The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20033196.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, October 21, 2003 A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2003, in the Weld County Public Health/Planning Building, (Room 210), 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Michael Miller, at 1:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Michael Miller Absent Bryant Gimlin James Rohn John Folsom Stephan Mokray Absent-am John Hutson Absent Bruce Fitzgerald Doug Ochsner Absent Tim Tracy Also Present: Don Carroll, Monica Mika, Kim Ogle, Wendy Inloes, and Chris Gathman The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on October 7,2003, was approved as read. CASE NUMBER: 2003-XX PLANNER: MONICA MIKA REQUEST: COUNTY CODE CHANGES Monica Mika, Department of Planning Services indicated that she was going to go through each section pointing out the proposed amendments. Some of the changes will repeat themselves throughout the text of the document. The intent is to explain the changes as they are read. Chapter 21 Article 2 There is a change in language referencing the mineral owners list indicating it must be done by a qualified person, the Clerk and Recorder is not the appropriate agency to do this. The referral agency time has been proposed to change from 21 days to 28 days;this will be reflected throughout the document. The amount of time for the Secretary of Planning to forward the cases to the Board of County Commissioners has been amended to be consistent throughout the document for 10 days. The language for the Planning Commission hearing date has been amended to indicate a hearing will be set up within 60 days. Ms. Mika indicated that one of the goals of the changes was to make the County Code more users friendly and consistent. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to speak. James Rohn moved to accept the modifications for Chapter 21 Article 2. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tim Tracy, yes. Motion carried unanimously. Chapter 23 Article 1 This section was reviewed at the last meeting with minor changes. Changes have been added to the home occupation definition. Mr. Gimlin added that"gross vehicle weight and"needs to be included after one ton in the definition. Ms. Mika added that the word "only" is in the wrong spot with regard to the referral definition. This will clarify what planning staff forwards to referral agencies. The case is ever changing so the complete information is not sent,just the pertinent information. Q dr 1 1)- jQ- .cc3 2003-3196 Mr. Rohn asked for clarification with regard to voting on the chapters. Ms. Mika indicated it was up to the Planning Commission as to how they wanted to proceed. The Planning Commission decided it would be best to approve each Section as a whole. Chapter 23 Article 2 Article two talks about procedures and permit processing. There are several different types of changes. There will be timing changes and the introduction of pre-application. The first proposed change is for a pre- application conference. T his idea is repeated throughout the document and it allows the applicant an opportunity to meet with planningstaff prior to the hearing process. It is not mandatory but it is an option to gain additional information. Mr. Gimlin asked if"pre-hearing" would be more appropriate, the application is completed before setting the hearing. Ms. Mika stated that is was a possibility but some may want to schedule a meeting before submitting the application. The application is part of a completed packet. The intent was to give input before the application was submitted to allow for additions that may change the outcome. Mr. Rohn stated that a complete application is not needed until submittal. The next change is for setting the Planning Commission hearing date within 60 days. Mr.Gimlin indicated that the language was going to be changed to"within"throughout the text of the document where it refers to setting up hearing times. Ms. Mika indicated that was correct but the changes have not been made throughout due to the fact all sections had not been adopted. It will be amended throughout the text. There will be a consistent change in the text when referring to the sign postings.The posting will be evidenced with a photograph and will include pertinent information. There is also an elimination of text referring to Public Works checking the legal descriptions of the parcels. Public Works will review the engineering aspects of the proposal. The text will reflect an electronic version of the Weld County Zone the map is available online;the reproducible copies are no longer done. It also indicates that the map is now available online. There will be changes on the notification time frames. Staff needs to review the Planning Matter Responsibilities from the Board of County Commissioners to double check the notification time frames for the various land use processes. There has been additional information added with regard to the zoning plat. The language is more specific in the requirements. The vicinity map has added specific requirements. There is proposed language that indicates the surveyor must be certified but must also sign the plat. There is a request for a property owner's certificate. This means that the surrounding property owners within 500 feet must be made aware of the proposal. There is also reference to Geotechnical Study with is the correct term. There is text added that does not limit the map being done by the Colorado Geological Survey, it can be done by a qualified expert. It gives the applicant some flexibility with which they can utilize. Division two includes modifications to language to clarify some statements. There are duplicate responsibilities on the part of Planning Services and the Planning Commission. Division three includes the addition of temporary structures used for fireworks and Christmas tree sales.The Site Plan Review is the administrative process followed after the zone has been changed. There is verbiage change with regard to Landscape not Landscaping. This is also referenced throughout the text. There is a proposal to add "on-site" as well as off site agreements. The vicinity map scale will be 1" = 2000". This is consistent language throughout the process. The addition of Photo Mechanical Transfer will assist in the presentation aspect and for future reproducible use of the maps. There is a clarification of what is required on the plat. The plat will include administrative comments. Division four includes the proposed amendment for pre-application, 28 day referral, within 60 days, Public Works review engineering aspects,notification time frames,evidence of sign posting and section addition for major facility. There is the addition of language to require the applicant to submit a Notice of Inquiry form demonstrating that the affected municipality does not wish to annex. This assists in the information process at the beginning, not waiting until the case goes to hearing and have the municipality decide they want to proceed. Mr. Folsom asked if the municipality does not respond does this prohibit the applicant from going forward. Ms. Mika stated the IGA is set up to indicate if discussion has been done there needs to be some notification. Under the original responsibility the department will still notify as a referral agency. This is the official opportunity for the referral agency to comment, the notice of inquiry provides the information sooner in the 2 process. Mr. Folsom asked if the 21-day rule goes into affect indicating if there is no response it is considered that there is no objection. Ms. Mika stated that the standard is still applicable but the case would not be presented without a referral from that municipality. That pertains to cases in which IGA's are recorded. Mr. Folsom indicated that municipalities could wish to annex sometime in the future. Ms. Mika stated that there are some planner judgments that will need to be made. It would be difficult to make a recommendation if the case was in an IGA area and there was no referral from that municipality. Division five adds information with regard to Major Facility as well as the pre-application,within 60 days and 21 days to 28 days. There is additional language regarding the legal notification and the possibility of a second notice requested by the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Rohn questioned the language with regard t o notification a t the discretion oft he B oard o f County Commissioners. Ms. Mika clarified that the county policy has been to publish land use applications in the county newspaper. The language has been added to have the publication in a newspaper that is in an affected area at the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners. There may be some instances in which there are three different newspapers affected by a major facility pipeline as well as a great cost associated with this. Major facilities do have other requirements because of lines. The notification addition is added specifically to this issue. There have been publications in different newspapers and it was determined,by the Board of County Commissioners, that it was unnecessary because the public input did not increase. There has been additional language referencing back to Chapter 21 for the areas and activities of state interest. There is a change in language from Submission Requirements to Application Requirements as well as the reference in the text. There is additional language added in the standards that refers to the IGA notification. The intent is to refer back to the IGA. Division six has been amended to strike out Overlay District. Mr. Rohn asked why the County has a flood hazard area permit. Mr. Rohn stated that most municipalities would not allow building in the flood plain. Ms. Mika indicated that most jurisdictions allow for development in the flood plain and are regulated under FEMA. The development must be made appropriately or one foot above flood levels. Mr. Folsom added that there has never been established a 100 year flood elevation in the St. Vrain or Boulder Creek areas. It is an estimated level; it was only researched within the municipality. Ms. Mika commented, engineers survey and stamp the projects and that is what the department accepts. Continuing on with the chapter, there is additional language with regard to the topography map and specifications of that map. There is also reference to appropriate architectural scale for the elevation drawings. Division seven has struck out the reference to overlay district throughout the text along with the need for a property owners certificate, has been added. Division eight regarding the new PUD requirements has amendments to the time parameters table,along with the removal of submittal in Sketch Plan Requirements, modify landscaping to landscape, remove submittal from PUD Application Requirements. There is also the referral back to a specific section if a cluster PUD is proposed. If a PUD was processed under the old regulations it will continue to be processed under the old regulations and vice versa. There is also the introduction of the Conceptual versus the Specific guide. The time parameters for the sign posting shall return to fourteen days. A Certificate of Conveyance is being requested with regard to the application requirements to identify the owner of real property.There is specific language added to the landscape map requirements as well as the plant material size chart. Mr.Gimlin asked if the fourteen-day notification was appropriate. Mr. Barker added that the motion could be applied throughout the text to be consistent. Bryant Gimlin asked about the temporary structure reference in section 22-2-150 E 3,and if it was intended to be limit to the two specified uses or should they be examples. Ms.Mika stated that temporary structures could be used for other uses. The definition for temporary structure is in the Code but the intent is to say fireworks and Christmas tree sales fall under the temporary structure definition. There can be permanent structures if the correct process is gone through. Mr. Gimlin asked if they were to be specific with those uses or were those just examples. Ms. Mika stated the intent is for a temporary use to be done in a temporary structure. Mr. Gimlin commented that the addition of "such as but not limited to" fireworks or the temporary sale of Christmas trees. Bryant Gimlin questioned the reference to the"Notice of Inquiry"done by the applicant pertaining to an IGA municipality. Ms. Mika stated that this is something staff would like to see. It indicates whether the applicant has had any prior discussions with the municipality. Information may not be needed with regard to annexation 3 at the time of the proposal but staff does need to know if there have been any discussions between the two parties. The Community Inquiry Form is helpful in that instance. Mr. Tracy stated that at the time of an application the municipality may not want to annex but that does not bind the future. It is sufficient that the municipality looks at it and provides the evidence. Ms. Mika stated that the intent is that communication has begun between the County and the municipality. Staff will also be in communication with the municipality. Monica. Mika commented that if a proposal of use is in the urban growth boundary the applicant needs to go to the community first. The worst possible case is the applicant speaks with the municipality and they express no desire to annex,staff then begins to process the case and the municipality then objects under the terms of the IGA. The intent is to get the communication happening. Bryant. Gimlin agreed that the applicant needs to go to the municipality first and be able to document the occurrence. Mr. Tracy stated that staff basically needs something to identify the fact that the applicant has spoken with the municipality before proceeding. Mr. Barker indicated that some agreements require a petition for annexation. The language as far as the referral back indicating they do not wish to annex is beneficial in the process. Some IGA's wants an annexation petition to be submitted. Ms. Mika stated that this information is part of the submittal packet and when the referral is sent to the municipality they then give the official objection. Staff placed the language in the code for the purpose of gaining evidence that the applicant has talked with the municipality. Bruce Barker stated that the addition of specific language indicating if an IGA was in place would be more appropriate and cover all the possible issues. Ms. Mika stated that according to the ordinance an annexation petition needs to be submitted and if it is not acted upon for a twelve-month period they can then come back to the county for process. Mr. Folsom asked if this was limited to the City of Longmont. Ms. Mika stated it was different throughout the county according to the various IGA's. The Town of Mead included time for the election, which was a twelve-month period. Mr. Barker added that the county has backed away from the annexation requirement but it is different according to the various IGA agreements. The only thing is there could be a municipality that does not respond then it would be at the discretion of the director to determine the requirement has been met. Mr. Gimlin added that there could be a municipality that does not respond then there would be an incomplete application. Monica Mika stated the ordinance does not reference the inquiry form just documentation that annexation has been applied for. The time frame will begin at that point. The intent is not to withhold up the application,the intent is to get the information up front. Mr.Tracy asked if the municipality has the intent to annex,the county is not going to go through with the process; they would go through the municipality. Ms. Mika stated that annexation must be denied for an application to go through the process in the county. The proposal is within an Urban Growth Boundary or if the time line has run out. Mr. Tracy asked if a determination needs to be made or does the municipality just need to review the application? Mr. Barker added that if the municipality does not sign off on the inquiry the county does not want that to hold up the application. John. Folsom commented that it is putting to much burden on the applicant; it wants the applicant to enforce the IGA. The most that can be expected is the applicant makes a best effort to get a signed copy of a notice of inquiry, beyond that it is the municipality and the county responsibility to enforce. Mr. Tracy asked if the wording is needed if it is going to impede the application process. Ms. Mika stated it is required by the IGA to have documentation. Presently it is not a difficult process. The form is given to the applicant; they talk with the municipality and bring the form back. It helps to have the information but staff will still speak with the municipality and get some form of evidence of decision. James Rohn added they have 28 days for referral, could a time limit be added to the notice of inquiry? Ms. Mika commented there is concern on placing a time frame for them to carry out the IGA requirements because the IGA's does not indicate this. The intent was to eliminate the applicant beginning an application then having a municipality object and wasting the time and money for the process. Mr.Gimlin added he likes the language that indicates the IGA have different requirements and the applicant is going to work with those IGA requirements in the municipality that it applies. Mr.Tracy stated it does not eliminate the IGA but reflects the reality of what the situation is. Mr. Barker added that this is just a checklist of what needs to be done; there is always discretion on the part of the planning department as to that checklist. The concern is to keep the list as what needs to be done and allow the planning director the ability to say whether they have accomplished this or not to the best of their ability. There are only a few agreements that do not have a requirement for petition to annex. Mr. Barker suggested adding to the end of sentence language that reflects the requirement by the IGA if there is one that is applicable. 4 Tim Tracy moved to add language to Section 23-2-260 B 1 and Section 23-2-400 N to state "Applicant to submit signed copy of the notice of inquiry form demonstrating that the IGA municipality does not wish to annex, if required by the IGA." Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tim Tracy, yes. Motion carried unanimously. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to speak. James Rohn moved to accept the proposed modifications to Chapter 23 Articles 1 and Article 2. Tim Tracy seconded. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tim Tracy, yes. Motion carried unanimously. James Rohn commented he does feel there will be neglect with the removal of the word prime out of the farmland. That will be a detriment in the future. Chapter 23 Article 3 This is a classical zoning ordinance. The changes in these are at the proposed additional uses specifically in the Industrial Zone District as well as the introduction of lighting and landscape elements. The notification in this section will be 10 days and the sign posting information has been added. In Division one under Uses By Special Review there has been the addition of language in the animal training and boarding facilities. There has been additional bulk requirements involving landscaping and lighting. This will be reflected in the agricultural zone district throughout the text. The landscaping intent is to be compatible with the surrounding area, meaning if there is little then little will be requested. The lighting issue is addressed only in the commercial zone and needs to be accommodated for in all districts. The bulk of the proposed amendments are in the Industrial Zone District. The language is in the 1-2 and 1-3 districts under the use by special review section. This language makes the uses consistent with each other. The language is proposed by the mining industry and oil and gas industry. There is the inclusion that fences of less than 6 feet do not have to meet setbacks under bulk requirements. Tim Tracy asked how the language associated with the animal units is dealt with in the right to farm. Ms. Mika stated the right to farm ordinance is added on the plats. The intent is for the animal units to be allowed but when there are adverse additional circumstances a Use By Special Review needs to be applied for. Mr. Fitzgerald indicated it would be caused or created by complaints. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. Bill Schenderlein,Applegate Group,commented that the changing code for the industrial districts would allow for consistent uses in that area. It allows for a simpler means to abide by state law for the extraction of mineral resources prior to development. The Chair closed the public portion. James Rohn moved to forward Chapter 23 Article 1 for approval. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tim Tracy, no response. Motion carried unanimously. Tim Tracy commented he is still not comfortable with the Notice of Inquiry. Chapter 24 Articles 2, Article 3 and Article 4 5 Monica Mika stated that the majority of change in these sections was the time parameters. There are very few major subdivisions, most applications are minor subdivisions or go through the PUD process. The changes on Article two consist of time frames to setup hearings,time parameters,28-day referral and a new table for time parameters for major subdivisions. Article two is basically an introduction to the minor and major subdivision sections. Article three changes include reference the pre-applications,eliminate the time changes and refer them back to Article two with the charts and time frames. There is the addition of inadvertent error language to be consistent with the remainder of the text. Mr. Barker indicated that this type of notice is not required by statute but is a courtesy to the surrounding property owners. The maximum number of lots will not exceed nine lots. Article four dealing with major subdivisions contains the same language as seen in the previous chapters. There is the addition of the preliminary plan for the subdivision as well as the pre- application conference. There are some additions to the final plat stage consisting of waiving some conditions. There are very few major subdivisions done,the majority are corrections to the ones in existence. This provides for some flexibility. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to speak. Tim Tracy moved to forward Chapter 24 Articles 2-4 for approval. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tim Tracy, yes. Motion carried unanimously. Stephen Mokray joined the discussion on the proposed changes Chapter 23 Article 4 There have been changes made to this section concerning mobile homes and manufactured structures. The manufactured structure is introduced into the code. The intent is to differentiate between the use of a mobile home and manufactured structure. This concept will eliminate a mobile home being used as an office. The purpose is to use the structure for what is was intended for. There are some allowable uses; including being able to live in a manufactured structure while a permanent dwelling is being constructed. There are allowances for temporary storage uses. The manufactured structure is used as an accessory not a mobile home. The code is presently written to enable several mobile homes attached together and it is called an office. This would eliminate that possibility. There is additional language in open mining concerning requiring the applicant address issues of water consumption and water replacement sources. This will provide staff with more information for the process. There is also the addition of information in supporting documents requiring plans for obtaining replacement water. There is clarification regarding submittal of well permit information. Division five is additional and specific rules and regulations pertaining to specific proposals in Weld County. Included is language regarding clarification on outdoor shooting ranges and Planning Services being able to waive the review if the area has not significantly changed. There are some applications that are required to come back in for review even thought the area has not been changed. This would allow for some flexibility. Stephen Mokray questioned the outdoor shooting range and if it includes paint ball ranges. Ms. Mika indicated this was directed to ranges where ammunition is being used not paint balls. A paint ball facility is processed under a recreational activity in a use by special review. There can be something added for further clarification. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to speak. Stephen Mokray moved to approve the amendments to Chapter 23 Article 4 and include language excluding paint ball operations in Section 23-4-370. Monica Mika added that the outdoor shooting range definition could alleviate the issue. This would be better form rather then excluding a use that has no definition. There is no definition for paint ball ranges, but it can be excluded from outdoor shooting ranges, and leave it under the concept of outdoor recreational facility. Stephen Mokray moved to approve the amendments to Chapter 23 Article 4. James Rohn seconded. 6 The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tim Tracy, yes. Motion carried unanimously. Chapter 24 Article 5 There are two minor changes to this section, the addition of the time parameter and the addition of language in the Board of County Commissioners hearing date. Resubdivison is a process to move lot lines within a subdivision. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to speak. James Rohn moved to approve the amendments to Chapter 24 Article 5. John Folsom seconded. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tim Tracy, yes. Motion carried unanimously. Chapter 24 Article 7 This section pertains to the subdivision concept. The addition of the signature block, clarification on lot size standards and making sure the flag lot access is clear of encumbrances. Mr. Rohn asked for clarification on the signature block. Ms. Mika noted the signature block should indicate the Chairperson for the Board of County Commissioners since they make the final decision. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to speak. James Rohn moved to approve the amendments to Chapter 24 Article 7 and the signature block is the Board of County Commissioners signature block. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tim Tracy, yes. Motion carried unanimously. Chapter 27 These are the PUD requirements for the newly processed PUD. The amended text contains the elimination of non-urban scale development in the common open space. The addition of the word "common" in areas of the code dealing with open space. There is additional language in non-urban scale development outside the MUD that is not subjected to the open space requirement. Part of a PUD requirement is for open space and there needs to be some flexibility. There have been amendments to the time parameters for a PUD. There is reference to the Weld County Transportation Plan that needs to be amended to indicate what will be specified by Weld County Public Works and Chapter 24. The language will be amended once the Transportation Plan has been finalized. There have been amendments to component five referencing the common open space and urban scale development. There has been the addition of language regarding urban scale development PUD containing residential elements and the allocation of open space. There is a separation of urban versus non-urban scale development inside the MUD concerning the open space. There will be different types of open space defined throughout the PUD process. There is amendments to the text that have been referenced in the previous chapters regarding time frames, notification times, Public Works reference, 21 day to 28 day referral and the sign posting language. The final amendment is in the cluster PUD adding the correct reference for the Weld County Right to Farm. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to speak. 7 John Folsom moved to include the additional reference to Public Works. James Rohn seconded. Motion carried James Rohn moved to include the additional language referencing the list of owners per parcel. John Folsom seconded. Motion carried James Rohn moved to approve the amendments to Chapter 27. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tim Tracy, yes. Motion carried unanimously. Chapter 23 Article 5 These modifications are in relationship to FEMA and the changes need to be consistent with the standards. It is merely a modification to the lowest floor elevation. 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 approve the amendments to Chapter 23 Article 5. Tim Tracy seconded. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tim Tracy, yes. Motion carried unanimously. CASE NUMBER: USR-1444 APPLICANT: Heit Farms LTD PLANNER: Chris Gathman LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part N2SE4 & part N2 SE4 Section 13, T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for Mineral Resource Development Facility including wet&dry open pit mining and materials processing and an asphalt and concrete batch plant in the A (Agricultural)Zone District. LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 25; north of and adjacent to CR 20 1/4. Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services indicated that opposition has requested on continuance due to their attorney having to withdraw because of conflict of interest. The neighborhood group requests additional time to adequately prepare for the hearing. The applicant does not wish to continue the proposal. Chris Gathman indicated that there was a letter sent by the attorney requesting to withdraw the request for continuance. The surrounding neighbors are willing to proceed with their presentation. Bryant Gimlin added that since there is no request for a continuance the case will be heard but it will be heard after the case USR-1437. This case will be lengthy. CASE NUMBER: USR-1437 APPLICANT: Moises Rodriguez, do Fred Otis PLANNER: Kim Ogle LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Tract 12, Ireland Gardens; being part of SW4 of Section 2, Ti 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). 8 Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1437, read the recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommended approval of the application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Bryant Gimlin asked about the status of the septic system, is it still failing or have there been repairs made? Ms. Smith, Weld County Public Health and Environment, stated there is no raw sewage on the ground but there is wash water from the laundry room visible on the ground. There was soapy water adjacent to the wetlands area, north of the brine water pond. The number of people that live in the structures on-site places the septic requirements into a higher site application process. This issue is something that can be remedied, but it is expensive. The site application process takes approximately one year to complete, and is administered by the State. Ms. Smith has told the applicant to minimize the number of people that live there, such that the issue of sanitary wastes is under control. Ms. Smith further stated that to her knowledge, there has been repairs completed to the septic system, however, is uncertain as to the extent of said repairs. Ms. Smith noted that this is not a standard residential structure and system. There is also a private well on site providing water service to the site. It is the number of people residing on-site that causes the well to not comply with the State drinking water requirements. The water is adequate, but the facility is not in compliance with the requirements for a public water system. These two issues, public water system and sanitary sewer require attention by the applicant and need to be dealt with. Mr. Gimlin asked about the pipe adjacent to the railroad tracks. Ms. Smith stated there is a pipe visible but it might have been from the pickle factory to feed water into the brine water pond. Mr. Mokray asked if the boundary is inclusive of the pond. Mr. Ogle stated that the Property Deed specifically addresses the brine water pond as being part of the parcel. In conversation with the Dean Pickle Company representative, it has been determined that the brine water pond has always been located on this parcel. Mr. Mokray asked about the referral from the town of Hudson. Is there evidence of a permit process for the pond? Mr. Ogle stated that the pond is within the County and that there is not a record of any permitting process, further, Mr. Ogle surmised that the permitting process may have been under the Special Use Permit. Mr. Ogle added that based on the property deed and conversation with the Dean Pickle Company representative, the brine water pond is the responsibility of the Rodriguez family. When acquired by Mr. Rodriguez the property was purchased with the understanding that the property included all improvements and encumbrances. Mr. Mokray asked about the septic system. Ms. Smith indicated that there are no records with regard to the septic system or the leach field location. The three 1500 gallon septic tanks are located in front of the laundry room, in the fenced yard. James Rohn asked Mr. Ogle about the code violations. Mr. Ogle stated the operation of the facility was limited to three months from June to September. This operation is year round, presently. Second, there are multiple mobile homes. The Department of Planning Services provided Javier Rodriguez, the property owner's son with a letter approving one mobile home for the purpose of a single-family residence; a use allowed by right given the property is zoned agricultural. The mobile home was located on site without building permits or mobile home permit as required by Code. Mr. Ogle further stated there are multiple derelict vehicles on site without current tags and in a condition of disrepair, further, there are two additional mobile homes that have no permits. Mr. Rohn asked if there was ever building permits for the three original buildings. Mr. Ogle stated that there are no building permits of record; the structures were constructed prior to 1972. John Folsom asked for clarification with regard to the Conditional Use Permit(CUP)and the Use by special Review (USR), and if everything was open for consideration concerning both permits. Mr. Ogle indicated they presently are approved under the existing CUP and all the conditions are open for discussion. Mr. Folsom asked about the setbacks of the leach fields and the wells. Ms. Smith indicated the setbacks meet the requirements for both the septic tanks and the leach fields. James Rohn asked Mr. Ogle about the Hudson referral indicating there is not dedicated public access to the site, and that the ditch company easement is being utilized. Commissioner Rohn further inquired about the dust complaints, respective to the town due to the amount of traffic in the area. Is there a dedicated right of way for access? Mr. Ogle indicated the applicant has a recorded easement for access adjacent to the Ditch. This document was submitted as part of the application. John Folsom asked if it was the intent of the USR that all the occupants will be employees of the pickle plant. Mr. Ogle stated that in the original CUP application, the majority of the occupants were employees of the pickle plant. Further, there is correspondence in the CUP File that states the surrounding farms 9 welcomed the migrant housing because they were unable to provide for it. Under this application, it is stated that the occupants be engaged The conditions of the USR presently is the occupants must be persons principally employed at or engaged in Farming, Ranching or Gardening. Fred Otis, representative of the applicant, provided clarification to the project. There is a Conditional Use Permit presently approved for 100 people on the property. The applicant is willing vacate the existing CUP permit, if an approval is granted for the USR. The applicant will also bring the operation and the property into compliance. If this application is denied, the Conditional Use Permit will remain for the property. Mr. Otis noted there are some issues that have been brought forth and the applicant is willing to accommodate each of them. The applicant has hired an engineer to address the water issues and make recommendations. The recommendations are very expensive and the client would like to have some of the requirements for this application is amended. The applicant would like to amend the condition dealing with the public water system, indicating that the applicant does not have to come into compliance until there are more than 24 occupants. The cost of changing the water system is expensive and the applicant has limited funds. The applicant is willing to limit themselves to 24 occupants on the facility until the money and improvements are in place, which will allow them to increase to 60 during the agricultural season. Mr. Otis indicated there is a legal access to the property. He noted that the conditions of approval and development standards will be met. The county is protected by those requirements. John Folsom asked if there was a water source to the property or was the property utilizing a well. Mr. Otis stated the well is the only option right now. The Town of Hudson is adjacent to this property and that is another possible option but it would be expensive and time consuming to connect to their system. The Town of Hudson would impose fees for the water connection and the costs for such a connection are beyond the means of the applicant. Stephen Mokray asked Ms. Smith about a letter from the State regarding water issues and how does the applicant circumvent the State regulations or do those regulations need to be met first. Ms. Smith stated that when the application was referred to the State for consideration it was determined that 25 occupants resided in the structures and that would force them to comply with State regulations. The applicant could go to fewer than 25 occupants and they would not be subject to the drinking water conditions by the State. Mr. Mokray asked what the new proposal was for as proposed by Mr. Otis. Mr. Otis indicated the applicant would "self restrict" the number of inhabitants to 24 occupants. The applicant would like to move forward and restrict the occupancy to less than 25 until the improvements to water and sewer can be made. Mr. Mokray asked how the county could enforce the "self-restrictions"? Mr. Ogle stated staff would require evidence that there are less than 24 occupants. The application indicates 60 during the summer months and 20 occupants during the remainder. Mr. Ogle added that a limitation of 20 people year around could be added to the application at this juncture. If the application was amended, this would address the issue of the water system. Mr. Mokray asked how to deal with the septic issue. Ms. Smith indicated that the reduction in number of occupants and limitations on using only the lower floors of the structures would place less of a strain on the existing system. Per Ms. Smith's calculations and research it would cost approximately$20,000 for repair of the septic system. Mr. Mokray stated there is a need for migrant housing but it needs to be done properly. Ms. Smith indicated that she spoke with an agency(Rural Community Assistance Corporation) in an attempt to get assistance for the applicant. Ms. Smith addressed the issues (water and sewer)for this application in an electronic mailing that were of concern to the State and County. Ms. Smith received a letter from the RCAC concerning the ability of this agency to assist the applicant. Ms. Smith read the response from RCAC into the record. . Ms. Smith stated that the challenge with this type of situation is there is money available if a person can provide housing for a personal farm. The money is not available for this situation because it is a migrant housing complex and not specifically a private farm. Ms. Smith attempted to contact the Weld County Housing Authority for assistance and was told that since the case was not directly related to a farm there was no funding for them. Ms. Smith noted there is available funding that does not require the attachment to a farm. Bruce Fitzgerald asked Mr. Ogle if the Conditional Use Permit would be vacated with the approval of this USR. Mr. Ogle stated that if the request is approved the CUP will be vacated but if the USR is denied the CUP remains in effect. Tim Tracy questioned whether the water and sewer will have to be addressed regardless of the case and what are the advantages to the property owners in going from a Conditional Use Permit to a Use by Special Review. Mr. Ogle stated that the CUP is for 100 occupants from May to September. The USR is for 60 occupants from June to September and 20 occupants throughout the remainder of the year. The 10 CUP would permit one person to stay on site for the purpose of security for the remainder of the year during October to April. The advantage would be to the applicant to utilize the facility on a year round basis and to also bring the property into compliance. James Rohn asked if there were enough farms to need the housing for the area. Mr. Ogle stated that there are farms that would benefit from this complex due to the fact many farms are unable to provide this source of housing to workers. John Folsom asked how to quickly bring the operation in compliance. Is it feasible to have both the CUP and the USR in violation? Mr. Ogle stated this case began as a violation and staff determined that is would be beneficial to both the applicant and the County to work with each other in an attempt to bring the property into compliance thus avoiding the violation hearing process. Staff directed the applicant to submit the USR application or be placed in violation with a scheduled hearing date with the Board of County Commissioners. The violation was not scheduled before the Board as the USR application was submitted within the allowable time parameters. As previously stated the case was a violation due to the failure of a septic system. At the time of this incident, staff was unaware of the full scope of the situation. John Folsom commented that if this is case is forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners Conditions 1.A& 1.6 and Development Standard 13 will need to be amended to remove the State reference. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. Jim Lanbeck, Town of Hudson, opposes the approval of the permit request. The brine pond is an additional problem for the town it has no outlet. After a passing rainstorm it becomes a stagnant pond and is a mosquito breeding ground. This site poses a negative impact to the community. The community has experienced a burden because of the overflow use of the bathrooms in the park. There have been other instances with the discharge of weapons on the site. Stray bullets in the vicinity of the park pose a issue with the safety of the community. This facility is not a compatible use in the area. There is a concern about safety with regard to construction of the structures. The well water supply and wastewater systems are overburdened by the extensive use of the facility. The Town of Hudson would strongly recommend denial of the current permit. A violation process should be started immediately as the facility is not in compliance with the original CUP conditions of approval and standards. Bruce Fitzgerald asked what would the Town like to have happen to this area. Mr. Lanbeck stated that the property will ultimately be a commercial/industrial area adjacent to the railroad. Mr. Fitzgerald asked why it has not been annexed into the town. Mr. Lanbeck stated that the cost for connection of the water and sewer and the purchase of the water rights have made it financially impossible for Mr. Rodriguez to proceed. Mr. Fitzgerald indicated that the CUP will not go away and it is for 100 seasonal workers. Mr. Lanbeck stated that the CUP allows for that many but there have been consistently more occupants. The site has been in violation and without proper land use enforcement the problem does not get better. John Folsom asked about the violation and if they have been reported and the county has not responded. Mr. Lanbeck stated it has been reported to the health department. Mr. Lanbeck clarified the issue of access. The access is not entirely on the ditch company easement; presently the vehicles accessing the Rodriguez property cross over approximately 10 to 12 feet of land owned by the Town. James Rohn asked Mr. Lanbeck if the Conditions of Approval were met would the Town of Hudson approve of this or not at all. Mr. Lanbeck stated the problem is assuring that the applicant will be conforming to those conditions of approval. Mr. Lanbeck stated it would be a miracle if everything were brought into compliance with this approval. Stephen Mokray asked when the Conditional Use Permit was approved for the property. Mr. Ogle stated the CUP was approved in 1977. Mr. Mokray inquired as to there being evidence of the site being in violation from 1977 to present. Mr. Ogle stated that there is record that the Town of Hudson was contacted by the Sheriff's Office at the time of the septic failure. It is Ogle's understanding that there was no contact by the Town or adjacent property owners regarding this facility prior to this time. Mr. Ogle stated that the Department of Public Health and Environment was contacted regarding the failure of the septic system and that this Department working in conjunction with Planning Code Compliance 11 Staff met with the applicants to discuss what needed to be done and recommended certain action with the water and septic systems. The meeting took place in January 2003. James Rohn asked how many years the Town of Hudson knew this location was in violation. Mr. Lanbeck stated that he has been with the town 2 1/2 years and it has been in continual violation. Mr. Lanbeck stated there have been problems with vandalism and damage in the park. The occupants of the facility have been in Town Court for different infractions and it is an ongoing situation. It is Mr. Landeck's opinion that the occupants appear to work in Denver and not in the local agricultural community. Mr. Landeck stated that Weld County Code Enforcement was notified 2 years ago about derelict vehicles, debris and numbers of individuals utilizing the facility. The Chair inquired if there were others desiring to speak on this application. Seeing none, the Chair closed the public portion of the hearing. Fred Otis, the applicant's representative, stated that it is hard to associate all the problems in the area with these specific tenants. According to a police report, retained by Mr. Ogle, there have been 16 contacts in the past three years. This facility should not be blamed or implicated for all the bad wills that have been happening in the town. Mr. Otis stated that the process has been relatively simple. The applicants met with staff in January retained an attorney in May, the application was filed in July and the application has been in processing ever since. The applicant's have been diligent but there has been a lack of desire to fix things due to the uncertainty of the situation. There is an easement in place for access to the property, and if there is an issue with that easement it needs to be corrected as stated by the Town, Mr. Otis requests the town contact him such that a resolution to the situation may be obtained. Bryant Gimlin asked about the brine pond being lined and holding water, does it pose risk of standing water and infestation. Ms. Smith stated that the chlorides used in the pickle production would minimize the possibility of any breeding mosquito's occurring. John Folsom asked Mr. Ogle if all the conditions and standards are met will all the objections of the Town of Hudson be satisfied. Mr. Ogle stated that staff will address the concerns of the town. The enforcement of the conditions would be the only concern. Tim Tracy asked how desperate are the water and sewer situations now. Ms. Smith stated that she has no authority over the water. The nitrate level is in the acceptable range for the water. Part of the problem with the water is the violations. There has been a failure to monitor the water system, thus to show there is not a problem. Ms. Smith continued, there are certain tests that need to be done and those tests have not been done. There is a well permit on file from 1976. Mr. Mokray asked if they reduce the number of occupants to 24 or less they still have to comply. Ms. Smith indicated that if they fall below 25 occupants there does not have to be any testing done. Mr. Folsom asked if the number is 24 total residents including kids. Ms. Smith indicated it would be total occupants served by the public water system. Ms. Smith added the understanding is to have 24 occupants until the public water system can get into compliance. At that time they would like to go back to the 60 occupants during the summer and 20 year around. This will cause issues with the septic system, they would still need approval at the State Health Department. The septic system will need to be shown it is large enough for the 60 occupants on a year around basis. The process will require some engineering, application with the state and it is a six-month to a year process. There will need to be monitor wells installed to maintain the levels required by the State. If a level fails there are mitigation that will need to be done. The septic systems will need to be monitored according to number of occupants. Ms. Smith stated she has no indication of if the system can accommodate the 24 occupants. There is a history of failure with the system. There is a very old system in operation and it has been repaired but there is still gray water that is leaving the property. For them to accommodate 60 people they will need to go through the State application process. Mr. Folsom asked Mr. Ogle if all the conditions have to be met prior to recording the plat, there is no limitation of time before the plat must be recorded. Mr. Ogle stated the plat typically must be recorded in 30 days. The applicant can ask for an extension given extenuating circumstances. The facility is still under the conditions of the CUP; technically no one is to be residing in the structures. There could be a stipulation to limit the residents until all the issues are addressed. Mr. Mokray added there is not a plan or a time line. There is no way of monitoring the possible progress. Mr. Ogle stated a request for 12 documentation of a time line is a good suggestion and staff will consider adding this condition to the staff comment, if directed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Mokray stated, the issue is working with the State in the water area, County staff for septic and trying to bring the proposal into compliance. James Rohn asked about the CUP and the number of people it allowed for. Mr. Ogle stated that under the existing CUP it would be 100 occupants from May to September. Mr. Rohn asked the size and number of units. Mr. Ogle stated there are 10 units per building and the size of those units is unknown. Mr. Rohn indicated that it was five people per unit but that would be "packing them in." Mr. Otis indicated he did not know the square feet of the units. Mr. Barker added the size of the units was not relevant to approving the USR at hand. Mr. Ogle stated that his ballpark calculations showed there are two structures at 3600 square feet total. Fred Otis indicated concerns with the conditions 1.A and 1.6 concerning the public water system. This will not be a public water system with the recommended 24 occupants. The applicant will need to bring the facility up to standard of a public water system when there are more than 25 occupants. The applicant has indicated they will "self-limit" themselves to 24 occupants. Language can be added to indicate the limiting to 24 occupants. Item G.3 addresses the water regulations also. The applicant would like to reference the "self-limitations." Development Standard #13 refers to the drinking water regulations and the limitation is recommended there also. Bruce Fitzgerald asked about the self-regulation of occupants. Mr. Otis indicated there will be three agencies that have jurisdiction over this site. The meaning of"self-regulation" is that the Rodriguez will have to stay below 24 occupants or pay for the upgrades for the water and septic systems. Stephen Mokray asked to have a time line condition of approval added. The language would consist of "the applicant shall provide a plan with a time line for correcting the water system, septic system and the brine pond to the Department of Planning Services and Department of Health and Environment for approval." Mr. Ogle suggested putting this in 1.C. Mr. Barker added that the plan should address how to comply with 1.A. Bryant Gimlin stated he is uncomfortable with the self-regulation of the 24 occupants. It would be more acceptable if the conditions would limit the number of occupants. Mr. Fitzgerald stated he agrees until the issues with water and septic come into compliance. John Folsom suggested deleting 1.A& 1.B, G.3 and H, and substitute into 1.A language consisting of"the occupancy of the dwellings are limited to 24 persons." 1.B would them become the language suggested by Mr. Mokray. Mr. Otis commented that placing the limitation in the standard for 24 occupants is fine but the issue of having the applicant come back through the process will be cumbersome and costly. The applicant would like to be able to increase the occupancy once the water and septic issues has been addressed without having to come back and amend the permit. Mr. Gimlin indicated that the issue with the Planning Commission is not knowing when the number would eventually increase. Mr. Otis stated that if the requirements are written to indicate the applicant must provide evidence of this and staff is comfortable before the numbers can increase. In the interim there is 24 occupants and when an inspection takes place there is more a violation can be established. Mr. Barker asked how the regulatory process was going to take place. Mr. Otis indicated that there could be self-reporting but the applicant still has to comply with both the State and the County. Tim Tracy asked if the intent of the application was being changed asking for 24 occupants year around and not the original approved number. Mr. Tracy would like to see the case come back with all the stipulations in written format so there is no question as to what is being approved and asked for. This seems restrictive to the landowners because if they can limit the use then there is no need for a public water system. The first issue that needs addressed is the septic system or nothing else will be beneficial. It seems as though this would be better if the case would go back to the drawing board and address the issue and additional considerations. Mr. Otis indicted that they are limited to 20 occupants and are not trying to get to the 24 occupants but that is the benchmark limit. Bryant Gimlin asked if the State will enforce with regards to the drinking water. Ms. Smith stated the State will regulate that process. Mr. Gimlin asked if the applicant is under 25, will the State hold them to a lower set of regulations. Ms. Smith stated if they are under 25 the State will not hold them to any regulations. Mr. Gimlin asked if the language is needed. Ms. Smith stated the intent of the applicant is to work to be in 13 compliance with the monitoring requirements. Ms. Smith added that until a letter from the State is received indicating approval the applicant intends to stay under the threshold. The applicant will still be working to get all the testing done to meet compliance requirements for a public water system. Mr. Barker added that a letter could be sent to the State indicating they are limiting the occupants to 24 asking for a letter in return stating they do not have to comply with the public drinking water regulations for that number. This would comply with one of the conditions in question. Ms. Smith added the two conditions are tied together. Mr. Folsom commented that a new condition 1.A could indicate that occupancy will be limited to 20 persons until such time as the original conditions can be met at which time 60 persons will be allowed. Bruce Barker commented that if the conditions are left as delineated, the state will do the regulating. The evidence that staff will be looking for is the limitation to 24 occupants and the letter to the State indicating this and receipt of a letter in return addressing the regulations will accomplish this. The other concerns indicated will be addressed in the same way. The only issue that is not addressed is the septic system and how it will be dealt with. Ms. Smith stated that the septic system has been addressed in G.1 and Development Standard #3. These conditions give the applicant latitude to work on correcting the issue and then increasing the number of occupants. This allows for approximately a seven-month time frame. Mr. Gimlin added that the conditions and the way the applications with the State will work will also address the time line that Mr. Mokray was asking for. Ms. Smith added that conditions 1.A& 1.B indicated that evidence must be provided of the steps that are being taken to address. This would put them on a type of schedule to address the time line. James Rohn asked if there were conditions to address some of the issues from Hudson or should it be added. Mr. Ogle stated that a specific concern could be addressed if the language was not included in staff comments. Mr. Gimlin added that the park issue will be addressed through the septic and water requirements. The other issues of discharge of firearms are legal issues. Tim Tracy indicated it looks as though a time line has been addressed with an approximate seven-month period for application to the State and receipt of recommendations in return. Mr. Mokray stated again, he wants a time line for the whole operation. What is addressed is imbedded into the text. Mr. Mokray wants something succinctly spelled out to force the applicant to think out a plan of action, including the financing of such a project based on what needs to be accomplished. Mr. Gimlin added that if the applicant wants the 60 occupants the water requirements are to be addressed as well as the septic. Mr. Mokray stated he would like to see this activity completed prior to scheduling the Board of County Commissioners hearing. Mr. Mokray moved that there should be a section added to 1.C stating "the applicant shall provide a plan with a time line for correcting the water system, septic system and brine water pond for the approval of the Department of Planning Services and Weld County Health and Environment." No second. Motion failed. James Rohn asked Mr. Ogle about other violations of trash and the property being clean. Mr. Ogle stated that the issue is with derelict vehicles. Mr. Ogle stated that many of the are owned by the tenants. Mr. Ogle continued but stating that the facility is to be vacated on September 30, and the problem should resolve itself. If not, Code Compliance will visit and begin the necessary violation processes. Mr. Rohn stated that he does not want to make this a condition, but would like to see the issue addressed. Pam Smith suggested adding language to Development Standard #13 stating "Once the facility infrastructure is in place, the water system shall comply with the Public Water System as defined at all times." James Rohn moved to accept the language from Ms. Smith for Development Standard#13. Tim Tracy seconded. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Stephen Mokray, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tim Tracy, yes. Motion carried unanimously James Rohn commented that this is a case in violation. It is evident that the applicant is willing to change and amend the property. That being stated, Mr. Rohn moved that Case USR-1437, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the motion. 14 The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Stephen Mokray, no; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tim Tracy, yes. Motion carried unanimously Stephen Mokray commented the case is not complete without the time line. Tim Tracy commented that this is a chance to get this property cleaned up and he hopes the owners take advantage of it. John Folsom commented that the problem of enforcement is the larger issue. There are issues that are expensive and the viability of the operations may not be able to accommodate them. The County is reactive to land use enforcement, if citizens of Hudson see any violations, please report them to the County. James Rohn commented he hopes this is cleaned up and the issues are resolved so the much needed service can be provided. Bryant Gimlin commented that by going into the USR there is a better chance of cleaning things up than what the CUP allows for. CASE NUMBER: USR-1444 APPLICANT: Heit Farms LTD PLANNER: Chris Gathman LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part N2SE4 & part N2 SE4 Section 13, T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for Mineral Resource Development Facility including wet&dry open pit mining and materials processing and an asphalt and concrete batch plant in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. LOCATION: West of and adjacent to CR 25; north of and adjacent to CR 20 1/4. Chris Gathman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1444, read the recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services recommended approval of the application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. James Rohn asked about Mr. Ogles letter about reclamation. Mr. Gathman stated that there is no referral from Division of Wildlife (DOW). Therefore, there is no way of knowing what their issues or concerns are. There is a time consuming process with the DOW. Paul Gesso, representative for the applicant, provided clarification. There are several guests present to answer any possible questions that arise. Mr. Heit, property owner, indicated they have owned the property for several years. Last year the ground was leased and the crop was onion. The reason for getting out of farming is the difficulty and all are getting on in age. The interest was to have the gravel mined then provide future water storage, which will benefit the area. Mr. Gesso stated that the water storage is important. Of the 102 total acres only 68 acres of the property will be mined. The remaining 34 acres will be preserved. The mining is an interim use; the end use will be the water storage. The Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology did grant approval last month for the mining operation. There is a findings and fact letter that will be submitted here on the case. The document goes into detail on what was approved. The groundwater was one of the important aspects. There is a well monitoring plan that was approved by all the appropriate State agencies. There is also a mitigation plan that was approved. There have been studies on the wetlands area and mitigation for it. There are agreements on how to handle the groundwater analysis and what the mitigation is going to be. There is an agreement between the applicant and a concerned neighbor describing how the groundwater issues will be addressed. The Windells withdrew their objections, as it states in the agreement. Division of Minerals and Geology placed the financial warranty of one million on the project. Tug Martin, Banks and Gesso, addressed some issues that will be presented by the opponents. This type of industry requires several different permits before operation. The County permits and State permits are only two of the several permits that need to be done. A requirement by State statute is a temporary substance supply plan. This will address augmentation for all consumptive use at the operations. The ground water impact will be minimal. There 15 are water quality issues and contamination issues. Through the Colorado Department of Health there is a requirement for a discharge permit and a storm water management plan. Traffic will be a big issue. The haul routes have been stated and Public Works has reviewed and made conditions on improvements. The applicant is committed to making the road improvements. The noise is another issue, but there are statutes that must be abided by or the operation can be shut down. There will be concerns about dust; there are air pollution permits that must be obtained for the operation. This will regulate the amount of dust emitted from the site. These permits will also cover every piece of equipment on site as well as the site as whole. There will also be dust abatement that is monitored and addressed by state agencies. The berms will be vegetated which will assist with the dust. The internal haul routes will be paved. There will be paving from the site entrance to CR 25. The flood plain permit will be applied for once a final signature is obtained. The berms have been addressed through conditions. A weed control plan has been approved on the site and will be regulated by the DMG (Division of Minerals and Geology). The use can be approved and operate in a manner that will not jeopardize the health, safety and welfare of the county residents. Bryant Gimlin asked Mr. Martin about the road improvements. Mr. Martin stated they will improve the thickness of the asphalt from the site entrance down CR 25 to CR 18 and east on CR 18 to US Hwy 85. There will be bus pullouts for the safety of kids. Intersection improvements at CR 18 & CR 25 are required. There will be bridge improvements on CR 18 and improvements to the intersection at CR 18 and CR 25 for a right turn lane. There will be an improvement to the left turn lane onto CR 18 from CR 25. Paul Gesso ended with a letter from South Adams County Water and Sanitation District. The letter indicated the importance of gravel pit storage water. James Rohn asked how long the mining will occur on the site. Mr. Gesso indicated it would take seven years depending on the market. Mr. Rohn asked about the quality of the gravel. Mr. Gesso stated the site is identified as producing sand and pea gravel. These materials are good for concrete and asphalt. John Folsom asked if they will be importing anything to the site for the batch plant. Mr. Gesso indicated he was not aware of any. Mr. Folsom asked about the single haul route being down CR 25 across CR 18 to Hwy 85. Mr. Folsom asked about the pond and being in the shadow of the slurry wall. This will block the groundwater from reaching pond. Dave Mien,water engineer, assessed current conditions and the possible impacts on groundwater to nearby wells. Groundwater is flowing from the south to the northeast. There is a slight rise to groundwater table as it moves to the northeast. There is a slight decrease on the downstream side. This is referred to as the shadow affect. The maximum change seems to be two feet. There is a slight rise to the groundwater table on the up-stream side of the slurry wall. This is referred to as mounding. The pond in question is east of the pit in an area of no significant affect. The amount of change should be small. A mitigation measures that were proposed was to build a French drain system that would transfer the water from areas of mounding to shadowing to equalize the water levels. The French drain will be implemented to prevent impact on the pond. Bruce Fitzgerald asked Mr. Miens if the soil was looked at in the area not on the specific property. Mr. Miens stated the model used was based on a larger area. Mr. Fitzgerald asked about the mining deposit. Mr. Mien said it was large and extends along the Platte River. Mr. Gesso ended the presentation with the information on the monitoring plan and DMG and the State Engineer approved it. The monitoring calls for five quarters of monitoring to see if problems exist. The Chair opens the public portion. A hard copy of the following presentation was given to the Planning Commission to follow along. Dustin Flannagan, neighbor, indicated that there is a Power Point presentation that will include three speakers. The first speaker is Linda Piper, neighbor, introduced the neighborhood. The neighborhood consists of the community of Vollmar. There are several homes in the area, including farm residences and estates. There would be several violations to the area and damages from the mining operation. Vollmar is an unincorporated town and platted in 1910. Vollmar sits higher than the flood plain. The residents will over look the mining operations. CR 20 is a dirt road that has become a popular shortcut for gravel trucks and oil &gas equipment. Lupton Meadows Subdivision is north of the proposed operation and is mixed farm and rural estates. There are 12 new homes that have been built to the north of the proposed site. This area is a mixed community of farmland and estate. There have already been impacts 16 from mining and oil &gas facilities. An industrial operation between two communities will have an enormous impact. There are several homes on routes that will be impacted by traffic from the trucks. There are 62 homes in the area that will be affected. The second speaker is Laura Coyl, a neighbor. The DOW has not submitted a referral yet and that is a concern. There is a bald eagles population that will be affected as well as other wildlife. It is important to have all the information when making the decision especially when it involves an environmental issue. The flood permit needs to be addressed, if it is not complete, the mining products may be hazard in flood plain. If certain ponds are damaged due to lack of water, there is a limited ability for fire fighting which would include the mining operation. A house across CR 25 from the site uses a pond as water storage for fire fighting purposes. The State hearing for the DMG indicated that there is no wildlife habitat generated from water storage. The operation will mine mostly sand not gravel. The request is mainly for concrete and asphalt production, this is not a mining operation. 500 tons a year will be mined from the pit and 300 of that will be for concrete or asphalt production. This makes concrete and asphalt the primary operation. The asphalt and concrete operation were not addressed at the State level it is just at the County. There some concerns for contamination from run off, the neighbors are worried about air quality and flood plain. The application does not address this. The application does not address the types of equipment on site. Information was provided on health issues regarding diesel exhaust and it being higher in the surrounding area. This will expose children to a toxic level of air quality. Allergies are a concern because of the increase air pollutants. Some states pose moratorium on asphalt because of the health effects. There is an increase in the level of cancer causing agents associated with asphalt facilities. There will be increase dust levels. The residents live in the river bottom and dust will be blocked against ground. The neighbors are worried about domestic wells. There are domestic wells within one hundred feet. There will be air pollutants deposited into the streams and ending up in the ground water. The dry creek can absorb pollutants and carry them to the Platte and neighboring sources. There should be a requirement for a spray program for mosquitoes. There will be damage to the wildlife population in area. The bald eagles will be impacted. There are several types of wildlife in the area. There are presently 500 vehicle trips in the area and another 250 will be added for an approved mining operation. The traffic and safety is the major concern. The safety for the kids on CR 22.5 and out CR 18 for the school bus is a concern. The traffic and the entrances onto Hwy 85 are dangerous. CR 25 and CR 18 are at a poor to failing rate right now and this does not include traffic from the pits that have been approved. There is no traffic sign on CR 18. The bridge on CR 25 and CR 18 is not sufficient. There are some concerns for traffic turn lanes on Hwy 85, which are not long enough and will block northbound traffic. These are some examples of issues with truck traffic and the entrances onto the roads in the area. It would make more sense to have the operation closer to access roads and major roads. The traffic at the Bierson Pit requires both lanes of traffic to make the turn into and out of. There is a curve on CR 18 and the trucks do not make the curve while staying in the lane. The flood plain was a discussion at the State level and they wanted it addressed at the County level. The County Code states it discourages an appropriate development in the natural hazard areas and reduce environmental segregation as much as possible. The pits will change the flow of water due to the fact it is in the 100-year flood plain. Are there effects on having this type of material in the flood plain? Where will this type of material be stored? The federal regulations need to be met to have petroleum products in a flood plain. The homes in the area have been engineered for the flood issues, the pit will change that flow. Odor is also considered a health hazard. It can cause various irritations. Noise that will be generated will be disruptive to the area. The lighting will be illuminate the area and this will affect the wildlife. The hours are proposed to be 24 hours a day if there is a contract that mitigates them running at night. The visual pollution is also an issue in an agricultural area. The surrounding area is not compatible and the area is not conducive to this type of growth. Mining does not belong in the flood plain. The impact will be far more than minimal including property value. The area is good for farming not mining. There are no other asphalt or concrete productions in the area. The area cannot support any more industrial growth because of the traffic and the agricultural lifestyle. This is not compatible with the area. Gravel mining is minimal the asphalt and concrete will be the bulk of the production at the site. The third speaker will be Bob Temmer. Heit Farms is three parcels that are put together in Lupton Meadows. There have been several new homes built in the area. This type of operation is not compatible with the community or the area. There are possible impacts that have not been taken into consideration. The application is about concrete and asphalt not mining. This is not simply a gravel mine. The location of this operation is in the middle of the neighborhood. The County Code favors more agriculture. This proposal is to take away the agricultural use and put heavy industrial use there. This is not the only use for the property. It could be sold in three parcels as residential and agricultural uses. This type of use will not have adverse impacts on the surrounding community. This operation will cause pollution and other 17 problems for the community. The traffic will introduce several traffic hazards and possible fatalities. South Weld County does not need another gravel mine. There are five reasons this application should be denied. It is incompatible with the area because of health concerns, incompatible because of safety concerns from traffic hazards, incompatible with the welfare of the community because of the noise, odor, visual impacts and decrease in property value, incompatible with agricultural nature of the community and it is incompatible with the residential nature of the community and Weld County Master Plan. This is not a good land use and the application should be denied. David Norcross, Fort Lupton Planning Commission member, is appalled at the letter from the Fort Lupton planner. In his opinion the letter does not reflect the Planning Commission opinion, the governing board opinion or the citizens of Fort Lupton opinion. The people of Fort Lupton are tired of the area becoming a giant sand and gravel pit. Will Piper, neighbor, indicated concerns about traffic. The traffic from the existing pits indicates that once the operators begin there is no enforcement of anything. The haul route will be the shortest that can be taken, not necessarily the designated route. The best way is to not permit. There are two slurry walls in the area, what will the affect of those be? Did the calculation use both slurry walls or just the one proposed? Gloria Trujillo, owner of lots in Vollmar, indicated her concerns with traffic in the area. The trucks travel on CR 18, CR 25 and CR 20. The information presented was correct. Ms. Trujillo would like the application denied. John Windell, neighbor, landowner to the north, indicated his concerns with the supposed agreement between him and the applicant and it not being complete. Mr. Windell has a native plant nursery on the property. Mr. Gimlin stated that his dispute was a legal matter and he would have to deal with the attorneys. Mr. Windell is objecting to the permit. Lee Morata, old neighbor, stated that the Heit family has paid their dues for 60 years so the present neighbors could enjoy the roads and the air that is present now. Progress is going to happen and it also has its faults. Progress will improve the area. The riverbed has a good base of gravel. The gravel companies are digging along the river where the material is. In order to improve the roads the asphalt must be produced and where are they going to get the material? The mining will be for seven years and not longer. The area can be improved when the mining is finished so the area can enjoy the final benefit. Agriculture is not productive as far as the riverbed is concerned. Heit Farms should have the privilege to mine or do what they want with their ground. Shirley Wagner, neighbor, indicated her concerns for the irrigation wells. Their only source of income is farming. Ms. Wagner does not want the asphalt and cement operation. William Gee, neighbor, indicated his issues with the slurry wall at the Koenig Pit. The slurry wall has causes a surface water problem. Any surface water pools in front of his residence now. What is going to happen to CR 20 1/4 when there are slurry walls on both sides? This will make the road impassable during a rainy season. Mr. Gee provided two letters from adjacent homeowners that could not attend. The wells within 600 feet were the only thing considered. When the Koenig pit was in operation the groundwater became contaminated and it is 1500 feet from the operation. The 600-foot radius was ineffective. This would be the fifth producing pit in the area. This is not just a gravel pit as has been brought forth. The wildlife in the area will be disturbed. Mr. Gee does not want to see the mining operation approved. Leonard Vargas, family in Vollmar area, indicated his concern regarding the lack of referral from DOW. The wetland area will be affected because of the decrease in water level and the amount of wildlife will decrease. The traffic in the area will be heavy for everyone involved. The traffic will be on CR 20 to CR 23 back to CR 18 and onto Hwy 85, which will cause a major amount of dust. Mr. Vargas objects to the gravel pit. The Chair closed public portion Paul Gesso, provided clarification with regard to the issues that have been brought forth. There was a wildlife impact study done by a wildlife biologist on the impacts and it concluded that there was no impact 18 on the area. It was referred to the DOW and they commented there was no impact but there is no letter indicating this as of yet. The traffic issues have been studied and county staff has recommended extensive improvements and the applicant has agreed to do those. The application requirements have been met and the applicant recommends approval. John Folsom asked about disturbing the flow in case of flooding. Mr. Gesso stated that a flood permit will be submitted tomorrow. The applicant is not required to make a CLOMAR. There are a lot of other agencies that will have to permit things like air, odor and noise. All has to be done prior to opening the mine. Bryant Gimlin asked about the impact of the slurry wall around the Koenig pit. Mr. Gesso said it had been taken into consideration during the groundwater modeling. James Rohn asked about the documentation from the Department of Fish &Wildlife. Mr. Gathman stated he does not recall a copy of the letter but he would check the file. Mr. Gesso said it could be faxed tomorrow. Bryant Gimlin asked about the traffic and what the haul routes will be and the improvements. Mr. Walliben, traffic engineer, indicated the haul route will be CR 25 south to CR 18 to Hwy 85. 90%will go south to Denver while 10% will go north. There will be 150 trips a day. There is no proposed traffic on CR 20. Mr. Carroll indicated the road improvements will be for safety in the project area. The gravel pit companies will upgrade the roads, have school bus pullout, there will be widening to the bridge on CR 25 and CR 18, right turn lane onto Hwy 85, turning radius to CR 18 and CR 25, additional overlay to pavement on CR 18 and CR 25 and shoulder widening to CR 18 and CR 25. Mr. Carroll indicated that there are State requirements addressed in the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Bruce Fitzgerald asked Mr. Carroll about the life on the County pits on CR 25 that the county utilized. Mr. Carroll stated that some pits that the county uses are on a limited basis not year around but the life can be extended. The gravel is used on the county roads in the quadrant. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if the traffic from those pits was accounted for. Mr. Carroll indicated that the county will come up with a number that is fair to all. The county has paved the haul routes that it utilized. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if there is a speed limit sign on CR 18. Mr. Carroll stated there must be a sign there but it cannot be verified. If there is not one there will be one posted. James Rohn asked Mr. Carroll about the number of pits in the area is approved for cement and asphalt. There does not seem to be any asphalt and concrete plants in the surrounding area. Mr. Rohn asked Mr. Gesso about the haul route and whom the bulk of the product will be serving. Mr. Gesso stated that there is no one specific end user. Mr. Gesso added that having these facilities on site would eliminate some of the traffic hauled to other areas. John Folsom asked if there will be recycling in the area. Mr. Gesso stated that the only recycling that would be done will be material that is come back concrete. There will be no importing of material. Paul Gesso indicated the concerns with the conditions. 2C stated the current property owner WILL occupy the residence for three years the applicant would like to see it changed to MAY. Mr. Heit may not want to live there for three years. The applicant believes they have met all the conditions under prior to scheduling the Board of County Commissioners hearing. Mr. Gimlin indicated that staff has deleted A, B & D. Mr. Barker added that they have provided additional information that would eliminate 1C also. Condition 2B has been addressed by the approval of the State approving a 2-1 slope for the berms. Condition 2K talks about a collateral agreement for the improvements internal to site, there should not be a separate agreement it can be included in 2J which is the agreement for the Road Maintenance Agreement. Condition 2M has been accomplished by the preservation of the wetlands area on site and the Flood Hazard Permit will be submitted within days. Mr. Gimlin added the item was to address the issue not tells the applicant what to do. Development Standard 1 does not mention water storage but does mention all the other uses. Bryant Gimlin asked about the water storage. Mr. Barker stated that until the USR is vacated they still need to comply with all the standards and conditions. The water storage is the end goal it is not the primary activity. They can vacate at the end of the mining. Mr. Gimlin indicated that water storage will bring a new set of regulations aside from the mining activity. The water storage requirements have been 19 added in the application at the county level and State level. Mr. Gesso added that there will be some final engineering plans that have to go to the State for approval. This is so it does not fail. Tim Tracy moved to change the language in 2C from "will"to "may." James Rohn seconded. Motion carried. James Rohn moved to delete Condition of Approval 1C. Tim Tracy seconded. Motion carried. Bryant Gimlin indicated that Condition of Approval 2B was for the applicant to attempt to address the condition. The Planning Commission indicated no need for change. James Rohn commented he would be afraid to add water storage due to other regulations becoming a factor. Mr. Barker stated there is nothing that prohibits the Planning Commission from adding but it may not be something the County should be addressing in terms of land use. It can be vacated once all the items have been met. Mr. Gathman added that the mining operation is the principle use at hand; the water operation will be the end use. This could limit the applicant if there was a change in the final plan. A recreational use could be the end result. Mr. Tracy added he does not see any harm in adding it because they have the option of changing it when the operation is finished. Mr. Gathman questioned if there is a need to amend the permit if water storage is not the final use. It could be vacated and there is no limit on the future use at that point. Mr. Carroll added that when the slurry wall is proposed it is added at the beginning of the operation this way when it is finally mined the de-watering will be less. Bruce Fitzgerald moved to add in Development Standard 1 the use of water storage. Tim Tracy seconded. 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; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James Rohn, no; Tim Tracy, yes. Motion carried. James Rohn moved that Case USR-1444, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of denial. This is based on 22-5-80B, health and because of the traffic. There was no second. Motion fails. Tim Tracy moved that Case USR-1444, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. There was no second. Motion Fails. The Planning Commission forwards this case with no recommendation. APPLICANT: Weld County Building Department/Jeff Reif CASE: Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code. REQUEST: Amendment to Section 29-2-90 of the Weld County Code manufactured home installation standards. Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, read a letter requesting a continuance to November 4, 2003. The legal notification was improper. James Rohn asked about the request to begin at 10:00am. Mr. Ogle stated that the request is for the hearing to begin the early because there is a great deal of information to cover and it is something the Planning Commission has not reviewed before. The final decision is up to Planning Commission but it has a possibility of going longer than expected. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to speak. James Rohn moved to continue Chapter 29 to November 4 beginning at the normal 1:30pm. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded. 20 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; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tim Tracy, yes. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 7:30pm Respectfully submitted f Voneen Macklin Secretary 21 Hello