HomeMy WebLinkAbout20251260.tiffSummary of the Weld County Planning Commission Meeting
Tuesday, April 1, 2025
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Weld County Administration
Building, Hearing Room, 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado. This meeting was called to order by Chair
Butch White, at 1:30 p.m.
Roll Call
Present: Barney Hammond, Butch White, Michael Biwer, Michael Palizzi, Michael Wailes, Virginia
Guderjahn
Absent: Cindy Beemer
Also Present: Diana Aungst and Maxwell Nader, Department of Planning Services, Karin McDougal,
County Attorney, and Kris Ranslem, Secretary.
Motion: Approve the March 4, 2025 Weld County Planning Commission minutes, Moved by Michael
Palizzi, Seconded by Barney Hammond. Motion passed unanimously.
Case Number: COZ24-0008
Applicant: Suzanne Lilly, Gerry Ball, and Patricia Conlon
Planner: Diana Aungst
Request: Change of Zone from the R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zone District to the A
(Agricultural) Zone District.
Legal Description: E1/2SW1/4 and the W1/2SE1/4 of Section 24; and Lot B of Recorded Exemption
RE -2485, being part of the E1/2NW1/4 of Section 25, all located in Township 6
North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location: East of and adjacent to County Road 35 (35"' Avenue); north and south of AA
Street (County Road 66).
Diana Aungst, Planning Services, presented Case COZ24-0008, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Ms. Aungst stated that the applicant is proposing to change the zone from R-1
to Agricultural on two parcels totally approximately 234 acres. Of the 234 acres, 154 acres of those acres
are zoned R-1. The remaining 80 acres are already zoned agriculture. No correspondence or telephone
calls were received regarding this application.
Ms. Aungst provided a report from Environmental Health including reports on the public water and sanitary
sewer requirements.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application along with conditions of
approval and development standards.
Bob Choate, Coan, Payton & Payne, LLC, 1711 61. Ave, Greeley, Colorado. Mr. Choate said that these
sites have been farmland forever and is primarily agricultural land east to Highway 85. He added that this
is part of the Seeley Lake rezoning in the early 1980's and there was a lot of area that was zoned R-1 and
it just never developed. The north parcel has split zoning with half of it being R-1 and the other half is
agricultural. This change of zone will correct the split zoning on the northern parcel.
Mr. Choate stated that there is no sewer for these parcels, which is now a requirement of developing in the
R-1 zone district. He added that it is compatible with the surrounding area. Mr. Choate said that they believe
this complies with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
i
C OmMuc‘icceci��s
51 Ili Id€
2025-1260
Motion: Forward Case COZ24-0008 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval,
Moved by Virginia Guderjahn, Seconded by Michael Palizzi.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 6).
Yes: Barney Hammond, Butch White, Michael Biwer, Michael Palizzi, Michael Wailes, Virginia Guderjahn.
Case Number. USR24-0028
Applicant: David and Kayleen Hunt
Planner: Diana Aungst
Request: Use by Special Review Permit for Open Mining (topsoil) in the A (Agricultural) Zone
District.
Legal Description: Part of the NE1/4; and Part of the S1/2, lying east and south of the right-of-way of
the Farmers Independent Ditch, both located in Section 29, Township 4 North,
Range 66 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location: North of and adjacent to County Road 40; west of and adjacent to County Road
29.
Diana Aungst, Planning Services, presented Case USR24-0028, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Ms. Aungst stated that the north cell will be mined in year one and reclaimed
concurrent with the mining of the south cell, which will be mined between year two and year 14 and
reclaimed concurrently. In response to the adjacent properties in Gilcrest, Staff is requesting some
screening on the eastern portion of the site. Ms. Aungst noted that there a couple telephone calls were
received requesting additional information on this application.
Ms. Aungst provided a report from Environmental Health including reports on the public water and sanitary
sewer requirements, on -site dust control, noise standards and the Waste Handling Plan.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application along with conditions of
approval and development standards.
Commissioner Hammond asked if there are any setbacks from the ditch. Ms. Aungst said that the ditch
stated that they did have concerns about sediment getting into the ditch and wanted a fence around the
perimeter. She added that they requested a 20 foot buffer zone and said that the applicant will be working
with the ditch company on these requests.
Andy Rodriguez, Civil Resources, 8308 Colorado Boulevard, Firestone, Colorado, said that the site is a
triangular shape with Gilcrest to the east of the site. He added that the site is approximately 209 acres with
buffers and setbacks. The topsoil will be used to reclaim oil and gas sites throughout Weld County. The
site will be reclaimed back to cropland for agricultural use.
Mr. Rodriguez added that there are two CDOT access permits conditionally approved. Mining will be done
in 10 acre phases and life of the mine is 8 to 10 years.
Commissioner White asked if they are proposing screening that Staff recommended along the Gilcrest
boundary. Mr. Rodriguez said that it looks no different to farm ground but Mr. Hunt isn't opposed to doing
some screening and landscaping. He added that with the soil being turned there are large clumps and
clods that inhibit dust suppression.
Commissioner White asked that since it will be mined in 10 acre phases will the rest of the site be put into
grass before its mined. Mr. Rodriguez said that the rest of the site will be undisturbed and in crops.
Dave Hunt, 14460 CR 40, said that they will mine the top two to three feet and then reclaim it. He added
that he has several farms and over the years oil and gas would reclaim sites on his farms and the soil was
terrible that he couldn't grow crops on it. He said that he has better soils on other farms and also owns a
feedlot with access to manure.
2
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. Mr. Rodriguez said that they do not agree and wanted
to work with Staff with regard to some of the traffic items. He referred to one of the CDOT access permits
and added it that it had a little bit of a change and so they submitted back to CDOT changing an access
onto Highway 60 not needing an acceleration lane on Highway 60. He stated that this Access Permit has
been approved. He added that they diverted that traffic to Highway 85 without a problem.
Mr. Rodriguez said that it came to their attention last night that there is a request pave County Road 40 and
they feel it is a burden on the project. He added that Mr. Hunt has agreed to doing improvements on
Highway 85 and 60 and also has done improvements on Highway 85 and County road 40 already as part
of the soil mine across the highway. Additionally, Mr. Hunt has also done improvements on Highway 60
and Highway 85 on his gravel mine there. Mr. Rodriguez said that there is about 12 inches of millings on
County Road 40 and they feel the surface is established and should do a good job for this style of project.
Mr. Rodriguez said that there are two other comments on County Road 40 to put in auxiliary left turn lanes.
He added that the traffic study indicated that this was not necessary and they are well within the engineering
in the Weld County Code so they don't feel it is necessary.
Mike McRoberts, Development Review, referred to the revised traffic impact study and said that it shows
that 25% of the traffic will be going south on Highway 60 at County Road 40 and Highway 60 intersection
and 25°x6 of the traffic will be going north on Highway 60. Mr. McRoberts spoke with Rose Valdez, with
CDOT, this morning and added that she wasn't aware that they weren't going south on Highway 60. He
added that Ms. Valdez had originally provided Mr. McRoberts with what her requirements were for the
improvements on County Road 40 and Highway 60 and it included a southbound left turn acceleration lane
on Highway 60. Mr. McRoberts stated that Ms. Valdez had realized that she had inadvertently left that off
of the access permit for Highway 60 and County Road 40 intersection.
Mr. McRoberts said that with regard to paving County Road 40, if all the turn lanes are required according
to traffic impact study, you can't put auxiliary turn lanes on a gravel road and therefore the road would need
to be paved.
The Chair asked if Staff takes into account that it is a 10 year project. Mr. McRoberts said 10 years is a
long time and is unaware of any bearing on that.
Commissioner Wailes agreed and asked who is responsible to maintain it after Mr. Hunt's activities are
finished. Mr. McRoberts said it is a county maintained road.
The Chair asked how we proceed with this. Karin McDougal, County Attorney, said it is not in your purview
to waive conditions of approval. She said that if the applicant is not willing to agree to the conditions of
approval, then you could continue the case while they continue to work with Staff. Alternatively, if they are
willing to agree at this time to the conditions of approval with the understanding that they will continue
discussions with Staff, then there could be a recommendation of approval with that note on the record.
Mr. Rodriguez said that they received an approved access permit from CDOT per their meeting with CDOT
but believes that they can continue working with Staff on this matter. He added that he believes it is a
communication issue.
Mr. Hunt said he is frustrated as he spent a lot of time speaking to CDOT and suggested not going
southbound on 60. He believes it is a communication error and said that he is okay with approving this and
they will work with staff. Mr. Hunt added that If it costs half a million to do this project he probably won't do
it.
3
Commissioner Wailes asked if the record can show that the applicant don't agree with the conditions of
approval and the Planning Commission to approve the application as presented to them. Ms. McDougal
said she was uncomfortable moving forward with the applicant not agreeing and then still recommend
approval. She added that there can be a caveat on the applicant's part that says they do have concerns
about these conditions of approval and they will continue to work with Staff to resolve these issues. Ms.
McDougal said that there are disagreements about what needs to be done and so it may not be ready to
go in front of the County Commissioners yet.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Motion: Forward Case USR24-0028 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval,
Moved by Michael Wailes, Seconded by Barney Hammond.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 6).
Yes: Barney Hammond, Butch White, Michael Biwer, Michael Palizzi, Michael Wailes, Virginia Guderjahn.
Case Number: USR25-0001
Applicant: Wells Ranch, LLLP, Go Colorado Sand Company II, LLC
Planner: Maxwell Nader
Request: Use by Special Review Permit for Open Mining and Processing of Minerals (sand
mining and processing plant) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
Legal Description: Sections 2, 3, 10, 11, 14 and 15 in Township 5 North, and Section 34, Township 6
North, all located in Range 63 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location: Approximately 3 miles east of County Road 61; approximately 2 miles south of
County Road 68.
Maxwell Nader, Planning Services, presented Case USR25-0001, reading the recommendation and
comments into the record. Mr. Nader noted that no correspondence or telephone calls were received
regarding this application.
Mr. Nader provided a report from Environmental Health including reports on the public water and sanitary
sewer requirements, on -site dust control, noise standards, and the Waste Handling Plan.
The Department of Planning Services recommends approval of this application along with conditions of
approval and development standards.
Brady Reece, 18 Brixhem Court, Castle Pines, Colorado, stated that they sell product to frac sand
operations for oil and gas companies. The Keenesburg Plant was commissioned in 2023. He added that
all frac sand in Cobrado was coming from out of basin and essentially put on trains to travel thousands of
miles to Weld County. The Keenesburg Plant and this proposed Kersey Mine encompass all of the oil and
gas activity within a 30 mile radius and helps reduce the distance to the well head, greatly reducing the
train traffic into Weld County form out of stated sand companies. The success of the Keenesburg Plant
has driven this proposed Kersey site. The life of the mine will be 20 years.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
No one wished to speak.
The Chair asked the applicant if they have read through the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval and if they are in agreement with those. The applicant replied that they are in agreement.
Motion: Forward Case USR25-0001 to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of
Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval,
Moved by Michael Biwer, Seconded by Virginia Guderjahn.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 6).
Yes: Barney Hammond, Butch White, Michael Biwer, Michael Palizzi, Michael Wailes, Virginia Guderjahn.
4
The Chair asked the public if there were other items of business that they would like to discuss. No one
wished to speak.
The Chair asked the Planning Commission members if there was any new business to discuss. No one
wished to speak.
Meeting adjourned at 3:01 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
�\ bbru. •1 4/14L.eipt.,
Kristine Ranslem
Secretary
5
Hello