HomeMy WebLinkAbout20050678.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION ADDENDUM
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Bryant Gimlin,that the following resolution be introduced for approval by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1350
APPLICANT: Aggregate Industries -WCR, Inc.
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the S2 NE4, W2 SE4, E2 SE4 Section 25, Ti N, R67W, part of the
SW4 NW4, W2 SW4 Section 30, Ti N, R66W and part of the NW4 NE4 of
Section 36, T1 N, R67 W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: An addendum to a Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review
Permit for a Mineral Resource Development facilities including Sand and
Gravel Mining in the A(Agricultural) Zone District
LOCATION: 1/2 mile North of CR 2; east/west of and adjacent to CR 23''A; 1/4 mile south
ofCR6.
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 23-2-260 of
the Weld County Code.
2. It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the applicant has shown compliance with Section
23-2-220 of the Weld County Code as follows:
A. Section 23-2-220.A.1 -- The proposed use is consistent with Chapter 22 and any other
applicable code provisions or ordinances in effect. Section 22-5-80.B.1 (CM.Goal 2)states,
"Promote the reasonable and orderly development of mineral resources."The proposed use
would be compatible with surrounding properties which include gravel operations to the north
and east and agricultural uses to the west and south. The unincorporated Town of
Wattenburg is north-northwest of this proposed development. The South Platte River is
adjacent to the property to the east. Further, no prime farm land will be taken out of
production with this proposal.
B. Section 23-2-220.A.2--The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the(A)Agricultural
Zone District. Section 23-3-40.A.3 of the Weld County Code provides for a Site Specific
Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Mineral Resource Development
facilities including Sand and Gravel Mining as a Use by Special Review in the(A)Agricultural
Zone District.
C. Section 23-2-220.A.3--The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with the existing
surrounding land uses. The proposal will be compatible with existing surrounding land uses
which include agricultural lands and other gravel mining operations in the general area.
D. Section 23-2-220.A.4 -- The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with future
development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning and with the future
development as projected by Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code and any other applicable
code provisions or ordinances in effect, or the adopted Master Plans of affected
municipalities.
The surrounding land uses are primarily agriculture with several rural residences in the area
To the north is the unincorporated town of Wattenberg and the Asphalt Paving Compan
operation, (AmUSR 921), to the east is a gravel mining operation (USR-905-Aggregat: rj
Industries) and State Highway 85; to the south are agricultural lands with rural residences. m
There are thirty-four property owners within 500 feet of this application with three propert
owners directly adjacent to the application. The town of Brighton did not respond to the `
referral indicting no conflicts with their interests. Planning Staff believes that, with th- o!
endorsement of the Conditions of Approval, contained in this recommendation,the approval
of this use will not jeopardize the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding propert sows
owners.
2005-067
Resolution USR-1350
Aggregate Industries
Page 2
E. Section 23-2-220.A.5--The application complies with Section 23-5-230 of the Weld County
Code. The proposal is located within the Flood Hazard Overlay District area as shown on
FIRM Community Panel Map#080266-0983C and Map#080266-0995C dated September
28, 1982. Conditions of Approval and Development Standards address the issue of the flood
plain.Section 22-5-80.E.2.d(CM.Policy 5.4)states"the operation will comply with the County
flood hazard regulations...." Further, Section 22-5-80.B.1 promotes the reasonable and
orderly development of mineral resources.
F. Section 23-2-220.A.6 --The applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort to conserve prime
agricultural land in the locational decision for the proposed use. The subject site has irrigated
not prime and other land as delineated on the Important Farmlands of Weld County map,
dated 1979. A majority of the property lies within the one hundred (100)year flood plain that
limits the agricultural productiveness of the site. The area is being utilized as open pasture
and as a nursery for the City of Westminister.
G. Section 23-2-220.A.7--The Design Standards(Section 23-2-240 of the Weld County Code),
Operation Standards(Section 23-2-250 of the Weld County Code), Conditions of Approval,
and Development Standards ensure that there are adequate provisions for the protection of
health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and County.
H. Section 23-4-250--Additional requirements for Open-mining have been addressed through
this application and the Development Standards will insure compliance with Section 23-4-250
Weld County Code.
This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application materials submitted by the applicant,
other relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral entities.
The Planning Commission's recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following:
1. The attached Development Standards for the Special Review Permit shall be adopted and placed on
the Special Review Plat prior to recording. The completed plat shall be delivered to the Weld County
Department of Planning Services and be ready for recording in the Weld County Clerk and Recorder's
Office within 60 days of approval by the Board of County Commissioners. (Department of Planning
Services)
2. Prior to recording the plat:
A. The plat shall be amended to delineate the following:
1. All Sheets of the plat shall be labeled USR-1350. (Department of Planning Services)
2. The attached Development Standards. (Department of Planning Services)
3. The location of the two access roads to the site, capable of handling fire apparatus
in all potential weather conditions during and after construction. The roadway must
be a minimum of twenty-four(24)feet in width without parked cars in the area. All
roadways will have a turning radius of thirty-two(32)feet maximum inside radius and
fifty-two(52)feet outside radius. Dead end roads exceeding one hundred fifty(150)
feet in length shall terminate in an approved turn around. (Greater Brighton Fire
Protection District)
4. The location of any on-site signs. (Department of Planning Services)
5. The approved Landscape, Screen and Berm Plan. (Department of Planning
Services)
6. The location of the proposed two inlet structures across County Road 23 1/2.
(Department of Public Works)
Resolution USR-1350
Aggregate Industries
Page 3
7. The applicant indicated that County Road 23'/1 and County Road 4%are within the
property boundaries. The County's documentation on this section of road indicates
that the County is claiming 60 feet of right-of-way from as early as April 4, 1882,
granted in Book 3. Page 66; Book 8, Page 358; and Book 178, Page 464 with the
Clerk and Recorders Office. Adjust the plat to coordinate with the right-of-way line
and setback utilizing the sixty(60)feet of right-of-way that the County is claiming for
County Road 23 '/1. The setback from the County right-of-way line needs to be
adjusted prior to recording the plat and placing the slurry wall or mining operation.
(Department of Public Works)
8. Section 22-5-100.A of the Weld County Code states "oil and gas exploration and
production should occur in a manner which minimizes the impact to agricultural uses
and the environment and reduces the conflicts between mineral development and
current and future surface uses." Section 22-5-100.B of the Weld County Code
states "...encourage cooperation, coordination and communication between the
surface owner and the mineral owner/operators of either the surface or the mineral
estate." Finally, Section 22-5-100.B.1 of the Weld County Code states "new
development should be planned to take into account current and future oil and gas
drilling activity to the extent oil and gas development can reasonably be anticipated."
The applicant shall either submit a copy of an agreement with the property's mineral
owner/operators stipulating that the oil and gas activities have been adequately
incorporated into the design of the site or show evidence that an adequate attempt
has been made to mitigate the concerns of the mineral owner/operators. The plat
shall be amended to include any possible future drilling sites. (Department of
Planning Services)
B. The Environmental Health Division of the Weld County Department of Public Health &
Environment (WCDPH&E) was unable to locate a septic permit for an existing residence
(Parcel # 146925000018). Any existing septic system which is not currently permitted
through the WCDPH&E will require an I.S.D.S. Evaluation prior to the issuance of the
required septic permit. In the event the system is found to be inadequate, the system must
be brought into compliance with current I.S.D.S. regulations. If, in the future, the septic
system is removed for mining the applicant shall provide written evidence to WCDPH&E of
the removal. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
C. The applicant shall provide evidence that the facility has adequate water;i.e., bottled water.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
D. The applicant shall submit a Landscape Plan identifying the number, size and species of all
plant material to the Weld County Planning Department for review and approval. This plan
shall include specifications of any proposed berm's, if required.The proposed berm's will be
extended to mitigate impacts to surrounding properties and adjacent road rights-of-way. Any
berm placed in the one hundred (100) year flood plain of the South Platte River can not
obstruct passage of flood flows. The applicant shall use breaks in the berm with landscaping
to fill the void,culverts,or some other method that will allow water to flow freely. (Department
of Planning Services)
E. County Road 23 1/2 is designated on the Weld County Transportation Plan Map as a local
gravel road,which requires sixty(60)feet of right-of-way at full build out. There is presently
sixty(60)feet of right-of-way. A total of thirty(30)feet from the centerline of County Road
23.50 shall be delineated right-of-way on the plat. This road is maintained by Weld County.
The most current traffic count for County Road 23 1/2 is 234 vehicles taken in a 24 hour
period dated May 19, 2004. (Department of Public Works)
F. County Roads 2 3/4 and 4 1/2 also border the proposed facility. These are designated as
local gravel roads, which requires sixty (60) feet of right-of-way at full build out. A total of
thirty (30) feet from the centerline of County Roads 2 3/4 and 4 1/2 shall be delineated
right-of-way on the plat.These roads are maintained by Weld County. (Department of Public
Works)
Resolution USR-1350
Aggregate Industries
Page 4
G. The Public Works Department has reviewed your submitted traffic study, which was
completed by Gene Coppola. This traffic study combines Mobile Premix Concrete,
Aggregate Industries, and Asphalt Paving, all located on County Road 6 and access on to
U.S. 85. A traffic light has been placed at the intersection of CR 6 and US Hwy 85 to
accommodate heavy truck hauling. (Department of Public Works)
H. The applicant has an existing Improvements Agreement for the upgrade and maintenance
of County Road 6 from the pit entrance east to U.S. 85. (Department of Public Works)
I. The applicant shall submit a letter seeking to vacate USR 727 for Gartell Enterprises, for a
dry gravel pit. (Department of Planning Services)
4. Prior to construction:
A. The applicant shall obtain the appropriate building permits through the Weld County Building
Inspection Department. (Department of Building Inspection)
5. Prior to Operation:
A. The applicant shall provide evidence that a Section 404 Permit has been obtained from the
Department of Army Corps of Engineers prior to operating in any designated wetland area.
Further, the applicant shall provide evidence to the Department of Planning Services
demonstrating that all conditions of the permit have been met. (Department of Planning
Services)
B. Site drawings shall be submitted to the Greater Brighton Fire Protection District. Evidence
of attempt to comply with Fire District requirements shall be submitted to the Weld County
Department of Planning Services. (Department of Building Inspection,Greater Brighton Fire
Protection District )
6. The Special Review activity shall not occur until the Special Review plat is ready to be
recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. (Department of Planning
Services)
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Aggregate Industries
USR-1350
1. A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Mineral Resource Development
facilities including Sand and Gravel Mining in the (A) Agricultural Zone District, as indicated in the
application materials on file and subject to the Development Standards stated hereon. (Department
of Planning Services)
2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 23-8-10 of the Weld
County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
3. Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions shall be controlled on this site. The facility shall be
operated in accordance with the approved dust abatement plan at all times. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
4. All liquid and solid wastes (as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act,
30-20-100.5,C.R.S.)shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that protects against
surface and groundwater contamination. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
5. The facility shall provide bottled water for drinking and sanitary purposes. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
6. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. This is not meant to include those
wastes specifically excluded from the definition of a"solid waste" in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites
and Facilities Act, 30-20-100.5. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
7. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust,
blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
8. Fugitive dust shall be controlled on this site. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
9. The facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Industrial Zone
District as delineated in 25-12-103, C.R.S. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
10. If applicable, the applicant shall obtain a Discharge Permit from the Colorado Department of Public
Health & Environment, Water Quality Control Division. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
11. Adequate hand washing and toilet facilities shall be provided for the public and employees.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
12. Portable toilets may be utilized on sites that are temporary locations of the working face and portable
processing equipment,etc.for up to six months at each location. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
13. The applicant shall remove, handle, and stockpile overburden, soil, sand and gravel from the facility
area in a manner that will prevent nuisance conditions. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
14. All operations on said described parcel shall be in conformance with the Weld County Flood
Regulations including:
A. No fill, berms, or stockpiles shall be placed in the one hundred (100)year flood plain of the
South Platte River which would obstruct passage of flood flows. (Department of Planning
Services)
Resolution USR-1350
Aggregate Industries
Page 2
B. All fuel tanks, septic tanks, temporary buildings, and any other hazardous items that might
wash away during flooding shall be securely anchored and adequately flood proofed to avoid
creation of a health hazard, Following completion of mining, all temporary buildings shall be
removed. (Dept. of Public Health and Environment)
15. The operation shall comply with all applicable rule and regulations of the Colorado Division of
Minerals and Geology. (Department of Planning Services)
16. The operation shall comply with the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). (Department of
Planning Services)
17. The operation shall comply with the Mine Safety and Health Act (MSHA). (Department of Planning
Services)
18. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency including a Letter of Map revision if determined to be applicable. (Department
of Planning Services)
19. "No Trespassing"signs shall be posted and maintained on the perimeter fence to clearly identify the
boundaries of the site. (Department of Planning Services)
20. Lighting provided for security and emergency night operation on the site shall be designed so that the
lighting will not adversely affect surrounding property owners. (Department of Planning Services)
21. Section 23-4-290.B of the Weld County Code limits the hours of operation for sand and gravel
operations to the hours of day light except in the case of public or private emergency or to make
necessary repairs to equipment. Hours of operation may be extended with specific permission from
the Weld County Board of County Commissioners. This restriction shall not apply to operation of
administrative and executive offices or repair and maintenance facilities located on the property.
(Department of Planning Services)
22. Existing trees and ground cover along public road frontage and drainage ways shall be preserved,
maintained, and supplemented, if necessary,for the depth of the setback in order to protect against
and/or reduce noise, dust, and erosion. (Department of Planning Services)
23. Where topsoil is removed,sufficient arable soil shall be set aside for re-spreading over the reclaimed
areas. (Department of Planning Services)
24. Should noxious weeds exist on the property or become established as a result of the proposed
development, the applicant/landowner shall be responsible for controlling the noxious weeds,
pursuant to Section 15-1-180. (Department of Public Works)
25. The applicant is indicating that there will be two inlet structures across Weld County Road 23.50. The
applicant shall obtain a Weld County Right-of-Way Permit prior to doing any excavating within Weld
County rights-of-way. Please contact Weld County Public Works Office to obtain that permit.
(Department of Public Works)
26. If any work associated with this project requires the placement of dredge or fill material, and any
excavation associated with a dredged or fill project, either temporary or permanent, in waters of the
United States which may include streams, open water lakes and ponds or wetlands at this site, the
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers shall be notified by a proponent of the project for proper
department of the Army permits or changes in permit requirements pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act. (Army Corps of Engineers)
27. The landscaping on site shall be maintained in accordance with the approved Landscape Plan.
(Department of Planning Services)
Resolution USR-1350
Aggregate Industries
Page 3
28. Proper building permits shall be obtained prior to any construction, demolition, or excavation. Part of
the permit application process includes a complete plan review. (Department of Building Inspection)
29. Additional requirements or changes may be required when building applications or plans are reviewed
by the Weld County Building Inspection Department, the Fire District, or other State agencies.
(Department of Building Inspection)
30. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of
Section 23-2-240 of the Weld County Code.
31. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of
Section 23-2-250 of the Weld County Code.
32. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Open-mining Standards
of Section 23-4-250, Weld County Code.
33. Personnel from the Weld County Departments of Public Health and Environment and Planning
Services shall be granted access onto the property at any reasonable time in order to ensure the
activities carried out on the property comply with the Development Standards stated herein and all
applicable Weld County regulations.
34. The Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the foregoing
standards and all applicable Weld County regulations. Substantial changes from the plans or
Development Standards as shown or stated shall require the approval of an amendment of the Permit
by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans or
Development Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the
Department of Planning Services.
35. In accordance with Section 23-2-200.E of the Weld County Code, if the Use by Special Review has
not commenced from the date of approval or is discontinued for a period of three (3) consecutive
years, it shall be presumed inactive. The county shall initiate an administrative hearing to consider
whether to grant an extension of time to commence the use or revoke the Use by Special Review.
If the Use by Special Review is revoked, it shall be necessary to follow the procedures and
requirements of Division 4 of the Weld County Code in order to reestablish any Use by Special
Review. (Department of Planning Services)
36. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing
Development Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Development Standards may be
reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners. (Department of Planning
Services)
37. The operator shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of State and Federal agencies and
the Weld County Code.
Motion seconded by Doug Ochsner
Resolution USR-1350
Aggregate Industries
Page 4
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Michael Miller
John Folsom
Bryant Gimlin
Bruce Fitzgerald
James Rohn
Tonya Stobel
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
James Welch
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this
case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I,Voneen Macklin, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission,do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution, is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County,
Colorado, adopted on February 15, 2005.
Dated the 15`h of February, 2005.
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
ADDENDA-PRELIMINARY AI,USR1350 Page 8
- °RLL;J
1
know the status of the easement as it exists.
Doug Ochsner stated the easement belongs to the ditch company and Mr. Brunell needs to work with the ditch
company as they can get the easement more defined. Mr. Miller stated the easement belongs to ditch company not
the adjoining land owners. The easement will address the issue of ditch maintenance.
John Folsom moved that Case MZ-1069, 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; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1350
APPLICANT: Aggregate Industries -WCR, Inc.
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the S2 NE4, W2 SE4, E2 SE4 Section 25, T1 N, R67W, part of
W4 Section 30, Ti N, R66W and part of the NW4 NE4 of Section 36,Ti N, R67 W
of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST; An addendum to a Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for
a Mineral Resource Development facilities including Sand and Gravel Mining in
the A(Agricultural) Zone District
LOCATION: % mile North of CR 2; east/west of and adjacent to CR 23 1/2
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1350, 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.
Michael Miller asked if the amended mining permit on the east side of the river allowed for importing of materials to
the site. Mr. Ogle indicated it allows for importation.
Connie Davis, Aggregate Industries, representative, presented the history of the project from 2001 to the present
application. The history of the project was presented along with the Weld County processes that have occurred.
The issues that were raised at the 2001 hearing were from referral comments. Ms. Davis covered how those
issues have been addressed. Ms. Davis also covered the process and referral responses for the 404 permit
process. This process was applied for to address the issues raised by the US Fish & Wildlife, Environmental
Protection Agency(EPA)and other referral comments. The 404 permit has several requirements that address the
concerns of the US Fish&Wildlife and EPA both general and site specific. Ms. Davis stated in July of 2005 the 404
permit is in the final stage of approval. There will be fifteen days for the US Fish &Wildlife and EPA to respond and
if there is no adverse response the permit will be issued. The final impacts will be significantly less, specifically to
the wetlands. The aggregate recovery will be reduced by 25%, water storage has been reduced by 37% and
wetlands will be reduced by 37%. Cumulative affects of mining along the South Platte River were studied in an
effort to mitigate concerns. There has also been a monitoring well system installed to gain data for the last few
years. Once all the concerns were addressed the County was contacted and asked the best method of proceeding.
Mr. Ogle suggested an addendum to the original application and that was the process followed. Staff has
encouraged obtaining written evidence from State Agencies to acknowledge the concerns have been addressed.
All the permits required by the County has been obtained.
Bill Schenderlein,Applegate Group, representative for the applicant, provided information as to what the permit and
operation presently look like. The permit boundary and affected area has not increased but the affected area has
decreased. The main function of the land is a tree farm with the surrounding uses being other gravel operations
and agriculture. The wetland impact has also been reduced and the ponds will be created via dry mining. Mr.
Schenderlein described the phasing of the project and the phasing is set up to incorporate wetland mitigation. The
-- overall life of the mine is estimated at eleven years. There will be slurry walls for the ponds that will be installed
during the operation to lessen the de-watering needs in the pit. The other mining areas will be de-watered with a
de-watering trench and will also be dry mined. AmUSR-905; access is off CR 23%to the south. The material from
this site will be conveyed to another site across the river. The number of employees will be four working two shifts
5
daily. Reclamation will result in three reservoirs covering 199 acres with three primary areas for wetland mitigation.
The slopes will be 3-1 for the reservoirs. New wetlands will be created before other existing wetlands can be
disturbed.
Michael Miller asked about the number of employees being only four when the number of equipment is greater. Mr.
Schenderlein stated there will be four full time employees and all the employees will not be used at the same time.
Mr. Miller stated in the application there will be some onsite temporary processing, now there will be none on the
west side of the river. Mike Refer, Aggregate Industries, provided clarification on the number of employees and
processing. There will be two shifts of four employees and during some shifts there will be a sub-contractor to strip
the ground. Mr. Miller indicated there has been no allowances for road improvements since there will be no
processing on the west side of the river. Mr. Refer stated that was the intent.
John Folsom asked if the slurry wall will be installed during the mining operation. Mr. Refer indicated that the slurry
wall will be installed. The Corps(Army Corps of Engineers)requirement are complicated and address the issues of
the wetland areas dealing with the slurry walls. The Corps deem a wetland no longer functioning when a slurry
walls is installed and therefore one cannot seal until another is created. That is the reason the slurry walls are done
in the phasing. Mr. Folsom indicated his concern was how the slurry walls would affect the ground water level. Mr.
Folsom asked if there were domestic wells in the area that need to be monitored. Mr. Refer stated there are deep
and shallow monitoring wells for the wetlands and there are four neighboring wells that are a concern which will be
watched closely. Mr. Folsom asked if there will be any impact if the slurry walls increase or raise the height of the
ground water. Mr. Refer stated most of the water will continue through the Lupton Slough that is exists on site.
James Rohn asked Mr. Ogle about the letter from US Fish and Wildlife indicating there have been improvements to
the project but there are still two concerns and the question is rather those are still relevant or have they been
addressed. Mr. Miller stated that would be better addressed by someone from Aggregate Industries. Mr. Miller
indicated the US Fish&Wildlife Service continues to recommend denial of the 404 permit. Mike Savage, Salvage
& Salvage, Environmental Representative, indicated that there has been some time frame confusion with
, . documents submitted and reviewed. The US Fish &Wildlife and EPA have not had adequate time to review the
latest comments addressing their final concerns. The Corps was delayed in forwarding Aggregate Industries final
mitigations. The present document from Fish &Wildlife is a direct review from prior comments. The US Fish &
Wildlife has determined there are no impacts indirect or direct to their areas of interest on site. The other
conclusion from the US Fish&Wildlife was there were impacts downstream and Aggregate Industries has agreed
to take part in agreements that will address the depletions of the South Platte River. During the interim a small
amount of compensation for water rights and conservation of land in Nebraska will be done.
Michael Miller asked what happens if the Corps indicated there will be no 404 permit. Mr. Refer has been told they
were going to issue the permit but there is a 15 day waiting period. The Corps has indicated there will be no
change in the conditions or stipulations. Mr. Miller indicated the concern is if Planning Commission recommends
approval and the Corps comes back without an approved 404 permit, what will happen. Mr. Refer indicated they
will not disturb the wetlands and this was a Condition of the County and they will not mine unless they do have the
permit. Jaimie Gaborio, Environmental Compliance Manager for Aggregate Industries, indicated the permit will be
issued the waiting period is a formality and the permit should not be challenged. Mr. Refer stated there will be no
mining until they get approval from everyone.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Morrison if a provision was in the application that if the 404 permit was not obtained they
cannot proceed with the mining. Mr. Morrison stated the permit relates to the wetlands, but it may not be a feasible
project if no wetlands are disturbed.
James Rohn asked Char Davis, Weld County Health Department, about the agreement of bottled water on site.
Ms. Davis stated the site is primarily mining only, so there will be no structure on site thus requiring a permanent
water source. The Weld County Health Department will allow port a potties at this location.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
—. Clarence Hill, neighbor, indicated his concern with his residential well because it was not a deep well but rather a
shallow well and it will be affected. Mr. Hill has a concern on how to protect his well. Another concern would be if
the haul route was along CR 23 '/and what needs to be done. Mr. Miller indicated the applicant has monitoring
wells and in the event the wells drop more than 2 feet Aggregate Industries will need to report this to the water
6
,,... engineer within seven days and if it affects adjacent wells Aggregate Industries are required to work with those
owners to deepen the wells or provide alternative sources of water. Mr. Miller indicated that if there is any truck
traffic coming from this operation contact the Department of Planning Services and speak with the compliance
officer. Mr. Hill asked who he would need to call when the pump on the well stops. Mr. Morrison added there is no
assurance because with only two foot of freeboard, but if Mr. Hill believes he has been affected by operation, start
with Aggregate Industries and then go to County. Mr. Miller stated the agreement states that if an owner can show
damage to well like a reduction in supply or quality, Aggregate Industries is either responsible for correcting it or
provide with water.
Jonathon Baurer, neighbor to the south and east, indicated concerns with preservation of the nature of the home.
Mr. Baurer has three specific concerns, physical safety specifically with liability and trespassing. There is no
present exact line as to where their property is and where the mining is. They would like a clear recognition of the
property line. The second concern is the impact of visual quality and air pollution. They do understand there will be
some impacts but a fence would help to alleviate those concerns. There is a concern for dust and a physical barrier
would also assist in this. Overall what they are looking for is the continued quiet of the area. A fence will assist in
all the three concerns. Typically a berm is installed and this is not allowed in the flood plain. There is an hinged
fence that could be done. This fence is a break away type. Mr. Baurer is looking for a fence along the property line
to distinguish between the two properties.
Carl Eiberger, neighbor, indicated the things that were previously mentioned should be considered. Aggregate
Industries has been a great neighbor and he would like to continue this.
Guilford Wilson, neighbor, indicated his concerns with safety,wells,dust and noise. It could be possible to put trees
in to buffers the noise in the area. Mr. Wilson would like some assurance that concerns will be addressed. He
would like to see the area retain the present value and continued good relationship with Aggregate Industries.
Chair closed public portion
Mike Refer added there were two different monitoring wells for the shallow and deep wells. The monitoring wells do
that match the residential and agricultural wells. If there are any changes in the monitor wells that may affect their
wells they will go to neighbors and ask them if they can monitor their wells directly to see if there is a change. With
regards to the concerns from Mr. Baurer,the Aggregate Industries surveyor has determined the present fence to be
off by about 8 feet and this will be corrected prior to the mining operations. The fence is beneficial for both
properties so the workers at the mine have a clear definition of where the property line is. Aggregate Industries has
implemented new back up alarms to try and mitigate some of the noise concerns. These alarms are approved by
OSHA and the sound does not travel long distances. Once the site is dewatered, most of the equipment will be on
below ground level. Aggregate Industries tries to place an overburden berm but these cause several issues due to
being in the floodplain. There is the alternative is the hinged fence but the cost on those is extreme. Perhaps a
compromise on this type of fence would be the better solution. There could be a length of fence incorporated with
landscaping to break up the visual barrier. Mr. Miller asked for clarification on the procedure for the monitoring
wells if a surrounding property owner feels his well has been affected. Mr. Refer stated they have written an
extensive plan concerning the possible change of water levels. The plan includes anything greater than a 2 foot
fluctuation will be addressed. This site has three to four years of data for monitoring purposes. Mr. Miller asked
that Mr. Refer get with Mr. Wilson to provide him with a contact number for some assurance.
Kim Ogle suggested adding language to Development Standard#38 that states"the operator shall comply with all
applicable rules and regulations of State and Federal agencies and the Weld County Code,"and delete the portion
of#6 that states".... Nor shall any building or electrical permits be issues on the property..." Mr. Miller asked about
the requirement that require gravel operations to pull electrical permits. Mr. Ogle stated there has been language
that has been submitted by the applicant that addresses the removal because they are exempt. Staff is also
recommending deleting 3.D and Development Standard#29. Don Carroll, Public Works, suggests deleting 3.J as
long as there are no complaints regarding the number of people on site or hauling occurring from the site. If there
are complaints Public Works can bring the applicant back for a Show Cause hearing. Mr. Carroll added the last
sentence of 3.H can be deleted and replaces with the following language "A traffic light has been placed at the
intersection at CR 6 and US Hwy 85 to accommodate heavy truck hauling."
James Rohn moved to accept Department of Planning Services recommendations. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded.
Motion carried.
7
Bryant Gimlin moved to accept Public Works recommendations. James Rohn seconded. Motion carried.
Connie Davis indicated their concern with 2.A dealing with the well drilling sites being included on the plat. This is a
carryover from the previous hearing, it was agreed at that time to not have to show"possible"future drilling sites on
the plats. Aggregate Industries would like this to be removed. Mr. Ogle stated it was a standard and asked Ms.
Davis is there were agreements with all the oil and gas companies for future drilling sites. Ms. Davis stated there
are two agreements pending and one who has failed to respond. Aggregate Industries is prepared to show the
attempts made and it can be shown on a drawing how the concerns were mitigated. Mr. Miller indicated the
requirement states showing evidence of attempts or copies of the agreements. It seems as though Aggregate
Industries is complying with the requirement already. Mr. Morrison stated that part of the way to show no
agreement exists and an attempt has been made is to show the boxes to show the drilling windows and how they fit
within the operation. Mr. Morrison stated the condition could be moved to prior to Recording the plat. Mr. Ogle
suggested moving 2.A to 3.L.
Bryant Gimlin moved to accept the change. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. Motion carried.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case USR-1350, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval.
Doug Ochsner 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; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Doug Ochsner commented this is compatible with the surrounding land uses.
Michael Miller commented he would like to commend Aggregate Industries for the effort put into the application. It
shows a good commitment on their part to be good neighbors. They have spent a lot of money and time in getting
this right.
Meeting adjourned at 4:45 pm
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
r-^
8
_ q 262)5
platted as The Lupton Meadows Land Co. Division 3 of the 6th P.M.,Weld
�-' County, Colorado.
REQUEST: An Amendment to a Site Specific Development Plan and a special Review
Permit for a Mineral Resource Development Facility, including open pit
mining and materials processing; including Asphalt and Concrete Batch
Plants, in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: 'A mile south of CR 18 and 1/2 mile west of State Highway 85.
James Rohn moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Tonya Strobel seconded. Motion carried
The following cases will be Heard:
— SET HEARING DATE FOR: USR-1350
PLANNER: KIM OGLE
APPLICANT: AGGREGATE INDUSTRIES
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, indicated this case was originally presented in 2001. Staff is
asking the case be heard on February 15, 2005.
Michael Miller asked why the need for this process. Mr. Ogle stated this case was heard by a previous
Planning Commission back in October 2001. At that time the applicant asked for the application to be
tabled indefinitely so they could address concerns from the Core of Engineers specific to a river crossing
and wetlands mitigation. The applicants have obtained the needed permits and are making an addendum
to the existing application. Staff comments will be mailed on February 1, 2005 containing the addendum.
Staff is asking for a specific hearing date because it was tabled.
Michael Miller asked why Planning Commission had to go through this process to set a hearing date. Mr.
Ogle stated it was an indefinite continuance by the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Morrison added
the membership of the Planning Commission has changed so the original application materials will need
to be referred to. Those will be provided by the applicant.
James Rohn moved to set the hearing date for USR-1350 for February 15, 2005. Bryant Gimlin
seconded. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1492
APPLICANT: Greeley Assembly of God Church
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot C RE-3860, Pt N2NW4 of Section 30, T6N, R65W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Application for Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review
Permit for a church and private school in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 66; approx 1/4 mile east of CR 37.
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1492, 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. Staff is
recommending the description of the site be revised to delete private school.
James Rohn asked when ConAgra had this site and what the use was. Mr. Gathman indicated he was
not sure how long the operation has been at this location. It may have been a non conforming use that
was in place prior to the use by special review process.
Bryant Gimlin asked for clarification on the hours of operation in the Development Standards, they were
not specific to weekdays and weekends.
r�
Angel Flores, representative for the applicant, provided additional information. Mr. Flores indicated the
hours are on Sundays from 8:00am to 1:30 pm with some evening activities that are from 4:30pm - 9:00
pm. There is also a Wednesday evening service from 7:00pm -9:00pm. Those are the typical
congregation hours. The office hours are Tuesday- Friday from 9:00am -4:30pm. Mr. Gathman agrees
that the Development Standard needs to be clarified. Mr. Flores added this is a good opportunity and a
ORIGINAL
EXHIBIT
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, October 16, 2001
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2001, in the Weld County
Public Health/Planning Building, (Room 210), 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was
called to order by Chair, Michael Miller, at 1:40 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin Absent
Cristie Nicklas
Fred Walker Absent
John Folsom
Stephan Mokray
Cathy Clamp
Luis Llerena
Bruce Fitzgerald Absent
Also Present: Pam Smith, Char Davis, Kim Ogle, Robert Anderson, Wendi Inloes, Don Carroll, Drew
Scheltinga, Lauren Light,
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on October 2,2001,
was approved as read.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1354
APPLICANT: Aggregate Industries, West Central Region, Inc
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-1586, being part of the W2 and part of the NW4 of Section 8,
T4N, R66W; and parts of Section 4, 5, and 8, T4N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for Open Pit
Mining and Materials Processing, including a Concrete and Asphalt Batch
Plant„ in the A(Agricultural Zone District.)
LOCATION: North of and adjacent of WCR 46;east of and adjacent to State Hwy 60 and
WCR 27 Y.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, read a memorandum into the record requesting a continuance
to November 20, 2001.
Stephan Mokray motioned for approval of the continuance. Cristie Nickles seconded. Motion passed
unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1344
APPLICANT: Miller Motor Sports, LLC
"^ PLANNER: Monica Daniels Mika
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Section 11, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for an expansion
to an existing Recreational Facility (Race Track), in the Agricultural Zone
District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to 1-25 Frontage Road; north of and adjacent to WCR
34
Wendi Inloes, Department of Planning Services, read a memorandum into the record requesting the
continuance to December 18, 2001.
Cristie Nicklas motioned for approval of the continuance. Stephan Mokray seconded. Motion passed
unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: 3R°AMUSR-778
APPLICANT: Public Service Company of Colorado (Yosemite Site)
PLANNER: Robert Anderson
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of SW4 of Section 27, T1 N, R67W of the 61h P.M., Weld County,
Colorado
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for a Major
Facility of a Public Utility(Natural Gas Control Facility)in the A(Agricultural)
Zone District
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to WCR 4 and east of and adjacent to WCR 19
Robert Anderson, Department of Planning Services, read a memorandum into the record requesting the
continuance to November 20, 2001
Cristie Nicklas motioned for approval of the continuance. Stephan Mokray seconded. Motion passed
unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: Z-543
PLANNER: Julie A. Chester
APPLICANT: Daryll and Carol Propp, Propp Realty, Inc. (Long's Peak Estates)
ADDRESS: 1200 West Colfax Avenue, Suite B-130, Lakewood, CO 80215
REQUEST: Change of Zone from Agricultural to PUD for seven(7)lots with Estate uses,
with common open space. Lot sizes from 2.87 to 4.28 acres.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW4 and part of the NE4 of Section 9,Township 1 North, Range
68 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 12, between WCR's 5 and 7
This project was already heard but was advertised incorrectly causing the need to be reheard for public
comment.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Case remained as recommended
CASE: County Code-2001-OX
APPLICANT: Town of Ault/Weld County
PLANNER: Robert Anderson
REQUEST: Intergovernmental Agreement
LOCATION: Section 11, 12, 13, 14,T7N, R66W of the 61h P.M., Weld County Colorado
Robert Anderson, Department of Planning Services presented Case County Code - 2001-OX, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending
approval of the application.
John Folsom asked what the zoning would be and does the agreement follow the same as the prior one. Mr
Anderson said that the town of Ault had made no recommendation as to the zone and it does follow the same
lines as the prior agreement.
Cristie Nicklas asked if the surrounding property owners were notified and were there any public meetings.
Mr. Anderson stated that there was not any indication of notifying property owners.
Luis Llerena asked if there would be an impact to the area residences with this change. Mr.Anderson stated
that the impact would be minimal and would take affect after the Three Reading Ordinance Process. Mr.
Llerena asked who was responsible for notifying the property owners. Mr. Morrison stated that the typical
notification was when changing the zoning map.
Mr. Morrison provided clarification with regards to the notification process and what was required. He stated
that it does not affect legal property rights affected but there will be some effect of interest. Mr. Morrison
clarified who has the ability and legal right to require public input.
Michael Miller stated that the Planning Commission had issues with the non-notification of the affected
property owners. Mr. Miller stated he does not feel that they can rule on the without a representative from the
Town of Ault.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Michael Miller would leaned toward continuing until hear fro the Town of Ault. Mr. Miller asked about the
legality of forcing them to notify the affected land owners noting that there was no way of conditioning the
approval. Mr. Morrison stated that it would be better recommending to the Board of County Commissioners
without adding language to the agreement.
Cristie Nicklas moved that Case County Code 2001-OX be continued indefinitely. Justification for this
continuance is to gain further information from the Town of Ault. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion.
Motion passed.
CASE NUMBER: Z-563
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
APPLICANT: David Keiser and Michael Sigg, c/o Todd Hodges Design, LLC
ADDRESS: 2412 Denby Court
Fort Collins, CO 80526
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to PUD with Estate uses for
four (4) residential lots and 7.5 acres of Common Open Space
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2527; being part of the W2 of the SW4 of Section 10,
T4N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 46.5; east of and adjacent to WCR
43.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, presented Case Z-563, 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.
Todd Hodges, provided brief clarification of the project and its overall review and design. This land was part
of a dry up covenant therefore cannot be turned back into agricultural land requiring water. The site consists
of lots that vary in sizes from 6.2 acres to 14.2 acres. This is a request to zone four lots, PUD with Estate
uses. The proposed access gravel and there is an agreement with Patina, who would like to see the road
stay gravel. Staff's recommendation is for pavement consisting of 2-twelve foot travel lanes with 2-four foot
gravel shoulders. This is a non urban scale development and there will be no prime farm ground removed.
The existing access point will serve the requirements of the subdivision and Patina.
Michael Miller asked if there were any wells or tanks present. Mr. Hodges stated that they are getting the
tanks in place and have worked with Patina to come to an agreement with the tanks on the larger lots and the
well within the open space.
Cathy Clamp stated her concerns. Where was the water going to come from for the rest of the lot. The
domestic needs will be taken care of but where will the additional water be coming from. Mr. Hodges stated
that with the dry up covenant on the property, there could be no irrigation water put on the property. Mrs.
Clamp asked if this issue was going to be addressed in the covenants. Mr. Hodges stated that covenants
would include all this information.
Dave Keiser, provided some clarification with the water capabilities to in the area. They (Keiser and Sigg)
have worked with the State to come up with a seed mixture that will suit the area the best and combat the wind
and water erosion associated with the property. Central Weld County Water District has provided the taps
for the land and the property new owner can water as much of the property as is needed, however, the cost
will be exorbitant. Mrs. Clamp asked if the covenants would include a statement that gives the surrounding
property owners the ability to have hunting on their ground.
Michael Miller asked about school bus turnout. Mr. Hodges stated that there will be a bus stop location in the
green space and there is a condition in the final plat that an area must be set aside for the School District to
ensure the safety and adequacy of the school bus stop.
Christie Nicklas asked Drew Scheltinga about the paving. Mr. Scheltinga responded Mr. Hodges provided
several reasons to maintain the road in gravel along with the evidence that with a minor subdivision does not
require the road to be paved. Don Carroll indicated that this would be clarified in the Public Improvements
Agreement and the covenants will also cover this. A note on the plat could be done. Public Works would not
object to the road not being paved because of the comments from other agencies noting that the concerns
have been mentioned and noted.
Luis Llerena would like to see improvements to the bus stop including providing a safe area for the kids to be
in. Mr. Hodges indicated that they will work with the school district to make better accommodations for the
school bus pick up area. This agreement will be in place at the final plat application process.
Mrs. Clamp stated that the radius within the development was to increase so the fire department had the
ability to turn around. If the fire trucks can turn around,then a school bus would be able to also. Mr. Hodges
stated that he had dealt with the several school districts before and they prefer to literally stop traffic and not
have to do a pull out because of time constraints.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Lowell Roberts spoke in favor of the project. The impacts will be minimal and have a good impact on the
neighborhood. The road has 3/4 of a mile visual clearance in either direction causing no obstruction.
Bill Cole, spoke about the runoff and is happy to hear that there will be no water on the development. There
will need to be accommodations made to protect animals from surrounding land owners. There is a no
hunting sign posted on Mr. Cole's property.
Mr. Cole further elaborated about the realignment of a ditch that carries overland flow of waters from the
Keiser/Sigg property across WCR 46.5 onto his property. Many years ago the Moser father and sons placed
a corrugated pipe under the road in the Northeast corner of the Keiser Sigg property to facilitate this issue.
Presently the pipe is overgrown and not capable of carrying water.
Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
Ms.Nicklas asked if Mr.Cole's concerns had been addressed. Mr.Hodges stated that the proposed detention
was in the northwest corner alleviating the overflow.
Pam Smith, Department of Public Health and Environment,asked the Board to consider the deletion of item
2.H. The reason is a duplication.
John Folsom asked the Board to consider having the road be paved up to the future right of way at least,then
gravel from there. Mr. Folsom stated that in order to approve the fence in a location near the future right-of-
way line, a permit with the Public Works would be required.
Mr.Scheltinga stated that different school districts will have different policies with regards to the detail for the
pull out or drop off for the school busses. Mr. Scheltinga stated that the Department of Public Works along
with the applicant will to extensive work with the school district to ensure the safety and viability of the drop
off.
Cristie Nicklas moved to delete 2.H. Stephan Mokray seconded. Motion Passed.
Luis Llerena moved to add language to 2.E stating"The Weld County Public Works Department has reviewed
the proposal and has determined that the internal road to the PUD shall be paved to the right-of-way of Weld
County Road 43 and constructed in gravel for the internal road for Latham View Estates PUD per Weld County
Standards. Further, Weld County Road 43 is designated as a collector status road that requires eighty(80)
feet of right-of-way. Presently there is sixty (60) feet of right-of-way. A total of forty (40) feet from the
centerline of Weld County Road 43 shall be delineated on the plat as right-of-way reservation for future
expansion of Weld County Road 43."
Mr. Llerena suggested language for the internal road of Latham View Estates with regards to pavement. Mr.
Miller asked Mr.Ogle to provide language. Mr. Ogle proposed"The internal gravel road shall be maintained
by the Home Owners Association. The Weld County Department of Public Works will not maintain an
unpaved internal road in Latham View Estates PUD." Mr Llerena agreed with the proposed language by staff,
Mrs. Clamp seconded the proposed language.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Cathy Clamp,yes;Cristie Nicklas, yes ; Luis Llerena,
yes. Motion carried unanimously
Cristie Nicklas moved that Case Z-563, with the amendments, be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning
Commissions recommendation of approval. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Cathy Clamp,yes;Cristie Nicklas,yes; Luis Llerena,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Planner: Lauren Light
Case Number: USR-1355
Applicant: Lucerne Inc./Ralph Anders
Address: 33041 Railroad Ave., P.O. Box 14, Lucerne, CO 80646
Request: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for
an Agricultural Service Establishment primarily engaged in
performing agricultural,animal husbandry,or horticultural services
on a fee or contract basis, including seed production, processing,
storage, mixing, blending and sales (storage and distribution of
bagged seed and equipment storage) in the Agricultural Zone
District.
Legal Description: Pt. of the E2SE4 of Section 18, Township 6 North, Range 65 West
of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado
Location: North of and adjacent to Maple Street and east of and adjacent to
Railroad Avenue
Lauren Light,Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1355,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.
Ralph Anders, provided further clarification with regards to the development. This request is due to the fact
that the business has a need for additional storage.
Cathy Clamp asked about the daily truck traffic. Mr.Anders indicated that seed was a seasonal thing,therefor
there was no way to determine the actual amount of traffic. At certain times it would be greater than others.
Michael Miller asked about the limit of hours of operation. Mr. Anders indicated that he needs to have
additional Saturday operation hours.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Luis Llerena motioned to amend Development Standard 3 to state that the"hours of operation will be from
sunrise to sunset from Monday thru Saturday". Cristie Nicklas seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Cathy Clamp,yes; Cristie Nicklas,yes; Luis Llerena,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Cristie Nicklas moved that Case USR-1355,along with the amendments,be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning
Commissions recommendation of approval. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Cathy Clamp,yes; Cristie Nicklas,yes; Luis Llerena,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Case Number: USR-1350
Applicant: Aggregate Industries, West Coast Region, Inc.
c/o Bill Schenderlein,Applegate Group, Inc.
Planner: Kim Ogle
Address: 1499 West 120th Street, Suite 200
Denver, CO 80234-2728
Request: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for
a Mineral Resource Development facilities including Sand and
Gravel Mining in the (A)Agricultural Zone District
Legal Description: Pad of the S2 NE4,W2 SE4, E2 SE4 Section 25,T1 N, R67W, part
of the SW4 NW4,W2 SW4 Section 30,T1 N, R66W and pad of the
NW4 NE4 of Section 36,Ti N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,
Colorado
Location: 1/2 mile North of WCR 2; east/west of and adjacent to WCR 23.5;
1/4 mile south of WCR 6.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1350, 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. Mr. Ogle stated that there were four
deletions due to duplication of comments in the Development Standards. Mr. Ogle stated the staff requests
the Board to delete Development Standard 14, 15, 16 and 18.
John Folsom asked about the septic systems on the property and if there would be duplication of systems.
Mr. Ogle stated that the septic notes pertained to two different septic systems, one for the existing house
associated with the tree nursery for the City of Westminister, and the second for the proposed office trailer
associated with this application.
Mr. Folsom asked whether the Corps of Engineers or the State had any concerns with the conveyance of the
material across the South Platte River. Mr. Ogle stated this was not the issue that was being investigated.
The issue pertained to the wetlands on site.
Mr. Folsom asked about the wetlands in the area and was this issue being addressed. Mr. Ogle stated that
staff had received an electronic mail message from Scott Franklin with the Corps of Engineers prior to this
hearing and handed out with the PC packet addendum that provides an update to the Section 404 permit
�-� application submitted to the Corps by the applicant.
Mr. Folsom asked about the berm provided around the tank batteries that are existing on the site and whether
this is the responsibility of the applicant or oil and gas owners. Char Davis stated that it was the responsibility
of both, but they typically add this condition in there to cover the bases.
Bill Schenderlein, provided some clarification of the mining operations. Four phases are proposed for this
operation, starting at the northeast end of the property. Dry mining with slurry wall is proposed for cells two
and three, with the resource material conveyed to existing USR 905 permit site where the resource is
processed at this location and hauled off site via truck. The traffic will be minimal. There will be monitoring
wells on site to verifying the water table, draw down and the impacts to surrounding properties. Mr. Miller
asked the applicant to address the wetlands issues and how plan Aggregate Industries intends to address the
issues from the EPA, Division of Fish and Wildlife and the Corps of Engineers. Mr Schenderlein stated that
the site will be mitigated by creating a protective corridor with new wetlands being constructed to mitigate the
impacts of the wetlands destroyed by mining.The wetlands on adjacent properties will be created at the same
time as the wetlands are removed from the USR 1350 site. Mike Refer,Aggregate Industries,added that the
replacement of wetlands in surrounding areas was preferred by the Corps of Engineers, and this is what the
EPA and the Corps of Engineers have been reviewing and wanting. Mr. Miller questioned the location of the
slurry wall in relationship to the wetlands. Mr. Refer and Mr.Schenderlein attempted to address the concerns
by Mr. Miller.
Luis Llerena asked if Aggregate Industries had thought of any ways to deal with the surrounding property
owners, specific to the potable and irrigation wells found in and around the property. Mr Schenderlein stated
that the monitoring wells will assist in determining any impacts the slurry walls will have on the surrounding
wells. Mr. Llerena asked how the conveyers controlled the element of dust, and if the construction of a berm
would lessen the impacts caused by dust and visual impacts to surrounding properties. Mr. Schenderlein
stated that these issues will be taken care of with the Landscape Plan.
Mr. Refer, addressed some concerns with the landscape and the berm.
Ms. Clamp asked several question, first are the wetlands already requirement on the site; second, how can
one anticipate lined pits effecting surrounding property owners wells. Mr. Refer stated that most of the wells
are on the west and north side of the property. No residential structures exist on the east side. Third, how
does the monitoring of wetlands occur after the on-site reclamation is completed. Mr. Refer stated that
Aggregate Industries owns all of the water rights held in the Huett Ditch. It is Aggregate Industries to monitor
the water levels in the area for three years after the reclamation is completed on site. Mr. Miller stated that
the monitoring of the wells would last many years longer should the Corps of Engineers or the Mined Land
Reclamation Board determine that the water levels across the site are not in compliance with the approved
reclamation plan.
Mr Refer addressed the quality of the wetlands. Mr Refer stated they were required to replace them one for
one by the State agencies reviewing this application.
Mr. Schenderlein provided further information on the reclamation plan addressing the replacement of the
wetlands and the backfill of material to create them. Slopes adjacent to the wetlands are a maximum of 3:1.
This ratio attempted to alleviate the concerns of the EPA specific to the erosionary processes currently found
in and around the South Platte River. Further information pertaining to this topic has been addressed in the
Section 404 permit application under review by the Corps of Engineers..
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak. The Chair closed public testimony.
The Chair asked if the applicant was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Mr.Schenderlein stated they had several items open for discussion. First was item 2.A regarding
the oil and gas agreement prior to scheduling the Board of County Commissioners hearing. Mr. Miller, Mr.
Schenderlein and Mr. Refer had a lengthy discussion pertaining to the oil and gas agreement issue. Attorney
Morrison offered legal counsel to the Board pertaining to this issue.
Second was item 2.B pertaining to a traffic study. Mr Scheltinga and Mr.Carroll discussed the issue specific
to the haul route on WCR 6 to SH 85 and the one week duration traffic counts in the area and the need for
the applicant to pay a proportionate share of the costs associated with chemical stabilization of WCR 23.5.
Mr. Ogle suggested this item could be better addressed in item 3.S.
Third was item 2C pertaining to the Section 404 Permit required by the Corps of Engineers. Mr.Schenderlein
stated that this condition is also located in item 5.B and Development Standard 31. Mr. Ogle stated that staff
had several concerns regarding this issue, particularly from the referral agencies that staff wanted to be
certain that all of the concerns and issues raised by said agencies were addressed prior to proceeding to the
Board of County Commissioners for determination of this application.
Fourth was item 3.A.5 addressing the natural and free flowing nature of the edge of the ponds. Mr.
Schenderlein stated that the end use was for water storage and that the undulating shoreline may not enable
the applicant to gain the most out of the water storage capacity for this plan. After discussion between the
Board and Mr. Schenderlein, Mr. Refer stated that Aggregate Industries would investigate a modification to
the shoreline to address this concern.
Fifth was item 3.1 and 3.J addressing the requirement for a public water source and sewage system for the
structures to be placed on site. Char Davis stated this operation will continue for 8-12 years. She did not
consider this to be a short duration project. Mr. Refer stated the main office for this facility is across the river
at USR 905 and that the limited numbers of on-site workers, 13,would not warrant such facilities. Ms. Davis
noted from the Weld County Code that facilities shall be within 200 feet of the operation at all times. Ms.Davis
did not see how this health requirement could be accommodated on this site. The Chair suggested that the
board reconsider this issue later.
Sixth was item 3.T pertaining to excavation in the County right-of-way. Mr. Ogle suggested that this be a
Development Standard. Mr. Miller asked where to place this item, mr. Ogle suggested after number 31 and
renumber after this point.
Seven,was item 5.6 specific to the Section 404 permit and mining of the wetlands. After discussion with the
applicant, Mr. Miller proposed inserting the words "prior to operating in any wetland areas" after the words
Army Corps of Engineers in line two of this item.
Mr. Schenderlein on behalf of the applicant stated that was all of the issues that he had with the Conditions
of Approval and Development Standards. The chair asked if staff had any comments. Ms. Davis stated she
had concerns with Development Standard number 12. Ms. Davis would like to add the words " and
employees"after the word public in this sentence. Mr. Schenderlein did not object to this request.
Mr. Miller asked for legal counsel from Attorney Morrison with regards to C.R.S. Attorney Morrison and Mr.
Miller discussed specific issues pertaining to the oil and gas agreements and the County ability to protect
those interests.
The Chair asked for a motion for item 2.B. Ms.Nicklas moved for deletion of this item, Mr. Mokray seconded,
motion passed.
The Chair asked for a motion for item 2.C. Ms. Nicklas moved for deletion of this item, Mr. Mokray seconded,
motion passed.
The Chair asked for a motion for item 3.1 and 3.J. Mr. Mokray moved for deletion of this item, Mr. Folsom
seconded, motion passed.
The Chair asked for a motion for item 3.T. Ms. Nicklas moved for deletion of this item and move to item
number 31 as a Development Standard, Mr. Mokray seconded, motion passed.
The Chair asked for a motion for item 5.B. Mr. Mokray moved for the insertion of the language of prior to
operating in any wetland areas, Mr. Llerena seconded, motion passed.
The Chair asked for a motion for Development Standards 14, 15, 16 and 18 Ms. Nicklas moved for deletion
of these items, Mr. Mokray seconded, motion passed.
Mr. Ogle stated that Development Standard number 23 was similar language to Development Standards
number 12, and recommended the deletion of Development Standard number 23.
The Chair asked for a motion for Development Standard number 23. Ms. Nicklas moved for deletion of this
item, Mr. Mokray seconded, motion passed.
The Chair brought the discussion back to board. Mr. Miller stated his concerns regarding this application.
First, Mr Miller is concerned with the impacts the proposed slurry walls will have on the wetlands,and without
a hydrographic or hydrologic study that addresses the effects of the overland flow of the water on the wetlands
and river system, he does not feel comfortable with making any recommendation. Further, Mr. Miller is
concerned with the mitigation of the wetlands, especially the replacement of wetlands between slurry walls
and the river corridor. It appears that the commutative effect on the river,the on and off-site hydrology should
be more adequately addressed prior to determining the recommendation to the Board. That being said,
perhaps Planning Commission should be asking for a continuance to address these issues.
Mr. Folsom stated that the wetlands on the East side of the river would be okay, and probably not suffer the
impacts of the slurry walls and the wetlands proposed for the west side.
Mr. Llerena stated that he is also in favor of a hydrologic study for the site and would be in favor of a
continuance providing the applicant time to address this issue. Mr. Llerena asked Mr. Ogle if a hydrologic
study is typically required for this type of application. Mr. Ogle stated that staff can ask for such a document
should issues be present that would require one. The Procedural Guide for this type of application does
permit staff to ask for such a study. However,as the Corps of Engineers will approve or deny the applicant's
request to mine the existing wetlands, staff determined that the Federal agency would be in a better position
to ask for such a document should one be required. Mr. Llerena asked if the applicant had considered
alternatives to the mitigation of existing wetlands and what options were incorporated into the plan.
Mr Schenderlein and Mr refer responded to Mr Llernea's question by stating Aggregate Industries has been
working with the Corps for some period of time now and the Corps is presently reviewing the sixth plan for this
site.
Ms Clamp stated her concerns for the application. The EPA suggested in their referral to have the applicant
complete an EIS for not only this site but for the entire river basin. At a minimum, Ms. Clamp would like to
see a hydrologic study for the property that addresses many of the concerns of the Board and the referral
agencies. She further notes that in her opinion the applicant has not given adequate consideration to the
compatibility issue and to the future requirements of the oil and gas leaseholders. Ms.Clamp states it would
be difficult to support this application given the many issues that remain unresolved.
Mr. Miller stated he would like to see the earlier proposals submitted to the Corps of Engineers for review.
It is difficult to make a decision when an alternative proposal is under review by the Corps and associated
referral agencies.
Mr Miller asked Attorney Morrison to address the issue of reclamation and compatibility of the riparian and
river corridor. Attorney Morrison stated that the Board could not direct the reclamation but could determine
how it is used.
Discussion continued along this line of thought. Mr. Refer, Aggregate Industries stated that he expects the
Federal referral agencies to respond back to their current proposal in one to two months. Given that there
remains issues yet to be resolved, the applicant asks for a continuance thereby providing the Federal
agencies an opportunity to determine the 404 Permit status.
Ms. Nicklas asks Planning Staff whether they would prefer a specific date or an indefinite continuance. Mr
Ogle states staff would prefer a Indefinite Continuance thereby proving ample opportunity for the 404 Permit
to be resolved prior to the PC hearing. Mike Reefer,commented that he expects core and EPA to have them
back within 45 days.
The Chair asks for a motion. Ms. Nicklas moved for an indefinite continuance of case number USR 1350
such that on-going issues can be addressed, Mr. Mokray seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Cathy Clamp,yes;Cristie Nicklas,yes; Luis Llerena,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello