HomeMy WebLinkAbout990557.tiff \''1111 Cr' "'TY
ST. VRAIN CONCERNED-CITIZENS
7050 Loma Linda Ct.Longman CO 80504 303 833 2992
CI F(?!( March 12, 1999
Weld Board of County Commissioners TO It
P O Box 758
Greeley CO 80632
Subject: Sand and gravel deposits in MUD district
Dear Commissioners:
We note that properties in the MUD area are being developed, or proposed for
development without first extracting mineral deposits. Mining these deposits has priority
over other development. CRS 34-1-305 requires that " ...no board of county
commissioners shall, by zoning, rezoning, granting a variance, or other official action or
inaction, permit the use of any area known to contain a commercial mineral deposit in a
manner which would interfere with the present or future extraction of such deposit by an
extractor." Additionally, the Weld County Comprehensive Plan [CM Goal 1 and CM
policy 1] confirms the state law. County government is apparently permitting this on the
basis of allegations by developers or their engineers that the deposits have no commercial
value or not addressing the possibility of such deposits existing in their applications.
As an example, we suggest that county government review the core logs submitted in the
Western Dairyman's COOP business park application with those of the Andesite Mine
USR directly across SH119. It would appear that there are sand and gravel deposits of
similar thickness and quality at both sites. Yet, the WDCi land was permitted to be
developed without extraction of minerals apparently on the unsupported assertion in the
application that "no commercial mineral deposits remain on site". In regard to site size
viability, this statement was made despite 54 acres [at the east end of the site] of the 160
acres of the property had been mined previously.
A similar statement as to alleged lack of economic potential of mineral deposits was made
relating to the St. Vrain Junction site in the application.
We suggest the application process for Change of Zone to PUD and other appropriate
ordinance sections be revised to require a qualified, professional economic analysis of the
commercial value of mineral deposits be included as part of the soils analysis. This would
provide county government with a sound basis for making a determination of the
applicability of the statute, referred to above, to the site. We make no assertions as to the
commercial value of the mineral deposits at the mentioned sites , but believe that County
government should have more information on which to base enforcement of the statute
properly in the exercise of its duties and for the benefit of Weld citizens.
Very truly yours,
St. Vrain Fonpemed Wiens
/John S. Folsom
PC: Planning Services, WC Council grave14.doc
A c(
C • 990557
,y),'AO-'c
ST. VRAIN CONCERNED CITIZENS
7050 Loma Linda Ct.
Longmont CO 80504
303 833 2992
February 28, 1999
Weld Board of County Commissioners
P. O. Box 758
Greeley CO 80632
Subject: Mining of commercial mineral deposits
Dear Commissioners:
[A] CRS34-1-303 requires that the Colorado Geological Survey shall have prepared maps
indicated the location of potential commercial sand and gravel deposits. CRS34-1-304
requires that the county planning commission develop maps and a master plan for
extraction of sand and gravel deposits. [B] CRS34-1-305 requires that " ...no board of
county commissioners shall, by zoning, rezoning, granting a variance, or other official
action or inaction, permit the use of any area known to contain a commercial mineral
deposit in a manner which would interfere with the present or future extraction of such
deposit by an extractor." Additionally, the Weld County Comprehensive Plan [CM Goal 1
and CM policy 1] and the Weld County Mineral Resources, volume II paragraph C
[Mineral Resources Policies]confirms the state statute and adds further restrictions.
[A] We have been able to locate only the following studies and/or maps relating to
potential sand and gravel deposits in Weld County that attempt to address the
requirements of CRS34-1-303 and 34-1-304. They are the Colorado Geological Survey
Special Publication 5-B [-303] and Map7 of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan [-304].
Both are vague and do not meet the requirements or intent of the statute as they do not
specifically delineate lands or areas having such deposits. Therefor, it should be required
by Weld government that applicants for development of land supply the results of test
borings specifically made to evaluate mining potential before consideration be made by
County government for other types of development and land use. This would ensure that
County government was properly enforcing the intent and language of the statute.
[B] To evaluate Weld government's performance with respect to enforcement of the
above statutes and ordinance, we suggest that the following projects in the St.
Vrain/Boulder Creek drainage areas be reviewed:
Milky Way Business Park: This lies across SH119 from an area being mined and along
Idaho Creek. Were test borings made to determine that presence of sand and gravel
deposits at this site?
Midtown Materials site: Were test borings made before the PUD was approved? In
addition, such borings should be made before considering the application for a USR for
the property.
Eagle Claw, Blue Heron, Lighthouse Cove, Hamm Pit, Kobobel, Del Camino Junction and
Sherwood-Hanover projects should be reviewed to ensure that the land on which
projected residential or commercial structures are to be erected have actually been mined
of sand and gravel and infilled with other than "commercial mineral deposit" material
before such structures are built.
The statutes and ordinance do not give the commissioners discretion to make exceptions
to enforcement of their requirements. We rely on County government to enforce the
Colorado Revised Statutes and County ordinances in a manner as to provide even handed
treatment of all the County's citizens. In this instance we recommend that the County
government instate a requirement that all lands possibly containing sand and gravel
deposits be examined from boring core samples made by development applicants for such
deposits in lieu of the county obtaining such information as required by the statute. We
further recommend that Weld government [Dept. of Planning Services, Planning
Commission and BOCC] review the aforementioned documents to make certain they are
being enforced in considering applications for change of zone or comprehensive plan,
subdivisions, PUDs, building permits, etc. in areas of possible sand and gravel deposits.
Very truly yours
St Vrain Concerned Citizens
r-G c.�/`7���`C
John S. Folsom
PC: Weld County Dept. Planning Services., Weld County Council
Please make this letter part of the record of any hearings relating to the above mentioned
projects. gravel.doc
ST. VRAIN CONCERNED CITIZENS
7050 Loma Linda Ct.Longmont CO 80504 303 833 2992
March 2, 1999
Weld Board of County Commissioners
P.O.Box 758
Greeley CO 80632
Subject: Processing violations of Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances
Dear Commissioners:
It has come to our attention that the disposition of some alleged violations of the subject
ordinances by Weld government has been exceedingly protracted. While these cases have
passed through what seems to be interminable applications, correspondence and other
communication, schedulings, hearings, continuances, etc., the businesses involved are
permitted to continue their operations. We understand Weld government's desire to work
with alleged violators and not place on them financial burdens as long as there is
cooperation in resolving the purported infraction. We understand that sufficient evidence
must be obtained to support any decision made by the Commissioners. However, this also
results in at least the perception that government is not diligently and expediciously
enforcing these ordinances and protecting the public interest. Conformance with these
ordinances is important, for as stated in the Zoning Ordinance, it is designed to promote
the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the County
Contrastingly, this writer can recall that when a Weld County building inspector posted a
stop work order at a jobsite, work stopped until the perceived violation was corrected.
There was no review process permitting work to continue while the violation remained
uncorrected. Similarly, when the Department of Health discovers an infraction a cease and
desist order can be issued. Again, in criminal proceedings, probable cause is sufficient to
detain an individual suspected of a crime until a court hearing is held. And at least in the
past, the Internal Revenue Service acted to restrain or penalize tax payers before or
without filings in the courts. We present these illustrations not as models, but as examples
of there being other legal methods to handle alleged violations of law without denying due
process.
We would suggest that if an alleged violation of an ordinance was not corrected in a
timely manner that the case be referred to the County Attorney for filing of a complaint
and request of judgment for injunctive relief or a cease and desist order. Due process for
the alleged offender would still be assured by review and decision by County government
and appeals through the courts.
As examples, we suggest that the Commissioners might review County government's
procedures in processing the Wagy, Midtown Materials and, now, Ademar cases to
evaluate if other means of proceeding would have been or would be more appropriate and
effective in County government's execution of its responsibilities and protection of the
citizens of the County. We are confident that the Commissioners will ultimately make a
proper determination in these cases. Not having all the pertinent information relating to
them, we make no allegations or judgments on their substance.
Very truly yours,
St. Vrain Concerned Citizens
2ohn S. olsom
--17r:77-----
PC: Monica Daniels-Mika, Weld County Council, Weld County Attorney cease.doc
PS: Please make this letter part of the record of the next meeting of the BOCC.
ST. VRAIN CONCERNED CITIZENS
7050 Loma Linda Ct.
Longmont CO 80504
303 833 2992
February 24, 1999
Ms Monica Daniels-Mika, Director
Weld County Dept. of Planning Services
1400 North 17th Avenue
Greeley CO 80631
Subject: Lighthouse Cove request for PUD change of zone
Dear Ms Daniels-Mika:
We have the following comments on the subject application:
1. In the PUD Change of Zone Application form under OVERLAY DISTRICTS there is
no mention of the property being in a flood plain overlay zone. The application should be
subject to all requirements for inclusion in such a zone [see below].
2. The referral response from the fire district should be scrutinized closely as there is only
one road projected to give access to the proposed residences. The road around the lake is
not specified as being of construction necessary for use by fire equipment and does not
provide additional access from a public highway. Additionally, it should be confirmed that
the 50 foot radius of the cul d'sac is sufficient for use by fire equipment.
3. The appropriateness of the proposed use of the lake for water skiing is questionable.
The craft towing the skiers typically is of a type that generates high noise levels that would
be offensive to surrounding property owners and destructive to habitat, the preservation of
which the applicant features prominently in the proposal. There should be commitments as
to maximum noise levels permitted, a study of wave and similar affects on habitat and
provision for periodic monitoring actual conditions in the future.
4. A statement is made in the submission that "the proposed development is consistent
with the definition of Limiting Site Factors". The definition of Limiting Site Factors is
contained in 2.2.5 of the MUD Plan Development Standards. It does not include
residential development as being an approved use. Even the usual `escape' provision in the
paragraph does not apply, as residential use would `damage or be damaged by the
constraining site factors' [flooding and habitat damage, for instance]. Developers
consistently attempt to defeat the intent of Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Subdivision
ordinances in order to maximize the amount of profit to be extracted from the land. We
would hope that the County administration would protect its citizens by adhering to the
intents and language of these ordinances.
5. The additional right of way along WCR7 dedicated by the applicant should be such that
an 120 foot wide right of way would be available when the anticipated widening of this
road to four lanes for an arterial with additional acceleration and turning lanes materializes
without necessitating the expense of future condemnation.
6. The developer should be required to provide construction of turning and acceleration
lanes at the access road to the property.
7. It is stated in the application that water pollution will not occur. This is questionable,
with the use of motorized boats on the lake.
8. The required report should be obtained from a study by the Army Corps of Engineers
as to the effects of this development on wetlands.
9. A study should be submitted as to ability of the lake to provide for water runoff from
the developed properties and road, rather than accepting the anecdotal estimate by the
applicant.
10. The statement that the existing lake will remain a wildlife habitat with its use by
motorized boats is questionable.
11. The developer should be required as a condition of approval to meet the requirements
of the St. Vrain Valley School District for land or cash in lieu to partially defray the costs
of additional student load resulting from residential construction at the site.
12. The statement that law enforcement will be provided by the County sheriff's dept.
only brings to one's attention that the said dept. is not now staffed adequately to meet the
current needs of serving the area.
13. Provision should be made to enforce the maintenance of the private road on the
property to county standards.
14. If permitted, the use of boats and water recreation should be limited, as an approval
condition,to the residents of the subdivision.
15. The use of motor boats is not consistent with the intent, accessory uses or uses by
special review of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance [section 32, Residential Districts].
16. The use of motor boats is not compatible with existing or future area land uses.
17. The applicant should meet all the requirements of section 53 of the Zoning Ordinance
relating to construction in a flood plain including obtaining a Flood Hazard Overlay
District Development Permit. The applicant should be required to provide information to
revise the FEMA Flood Insurance Study for Weld County maps that the effects of this
development will produce. Any changes in topography of the flood plain resulting from
this development will affect the validity of the FEMA study in respect to its limits and flow
characteristics. Of itself this development will probably not have significant effect on the
FEMA studies. However, taken with the number of other applications being received
proposing to alter flood plain land, flooding characteristics could be crucially altered.
18. There is no mention in the proposal of raising the elevation of building lots above that
of the estimated 100 year flood elevation. The typical increase to one foot above the 100
year flood elevation does not provide adequate assurance of protection against flooding.
19. The applicant should be required to state what safety provisions will be made relating
to the use of the proposed dock and recreational lake.
20. Specific terms of the homeowners association maintenance of the open space should
be stated by the applicant.
We submit these comments in the expectancy that they may assist you in evaluating the
subject application. We appreciate being given the opportunity to review new proposals
for changes in our area.
Very truly yours,
St. Vrain Concerned Citizens
John S. Folsom
PC: BOCC
Post Script to the County Commissioners:
Erased on our previous expenence rdlaimg to the policies of the Board of County
Commissioners, it is probable this project will be approved. Our objections to this project
are essentially two fold. It is inappropriate to permit the use of high speed motorized boats
at this site, which will constitute a public nuisance to area residents. Permitting residential
development in the flood plain by the County government consents to the establishment of
an unnecessary danger to public safety. There is more than adequate land outside the flood
plain for development. The rights of property owners to develop their land for its highest
and most profitable use should not extend to uses for which the land is not suitable.
JSF
Please make this letter part of the record of any subsequent hearings relating to the subject
project
Hello