HomeMy WebLinkAbout20012307.tiff 1 STATE OF COLORADO
2 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, WELD COUNTY
3 July 14, 1999
4
5 TRANSCRIPT OF TAPE RECORDED MEETING
6
7 Public hearing to consider request of Francisco and
8 Maclovio Martinez for Mineral Resource Development Facility in
9 Agriculture Zone District .
10
11 DALE K. HALL, Chairman
12 COMMISSIONER MEMBERS
13 BARBARA J. KIRKMEYER, Pro Tem
14 M. J. GEILE
15 GLENN VAAD
16 GEORGE E. BAXTER, Excused
17 ALSO PRESENT
18 ESTHER GESICK, Acting Clerk to the Board
19 LEE MORRISON, Esq. , Assistant County Attorney.
20 ERIC JERMAN, Department of Planning Services .
21 SHEBLE McCONNELLOGUE, Weld County Dept . of Public Health.
22 DON CARROLL, Weld County Public Works Department .
23 SPEAKING TO REQUEST
24 KAREN RADAKOVICH, Esq. , appearing for the applicants .
25 FRANCISCO MARTINEZ, Applicant .
26 MARK SIEGRIST, surrounding property owner.
L-MAC R & T(303)798-0380 Weld Cty ROCC - Martinez - 7/14/99 2001-2307
2
1 [The tape recorded proceeding as set forth on page one is
2 transcribed as follows : )
3 MR. CHAIRMAN: Next on the agenda is 99-42 .
4 MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, docket number 99-42 is a
5 continuance of the application of Francisco and Maclovio Martinez
6 for a site specific development plan. Special Review Permit No.
7 12-20 for mineral resource development facility, concrete batch
8 plant, in a mixed-use development area.
9 Notice was previously published for the prior hearing,
10 and this matter was then continued by resolution of the board to
11 this date.
12 And to refresh the board' s memory, part of the reason for
13 the continuance was to allow the applicant and the most affected
14 adjacent landowner to discuss mutual issues of concern.
15 MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the applicant step to the microphone
16 real quick, for me? I do have to advise you that we have a four-
17 member board today, and it was the same advice I gave you the
18 previous time, except we have different members this time .
19 Commissioner Baxter is not here; he was here at the previous
20 one . Commissioner Kirkmeyer is here, and she did not hear the
21 entire evidence, but she has reviewed the file .
22 The administrative policy allows for your request to
23 continue this case until we have a five-member board, if that' s
24 your wishes . In the event you want to proceed, then there would be
25 a policy that if there was a two-two tie, then the 5th
L-MAC R & T(303)798-0380 Weld Cty BOCC - Martinez - 7/14/99
3
1 commissioner, that is not in attendance, would listen to the entire
2 record and make a final vote at that point . So we need to know if
3 you wish to proceed at this stage.
4 MR. MARTINEZ : Francisco Martinez, P .O. Box 334,
5 Firestone, Colorado 80520 . Yes, we wish to proceed.
6 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you very much. So now the
7 issue of whether they've come to an agreement would be the concern?
8 MR. MORRISON: I think that would be the appropriate
9 place to start .
10 MR. CHAIRMAN: Do we want the applicant or the interested
11 parties to make a comment? How would we -- how about the
12 interested parties?
13 MS . RADAKOVICH: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
14 Karen J. Radakovich appearing on behalf of the applicant . 4750
15 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, Colorado 80303 .
16 I'm happy to report that we have actually reached an
17 agreement with the objector, Mr. Mike Siegrist, who is here today.
18 I will basically read into the record the agreement . This is a
19 letter that has been agreed upon between the parties .
20 It' s got Lee Morrison as a cc but there was a dispute
21 until right at the end as to whether one of the representations was
22 correct . So I apologize . You've not gotten your cc. I will give
23 you a copy of this afterwards .
24 The agreement is as follows : the Ready-Mix facility, the
25 Ready-Mix Concrete Plant, the applicant has agreed to remove from
L-MAC R & T(303)798-0380 Weld Cty BOCC - Martinez - 7/14/99
4
1 the site by July 15th of the year 2004 . This will be the subject
2 based upon the advice of Mr. Morrison of a separate set of
3 covenants against the property that will be recorded.
4 The site, for purposes of the USR is defined as just the
5 seven acres . But we have reached agreement this morning that the
6 applicant won' t apply for USR to put anywhere else on the other
7 contiguous 108 acres as well . It will be simply removed from the
8 entire property. And that will be more carefully set out in
9 covenants, so that' s just for your information.
10 Starting either on January 1 of the year 2001, or at the
11 time the first residential building permit is issued for Mr.
12 Siegrists' planned development, whichever is later, there will be
13 limitations on the operation of the plant as follows :
14 The plant will operate between the hours of 6 : 00 a.m. and
15 6 : 00 p.m. , Monday through Friday. Trucks may occasionally return
16 to the plant after 6 : 00 p.m. , but there will be no other official
17 operation after that time . Just trucks returning.
18 Saturday operation hours will be 8 : 00 a .m. to noon, again
19 with trucks occasionally returning after noon, but no other
20 operation. There shall be no Sunday operation hours at all .
21 There will be no operation on the following federal
22 holidays : New Year' s Day, President' s Day, Memorial Day, 4th of
23 July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, or Christmas . The exception to
24 operation on those holidays is if the applicant wishes to operate
25 on those days, for purposes of its own consumption of its product,
L-MAC R & T(303)798-0380 Weld Cty BOCC - Martinez - 7/14/99
5
1 rather than sales to third parties, then the objector has agreed
2 that would be appropriate.
3 The third condition is that the recycle or waste
4 stockpile shall not exceed 200 cubic yards, nor shall material
5 piles exceed 50 feet in diameter. And the final condition -- and,
6 again, this is probably just for your information, rather than on
7 the USR, but the covenants to be recorded will contain a right of
8 first refusal for the objector to buy this property in five years,
9 at the time the concrete plant is torn down.
10 So with that agreement, I believe that it is now
11 appropriate to ask the board to proceed. Any questions?
12 MR. CHAIRMAN: When you say "50-foot in diameter, " what
13 is the height .
14 MS . RADAKOVICH: We didn' t discuss a height .
15 MR. CHAIRMAN: Not being an engineer, I can' t figure
16 that out .
17 MS . RADAKOVICH: Yeah. I would think that just the laws
18 of nature would determine the height, but I don' t know. If you
19 guys want to comment on that .
20 MR. MORRISON: I don' t think you have jurisdiction over
21 the laws of nature, but -- except biological .
22 MR. CHAIRMAN: Is -- I guess the question I ' d have for
23 you, Lee, is that we would then need to incorporate some of those
24 covenant agreements --
25 MR. MORRISON: Right .
L-MAC R & T(303)798-0380 Weld Cty BOCC - Martinez - 7/14/99
6
1 MR. CHAIRMAN: -- into conditions or development
2 standards? Or do we do one, and incorporate the whole thing?
3 MR. MORRISON: I think if the board deems it appropriate,
4 and I think those dealing with operate day -- hours and days of
5 operation, and limits on the storage of stockpiles and waste, are
6 appropriate conditions in that special review permit . And we
7 probably should make those consistent . I would suggest that you
8 should include those into the permit .
9 So I think that would -- the part that' s not appropriate
10 to be in the permit, ' cause the ordinance doesn' t actually
11 authorize it, is a limit on the length of time .
12 There is a way to sort of tie this in for your purposes .
13 It might be that you ask the applicant to send a letter indicating
14 that by July -- on July 15th of 2004, they want to vacate this USR,
15 consistent with the covenants .
16 That would be a way to kind of tie it back and have a
17 check date for your purposes . But it wouldn' t -- you know, it
18 wouldn' t be actually a condition of the USR.
19 MR. CHAIRMAN: And to have them do that now prior to the
20 operation?
21 MR. MORRISON: Simultaneously with recording -- submit
22 that with the recording information that comes with the plat . Just
23 submit that, and that would sit in the file . That way, they honor
24 the covenants, then your board will then -- you know, there will be
25 a clean slate . The board will then be able to act on that letter
L-MAC R & T(303)798-0380 Weld Cty BOCC - Martinez - 7/14/99
7
1 July 15th or shortly thereafter, 2004 .
2 MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that agreeable with the applicant?
3 MS . RADAKOVICH: Yeah, I don' t see any objection to that .
4 MR. MORRISON: And I don' t -- I guess because we -- I did
5 get a call from Mr. Grant outlining these things, but we haven' t
6 seen these in writing, so we don' t quite have everything drafted.
7 We haven' t had an opportunity to re-draft the --
8 MR. CHAIRMAN: Conditions?
9 MR. MORRISON: -- conditions to make these conform.
10 I mean, I think you could -- what we could do is have the
11 interested parties have an opportunity to look at the reso- -- if
12 you approve the permit with those changes, Mr. Jerman and I can
13 work on fixing the resolution and circulate it among the parties
14 before you sign it . That would facilitate that .
15 MR. CHAIRMAN: Does anyone have any questions for the
16 applicant?
17 COMMISSIONER GEILE : No, but I want to make sure I
18 understand the resolution, which specifically address what we
19 classify and are calling covenants .
20 MR. MORRISON: The one thing it would not address is the
21 timeline . Because I don' t think you have juris- --
22 COMMISSIONER GEILE : Timeline would be where?
23 MR. MORRISON: In the covenants . We -- what I would
24 suggest is that we -- is that they provide a copy of that covenant,
25 and that that covenant be in place before recording -- provide a
L-MAC R G T(303)790-0380 Weld Cty BOCC - Martinez - 7/14/99
8
1 copy of that before the plat' s recorded.
2 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Okay.
3 MR. MORRISON: And two, that they submit a letter asking
4 for the permit to be vacated consistent with the data in the
5 covenants . You know, get on your agenda five years from now.
6 MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions for the applicant?
7 Okay. I think it' s probably appropriate right now to ask the -- as
8 you call, the objecting party, to the microphone, and if they could
9 just state their name and address for the record.
10 MR. SIEGRIST: Mark Siegrist, 875 West 64th Avenue,
11 Denver, Colorado, 80221 .
12 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. You were here when the applicant
13 indicated that you've reached an agreement, and the agreement was
14 read into the record. Is that your understanding, also?
15 MR. SIEGRIST: Yes .
16 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.
17 MR. SIEGRIST: She fairly represented what we had -- what
18 we've agreed to.
19 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Does anyone have questions for Mr.
20 Siegrist? Okay. Thank you very much.
21 Did we -- had we officially closed the public testimony?
22 I think we did, didn' t we?
23 MR. MORRISON: I think we did.
24 MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes . Uh-huh. So I ' ll open it to the
25 board for any further comments, questions or motions .
L-MAC R & T(303)798-0380 Weld Cty BOCC - Martinez - 7/14/99
9
1 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I'm not ready to make a motion
2 until I start hearing some language regarding the operations set
3 forth in the agreement . I mean, about all the hours and stuff .
4 You would just add that on as a condition, so --
5 MR. MORRISON: We would --
6 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: -- that would be a like a two --
7 MR. MORRISON: The hours of operation are already -- are
8 addressed there.
9 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I don' t see any standards or
10 conditions relating to hours of --
11 MR. MORRISON: They' re either addressed in there by
12 reference to the zoning ordinance, apparently.
13 MR. CHAIRMAN: I guess what I was hearing was that the
14 board -- that the planning staff and legal staff would incorporate
15 the covenants that were appropriate to being incorporated in
16 changes to the conditions and development standards .
17 MR. MORRISON: Hours of operation are normally -- are
18 addressed under development standard number eight, which references
19 the zoning ordinance . So you don' t see them specifically, but
20 that' s where hours of operation are addressed, which I believe are
21 daylight hours, if I recall correctly.
22 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So you would add additional
23 language to development standard number eight? I'm not asking for
24 specific language. I'm asking whether we would have to have an
25 additional, either, condition or development standard?
L-MAC R & T(303)798-0380 Weld Cty BOCC - Martinez - 7/14/99
10
1 MR. MORRISON: Yeah, I think we would probably say that,
2 " . . .except that hours of operation shall be in accordance with the
3 following. . . "
4 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay. And then on the limits on
5 the storage for the waste, would that be a condition?
6 MR. MORRISON: No, I think that also is an operation
7 standard. And that -- and number ten talks about waste.
8 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Some, yeah.
9 MR. MORRISON: Some . I think that may be an appropriate --
10 MR. CHAIRMAN: Or nine, maybe .
11 MR. MORRISON: -- or nine . You know, it indicates the
12 size of the stockpiles .
13 MR. CHAIRMAN: Probably fits more with number nine .
14 MR. MORRISON: Probably. I -- yeah, probably nine .
15 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay. I 'm --
16 MR. MORRISON: And we can right along strike -- strike
17 out this, so that both the board and the interested parties can see
18 what was done.
19 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I do have a question regarding
20 Condition of Approval 2-A. In reading through the file, and stuff,
21 it' s indicated -- and when I was reading that it would go from 15
22 acres down to 5 acres, and I just heard the applicant' s
23 representative say 7 acres .
24 I mean, we don' t actually define here in 2-A. We just
25 say " . . .area immediately surrounding the proposed batch plant, and
L-MAC R & T(303)798-0380 Weld Cty BOCC - Martinez - 7/14/99
11
1 including the parking and storage area. " So my question is, would
2 it be maybe expedient to put in parenthesis there the approximately
3 7 acres, or something, so that we have an idea here, especially
4 since we' re talking about --
5 MR. MORRISON: Yeah, I think we should get at least an
6 agreement to what area we' re talking about .
7 MR. JERMAN: Eric Jerman. I -- that' s fine with me, if
8 we add approximately seven acres . I don' t know that we'd ever --
9 it hadn' t been surveyed, so I was unclear, exactly, how big that
10 area was, but we had come to a verbal agreement with the applicant
11 by looking at drawing lines on a map.
12 MR. CHAIRMAN: Would that be agreeable to the applicant,
13 to add approximately seven acres --
14 MS . RADAKOVICH: Yeah. That' s fine .
15 MR. CHAIRMAN: -- in that language?
16 MS . RADAKOVICH: I do have an actual legal description of
17 the USR area. It says it contains 7 . 186 acres, more or less . I
18 thought that this had been provided to Mr. Jerman, but I would
19 certainly give him a copy it .
20 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.
21 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay. Then under condition 2-E,
22 I think we need to make sure that we add the word there, "reserve
23 the additional 90 feet of future right-of-way. "
24 Under condition 2-G, "The applicant shall submit a
25 parking plan to the Department of Planning Services for review. "
L-MAC R & T(303)79B-0380 Weld Cty BOCC - Martinez - 7/14/99
12
1 Then the next sentence reads, "upon approval . " Is the Department
2 of Planning Services approving the parking plan, or is Public Works
3 supposed to approve the parking plan?
4 MR. JERMAN: Eric Jerman, Department of Planning
5 Services . It' s my understanding that it' s a -- Public Works is
6 approving the parking plan, and then Public Works indicates to
7 Planning that it' s been approved.
8 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So they need to submit the
9 parking plan to Public Works for approval?
10 MR. MORRISON: Well, I think the goal is to submit -- is
11 to have one entry point for all of these things . It goes to the
12 planner and gets distributed. So I think it still should go to
13 planning, but if you want to indicate Public Works is the one
14 reviewing, that would be appropriate.
15 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Oh, so I can just add after
16 " . . .upon approval by the Public Work Department, then the parking
17 area. . . " Okay.
18 Then in Condition J. Evidence that all requirements
19 of the protection -- Fire Protection District have been met . I
20 guess -- sometimes that' s been a problem. And I thought we changed
21 that wording to where they've " . . .attempted to address the concerns
22 of the Fire District . . . " or " . . .they've attempted to meet those
23 requirements?"
24 MR. JERMAN: I guess it' s my understanding that where
25 issues involving the Universal Building Code, and that the Mountain
L-MAC R & T(303)798-0380 Weld Cty BOCC - Martinez - 7/14/99
13
1 View Fire District actually had the ability to have final approval
2 on it . Whereas if it' s a planning issue, that the -- you'd just
3 have to be notified, or they have to have contact with the Mountain
4 View Fire District . So that' s why I went with the wording on this
5 one.
6 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: The issue to me is, is Mountain
7 View responsible to enforce the requirements, or are we trying to
8 make the county responsible to enforce what the fire protection
9 district is requiring? Because that starts getting to be kind of a
10 mess . I mean, you know, they' ll have to make -- make sure they
11 meet, or work with the fire district . I just don' t want to get the
12 county put in the middle where we' re enforcing what the fire
13 district' s trying to do.
14 MR. JERMAN: Yeah. I don' t know. That' s kind of a
15 sticky situation. If I could just add, though, they have already
16 met the requirements of the Mountain View Fire District, so it' s
17 not like it' s a looming issue that Mountain View could come in
18 after today and say there' s a problem, because they've already met
19 that requirement .
20 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay. That' s fine . Just so
21 we' re aware of that in the future.
22 MR. MORRISON: Do you have confirmation that -- Eric, do
23 you have a confirmation from the district, ' cause that would just
24 delete it completely?
25 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: The applicant representative is
L-MAC R & T(303)798-0380 Weld Cty BOCC - Martinez - 7/14/99
14
1 shaking her head "yes . " So if you do have that information, if you
2 would just submit it, then we can -- as the attorney said, we can
3 just delete that .
4 MS . RADAKOVICH: Yeah. I would be happy to. It' s a
5 letter of June 14th, from the Mountain View Fire Protection
6 District, and I will get a copy of that as well .
7 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay. Then in 2-M, we have that
8 a " . . .a detailed reclamation plan shall be provided to the
9 Department of Planning Services . " I'd like to know what the
10 difference between 2-M and 2-C is, ' cause 2-C is requiring a
11 detailed reclamation plan given to the Department of Planning
12 Services as well?
13 MR. JERMAN: 2-M is much more specific than 2-C is, and
14 that was added after the fact, after 2-C had been put in, it was
15 added late to the Planning Commission, and that' s why it was in
16 bold and written in "preliminary" across the top . So perhaps in
17 light of adding 2-M, 2-C should have been deleted at that time.
18 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay. So you believe 2-C can be
19 deleted, then? That 2-M would cover all of that?
20 MR. JERMAN: Yes .
21 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay.
22 COMMISSIONER GEILE: I have some questions, Mr. Chairman.
23 MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms . Kirkmeyer, are you through?
24 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Yes, I am. Thank you.
25 COMMISSIONER GEILE : I hope, as we take a look at " . . .all
L-MAC R & T(303)798-0380 Weld Cty BOCC - Martinez - 7/14/99
15
1 structures associated with the batch plant shall be removed to
2 location -- shall be removed to a location which is not within the
3 90 foot, " we talked about this at the hearing. I 'd like to make
4 sure that the actual definition of everything is correct . As I --
5 is that still an issue, or is it not an issue? Should it be
6 reworded or worded correctly?
7 MR. JERMAN: It is an issue in that the applicant is
8 still in violation of this setback requirement . The building
9 itself was measured by Planning Staff with a wheel provided by
10 Public Works, and it was indicated that the building is within one
11 foot of meeting the requirements .
12 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Thank you.
13 MR. JERMAN: However, there is an office building
14 associated -- it' s in a trailer -- associated with the batch plant
15 that is in violation of the setback requirement .
16 I believe at the last hearing the applicant asked that
17 they not be required to remove that building, whereas Planning
18 Staff is asking that it be removed.
19 COMMISSIONER VAAD : And I think at the public hearing
20 they agreed to move that .
21 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Are they asking to remove it
22 from the --
23 MR. JERMAN: No. We' re just asking to move it out --
24 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: To just move it?
25 MR. JERMAN: Yeah, move it so that it meets the
L-MAC R & T(303)796-0380 Weld Cty BOCC - Martinez - 7/14/99
16
1 requirements .
2 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Move it, not remove it -- move it .
3 MR. JERMAN: Yes . Thank you.
4 MR. MORRISON: What time frame is CDOT looking at?
5 MR. JERMAN: I'm not aware of what the time frame is .
6 COMMISSIONER GEILE : The way it' s written, I want to make
7 sure that we' re all in agreement to what this thing says, and we
8 understand it and agree to it .
9 MS . RADAKOVICH: I'm Karen Radakovich. Again, for the
10 applicant . The additional 90-foot right-of-way will -- my
11 understanding is -- be required by CDOT at the time they expand.
12 But at this moment in time, they cannot require that,
13 although Mr. Jerman has asked for it in this condition of approval .
14 We have actually no objection to moving it outside that setback
15 area at the time when CDOT needs that additional right-of-way.
16 We'd prefer not to have to do that at this point . It' s certainly
17 within the guidelines of the old setback requirements . Just the
18 additional 90 feet, CDOT may eventually need.
19 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Then I have no problem. The fact
20 that I thought -- we had discussed at the hearing. So I think we
21 need to make sure that point' s clarified in this --
22 MR. JERMAN: Are you suggesting additional language
23 should be placed in here?
24 COMMISSIONER GEILE: What I'm saying is, it' s not within
25 the 90-foot reservation asked for by CDOT, and it' s not located
L-MAC R & T(303)798-0380 Weld Cty BOCC - Martinez - 7/14/99
17
1 (inaudible - coughing) by the mixed-use development area. So if
2 we' re going to make anything change in that, I think we would
3 want to say " . . . at which time CDOT were to require the 20-foot
4 right-of-way. "
5 MS . RADAKOVICH: That would be acceptable to us .
6 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Which I think is reasonable .
7 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Most likely, since they' re going
8 to cease operations by 2004, we' re being -- moot point .
9 COMMISSIONER GEILE : That' s why I think we need to
10 clarify that, and I think it' s reasonable .
11 The other is, I thought we'd talked about adding a "Q" ,
12 which would be a waste handling plan.
13 MR. JERMAN: We did, and that should have been added.
14 I'm not sure why it was not added.
15 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Okay. But again, I'm looking at the
16 old. So I would assume that that has been added. I just wanted to
17 make sure that we added a "Q" .
18 MR. JERMAN: It should have been added and should have
19 been forwarded to the Clerk of the Board, and again, that "Q" would
20 have read something to the effect that "Evidence shall be provided
21 to the Department of Planning Services that an approved waste
22 handling plan has been approved by -- accepted by the Weld County
23 Health Department . "
24 And in addition to that -- should this language be added?
25 We would like to -- sort of tacking onto "Q" would be Condition of
L-MAC R & T(303)798-0360 Weld Cty BOCC - Martinez - 7/14/99
18
1 Approval No. 24 -- I'm sorry -- Development Standard No. 24 .
2 COMMISSIONER GEILE: So you would add a 24?
3 MR. JERMAN: Yes . And -- read all this? Okay. That 24,
4 I can read into the record here.
5 "Prior to recording the plat, the applicant shall submit
6 a waste handling plan to the Environmental Protection Services
7 Division of the Weld County Health Department . The plan shall
8 include at a minimum, the following:
9 Number one. A list of wastes, liquid and solid, which
10 are expected to be generated on the site . This should include
11 expected volumes and types of waste generated.
12 Number two. A list of the types and volume of chemicals
13 expected to be stored on site.
14 Number three . A waste handler and facility where the
15 waste will be disposed, including the facility name, address and
16 phone number.
17 That' s all .
18 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So you' re asking it to be a
19 development standard?
20 MR. CHAIRMAN: That' s a condition; that' s not a
21 development standard.
22 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Why wouldn' t you just include
23 that in "Q"?
24 MR. MORRISON: Yes, I agree .
25 MR. JERMAN: We can? Okay.
L-MAC R & T(303)790-0380 Weld Cty BOCC - Martinez - 7/14/99
19
1 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Include all that language in
2 "Q" . I guess you could also include the language about the limits
3 on storage in that waste plan. No? Yes? (Inaudible) -- yes .
4 MR. CHAIRMAN: That'd be a development standard, though.
5 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Yeah, leave the development
6 standard, but as you' re putting together this waste plan, I mean --
7 there' s also these other things that they've agreed to, on limiting
8 the storage, and the --
9 MR. MORRISON: Right . I think they would have to account
10 for those limits . I don' t know that you have to spell it out .
11 COMMISSIONER GEILE: I'd like to also make sure that the
12 applicant is in concurrence with "Q" as we've stated, the waste
13 handling plan.
14 MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the applicant understand "Q"?
15 MR. MORRISON: Maybe you can explain it to us, if --
16 MR. MARTINEZ : We've complied with "Q" .
17 MR. CHAIRMAN: With the waste handling plan? Okay. Any
18 other questions?
19 MR. MORRISON: Can I suggest an "R" , that prior to
20 recording the plat, the applicant will submit a letter requesting
21 vacation of the USR effective July 15, 19- -- Y2K glitch -- 2004 .
22 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Okay?
23 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay?
24 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Okay.
25 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Are we ready for a motion?
L-MAC R fi T(303)798-0300 Weld Cty HOCC - Martinez - 7/14/99
20
1 MR. CHAIRMAN: We certainly are .
2 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: All right . I' ll give it an
3 attempt . Mr. Chairman, I would move approval of USR 12-20, with
4 the conditions of approval and development standards recommended by
5 the Planning Commission, with amendments to the conditions .
6 To "A" , add the words, "approximately seven acres, "
7 somewhere in there, "immediate surrounding, " just so we know that
8 that' s approximate seven acres ; delete 2-C; add to 2-G, "upon
9 approval, " after "upon approval by the Public Works Department, "
10 "Parking area" should be deleted on the plat .
11 We can delete 2-J. Under 2-K, make sure that WC is
12 spelled out to be Weld County. Under 2-O, delete the R-E in
13 "removed, " so it' s just "moved, " and also add additional language
14 that, "at which time that CDOT acquires the road reservation, that
15 the plant would have to be moved, or the structures associated with
16 the batch plant would have to be moved.
17 Add an addition to 2-Q, which talks about the waste
18 handling plan, and make sure that we do account for the limits
19 in storage .
20 Also an addition to "R" , which is a letter requesting
21 that they vacate the USR, July 15 , 2004 .
22 And in the development standards, amend development
23 standard number eight . The -- put in the exceptions to the
24 operations that were listed by the applicants representative .
25 And with -- also in development standard number nine,
L-MAC R & T(303)798-0380 Weld Cty BOOC - Martinez - 7/14/99
21
1 additional language that would be regarding the waste and limits on
2 storage for the waste . And renumber and reletter everything.
3 That' s the three .
4 MR. CHAIRMAN: Before you get a second, you said 2-E,
5 would add the word to "reserve additional 90-foot, " not "to require
6 the donation of . . . "
7 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Yes . Thank you . That' s
8 correct . Add that into my motion.
9 COMMISSIONER VAAD: I' ll second.
10 MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion by Barbara, second by Glenn, to
11 approve USR 12-20 with conditions and development standards as
12 amended. Discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion --
13 COMMISSIONER VAAD: I' d just like to thank the applicant
14 and the interested party in working this out . I made that request,
15 and I appreciate the spirit and the product . Thank you very much.
16 MS . RADAKOVICH: (Inaudible)
17 MR. CHAIRMAN: All in favor of the motion say "Aye . "
18 VOICES : Aye.
19 MR. CHAIRMAN: Opposed?
20 (No audible response . )
21 MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion carries .
22 MS . RADAKOVICH: Thank you very much.
23 MR. CHAIRMAN: Seeing no other business, we are
24 adjourned.
25 [Weld County Board of County Commissioners adjourned. ]
L-MAC R & T(303)798-0380 Weld Cty BOCC - Martinez - 7/14/99
CERTIFICATE
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss
COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE )
I, Laura M. Machen, an independent transcriber and
notary public within and for the State of Colorado, certify
the foregoing transcript of the tape recorded proceedings,
Weld County Board of County Commissioners, Hearing of June 30,
1999, in re: hearing to consider request of Francisco and
Maclovio Martinez for Mineral Resource Development Facility,
and as further set forth on page one, is reduced to printed
form by computer transcription, and dependent upon recording
clarity, is true and accurate, with special exceptions of precise
identification of any or all speakers and/or correct spelling of
any given or spoken proper name.
Dated this 8th day of August, 2001 .
My commission expires May 23 , 2004 .
Ck/ ORIGINAL
[ ] CERTIFIED COPY OF ORIGINAL
L-MAC R & T (303) 790-0380
Hello