HomeMy WebLinkAbout982062.tiff 4(------
0'414114 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
�` PHONE (970)353 6100 x.3540
Ville FAX (970) 352-6312
WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
1400 N. 17TH AVENUE GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
COLORADO
October 5, 1998
Gary Tuttle
11990 Grant St., Ste. 304
Denver, Colorado 80233 •
Mr. Tuttle,
This letter addresses an existing Use by Special Review permit (USR-978) for a Gravel Mining
Operation in the A (Agricultural) zone. On August 18, 1998 your company requested an "asphalt
batch plant" operation be allowed on this site without going through the USR amendment process.
Upon review of the resolution's Conditions of Approval, Development Standards, and original
• application, staff determined that a batch plant on this site would warrant an amendment to the USR -
permit. This conclusion was based upon the absence of specific mitigating conditions within the
resolution, and the lack of explicit information regarding a batch plant in the application.
This conclusion, however. was not shared by your office, and a formal request to investigate further
was prompted. This investigation included a more thorough review of the application materials, and
an audio review of the tape from the original Board of County Commissioners hearing for USR-978.
On Tuesday, September 22, 1998 staff reviewed the full application and supporting documents, as
well as the audio tape for the public hearing. Upon conclusion of this review staff determined that
the applicant did include sufficient support for an asphalt batch plant on site
It is the conclusion of the Weld County Department of Planning Services that an amendment to
USR-978 for the operation of an asphalt batch plant will not be required Please be aware that this
• review evaluated the feasibility of the batch plant operation only A previous inquiry by your
company indicated that two other variations from the original uses might also be requested. If these
changes, or any others, are pursued staff will again evaluate the consistency of the proposed use
• with those allowed by resolution.
If you have any further questions please call me at the number shown above
_&A/1 6-7./t-
Ben Patton
Planner
982062
L�%bi; R_egg's
GB DH CH BK / BW
BOARD ACTION: (Initial by Approval) / / „,///
✓/ V
Agree with Recommendation �/ V/�_
Worksession
TluttleApplegate,lnc.
Consultants for Land,Mineral and Water Development
September 3, 1998
Weld County Board of County Commissioners
Connie Harbert, Chairperson
915 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: USR-978: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for an Open-Pit
Mining Operation in the A (Agricultural)Zone District— 83rd Joint Venture Resource
Dear Mrs. Harbert:
Our office has been in contact with the Weld County Planning Department regarding the above
mentioned Use by Special Review Permit. USR-978 was approved by the County
Commissioner on October 21, 1992. The plats were recorded in the office of the Weld County
Clerk and Recorder on May 4, 1993.
Our Office has been in specific contact with Ben Patton, Planner, with the Weld County
Planning Department regarding the placement of an asphalt batch plant on the site. While the
resolution title does not reflect an asphalt batch plant,the use itself is described in numerous
areas of the application materials. We believe that an item in an application , which is not
specifically addressed or conditioned in the resolution, has been accepted as proposed.
As being described in the application materials,the asphalt batch plant use is an approved use as
described in the County Resolution, Development Standard#1. This standard states that the Site
Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit is for an open-pit mining operation in the
A (Agricultural) Zone District as submitted in the application materials on file in the Department
of Planning Services and subject to the Development Standards stated herein. A Copy of the
resolution and USR application is attached for your review.
Additionally, our office reviewed the hearing certifications for the Planning Commission and
Board of County Commissioners Hearings. The certifications do not reflect any discussion with
respect to the asphalt batch plant. It also does not appear that any controversy occurred which
would remove the use from the Permit. I have attached copies of both hearing certifications for
your review.
The Weld County Planning Department has determined that the placement of the asphalt batch
plant would require an amendment to USR-978. Our office is taking the position that the use is
allowed by the original approval by the County Commissioners. I have attached all letters of
correspondence to the Planning Department for your review.
11990 Grant Street, Suite 304• Denver, Colorado 80233 • (303) 452-6611 • Fax (303) 452-2759 rt//ai$85
Weld County Commissioners
September 2, 1998
Page 2 of 2
Additionally, Ben Patton, Planner with the Weld County Planning Department, in his letter dated
August 20, 1998,to Shani Eastin of our office, states that a letter to the Board of Adjustment
must be drafted to appeal staffs decision. Our office would appreciate a clarification of this
decision.
An appeal to the Board of Adjustments would be for an administrative decision. An
administrative decision as we understand the Zoning Ordinance, is for interpretation of the
Zoning Ordinance only. This is also stated in Section 62.1.1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. In this
case the Resolution for USR-978 is in question and not the Zoning Ordinance specifically. Our
office believes that the Commissioners as well as the County legal staff should be making the
final decision.
I believe that once you have reviewed the attached information and correspondence that you will
determine that the asphalt batch plant is a use that was approved in the original application
request and that the use does not require an amendment to USR-978.
I appreciate your time and consideration in this matter. I have attached all correspondence as
well as pertinent application materials to this letter for your review.
If you have any questions please call me. Once again, thank you.
Cordially,
TUTTLE APPLEGATE, INC.
Gary uttle
cc: Lee Morrison, Assistant Weld County Attorney
Ben Patton, Planner, Weld County
Connie Davis, CAMAS
Mike Refer, CAMAS
File #98-203
a
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
ores p PHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT.3559
FAX (970) 352-6312
C. WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
1400 N. 17TH AVENUE
GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
COLORADO
August 20, 1998
Shani Eastin
11990 Grant St., Ste. 304
Denver, CO 80233
Ms. Eastin:
As requested in your letter dated August 18, 1998, I have re-evaluated your client's request to
proceed with changes to the existing mining operation as described in the resolution approving
USR-978.
Confirming the Department of Planning Services' original decision, two specific requests by the
applicant will necessitate an amendment to the existing USR permit. Specifically:
1). While the concrete batch plant is mentioned as a potential use in the permit application, and
is hinted at in the DMG permit, the site-specific consequences of such a project are not addressed
in the resolution, which is the County's "contract" with the applicant. The fact that the batch plant
is listed as a potential use in the application will help expedite the applicant's right to apply; however,
such a use will create on-site concerns that must be addressed through the referral process. The
Health Department, in particular, must be satisfied that all concerns of the plant have been
addressed. Again, a batch plant is listed as a required Use by Special Review in the Agricultural
zone, according to Section 31.4.1 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance; and
2). Development Standard five of the resolution states, "The facility shall be limited to one access
at a time from F Street. All other accesses shall be physically closed off when not in use." To allow
both accesses to be open concurrently would act in direct contradiction to the resolution. Again,
various referral agencies, most notably the Weld County Public Works Department, would need to
address the effects of this action.
3). The third item from your original letter, concerning the improvements agreements' capacity to
deal with the actual volume of traffic on F Street, will be dealt with by the Public Works Department.
If there does exist an inconsistency our recommendation will be based largely on that agency's
comments.
Please consider this response to be staff's final determination of your client's request. If you wish
to pursue the proposed changes without going through the Use by Special Review process a letter
to the Board of Adjustment must be drafted which explains the applicant's proposal, as well as
staff's denial of the request. This letter will be processed through the Department of Planning
Services office.
If you have any further questions regarding staff's decision please call me at the number shown
above.
Se.A.7 ge71-etzi
Ben Patton,
Planner
ri r
o •
7wttleApplegate,lnc.
Consultants for Land,Mineral and Water Development
August 18, 1998
Ben Patton, Planner
Weld County Planning Department
1400 North 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: USR-978, 83`d Joint Venture Resource
Dear Ben:
Thank you for your timely written response of my letter dated August 11, 1998, with regards to
the above mentioned special use permit. I appreciate your comments and staff determination
regarding the questions I posed in my letter,however, I am submitting additional information
regarding the application for your consideration which may alter your decision.
You state the following in your letter "The operator would like to move an asphalt batch plant
onto the site. While this use is listed in the application, none of the conditions of approval or
development standards in the resolution directly address mitigating standards for the batch
plant " The asphalt plant is referred to in numerous areas of the USR Application. Specifically,
1. Listed under 7.a, of the USR Application which lists the types and number of
operating and processing equipment to be employed.
2. Page 3 of the USR Application Letter to Chuck Cunliffe the asphalt pant is described
as a temporary use which may be required to accommodate large jobs requiring large
amounts of asphalt.
3. Exhibit D of the Division of Minerals and Geology(DMG) Permit, which was part of
the USR submittal refers to the asphalt plant being moved onto the property to
produce asphalt.
4. The location of the asphalt plant is stated in Exhibit D to be located within the
designated plant sites. It is indicated on Page 3 of the letter to Chuck Cunliffe that no
permanent structures are proposed for the site. Additionally, Page D-1 of the DMG
application states that the equipment used to process sand and gravel will be portable
in nature and be relocated every several years to a different plant site.
You further state the following: "The Improvements Agreement, which addresses road upgrade
which is necessitated by the use, reflects an inaccurate number of trucks which are actually
serving the site". Could you please clarify this statement. This agreement does not specify the
number of trucks or the amount of truck traffic generated. The only indication of the number of
L� 1
11990 Grant Street, Suite 304•Denver, Colorado 80233• (303) 452-6611 • Fax (303) 452-2759
USR-978,Status Questions
Page 2 of 2
trucks and truck traffic is listed under a separate cover in the application materials for the USR.
This separate cover specifically describes using one or two 25 ton, 18 wheel trucks and that the
trucks will run 8 to 10 hours a day and will generate approximately 48 trips per day. I would
assume that the Public Works Department will need to clarify the Road Maintenance and
Improvements Agreement.
Ben, could you please re-evaluate the response in your letter dated August 14, 1998,to determine
the need for an amendment to the USR. With the further clarification of the above issues I
would propose that an amendment is not require.
I appreciate your continued assistance with this matter. If you have any questions please do not
hesitate to contact me at(303)452-6611.
Sincerely,
T TTLE APPLEGATE, INC.
ani L. Eastin
Planner
cc: #98-203
Mike Refer, CAMAS
Connie Davis, CAMAS
•4 it( ;t:, DEPARTMENT OF PLANNINS SERVICES
wipe
PHONE (970)353-6100, EXT.3559
FAX (970)-IVE 35 -6312
FILES WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRA'IVE OFFICES
1400 N. 7TH AVENUE
GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
COLORADO
August 14, 1998
Shani Eastin
11990 Grant Street, te. 304
Denver, Colorado 80 33
Ms. Eastin
As you requested I di cussed the two USR situations (#978 #897) at the Department of Planning
Services staff meeti yesterday. The consensus of staff regarding these applications was as
follows:
USR-897, allowing g vel mining and a concrete and asphat batch plant in Section 32 and 4art of
the west'/of Section 33, Township 6 North, Range 65 W st, has expired. Section 21.4.5 of the
Weld County Zoning rdinance states that"If the use by Special Review has not commenced from
the date of approval o is discontinued for a period of three consecutive years it shall be presumed
inactive." As you su ected, to reactivate or re-establish This permit an appearance before the
Board for a probable ause hearing will be required.
USR-976,allowing an pen-pit mining operation in the Agricultural Zone District located on property
in part of Section 35, ownship 6 North, Range 66 West, most be amended. Your letter des ribed
three conditions whic necessitate the amendment.
1. The o rator would like to move an asphalt batch plant onto the site. While thi use
is liste in the application, none of the co ditions of approval or development
standa s in the resolution directly address nl
itigating standards for the batch lant.
Additi ally, a batch plant is listed as a USR n the A (Agricultural) Zone, acco ding
to Sect' n 31.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
I
2. The Im rovements Agreement,which addresses road upgrade which is necessitated
by the se, reflects an inaccurate number ofi trucks which are actually serving the
site. I required by the Public Works Department, any change in the existing
Agree nt would also be addressed throug an amendment to the USR.
3. Develo ment Standard number 5 states that nly one of the accesses from F Street,
which a both shown on the plat, shall be utili ed by the operation at one time.!The
operato is requesting to open both accesses m F Street. This, too, is a variation
from th approved USR. Despite the abse ce of such a scenario in the Road
Mainten nce Agreement, opening both acces es is not directly accounted for in the
conditio s of approval or development stand rds in the resolution,
Cj %O -
I
I
VIOLA xva zro1 96/PT/60
If you have any y que Bons or cencems regarding staffs iryterpretation of this matter pleas call
me at the numbers s wn above.
Sincerely,
P
Ben Patton
Planner
CM-Et-667i --
COO yl Yva Zz:OT 96/171180
r-
tes
7wttleApplegate,lnc.
Consultants for Land,Mineral and Water Development
August 11, 1998
Department of Planning
Weld County Administrative Offices
1400 North 17"Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Status of USR-978 83r'Joint Ventures and USR-897 C& M Companies
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is to confirm the status of the two above described Use by Special Review Permits
approved by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners.
USR-978 was approved by the County Commissioners on October 21, 1992: This permit
allowed for an open-pit mining operation in the A(Agricµltural) Zone District on property
located in part of Section 35, T6N,R66W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado. The plats
were recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder on May 4, 1993, in book
1381 and reception 2331476. The following are questions I have regarding this permit:
1. The operator,Camas,would like to move an asphalt batch plant onto the site. The
asphalt batch plant was described as being located on the site within the approved
application materials: I have attached a copy of the application for your reference.
Please confirm this finding.
2. A Road Maintenance and Improvements agreement was approved by the Board of
County Commissioners. This agreement does not specify the amount of truck traffic
to be generated by the operation. Is there a number associated with the agreement or
is just a maintenance issue? Meaning that the number of trucks is not a problem as
long as the maintenance is adhered to. In speaking with Don Carroll,Weld County
Public Works Department, he indicated that the traffic isn't a concern whether it is 5
trucks or 50 trucks as long as the maintenance of the road is completed. Please
confirm.
3. On the Use by Special Review Plat maps two accesses into the operation from"F"
Street are delineated. Development Standard number 5 states the following: "The
facility shall be limited to one access at a time from"F" Street. All other accesses
shall be physically closed off when not in use." Can both accesses be utilized by the
operator? If not, what steps need to be taken to do so?The Road Maintenance
11990 Grant Street, Suite 304• Denver, Colorado 80233 • (303) 452-6611 • Fax (303) 452-2759 6-;:s )61:42
Status Letter
Weld County Planning
Page 2 of
Agreement does not specify that only one access can be used. Currently, two access
points are being utilized to the facility. Both accesses provide a safe entrance and exit
point that one access point can not accomplish.
The second permit, USR-897 for gravel mining and concrete and asphalt batch plants,was
approved by the Board of County Commissioners on March 7, 1990. The subject property is
located in part of Section 32 and part of the west 'A of Section 33, T6N, R65 W of the 6th P.M.,
Weld County, Colorado. While this permit was approved a plat was never recorded. Is this
permit still valid? The operator has never abandoned the initiative to commence operation. I
have attached a copy of the resolution for your review. Please confirm the status of this permit.
Thank you for your time and consideration in reviewing the above requests. If I can be of
assistance or if you need additional information please do not hesitate to contact me at(303)452-
6611.
Once again, thank you.
Sincerely,
T TILE APPLEGATE,INC.
4 tfrn
S ani L. Bastin
Planner
attachments
cc: #98-181
Mike Refer, CAMAS
Hello