HomeMy WebLinkAbout20011277.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, May 1, 2001
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2001, in the Weld County
Public Health/Planning Building, (Room 210), 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was
called to order by Chair, Cristie Nicklas, at 1:33 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Cristie Nicklas Present
Fred Walker Absent
John Folsom Present i';
Jack Epple Absent
Michael Miller Present F n -
Stephan Mokray Present `)
Arlan Marrs Present
Bryant Gimlin Present
Cathy Clamp Present
Also Present: Monica Daniels-Mika, Sheri Lockman, Robert Anderson, Kim Ogle, Jeff Reif, Department of
Planning Services; Lee Morrison, County Attorney; Pam Smith, Char Davis, Trevor Jiricek, Department of
Public Health and Environment.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on, April 17, 2001,
was approved as read.
1. CASE NUMBER: USR-1328
PLANNER: Julie Chester
APPLICANT: HCC, LLC
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A&B of RE-2569, being part of the SW4 of Section 9,
Township 9 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a business
permitted as a use by right or accessory use in the Commercial or
Industrial Zone District (Construction Maintenance Shop, Equipment
Storage, Warehouse and Outdoor Storage) in the A (Agricultural) Zone
District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to SH 14 and east of and adjacent to WCR 29.
Monica Daniels-Mika, Director of Planning Services for Julie Chester, Planner requested Case USR-1328
be continued until May 15, 2001. The sign was not posted in time for the hearing. The applicant was not
present but had notification of the request.
There was no discussion for Department of Planning staff.
There was no public comment.
Stephen Mokray moved that Case USR-1328 be continued until May 15, 2001. Bryant Gimlin seconded the
motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Arlan Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Jack Epple,absent; Bryant Gimlin,
yes; Cathy Clamp, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Fred Walker, absent. Motion carried unanimously.
C 2001-1277
Os- IN -,2001
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Page 2
2. CASE NUMBER: S-588 (Continued from April 17, 2001)
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
APPLICANT: Denver/Canadian do Dan Ochsner
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of AMRE-2151. Being part of the E2 of Section 21,
Township 3 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Final Plat for a 5-lot Minor Subdivision - Ivy Crest
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Weld County Road 19, 1/4 mile north of State
Highway 66
Sheri Lockman, Planner presented Case Number S-588 and read the Department of Planning Services
comments and recommendations of approval into the record. Ms. Lockman stated one of the largest
concerns dealt with compatibility with the Agricultural Service Establishment located east of the site. Ms.
Lockman also stated that the applicant was required to submit a copy of a landscaping and berming plan
with the final application.
Cathy Clamp asked Ms. Lockman if a street light might be required at the intersection of Weld County Road
119 and State Highway 66, as indicated in a letter dated February 21, 2001 from the United Power. Ms.
Lockman replied that the light was not required.
Michael Miller,asked Ms.Lockman about the ownership of mineral rites beneath this property and if that has
been addressed. Ms. Lockman confirmed the lot is too small to be economically feasible to mine.
John Folsom, confirmed there was reference to nonurban development of any land within 3 miles urban
growth boundaries of Platteville. Ms. Lockman stated the IGA does not address this.
Dan Ochsner, applicant stated his name and address for the record.
Mr.Miller asked Mr.Ochsner if he owned the mineral rights to the property. Mr.Ochsner stated that his land
and cattle company owns the mineral rights. Mr. Miller stated that state maps indicate that the bench below
the road has a fifty foot layer of gravel on it. Mr. Miller stated the state requires that gravel reserves not be
compromised. Mr. Ochsner stated that engineering report on the property indicated it was actually sand
and not gravel, therefore, wasn't economically feasible to mine.
Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney, stated that the language in the title commitment"reservation of
veins"are talking about hard minerals in the 1872 mining act and not sand and gravel which are surface
minerals.
Mr. Miller indicated that the fire hydrants would be served by an irrigation well and domestic water from
Central Weld Water. Mr. Ochsner stated it wouldn't be feasible to bring an eight (8) inch line two miles
down to the five lots. The fire department agreed with the well providing water to the hydrants.
Stephen Mokray asked the applicant who will maintain the well. Mr. Ochsner stated the homeowner's
association and the property owner of where the well is located (the north lot).
Cristie Nicklas asked for public comment.
Lila Mayer stated her name and address for the record. Ms. Mayer wanted assurance that the most recent
Right to Farm Covenant was on the change of zone plat,and that future residents know the meaning of that
covenant. She also asked that the berming plan is doubled in height to provide a wider division between
this subdivision and her business across the road. Ms. Mayer's concerns also include soil erosion and
setbacks for the residences as far back on the lots as possible. Ms. Mayer wants to know what guarantees
she has that these will be carried out.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Page 3
Mr. Folsom stated that Ms. Mayer grows onions and potatoes on the property. Mr. Folsom also stated that
this can be very odoriferous. Ms. Mayer said the business is run 24 hours a day and there are also lights
on at night. Mr. Folsom stated that potential buyers might not know the agricultural aspect of living across
the road from a onion processing plant. Ms. Mayer stated that they just want to protect their livelihood and
not have to continue to defend their agricultural business.
Kenneth Mayer,stated his name and address for the record. Mr.Mayer illustrated where his packaging shed
is located and said that there may be several semi-trucks either on the road waiting to load. Mr. Mayer
stated each of the proposed lots are two and one half acres and Central Weld Water is providing domestic
water, but there won't be water for irrigation to keep the lots from eroding.
Mr. Folsom, asked Mr. Mayer if recording the Right to Farm Advisement on the plat will be adequate for
future buyers. Mr. Mayer stated he did not think it would be. I don't think people will realize what they are
getting into.
Bryant Gimlin asked if the semi-trucks back in off the county road. Mr. Mayer said sometimes they are
staged on the county road. Mr. Mayer stated his business runs twenty-four hours a day and many times at
night the semis are waiting to be loaded. Mr.Mayer also stated there are noise and lights at all times during
the day and night. Mr. Gimlin asked if there is room on the road for two way traffic when the trucks are
staged waiting to be loaded. Mr. Mayer stated that the trucks try to move to the side as far as possible and
that there is room for two-way traffic.
Ms. Clamp asked Ms. Lockman if a requirement for water to irrigate should be added since Central Weld
Water will only provide for domestic use.
Ms. Nicklas asked Ms. Lockman what seeding was on the land at this time. Ms. Lockman stated a mixture
of grass and weeds were located there. Ms. Lockman asked to refer to the Change of Zone to establish
the irrigation requirements.
Ms. Lockman responded to Ms. Mayers concerns stating that the Right to Farm will be on the Plat and in
the covenants. The six foot berm will probably not be feasible because of the sloping and seeding
difficulties, however, it could be made higher than the three foot stated. Ms. Lockman stated that
enforcement will come through the improvements agreements for the roads, landscaping. Ms. Lockman
stated that there are building envelopes on the plat,however,the setbacks are limited because of the slope
of the property.
Diane Houghtaling, Department of Public Works defined the new access for the proposed site. The new
driveway is on the south side of the development.
Mr. Miller, confirmed that there are two accesses.
Mr.Miller stated that initially the Planning Commission denied the Change of Zone and the Board of County
Commissioner's approved it. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Morrison what would happen to this application if the
Planning Commission denied it. Mr.Morrison stated it would still go to the Board of County Commissioners
but if they denied it the application could not move forward, however the applicant could reapply for a
substantial change of plans. Mr.Morrison suggested the Planning Commission needs to base their decision
on the criteria of the preliminary plan.
Ms.Nicklas asked Mr.Ochsner if he was in agreement with the Development Standards and the Conditions
of Approval. He stated he was in agreement.
Ms. Clamp asked Mr. Ochsner to address the irrigation issue for the five lots. Mr. Ochsner stated that the
homeowner's association will receive five(5)per cent or 1000 gallons from the well. Ms.Clamp confirmed
with Mr. Ochsner that taps from the well could be run to each lot for irrigation to help mitigate erosion.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Page 4
Mr. Mokray asked how the water could be distributed to the property. Mr. Ochsner stated it could be
distributed by a ditch or by underground water. Mr.Ochsner also stated he will meet with the homeowners,
once the lots are purchased and develop a plan with them. Mr. Ochsner stated the monitoring of the water
will be through the homeowner's association. An example by Mr.Ochsner was to allot one day a week and
allocate the water so all the homeowners would be watering on the same day. Mr. Ochsner stated the
homeowner's association would be responsible for maintenance of five percent of the well and he,would
be responsible for the remaining ninety-five percent.
Ms.Clamp stated that she understood the concern of the Mayers and their onion operation situated across
from the proposed lots,and suggested to Ms. Lockman that stronger language other than the Right to Farm
Covenant, needs to appear not only on the plat but some notification that would let potential buyers know
of the noise and odor problems.
Ms.Lockman stated that a note could be added to the plat stating,"Potential purchasers are hereby notified
that a onion processing operation is directly east of the site. Outside impacts may be encountered including
noise,trucks,tractors, equipment, and odors. With this statement, it would make the buyer aware that the
operation has been in production and the USR number will be defined.
Cathy Clamp moved that such language be added as a Condition of Approval. Bryant Gimlin seconded the
motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision.
Arlan Marrs, voted yes with the additional language that all the surrounding feedlots, poultry and dairy
information be made available to the potential buyer. Ms. Lockman agreed. Bryant Gimlin seconded the
amendment.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision
John Folsom,yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Jack Epple, absent; Bryant
Gimlin, yes; Cathy Clamp, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Fred Walker, absent. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Folsom stated that he wished this statement also be put in the covenants.
Mr. Miller stated that the building envelope of Lot 2 has a fifty (50) foot water easement for Northern
Colorado Water Conservancy District running through the middle of it. Ms. Lockman stated the lot was
moved over so there would be enough room the house and a septic system. Mr. Miller stated that no
improvements could be put on the easement.
Ms.Smith stated that there is a twenty-five(25)foot setback between a water line and a leach field or septic
tank. Ms. Smith stated the Department of Public Health and Environment would not recommend a leach
field on the easement, however if the septic tank was on one side of the easement and the leach field on
the other, the approval from the owner of the easement would have to be guaranteed.
Mr. Morrison suggested that an irrigation plan be put in place by the developer of the subdivision and that
could be included in the Improvements Agreement.
Ms. Nicklas agreed and asked Ms. Lockman for language for that measure. Ms. Lockman stated that 2.A
requires an improvements agreement in the form of collateral to be approved by the Board of County
Commissioners. Mr. Morrison said to specifically add the irrigation language to the Improvements
Agreement.
Mr. Marrs moved to send Case Number S-588 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along
with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the addition of the amendment 2.A
regarding construction of the irrigation system along with the Planning Commission's recommendation for
approval. Mr. Gimlin seconded the motion.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Page 5
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision
Michael Miller,voted no with comment stating that the development does not address the potential problems
that will occur with the construction of homes across from this type of processing facility.
John Folsom,voted no for the same reason as Mr. Miller.
Stephen Mokray, voted no with comment stating he was not comfortable with the proposal
Cristie Nicklas, voted no, stating the compatibility issue was a factor.
John Folsom, no; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, no; Michael Miller, no; Jack Epple, absent; Bryant
Gimlin,yes;Cathy Clamp,yes; Cristie Nicklas,no; Fred Walker,absent. Motion fails,with four to three vote.
3. CASE NUMBER: Z-556
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
APPLICANT: H. Leroy& Phyllis Johnson do Todd Hodges Design, LLC
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-2308 being part of the N2 Section 25,
Township 5 North, Range 65 West of the 6th P.M., Weld
County Colorado
REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to PUD with Estate uses
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Weld County Road 54;0.5 mile east of WCR 47
Kim Ogle,Planner presented Case NumberZ-556 and read the Department of Planning Services comments
and recommendations of approval into the record. Kim Ogle also stated that the Department of Services
staff had revisions of staff recommendations with deletions noted as strikeouts and additions are noted in
bold face type. On page 1, the addition of the referral date for the Department of Public Health and
Environment, page 8, item 4.P was added and page 10 item 5.H was added.
Commissioner John Folsom asked Kim Ogle, how the potential purchasers are notified of the information
if that information is only recorded on the plat. Kim Ogle suggested the information could be included in the
covenants.
Commissioner Cathy Clamp stated that in the letter from the City of Greeley, dated April 10, 2001,the city
requested a fifty foot right-of-way from the center line of Weld County Road 54 for future improvements.
Mr. Ogle stated that he would review staff comments to verify that this issue has been addressed.
Commissioner Michael Miller, stated, according to Church and Associates that construction should begin
when groundwater is at its lowest level. The Terracon report indicates the report was done in October which
is probably the approaching the lowest groundwater and groundwater was at one(1)foot to a foot and a half
then. Michael Miller stated his concern was the difficulty to build or grade on this site. Pam Smith,
Department of Public Health and Environment stated that the septic systems are going to have to be
unconventional septic systems due to the high ground water. Ms.Smith also stated there are systems that
can be installed that will not contribute to groundwater contamination through nitrates.
Mr. Miller asked Ms. Smith if standing groundwater on the surface would be a health issue. Ms. Smith
commented that there is always the potential for mosquito breeding habitats with standing water especially
with grasses in the water. Ms. Smith also stipulated that the maintenance and care of the property would
have bearing on this situation.
Commissioner Cristie Nicklas suggested that the applicant could answer how they were dealing with the
standing groundwater and construction.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Page 6
Mr. Folsom asked if the Building Inspection Department refers to the conditions of approval in reference to
the all building foundations having to be engineered. Mr. Ogle stated that the foundations will have to have
a geotechnical report and be engineer designed. Before construction the building plans will be checked by
Department of Building plans examiners and will be approved then. Mr. Folsom confirmed that the
Department of Building and Department of Planning Services refer to one another for information.
Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney, stated that a requirement has be added to the building code
stating all building structures have geotechnical evaluation.
Mr. Miller stated in the application that the fire hydrants were going to be run from well water. Mr. Ogle
confirmed that actually the water was coming from Central Weld County Water District with an extended
line down Weld County Road 54 to accommodate both domestic and fire suppression.
Todd Hodges,representative for the applicant stated his name and address for the record. Mr. Hodges also
described the parcel of land. Mr. Hodges stated the applicants have and will continue to work with the
appropriate agencies in this process. Mr. Hodges expressed concerns with requirement of a paved internal
roadway stating that this is consistent with minor subdivision regulations. Mr. Hodges presented photos of
the site.
Leroy Johnson applicant, stated his name and address for the record. Mr. Johnson, stated that the high
water table comes from irrigation and that the high point is about September 30.
Phyliss Johnson,applicant stated her name and address for the record and read a statement about their life
on this farm and their onion production.
Ms. Clamp asked Mr. Johnson about the onion production west of this acreage and what prevented the
move of the onion farm to this acreage. Mr. Johnson stated that because of the high water table during
irrigation that it was not feasible to raise onions on this acreage. Ms.Clamp also referred to a letter that was
written by the applicant to the LaSalle Fire Department indicating that this is the first of a three phase project.
Mr. Johnson stated that he is going to be satisfied with this phase and no other phases are planned.
Ms. Nicklas opened the meeting to public testimony.
George Maxey stated his name and address for the record. Mr. Maxey is a dairy farmer to the north of this
property. Mr. Maxey wanted the record to show that there is a dairy farm to the north. Mr. Maxey stated
his concern with the growth in this area.
Mr.Miller asked Mr.Maxey to point out where his dairy is on the map.Commissioner Arlan Marrs,requested
information regarding the high water table. Mr. Maxey stated with proper engineering, the septic systems
work.
Susan Alles stated her name and address for the record and that she lived a fourth of a mile north of the
Johnsons. She stated her concerns regarding road traffic on the county roads with more development. Ms.
Alles also stated the groundwater is high and that her basement used to get water in the summer months
until they put pumps and piping in to pump the water away from the house. The railroad is also a concern
with the tracks located on the Johnsons' property. Potential buyers are not going to understand the
difficulties pertaining to this property;turkey and dairy farm smells, high ground water, irrigation water runs
in the ditches on the north and south side of the road in the barrow pit,and high prices for engineered septic
systems.
Mr. Miller asked Ms.Alles how many trains pass on the tracks per day. Ms.Alles stated that it is usually at
night. The trains are not frequent.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Page 7
Ms. Clamp mentioned the standing water in the basement to Ms. Alles asking her if her property is in
downward elevation from the Johnsons. Ms. Alles stated she thought it was the same elevation as the
Johnsons.
Ms. Nicklas closed the public portion of the hearing.
Ms.Nicklas asked Mr.Hodges what the applicant wanted in regards to the internal gravel road. Mr.Hodges
responded the applicant would like to keep the option flexible by keeping the road gravel.
Diane Houghtaling, Public Works, stated that the code requires PUDs to be paved and that can be waived
by the Director of Planning. In this case there are no other gravel roads around this site. Most of the roads
are paved.
Ms. Nicklas asked Mr. Morrison what the planning commission options are at this point. Mr. Morrison
responded that the applicant is asking for final plat approval without a final hearing.Mr.Morrison,also stated
if there are still issues, then a final hearing would be hard to avoid. Mr. Morrison said the Board can make
that adjustment.
Ms. Nicklas agreed that it should be left to the Board of County Commissioners.
Mr. Hodges stated that the applicant will drop the request to keep the internal gravel road.
Ms. Nicklas asked if the applicant is in agreement with conditions of approval and development standards
as written by staff.
Mr. Hodges stated the applicant was in agreement.
Ms. Nicklas requested information from the engineer from Church and Associates.
Tom Finley stated his name and address for the record. Mr. Finley stated that April 13, 2001, Mr. Church
wrote a letter to Leroy Johnson discussing the on-site wastewater alternatives. Mr. Finley stated there are
basically three systems available; 1)Evapotransportation System which is completely lined,2)A Wisconsin
Mound system in which additional sand and soil is required, 3) Hybrid Wisconsin Mound where there is
advanced treatment of wastewater. All of these systems are expensive with the Evapotransportation system
costing between $25,000 to $35,000, the Wisconsin Mound an additional $2000 over the price of a
conventional septic system and the Hybrid Wisconsin Mound running about $5000 over the price of a
conventional system.
Commissioner, Stephen Mokray asked how high do the Wisconsin Mounds have to be for filtration. Mr.
Finley stated another two(2)to three(3)feet would be added. Mr. Mokray confirmed the mound would be
about four(4)feet.
Ms. Nicklas asked Mr. Ogle if the Conditions of Approval or the Development Standards address
maintenance of septic systems. Mr. Ogle stated if the Planning Commission requests this standard, it can
be added.
Jeff Reif, Building Supervisor, Department of Planning Services, stated his name for the record. Mr. Miller
stated that the groundwater is a foot and a half and asked if the foundation could reasonably be constructed
with success. Mr. Reif stated that any foundation is required to have a engineer's evaluation whether there
is groundwater or not. The engineer based on the soils report would design the foundation, most likely with
drainage away from the site.
Commissioner, Arlan Marrs asked if there has been a situation where the building department would not
allow basements, due to high ground water.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Page 8
Mr. Reif, stated that the Weld County Building Code does not prohibit basements. It would be a matter for
the engineer to design the foundation according to the soils report.
Ms.Clamp confirmed that it is standard procedure for the building inspectors to adhere to the requirements
made by the Planning Commission. Mr. Reif also confirmed that the inspectors enforce the Conditions of
Approval.
Mr.Folsom stated that the building inspection department relies solely on the engineers' design. Mr. Reff
stated if there is anything that is questionable then the engineer is consulted.
Ms. Clamp asked Mr. Finley if the soils report done by Terracon was accurate due to the time of year it was
taken and the water table was higher,would that remove any of the options of septic systems. Mr. Finley
stated it would not.
Ms. Nicklas asked Mr. Ogle to address Mr. Maxeys' concerns regarding the Conditions of Approval. Mr.
Ogle suggested to change Item 4.P to add dairy and delete the confined animal feeding operation language
and also put this in the covenants.
Mr. Ogle stated to Ms. Clamp that the City of Greeley right-of-way statement is on page five. Mr. Ogle
proposed that on page seven, Item D,the following should be added. "The plat shall be amended to include
the following, the applicant shall delineate a fifty (50) foot right-of-way reservation from the centerline of
Weld County Road 54 as stated in the City of Greeley referral dated April 10, 2001.
Ms. Clamp suggested that wording be put on the plat regarding the high groundwater and high water table
at certain times of the year so potential buyers would be award of the future problems.
Ms. Nicklas requested information from the applicants representative asking if there is any notification of
potential problems to future buyers.
Mr. Hodges stated that conditions are in place based on the engineering of both the septic and the
foundation. I believe the Condition of Approval based on the note on the plat actually states there is high
groundwater.
Ms. Smith, stated that number 4.E. talks about the septic system has to be designed for site specific
conditions including but not limited to maximum seasonal high groundwater or poor soils or shallow bedrock.
Ms. Smith also stated that a note was made that a maximum seasonal high groundwater has been
documented at one point four (4) feet below the surface based on the report from Terracon, October 3,
2000.
Mr. Miller moved that Case Z-556 , 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. Mr. Marrs seconded the motion.
Mr. Miller voted yes with comments regarding development in non-prime farm ground, and the economics
involved in the success of this development.
Mr. Folsom voted yes, with comment that there is non-prime farm ground that is more suitable for
development.
Ms. Clamp voted yes, with comments agreeing with John Folsom.
Mr. Mokray, voted no with comments that this development is a unhealthy situation with the railroad in the
back, and high water table.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Page 9
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray,no; Michael Miller,yes;Jack Epple,absent; Bryant Gimlin,
yes; Cathy Clamp, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes ; Fred Walker, absent. Motion carried six to one.
4. CASE NUMBER: USR-1326
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
APPLICANT: Lohmann/French do L.G.Everist
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of NW4 and Part NW4 NE4 Section 6,T2N, R67W of
the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for Open
Cut Gravel Mining along with a Concrete Batch Plant in the A(Agricultural)
Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Weld County Road 26 and 1/4 mile east of Weld
County Road 13
Sheri Lockman,Planner presented Case Number USR-1326 and read the Department of Planning Services
comments and recommendations of approval. Ms. Lockman also distributed a letter received May 1, 2001
stating concerns regarding this site. Ms. Lockman stated the Staff Comments had been updated by
combining Development Standard number 14 with number 11. Development Standard number 19 was
deleted because it was repeated in number 34, and the wording was changed on number 32.
Commissioner Cathy Clamp asked if cutting and trimming the noxious weeds was adequate in controlling
the weeds. Don Carroll, Public Works, stated he would check with Ron Broda, weed specialist to see if
keeping the weeds cut is adequate. Ms. Clamp asked if this measure is not adequate, could the
Development Standard be amended to include removal of noxious weeds instead of just control. Ms.
Lockman stated that would be possible.
Commissioner Michael Miller stated that he has several acres of noxious weeds and Mr. Broda indicated
that as long as the weeds are cut before they budded/flowered then that would be adequate control of the
weeds.
Rick Everist, applicant stated his name and address for the record and also stated the only weeds on the
property were tumble weeds. Mr. Everist stated that this operation would be in process for considerably less
time than most, with the time frame between ten (10)and twelve (12)years.
Commissioner Cristie Nicklas addressed the letter that was received May 1,2001 and asked the applicant
if he had had time to read it. Mr. Everist stated he had. Ms. Nicklas asked how the water wells were to be
monitored and Mr. Everist stated they would redrill any wells within 600 hundred feet.
Ms. Clamp stated in the Reclamation plan that six (6) of the eighty (80) acres will returned to prime farm
ground and the rest to water. Ms. Clamp asked if there was any feasible way more of the land could be
returned to farm ground. Mr. Everist replied that was up to the owner. The applicant stated that the
eventual lake will be only forty-five (45)acres.
Mr.Miller,referenced the application on page 8 stating that backfilling with imported,inert fill material would
take place and the Development Standards indicate that no permanent disposal of waste shall be permitted
on the site. Mr. Everist, stated it is structural fill dirt, asphalt anything the Department of Public Health and
Environment would deem inert. Mr. Miller asked if this was permissible. Char Davis, Department of Public
Health and Environment stated that it was permissible.
Ms. Clamp stated that the application didn't state if materials were going to be imported to the batch plant
or the site only. Mr. Everist stated that concrete would be coming from Wyoming. Mr. Everist also stated
that when the site was complete it would be mitigated, however he also stated that concrete batch plants
can co-exist with residential areas.
Mr. Miller confirmed that the new batch plant is replacing the plant on Highway 119 and 1-25.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Page 10
Commissioner Arlan Marrs discussed the reasoning behind Development Standard number 30 asking Ms.
Lockman if this wasn't overstepping the boundaries. Ms. Lockman replied that compatibility was the main
issue for the Development Standard. Ms.Lockman went on to state that this area is developing very quickly,
and there are homes that sit to the south of this site and a subdivision overlooks this gravel mine. Also when
the application was submitted there was no mention of this existing subdivision. Planning staff chose to add
the condition. Mr. Marrs asked how importing raw materials be any different than using existing materials.
Ms. Lockman stated that Planning Staff had concerns regarding the capability of the subdivision and the
batch plant. The condition was added to limit the use and time frame of the batch plant to run with the gravel
mining. The Planning Staff wanted to ensure that when the mining was over, the batch plant would also
cease to exist.
More discussion followed regarding Development Standard number 30 in which, Mr. Miller clarified that if
the applicant wanted to make changes to the standard, it would not jeopardize his application at this point.
Mr. Everist stated at this point in time he did not want to make changes to this Development Standard.
Mr. Miller confirmed that the batch plant would be located in the Northeast corner of the property.
Ms. Nicklas opened the hearing to public comment. There was no public comment.
Ms. Nicklas asked Mr. Everist if he had other Conditions of Approval or Development Standards that he
wished to discuss. Mr. Everist asked for clarification on the IGA with the Town of Firestone. Ms. Lockman
stated that Weld County has an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Town of Firestone, however at this
time, this site is outside the boundary of the IGA. The applicant had submitted the application prior to the
amendment now going through the hearing process with the Board of County Commissioners. At this time,
this IGA does not affect his application, however,future applications may have to be developed through the
town. Ms. Nicklas requested the definition of an IGA. Ms. Lockman, stated it is an Intergovernmental
Agreement between the county and the towns that directs growth around said towns. Mr. Everist stated that
the site has not been annexed by the town. Mr. Morrison,stated that the towns and the county have agreed
on how development in the urban growth areas is to be handled. Mr. Morrison stated that this site is not in
the area.
Mr. Folsom stated that Firestone is not challenging this application.
Mr. Everist stated that on 2.E on page 4, prior to scheduling a Board County Commissioners hearing, the
requirement is asking to have submitted a list of property owners within 500 feet of the property boundary
for notification. Mr. Everist stated that a list of property owners within 500 feet of the Use by Special Review
boundary had already been submitted and he questioned why more names. Mr. Everist stated it seemed
like the rules were being changed for this specific case.
Ms. Nicklas asked Mr. Morrison if there was a County regulation that make this necessary. Mr. Morrison
stated the 500 feet is based on the distance from the Special Use Permit.
Mr. Miller asked Ms. Lockman why this was added. Ms. Lockman stated that this is was changed to ensure
proper notification to the homes in the subdivision which are beyond the 500 feet. Ms. Lockman stated this
same condition has been used for dairies. Planning staff wanted to be consistent and ensure that those
people most affected by the USR receive notice.
Mr. Marrs stipulated that the rule states it is 500 feet within the USR not 500 feet of the property boundary.
Mr. Morrison stated interpretation isn't quite that clear. It says the parcel under consideration. Mr. Morrison
stated the language says"parcel".
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Page 11
Mr. Marrs, restated that obviously the parcel under consideration is the USR and Mr. Everist is exactly right
by stating we go through the whole process of public notification along with publishing the notification in the
newspaper. If we start changing the rules arbitrarily, there is no end to it. Mr. Morrison stated that it isn't
clear that it doesn't apply to the whole parcel. The term used is "parcel", not "area" of Use by Special
Review Permit. Mr. Morrison also stated the Use by Special Review permit does not create a separate
parcel and therefore, the word parcel in this instance could mean the whole parcel boundary.
Mr. Morrison stated that what Planning staff is asking for is not in excess or creating a new rule. Mr.
Morrison stated that the current rule could be interpreted to read "parcel boundary".
Mr.Miller stressed the key point is consistency. He stated that he has not seen it written on any other gravel
operations. The notification process has always been property owners within 500 feet of the Use by Special
Review boundary. This one application shouldn't be singled out just because there are houses on the bluff
above it.
Mr. Morrison cautioned that the applicant runs the risk of future challenges if a property owner who was not
properly notified, contests the application. A court of law could interpret the rule as notification of property
owners within 500 feet of the property boundary not USR boundary.
Commissioner Bryant Gimlin stated that the applicant just wants to know what is expected of him. Mr.
Gimlin stated that the if the Planning Commission interprets that the 500 feet comes from the Use By Special
Review area that would be a reasonable interpretation. As far as notification, that is why all the signs are
posted for the public outside those boundaries.
Mr. Everist stated that in the past,the boundary of the some USR's have been moved to avoid notification,
but not this time.
Mr. Miller stated that whether the condition be amended or not, that you can't bounce back and forth
arbitrarily, and that the Planning Commission must be consistent.
Mr. Gimlin moved to eliminate Item 2.E in the Conditions of Approval. Stephan Mokray seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Arlan Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Jack Epple,absent; Bryant Gimlin,
yes; Cathy Clamp, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Fred Walker, absent. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr.Everist stated his next concern was on Item G of the Conditions of Approval regarding the water supply.
Ms. Davis, stated that the water had to be potable and meet the criteria for commercial use. Ms. Nicklas
asked that the word potable be added for clarification.
Mr.Everist moved on to Item L.stating that the approval of the Gravel Well Permit and Temporary Substitute
Supply Plan by the Colorado State Engineers' Office will take time, and could this condition be moved to
prior to operating. Mr. Morrison stated that he thought it would be appropriate.
Mr. Miller moved to relocate Item 3.L and re-letter appropriately to become Item 4.B under Prior to
Operation.
Ms. Clamp seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Arlan Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Jack Epple,absent; Bryant Gimlin,
yes; Cathy Clamp, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Fred Walker, absent. Motion carried unanimously.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Page 12
Mr. Everist discussed the Development Standard on page 9, Item 18 clarifying that the wording was referring
to concrete trucks and concrete drums. Ms. Davis concurred. The applicant went on to Item 19 on page 9
clarifying the size of the parking lot for paving. Mr. Carroll stated that the parking lot should be adequate to
handle vendors and office employees.
Mr. Miller moved to send Case Number USR-1326 together the amended Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval and corrections in wording and spelling to the Board of County Commissioners with
our recommendation of approval.
Mr. Mokray seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Arlan Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Jack Epple,absent; Bryant Gimlin,
yes; Cathy Clamp, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Fred Walker, absent. Motion carried unanimously.
5. CASE NUMBER: USR-1325
PLANNER: RobertAnderson
APPLICANT: Edward &Janet Schmidt
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B/RE-2090, PT E2/ NW4, PT NE4/SW4, SEC 18,
T5N, R64W, 6TH PM, Weld, County, CO
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a
Single Family Dwelling Unit, Other than Those Permitted under Chapter
23, Article III, Division 1, Section 23-3-20.A., in the A(Agricultural)Zone
District.
LOCATION: South/Adjacent Weld County Road 58 & West/Adjacent Weld County
Road 49.5
Robert Anderson, Planner presented Case Number USR-1325 and read the Department of Planning
Services comments and recommendations of approval into the record.
Commissioner Cristie Nicklas asked the reason for this USR. Mr.Anderson responded that the property is
Lot B of a Recorded Exemption 2090 and isn't in the ten (10)year time frame.
Commissioner Bryant Gimlin inquired why the Greeley/Weld Airport did not require an avigation easement.
Mr. Anderson responded that the reason there is no easement is that the property lies on the fringe of the
overlay district and the type of construction the applicant is proposing will not have substantial height to the
building.
Bill Hughes, attorney and representative for the applicant stated his name and address for the record.
Mr.Hughes stated that the applicant is retired and farming this land but has a need for some additional help
so this house would be for his son and daughter-in-law. When the 10 year time frame has expired the
applicant plans to file for a Recorded Exemption to create a separate legal lot. The site that the house will
be built on is on the least intrusive acreage for the farming operation.
Ms. Nicklas opened the hearing for public comment. There was none.
Ms. Nicklas asked the applicant if they were in agreement of the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. The applicant stated that they were in agreement.
Mr. Gimlim moved that Case Number USR-1325 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with our recommendation of approval.
Commissioner Stephen Mokray seconded.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Page 13
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Arlan Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Jack Epple,absent; Bryant Gimlin,
yes; Cathy Clamp, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Fred Walker, absent. Motion carried unanimously.
6. CASE NUMBER: USR-1329
PLANNER: Robert Anderson
APPLICANT: Green/Croissant Sand and Gravel Mine and Loveland Ready Mix Concrete
Plant.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A/RE-134, PT NW4& PT NE4, SEC 30,T5N, R67W,
6T" PM, Weld County, CO
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for an
Open Pit Gravel Mining Operation and Concrete Batch Plant, in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South/Adjacent Weld County Road 54&West/Adjacent Weld County Road
13
Robert Anderson, Planner presented Case USR-1329 and read the Department of Planning Services
comments and recommendations of approval into the record. Mr. Anderson asked if all the Planning
Commissioners received their copies of the latest comments. Mr.Anderson stated that the Department of
Public Health and Environment would like to change Development Standard number 14 and place on page
7 as paragraph 3.Q to be required prior to recording the plat, with subsequent renumbering.
Commissioner Cathy Clamp indicated that Development Standard number 27 states that the existing trees
and ground cover along public road frontages and drainage ways shall be preserved, maintained, and
supplemented. Ms.Clamp stated the Division of Wildlife indicated that there are several mature cottonwood
trees in the northern part of the site. Ms. Clamp wanted to know if they were along the public right-of-way
and do they need to be addressed.
Mr. Anderson responded by stating the cottonwood trees are actually in the interior area of the site. Mr.
Anderson stated on page 3, Section 3.A(Prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing)the applicant
shall attempt to address the requirements and concerns of the Colorado Department of Wildlife.
Alex Schatz, Banks and Gesso, applicants representative stated his name and address for the record.
Commissioner Michael Miller asked how close to the pit are the cottonwood trees that we are trying to
preserve.
Steve Fancher, Loveland ReadyMix stated his name and address for the record and responded that the
cottonwood trees were at the edge of the pond except for one. That one would be cut down and replaced
with several smaller trees in a different area on the site. Mr. Miller stated the reason for the question was
that dewatering will kill the cottonwoods. Mr. Fancher stated that these particular trees have grown around
the edge to the lake and there is some seepage. Mr. Miller suggested that the trees be monitored so that
they won't die off.
Ms. Clamp stated that in the State Engineers letter, it asked if this was to be a dry or a wet pit. Mr. Schatz
answered this is going to be a dry operation.
Curt Pruitt,stated his name and address for the record. He stated he owned the property south of the batch
plant. Mr. Pruitt stated his concerns were the haul routes and how close the batch plant would be to his
property.
Lee Morrison,County Assistant Attorney asked for clarification between dry and wet pit. Mr.Fancher stated
they were going to dewater and line dry.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Page 14
Mr. Fancher addressed Mr. Pruitt's concerns stating the batch plant would be about 600 feet north of his
house. He also stated the truck traffic is proposed to go on Weld County Road 13 North to Weld County
Road 54 with traffic traveling east and west. Weld County Road 13 will be paved on between the entrance
to the batch plant and Weld County Road 54.
Ms.Nicklas asked the applicant's representative,Alex Schatz if they were in agreement with the Conditions
of Approval and the Development Standards. Mr.Schatz stated that there needed to be clarification of Item
B. on page 5. Mr. Schatz stated that the Division of Water Resources did not decline to approve the
proposed substitute water supply plan, but they had not had a chance to review the plan before the Weld
County Referral was sent.
Mr. Schatz continued with items I.,J., K., and L. stating that these conditions may be more appropriate as
conditions for prior to operation rather than before recording the plat.
Ms. Nicklas as Char Davis' Department of Public Health and Environment, if it would be appropriate to put
these items as prior to operation. Ms. Davis responded that these are requirements come from the State
and it would not be appropriate to move them.
Mr. Anderson, interjected that the placement of these items, before the Board of County Commissioner's
Hearing was for enforcement,with the current staffing and growth development in this area, Department of
Planning staff would be better able to ensure these requirements were accomplished if placed prior to
operations.
Mr. Morrison, stated that these requirements are basically in control of the applicant.
Ms. Nicklas stated that the items would not be moved.
Mr. Schatz continued with Item M.on Page 6 and asked that the language to say"potable water". Also, Mr.
Schatz asked for clarification on Item N. on Page 6 regarding the information on the Improvements
Agreement. He asked if the improvements were for the off site public right-of-way or internal improvement.
Mr.Anderson responded that basically the Improvements Agreement was for the public right-of-way and the
paving of Weld County Road 13. Mr.Schatz requested the language be changed to clarify exactly what the
Agreement was stipulating. Mr. Anderson stated that the wording would be reworked, however the
employee parking area is one area that we would like to see paved. Mr.Anderson suggested the change
to Item N.stating,"The applicant shall enter into an Improvements Agreement according to the Weld County
Policy regarding collateral for improvements and post adequate collateral for employee parking,and off-site
public rights-of-way.
Mr. Miller stated on the last application the employee parking lot paving was not required. The office area
parking lot was the only requirement.
Mr.Anderson stated that would be fine.
Mr. Schatz also questioned Item P. on Page 7 suggesting that Larimer County and Weld County have
different standards for approval. Ms. Nicklas stated that the requirement says the applicant"shall attempt"
and the applicant needs to try to attempt to comply.
Moving on to Item 14 of the Development Standards, Mr. Schatz questioned the information required for
appropriate septic permits for the Department of Public Health and Environment. Ms. Davis replied that the
application stated there was a house on the property and the Department of Public Health and Environment
needs verification of the appropriate septic permits.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Page 15
The applicant requested that Item 3.B be moved to 4.C under Prior to Operating. Ms. Nicklas asked the
Commission if they agreed.
Mr. Miller moved that Item 3.B be moved to become 4.C under Prior to commencing Operations and
renumber appropriately. Ms. Clamp seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Arlan Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Jack Epple,absent; Bryant Gimlin,
yes; Cathy Clamp, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Fred Walker, absent. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Miller moved that Case USR-1329, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards,wording changes and appropriate numbering, with the
Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Mr. Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom,yes; Arlan Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Jack Epple,absent; Bryant Gimlin,
yes; Cathy Clamp, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Fred Walker, absent. Motion carried unanimously.
For your convenience,the Department of Planning Services has instituted a Planning Commission Agenda
Phone Line. In some circumstances cases need to be continued to a later date. To ensure that this case
is being heard, you may call 970-304-6499, up to the day of the scheduled hearing for this information.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Meeting adjourned at 5:00 P.M.
Re pectfully sub itted .
/7 ei ' 7/
Vicki Hamilton
Secretary
Hello