HomeMy WebLinkAbout20010490.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, February 6, 2001
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday,February 6,2001, in the Weld
County Public Health/Planning Building, (Room 210), 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting
was called to order by Chair, Cristie Nicklas, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Cristie Nicklas Present
Fred Walker Absent
John Folsom Present
Jack Epple Present
Michael Miller Present
Stephan Mokray Present
Arlan Marrs Absent
Bryant Gimlin Absent
Cathy Clamp Present
Also Present: Kim Ogle, Julie Chester, Lauren Light, Chris Gathman, Monica Daniels-Mika, Department of
Planning Services; Trevor Jiricek, Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment; Diane
Houghtaling, Public Works; Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney; Trisha Swanson, Secretary.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on January 16, 2001,
was approved with a spelling correction on page 11.
CASE NUMBER: Z-555
APPLICANT: Lyons 66 Pacific
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW4 of Section 26,Township 3 North, Range 68 West of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Change of Zone for a 15-Lot Planned Unit Development.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to SH 66; west of and adjacent to 1-25 Frontage Road.
Kim Ogle, Planner, presented Case Z-555 and noted that the Department of Planning Services is requesting
an indefinite continuance for this case. Mr. Ogle noted that the Department of Planning Services has not
received a referral from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and neither has Public Works.
Mr. Ogle noted that Public Works will not make a referral until they receive the referral from CDOT. Finally,
Mr. Ogle noted that the applicant has requested that the case be scheduled for the February 20, 2001,
hearing.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this continuance.
No one wished to speak.
Michael Miller moved that Case Z-555 be continued indefinitely. Stephen 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;Jack Epple,yes; Cristie Nicklas,yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1276
APPLICANT: STROMO LLC, John Moser
PLANNER: Julie Chester
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SW4 of Section 26,Township 3 North, Range 65 West of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Solid Waste Disposal Site
and Facility (Composting Facility).
LOCATION: South of WCR 30, approximately 1 3/4 miles west of WCR 49.
�c7YU�+ / 7,feitiA_ 2001-0490
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
February 6, 2001
Page 2
Julie Chester, Planner, presented Case USR-1276 and noted that the Department of Planning Services
requests a continuance to the February 20, 2001, hearing. Ms. Chester noted that the Colorado State
Department of Public Health and Environment had not sent in their referral, which is needed by the Weld
County Department of Public Health and Environment to make their referral. Ms. Chester stated that the
applicant would like to proceed with the case on today's agenda, but if the Planning Commission chose to go
forward and hear the case to place it at the end of the agenda in order for her to prepare her exhibits.
Jack Epple asked Trevor Jiricek of the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment what is
taking the State so long. Mr. Jiricek noted that the Weld County Department of Public Health and
Environment withholds their comment until they have been able to review the State's recommendation. Mr.
Jiricek noted that the Solid Waste Act requires State approval as well as the Weld County Department of
Public Health and Environment's approval. John Folsom asked Mr. Jiricek if he felt the Weld County
Department of Public Health and Environment would be ready for the hearing on the 20th of February. Mr.
Jiricek noted that he has spoken with the State and their referral will be here within the week.
Tom Haren, Representative for the applicant, noted that the application has been in the process since
February of 2000. Mr. Haren noted that the applicant originally had a different representative. Mr. Haren
noted that this site is unique for the State and Weld County in that the site does not require a Certificate of
Designation, as most landfill-type and composting applications require. Mr. Haren noted that they have been
negotiating with the State to keep the standards within a reasonable area. Mr. Haren noted that this is almost
finished and that the applicant is willing to continue to the February 20, 2001, hearing, as recommended by
the Department of Planning Services.
Michael Miller asked what a Certificate of Designation is and why this site does not require one. Mr. Haren
noted this is a State permit for the type of material as well as the amount and where the material comes from.
Mr. Haren noted that this site will have less than 50,000 cubic yards with animal manure and carbon-based
material, if the site were to have more than 50,000 cubic yards and several different materials, they would
need to have a Certificate of Designation. Mr. Haren noted he has been negotiating with the State as the
State has been trying to require the standards of a Certificate of Designation on this site, when this site is not
required to have a Certificate of Designation.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this continuance.
No one wished to speak.
Jack Epple moved that Case USR-1276 be continued to February 20, 2001. Stephen 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; Jack Epple,yes; Cristie Nickles,yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
Planning Commission member Cathy Clamp arrived and sat in on the rest of the meeting.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1312
APPLICANT: Leslie Adams
PLANNER: Julie Chester
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE-1507, being part of the SE4 of Section 35, Township 1 North,
Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a use permitted as a Use by
Right, an Accessory Use or a Use by Special Review in the Commercial or Industrial zone
districts (Storage Unit Facility).
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to WCR 2, Approximately '/, mile east of 1-25.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
February 6, 2001
Page 3
Julie Chester, Planner, presented Case USR-1312 and read the Department of Planning Services comments
and recommendation of approval into the record. Ms. Chester noted that the City of Broomfield had noted
concerns with the outdoor storage on the site.
Cathy Clamp asked why the comments of the Weld County Sheriff's Office were not included in the Conditions
of Approval concerning the lighting at the site or the access. Ms. Chester noted that Chapter 23 of the Weld
County Code allows for the control of lights to keep them from shining onto surrounding property and
Development Standard#5 addresses lighting. The access is controlled by the City of Broomfield.
Michael Miller questioned why the water district would have to approve the plan for a site that already had
water on site. Ms.Chester noted that the water district had been upset about the change in use to commercial
in the past and this was a way to keep them informed of the possible change in use for the site. Lee Morrison
noted that the tap needs to be correctly described if the use of it changes to commercial.
John Folsom asked why no drainage report had been requested from the applicant. Diane Houghtaling noted
that the parking lot will require a stormwater drainage plan. Ms. Chester noted that the applicant would have
to get a Geologic Hazard Development Permit and address geologic hazards. Mr. Folsom noted that the
Geologic Survey commented about the drainage and flooding issues in the area.
Leslie Adams,Applicant, noted that she would prefer to have a gravel lot, but will follow the conditions placed
upon the site. Ms. Adams also questioned why she needed a drainage report and why she needed a septic
report as well.
John Folsom asked Ms. Adams if she had spoken with the City of Broomfield concerning her access. Ms.
Adams noted that she still had not heard back from the City of Broomfield when she last checked the morning
of the hearing.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Frank Gannon, a consultant for 257 Land, LLC, noted that they are developers of the land to the north and
the west of the property under consideration. Mr. Gannon noted that his clients are concerned with several
aspects of the application, as they are in the process of amending their Mixed Use Planned Unit Development
into a office, research, commercial and residential area. Mr. Gannon noted that the main concerns were with
the stormwater runoff, remediation of the site after the use is over, the appearance of the site, and the traffic
impact.
John Folsom noted that there is not an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the City of Broomfield.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Gannon where the industrial and residential areas were tentatively planned. Mr.
Gannon showed that the north area will be the industrial area,while the residential,which will be mostly multi-
family dwellings, will be to the west of the subject property. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Gannon if the site would fit
in with the proposed development of his company. Mr. Gannon noted that the enclosed storage would, but
that they are against the open storage in the area.
Cathy Clamp asked what kind of landscaping or buffering would be preferred. Mr. Gannon noted that their
site will be doing some berming, clustering trees, and sidewalks. Mr. Gannon noted they would like to see
some buffering for the site.
Julie Chester noted that there were landscaping and screening plans submitted, that the plans would have
to be approved before recording of the plat.
Cathy Clamp asked if the discharge from the boats and vehicles will affect the groundwater. Mr. Jiricek of the
Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment noted that there will be no maintenance of
vehicles allowed on the site and that the discharged material is very low risk and is not mobile in the
environment.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
February 6, 2001
Page 4
Cristie Nicklas asked Trevor Jiricek to explain why a septic report needs to be done on the site. Mr. Jiricek
noted that the site will be changing from residential to some form of commercial and the Weld County
Department of Public Health and Environment needs to make sure that the system will support the changes
that may come with this change in use.
Julie Chester suggested a change in the wording of Condition of Approval #2. A to read as follows: The
applicant shall submit evidence to the Department of Planning Services that the Mountain View Water Users
have no additional issues for the water tap for the use of the storage of recreational vehicles and boats, as
well as the enclosed storage units. Evidence shall be in written form, as an agreement with the water district.
Ms. Adams noted that she is concerned with Development Standard#8, as they were planning on phasing
out the outside storage as they built the indoor storage facilities. Ms. Chester noted that enforcing compliance
of the outdoor storage is difficult without a specific cut-off time for the end of outdoor storage. John Folsom
noted that there is no listed time frame for the movement from Phase Ito Phase II. Julie noted that Phase
II begins when a structure for indoor storage is built. Ms.Adams noted that they were looking to add buildings
as demand increases, that having a bunch of empty storage buildings is not economical.
Michael Miller asked what the indoor and outdoor storage setup would be for the site. Ms. Chester noted that
Phase I would be a gravel parking lot for recreational vehicles and boats, with Phase II being enclosed
buildings to store personal goods as well as the recreational vehicles and boats. Ms. Chester noted the
concern is with the long term potential for outdoor storage. Mr. Miller asked what the number of outdoor units
are expected. Ms. Adams noted that there will eventually be 200 units of varying sizes. Cristie Nicklas
mentioned having the outdoor storage end when 50% of the buildings are complete. Julie noted she would
work on verbiage for this change.
Discussion followed concerning the possible annexation into Broomfield. Lee Morrison noted that the
City/County of Broomfield would probably have to honor the permit if the business were in use, but that the
permit alone would not create a vested right.
Julie Chester presented additional wording for Development Standard #8 to follow the end of the last
sentence. This wording is as follows:",once 50%of the enclosed units are constructed, prior to the certificate
of occupancy on the fourth building, all outdoor storage shall be removed or stored within the enclosed
structures."
Michael Miller moved that Case USR-1312 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval, including changes to Condition of Approval#2. A and Development Standards
with changes to Development Standard #8 with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval.
Cathy Clamp 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;Jack Epple,yes; Cathy Clamp,yes; Cristie Nicklas,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1310
APPLICANT: Reva Barrett
PLANNER: Lauren Light
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2221, Part of Section 3, Township 2 North, Range 67 West of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for an Equine Facility.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to WCR 24; approximately 1/2 mile east of WCR 19.
Lauren Light, Planner, presented Case USR-1310 and read the Department of Planning Services comments
and recommendation of approval into the record. Ms. Light noted that the applicant had asked for6 employee
housing units on the property, but had changed that number to 4 employee housing units. Ms. Light noted
that the last sentence of item 2.d. in compliance with the Weld County Code, Section 23-2-220.A.4, should
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
February 6, 2001
Page 5
read as follows:"The site does not lie within the Urban Growth Boundary of any municipality but does lie within
the referral area of Firestone." Ms. Light also noted the proposed removal of Condition of Approval#2. G and
Development Standards#15 and#17 and the addition of one Development Standard to read as follows:"The
facility shall manage manure and stormwater in accordance with the approved manure and stormwater
management plans,"with subsequent renumbering.
Michael Miller asked whether the site would be used for public use or commercial training. Ms. Light noted
that it is for the training of the applicant's horses, but that the Planning Commission could ask the applicant
more questions if they would like. Cathy Clamp asked why Development Standards 15 and 17 were being
removed. Ms. Light noted that there is no dust abatement plan with the Weld County Department of Public
Health and Environment and that the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment could
answer questions pertaining to that, but Ms. Light did note that dust abatement is not required for the site as
the number of animal units did not exceed use-by-right.
Cathy Clamp asked about the number of pets mentioned in a surrounding property owner's letter. Ms. Light
noted that there were only three dogs on the premises when she went to the site.
Michael Miller asked why there were no hours of operation noted. Ms. Light noted that since this is not a
commercial business, the Department of Planning Services did not apply hours of operation.
Cristie Nicklas asked why the applicant had to apply for a Use by Special Review permit if they were training
their own registered quarter horses. Ms. Light noted that this application was prompted by the travel trailers
for employee housing, that in order to have more than one accessory to the farm dwelling it might be easier
to apply for the USR for these dwellings than to apply separately for each accessory dwelling. Ms. Light also
noted that under the current zoning regulations, boarding of animals is a use by right while training animals
is specifically listed as requiring a USR. Ms. Nicklas asked why this distinction is made, as many people train
their animals for shows. Monica Daniels-Mika, Department of Planning Services, noted that the Chapter 23
of the Weld County Code is set to change this use into a Use by Right, but current regulations are such that
this requires a USR permit. Ms. Mika also noted that the training is a more intense use, which may be why
the use was listed as one requiring a USR in the first place. Ms. Nicklas asked why the applicant should be
forced to jump through the hoops of a USR in order to train her animals. Ms. Mika noted that it may be just
as many hoops to jump through to permit each home individually, if not more of a drawn out process to justify
the accessory to farm homes across time.
Discussion concerning the definition of boarding and training,with Mr.Morrison commenting that the definition
of the differences is a separate issue, noting that the current Zoning requires a USR for this business.
Michael Miller asked if anyone who trained animals needs a USR. Ms. Mika noted that the higher intensity
of the use is what led to the requirement in the first place. Ms. Mika also noted that with the USR permit, the
applicant is permitted against future complaints for the use of the property and assures that all the issues are
taken care of during this process.
George Nichols, attorney for the applicant, noted that Ms. Barrett is here to be in compliance with the
employee housing. Mr. Nichols also noted that the applicant does own all of the horses, that the horses are
bred,sometimes using embryo mares for expensive quarter horse genes. Mr. Nichols noted that the applicant
does sell the horses, but that the applicant does not have sales with many buyers on the site. Mr. Nichols
noted that the applicant is in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Mr.
Nichols noted that the applicant had asked for 6 employee housing units, but has since dropped that number
to 4 units.
Discussion followed concerning adding language to allow occasional events at the site or not. Mr. Nichols
noted that the applicant would not like to lose any of the rights that they would normally have without the USR,
such as a family gathering on the site placing them in violation. Michael Miller noted that if the applicant ever
chose to change the use at the site, they would be able to apply for an amendment to the original permit.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
February 6, 2001
Page 6
Discussion concerning the ability of the Sheriffs Office to find the employee homes followed. Cristie Nicklas
noted that the Department of Planning Services addresses homes and would be able to work with them on
making the employee housing easier to find for the Sheriffs Office.
John Folsom asked if the applicant was okay with the CAFO regulations that are applied to this site. Mr.
Nichols noted that the applicant has resolved this with Trevor Jiricek of the Weld County Department of Public
Health and Environment.
Cathy Clamp asked about the lighting affecting the surrounding property owners. Mr. Nichols noted that the
lights are like street lights that shine down to the ground. Ms. Clamp also asked how possible problems with
the dogs would be controlled. Mr. Nichols noted that employees may chose to ignore the requests of the
owner concerning keeping them within bounds, but noted that the pet owners would learn when the animals
were picked up by the dog catcher. Ms. Clamp noted that it sometimes takes Animal Control 2-3 days to get
to the site of the complaint.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Roy Spitzer, a property owner to the east, noted that he is concerned with the large number of employee
housing proposed, as well as the manure management, fly control, as well as the open burning of trash. Mr.
Spitzer also noted that he is concerned that in the future the employee housing may be rented out.
John Folsom asked what Mr. Spitzer's experience has been with the number of people on the property. Mr.
Spitzer noted that they have been good neighbors, with the lights on late every once in a while, but only for
about 2-3 horses being worked with.
Bob Nehrig, a property owner to the east of the site, noted that he is concerned with the possible dust,waste,
manure, stormwater, and drainage across his property, as well as the possibility of erosion in the area. Mr.
Nehrig noted he is also concerned with how the septic systems will affect the ground water in the area. Cristie
Nicklas asked if Mr. Nehrig knew that the applicant planned to train horses when he sold them the property.
Mr. Nehrig noted he did know this but was not aware of the size of the project.
John Folsom asked Trevor Jiricek of the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment to
explain the dust and manure issues to Mr. Nehrig. Mr. Jiricek noted that the number of horses makes this
a use by right, the erosion can be dealt with by the NRCS. Mr. Morrison noted that this is usually used in
extreme cases. Mr. Jiricek noted that the fields to the east of the property are going to be planted in grasses
and the stormwater and drainage should be dealt with by this process. Mr. Folsom noted that Weld County
deals with this on a complaint basis, that Mr. Nehrig could keep an eye on this and report any problems he
sees arise to the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment. Mr. Jiricek noted that the
applicant will have to comply with the CAFO regulations.
Mr. Nichols noted that the open lots will be seeded. Mr. Nichols also noted that both arenas are already
sprinklered to keep the dust down.
Cristie Nicklas asked if the applicant is in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards as to be amended. Mr. Nichols noted that the applicant is in agreement.
Michael Miller moved that the change to the statement of compliance under#2. d,Weld County Code Section
23-2-220.A.4, Condition of Approval#2.G be deleted as previously mentioned, Development Standards#15
and#17 be removed, the new Development Standard added and that Case USR-1310 be forwarded to the
Board of County Commissioners along with the amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards
with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Stephen 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;Jack Epple,yes; Cathy Clamp,yes; Cristie Nicklas,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
February 6, 2001
Page 7
CASE NUMBER: USR-1316
APPLICANT: Hall-Irwin Construction
PLANNER: Chris Gathman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NE4 SW4 and part of the NW4 NE4 of Section 19, Township 6
North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Special Use Permit for Wet Open-Pit Gravel Mining.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to SH 392, 1/4 mile east of WCR 13.
Chris Gathman, Planner, presented Case USR-1316 and read the Department of Planning Services
comments and recommendation of approval into the record. Mr. Gathman noted that an adjacent site will do
the processing, that this site will only be for mining. Mr. Gathman commented that Conditions of Approval 2.
E and 3. H were added, as well as some additional words to Development Standard #18.
John Folsom asked if a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) would be required for the site. Mr.
Gathman noted that Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is the agency in charge of such
conditions. Mr. Folsom also asked about a reclamation plan for the site. Mr. Gathman noted that a
reclamation plan was submitted, that the large bound copies were not added to the Planning Commission
packets. Mr. Folsom also asked about the hours of operation. Mr.Gathman noted that the Zoning Ordinance
specifies that the hours will be daylight hours. John Folsom asked if there would be any payment for the roads
other than the Road Impact Fee in Development Standard #22, which only applies to new structures. Mr.
Gathman indicated that a road improvement agreement was done for the adjacent mine site(USR-571)where
mined materials at this site would be processed. Mr. Gathman noted that there will be no additional access
or traffic with the mining of this site.
Cathy Clamp asked about any protected species being at the site. Mr. Gathman noted that the applicant
planned to address that and the Department of Planning Services made a condition of approval for a letter
from the Division of Wildlife. Ms. Clamp also asked about the additional burden upon HWY 392 and WCR
13. Mr. Gathman noted there will be no additional accesses on either road.
Michael Miller commented on a surrounding property owner letter concerned with water wells used by the town
of Windsor. Mr. Gathman noted that the City of Windsor had noted no concerns with the application.
Danna Ortiz of Rocky Mountain Consultants, representative for the applicant, noted that there is a reclamation
plan included with the permit and that the reclamation permit is in process with the state and should have a
decision by the following week. Ms. Ortiz noted that they have had an experienced team of wildlife experts,
Savage and Savage, to the site to determine the presence or lack of the Preble's Jumping Mouse. Ms. Ortiz
noted she would like to modify Condition of Approval#2. B to allow for their letter, as approved by the Division
of Wildlife, to suffice for this condition. Ms. Ortiz also noted that a CLOMR is required for structures within
the flood plain, adding that no structures are proposed at this mining site. Danna Ortiz also stated that the
agreement with the City of Windsor sets their working hours at 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. Ms. Ortiz also questioned
Condition of Approval#3. A. 1 as the site is not on WCR 13.
Mr. Gathman noted that Don Carroll of Public Works wanted Condition of Approval #3. J on the permit to
uphold the improvements agreement. Diane Houghtaling, Public Works, noted that this would cover the
possibility of access even if the first site is mined out and the access is still needed and used. Ms.
Houghtaling also noted that Condition of Approval #3. A. 1 could be deleted as long as there is some
rewording on Condition of Approval#3. J to allow the continued road improvements on WCR 13.
Michael Miller asked if the applicant has the right to import material to their site and wondered why this
application was not for an amendment to the original permit.
George Hall, applicant, noted that they only want the one plant, not placing a new one on the new site. Mr.
Hall also noted that they do import some material. Mr. Hall noted that the original permit does allow for the
importation of material onto the site.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
February 6, 2001
Page 8
Cathy Clamp asked about the loud pumps running 24 hours a day on the existing site. Mr. Hall noted that
there is a diesel pump operating to de-water the trench, but that the new site will have access to electricity and
therefore have quieter pumps.
Cristie Nicklas noted how the site has to be mined before anything else can happen on the property. Mr.
Morrison noted that the statute actually states that land uses cannot be approved that prohibit the future
removal of the resource.
Michael Miller asked how the water was being pumped into a separate existing pond then into the river. Ms.
Ortiz noted that the water is moved into an existing pond, allowed to settle then it naturally filters out into the
aquifer.
Ms. Ortiz noted that the site has applied for an air pollution emission permit(APEN)which is a very in depth
study and will deal with the dust abatement for the site. Ms. Ortiz also noted that any contamination of the
water in the area is very illegal and has harsh penalties,further noting that the water flows to the pit, not away
from it to surrounding land. Ms. Ortiz finally noted that they are required to contact the owner of any well within
600 feet of the site, noting no erosion or contamination is allowed by the state.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Glen Walburg, President of Westwood Village Subdivision Homeowner's Association, noted that they have
met with the applicant about the current permit and the storage of used concrete, noting that the concrete has
been promised to be cleaned up in 5 months. Mr. Walburg noted that he does not want the concrete and
gravel stored next to their property. Mr. Walburg also noted a concern with the dust in the area. Finally, Mr.
Walburg noted that he wanted it on record that Hall-Irwin will clean up the site as they promised.
Michael Miller noted that Weld County does not have any jurisdiction over the reclamation, noting that the
Division of Minerals &Geology has the jurisdiction and authority to enforce the reclamation of the site. Jack
Epple further noted that the applicant has a bond of$10-15,000 per acre to guarantee the reclamation of the
property.
Jack Menser, a surrounding property owner, noted that he does not have a problem with the removal of the
gravel from the area, he would just like to see the reclamation begin.
Cathy Clamp asked when USR-571 expires. Mr. Gathman noted that there is not an expiration date for a
USR, that the only time frame may be for the reclamation with the state.
Lee Morrison noted that even if the applicant had amended the permit, it would be just as onerous as a new
permit, that the applicant would not have been side-stepping any processes if the application had started as
an amendment to the original permit. Mr. Morrison also noted that the original permit could not be amended
as it has been annexed by the City of Windsor.
Danna Ortiz noted that the mining will not take longer than the original permit as the company is increasing
their production. Ms. Ortiz noted that the applicant had agreed to have the stockpiles of concrete removed
or crushed and dealt with within the next 4-5 months.
Cristie Nicklas asked if the applicant is in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards if the Planning Commission tries to work on the letter from the Savages being acceptable if
approved by the Division of Wildlife. Ms. Ortiz noted that the applicant is in agreement.
Discussion followed, with Mr. Gathman noting that Condition of Approval #2. C will read as follows: " A
trapping study shall be conducted or a letter from a wildlife consultant certified by the U.S. Department of
the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Services indicating that there is no acceptable habitat for the Preble's Meadow
Jumping Mouse shall be submitted.A letter stating the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services concur with the letter
shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. If the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse is found
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
February 6, 2001
Page 9
at the site, mitigation techniques approved by the United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Services shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services,". Condition of Approval#2. B shall read
the same as Condition of Approval#2. C except it shall apply to the"Ute Ladies-tresse Orchid"and the work
"survey" shall be substituted for "Trapping study". Further discussion concerning WCR 13 led to the
recommendation that Condition of Approval#3. J be changed to Development Standard #29 and reworded
to read as follows: "There shall be an Improvements Agreement for Weld County Road 13 at all times,".
Michael Miller moved that Case USR-1316, with the deletion of Condition of Approval#3.A.1, the rewording
of Conditions of Approval #2. C and #2. B, the addition of Conditions of Approval#2. E and #3. H, moving
Condition of Approval #3. J to become Development Standard #29 and subsequent renumbering, be
forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the amended Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Stephen 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;Jack Epple,yes; Cathy Clamp,yes; Cristie Nicklas,
yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Trisha Swanson
Secretary
Hello