HomeMy WebLinkAbout20012939.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, October 2, 2001
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday October 2,2001, in the Weld
County Training Facility, 1104 H Street,Greeley,Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair,Michael
Miller , at 1:30p.m.
ROLL CALL
Fr,
Michael Miller -
Bryant Gimlin ' ',
Gristle Nickles Absent
Fred Walker '
John Folsom
Stephan Mokray -
Cathy Clamp Absent
Luis Llerena
Bruce Fitzgerald
Also Present:Lauren Light,Monica Daniels Mika,Kim Ogle,Don Carroll,Carla Angeli,Char Davis,Pam Smith
Bruce Barker; City Attorney, Frank Hempen
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on September 18,
2001,was approved as read.
Case: Sch-20
Planner: Monica Daniels Mika
Applicant: John Fell/ Beebe Draw
Address:
Request: Substantial Change Hearing to a previously denied 2nd Filing PUD Final Plat for 536
lots.
Legal Description: Sections 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16 and 17, T3N, R65W of the 6th PM, Weld County
Colorado
Location: Approximately 6 miles east from the Town of Platteville;east of WCR 39;and south
of WCR 38. For more precise location, see legal
Monica Daniels Mika read a letter into the record requesting a continuance to November 6, 2001. The
Planning Commission unanimously approved.
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case SCH-20, be continued to the November 6, 2001 Planning Commission
Meeting. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Fred Walker, yes; Luis Llerena,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Planner: Lauren Light
Case Number: USR-1342
Applicant: Xcel Energy/Public Service Company
Address: 550 15th Street, Suite 700, Denver, CO 80202-4256
Request: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Major Facility
of a Public Utility (230/345 kV Overhead Transmission Line)
Legal Description: Township 1 North, Ranges 64 and 65 West;Township 2 North, Ranges 64 and 65
West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado
Location: Six proposed alternative routes
Lauren Light, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1342, reading the recommendation
and comments into the record.The Department of Planning Services is recommending final approval of the
L._Maid- � y I0/,o/a%, 2001-2939
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Rick Thompson, Team lead for Xcel, provided clarification and purpose with regards to the Rocky Mountain
Energy Center. Mr. Thompson provided information on the need for the facility due to the increase in need,
they are asking for a larger line in expectation of the future increase. Xcel has evaluated the different bids
for energy needs as well as the different opportunities. Mr. Thompson provided further information as to the
height of the poles being 120 -130 feet tall. This project has selected route A as the prime route which is
parallel to an existing line. Xcel researched a variety of alternative routes with input from the public and
Planning Services. Xcel used many criteria in researching the routes including limit crossing parcels of land,
minimize visual conflict and minimize impact of biological resources. There will be no need for additional
ROW in some areas due to the fact that they are going to use only approx 100 feet and the existing ROW of
the existing line. Where possible Xcel will utilize a pole for pole replacement. Mr.Thompson stated that they
have worked with the neighbors to attempt negotiate and deal with their concerns. They will do further work
with the neighbors with regards to compensation and negotiation approximately at the beginning of 2002.
Michael Miller asked how long the power line that is existing has been there. Mr.Thompson stated that it has
only been there about four years and the problem was not foreseen by Xcel stating that they had no
knowledge of where the stations would be. Mr. Thompson stated that the creation of IRP process was in
process and not complete at the time the original line was asked for.
John Folsom asked if they have approval from Adams County. Mr.Thompson stated that they have not yet
received approval but are conducting public meeting and have the application in. Mr. Thompson stated that
there are not many different route possibilities in Adams County and they will request the same route. Mr.
Folsom asked about the possibility of all the circuits on one pole. Mr. Thompson stated that the line is
designed for the single circuit. In order to redesign all of the poles would have to be removed and redesigned.
Essentially it would be a complete replacement.
Luis Llerena asked if they could design a larger tower that could eliminate the existing line and combine the
two of them. Mr.Thompson stated that in order to combine the lines there would need to be three lines on one
structure and that structure would have to be massive. Also there could be no way to remove one line while
constructing the other. This is virtually impossible to accommodate.
John Folsom asked about the radiation and electric fields. Mr.Thompson stated that this line will not be near
any residential areas that there would cause a potential effect. The EMF dissipate the further away from the
lines.
Michael Miller asked about the operation voltage 230 with a max of 345 and how far into the future is it going
to be before we need a larger than 345 line. Mr.Thompson stated that the 230 is allowing a space for voltage
growth. This would allow for future needs. Mr. Miller asked if they could guess when it would be at maximum
capacity. Mr. Thompson stated that the Public Utilities Commission would be regulating that usage in order
to determine the future.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Jody Marx stated that she has concerns with how far apart, where the lines will go, how large the bases,
health risks and compensation issues, how close to the RR tracks is the line going to be, will power be sold
to another states. Mr. Miller addressed the concern about Calpine stating it will be heard Nov. 6
The Chair closed the public portion.
Mr. Thompson stated that the poles will be around 800-1000 feet apart and the diameter of the pole will
depend on the amount of line typically it is 6 feet. The separate lines will be approximately 100 feet apart.
The line will be north of the Mrs. Marx family property and they will be contacting the land owners at the
beginning of 2002. The power will be for Colorado residents.
Fred Walker asked why could they not put all three lines on one pole, where is the proof. Mr. Thompson
stated that there was no way of adding all those lines onto one pole, in doing so it would increase the size of
the tower to 170+feet with additional lines and make the bases a four leg type of structure. The towers would
be a larger structure and obstruct more of the land.
Luis Llerena indicated that the concerns were for engineers and it would be helpful to gain those answers in
order to make an informed decision. Mr. Thompson stated that they would provide the needed information
from the engineers if it was determined as a condition of standard. Mr. Miller encouraged the applicant to do
so.
Luis Llerena suggested that the proposed structure could be expandable for future needs. Mr. Thompson
stated that having two lines was not something that was foreseen at the time of the original. The safety of
having two lines instead of one large pole is economically better.
Fred Walker asked if the applicant had an engineer that could possibly ease the concerns of the structures.
There are outstanding questions that need to be addressed with regards to technical issues. Mr. Llerena
stated that the board does not want to assume anything with regards to technical information. Mr.Thompson
stated that the Public Utilities Board has approved this and there is a transmission engineer that could
possible shed light on this.
Mr. Bill Broshe provided clarification as to the purpose of the lines including the problems with liability and
maintenance. The triple circuit towers will increase the visual appearance as well as the lattice towers being
larger at the base. Mr. Folsom asked if there has ever been a configuration like this seen before. Mr. Broshe
stated he had never seen this before. Mr. Walker asked about the footprint and the size of the pole. Mr.
Broshe stated that it would be a minimum of 170 feet with the bases occupying approximately 40-50 feet.
Stephan Mokray recommended final approval for Case USR-1342 with the Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards. John Folsom seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Fred Walker, no; Luis Llerena,
no; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried.
Case Number: USR 1306
Planner: Kim Ogle
Applicant: Rocky Hoffschneider/Tom Sharkey
Platte Sand and Gravel, LLC
Address: 1300 Harlan Street, Lakewood, CO 80215
Request: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for Mineral
Resource Development facilities including a Concrete,Asphalt and Pre-
cast Batch Plant and Gravel Mining in the A(Agricultural)Zone District
Legal Description: Parts of the SE4SE4 Section 23; Parts of the SE4NE4, SW4NE4,
SE4SW4, and SE4NW4 Section 26; Parts of the NE4NE4 and SE4NE4
Section 34 and parts of the NE4,NW4 and SE4SW4 Section 35,Township
4 North, Range 67 and parts of the E2 and E2W2 Section 2, Township 3
North Range 67 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado
Location: North of and adjacent to Weld County Road 36; approximately 2640 feet
South of WCR 44 and West of and adjacent to Weld County Road 23
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1306, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the
application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Michael Miller asked about the haul route from the mine being WCR 36 to Hwy 85. Mr. Ogle stated the
proposed haul route will head south from the processing plant area to the intersection of WCR 23 and WCR
36. Traffic will head south approximately 1.5 miles to WCR 32.5, a paved two lane road. Traffic head west
on WCR 32.5 to WCR 21 and south to State Highway 66. Traffic will head west SH 66 to market. A second
alternative haul route is to head east on WCR 36 to SH 85 then proceeding north or south to market.
Frank Hempen stated that the Department of Public Works received a traffic study on September 24, 2001
and have not had time to review and it does not indicate that the route will be that.
Tom Haren, provided information with regards to the new issues on the application. The new application
will consist of wet and dry mine operations of 180 acres with a terrace deposit on approximately 1600 acres
of private land. The mine time frame has been reduced to 20 years and the reason for this is that most
comprehensive plans are done on that time frame. Mr.Haren went through a list of the agreements that are
in place and that have been completed between the two Planning Commission hearings. (June 5, 2001,
October 2, 2001) These agreements alleviate most of the conflicts that were addressed in the earlier
Planning Commission hearing. Mr. Haren stated that they have submitted the alternative route traffic study
to the Department of Public Works, however, in conversations Department of Public Works asked that no
review was to take place. The alternative route was only an option. Mr. Haren addressed the size of the
site in comparison with the surrounding area, including the location of the mine operation and the buffer on
the site to the surrounding areas. CTL, a GeoTechnical company, determined that 1600 acres could be
mined with 30% being gravel and 70% being sand. A portion of the SE4 SE4 of Section 26 was mined by
Weld County several years ago. Most mine operations are approved and located on the river areas. For
this operation the dry mining will occur with removal of the gravel on surface. The ferrace material will be
utilized for the internal roads and for the plant site. The wet operation will be done with a dredge. The
dredge will be assembled and placed into a man made hole with dewatering occurring for up to 60 days.
At the end of 60 days the pumps will be turned off and mining will commence. The progression of the mine
will be approximately 1000 square feet of resource a day. The application requests the allowance of
portable concrete and asphalt batch plant, concrete precast and concrete recycling. Mr. Haren further
discussed the importance of the site being all inclusive with the recycling. The reclamation will go on at the
same time as the mining with there being an open lake at the completion which is great for wildlife and open
areas. The applicant has agreed to grant the easements for a trail that will be built in the future by others.
The traffic issue is the haul routes for the trucks coming out of the plant. The desired route would be to head
south from the processing plant area to the intersection of WCR 23 and WCR 36. Traffic will head south
approximately 1.5 miles to WCR 32.5, a paved two lane road. Traffic will head west on WCR 32.5 to WCR
21 and south to SH 66. Traffic will head west on SH 66 to marked. A second alternative haul route is to
head east on WCR 46 to SH 85 then proceeding north or south to market. The alternative Traffic Study was
done because of the questions at the prior meeting. The reasons for this are to be viable for the I-25
expansions and work on E470. There is a mining operation that is already using this haul route,
Odenbaugh. The traffic study was done for the desired route with the understanding that this would address
the comment from Public Works. The applicant determined a need to look at alternative routes based on
Planning Commission direction. Therefore the additional traffic study.The Port of Entry is managed by the
Department of Revenue and they require permits with the designated routes for each individual truck. These
trucks are required to stop at Port of Entry if they pass in route. The contract trucks will sign agreements
to follow rules of the designated truck routes and speed limits within the gravel mine operations. The
reasons for the original denial have been addressed and the agreements and submittal of the traffic study
demonstrated this.
Commissioner Miller asked about the haul route being used by the company or contract trucker, as the
revocable permits allow for only one route. Mr. Haren stated that they can only provide the information and
offer to pay for the mitigation while determining the best haul route. The mine can work via WCR 23 or
WCR 36 as the designated haul routes.
Commissioner Miller asked about concrete crushers, concrete precast plant and the request for this. Mr.
Haren stated that he would be willing to table the precast and the recycling plant due to the fact that there
was not enough information provided to address this issue.
Commissioner Walker had concerns about Division of Wildlife(DOW)conservation easement and location.
Another issue is the traffic concerns. Mr. Haren stated that they are is the standard buffer and setbacks of
400 feet from the exterior to the pit and also the area north of the pit will comprise the conservation area.
The applicant is discussing a larger area of conservation with DOW.
Commissioner Mokray asked for clarification on high pressure gas lines,sheriffs office referral,weed control
and Indian burial grounds. Mr. Haren stated the high pressure lines are located north of the site, further,
they have agreements with Xcel Energy; Sheriff Department; there is a memo stating they have no issues
with the mining operation itself, but have issues with compatibility with the surrounding residences; weed
control Gary Cole has been working with Ron Broda from Weld County Public Works since last spring in
developing a plan for weed control;Indian burial-site has been evaluated with the finding of these burial sites
typically along the river. They are not in the area of the proposed mining site. There is no top soil in the
mining area due to the fact that there was a sod farm on center pivot previously in the Sharkeys Lake area.
Commissioner Miller asked Don Carroll about the traffic study and the left turn bay on State Highway 66 to
WCR 21. Would CDOT be paying for this? Hwy 66 would benefit by having a left turn lane but there is not
enough Right-of-Way there. CDOT has no scheduled date to make any improvements on Hwy 66. The
opportunity of widening the road would be of difficulty. Mr. Hempen provided further clarification with
regards to a turn lane. CDOT has final say and can stated when it can be done. CDOT may not agree to
it no matter who is paying.
Fred Walker asked about the permit issue with the Port of Entry. Mr. Miller stated that each permit can
designate a haul route. The only way you can circumvent the five mile radius around the Port of Entry is if
you are hauling from loading point to a specified point not in the path. Mr. Gimlin stated that a revocable
permit is for local hauling.
Mr. Haren presented a draft for a Public Road Improvements Agreement to work out the details with Platte
Sand & Gravel, LLC, and the County for paying their proportionate share.
Stephan Mokray asked Frank Hempen at what point do we allow more traffic on the roads. Mr. Hempen
stated that according to the 1998 traffic counts on State Highway 66 the volume is 4500 vehicles per day
and the Colorado Department of Transportation generation documents state that the highway can
accommodate 7000-8000 vehicles per day. In Public Works opinion, more detailed information is needed
to be able to make an accurate assessment.
Mr. Miller, Chair, asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this
application.
Mike Cowper, Mayor of Platteville,stated he is opposed to the application. The case is not part of Platteville
IGA, however, it is part of the area included in their Comprehensive Planning area. The Comprehensive
Plan designates land up to WCR 36 as Low Density, Low-Medium Density and High Density residential
areas. Platteville's predominate concerns are the traffic that would be generated and the movement of it.
Mr. Cowper is confused as to how much control the applicant has once truck traffic enters the State
Highway 66 corridor. Platteville does not have the funds to mitigate the problem of traffic. Platteville
depends on CDOT and Weld County for funding and assistance related to traffic circulation and
improvements. It is Mr. Cowper's understanding that the improvement plans by CDOT will be from WCR
19 west on State Highway 66.
Mr. Miller asked Mr. Cowper which route he would feel is less impacted to Platteville. Mr. Cowper prefers
Hwy 85 due to the fact that Hwy 85 is more capable of handling the traffic. Hwy 66 is less capable of
handling the additional traffic. There is not a month that a fatality does not occur along this stretch of
highway.
Bruce Rippe,the surrounding land owners representative stated they have concerns about the loss of quality
of rural life; increased physical health risks; the financial strain of disrupted farming activities and the
decrease in property values. There are additional concerns with the Development Standards not being
adequately addressed. The original recommendation for denial was based on the following: pre-cast
concrete plants, not applicable; not compatible to existing land uses; not compatible to future land
developments;the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval did not adequately address public
health, safety and welfare; therefore, an incomplete application. The pre-cast concrete request is still not
an industrial activity. This request does not fall under Weld County Code as an allowable use in this
particular district. The asphalt and concrete recycling is not outlined in the Weld County Code and therefore
is not permitted in the Agricultural Zone District. The incompatibility with the existing land uses is evident
in that the code requires that the applicant promote a "reasonable and orderly" development of mineral
resources. Mr Rippe notes that Mr.Cowper stated opposition from Platteville via their Comprehensive Plan.
The truck traffic generated with this mining operation and the existing operations would place 1000 truck
trips per day on Hwy 66 using the applicant's numbers.
Mike Ptasnik, addressed some of the issues with land use. The land historically was a farm and ranch
operation. The land has a great amount of water associated with it, for example, there are 24 shares of
Western Mutual Ditch, 7 shares of Hughes Cook and eight irrigation wells on the property. The water has
historically been used to irrigate 400 acres of land. The neighbors feel this is an agricultural piece of ground
and would like to see it stay that way. The ground has historically grown corn,vegetables, hay pasture. In
some instances native grasses grow. According to Platte Valley Soil Conservation District, this ground
meets the definition for prime agricultural land on approximately 65 acres.
Mr Rippe, addressed the issue of compatibility. This was specifically expressed by the Platteville Mayor.
The Development Standards and Conditions of Approval were not adequate for the protection of the
inhabitants of the neighborhood and county according to the first vote for denial. This applicant has no prior
business experience therefore they have no proven track record to abide by those conditions. With this
information the surrounding neighbors ask that additional conditions be added to ensure their safety.
Examples dealing with school bus routes, noise, dust, odor/pollution and traffic. In closing the last reason
for denial is the incompleteness of the original application. This new application is still not complete.
According to the prior meeting it was asked for an outline in detail of a phasing of the mining operation,the
new application still states one phase. Finally, the lack of benefit to the neighborhood has not been
addressed. There has been additional language added to the application, including public and private
recreation and that was it. The haul route is the largest concern,we were unaware that there were possible
alternative routes.
Mr. Odenbaugh, addressed the issues in the traffic study. The original application had 11 items for review.
The primary revision was a reduction in size to 180 acres and limit it to 20 years. The substantial change
is with traffic and production rates. The traffic impact study numbers are incorrect in that the number of
trucks used to haul the loads are figured too low. Colorado division of Transportation (CDOT) needs to
comment on the additional traffic routes and the intersections that they use. There would be substantial
increases in traffic on the affected county roads given the proposed haul routes. The traffic study does not
take into consideration local deliveries. The application could request an amendment to the proposal due
to the fact that they cannot mine the said amount with the said number of trucks in the time frame provided.
Nancy Fisher, handed out several exhibits with regards to historical concerns, including historic sites that
may be present on this site. These sites consist of Woolly Mamooth sites at the Dent Site and known
archeological sites including Fort St. Vrain. Mrs. Fisher opposes any of the amendments, revision and
changes. She does not believe that the reduction is in good faith. Mrs. Fisher read a letter regarding the
Historical Society concerns regarding the archeological and historically issues associated with the site. This
letter was requesting an archeological study that includes a ground penetration radar study. Mrs. Fisher
wanted the addition of conditions that address paving of all roads around the site that are used by the
applicant at the applicant's expense.
Mr.Miller asked Mrs. Fisher her experience with burial site investigation. Mrs Fisher stated she did her own
research based on the guidance of others. She went to the different historic societies and local libraries to
gain the information about the sites and what would need to be done.
Frank Stewart, stated his opposition and requests a denial because disturbing of grave sites is against the
law,and the dredge depletes the land resources completely. Mr.Stewart spoke with American Indian Affairs
Committee stating that they would like to talk with Planning Commission to do what is needed to protect
those burial sites. Mr. Stewart would like to know if Weld County would be responsible for the reclamation
of the property should this company leave the area.
Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
Mr. Walker asked Mr. Haren to responded to the public concern about the shrinking of the time frame but
not the production of the operations. Mr. Haren stated that the application submitted included the limited
amount of equipment to mine at a slower pace. Mr. Haren made the suggestion to the applicant based on
the time frame of most comprehensive plans. There was no way of accounting for the truck traffic exactly
the numbers are an estimation based on the study and planned production rates. Mr.Walker asked about
the size of dredge. Mr. Haren stated that the mine is planning on using a 14-16"dredge this was based on
the engineers request associated with the operation and the length of time for the mine.
Bryant Gimlin asked two questions,first,why such a large permit boundary area and small gravel mine with
the concerns being the size of the equipment,and second,given the haul route and traffic impact,what are
the needs based on the size of the operation. Mr. Haren addressed the permit area first. Staff has required
the permit boundary to include all of the property contained under a single ownership, not just the affected
area of the mining operation. The Development Standards and the State approved Mining permit allows
for a set area of open mining operation. The mining will move to the west northwest of the ranch
headquarters and only a certain amount of acreage at a time. Mr. Haren would like to table the issue of the
pre-cast plant. Mr. Haren stated that the State permits allows for 800 acres to be mined but it cannot be
mined without Weld County approval. Mr.Gimlin stated that the increase in traffic cannot be blamed on just
the gravel mines there has been in increase in population but there is no need to add to the problem. Mr.
Gimlin suggested the haul route be from WCR 36 to Hwy 85.
Bruce Fitzgerald asked how you would know if there were any archeological burial sites. Mr Haren stated
that they had hired and archeological expert to do the work. There would be a surface evaluation by a
professional geologist and archeologist. According to the State, if the applicant finds any evidence of a
historic site or elements consistent with historic ruins, including bones, the mine operator must stop
operations immediately, then contact the Weld County Sheriff to determine the validity of finding.
Fred Walker asked Frank Hempen what the recommendations are for the haul route. Mr. Hempen stated
there was not enough time to review the study adequately. Mr. Hempen was not able to review the study
with enough time to make a precise decision as well as an opinion Mr. Haren reiterated that the alternative
traffic study was provided to Public Works and that the alternative route was based on the comments given
at the June 5, 2001 meeting with the Planning commission requesting alternatives.
Fred Walker asked Public Works their opinion on the first traffic study. Mr. Hempen stated that there were
several improvements that needed to be made with all the affected WCRs. Mr. Walker asked if all the
improvements were made, does Public Works think that the safety would be adequately addressed. Mr.
Hempen stated the geometric concerns at the three intersection would be adequate along with the
improvements to the existing roads. Mr. Miller stated that there was no way that this route can be used due
to the fact that it will be trying to circumvent the Port of Entry.
Mr. Haren stated he was in disagreement regarding the referral from Public Works. Items 3.T, 3.U,and 3.V
should be deleted and the language "having a completed, approved and signed Road Improvements
Agreement, " prior to recording plat be added to each statement.
Bryant Gimlin motioned to delete #3.T, 3.0 and 3.V with the addition of language stating a Road
Improvements Agreement will be completed, approved and signed. Fred Walker seconding the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Fred Walker, yes; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Bryant Gimlin motioned to delete #3.P, 3.Q and 3.W with the addition of language stating a Road
Improvements Agreement will be completed, approved and signed. Fred Walker seconding the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Fred Walker, yes; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Kim Ogle, stated that the applicant has asked to withdraw the precast batch plant from the application. Mr
Miller acknowledged the withdrawal of the precast concrete batch plant. Mr. Ogle stated, given that the
applicant has withdrawn this item, he is aware and acknowledges that he is not allowed to propose the
addition of this item at the Board of County Commissioners hearing on October 10, 2001.
Mr. Miller stated he has issues with legal issues pertaining to the southern haul route. Mr. Miller feels that
WCR 36 to Hwy 85 would be a more viable route. WCR 36 will need to be paved up to County standards.
Other issues include a professional evaluation of the property for burial sites to determine the viability.
There also needs to be a Condition of Approval addressing the archeological evaluation.
The chair asked for language from Planning Staff. Mr. Ogle stated that the applicant shall submit evidence
of an Archeological Study to the Department of Planning Services for review and approval prior to operation.
This item should be identified as Item 4.D.
Mr Gimlin moved that the addition of language in#4 D to state"prior to operation the applicant shall submit
an Archeological Study to the Department of Planning Services for review and approval". Stephan Mokray
seconded the motion.
Mr.Walker stated he thinks that the Historical Society wants this done(an Archeological Study)and he does
not feel that the applicant should bear that additional burden.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Fred Walker, no; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr Fitzgerald moved to have the haul route be WCR 36 to State Highway 85. Stephan Mokray seconded
the motion.
Mr. Walker wanted to hear from Public Works before making a final judgement on the haul route.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Fred Walker, no; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried
Bryant Gimlin moved that Case USR-1306,be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards as amended with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, no; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, no with comment, Mr Miller stated he does not feel that
the plan is significantly different. The change in acreage is a veiled attempt and it is not compatible with the
surrounding use as well as protection of the neighborhoods health,safety and welfare.; Bryant Gimlin,yes;
Fred Walker, no,with comment Mr.Walker stated he favors a continuance of the application; Luis Llerena,
abstained; Bruce Fitzgerald, no with comment, Mr Fitzgerald believes that the traffic would be greatly
affected. Motion failed.
Meeting adjourned at 8:00 pm
Respectfully submitted
04 -)MUCH
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
Hello