HomeMy WebLinkAbout20033392.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld County
Conference Room,4209 CR 24%,Longmont,Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Michael
Miller, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Michael Miller '
Bryant Gimlin
John Folsom
Stephan Mokray
James Rohn Absent
Bruce Fitzgerald Absent
Tim Tracy
Doug Ochsner
Also Present: Don Carroll, Char Davis, Kim Ogle, Chris Gathman, Jacqueline Hatch
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on October 21,2003
and November 4, 2003, was approved as read.
CASE: Department of Planning Service Fees and Hearing Dates and location
PLANNER: Monica Mika
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, presented the Department Fees and Hearing Dates. There are
no changes to the fees.
Bryant Gimlin indicated the legend needs to be clarified with regard to the dates of north and south. Mr.Ogle
indicated that the legend will be modified to reflect north that the hearings will be a square and be held the first
Tuesday of the month. The south hearings will be a circle and be held the third Tuesday of the month.
John Folsom asked if they were voting on maintaining the schedule proposed. Mr. Folsom would like to
suggest that the hearings at the south office not be firmly scheduled,but heard on an as needed basis.There
are financial differences between holding hearings in the Greeley office versus the Longmont office. Mr.Ogle
indicated that there are no line items in the budget containing the cost differences. Mr. Ogle indicated staff
notes it is important to have the hearings closer to the affected citizens. Mr. Ogle stated that the Board of
County Commissioners is in support of having meetings at the Southwest Weld Office.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Bryant Gimlin moved that the Department of Planning Service Fees and Hearing Dates, be forwarded to the
Board of County Commissioners with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Stephen
Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, abstain; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes.
Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1445
APPLICANT: High Ball Erectors LLC/Cliff Trostel do Flatirons Surveying Inc.
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part SW4 Section 24, Ti N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for the
storage of construction/fabrication materials.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 6 and east of and adjacent to CR 11.
(elt_._):,.:t ae'CL
-
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1445, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending
approval of the application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
John Folsom asked if the business has been operating and has there been any violations. Ms. Hatch
indicated that the case has been brought forward voluntarily by the applicant.
Cliff Trostel, applicant, provided additional information with regard to the project. They have been in
business for 8 years and lived at the property for 5 years. The back portion of the USR is currently being
farmed but agriculture does not pay. They would like to be able to store materials from the business on
the property to help pay for itself. The applicant wants to be operating legally within the county.
Doug Ochsner asked about the irrigation ditches and if they are affected and has the applicant been in
contact with them. Mr. Trostel stated there is no water with land and there will be no affect on the ditches.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Daryl Johnston, neighbor, wants to know the time line for screening the frontage on CR 6. There is not
much on CR 11 next to the road. The concern is the fencing and the water. There is one tap and will this
be adequate? There was also no limit as to how many trucks or containers that could be stored in the
area. The neighbors do not want an unlimited number.
Michael Miller asked Ms. Hatch if there was any limits. Ms. Hatch indicated that there is no limits on the
trucks and storage bins, there is a limit of two personal recreational vehicles.
Chair closed public portion
Cliff Trostel, applicant, indicated there are no set limits at this time. The intent is to have room but not sure
what the maximum number will be . The fencing will be on the south and west side consisting of 6 foot
picket fence. This will assist in the screening. There have been several improvements to the site.
Michael Miller asked what the time line was for the fence to be constructed. Ms. Hatch stated that there is
a time line or they will go into violations. Mr. Trostel indicated that with regard to the water they are
planning more xerioscape. Ms. Hatch stated there was a 1 year time frame to get fence constructed.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case USR-1445, 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; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion
carried unanimously.
Planning Commissioner Tracy arrived at the Board hearing.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1446
APPLICANT: Longmont Aircraft Modelers Association
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: S2SW4 and the South 5/8 of the N2 of said SW4 Section 6,T3N, R68W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for Recreational
Facilities, including a Commercial Recreational Facility (Longmont Aircraft
Modelers Association) in the A(Agricultural) Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 36 and 2,110 feet east of CR 1.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1446, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record.The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the application
along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
John Folsom asked Mr.Ogle about the maximum noise level permitted in industrial zone and if there are any
maximum noise levels for agricultural zone. Mr. Ogle deferred comment to Char Davis, Public Health and
Environment. Ms. Davis, Department of Public Health, stated that there are no limits in the agricultural zone.
The limits in the Industrial District are 80 dB's, the light Industrial is 70 dB's, the commercial is 60 dB's and
the residential is 50 dB's.
Michael Miller asked why industrial noise level was chosen. Ms.Davis stated it was because the location was
remote. Some of the issues reviewed,are there homes nearby or in the immediate vicinity, and what are the
activities nearby.
John Folsom asked about noise levels,how they are measured,and at what location and if the aircraft is 100
feet in the air. Ms. Davis stated the requirement is 25 feet off the property line from the ground. Per the
application materials,the applicant has stated the club has the permission of land owners for overflight. Mr.
Folsom asked if it would be possible to measure overflight from the ground. Mr. Folsom noted that should
the noise level exceeds the established limits, then it would be a violation. Ms. Davis concurred.
Dave Daggy, President and applicant for the Longmont Aircraft Modelers Association, provided additional
comment and clarification with regard to the project. They are a non profit organization with a formal flying
rules program. They train student pilots and hold other educational programs. The organization will
participate in the"Adopt a Highway" program in the area when this project is approved. The association is
part of a National organization which is the Academy of Model Aeronautics. They are a liaison group between
the FAA and the FCC as well as the Aeronautical Congress that controls regulations related to the hobby.
Mr. Daggy stated that they are fully regulated with assigned frequencies for the radio control aircraft. There
group also hold liability insurance through the national organization. Mr. Daggy introduced three model
aircraft. Two planes, one with 4 Y foot wingspan, and the second with an eight foot wingspan. This is a
competition plane that has won numerous awards on the national circuit. The third is a helicopter. Mr. Daggy
indicated that the models shown where what is typically flown in the area. The club does not fly before
8:00am and does not fly after sunset. This applies to the entire week. The flight path is limited to the west
and the south. There are no restrictions to the east. The national organization has set some of the flight
distances.The nature of the activity is to keep the flight path close. Normal operations have the radio control
operator approximately 800-1000 feet from the aircraft at all times. Flight heights are approximately 400 feet.
The may be up to 5 operators at one time in the air, however, this is typically not the norm.
The amount of use Monday thru Friday typically consists of 2-3 people. Typically members are present in
the morning and fly until around 2:00pm. There are some evenings in the summer time that the field is
utilized. There is heavier use on the weekends and they typically consists of 5-8 people. There are some
internal to the club contests on the weekend, this is usually 3-4 times each year.. During the contest there
are approximately 14 flyers and 14-15 spectators. The number of spectators requested was 40 and this was
the maximum number as determined by the club for this application.
John Folsom asked how many years was this facility at this location. Mr.Daggy indicated they started utilizing
this location in July of this year. They moved from the previous site due to development of industrial facilities
in the area. Mr. Folsom asked about the overfly areas. Mr. Daggy stated that the club has permission from
the land owners to the north, west and east. There is no flight to the south due to the county road. Mr.
Folsom asked if the maximum flight path is 900-1000 feet from where the pilot stands and if any of these
paths are over any homes. Mr. Daggy stated the distance from the flight path to the next home to the north
is 1970 feet further from the 1000 feet.
Tim Tracy asked how the club is structured. The non profit status is filed with the IRS. Is this the tax status
or business plan? Mr. Daggy indicated they are filed with the State not with the Federal Government. Mr.
Tracy asked about the liability insurance and if there is proof of that insurance. Mr. Daggy stated the policy
was through the national organization. There is a 2.5 million dollar liability insurance for the club as well as
the land owner. Mr.Tracy asked about the board of directors, and if they were covered by any insurance if
a claim was filed against them. Mr. Daggy stated the club itself does not have insurance but the national
organization covers them as well as their individual homeowners policies.
John Folsom asked if there are mufflers on the aircraft. Mr. Daggy stated the flying rules require the mufflers
to be there. There is a section in the club's bylaws that addresses this requirement. There are field safety
officers that monitor the noise levels and can decide if it the planes are operating within the established limits.
Mr. Daggy stated there are three members that own noise meters. Mr. Folsom asked about the decibel level
and the distance it was taken at. Mr. Daggy stated in the last four months there has been data from the north
property. The chart handed out indicates the noise levels and the process for obtaining and measuring this
data. Mr.Daggy explained the chart and indicated the worse case scenario is 62 dBs when over a residence.
Mr. Folsom asked duration of flight and intervals.Mr. Daggy indicated that the flight time is approximately 10
minutes and the intervals vary depending on the number of participants.
Tim Tracy asked if readings were taken with one plane in the air or the possible five. Mr. Daggy stated some
readings were done with three airplanes in the air. The only reason for the requested five planes is when the
planes are smaller and there is a possible club combat competition. The aerobatic contests will have two
planes in the air and are relatively quiet.
Michael Miller stated the issue is noise and at what level would the club be comfortable with. Would the club
consider down rating the noise level, and if yes what would that level be. Mr. Daggy indicated they would be
comfortable with the light industria level of 70 dBs.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Fred Wilson, the neighbor immediately adjacent to the north, indicated concerns with the level of noise. Mr.
Wilson stated that the landowners are few in numbers due to the fact that this is the way people in the area
like it. He noted the community lifestyle will change in time. Mr.Wilson stated that the decibel level is not as
much of the issue as the nature of noise. The nature of the tone is the issue not the loudness. This is a high
use facility, there are a lot of contests. There is a limited duration between flights,with people waiting to get
planes in the air. It is very noisy. There are different toned planes depending on the model. The noise is
extremely aggravating and constant. Mr.Wilson stated he has a recording of the noise levels taken from his
office window in a second story location in his house. Mr. Wilson played a portion of the tape. Mr. Miller
asked that the tape be reduced in volume if there was additional testimony to be provided. Mr.Wilson stated
based on his research that his property values will decrease due to this type of activity nearby. There are also
concerns with fire hazard, due to the dry field conditions. There is a potential risk for fire. There is also
concern for the impact on wildlife. Some of the letters provided by the applicant are not supported by actual
research. There is a definite affect on the wildlife. The facility was originally built without the appropriate
permits and is in violation with Planning Code Compliance. This ground is actually a conservation property
set aside for non productivity. This business is a side venture to gain more money, which is essentially
double dipping. This is not fun and games for the people that have to put up with it.
Bryant Gimlin asked where the audio was taken. Mr.Wilson stated it was taken on their deck or in the home
office. Mr. Gimlin asked where the home was located. Mr. Wilson lives to the north of the proposed project.
The tape has different types of sounds including different planes and some alternative noises. The land that
this is being utilized is at the top of a knoll and everything else is below it. Attorney Morrison asked that the
tape and poster board be submitted as evidence. Mr. Wilson will submit the tape and the poster.
Natalie Wilson, neighbor, and spouse of Fred Wilson, added that the typical weekend is 8:00 am to sunset.
There are planes at all times in the air. This is destroying the way of life. The people that fly the planes are
from other areas and do not have to experience this consistently. They do not understand the value of the
beauty of the area. On the weekends the noise is constant. Ms.Wilson noted that the noise also affects her
personal pets and animals.
Howard Langhoff,a neighbor to the south, indicated that the noise is a very negative aspect. He stated that
he and his wife thought it was motorcycles racing on property to the north. The noise will not be restricted just
because the flight patterns are restricted. Mr. Langhoff stated it is incompatible with the surrounding area.
The impacts should be minimized by finding a site in some other area that is not located near residences.
Chair closed public portion
David Daggy, applicant, responded to the concerns of the neighbors. It is evident that they have brought a
different background sound to the area. The noise at the Wilson home is not that loud the tape was played
at an abnormally high level. The photos from the poster board introduced by Fred and Natalie Wilson indicate
a fun fly of approximately 12 people. This was not a normal day it was an event. The events happen
approximately three to four times a year. Mr.Daggy stated there are times when there are no planes or flyers
at the site. Mr. Daggy stated that the models cannot be heard when flying over the Wilson home, as the
models do not fly at that range. With regards to the potential fire hazard,there is minimum fuel in the planes
and it rarely ignites fires. Fire hazard is at a minimum. This facility is sited further from homes then what is
normally done. There is no affect on the wildlife, the birds were not affected at the previous facility. This
activity is consistent with the area, they could be good neighbors. This is a different sound in the area.
Tim Tracy asked if any of the members or spectators use earplugs and is it recommended. Mr. Daggy stated
that some wear ear plugs. This is a self choice it is not a requirement. The noise level directly on top of the
air plane is above 90 decibels.
Bryant Gimlin asked if other locations was looked researched. Mr.Daggy stated a year long search was done
to find a facility. The club members were asked how far they wanted to drive and the response was 20
minutes from home. Mr. Gimlin asked why build without USR. Mr. Daggy indicated they did not realize they
needed one.
Tim Tracy asked for clarification on the noise levels and how enforced in the county. Mr. Miller stated it was
generated by complaints and they are responded to.
Bryant Gimlin added that this would be very irritating and the audio tape was very compelling. The decibel
level of 70 would keep it down, but the type of noise is very irritating. Mr. Miller added that the sound limit will
not exceed the required levels but the sound will be a constant. This is not a compatible use in the area.
There are a lot more appropriate areas east of 1-25 that would accommodate this. Mr. Gimlin added that if
the USR was done first they could possibly mitigate some concerns before it started to upset the neighbors.
John Folsom added that there are standards that must be met. This is not compatible with the surrounding
uses and the future uses. The application does not conform with sections:
1. Section 23-2-220 A 3:proposed use is not compatible with existing surrounding land
uses.
2. Section 23-2-220 A 7:this section is concerned with the health, safety and welfare.
The question is the welfare of having this noise nuisance.
3. Section 23-2-200 A 4: this use is not compatible with the future development in the
area
4. Section 22-4-60:exposure to excessive noise levels over prolonged periods of time
can be a threat to public health.
John Folsom moved that Case USR-1446, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
denial. Bryant Gimlin 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; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Tim Tracy, yes; Doug Ochsner,
no. Motion carried.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1216
APPLICANT: Lance Messinger
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2235; part of the E2 Section 31, T3N, R66W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for mineral
resource development facilities including Oil and Gas Support and
Service (Storage & Repair of downhole oil field tools) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 25 '/]; approximately 800 feet south of CR 28
Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services presented Case AmUSR-1216, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending
approval of the application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
John Folsom asked if the amendment is for the approval of the 9000 square foot building. Mr. Gathman
added the amendment shows a possible warehouse to the north and office structure. A SPR for the office
would be required because of the potential for additional employees creating the demand for additional
parking and water. Mr. Folsom's concern is that the buildings are not connected and the possibility of
subletting the property. Is there protection against subletting just because the buildings are joined? Mr.
Gathman stated there is a Development Standard#3 that attempts to address this issue. If a lease is
made then a copy must be submitted to Planning, Building and the Attorney's Office to determine if it is a
substantial change. There is one difficulty in connecting the sites. This is the landscaping that is already
in place along the south side of the existing building and was a condition of the previously approved USR.
Mr. Folsom asked if there will be a private improvements agreement. Mr. Gathman recommends that
there be a condition added to include this. This could be included as Condition of Approval I and
renumber.
•
Tiffany Moore, Landmark Engineering, provided clarification with regard to the project. There are two
access points with the existing warehouse. The landscape buffer was approved for the original USR.
There is screening on the east side and it will continue along the site. The application is specifically for the
warehouse but includes long range plans for a future warehouse and possible office. The access points
will decrease to four. The interior circulation is occurring with the one access point. Mr. Miller asked if
the fourth access point would be prior to the building of the farthest building. Ms. Moore stated they would
like to take the two access points with the proposed warehouse. The landscaping will continue to the
north along with the development.
John Folsom asked if the roads could be internal since this will be for one company only. This would limit
the accesses. Ms. Moore indicated there is material in the yard and the safety would be the concern.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Carroll about the access points. Mr. Carroll stated that there are three locations
and the internal circulation was not there. There are too many access points to the frontage of the yard.
Mr. Carroll stated that four access points could be better. Mr. Carroll indicated that they do not need to be
put in immediately. This would eliminate the observation that there are three separate sites. Each
operation would be addressed independently.
Michael Miller asked about the parking and if it could be addressed at the Site Plan Review when the
future buildings are constructed. Mr. Gathman stated that it could be addressed at that time. This could
be addressed along with the office when those are proposed.
Stephen Mokray asked if the amendment is for second building only. Mr. Gathman stated the amendment
is for whatever is shown on the USR Site map. The map indicates two warehouse buildings along with an
office.
Michael Miller asked about the proposed detention basin being between building and what is the
reasoning for this. A single access could be used for both remaining sites if the detention basin was
moved to the far north end of the site. Ms. Moore stated that the planning was done for possible future
needs. There have been no engineered plans to determine the best location. This was placed here
strictly on a visual observation. Kim Lambert, Landmark Engineering, added that the feasability of getting
the water to the north end is difficult, the construction cost would be greater.
Don Carroll indicated that there needs to be 150 feet of separation between access points. Each
application is reviewed and the need is determined from there. The retention pond located to the north
creating a single access utilized by both locations would be the ideal situation. Mr. Miller asked why there
is a need for four access points to one business. Ms. Lambert indicated that the applicant agrees with
that there are too many access points. The location of the detention pond was determined so that water
could flow from both ends to a middle, not to the farthest end.
Don Carroll stated that the original USR has a retention pond. This retention pond will utilize the
remainder of the site.
Chris Gathman suggested that a condition be added for the office and warehouse to be amended in this
application. Then make the third building a separate Site Plan Review application.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Bruce Wilson, neighbor,would like to see the limitation of the access points.
The Chair closed public portion
Tiffany Moore wants clarification on the improvements agreement. Mr. Gathman stated it would cover the
landscaping, parking and access improvements. Detention would be covered as well. There would be
collateral for 100% of the amount of the improvements. The agreement would be separated as to the
immediate needs and the future needs.
Chris Gathman suggested adding Condition of Approval 2 I would consist of"The applicant shall submit a
private improvements agreement for review and approval by the Board of County Commissioners. The
collateral shall be accepted prior to recording the plat."
John Folsom moved to include the above language. Stephen Mokray seconded. Motion carried.
Michael Miller has issues with the access points and would like to see four access points a maximum. Mr.
Folsom added that Public Works will be directing the access points. Mr. Gathman added that there will be
a plan submitted to Public Works for review according to Condition of Approval 2 H.
Chris Gathman would like to add to Development Standard #4".... and the proposed future warehouse
facility at the north end of the site."
Bryant Gimlin moved to accept the additional language to Development Standard #4. Stephen Mokray
seconded. Motion carried
Stephen Mokray moved that Case AmUSR-1216, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners
along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Bryant Gimlin 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; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Tim Tracy, yes; Doug
Ochsner, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-905
APPLICANT: Aggregate Industries-WCR Inc.
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parts of Section 30,Ti N, R66W, including lands described as Lot B of RE-
1102; a strip of land 370 feet wide off of the west side of the SW4;
NE4SW4, NW4SE4; parts of SE4SW4; part of the N2N2NE4 lying west of
State Hwy 85; part of the S2S2 NE4 lying west of State Hwy 85; part of the
E2NW4; part of the SW4NW4 NE4 and the NW4SW4NE4 of Section 30,
Ti N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Amendment to a Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review
Permit for Mineral Resource Development facilities; including open pit
mining and materials processing; including a Concrete and Asphalt Batch
Plant and a Concrete&Asphalt recycling Plant in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 6;west of and adjacent to State Hwy 85; north
of and adjacent to CR 4.
Michael Miller had a prior commitment and excused himself. Bryant Gimlin will continue with the meeting
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services presented Case AmUSR-905, reading the recommendation
and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Mr. Ogle noted that this
case was the first case to be heard to permit mineral resource facilities in the Industrial Zone District.
Bill Schenderlein, Applegate Group, provided additional information with regard to the project. The
majority of the current USR has been mined. The proposal includes an additional 49 acres to the current
permit. This will add 67 new acres while vacating 18 acres. The total permit acreage is 190 acres with
133 acres being mined. The existing operation includes open pit mining and processing operations. The
concrete batch plant is not in the current USR but is proposed to be included. The proposed operations
include the change to recover additional aggregate resource. This would include additional open pit
mining, maintaining the processing plant and bringing the concrete batch plant into the USR permit. The
proposal includes adding a portable asphalt/concrete recycling plant on as needed basis. The mining is
anticipated to take two years. The reclamation would be to water storage reservoirs and this is being
amended to include backfilling and the creation of a groundwater lake. The backfilling will include wetland
areas and upland habitat areas, there may be wetland banking. The groundwater lake is between 50-60
acres and can vary slightly.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
David Norcross, Mayor-elect of Fort Lupton, indicated concerns with the traffic and the number of
accidents in Southern Weld County. There is a large number with trucks and smaller cars that have been
in accidents. There are 72 mining permits located between CR 2 & CR 38 and CR 1 and CR 49. The Fort
Lupton and Del Camino area are the heaviest areas mined. In Section 22-5-80 of the Comprehensive
Plan, this section speaks about mining the resources in a responsible and orderly manner. It also speaks
to protecting the surrounding land uses as well as the roads and highways. There is a responsibility to
protect the mineral resources but the quality of life in the area is important also, especially the public
safety. There should be a moratorium on the expansion or creation of any more sand and gravel pits until
the existing ones are fully developed. The asphalt and cement batch plans should be located in the same
area with the asphalt and concrete recycling plants. Do not string them throughout the valley, place them
between CR 4 and CR 2 on the west side. The transportation studies have been submitted but there
needs to be actual visitation to the area. Look at the big picture and what is happening to the quality of life
in south Weld County.
Bryant Gimlin asked if Mr. Norcross was representing Fort Lupton or where these personal comments.
Mr. Norcross indicated they were his personal comments.
Dave Padgett, Patina Oil and Gas, indicated that he has concerns for future oil and gas frilling sites. The
expansion of mining will not allow for future drilling sites,when Patina has lease rights. The applicant
provided information on the location of the well site, however, there has not been sufficient time for review.
Patina requests that an agreement be in place prior to approval. Mr. Padgett stated that Patina has
worked with Aggregate Industries on other sites and does foresee any issues arising with obtaining an
agreement.
Bryant Gimlin asked if the standard language was in the conditions. Mr. Ogle indicated that there was not
due to the fact this was an addition of 49 acres there would be adequate area for them to drill. Mr. Gimlin
added it might need to be added so that an agreement is completed.
The Chair closed public portion.
Stephen Mokray asked Mr. Carroll if there was additional impact on the road due to the expansion. Mr.
Carroll stated there will be no major increase. The amount of vehicles will remain the same. The CR 6
and Hwy 85 intersection is signalized. The three gravel pits in the area went together and provided
improvements to the area to assist in the safety for everyone. The haul routes will be the same.
John Folsom asked Mr. Ogle about a letter from Brian Grubb, Fort Lupton Planner, and if there is a need
to put their requirements regarding road right of way into our requirements. Mr. Ogle indicated that right of
way is requested to be reserved at this time and this would be delineated on the plat. Mr. Carroll indicated
that the additional 10 feet on CR 6would be asked for to gain enough roadway for future expansion. Mr.
Carroll does not know what occurs when a municipality asks for something greater. Mr. Morrison
indicated that in light of the other planning documents it would depend on how it integrates into the referral
of Fort Lupton. This is just a reservation of road right of way not a dedication. It may not be inappropriate
to consider but it needs to be determined if it makes sense to accommodate the referral. The applicant
must also be in agreement with this. Mr. Ogle added that the reservation of the 10 additional feet from the
Department of Public Works has been addressed in the comments.
Doug Ochsner asked Mr. Ogle about referrals from the ditch companies and there have been no
response. Mr. Ogle stated that the water that is on the property is owned by Aggregate Industries. Mike
Refer, representative of Aggregate Industries, stated the McCann Ditch was notified, this ditch is to the
south of the property and there is no affect to the ditch. Central Colorado Water Conservancy District has
several wells on the property and there is an agreement in place with them.
Bill Schenderlein, added that the location of the mineral resources are in the river bottoms and valleys.
This is a large reason for the number of mining operations in the area. Mr. Schenderlein stated that a
traffic study was completed several years ago and the study determined the improvements to the
intersection. This aids in the safety for everyone in the area. The current and the proposed operation
utilizes CR 6 and Hwy 85. Mr. Gimlin asked if there would be a significant increase in traffic with this
expansion. Mr. Refer stated that when CDOT did the traffic improvements as far as the overlay, the three
operations commissioned a combined future traffic study. Prior to the study, there were not any upgrades
required, however, after the study, it was determined that acceleration and deceleration lanes would be
required to improve truck traffic and safety, therefore, all improvements were installed immediately.
Kim Ogle suggested adding language to Section 2. Prior to Scheduling the Board of County
Commissioners Hearing, subsection A, to state "The applicant shall either submit a copy of an
agreement with the properties mineral owner/operator stipulating that the Oil &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 owners/operators. The plat shall be amended to include any
future drilling sites." Mr. Folsom asked if this would be located before recording the plat not before
scheduling the Board of County Commissioners hearing. Mr. Ogle stated it would be before scheduling
the Board of County Commissioners hearing.
Stephen Mokray moved to add#2 Prior to Scheduling the Board of County Commissioners Hearing and
the above referenced language. John Folsom seconded. Motion carried.
Kim Ogle indicated there was an error in 2 A 2 that should indicate AmUSR-905 not as written.
Development Standard#21 should be deleted and renumber.
Stephen Mokray moved to modify 2 A 2 and delete Development Standard #21. John Folsom seconded.
Motion carried.
Stephen Mokray amended his motion to include 2 A 2 to be AmUSR-905 not AmUSR-1435. John Folsom
seconded the amendment. Motion carried.
Connie Davis, Aggregate Industries, added clarification with regard to the oil and gas issues. The only two
areas that are a part of this amendment that will affect the Oil and Gas drilling sites. The applicant would
like to have the Condition placed in Prior to Recording the Plat not Prior to Scheduling the Board of County
Commissioners hearing. The agreement will be provided at the Board of County Commissioners hearing.
Mr. Folsom asked if there was a problem in getting the agreement. Mr. Ogle clarified that the motion was
for Prior to Scheduling the Board of County Commissioners hearing.
John Folsom moved to amend the previous motion for Prior to Scheduling be moved to Prior to Recording
the Plat. Doug Ochsner seconded. Motion carried.
John Folsom moved that Case AmUSR-905, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Tim Tracy, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes. Motion
carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 4:45 pm
Respectfully submitted
C t C t—b YtC t �f_ ‘---
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello