The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20000230.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, December 21, 1999 A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held Tuesday, December 21, 2000, in the Weld County Public Health/Planning Building, (Room 210), 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chairman, Fred Walker, at 1:35 p.m. ROLL CALL Fred Walker Present Cristie Nicklas Present John Folsom Present Jack Epple Present Bruce Fitzgerald Absent Michael Miller Present Stephan Mokray Present Arlan Marrs Present Bryant Gimlin Present Also Present: Anne Best Johnson, Long Range Planner, Department of Planning Services; Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney; Sheble McConnellogue, Department of Public Health and Environment, Trisha Swanson, Secretary. The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on December 7, 1999, was approved as read. CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1172 APPLICANT: Hall-Irwin Construction PLANNER: Anne Best Johnson LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SE4 of Section 36, Township 1 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. REQUEST: Amendment to Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit to include the sale of landscape materials from a site permitted for a Sand and Gravel Mining Operation in the Agricultural (A) zone district. LOCATION: North of and adjacent to WCR 2, approximately 1/8 mile east of WCR 23.5. Anne Best Johnson, Planner, read case AmUSR-1172 into the record. This amendment is to include the sale of landscape materials with the original mining permit. Anne noted that there is a violation on the site from the EPA(Environmental Protection Agency). Michael Miller asked if the EPA violation causes the applicants to be in violation with the conditions of their original USR. Lee Morrison stated that the language in the original USR is not real direct:, would need more facts about the violation, with the information given it is inconclusive, that the applicant needed to contact the Corps of Engineers directly. Lee stated that this was to avid a violation. Without more facts, Lee would not feel comfortable with staing if they are in violation concerning their original permit. There is no violation at the county level. Michael Miller asked if they have the right to expand their USR when this violation from the EPA is open, but the mining is still going on in spite of the violation. The area in violation is not being mined at this time. Lee stated that this amendment does not add or subtract from the violation. John Folsom asked Anne about there not being specifics concerning landscaping in Condition of Approval #26. Anne stated that the existing USR has regulations that would be continued and that the design standards were less strict at the time of approval. Anne stated that nearby uses are compatible. John asked if there would be collateral for road improvements. Anne stated that Public Works had no additional requirements for this amendment. Shani Eastin, Tuttle-Applegate, representative of the applicant, stated that the area around the sales site would be landscaped in order to better market what they have. She also noted that there would be no new entrance, that the sale of materials would be in an area close to the existing entrance. Shani wanted to state ac.77Ldremi (.4.e,014-k, C?'- /7-aOoo 2000-0230 SUMMARY OF THE'WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION December 21, 1999 Page 2 that the EPA violation is for less than 1/10th of an acre far from where the amendment is being added to the USR. She stated that because this is a relatively small case for the EPA, it may take over a year for the case to be finaled and closed. The company will be closed down if it does not get the case closed, making another condition by the county seem like a waste. Hall-Irwin construction is working to reestablish the wetland where the violation occurred. Shani also stated that the applicant did not know that they could not sell the landscape materials from the site and were just trying to comply with the county in order to do so with this permit. Darrell Wood, President of Hall-Irwin Construction,stated that the company was having to deny sales because of the heavy equipment being too dangerous for most customers to drive around. In order to serve customers safely and efficiently, they chose to set up an area near the entrance to the site where customers could choose and load their landscape materials without being in danger of the large equipment. He also wanted to state that the addition of the landscaping sales area improves the look of the mining site. Stephan Mokray asked what kind of material were to be sold. Darrell Wood stated that it would include rock, sand, topsoil, different colors of stone, stone paving, and mulch. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to speak. Fred Walker wanted to state that he felt they should steer clear of the EPA issue because if it is not cleared up sufficiently, the EPA will shut them down, taking the burden of responsibility off the county. John Folsom wanted to state that a similar site near Firestone owned by this company is run very well and neatly kept up. Michael Miller stated that the sale of landscaping materials is happening more often at mining sites, that the separate landscape sales area is much safer and a good accessory to any gravel mining site. Bryant Gimlin stated that he feels the county wants to cover itself with the addition of Condition of Approval 2 C, that the county should not just ignore the comments received from the EPA. Christie Nicklas stated that requiring this makes it awfully hard to record the plat and fit within a decent time frame when the EPA may take a while to sufficiently close this violation. Arlan Marrs stated that this is not a necessary Condition and could take too long to close, being unfair to the applicant as they are already working with the EPA to clear this. Arlan Marrs moved that Staff Recommendation 2C be removed from AmUSR-1172. Christie Nicklas 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, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously. Christie Nicklas moved that Case AmUSR-1172, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the new 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; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Fred Walker, yes. Motion carried unanimously. SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION December 21, 1999 Page 3 Michael Miller commented that he understands that the EPA violation area is a separate area from where the amendment is proposed. He doesn't feel this is an insignificant violation or that it should be taken lightly, but the change to the existing USR will not affect the violation in the positive or the negative. AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE 197 0 & 147 E PRESENTER: Lee Morrison, Weld County Assistant Attorney REQUEST: Changes to the Weld County PUD Ordinance and the Weld County Subdivision Ordinance concerning vested property rights. Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney, presented the changes to Ordinances 197-0 and 147-E. These changes concern vested property rights that were changed in Colorado but were not changed in Weld County. The final plan in the PUD, final subdivision plans, and USR's. Many counties did not take the changes seriously, so the counties are now being told to change the rules in their ordinances. Lee stated an example of the Villas where this came into play. It covers people when they go through all the expense and paperwork, but then do not create the development through no fault of their own. Weld county did follow through on this 12 years ago, just following through with the paperwork at this point. Lee stated that this change patches and clarifies the existing rules in the county. As it currently stands, if someone were to apply with an incomplete sketch plan just to get it in before possible changes go into effect, they could. With the new changes, after the zone change comments are received for the sketch plan, the applicant has one year to apply with the final plan. If the sketch plan is allowed to lapse, the applicant must go back to the beginning and the program or rules in effect at that time will apply. Lee stated that this is to prevent speculation. A second part of this is that the PUD applications were once allowed to get administrative approval. Now, the PUD final plan can have a hearing in order for the vested property rights to go into effect. The developer can chose between expediency and protection. Bryant Gimlin asked f there were no changes to the rules, could the applicant just resubmit the original. Lee stated that they could submit the same paperwork, but new referrals would be sent out. Fred Walker asked how to avoid cases possibly being buried in the Planning Department. Lee stated that the clock starts form the time that staff recommendations are finalized. Discussion ensued concerning future staff from using this in their favor to bury a project. Fred Walker stated he would prefer 2 years, in order to allow for possible unforseen occurances. Michael Miller asked the possibility of applying for an extension. This change means that the applicant must bring in a complete application within one year of receiving the staff comments. Jack Epple moved that the changes to Ordinances 197-0 and 147-E be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning Commission's 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; Arlan Marrs, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Jack Epple, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Fred Walker, no. Motion carried. Fred Walker commented that he would prefer the time limit be greater than one year. Meeting adjourned at 2:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted Trisha Swanson Secretary Hello