HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTERLING SPECIAL REVIEW - COUNTY REFERRAL - 40-88 - DECISION - OTHER JURISDICTIONSFILE COPY
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
4. All development, operation, and reclamation of the areas included in the
plan shall be accomplished in accordance with the plan, unless conditions
previously established by Larimer County would conflict with the plan.
3�-- 4+�e- app}#carts--snail- respen�-irt-+rritirrcr-wrttrin--90--daysto-each-of-the-
eenee-r-ns- exptes9ed--by--the•--Fort-co}}i-ny-Parksnnd--"creat-iort-Depar-tment-trrthe-
i e bl-e-r- d a tred- d enuer y-24,- � 98$:-
ROLL CALL VOTE:
Yes: Commissioners Johnson, Vanfiorn, Moore, Buell, Reiss.
No: None.
ITEMS:
ITEM 12: STERLING SPECIAL REVIEW IZ-46-87
STAFF REPORT:
Jerry White, Zoning Administrator, informed the Commission that this was a
request for approval for a 59 acre sand and gravel extraction pit which is an
expansion of the 45 acre pit that was approved in 1985, adjoining on the south
in the FA -Farming Zoning District. Access would remain where it was approved
with the previous pit --south of the Poudre River off of North Taft Hill Road,
and location of batch plants would not change. Mining would not begin until the
current Seaworth Pit is mined out, about 1992. Reclamation would result in a
large pond on the site. Other concerns were:
1. Impact on the residential area just to the east of this property.
2. Location of the crusher which will move with the mining operation creating
some noise impact on the residential areas.
3. Landscaping screening suggested to be done this year so it will be
well -developed by the time mining starts in 1992.
4. County Health Department has no objection as they have all the air and water
permits required.
5. Fort Collins Planning Department recommended approval and did not suggest
any offsite road improvements because the impact is not increasing and
mitigation would be difficult to determine.
i
6. County Engineering Department indicated it was unclear from the application
whether the pit would be operating when the current pit was closed or
simultaneously. Sterling indicated there would be no increase in traffic.
7. Major concerns by residents of the area presented after Staff Report was
completed: a) decline in ground water levels b) dewatering into Poudre; c)
dust, odor, noise, and property value impacts; d) operating hours violations; e)
poor reclamation; f) crusher locations g) traffics and h) view impact.
STAFF FINDINGS:
1. The proposal complies with the intent and purposes of the Comprehensive
Zoning Resolution, Comprehensive Plan, and mineral extraction policies.
2. with the conditions noted, the proposal is compatible with surrounding land
uses.
3. The proposal would not impair the public health, welfare, prosperity, or
safety by creating undesirable traffic congestion, undesirable sanitary
conditions, overburdening of utilities or adverse environmental influences in
the area.
N? 1547
0 0
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
4. There is no information which indicates that land values in the area would
be affected by the proposed use if developed and operated in accordance with
suggested conditons.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY:
Mike Refer, respresentative for the applicant, indicated that mining is an
inconvenience but a necessity, and that a good faith effort would be made to
resolve any conflicts.
Lucia Liley, attorney representing surrounding property owners, expressed some
of their concerns with noise, dust, property owner rights, rock crusher
operation hours, inadequate landscaping plan and maintenance, crusher location,
decline in ground water level and property values. In summary, she requested
tabling this item for 30 days because there was not enough information to
recommend approval.
Stacy Miller, homeowner at 2202-1/2 North Taft Hill Road expressed opposition to
the proposal. He indicated concerns with regard to unrenewable source of ground
water, increasing dust, noise, air particulates, and the residential development
becoming an island in a sea of mining.
Bill Waldo, 410 Tedman Drive, owner of a house at 2202 North Taft Hill expressed
his concerns about the lowering of the water table, views, clean air, quality of
life being in jeopardy and opposed the request, asking staff to analyze the
problems.
Bill Seaworth, 2305 North Taft Hill, property owner and president of Taylor -Gill
Ditch, stated his concern with drop in lake level which would be a detriment to
his business and also requested a 150-foot setback from his property line by
Sterling. He indicated he would have no opposition to the proposal as long as
these concerns were addressed.
Bill Martin, D.V.M., 2200 North Taft Hill, expressed concerns about water
levels, dust pollution (especially during high winds which would affect his
business), noise and property value impacts.
Steve Coolman, 2240 North Taft Hill, property owner directly across from
operation, asked for denial of proposal and conveyed his concerns about lack of
underground water, property values, and health problems with regard to son's
asthma because of dust.
Mrs. Darwin Roe, 2320 North Taft Hill stated she would like to go on record
opposing the proposal for the same reasons mentioned by other property owners.
Mike Refer answered the following concerns:
1. Landscaping would be planted as soon as frost is out of the ground.
2. With regard to operating hours, no notification was received from property
owners of operation out of regulation hours.
3. A future reclamation plan will be detailed using same guidelines as other
properties.
4. Traffic is less than in 1985 when a Traffic Study was done.
5. As Ear as property values, there has been no other interest in the property
other than mining, and they are purchasing for the future.
6. Water would be mitigated through ditch water. the 1985 Proposal mitigated
wells and water rights, not the water table.
N4 1548
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
7. Mr. Seaworth's request for a 150' setback from the house is no problem.
8. Dust problems will be mitigated, but when winds are 80 mph, not much can be
done.
9. Noise level of crusher should drop as it moves west following face of
mining.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Moore commented that the proposal needs additional safeguards built
into the conditions if approved. and that the livelihood of at least two people
will be affected indicating a substantial impact.
Commissioner Van Horn indicated the staff needed to enlarge upon the conditions
of approval.
Commissioner Keiss indicated that different considerations were necessary from
past approvals.
MOTION:
Commissioner Moore moved to recommend denial of the Sterling Special Review
1Z-46-67.
Commissioner Van Horn seconded the motion.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
Yes: Commissioners Johnson, Keiss, Van Horn, and Moore.
Abstain: Commissioner Buell.
Jerry White suggested to the Commissioners that they make some findings related
to their decision:
1. The proposal does not comply with the intent and purposes of the
Comprehensive Zoning Resolution and the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposal is incompatible with the surrounding land uses.
3. The proposal may impair the public health, welfare, prosperity or safety by
creating undesirable traffic congestion, undesirable environmental conditions.
4. There is the potential that the proposal may negatively affect land values
in the area.
Henry Baker, Planning Director, suggested striking the reference to traffic.
ITEM 13: CORBYN SPECIAL REVIEW
STAFF REPORT:
Jerry White, Zoning Administrator, conveyed that this this is a request to build
a kennel for up to 26 dogs and also some indoor kennel for cats and the
establishment of a grooming, training and boarding business. The original
application tabled from last month was for 55 dogs, and has been substantially
reduced from what was originally proposed.
STAFF FINDINGS:
1. Under the conditions noted, the proposal complies with the intent and
purposes of the Zoning Resolution and Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
2. Under the conditions noted, the proposal is generally compatible with
N? 1549