HomeMy WebLinkAbout20032785.tiff r
UMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, September 16, 2003
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2003,in the Southwest Weld
County Building, 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
James Rohn
John Folsom
Stephan Mokray Absent
John Hutson
Bruce Fitzgerald
Also Present: Pam Smith, Don Carroll, Peter Schei, Chris Gathman, Kim Ogle, Monica Mika, Jacqueline
Hatch
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on September 2,
2003, was approved as read.
The following Case will be continued:
CASE NUMBER: USR-1437
APPLICANT: Moises Rodriguez, c/o Fred Otis
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tract 12, Ireland Gardens; being part of SW4 of Section 2, T1 N, R65W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for Multi-
Family Dwellings for persons principally employed at or engaged in
Farming, Ranching or Gardening in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Hwy 52 and 1/4 mile east of Beech Street
(CR 45).
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, is requesting a continuance to October 21, 2003. There was
a legal notification error by the newspaper.
PLANNER: Monica Mika
REQUEST: Weld County Code Changes to Chapters 23, 24, and 27.
Monica Mika,Department of Planning Services,presented the proposed changes but requested the decision
be deferred to the October 7,2003 meeting. Ms. Mika reviewed some changes that were not present in the
packet given including handouts and email.
Michael Miller stated it would be better to review at the October 7, 2003 meeting.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to continue to October 7, 2003. James Rohn seconded. Motion carried
CASE NUMBER: PZ-521
e o a4t4 ket-1 Page -1-
g -d5 c 3 2003-2785
APPLICANT: Don & Linda Owens- Gloraloma Estates
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B RE-1921; part SE4 Section 9, T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agricultural) to PUD for 19 lots with Estate Uses
along with 15 acres of open space in addition to 36 acres of open space
and equestrian uses located on Tract A.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 22; west of and adjacent to CR 19.
Chris Gathman,Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-521,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 minimal lot size being smaller than required for the septic systems. There
should be public sewer if the lot sizes are smaller. Mr. Gathman stated that they do have urban scale
density. The issue is that there is no sewer available to the site. The closest line is 2 1/2 miles away. The
sanitation district has no plans to extend sewer to the area in the near future. There could be a condition that
states if the line gets within 400 feet of the site then the applicant must then tie in. Mr. Rohn stated his
concern is the size of the lots and not varying from the code with regard to the size of the lots. Ms. Smith
stated that these are engineer designed septic systems on the western portion of the project and there is no
issues to the north with ground water due. There is an issue on one lot with the oil and gas envelopes. Mr.
Miller asked about the development being an urban scale development and does his give them the ability
to request a variance to the lot size for the septic systems. It seems to be a bad combination with the
decrease of lot size and the lots being on septic systems.
John Folsom asked about a copy of the draft annexation agreement. Mr.Gathman stated that Firestone has
indicated that there is an approved agreement but it is not signed and finalized by the applicant. They will
send a copy once it has been finalized. They have not indicated any issues. The applicant could provide
additional information. Mr. Folsom asked about the distance of the fire station and the response time may
not be adequate. Mr. Gathman stated that he has not received anything from the fire district indicating any
issues.
James Rohn asked Mr. Gathman why hearing the case if it will be annexed into Firestone and there is and
IGA. Mr Gathman stated it was an annexation agreement and there is no pending application for annexation.
The agreement is that they will annex at a later time when services are available.
Chris Gathman indicated that this application is in an IGA with Firestone. Firestone will attempt to extend
services to the site to their ability. The availability of water and sewer is not within the area at least at this
time. Mr. Miller added that if there is an application within the Urban Growth Boundary area the sewer
provider should be made to extend the service to the development. Mr. Gathman added that the property
is in the St. Vrain Sanitation District. There are no plans to extent sewer within 2 miles of the site.
John Folsom asked about the referral to the county attorney. Mr. Gathman stated the county attorney
reviews the covenants. Mr. Folsom asked if the Planning Commission could recommend a secondary
access. Mr. Gathman indicated that the fire district did not address the issue. Staff goes with their
recommendation and Public Works.
Michael Miller asked about the ditch company access. Mr. Gathman stated the land is owned by the ditch
company, Farmers Irrigation Company. There is access to the ranch facilities on the other side. Staff is
requiring proof of agreements. Mr. Miller stated this is the first time for a conceptual change of zone. This
is basically an incomplete application. Mr.Gathman stated that there are issues that need to be worked out.
There are several items that need to be addressed that is the reason for the recommendation that it be
conceptual. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Barker for clarification on a conceptual change of zone. Mr. Barker stated
if Planning Commission is not comfortable with the information presented it should be proposed to the
applicant and hear from the applicant. The applicant may be able to address some of the issues but it is
ultimately up to the Planning Commission if they want to continue with the case.
Page -2-
Chris Pickett,representative,provided clarification with regard to the draft annexation and conceptual versus
specific PUD application. The change of zone process typically does not require all the finalized documents
that are required at the Final PUD process. If all the information was provided at the change of zone process
it would essentially eliminate the need for the Final PUD process. There are agreements that need to be
finalized. The question is rather the change of zone application is agreeable not the final PUD. This is not
an incomplete application but there are agreements that still need to be finalized in order to continue with
the Final PUD. The code allows the Board of County Commissioners to make the determination on whether
or not there is septic or public sewer. The subdivision is in an IGA and 3 miles from the current city. The
annexation agreement is to try and work with them for future development. The annexation agreement
determines if the town will annex once they get to the area where the subdivision is. One acre lots are
acceptable, the 2.5 acres or more for the estate zone district. There should be room for septic building
envelopes and there are two access points to the subdivision. The curb and sidewalk is necessary for an
urban scale development. This is more of a rural subdivision.
James Rohn asked Mr.Barker if the applicant must come back to the Planning Commission at the Final PUD
stage. Mr Barker stated that there are two options. The first options allows for specific information being
required that would typically be in a change of zone. More of these are submitted. The second option allows
for more flexibility in the amount of detail submitted. Conceptual is not required to submit the amount of
detail required in the first option. The information will be required to be submitted at the final plan stage.
The concern is that if there is something that needs to be provided and is critical to the decision, why is it
not submitted and is there a possible date of when it might be done. Mr.Rohn stated his concern is the code
with urban scale development and the sewer system designed as anything other than public sewer. Mr.
Miller stated that there is a condition that allows this along with a recommendation from the Weld County
Health Department and it be an engineered system. Mr. Rohn would like to see public sewer since they are
having smaller lots.Mr.Barker clarified the change in the definition of an urban scale development and there
can be exceptions from that if they are located in an IGA. The issue is if the annexation agreement
addresses the issue of sewer. Mr.Pickett stated that the annexation agreement has been back and forth for
clarification of language. Mr. Folsom stated his concern with a draft copy of the annexation agreement. Mr.
Pickett indicated that the applicant does have a copy of the draft agreement and this is a condition before
they can go to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Pickett stated that the change of zone is the
application at hand. Mr. Miller stated the concern is if a change of zone recommendation can be made with
no annexation draft copy.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Name inaudible, representative of the Coal Ridge ditch company, indicated that there are three problems
that have not been addressed. There is no dedicated right of way to the reservoir, if the residences join the
ditch and drowns that responsibility should go to the residents, and a fence along the ditch. The Farmers
Irrigation Company feeds the ditch. These are a few things the ditch company is concerned with.
Dave Padgett,Patina Oil,indicated their concerns with agreements before the proposed plan can go forward.
Drafts have been exchanged with the issues being the flow lines and access.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
Chris Pickett,clarified that the issues with the ditch company will be addressed with agreements and will be
done prior to recording the final plat. The issues of safety will also be addressed with the agreements. This
process is for the change of zone and the requirement of all the agreements should be at the Final PUD
stage. If this were to be denied and all the information provided the agreements will be null and void. There
is no way to develop the property with no agreements.
Bryant Gimlin stated that the annexation and access agreements are contingent on the final layout. Mr.
Gimlin suggest that if there are concerns with something specific like what the agreement then specific
language should be included.
Mr. Folsom indicated that there should be specific agreements with the adequate water and sewer system
and the compatibility with the surrounding land uses.
Page -3-
Mr. Miller stated that the annexation agreement provides information about when annexation can be done
and when the possibility of public services can be met. Planning Commission is being asked to waive the
minimum lot size which is part of the bulk standards for the estate zone,waiting for final plan maybe not the
right process. Planning Commission could approve as is and see what the final plan is because there is
limited risk. The final PUD has to come back through the process. Mr. Gimlin stated that the annexation
may not address specifics on sewer system,maybe the condition could include more specific language. Mr.
Miller asked for clarification from Mr. Barker about the exclusion from the agreement that allows for septic
systems. Mr. Barker stated that the agreements are with the town and if the town does not have any
objections to the sewer system that is being provided, the septic, then there is no issue. If it was an issue
it should be addressed in the annexation agreement. The question would be should the county have issue
with it since the town does not. Mr. Miller stated his main concern is to not go against the agreement that
is with the individual towns. Ms. Mika stated that the important thing is that the PUD process affords the
flexibility. When a PUD subdivision combined with an UGB area there is more flexibility. There have been
conceptual change of zones that have been approved. Conceptual change of zone affords the applicant risk,
the risk is to gain approval that the use is appropriate on the site. There is no guarantee that the
infrastructure or service is available or when the physical elements come back they are appropriate. The
lot size can be smaller in PUD if asked for, but the question is if the envelopes will fit on the lot. The burden
is on the applicant. Urban uses can only happen in an UGB area. Mr. Barker stated the definitions that
need to be utilized are in Section 19-1-40.
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to remove 1 E. John Hutson seconded. Motion carried
Bruce Fitzgerald moved to add 2 H. James Rohn seconded. Motion carried
Bryant Gimlin asked about adding the ditch company to an existing condition and their issues be addressed.
Mr. Miller asked if the right to farm covers some of the issues from the ditch company. Mr. Barker stated
it provides a warning to the residents. Mr. Barker stated that this is something that needs to be addressed
but can be done at the final plan stage. It makes more sense to deal with this at the next stage.
Chris Gathman suggested adding language at 4J consisting of"The applicant shall provide an agreement
with the Coal Ridge Ditch Company and Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District or provide evidence
that they have made an adequate attempt to address the concerns.
Bryant Gimlin moved to add the above language to 4J. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. Motion carried
Bryant Gimlin asked about the oil and gas processing facility. There needs to be something that addresses
potential conflict. Mr. Gathman stated that there are requirements to get agreements with the oil and gas
and other mineral owners.
Chris Gathman added that the final plan process for the PUD is different than a minor subdivision process
in which there are two hearings. The PUD process includes the specific or the conceptual change of zone
which has hearing. There is no hearing at the final plan stage for the Planning Commission it goes to the
Board of County Commissioners.
James Rohn moved to denial based on the lack of content proving this will be a quality project. Section 27-
2-190 - lack of sewer system, lot size a problem. John Folsom seconded.
James Rohn moved that Case PZ-521,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
denial. John Folsom 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, no; Bruce Fitzgerald, no; James Rohn, yes; John Hutson,
no. Motion was a tie, therefore the case goes forward without a recommendation.
John Folsom commented that Section 23-2-30 A3-uses allowed will not be compatible with the surrounding
Page -4-
land uses.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1439
APPLICANT: Jesse Rodriguez c/o Anderson Construction
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: W2 NW4 of Section 7, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for an events
center, including a banquet hall and outdoor facilities to host equestrian
events in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 36 and east of and adjacent to CR 1.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1439, reading the
recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending
denial of the application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the status of CR 1. Mr. Carroll stated that CR 1 is a collector which would
require 80 feet of right of way at build out. The traffic on the road at this time is approximately 2200-2300
vehicles per day.
James Rohn asked Ms. Hatch about the lack of compatibility with the surrounding neighbors. Ms. Hatch
stated that the primary use is residential in the area the intensity of this use does not fit with the surrounding
residences.
Doug Means, provided clarification with regard the intent of the project. The special events this summer
were done through the Board of County Commissioners and the permits were obtained. The owner has been
holding concert fund raiser. Mr.Means is trying to propose a banquet facility in which the events will be held
inside. The equestrian center will hold events outside in the summer on weekends. The site has been
designed to have the event center to the back of the property to minimize visualization and more to the south
to provide a buffer zone. There will be landscaping to help eliminate the extra noise and traffic. The owner
is planning on building in phases. The expectation is half the occupancy that is currently there. The summer
occupancy could have exceeded what is being asked for at this time.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Donna Galvery, neighbor, indicated her concerns with the property value. There was no notification given
for the proposal. The next concern is the noise and light pollution. There will be parking lot lighting and it
will affect the neighborhood. The noise has proved to be enormous from the previous events. Another issue
is the safety of the road, CR 1.The road is a two lane straight stretch with the speed limit of45 mph. There
have bee approximately 1500 people at dual events. The emergency response time is an issue. This
averages around 30 minutes to reach the area.This will also open the community to more crime.Safety for
those on the property and those around is a concern.
Ron Vanhofwigen, neighbor, indicated his concerns that there should not be that large of a commercial use
in a residential area. The use is going to destroy the property. The property value will decrease immensely.
The property is for sale and the realtor indicated that the property may not sell if the proposed project passes.
The proposal is a good proposal but not in this area.
Kevin Sullivan, neighbor, indicated his concern for the banquet hall. What is the residences guarantee that
this will not become a future night club. Police protection is an issue due to the residences being located in
the middle of several agencies.
Pam Koehler Summit Peak Estates, stated that the proposal does not fit with the area. The kids will not be
safe in the area. People drive into the area looking for the site. The noise is tremendous. The main concern
is for the kids and their safety.
Vance Higgens, neighbor, expressed concern with the proposal. It is a breach of the lifestyle of the area.
Page -5-
Area does not support this type of venue. It is the start of something that will not be acceptable in the area.
It is more of a county fair venue. It is completely out of context for the area. Values of the area would be
depleted.
Ron Larson, neighbor to the west, stated his concerns with the lighting in the area. It is not compatible with
the area. Alcohol is a huge factor. They bring in the"party atmosphere."
Janet Montez, neighbor, stated her concerns with the alcohol. There is no control at the events. This
proposal does not fit with the lifestyle of the area.
Fred Wilson, indicated concerns with the alcohol and public health issues with the alcohol.
Roger Seeton, indicated his concerns with the noise. There is a serious question of respect for the
neighbors. The owner is hiding behind the equestrian center for another purpose.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked how far away Mr. Seeton lived. Mr. Seeton indicated about a mile.
Howard Langhoff, neighbor to the west, indicated that 39 of 74 acres is not realistic for a buffer. The sound
from the public announcement system covers far more than that area. The banquet hall hours invite bad
behavior. The lighting will change the area and traffic will be hazardous. The events that have already
occurred were a dose of reality. The lot was not cleaned for six weeks after the event in July. There were
beer cans and alcohol bottles scattered everywhere. The character of the neighborhood will be changed
dramatically.
James Rohn asked Mr. Barker if the project is denied does this still allow Mr. Rodriguez still going to be able
to hold special event. Mr. Barker stated that this type of facility would be denied but there can be permits
can be granted for the temporary assemblages and liquor licenses. Mr. Rohn asked if a permit were to be
requested would the neighbors be asked for input. Mr.Barker stated that there is a notice but it is for posting
only. There is no notice with regard to mailings.
Sheri Molton, stated concerns with regard to the noise. There will be a public announcement system and
all can be heard through this from at least a mile away.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
Doug Means provided some clarification. Mr. Means was not part of the special events that were held this
summer. The goal was to design a facility where the events will be held indoors. With this type of proposal
there will be management programs. The lighting will be on timed systems and operable during operations.
The understanding is this is a part time use facility. They will be dictated by specific hours. The objective
would be to have them inside the facility. There will be restrictions set on this proposal. The previous
special events may not have been managed adequately.
Michael Miller stated that the property rights and impacts on adjoining properties are reviewed very closely.
There is no way this is compatible with the surrounding area. It is totally inappropriate place for the facility.
John Hutson indicated that this type of organization will grow and become a weekly event. It will not be
compatible with the area surrounding this.
Pam Smith,Weld County Health Department, mentioned that the septic system for the waste and portable
toilets for overflow at the outdoor equestrian center requires a state review. This is a six month to one year
process. There are several regulations that must be met with regard to the system. It is basically a waste
treatment plant.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case USR-1439,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation
of denial. James Rohn seconded the motion. Based on incompatibility.
Page -6-
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; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes;James Rohn,yes;John Hutson,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Bruce Fitzgerald further suggested that the Board of County Commissioners not allow any special events
or permits for this site.
John Hutson suggested that the residents explain to the Board of County Commissioners the concerns about
the previous events. This may assist in the decision of further events.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-600
APPLICANT: John Zadel - Distant Thunder PUD
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the S2 Section 10, T1 N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to PUD for 9 lots with Estate Uses.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 19; 1 mile south of Hwy 52.
John Folsom left.
Chris Gathman,Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-600,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.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the location of the balloon launch site. Mr. Gathman stated it was located in
the northwester corner. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if the road will be dedicated. Mr.Gathman stated the road will
be dedicated to county.
Bryant Gimlin asked if the applicant reduces the amount of lots to eight it bring them to the 2 1/2 acres on the
remaining lots. Mr. Gathman stated that is what Dacono indicates in the referral. If the lot was removed it
will meet the minimum lot size. There are only two lots that are under the minimum lot size.
Chris Gathman indicated that Dacono is in the process of revising the Comprehensive Plan and therefore
it might change the referral from Dacono. It applies to the plan as it reads now.
James Rohn asked about the septic system and move away from the minimum lot size. Mr.Gathman stated
the applicant can answer this better. This is a PUD so it allows them to request a variance from the 2'/2 acre
lot size requirement under estate zoning.
John Zadel, applicant, clarified the septic versus the sanitary sewer issue. The City of Dacono is the one
that will provide the sewer service in the future. The agreement states that the project is not required to
annex for the next four years. The envelopes for the septic systems have been identified. Hot air balloons
are not allowed pursuant to regulations due to a tower that has been built nearby.
Michael Miller asked about the agreement with Dacono with regard to hooking to the sewer lines. Mr.Zadel
stated that the sewer line would not be completed until 2005 or later.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked Mr.Zadel when a balloon launched from property. Mr.Zadel stated that one has not
been launched yet.
Bryant Gimlin asked about the reduction in the number of the lots.Mr.Zadel stated that they could decrease
the number of lots and then have open space. At this point the applicant wants nine lots. Mr. Gimlin stated
the concern would be if the increase on the lots it would affect the septic/leech field envelopes. Mr. Zadel
stated that the nine lots is what is requested.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Page -7-
John Hutson moved to add 2G- the applicant shall address the requirements of the Weld County Sheriff
office. Add 6D-the applicant shall provide a letter to the Department of Planning Services requesting that
USR-841 special permit be vacated. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. Motion carried.
Pam Smith added that this is a unique PUD. Information needs to be added to indicated that the septic
system is adequate until such time as the annexation. Ms. Smith stated that is unless the annexation
agreement states that the applicant must tie in when the line is available. It may take time to finish the
development, some lots could be potentially on septic system during which time the septic line can come
available. A portion could have access to sewer. The subdivision could be divided depending on the timing
of things.
Bruce Fitzgerald stated that he believes it would be at the annexation time. Ms. Smith stated that septic
systems will work on this site.
Chris Gathman stated that Dacono will provide sewer at some time. Under the IGA it is required by the
county for the applicant to obtain a written contract addressing the Public Services issue. Mr. Barker
suggested modifying 2F to state"....those lots which have not yet been developed at the time sewer service
is then available."
Pam Smith suggested adding language to 3F consisting of:"A Weld County septic permit is required for each
proposed septic system which shall be installed in accordance to the Weld County Individual Sewage
Disposal System Regulations. Each septic system shall be designed for site specific conditions including
but not limited to maximum seasonal high ground water, poor soils and shallow bedrock."
Chris Gathman suggested 5D include"the covenants shall address language for the preservation and/or
protection of absorption field areas. The covenants shall state that activities such as permanent landscaping,
structures,dirt mounds,animal husbandry activities or other activities would interfere with the construction,
maintenance or functions of the field should be restricted over the absorption field areas while in use."
Bryant Gimlin moved to add 3F, 5D and 2F be amended to" to provide sewer service to those lots not
yet developed prior to sewer availability and for any lot whose septic system fails." John Hutson. Motion
carried.
James Rohn moved that Case PZ-600,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. Michael
Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James Rohn, yes; John Hutson, yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: PZ-1027
APPLICANT: Jon File - Filly Ridge PUD
PLANNER: Monica Mika/Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-3474; being part SW4 of Section 32, T2N, R68W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agricultural) to PUD for 9 lots with E(Estate) Uses
along with 3.68 acres open space.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Hwy 52; west of and adjacent to CR 3 1/4.
Monica Mika,Department of Planning Services presented Case PZ-1027,reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending denial of the application
along with the Conditions of Approval.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked Ms. Mika if there was construction taking place on the new pond. Ms. Mika stated
that there has been some grading but it is difficult to differentiate between the mining operation and the
subdivision proposal.
Page -8-
Michael Miller asked what the non compatibility issue is based on. Ms. Mika stated this is an urban scale
development.These lots are smaller than subdivisions in the area. The subdivisions in the area have open
space which is both useable and larger. The applicant is proposing equestrian uses with no proposed
facilities. Mr. Miller asked about the restriction on the recorded exemption. Ms. Mika stated in a recorded
exemption there is a ten year time frame before another recorded exemption can be requested. The code
indicates that if ten lots are going to be created then a subdivision needs to be applied for. This would
require infrastructure to support the ten lots. Mr. Miller added that if an eight lot subdivision was applied for
there would be no issues. Ms. Mika added that some of the difficulty comes from this not being an urban
area.
Rob Casseday, representative, provided clarification with regard to the subdivision. The owner filed for an
recorded exemption because the southerly ditch created a separate legal lot. There is also a ditch at the
north end of the property. A PUD subdivision could then be applied for with no ditch crossings. Within the
20 acres between the two ditches the proposal of open space included areas outside of those ditches. There
was no intention to circumvent any regulations. Staff has suggested there have been major changes to the
plan when in effect the changes were made in response to Public Works and other departments comments.
The lot lines crossing the ditch were determined to be a benefit of the applicant and Public Works in order
to alleviate the issues with ditch crossing. This made the lots smaller than they were at sketch plan. The
other change was in response to Public Works concern with access to the open space therefor the open
space is larger and located in the proposal. The open space/park was made larger and useable. The out
lot to the north is inaccessible but will be maintained by the HOA. That out lot was never planned to be used
by the homeowners but utilized as view corridors. The applicant is in negotiations with the ditch companies
for agreements on maintenance and access. There are two major ditch crossings with drainage structures
that are requiring engineering review,board approval and review with legal counsel. That process is taking
longer than anticipated. The homeowners will only need access to the out lot for maintenance purposes.
The ponds that were described in the sketch plan will still be provided. There is a requirement for detention
on the site and those ponds will contain detention and retention. There have been questions with regard to
equestrian uses. Those types of uses are allowed within the estate zone district. Lauren Light added
information in which the code does apply to this subdivision.
Bryant Gimlin asked what the smallest lot size was. Ms. Mika indicated that lot 2 was 1.05 acres.
Bryant Gimlin asked how the farm to the north would be accessed. Mr.Casseday stated that there is a ditch
company access road that parallels the ditch and runs the entire length of the ditch. There is no access from
the PUD itself to that outlot.
Michael Miller asked where the ditch was located and the access. Mr.Casseday stated the ditch follows the
northern border of the project and continues onto the property to the west.
Michael Miller asked Ms. Mika for clarification with regard to the PUD and RE applications. Ms. Mika stated
they were made within days of each other.
Bryant Gimlin asked Mr. Barker for clarification with regard to the RE and the subdivision application. Mr.
Barker stated the exemption from subdivision in the RE process is there because the state statue allows the
Board of County Commissioners to do this. It is more in terms of process not the final number of lots. Once
the lots are created then the question becomes how to deal with them. If the RE lot is not included then it
can exist alone. The code does not address whether or not it needs to be a part of the subdivision or not.
It addresses the creation, not whether it should be added to the subdivision when created. They can exist
side by side but the question is more in the development itself. Is it by the creation of the lots
simultaneously, does that give the indication that there was intent to evade the subdivision chapter of the
code. The application of an RE then subdivision within days gives the impression of the intent to evade.
Mr.Gimlin asked if the open space to the north can actually be included in the PUD if there is no access nor
ability of the homeowners to utilize the site. Mr. Barker stated that in any PUD the purpose of defining open
space it that the property be all inclusive. If there is something outside, then it is up to the Planning
Commission whether they want to include it or not. The intent was not to have adjacent properties be
considered common open space for applications. Mr. Gimlin stated that having a physical barrier and no
access makes it is hard for it to be considered open space. Mr. Casseday stated that this lot is out lot not
Page -9-
open space, it was created for view corridor. The percentage of open space is 15%, 3.68 acres which is
adequate according to the code. The issue is the applicant created the configuration and the out lot needs
to be included to obtain the overall 2 1/2 acres for the septic systems. The out lot needs to be in the overall
balance or there would be no recommendation from the Health Department for the septic systems.
James Rohn asked about the average lot sizes on the surrounding PUD. Ms. Mika Monica stated that
Carmicar Ranchette is 1.5 acres and Parkland Estates is 2.5+ acres. It is listed in the application.
Bruce Fitzgerald stated that the reason for the minimum lot size of 2 Y acres was to keep septic and wells
away from each other. This gives the ability to separate existing wells and future systems. In the PUD as
long as the 2 1/2 acre bench mark is reached the ability to have smaller lots is available. Mr.Fitzgerald added
that this development will include city water.
Peter Schei,Public Works,asked about the new proposal for the drainage plan. The lakes designed in front
are not on the information he has. Mr.Schei asked how those are utilized and their function? Mr.Casseday
stated the information is in the drainage report that was submitted. Mr. Schei indicated he has not received
that information. Drainage information was described with regard to flows and a report was added to the
record so Mr. Schei could review before Board of County Commissioners.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Ralph Nelson, neighbor, indicated being he is in favor of the project. It is a nice view for those who buy in
the area. Mr. Nelson is also a member of the ditch company board and they are working with the applicant
on agreements for maintenance and right of way. There are several subdivisions in the area,so it would be
compatible with the area.
Mike Shaw,neighbor to the north, indicated his issue with the water rights. There is a natural flow that was
adjudicated in the 1940 for use of the water. It has a constant flow of 2 Y feet of water historically. There
has been an interruption of the flow and the future of the water right is of concern. The cause of the
interruption was the natural spring was dug out to become the pond. There have been protests launched
with the Division of Water Resources regarding the interruption. Mr. Barker indicated that the water right
issue is not something that the county has authority on. An agreement could be asked for.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
Rob Casseday stated that the damage to the historically flow that was done was part of Lot A which is the
mining activity and not part of this application. Ms. Mika can get the number for Colorado Office of
Management for Mr. Shaw.
Rob Casseday indicated there concerns for the Conditions of Approval. 1A- the applicant would like to
change the requirement for written evidence to prior to recording not prior to scheduling Board of County
Commissioners hearing. Ms. Mika stated that the concern was asked for at the time of sketch plan. There
is a letter from the ditch company stating there is no use of the ditch easement. Staff believes it needs to
be addressed prior to creating the lots. 2B-the applicant would like to include language consisting of"out
lot A and out lot B shall be labeled as non buildable parcels except they can have a subdivision sign. Ms.
Mika stated the concerns is the balance of the out lot is defined of right of way. A sign cannot be put in the
right of way. Mr.Casseday stated the sign would be outside fo the right of way. 5A-the applicant would like
this item deleted because there are not major changes, they were changes recommended by staff. This
does not warrant an additional review. Ms.Mika stated this condition is language was from the code. When
there are changes it is appropriate for the decision makers to have opportunity to review the case again. The
case has changed from the sketch plan to change of zone.
Michael Miller went through each of the applicants concerns. Mr.Fitzgerald stated with regard to 2B,if there
is a part of the lot that is allowable the sign could be placed there. Bryant Gimlin commented that with
regard to 5A to let the Board of County Commissioners decide if the changes made were major or not and
would warrant another public review.
Page -10-
Bryant Gimlin moved to change 2E to read"Out lot A and B shall be labeled as non buildable parcels except
that Out lot A be able to have a subdivision sign provided such sign is outside the road right of way." Bruce
Fitzgerald seconded. Motion carried with James Rohn voting no.
Peter Schei would like to see the drainage report be addressed. Mr. Barker added that it was submitted as
an exhibit and it can be reviewed before the Board of County Commissioners.
Michael Miller commented that this project is an attempt to circumvent the intent of the code and the
process. It could have been prevented by making it an 8 lot subdivision adverse to 9 lots. Mr. Miller will not
be in favor of varying.
Bruce Fitzgerald commented that larger developments. Mr.Miller added that they have not been larger than
9 lots and considered urban development.
James Rohn commented his concern is with the smaller lot size. The septic system are going to be close
and there will not be enough room for the envelopes. If the acreage was bigger it would be appropriate.
Bryant Gimlin commented that the attempt is to circumvent the process. The difficulty is the applicant is
trying to use a disconnected piece of property to meet the overall density.
James Rohn moved that Case PZ-1027,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. Michael
Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James Rohn,yes; John Hutson,yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1436
APPLICANT: Russ Otterstein
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: S2 NE4 & NE4 NE4 of Section 19, -11 N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: 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 in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to CR 8;east of and adjacent to US 85; and west of
and adjacent to CR 27.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1436, 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 sheriff comments and is there a development standard that addresses this.
Mr. Ogle indicated that the trucks are required to covered when they leave the site. Mr. Rohn asked about
the CDMG hearing and the outcome. Mr. Ogle indicated that the applicant could address the specifics as
it is Ogle's understanding that this was only a pre-application hearing.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Carroll if there were plans to upgrade CR 27. Mr. Carroll stated that CR 27 was
a collector with approximately 1700-2000 vehicle trips per day. Public Works is asking for additional right
of way for a possible widening in the future.
Russ Otterstein,applicant,provided clarification with regard to the project.The company specializes in street
and road construction. Sand and gravel is a key ingredient in the business.
Paul Banks,Banks&Gesso,and the applicant's representative provided additional information with regard
Page -11-
to the project. There is a good gravel deposit and all of the submittal requirements have been achieved.
The reclamation proposal will be three reservoirs for water storage which will hold approximately 3500 acre
feet. There will be three phases to the mining plan. The plant site is in the southeast corner of the proposed
project. Mr.Otterstein has met with the neighbors and interested parties and will continue to do so. The site
will be have a perimeter berm and will be screened by topsoil stockpiles. The proposal is to mine 35 acres
per phase with a time frame of 5-7 years per phase. Three separate reservoirs will be created concurrent
to reclamation. The trucks will enter the site by traveling from Hwy 85 to CR 8 then entering the property.
The northbound trucks will follow the same route from the property. The southbound trucks will exit onto CR
27, south to CR 6, west to Hwy 85 then southbound at the light. The applicant has agreed to improve the
turn lanes on Hwy 85, which were requested by CDOT. There will be additional asphalt overlay on CR 8.
Within the site 300 feet into the property will be paved. Additional improvements include the dedication of
right of way on CR 8,an acceleration lane onto CR 27, dedication of right of way along CR 27,an improved
turning radius from CR 27 to CR 6 and asphalt overlay along the entire stretch of CR 6 from CR 27 to Hwy
85.
The applicant has met with the neighbors and has acknowledged their concerns with ground water.
Monitoring wells have been established to create a baseline standard for subsurface water levels in the area.
There is 18-20 feet of gravel that can be mined before any groundwater issues arise. Prior to any de-
watering or exposure of the water table, a slurry wall will be installed. Slurry walls are effective in sealing
the reservoirs. There is a very minimal change in the water levels.
In an attempt to minimize the impacts to the surrounding properties,the site was set back from the highway
and landscaped. This was also for visualization purposes. Mr. Banks stated that this industry is heavily
regulated in terms of water,storage of fuels on the property,emissions,dust control and permits. There are
several agencies in which permits must be granted. The applicant has reviewed the Fort Lupton
comprehensive plan and the hearing for the case was attended by the applicant's representative. Mr.Banks
noted that the application file is open for public review in the Greeley office, however, it was his
understanding that there had been no review of the case file by surrounding property owners. If citizens or
agencies are interested in the project the applicant will meet with them to discuss any of their concerns.
Michael Miller asked about the configuration of the reservoirs. There is no referral from the Division of
Wildlife,which typically discourage rectangular designs. Mr.Ogle stated that Division of Wildlife is currently
reviewing the case but the referral could come after the Board of County Commissioners hearing. The
minimal referral time from the Division is approximately 45 days. Mike Babler, Division of Wildlife, has
indicated he has no preliminary issues with the case though nothing in writing. Mr. Banks added that a site
search has been completed for threatened and endangered species. The applicant has spoken with Mr.
Babler concerning this issue. Mr. Banks noted that the site is not near any wetlands or in the lower valley
of the South Platte River. The site is on a plowed field above the wetland area. There is limited wildlife on
the site due to the location and historic use. Mr.Miller stated the reservoirs provide a better aesthetic aspect
if they are contoured or irregular shaped. It is better environment for wildlife.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Floyd Acre, a neighbor, is protesting the terms of the proposal. Mr.Acre's understanding is there will be a
minimum of 85 trucks going in and out of the site on CR 27. This is to start with, this is 170 trips per day.
The traffic in the area is already tremendous. This is the only road between Brighton and Fort Lupton. The
highway patrol states this is the heaviest traveled road in southern Weld County. The speed limit is 40 mph.
The school buses stops on this road four or more times a day. The homes are set right against the road and
the dust will be enormous. There are agricultural trucks using this road which causes issues now. There are
some environmental problems with the site. The dust,noise, odor,traffic injuries,safety regulations are only
some of the issues that will be associated with this project. CDOT has stated in their brochure that Weld
County has one of the highest accident rates in Colorado with larger commercial vehicles. The more truck
traffic the more dangerous the area is. The soil on the site will be depleted and once it is gone there is no
second chance. On CR 6 west of Highway 85 there is a gravel pit and it will be years before that is cleaned
up. This proposal should be denied. If this must be done,the alternative is to use the west side of the South
Platte River.
Page -12-
There are several people present who want denial for this project but are not going to speak. Mr.Acre asked
them to stand indicating there support of the request for denial of the application.
Cynthia Reardon, a neighbor, indicated her concerns are with the water wells. If the water table drops, the
trees on the property will not survive. There are serious health problem with the dust along with the smell
of the asphalt. There are fumes from the facility. The traffic is a huge concern with the surrounding
neighbors. The property values will also decrease.
Gene Watada, neighbor, indicated that progress is the question but to whom does it cost the most? The
surrounding areas would be the area that pays the most. The idea is to develop the pits into wildlife refuges
but how long will it take? Safety is a huge concern on CR 27. There have been several accidents on CR
8 and CR 27 with trucks and cars. CR 8 is heavily traveled for the size of road that it is. Gravel trucks get
paid by the load, so they will speed. The requirement to cover loads is no big deal; there are still broken
windshields. Traffic is a huge issue in this area especially. There is nothing greater than the farmers and
the beginnings of crops in the spring time, now there will be nothing but dirt.
David Norcross,commented that there have been 170 permits issued for mining by Weld County since July
1, 1973. Of the 117 permits, 115 permits are located between CR 2 and CR 66 and between CR 1 and CR
49. All sites are in different stages of mining. The largest percentage of the mining operations are in the
Fort Lupton/Del Camino area. There is a need to preserve the minerals that are in short supply, but the
operation needs to be a responsible and orderly development. The City of Fort Lupton established a model
their aquifer to establish their well head protection area. The reason that the water level is dropping is
because of the sand and gravel pits in the area. The Corps of Engineers is concerned with the several
mining operations in the area affecting the water levels. There is a Hwy 85 corridor plan that indicates
improvements need to be done before there can be a large increase in the traffic utilizing those roads.
John Kubic stated that there is a lot of expensive property around the area. The area is unincorporated Weld
County. This location is vital and it is getting worse in the area. Mr. Kubic could accept a feed lot or
junkyard, but this is something else. The area is being over built. There are covenants to protect the
homeowners. It seems as though Planning Commission is trying to protect those that purchase in the area
but the neighbors need the Planning Commission to protect those that live there now. It seems that there
was the same application two years ago under a different name and it was denied. One primary question
is how are they going to get the water from the reservoirs to the South Platte River to utilize it?
Charles Spain, indicated issues with the road improvements. The bridge at CR 6 and CR 27 is caving in.
There was a similar hearing two years ago for a business of this type and it was denied.
Luke Chapman,worker for Premier Paving,stated it was a good company and would be a good asset to the
county. The industry strives to maintain the projects and the community.
Arthur Mitze attorney for Villano Brothers, indicated their concerns. The Villano's own an large commercial
family owned farm which farms approximately 1000 acres. They rely on well and ditch rights to provide
water to the agricultural operation. Their major concern is that the quantity and quality of the well water will
be impacted. The impacts are a concern because there is not an immediate remedy. This would cause
them to lose the crops and it would affect the farm's income for subsequent years. The Villanos would like
to continue the application because the following requirements have not been met. Section 23-2-220.A.7,
requires that the applicant prove adequate provisions have been made for the health,safety and welfare of
the public. Section 23-2-220.A.3, requires the applicant prove the use is compatible with existing uses.
Section 23-4-290.K requires the applicant to provide evidence that an injury which MAY occur to a vested
or current water right,the applicant must enter into an agreement to address or provide a plan of exchanges.
These Code provisions have not been addressed by the application. The Villano's would like to see stricter
conditions on the permit with regard to the water agreement for an immediate remedy. State impacts predict
a one to two foot drop in well water. It is unclear if this will have an impact on the Villano wells or farms.
It is unknown if the analysis is applicable to the geographic location of the Villano's. The state application
commits to shutting down the mining operations if impacts to down gradient wells levels exceeds five feet.
It is unknown if that drop would be a significant impact to the wells. Once the water drops it does not matter
if the operation is shut down due to the fact the water level will not immediately rise again. An immediate
Page -13-
remedy needs to be in place. The impact of one year worth of data is not adequate. Five quarters of data
collected while operations are in progress would be more realistic. This application is not ready for referral
to Board of County Commissioners. The Villano's request two provisions be included to provide for their
protection. One, an adequate measure be developed to determine impact to the wells. Two, provide for
immediate remedy if well water is impacted.
Jim Adams, owner of the property, stated that the area is changing. There is feedlot, oil service and
junkyard. The bulk of farms between Brighton and Fort Lupton are for sale. The land to the west is zoned
industrial. Agriculture is not paying. Premier Paving was selected after visiting their sites and checking out
their background. The site visited was clean, neat and had no on-site odors. What sold the family was the
morale of the staff and the way they were dealt with. The integrity of Mr. Otterstein was the best selling
point. Mr.Adams indicated that they have a responsibility to the family. The family elected to move on this
at this time.
Casey Jones, indicated that slurry walls work. This operation will not impact the ground water. These
operations end up being a better neighbor than a worse neighbor. The industry is changing and there are
more restrictions on the operation. The dust will be addressed and is monitored on a regular basis by the
state and federal government.
Jane Sasaki, indicated concerns with the location being two miles from Fort Lupton High School. The kids
use this route as an access. The present traffic is non stop and is continuing to increase. The residents are
the ones that are impacted more than the owners.
Bernice Dersham,indicated concerns with the commercial building that seems to be done without thought.
The worst thing that can be done is adding more traffic to an area where the roads are not adequate to
handle the additional vehicles.
Bruce Wilson,an interested party from near Platteville, stated that he and his neighbors worked with other
mining owners to obtain operating parameters. When a gravel operation is placed in an agricultural
environment the biggest concern is the protection of the ground water. A monitoring program must be done
in the area. There was some mitigation done by the operators in our area to assist with the ground water
issue. A hydrologic study was done to assist in the operation changes. There was some issues in area wells
and the State Engineer indicated that the mining operator was required to address offsite well injury. The
time for ground water to be protected, is before the operation begins.
Larry Warner, stated that this operation is not compatible and not what the neighbors want. There are
poisonous gases found in the fumes of asphalt.
Rosalee Eberson, is concerned about precedent and how the County will deny similar operations. It is hard
to believe that the 1973 Gravel Mining Law's intent was to destroy an agricultural valley and turn it into a
continuous gravel pit.
Dick Stutz, a neighbor, believes the gravel pit are not beneficial to the area. This is a rapeing of the area.
Mr. Stutz lives 1/2 mile east of the existing Aggregate Industries pit and can hear the rocks on the screens
and the sirens on the belt start up. The water storage is in question. Where is the water coming from and
who will be getting it and how? The area has falling land values. The mining operation owners are all
absentee owners. Traffic is bad at CR 6 and Hwy 85.
Nick Fabero, suggested that if improvements were going to be made to the road system a traffic study
needed to be done. It would be beneficial to have lights on CR 8&CR 27, CR 6&CR 27 and school zones.
This is not the kind of area this type of operation can be done in, unless,preparations are made for the area.
Some of the farmers in the area have sold out because they cannot get on the road to transport or get to the
fields. The water supply of the surrounding area that are in the lower aquifers are being affected. They are
pumping water from the deep aquifer to the South Platte to augment an evaporation project. There has
never been any notice posted nor have the neighbors been contacted.
Dave Farruso, indicated that there is not enough law enforcement. Safety for people in the area is a large
Page-14-
issue. The traffic is bad in the area. The state does not have the money to do the improvements right. The
domino effect has already started to happen. This is not the right location.
The Chair closes this portion of the hearing
Paul Banks, provided additional comments on the application. New residential development would be far
worse with regard to the traffic. Gravel mining will be a temporary use for the area with the final use being
the water storage. There are periods during the winter where there is no on-going mining or processing
operations. This type of operation has no bearing on property values. The Villano Brothers issues are
presently being addressed by the applicant. There is access to monitoring wells on Villano Brothers and
there are monitoring wells on the site. There will be monitoring on the impacts and mitigation for the
impacts. The water will be replaced if a problem arises. There is data to use for the baseline of at least five
years. There is also plenty of gravel to start mining and not reach the water table. There would be no
pumping or de-watering. The wells on the property will not be utilized leaving that water in the water table.
Premier Paving is asking to share the road along with the other businesses that are in the area. Premier
Paving will be upgrading the roads relating to their impact. There will be lanes added. This project will
achieve some of the reclamation within five years.
James Rohn asked about the lakes and where is the water coming from. Mr.Banks stated they are not sure
yet. The applicant is seeking a water entity for storage. Those entities will provide the water. Mr. Rohn
asked if the water was to be augmentation water,how will it get to the South Platte? Mr. Banks indicted that
there are several ways, for example, a culvert or pipe under the highway.
Bryant Gimlin asked about acceleration lane and where will it be built. Mr. Banks stated that there is a box
culvert at CR 27 and CR 6 which could be extended in length to make the lane wider. Mr. Gimlin asked
about some of the control methods for dust, noise and odor. Mr. Banks stated there will be dust plans that
comply with the state and county regulations. The plant will have dust bag houses on them along with
emission controls. The plant that creates the asphalt is in a controlled environment which are equipped with
the modern controls. Mr. Gimlin asked about the hours of operation. Mr. Banks stated the hours would be
6:00am - 6:00pm Monday through Saturday. The standards indicate daylight hours specific to the gravel
operations. Mr. Ogle stated that standard is for all operations located on site.
James Rohn asked about the condition that the trucks be covered, what is penalty for not being covered.
Mr. Ogle stated they are regulated by state standard. Mr. Barker stated that there is a state standard for
requirement that the trucks be covered. It is moving violation and it goes to the individual driver.
Michael Miller asked if there was a plan in place to replace water from farms to the north if something
happens. Mr. Banks stated an agreement is being worked on. The issue is to make sure that Premier
Paving is responsible for the impact. Premier Paving would have no problems mitigating the problem if it
was caused by them. There is a water conveyance mechanism to get water to the farm immediately. Mr.
Gimlin added that if there is adverse change in the water table, it will not happen overnight. The monitoring
should see it coming. Mr. Miller added that when you see it coming that is not the time to try and figure a
remedy.
John Hutson asked if there was a reclamation plan in place but there are no plans to replace the water for
the reclamation. Mr. Ogle stated that they are regulated through DMG permit process. That entity will
regulate the refilling of the ponds. Mr. Banks stated the reclamation is only water storage. There will be a
bond issued so that this is what happens. Mr. Miller asked if there is a requirement to have an agreement
for reclamation with an entity who will supply the water. Mr. Banks indicated that there has been interest
already but nothing finalized. Mr. Hutson stated the previous cases there have been agreements in place
for the water storage.
The Chair asked if there was further comment from staff.
Mr Ogle commented that 1B needs to be amended to read"The applicant shall submit a signed copy of an
agreement with Branch Ditch Company or provide site engineering calculations and documentation specific
to the ability of the existing ditch crossing structure to handle the increase load without doing damage to the
ditch or the ability of the ditch to convey water at the historic flow rate. Evidence shall be submitted to the
Page -15-
Weld County Department of Planning Services for review and approval."
Item 2.A.8-strike the fourth and fifth sentence from the paragraph.
Item 2.A.9 first paragraph strike"installation of a deceleration lane at the entrance. 2.A.9,second paragraph
strike the second and third sentence.
Item 2.A.10-strike the last sentence.
Item 2.A.11-strike the fourth sentence.
Paul Banks indicated the applicant has concerns with item 1.A, Agreements prior to scheduling the Board
of County Commissioners hearing. These agreements will be done but not sure that they can be done in that
short of time frame. The Branch Ditch Company only meets once a month which could cause problems.
Mr. Ogle stated this was a recommendation from Kerr McGee. Mr. Ogle added that they are giving the
applicant additional options with the engineering calculation not just an agreement.
Item 2.A-recording the plat in 30 days after approval. There are many agreements that cannot be obtained
in that short of time frame. The applicant is requesting a longer period of time. Mr.Ogle stated that 90 days
to record the plat would be acceptable. Staff does allow the applicant to write a letter requesting additional
time to meet the requirements, provided they provide staff with an update regarding where they are in the
process. There can be extension of 30 days as long as staff is aware they are proceeding.
Item 2.N- CDOT and Weld County does not want left hand turns from CR 8 onto Hwy 85. Mr. Ogle stated
that condition is based on the referral from CDOT. CDOTs referral stated that the applicant was to provide
notification of a change in the traffic circulation pattern. Premier Paving has no objection to printing a sign
but letter notification needs to be clarified. Mr. Ogle stated that if the applicant would post a sign on Hwy
85 indicating left turns are no longer allowed it would address the condition. Mr.Carroll commented that the
Hwy 85 Corridor Plan CDOT is trying to get three quarter movement at that intersection. This would restrict
the southerly flow. Mr. Miller suggested that prior to Board of County Commissioners staff get clarification
with regard to the notification.
Item 2.P - there is no new access to CDOT so there is no need for an agreement. Mr. Carroll stated that
typically any improvements are cleared through CDOT. Mr. Miller suggested adding "if required."
Bryant Gimlin moves to approve staff changes. James Rohn seconded. Motion carried.
James Rohn moved to accept changes to 2.A.1 to include " with the exception of the recording date to
be 90 days"&2.P. Bryant Gimlin seconded. Motion carried
James Rohn commented that this area is turning industrial. The concerns for the water and where it comes
from. Section 23-2-220 A..6-applicant shall show diligence in conserving prime agricultural land. Section
23-2-220.A.7-the health safety and welfare of the county. Section 23-2-720.A.3-the compatibility with the
surrounding area.
Bruce Fitzgerald commented it is a good project but bad location. Compatibility with the surrounding area
is the main issue.
Bryant Gimlin commented that this is a good plan but in an unfortunate location. There are some industrial
in the area. There are several regulations in which the mining industry is required to do. There are dust,
noise, pollution, emissions and several other. They are required to mitigate those impacts. The biggest
strike is the road system.
Michael Miller commented that there was a case that was denied in the general area. This situation is
incompatible with the area. This is not a dead issue if voted down at this point, it will be mined someday.
Mr. Miller has some issues with the design of the reservoirs,they need to make them more attractive. The
road system does not support this.
Page -16-
John Hutson commented it is a good program but to many holes. The compatibility is an issue.
James Rohn moved that Case USR-1436, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation
of denial. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Michael
Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, no; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James Rohn, yes; John Hutson, yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 9 wf" ' "
Respectfully submitted
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Page -17-
Hello