HomeMy WebLinkAbout20060423.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 17,2006
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld County
Conference Room,4209 CR 24.5, Longmont,Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Bruce
Fitzgerald, at 1:37 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bruce Fitzgerald
Tom Holton
Chad Auer - Absent
Doug Ochsner - Absent --
James Welch - Absent
Roy Spitzer - Absent
Erich Ehrlich
Paul Branham
Also Present: Kim Ogle,Jacqueline Hatch, Michelle Martin,Department of Planning;Roger Vigil,Building
Inspection Department; Drew Scheltinga, Peter Schei, Don Carroll, Department of Public Works; Char
Davis, Pam Smith, Department of Public Health &Environment; Lee Morrison, County Attorney.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on January 3,
2006,was approved as read.
ITEMS TO BE WITHDRAWN
1. CASE NUMBER: USR-1532
APPLICANT: Reginald Golden& RLSJ Properties LLC
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-2540; Pt of Section 4,T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit
for a business permitted as a use by right or accessory use in
the Commercial or Industrial Zone District(storage of concrete
forms,equipment and vehicles) in the in the A(Agricultural)
Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 26 and west of CR 5.5.
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services,said Reginald Golden and RLSJ Properties, LLC have
applied for a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a business permitted as a
use by right or accessory use in the Commercial or Industrial Zone District (storage of concrete forms,
equipment and vehicles)in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. The applicant withdrew their USR application
and is in the process of applying for a one lot PUD.The applicant had until March 14,2006 to submit the
PUD application or the case will proceed to the Board of County Commissioners for violation.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Mike Miller moved that Case USR-1532, be withdrawn. Erich Ehrlich 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.
CONSENT ITEMS
2. CASE NUMBER: USR-1537
APPLICANT: Martin&Carolina Barron
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 1,7&8 of Block 3,Aristocrat Ranchettes,part of Section 27,T2N,
R66W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado.
1
C d'1ZflE«�- Ciaz„d,„ -�?-4 c2[C,G 2006-0423
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Home
Business (truck parking, home office and maintenance shop)and an
accessory building with gross floor area larger than four percent of the
total lot area, in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 18; approximately 3/4 mile east of CR 31
(west of and adjacent to Hart St.).
Jacqueline Hatch,Department of Planning Services,requested that Martin and Carolina Barron's application
for a home business remain on the consent agenda. The Planning Commissioners had no questions nor
did any of them request to have this removed from the consent agenda.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Tom Stanek,7432 Hart Street, Fort Lupton,CO 80621,said this was a quiet neighborhood and they don't
need a commercial operation there making noise. He added that this property was not zoned for this kind of
noise all night long and was totally against the application. Mr.Stanek said the application had the acreage
of the property listed incorrectly. It should be 2.97 acres and he knew this as he used to own the property.
Michael Miller moved that case USR-1537 be removed from the consent agenda and heard today. Tom
Holton 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.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services. Martin and Carolina Barron had applied for a Site
Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Home Business(truck parking,home office
and maintenance shop)and an accessory building with gross floor area larger than four percent(4%)of the
total lot area in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. The sign announcing the Planning Commission hearing
was posted January 4,2006 by staff. The site was located south of and adjacent to County Road 18 and
approximately%miles east of County Road 31 (west of and adjacent to Hart St). The area consisted of
three lots (lot 1, lot 7 and lot 8) and was approximately 2.97 acres. The site is currently in violation (VI-
0500282). If this Use by Special Review application is approved the property would be in compliance. If
denied,all commercial equipment shall be removed from the property;otherwise,the violation case would
proceed accordingly. The Department of Planning Services had determined that since the applicant was
proposing the storage of materials on site that the material should be enclosed in a structure since the
definition of a Home Business states that the use was conducted primarily within a dwelling unit or
accessory structure and is clearly incidental and secondary to the principal permitted use without changing
the character thereof. The site is part of Aristocrat Ranchettes subdivision. The surrounding properties to
the east,west and south are residential in nature. Agricultural property is located to the north. The home is
currently utilizing an on-site septic system and the water would be provided by Aristocrat Ranchettes Water
Project Inc. The applicant is proposing to utilize the home on Lot 1 for restroom facilities. If in the future
the applicant desires to install a restroom in the shop the applicant would be required to provide written
evidence of an adequate water supply from the Aristocrat Ranchette Water Project Inc. No correspondence
had been received from surrounding property owners. Conditions of Approval and Development Standards
would ensure that the use would be compatible with the neighborhood and surrounding area. Nine referral
agencies reviewed this case,one referral agency had no comments and seven referral agencies included
conditions that had been addressed through the development standards and conditions of approval. No
comments were received from the State of Colorado Division of Wildlife. The Weld County Department of
Planning Services has determined that the special use permit, conditions of approval and development
standards would make the proposal consistent with the Weld County Code and ensure that there were
adequate provisions for the protection of health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the County.
The Chair asked about Ms. Hatch's knowledge of similar operations that have been approved in the area.
Ms. Hatch replied that there were about ten USR's including multiple kennels, a hair salon, oil and gas
production and outside of Aristocrat Ranchettes there were more kennels and an inactive turkey farm. Mr.
Miller asked about the described use and the definition being clearly incidental and secondary to the
permitted use. Mr. Miller also asked if the applicants were planning to build another shop and did they live
on the site. Ms. Hatch said the applicants would build a shop to house materials and live in the primary
residence presently on the site with employees coming to the site. Mr. Branham asked how many
employees worked for the business. Ms. Hatch replied there would be four.
Martin Barron,applicant, 15724 CR 18,Fort Lupton,CO 80621,said he had nothing to add and agreed with
everything in his application prepared by the Planning Department. Mr. Miller asked the applicant to
2
describe his business. Mr.Barron said he did excavation on residential areas and needed storage for pipes
and materials and maybe a truck or two. He said most of his materials and equipment would be at the job
sites. Mr. Miller asked if vehicle maintenance would be performed on the site. Mr. Barron said small
maintenance would be done on the site but major repairs would be taken to a mechanic. Employees would
not usually be on the site as they go to work from their homes. Mr.Holton asked the applicant what kind of
excavation he performed and if he did any oil field excavation. Mr.Barron replied that he did basements for
residential builders but no oil field excavation.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Tom Stanek, 7432 Hart Street,Fort Lupton,CO 80621,stepped up again and said he had nothing against
the applicant and applauded his improvements to the property. He added if the applicant could guarantee a
minimum noise level he would not have a problem, but he was concerned about the noise and additional
dust from truck traffic. Mr. Stanek said he himself had a large shop on his own property but it was well
insulated for noise. Mr. Branham asked Mr. Stanek about specific noise details and was it ongoing or
occasional. Mr.Stanek replied there was noise from a backhoe being repaired last fall. Mr.Stanek said Mr.
Barron was not the only person out there not in compliance and that he had no problem with a shop as long
as the noise was minimal. If the applicant can guarantee minimum noise,no traffic increase,or trouble with
his employees he would have no problem with the application. Mr. Branham asked again about specific
problems. Mr. Stanek said a commercial shop does not belong in a residential area. Mr. Miller asked Mr.
Stanek to elaborate about dump trucks and other equipment on the site. Mr.Stanek said there was an old
dump truck that was recently removed and an over the road tractor that had been converted to a flatbed
trailer to carry backhoes but had not seen the flatbed trailer lately.
Julie Trujillo,owns property on the corner of Henry Street and CR 18,lots three and four,and her intent was
to build a home and retire there in the next ten to fifteen years and felt that this application would change the
whole essence of the area. She does not want to prevent the applicant from earning a living but does not
want to see a precedent set by allowing this kind of business on the site. Mr.Miller asked Ms.Trujillo about
existing covenants in that area. She replied that there were none to her knowledge.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
Mr.Barron returned to the podium and addressed noise concerns.He said he needed the backhoe to move
timbers and concrete on the property too large to move any other way. The noise in the future would be no
more than what was presently heard. Mr.Miller asked if dump trucks and equipment would be parked at the
site. Mr. Barron said dump trucks should be at the job sites unless they needed minor work or oil changes,
then he brought them to his home. Mr. Branham asked how long he had operated his business from this
property. Mr. Barron responded he had had his business four years but had moved it to this property six
months ago. Mr.Holton inquired as to what he stored at the site.Mr.Barron said pipes. Mr.Ehrlich referred
to page seven, number eleven and asked about guidelines and regulations in place for a vehicle washing
area. Char Davis,Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment,replied that her file indicated
the applicant might be washing trucks and if they did would need to provide a plan for that to the Weld
County Department of Public Health and Environment. Mr. Holton asked about hours of operation. Ms.
Hatch said number five,item C.could be added to the development standards and state hours of operation
as 7:00 a.m. -4:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday as indicated in the application material.
Mike Miller moved that a Development Standard number five be added and renumbered accordingly to read
"The hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., Monday - Saturday as indicated in the
application material". Tom Holton 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.
Mike Miller moved that the acreage on the application be amended to read 2.97 acres. Erich Ehrlich
seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked the applicant if he had read the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval and if
he was in agreement with them. Mr. Barron replied yes. The Chair asked if the Planning Commissioners
had any further discussion. Mr. Miller said he hesitated to prevent anyone from running a business on their
property but he could not condone this kind of business as a home business definition due to employees on
the site, storage of business materials and equipment and does not believe it fit the definition of a home
business and would not support the application.
3
Mr. Holton pointed out that USR-519, a similar case in that area and heard by the Planning Commission
August 16,2005,was denied and there were fewer homes in the area than there were with this application.
Mr.Branham added that if as much as forty percent of the land was being used,that was not incidental use
of the property.
Mike Miller moved that Case USR-1537,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
denial based on Section 22-2-150, B. 5. b., which states that we need to ensure "compatibility with
surrounding land use in terms of general use, building height, scale, density, traffic dust and noise", and
Section 23-2-220 which also addressed compatibility,and also because it does not fit under the definition of
a home business and that it was clearly not incidental and secondary to the principal permitted use and that
it would change the character of the area. Tom Holton 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.
3. CASE NUMBER: USR-1538
APPLICANT: Matthew&Kristi Morrison
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Northmoor Acres Subdivision, 2nd Filing, Lot 8, Block 4, being part of
the SW4 of Section 24,T4N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Home
Business(Morrison Engineering)in the(A)Agricultural Zone District.
LOCATION: East of Northmoor Drive on Sage Court,and 300 feet north of CR 42.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, said that Matthew & Kristi Morrison have proposed a Site
Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Home Business and would like the case to
remain on the consent agenda. Mr.Ogle said Bruce Bickel,an attorney representing Northmoor subdivision
also wished to speak.
The Chair asked if any of the Planning Commissioners wished to remove this from the consent agenda. As
no one did,the Chair opened up the public portion of the hearing.
Bruce Bickel,attorney representing Northmoor subdivision,said he knows the county was not charged with
enforcing covenants but the Home Owners Association had some concerns with the application,specifically
item B., page three regarding evidence of periodic use. He said there was roughly nineteen hundred fifty
(1950) square feet in the residence and a shop containing sixteen hundred (1600) square feet. This
equated to forty two percent which would be business related and this was not an incidental use of the
property. Additionally,the subdivision covenants state no commercial enterprise shall be conducted from a
home and this was clearly a commercial enterprise. Mr.Bickel said the Home Owners Association Board of
Directors would be conducting their annual meeting in the near future to review this and other home related
uses. He suggested it would be appropriate to process this on two levels,because they would need to get
the county approval first and then face the covenant issue before this would be a legally accepted use for
either of the entities involved. Mr. Bickel suggested this case be delayed until the Home Owners
Association meeting February 25,2006. Mr.Morrison asked Mr.Bickel if the Home Owners Association had
the power to determine or enforce the use. Mr. Bickel replied that the board of directors would determine
whether or not this would constitute a commercial use even though the business was to be conducted totally
within the residence and had no outside advertising or outside impacts to the property. The Home Owners
Association would not be taking any specific action but they would address applicants use.
Mike Martin,Vice President of the Home Owners Association,said they would be discussing this application
at the February 25, 2006 meeting and would like it to be removed from the consent agenda.
Matt Morrison,5491 Sage Court,Johnstown,CO,owner and operator of Morrison Engineering,addressed
the Planning Commission and said that he had discussed their annual meeting in February,regarding what
kind of businesses would be allowed in the subdivision,with the president of the North moor Home Owners
Association and that after that meeting there may not be an opposing view on his business. Mr. Morrison
requested that his case be continued.
Tom Holton moved that case USR-1538 be removed from the consent agenda. Mike Miller seconded the
motion.
4
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.
The Chair asked Mr. Ogle to determine the next possible hearing date for this case. Mr.Ogle replied that
March 21, 2006 in the Southwest Weld County Hearing room would be available.
Mike Miller moved that Case USR-1538 be continued to the March 21, 2006 hearing date. Tom Holton
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.
HEARING ITEMS
4. Roger Vigil Building Official
Electrical& Permit Code Changes
Roger Vigil,Building Official with the Planning Department,proposed two code changes to Chapter29 of the
Weld County Code. The first code change was to Section 29-2-70 which would approve the 2005 National
Electrical Code and amendments. The second was to Section 29-8-40 and would provide a definite
expiration date on building permits and prevent building permits from continuing for an indefinite time period,
based on progress being made every one hundred eighty (180) days. Mr. Vigil said the Building Trade
Advisory Board had recommended approval of the code changes as submitted.
The Chair asked about the problems associated with indefinite permits, were there many permits that
continued past the six month deadlines, and would this make sense. Mr. Vigil replied that presently of
seventy five permits,a list provided by Peggy Gregory,Compliance Officer,about twenty five percent were
outstanding permits that have gone past their completion date. Most of these were due to the customer not
following through with inspections. These proposed changes would eliminate the ten day letters and the
one hundred eighty day roll over presently in place.
Mr. Ehrlich asked if building permit fees have increased. Mr.Vigil said not since 2003,that the only fees
increased were for manufactured homes. Mr. Ehrlich then asked Mr.Vigil about the seventy four permits
presently in violation and how that would work. Mr.Vigil replied that as long as you call for inspections,you
have one hundred eighty days from each inspection and then gave some specific examples.
Mr. Miller inquired about additional charges for inspections and whether it would make more sense to
charge for additional inspections rather than charge another building permit fee. Mr.Vigil responded that at
the present time, if a permit expired, the fee to activate it was half of the original building permit fee. Mr.
Miller suggested it might make more sense to do the building permits something like manufactured homes
were done now where there was a specific time limit to complete the job.
Mr. Holton asked how many of the seventy four permits in violation were homes being built by the
homeowner. Mr.Vigil said probably all of them.
The Chair asked about exceptions after the fact for those that can't complete their building for some reason
and what provisions were written in for those instances. Mr.Vigil said the only avenue would be to reapply
for a new permit. Mr.Ehrlich asked if commercial building was handled differently than residential as far as
utilization periods were concerned. Mr.Vigil said the code changes every three years.
Mr.Miller said commercial doesn't usually drag out due to money involved,investors,etc.and he supported
amendments to the electrical code but thinks permit changes were overbearing and put unreasonable
expectations on the homeowner. Mr.Miller felt it was better to charge for each inspection beyond a certain
number rather than pay for another permit after time had expired.
Mr. Holton asked about charges for failed inspections. Mr. Vigil responded that a re-inspection fee was
assessed if the job was not ready when the inspector was called to come and added that currently there
were no consequences for lengthy finishes.
5
The Chair asked Mr.Morrison about recommending changes to the request. Mr.Morrison said if they have
specific language,they could recommend an amendment to the language,or just provide comments without
proposing specific language. Mr.Morrison added that if you propose a motion,there would be a resolution
that would reflect more formally what your position was.
The Chair asked about site inspections, set backs etc. and if the cost to the county would be less the
second time as these would not need to be done again. Mr.Vigil said that was correct.
Mr.Branham said it seems that concern was with private residences and would it be appropriate to approve
this as presented, excluding the private residence.
Mr. Holton asked if they were going to make adjustments to item b. to specify owner built.
Mike Miller moved to accept code changes to Section 29-2-70 relative to the 2005 National Electric Code
and the amendments. Erich Ehrlich 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.
Mike Miller moved to deny the application for amendments in Section 29-8-40 as written. Tom Holton
seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Miller added that he would like Mr. Vigil to compose language that would address this problem in a
different manner by establishing a maximum number of inspections that would be included in the building
permit fee itself. If a person exceeded that number of inspections they would be charged an inspection fee
every time the county was asked to go out and re-inspect, Mr. Miller said he felt that was a more fair and
equitable means of accomplishing the same thing and if the building permit did expire, charging the fifty
percent fee was far more equitable than starting all over and charging the full fee again.
The Chair asked Mr.Vigil if he understood what Mr.Miller was suggesting. Mr.Vigil said he did but that this
recommendation was not much different than the previous code.
5. CASE NUMBER: PZ-1078
APPLICANT: Tom Morton
PLANNER: Klm Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parts of Sections 25, 35, and 36,T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado
REQUEST: PUD Change of Zone from(A)Agriculture to PUD with(E)Estate;(R-1)
Low Density Residential; (R-2) Duplex Residential; (R-3) Medium
Density Residential;(R-4)High Density Residential;(C-1)Neighborhood
Commercial and(C-2)General Commercial and continuing Oil and Gas
Production Uses in the Mixed Use Development Overlay District(St.
Vrain Lakes PUD)
LOCATION: Multiple parcels generally located East of and adjacent to thel-25
Frontage Road,South of and adjacent to State Highway 66;west of and
adjacent to CR 13 and north of and adjacent to St.Vrain River.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, said this case was continued from the December 20, 2005
Planning Commission Hearing at the request of the applicant and with the support of Planning Staff so that
referral comments could be addressed by the applicant.
Carma Colorado do Tom Morton and Tyler Packard applied for a request of Change of Zone from (A)
Agriculture to PUD with(E)Estate;(R-1)Low Density Residential;(R-2)Duplex Residential;(R-3)Medium
Density Residential; (R-4) High Density Residential; (C-1) Neighborhood Commercial, (C-2) General
Commercial and continuing Oil and Gas Production Uses in the Mixed Use Development Overlay District to
be identified as the St. Vrain Lakes PUD, comprising of approximately 1313 acres. The application
materials stated that there would be 4800 to 5131 residential lots with an average lot size of 3700 SF and a
minimum lot size of 3300 SF. There were also three commercial development areas (40 acres) and a
Municipal development area (22 acres), three school sites and 334 acres of open space.
The proposed St.Vrain Lakes PUD was located on multiple parcels generally located east of and adjacent
to the 1-25 Frontage Road,south of and adjacent to State Highway 66;west of and adjacent to County Road
6
13 and north of and adjacent to the St. Vrain River. Surrounding properties were generally agricultural.
Sekich Commercial Business Park, the proposed Meadow Ridge Residential/Commercial PUD, and the
Grand View Estates PUD were located to the north of the proposed St Vrain Lakes PUD north of the site
across State Highway 66. The Corporate City Limits of the Town of Mead were adjacent to the west,
agricultural lands were to the east, including the Aurora Organic Dairy,approximately 1 mile to the east of
County Road 13 and the Southwest Service Center was to the south, and the Pelican Shores PUD was
located to the southeast,south of the St.Vrain River.
The site was designated as residential with commercial and areas of limiting site factors designation on the
Amended 1-25 Mixed Use Development Area Structural Plan,Map 2.1 Structural Land Use Map dated June
2005. The neighborhood center designation was also present within the boundary of this proposed
development.
The property sloped slightly to the south of State Highway 66 towards County Road 28. A greater slope
was evident south of County Road 28 approximately 2000 feet to the top of the bluff before dropping into the
river valley. All lands associated with this proposal area were under agricultural production with the river
valley area being part of a former gravel mine. (USR-489, '82; USR-636, '84; USR-907, '89)
The signs announcing the Planning Commission hearing were posted December 31,2005 by Planning Staff
and were evidenced by photograph and affidavit.
Staff comments were derived from the referral agencies responses and the application materials.
The proposed PUD was located within the Mixed Use Development(MUD)area, and within the three mile
Municipal referral area with the Towns of Mead, Firestone,and Frederick. The Town of Mead requested
that this development not be approved as an unincorporated project and the applicants would be required
to petition either the Town of Mead or the Town of Firestone for annexation. In addition,the Town of Mead
states that there were too many as yet unresolved issues,including road networks,how the residents of this
project would receive services,et cetera. Their entire referral was outlined on page 8,Section C of the staff
comments. The Town of Frederick had indicated that they have reviewed the request and found no conflicts
with their interests. The Town of Firestone in their referral dated January 11, 2006 stated residential
densities appeared to be significantly higher than a typical residential development in Firestone. Having
such a high single family detached residential density could negatively impact development quality and
public safety. Their entire referral was also outlined on page 8, Section C of the staff comments. It was
important to note that there were five land tracts internal to this project not yet a part of this development
that would access onto roads constructed for the development. Four of the parcels had single family
residences and outbuildings and the fifth parcel was a substation for United Power.
The project offered an opportunity to accommodate significant transportation improvements in the area.
County Road 13,State Highway 66 and the 1-25 Frontage Road were the paved roads in the vicinity of this
proposed development. The development's proposed site layout would provide a network of local,collector
and arterial classified streets. County Road 13 and County Road 9.5 were classified as Major Arterial
Roads with significant improvements. County Road 28 was classified as a Minor Arterial Road which would
also be significantly improved. These roads would be maintained by Weld County.
County Road 11 and County Road 28 west of County Road 11 has been annexed by the Town of Mead,
therefore, coordination of roadway improvements meeting MUD criterion, number of access points and
signalization requirements would be coordinated with the Town.
State Highway 66 has been annexed by the Town of Mead, however, the Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT) maintains this segment of roadway adjacent to this development. CDOT in their
electronic referral dated October 26, 2005 stated that they would allow full movement access to State
Highway 66 at the existing County Road 11 and County Road 13 intersections.
It was important to note that infrastructural improvements were slated for I-25 (Northbound). It was
anticipated funding would become available early was year. When funding becomes available,CDOT was
prepared to begin the construction in 2006. As a part of the widening,CDOT would abandon the east side
frontage road and provide a portion of the funds to construct the Weld County Strategic Road 9.5 from a
point north of the St.Vrain River to State Highway 66.
The Colorado Department of Transportation in their electronic referral dated January 6,2006 state that they
were not in support of a direct access (right-in/right-out)off of State Highway 66. Further, it was CDOT's
position that they were not opposed to allowing additional access, however, other access would also be
7
considered provided the criteria stated in the State Highway Access Code could be met. Review of these
considerations would be undertaken in Filings and Phases at time of Final Plat review.
The applicant had proposed a variance to the local residential street width and cul-de-sac dimension. The
right-of-way remained at 60 feet,however the flow line to flow line dimension was proposed at 32 feet,with
the MUD standard road cross section set at 40 feet. The Department of Public Works was able to further
discuss was issue at the conclusion of my comments.
A greenway/trail system was designed to connect the various components of the development for
pedestrian and bicycle traffic as well as provide recreational opportunities.
The applicant had proposed to set their own unique standards with respect to certain bulk requirements
rather than follow the default requirements as set out in the Weld County Code for the residential
component,and Section 23-3-250 Performance Standard of the Commercial Zone District. The Department
of Planning Services was not in support of this requested variance.
The applicant had proposed an average proto-typical Single Family Residential lot size of 3700 SF.
For purposes of discussion,development recently reviewed by this Board, and other developments in the
MUD,the average lot size for Adler PUD was 5500 SF,for the Elms at Meadow Vale PUD 10200 SF,for
The Farms PUD,45000 SF,for Pelican Shores PUD 54450 SF;for Lifebridge PUD 8000 SF;and for Idaho
Creek, 2800 SF.
Property with the zone district designation of R-2,R-3, R-4, C-1 and C-2 development in a PUD required a
Site Plan Review application as defined in Chapter23 of the Weld County Code. The building height would
be determined by Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code.
The proposed PUD would be serviced by Little Thompson Water District for potable water and fire protection
requirements and St. Vrain Sanitation District would handle the effluent flow. Agreements have been
secured and approved by the County Attorney's Office.
Nineteen referral agencies reviewed this case, four referral agencies had no comments and fourteen
responded favorably or included conditions that have been addressed through development standards and
conditions of approval and one referral agency(Mead)requested that the applicant's annex into either their
municipality or into another municipality.
No letters were received prior to mailing out the planning commission packets from surrounding properties,
and no letters or telephone calls have been received concerning this case.
The Department of Planning Services recommended approval of PZ-1078 for Carma Colorado for the St.
Vrain Lakes PUD with the attached conditions of approval and development standards.
Mr.Ogle said he had provided a copy of the town of Firestone referral dated January 11,2006. References
to this referral in the Staff comment should be reflected to indicate a receipt of January 11,2006 not January
13,2006. Mountain View Fire Protection District and St.Vrain Valley School District also provided additional
comment on this proposal. Referral comments from the Department of Public Works concerning the
applicant's CLOMR application dated January 12, 2006 were also included for reference. Recently
Mountain View Fire Protection District provided a letter addressing street width and fire district requirements.
The applicants were approved by the Board of County Commissioners on January 4, 2006 for a pre-
advertisement of the Board of County Commissioners hearing which had been scheduled for February 8,
2006 at 10:00am.
Mr. Miller said that it was totally unreasonable for them to have a hearing of this type with the limited time
schedule they had to consider a development that would become essentially the third or fourth largest city in
this county. Mr. Miller said he was not in favor of continuing with the hearing and would much prefer to set
a special hearing date in which they could devote an appropriate amount of time to a development of that
scope. Mr.Miller said they had previously held a special hearing for a development that was ten percent of
this size and this application could potentially have fifteen to twenty thousand people living in it and we have
been asked to hear it in a couple of hours, and he did not believe that was appropriate. Mr. Miller said he
would like to know what their options were as he understood that it had been approved for pre-
advertisement for the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Miller said he got the feeling that it was being
shoved down their throats because there wasn't time to schedule another hearing,and he said again that he
did not think that was appropriate.
8
The Chair asked Mr. Morrison for his input. Mr. Morrison replied that the Planning Commission was not
bound to keep to that schedule. Mr. Morrison said whether continuing it would make them any better
prepared to evaluate the case was really the issue. As a group if they felt a continuance was needed,there
would not be any fewer items or complexities on the agenda in the future. Mr. Morrison said it was
ultimately their decision whether to hear it today or not.
Mr. Miller said starting this type of a hearing at 3:30 in the afternoon with an application of this complexity,
he could easily see them being there at midnight if they continued the hearing. He felt that was not
appropriate, fair to the board,or to the residents of this county to try and tackle a project of that size in a
couple of hour time limitation.
Mr.Holton asked Mr.Ogle how much bigger than Lifebridge and Pioneer the Carma project would be.The
Chair replied that Pioneer was approximately fifty six hundred acres and Carma was at one thousand three
hundred thirteen acres. According to Mr.Ogle, Carma was approximately one thousand acres more than
Lifebridge. Mr.Miller asked a question of Mr.Ogle that was inaudible. Mr.Ogle replied that Lifebridge was
one hundred ten for the single family residences and they also had an assisted living component and multi-
family housing. Mr. Holton asked about the mixed use component. According to Mr. Ogle, the Carma
commercial areas were similar in scope to the Lifebridge project. Mr. Branham inquired about other
problems that might be associated with continuing the hearing to another date as Mr.Miller had suggested.
Mr.Ogle said they would need to re-advertise the case fifteen days prior to hearing,legal notification would
need to go to the county paper,repost the sign and notify surrounding property owners of the new hearing
date. Mr. Morrison said they might be able to dispense with the surrounding property owner mailing
because that was a different level of requirement under the code and under state law. The publication was
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.
9
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 Commissioners 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
close proximity with the following gravel operations to the east (AmUSR-921 Asphalt Paving Company,
AmUSR-905 Aggregate Industries Inc.,and USR-1259 Mobile Pre-Mix). The applicant proposes to install
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
10
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 t0 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
11
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 I-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
12
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 Commissioners 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
13
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 1.8., 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.
14
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.
15
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 Secretary
16
Hello