HomeMy WebLinkAbout990556.tiff SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held on March 2, 1999, in the County
Commissioners' Hearing Room (Room#101), Weld County Centennial Building, 915 10th Street, Greeley,
Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Marie Koolstra, at 1:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Marie Koolstra Present
Jack Epple Present
Cristie Nicklas Present
Fred Walker Absent •
r'
Bruce Fitzgerald Present = r
Michael Miller Present
Stephan Mokray Present
Arlan Marrs Absent
Bryant Gimlin Present
Also Present: Monica Daniels-Mika, Director, Ben Patton, Planner, Sheri Lockman, Planner, DepartAnt of
Planning Services; Frank Hempen, Director, Don Carroll,Weld County Public Works; Sheble McConnellogue,
Health Department; Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney; Wendi Inloes, Secretary; Jennifer Mehring,
Secretary.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on February 16,
1999, was approved as read.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1211(continued from the February 2 hearing)
APPLICANT: Mary Roberts/Jeremiah Wickham
PLANNER: Ben Patton
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SW4 of Section 31, Ti N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Recycling Facility.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to US Hwy 85; approximately '/ mile north of WCR 2.
Ben Patton, Department of Planning Services requested that Case USR-1211 be continued until March 16,
1999 for the following reason. The applicant has not yet provided adequate information to the Health
Department regarding the nature of the recycled products; therefore, the Department of Planning Services
doesn't feel comfortable proceeding with this case.
Cristie Nicklas asked Ben if he has had any dialogue with the applicants. Ben replied that as of yesterday
morning the applicant had indicated that they were attempting to provide the necessary information to the
Health Department. The Department of Planning Services and the Health Department did meet with the
applicant last week and there are indications that they are attempting to gather the information needed. The
March 16, 1999 hearing date will represent the final time this case will be continued before it goes back to
legal staff.
Stephan Mokray moved that Case USR-1211, be continued to the March 16, 1999 hearing. Bruce Fitzgerald
seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Marie
Nicklas, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes; Jack Epple, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
qiirCijkflPIC6
990556
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
March 2, 1999
Page 2
CASE NUMBER: S-481(continued from the February 2 hearing)
PLANNER: Monica Daniels-Mika
APPLICANT: Del Camino Junction Development, Inc.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of AmRE-730; and Lot 1 of the Ft. Junction PUD First Filing, located
in the SW4 of Section 2, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado
REQUEST: A Final Plan for a 19 lot Industrial and Commercial Business Park
LOCATION: North of State Hwy 119 and adjacent to 1-25 and the 1-25 Frontage Road. For a more precise
location, see legal.
Monica Daniels-Mika, Department of Planning Services, presented Case S-481. New comments with
changes were handed out to replace the preliminary comments. Monica explained that since the Change of
Zone was done in February of 1990, prior to the PUD Ordinance, a different set of standards will be adhered
to. Other ordinances that will apply to this application are Ordinance 201 and 195, the Mixed Use
Development Ordinance. The Department of Planning is recommending denial of the application. Monica
then read the recommendation for denial into the record. Monica explained that there is some uniqueness
to this site because it is severed by both 1-25 and the 1-25 Frontage Road. A video tape of the site was then
shown. Monica added that if the application is approved, there are Conditions of Approval of the site.
Gary Tuttle, representative of the application, gave a presentation of the proposed site. Mr. Tuttle Gary said
that their biggest challenge has been all of the ordinances they have had to adhere to. Mr. Tuttle gave a
history of the property, from the Change of Zone in 1989, to the Final Plan in 1998, and all of the ordinances
and procedures that have been added and applied to over the years. Mr. Tuttle then showed a map of the
site, and how the ordinances have affected the land over the years. With all the setbacks required now, it
significantly makes some of the lots non-buildable, when in the beginning there was a 20-foot setback and
now at a 100 to a 150-foot setback. Mr. Tuttle is proposing 50-foot setbacks for most of the property, showing
the Commission on the map the proposal, along with landscaping. They will be adding 30-feet of pavement
to the frontage road for access improvements for safety reasons. They are proposing to follow the MUD
standards, complying with Sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8 and 2.9, as stated by Mr. Tuttle.
Comments from Planning were then addressed by Mr. Tuttle:
Regarding the issue of oil and gas interests, as stated;that they have met with HS Resources. HS Resources
could not commit one way or another on future sites, therefore making it difficult to reserve a site. Since the
property is zoned PUD, they will have to go through a Use by Special Review Permit before drilling.
Concerns on rural ditch concerns,they have presented plans to them because they are planning on extending
the culvert under the frontage road, and they are willing to work with each other.
The law enforcement on site was an issue when the Pre-Parol facility was proposed, and now that the
proposal is a business site, there is no need any longer for this and Sheriff Ed Jordan had sent a memo
stating there was not a need.
Mr.Tuttle then talked about the issue of not being in conformance with the Town of Firestone and their master
plan. Mr. Tuttle explained that this property was zoned in March of 1989, and a half a year later this was
included in Firestones first Comp Plan, and classifying the site as Commercial. Mr. Tuttle feels that they had
the rezoning prior to Firestones Comp Plan.
They are asking for relief of Ordinance 201, and feel that the main elements of the 100 to 150 foot setback
presents a unique hardship on the property,which is why they are asking to use the MUD standards instead.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
March 2, 1999
Page 3
Mr. Tuttle then addressed the Conditions of Approval, if approved. There is a lot of reference to Ordinance
201, with the idea of it being applied to the people who buy individual lots instead of the PUD as a whole.
They would like to clarify this by placing a set of standards being placed on the final PUD plan stating how
the site is to be developed. They would like Condition of Approval#1c be waived on landscaping, and will be
doing a 50-foot area of landscaping along the frontage road. Condition #2b regarding setbacks on interior
roads, they would like to stay with the MUD standards with a 20-foot setback. Condition#2h talks about lots
11 and 12 being non-buildable, and they would like to retain lot 11, and consider lot 12 an outlot and non-
buildable and landscape it.
Mr. Tuttle discussed the Town of Firestone wanting to annex the site, and stated they would like to stay with
the County since they have had a long history of working within the County and are familiar with the
regulations.
Kim Houchens, legal representative for the applicant, spoke on behalf of the proposal. Mr. Houchens
presented some legal points regarding the history of the property. The original plan was approved 10 years
ago with the uses of C-1 through C-4, and I-1 being allowed, and with what they are proposing is consistent
with this zoning. In December of 1993, the Pre-Parol facility was approved, giving legal challenges and
actions that resulted in a vote taking place, rescinding the Board of County Commissioners vote, and this is
when Mr. Tuttle was obtained for the current application, diligently pursuing the site since then. Mr. Houchens
said with this background in mind, the problems he sees with the applicability of Ordinance 201 to this project
is an issue due to the lateness of 201 coming into effect. He believes there is a legal issue as to if 201 is
applicable. Another problem with 201 is the IGA agreement, Ordinance 195, saying that 195 would stay in
effect until 201 is developed, adopted, and implemented. From Mr. Houchens understanding, not all parties
have signed off on Ordinance 201, and questions the legal effectiveness. Ordinance 201 makes no reference
to Ordinance 195, but does say that the intent of 201 is to establish baseline regional standards and a uniform
communication process for new development activities in a predefined area in unincorporated Weld County.
Mr. Houchens does not see anywhere in 201 where there is included a map or a reference of a predefined
area. If it is determined that 201 is applicable, they are asking for a variance from 201, referring to Section
62.3 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. What has caused the property to have a unique shape, is the
frontage road that CDOT has put in 1997, and again is asking for a variance from the 100-foot setback.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Bruce Nickerson, Planning Director for the Town of Firestone, stated there is an IGA in effect with Weld
County and the Town, that identifies the Urban Growth Boundary, and the proposed site is within this UGB.
A map showing this was entered into the record. The goal is that the IGA provides intense urban growth within
the towns UGB, and agricultural community separator land use activities are outside the UGB. They are not
opposing the development, but for consolidation of services to be consistent with the IGA, the property should
be developed within the Town boundary to provide effective services. When the applicant talks about going
back to the original standards, there has been a huge change in conditions to the property since the original
development. They are recommending that the application be denied until the development complies with
the 201 standards and also with the annexation provision in the Intergovernmental Agreement.
Dave Lindsey, engineer for TST and the Town of Firestone, explained the transportation plan. The purpose
for the arterial was to try and take some of the transportation pressures away from the frontage road. It was
agreed to by representatives from CDOT, Weld County, Mr. Lindsey, Mr. Nickerson and the two property
owners, to eventually realign the frontage road to form a T intersection. A map was entered into the record
that Mr. Lindsey showed the alignment to the Board. A concern they have is that some hard geometry needs
to be put to the proposal to avoid future problems.
• Mr. Nickerson added that the proposal of the lot being shared with a neighboring property, the problem with
this is that the neighboring lot is within the Town of Firestone, so half would be County the other half Town.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
March 2, 1999
Page 4
Stephan Mokray asked Mr. Nickerson how their regulations differ from Weld County. Mr. Nickerson stated
that the Town has adopted the 201 Ordinance that would apply, and that they do have more restrictive
conditions that would also apply. Stephan asked if he saw any type of compromise. Mr. Nickerson said that
he would leave the technical interpretation of the legal components of this as not being a function of Planning
Commission, but what is good for the County, and the compromise would be for the property to annex. He
feels you either have an ordinance or you don't, and the compromise is if the legal entities decide there are
some gray areas they would want to clean up.
Mr. Tuttle addressed the MUD arterial road issue, and said that they have met with CDOT, obtaining access
permits, and did discuss the intersection, and were required to move the road further south. Since the County
owns the land next to site, they feel they have flexibility. So Mr. Tuttle feels the issue has been taken care of.
Mr. Houchens added that on the annexation issue, if the property had not had its PUD zoning approved nine
years before all the other ordinances came into effect, they feel there is some validity to statements about
annexation. But the fact of the matter is, is that there has been a PUD approved, that his client is submitting
a PUD plan approval with no concerns of disorderly development.
Jack Epple asked how many applications they have similar to this one. Monica explained that the Ordinance
has been in effect since September, and we have been dealing with property owners along the corridor that
have to adhere to Ordinance 201, and the standards of 201 are different from the MUD standards. There are
still some applications out, but this is the first one that has come this far. Lee Morrison said if they reach a
decision to offer some relief from Ordinance 201, it would need to be determined a unique situation, and does
not believe that there has been an application that has had to back up and take a different approach.
Stephen asked if the application could be grand fathered in. Lee explained not completely. Because
Ordinance 201 applies at various stages of the process, it can be applied to approvals that have been
completed and awaiting a site plan review, so that the standards applicable to the individual lots should be
considered at the final plan. They need to be looked at further to insure that their application does not impair
the property rights of the property owner. On the issue of annexation, the Board of County Commissioners
has taken the position that if someone has property that has been zoned and has diligently pursued the final
plan, the zoning predated Ordinance 195 agreement, the Board would not mandate annexation agreements
with municipalities when an interest has been established in a particular type of development. The applicant
is not completely exempt from 201, but in the application of 201, there needs to be a greater level of care in
what applies and what the effect is, rather than two or three years down stream. The issue on whether 201
is in effect at this time, 201 is the County's ordinance, that adopts the design standards of the other parties.
Of the parties, there is still Erie that has not adopted the Ordinance, and as a result, it is not enforceable as
an agreement, but the County elected that when they adopted 201, to go ahead and enforce it as a county
ordinance. The question on Ordinance 195 going out of effect when 201 was approved, there are reasons
Lee does not believe this is the case. The parties have continued to treat 195 as still being in effect, and 201
has not fully been adopted, and 201 does not completely cover everything that 195 anticipated be in the plan.
Lee explained that regarding the setback issue, which in an ordinary zoning case there is the availability of
a Board of Adjustment appeal and relief from strict application of rules that are not as a result of the property
owners other actions. Strict application renders a property less usable, and this is the argument that has been
made that from the natural layout and the timing of the imposition of the rules, that they are being asked to
find that it is not the applicant being the cause of the problem in designing the proposal to meet setback
requirements, and this is within their scope to determine this. If they give partial relief from limiting the
applicants argument that 201 is causing a taking by giving a partial relief from owners provision, they could
not argue the 201 effects on the taking of the property.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
March 2, 1999
Page 5
Frank Hempen, Public Works, stated that they do continue to have concerns with the drainage portion of the
development, and in effect there are problems with the disbursal of that water after it leaves the site and have
not at this point settled with the developers engineer. The developer had requested at one time that they be
able to use one of their pits as a detention base, which they have denied. They had received a fax a day
before the hearing, and have not had the opportunity meet with Lee, so therefore there is still no resolution
on this issue. Lee added this issue should not be considered resolved at this time, and if passed, the
recommendation to the Board needs to stay open for further discussion.
Lee then addressed the issue of oil and gas, and agrees with Mr. Tuttle that it is a timing problem. In a new
zone change there would need show an agreement or to leave land vacant. Under the Commercial/Industrial
zoning, they would need to apply for a Use by Special Review Permit.
Marie Koolstra asked Monica about whether or not the PUD had been actively pursued since 1993,since there
is a three-year limit per the zoning ordinance. Monica explained that it is the opinion of legal staff that they
have been actively pursing the process, including court and legal battles.
Mr. Tuttle addressed the drainage situation, saying they do understand that they need to figure out drainage,
and they do have in mind where this needs to go, and will work to get this done before the Commissioners
hearing or prior to recording the plat. In regard's to the oil and gas, it seems unreasonable to reserve %acre
to an acre of ground somewhere on the plan, not knowing if the oil arid gas company is going to put a well in.
If it does happen, they will have to deal with it, and if they need to replat, they will do it. But how do they
accommodate someone if they have given no input. In closing, Mr. Tuttle stated this is one of the more
complex situations that he has had to present to any Planning Commission, along with the difficulty of all the
ordinances.
Mike Miller asked Lee about the oil and gas, and if the property is developed, this would preclude the oil and
gas companies from coming in and drilling. Lee said that this is possible, and that generally this is a race
between the mineral developer and surface developer, and if built densely enough, it precludes drilling. Mike
asked about the policy of requiring either an agreement between the oil and gas lessors and the owners, or
setting aside a parcel of land for an oil and gas company. Lee said that not necessarily a parcel, but a drill
site that would fit the spacing requirements as they now exist, recognizing they could change, so it could be
in open space or in an area that has not been conveyed to the mineral owner. Mike asked if the land owner
had the right to build before the oil and gas company comes in, if the oil and gas is out of luck. Lee explained
that county policy would like to avoid that, and see an agreement before developing, and the owner of the well
could do the same.
Monica added that the proposed language is standard for all land use activities, and in some situations has
caused problems and some redesigning. This standard is intended to avoid not having to come back at a later
stage and redesign by having an agreement. This issue was brought up at the Sketch Plan application, and
they asked for some documentation that they have talked with the oil and gas industry, and they are aware
of the activity. Whatever agreement is worked out between the land owner and oil and gas company, and is
satisfactory with the County. Mike Miller asked how they approach the situation if the oil and gas company
refuses to respond. Monica said they have not had a situation where the company, HS Resources in this
case, has not given any documentation, in particular in the MUD.
Jack Epple commented that he understands the applicants problems are, but would like to make a motion for
denial, and if voted down would like to continue going over the Conditions of Approval.
Jack Epple moved that Case S-481, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Planning Commissions recommendation of denial, and stated that it would be more appropriate for the County
Commissioners to give relief on Ordinance 201, and feels it is impossible for the Planning Commission to
develop Development Standards for the site if approved. Mike Miller seconded the motion.
•
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
March 2, 1999
Page 6
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Marie
Koolstra, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes; Jack Epple, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1214
APPLICANT: Tony Diller, Bruce Victor, and Jeff Giacomino
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the N2 NW4 of Section 32, T2N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for manufacturing in the
C-3 (Commercial)zone district.
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to Denver Street and 1/4 mile north of 14th Street, '% mile north of the
City of Fort Lupton.
Sheri Ldckman, Department of Planning Services presented Case USR-1214. The Department of Planning
Services is recommending approval of the application along with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Sheri then read the recommendation into the record.
Tony Diller, applicant, stated that he would prefer to lower the number of parking spaces from 20 to 15.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Diller if he could explain the type of business he will be operating. Mr. Diller
explained they use CNT equipment which is computer removable equipment. The equipment is compact,
generating very little noise and waste. Basically they generate steel chips and they will either be disposed
of or recycled.
Michael Miller then clarified that there won't be a lot of off the street traffic. Mr. Diller replied that was correct.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Marie Koolstra stated that she understands that Mr. Diller is in agreement with the Development Standards
and Conditions of Approval except for the required amount of parking spaces. Mr. Diller said that his only
concern was that they will have to do more engineering on the detention pond for 20 parking spaces and 15
parking spaces would be adequate. Marie asked how staff felt about the run off. Sheri answered that she
doesn't feel that the parking spaces are detrimental. It was taken directly out of the zoning ordinance, which
states that they are to have 2 parking spaces for every thousand square foot of floor space. And they have
a 10,000 square foot building. Mike Miller asked how the run off relates to the detention pond. Mr. Diller said
that they have to engineer the run off for the amount of parking they have. Don Carroll, Public Works, stated
that basically you are displacing more run off water when you add additional paving which would affect the
size of your detention area by adding more run off per surface. By deleting a couple of parking spaces you
can get by with a smaller detention pond. He figured that with the twelve full time employees and adding two
additional spots for a salesman and one for a custodian at the site therefore they will only need a total of 15
parking spaces.
Cristie Nicklas moved to change Condition of Approval#2E3 to indicate 15 paved parking spaces instead of
20. Michael Miller seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Marie
Nickles, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes; Jack Epple, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
March 2, 1999
Page 7
Cristie Nicklas moved Case USR-1214, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards as amended with the Planning Commissions
recommendation of approval. Michael Miller seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Marie
Nicklas, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes; Jack Epple, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1215
APPLICANT: Weld County Public Works
PLANNER: Sheri Lockman
LEGAL DESCRIPTION :Part of Lots 1 through 8 of Lupton Meadows Subdivision Division III; being part of
Section 19, T2N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for Open Cut Gravel
Mining in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: Northwest of Ft. Lupton, approximately 2 miles, located east of the intersection of WCR 20
and WCR 25.
Sheri Lockman, Department of Planning Services, presented Case USR-1215. Department of Planning
Department is recommending approval along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Sheri then read the recommendation into the record.
Jack Epple asked Greg Nelson, applicant, if Weld County was pursuing a permit from the Division of Minerals
and geology? Mr. Nelson said yes. Jack Epple then asked if the application was applied for? Mr. Nelson
stated that it was and that they have until April 14, 1999.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Kent Jordan, surrounding property owner, said that he is opposed of this operation from both the business
and personal stand point. He explained he is in the horse business and does artificial insemination and the
water will increase the amount of insects which will affect his line of business. He also addressed his concerns
about the noise and the air pollution the increased traffic will provide. He then talked about the cottonwood
trees that will be torn down and wanted to know if the were aware of the environmental impact.
Laura Baldwin, surrounding property owner, stated that she too raises mares. She explained that she has
several different concerns with this open cut gravel operation. As of now her well is at 35', with this operation
is she going to lose her well? Weld County Road has many sink holes from the increased traffic, will they
maintain this road? What are the hours of operation going to be and how many months out of the year? Are
they going to pave the drives, the increased traffic will cause dust bowls, which will make her mares suffer.
Are they going to do anything about the increased number of mosquitos?
Jack Epple asked her how long she has owned her property? Ms. Baldwin answered a little over 5 years.
Ted Oster, surrounding property owner, asked how long ago did the County purchase the property? Sheri
answered that the county will be leasing the property from Mr. Bearson. Mr. Oster, also asked about the 16
ft. easement and if they will be allowed to drive across that? Or if the County will have to pay to the irrigation
well like the other farmers? Marie Koolstra responded to Mr. Oster that she will have the staff answer his
questions.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
March 2, 1999
Page 8
Mr. Nelson stated that the hours of operation will be from 6 a.m. -4:30 p.m. in the summer and 7:30 a.m. -
3:30 p.m. in the winter. As far as the increase in traffic, there was already a gravel pit out there and there
shouldn't be any more traffic than what is already out there. He also explains that they won't be removing any
trees.
Lee Morrison, said that the county has purchased ditch rights from Mr. Bearson, and they will be using those.
He also said that the County faces additional burden in terms of water rights because relatively recently the
State Engineers have required winter replacement. He explains that you can't just use ditch rights as a
replacement of water for the evaporative losses from the gravel pit. You have to come up with return flows
or stored rights that could be returned to the river in the winter if there is a call down stream.
Michael Miller asked Mr. Nelson if he could address the right of way problem with the existing easement. Mr.
Nelson said he doesn't see any problems with the surrounding property owners coming across that easement.
Michael Miller then asked if they have plans to fence that easement? Mr. Nelson replied that the easement
is currently fenced and is not sure where he is crossing. Michael Miller clarified that they will be able to cross.
Mr. Nelson replied yes.
Sheri stated that they are having Public Works follow the policy that states all gravel pits are required to
operate only during the hours of daylight.
Jack Epple asked Don Carroll, Public Works, if he calculates if there will be an increase of traffic on Weld
County Road 25? Don Carroll said that the pit will only be used as needed. They own other gravel pits and
rotate between all of them. Basically they will be utilizing the same fleet of trucks and the same mining
operation. It would basically be the same impact as what is out there now. It is paved out there now and they
will maintain it.
Jack Epple stated that the Division of Minerals and Geology requires that environmental impact study as part
of the permit, and that will be updated annually.
Lee Morrison clarified that an environmental assessment is required but it is not a federal environmental
impact statement. He then explains the fence law only goes to someone in an open range area who seeks
the claimed damages against livestock that comes on to their property, and doesn't believe it applies here.
Stephan Mokray asked Lee Morrison how the fence law will affect the right to access? Lee Morrison
answered that there is access now and that they are not going to change the gates or fence.
Don Carroll stated that they have met with the state engineer and will place a trench between the mining
operation and the adjacent wells to make sure there is adequate water for both parties. At that particular
meeting it was indicated that they thought water flow was towards the river and not away from the river, and
the concerned wells are on the opposite side.
Michael Miller said it was his understanding that this pit won't be operating 12 months a year. Don explained
that they usually mine for 3-4 months and then move on to a different pit while the water replenishes itself.
Marie asked if the trucks will still be going in and out? Mr. Nelson said that it just varies, they might go in and
be in for 3 weeks at a time, and then be gone for a while. Cristie Nicklas stated that from her personal
experience of having a County gravel pit on their property that the longest they have ever been at those pits
is 2 weeks at a time and then they are gone until the need arises which is 2-3 times a year.
Cristie Nicklas moved that Case USR-1215, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Michael Miller seconded the motion.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
March 2, 1999
Page 9
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Marie
Nicklas, yes; Cristie Nicklas, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Bruce
Fitzgerald, yes; Jack Epple, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted Respectfully submitted
Wig:642 j}
onip
Wendi Inloes Jennifer Mehring
Secretary Secretary
Hello