HomeMy WebLinkAbout20051346.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Doug Ochsner, that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County
Planning Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1488
APPLICANT: John File, Farfrumwurkin LLP
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: E2SW2 & N2 SE4 & part of the W2W2 of Lot B of RE-3474; being part of
the W2W2 of Section 32, T2N, R68W; and part of the SE4 of Lot B of
RE-1775 of Section 31, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a mineral
resource development facility including dry open pit mining and materials
processing in the A (Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Hwy 52; west and east of and adjacent to CR 3-
1/4
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 (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 (USR-1346) and west (SUP-249)
and agricultural uses to the east. A nine lot PUD Change of Zone has been approved to
the south of the site (PZ-1045 Highland).
Section 22-5-80.B (CM.Goal 3)states, "Minimize the impacts of surface mining activities
on surrounding land uses, roads and highways." A traffic study is required to be
submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to recording the plat for review and
approval. The Department of Public Works is also requiring that the applicant submit a
maintenance and improvements agreement for the haul route.
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. There are gravel operations to the north (USR-1346)and
west (SUP-249) and agricultural uses to the east. A nine lot PUD Change of Zone has
been approved to the south of the site (PZ-1045 Highland).
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. EXHIBIT
.t t5e..#r48E ROc!5-- '3*
Resolution USR-1488
Jon File
Page 2
The surrounding land uses are primarily agriculture with several rural residences in the
area. To the north is a gravel operation (USR-1346), to the west is an additional gravel
operation (SUP-249). A Change of Zone (PZ-1045 Highland) for a nine lot PUD has
been approved to the south of the site across Highway 52. USR-1232 for a guest farm is
located to the east of the site. There are one hundred and thirteen property owners
within % mile of the site, twenty seven properties are located within 500 feet of this
application. Staff is recommending that Parcel Number 1313 32 300039 not be included
in this Use by Special Review since no mining activities are being proposed on the
parcel. The Town of Erie and Boulder County did not respond to the referral indicting a
conflict with their interests. The Town of Frederick in the referral dated October 12, 2004
indicated that they found no conflicts with their interests. Planning Staff believes that,
with the 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 property owners.
E. Section 23-2-220.A.5 -- The application complies with Section 23-5-230 of the Weld
County Code. The proposal is not located within the Flood Hazard Overlay District area
as delineated on FIRM Community Panel Map #080266-00850C dated September 28,
1982.
The site does not lie within any Overlay Districts. Building Permits issued on the Lot will
be required to adhere to the fee structure of County Wide Road Impact Program
(Ordinance 2002-11).
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 is
primarily classified as prime land with some irrigated not prime land as delineated on the
Important Farmlands of Weld County map, dated 1979. A portion of the lots are currently
farmed. Section 22-5-80A.1.CM.Policy 1.1. states "access to future mineral resource
development areas should be considered in all land use decisions in accordance with
state law. No County governmental authority which has control over zoning shall, by
zoning, rezoning, granting a variance or other official action or inaction, permit the use of
any area known to contain a commercial mineral deposit in a manner which would
interfere with the present or future extraction of such deposit by an extractor".
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. Prior to scheduling a Board of County Commissioners hearing:
A. 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 22-5-100.6 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." Section 22-5-
100.B.1 of the Weld County Code also states "new development should be planned to
take into account current and future oil and gas drilling activity to the extent oil and gas
Resolution USR-1488
Jon File
Page 3
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. Drill envelopes can be delineated on the plat in accordance with the
State requirements as an attempt to mitigate concerns. The plat shall be amended to
include any possible future drilling sites. (Department of Planning Services)
B. The applicant shall submit a traffic study to the Department of Public Works and the
Colorado Department of Transportation for review. Evidence of approval shall be
submitted in writing to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Public
Works)
C. The applicant shall provide the Department of Public Works and the Department of
Planning Services with information regarding the method proposed for conveying the
material across County Road 3 %. (Departments of Public Works and Planning Services)
D. The applicant shall provide current evidence that the facility has an adequate water
supply (i.e., well or community water system). (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
2. 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)
3. Prior to recording the plat:
A. 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 berms, if required. The proposed berms
will be extended to mitigate impacts to surrounding properties and adjacent road rights-
of-way. 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)
B. The applicant shall address the requirements (concerns) of the Department of Public
Works, as stated in their referral response dated September 10, 2004. Evidence of
approval shall be submitted in writing to the Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Planning Services)
C. The applicant shall enter into a road maintenance and improvements agreement with the
Weld County Public Works Department of the designated haul route and all intersections
improvements. Evidence of approval shall be submitted to the Department of Planning
Services. (Department of Public Works)
D. The applicant shall address the requirement (concerns) of the Longmont Soil
Conservation District, as stated in their referral response dated September 16, 2004.
Evidence of approval shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Planning Services)
E. The applicant shall address the requirement (concerns) of the Mountain View Fire •
Protection District, as stated in their referral response dated September 14, 2004.
Evidence of approval shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Planning Services)
F. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements (concerns) of the State of
Colorado, Division of Wildlife as stated in the referral response dated September 27,
2004. Evidence of such shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of
Planning Services (Department of Planning Services)
Resolution USR-1488
Jon File
Page 4
G. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements (concerns) of Weld County
Sheriffs Office, as stated in the referral response dated November 30, 2004. Evidence of
such shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Planning Services)
H. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements (concerns) of State of Colorado
Division of Water Resources, as stated in the referral response dated December 10,
2004 and December 17, 2004. Evidence of such shall be submitted in writing to the Weld
County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
The applicant shall provide the Department of Planning Services with an approved well
permit for the monitoring and observation well for the recharge of the water produced
from the dewatering operation as outlined in the referral dated December 10, 2004 from
the State of Colorado Division of Water Resources. (Department of Planning Services)
J. The applicant shall submit evidence of an Air Pollution Emission Notice (A.P.E.N.) and
Emissions Permit application from the Air Pollution Control Division (APCD), Colorado
Department of Health and Environment. Alternately, the applicant can provide evidence
from the APCD that they are not subject to these requirements. Evidence of approval
shall be submitted in writing to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
K. The applicant shall submit a dust abatement plan for review and approval, to the
Environmental Health Services, Weld County Department of Public Health &
Environment. Evidence of approval shall be submitted in writing to the Department of
Planning Services. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
L. The applicant shall submit evidence of a Colorado Discharge Permit System (CDPS)
from the Water Quality Control Division of the Colorado Department of Health and
Environment for any proposed discharge into State Waterways, if applicable. Evidence
of approval shall be submitted in writing to the Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
M. The applicant shall submit a waste handling plan, for approval, to the Environmental
Health Services Division of the Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment.
Evidence of approval shall be submitted in writing to the Department of Planning
Services. The plan shall include at a minimum, the following:
1. A list of wastes which are expected to be generated on site (this should include
expected volumes and types of waste generated).
2. A list of the type and volume of chemicals expected to be stored on site.
3. The waste handler and facility where the waste will be disposed (including
the facility name, address, and phone number). (Department of Public Health
and Environment)
N. The plat shall be amended to delineate the following:
1. All sheets of the plat shall be labeled USR-1488. (Department of Planning
Services)
2. The USR plats shall be revised not to include Parcel Number 1313 32 300039.
(Department of Planning Services)
3. The location of any on-site signs. (Department of Planning Services)
4. The approved Landscape, Screen and Berm Plan. (Department of Planning
Services)
Resolution USR-1488
Jon File
Page 5
5. The applicant shall submit a revised reclamation plan signed off from the Division
of Minerals and Geology to the Weld County Department of Planning Services for
review and approval. The final ponds shall be reconfigured to obtain a more
natural and free flowing appearance for the future residents of the area.
(Department of Planning Services)
6. Oil and Gas including gathering lines with appropriate setbacks shall be
delineated on the plat. (Department of Planning Services)
7. Setbacks to the mining operation are measured from the right-of-way or future
right-of-way lines plus the standard setback of 20 feet in the agricultural zone
district to the edge of the gravel pit berm. (Department of Public Works)
8. County Road 3 '/< is designated on the Weld County Transportation Plan Map as
a local paved 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 Weld County Road 3 %< shall be delineated right-of-way on the plat.
This road is maintained by Weld County. (Department of Public Works)
9. State Highway 52 requires two hundred (200)feet of right-of-way at full build out.
A total of one hundred (100) feet from the centerline of Highway 52 shall be
delineated right-of-way on the plat. (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)
B. The approach road shall be paved with asphalt, concrete, or the equivalent from County
Road 3 '1/ for approximately 300 feet or to the scale house. The approach road shall be
elevated to the same height as County Road 3 % with adequate turning radiuses to
accommodate heavy truck hauling. (Department of Public Works)
5. Prior to operation:
A. An individual sewage disposal system is required for the proposed Office/Weigh Station
and shall be installed according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal
Regulations. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
B. The septic system is required to be designed by a Colorado Registered Professional
Engineer according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
6. The Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued
on the property 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
File and Schell, Farfrumwurkin, LLP
USR-1488
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. All liquid and solid wastes (as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act,
30-20-100.5, C.R.S., as amended) shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that
protects against surface and groundwater contamination. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
4. 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, C.R.S., as amended. (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
5. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust,
fugitive particulate emissions, blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
6. The applicant shall operate in accordance with the approved "waste handling plan". (Department
of Public Health and Environment)
,."` 7. 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)
8. 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)
9. This facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Industrial Zone
as delineated in 25-12-103 C.R.S., as amended. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
10. Adequate handwashing and toilet facilities shall be provided for employees and visitors of the
site. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
11. Any septic system located on the property must comply with all provisions of the Weld County
Code, pertaining to Individual Sewage Disposal Systems. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
12. A permanent, adequate water supply shall be provided for drinking and sanitary purposes.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
13. If applicable, the applicant shall obtain a stormwater discharge permit from the Colorado
Department of Public Health & Environment, Water Quality Control Division. (Department of
Public Health and Environment)
14. 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)
15. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the State and Federal
agencies and the Weld County Code. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
Resolution USR-1488
Jon File
Page 2
16. "No Trespassing" signs shall be posted and maintained on the perimeter fence to clearly identify
the boundaries of the site. (Department of Planning Services)
17. 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)
18. The hours of operation shall be from sunrise to 6:00 pm. (Department of Planning Services)
19. The site shall be limited to 15 employees as outlined in the application materials. (Department of
Planning Services)
20. 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)
21. Where topsoil is removed, sufficient arable soil shall be set aside for re-spreading over the
reclaimed areas. (Department of Planning Services)
22. The applicant shall provide the Department of Planning Services with an approved State of
Division of Water Resources Substitute Water Supply Plan by December 31 of any given year for
the operation of the following year. (Department of Planning Services)
23. Adequate accounting of depletions and replacement must be provided to the State Division
Engineer in Greeley and the Water Commission on a monthly basis or other interval acceptable
to both. (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. 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, Corp 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)
26. The landscaping on site shall be maintained in accordance with the approved Landscape Plan.
(Department of Planning Services)
27. 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)
28. Permits are required for all electrical work including electrical services for de-watering pumps,
rock crushers, construction trailers, site lighting, etc. (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.
30. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards
of Section 23-2-250 of the Weld County Code.
31. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Open-mining
Standards of Section 23-4-250, Weld County Code.
Resolution USR-1488
Jon File
Page 3
32. Personnel from the Weld County Government 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.
33. 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.
34. 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)
35. 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.
Motion seconded by Bryant Gimlin
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Michael Miller
John Folsom
Bryant Gimlin
Bruce Fitzgerald
James Rohn
Tom Holton
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 May 3, 2005.
Dated the 3r°of May, 2005.
\.�ULc� t lQce--jC
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
/ - Jx- 2',c% -
Industrial Zone District(Display Fireworks Storage and fireworks equipment
staging facility along with an office) in the A (Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 18; 1/2 mile east of CR 53.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1405
APPLICANT: Aurora Organic Dairy
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NESE4, E2NE4 and part of the NE4NW4 of Section 31,T3N, R67W
of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Use by Special Review for a 28,803
square foot Milk Processing Facility with a future expansion of 19,000
square feet along with a Livestock Confinement Operation (1700 milking
cow dairy) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Hwy 66; Approx 3/4 mile east of CR 13.
James Rohn moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Bryant Gimlin seconded. Motion carried.
The following item will be heard:
— CASE NUMBER: USR-1488
APPLICANT: John File, Farfrumwurkin LLP
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: E2SW2 & N2 SE4& part of the W2W2 of Lot B of RE-3474; being
part of the W2W2 of Section 32, T2N, R68W; and part of the SE4 of Lot B
of RE-1775 of Section 31, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a mineral
resource development facility including dry open pit mining and materials
processing in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Hwy 52; west and east of and adjacent to CR 3-
1/4.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1488,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.
James Rohn asked about the Division of Wildlife response and what it included. Ms. Hatch indicated the
referral states that there will be no stripping of the topsoil between the months of April and July. The referral
also examined the existing vegetation on site and the wildlife that currently uses the site
Doug Ochsner asked where the homeowners that are in opposition to the application are located. Ms. Hatch
indicated Reflection Bay is located to the north of this site and Virginia Shaw's property is also located to the
north of the site.
Michael Miller asked Don Carroll, Public Works, about the transportation of materials across CR 3 Y. Mr.
Carroll stated he is not aware of the method but has asked for clarification with regards to the movement of
materials from one side of the road to the other.
John Folsom asked Mr. Carroll about Hwy 52 west of the interstate and will there be improvements to CR 3%
. Mr. Carroll stated there have been improvements along the section, there might be a slight turn land along
CR 3 Y but he is not aware of a turn slot. Mr. Carroll stated he would rely on what CDOT is asking for. Mr.
Carroll did not receive a copy of the referral from CDOT. Mr. Carroll stated the planner would receive the
referral response. Ms. Hatch stated it was in the original packet and their response indicated there needed to
be 100 feet of right of way north of the highway centerline. CDOT is currently installing southbound to
eastbound left turn exceleration lanes. CDOT is also requesting to see the traffic study. Mr. Folsom asked if
there was any provision in the requirements for the applicant to comply. Ms. Hatch indicated it was a Conditon
of Approval. g S
Peter Wayland,representative for the applicant,provided clarification on the proposal. Mr.Wayland would like
to address some of the issue brought forward from the surrounding residents. The applicant tried to get a feel
for the concerns. Originally the life of the mine was to be 15 years and the applicant decreased this to 6 years
to try and mitigate some of the concerns of the neighbors and the impact. They did have a neighborhood
meeting with adequate turnout. The neighbors main concern was the traffic along with the intersection of Hwy
52 and CR 3 '/ . Highway 52 is a busy road with a great amount of traffic going to west in the morning. A
traffic study has been done and the results will be presented. The other concerns from the neighbors were
noise and dust. The project is proposing to mitigate the noise by running the processing below ground which
will also mitigate the dust. The applicant has applied for a AP EN permit from the State and it will include water
requirements that must be adhered too. The applicant wants to maintain a good relationship with neighbors.
If there are any concerns please contact Jon File, he will be directly involved with the operations. Ben
Waldmen, traffic engineer for the project, provided information on the traffic study that was done. Mr.
Waldmen stated they looked at the existing traffic and projected the traffic from the pit onto the roadway
network.The study was done with the assumption the acceleration lane was completed. The determination
was by adding the left turn acceleration lane it allows the vehicles going south and turning left onto Hwy 52 to
make a two stage left turn. It was also determined that the existing traffic volumes would be a good level of
service, which would be a level B. In the long term with traffic growth using CDOT growth rates the level of
service will be a level B. The left turn acceleration lane is the reason for the better flow. The primary cause
for the delay is not due to county road but due to growth on the highway. The delay will continue to be there.
John Folsom asked Mr. Waldman when the traffic study was conducted. Mr. Waldman indicated it was
completed in October 2004. Mr. Folsom asked if LaFarge was in full operation at that time. Mr.Waldman
stated they had ceased hauling north. Mr. File added they contributed to rebuilding the road. Mr. Folsom
asked if all the hauling will be south on CR 3 '1/ then east on Hwy 52, there will be none going west. Mr.
Waldman indicated the ratio will be 25%going west while the majority(75%)will be going east. Mr. Folsom
asked if the acceleration lane is done. Mr.Wayland indicated it is done and being stripped at this time. Mr.
Folsom stated there is one acceleration lane going east,there is nothing going east bound on Hwy 52 to north
CR 3 'V4. Mr. Wayland stated there is no deceleration lane off the highway. Mr. Waldman indicated the
software that was used does not take into account the acceleration lane. The analysis is, therefore,
r-. conservative and the delays will be shorter. Mr. Folsom asked that the return traffic to the pit would in effect
have to stop traffic to make the turn onto CR 3 Y. Mr. Waldman indicated that CDOT has a requirement for a
certain volume which would require a left turn deceleration lane. Mr. Folsom asked about the traffic to the pit
west bound on Hwy 52, is there a deceleration or right turn lane. Mr.Waldman and indicated there was not,
CDOT has criteria that would trigger the need for the lane which was not exceeded at this time. Mr. Folsom
asked about the letter from Virginia Shaw regarding comments about water rights. Mr.Wayland indicated the
applicant has applied for and received a well permit and water supply plan for the operation of the mine. In the
permit there is replacement of water that is taken. The applicant is required to run return flows to the ditch.
The farm still owns the water rights. The farm will continue to operate until the phase takes over the farmed
ground. Mr.Wayland indicated if there is concerns with the flows not being correct contact Bob Carlson,water
commissioner, and he will straighten things out. Mr. Folsom asked if the pit will be lined. Mr. Wayland
indicated the pits will not be lined during operation there will be ground water going to dewatering trenches
then pumped out and injected into an existing cistern. Mr. Folsom asked if there were any water flows from
the south side of Hwy 52 to Boulder Creek to the north that would be interrupted. Mr. Wayland indicated
nothing will be affected. Mr. Whelan described the drainage to the north and west on a map presented.
Peter Wayland described with the oil and gas that is on the property. The drilling sites have been outlined and
the agreements are in writing. Mr.Wayland described,on the map,the locations of the drilling windows. Mr.
Wayland continued by addressing the crossing from the east side of CR 3%to the west side. The applicant is
proposing placing a conveyor under the road. The applicant will continue to work with Public Works to
determine the best method possible. According to the original application the applicant asked for the hours of
operation be 8:00am to 5:0o pm but they would like that to be changed to daylight hours. According to the
Weld County Code those hours are standard. Mr. Whelan added they understand gravel mining is an
inconvenience to the area but it is consistent with the land use in the area. This area would need to be mined
before any development could occur on the property.
John Folsom asked for clarification on the response from Bernard, Lyon&Goan regarding a reclamation well.
Mr.Whelan indicated when the initial application was made there was a use by right for a 111 mining permit.
This is a six month use and once the six months was over the operation stopped. There was a well permit
associated with the mining. The gravel was not mined in this area. The suggestion by the applicant is to use
the existing well permit for the first year of operations. The application states the permit will be amended to
include the entire application area. The objection from Gatison & Caan was they would like the applicant to
get the substitute water supply plan for the entire duration of the pit to protect the interest of the water rights on
Boulder Creek. If the pit was operating without a plan there could be affects on Boulder Creek. The applicant
obtained a new well permit and water supply plan for the entire life of the mine. The applicant will lease water
from City of Lafayette for replacement.
Doug Ochsner asked for clarification on the ground that will be mined,there are 300 acres total and 120 acres
will be mined while the rest remains farmed. Mr. Whelan indicated the areas on the maps provided. The
applicant's intent was to permit the entire parcel,there could be some potential earth work in the future and it
would be easier to amend the permit. There is presently nothing planned for the area not being mined. There
would be more leeway with the State in the future. The permit boundary is the same as the property boundary
so the future amendments would be easier. Mr. Wayland showed the different areas on the map that will
continue to be farmed until the mining operation begin.
James Rohn asked if there was PUD at one time on this site. Mr. File stated it was designed to be a 9 lot
subdivision but the nine lots would have been a possible violation so the gravel mining was decided upon. Mr.
Rohn asked how they are going to adjust their plans in order to adhere to the Division of Wildlife,specifically
not removing the topsoil. Mr.Whelan indicated that will be something that needs to be addressed. The area
that will be mined in the first year all the topsoil has already been relocated. Mr. Rohn asked about removing
any black tail prairie dogs prior to construction. Mr. File indicated there were some along the railroad area but
that area will not be mined.
James Rohn asked Mr. Carroll if CDOT is planning on widening Hwy 52 to go into four lanes. Mr. Carroll
indicated he is aware of them working on the area but has no information regarding the possible widening.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Wayland about the 110 permit and two 111 permits and whether they will be
consolidating these into one. Mr.Wayland stated they would be consolidating them into one. The bond has
not released because it is waiting for approval of the 112 permit. Once the 112 permit is in place the
remaining permits will be dissolved. Mr. Miller asked about the entire property being in the permit area but the
i-. mining being limited to a specific area. Mr. Miller asked if they will be stockpiling materials on the areas that
will not be mined. Mr.Wayland stated the mining plan is for concurrent reclamation. Mr.File stated that in the
event the material could not be moved across the road they would utilize some of the land. Mr. Miller asked
Mr. Morrison whether any material could be stockpiled on any area outside the mining operation. Mr.
Morrison stated if it is part of the mining operation and not part of another construction site it should be
incorporated into the permit. Mr. Miller added the entire property is part of the application but there is a
designated area for the mining,would stockpiling be limited to the mining area or could it be done on the entire
property. Mr. Morrison stated if the whole property is in the permit and it show stockpiling outside the mining
area it would be fine.
James Rohn asked Mr.Carroll his opinion on the conveyer belt over or under CR 3%. Mr.Carroll stated there
are several places in the county where this occurs. The county has permitted using conveyor belts with strict
requirements. Public Works would not recommend something under the road so the new asphalt would not
be destroyed. Mr. Carroll stated there could also be a crossing which has requirements. There are three
possible options.
Don Carroll asked for clarification on the traffic study regarding the level of service B prior to adding the truck
traffic. Mr.Weidman indicated the final service level would be D which is delay of 30 seconds or less. This is
with the 2010 traffic projections. Mr. Carroll asked if this was acceptable to Weld County. Mr. Weidman
stated he believed that level was in the standards. Mr.Whelan clarified the level of service D was for 2025,
the level C was for 2010. Mr. Carroll stated those statistics could be reviewed.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Dave Poss, neighbor in Reflection Bay, indicated concerns about the time schedules and road traffic. The
road has been replaced and is wonderful. If the traffic builds up on the road again it will be destroyed again.
There is the hope the traffic will be directed onto Hwy 52 other than CR 3 Y. The Shaw pit has not been
e•"• reclaimed yet and it was a 6 year permit. Mr. Poss would rather see a three year permit and a reclamation
schedule. The concern is the road is improved and will deteriorate with the increased traffic. The traffic
pattern is an issue that does not reflect the possible backup traffic. Mr. Miller added the reclamation plan is
submitted to Mine Reclamation and what is submitted must be followed.
Michael Miller asked if the applicant will enter into a road maintenance agreement with the county. Mr.Carroll
stated Weld County and LaFarge worked together in the reconstruction of CR 3%. The venture totaled eight
hundred thousand dollars. Lafarge committed to restore the road because of their haul route. The road was
replaced back to a local paved residential road. A heavy hauling operation would need more asphalt. The
long term road maintenance agreement Public Works will be asking for included additional asphalt to
accommodate the heavy hauling on the road.
Dave Poss asked what happens with truck traffic on Hwy 52 east when the traffic begins to back up. Mr.
Carroll indicated the traffic study will be reviewed along with the levels of service. Mr. Poss stated it was a
major concern with the Shaw pit. Mr. Carroll indicated the intent with the Shaw pit was to take the material
across CR 16 %to a conveyor then to the Cottonwood Plant on CR 20.
Greg Volmous, neighbor, indicated his objection with what is being presently discussed and what they were
told. Mr. Volmous disagrees with the traffic study. There is a slight hill on Hwy 52. This will create many
accidents. Is there a possibility of taking the materials from this site to Asphalt Specialties to the west. The
residents will not be able to use the road. Mr. Volmous objects to the daylight hours especially during the
summer. There is already noise from Asphalt Specialties. If this is going to be developed it needs to be on a
3 year plan. The Shaw pit promised to be done in 6 months and that was 3 %years ago. There is still a 50
foot tall, 100 foot wide and % mile long berm out his front door. There is also a concern for property tax
devaluation because of the mining. Mr. Miller added the materials being conveyed off the property would need
to be a decision by the applicant, it is not something the Planning Commission can do anything about. The
hours of operation in the Weld County Code for gravel pits are specific about daylight hours
John Hap, neighbor, indicated his main concern is the traffic on CR 3%and Hwy 52. There is no left turn lane
onto CR 3 'V.. Anderson Farms gets extremely busy at certain times and the concern is for accidents. The
turn onto Hwy 52 will be difficult especially during peak hours. Mr. Hap suggests anything that can be done to
mitigate the problem will help everyone in the end.
James Rohn stated if they redirect the haul route it would go by the homes. Mr. Hap would not be in favor of
this.
Virgina Shaw, indicated their concerns are with the water flow. Another letter was added to the record. The
previous mining on the File property has deleted water and they do not want this to happen again. Mr. Miller
asked if the issues had been dealt with with the Water Commissioner. Ms. Shaw indicated they have.
The Chair closed the public portion.
Peter Wayland indicated that traffic is the biggest concern from the surrounding neighbors and the hope is that
between the traffic engineer and Public Works it can be worked out.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Carroll if a traffic study will be submitted to Public Works and CDOT. Mr. Carroll
indicated both agencies will evaluate the study. They will look at CR 3 V. and see what is necessary. Mr.
Miller asked about a left turn land for eastbound Hwy 52 and what the threshold would be. Mr.Carroll stated
CDOT has certain criteria that must be adhered to and if the numbers exceed this then CDOT would require
one. Mr. Miller asked if this is something that could be addressed in the future. Mr. Carroll stated they would
evaluate the situation now.
John Folsom asked for clarification on the turn lanes and acceleration lanes and them being CDOT
enforcement. Does the County have any influence on CDOT. Mr. Carroll stated it was their system but the
County can make recommendations.
Michael Miller indicated Planning Commission needs to address staff changes.
James Rohn commented Development Standard #18 should be eliminated and the hours of operation of
8:00am to 5:00pm be added. Mr. Rohn added the traffic at those times would be easier on the haul route.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Morrison if the Weld County Code states the hours of operation for a mining permit
are limited to daylight hours or can they be something else. Mr. Morrison stated this was a default position, if
Planning Commission recommends something different and the Board of County Commissioners accepts this
it can be applied.
Chad Auer commented he agrees with Mr. Rohn with the hours of operation. Mr. Auer added that if it were
daylight hours the operation would adjust their hauling to not affect the peak hours. This would assist in the
mitigation of the traffic. This would help the quality of life concerns in the area.
Michael Miller added it could actually work against the smooth flow of traffic by limiting the hours from 8:00am
to 5:00pm. Typically the operation sends the first trucks out at 7:00am and during the peak travel times the
truck traffic tapers off. If the hours are limited,the peak out of the pit will be at 8:00am when everyone wants
that situation the least. Mr. Miller would be more acceptable to the daylight hours because of the possible
traffic hazards. It does allow extended hours in the summer but Planning Commission could possibly address
the late operation hours.
James Rohn indicated the concern is rush hour is approximately 7:30 am to 9:00am and it would be difficult to
tell workers to be at work at 7:00am but cannot leave the pit until 8:00am. There is a concern with the amount
of truck traffic entering the highway.
Bryant Gimlin agrees the daylight hours would lessen the impact with the traffic. Drivers by nature want to get
an early start. Mr. Miller added the concern for daylight hours is the operation is run in the pit until 7:30 pm or
8:00pm. Mr. Miller would propose sunrise until 6:00pm.
Peter Wayland indicated they would prefer to operation any day of the week with daylight hours. There is a
specific amount of materials in the pit and with the shorter life of the mine the hauling will be more intensive.
With the ability to run seven days a week the intensity will not be as bad as if the hours and days were limited.
James Rohn asked Mr. Carroll if it would be obnoxious to ask for a stop light at Hwy 52 and CR 3 %. Mr.
Carroll stated those are funded projects and the funding for that is not available. The question would be who
would pay for the light and where would the money come from. The next concern would be the traffic volume
and if it is warranted. The need is based on accidents and there have been none at this site.
Michael Miller added that was not a realistic request with the traffic operations that were existing.
Bryant Gimlin moved to change Development Standard 18 to indicated the hours of operation will be from
sunrise to 6:00pm,add Development Standard 19, new F and re-letter,remove referral and add as outlined in
the memo from staff. John Folsom seconded. Motion carried with James Rohn voting no.
Jacqueline Hatch indicated 1 D should be re-instated. It addresses adequate water supply.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to re-instate item 1 D. James Rohn seconded. Motion carried.
Peter Wayland indicated the applicants have a concern with 5 M, and would like it deleted. The reclamation
plan that has been developed does have some angle of curvature. Mr. Miller added the reason those are
requested is that historically gravel pits have been very uniform and not aesthetically pleasing. Mr.Wayland
added the final purpose is for water storage and the maximum volume that can be stored. The capacity is
diminished when the areas is decreased. Mr. Miller asked if they were planning on having future home sites.
Mr.Wayland stated that could happen and the view from the surrounding properties would be limited. If these
are residential properties they will not be extravagant homes with the benefit of a lake view. This is a water
storage resource. Mr. Wayland continued with the concern of Condition 5 A for the septic system and the
applicant would like to have this deleted. The reason for the deletion is that there is a home on site and that
will be used for facilities. The home is across the street and the home will become the facility for the gravel
operation. There is currently a septic system on site and potable water.
Char Davis added that she is not in favor of eliminating 5 A. Ms. Davis indicated it was not in the application
that the home would be used for the operation, it was stated there would be a new sewage disposal system.
The recommendation is to have sanitary facilities. The information provided is not complete. Mr.Miller asked
if there was a concern of anyone using the facilities would need to cross the road to get to them. Ms. Davis
indicated that would be of great concern and needs to be reviewed. Ms. Davis is not infavor of deleting the
requirement.
Michael Miller indicated he would not be in favor of deleting either request.
James Rohn moved to deny USR-1488 based on health,safety and traffic concerns. Chad Auer seconded.
•
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, no; Michael Miller, no; Bryant Gimlin, no; James Rohn, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner, no;
Bruce Fitzgerald, no. Motion failed.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case USR-1488, 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.
John Folsom commented he has great concerns that CDOT will not follow through to have adequate controls
accessing Hwy 52.
Doug Ochsner commented he believes the traffic is an issue that needs to be addressed but he has faith in
CDOT and the County. The gravel pit is consistent with current land use.
Chad Auer commented the safety issue is a concern especially with the traffic volumes. Mr.Auer believes that
measuring the need for traffic mitigation based on fatality rate is not a good practice.
Bruce Fitzgerald added he echoes the safety concerns.
James Rohn commented he is going to vote yes based on the use is consistent with what is in the area but
has concerns with the traffic.
,o•-. CASE NUMBER: USR-1496
APPLICANT: Jennifer Fedak, David Signer, and Monica Signer(Sun Pony Ranch, Inc)
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of 2AmRE-2576; Pt of the SW4 of Section 31,T4N, R68W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a kennel
(80 dogs maximum), an additional single family dwelling unit, and a
recreational horse facility (horse riding lessons and day camp) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 1, approximately 3/4 mile south of CR 40.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1496,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.
James Rohn asked if there was a Development Standard for soundproofing the kennel building or rather one
can be added. Ms. Hatch indicated it could be added if the Planning Commission would like.
Ginger Fedak, applicant, provided clarification on the project. Ms. Fedak believes the overall perspective of
the application was presented in a scary way. The 80 dogs will not be an every day occurrence,it will only be
on high volume occasion which are typically holiday season. The 80 dogs is not something that will occur
anytime soon. If the operation maintains 10-20 dogs it would satisfy them. Ms. Fedak indicated the
Development Standard and Conditions of Approval are something they want to adhere to. If these were not
done they would not have a viable business. The premise for the business is for it to be a facility with a ranch
theme. The noise and waste management issues are important to the applicants because they will be living
on site. The applicants want to continue with open communication and be good neighbors. The applicants
would like the kennel away from the road and out of site, the pastures will be improved. The area being
reviewed for the kennel area was the past owners waste dump. The existing barn will be the only thing visible
to the current neighbors, the only additional areas will be the outside play areas and they intend on mitigating
the noise and site issues. They were told to place everything possible in the application and most of the items
will be in the future and maybe never. The only thing that will take place immediately is the existing small barn
will be turned into a dog kennel. The building will be soundproofed and the issues will be taken care of.
5. 5-aQO5
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, May 3, 2005
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2005, in the Weld County
Department of Planning Services, Hearing Room,918 10th Street,Greeley,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 Welch Absent
James Rohn
Bruce Fitzgerald Absent
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
Tom Holton
Also Present: Kim Ogle, Sheri Lockman, Jacqueline Hatch
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on,April 28,2005,
was approved as read.
The following Cases are on the Consent Agenda:
CASE NUMBER: 3AmUSR-996
APPLICANT: Marcus Midstream 1995-2 Business Trust
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SE4 of Section 8, T4N, R64W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review for an Oil and Gas
Support Facility(Brinewater Disposal) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 46 and west of and adjacent to CR 53.
— CASE NUMBER: USR-1488
APPLICANT: John File, Farfrumwurkin LLP
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: E2SW2 & N2 SE4 & part of the W2W2 of Lot B of RE-3474;
being part of the W2W2 of Section 32, T2N, R68W; and part of the SE4
of Lot B of RE-1775 of Section 31, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a mineral
resource development facility including dry open pit mining and materials
processing in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Hwy 52; west and east of and adjacent to CR 3-
1/4.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1506
APPLICANT: Larry Rittel
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-3613; Pt N2NW4 of Section 28, T8N, R62W of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review for a Use allowed
by Right, an Accessory Use, or a Use by Special Review in the
Commercial or Industrial Zone district, for a welding fabrication shop in
the A(Agricultural)Zone District
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to SH 14; west of and adjacent to CR 77.
Hello