HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTERLING SPECIAL REVIEW - COUNTY REFERRAL - 40-88 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESa
I
STERLING SPECIAL REVIEW - County Referral - 40-88
Sherry Albertson -Clark gave the staff description of this gravel extraction
proposal on a 58 acre site.
Mike Refer, Sterling Sand and Gravel employee, asked the City Attorney what
the County Referral process was. He was concerned as Sterling had no
requests from the City for additional information regarding this project and,
therefore, no input from the applicant. He was at the meeting, he thought,
because of Item 8.
Sherry Albertson -Clark noted it was in the area of joint planning concern and
automatically referred to City for review. Staff had seen this item for the
first time in March and worked with the County staff to obtain information.
Mr. Frank added it was referred to the City because of potential impact and
the Planning and Zoning Board would make a recommendation to the County.
Mr. Refer asked what staff recommendation was.
Sherry Albertson -Clark responded staff was recommending approval with two
conditions: 1) That Taft Hill Road be monitored and if maintenance is neces-
sary the applicant will be responsible. 2) That signage for truck traffic and
speed be installed by the applicant.
Mr. Refer wondered where in the process the project was. He noted that no
recommendation had been passed on to the applicant prior to this meeting. He
asked for a continuance in order to check on Sterling's response toward the
Taft Hill maintenance condition.
Chairman Edwards stated the Board decision was only a recommendation to the
County and Sterling can respond at the County review. .-
Mr. Refer interjected that Elaine Spencer at the County had no traffic
concerns.
Chairman Edwards asked legal opinion on tabling. Paul Eckman responded
that applicant can request tabling and so can the Board. Our next meeting
will be July 25 and the-=County's next meeting will be July 27 making a
very short preparation time for the County. There were also a number of
Planning and ZoninlRoard Meeting - June 27, 1988 is
Page 8
citizens at this meeting who wished to hear this item. Member Crews felt the
people present should have the opportunity to talk.
Sherry Albertson -Clark stated the City
and believed there was no ultimate end
stated a complete, detailed analysis had
may have additional information since
1950's) of gravel extraction.
had no specific stand on improvements
user to approach for improvements. She
been presented although some neighbors
there was a lengthy history (since the
Lucia Liley, represented six property owners, introduced Stacy Miller, property
owner. Lucia replied their group also got no information regarding the project
although they've been dealing with Sterling on this project 4-5 months.
Stacy Miller, 2202 1/2 N. Taft Hill, spokesperson for the group gave a history
of the property indicating that Sterling was not even the owner of the
property in this proposal. Also the property is within 100 feet of a property
owners' front door and all of the groups' properties face this new piece of
land (in 1985 review none of their properties faced the subject proposal).
She then spoke of each piece of property, effects of the proposed project on
each piece of property, and their joint concerns regarding the decline in
quality of life, decreased property values, effect on individual occupants,
water problems, reclamation, etc., and showed slides of each property.
Lucia Liley indicated this was the group's fourth hearing and they have at
least two more to attend. She indicated it has been a frustrating time with
the applicant withdrawing, making unfilled promises to meet with the group,
etc. The earlier special review was allowed because the proposal was seen as
being harmonious, not having a detrimental effect on the neighborhood, no
negative effect on property values, and no adverse environmental factors. This
proposal, however, is different. There was an impact on neighboring properties
with noise and visible pollution plus a cumulative impact from all combined
projects. Shp added- the applicant does not have a good track record either;
their hours of operations were long (5am - 9pm), landscaping was not installed
in a timely manner, etc. She passed out a handout from Dr. Stephen Ackley,
Department of Audiology at Colorado State University, regarding the noise
levels of the machines used (Attachment 2) and a handout on landscape review
by a forester (Attachment 3). Sterling's way to mitigate loss of water was by
taking from the ditch and the group's engineers and the group had a consul-
tant review the groundwater problems (Attachment 4). In addition, Don
Shannon, appraiser, indicated there would be a substantial decrease in property
value as a result of this proposal. Lucia asked staff to recommend denial of
the project.
Sherry noted the City had not previously seen the neighborhood information.
Staff basis for compatibility was on land usq. and Sterling's commitments to
buffering, and limited traffic impact.
Member Crews stated in good conscience he could not vote for the project and
moved to recommend denial. Member Strom seconded.
6
Planning and Zoning Board Meeting - June 27, 19880
Page 9
Member Kern added he would vote for denial also because of the information
submitted regarding noise and mitigation was insufficient. The applicant has
not provided information to refute Ackley's findings. Member Strom agreed
there were serious questions with noise and the material submitted by the
applicant did not indicate enough buffering.
Chairman Edwards indicated City was more restrictive than the County but
mining was not harmonious, in fact the project fails on all four counts.
Motion to recommend denial was approved 5-0.
Member Strom moved to adjourn the meeting until July 11 when the Westside
Neighborhood Plan would be heard. Member Crews seconded. Motion carried
5-0. Meeting was adjourned 9:55 p.m.
V