HomeMy WebLinkAbout20032681.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, September 2, 2003
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2003, 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 1:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller
Bryant Gimlin Absent
James Rohn
John Folsom
Stephan Mokray
John Hutson
Bruce Fitzgerald
Also Present: Don Carroll, Sheri Lockman, Michelle Katyrynuik, Cindy Etcheverry, Kim Ogle
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on August 5, 2003,
was approved as read.
The following case will be continued:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1433
APPLICANT: Leslie Windyka
PLANNER: Michelle Katyryniuk
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-2174; part N2 SE4 of Section 20, T5N, R64W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Kennel,
Junkyard, and a Use Permitted as a Use by Right, an Accessory Use, or a
Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial zone districts,
(Vehicle Service/Repair) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 54 1/4 and west of Davis Road.
Michelle Katyrynuik,Department of Planning Services read a request for continuance to October 7,2003. Ms.
Windyka is not present due to illness.
The following items will be heard:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1429
APPLICANT: David &Annita Alvarez
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman/Michelle Katyryniuk
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-3025; being part of the NE4 of the NE4 of Section 29, T7N,
R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a church
childcare center and private school in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 78 and west of and adjacent to CR 41.
Michelle Katyrynuik, Department of Planning Services, presented Case USR-1429, 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.
David Alverez, applicant, provided clarification with regard to three areas. A split rail fence will be installed
instead of stone structure,they will contact the state with regard to the number of students and teachers and
1, nt11# Page -1-
size. This will be done prior to Board of County Commissioners. The petition was a concern of the applicant
so they met with the homeowners and their main concerns were with traffic, growth and aerial spraying. The
planned access route is paved CR 39 to CR 78 then east to the site. This route effects three homes. The
majority of the people on the petition are one mile to twos away and don't get affected. The choice is typically
to travel paved roads not gravel. The initial plan was to locate in the town of Eaton but there were issues with
parking, building size and renovation. Mr. Alverez has spoken with contractors and they were informed that
as long as there was communication and common courtesy there should be no problems. The applicant
wants to cooperate in any way possible to be a good neighbor.
Michael Miller asked what the plans were for the daycare and the church. Mr. Alverez stated the plan is to
get the church and the daycare possible in the future around 5-10 years out. This will be determined as to
the growth of the church. Mr. Miller asked about paving the road. Mr. Alverez stated it was one mile of
unpaved road on CR 78. There are unpaved roads that access the site but typically driving instructions are
given using the paved roads.
James Rohn asked about the number of kids. Mr.Alverez stated that there is no starting figures due to the
fact this was something planned for the future. The state will dictate the number of students, teachers
according to the size of the structure. This information will be obtained prior to the Board of County
Commissioners. The intent was to avoid having to come back in five years and request the addition of the
school or daycare.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Elana Vandervan,neighbor, initiated the petition for the following reasons. The traffic will be six to seven days
a week including the church and daycare. The dust on road is bad, it is not paved or oiled. Are the county
and the church required to maintain the road? The site is on corner pivot on an offset intersection that makes
it difficult to leave and access facility. Will there be a traffic device for the safety of the children at the daycare.
Does the tax payer pick up the bill for non profit organization. How does the daycare school address the
safety issue due to the road hazards. How high will the fence be? There are farmers who use the roads to
move equipment. The farmers concern is the increase traffic during the early hours and mid afternoon hours.
Is there a plan to widen the county roads. There are aerial spray contractors that have concerns when located
next to subdivisions or buildings of this type. What will the building look like and how is the landscaping going
to be done? This building is proposed to facilitate 350 people and where are they going to park?
Michael Miller asked about the road and the dust. Don Carroll, Public Works, stated that the traffic counts
reflect light movement. There needs to be a 200 vehicle range for paving. The County is not going to pave
CR 78. Public Works has asked for stop signs at entrances and there will be onsite parking at the facility.
The upkeep of the road is on the county maintenance system. If the vehicle trips do not approach the 200
range they will not ask for money. The applicant stated that 40 people are regularly present but they can go
to 350. If that number approaches then Public Works can ask for an improvements agreement at that time
for dust control or upgrade and pave. Mr. Miller stated the children's safety issue will be set by the State for
a daycare. There is spraying done next to the golf courses and subdivisions. The County does not have
architectural controls just basic code requirements so there is no way someone can be told what the building
will look like.
James Rohn added that there was limited traffic when he was in the area.
Alice Ross, neighbor, added that the dust is bad. The concern is the safety for kids. The kids will go where
they want to go. The animals get the dust from the crops and hay.
The Chair closed public portion.
John Folsom asked Mr. Carroll about the traffic and is there wording in the conditions for the county to force
to pave or oil if the traffic increases. Mr. Carroll stated it could be added. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Carroll about
the cost of dust control measures. Mr.Carroll stated it was 30-50 cents sq.yard depending on the application
length. There are three homes on CR 78 which access the site.
Page -2-
Don Carroll suggested adding language to Development Standard #7 that states"The applicant shall apply
dust suppression chemical(magnesium Chloride or Calcium chloride)in three locations in front of the homes
for approximately 300 feet; no less than twice a year, or as needed, as determined by the Public Works
Department. The first application is after the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy."
James Rohn moved to include Mr. Carrolls language in prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy 4C and
make the application in front of the homes on CR 78 when the building is in place and open to use. John
Folsom seconded. Motion carried
Michael Miller indicated that upkeep of the road is a scheduled maintenance item for the County. Mr. Miller
stated that the traffic control is stop signs at the entrances of the site.
James Rohn asked about the speed limit. Mr.Carroll stated it is 55 mph if not posted in the county. Mr. Rohn
asked if there is a way to slow traffic in the area at the time the daycare is built. Is there a way to change
speed limit. The Board of County Commissioners is the only one to change speed limits in a separate
proceeding but school zones can be posted.
James Rohn moved that Case USR-1429, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. John Folsom 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;Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;James Rohn,yes;John Hutson,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: 2nd AmUSR-842
APPLICANT: Jarrald A. & Jaye L. Jamison
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: S2 SE4 and Lot A&Lot B of RE-1367; also described as the S2 N2 SE4 of
Section 32, T3N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for a Commercial
Junkyard and Salvage Yard(tire landfill,storage and recycling facility)along
with a Certificate of Designation and a mobile home for housing of tire
purchasers in the 1-3 (Industrial)Zone District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to WCR 41 and North of and adjacent to WCR 26
section line.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Service, presented Case 2nd AmUSR-842, 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.
2nd AMUSR-842 is intended to expand the existing site to include 40 acres which is bordered on the north and
south by existing tire storage areas.
This proposal requires two separate actions by the Planning Commission. First, a recommendation for the
Use by Special Review Permit. Second, a recommendation for the Certificate of Designation. The Planning
Commission shall be guided in its review of the Certificate of Designation by regulations contained in State
Statute. Historically,the Planning Commission has listened to all the testimony required for both actions and
then developed two separate recommendations.
Tire Mountain is located west of and adjacent to County Road 41 and north of and adjacent to County Road
26 section line.
Properties to the south, east and west are agricultural in nature. A Commercial junkyard lies to the north of
the site.
The applicant has submitted multiple amendments in an attempt to comply with conditions set by the Colorado
Page -3-
Department of Public Health and Environment. This is why you will find multiple responses from referral
agencies. 12 referral agencies reviewed this case, 7 responded favorably or included conditions that have
been addressed through development standards and conditions of approval.
The Department of Planning Services has prepared two recommendations. The first is regarding the
Certificate of Designation which is reviewed per state statute. Planning Staff is recommending approval.The
second is regarding the USR which is reviewed per criteria listed in the Weld County Code.The Department
of Planning Services is recommending denial. This recommendation is based entirely on the applicants
request to place a mobile home to house customers on the property. The 1-3 Zone District does not allow for
mobile homes for housing of customers. Therefore, Planning Staff has no option but to recommend denial.
There are two outstanding issues which staff wants to bring to the attention of the Planning Commission. The
first is the requested Mobile home to house customers. Although the Weld County Code does not allow for
this use. Planning Staff does not believe it is an unreasonable request. Tire Mountain has customers that
come from Mexico to purchase tires for use in their own country. Staff does not consider a travel trailer
adequate.
The second issue is in regards to fencing. At this time the site is bordered by very large tires. Planning Staff
does not consider this an appropriate fencing method nor do we know of any other site that has been allowed
to use tires as fencing. The Design and Operations plan indicates that tires along the boundary will remain
as post-closure security.At the very least, Planning Staff wants to make sure that these tires are not allowed
to remain indefinitely.
James Rohn asked Ms. Lockman about the tire cells and placing dirt over them. Ms. Lockman stated that
the applicant has 20 years to try and recycle them or they will be buried.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked Ms.Lockman if the cells make up is due to state regulations. Cindy Etcheverry stated
the cells were designed through the state for fire protection based on engineered drawings. Mr. Miller asked
about previous USR and storage of mobile homes. Ms. Lockman stated that there was a SUP for two mobile
homes in 1976. There were approvals in 1989 for two mobile homes. One will be used for a manager, and
no use for the other was given,there was an amendment in 1990 to allow for office and one for site manager.
Ms. Lockman indicated that they can store mobile homes in the storage areas. Mr. Miller asked about the
tires used as fenceing and that they not remain once the facility is closed. Ms. Lockman would like to see a
fencing plan. Ms. Lockman stated is has been approved in the past with this type of fencing. Mr. Miller asked
if there was an objection to having the tire fence until the closure of the facility. Ms. Lockman stated that staff
has never approved tires as a suitable fence material.
Ken Lind, representative for the applicant, provided clarification with regard to the project. The Certificate of
Designation and the USR go hand in hand. Both existing mobile homes are permitted and have building
permits, septic tanks and all the requirements. The applicant would like a third mobile home on site. One is
used for security for the operation, second related to storage yard, the third would be used for buyers for the
tires from Mexico. The recycle operation should expand and there will be a further need for the mobile home.
The site is in an isolated area. The sorting inspection needs to take place onsite. It is not feasible for buyers
to have no place on site after spending all day sorting and inspecting the material. There needs to be a place
to stay when they are on site. There are actually three separate sites of 40 acres, so the third mobile home
would be effective for the third site. A permanent mobile home will be done and the travel trailer will be
removed. This mobile home will be located south of the existing homes. The fencing was not done 10 years
ago due to Platteville Fire District wanting unencumbered access to the site. This was the reason for the tires
coming about. Fencing on CR 41 would be appropriate. The applicant would like to make changes to 1 D 4
to include area for shipping tires. There are areas used on site for sorting and process and another for
shipping. Another concern is 1 G referring to the one mobile home. There needs to be clarification that there
are two existing mobile homes and a third being applied for. The applicant would like to keep the portable
toilet for outside storage users. The office may not be open at all times the storage area is accessed. It is
more of a matter of convenience. The toilet is regularly serviced by a company. Another issue relates to
another drilling site. Patina stated they do not have a time schedule for drilling operation and the applicant
will relocate at the time Patina decides to drill. There are two sites possible. The same comments apply to
the Certificate of Designation.
Page -4-
James Rohn asked about the number of cells being excavated being doubled. Mr. Lind stated that the
number has increased due to the need for the tires to be sorted according to size not just the tire itself. Mr.
Rohn asked Ms. Etcheverry if the facility is a unique system. Ms. Etcheverry stated it was unique to Weld
County. Mr. Lind added that the cell holding method is now a national standard for fire safety and recycling.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Lind about the fence on CR 41 and the reasoning. Mr. Lind stated that the fence was
from an original request from the Platteville Fire District. In the event of fire emergency will be taken care of
by moving earth. The Fire District did not want fencing to interfere with that operation. Mr. Miller asked about
the issue of the portable toilet and rather it should be moved or removed. Ms. Etcheverry stated that they are
not allowed for a permanent situation. These are storage facilities, there is little usage so there is no huge
issue.
John Folsom asked Ms. Lockman about the USR condition being based on the travel trailer being replaced
by mobile home and the location in the code. Ms. Lockman stated it would be utilized as an accessory use
in the I-1 Zone District. There is standard language indicating that the travel trailer cannot be used as
overnight or temporary housing.
James Rohn indicated his concern with the eight cells being open at a time, he believes this to be somewhat
excessive. Ms. Lockman stated staff did not have a concern because the cells will be left open anyway. Mr.
Rohn asked about water safety issues,whether the water can get contaminated. Ms. Etcheverry stated that
for rainstorm events the water is directed away and there is sand in the area. Mr. Mokray asked about the
mosquito problems. Ms. Etcheverry stated that there have been some surveys done in the area but the
results were unknown. Mr. Lind added that the water in the tires heats up to a high temperature killing
mosquito larvae and the compact by their own weight.
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 asked about the fencing and language should read that when the facility is closed alternate
fencing should be provided or a fencing plan at that time. There is no need to place a six foot fence at this
time. Ms. Lockman stated that there are three things that address the tires. One would be a fencing plan and
this depends on the direction of the Planning Commission. Two, all fencing shall be in place according to the
fencing plan. Third, the tires removed from the road right of way. Ms. Etcheverry added that fencing would
not be needed because there is no need to fence anything once the facility closes. There would need to be
a designation that it was a tire landfill and fencing would be a way to do that. Mr. Miller stated a sign would
accomplish the notification aspect. Ms. Lockman stated that if the fencing is not an issue then all three
conditions for fencing should be deleted and add "at closure all tires shall be placed in cells."
James Rohn moved to delete 28, 3 C & D and add new language to Development Standard #33. Bruce
Fitzgerald seconded. Motion carried
Michael Miller indicated that D4 was requested to add the word shipping.
John Folsom moved to add the word shipping. James Rohn seconded. Motion carried
Michael Miller asked the Planning Commission what the preference for the mobile home as indicated in 2 G.
Ms. Lockman stated that staff was following the code and they are only allowed one. The third one is for
customers and it us up to the Planning Commission. Ms. Lockman stated that the travel trailer still needs to
be removed regardless of the approved number of mobile homes. If the third is granted it will need to be
addressed as only for customers.
Bruce Fitzgerald stated that there has not been a request for a housing on site from another applicant. There
are motels in town and Fort Lupton is 10 miles away. Mr. Miller added that the hours of operation make this
a matter of convenience.
James Rohn stated that there are three forty acres sections and there have been two trailers approved per
two sections. A third trailer for third section is not out of line and is more of a customer convenience.
Page -5-
John Hutson stated that if Planning Commission provide motel facility for customers this might set a
precedence that might affect future cases. Mr. Miller asked if allow third mobile home the 2 G would be
amended but the travel trailer would need to be removed. They will need to be listed and what they can be
used for.
Stephen Mokray stated it was exceptional case to provide convenience and there is a 20 year limit of time.
Ken Lind stated that one mobile home is used for security for the tire cell. The second is used for open
storage yard security. They are two different operations. The open storage yard has been eliminated to use
for tire storage.
Michael Miller indicated that the portable toilet needs to be addressed.The Health Department stated that they
have no issue since it is not frequently utilized. Mr. Fitzgerald added it was a good use.
John Folsom moved to delete 2 K. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. Motion carried.
James Rohn would like to have the open excavating cells be 5 or 6. The fugitive dust that will be associated
with that many cells is a concern.
James Rohn moved to change 3C to no more than 6 cells. No second. Motion failed
Michael Miller asked Ms. Lockman if the changes that are being made will affect both sets of standards for
the USR and the Certificate of Designation.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to apply any and all changes to both sets of Conditions and Development Standards.
Stephen Mokray seconded. Motion carried.
Lee Morrison stated that the USR should be done first then the Certificate of Designation.
James Rohn asked for clarification with regard to the mobile home. Ms.Lockman indicated that the way staff
comments read is directly out of the code and it allows for one mobile home. This would make them remove
one of the mobile homes and the travel trailer.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked if staff was looking at this as three sites or one total site. Ms. Lockman stated it was
reviewed as one total site with separate parcels. Mr. Miller stated that he does not feel like it is fair to make
the applicant remove the second mobile home but if Planning Commission does not want the third mobile
home than language needs to reflect this.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to allow the second existing trailer and include the following language from Ms.
Lockman. James Rohn seconded. Ms. Lockman provided language for 2 G. Eliminate the reference section
in the code and the reference to mobile home. Development Standard #28 shall refer to two mobile homes
delete the rest. Motion carried
James Rohn moved that Case 2nd AmUSR-842, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the motion. This is in reference to the special use
permit.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,no;Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;James Rohn,yes;John Hutson,
yes. Motion carried.
James Rohn moved that Case 2n°AmUSR-842, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the motion. This is in reference to the Certificate
of Designation.
Page -6-
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;Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;James Rohn,yes;John Hutson,
yes. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1435
APPLICANT: Hall-Irwin Corporation
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Lot B, Corrected 2ndAmRE-1053; and part S2 of Section 12, T5N,
R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for Mineral
Resource Development Facilities, including Open Pit Mining and Materials
Processing,a Concrete and Asphalt Batch Plant and a Concrete Recycling
Facility.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 58 (East 16th Street) and 1/4 mile west of CR
47 %.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, presented Case USR-1435, 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 for clarification with regard to 1 A 1. Mr. Ogle stated that by state statue they have the
right to mine a specific area of the county of which there is a terrace mineral deposit but they still have to meet
all conditions and development standards.
Danna Ortiz, representative for Hall-Irwin, indicated that they were available for any questions and request
approval.
Michael Miller asked about the concrete and asphalt batch plants and the rock quality and size will make this
difficult. Ms. Ortiz stated they want to have the potential if the need arose in the future.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Donna Stephenson, neighbor, indicated her concerns with the impact on the quality of life. First concern is
traffic, the current infrastructure is not capable of handling this type of development. The local county roads
are not designed for the amount expected of 500 trips down the County Roads. There are two dairy's divided
by a County Road 47 '/, . There are trucks along this road every day to take care of the cows. The school
bus stops along County Road 58. There are kids along the side of the road and it will be very dangerous for
them. Students will be crossing the street at the peak time for delivery.When the time changes they are often
standing by the road at dawn. It should be noted that the traffic study was not taken during the school year.
The traffic is not just a matter of inconvenience but it an safety issue for the kids. Environmental quality is tied
to quality of life and enjoyment of property. The current land use is agricultural which provides for open space.
A gravel pit will be eyesore and increase dust and noise pollution. There are a few things that the neighbors
would like to see in the proposal to help mitigate some concerns. One, limit the hours to a Y day on Saturday
and they not have the asphalt batch plant. There is no need for it. Another concern is the value of the
property.Wealth is tied to the property and the comprehensive plan indicates that the developer should strive
to mitigate impacts on surrounding neighbors, protect wildlife and protect the land. The property value will
drop 20%while the mining operation is being done. The value will not return until reclamation is done. The
neighbors will have to live with the traffic issues, environmental impacts and safety issues until the operation
is complete. Private property rights are not unlimited but rather balanced with the responsibility of protecting
the community health, safety and welfare. The mitigation of the impact of uses such as this is essential to
ensure compatibility with surrounding land owners.
Randy Wolfe,neighbor, indicated concerns with quality of life. Hall-Irwin has tried to limit the impact and work
with the neighbors. There have been things that have been asked for but have not yet come forth in writing.
The wells are of great concern in the area and the impacts have not been fully explored. The neighbors have
asked for assurances with regard to the wells and have not received any response. There have been some
issues with the slurry walls being not dependable. There are concerns about the possible impacts on irrigation
Page -7-
and domestic wells. The wetlands is another issue of concern. Will the wetland be impacted by this slurry
wall? The study states minimal impact to the wildlife. The economic impact is around 40%. The neighbors
will have to live with the project until done. The asphalt recycling plant or concrete batch is not needed. The
haul study is not adequate. The quality of the sand and gravel in the area is poor and there will be a need to
import rock from another site for concrete. The neighbors will lose the quality of life.
Bill Dunn, neighbor, indicated his concerns with the wells and the water that this could possible affect. The
farm is his livelihood. There needs to be more studies as to the effectiveness of the slurry wall. There are
some that will say it is not effective.
Henry Hanson,representative Petroleum Development,who have facilities on site,stated there will be a need
for a finalized written surface use agreement. The agreement is done in principle but nothing finalized. The
corporation needs to have permanent access year round, this is for safety reasons. The main concern is
access to some of the facilities. There is a dike from the north controlled by the Army Corps of Engineers and
any access needs to come from there by way of a non-exclusive easement.
Mr. Miller stated that generally there is language that makes an agreement done prior to proceeding.
Chair closed the public portion of the hearing.
Danna Ortiz,representative,provided clarification to the issues brought forth from the public. Ms.Ortiz added
that with regard to traffic there are numerous conditions for road improvements. Hall-Irwin has worked with
the County to address truck safety issues. Hall-Irwin will be willing to work with the County on truck safety
program. There are some alternatives to help mitigate this. The facilities have been moved away from
neighbors to try and mitigate some of their concerns. The mining is temporary with the goal being permanent
green space at the time of reclamation. There could be some future development of homes to the southeast
of the reservoirs at reclamation on adjacent property owned by Water Resources, a subsidiary of Hall-Irwin.
There is a dust abatement plan submitted to the County. They are in the process for applying for air pollution
emission notices through the State Department. The trucks will go less than 15 mph on the site. The material
that is mined is wet which reduces dust, further there is an employee that drives a water truck on site
throughout the day. Magnesium chloride will be used on the haul road annually. The noise levels will comply
with county standards and there will be maximum usage of conveyors on the site to help mitigate noise. The
processing equipment will be surrounded by stock piles for noise reduction. The site manager has equipment
to monitor noise readings as required. There is also a full time Safety Director. There are additional
engineering techniques used for safety. The Division of Minerals and Geology required an evaluation of the
site. The study found that with the slurry wall the ground water will increase to the south by a foot. The area
it will decrease is along the riparian corridor and there are no wells to impact in that area. Hall-Irwin has to
get a signed statement from anyone with a well within 600 feet of the operation. There is only one that this
affects. Hall-Irwin is also installing five piezometer's to get baseline reading on ground water. They will be
monitored weekly for one month,then monthly to assure the ground water is adequate. There is also a bond
required in the event the slurry wall fails. There will be language in the agreement with Petroleum
Development for access and other setbacks. Wildlife will be impacted some, but the riparian corridor is not
impacted that much. Savage and Savage was the consulting team Hall Irwin worked with to ascertain the
levels of impact to wildlife and the proximity of threatened and endangered species to the site.
James Rohn asked a bout t he length o f mining. M s. Ortiz commented it w ill b e 1 5 years i n length, a
concession to accommodate the neighbors request. Hall-Irwin is not familiar with any impact of property loss
in association with their operations.
John Folsom asked about hauling product on site for the concrete batch plant. Ms. Ortiz indicated that the
trucks will haul from the site then pick material up for the return trip. Mr. Folsom asked if the trucks will be
hauling material to the same site as the return haul material is located. Jeff Gregg,applicant's representative
for Hall-Irwin, indicated that this is a fines material pit. There are six other sites that the materials can be
picked up at. Mr. Folsom asked if the fines material mined from this operation will be going to other sites or
customers. Mr. Gregg indicated that they would primarily be going to customers. Mr. Folsom asked about
monitor wells. Ms. Ortiz stated there will be five monitoring wells on site.
Page -8-
Michael Miller asked about the importing of materials. Ms. Ortiz stated that if one of Hall Irwin contractors
have projects near by or a large paving operation. Mr. Miller stated it would not work because there is the
need to get the material on site as quickly as possible not in a return haul route scenario. Mr. Gregg stated
the need for the material on a limited time frame does bring higher cost to the product. The market causes
the need for trucking due to the lack of material in close proximity. The material will be trucked regardless.
The intent is to provide efficiency by hauling out and hauling back. Expansion of market potential is part of
the reason that the concrete batch and asphalt recycling are being requested. In expanding the potential it
reduces the life of the site. It can be dropped to a minimal market opportunity but this causes the length of
operation to increase. Hall-Irwin would like to be able to place portable concrete plant on site. If a large
paving job comes available they want to be able to utilize the site for the financial gain. Mr. Miller stated that
they are asking the neighbor to deal with a normal gravel pit but to ask them to put up with the concrete and
asphalt is far more delicate. Mr. Gregg added that the concrete and asphalt is a secondary end use and the
primary use is for water storage. There is a buyer that is ready to fund the project for the purpose of water
storage. The water storage capacity is around 6000 acres as an alternative to wells. It will be augmented to
the east of the property.
James Rohn asked about producing water from the gravel mine and where is the water coming from. Mr.
Gregg stated that the water is raw water which was on the property when purchased, (irrigation water) that
will be converted in water court to storage water once reclamation begins. Mr. Rohn asked about the number
of shares on property and the seepage from the aquifer. Mr. Gregg stated that the reason for the slurry wall
is to not affect the wells and aquifer. There are State requirements that must be met with regard to water.
Lee Morrison added that this is a different approach than in the past where gravel operations have been
created. The gravel pit counts as a well in terms of water rights, because it evaporates water out of the
aquifer. This process involves filling the "hole" There are certain permeability requirements they have to
meet to qualify. If it meets those then it is viewed as not evaporating water and is available to take water from
another source to store. They do not have to have an augmentation plan to replace the evaporative loses.
John Folsom stated that it seems the primary reason is for water storage not sand and gravel operations.
John Hutson asked about the slurry wall and the bond. The understanding is to not allow normal ground water
into the pit. Ms. Ortiz stated the likelihood of impact decreases the farther away you go from the slurry wall.
Mr. Hutson stated that the bond is for quality of the slurry wall but if there is damage to the well it will have to
be mitigated in other ways. The bond is to protect the slurry wall. Hall-Irwin has the same agreement with
the Central Water Conservancy District and the State Engineer.
Michael Miller stated he does not like the importation of the materials.There seems to be a large amount of
material that needs to be imported to the pit for the concrete and asphalt requests. Mr. Fitzgerald added that
it is also a materials sales yard so there will be more goods. Mr. Rohn asked if there was a retail sales office
at this location. If so this is not a good place for it with the traffic and the area. Mr. Rohn is against the batch
plant and retail sales. The slurry wall is fine as well as the reclamation to water storage.
Stephen Mokray asked Mr. Carroll about the route of traffic. Mr. Carroll stated that haul route out of main
entrance on County Road 58,the speed limit is posted at 30 mph from the bridge to the intersection,west on
18'". This will account for 30 % of the traffic. The other 70%will go out on County Road 58 to County Road
47'/:to Hwy 34 then disperse. County Road 58 is collector status road with 113 vehicles in a 24 hour period.
County Road 47 ''A south accounts for 400-500 vehicles per day. This may be due to the dairy use. Mr.
Mokray asked what the anticipated increase would be. Mr. Carroll stated the traffic study indicates a total of
500 trips in 24 hour period. Mr. Carroll stated that it does not state if this includes the import of product. The
bridges are legal, access to the site is adequate but Public Works has asked for improvements from the
entrance to the office area. The applicant has agreed to use some recycled material and pack for treatments.
The intersection improvements would be at County Road 47'/:and County Road 58. Public Works is asking
for north and south bound lanes to be widened to accommodate truck turning radius. The next set of
improvements requested is at County Road 47 Y and Hwy 34 for right turn radius, improvements to the
excel/decel lanes on Hwy 34. Public Works has also evaluated the existing status of the haul route and
deemed it necessary to increase the asphalt by 1 ''A inches on County Road 58. On County Road 47 '%the
applicant will add 2%inches of paving.A Road Maintenance Improvement Agreement is required with all the
heavy haulers within the county. The widening of the County Road is not likely they are in good shape. The
Page -9-
access to the site is adequate. In the year 2020 the operating level is at C which is still acceptable.
John Folsom asked Mr. Ogle about 2.A and if there is anything in code that address the water storage issue.
Mr. Morrison added that water storage is not addressed one way or another. There may be some language
in the comprehensive plan. In the County in terms of a zoning issue,water storage or non potable systems
are regulated. Mr. Miller asked if the use of the reservoir could be for augmentation or municipal use. Mr.
Morrison stated that the county does not get in the middle of the augmentation process. Mr. Ogle stated that
Section 22-4-30 D in the comprehensive plan addresses some water quality standards.
Jeff Gregg added that Hall-Irwin is unique with the market share of fine products. There are materials for golf
courses and athletic fields that are provided by Hall-Irwin. Fine sand products are blended with other products
then shipped to surrounding states. This site has quality sand.
Danna Ortiz, representative, indicated the applicants concerns with 3.D. The applicant would like that
condition reviewed due to the past approvals of mining operations with bottled water as a source. Pam Smith,
Department of Public Health and Environment, indicated that they should have permanent water supply.
There is a potable water supply line in the area. Hand washing is fundamental for that length of time for
mining and for that number of employees. There is a material sales yard and there will be customers.
Mr. Mokray asked if this has been enforced on other sites. Ms.Smith indicated that there was,but there have
been some instances when they are very remote that bottled water was approved with restrictions to number
of staff.
Ms. Ortiz continued with 3.L&3.M. Hall-Irwin would like to construct the slurry wall before the final approved
permits from CDOT and the FM. Both may require more time to accomplish. There are also a number of
permits that are required within 30 days for the plat to be recorded. The applicant is requesting 60 days due
to the number of permits required.
Mr. Miller stated that a property owner can put in a slurry wall without permits. Mr. Morrison stated that it may
not require a building permit. Mr. Ogle added that the referral from the Building Official referred to structures
only,not excavation. Mr.Morrison added that there may be exceptions that cover landfill and reservoirs which
are covered by other regulations. Ms.Ortiz suggested prior to hauling that the CDOT permit be obtained and
prior to construction the FM permit be obtained.
Mr. Miller stated that it would not work with prior to hauling but both can be moved to prior to operation. Mr.
Miller asked how long it will take for an access permit. Mr. Morrison stated that prior to construction would
cover the both of them. Mr. Miller asked they could be moved to 4 I &J under prior to operation. Mr. Ogle
indicated that both could be moved and staff has no issue with the request.
John Hutson moved to relocate 3.L&3.M to 4.l&4.J. John Folsom seconded. Motion carried with Mr. Rohn
opposing.
Danna Ortiz asked for the time to record the plat be extended to 60 days from 30 days. Mr. Ogle stated that
staff is acceptable with the request.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to amend item 1 from 30 days to 60 days. James Rohn seconded. Motion carried.
Michael Miller stated he has issues with the concrete and asphalt batch plant importing the materials. Mr.
Mokray stated the traffic study prove it has no impact. Mr. Miller stated the traffic study does not prove but
the opinion is it would handle it. With the concrete and asphalt plants the amount of traffic is doubles due to
the importing of materials and asking the neighbors to put with that increase. Mr. Miller commented that he
does not believe it meets the standard the state addresses in Statue 34-1-305,the preservation of commercial
mineral deposits for extraction because without the sale of this property as a water storage this would not be
a commercially viable operation. The use is not compatible with surrounding land uses with the additional
traffic of the batch plants. Mr. Mokray asked about the increase of bringing in product. Mr.Carroll stated that
the numbers are not broken down. The applicant could answer this better. Ms. Ortiz stated the traffic
accounts were for worse case scenario and all around trips. Mr. Miller asked what the percentage of truck
Page -10-
traffic is for the importing of materials. Mr. Gregg stated the intent is for it to be a back haul and not be an
additional trip. Either way it is in the study. Mr. Fitzgerald asked about the cement batch plant and the
increase with exporting the cement. Mr. Gregg stated that the concrete trip studies was in there cubic yards
exported with a certain amount of imported material. A volume was presented to the traffic engineer and the
study is done. Mr. Fitzgerald stated that the batch plant has added trips per day because of this.
John Folsom stated that the state statue on commercial mineral deposits tries to prevent the use of mineral
deposits for another use. It does not forbid the minerals being extracted where the site will ultimately be used
for another purpose. Mr. Miller stated the purpose was to keep people from building homes.
James Rohn moved for denial on USR-1435 based on Section 23-2-220.A.3. This area is not compatible.
State Statue 34-1-305-this is not a good commercial mineral deposit. No second.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case USR-1435,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;Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller, no; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;James Rohn, no;John Hutson,
yes. Motion carried.
Michael Miller commented his denial was based on Section 22-5 A& B which states that the development
promotes a reasonable and orderly development of mineral resources. The importation of such a large
quantity of materials is not a reasonable development of mineral resources. Also on Section 22-3-220-A 3
requiring the use be compatible with the surrounding land uses. The added traffic associated with the large
importation of materials is incompatible.
Meeting adjourned at 5:00 Respectfully submitted
Cirk_ULLi ) I:ILK&
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Page -11-
Hello