mr.Ogle responded that it contained twenty five names. Mr.Morrison said the Board of County
Commissioners would also need to re-notify because they have sent out notices,so essentially there would
have to be two more rounds of notification. The Chair asked about a date for continuance and how much
time would be needed. Mr. Morrison replied they would need a month to set up publication properly. Mr.
Ogle asked the Chair to poll the audience in order to determine who was for and who was against the
application. There were nine or ten hands raised in the audience indicating their interest in the application.
Mr.Miller asked about the relevance of audience approval/denial and said the issue was whether they could
evaluate the application fairly in an amount of time, not whether the people in the audience were for or
against it. Mr. Miller said the matter was they had to determine a lot of issues Mr. Ogle brought up where
they were requesting variances from county ordinances and there were a lot of issues to be dealt with
whether the audience was for or against it. Mr. Miller said the application deserved a fair hearing and the
Planning Commission doesn't just represent the audience, they represent everyone in the county. The
Chair expressed his support for Mr. Miller.
Mr.Branham asked Mr.Miller,based on his experience, how much time he felt was adequate to allow for a
hearing like that. Mr. Miller suggested that a special hearing starting at 10:00 a.m.in the morning just for
this case as it had the potential to be a six or eight hour hearing. The Chair again expressed his support of
Mr. Miller's comments. The Chair asked for a motion and suggested the planning staff work on a date for
the hearing.
Mike Miller motioned to continue Case PZ-1078 to a special hearing date,determined by staff,to begin at
10:00 a.m. in the interim week between the scheduled hearings to address the case. Paul Branham
seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Michael
Miller,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes;Tom Holton,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes; Paul Branham,yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
Mr.Morrison asked the Planning Commission to get a date certain so they get the benefit of notice to those
present before this hearing closes and also so the decision was in the record.
The Chair asked Mr. Ogle to determine a date as soon as possible. Monica Mika,Department of Planning
Services asked for a five minute recess in order to allow Mr. Ogle to arrive at a date. Her request was
granted.
Mr. Ogle said that Thursday, February 16,2006, 10:00 a.m. at the Greeley Planning Department Hearing
room, 918 10th Street, Greeley,CO would be the continuance date for Case PZ-1078. Mr.Ogle said they
would re-notify via mail and forward any changes or modifications to the Planning Commission.
6. CASE NUMBER: USR-1533
APPLICANT: Asphalt Paving Company
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt NW4 of Section 25,Ti N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a
Mineral Resource Development facility including a Concrete and Asphalt
Batch Plant, Recycling Plant, Materials Blending, Import of Materials
and Gravel Mining in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 6 and east of and adjacent to
CR 23.
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services, said the applicant has applied for a Site Specific
Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Mineral Resource Development facility including a
Concrete and Asphalt Batch Plant, Recycling Plant, Materials Blending, Import of Materials and Gravel
Mining in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. The sign announcing the Planning Commissioner's hearing was
posted January 6,2006 by Planning Staff. The site was located south of and adjacent to County Road 6,
and east of and adjacent to County Road 23. Existing land uses surrounding the property were typically
agricultural and rural residential in use. In addition,there was the unincorporated townsite of Wattenburg
located east of and adjacent to the proposed gravel operation. Weld County had received nine letters from
surrounding property owners indicating the following concerns;depreciation of property value,the effect on
the existing water quality, noise, lighting, hours of operation, number of gravel operations already in the
area, traffic, dust, obstruction of views, extraction of minerals, and air pollution. The proposed use is in it In
close proximity with the following gravel operations to the east (AmUSR-921 Asphalt Paving Company, m
AmUSR-905 Aggregate Industries Inc.,and USR-1259 Mobile Pre-Mix). The applicant proposes to install = �--11-4
clumps of evergreens and deciduous shrubs adjacent to County Road 6. The areas adjacent to Wattenburg
would have clumps of canopy trees to shield the operations from surrounding landowners. The Department
of Planning Services requested the applicant submit a landscape and screening plan prior to scheduling the
Board of County Commissioner's hearing that included berms and landscaping along the north,east and
west sides of the proposed development and the batchplant ten feet below road grade. Eighteen referral
agencies reviewed this case. Fourteen responded favorably or included conditions that have been
addressed through development standards and conditions of approval. The Department of Planning
Services recommends approval of this application along with the conditions of approval and development
standards.
Mr.Miller asked if the USR that Asphalt Paving currently operates adjoins the proposed development. Ms.
Martin replied that County Road 4.5 is separated by the two. Mr. Ehrlich asked for location clarification of
USR's 921, 905, and 1259. Mr. Branham asked about clarification on page thirteen, section thirty eight
where hours of operation were restricted to hours of daylight,Monday through Saturday,except in case of
emergency repairs and wondered if on page ten,section eight b.of the application where it said"asphalt
processing and hauling may occur during night time hours when specified by paving contracts and that
maintenance will be allowed as needed during night time hours and Sunday". Mr.Branham wondered if that
would cause a conflict or constitute noise problems. Ms. Martin replied that condition thirty eight was a
standard that they typically used for all gravel operations and they can be approved for night time operations
only by the Board of County Commissioners. Planning thought these hours of operation were adequate to
address the surrounding property owners concerns. The applicant had reviewed these conditions and had
not indicated that they would be a problem.
Paul Banks, Banks and Gesso, applicant's representative, 720 Kipling Street, Lakewood, CO, said his
company had been working with the applicants for a little over a year on their application,more specifically
Jeff Keller,the president and owner of Asphalt Paving. Mr.Banks said Mr.Keller was unable to attend but
Stan Opperman,Vice President of Operations was available to answer any questions.
Stan Opperman,Vice President of Operations, 14802 West 44th Avenue,Golden,CO 80403,said he had
- worked for Asphalt Paving for over twenty five years and that Asphalt Paving had been in operation for fifty
years as a family business with unusual employee loyalty. Mr.Opperman gave a synopsis of the company
saying the owners were involved in the business,they were accessible,and they were accountable. In the
mid eighties, when the nature of mix designs for asphalt began to change, based on specification
requirements, it became necessary to put washed sand into asphalt as opposed to natural sand or fine
aggregates. Asphalt Paving permitted the property at the Perry Pit around 1992 and began mining. In 1996
they worked a deal to purchase that property,along with a portion of property on the left side of the Town of
Wattenburg. In 2001,they purchased the rest of the property on the north side,and that was the parcel they
need to move into for the future as a replacement for the Perry Pit, as they deplete the resources at that
location. Mr.Opperman said most of the material produced was used in the products for their customers.
Their major objective was to produce sand so they could produce asphalt and therefore be a contractor and
operate in the road industry. Asphalt Paving has had a crushing plant on site approximately three times in
twelve years,once at the beginning of the operation and two times in the last six years. The durations never
exceeded ninety days and it was done only to produce materials for road building. They have had an
asphalt operation at the site once in twelve years in 2004 and ran about fifty days. We have never done
recycle crushing at the Perry Pit nor have they ever had a concrete plant at that location. A possibility exists
for those things and that is why they were included in the permit application. If they are done it would be
with portable equipment,on a temporary basis and moved to the specific job. Asphalt Paving has tried to be
good neighbors and operate within regulatory restrictions. There is a potential for water storage at the Perry
Pit and several years ago they have put together a deal with Consolidated Mutual Water Company.
Mr. Miller asked Mr. Opperman about contiguity of the two properties and their intent to truck a quarter
million tons of gravel through Wattenburg and wanted to know if it was feasible to convey it there as
opposed to trucking it and had that been eliminated or was it a possibility. Mr.Opperman replied it was a
possibility but the issue was that at some point the processing area had resources they needed and also
needed to excavate for the water resource. He asked Maureen Jacoby to address the details of crossing
county roads.
Maureen Jacoby, Banks&Gesso,720 Kipling Street,Lakewood,CO,said the plan was to come out of the
access point at Perry to the new access and would not come through Wattenburg.
Ms. Jacoby outlined the mine plan and the work they had done on the project. The Wattenburg West
project would be a replacement for USR-921,known as the Perry Pit and there would not be any mining at
the new site until mining at the previous site had been completed. County Road 23 was the western
boundary,US Highway 85 and County Road 6 were where ninety percent of truck traffic presently occurred
and would continue to occur. Ms.Jacoby emphasized this was strictly a replacement property and there
would be no increase in truck traffic or production. They have been working on this project for more than a
year with the Wattenburg Improvement Association and the local leadership and have an agreement to
protect their major water supply. They have talked to the neighbors and oil and gas entities on site and
have major agreements with many of them;agreements with all utilities on site and the surrounding area;a
setback agreement with the Brighton Ditch Company; they would attain reclamation permits per mining
regulations;a substitute water supply plan for water augmentation;well permits for the monitor wells already
on site and also for the consumptive use well for the wash plant on site;air quality permits;permits for the
processing plant and the asphalt plant permit, if and when it were to be brought on site; de-watering and
storm water discharge permits,including a storm water management plan; a spill prevention plan for any
diesel fuel on site; and county access permits, building permits and septic permits. Stripping and berms
from three to twenty feet on approximately sixty percent of the area would go in first and they would work
with planning staff for maximum amount of berming,tree location and screening. At that point,phase one
would be mined, backfilled and reclaimed back to grade. Phase two mining would be the southern part of
the reservoir.Towards the end of the mine life,the southern reservoir could be used for water storage as
phase three is completed. Because of the dry mining technique,concurrent reclamation could begin along
the southern edge of property, unlike the Perry Pit property which was a wet mining operation. Planning
staff had recommended the asphalt plant be situated in a depression approximately ten feet below grade but
due to operational concerns and drainage concerns it was not feasible to locate and operate the plant in a
depression. Portions of berms and trees would be left and they would work with Planning and the
neighbors. Ms.Jacoby pointed out some of the proposed mitigations for the project:including berming to
block visual,noise and dust as much as possible;County Road 6 improvements to include an acceleration
lane,signs and controls to slow truck traffic;paving of the access road approximately three hundred feet into
the sight;and water trucks for irrigation and dust control. Ms.Jacoby closed by re-emphasized this was a
portable plant, brought in only as necessary for jobs in the area.
Mr. Miller asked about slurry walls and de-watering prior to excavation and the effects on adjacent water.
Ms.Jacoby said phase one would not be slurry walled due to shallowness,phases two and three would be
slurry walled prior to mining in those areas. The Chair asked about the Wattenburg well depths and
locations. Ms.Jacoby replied most of the community was served by one alluvial well,approximately thirty to
forty feet deep, though some of the residents have their own wells and they have worked with the
Wattenburg Improvement Association to mitigate any problems. The Chair asked about the Perry Pit
property reclamation. Ms. Jacoby said a slurry wall was installed last year and de-watering was almost
completed and would be used as a storage reservoir in the future. Mr. Holton asked about an agreement
with the Wattenburg Home Owner's Association and if it had been included in their information. Ms.Jacoby
said it had not that it was a private agreement. Mr.Holton then inquired about the wet mining in phase one
and for more explanation. Ms.Jacoby pointed out the specific areas on her map and then added that the
gravel depths were ten to fifteen feet and the water levels were between eleven and fifteen feet, and
deepens to the east to approximately forty feet. Mr. Holton then asked if mining would occur on the
jurisdictional wetlands. Ms.Jacoby said there were no wetlands on the site,jurisdictional or otherwise and
but there is a 404 Army Corps of Engineers permit associated with Perry Pit. Mr.Ehrlich asked if there was
a timeline attached to the jurisdictional wetlands and how long the permit with the Army would remain valid.
Ms.Jacoby said she believed it was a permit to relocate the Lupton Bottom Ditch which had already been
done and the long term use of that area is for wetlands conservation and continues into perpetuity. Mr.
Ehrlich asked about the timeline for the Perry Pit depletion and when Wattenburg West would start up. Ms.
Jacoby responded that the Perry site had approximately three to six years left and during the last year or two
of operation,material would be trucked to the new site and mining would not commence at the new site for
three to six years until Perry was completely finished. Mr.Ehrlich asked Ms.Jacoby if there was information
in the mining industry that spells out how the phases work and how long they would last until mining was
complete. She said it would depend on market conditions but they believed it would take approximately
fifteen years to mine out the subject site. Mr.Holton asked about truck traffic increase expected on County
Road 6 going west to 1-25. Ms.Jacoby said less than ten percent and that would only be for jobs in that
direction, if the material was returning to the Asphalt Paving site,trucks would go out the prescribed haul
route to County Road 6 and down Highway 85. Mr.Holton said given market conditions,would they expect
more trucks up and down County Road 6. Ms.Jacoby said there would be no regular truck traffic on County
Road 6 west, it would be job specific.
The Chair opened the hearing to the public.
Stephanie Archuleta, 1621 Caroline Ave,Wattenburg,CO,expressed her opposition to another gravel pit in
her neighborhood.She said there were presently too many gravel pits surrounding their neighborhood and
the residents had done more than their fair share of putting up with these operations which do not benefit
the residents. Ms. Archuleta submitted a letter into evidence that asked the Planning Commission to
address the increased noise,dust,additional traffic,landscaping,hours of operation,and she requested an
agreement with the applicant protecting her well from damage. Mr.Holton asked whether a well agreement
existed and where specifically she lived in regard to the operation. Ms. Archuleta said she had no well
agreement and lived next door to the site. Mr.Miller asked her about negative effects from the current mine.
She said winds at the new plant would affect her and her family, but the old plant does not affect her
presently because the wind blows southeast. Mr. Miller assured her that the State of Colorado has
emissions permit requirements on all portable plants and they are not allowed to put any emissions into the
air that could be harmful to the residents in the vicinity.
Sharlene Krantz, 1755 County Road 23,Wattengurg, CO,a resident for twenty eight years,opposed the
application because she felt their lives and lifestyle would be compromised by this application. Ms.Krantz
also submitted a letter for the Planning Commission in which she requested a written agreement with the
applicant regarding well water mitigation,noise level limits,speed limit reductions,disallow the concrete and
asphalt batch plant and recycling plant, require additional irrigated landscaping, and a development
standard to address the long term maintenance of the reclamation.
Mr.Miller informed Ms.Krantz that there were noise limitations in place for this application that were actually
much lower than what she was requesting.
Hugh Hawthorne, 1771 County Road 23, Wattenburg, CO, a resident for fifteen years, opposed the
application and brought signatures of neighbors authorizing him to speak on their behalf along with a letter
for the Planning Commission. Mr. Hawthorne said he and the neighbors felt there were too many gravel
mining pits in the area,seventy two by his count,and asked that no more be allowed.He requested denial
of this application based on issues of incompatibility including but not limited to,hours of operation,excess
noise, increased traffic and dust,odor,silica dust emissions,well water problems,and illegal dumping on
the site. Mr. Hawthorn asked the Planning Commission to deny the concrete and recycling plants at the
very least and not to allow the new site to operate until the old site had been closed.
Alfredo Ramirez, 1885 County Road 23, the old Wattenburg School property, presented a letter to the
Planning Commission and he said the materials from the operation would be right in front of his home and
there was nothing the applicant could do to mitigate his concerns as his property sits so high that he would
always be able to see the proposed operation. Mr. Ramirez said he knows about the smells, noise,dust,
traffic,etc. because he had worked in the industry himself. He said the impact of the additional traffic alone
was a major concern for him and his children.
Diane Adamson,987 County Road 19,said she was neither for or against this application but said she felt
the USR process was being abused in the county. Asphalt Paving was asking for the benefit of a large
commercial operation and had acknowledged they would be renting the water space after it commences to
Consolidated Mutual Water Company and Asphalt Paving will benefit from that income. The people of
Wattenburg will be left with waterfront property that has no benefits or access to the property. The
agricultural people in the county will continue to pay agricultural taxes based on the lack of the commercial
fees generated by this use.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Paul Banks, Banks and Gesso,applicant's representative,720 Kipling Street,Lakewood,CO, addressed
neighbor concerns and staff recommendations. Regarding traffic,he said employees,trucks and vendors
would use County Road 6 only. They had no intention of using any roads other than County Road 6 and he
wanted to be very clear on that. Mr. Banks said with respect to groundwater,the Division of Minerals and
Geology, who reviewed their application, had made comments on groundwater protection and the
neighborhood wells. The State Engineer's Office also had policies and regulations governing the protection
of water wells and water resources. Mr.Banks said Phil Martin,from Martin&Wood,a water engineering
consulting company,was present to answer questions and assisted them in this application for groundwater
protections. The neighbors to the west of the property have wells in the bedrock and were not hydraulicly
connected to each other. The Perry Pit has been in operation for fifteen years and to his knowledge there
have been no county violations or ground water incidents during that time. Several of the neighbors had
requested the presence of no plants and he reiterated that this plant was very temporary and very job
specific. Regarding the truck speeds,he felt it was other vehicles speeding not their trucks as they cannot
build up those sorts of speed, but they have agreed to an acceleration lane and some control at Caroline
Street and County Road 6. Regarding staff conditions, prior to the Board of County Commissioner's
hearing,they would like some relief on those conditions,primarily the ones regulated by other governmental
agencies, over which they have no control. Mr. Banks said they have no problem with landscaping
requirement as mentioned by staff but have issues with those requirements involving permits governed by
other entities.
Mr. Banks said that in relation to items A., B., C., and D., prior to scheduling the Board of County
Commissioner hearing,they were close but not ready yet. Item B would be difficult to have in place prior to
the hearing by the Board of County Commissioners and they would like to have it eliminated. Item C.was
not a problem and they would submit a landscape plan prior to the Board hearing,they did have difficulty
with the requirement to lower the plant ten feet below grade because of drainage and water conditions,but
would give it their best shot Item D.was not a problem in terms of their source of water for irrigating the
landscaping. Item E.was problematic,staff wanted an agreement with either the Brighton Ditch Company
or Consolidated Mutual to discharge the watering water from the site and ditch company agreements can
take quite a bit of time. Though they had reached a setback agreement with the Brighton Ditch Company,
their preference was to discharge to the South Platte River. Asphalt Paving has an easement with
Consolidated Mutual from Wattenburg West to the river. A conveyance has been built to carry that water
and Consolidated has built an outfall structure into the South Platte that was approved by the Army Corps of
Engineers.
The Chair repeated that Mr.Banks would like this to read"prior to operation"rather than"prior to scheduling
the Board of County Commissioner's Hearing"and that includes A., B.,C., and E.
Ms. Martin said her recommendation was to address each condition by one as staff had some concerns.
For item A., regarding the oil and gas agreements, they would recommend the applicant have these
agreements in place or show the possible future drill envelopes on the site,as they require this of all oil and
gas operations, gravel mines, and most Use by Special Review applications. The applicant has one
agreement in place and has been working with another company. Planning requests that this condition
remain and if the applicant cannot reach an agreement,then they place those envelopes on the plat. Mr.
Banks replied that they could live with that. Ms.Martin said item B.,was always required prior to the Board
of County Commissioner's Hearing but could be waived. Mr.Morrison said this process does not lend itself
to being in place before it goes to the Board. Prior to recording would work. As far as the state
requirement,this does not have to be in place until they actually consume water. The applicant asked if
that would apply to both the temporary substitute water plan and the Division of Minerals and Geology
(DMG)permit. Ms.Martin said it would. Mr.Morrison added that the said the issue on the DMG permit was
of administrative convenience as they cannot operate at all without a DMG permit and it was easier for staff
to track prior to recording the plat but was not absolutely necessary. Ms. Martin said that staff was
comfortable with changing language in item C. regarding landscaping. If the applicant submits the plan,
staff can review it and the Board of County Commissioners can approve it. Ms. Martin addressed item E.
and staff confusion because the applicant had asked that when they de-water,they use either the Brighton
Ditch or Consolidated Mutual Water Company and staff wanted to know which method the applicant
preferred. Mr. Morrison said he understood the applicant had the ability to de-water but might pursue an
agreement that would be more advantageous. Mr. Morrison asked Ms. Martin if the applicant had already
• met this agreement,then wasn't it an either/or and could it be eliminated. Ms.Martin said they could if they
could adhere to the agreement they have with Consolidated Mutual Ditch Company that says not less than
thirty feet in width for the construction operation and maintenance of the pipeline,significant in size to carry
ten second feet of water. Mr. Morrison said if the applicant elected to change this, then they needed to
provide a copy of the alternative method of discharge, so item E.could be eliminated.
Mike Miller moved to remove 1.B., page six and insert in 2. L.and renumber accordingly,and delete 1.E.,
page six. Tom Holton seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr.Banks wanted daylight hours as written in the code and as all other operators in the county were subject
to for item thirty eight,page thirteen,of the development standards. Stan Opperman,Asphalt Paving,said
market demands, specification requirements and operational demands affect when they run and specific
jobs may dictate varied hours, so they didn't want to be limited to specific daylight hours.
The Planning Commissioners discussed making changes to the hours but generally felt the County Code
should be the guideline for the hours of operation.
Mike Miller moved to delete the second sentence in item 38,page thirteen,which read"Hours of operation
in winter months (November through April) will be 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and in summer months (May
through October) will be 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m." Paul Branham seconded the motion. Motion carried
unanimously.
Mr. Holton asked the applicant if the concrete batch plant would be permanent. Mr. Banks said there are
two plants contemplated or requested. One is a hot mix asphalt plant and the other is a ready mix concrete
plant. They would both be portable,temporary,seasonal,and job specific.Mr.Holton then asked where the
material for the recycling plant would come from. Mr.Banks replied it would come from specific roto-milling
of asphalt or concrete and would be brought to the site for recycling. Mr. Holton asked it there would be a
crushing plant on site all of the time. Mr. Opperman replied that was not their intent, it would be job
specific, portable equipment, and temporary for crushing and recycling of asphalt and concrete. Their
primary interest was in extraction. They have no intention of hauling and/or stockpiling of materials.
Mr.Miller asked if they would be less likely to bring in a crusher as the deposits at the site were farther from
the river and therefore finer. Mr. Opperman replied that was correct. Mr. Miller asked if they would be
willing to sign agreements with the surrounding property owners to guarantee protection of their water wells.
Mr. Banks replied the quick answer was no, as this was not common for operators of this nature to reach
written agreements with everyone in the area.They would,to a large extent,rely on the DMG and the State
Engineer's Office for protections of ground water resources through their permitting process. The DMG
requires additional modeling,monitoring and mitigation measures to be included in our permit to them,and
signatures and agreement with well owners within 600 feet of that well. Mr.Miller requested of the applicant
that all surrounding property owners within six hundred feet of the pit receive a copy of this agreement. Mr.
Banks agreed to the request. Mr. Miller addressed the surrounding property owners and said if they saw
negative impacts to their wells,they should first contact Asphalt Paving and then contact the State Water
Resources Department.
Mr. Ehrlich asked Don Carroll, Department of Public Works about traffic on County Road 6, regarding
collector roads and build outs,and County Road 23.5 which is classified as a gravel road.Mr.Carroll replied
County Road 6 is classified by the County as a collector road which requires an 80 foot right-of-way at full
build out. It is presently at 60 foot, two lanes and paved. Traffic counts taken in 2005 at this particular
location averaged between 1500 and 2000. Traffic counts in 2004 averaged between 1500 and 1950 so
they have held steady. County Road 23.5 paved through Wattenburg down to the curve on Caroline Street
and we would like to claim 60 feet of right of way through there. Mr.Carroll spoke about possible placement
of a conveyor belt over the two parcels at the very bottom of town in order to eliminate the truck traffic
through town but this was not possible due to the wetlands and other issues. Mr. Carroll pointed out that
there would be a batch plant and recycling,as well as the three existing pits in the area and Department of
Public Works was working with the applicant on road improvements to County Road 6 including mitigation of
ruts,widening of the shoulders,additional overlaying and some safety issues. Night paving was allowed if
they send a letter indicating it was associated with the state or municipalities and if paving was necessary
when traffic was reduced. There were to be about 20 employees on site. A long-term maintenance and
improvements agreement was in place and almost complete for the west facility. Department of Public
Works asked for a left turn slot to slow traffic into the pit;a decelleration lane to get trucks up to speed;and
additional paving from County Road 6 south into the pit to mitigate dust problems. The applicant had
indicated they would be moving 225 cubic yards of material from the existing pit to the new pit which should
take approximately three to five years and there would be three mining phases over the next fifteen years.
Truck counts have been reported to be approximately fifty round trips from the old Perry Pit to the new pit,
no additional traffic was proposed. Speed zones were posted at 35 miles per hour and Mr.Carroll said that
was a reasonable speed for that facility
The Chair asked Mr.Carroll to describe what County Road 6 looked like presently. Mr.Carroll replied that
presently it was twenty four feet of pavement, the shoulders vary from two to four feet, one lane in each
direction and does cross the South Platte.
The Chair asked when the intersection of County Road 6 and Hwy 85 was improved with a light. Mr.Carroll
said that took place two to three years ago and was the result of the heavy hauling at the intersection from
the two working pits in the area.
Mr. Miller asked Mr. Carroll about his opinion on the site distance relative to eastbound traffic on County
Road 6 relative to access to the new pit. Mr.Carroll assumed the oil and gas tank battery access would be
mitigated by the left turn slots and thru traffic would be accommodated with acceleration lanes. Mr. Miller
said more enforcement would be the biggest help in the area though he knew that was not Mr. Carroll's
area.
Mr. Ehrlich asked Mr. Carroll about signs or a light to slow traffic in the area. Mr. Carroll responded that
Banks and Gesso, in a letter dated December 27, 2005 offered some different ideas and options to
accommodate truck traffic from one pit to the other,plus the entrance. Public Works was still working on an
agreement with the applicant but wanted left turn slot going into the pit, acceleration lane in the taper
coming out of the pit,extension of pavement going back from County Road 6 towards scale house but were
still open to suggestions from homeowners etc.
The Chair asked Char Davis, Department of Public Health and Environment if she had anything to ad. She
responded that she did not.
Mr. Miller said as with most sand and gravel pits,the people adjacent to them do not want them coming in
but we still listen to them and unfortunately due to our forefathers lack of foresight a large portion of the
aggregate reserves in the South Platte Basin were consumed under housing projects back in the sixties and
seventies. Consequently now we are limited to mining properties that ten or fifteen years ago were not even
considered viable. It was imperative we harvest the resources at our disposal and Wattenburg was on top
of these resources. We have tried to do as much as we could to mitigate the effects on the surrounding
property owners.
Mr. Branham said he appreciated the citizen comments and felt their three major concerns have been
addressed;water issues would be handled by state statutes;the concrete and asphalt plants were to be
temporary;and traffic issues had been addressed by staff. Mr.Branham concluded this was a replacement
operation not an additional operation and the applicant seemed willing to follow regulations and guidelines
and he supported the application.
Mr.Ehrlich asked if the southern edge could be built up through easements and contracts through the state
to mitigate traffic and go around Wattenburg. The Chair said he did not see that as an option. Mr. Miller
said it was very difficult to get them to allow you to do any construction in wetlands at all.
Mr. Holton addressed the growth going north and gravel had to come from that area but felt badly that so
many were effected. He also said he did not feel the applicant had done all they could to make this
application more palatable for the surrounding property owners and the community. Mr. Holton also
expressed his displeasure with recycling,the possible effects on residents of stockpiling and the location of
the entrance as vision was impaired on County Road 23.
The Chair said he lived about five miles north of the area and used County Road 6 regularly, was very
familiar with the area,and usually votes for gravel pits but would not vote for this one as there would be too
much of an impact on the area.
Mr.Ehrlich asked what the actual use of the Perry Pit would be at closure. Mr.Banks said it would become
a reservoir under the control of Consolidated Mutual Water Company. Mr. Banks added they have not
disclosed the improvement agreement they had with Wattenburg but it did include a nine acre park donation
in that agreement. Mr. Holton asked why they had not made that information available to them and felt it
was a mistake on the applicant's part not to have divulged that information. Mr.Banks said the agreement
had been reached approximately five days ago and it was mutually agreed by the parties involved not to
place the information in the public record.
Paul Branham moved that Case USR-1533,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. Mike Miller seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Michael
Miller,yes; Erich Ehrlich, no;Tom Holton, no; Bruce Fitzgerald, no; Paul Branham,yes. Motion failed.
Meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Donita May
Secretary
!� - .30(t
received all of the information on this application. She replied that they had only received the letter requesting the
continuance. The Chair asked Mr. Morrison about their two choices,to grant a continuance or hear the case today.
Mr. Morrison said that because the Commissioners do not have all of the relevant material it would take some time to
bring the Planning Commission up to speed and there may also be people wanting to address this case that are not
here today. Mr. Branham asked if the opponents would be agreeable to a January 17, 2006 continuance. Mr.
Oschner suggested the February 21,2006 date would be fairer to the applicant. Ms. Martin said the February date
was already quite full. Mr. Holton said he would like to agree with the January 17,2006 hearing date.
Doug Oschner moved that Case USR-1532,be continued to the January 17,2006 hearing date. Tom Holton seconded
the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
4. CASE NUMBER: USR-1533
APPLICANT: Asphalt Paving Company
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part NW4 of Section 25,Ti N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County,Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
Mineral Resource Development facility including a Concrete and
Asphalt Batch Plant, Recycling Plant, Materials Blending, Import
of Materials and Gravel Mining in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 6 and east of and adjacent to CR
23.
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services,said the applicant is requesting a continuance to the January 17,
2006, in order to address surrounding property owner and oil and gas entity concerns.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against continuance of this
application. No one wished to speak. The public portion was closed.
Mr. Oschner asked if moving these three cases would overburden the January 17, 2006 meeting, and perhaps that
meeting could begin earlier. Mr. Morrison said if you wish to begin the hearing earlier, then the legal must be
republished. If continued it would not need to be republished.
Roy Spitzer moved that Case USR-1533,be continued to the January 17,2006 hearing date. Tom Holton seconded the
motion. Motion carried unanimously.
CONSENT ITEMS
5. CASE NUMBER: USR-1535
APPLICANT: Wayne& Patricia Medlin
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-1636; part SE4 SE4 of Section 19,T1 N, R66W of
the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
business permitted as a use by right and/or use by special review
in the Commercial Zone District(office with a gross floor area
larger than three thousand square feet,outdoor storage,and
maintenance of equipment)in the(A)Agricultural Zone District
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 27; approximately 1/4 mile north of
CR 6.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services, requested that Case USR-1535 remain on the consent agenda.
Wayne Medlin, 15655 Riverdale Rd, Brighton, CO, the applicant, requested that his application stay on the consent
agenda and be sent on to the Board of County Commissioners.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished
to speak.
•
Mr. Holton asked Ms. Hatch if she had heard anything else from Fort Lupton since their November 16, 2005 referral
response. She replied that she had not received any further correspondence from them.
3
Hello