HomeMy WebLinkAbout20062756 SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, September 19, 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, Chad
Auer, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL ABSENT J
Chad Auer-Chair .)
Doug Ochsner-Vice Chair
Paul Branham
Erich Ehrlich -
Bruce Fitzgerald
Tom Holton (.:5
Roy Spitzer
James Welch
Also Present: Kim Ogle,Jacqueline Hatch,Michelle Martin, Bruce Barker,Cyndy Giauque,Don Carroll,Jess
Hein, Char Davis, Donita May.
The summary of the last regular meetings of the Weld County Planning Commission held on August 1,2006
and September 5, 2006, were approved as read.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to approve the minutes. Doug Ochsner seconded.
Chad Auer informed the audience of the changes to the order of the agenda and reminded the audience to
sign in and limit their presentations to five minutes.
1. CASE NUMBER: USR-1564
APPLICANT: Harley& Patricia Troyer
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part N2 SE4 of Section 7, T2N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for a
business permitted as a use by right or accessory use in the
Commercial or Industrial Zone District (Auction yard) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Hwy 85 and south of and adjacent to CR
22.5.
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services, presented Case USR-1564, and said the applicants had
requested this case remain on the consent agenda.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that Case USR-1564,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes; Tom Holton, yes; Doug Ochsner,yes; Roy Spitzer,
yes; James Welch, yes;, Mark Lawley, yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
ec rutiuMl i ealAfrit,o 10 M -•27OO6) 2006-2756
2. CASE NUMBER: 2n°Am USR-249
APPLICANT: Asphalt Specialties Company
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt of the NE4NW4 and NW4NE4 and S2NW4 SW4NE4 and SE4 of
Section 31, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for
Mineral Resource Development Facilities including an Asphalt
Batch Plant, Asphalt and Concrete Recycling Plant and Gravel
Mining in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Highway 52; and east of and
adjacent to County Line Road.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, presented Case 2nd AmUSR-249,and deferred to Judson Hite,
attorney,250 Arapahoe Av,Ste 301, Boulder,CO 80302,representing the surrounding property owners known
as the Pleasant View Community Association, before reading the recommendation and comments into the
record. Mr. Hite requested a continuance of the case for thirty days. The application was originally scheduled
for hearing one year ago. He said the surrounding property owners had not received notification, nor had he
received notification, and there was also now the annexation of half of the property by the Town of Erie for
development of a waste water treatment facility. Mr. Hite continued that Town of Erie property would also
contain the batch plants and recycling facility being requested today,which begged the question of whether or
not the Planning Commission even had jurisdiction to hear the matter. He said the referral agency responses,
dated a year ago, did not address this important issue and the cumulative effects of a wastewater treatment
plant; in addition to the batch plant,recycling facility,and the existing gravel mining require additional time for
staff comments and referral agency responses to be updated.
The Chair asked the County Attorney for guidance. Ms. Giauque said that because the Pleasant Valley
Community Association, represented by Mr. Hite, was not the applicant, it was her opinion they could not
make that request. Usually continuances were requested by the parties involved, and additionally whether
Erie completes the annexation of certain portions of this property or not,was not relevant to what this board
had to decide today concerning the other property. Unless the applicant was asking for a continuance,no one
else possessed the standing to do that.
The Chair reminded Mr. Hite this was not the final hearing for the case, but merely a recommendation. The
Board of County Commissioners will ultimately make the final decision. Mr. Hite asked for clarification
regarding the annexation of the property by Erie.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, read the recommendation and comments into the record. This
application was for a Second Amended Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for Mineral
Resource Development Facilities including a Concrete and Asphalt Batch Plant,Asphalt Recycling Plant and
Gravel Mining in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
This case was continued from a scheduled September 20, 2005 meeting before this Board at the request of
the applicant.
The proposed amendment area is located north of and adjacent to State Highway 52; and east of and
adjacent to County Line Road 1. The Towns of Frederick, Dacono and Erie are within the three mile
notification area. The site has historically been utilized for mineral resource development,with a majority of
the site located within the 100-year floodplain. There are improvements on the site associated with the
existing operation. (scale house, access roads, scale)
Surrounding property uses include farmland and rural residential developments to the north, south and east.
CR 1 and Boulder County is directly west of the amendment to the existing USR. The general appearance is
agrarian; however, development pressures are evident.
The applicant states"This 276-acre site was approved by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners
for sand and gravel mining, processing and transportation in 1974 as an"Agricultural Unit Development Plan"
and given the designation of Special Use Permit(SUP)#249 and in 1981 as AmSUP-249. The SUP included
the entire 276 acre site and allowed mining in the northern portion, processing in both the northern and
2
southern portions of the site, and unrestricted access from SH-52. USR-249 was approved in 1974 for
Turnpike Construction and amended in 1981 to the Turnpike Construction to amend three Development
Standards and to delete one Development standard, specifically addressed via USR-448
Turnpike Construction, decided to reclaim the site and cease all active mining operations in 1996,while still
operating a small screening plant on the west side of the property to screen and utilize stockpiled sand and
gravel in their continued construction operations. The site was reclaimed from mining and the state bond was
returned to the operator/owner.
In 2003,Asphalt Specialties Inc. (ASCI)entered into a lease with the property owners(Turnpike Construction)
to continue to mine the property for sand and gravel as long as continued mining operations were possible. A
new state DMG(Division of Minerals&Geology)permit was approved in 2004 allowing this mining activity with
state mining and reclamation standards in place.
The County determined that because this site is currently the location of an active "special use", the
application will be for an amendment, not a new Use by Special Review (USR). When the amendment is
approved,the designation of SUP will be dropped and the site will be referred to as 2nd AmUSR-249,and will
incorporate the new Development Standards and Conditions of Approval as outlined in staff comments.
The property will be mined in one phase and divided into six areas or cells for mining. Size of cells range in
size of 1.5 acres to 67 acres with a life of mine estimated to be five to six years.
The amendment proposes no changes to the mining methods. Operating will be during daylight hours
Monday through Saturday,and will utilize equipment or transportation requirements previously permitted under
USR-249, AmUSR-249 and USR-448.
Per the application materials,trucks associated with this use will exit the property onto SH 52 and head east or
onto CR1 and proceed north or south. Given that all roads surrounding this facility are under the jurisdiction of
others, the applicant will be required to enter into a Road Maintenance and Improvements Agreement with
Boulder County for access onto CR 1. This agreement has been signed by all parties and is expected to be
adopted by Boulder County on Thursday September 21, 2006 at their regularly scheduled meeting.
Asphalt Specialties has indicated that noise levels will comply with the requirements of the Weld County
Health Department. All activities will be regulated by the Mine Safety and Health Act (MSHA) and the
Occupational Safety and Health Act(OSHA). The final reclamation plan is for water storage thus ensuring
compatibility of the post-mining land use with the long term planning goals for the area.
Thirty-two (32) referral agencies reviewed this case. Sixteen (16) offered comments that have been
incorporated into Conditions of Approval and or Development Standards and fourteen (14)agencies did not
respond.
As of Monday at 5:00 PM, staff had received twenty-one (21) letters stating opposition from surrounding
property owners for the 2005 file. Two letters were received prior to this hearing. An additional letter was
submitted by Judson Hite, Attorney,who is present and representing several surrounding property owners.
The predominate concerns are:(1)the potential of a decrease in property values; (2)the amount of long term
noise and dust; (3)odors; and (4)quality of life issues and related factors.
The sign noting the hearing date and location was posted ten days prior to this hearing by Department of
Planning Services' staff and is evidenced by affidavit and photograph.
This case was re-advertised for this hearing today. One substantial modification to the original application
concerns the Town of Erie and their long term development plans for this site. A 108 acre (more or less)
annexation of lands on three separate parcels within the existing USR boundary is in process with Erie. Staff
has determined that this is not a significant modification to the application as, ASCI is not mining any of the
ground associated with the Erie Annexation. ASCI were mining other lands associated with previously
permitted applications and approximately 75 acres associated with this application under review.
The Department of Planning Services has reviewed Case 2ndAmUSR 249,Special Review Permit for Mineral
3
Resource Development and recommends approval of the proposed amendment with the attached
Development Standards and Conditions of Approval
Bruce Fitzgerald asked Mr.Ogle if the annexation was a result of an owner request and if the area to be mined
was outside that area. Mr. Ogle replied the annexation was requested by Fred Spallone, landowner, of
Turnpike Construction, and that ASCI had a lease to mine the minerals which were outside that area.
James Welch inquired about something which was inaudible,to which Mr.Ogle replied they could do mineral
resource, basically gravel mining, transport from the site on SH 52 to points beyond, as well as the asphalt
batch plant and recycling.
Doug Ochsner asked for verification of notification of the surrounding property owners and mineral lessees.
Mr. Ogle responded that notification had been done July 22, 2005 and again August 25, 2006.
Rob Laird, Land Manager for Asphalt Specialties, 10100 Dallas St, Henderson,CO,80640, representing the
applicant, said the company was started in 1991 by Colorado natives Dan and Dave Hunt, who continue
ownership. Their first year of operation saw only a single overlay patching for Northglenn in the amount of six
hundred eight thousand dollars in business. Today they employ over three hundred people and do in excess
of thirty million dollars in business. The property was originally purchased in 1973 by Fred Spallone of
Turnpike Construction. Company records showed the property had been mined from the 1930's up to 1973
when Mr.Spallone purchased it. Asphalt Specialties had been producing and shipping aggregate from the site
for the past two years. They have had no safety or other violations in that time and felt they have been good
neighbors. Today they were asking for approval to expand the mining by seventy five acres in the south and
add an aggregate/batch plant and recycling plant. The purpose for the expansion would be to concentrate the
impacts onto one location, it was compatible with the mining and made sense, utilized gravel on site, and
would cause no increase in the trucking amounts. Based on their current production and sales,they expected
the remaining mine life to be five to six years. The batch plants would be removed once the site was mined
out. The reclamation of the site (276 acres)would be reclaimed for the municipal treatment plant for Erie,
water storage for Erie, and residential development. The pits in the area have all been reclaimed for wildlife,
recreation or residential development. Mr. Laird said it was possible to have their business in the area be
compatible with surrounding residential developments and provided slides for support. He then addressed the
necessity and positive attributes of keeping batch plants on gravel mining sites: traffic, heavy equipment and
materials stockpiling for the various applications remains in one concentrated location; lowers number of
access points which would reduces traffic congestion and increase safety on the roads; finished material
leaves the site rather than raw aggregates being delivered to another batching site;the batch plants would be
removed when the mining was complete; that they employ up to thirty people on the site, not including the
drivers; they have provided a great deal of the asphalt presently in Weld County; he spoke of their many
upcoming projects; said that reclamation of the site would enhance the community; the thirty three acre
reservoir for Erie would be constructed within three years; twenty acres open space with wildlife attributes
would accompany the Erie treatment facility; that this was a valuable site for the amenities it provided in the
area; that it was important to remember they have operated almost continuously on the site for the past two
years;the batch plant would be screened by trees west and south and by distance to the north and east;and
that the uses were compatible with local and Weld County Code and requirements.
Doug Ochsner asked Mr. Laird about ditch information regarding drainage and augmentation and had that
been cleared up. Mr. Laird said he felt confident this would be resolved easily.
Tom Holton asked if they were to have a recycling plant as well and how high the stockpiles would be. Mr.
Laird replied they would be approximately forty feet high and came from their own projects, not from other
sources. Mr. Holton then asked how they planned to de-commission the plant on 1-25 and CR 8 without
increasing the truck traffic on CR 52. Mr. Laird said that plant would be brought to this site and that it would be
a trade off of raw aggregate material that would travel on Highway 52,eastbound to 1-25,south to CR 8 to the
asphalt plant and that will commence and the turnpike site would be converted to asphalt only. They have a
traffic study approved by Weld County, Boulder County and CDOT that also took all of that into account.
Paul Branham asked if it were true there was a temporary batch plant on the site now, if they could operate
temporary batch plants legally if they had a contract with a government entity,and if noise,smoke and odors
were increased from a temporary plant. Mr. Laird said there was a batch plant on the site at present that was
4
only temporary for paving Highway 52 and sat unused for most of the year, that they could operate batch
plants if they had contracts, and that noise, smoke and odors were not increased from temporary plants and
all three of their asphalt plants had been built to be super efficient.
Tom Holton asked to hear proposed changes the applicant wanted to make to the Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards.
Mr. Laird requested relocations of the following items to"prior to recording the plat": page eight, item F.,as
there was no need for a water tap at this time and was covered in number fourteen in the Development
Standards; item I., page eight as there was no change in use; item J., page eight, moved because not all
regulations have been agreed upon with Weld County;and lastly item E.,page eight due to issues with access
for utility easements on parcels annexed into Erie.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
David True, 322 CR 16.5,Longmont, CO 80504, said he had lived in the area all of his life; gave a history of
the area;agricultural and wildlife until the seventies; mining began in the mid seventies;flood in the area in the
seventies precipitated straightening and flattening out of the riverbed;dust piles and weeds were predominant;
batch plant moved in 1978; it was now thirty years later and that plant remains in operation though it was only
supposed to be there for five years;the eighties had heavy truck traffic on county road but was much heavier
now; waste dumping on site, though he did not know exactly what it was; in the nineties the operation did
begin to slow down and pond was reclaimed with vegetation and fishing;wetlands seemed to be coming back
and even began to see bald eagles again; early 2000 negotiations began on property for new sewer plant;
moving of material in and out of site; cited current home locations and said his information went directly
against the information presented by the applicant; 2003 ASCI got their lease agreement and obtained plan
sheets;currently Erie sewer treatment plant annexation had occurred;questioned proposed batch plants and
location;tremendous truck traffic on Hwy 52 in his opinion;cited the Comprehensive Plan,Section 2.C.where
uses for the area should be compatible with surrounding land uses; counted 112 conditions to be met by the
applicant prior to approval and he believed it would be very difficult, if not impossible,for the applicant to meet
all of those conditions.
Mike Kapp, 7253 CR 3.25, Erie, CO 80516, addressed environmental issues; Weld County was currently in
the top seventy fifth percentile of the dirtiest counties in the United States; statistics have shown increased
headaches, depression and insomnia of residents in areas around batch plants; residents measured fifty to
fifty five decibels when trucks were moving and peaked at seventy decibels, which was well over sound
regulations; increased noise levels would degrade quality of life; hydrogen sulfide level, per the World Health
Organization,was in excess of their recommendation for safety;hazardous air pollution levels and effects on
residents in close proximity; dust particles increased; wildlife and proximity to Boulder Creek and
endangerment to area wildlife; conservatively there were over fifty four species of birds in the area, not
including mammals; flood plain and storm water monitoring, management and mitigation.
Chad Auer asked about the sound levels on CR 16.5 and the distances they cited. Mr. Kapp replied it was
fifty-nine(59)miles or three thousand feet. Mr.Auer said they have mechanisms in place within the County to
mitigate most of his concerns. Bruce Fitzgerald asked who took the decibel readings. Mr. Kapp replied the
residents had taken the decibel readings with a hand held calibrated device.
Tammy Smith, 671 CR 16.5,Longmont, CO, 80504, area real estate agent spoke to the negative impact of
property values in the area; applicant's proposal would definitely decrease area values and cited a couple of
properties in the area that have been for sale for several years; twenty two of twenty eight people who had
viewed two specific properties did not have any interest in those properties due to their proximity to the
concrete batch plant; significant impact to developments down wind of the batch plant due to water and air
contamination; increased birth defects in areas surrounding batch plants; impact on wildlife and domestic
animals;said the applicant represented this as a five to six year process but hinted it could go on longer,and
closed by asking just how long they expected to be in the area.
Wendy Timmerick, 649 SH 52, resided directly east of the batch plant in a residence with a business;did not
buy in the area as a start up home but rather as a place to retire and chose for peace and tranquility;
vehemently protested the batch plant in her back yard;hundreds of trucks rumbling past until they turn into the
5
property;the last few days it had been suspiciously quiet;she had followed a truck from the batch plant to see
where it went;spoke of the intense smell from the plant;not an industrial neighborhood,they have businesses
but not to that extent and called it an extreme industrial operation and asked the Planning Commission to deny
the application.
Ken Nuens, 354 CR 16.5, Longmont,CO 80504, his property bordered the northwest border of the site;said
clear view of site from his residence;practices veterinary medicine from his property;spoke about the use and
density per Weld County regulations and read from the County Code; a batch plant in this area was
inordinately inappropriate twenty years ago and that has not changed;surrounded by irrigated farmlands and
residences; understood aggregates needed to be taken from the area but opposed the batch plant. Tom
Holton asked how long the permit had been on the property and wouldn't he like as many operations in place
to get the materials mined quickly from the area. Mr. Nuens said that would be wonderful if that happened but
felt the business could go on for many years.
Mike Shaw, PO Box 1227, Longmont, CO, 80502; his family owns gravel land east of the site; said it was
hypocritical to speak against the batch plant but compatibility was an issue thirty years ago; on Shaw and
Nelson properties there were no batch plants; denied previously due to increased traffic on Highway 52;
precedent set thirty years ago and reaffirmed as little as eight years ago that this would be incompatible with
the area; common sense tells us that you can finish mining when it is no longer economical and feasible;can
continue business indefinitely when product is brought in to the site; urged denial of the application.
Greg Balmes, 7227 Reflection Dr, Erie, CO, 80516, cited letter from CDOT that Asphalt Specialties had no
right to be conducting business;SH 52 was classified an RA highway;no direct access to the highway would
be allowed if alternate access to general street system existed;existing access to SH 52 was considered low
volume and a field access; any increase to that access would require a traffic impact study and most likely
require auxiliary lanes,specifically a left turn deceleration, right turn acceleration and a right turn deceleration
and the applicant has been using that access for several years; he had recently built four custom homes that
would be impacted by the applicant's business;cannot deny removal of gravel from site but opposed importing
of materials from other sites;asked under what authority Asphalt Specialties was operating due to the CDOT
recommendation; even the Town of Erie did not want them operating in the area;twenty pages of conditions
by the Planning Department was not the way to approve an application and asked for denial. Mr.Balmes also
pointed out the skid marks along the access and addressed the heavy traffic in the area.
John File, Farfrumwurkin LLLP, 11811 Upham Street#12,Broomfield,CO 80020,his property abuts railroad
easement and was in direct path of wind flow from the asphalt plant;was also in the gravel mining business
and did not have a problem with the gravel mining but did with the asphalt batch plant; if allowed by Planning,
then other requests would have to be approved for the same operation;asked for a fixed period of time on the
mining operation; also asked they set strict conditions prohibiting import of materials to the site to prevent
expansion of the life of the mining; access on SH 52 should have right in, right out, or acceleration and
deceleration lanes should be put in place;concerned about ditches in the area and the impact the facility could
have on them and suggested an agreement with the applicant. Tom Holton asked if it was just the batch plant
he was against. Mr. File replied that he preferred not to have either the batch plant or the recycling in the
area. Tom Holton asked about the Kinosha Pit that had been referenced and its location. Mr. File said he did
not know if the applicant was importing materials from the Kinosha Pit but gave directions to the pit.
Kenneth Schell, 833 SH 52,Erie,CO, 80516,had owned property in the area for the past eleven years;had to
talk to his neighbors at that time when he wanted to move in a modular prior to building permanent residence;
had to sign an affidavit for large garage for his car collection;Weld County went to great lengths to make sure
he was compatible with the area for the things he planned to do on his property; knew there was a gravel pit in
the area that would eventually provide lakes and residential development; the asphalt plant had blocked his
views; could live with the gravel mining but the asphalt batch plant was another thing;odors from plant came
into his home; noise from oil burners goes all night long;early morning smoke and sounds forced them to shut
up their house completely;he was on Board of Directors for Plumb&Dailey Ditch and had seen nothing from
Asphalt Specialties regarding their plans; asked the Planning Commission to please set a time limit on the
operation of the batch plant and prohibit import of materials so as not to prolong the operation. Tom Holton
asked Mr. Schell to point out the two ditches on the applicant's property. Mr. Schell said there was only one
ditch and indicated the Plumb and Dailey ditch off Boulder Creek. There was drainage across CR 1 that tied
into the Plumb and Dailey
6
Sandy True, 7370 CR 1, Longmont, CO, 80504, asked Planning Commission to review the hearing
certification docket dated July 11, 2001, regarding the applicant's request, where the BOCC voted
unanimously to deny the application; she quoted Dan Hunt who had said asphalt plants were not placed on
gravel pits as they were temporary,and batch plants were permanent;same issues today with this application;
fire trucks go south from County Line to SH 52 and there were no shoulders so traffic becomes dangerous.
Harry Oyler, PO Box 2311, Longmont, CO 80205, agreed with the issues raised by his neighbors who had
spoken before him.
Dennis Timmerick, 649 SH 52, Erie, CO 80516, located next to applicant's property; had lived there since
1999;cattle in field,could fish,hunt and four wheel in there prior to Asphalt Specialties presence;traffic on SH
52 was excessive; trucks piggyback in access and when one truck goes, they all go; had seen cars jam on
brakes to avoid colliding with trucks accessing the road;did not agree with what they were doing now or what
they planned for the future and asked for denial.
Ildiko Oyler, PO Box 2311,Longmont;residents of Reflection Bay and supported the other residents that have
asked for denial;had no problem with the gravel pit as the lakes have improved the area;and credited Jon File
for the improvements he had made to the area, even though he did not have too.
Marcia Poss, 7137 Reflection Dr, Erie, CO, 80516, loved rural life, community, agriculture; inquired of the
County about current and future land use in the area before they bought two lots in the area; trusted Weld
County information even though it had changed drastically; not opposed to gravel mining; need to decide as
planners whether they want residential or industrial developments;if she had wanted to live in Commerce City,
she would have moved there; batch and recycling plants never seem to go away, an endless stream of
product; batch plants were not a necessity for the area; lifestyle and property values would be affected;felt the
applicant created violations, paid the fines and just carried on with their business; called the project a gross,
malignant, constantly metastasizing tumor on the area that must be stopped.
Dave Smoljan, 556 CR 16.5, Longmont, CO 80504; his property bordered north property line of the plant;
called Mr. Laird a liar, at which point the Chair reminded him of the protocol expected for the hearing;
suggested the applicants take the gravel and get out;does not want an asphalt batch plant as it would extend
the life of the mining;gravel mining not even close to being done and now the applicant wants another seventy
five acres; made disparaging remarks about Peter Weiland who had contracted with Helen Bryant to mine her
gravel and said she did not know that Mr. Weiland was representing Asphalt Specialties; applicant's do not
care about the community.
Sally Kapp, 7253 CR 3.25, Erie, CO, 80516, said she had not received any notification from Erie or Weld
County regarding the sewer treatment plant; asked for denial of the batch plant.
Richard Armstead, 219 SH 52, Erie, CO, 80516, owned sixty five acres in the area; bald eagles nest on his
property as well as foxes, coyotes and deer in the area and did not want to see the wildlife disappear; cited
excessive traffic in the area and did not support the batch plant.
Judson Hite, attorney, 250 Arapahoe Av, Ste 301, Boulder, CO 80302, representing homeowners, said
Asphalt Specialties' proposal did not meet Weld County Code; SH 52 ingress/egress issue where Asphalt
Specialties claimed they were grandfathered in to accessing SH 52 with the issuance of their USR in 1974;in
1981 the state adopted the highway access code stating that any change or cessation of a use for a period of
more than four years required that the user of the highway obtain a new access permit; in 1996 the mining
operations at this site ceased and Turnpike turned in its mining permit to the Division of Minerals&Geology;
there was no mining at the site until 2003 when Asphalt Specialties entered into a lease and obtained a permit
in 2004, eight years after the prior cessation of activity; ASI does not currently have authorization to use SH
52;Sheriffs should be enforcing this prior judgment;discrepancy in truck traffic increases;cited Section 22-2-
60.D.4. of the Code ensuring safe and adequate access to State highways and County roads; Section 22-5-
80.0.2.minimizing impacts of surface mining;proposed development was incompatible with surrounding uses
and the application should be denied; property owners knew of mining but had a reasonable expectation that it
would commence at some point in time and not continue indefinitely; cited Section 22-5-80.D.4. regarding
buffering from adjacent uses as there was substantial impact to the surrounding residences;State engineers
have required a substitute water plan; Plumb&Dailey Ditch in their response claimed it had water rights in the
7
area that had not been addressed; District 6 Water Users Association claimed there was a breach in the
augmentation plan and was not in compliance with Section 22-2-60.A.requires a consistent supply of irrigation
water;site is located in the one hundred year flood plan and due to shallow groundwater requires storage of all
materials above ground and could cause problems with the site materials leaching into the groundwater
supply;cited Section 22-5-80.D.4 regarding minimizing hazardous conditions relating to the site;Section 22-5-
30.A. regarding wildlife protection; operation requirements were not in compliance and cited Section 22-4-
70.A. regarding noise goals and policies; cited Sections 22-4-50 and 23-2-50.B. regarding air quality
standards;ASI was not in compliance with Weld County design standards; no perk test submitted; no storm
water management plan had been presented;closed by questioning how this application could be approved.
Rob Laird, applicant's representative, responded to the issues from the public and suggested the
Commissioner's ask him questions and he would respond. Roy Spitzer asked about access status on SH 52.
Mr. Laird said as he understood it, there were no issues with CDOT,Weld Count or Boulder County until this
session for the amendment to their application. He had not talked to CDOT in at least a year,and the access
continued to be used. He understood they were still operating under the 1974 approval and the 1981
amendment, where they were allowed to use two access points, with no improvements, and no direction or
restriction on the amounts of truck traffic on SH 52. They have not changed their use and were only hauling
gravel on SH 52. They were not hauling asphalt and concrete other than for the temporary use of the small
asphalt plant,which was another issue/permit and had nothing to do with this application. Mr.Laird said they
would do whatever necessary on CR 1 if and when SH 52 became a problem. Mr.Spitzer asked about import
of materials during plant operations. Mr.Laird said they would bring in asphalt and concrete for recycling from
their construction projects but would not be bringing in raw aggregate materials to supplement the plant
operation and that could be a condition. Mr. Spitzer asked if they could make this a five year condition. Mr.
Laird said that is not what he said and deferred to Mr. Hunt to answer the question.
Dan Hunt, President of Asphalt Specialties, guaranteed he would have the asphalt plants off the site totally
within eight years and would agree to make it a condition of the USR. He did not see this as a permanent
facility and saw the potential of the property for open space, river corridor, wildlife, and large residential
homes. He said five years was too short a time span and anything longer than eight years was too
permanent. Mr. Hunt said the quote attributed to him earlier in the hearing was for another application for a
permanent plant,which was different than the intent of this application. He said traffic would not be doubled.
Roy Spitzer asked Mr. Hunt what air pollution requirements/permits he had to work under and were his plants
in compliance with those requirements. Mr. Hunt responded they hired an outside company to measure and
monitor pollutants at their sites to make sure they have met all requirements.
Mr. Laird listed the number of plants they have and their uses and said all were required to be tested for air
quality and that any modification of the plant required a new stack test, and they have passed all they have
had so far. He added they have met all State and local requirements for dust,noise,wetlands,discharge,and
mining.
Doug Ochsner asked about the exact location of the plant. Mr. Laird replied that before the deal with Erie,the
batch plant location was to be just north of the gravel operation. The batch plant would not be located within
the portion annexed by the Town of Erie. The batch plant would be located on the southern property line close
to Vern Bauer's residence,where there was a line of Russian olive trees and stockpiling to deflect noise and
mitigate visual impact. Mr.Ochsner then asked that Mr.Laird reach agreement with the ditch companies prior
to this application going before the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Laird agreed to Mr. Ochsner's
request.
Tom Holton asked about their willingness to add a development standard to limit import of materials to the site
and about the removal of the batch plants within the eight year period suggested previously by Mr. Hunt. Mr.
Laird replied that whatever Mr. Hunt said would be followed.
Doug Ochsner asked Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, to fill them in on the traffic situation.
Don Carroll, Public Works Department, said this was a unique situation in that SH 52 falls under the
jurisdiction of CDOT and Erie, and CR 1 falls to Boulder County for maintenance, and he relied upon those
entities for input on their system maintenance. Public Works had specific requirements for each roadway
8
regarding access, asphalt pads and approaches, though Weld County had no jurisdiction.
Doug Oschner asked about noise from the truck brakes. Char Davis, Environmental Health Department,said
there was a standard for noise and if it were exceeded they did have recourse. Mr. Carroll suggested the
municipalities had the right to place signs regarding noise mitigation and could ask for law enforcement
application. Bruce Barker, County Attorney,said he agreed that Public Works could place a sign but it should
probably be a Condition of Approval. Mr.Carroll said it was CDOT's job and Mr. Barker said he was not sure
how that would work, but did not see that requiring it would be a problem.
Mark Lawley asked Mr. Barker about Mr. Hite's allegations that ASI was not complying with County
regulations. Mr. Barker replied that Mr. Hite's letter referred to various sections of the Code that were goals
and the board needed to decide if the application was in compliance with the Code. Mr. Barker said he could
not give legal advice on those issues as Mr. Hite was making a factual argument on whether he was seeing if
those had been met or not.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked Kim Ogle about the proposed changes, which he reviewed for the board.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that item E.,page eight,be moved to"prior to recording the plat"and renumbered as
2.A., page eighteen. Doug Ochsner seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, no; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Doug Ochsner,
yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; James Welch, yes; Chad Auer, no. Motion carried.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved that item J., page eight, be moved to"prior to recording the plat"and renumbered as
2.A., page nineteen. Doug Ochsner seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, no; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Mark Lawley, yes; Doug Ochsner,
yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; James Welch, yes; Chad Auer, no. Motion carried.
Kim Ogle then made suggestions for development standards regarding the proposed eight year limit to the
batch plant and recycling operation, suggesting language that the applicants and their lessees or assignees
will remove all batch plants within eight years from the date of the Board of County Commissioner's resolution.
Erich Ehrlich asked about a penalty after the eight year limit has been reached. Mr. Barker replied at the end
of eight years, the applicants would be in violation if the plant and recycling was not removed and their USR
could be revoked. If it did go into violation,the Board of County Commissioners could give them a short time to
remove the operations, but in this case the violation could be immediate if still in operation. Mr. Ehrlich then
inquired if the business would have the opportunity to apply for a third amended Use by Special Review. Mr.
Barker said they could. Mr. Ehrlich said that perhaps they needed to look at what was considered timely
regarding the Code and that they would have other applications of this type cross their desk and needed to be
prepared and consistent.
Chad Auer asked Mr. Ehrlich if he was arguing that eight years was too long. Mr. Ehrlich responded that he
just wanted a definition/preference for what was"timely".
Roy Spitzer moved that a new Development Standard sixty one be added to read,"The applicants and their
lessees or assignees will remove all batch plants within eight years from the date of the Board of County
Commissioner's resolution". Paul Branham seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, no; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Mark Lawley, no; Doug Ochsner,
yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; James Welch, yes; Chad Auer, no. Motion carried.
Kim Ogle read the new Development Standard,number sixty two,into the record, prior to the motion. "There
shall be no importation of materials into the site, identified as 2nd AmUSR-249".
9
Doug Ochsner said the"importation of materials"might need to include raw materials. Bruce Barker said raw
materials could mean any materials and cover anything typically used at that type of a plant. Kim Ogle
suggested "unprocessed" rather than raw and then gave the following suggestion for language for
Tom Holton moved to amend Development Standard sixty two to read,"There shall be no importation of raw
materials, excluding recycled asphalt and concrete, onto the site, identified as 2nd AmUSR". Roy Spitzer
seconded.
The Chair asked Mr. Ogle that if this Development Standard were added,then after eight years the applicant
could bring in those recycled materials to the site. Mr. Ogle said that was correct.
Doug Ochsner asked it number sixty one would limit recycling material importation up to eight years. Mr.Ogle
said number sixty one only addressed the batch plants not the recycling plant components,so if they want to
limit the importing of any materials,they need to go back and amend Development Standard 61 to include the
recycle component.
Tom Holton withdrew his motion for Development Standard sixty two.
Doug Ochsner moved that Development Standard sixty one be amended to read that"after eight years from
the date of the Board of County Commission resolutions,that all facilities be removed, including mining,batch
plant and recycling, and all operations shall cease".
Bruce Barker asked Mr. Ochsner if he meant for all operations to cease in eight years. Mr. Ochsner said that
was correct.
Motion died for lack of a second.
Erich Ehrlich said he was in favor of the applicant being able to operate their gravel mining under the USR
approved in 1974, but not the batch plant and concrete recycling they were requesting today with this
application, without a specific timeline for its end.
Doug Ochsner asked if that weren't a different issue than what they were presently addressing.
Tom Holton suggested that Development Standard sixty one needed to be amended to include the asphalt
batch plant and concrete recycling time line.
Roy Spitzer asked Mr. Ogle to suggest language.
Mr. Ogle said, "The applicant,their lessees or assignees,will remove all batch plants and all recycling plants
within eight years of the date of Board of County Commission resolution".
Roy Spitzer moved to accept the amended language for Development Standard sixty one. Paul Branham
seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;Tom Holton,yes; Mark Lawley,yes; Doug Ochsner,
no; Roy Spitzer, yes; James Welch, yes; Chad Auer, no. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner and Chad Auer both commented they felt the restrictions should be placed on the entire
operation.
Roy Spitzer asked Kim Ogle to supply language for Development Standard sixty two. Mr. Ogle suggested,
"There shall be no importation of raw materials to be used in the concrete and asphalt batch plants,excluding
recycled asphalt and concrete as identified in 2nd AmUSR-249".
Roy Spitzer moved to accept staff language for Development Standard sixty two. Doug Ochsner seconded
the motion.
10
Mr. Ogle was asked to repeat Development Standard sixty two,"There shall be no importation of raw materials
utilized in the asphalt batch plant,excluding recycled asphalt and recycled concrete into the site identified as
2ndAmUSR-249". Mr. Ogle had a point of clarification that the applicant had been asking for a concrete and
asphalt batch plant today,and in staff comments,the legal identifies both of those,although in the adequacy
review they were on record as having withdrawn the proposed concrete plant,so staff comments were written
just for the asphalt batch plant and did not include the concrete plant. Mr.Ogle said the Planning Commission
could approve both, but staff comments were written to address only the asphalt batch plant.
Bruce Barker said something inaudible about the Division of Minerals and Geology. Mr. Ogle responded
everyone had reviewed the application for a concrete batch plant and deferred to Dan Hunt or Rob Laird for
more information. Mr. Barker said something about additional Conditions of Approval that was also inaudible.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;Tom Holton,yes; Mark Lawley,yes; Doug Ochsner,
yes; Roy Spitzer, yes; James Welch, yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair asked Mr. Ogle if there were any conditions of approval he would add. Mr. Ogle said there were
none, that staff had just pulled the word "concrete"from the application.
As there were no more comments or discussion,the Chair asked the applicant if he agreed with the changes.
Mr. Laird replied that they were.
Don Carroll asked if they wanted to discuss the "fake brake" item. Doug Ochsner suggested that Public
Works and/or CDOT might make a recommendation. Erich Ehrlich suggested Mr.Carroll investigate whether
the Town of Erie had any provisions for "jake brakes" on SH 52. Mr. Carroll said he would give them a
telephone call.
Doug Ochsner said these were incredibly hard and emotional cases that affected people personally;however
there were 112 conditions that were now 114 that must be met by Asphalt Specialties. He said he did not envy
their position because the neighbors would be very diligent in seeing that they followed the conditions of the
application. He credited the public on their presentation of such a well thought out case and recommended
they stay involved up to and during the presentation to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr.Ochsner said
that on the flip side, batch plants were needed in this growing County and is was difficult for the Planning
Commission to decide on the issues of compatibility.
Paul Branham commented that there were a lot of issues that would have a negative impact on the
surrounding community;noise,odor, smoke,traffic and access on SH 52 and cited a letter from CDOT. Our
citizens made a number of valid points, particularly regarding the amount of time the batch plant would be
there as well as the point that thirty years ago a batch plant in the same area was denied due to
incompatibility. Mr. Branham regretted the applicant can legally use the batch plant for limited amounts of time
for government contracts and hoped that could be limited in the future. He complimented the citizens on the
articulation of their feelings and cited Section 23-2-22.O.A.3. regarding compatibility Section 23-2-22.O.A.4
regarding future compatibility and did not support the application.
Bruce Fitzgerald agreed this was a difficult case;the opposition's presentation was very good; reminded the
citizens they lived in an area with gravel deposits and this issue would continue all up and down the river
forever. Gravel was first and with it came water storage for the surrounding cities. Mr. Fitzgerald asked the
truck drivers to discontinue piggy backing of the trucks on SH 52. He agreed with Mr. Branham that the
application was not compatible with the area and supported denial.
Erich Ehrlich said that as citizens of Weld County,they needed to be aware of the resources in the area;could
maybe explore other methods of transport for the gravel;should go to CDOT about the improvement of SH 52;
expressed his concern about the length of time this business had been operating in the area;and echoed Mr.
Fitzgerald's concerns.
James Welch asked for clarification on access and appropriate improvements to SH 52 and CR 1. Don
Carroll,Public Works,said they had asked that appropriate access be applied by both agencies and hoped the
agencies would support his requests.
11
Mark Lawley said there were still issues with Erie that needed addressed and regretted a representative from
Erie had not attended the hearing. He also felt access issues could have been addressed before they got to
the Planning Commission. He was not in favor of approving the application.
Roy Spitzer said they have heard a lot of emotional public testimony which made decisions difficult, but all of
us use concrete and asphalt daily on our roads and no matter where these facilities were located it would
impact someone, and that being said, he did not feel it was compatible with this site.
Tom Holton said he was torn and surprised that Erie did not annex the whole parcel, but would rather have a
batch plant than a sewer plant as a neighbor and said also that gravel sites eventually made nice residential
areas.
The Chair thanked the public for their time and participation in the process. He cited Section 23-2-230 and the
issue of compatibility now and in the future. He also agreed with Mr. Lawley that it was unfortunate that Erie
did not participating in the hearing. He felt there were still some issues to be resolved as well as basic health,
safety and wellness issues and was not convinced due to incompatibility that this application was in the best
interests of the citizens.
Paul Branham moved that Case 2n°AmUSR-249, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the amended Development Standards and Conditions of Approval Conditions with the Planning
Commissions recommendation of denial. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; Tom Holton, no; Mark Lawley,yes; Doug Ochsner,
no; Roy Spitzer, yes; James Welch, yes; Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried.
Paul Branham cited Section 23-2-220.A.3 and 4 of the County Code in his denial.
Erich Ehrlich cited Sections 22-5-80.B., 22-5-5-80.C., and E., and 23-2-220.A.3. of the County Code in his
denial.
Bruce Fitzgerald commented the application was incompatible with the neighborhood.
Mark Lawley commented the application was incompatible with the neighborhood.
Doug Ochsner commented; he thought there was good that could come out of this application,the traffic could
improve in the area,but questioned compatibility with a potential waste water treatment facility in the area.The
fact the applicant said this would be limited to an eight year operation should make this a beautiful site.
Roy Spitzer cited Sections 23-2-220.A.3. and 22-5-80.C.3 of the County Code in his denial.
James Welch said his vote for denial was based on incompatibility,
Chad Auer cited Section 23-2-220.A.3 of the County Code in his denial.
Bruce Fitzgerald and James Welch had to leave the hearing at 7:00 p.m.
3, CASE NUMBER: USR-1566
APPLICANT: RF Holdings LLC
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part NW4 Section 29, T4N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
Use by Right,an Accessory Use,or a Use by Special Review in the
Commercial or Industrial Zone District (mulch loading and
unloading facility and outdoor storage of mulch) in the A
12
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 42;approximately 1/2 mile west of CR
17.
Jacqueline Hatch,Department of Planning Services,presented Case USR-1566,reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. RF Holdings LLC c/o John Moser represented by Lauren Light with Tetra Tech
RMC had applied for a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Use by Right, an
Accessory Use,or a Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial Zone District(mulch loading and
unloading facility-outdoor storage of mulch) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
The sign announcing the Planning Commission hearing was posted September 8, 2006 by Planning Staff.
The site was located south of and adjacent to CR 42 and approximately%mile west of CR 17.
The area consisted of approximately 5.86 acres.
The site was currently in violation (VI-0600160)due to the operation of a commercial landscaping sales and
storage yard facility without the necessary Weld County Zoning permit. If this application was approved by the
Board of County Commissioners the violation would be corrected. If this application was denied,the business
and all outdoor storage shall be removed within 30 (thirty) days of denial or the violation case would be
scheduled before the Board of County Commissioners to proceed though the Violation Hearing process
accordingly.
The surrounding property was primarily agricultural in nature with one residence immediately to the east of the
site and a second residence to the north west of the site. The Great Western Railroad was located directly to
the west of the site. Three letters had been received from surrounding property owners.
The surrounding property owner's concerns included noise,hours of the operation,blowing debris,truck traffic
/dust, traffic hazards, hazardous chemical control, fire hazard, health risks, and a decrease in their property
value.
The subject property lies within the three mile referral area of the Towns of Berthoud,Johnstown and Milliken.
The Towns of Berthoud and Milliken had no objections to the application.
The Town of Johnstown stated in their referral dated July 13,2006 that they had not received any comments
or complaints regarding the current mulch unloading operation or truck traffic. The Town had no concerns
with the use, but was requesting dust control on CR 42 and CR 17. A residential development called Stroh
Farms(Pioneer Ridge)to the northeast was planned to extend south to CR 42 and west of CR 17 in the next
three to five years. The Town had concerns with truck traffic on this section of road once improved.The Town
was recommending the USR be granted for a period of up to five years and be extended (or not)subject to
formal re-examination of impact of the use on the developing area around the site.
Twelve(12)referral agencies reviewed this case,six(6)responded favorably or included conditions that had
been addressed through Development Standards and Conditions of Approval. No comments had been
received from the State of Colorado Division of Wildlife, Big Thompson Soil Conservation District, and Little
Thompson Water District.
The Johnstown Fire Protection District submitted a referral today. Their concerns included a water supply for
the use in fire suppression in the event of fire. They stated the water supply could be in the form of a fire
hydrant,water tank(portable/permanent)cistern or other means. As a condition of approval 2.J which stated
the applicant shall attempt to contact the Johnstown Fire Protection District to discuss a fire emergency plan.
Evidence of such shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services.
As provided to you today staff was recommending the language be changed in 2.J removing the word
"attempt"from the requirement.
Section 22-2-60.F(A.Goal 6)states,"Public facilities and services such as sewer,water, roads,schools,and
fire and police protection,must be provided and developed in a timely,orderly and efficient manner to support
13
the transition of agricultural land to other development uses. In evaluating a land use application, County
representatives and the applicant will consider the public facilities and services goals and policies."
The applicant was proposing to utilize bottled water on site for drinking purposes and to have a 2,000 gallon
water truck on site for fire protection. The applicant had provided a will serve letter from the Little Thompson
Water District. The letter stated that a 3" line was currently in CR 42 and if fire hydrants were required, an
upgrade to the line might be required to meet the USR's fire protection needs.
The applicant was also proposing to utilize port-a-potties on site. The Weld County Department of Public
Health and Environment in their referral dated July 12,2006 stated that an individual sewage disposal system
was required for the office trailer on site and that the applicant shall provide current evidence that the facility
had an adequate water supply. The Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment also
requested as Development Standards that sewage disposal for the facility shall be by septic system and that
the facility shall utilize the existing public water supply.
The Weld County Department of Planning Services was recommending USR-1566 be denied based on lack of
adequate water and sewer.
Don Carroll,Public Works Department,questioned the need for dust control on CR 17,as it was a paved road.
Ms. Hatch said it was requested for CR 42, extended down to CR 17.
Lauren Light, Tetra Tech RMC, 1900 S Sunset Street, Longmont, CO 80501, representative for RF
Holdings, said the facility was about five(5) acres in size and was directly east of existing railroad tracks.
Mulch was shipped in by rail and unloaded by a front end loader onto the site. The mulch was then stored
in numerous stockpiles until trucks picked up an order and delivered it to the customer.
There was an office onsite and two employees during peak season which was from April to September,
and one employee during off season. Bottled water and a porta-potty were located onsite. Section 23-2-
240 items 1A and 1B of the Weld County Code, stated that adequate water and sewer shall be available to
serve the use. As the operation was not open to retail sales and there was only one full time employee,
they believed that bottled water and a porta potty met the intent of the Code. The Planning Department
requested the applicant provide a will serve letter from Little Thompson Water even though bottled water
and a porta-potty were applied for in the initial application. The applicant met with Mrs. Meyer, a
surrounding property owner, a couple of months ago to address her concerns and agreed to put up a
screen fence along CR 42 on the applicant's property. Planning staff was requesting buffering adjacent to
the farm ground on the east and south which the applicant did not see as necessary due to the slope and
the properties were farmed.
This parcel had been historically used as an unloading facility. It had been used as a bean elevator and
later was a beet dump. The railroad spur was located at this site for use by previous tenants. There were
buildings on-site and the parcel was not maintained. The applicant was leasing a site from Great Western
Railroad at the Colorado Sweet Gold site in Johnstown when they realized they needed more room. In
June of 2000, Great Western leased this parcel to RF Holdings and eventually asked if they would buy it.
RF Holdings had been using this site for over six years believing that it was a legal use. The applicant
cleaned up the site by taking down the structures that were on it and by grading the site so the tail water
runoff from adjacent sites would not flood the parcel.
They had received a letter from the Johnstown Fire Department today and would contact them as
Planning Staff had requested. The applicant would have a water truck onsite to be used for fire protection
and dust control.
They had received three letters of concern from property owners today. In addressing the property
owner's concerns; the yard manager was asked about the truck speeds and said if drivers were speeding
he would address that, but that it was difficult for the trucks to make the turn into the yard if they were
speeding by the Meyer's property; when the wind blows hard some product would blow away but blowing
dust and dirt would occur even if the mulch facility wasn't there; had the applicant known about the Kirby's
concerns he would have met with them (the Kirby's pasture backed up to the west side of the railroad right
of way); fire was a concern of the neighbors but mulch piles igniting from internal combustion was very
14
rare; the site did have a fire when one of the front end loader's wiring harness caught on fire, igniting a
mulch pile; the fire department came out and worked with the applicant to extinguish the fire; that was the
only fire that had occurred on this site in six years; the applicant was very aware of fire safety, and one fire
over a six year time frame showed that; there had been four fires this year on the railroad right of way that
were caused by the rail cars, which were notorious for throwing sparks that could cause fires in dry
conditions.
The applicant agreed with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards except for the items
that required septic and public water, screening the farm ground on the east and south, and providing fire
extinguishers every twenty five feet. There are fire extinguishers on the front end loaders and in the office
and there would also be a water truck on site for fire protection and dust control, plus the applicant would
meet with the fire department to ensure compatibility with their equipment. Ms. Light asked for clarification
on Development Standard twenty one, which requested dust control on CR 20,which was probably a typo.
The applicant would be fine with dust control along the neighbor's house on CR 42. Development
Standard three limited the hours of operation from 7 am to 6 pm but during peak season the facility
operates from 6 am to 6 pm, as stated in the application materials.
Ms. Light said the use of the site as a mulch loading and unloading facility was compatible with the area
and was similar to an agricultural use, such as a beet dump or a composting site. This business was the
best use of this parcel due to the location next to an existing rail spur and historically this parcel had been
used as a loading and unloading facility.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Carolyn Meyer, 7528 CR 42, Johnstown, CO, had lived in the area 27 years in a log home they took great
pride in; master bedroom was close to the site, which had been in operation for six years; none of her
concerns had been addressed by the yard manager when she had raised them; she had made several
complaints to the County in the past six years;the applicants had operated seven days a week from five in the
morning until ten at night but had recently lessened activity on the weekends; Tim Smith did come by her
house a few months ago regarding her concerns; Mr. Smith had offered to make some changes and had
observed his operation from her property;the applicant had not made any concessions prior to the application;
her biggest concern was fire from spontaneous combustion and lightning in the area; no night watchman so
felt neighbors must be watchful of fires; machinery noise was an issue;concerned about flying debris and dirt
as it covered her property and impeded use of her pool;concerned with truck speed for her grandchildren and
pets; their property value had been affected according to Cinnamon Wells, Weld County Assessor's office.
Tom Holton asked if it was blowing wood chips or dirt at issue. Mrs. Meyer replied it was both.
Roy Spitzer asked Mrs. Meyer to pinpoint her house on the map for him and she said it was about two
hundred fifty feet from the applicant's operation. She added the site was previously a beet dump but was
never the problem this business had been.
Doug Ochsner asked her if she was in favor of screening. Mrs. Meyer felt screening or a fence could cause
more problems due to who maintains it and the horses she owned would eat a wood fence.
Harry Meyer,7528 CR 42,Johnstown,CO, had lived in the area 27 years and supported his wife's concerns;
addressed truck traffic and the blind hill; piles of mulch were forty to fifty feet high in front of his house;blowing
black dirt was not part of applicant's project but was ever present;yard manager suggested they cover their
pool; no cooperation from applicant; no response from the County and applicants have been allowed to run
wild; cannot see the mountains, a major reason for his home's location.
The Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Lauren Light,the applicant's representative,apologized to the Meyers and said the applicant would like to hear
from them with any problems. He wanted to comply with their request concerning the fine dirt problem and
had moved his mulch to try and maintain the blowing dirt. Ms. Light said if the application was approved,the
site would be on County radar and the neighbors should have more recourse for their concerns. She added
that the fence would be maintained by the applicant.
15
Tom Holton inquired how big the pile of black dirt was. Ms. Light replied it was approximately 2000 cubic
yards and fifteen feet high.
Doug Ochsner asked Ms. Light about the number of employees and the truck traffic. She replied there were
eight to ten trucks per day during peak season, maybe one truck per day during off season. This was not a
retail sales business, but rather a wholesale business.
Tom Holton inquired about possible screening of the black dirt pile rather than screening the property to the
east. Tim Smith, owner, said the black pile being referred to would be relocated to mitigate blowing onto
neighbor's property and truck traffic might be as many as twenty per day in peak season but there may be
none on some days during the off season.
Doug Ochsner inquired about the requirement for a sewer system versus the portable toilets. Tim Smith said
the trucks are in and out as quickly as possible,there were not people waiting on the site for more than twenty
minutes at a time, and they felt the portable toilets would be sufficient.
Tom Holton motioned to delete "attempt" from item 2.J., page four. Erich Ehrlich seconded the motion.
Motion carried.
Char Davis, Environmental Health Department,said sanitary sewer on the facility was a Code requirement and
she could not deviate from that,but the Planning Commission;could look at requiring a vault system instead,
which would not require water.
Erich Ehrlich asked about the location of the Town of Johnstown and if they wished to annex. Mr.Ehrlich also
asked about the time line on this site. Ms. Hatch responded the darker color on the map was Johnstown town
limits and the Use by Special Review permit ran with this property as long as it was in compliance with
Development Standards and Conditions of Approval,but the USR could be revoked if it ever went to violation.
Roy Spitzer asked Ms. Davis about how water requirements and toilet facilities for this site differ from those for
gravel mining and brought up the huge cost to the applicant to provide water from Little Thompson Water
District for just one employee. Ms. Davis said this was a permanent business, not seasonal, therefore the
requirement for water and sewer was different,but the Commission could override her recommendation if they
wished.
Erich Ehrlich asked Ms. Hatch if they could make the application seasonal instead. She replied that Staff had
discussed that option with the applicant but the applicant wanted the business to run year round and due to
that Staff had to require adequate sewer and water.
Roy Spitzer asked about fire requirements. Ms. Davis said today's letter from the fire department allowed for a
cistern for other water needs and bottled water for employees and visitors.
Ms. Hatch said Planning was recommending deletion of Development Standard twenty eight (fire
extinguishers)as the applicant had offered to provide the two thousand gallon truck on site, but Planning was
still requesting they complete a fire maintenance plan with the fire department.
Tom Holton motioned to delete Development Standard twenty eight. Doug Ochsner seconded. Motion
carried.
Erich Ehrlich asked Ms. Hatch about Johnstown's Comprehensive Plan and future land use regarding the
railroad system and would they be limiting access due to the future development. Ms. Hatch replied
Johnstown responded to the referral with their concerns regarding development moving closer to the site and
Great Western Railroad supported the application.
Chad Auer inquired about Development Standard three regarding the hours of operation. Ms.Hatch said she
had suggested the hours outlined in the Development Standards but could recommend peak and off peak
hours as outlined in the application: peak season April first to September thirtieth, Monday through Saturday,
6 am to 6 pm; off peak being the rest of the year, Monday through Saturday, closed Sunday, 7am to 5 pm.
16
Ms. Hatch recommended Development Standard fourteen remain as is but include that a vault would be
acceptable; number fifteen be changed to bottled water; and number sixteen could be deleted.
Tom Holton motioned to amend Development Standard fifteen as suggested and delete Development
Standard sixteen. Roy Spitzer seconded. Motion carried.
Paul Branham motioned to amend Development Standard 2.B. and delete (i.e., well or community water
system). Roy Spitzer seconded. Motion carried.
Roy Spitzer suggested to Don Carroll, Department of Public Works,that truck traffic be addressed specifically
regarding the short site distance. Mr. Carroll said he was in total agreement and suggested Mr.Smith talk to
his truckers and ask they go slower; another problem was that Johnstown had annexed CR 42 but Weld
County was still responsible for maintenance,so the best scenario was that this problem existed but there was
no solution at present without carving the hill down which would require modifications to adjacent properties;
and he had checked and there had been no accidents in that vicinity from 2002 to the present time.
The Chair asked the applicant if he agreed with the changes. Mr. Smith replied that he was in agreement.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case USR-1566, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the amendments to the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Paul Branham seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Tom Holton,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes; Roy Spitzer,yes; Mark Lawley,yes;
Chad Auer,yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Paul Branham commented that with the changes to the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval,
the applicant would meet the requirements in Section 23-2-220.A.1 of the Code.
Roy Spitzer commented the applicant would need to be very responsive to the needs of the surrounding
property owners due to the types of material on the site and urged Mr. and Mrs. Meyer to contact Planning
Staff if problems arose in the future.
Chad Auer commented that with the changes to the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval,the
applicant would meet the requirements in Section 23-2-220.A.1 of the Code.
4. CASE NUMBER: USR-1569
APPLICANT: Berthoud Gun Club do Mel Green, President
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW4 SW4 of Section 19, T4N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a
Recreational Facility and uses including a Shooting Range
(Berthoud Gun Club) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: 0.5 mile north of CR 42; and east of and adjacent to CR 1.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, presented Case USR-1569, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The subject property was within the three mile referral area of the Towns of
Berthoud and Mead. The Town of Mead had no objections to the application, and the Town of Berthoud
responded stating"... the facility does appear to substantially comply with the existing, but limited statutes,
ordinances and policies of the Town of Berthoud that apply to this type of use."
The surrounding property was primarily agricultural with the Town of Berthoud immediately adjacent to the
North, the Larimer County Waste Transfer Station and Town of Berthoud Shooting Range immediately
adjacent to the East, rural residential properties to the West in Boulder County, riparian lands, the Little
Thompson River immediately adjacent to the South and the Town of Berthoud Waste Water Treatment
17
Facility to the southeast of this existing facility. There were three residential structures within the five hundred
foot notification limits and several additional residential structures predominately to the West and South
The application materials stated that the facility had been in continuous operation since 1952,and presently
offered several different ranges for shotguns and hand guns of all calibers including muzzleloaders. The
application materials also stated that all guns were allowed at the range except for guns legally used for big
game hunting. Additionally rim-fired ammunition of all calibers was also permitted. Representatives for the
applicant may provide additional information and clarification on this point.
The application materials included several letters from members of youth shooting programs including the 4-
H. Staff had not received any letters of support from law enforcement agencies.
The sign for today's hearing was posted at least ten days prior to the hearing by staff and was evidenced by
photograph and affidavit.
Eleven referral agencies reviewed this case and nine offered comments, some with specific conditions.
Several letters had been received from surrounding property owners,and one person had reviewed the case
file. Multiple telephone inquiries were received from adjacent property owners and interested parties who had
questions regarding the application.
Primary concerns rose from the letters included issues of compatibility, noise, hours of operation, property
value and safety
This facility presently has a NCU(non-conforming use)designation placed on it for the use as the facility was
established in 1952 prior to zoning in the County. This application was before you due to the expansion of
said use. (NCU-369)The USR addressed the expansion of the facility, including use thereof and issues of
compatibility.
The Planning Department recommended approval of this application,a Site Specific Development Plan and a
Special Review Permit for a Recreational Facility(Shooting Range)in the A(Agricultural)Zone District,with
the attached Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Mr.Ogle reviewed some amendments to staff comments: in"prior to recording the plat", item 2.B.,there was
a typographical error,the applicant was to submit the Lead Management Program to the Environmental Health
Department,not to the Department of Planning Services; Development Standard number three identified the
operation hours but Staff was now recommending the shooting range be open Monday,Tuesday,Thursday,
Friday and Sunday due to issues of compatibility and safety;and Development Standard number five should
now indicate four employees.
Mel Green, President of Berthoud Gun Club,20498 CR 1, Berthoud,CO,80513,said they had been shooting
all manner of weapons at the facility since 1952. They have made numerous improvements,including lighting
installed in 1997 or 1998 per Mr. Beebo's (surrounding property owner) request and had added berms and
trees to enhance the property and control the sound. The berm height would be increased as dirt became
available to do so. The property was clean, neat and set up for family use and the bathroom had recently
been insulated, heated and repainted. Mr.Green said the facility was used primarily in the evening hours and
he wanted to keep the hours as they were presently. The density of use had increased which changed the
use of the application. Because of that,the Gun Club could not comply with the County requirements for the
skeet range as they did not have enough property to meet that requirement,so that was why that portion of the
application had been withdrawn. The members utilized the archery and muzzle loader ranges at all times but
shotgun use was restricted. The Gun Club felt they had accommodated the neighborhood concerns.
Chad Auer asked about hours of operation. Mr. Green replied the .22 and archery ranges could be used at
any time and should not be restricted; shotgun usage was restricted; and they wanted the facility to be open
seven days a week from 8 am to 9 pm. Mr. Auer asked why the request for the skeet range had been
withdrawn. Mr.Green said just the skeet portion was withdrawn as they could not meet County requirements
for space.
Paul Branham asked what hours they wanted to be open on Wednesdays and Saturdays. Mr.Green said the
18
shotgun range would not be open until after the neighboring dump closed at 4 pm.
Erich Ehrlich said the Gun Club had been there since 1952 and wondered what people didn't understand
about this being a gun club, that the residents knew it was there when they chose to live there.
Paul Branham cited Development Standard number eight requiring review of the application every ten years,
and asked Mr.Green how he stood on that now. Mr.Green said this was an expensive process for them and
they had no problem being reviewed constantly for violations,but the threat of losing their application every ten
years was tough to take. Mr. Branham asked Planning Staff if there was something in the Code that said
review of the application would only occur if there were considerable change in the neighborhood or
community.
Mr.Green said they had been working with neighbors to the north and would locate the road further north and
higher up for better visibility from both directions.
Bruce Barker cited Section 23-4-370 of the Code,which Mr. Branham mentioned,regarding the regulations for
outdoor shooting ranges. Mr. Ogle gave a response that was inaudible.
Mr. Green reiterated that they still had improvements they wanted to add make to the facility, including the
addition of more trees; increasing the berm height three to four more feet; and additional fencing.
Tom Holton asked if muzzle loaders were allowed on the range. Mr. Green said they absolutely did allow
muzzle loaders. Mr.Ogle said Staffs concern was due to compatibility and the letters they had received from
surrounding property owners that spoke to the hours of operation and the types of guns being fired. Mr.Green
said they did not allow any weapons used for big game. Mr.Ogle directed the Planning Commission to look at
page one of the application for the description of the weapons allowed at the facility. Mr. Holton asked Mr.
Green if .223's would be fired at the range. Mr. Green responded that his members did not fire those
weapons, but the Berthoud Police Department might when they used the facility.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Jeff Riley,321 S CLR, Berthoud, CO,80513 said he had purchased property thirteen years ago and would not
be at the hearing today if the use on the property had not changed;documented times of shooting for the past
two years and just recently for the last eighteen days;since the facility's inception,the use had changed from
two to eight hours a month to sixty to eighty hours a month;hiding behind the youth was nice but the Gun Club
had disregarded neighborhood concerns; shooting was back to back for five to seven hours; safety was a
major concern and he had found arrows in his field; the Gun Club did shoot loud, high powered rifles on the
site;the use has changed drastically since 1952 and even 1996;the HOA(Home Owner's Association)in the
area had hired an attorney who suggested it became a private nuisance when the plaintiff knowingly acquired
property in the vicinity of the defendant's premises and changing the use in 2002;Gun Club had turned a blind
eye to neighbor's concerns; more development was planned for the future and this would continue to be an
issue; said he was not sure the Gun Club was even operating legally and asked they be required to return to
the original use of a few hours per month.
Zach Stamp,5301 CR 38, Berthoud, CO,80513,said he supported the Berthoud Gun Club because they had
supported him,his 4-H club and all the youth in Weld County; had used it for his practice in preparation for the
Colorado State Fair where his Junior team had won skeet, trap and five stand.
Jeff Stamp, 5301 CR 38, Berthoud,CO,80513,said he had been a 4-H leader for fifteen years and supported
the Berthoud Gun Club; twenty of their kids had gone to the State Fair competing at all levels; they needed
evening hours to shoot with the kids; and adult certified leaders were on site at all times;and this provided a
safe shooting facility for the kids.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
Mr. Green addressed the objections; they were not shooting high powered rifles; they had increased the
fencing to eliminate squatters, if there were any; he urged the neighbors to call anytime with concerns; and
would remove.223's from application completely;and wanted to increase the berm another two to three feet
19
prior to fencing.
Tom Holton said he did not see any reason for such high powered weapons if this was indeed for the kids and
wanted to see the berm height on CR 5 increased for safety.
Paul Branham motioned to amend language in"prior to recording the plat", item 2.B.to read the Department
of Public Health and Environment instead of the Department of Planning Services. Tom Holton seconded.
Motion carried.
The Chair asked if there was any discussion of Development Standard three regarding hours and days of
operation.
Doug Ochsner said he was still confused about who operates Wednesday and Saturday versus the other
days. Mr. Ogle replied Wednesday and Saturday was when the Larimer Transfer Station was in operation
from early in the morning until four in the afternoon and Staff was aiming for compatibility for surrounding
property owners,including future development to the north,to restrict shooting on those days. The application
stated the Gun Club was presently operating from 8 am to 9 pm daily and the Department of Public Health and
Environment could not restrict them as shooting ranges were not governed by noise ordinances.
Roy Spitzer said he would like to see those two days off.
Paul Branham said Saturday could be one of their busiest days and hesitated to put a restriction on Saturday.
Roy Spitzer moved that Development Standard three be amended to read the, "Hours of operation shall be
from 8 am to 9 pm, Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday and Sunday. The facility is closed on Wednesday
and Saturday of any given week." Doug Ochsner seconded.
Doug Ochsner moved that Development Standard number five be amended to read, "There are four
employees utilized in the operation of this facility." Paul Branham seconded. Motion carried.
Tom Holton motioned to amend Development Standard number seven to read,"There shall be no firearms of
any caliber over the caliber of .22, with the exception of muzzle loaders, per 4-H regulations, used at this
facility at any time. Paul Branham seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes; Tom Holton, yes; Mark Lawley, yes: Doug Ochsner, no; Roy Spitzer, yes;
Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner commented that he agreed with the theory behind the amendment,but felt it was too restrictive,
especially since the Berthoud Police Department may want to use the facility.
Kim Ogle said per the applicant's testimony, Staff moved to strike item 1.A., on page four, under prior to
scheduling the Board of County Commissioner's hearing, which references the National Skeet Shooting
Association and strike 1.B. entirely and possibly strike item 1.E. and then on page seven, item S.A., be
stricken per the Environmental Health Department the ISDS system was not proposed,it actually exists,it just
did not have a permit.
Tom Holton moved to delete item 8.A., page seven, and renumber per Environmental Health Department
recommendations. Erich Ehrlich seconded. Motion carried.
Mr. Ogle then addressed page four, item 1.A., and said Staff initially asked for compliance with the National
Rifle Association, the American Trap Association and the National Skeet Shooting Association and asked if
that standard was still applicable given their recommendation to include only .22 caliber guns and muzzle
loaders. The Planning Commission replied that it was still applicable.
Tom Holton motioned to delete the National Skeet Shooting Association from item 1.A., page four. Roy
Spitzer seconded. Motion carried.
20
Mr.Ogle then suggested removing references to the skeet fields and the danger zones associated with them,
but leave references to the National Rifle Association.
Roy Spitzer moved to amend the language, per Staff recommendations, in item 1.B., page 4, to read. "The
applicant shall provide written evidence to the Department of Planning Services that the"Danger Zones"of
one hundred(100)yards by three hundred(300)yards is provided for trap fields as determined by the National
Rifle Association". Tom Holton seconded. Motion carried.
The Chair asked the applicant if he had read and agreed with the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval. Mr. Green replied they can live with all but the Wednesday evening and Saturday closing and may
want to address that at a later date.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case USR-1569,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. Erich Ehrlich seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Paul
Branham,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes; Tom Holton,yes; Mark Lawley,yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Roy Spitzer,yes;
Chad Auer, yes. Motion carried.
Tom Holton commented that he would like the Commissioners to revisit the hours of operation as he thought
they were still a bit too extreme.
Doug Ochsner said he would like to compliment the Gun Club for agreeing to such a good compromise.
Roy Spitzer said he thought so many of these cases cause land use conflict and he hoped that everyone
recognized these decisions were hard, that things were changing and that compromise was necessary.
Chad Auer commented that on this side of the county they were getting many land uses cases that were
difficult and they needed to continue working with neighbors to come to the best resolution as that was
primary.
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
k
Donita
Secretary
21
Hello