HomeMy WebLinkAbout972563.tiffSUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 4, 1997
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held on November 4, 1997, in the County
Commissioners' Hearing Room (Room #101), Weld County Centennial Building, 915 10th Street, Greeley,
Colorado: The meeting was called to order by Chairman, Glenn Vaad, at 1:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Glenn Vaad
Rusty Tucker
Fred Walker
Bruce Fitzgerald
Cristie Nickles
Jack Epple
Marie Koolstra
Stephan Mokray
Arlan Marrs
Present
Present
Absent
Absent
Absent
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Ln
w
Also Present: Monica Daniels -Mika, Director, Todd Hodges, Current Planner II, Shani Eastin, Current Planner,
Kerni Keithley, Current Planner, Scott Ballstadt, Current Planner, Gloria Dunn, Current Planner, Department
of Planning Services; Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney; Don Carroll, Drew Scheltinga, Weld County
Public Works Department; Trevor Jiricek, Sheble McConnellogue, Weld County Health Department; Sharyn
Frazer, Wendi Inloes, Secretary.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on October 21, 1997,
was approved as read.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1167
PLANNER: Shani L. Eastin
APPLICANT: Brian and Lisa Wallace
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Commercial Recreational
Facility (Roping Arena) and Sports Marketing Business in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE -1888, part of the NE4 of Section 13, T3N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
LOCATION: West of and adjacent to Weld County Road 13; approximately A mile north of Weld County
Road 32.
Shani Eastin, Department of Planning Services, asked the Board to continue case USR-1167 as requested
by the Department and the applicant for more time to review the application and provide more information.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
Stephan Mokray moved to continue Case USR-1167 until the November 18, 1997 Planning Commission
meeting. Arlan Marrs seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Glenn
Vaad, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Marie Koolstra, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Rusty Tucker, yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
'Baia 02tertila
972563
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
November 4, 1997
Page 2
CASE NUMBER: USR-1165
PLANNER: Scott L. Ballstadt
APPLICANT: SBA of Denver, Inc.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Major Facility of a Public
Utility consisting of an 81' Free -Standing Monopole Wireless Communication Tower.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SE4SW4 of Section 30, T3N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Weld County Road 28 and west of and adjacent to Weld County
Road 25-1/2 (Highway 85 Frontage Road).
Scott Ballstadt, Department of Planning Services, presented Case USR-1165 and recommended approval of
the application, along with the Conditions of Approval and Developmental Standards. Scott gave an overview
of the application for a 81' Monopole Wireless Communication Tower and explained that the concerns which
were expressed by the Town of Platteville have been addressed through the applicant's letter of October 28,
1997. Scott added that landscaping was also added to the proposal to mitigate visual impacts. He then
explained that the applicant has investigated three other sites as alternatives, but feels this location is an
appropriate site, eliminating the need for another tower elsewhere and completing the Highway 85 corridor
plan.
Rusty Tucker asked Scott how far the tower will be from the existing home and asked if the proposed site was
within the Urban Growth Boundary. Scott explained that the house is on the southeastern corner of the site
and that the site was within the Urban Growth Boundary.
Glenn Vaad asked Scott to expand on how the applicant has addressed the Intergovernmental Agreement
concerns of the Town of Platteville. Scott explained that the applicant addressed the incompatibility between
the proposed uses and anticipated Town zoning classification as stated in the Intergovernmental Agreement.
The parcel currently does not have any future or anticipated land uses as identified by Platteville's
Comprehensive Plan and the parcel also has no future zoning classification.
Nathan Foster, applicant, spoke about the process in selecting the best possible location, the steps they go
through, and the importance of the location to other sites. Mr. Foster stated that the site is not located within
the Urban Growth Boundary as designated by the Town's Comprehensive Plan, nor is there a Land Use
Designation for the site. Mr. Foster also explained how he had met with the Town of Platteville and discussed
their concerns. They have made changes from their original proposal by reducing the area by one half and
enclosing it with a six-foot solid wood fence, instead of chain -link, and plan to landscape around the area to
screen the site from most sides, addressing visual concerns. Mr. Foster also talked about the probability that
the Town would zone the site either Commercial or Industrial, if the site were developed. Mr. Foster feels their
proposal for the tower is compatible for both of these classifications. Mr. Foster also stated that they currently
have five other sites along the 85 Corridor, all having co -location.
Rusty Tucker asked Mr. Foster how many miles apart the proposed sites will be. Mr. Foster explained that they
are six miles apart with a three-mile radius per site. A three to four -mile radius of six to eight miles coverage
is considered necessary, depending on the number of customers or population coverage.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
The Chairman asked Mr. Foster if he was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards. Mr. Foster asked about Condition 2a, explaining that they had an FAA Consultant do a study and
review the site and submitted a report stating that they actual recording with the FAA or documentation is not
required.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
November 4, 1997
Page 3
Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney, explained that as long as the letter from the consultant dated
September 9, 1997, and signed by David Hunter of Aerospace Safety Analysis Corporation, indicating that
there has been an Aeronomical study and that the FAA would not take any action, then the document would
be sufficient to accept with changes to the conditions. Lee suggested deleting Condition 2a which would
essentially take care of ongoing issues still uncovered by Development Standard #9.
Mr. Foster wanted clarification on 2b regarding landscaping. Mr. Foster asked if this portion of the Condition
could be taken care of at the construction phase instead of on the final plat due to not having exact information
from the contractors. Scott suggested adding the condition, prior to the certificate of occupancy, as #2, and
keeping prior to recording the plat and renumber this #3, with renumbering the following paragraphs to 4,5 and
6. Mr. Foster was agreeable to all the changes.
Arlan Marrs moved that Case USR-1165, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Development Standards and the changes in the Conditions of Approval being #2 - Prior to Certificate of
Occupancy, #3 - Prior to recording plat in regards to the Subdivision Exemption and renumbering 3,4 and 5
to 4,5 and 6 along with the Planning Commissions recommendation for approval. Stephan Mokray seconded
the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Glenn
Vaad, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Marie Koolstra, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Rusty Tucker, yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1170
PLANNER: Shani L. Eastin
APPLICANT: Troy and Cynthia Harimon
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Commercial Use (Welding
and Machine Shop) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot A of RE -817, located in the NE4 of Section 15, TSN, R64W of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Weld County Road 388; approximately 1/4 mile west of Weld County
Road 59.
Shani Eastin, Department of Planning Services, asked the Board to accept the recommendation marked
preliminary be submitted as the final recommendation. Shani gave an overview of the application and stated
that staff is recommending approval. Shani did express the concerns of the circle drive currently being used
by the Harimons' and therefore are requesting eliminating the east entrance and utilizing the west entrance.
Glenn Vaad had a question on the site distance on both the western and eastern access and how this was
addressed. Shani explained that in utilizing both access and looking at both distances, that the eastern access
couldpose some type of a site distance concern or problem if utilized. Don Carroll was asked to elaborate on
the same issue, and agreed with Shani, stating that since the building will be covering most of the eastern
access, it would be taken out and the western access would be used. Glenn then asked Don about the speed
limit on road 388. Don believed because of the curves in the road, the limit would be around 55 miles per hour
if not posted, and 45 miles per hour if posted.
Stephan Mokray had concerns on the driveway going east because of a curve in the road and the possibility
of a blind spot. Don explained they did study the area and felt that it was adequate.
Troy Harimon, applicant, had nothing to add to the application.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
November 4, 1997
Page 4
The Chairman asked Mr. Harimon if he was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards and he was in agreement.
Stephan Mokray moved to forward case USR-1170 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the
Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of
approval. Rusty Tucker seconded the motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Glenn
Vaad, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Marie Koolstra, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Rusty Tucker, yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1172
PLANNER: Shani L. Eastin
APPLICANT: Hall -Irwin Construction Company
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Sand and Gravel Mining
Operation in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: W2NW4 of Section 31 and SE4 and S2NE4 of Section 36 all in T1 N, R67W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to Weld County Road 2; east of and adjacent to Weld County Road 23-
1/2.
Shani Eastin, Department of Planning Services, presented case USR-1172 for a dry sand and gravel mining
operation. Shani gave an overview of the permit stating that they are recommending approval of the permit
with entering the preliminary recommendation as the final recommendation. Shani explained the site and then
talked about the road maintenance agreement of Weld County Road 2 between the applicant and Adams
County. The road is in Weld County, but is maintained by Adams County. The mining operation is proposed
to occur in seven phases, with total mining completion of approximately 25 years. Shani also explained the
surrounding land uses.
Glenn Vaad asked Shani for clarification that Weld County Road 2 is one of the same as 168th Avenue and
that the applicant is responsible for the maintenance and that the agreement with Adams County will take care
of any road issues. Shani explained that Condition of Approval 5a specifically addresses the agreement.
Gary Tuttle, representative of the applicant, along with Pete Bauer, part property owner, other representatives
from Tuttle Applegate, George Hall, Jeff Gregg, and Dick Roper from Hall -Irwin Construction Company and
Forest Leaf from Colorado Central Water Conservancy District were all present for any questions the Board
may have.
Mr. Tuttle explained the 170 -acre proposal of the operation, with 120 of those acres actually being mined at
40 acres at a time. The process of the mining operation, is first sealing off the land by installing a slurry wall
around the entire property which prevents any underground water from seeping into the mining operation. Mr.
Tuttle then explained how after the mining is complete, they have a cooperative arrangement with the Colorado
Central Water Conservancy District to turn the project into water storage reservoirs. Mr. Tuttle explained that
they have an operation on the south side of Weld County Road 2, and the operations will be similar. Mr. Tuttle
plans on this operation being a 20 -year operation, depending on the market.
Stephan Mokray asked where the pumped water of the slurry walls will be pumped to and the depth of the
slurry wall. Mr. Tuttle explained the water trapped inside the slurry wall will be pumped onto the property which
flows into the South Platte. Mr. Tuttle further stated that the slurry walls will be approximately 40 to 45 feet
deep.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
November 4, 1997
Page 5
Arlan Marrs asked Mr. Tuttle to explain exactly what a slurry wall is and also expressed concern of the slurry
wall working and the disruption of agricultural land. Mr. Tuttle explained the process and what happens as they
are trenching the wall and what the end results are. He also explained the difference between this project and
the project next to this one. Forest Leaf of the Colorado Central Water Conservancy District, addressed the
concern of the drop in soils and explained their role in the slurry walls and how they work with the engineers
and make sure that it works by having someone on site and making sure the materials used are correct. Mr.
Marrs also asked about the depth of the water table dropping eight to ten -foot after mining which Mr. Leaf
explained that Hall -Irwin is mitigating the problem by recharging the area. Mr. Leaf is confident that the walls
will be tight with minimal leakage. Mr. Tuttle then added how they can see any problems in the first five years
as far as leaks in the wall, and are able to address those problems immediately before certifying as a reservoir.
Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney, explained that under the proposed language of the permit the Zoning
Ordinance and State Law, if these lined facilities were not lined sufficient to qualify as reservoirs, then they
would have no obligation to augment to protect water rights and in addition 5g in the Conditions of Approval
addresses the need to protect other well water users, so there is a legal backup to the engineering in terms
of the creation of the reservoirs using the slurry wall.
Mr. Tuttle finished by adding they have two oil and gas wells on the property which they have provided access
for with an agreement. An overhead power line which runs north/south through the property has also been
accommodated with an access to the towers. Noise and dust have been accommodated by submitting plans
to the Weld County Health Department additionally they are in the process of getting a State application for
mining and a reclamation bond with that which is posted with the Colorado State Treasurer. Mr. Tuttle is in
agreement with the Conditions of Approval and Recommendations.
Stephan Mokray asked how many acres of feet the lakes hold. Forest Leaf stated 2,000 estimated acre feet
would be in the lakes.
Marie Koolstra asked that instead of draining the well could wetlands be developed by lack of draining and
have a backing up effect. Mr. Tuttle explained that there is a mounding of ground water on the upstream side
of the slurry wall and Hall -Irwin has monitoring wells at another site and have observed that the water will
mound up to some 20 to 30 feet behind the slurry wall and mound up approximately two to three feet creating
enough pressure that the ground water begins flowing around the slurry wall. There are mining setbacks all
around the wall of about 25 feet and they believe they will not impact other property. If it does occur they would
install perforated pipes on the upstream side of the slurry wall which will help carry the water around a corner
for example.
Rusty Tucker asked how close the project will be away from homes. Mr. Tuttle explained there was an
approximate 50 feet for some property owners to provide screening and an approximately 70 -foot setback
which they have from the slurry wall. Mr. Tucker was concerned with problems that may occur with the
foundation. Mr. Tuttle did not believe there would be any problems, but stated they are willing to work with the
property owners if anything should occur.
Glenn Vaad asked about the sequencing of the reclamation and the processing of the mining and how they
are planning to get the product to the processing centers. Mr. Tuttle explained that they plan on using haul
trucks.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against the application.
Jan Dersham, spoke against the application, with one of her concerns being with the ski lake that is going to
be developed and the concern of this becoming more than a private use. Shani clarified the use of the ski lake
being private which is a use by right, and any change would require a Special Use Permit. Ms. Dersham then
asked what assurance she had that the lake would not turn public. Mr. Vaad reiterated that it would have to
go through the permit process.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
November 4, 1997
Page 6
Ms. Dersham also has expressed concerns with her water rights, seepage ditch, water table and an
augmentation plan being installed for the project before a permit is granted and would like proof of an
augmentation plan. Lee Morrison explained that the water rights would need to be addressed by the State
Engineer of Water Corp and the plans for the ski lake would eventually need at a minimum initially a substitute
supply plan and ultimately need to adjudicate the water right. It is the responsibility of the applicant to take legal
steps to protect water rights. Mr. Vaad then explained to Ms. Dersham the protection she has from the County
Ordinance and water rights protected by the State Water Law. Mr. Tuttle explained the augmentation plan and
that Hall -Irvin will be responsible for during construction. Peter Bauer, partial property owner, addressed their
plans on augmentation and that they have had a plan in effect for more than a year now. He also said that the
lake is fully permitted by the state.
Bob Rousher, from the water firm Hagler Bay E, addressed concerns of Ms. Dersham and the removal of the
material. Mr. Rousher has reviewed the material and does not see a concern with the seepage ditch being
effected. The concern of the sodium bicarbonate content of the Laramie Foxhills aquifer, is being measured
by both County and State, and meets drinking water standards and used throughout the surrounding areas.
The augmentation plan calls for 20 acre feet per year when added to the lake.
Ms. Dersham again addressed her concern for proof by the Planning Commission for the augmentation plan
for the lake. Mr. Vadd explained that they were told there was a plan and that Ms. Dersham would have to get
with applicant on where it is. Shani suggested that they could add a condition, Si, that prior to recording the
plat, the applicant shall submit an approved water augmentation plan for the ski lake involved in this
application, to be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. Glenn Vaad does not feel that this is the
responsibility of the applicant but the property owner. Ms. Dersham does not have a problem with Hall -Irwin
working with her on any problems she may have, but is concerned with the ski lake being separate from the
actual mining and the augmentation. Lee Morrison suggested that things be left the way there are unless the
applicant and property owner express change or objection to the way things are stated.
Mr. Vaad then asked Mr. Tuttle if he had a problem with the addition of the condition of the augmentation plan
for the ski lake. Mr. Tuttle did not object to the wording, but understood that there was a substitute supply plan
approved for the use of the deep ground water with Laramie Foxhill aquifer to pump up and at some point
needs to be turned into a court decree augmentation plan that Ms. Dersham has talked about. This does not
have to happen for Hall -Irwin to mine the property, but at some point after the lake is done. Mr. Tuttle feels that
Mr. Bauer is on track with his water permits and Hall -Irwin will take care of water losses during the operation.
Mr. Leaf explained that the substitute supply plan is an annual approval and has to be filed the the Water Court.
Mr. Bauer does have a mined land reclamation permit, which before that is issued a substitute supply plan must
be approved and in effect
Arlan Marrs asked if it is common to have ski lakes augmented with potable water. Forest Leaf said that is was
common for nontributary water that is used to augment evaporation losses from gravel pits and also housing
divisions. Mr. Marrs asked why they would take water and dump it into the river when it could be used for other
sources. Mr. Leaf explained that they are dealing with two different systems, the South Platte River and
Salubial Aquifer are interconnected which brings up the issue of augmentation for gravel pit evaporation losses
or any use were they expose the shallow unconfined ground water, which pursuant to the Colorado Water Law
that it be augmented and treated just like a water right on the river and treated in priority. The water which they
are talking about in Laramie Foxhills aquifer, is part of the Denver Basin water which is approximately 700 to
900 feet down, is a confined aquifer under pressure and water that is no way connected with the South Platte
River.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
November 4, 1997
Page 7
Mr. Vaad discussed adding condition Si referring to an augmentation plan should in fact be a substitute supply
plan after the lake is in place. Lee Morrison stated that the the substitute supply plan is done administratively
with the state engineer and renewed annually. The augmentation is done through court and is approved and
is permanent, and either of these permits satisfy Colorado Water Law in terms of guaranteeing protection to
other water users. The Planning Department needs to be provided evidence that they are in compliance.
Mr. Tuttle feels that they are not asking for the ski lake in question, but for the mining operation application in
question, and do not want a condition stating that Hall -Irwin be responsible for submitting a augmentation which
is a use by right, but would be willing to provide a substitute supply plan for the Planning Department.
Rusty Tucker explained how he understood Ms. Dersham's concern, but did not feel that the augmentation is
the owners obligation and does not pertain to the application before them. Arlan Marrs feels it does pertain
because they are giving them the permit to mine the gravel.
Mike Geranumas, spoke against the application because of the corruption it could cause the crops that he
takes care of for Ms. Dersham. He spoke about the crops and the dependancy they have on the water table.
By the table lowering or raising it could kill the crops. He also had concerns on the slurry wall and the damage
it could have on getting water to the trees. Marie Koolstra asked Mr. Geranumas how the ski lake is going to
effect watering of the crops if the water source is far south from them. Mr. Geranumas feels that the ground
water will enter downhill getting into the roots. Glenn asked Lee Morrison what protection there was if the land
was harmed by the water. Mr. Morrison said that there would need to be proof and evidence for the Board to
take into consideration along with other issues.
Again Ms. Dersham requested that Mr. Bauer provide proof that there would be no damages and have
concrete proof of this by sampling the specific well and having studies done for the permit. Ms. Dersham asked
if there could be an extension of time to gather water samples and other information on the ski lake to be
analyzed.
Jeff Gregg, Hall -Irwin Construction, has had an extensive study done on water rights to plants, trees and
bushes through their water attorney, and it has been found that no tree or bush has a right to the ground water,
but anyone wishing to farm needs to have water rights to irrigate crops.
Mr. Vaad addressed Ms. Dershams concerns on the Planning Commission providing assurance ahead of time.
Mr. Vaad did not feel it appropriate to the Board to consider specifics, but could address some stipulations into
the Conditions of Approval.
Ms. Dersham then asked the Board if they could have this project be phase two to give her enough time to
gather the information she needs. Lee Morrison addressed the question by telling the Board they cannot
change the phasing and that they need to act on the application before them, and Hall -Irwin would need to
change the phasing.
Rusty Tucker stated that the lake water was more in question than the actual application before them, and
questions what is in the Boards jurisdiction and the States, and asked if Hall -Irwin is going to have to go
through the whole process again if denied by the Board. Lee Morrison stated that the Commissioners would
have to deny it, and then they would have to go through a new process of first proving their next application
was substantially changed and go through an amended Special Use process all over again.
Ms. Dersham then asked on the notification process for her as a surrounding property owner. Shani Eastin
explained that it is mailed first class mail, and it is also publicized. Shani then wanted to clarify to the Board
that whether this application included the ski lake area or not, the applicant could in fact stock pile the material
from the lake onto his property. By including the lake, it at least provides the County some control limitations
or measure imposed upon it.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
November 4, 1997
Page 8
Peter Bauer, spoke to the Board expressing that he feels they have done everything right up to this application,
they do have a permit for the lake, and are also concerned on the water quality. The use for the ski lake will
be more of a secondary purpose with the primary purpose being the raising of fish. If the water was bad, the
fish they would be raising would also be harmed. They have had tests on the water done by the Weld County
Hearth Department. He then explained the sodium bicarbonate concern and the mixing of the different waters.
Robert Sakata, surrounding property owner, stated he has developed 840 acres of vegetable land, which joins
the proposed gravel pit. Mr. Sakata is familiar with the gravel pits that Hall -Irwin are involved with, and
explained that they have always corrected damages that the mining has done to his wells. He explained what
happened to his wells when the mining first took place. He is certain that Hall -Irwin will be good neighbors and
work with the property owners. Mr. Sakata did ask the Board if there was a stipulation that could be put in that
Hall -Irwin will take care of any damages, or should they do this individually. Arlan Marrs read Condition of
Approval 5g, and asked Mr. Sakata if this addressed his concerns. Mr. Sakata then asked if these conditions
were not meet, what recourse they had. Lee Morrison explained that the County could revoke the permit, and
if this was not enough, they would have to obtain private legal action. Mr. Marrs again asked if he was
comfortable with the explanation. Mr. Sakata stated that he would have to take the word of the engineers and
trust they would take care of any damages.
Sarah Mumford, surrounding property owner, expressed concerns on the traffic and the acceleration and
deceleration lanes. Don Carroll addressed the question by explaining that the acceleration and deceleration
lanes will be set up through State standards which will be the length of the deceleration lane plus the tapper.
If there are houses between the lanes, they try to incorporate the driveways within the paved section. The
applicant provided in the application on the plat, the length and tapper, width and depth of asphalt, which will
then be addressed by the Public Works Department. Ms. Mumford also has a concern of trucks sitting in the
entrance, which sits close to her driveway. Don explained that they have stated that a stipulation could be
added that there is no parking or staging allowed adjacent to the county road. Gary Tuttle explained that they
do not intend to park in the deceleration lane and the lane will be approximately 350 feet, which may not reach
Ms. Mumfords property.
Carl Agburger, spoke for the application, stating that the project will be beneficial as far as the land that can
be used as an aggregate mining close to Brighton and keeping cost down for planning and development in the
County. Mr. Agburger as seen other gravelpits done by Hall -Irwin and feel that have phenomenal reclamation
plans in place that have been completed and in a timely manner.
George Hall, President of Hall -Irwin, gave a history of slurry walls and the experience they have had with them.
Mr. Hall believes they have been very successful with the walls. He explained on their reclamation procedures
and the awards they have received for the slurry walls and that they leave the sites as an asset to the
environment. He also said that if there is any damage that they will make it right. Mr. Hall believes that Ms.
Dersham thinks that they are guilty and that they have to prove themselves innocent without any proof of being
guilty.
The Chairman asked Mr. Tuttle to approach the Board. Condition 5i will be added to say that the applicant shall
supply a copy of the substitute supply plan to the Department of Planning Services. Shani asked to change
the wording in the application of Ski Lake, to be the Lake involved in phase one.
Development Standard #15, with subsequential renumbering, would be added to say no staging or parking of
sand or gravel trucks shall be allowed on Weld County Road 2 (168th Avenue). The Chairman asked Mr.
Tuttle if he was in agreement with the changes in the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards. Mr.
Tuttle stated that he was in agreement.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
November 4, 1997
Page 9
Rusty Tucker explained on how he understood the concerns on the quality of water. But feels he has to go
along with what the engineers have stated and except their testimony.
Arlan Marrs talked about how he believes Hall -Irwin has been a good neighbor and they take the necessary
steps to take care of any damages caused by the slurry wall, which he feels will probably work. He also
addressed the concerns of Ms. Dersham and feels that the issues are more state issues.
Stephan Mokray moved that Case USR-1172 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners, along with
the changes in the Conditions of Approval and Developmental Standards and the Planning Commissions
approval. Marie Koolstra seconded the motion..
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Glenn
Vaad, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Marie Koolstra, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Rusty Tucker, yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: USR-1160
PLANNER: Gloria Dunn
APPLICANT: Coors Energy Company
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and 2nd amended Special Review Permit (SUP -386) to allow
the disposal of mine waste rock in an existing solid waste (ash) disposal facility and surface
coal mining operation.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parts of Sections 25 and 36, all in T3N, R64W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
LOCATION: Approximately four miles north of Weld County Road 18 and approximately four miles east
of Weld County Road 49.
Gloria Dunn, Department of Planning Services, explained the process the application goes through which
includes the amendment of an existing Certificate of Designation, and gave an overview of the history of this
case and the plans for the addition of the disposal of materials which fall under the definition of mine waste
rock, along with the disposal of ash. The current parameters set for the acceptance of waste on the site are
maximum of 100 cubic yards of ash per day, a maximum of 33,000 tons of mine waste rock per year, with a
life span of 15 years or less for the operation. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval
of case USR-1160.
Doug Jamison, Project Coordinator from the Solid Waste Section of the Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment, represented the applicant, and was asked by Glenn Vaad why the State was involved with
the project. Mr. Jamison explained the State was involved as part of the review of the Certificate of Designation
along with the Weld County Health Department.
Arlan Marrs inquired where the mine waste was coming from and Mr. Jamison explained that there is a small
mine near Idaho Springs on the Forest Service Land, which is a combination of rock and the residual waste
of the actual digging.
Stephan Mokray asked Don Carroll about the current 25 trips per day over a 45 day period and wanted to know
how this could be controlled, how it will be monitored, and what assurance is there that they will not exceed
that amount. Don explained that if they do exceed this they will have to fall back on the previous application
, Amended SUP -386, which requires the applicant to place an additional two inches of asphalt on the haul road.
Don suggested written documentation on truck loads per day or by physically placing someone on site to
monitor the amount of loads.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
November 4, 1997
Page 10
Rusty Tucker asked if the applicant has to provide manifest with this type of material to the Health Department
on records of number of trips per day. Trevor Jiricek, Weld County Health Department, explained that they do
not have to provide manifest per say, but do have available on site records of trips per day coming through the
gate and can predict based on the source of coal how many trips they are going to have per day, per month
and per year and also they provide an annual reclamation report which identifies the amount of ash or mine
waste that will be disposed.
George Daserki, applicant, did not wish to add any comments but did provide a brief presentation to the Board
along with Ben Doty, a Consultant Engineer for Coors. They explained the history of the mine and the current
use and the process they go through to mine the coal to the disposal of material. Mr. Daserki explained their
plan of the disposal of the waste rock and the plan of incasing it in the ash.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
The Chairman then asked Mr. Daperski if they were in agreement with the Conditions of Approval and
Development Standards. Mr. Daperski stated that yes he was.
Stephan Mokray moved that case USR-1160, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation for
approval. Arlan Marrs seconded the Motion.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Glenn
Vaad, yes; Arlan Marrs, yes; Marie Koolstra, yes; Stephan Mokray, yes; Rusty Tucker, yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
CASE NUMBER: Ordinance 147-L
PLANNER: Kerni Keithley
REQUEST: Amendment to the Weld County Comprehensive Plan
Kerri Keithley explained that this request is for an amendment to an agricultural goal and policy, specifically
A.Goal 3 and A.Policy 3 in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. Staff is proposing in this amendment, the
addition of the phrase "urban scale" when referring to residential development in the A (Agricultural) zone
district. Ms. Keithley reminded the Planning Commission members that when they were reviewing the:Planned
Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance last month, staff introduced the definition of urban scale development to
mean development exceeding five (5) lots and/or located in close proximity to existing developments. Staff
is proposing the addition of "urban scale" to A.Goal 3 and A.Policy 3, to further clarify that staff discourages
residential development over the intensity of five (5) lots (urban scale) when it is proposed not adjacent to
municipalities. Kerri Keithley further explained that what staff is basically trying to do with this is proposing the
addition of urban scale development to read that "staff would discourage urban scale residential, commercial
and industrial development which is not adjacent to existing incorporated municipalities" to A.Goal 3, and
similarly that the conversion of agricultural land to urban scale residential is also something that is discouraged
outside of municipalities comprehensive plan area or urban growth boundary. This also clarifies that the
subdivision of land such as through the recorded exemption process is not considered to be urban scale
development.
Marie Koolstra read from the recommendation that "it is further intended to minimize the incompatibilities that
occur between uses in the agricultural district and districts that allow urban type uses." She asked Ms. Keithley
to explain how this could occur. Kerni Keithley reminded Ms. Koolstra that this statement is currently in the
Comprehensive Plan and explained that it intends to say that conversion of the agricultural land to urban scale
development is something that should occur in a timely manner, and incompatibilities do exist when
subdivisions of an urban scale choose to locate next to an agricultural area. It is a policy of the County that
developers should locate near municipalities to avoid some of that incompatibility.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
November 4, 1997
Page 11
Arlan Marrs asked Kern Keithley how staff discourages applicants if they don't want to be discouraged from
urban scale development. Ms. Keithley cited the Comprehensive Plan as a tool used in determining if the
proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. There is a wide range of criteria that staff
looks at when reviewing applications.
Glen Vaad asked about the process involved in bringing this amendment before the Planning Commission and
how much communication with the public has there been. Kerri Keithley stated that by including the urban
scale residential policy in the Comprehensive Plan, it gives staff a better definition for the review process and
ensures compatibility between other existing ordinances. A press release, as well as a legal notice was sent
to inform the public of the proposed amendment. Monica Daniels -Mika also explained that several years ago
the definition for minor subdivision included six (6) lots and there was a revision made that six (6) lots was too
intense. It was determined that five (5) lots met the definition of non -urban development. Since that time staff
has been using this as a guideline going back to the minor subdivision as saying that it meets the requirement.
It wasn't until the County started working on intergovernmental agreements and trying to communicate to other
municipalities that staff really started trying to define it.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this amendment.
No one wished to speak.
Stephen Mokray moved that the amendment to Ordinance 147-L (Comprehensive Plan) be forwarded to the
Board of County Commissioners with the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval. Rusty Tucker
seconded the motion.
Rusty Tucker commented that he felt this could be controversial because the property owners feel that they
have a right to do what they wanton their own property. However, the County has an obligation to consider
how much we keep spending on public services with development occurring throughout the County.
Marie Koolstra stated that she wonders if the County has some kind of a comprehensive idea of what they want
the County to look like at some point in time. She explained that she thinks a lot of the planning has been out
of control. If one property owner can have five houses then the adjacent property owner should have the same
choices. Kern Keithley addressed this concern by reading the following into the record: "Urban -scale
development to mean developments exceeding five (5) lots and/or located in close proximity to existing PUD's,
subdivisions, municipal boundaries, urban growth corridors and boundaries". She explained that staff
understands that if one property owner says they want five lots this is not urban scale. However, if the adjacent
property owner builds five lots also, then the overall intensity is ten (10) lots adjacent to each other and staff
does feel that this is more intense and would look at different ways to mitigate that intensity such as paving the
roads, etc.
Arlan Marrs stated that he doesn't like the overall idea of forcing development adjacent to existing
municipalities. He doesn't feel this is a sound, long term planning objective. Mr. Marrs stated that it probably
is cheaper to provide utilities, however, if development could occur that was not adjacent to a municipality and
the developer wanted to put the expense forward to provide the utilities and pass that cost on to his customers,
he ought to be able to do that. Mr. Marrs further stated that if you look at the history of this county and the way
it was developed, communities were placed in areas where there was water and agricultural lands. Every time
a community grows, they take out the best agricultural lands. If we continue to develop around existing
municipalities, then the best agricultural lands are being taken away.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Arlan
Marrs - no; Mane Koolstra - yes; Stephen Mokray - yes; Rusty Tucker - yes; Glenn Vaad - yes. Motion carried.
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
November 4, 1997
Page 12
CASE NUMBER: Ordinance 191-A
PLANNER: Kerri Keithley
REQUEST: Amendment to the Mixed Use Development Structural Plan
Kerri Keithley explained that this amendment proposes the following verbiage as an addition to the
Transportation section of the plan: "Consistent with the urban -scale development standards in the MUD area,
all parking areas for commercial, industrial development shall be paved according to geometric and road
structure design standards. Ms. Keithley further explained that the geometric and road standards are listed
in the MUD Plan. This is a clarification requiring paving parking areas to meet urban standards.
Rusty Tucker wanted to ensure that this would only apply to new development. Ms. Keithley said yes. Glenn
Vaad reiterated that this requirement would only apply in the MUD. Discussion followed regarding the definition
of parking areas.
Monica Daniels -Mika explained that when an application is submitted for review, the Public Works Department
participates in the review and looks at the impacts to the area.
Drew Scheltinga, explained that you just have to use "good sense" when you are reviewing the proposals.
When you have an urban impact and generates a lot of traffic, certain paving requirements will be required.
A reasonable plan will be implemented when working with the individual application. The requirement has to
be tempered with a little common sense.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this amendment.
No one wished to speak.
Rusty Tucker moved that the amendment to Ordinance 191-A (Mixed Use Development -MUD- Ordinance)
be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning Commission's recommendation for
approval.
The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Arlan
Marrs - no; Marie Koolstra - yes; Stephen Mokray - yes; Rusty Tucker - yes; Glenn Vaad - yes. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Wendi Inloes
Secretary
Hello