HomeMy WebLinkAbout20011612.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, June 5 , 2001
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday June 5, 2001, in the Weld
County Training Center, 1104 H.Street,Greeley,Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair,Cristie
Nicklas, at 10:10 a.m.
-.a
ROLL CALL _=
M ..f� .;
Cristie Nicklas Present —
Fred Walker Present
John Folsom Present
Jack Epple Present
Michael Miller Present
Stephan Mokray Present r.
Arlan Marrs Present
Bryant Gimlin Present
Cathy Clamp Present
Also Present: Monica Daniels-Mika,Sheri Lockman,Anne Best Johnson,Wendi Inloes,Julie Chester,Chris
Gathman, Kim Ogle, Robert Anderson, Bethany Salzman, Planning Department; Char Davis, Pam Smith,
Trevor Jiricek, Department of Public Health and Environment; Don Carroll, Diane Houghtaling, Department
of Public Works; Lee Morrison, County Attorney.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on, May 15, 2001,
was approved as read.
The order of the cases was amended in order to accommodate the applicants for Case USR-1311.
1. CASE NUMBER: USR-1335
PLANNER: Anne Best Johnson
APPLICANT: Elizabeth Blasio
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NE4 Section 11, Township 5 North, Range 67 West of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for an Animal Training
and Boarding facility(Dog Daycare and Training Facility)in the A(Agriculture)Zone
District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to State Highway 257; North and adjacent to State Highway 34.
Anne Best Johnson, Long Range Planner presented Case USR-1335 and read the Department of Planning
Services comments and recommendations of approval into the record.Ms.Johnson stated that the applicant
is aware that the property is in the traffic impact area and a road impact fee will be accessed with new
construction. Ms. Johnson also distributed the sign posting certificate, copy of the publication, notice of
hearing time and location change, referrals from the Department of Public Health and Environment, City of
Greeley, and the Town of Windsor.
Chairman Christi Nicklas asked if there were any questions for Department of Planning staff. There were
none.
Ms. Nicklas asked the applicant to step to the podium.
Elizabeth Blasio, applicant stated her name and address for the record.
Ms. Blasio stated that this was mainly a training center,for obedience training. There are eight(8)to ten (10)
clients with their dogs. Also,from Monday through Friday there is a dog daycare from 7:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.
Clients are also able to leave their dogs for boarding and that typically goes on in the summer time and
weekends.
defrbasur °6- l 8 -.24:7°I 2001-1612
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 2
Ms. Nicklas confirmed that quite a few veterinarians refer clients and their dogs to Ms. Blasio for behavior
problems. Ms. Blasio, also stated she has an in-home training business.
Public hearing was open to public comment. There was no public comment.
Ms. Nicklas asked Ms. Blasio if she had received a copy of the Development Standards and the Conditions
of Approval. Ms. Blasio stated she had received a copy and was in agreement of them.
Stephen Mokray moved to forward Case USR-1335 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners
along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval.
Bryant Gimlin seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom, yes; Arlan Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,;Jack Epple,yes ; Bryant Gimlin, yes;
Cathy Clamp, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes ; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
2. CASE NUMBER: USR-1334
PLANNER: Julie Chester
APPLICANT: TowerCom
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the W2/NW4 of Section 32, Township 5 North, Range 63
West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Major Facility of a Public Utility (a 195' Telecommunications Tower) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to WCR 63, North of U.S. Hwy 34.
Julie Chester,Planner presented Case USR-1334 and read the Department of Planning Services comments
and recommendations of approval into the record. Ms.Chester stated that Development Standard#5 on page
5 can be deleted per Char Davis of the Department of Public Health and Environment.
John Folsom asked if there was any issue with the airport runway within 20,000 feet of the tower. Ms.Chester
replied there was not a problem as this property does not lie within the airport overlay district. Ms. Chester
also said the FAA did send a referral requesting the applicant fill out a 7460-1 form which was provided to the
applicant to be submitted to the FAA. There was no response from the FCC.
Stephen Mokray asked Ms.Chester what the setbacks are for a tower from the road. Ms.Chester stated that
the Building Department does not consider a cell tower a structure and therefore, there are not setbacks.
Ms. Chester also stated the tower is on a 100 foot by 100 foot leased parcel.
Cathy Clamp stated that the property is relatively close to the 100-year flood plain and asked if there was any
concern with the construction of the tower. Ms.Chester responded that the property is outside the flood plain
and there was not a requirement of a Flood Hazard Development Permit. Non-residential structures have to
be flood proofed and that means water can flow freely through the structure. Ms. Chester also stated the
tower will be unmanned, with a few small structures constructed, so maybe flood proofing would be to the
benefit of the applicant.
Ms. Chester also clarified that the GIS mapping and the FEMA maps sometimes don't exactly match up and
there are discrepancies.
Hal Garwood, N.H. Consultants, Inc., applicant stated his name and address for the record.
Chairman,Cristie Nicklas asked Mr.Garwood,if this was a speculative venture. Mr.Garwood responded no
it was not. Mr. Garwood stated there is a carrier ready to go on the tower. More than likely there will be two
carriers by the time the tower is built. He also stated the tower had the capability of having up to five (5)
carriers. Mr. Garwood confirmed there was one commitment at this time.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 3
Ms. Nicklas wanted clarification on this being a lattice tower instead of a monopole. Mr.Garwood stated the
monopoles are very difficult to accommodate five(5)carriers. Also, in the rural areas the lattice tower takes
less space than the guide wire poles. Mr. Garwood stated that the lattice towers tend to blend in with the
surroundings a little better.
Ms. Nicklas asked the applicant if the company had any codes for being in a flood plain area. Mr. Garwood
stated when he chooses a site, he makes sure the site is outside the flood plain if at all possible. If the site
is within a flood plain an elevation certificate is provided to make sure the towers are higher than the flood
plain. Mr. Garwood stated a ditch will be built around the perimeter.
Mr.Garwood addressed the setbacks,stating one(1)foot for every three(3)foot of tower is the way this tower
is designed.
Ms. Nicklas opened public testimony. None was given.
Ms. Nicklas asked the applicant if he had seen the Development Standards and Conditions of Approval. Mr.
Garwood stated he had seen them and was in agreement with them.
Bryant Gimlin moved to delete Development Standard #5 and forward Case USR-1334 along with the
amended Development Standards and Conditions of Approval with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners.
Stephen 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,;Jack Epple,yes ; Bryant Gimlin,yes;
Cathy Clamp, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes ; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
3. CASE NUMBER: USR-1333
PLANNER: Robert Anderson
APPLICANT'S: Brett and Michelle Bernhardt
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-2469, being part of the N2 of Section 12, Township 4
North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Use permitted
as a Use by Right or Accessory Use in the Commercial Zone District (Truck and
Landscape Materials Storage) in the Agriculture Zone District.
LOCATION: North and adjacent to State Highway 60 and 1/2 mile east of Weld County Road 23.
Robert Anderson, Planner presented Case USR-1333 along with the Department of Planning Services
comments and recommendations of approval into the record.
Michael Miller stated the hours of operation state daylight hours. Are you going to limit truck maintenance to
the same hours? Mr. Anderson stated that he and the applicant discussed this and the applicant was
comfortable with those hours of operation.
Mr. Miller stated those limited hours of operation could cause a conflict later if they are not allowed to move
their trucks around after dark. Mr. Anderson stated the applicant could respond better than he.
Mr. Anderson stated that daylight hours were one half hour before sunrise and one half hour after sunset
which would be quite a wide window for hours of operation.
Brett and Michelle Bernhardt, applicants, stated their names and addresses for the record.
Mr. Miller asked the applicants if they were comfortable moving their equipment around only during daylight
hours. Will you be wanting to do maintenance after hours? Mr. Bernhardt stated that in the summer the days
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 4
are pretty long, but during the winter there might be a problem. However, he stated that he was comfortable
with the hours and was in agreement with them.
Cathy Clamp asked what type of landscape materials (rock, mulch)were going to be stored. Mr. Bernhardt
responded mainly landscape rock. Ms. Clamp asked if there was a danger of becoming a visual problem in
the case of high wind. Mr. Bernhardt stated the storage is north of the house and if the wind were to blow,
the materials would hit the house before it would hit the highway. Mr. Bernhardt also stated a windbreak of
trees would be planted on the north side of the property line.
Ms. Nicklas opened public testimony for or against this application. Public portion of the hearing was closed.
Ms. Nicklas asked the applicants if they received a revised copy of the Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval and were they in agreement with them. Mr. and Mrs. Bernhardt stated they were in
agreement.
Bryant Gimlin moved to forward Case USR-1333 adding Paragraph F on page 3 and the addition of
Development Standard #15 amended Conditions of Approval along with the Development Standards and
Conditions of Approval with Planning Commissions approval to the Board of County Commissioners.
Stephen 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,;Jack Epple,yes; Bryant Gimlin,yes;
Cathy Clamp, yes; Gristle Nicklas, yes ; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
4. CASE NUMBER: USR-1331
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
APPLICANT'S NAME: Brian Williamson
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 20 of Enchanted Hills Subdivision, being part of the SW4 of
Section 8,Township 2 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M.,Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Special Use Permit for an Indoor Arena that exceeds 4% lot coverage for
accessory structures.
LOCATION: Approximately 900 feet east of WCR 15 and approximately 600 feet north of WCR
2.
Chris Gathman,Planner presented Case USR-1331 and read the Department of Planning Services comments
and recommendations of approval into the record. Mr. Gathman stated that the proposed arena and barn is
supposed to be twenty-six (26)feet in height and the design standards in the IGA with the County and the
Town of Firestone/Frederick allows for accessory uses to be only fifteen (15)feet in height. The Town of
Frederick regarding this and they had no concerns. The applicants also spoke with the City of Firestone
before submitting this application and Firestone did not provide an indication to annex this lot at this time. Mr.
Gathman also stated that this property is in the SouthWeld Road Impact Fee area and that the applicants are
aware of this. Mr. Gathman distributed a letter from the neighboring landowner.
John Folsom requested clarification on the parking area being asphalt, or gravel, does staff consider gravel
to satisfy the Department of Public Works. Mr. Gathman stated that condition is in concurrence with Don
Carroll, Department of Public Works. Mr. Folsom also asked if there was a written reply from the Town of
Firestone stating they didn't want to annex at this time. Mr. Gathman stated he had a verbal confirmation.
Brian and Kathy Williamson, applicants stated their names and address for the record.
Cathy Clamp addressed the concerns of the neighbors, Rose and Marvin Sturbaum. Ms. Clamp asked the
applicants if the outdoor lighting and a public address system were going to present a problem. Mr.
Williamson responded that there was going to be no outdoor lighting and no public address system. He
stressed this building is for personal use only. Mr.Williamson also confirmed that there would no equestrian
events or competitions at the site.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 5
John Folsom asked if the buildings are going to be pole buildings. Mr.Williamson stated the barn and arena
would be metal buildings on concrete foundations.
Ms. Nicklas asked the size of the building. Mr. Williamson answered the total building ninety-six (96) by
ninety-seven and one half(97 IA)feet. And the arena is sixty(60) by ninety-six (96)feet.
Fred Walker asked if the applicant knew how much the road impact fee is for the arena. Mr. Williamson
stated he did not know. Ms. Chester asked for a minute to research the fees.
Mr. Folsom clarified that all the access roads into the site have been accessed into the Town of Firestone,
specifically Weld County Roads 15, 24, 22, 20. Mr. Folsom also questioned if there are no county access
roads should there be a road impact fee.
Ms. Chester requested the commission ask the applicant for information regarding the use of the site.
Ms. Nicklas stated in the application that it was stated in the future the boarding of horses would be
established, which would put that use in a commercial status.
Ms. Chester stated that boarding is a use by right in the Agriculture Zone District and that would not be
considered commercial.
Mr. Williamson stated his building is being considered a commercial building which means the requirement
of a septic system, water hookup and there was a question regarding these requirements.
Ms. Chester stated that it is a possibility that the use of this building even though it is being considered a
commercial use by the Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Resources, and the Building
Department,even though it is determined to be a commercial type occupancy zoning may exempt it from the
road impact fee. According to Section 20-2-2.10 under exceptions the construction of auxiliary building or
structures which will not produce additional vehicular trips over and above produced by the principal building
or use of the land. Ms. Chester stated they may be exempt from the road impact fees based on the fact that
this is an accessory building for agricultural uses as a use by right.
Lee Morrison, County Attorney agreed with Ms. Chester.
Char Davis, Department of Public Health and Environment,stated the reason the sewage disposal language
was put on was two-fold. One, the existing residence is more than two hundred feet from the indoor arena
and the Colorado Regulations require that an adequate sanitary facility be available.
Mr. Gathman suggested that since it is unclear about the road impact fees at this time that it would be
appropriate to remove the third sentence Item E. on page 3 that states that this fee will be accessed at time
of building permit. Mr. Morrison stated it should be left in place and the applicant can apply for the exemption
of the road impact fees.
Ms. Nicklas opened the hearing to public testimony.
Marvin and Rose Sturbaum stated their names and address for the record.
Mr. Sturbaum stated that they wanted to protect the value of their property and had concerns with this
application.
Mrs. Sturbaum added that the dust on the roads right now is bad and that additional traffic would make it
worse. Ms. Nicklas stated that this was going to be a indoor arena and there wouldn't be that much dust.
Mrs. Sturbaum stated it was the road dust she was concerned about.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 6
Ms. Nicklas asked how many other lots are on this road. Mrs. Sturbaum stated there were fourteen (14)and
Don Carroll,Department of Public Works concurred. Ms.Nicklas confirmed the Sturbaums lot is directly west
from the applicant.
Public testimony was closed.
Ms. Nicklas asked the applicant if he was in agreement of the Conditions of Approval and the Development
Standards.
Mr.Williamson stated he objected to the term"commercial building"with a septic system and water hook-up
because the intent of this building was for personal use only. Boarding of horses would be two to three years
in the future. Ms. Nicklas asked if the boarders would be allowed to use the arena and Mr.Williamson stated
yes. Ms. Nicklas stated that is the reason for the septic and water requirements.
Mr. Williamson also disagreed with Dust Abatement Plan on page 4. Item 2 A. and Development 5 of the
Development Standards. Mr.Williamson stated that two to three trucks and trailers doing two trips should not
be a problem. Ms. Nicklas stated that the Development Standard #5 states that dust control would be
provided only if the use exceeds 200 vehicle trips a day. Up until that time you would not have a need.
Mr.Carroll,stated that with the fourteen lots multiplied by6.5 trips per lot plus ninety-one background vehicles
plus the proposed use, if that total exceeds 200 trips per day then the dust abatement plan would be required
from the entrance area of the site approximately 1100 feet to the west to the intersection with WCR 15.
Ms. Clamp asked of the proposed nineteen horses that will be involved in this arena how many of them are
the applicants' horses. The applicant stated seven horses and total boarders will be three at most. Ms.
Clamp wanted to know at what point will the applicant be requesting boarders. Mr.Williamson stated two to
three years in the future.
Ms. Nicklas stated the Dust Abatement Plan on page 4 is for blowing dust on the property, ie cultivated fields
and Number 5 on page 6 is for the dust on the road.
Michael Miller stated that the application states that boarders will be accepted, the septic requirements will
probably have to remain.
Mr.Walker agreed with Mr. Miller regarding the septic requirement. At this point it is for personal use but in
the future the boarders would be using the facility.
Mr. Williamson stated he was going to withdraw the application due to the septic requirement.
Mr. Morrison suggested before the applicant withdraws he should continue to the Board of County
Commissioners because they have final authority. Since you have proceeded this far, you should continue
to the Board for their decision.
Mr. Williamson stated that would be agreeable.
Mr. Miller suggested instead withdrawing the application,just withdrawn the request for public boarding.
Mr. Miller also stated if they don't have boarders, a septic system would not be required.
Ms. Davis stated if the site was used for personal use the residence would be sufficient.
Ms. Clamp stated that if the boarding part of the application is withdrawn the road impact fees would not be
incurred. Ms. Chester stated that boarding and training animals is a use by right. Ms. Chester stated that
reason the Mr. and Mrs. Williamson were present was because the size of the building is larger than four
percent in a subdivision. The use is still a use by right. The road impact fee is incurred at the time of building
permit issuance and as Mr. Morrison stated there is a road impact fee application exemption process to be
followed.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 7
Ms. Clamp stated that if a commercial use is going to be a greater impact of the road and dust. If that use
is taken away, then those requirements should be taken away also.
Mr. Carroll stated if a commercial use goes away and becomes a personal then the dust control requirement
would be deleted.
Mr. Morrison again stated to the applicant to take what they have and go to the Board of County
Commissioners. If it appears the Board is consistent with the septic requirement,you can still withdraw the
boarding part of your application. The Commissioners make the final decision.
Ms. Nicklas stated that it is entirely possible that the County Commissioners could grant a variance on the
septic requirement.
Ms. Davis stated that due to the fact the site is more than 200 feet from the residence an engineered septic
system would be appropriate.
Mr.Walker suggested that the applicants and the Department of Public Health and Environment have dialog
and discussion before the Board of County Commissioners Hearing. Mr.Walker also recommended for the
applicant to continue with the application process.
Arlan Marrs moved to forward Case USR-1331 along with the consideration that the application might change
from commercial to personal use and with leniency regarding the septic and water requirements, with the
Development Standards and Recommendations of Approval with Planning Commissions approval for
recommendation.
Ms. Clamp 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,; Jack Epple,yes ; Bryant Gimlin,yes;
Cathy Clamp, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes ; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
5. CASE NUMBER: Z-557
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
APPLICANT'S NAME: Mikal Torgerson
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NE4 Section 12,Township 7 North, Range 66 West of the 6'h P.M.
Weld County, Colorado
REQUEST: Change of Zone from (A)Agricultural to Planned Unit Development (PUD) for 38
single-family residential lots.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to WCR 37, south of and adjacent to WCR 84.
Chris Gathman, Planner presented Case Z-557 and read the Department of Planning Services staff
comments and recommendations for denial into the record. Mr. Gathman also stated that when this
application was originally sent to the Colorado Division of Water Resources there was insufficient information
regarding the proposed water lines from North Weld County Water. Additional information has been
submitted. At this time there has been no additional response. That is a condition of approval prior to
scheduling a Board of County Commissioners Hearing, that evidence is provided by the Division of Water
Resources that adequate water available for the purposed development.
Mr. Walker stated that in the application there was no homeowner's association that would manage the
individual septic systems. Mr. Gathman stated at this time there is no homeowner association or covenants
in place. That is a requirement of the final plat.
Mr. Walker mentioned in Development Standards and the Conditions of Approval the water supply and
storage company should be the Cross Cut Lateral. There is a letter from the City of Thornton purporting this.
Mr. Gathman stated there are revisions in the comments distributed. On page 5, Condition 5 pertaining to
providing sidewalks, Condition 6 and 7 have been removed. These have been addressed with the
Department
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 8
of Public Health and Environment with the amended plans. On page 8 Item B.,the applicant shall submit final
road layout and alignment plans to the Department of Public Works and then on page 9.
addressing the school bus issue indicating the applicant shall contact the school district and finalize a bus
pick-up and drop-off location and that shall be indicated on the final plat.
Mr. Miller on page 2, #2 the comments from Dyeland Dairy should also be deleted.
Mikal Torgerson, architect and planner for the project stated his name and address for the record.
Mr. Torgerson addressed the reasons for denial. First, Section 27-6-120 B.6.a that this property is outside
any urban growth boundary. The Town of Ault changed their Urban Growth Boundary about a year ago to
encompass all the property up to County Road 84 and over County Road 37 which includes all of our site.
The problem is it hasn't been adopted into the Town of Ault, Weld County Intergovernmental Agreement.
This application is in fact an Urban Scale Development and within the Urban Growth Boundary of the Town
of Ault.
Mr.Torgerson stated that the in terms of the feedlots,the Right of Farm Covenant will be placed on the project
and that should protect the feedlot and its use. Mr.Torgerson also stated that the site is immediately adjacent
to the Town of Ault. So if the feedlot is a concern for our site it would certainly be a concern for the Town of
Ault. Mr. Torgerson also stated landscaping will be provided to shield the site from the feedlot.
Mr. Torgerson stated that Mr. Gathman mentioned the block length exceeding 1500 hundred feet.That has
been redesigned to provide a stub out to outlot A on the southwest side of the site. That will break that block
to less than 1500 hundred feet.
Mr. Torgerson addressed the fact that the Colorado Division of Water Resources has not responded, but
stated the additional required information has been submitted. There is a written agreement with North Weld
Water to serve the site. The question is really whether or not is serving our property is detrimental to existing
users in the North Weld Water District. The applicant went on to state it seems unlikely that North Weld
Water would serve the proposed site if it was detrimental to the existing users. But it does need to be
determined by the Division of Water Resources and that will be determined before we can get final approval.
The applicant stated that lots 20, 37, and 38 have all been increased to over one (1)acre. That was simply
an error on the part of the applicant. The applicant went on to say that there was concern about the request
to have lot sizes less than 2.5 acres. The design intent is to cluster the development and originally we were
proposing .5 acre size lots but those have been increased to one (1)acre at the request of the Department
of Public Health and Environment. The intent is to provide some open space to be irrigated by common wells
and that would be dryland grasses ie. hay and we think from a planning prospect that would provide a good
transition from the farming uses to the northeast of Ault into the more urban like setting into Ault. Rather than
just providing large 2.5 acre lots that are likely to become dust bowls due to maintenance problems we are
requesting a reduction in that size to one (1) acre, even though the overall density of the project is one per
2.5 acres. The septic envelopes have been consolidated into two (2) septic envelopes per lot also at the
request of the Department of Public Health and Environment.
Rick Hanson, developer for the project gave his name and address for the record.
Mr. Hanson addressed the feedlot issue, stating the closest lot of the project is within one half mile of the
feedlot and the closest house from Ault is within a half mile,so I believe that if the feedlot is an issue it should
also be an issue with the Town of Ault.
Mr. Hanson stated the sidewalks and curb and gutter were just brought to our attention, yesterday. Mr.
Hanson explained that about three years ago he came to Weld County to try to get this project approved.
Weld County asked him to go to the Town of Ault. He stated he has spent the last two years with the Town
of Ault,going through two annexation requests,and proposals and basically it has come down to Ault doesn't
have the water and sewer systems in place for what we are doing. That is why we are back with the County.
As for the curb and gutter, the Town of Ault doesn't think it is necessary to add curb and gutter in the
subdivision. At one point, the Town of Ault would allow dirt roads within the subdivision, however that isn't
going to be the case as it could create dust problems. Mr. Hanson stated that the Estate or PUD planning
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 9
does not require curb and gutter. Mr. Hanson stated that basically the two problems were the feed lot and
whether or not they are in the IGA. And they are in the IGA with the Town of Ault, it just hasn't been adopted
as yet.
Mr. Torgerson stated that the Department of Public Works is requiring a turn lane on Highway 14. Mr.
Torgerson stated that this Condition of Approval should have been discussed before this hearing. He also
suggested a condition stated that we satisfy the engineering department with the level of services being met.
Mr. Hanson stated he thinks it would be a nice transition from farm ground in towards the town with one acre
lots and open space.
Mr. Walker asked the applicants how the potential buyers of the lots would be notified of the feedlot in the
area. Mr. Torgerson replied that the Right to Farm Covenant would be put on the plat and also within the
covenants.
Ms. Clamp stated in the agreement with North Weld Water it was stated there was going to be a Phase 2.
Where were the additional lots going to be located. Mr.Torgerson stated the additional lots would be located
on the parcel to the south, south of the Cross Cut Lateral. My concern was that the absorption rate would
be at rate needed or how long it would be before that piece would be developed. Possibly by the time the piece
is developed Ault could have its sewer system up and working to apply to that particular piece and maybe
apply for a higher density subdivision.
Ms. Clamp also wanted clarification of the Town of Ault's Urban Growth future zoning. She asked if it was
residential for that area. Mr. Torgerson stated he was at the Ault town meeting when the Urban Growth
Boundary was amended but the zoning was not defined at that time. Mr.Torgerson stated he assumed it was
left as agricultural.
Ms. Nicklas asked Department of Planning Services staff why is the sidewalk and pedestrian bike use
required. Mr. Gathman replied there is a clear definition of Urban Scale Development and non-urban Scale
Development. Non-Urban is nine lots or less. This application is for thirty-eight (38) lots and is considered
Urban Scale. At this time, it is outside the IGA with Ault, however if that goes through, that would very likely
be included in their requirements.
Ms. Nicklas stated because this is an urban scale development it needs to have urban services.
Mr.Hanson stated that a lot of the other subdivisions do not have curb and gutter or sidewalks. Developments
just approved and with well over ten(10)lots. For instance Bellmont Farms is urban scale with borrow ditches
and roads and not with curb, gutter and sidewalk.
Mr. Torgerson commented that it is interesting that the Department of Planning Services staff is
recommending denial based on the fact that the project is not within the Town of Ault's Urban Growth
Boundary but yet requiring curb, gutters, and sidewalks.
Ms.Nicklas stated the Department of Planning Services staff is recommending denial because you are urban
scale development with thirty eight lots in the subdivision. That is a urban scale development not a rural
development.
Mr. Walker asked if the outlot A was the 32 acres of open space, and the total acreage is 57 acres.
Mr. Hanson stated that the total was 88 acres.
Mr.Walker confirmed the 57 acres was for the lots and 32.2 acres for the open space. Mr. Walker stated in
the application the acreage was 57 acreage and was trying to achieve the true density of the project.
Mr. Torgerson explained that 57 acres are for the lots and 32.12 acres of open space independent of outlot
A making a total of 80 some acres.
Mr. Walker stated the density is a little over two (2)acres.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 10
Stephen Mokray asked the applicants if there was a safety plan for children regarding the canal. The
applicants stated the lots were backed away from the canal, however there was no safety plan at this time.
Ms. Nicklas stated that right or wrong kids throw stuff in the ditches clogging them.
Mr. Hanson stated that in the past the weed problem in this particular ditch has been a problem.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak. Public testimony was closed.
Ms. Nicklas requested comments and discussion from the Planning Commission.
Mr.Walker stated he had two concerns regarding this application. One being the density itself,along with no
organized management of the individual septic systems within the homeowner's association. The irrigation
ditch will become a problem if there is any division of flow. Those issues need to be discussed with the Cross
Cut Lateral ditch people. Mr. Walker also stated that this application was not as thoroughly planned out as
it could be at this time.
Mr. Miller agreed with Mr.Walker on those issues and also stated the problem of compatibility of putting 38
homes next to 5000 head of cattle is asking for problems. Mr. Miller agreed with the Department of Planning
Services staff on the issue of putting the Right to Farm on the plat and in the covenants but it is still going to
be a problem. Mr. Miller stated he did not think this application would be compatible with surrounding
land uses.
Ms. Clamp stated she agreed with Mr. Millers'comments on compatibility but also has a concern regarding
the urban growth boundary of Ault. Ms. Clamp stated that while the application is included in the Urban
Growth boundary of Ault, there is no way of knowing what Ault's intention is for this area. If this approved, it
would be grand fathered in as a urban density development even if Ault's intent is to make it agricultural,
commercial or industrial, the development will be there, possibly surrounded by other incompatible sites.
Jack Epple moved to send Case Z-557 to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning
Commissions recommendation for denial along with the Department of Planning Services staff comments.
Stephen Mokray seconded the motion.
Arlan Marrs , yes with comment regarding compatibility issues.
John Folsom, yes with the comment that perhaps this development should wait until Ault makes a decision
on how it is zoned.
Bryant Gimlin, yes, for the reason of compatibility and the density is too high.
Fred Walker, yes for the reason the planning is not thorough and the density is too high, and the irrigation
lateral concerns have not been addressed
Cristie Nicklas, yes agreeing with the staff comments and with Mr. Walker regarding the Irrigation Lateral
concerns.
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,;Jack Epple,yes ; Bryant Gimlin,yes;
Cathy Clamp, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes ; Fred Walker, yes. Motion passes for denial.
Planning Commission recessed at 12:15 p.m. for lunch.
Planning Commission reconvened at 12:55 p.m. with Bryant Gimlin being excused.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 11
6. CASE NUMBER: USR-1311
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
APPLICANT'S NAME: John and Eleanor Hochmiller
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: E2 W2 NE4 of Section 32,Township 3 North,Range 65 West of the
6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for Salvage Yard(Auto
Salvage, Used Truck Sales, and General Truck Repair) in the 1-3 (Industrial)and
A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 28 and 1/4 mile west of WCR 41.
Sheri Lockman,Planner presented Case USR-1311 and read the Department of Planning Services comments
and recommendations for approval into the record. Ms. Lockman also stated that the Board of County
Commissioners directed the Weld County Zoning Violation Officer to research this area and ensure that the
lots are in compliance with the current Weld County Code. Complaints from surrounding property owners
prompted this directive. Should this request be denied for any reason, a violation will be issued for non-
compliance with the existing 1976 Special Use Permit.
Ms.Clamp asked Ms. Lockman how much of the site was considered to be the original USR. Ms. Lockman
stated the entire site. Ms.Clamp commented that on the slides there is a section of Agriculture zoning within
the two areas of Industrial zoning. How did that come about. Ms. Lockman stated she had researched this
and could find no answer. Ms. Lockman stated that it really isn't pertinent because the applicant would have
to go through the same application review in either zoned district. Ms. Clamp stated that since the applicant
is under an existing Special Use Permit what is changing on this that is not in compliance with that. Ms.
Lockman stated he wants to expand. He is asking for an additional building and employees. Ms. Lockman
stated that what isn't in compliance is the screening from the road. This was an area that was not to have any
storage. All the storage was supposed to be behind the bermed area. Ms.Clamp confirmed the use was not
going to change but be expanded.
The applicant, Mr. John Hochmiller, president and part owner of Active Truck Parts, stated his name and
address for the record.
Ms. Nicklas asked the applicant what the plans for expansion were and what were the plans for coming into
compliance. The applicant responded he wants to add an 80 foot by 80 foot building to put some of the
operations and employees inside. In the process, Mr. Hochmiller stated he did a twenty year plan and in
2015 he wants to add an additional 100 foot by 150 foot warehouse.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Gerald Jamison, owner of Tire Mountain stated his name and address for the record and stated he was in
favor of the application. He stated they were good neighbors and are good for Weld County.
Roger Shultice stated his name and address for the record. Mr. Shultice stated his concern was for the
wastewater rules.
Ms. Nicklas stated that there will be a set of standards to be followed.
Public testimony was closed.
Ms. Nicklas requested the applicant to return to the podium. Mr. Hochmiller stated he had a lot to address
at this time. The first thing is the agricultural zoning.
Mr. Morrison stated the area could be rezoned however,this is all included within the Special Use Permit, so
there shouldn't be an effect. You could apply for a COZ but there would not be any real benefit from doing
that as long as the Special Use Permit is in effect.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 12
Mr. Hochmiller stated concerns on 28. Regarding a Class IV Injection Well. Mr. Hochmiller stated he did
research on these wells and they are not a good thing. He also stated that there are no Class IV injection
wells on the site.
Ms. Davis, stated that you would need to provide information to the State Health Department that you don't
have these wells and that you don't need to comply. Ms. Davis did ask where the waste was going. Mr.
Hochmiller stated that nothing goes out on the ground. Ms.Nicklas requested dialog between the Department
of Public Health and Environment and Mr. Hochmiller regarding the Injection wells before the Board Hearing.
Mr. Hochmiller stated the next concern is 2F referring to screened off-street paved parking. We have off-
street paved parking but we object to the screening. The parking is 400 feet from the road . The applicant
stated he didn't know what to screen against. Mr. Hochmiller stated the biggest concern is the 85% ground
coverage. The original Special Use Permit required a berm with nothing in front of the berm. Mr. Hochmiller
stated he had a letter dated March 5, 1981,from the Department of Planning Services that states that a 500
foot setback from County Roads 28 and 41 only applies to automotive disposal businesses and junkyard
operations.That is why the berm never got put up. Mr. Hochmiller stated that there is no dismantling of cars
or park junk vehicles. The business now is a van bed business and they are placed in an orderly fashion on
the east side of the site. Mr. Hochmiller said if you run a retail store you don't display your best items for sale
at the back of the business. That is why the van beds are at the front. Mr. Hochmiller stated that according
to this letter, he feels that they are in compliance.
Discussion of the ground cover continued.
Ms. Lockman stated that F.2. of the Conditions of Approval, land should not be deemed covered if used for
growing grass, trees, shrubs, plants or flowers or is covered by decorative gravel and woodchips. Ms.
Lockman, stated that Mr. Hochmiller is saying he is doing a used car sales business at the front of the lot.
That is not even a use allowed by right in the 1-3 Zone District. The only place he falls is back into the salvage
yard and therefore the 15% open space requirement was placed on the application.
Ms. Nicklas suggested this be addressed by the Board of County Commissioners.
Mr. Hochmiller, wanted to know where the 15% open space have to be on the property. Ms. Nicklas,
suggested that the visual impact from the County Road was the primary reason for this condition.
Ms. Clamp stated at a previous Planning Commission meeting for a similar application, that the Planning
Commission did allow for the landscaping to be removed.
Mr. Hochmiller, agreed the landscaping was removed but the 15% open space did not come up. Mr.
Hochmiller stated the ground cover or open space could be in grass. Mr. Hochmiller asked if the Planning
Commission could waive the landscaping,why couldn't the Planning Commission allow for a variance on the
15%open space. Ms. Nicklas stated because grass in this situation would be considered landscaping. Ms.
Nicklas stated because of the area, grass could be considered landscaping instead of requiring elaborate
shrubs and trees which would require irrigation. Mr. Hochmiller stated the landscaping requirement was
waived a couple weeks ago on a similar application and he would like the same consideration. Ms. Nicklas
suggested the applicant have more dialogue with the Department of Planning Services staff before the Board
of County Commissioner Hearing.
Ms. Lockman stated Mr. Hochmiller is going to be required to have berms along the one side, the same as
the requirement from the previous application. Planning Commission waived the berming and the landscaping
on the previous application.
Mr. Miller stated he agreed this property doesn't need to be bermed or landscaped however the applicant
seems to be asking for both sides. Mr. Miller stated if a certain amount of property is being designated for
open space then you shouldn't be allowed to park vehicles on top of it. If the vehicles are parked there then
it is not open space any more. Mr. Hochmiller clarified where the vehicles are parked. Mr. Miller informed
him if he had open space that has grass on it, then it would qualify.
Mr. Walker stated he hoped the Planning Commission would be consistent and treat this application like the
previous application.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 13
Mr. Hochmiller stated he had another item to be considered and that is the requirement of storing only 250
gallons of waste oil and antifreeze. Mr. Hochmiller informed the Planning Commission that all the anti-freeze
is recycled on site and re-sold.
Ms. Nicklas respectfully suggested that Mr. Hochmiller, the Department of Planning Services staff and the
Department of Public Health and Environment discuss this requirement before the Commissioners hearing.
Mr.Hochmiller stated that he had tried to talk to the Department of Planning Services staff and hasn't received
any cooperation.
Mr. Miller stated if materials are recycled, they then become a retail product. The waste oil is what is in
question.
Mr. Hochmiller stated that if they don't have at least 750 gallons of waste oil to be hauled, he is charged per
gallon to haul the oil away. If there is 750 gallons of waste oil,they will haul it away for nothing. In the winter
time, the waste oil adds up fast, but in the summer time you have to save it on site in order to come up with
at least 750 gallons of waste oil for the waste hauler. Mr. Hochmiller stated the 250 gallons of waste oil is not
feasible.
Ms. Davis,was asked by the Commission if she had spoken with Mr. Hochmiller. She stated there had been
no conversation. Ms. Davis stated that previously Sheble McConnellogue had written at the top of the referral
that the application materials indicated that fluids,and hazardous materials are recovered and stored in tanks
and hauled away by a certified hauler. Ms. Davis suggested Mr. Hochmiller contact the Department of Public
Health and Environment to discuss some of these issues.
Ms. Lockman stated that this same requirement was on the previous permit also, and for the sake of
consistency that is why this requirement was needed. The referral had previously come from the Department
of Public Health and Environment.
•
Ms. Nicklas again suggested to Mr. Hochmiller that he work with the Department of Planning Services
regarding the 85%regulation. Ms.Lockman also stated that the requirement is out of the Weld County Code
and Planning staff has no authority to change it. Ms.Lockman stated if the Planning Commission wishes,they
can make the amendment.
John E. Hochmiller Sr. stated his name and address for the record. He is the applicant's father. Mr.John E.
Hochmiller, Sr. spoke on behalf of the applicant.
Ms. Clamp moved to make several changes to the Develop Standards: Page 4, Item 2B to read, upon
evidence that there is no Class IV injection well,that this be removed prior to the Board Hearing, Page 5, Item
Fl, remove the word "screen" from the first line, remove Item F2 except for the second full paragraph of
section 2 to have the truck trailers moved back slightly from the road to provide some level of open space to
the front of the lot, remove Item F3 and F4 and on page 8 remove Item 12.
Mr.Walker asked if Item 14 should also be removed due it referring to the landscaping. Ms. Clamp agreed.
Mr. Walker seconded the motion.
Ms. Nicklas requested discussion from Weld County staff and the Planning Commission.
Mr. Carroll stated that on Page 6, Item 2.J. could be removed as it is a duplicate of 2.D.
Ms. Clamp amended her motion to remove 2.J. on page 6 also.
Mr. Miller stated that we might have errored in removing all of Development Standard 12 as the second
sentence does refer to how the waste is stored, on a covered structure on a concrete pad. Possibly the first
sentence of#12 could be removed and leave the second sentence.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 14
Ms. Davis concurred with Mr. Miller. Ms. Davis stated that on Item 2. B. Class IV, Injection well,the concern
is if he is going to have any waste coming from the vehicles the EPA requires that he either have a drainage
system or a dry well. The building department does have a conflict because their requirement is a pit where
waste would drain.
Ms. Nicklas stated there was no building inspector available.
Mr. Morrison stated that discussion with Mr.Jiricek determined that this could be reconciled. If the applicant
chooses to have a vault for waste,that would meet the building department's requirement. There would also
have to be a sealed system to protect the groundwater if the vault is overwhelmed from waste materials.
Mr. Miller stated that it is written to show the applicant shall submit evidence of compliance. If it is not
something that is necessary, it certainly would be in compliance.
Ms. Clamp disagreed stating that the applicant show evidence of compliance to the EPA for the Class IV
Injection well regulations.
Mr. Morrison stated that it is not saying there is an injection well but stating there are regulations that they to
show compliance with. As the Department of Public Health and Environment has stated before that that
regulation pertains to all means of getting things into the groundwater, like a leach field, septic system. It
would include the large scale injection wells, but it is also intended to prevent someone using a leach field
or a floor. Mr. Hochmiller has indicated that he doesn't doe that, he doesn't intend to do that but it isn't saying
he has an injection well, Mr. Hochmiller just needs to show what he is doing doesn't allow disposal into the
groundwater.
Ms. Davis, suggested that if Mr. Hochmiller provides evidence, talks to the state, then the Department of
Public Health and Environment would be satisfied.
Ms.Clamps objected to the language on the Condition. Ms.Davis stated that was from the Colorado Revised
Statutes and could not be revised.
Ms. Clamp amended her motion. Mr. Walker seconded the amended motion. Mr. Miller clarified Item F.2.
Ms. Clamp stated the removal of the first full paragraph of F.2 and retaining the second paragraph.
Discussion followed regarding the definition of landscape covering.
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,;Jack Epple, yes; Cathy Clamp, yes;
Cristie Nicklas, yes ; Fred Walker, yes. Motion passes for approval.
Mr. Marrs moved to forward Case USR-1311 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Planning
Commissions recommendation of approval, the amended Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards.
Stephen 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,; Jack Epple, yes; Cathy Clamp, yes;
Cristie Nicklas, yes ; Fred Walker, yes. Motion passes for approval.
Mr. John Folsom excused himself from this case as a conflict of interest.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 15
7. CASE NUMBER: USR-1306
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
APPLICANT'S NAME: Rocky Hoffschneider(Platte Sand & Gravel, LLC)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parts of Sections 23, 26, 34, and 35, Township 4 North, Range 67
West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Permit and Special Use Permit for a Concrete, Asphalt
and Pre-Cast Batch Plant and Gravel Mining Operation in the Agricultural Zone
District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to WCR 36,approximately 2640 feet South of WCR 44,west
of and adjacent to WCR 23.
Cristie Nicklas, Chair, explained to the audience how the meeting was going to be administered.
Kim Ogle, Planner presented case USR-1306 and read the Department of Planning Services comments and
recommendations for approval for the record. Mr. Ogle distributed additional information that was received
after the date of mailing. Mr.Ogle also stated that comments noted preliminary are now final comments with
bolded text noted as additions and strikeout text as deletions.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Ogle to refer to section 23-3-40.A of the Weld County Code stating that it provides
for facilities including concrete, asphalt and pre-cast batch plants. Mr. Miller stated he looked through the
Code and found no reference to pre-cast batch plants.
Mr. Ogle told Mr. Miller he was correct that the pre-cast batch plant was not referenced.
Mr. Miller stated that was very significant because there is a big difference between a pre-cast facility and a
concrete batch plant. He stated it needed to be addressed.
Mr. Ogle requested the applicant address his exact application proposal.
Mr. Miller wanted to know how or why the wording was put in the request .
Mr. Ogle explained it came from the application when the case was set up.
Mr. Miller stated for the record that Section 23-3-40.A does not include pre-cast batch plants.
Chris Pickett, Pickett Engineering, applicant's representative gave his name and address for the record.
Mr. Pickett gave a presentation and stated that the applicant is willing to address all of the recommendations
and requirements to the permit. He asked the Planning Commission for approval of this request.
Mr. Miller asked Mr. Pickett, if he prepared the haul route or if he knew of the implications it proposes to the
Port of Entry in Platteville. Mr.Pickett asked for the specifics. Mr.Miller stated that State Statute requires that
any truck that comes within five(5)miles of the Port of Entry, clears that Port of Entry. Your haul route calls
for your trucks to go down to Highway 66 and proceed west which clearly circumvents the Port of Entry and
is a violation of state law.
Mr. Pickett stated the operations will conform to all state laws. If there is a need for the trucks to enter and
exit the Port of Entry,it will be done. The haul route is one of convenience to the markets they expect to serve
and is not meant to circumvent any state requirements.
Mr. Miller stated the applicant was asking for an approved haul route and the one submitted is illegal. That
is an issue that has to be addressed in order for this application to be viable. Mr.Pickett referred the legalities
of the Mr. Miller's request to the legal counsel present. However, Mr. Pickett stated the routes will have to
be part of the development agreement and improvements agreement that will be prepared prior to going to
the County Commissioners and will be based on the traffic report prepared by a registered engineer in the
State of Colorado.
Mr. Miller asked if the traffic report was available today. Mr. Pickett stated that they do have the report.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 16
Mr.Miller stated that the application indicates that this will be a wet-mining operation but at times a dry-mining
operation will be created. Mr. Miller asked why the fluctuation between the two.
Mr. Pickett, stated to his understanding, that their intent is to mine the operations to the greatest extent
possible but would like to reserve the right to dry-mine if it becomes necessary.
Mr. Miller asked Mr. Pickett to elaborate on the traffic study to as what it requires for paving roads or
improvement of the surrounding roadway.
Mr. Pickett, stated the impacts are very minor to the operations of the existing roads but, the improvements
agreement will reflect any requirements for improvements, the applicant will be willing to comply.
Mr. Miller stated the application request asks for this not to be a staged mining operation, but just to have the
opportunity to mine wherever you want whenever you want. Mr. Miller wanted to know the purpose of no
staging.
Mr. Pickett requested Steve O'Brien to answer that question.
Steve O'Brien from Environment, Incorporated,gave his name and address for the record. He stated that his
company did the mining and reclamation plans for this case. Mr.O'Brien stated the reason for the no staging
request was after the initial start-up at Sharkeys Lake, there was no way of knowing which direction to mine
next due to the size of the property. Mr. Miller asked if the applicants are suggesting the materials on this site
fluctuates to some degree and you would move from certain areas depending on what materials were needed
at the time. Mr. O'Brien stated there is a variation of material across it as well as depth from what the drill
reports indicate. Mr. O'Brien stated the mining would start in the Sharkey's Lake area and when that is
completed, then the next area would be chosen. He went on to say once an area of mining is started the
project will be completed before a new area is chosen. The areas have been limited in size to 40 acres at a
time. Mr. O'Brien stated the only exception to mining more than one area at time would be in the very
beginning when mining would start on the eleven (11)acre Terrace deposit. That way ground water would
not be exposed in able to build roads. Mr. O'Brien described this area as he was pointing to the map.
Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney confirmed for the record that Mr. O'Brien was describing the area
between Weld County Roads 36 and 28 on the east edge of the proposal as the Terraced mining area.
Mr. Miller stated that Mr. O'Brien had referred to the test holes and materials, however that information was
not included with the application packet for the Planning Commission. Mr. Miller asked if it was available
today.
Mr. O'Brien stated it was not available due to the information being proprietary. Mr. O'Brien stated the
applicant did not want the competitors to know that information. Mr. O'Brien stated the area was drilled
throughout the site, and there was probably twenty holes.
Mr.Miller stated that kind of information is very beneficial in order to determine if the application is appropriate,
and if the mine is viable. Mr. Miller stated in most of the mining case applications this information is included.
Mr. O'Brien stated he seldom includes that information in his reports. Mr. O'Brien did go on to state that
historically along the Platte River there is a lot of gravel along the edges.Also, Mr.O'Brien stated there is quite
a bit of sand, so this is a viable site.
Mr. Miller asked why reclamation won't start for five(5)years after mining is finished. Mr. O'Brien stated that
the law says that reclamation should start within five years. Mr. O'Brien stated that due to the size of the
mining in this area that once a bank area is completed the sloping and vegetation would begin and then
seasonally plant the area. Then there is a five (5)year period where it is monitored before the state would
release it the reclamation permit. Mr. O'Brien went on to say this is quite common in these mines. He also
stated the exception to that will be in the Terrace section,once mining is complete,resoiling and revegetating
will begin as soon as they are done. In section 35 as the mine begins to reach the banks of the lakes, interim
seeding will also take place.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 17
Mr. Miller requested information regarding the placement of material along the banks of the lakes with a
dredge. Mr. O'Brien stated that unmarketable sand can be used for reclamation so when an area is mined
out the sand is used to rebuild the slopes of the lakes. The dredge pumps it around or lays it down. Part of
the reclamation plan right now is to leave adequate setbacks so there will be room to do sloping and the
dredge works quite well for moving large amounts of material.
Mr. Miller asked Mr. O'Brien about the haul route. Mr.O'Brien stated that if you have an operation within five
(5)miles of a Port Of Entry agreements can be made to allow the trucks to go west or east without having to
go through the Port. All the trucks in the mining operation will be weighed on certified scales and that
information would be given to the Port.
Mr. Miller stated that the only permits that are issued are called revocable permits and they are issued on a
truck by truck basis and this particular type of operation would not be eligible.
Mr. Miller stated that the application indicates that you wish to recycle asphalt and concrete. This becomes
an issue because of the increased truck travel.
Mr.O'Brien stated that term recycling is used a little differently. This meaning is regarding the left-over asphalt
material from the truck washes,clean outs and left over material that is generated from the site. That material
plus material that is generated from two or three other batch plants within the corporation is then run through
the crushers and recycled.
Mr.Miller confirmed that there was no other material being brought in to recycle,just what is generated within
the corporation. Mr. O'Brien confirmed this but went on to say during the reclamation other materials will be
brought into the site.
Mr. Miller asked if any batch plant designs are available based on the test borings.
Mr. O'Brien stated he had not seen anything.
Cathy Clamp referred to the letter received from the Platte Valley Historical Society and St. Vrain Historical
Society,asking the applicant if he was aware of the possible burial sites,and mammoth sites on this property
that have not be discovered as yet. She asked if a archeologist would be hired to identify any of these.
Mr. O'Brien stated no.
Ms.Clamp asked if training was going to be available for employees to identify any of these potential historical
sites. Mr. O'Brien stated no. He went on to state that the State Historical Society had a requirement that a
cultural study be completed and record search be done by the State Historical Society on all proposed gravel
pits in the state. A year or so into the study the AG's office ruled that was not required on private lands only
on government land which seems to indicate it is really the landowners responsibility and property if anything
is found on the owner's private property. The State Historical Society stated that there are two sites identified
which are the Monument site and a long, narrow site (possibly a railroad crossing or station)that have been
signified as a historical sites. The closest the mining will get to these sites is 250 feet.
Ms. Nicklas, requested the referral agencies to come forward for comment.
Wes Scott, representative for the Platteville/Gilcrest Fire Protection District gave his name and address for
record. Mr. Scott stated he would only speak to public safety and the development of this new facility.
Mr. Scott went on to state the issues in the referral have not been addressed. Mr. Scott stated that this will
be the largest facility to move into the fire district and the main concern that the fire district has is the applicant
has not contacted the fire district at all. Mr.Scott did say that Ms. Frazer from AgPro, Environmental Services
met with him and did go over the recommendations, however there was not much knowledge of the
development of the site. Mr. Scott stated several attempts have been made to communicate with
Environmental Services for updates on the development but to no avail. Mr. Scott stated the referral stands
as stated and that there has been little or not consideration or planning in regards to the fire district.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 18
Mr. Miller asked if the fire district provides the ambulance service. Mr. Scott stated that they are staffed with
first responders but do not transport and Weld County provides the service for the entire county.
Michael Cowper,Mayor of Platteville stated his name and address for the record.Mr.Cowper stated a referral
was sent to the Town of Platteville, and this mining development conflicts with Platteville's Comprehensive
Plan. The proposed site is immediately adjacent to the Urban Growth Area. He went on to address the traffic
issues on Highway 85 and Highway 66 stating there is an elementary school on Highway 66 and the
elementary children cross those highways everyday. Mr.Cowper went on to state that Platteville is a farming
community and asked the commission to give the utmost consideration to these residents.
Frederick L. Ginsburg, attorney for the applicant stated his name and address for the record. He then
addressed several issues. Mr. Ginsburg stated that the Port of Entry does enter into exemption agreements
as long as the certified weight records are submitted to the Port of Entry staff. Mr. Ginsburg stated the Port
traffic would then be reduced.
Mr.Ginsburg stated he was a little confused when the Mayor of Platteville thinks that the area is still a farming
community as there have been literally thousands of residential lots annexed over the last few years. Mr.
Ginsburg suggested that a change was occurring in the whole area.
Mr. Ginsburg requested Mr. O'Brien come forward again and state his credentials and background for the
Planning Commission. He stated he is a civil engineer and gave his background.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Bruce Rippe stated his name and address for the record. He is the representative for the Platteville United
Neighbors. Thirty-one members were in attendance who donated their speaking time to Mr. Rippe.
Mr. Rippe, gave an extensive presentation stating the critical concerns of the Platteville United Neighbors.
He made references to Mr. Ogle's administrative review, Weld County Code Zoning Ordinances, and the
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Rippe quoted Section 23-2-20 a of the County Code stating that many of these standards and conditions
have not been appropriately or adequately addressed by this application in its current form.
Mr. Rippe stated that the Town of Platteville annexed and approved zoning for 175 residential houses and the
Town of Milliken has annexed the old Gomer Farm for 436 residential homes. Mr. Rippe stated the Milliken
annexation is west of and adjacent to the application site.
The next item Mr. Rippe pointed out was the school bus routes throughout this area. All the roads included
in the applicant's haul route are used by the school buses everyday.
Mr. Rippe stated in the application and the administrative review that the residents were referred to"scattered
rural residents." Mr. Rippe presented a map with dots indicating all the residences. Mr. Rippe stated the
residents understand the great amount of money invested in this application but,please don't forget the time,
lives, hopes and money, and energy invested in their homes and farms and the work done in the area. Mr.
Rippe stated the impact from this application would be particularly felt in the loss of quality in rural life,
increased physical health risks and financial strain of disruptive farm activities and loss of property values.
Mr. Rippe also stated the farming activities would be immediately affected by traffic conflicts between haul
trucks and the farming vehicles. In the long term any adverse affect from mining in the Laramie -Fox Hill
aquifer supplying the agriculture wells directly conflicts with the right to farm.
Mr. Rippe stated that the scale of this application is extreme in its size, length of permit and accompanying
industrial activity. It would be the largest in Weld County and one of the largest multi-plant operations in
Colorado. Mr. Rippe went on to state the USR permit code section 23-40 does refer to batching plants,
however, as previously stated by Commissioner Miller the code makes no exception for recycling facilities or
pre-cast plants.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 19
Mr. Rippe, stated that the residents' right to farm is threatened by this proposed operation, primarily by the
integrity of the water table, groundwater quality and the invasion of the shallow aquifer which is shared by
both agricultural and domestic users. Mr. Rippe went on to say that approximately twenty(20)percent of the
proposed site is prime farm ground and another twenty(20)to twenty-five (25) is prime if irrigated.
Mr. Rippe stated the increased traffic and haul routes are critical concerns. Mr. Rippe stated at this time, no
traffic study has been submitted. Mr. Rippe stated the Platteville elementary school is located at the
intersection of Highway 66 and U.S. Highway 85 and there is no signal lights and the haul route is not
compatible. Mr. Rippe stated the farm vehicles and the haul trucks are not compatible on the county roads
without mitigation.
Mr. Rippe stated that this mine will create criteria pollutants, carbon monoxide from intensive vehicle traffic
and particulate matter in the form of dust and concrete dust. Mr. Rippe also stated the air quality issues have
not been addressed in the application via a site specific study. Mr. Rippe stated the noise is a form of
environmental pollution and the application states the noise study is not site specific, and the lack of a noise
abatement plan is totally unacceptable.
Mr. Rippe concluded with the length of the permit, the surrounding area is expected to bear the burden of
multiple,continuous stresses resulting from mining operations without any inherent compensation even in the
proposed final use. Mr. Rippe went on to say a private reserve offers no benefit to the public domain and
there is no benefit to the surrounding property owners or neighborhood. Mr. Rippe encouraged the Planning
Commission to deny this application or at least continue the application until the homework is done.
Andy Jones, attorney representing Dr. Michael Potasnek, Katherine Hardin, Michael Decker, Seth Decker,
Western Mutual Ditch Company and the remainder of the citizens group, stated his name and address for
the record.
Mr. Jones stated he would talk about the following items; the lacking information in the application packet,
mining implications of nearby wells, potential affect on the Western Mutual Ditch and nature and extent of
water rights on the subject property as it relates to the definition of prime farm land.
Mr. Jones stated the application lacks significant items, as stated previously, the traffic study, stormwater
mitigation plan as it would relate to the ditch, no evidence of long term water supply for augmentation, no
agreement with the Western Mutual Ditch Company, 112 permit application for land mine reclamation has not
been finalized as well as the fire district concerns.
Mr. Jones stated in his earlier letter to the Department of Planning Services staff and the Planning
Commission asked at a very minimum that this application be tabled to enable the public to comment on the
parts of the application that are lacking.
Mr. Jones previously distributed packets to the Planning Commission which he referred to during his
presentation.
Mr. Jones stated that this is agricultural area and within a mile and a half there are sixteen (16) large scale
operation wells and nine (9) domestic and stock wells for in-house needs. Mr. Jones stated these wells are
permitted to withdraw about thirty-three (33) cubic feet per second or about 15,000 gallons a minute. That
would be sixty-five (65)acre feet a day for agricultural purposes. Mr.Jones stated, this is either a livelihood
or supplemental income for these residents.
Mr. Jones, stated the applicant's plan is for a wet operation with the option to de-water for a dry mining
operation. Mr. Jones explained what happens to the water table if de-watering takes place.
Mr.Jones stated his client,Dr.Potasnek,commissioned Forrest Leaf,an engineer to study the impacts of the
applicant's plan on Dr. Potasnek's wells. Mr. Leaf concluded that assuming the worst case scenario of de-
watering, there is potential draw down for a maximum of forty-six (46)feet on the wells closest to the mine
site. Mr. Jones stated that would put the well out of business. Mr. Jones stated Mr. Leaf was then
commissioned by the neighborhood group to study their wells. Mr. Leaf reached much the same conclusion
with these wells. Mr. Leaf's report stated the wells would be lowered any where from five (5)to twenty(25)
feet by the mining operation.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 20
Mr.Jones stated at this point in time the applicant addressed this situation and commissioned their own study
by an engineer named Greg Rousch. Mr. Rousch's study was different in that he assumed it would be a wet
mine with the exception of a one(1)acre starter pit. Mr. Rousch's recommendation to the applicant was the
de-watering activity should be limited to one acre,and the depth of mining be limited to fifteen(15)feet below
the water table. Mr. Rousch's study also suggested to de-water close to the river and away from ditch and
wells, and de-water in the winter. Mr. Jones stated by de-watering in the winter the impact is less due to no
irrigation.
Mr.Jones stated this study was submitted to the Land Mine Reclamation Board, however no conclusion has
been made as yet by the Board.
Mr. Jones stated there is a genuine concern that these wells will be impacted by the de-watering activities of
this site. Mr. Jones also stated that the well owners have to know when this de-watering is going to happen
and at this time the applicant doesn't know. Mr. Jones, also stated the applicants should be forced to follow
the recommendations of Mr. Rousch.
Mr. Jones went on to say the Western Mutual Ditch Company borders the proposed mining site. Mr. Jones
cited the Western Mutual as the oldest ditch company on the Platte River and provides several hundred
shareholders with water for irrigation. Mr.Jones discussed the concerns of the ditch company with the ditch
losing water therefore, the shareholders would also lose water. Mr. Jones went on to state that the
Department of Planning Services staff required a condition for the applicant to have a signed agreement with
the Western Mutual Ditch Company covering the issues.
Mr.Jones stated at this time there is no submitted ditch agreement. Mr.Jones stated the applicant unilaterally
withdrew from the negotiations and said that no agreement would be forthcoming. However, as of today
principals in the Western Mutual Ditch Company and the applicant have been talking without the attorneys
and a proposal has been presented that the Western Mutual Ditch Company deems insufficient. Mr. Jones
stated that the Western Mutual Ditch Company requested that the Planning Commission continue to make
the signed agreement a condition of approval for the applicant.
Mr. Jones stated that this is agricultural farm land and it should be farmed and asked the Planning
Commission to consider this. Mr. Jones cited Mr. Leaf's research on his water research concerning the
irrigation of this farm land. Mr. Jones asked if the applicant has to mine the whole area and this farm land
should be preserved. Mr. Jones stated the purpose of the Use by Special Review process and asked the
Planning Commission to deny this application.
Fred Walker asked Mr.Jones referring to the first water study, if a slurry wall was to be used around the de-
watering areas. Mr. Jones stated the assumption was no slurry wall.
Mr. Miller asked Mr. Jones what would be an acceptable compromise or agreement with the ditch company.
Mr. Jones referred to the previously distributed letter but stated that, a 200 foot setback from the ditch, and
for applicant to agree with Mr. Rousch recommendations with de-watering only between the months of
October and March, and also to have measuring devices within the ditch to determine how much water is
escaping, and for the applicant to agree to a crossing agreement with regard to the plans.
Ms. Clamp asked if the wells are located in the same aquifer. Mr. Jones stated they were. Mr.Jones stated
there were sixteen (16) irrigation wells and nine (9)domestic and stock wells.
Mr. Jones restated that the first Forrest Leaf report was done on all of Dr. Potasnek's wells and the second
report was for a mile and half radius of the mining site.
Mr.Walker asked the size of the Western Mutual Ditch. Mr.Jones requested a board member from the ditch
company to speak.
Doyle McCarthy,representative for the Western Mutual Ditch Company,stated his name and address for the
record and stated the ditch is fourteen foot across,and flows 99-100 cubic feet per second,and the distance
referred to in this application is four and one-half(41/2)-five (5) miles with a slow grade.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 21
Mr. Walker asked how the two hundred (200) foot setback was decided. Mr. Jones stated Mr. Leaf
recommended the setback for dual reasons, one for the integrity of the ditch and for seepage.
Norman Swank,a concerned citizen,stated his name and address for the record. Mr.Swank stated the haul
route was a concern. Mr. Swank stated there is a gas line underneath Weld County Road 23. and the water
table is very high. Mr. Swank stated the gas line is only buried two and on half feet below the road. Mr.
Swank stated that with all the trucks hauling on that road the gas line could break. Mr. Swank suggested
using various other Weld County Roads.
Diane Houghtaling, Department of Public Works, stated that there had not been a traffic study submitted.
Stan Odenbaugh,a concerned citizen,stated his name and address for the record. Mr.Odenbaugh referred
to the USR application indicating there are six houses within five hundred feet of the permit area and also
stated that was an untrue statement as his house lies within three hundred feet of the site. Mr. Odenbaugh
also went on to say there is no reclamation information regarding the property owner's private use of the lakes.
Mr.Odenbaugh stated there also is no study showing a need for another concrete plant. Mr.Odenbaugh was
also concerned there was no site specific study for the noise. Mr. Odenbaugh stated there was concessions
made for the prairie dog and eagle inhabitant but none for the people.
Frank Stewart,representative for the historical society,of the gave his name and address for the record. Mr.
Stewart presented the history of the site area with information regarding the various Indian camps along the
Platte River. He asked the applicant to identify the burial sites during the excavation of the mines.
John Spillane gave his name and address for the record stating he is representing the Marie Louise Golner
Charitable Trust and Gilbralter Equity Investments. Mr. Spillane stated the trust is the owner of the property
directly adjacent to the proposed site. Mr.Spillane stated that Section 27 is owned by the trust and has been
annexed by Milliken as a residential community by Gilbralter Equity. Mr. Spillane agreed with Mr. Jones
regarding the compatibility of this application. Mr. Spillane stated that this application does not have to be
approved with the time and the scope that this applicant is proposing. Mr. Spillane spoke again to the
concerns previously stated. Mr. Spillane suggested that if this application be approved,limitations should be
imposed. He also stated there should be strong performance standards and should be supported by site
specific studies. Mr. Spillane again stated this proposed use is not compatible and should it be approved it
should only be approved for no more than five (5) years with strong performance standard along with site
specific studies and limiting the close vicinity of the site to the residential neighborhoods.
Stephen Mokray asked when the Milliken PUD was going into effect. Mr.Spillane stated in 2002 as they were
preparing the final plat.
Lori Potter, attorney representing Mr. Rippes group of citizens,stated her name and address for the record.
Ms. Potter stated that Stan Odenbaugh is also a member of the citizens group. Ms. Potter stated she would
like to endorse the arguments made by Mr. Spillane, and Mr. Jones in addition to her clients. Ms. Potter
stated that the Planning Commission does not have an adequate basis to recommend approval of this Special
Use Permit. Ms. Potter reiterated the request of the Planning Commission to deny this application.
Ms. Nicklas closed the public testimony.
Ms.Nicklas requested the applicant or his representative to give assurances as to the concerns raised by the
public testimony.
Fredrick Ginsburg,attorney for the applicant stated that he would address some of the items and then call on
experts to address the other items.
Mr.Ginsburg clarified the applicant has restricted the time of the permit to forty(40)years and not a 100-year
permit.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 22
Mr. Ginsburg,stated in reference to the traffic study that the roads are for everyone's use and when Milliken
and Platteville are endorsing plats for 400 and 500 homes common sense would dictate that would create
an awful lot of traffic added to these roads. Mr. Ginsburg stated it is not just this application that would be
adding more traffic on these roads.
Mr.Ginsburg went on to state the evidence presented indicates on the east side of the river that there are five
to maybe fifty acre types of sparse farming residences and on the west side of the river in the
Milliken/Platteville area,there are the new annexations indicating,the whole area is changing . Mr.Ginsburg
stated there is a compatibility issue between the single family residences and the old farming way of life. Mr.
Ginsburg stated that in 1975, Weld County produced a study for sand and gravel, and according to Map
seven(7)of this study,a great amount of gravel exists at the proposed site. Mr.Ginsburg penciled in the area
of the proposed site on this map for the exhibit.
Mr. Ginsburg stated that school traffic is a problem on all roads and the more houses that are built the more
traffic and children you have. Mr. Ginsburg stated that the gravel contributes to the construction. Mr.
Ginsburg stated the evidence presented indicates a changing scene and this application is just a part of this
changing scene.
Greg Rousch stated his name and address for the record also saying he is a surface water engineer with
Leonard Rice, Engineers. Mr. Rousch,referring back to the water augmentation plan stated that all that was
needed to have a gravel pit is to obtain a substitute supply plan, and until the gravel mine is permitted the
recommendation for augmentation was not needed.
Mr. Rousch referred back to Mr. Rippes' concern on the cotton wood trees along the river stating the dry
mining along the river would not cause the cottonwood trees to die.
Dennis McGrane, hydrologist and professional engineer stated his name and address for the record. He
stated he did a study on the groundwater impact uses in the proposed site area. Mr. McGrane explained that
the amount of water removed from the start up pit would be equivalent to an agricultural well, about between
700 and 2500 gallons per minute. That type of discharge would cause a draw down, but it would only be a
two foot draw down of ground water located approximately 2000 thousand feet from the pit. It will not be
noticeable at all in regards to the domestic and stock wells in the vicinity. Mr. McGrane gave an explanation
on groundwater in reference to the aquifer stating the aquifer will remain whole.
Ms. Nicklas asked the depth of the most of the irrigation wells. Mr. McGrane stated the wells are forty to fifty
feet.
Mr. Miller stated in the Rousch report it was recommended that the first dry pits be put as close to the river
as possible,to eliminate the effects of the irrigation wells, but that seems contradictory to the preservation of
the cottonwood trees along the river. Mr. McGrane stated when the study was done, the cottonwood trees
were not considered. Mr. McGrane agreed with Mr. Miller stating that it would be a conflict with the
preservation of the cottonwood trees.
Mr.Ginsburg also stated the case presented by Mr.Jones had taken place in Boulder County,and that county
has a different set of rules. Mr.Ginsburg also expressed his concern regarding the fire department comments
and assured the Planning Commission the applicant would work with the Platteville Fire Protection District.
Mr. Ginsburg also stated that the pictures placed in exhibit from Mr. Rippes' presentation were from Adams
County.
Arlan Marrs went back to the haul route stating he was confused at the choice made. Mr. Ginsburg stated
it was the quickest way to get to a paved road.
Mr. O'Brien stated the fastest way to get to pavement and the Denver area market was to come from the
south end at the intersection of WCR 36 and WCR 23 and follow the treated gravel road up to the pavement,
on Highway 66. Mr. O'Brien pointed to several alternative routes on the map.
Mr. Marrs disagreed, that this is a major concern, and it appears there are three other choices.
Mr. Ginsburg again stated that the haul route could be adjusted.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 23
Mr. Ginsburg also stated there have been negotiations with the ditch company that did break down but the
negotiations have started again. Mr.Ginsburg stated the issue is the ditch company wants to designate when
to de-water, but Mr. Ginsburg stated all this is fixable and can be worked out with ditch company.
Mr.Marrs stated it appeared the Rousch study recommended a one acre pit in regards to starting the dredging
operation. Mr. Marrs asked why that would have to be de-watered for up to a year. Mr. Marrs stated it
seems that could be done in 30-60 days and could be accommodated over the winter months.
Mr. Ginsburg deferred to Mr. McGrane. Mr. McGrane stated he used conservative assumptions when
determining the length of the de-watering. Mr. McGrane stated the reality of the operation is probably what
Mr. Marrs suggested.
Mr. Marrs stated he wanted assurances to the time limits of each of these one-acre starter pits that would be
de-watered and again stated they could be done during the winter months to alleviate the irrigation concerns.
Also, Mr. Marrs wanted assurances that these mines would be wet mines not dry mines.
Mr. Ginsburg stated that the applicant has to be realistic and stated that the de-watering will be limited to the
necessity of getting the dredging operation started. Mr.Ginsburg stated as far as the time of the year,for de-
watering the applicant needs to have the option of de-watering any time.
Mr. Marrs' other issue concerned the Western Mutual Ditch Company and stated the applicant will have to
have a crossing agreement. Mr. Ginsburg explained some of the dialogue with the Western Mutual Ditch
Company during the previous negotiations.
Mr. McGrane stated that in fact ditches do leak and that is a benefit for everyone. Lining the ditch would
eliminate the leaking and adversely affect the agricultural community. Mr. McGrane state another option
would be to withdraw water from the ditch and then put it back into the ditch to mitigate the depletion.
Mr. Miller stated he was confused to why you have to de-water a pit to float a dredge.
Mr. O'Brien stated the dredge is diesel operated and the applicant feels it would be easier to have a dry site
to move the dredge into and then allow the water to return. Mr.O'Brien stated it allows for the maintenance
and setup. Mr.Obrien also stated it would create the hole that the dredge needs to operate in and in addition
be easier to set up.
Mr. Miller stated that it is convenient to set a dredge in a pit full of water. Mr. Miller stated it is uncommon to
de-water to set a dredge.
Mr. O'Brien stated the client has decided it is the best way for them economically.
Mr.Ginsburg,asked for clarification of the method of putting the dredge in a pit full of water. Mr. Miller stated
that the dredge could be set in the pit with a crane. Mr. Ginsburg stated the applicant needs to look into this
method and then the water problems with the ditch company would be partially solved. Mr. Ginsberg agrees
with Mr. Miller about the dredging.
Mr.Walker asked Don Carroll, Depart of Public Works, if the applicant decided on this haul route and is this
the proper route for this operation. Mr. Carroll stated the traffic study was requested in January and has not
been submitted. Mr. Carroll stated that Public Works evaluates what the applicant is proposing first before
addressing the haul routes.
Ms. Houghtaling, stated the problem Public Works' is having with the application is that there has been no
traffic study submitted and at this time staff does not know exactly where the gravel trucks are going to be
hauling.
Ms.Nicklas asked if the trucks were the applicants trucks. Mr.Ginsberg,stated the applicant owns the trucks.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 24
Ms.Nicklas stated that previously education programs for the trucks to mitigate the compatibility issues of the
haul trucks and the agricultural farm vehicles has been required. Ms. Nicklas asked if that would be
agreeable. Mr. Ginsberg, stated yes it would.
Ms. Nicklas asked the applicant if he was in agreement with the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval as proposed. Mr. Ginsberg stated yes.
Mr.Walker stated that on staff comments 2.D page 6 he would like to add language to include that a signed
agreement with the ditch company be submitted prior the Board of County Commissioners hearing.
Mr. Walker also stated the lack of information, such as the traffic study, indicates this application is
incomplete.
Ms. Nicklas asked Public Works if there has been any indication of when the traffic study will be submitted.
Ms. Houghtaling deferred to the applicant.
Mr. Ginsberg stated there has been a great deal of preliminary work done on the traffic study and one of the
reasons it has not been submitted is the applicant wanted to see if the permit would be approved. Mr.
Ginsberg stated there will be a traffic study submitted prior to the Board of County Commissioner's hearing.
Mr. Miller addressed the Platteville residents in the audience stating that some day the gravel will have to be
mined because gravel is a valuable resource, used in every aspect of construction. Mr. Miller also stated
gravel mines are a necessary evil associated with expansion, however, this application is unique as to the
length of the time being forty (40) years to mine, and not being phased. Mr. Miller stated the application
should be limited to ten years maximum and with detailed phasing. He also stated the plant site should stay
at one site and not moved all over. Mr. Miller stated the traffic study should have been submitted before the
Planning Commission hearing in order to make an informed decision. He also stated the haul route is a poor
choice. Mr. Miller stated the scale of the operation is too large, and the fact that the applicants refused to
submit a materials evaluation does not allow for judgement on the viability of the quality of the aggregate. He
also went on to say the applicant doesn't appear to have a lot of experience in mining gravel. Mr. Miller's
other concerns, were the agreement with the Western Mutual Ditch Company and no attempt to make any
benefit to the community.
Jack Epple stated he feels uncomfortable with this application. Mr. Epple suggested a permit renewal every
five years. Mr. Epple was concerned with the wells and the compatibility with the agriculture neighborhood.
Ms. Clamp stated the Planning Commission is often put to the difficult tasks of mitigating policies within the
Comprehensive Plan, the preservation of agriculture lands and the other is the extraction of mineral
resources. Ms. Clamp stated another factor being the County has entered into agreements with the
municipalities to honor their right to develop the land around them in ways they wish without regard to what
the County wishes. Ms. Clamp stated based on all of this, it seems the applicant is requesting the Planning
Commission approve a plan that is most convenient to them as opposed to what is most beneficial to the
County and the residents surrounding the site. Ms. Clamp stated that she was going to recommend denial.
Mr. Walker talked about the IGA's with Platteville and Milliken. He stated the Platteville IGA has nothing to
do with this application as the application is outside the urban boundary however, the Town of Milliken's IGA
is appropriate. Mr. Walker stated the IGA's do impact private property rights.
Char Davis, Department of Public Health and Environment stated changes and additions. The first addition
is a condition which shall read,"The applicant shall submit evidence from the Colorado Department of Water
Resources,and State Engineers Office that the existing well(s)are appropriately registered for the proposed
use.
Ms. Davis asked that Condition 3.i be replaced to say, "the applicant shall provide evidence to the Weld
County Department of Public Health and Environment that any vehicle washing area will be designed and
constructed to capture all effluent and prevent any discharge from the drum washing and washing of vehicles
in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
and the Water Quality Control Division and the office of the EPA.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PAGE 25
Ms. Davis also asked to replace Development Standard 20 to read"Any vehicle washing area shall capture
all effluent and prevent discharges from drum washing and washing of vehicles in accordance with the Weld
County Code, Rules and Regulations of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment,Water
Quality Control Commission and the office of the EPA.
Mr.Ogle stated that staff acknowledged that the permit boundary is within the IGA boundaries of the Milliken,
the area to mined is not, it is south of the river. Mr. Ogle also stated on Page 9, Item F the dust abatement
plan can be removed as the plan has been submitted. Mr. Ogle stated that the word"and"was omitted in the
second line of Item B. on page 9.
Michael Miller moved to send Case USR 1306 to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning
Commissions recommendation for denial.
Cathy Clamp seconded the motion.
Arlan Marrs, yes, reasons previously stated.
Michael Miller,yes, Section 23-2-220.A.2 is not applicable to pre-cast batch plants and in Section 23-2-220.
A.3 is in conflict because it is not compatible with existing land uses, 23-2-220. A.4 is not compatible with
future development in the surrounding areas, and 23-2-220.A.7 that the Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards are not adequate for the protection of the health,safety and welfare of the inhabitants
of the neighborhood and the county.
Jack Epple, yes, there is a compatibility issue. Communication between the applicant and the surrounding
property owners needs to occur.
Cathy Clamp, yes for reasons previously stated.
Stephen Mokray, yes for the same reasons.
Fred Walker,yes due to compatibility and the vote could have changed if the application was more thorough
and dialog between the neighbors and the applicant.
Cristie Nicklas,yes,the application is very incomplete,there was no traffic study,quality of gravel study, and
too many things that the applicant was willing to change and most gravel mines have phasing.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John
Folsom absent,; Arlan Marrs,yes; Stephan Mokray,yes; Michael Miller,yes;Jack Epple,yes; Bryant Gimlin,
absent; Cathy Clamp, yes; Cristie Nicklas,yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion passes for denial.
Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
Res ectfully su dtecj1
Vicki Hamilton
Secretary
Hello