HomeMy WebLinkAbout20051028.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld County
Conference Room,4209 CR 24 '/, Longmont, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Michael
Miller, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin Absent
John Folsom
James Rohn
Bruce Fitzgerald
Tonya Strobel Absent
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
James Welch Absent
Also Present: Peter Schei, Don Carroll, Char Davis, Jacqueline Hatch, Kim Ogle
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on, March 1, 2005,
was approved as read.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1455
APPLICANT: Mineral Reserves Inc./Lafarge West
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-3714; part of the NE4 of Section 16, T2N, R68W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for mining in
the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 20 '/; approximately 1/4 mile west of CR 7.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1455,reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked where the closest homes are in Lighthouse Cove where located and how close are
they. Ms. Hatch stated the applicants would be better prepared to answer this.
Doug Ochsner asked about the Idaho Creek Ditch and the status of an agreement. Ms. Hatch stated the
applicant has an agreement with the Smith& Emmons Ditch which is also represented by the same law firm
as Idaho Creek. The applicant can address the status of the agreement in their presentation.
James Rohn asked about the timeline for the Cottonwood Pit. Ms. Hatch stated the applicant will address this
in their presentation. The understanding is this pit will be run at the same time. Mr. Rohn asked Ms. Davis
about the agreement for bottled water. Ms. Davis,Weld County Health Department,stated that was standard
for employees who are working on the pit along with portable toilets.
John Folsom asked about the processing of materials. Ms. Hatch indicated they will be taken from this pit to
the Cottonwood Pit by conveyor belt across CR 20 '/. The conveyor system has been approved but Public
Works.
Michael Miller asked about Development Standard #33 requiring permits for electrical work and if these pits
are exempt from this requirement. Ms. Hatch stated the building inspectors required this and it could be
verified.
Eric Reckentine, Suzanne Jenson representatives for the applicant, presented information on the proposed
project. Mr. Reckentine provided additional information with regards to the proposal. Mr. Reckentine
`t; > :.tvv3 3-.23- 07 2005-1028
indicated the property will be mined out in one year with the intent to shield the neighbors from the mining with
landscape materials. There will be no plants on the property,the area will be stripped and de-watered and the
materials will be conveyed to the Cottonwood Pit. The operation is currently permitted through the State. Ms.
Jensen continued with the reclamation phase. The reclamation will occur concurrently with the mining. The
earth moving activities will be completed within one year and the re-vegetation activities will occur
approximately one to three years to establish. The reclamation will be native grasses to the area. De-
watering water will go into the Lighthouse Cove pond and there is an agreement in place. The impacts will be
minimal. Ms. Jensen added the closest residence is approximately 200 feet and there will be visual berms.
The ponds will not be lined and the Idaho Creek corridor will be preserved,there will be no impact to this area.
The ditch company that has the rights to Idaho Creek does not claim a prescriptive easement along this
property. A typical easement has been maintained but there was no need for an agreement. This pit will be
completed before the Cottonwood Pit. The neighbor concerns were with truck traffic,dust and noise. This will
not be an increased by this operation since the material will be processed at the Cottonwood Pit. There will be
no increase in the tonnage taken from either since this pit will be operating in place of the Cottonwood Pit at
the time. The intent is to finish removal of aggregate from this site then return to the Cottonwood site. This
operation will be a dry mining operation.
Doug Ochsner asked for clarification on the Idaho Creek easement. Ms.Jensen stated this was a lateral not a
primary ditch. There are no identified users of the lateral except for Lafarge. There is no easement but the
maintenance is done by Lafarge.
James Rohn asked if there were any permits on the Cottonwood Pit that would be in jeopardy if this pit was
mined first then the Cottonwood Pit returned to. Ms.Jensen indicated Cottonwood has been mined out faster
so the permits are in place and there will be enough time.
John Folsom asked if there are any shallow residential wells that would need monitoring. Ms. Jensen
indicated there were monitoring wells and a structured ground water monitoring plant. There are no registered
wells within 600 feet of the property and no unregistered wells were located during a field check. There is a
ground water monitoring plan that triggers if more than two feet below what the average ground water reading
is occurs.
Michael Miller asked Ms hatch about the Cottonwood Pit and if it allows for importation of aggregate. Ms.
Hatch stated the comments do not call out the importing as not accepted but it also does not specify that it
can. Mr. Carroll, Public Works,added the Shaw Pit is imputing into the Cottonwood Pit at this time. Mr. Miller
asked Mr. Morrison if there are any issues with a permit that does not specifically call out the allowance for
importing of materials. Mr. Morrison stated that unless it conflicts with something and it has been allowed to
occur at the site already it would not be an issue.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Don Carroll indicated it would be beneficial for the Planning Commission to see the photos provided by the
applicant of the proposed conveyor belt. Mr. Reckentine presented pictures of an existing system that will be
utilized at this site. Mr. Miller asked if a conveyor under the bridge was reviewed. Mr. Reckentine indicated it
had been reviewed but the concern is there are prescriptive easements with another company and it is easier
to bring the materials over the road. The concern is bringing materials under a bridge where there is a
possibility of water and could make for a larger problem. Ms. Jensen added the ditch was not large enough.
Mr. Miller asked if there was any feedback from the operators of the power lines. Mr. Reckentine indicated
they would need to lower the power line and bury two segments.
Jacqueline Hatch indicated that after speaking with the building official,electrical permits are required for any
electrical use on a gravel permit. Mr. Miller stated that was different from the last hearing. Ms. Hatch was
informed by that staff that the County does not have jurisdiction over electrical permits it would be issued
under a DMG permit with the state.
Lee Morrison stated there is an exception for a number of local land use building code requirements. One of
those is if it is governed by DMG.
James Rohn moved to amend the parcel number. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. Motion carried.
James Rohn moved to delete Development Standard#33. Doug Ochsner seconded. Motion carried.
James Rohn moved that Case USR-1455, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Michael Miller, yes; James Rohn, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: 2005-XX
APPLICANT: Carma Colorado do Tom Morton
PLANNER: Monica Mika
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Located in the SE4; the NW4 of Lot B RE-1450; part of the NE4
of Lot A RE-1840; the N2NE4; the SW4; and part of the NE4 all in
Section 25, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, CO. Part of the
W2; and the NE4 all in Section 35, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, CO. The E2NW4/NW4NW4 of Lot B Am RE-1140; the
SW4NW4; and the N2NE4 all in Section 36, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, CO.
REQUEST: Petition for revision to the Mixed Use Development Area of
Unincorporated Weld County.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Hwy 66; east of and adjacent to CR 11;
west of and adjacent to CR 13; south of and adjacent to CR 28; and east
of and adjacent to 1-25 frontage road.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services presented Case CC2005-XX, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record.The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the application
along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standard. Staff is recommending the following
language be added: The applicants shall work with the Weld County Attorney's office to establish a
metropolitan district to assure future municipal level services.
John Folsom asked if the Town of Firestone had been sent a referral since they have now annexed within
three miles of the site. Mr. Ogle indicated there was a signature card in the file from the Town of Firestone.
Mr. Folsom asked if this was amending the land use on the MUD Map and Planning Commission will hear
individual cases when they are submitted. Mr. Ogle stated that is correct,this is a condition of approval prior
to moving onto the change of zone process.
Michael Miller asked for clarification with regards to locations of properties within municipal boundaries,
specifically the Town of Mead. Mr.Ogle addressed this question referencing the relationship of the proposed
MUD map.
Tyler Packard, representative for Carma Colorado, indicated he had nothing to add to staffs presentation. He
indicated that there are consultants available for questions of the board.
John Folsom indicated his concern with the school district responses. Mr. Packard indicated they have met
with the school district and are exploring ways to address their concerns with the final number of student that
will be brought to the area. This will have a significant impact on the school district and it is in the best benefit
for both to mediate those concerns from the beginning. Mr. Folsom indicated there are no elementary or
middle schools in the area. Mr. Packard stated they have designated a spot for an elementary school. Mr.
Folsom indicated the school district does not have the money for the structures, there is no bond issue and
that takes a significant amount of time. Mr. Folsom suggested mitigation for the developers to provide
voluntary capital mitigation donations for the school development. Mr.Tyler indicated they have met with the
officials and it has been preliminarily discussed with them as a possibility.
Michael Miller asked if the five individual land owners will be bringing in separate applications for
developments. Mr. Packard indicated they are representing those individuals and that Carma Colorado has
the option to purchase the land.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
James Rohn asked how long this property been in MUD District. Mr. Ogle indicated it has been in the MUD
since the inception, 1997. Section 26 was added in 2001.
James Rohn asked about a letter that was inadvertently included in the packet from Mr. Folsom. The letter
was in reference to a different case that has nothing to do with this application.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to remove Mr. Folsom's letter from the packet. Chad Auer seconded. Motion carried
Kim Ogle indicated there was one condition proposed by staff for the applicant to work with the Weld County
Attorneys office. Mr. Morrison added they have submitted a draft of the Metropolitan District Plan already.
James Rohn moved to approve staff recommendation. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. Motion carried.
Doug Ochsner asked Peter Schei, Public Works about there being not being any required improvements with
this application, but there will be improvements at the change of zone application. Mr.Schei stated the sketch
plan review was general but the items will be worked out in the change of zone process. The concerns that
will be addressed will be both on site and off site improvements.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case 2005-XX, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Michael Miller, yes; James Rohn, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
James Rohn commented that with a development this size he hopes that at the change of zone the applicant
has worked out the issues pertaining to the schools, Public Works and fire department.
Meeting adjourned at 3:30 pm
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello