The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20013106.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, October 16, 2001 A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday 2001, in the Weld County Public Health/Planning Building, (Room 210), 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Michael Miller, at 1:40 p.m. ROLL CALL Michael Miller Bryant Gimlin Absent Cristie Nicklas Fred Walker Absent John Folsom Stephan Mokray Cathy Clamp Luis Llerena Bruce Fitzgerald Absent Also Present: Pam Smith, Char Davis, Kim Ogle, Robert Anderson, Wendi Inloes, Don Carroll, Drew Scheltinga, Lauren Light, The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on October 2,2001, was approved as read. CASE NUMBER: USR-1354 APPLICANT: Aggregate Industries, West Central Region, Inc PLANNER: Kim Ogle LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-1586, being part of the W2 and part of the NW4 of Section 8, T4N, R66W; and parts of Section 4, 5, and 8, T4N, R66W of the 6'h P.M., Weld County, Colorado. REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for Open Pit Mining and Materials Processing, including a Concrete and Asphalt Batch Plant„ in the A(Agricultural Zone District.) LOCATION: North of and adjacent of WCR 46; east of and adjacent to State Hwy 60 and WCR 27 1. Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, read a memorandum into the record requesting a continuance to November 20, 2001. Stephan Mokray motioned for approval of the continuance. Cristie Nicklas seconded. Motion passed unanimously. CASE NUMBER: USR-1344 APPLICANT: Miller Motor Sports, LLC PLANNER: Monica Daniels Mika LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Section 11, T3N, R6SW of the 6t° P.M., Weld County, Colorado. 0/29/0/ 2001-3106 REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Use Permit for an expansion to an existing Recreational Facility (Race Track), in the Agricultural Zone District. LOCATION: West of and adjacent to 1-25 Frontage Road;north of and adjacent to WCR 34 Wendi Inloes, Department of Planning Services, read a memorandum into the record requesting the continuance to December 18, 2001. Cristie Nicklas motioned for approval of the continuance. Stephan Mokray seconded. Motion passed unanimously. CASE NUMBER: 3RD AMUSR-778 APPLICANT: Public Service Company of Colorado (Yosemite Site) PLANNER: Robert Anderson LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of SW4 of Section 27, T1 N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for a Major Facility of a Public Utility (Natural Gas Control Facility) in the A (Agricultural)Zone District LOCATION: North of and adjacent to WCR 4 and east of and adjacent to WCR 19 Robert Anderson, Department of Planning Services, read a memorandum into the record requesting the continuance to November 20, 2001 Cristie Nicklas motioned for approval of the continuance. Stephan Mokray seconded. Motion passed unanimously. CASE NUMBER: Z-543 PLANNER: Julie A. Chester APPLICANT: Daryll and Carol Propp, Propp Realty, Inc. (Long's Peak Estates) ADDRESS: 1200 West Colfax Avenue, Suite B-130, Lakewood, CO 80215 REQUEST: Change of Zone from Agricultural to PUD for seven (7) lots with Estate uses, with common open space. Lot sizes from 2.87 to 4.28 acres. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW4 and part of the NE4 of Section 9, Township 1 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 12, between WCR's 5 and 7 This project was already heard but was advertised incorrectly causing the need to be reheard for public comment. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to speak. Case remained as recommended CASE: County Code -2001-OX APPLICANT: Town of Ault/Weld County PLANNER: Robert Anderson REQUEST: Intergovernmental Agreement LOCATION: Section 11, 12, 13, 14,T7N, R66W of the 61h P.M., Weld County Colorado Robert Anderson, Department of Planning Services presented Case County Code - 2001-OX, reading the recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the application. John Folsom asked what the zoning would be and does the agreement follow the same as the prior one. Mr Anderson said that the town of Ault had made no recommendation as to the zone and it does follow the same lines as the prior agreement. Cristie Nicklas asked if the surrounding property owners were notified and were there any public meetings. Mr. Anderson stated that there was not any indication of notifying property owners. Luis Llerena asked if there would be an impact to the area residences with this change. Mr.Anderson stated that the impact would be minimal and would take affect after the Three Reading Ordinance Process. Mr. Llerena asked who was responsible for notifying the property owners. Mr. Morrison stated that the typical notification was when changing the zoning map. Mr.Morrison provided clarification with regards to the notification process and what was required. He stated that it does not affect legal property rights affected but there will be some effect of interest. Mr. Morrison clarified who has the ability and legal right to require public input. Michael Miller stated that the Planning Commission had issues with the non-notification of the affected property owners. Mr. Miller stated he does not feel that they can rule on the without a representative from the Town of Ault. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to speak. Michael Miller would leaned toward continuing until hear fro the Town of Ault. Mr. Miller asked about the legality of forcing them to notify the affected land owners noting that there was no way of conditioning the approval. Mr.Morrison stated that it would be better recommending to the Board of County Commissioners without adding language to the agreement. Cristie Nicklas moved that Case County Code 2001-OX be continued indefinitely. Justification for this continuance is to gain further information from the Town of Ault. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion. Motion passed. CASE NUMBER: Z-563 PLANNER: Kim Ogle APPLICANT: David Keiser and Michael Sigg, c/o Todd Hodges Design, LLC ADDRESS: 2412 Denby Court Fort Collins, CO 80526 REQUEST: Change of Zone from A(Agricultural)to PUD with Estate uses for four(4) residential lots and 7.5 acres of Common Open Space LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2527; being part of the W2 of the SW4 of Section 10, T4N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: South of and adjacent to WCR 46.5;east of and adjacent to WCR 43. Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, presented Case Z-563, reading the recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Todd Hodges, provided brief clarification of the project and its overall review and design. This land was part of a dry up covenant therefore cannot be turned back into agricultural land requiring water. The site consists of lots that vary in sizes from 6.2 acres to 14.2 acres. This is a request to zone four lots, PUD with Estate uses. The proposed access gravel and there is an agreement with Patina,who would like to see the road stay gravel. Staff's recommendation is for pavement consisting of 2-twelve foot travel lanes with 2-four foot gravel shoulders. This is a non urban scale development and there will be no prime farm ground removed. The existing access point will serve the requirements of the subdivision and Patina. Michael Miller asked if there were any wells or tanks present. Mr. Hodges stated that they are getting the tanks in place and have worked with Patina to come to an agreement with the tanks on the larger lots and the well within the open space. Cathy Clamp stated her concerns. Where was the water going to come from for the rest of the lot. The domestic needs will be taken care of but where will the additional water be coming from. Mr. Hodges stated that with the dry up covenant on the property, there could be no irrigation water put on the property. Mrs. Clamp asked if this issue was going to be addressed in the covenants. Mr. Hodges stated that covenants would include all this information. Dave Keiser, provided some clarification with the water capabilities to in the area. They(Keiser and Sigg) have worked with the State to come up with a seed mixture that will suit the area the best and combat the wind and water erosion associated with the property. Central Weld County Water District has provided the taps for the land and the property new owner can water as much of the property as is needed, however, the cost will be exorbitant. Mrs. Clamp asked if the covenants would include a statement that gives the surrounding property owners the ability to have hunting on their ground. Michael Miller asked about school bus turnout. Mr. Hodges stated that there will be a bus stop location in the green space and there is a condition in the final plat that an area must be set aside for the School District to ensure the safety and adequacy of the school bus stop. Christie Nickles asked Drew Scheltinga about the paving. Mr. Scheltinga responded Mr. Hodges provided several reasons to maintain the road in gravel along with the evidence that with a minor subdivision does not require the road to be paved. Don Carroll indicated that this would be clarified in the Public Improvements Agreement and the covenants will also cover this. A note on the plat could be done. Public Works would not object to the road not being paved because of the comments from other agencies noting that the concerns have been mentioned and noted. Luis Llerena would like to see improvements to the bus stop including providing a safe area for the kids to be in. Mr. Hodges indicated that they will work with the school district to make better accommodations for the school bus pick up area. This agreement will be in place at the final plat application process. Mrs. Clamp stated that the radius within the development was to increase so the fire department had the ability to turn around. If the fire trucks can turn around,then a school bus would be able to also. Mr. Hodges stated that he had dealt with the several school districts before and they prefer to literally stop traffic and not have to do a pull out because of time constraints. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. Lowell Roberts spoke in favor of the project. The impacts will be minimal and have a good impact on the neighborhood. The road has 3/4 of a mile visual clearance in either direction causing no obstruction. Bill Cole, spoke about the runoff and is happy to hear that there will be no water on the development. There will need to be accommodations made to protect animals from surrounding land owners. There is a no hunting sign posted on Mr. Cole's property. Mr. Cole further elaborated about the realignment of a ditch that carries overland flow of waters from the Keiser/Sigg property across WCR46.5 onto his property. Many years ago the Moser father and sons placed a corrugated pipe under the road in the Northeast corner of the Keiser Sigg property to facilitate this issue. Presently the pipe is overgrown and not capable of carrying water. Chair closed the public portion of the meeting. Ms. Nicklas asked if Mr. Cole's concerns had been addressed. Mr. Hodges stated that the proposed detention was in the northwest corner alleviating the overflow. Pam Smith, Department of Public Health and Environment,asked the Board to consider the deletion of item 2.H. The reason is a duplication. John Folsom asked the Board to consider having the road be paved up to the future right of way at least, then gravel from there. Mr. Folsom stated that in order to approve the fence in a location near the future right-of-way line, a permit with the Public Works would be required. Mr. Scheltinga stated that different school districts will have different policies with regards to the detail for the pull out or drop off for the school busses. Mr. Scheltinga stated that the Department of Public Works along with the applicant will to extensive work with the school district to ensure the safety and viability of the drop off. Cristie Nicklas moved to delete 2.H. Stephan Mokray seconded. Motion Passed. Luis Llerena moved to add language to 2.E stating "The Weld County Public Works Department has reviewed the proposal and has determined that the internal road to the PUD shall be paved to the right-of- way of Weld County Road 43 and constructed in gravel for the internal road for Latham View Estates PUD per Weld County Standards. Further, Weld County Road 43 is designated as a collector status road that requires eighty(80)feet of right-of-way. Presently there is sixty(60)feet of right-of-way. A total of forty(40) feet from the centerline of Weld County Road 43 shall be delineated on the plat as right-of-way reservation for future expansion of Weld County Road 43." Mr. Llerena suggested language for the internal road of Latham View Estates with regards to pavement. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Ogle to provide language. Mr. Ogle proposed "The internal gravel road shall be maintained by the Home Owners Association. The Weld County Department of Public Works will not maintain an unpaved internal road in Latham View Estates PUD." Mr Llerena agreed with the proposed language by staff, Mrs. Clamp seconded the proposed language. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes;Michael Miller,yes;Cathy Clamp,yes;Cristie Nicklas, yes;Luis Llerena, yes. Motion carried unanimously Cristie Nicklas moved that Case Z-563, with the amendments, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes;Michael Miller,yes;Cathy Clamp,yes;Cristie Nicklas,yes;Luis Llerena, yes. Motion carried unanimously. Planner: Lauren Light Case Number: USR-1355 Applicant: Lucerne Inc./Ralph Anders Address: 33041 Railroad Ave., P.O. Box 14, Lucerne, CO 80646 Request: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for an Agricultural Service Establishment primarily engaged in performing agricultural,animal husbandry,or horticultural services on a fee or contract basis, including seed production, processing, storage, mixing, blending and sales (storage and distribution of bagged seed and equipment storage) in the Agricultural Zone District. Legal Description: Pt.of the E2SE4 of Section 18,Township 6 North, Range 65 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado Location: North of and adjacent to Maple Street and east of and adjacent to Railroad Avenue Lauren Light,Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1355,reading the recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Ralph Anders, provided further clarification with regards to the development. This request is due to the fact that the business has a need for additional storage. Cathy Clamp asked about the daily truck traffic. Mr. Anders indicated that seed was a seasonal thing, therefor there was no way to determine the actual amount of traffic. At certain times it would be greater than others. Michael Miller asked about the limit of hours of operation. Mr. Anders indicated that he needs to have additional Saturday operation hours. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to speak. Luis Llerena motioned to amend Development Standard 3 to state that the"hours of operation will be from sunrise to sunset from Monday thru Saturday". Cristie Nicklas seconded. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes;Michael Miller,yes;Cathy Clamp,yes;Cristie Nicklas,yes;Luis Llerena, yes. Motion carried unanimously. Cristie Nicklas moved that Case USR-1355, along with the amendments, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Stephan Mokray seconded the motion. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes;Michael Miller,yes;Cathy Clamp,yes;Cristie Nicklas,yes;Luis Llerena, yes. Motion carried unanimously. Case Number: USR-1350 Applicant: Aggregate Industries, West Coast Region, Inc. c/o Bill Schenderlein, Applegate Group, Inc. Planner: Kim Ogle Address: 1499 West 120' Street, Suite 200 Denver, CO 80234-2728 Request: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Mineral Resource Development facilities including Sand and Gravel Mining in the (A)Agricultural Zone District Legal Description: Part of the S2 NE4,W2 SE4, E2 SE4 Section 25,Ti N, R67W, part of the SW4 NW4, W2 SW4 Section 30, T1 N, R66W and part of the NW4 NE4 of Section 36, T1 N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado Location: 1/2 mile North of WCR 2; east/west of and adjacent to WCR 23.5; 1/4 mile south of WCR 6. Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1350, reading the recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval of the application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Mr. Ogle stated that there were four deletions due to duplication of comments in the Development Standards. Mr. Ogle stated the staff requests the Board to delete Development Standard 14, 15, 16 and 18. John Folsom asked about the septic systems on the property and if there would be duplication of systems. Mr. Ogle stated that the septic notes pertained to two different septic systems, one for the existing house associated with the tree nursery for the City of Westminister, and the second for the proposed office trailer associated with this application. Mr. Folsom asked whether the Corps of Engineers or the State had any concerns with the conveyance of the material across the South Platte River. Mr. Ogle stated this was not the issue that was being investigated. The issue pertained to the wetlands on site. Mr. Folsom asked about the wetlands in the area and was this issue being addressed. Mr. Ogle stated that staff had received an electronic mail message from Scott Franklin with the Corps of Engineers prior to this hearing and handed out with the PC packet addendum that provides an update to the Section 404 permit application submitted to the Corps by the applicant. Mr. Folsom asked about the berm provided around the tank batteries that are existing on the site and whether this is the responsibility of the applicant or oil and gas owners. Char Davis stated that it was the responsibility of both, but they typically add this condition in there to cover the bases. Bill Schenderlein, provided some clarification of the mining operations. Four phases are proposed for this operation,starting at the northeast end of the property. Dry mining with slurry wall is proposed for cells two and three, with the resource material conveyed to existing USR 905 permit site where the resource is processed at this location and hauled off site via truck. The traffic will be minimal. There will be monitoring wells on site to verifying the water table, draw down and the impacts to surrounding properties. Mr. Miller asked the applicant to address the wetlands issues and how plan Aggregate Industries intends to address the issues from the EPA, Division of Fish and Wildlife and the Corps of Engineers. Mr Schenderlein stated that the site will be mitigated by creating a protective corridor with new wetlands being constructed to mitigate the impacts of the wetlands destroyed by mining. The wetlands on adjacent properties will be created at the same time as the wetlands are removed from the USR 1350 site. Mike Refer, Aggregate Industries, added that the replacement of wetlands in surrounding areas was preferred by the Corps of Engineers, and this is what the EPA and the Corps of Engineers have been reviewing and wanting. Mr. Miller questioned the location of the slurry wall in relationship to the wetlands. Mr. Refer and Mr. Schenderlein attempted to address the concerns by Mr. Miller. Luis Llerena asked if Aggregate Industries had thought of any ways to deal with the surrounding property owners,specific to the potable and irrigation wells found in and around the property. Mr Schenderlein stated that the monitoring wells will assist in determining any impacts the slurry walls will have on the surrounding wells. Mr.Llerena asked how the conveyers controlled the element of dust,and if the construction of a berm would lessen the impacts caused by dust and visual impacts to surrounding properties. Mr. Schenderlein stated that these issues will be taken care of with the Landscape Plan. Mr. Refer, addressed some concerns with the landscape and the berm. Ms.Clamp asked several question,first are the wetlands already requirement on the site;second, how can one anticipate lined pits effecting surrounding property owners wells. Mr. Refer stated that most of the wells are on the west and north side of the property. No residential structures exist on the east side. Third, how does the monitoring of wetlands occur after the on-site reclamation is completed. Mr. Refer stated that Aggregate Industries owns all of the water rights held in the Huett Ditch. It is Aggregate Industries responsibility to monitor the water levels in the area for three years after the reclamation is completed on site. Mr. Miller stated that the monitoring of the wells would last many years longer should the Corps of Engineers or the Mined Land Reclamation Board determine that the water levels across the site are not in compliance with the approved reclamation plan. Mr Refer addressed the quality of the wetlands. Mr Refer stated they were required to replace them one for one by the State agencies reviewing this application. Mr. Schenderlein provided further information on the reclamation plan addressing the replacement of the wetlands and the backfill of material to create them. Slopes adjacent to the wetlands are a maximum of 3:1. This ratio attempted to alleviate the concerns of the EPA specific to the erosionary processes currently found in and around the South Platte River. Further information pertaining to this topic has been addressed in the Section 404 permit application under review by the Corps of Engineers.. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to speak. The Chair closed public testimony. The Chair asked if the applicant was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Mr. Schenderlein stated they had several items open for discussion. First was item 2.A regarding the oil and gas agreement prior to scheduling the Board of County Commissioners hearing. Mr. Miller, Mr. Schenderlein and Mr. Refer had a lengthy discussion pertaining to the oil and gas agreement issue. Attorney Morrison offered legal counsel to the Board pertaining to this issue. Second was item 2.B pertaining to a traffic study. Mr Scheltinga and Mr.Carroll discussed the issue specific to the haul route on WCR 6 to SH 85 and the one week duration traffic counts in the area and the need for the applicant to pay a proportionate share of the costs associated with chemical stabilization of WCR 23.5. Mr. Ogle suggested this item could be better addressed in item 3.S. Third was item 2C pertaining to the Section 404 Permit required by the Corps of Engineers. Mr. Schenderlein stated that this condition is also located in item 5.B and Development Standard 31. Mr. Ogle stated that staff had several concerns regarding this issue, particularly from the referral agencies that staff wanted to be certain that all of the concerns and issues raised by said agencies were addressed prior to proceeding to the Board of County Commissioners for determination of this application. Fourth was item 3.A.5 addressing the natural and free flowing nature of the edge of the ponds. Mr. Schenderlein stated that the end use was for water storage and that the undulating shoreline may not enable the applicant to gain the most out of the water storage capacity for this plan. After discussion between the Board and Mr.Schenderlein, Mr. Refer stated that Aggregate Industries would investigate a modification to the shoreline to address this concern. Fifth was item 3.1 and 3.J addressing the requirement for a public water source and sewage system for the structures to be placed on site. Char Davis stated this operation will continue for 8-12 years. She did not consider this to be a short duration project. Mr. Refer stated the main office for this facility is across the river at USR 905 and that the limited numbers of on-site workers, 13,would not warrant such facilities. Ms. Davis noted from the Weld County Code that facilities shall be within 200 feet of the operation at all times. Ms. Davis did not see how this health requirement could be accommodated on this site. The Chair suggested that the board reconsider this issue later. Sixth was item 3.T pertaining to excavation in the County right-of-way. Mr. Ogle suggested that this be a Development Standard. Mr. Miller asked where to place this item,mr.Ogle suggested after number 31 and renumber after this point. Seven, was item 5.B specific to the Section 404 permit and mining of the wetlands. After discussion with the applicant, Mr. Miller proposed inserting the words "prior to operating in any wetland areas" after the words Army Corps of Engineers in line two of this item. Mr. Schenderlein on behalf of the applicant stated that was all of the issues that he had with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. The chair asked if staff had any comments. Ms. Davis stated she had concerns with Development Standard number 12. Ms. Davis would like to add the words " and employees"after the word public in this sentence. Mr. Schenderlein did not object to this request. Mr. Miller asked for legal counsel from Attorney Morrison with regards to C.R.S. Attorney Morrison and Mr. Miller discussed specific issues pertaining to the oil and gas agreements and the County ability to protect those interests. The Chair asked for a motion for item 2.B. Ms. Nicklas moved for deletion of this item, Mr. Mokray seconded, motion passed. The Chair asked for a motion for item 2.C. Ms. Nicklas moved for deletion of this item, Mr. Mokray seconded, motion passed. The Chair asked for a motion for item 3.1 and 3.J. Mr. Mokray moved for deletion of this item, Mr. Folsom seconded, motion passed. The Chair asked for a motion for item 3.T. Ms. Nicklas moved for deletion of this item and move to item number 31 as a Development Standard, Mr. Mokray seconded, motion passed. The Chair asked for a motion for item 5.B. Mr. Mokray moved for the insertion of the language of prior to operating in any wetland areas, Mr. Llerena seconded, motion passed. The Chair asked for a motion for Development Standards 14, 15, 16 and 18 Ms. Nicklas moved for deletion of these items, Mr. Mokray seconded, motion passed. Mr. Ogle stated that Development Standard number 23 was similar language to Development Standards number 12, and recommended the deletion of Development Standard number 23. The Chair asked for a motion for Development Standard number 23. Ms. Nicklas moved for deletion of this item, Mr. Mokray seconded, motion passed. The Chair brought the discussion back to board. Mr. Miller stated his concerns regarding this application. First,Mr Miller is concerned with the impacts the proposed slurry walls will have on the wetlands,and without a hydrographic or hydrologic study that addresses the effects of the overland flow of the water on the wetlands and river system, he does not feel comfortable with making any recommendation. Further, Mr. Miller is concerned with the mitigation of the wetlands, especially the replacement of wetlands between slurry walls and the river corridor. It appears that the commutative effect on the river, the on and off-site hydrology should be more adequately addressed prior to determining the recommendation to the Board. That being said,perhaps Planning Commission should be asking for a continuance to address these issues. Mr. Folsom stated that the wetlands on the East side of the river would be okay,and probably not suffer the impacts of the slurry walls and the wetlands proposed for the west side. Mr. Llerena stated that he is also in favor of a hydrologic study for the site and would be in favor of a continuance providing the applicant time to address this issue. Mr. Llerena asked Mr. Ogle if a hydrologic study is typically required for this type of application. Mr.Ogle stated that staff can ask for such a document should issues be present that would require one. The Procedural Guide for this type of application does permit staff to ask for such a study. However,as the Corps of Engineers will approve or deny the applicant's request to mine the existing wetlands,staff determined that the Federal agency would be in a better position to ask for such a document should one be required. Mr. Llerena asked if the applicant had considered alternatives to the mitigation of existing wetlands and what options were incorporated into the plan. Mr Schenderlein and Mr refer responded to Mr Llernea's question by stating Aggregate Industries has been working with the Corps for some period of time now and the Corps is presently reviewing the sixth plan for this site. Ms Clamp stated her concerns for the application. The EPA suggested in their referral to have the applicant complete an EIS for not only this site but for the entire river basin. At a minimum, Ms. Clamp would like to see a hydrologic study for the property that addresses many of the concerns of the Board and the referral agencies. She further notes that in her opinion the applicant has not given adequate consideration to the compatibility issue and to the future requirements of the oil and gas leaseholders. Ms.Clamp states it would be difficult to support this application given the many issues that remain unresolved. Mr. Miller stated he would like to see the earlier proposals submitted to the Corps of Engineers for review. It is difficult to make a decision when an alternative proposal is under review by the Corps and associated referral agencies. Mr Miller asked Attorney Morrison to address the issue of reclamation and compatibility of the riparian and river corridor. Attorney Morrison stated that the Board could not direct the reclamation but could determine how it is used. Discussion continued along this line of thought. Mr. Refer,Aggregate Industries stated that he expects the Federal referral agencies to respond back to their current proposal in one to two months. Given that there remains issues yet to be resolved, the applicant asks for a continuance thereby providing the Federal agencies an opportunity to determine the 404 Permit status. Ms. Nicklas asks Planning Staff whether they would prefer a specific date or an indefinite continuance. Mr Ogle states staff would prefer a Indefinite Continuance thereby proving ample opportunity for the 404 Permit to be resolved prior to the PC hearing. Mike Reefer, commented that he expects core and EPA to have them back within 45 days. The Chair asks for a motion. Ms. Nicklas moved for an indefinite continuance of case number USR 1350 such that on-going issues can be addressed, Mr. Mokray seconded. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. John Folsom,yes;Stephan Mokray,yes;Michael Miller,yes;Cathy Clamp,yes;Cristie Nicklas,yes;Luis Llerena, yes. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted Voneen Macklin Secretary Hello