HomeMy WebLinkAbout20051008.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld County Conference
Room, 4209 CR 24 Y , Longmont, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Michael Miller, at 1:30
p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin
John Folsom
James Rohn
Bruce Fitzgerald
Tonya Strobel Absent
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
James Welch Absent
Also Present: Char Davis, Pam Smith, Don Carroll, Jacqueline Hatch, Kim Ogle, Peter Schei
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on February. 1,2005,was
approved as read.
The following items will be continued indefinitely:
CASE NUMBER: CZ-1067
APPLICANT: Villano Brothers Properties, Inc.
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt W2W2NW4 of Section 17, Ti N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agriculture)to 1-2 (Industrial).
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 27, south of and adjacent to CR 10.
CASE NUMBER: CZ-1068
APPLICANT: V&V Properties, Inc
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt W2SW4 of Section 17, Ti N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A (Agriculture)to 1-2 (Industrial).
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 27; north of and adjacent to CR 8.
Jacqueline Hatch, read a letter requesting an indefinite continuance on both cases. The applicant is waiting to hear
the final decision from Fort Lupton Lakes Annexation.
The following cases will be heard:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1493
APPLICANT: Stephen Brancucci/do Glen Droegemueller
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt NE4 SE4 and Lot B of RE-3932; Section 30,Ti N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Use by
Special Review in the Industrial Zone District(Commercial Junkyard or Salvage
Yard) in the 1-3 (Industrial)Zone District
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 27(Hwy 85 Business); approximately 1/4 mile north
ofCR4.
1
L2antifrittn/ea tcof .3 /9-.2O0_j 2 005-1 008
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1493,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 corrections to the following:
On Page 4
a. Section 23-2-220.A.2--The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the 1-3 (Industrial)Zone District.
Section 23-3-330.D.3 of the Weld County Code provides for a commercial junkyard or salvage yard as a Use by
Special Review in the 1-3(Industrial)Zone District. The Special Use Permit is for COPART
for the processing and selling intact insurance damaged vehicles a company that provides services to
insurance companies relating to the processing and selling of intact damaged vehicles.
On Page 5
1. Prior to scheduling a Board of County Commissioners hearing:
On Page 13
Add a new note#31 and renumber accordingly
There shall be no public or private auctions held on site. (Department of Planning Services)
Michael Miller indicated the proposed staff language was confusing in one of the corrections; the term
insurance should be removed. Ms. Hatch stated that would be acceptable to her.
John Folsom asked if there were referrals sent to Fort Lupton or rather were they further than three miles. Ms.
Hatch indicated Fort Lupton is farther than three miles from the site. Mr. Folsom asked if the Change of Zone
indicated any commitments of how the property was going to be used and if the property had been sold. Ms.
Hatch indicated she was unaware of a commitments and the property has not been sold. Mr. Folsom added it
is always a problem at a Change of Zone when the Planning Commission does not know how the property will
ultimately be used.
Michael Miller indicated that one of the conditions only mentions bulldozers and this will limit the applicant to
that specific type of equipment. The intent of the applicant was to bring in heavy equipment. Ms. Hatch
indicated this was what was in the application but the applicant can further address that.
Glen Droegemuller, representative for applicant, provided additional information. Paul Styer, owner is also
present to answer any questions. Mr. Droegmueller indicated COPART is in acceptance of all the conditions.
Mr. Styer stated he has no problem and would be acceptable to changing the language to heavy equipment
from specifically bulldozers.
James Rohn asked for clarification on the combination of businesses from Denver. Mr. Styer stated they are
currently in Adams County and have outgrown that facility and will move to this site. Mr. Rohn asked if there
will be customers that come onto the property and buy vehicles. Mr. Styer stated that customers can visit but
the sales happen over the internet. Mr. Styer added there will be clients that will pick up and transport the
vehicles. Mr. Rohn indicated there was a condition that indicated there would be no customers accessing the
property.
Michael Miller asked for clarification on the definition of customer, whether it was individuals or entities. Mr.
Styer indicated the laws of Colorado must view you as an individual before allowing the purchase. The laws
indicate who can be sold to, there is a buyers licensing division that determines whether you have the proper
licenses to be able to purchase. Mr. Gimlin indicated the buyers take the entire car and not just parts. Mr.
Styer indicated the conditions state no onsite sales.
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 moved to approve the staff changes. Doug Ochsner seconded. Motion carried.
James Rohn moved to amend Development Standard 23 to indicate "heavy equipment" not"bulldozer." Bryant
Gimlin seconded. Motion carried
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case USR-1493, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
2
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.
James Rohn commented he was glad they were able to straighten all the concerns from the previous meeting.
CASE NUMBER: MZ-1069
APPLICANT: David &Susanne Schwind
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-2651; Pt NW4 of Section 4, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Minor Subdivision Change of Zone for The Highlands from (A) Agriculture to
Estate Zoning for four residential lots
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 5 and south of and adjacent to CR 38.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services presented Case MZ-1069, 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.
John Folsom indicated that Condition B could be deleted. Ms. Hatch stated the applicant will need to submit
something in writing stating they do not have to apply to Mead for annexation as they are not in the Urban Growth
Boundary area and there is no Intergovernmental Agreement. Mr. Folsom indicated a letter of opposition from Mr.
Brunel) was not included in the packet. Ms. Hatch stated she could make copies for the Planning Commission.
Michael Miller asked about the removal for the proposed lot lines and all internal roads. Ms. Hatch stated that it was
brought to staff attention that when a minor subdivision is being proposed, the Change of Zone does not need to
show the internal information it just needs to show the site.
Dave Schwind, applicant, provided additional information on the proposal and added that staff had done a great job.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Jim Brunell, neighbor, indicated his concern for access to his property along the Ish Ditch. Mr. Brunell would like to
continue using the access along the south side of the ditch on the Schwind property.
Michael Miller asked Ms. Hatch if there was anything included in the application preserving the access. Ms. Hatch
stated Mr. Brunell is using the easement for the Ish Ditch and staff is asking for an agreement with the ditch
company Mr. Morrison stated that it would be a good idea to have Mr. Schwind grant the easement. If the ditch
has only an easement and not a fee ownership it is the underlying property owner that has the ability to grant the
easement. It might be best as reflected as an easement on the plat at final plan. This will show that it is both the
ditch easement and provide access to Mr. Brunells property will be served by the easement. Mr. Miller stated
according to the letter there are others that need the access also, and can this be referenced as historical or
specific to each individual. Mr. Morrison stated it should be associated with the properties that will be benefited.
The Chair closed the public portion.
Dave Schwind, applicant indicated he has some concerns with the access issue. There is a road along the
Highland Lateral Ditch. Mr. Schwind pointed the location out on the map provided. There was a bridge along the
road for Mr. Brunell to gain access to that portion of his land. The Highland Lateral has since concreted the ditch
and placed a bridge foundation in that location for Mr. Brunell. The access along the Ish Ditch was agreed upon
until the bridge was completed across the Highland Lateral. Mr. Schwind is willing to help with the construction of
the bridge. There is an agreement with the ditch company which is in the file and the ditch company accesses
along the north side of the ditch. There is access along the Highland Lateral and there is no need for Mr. Schwind
to grant the easement when there is an existing access.
3
Michael Miller asked if the irrigation company has an easement along the south side of the property. Mr. Schwind
indicated the ditch company has a prescriptive easement along both sides of the ditch. They would only need to
use the south side for emergencies, the ditch company does all the services from the north side of the ditch.
Doug Ochsner asked if there is currently a road on the south side? Mr. Schwind indicated it is a ditch bank and
there is no specific road. Mr. Ochsner asked if the lots would be able to disturb the area because the ditch
company still has an easement. Mr.Schwind indicated the lots will be maintained by the owner but they cannot build
in the easement.
Bryant Gimlin asked if there was an issue with letting Mr. Brunell continue to use the access. Mr.Schwind stated it
would be disruptive to the new property owners especially if the gate were left open and when irrigation equipment
comes through on wet ground leaving ruts in the land. Mr. Schwind does not believe he should have to ask to grant
access when there is already access.
John Folsom asked Mr. Morrison if the fact the users of the easement have a history of using it and does this give
them any standing for rights of continuing to use it. Mr. Morrison stated it gets complicated if he has received
permission from the ditch to cross when the ditch does not have authority to do so. There is some dispute in the
facts as to if there has been an open continuous use of the easement. Mr. Morrison added that there is not facts
that clearly show there is an easement by use or document. This does not mean that there could be no agreement
but there has been nothing established. The courts would be the ones to finally determine. Mr.Schwind added that
use Mr. Brunell has had has been by his permission with the understanding that when the new bridge foundation
was in it would be utilized. Mr. Schwind pointed out on the map provided various locations of access for the
surrounding lateral users.
Michael Miller indicated he was hesitant to force an easement agreement when there is access to property. Mr.
Ochsner indicated there is no current road the ditch company has now, it is more of a makeshift road and to make
that an access does not make sense. Mr. Miller added it would be significant to cross the ditch it is feasible. There
will be two lots in the proposed subdivision that will be affected by the easement and access.
Bryant Gimlin asked Mr. Morrison if it was up to Mr. Schwind or the Ish Ditch to decide who utilized the road. Mr.
Morrison stated it depends, in part,on what the easement agreement consists of rather it is in writing or an implied
usage. Typically the easement is granted to those that uses the easement but cannot grant a broader usage. The
land owner is the only one that can do this. It is the property owner's right to determine if any further use can be
granted.
James Rohn asked if there is no open space and what kind of water supply will there be to maintain the five acres.
Ms. Hatch indicated there is irrigation water to the site and part of the HOA can be utilized. Mr. Rohn asked how
much water is with the proposal. Mr. Miller stated that would be something better addressed at the final plan. Mr.
Schwind stated that the Highland Ditch Company water which serves the acreage. The site may be irrigated but the
final decision has not been made. The homeowners will have the ability to rent water and utilize the ditch and the
pump.
Bruce Fitzgerald indicated he would not change the language for the easement. Mr. Rohn stated he would like to
see the bridge finished and be used for access.
Re-open the public comment
Jim Brunell, neighbor, stated the current bridge abutment was given in exchange for dirt for the concrete of the
ditch. Mr. Brunell would like to continue using the access like they have been doing. There is a need for farm
equipment to access along the Ish Ditch. The fear is there will be fences put up by the homeowners that will close
this access off.
Michael Miller stated that it is an imposition to have to invest in the bridge but it may need to be done. Placing the
burden of access on a residential land owner is not fair.
The Chair closed the public again.
Bryant Gimlin stated the easement language should not be considered because Planning Commission does not
4
know the status of the easement as it exists.
Doug Ochsner stated the easement belongs to the ditch company and Mr. BrunelI 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,T1 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: % 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
C,
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
8
Hello