2000-06-16_PERMIT FILE - M2000002 (5)

Home Browse Search

since, in the absence of a land use approval, the Boazd's action cannot, by definition, be contrary to it. B. Commerce City -Planning Department Statement oflssue: Whether the proposed land uses of mining, water storage, and wetlands are consistent with Commerce City's and Adams County's comprehensive land use plan jor residential use of the proposed affected land. 1. The element of the City's objection related to the Adams County Comprehensive Plan should be deleted from the £nal Pre-Hearing Order because it was only introduced after the close of the public comment period. The City's objection was first articulated during the public comment period in a letter dated March 13, 2000. The public comment period closed on March 14, 2000. At that time, the objection did not mention the Adams County Comprehensive Plan. In addition, questions regarding the Adams County plan were not raised within the 5-day period allotted subsequent to the informal conference for parties to submit additional comments (i.e., by April 3, 2000). It was only at the Pre-Hearing Conference that the City raised the question regarding the County's plan and, even then, it is not at all cleaz that the City even mentioned the County plan as posing some potential obstacle to the project. The City's objection should therefore be restated to delete the reference to the Adams County Comprehensive Plan. To confirm for the Board, Adams County is not a party to this proceeding, and the statement of the objection in the draft Order oversteps the objection that was timely made during the public comment period. MPC is in the process of obtaining a Conditional Use Permit from Adams County, the entity best suited to evaluate its Comprehensive Plan relative to MPC's request to mine the Tanabe property. 2. Commerce City lacks jurisdiction over the Tanabe property because it is located in unincorporated Adams County. In his letter dated March 13, 2000 to DMG staff, the Commerce City Planning Manager asserted that: "Commerce City's Comprehensive Plan has designated the azea between East 104' and East 112a' Avenues and Brighton Boulevard and US 85 for future residential and retail uses. ... We believe that allowing a gravel operation within this azea is a mistake and incompatible with residential uses." The Tanabe Property is located outside the City's jurisdiction in unincorporated Adams Cotmty. Adams County is not a party to these proceedings, and MPC is unawaze of Adams County filing any objection to MPC's application. Adams County has zoned the Tanabe Property for agricultural and industrial uses. The City's objection does not provide the Boazd grounds for denying MPC's application. See Section 34-32.5-115(4), C.R.S. 5