HomeMy WebLinkAbout20100334.tiff HEARING CERTIFICATION
DOCKET NO. 2010-51.A
RE: SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
#1657 FOR A MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT FACILITY, INCLUDING OPEN
PIT GRAVEL MINING AND MATERIALS PROCESSING, IN THE A(AGRICULTURAL)
ZONE DISTRICT- LAFARGE WEST, INC.
A public hearing was conducted on March 3, 2010, at 10:00 a.m., with the following present:
Commissioner Douglas Rademacher, Chair
Commissioner Barbara Kirkmeyer, Pro-Tern
Commissioner Sean P. Conway
Commissioner William F. Garcia
Commissioner David E. Long
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Jennifer VanEgdom
County Attorney, Bruce Barker
Planning Department representative, Kim Ogle
Health Department representative, Lauren Light
Public Works representative, Clay Kimmi
Public Works representative, Janet Carter
The following business was transacted:
I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated February 16, 2010, and duly published
February 18, 2010, in the Windsor Beacon, a public hearing was conducted to consider the
request of Lafarge West, Inc., for a Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review
Permit #1657 for a Mineral Resource Development Facility, including Open Pit Gravel Mining
and Materials Processing, in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. Bruce Barker, County Attorney,
made this a matter of record.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services, presented a brief summary of the proposal and
entered the favorable recommendation of the Planning Commission into the record as written.
He stated the site is located south of County Road 64.5 and adjacent to County Road 25, and is
not within an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) or Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) area. He
indicated the site is located within the three-mile referral area for the City of Greeley and Towns
of Windsor and Severance. He stated the City of Greeley has provided three referrals which
address ecological concerns, post-mining reclamation plans, and necessary improvements to
County Road 25. He stated the Town of Windsor provided a referral response containing
language regarding right-of-way and road alignment issues with County Road 64.5 and the
future O Street extension to Crossroads Boulevard, and the Town of Severance did not provide
a referral response. Mr. Ogle gave a brief description of the surrounding land uses and
confirmed there are 13 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the site. He indicated the
site consists of irrigated agricultural land, historically planted in crop, and only 202 of the
381 acres will be mined through this permit. He clarified there are no existing improvements on
the site; however, there are several oil and gas encumbrances within the permit boundary, and
the Whitney Ditch is directly adjacent to County Road 64.5. He stated this will be a dry pit mine
/n
/ 2010-0334
0 0 ; hL� f9G'c) f/2 PL2074
G -,/ I // o
HEARING CERTIFICATION - LAFARGE WEST, INC. (USR-1657)
PAGE 2
operation, with a maximum of ten employees on-site working two shifts during daylight hours,
Monday through Saturday. He clarified the materials will be mined and moved through the use
of front-end loaders and a conveyor system which will transport the resources to the appropriate
area. He further clarified the facility will not contain an asphalt or concrete batch plant, and the
site will include temporary structures such as an office trailer, aggregate processing plant,
washing plant, and the conveyor belt system. Mr. Ogle indicated the site contains a single
access on County Road 64.5 and the site reclamation will be completed in compliance with the
requirements contained within the permit issued by the Division of Reclamation, Mining, and
Safety (DRMS). He indicated the reclamation plan for the site is for eight unlined open-water
ponds of approximately 60 acres, approximately 48 acres of wetlands, and an enhanced
riparian area of approximately 186 acres. He stated the mining will be conducted within eleven
phases over the course of approximately twenty years, with approximately one million tons of
aggregate being mined each year. He reiterated all traffic associated with the site will access
on County Road 64.5, and Weld County is requiring a Long-Term Road Maintenance
Agreement. He stated 22 referral agencies reviewed the application materials, sixteen provided
comments which have been addressed within the Conditions of Approval and Development
Standards, and no comments were received from surrounding property owners; however, there
have been several telephone calls of inquiry. He confirmed staff received a letter from DRMS,
dated January 29, 2010, indicating the applicant's 112 Mining Permit has been approved, and
he displayed photographs of the site and the surrounding area. In response to Chair
Rademacher, Mr. Ogle indicated the nearest residence on the map provided and stated it is a
distance of approximately 1/2 mile from the proposed facility.
Clay Kimmi, Department of Public Works, stated the site is located south of County Road 64.5,
and both east and west of County Road 25. He clarified both County Roads 64.5 and 25 have
been annexed by the City of Greeley; however, Weld County still maintains approximately
400 feet of frontage on County Road 64.5. He indicated the most recent traffic count on County
Road 64.5 indicated an average of 2,765 vehicles per day, with the 85th percentile of speed at
59 miles per hour. He clarified the applicant originally proposed an access on County Road 25,
when it was still within the County's jurisdiction; however, when the City of Greeley annexed the
road, it was requested that the access be relocated to County Road 64.5. He indicated portions
of the site are located within the floodplain, and a portion of the site is also located within a
mapped floodway; however, there will be no buildings or structures located within either area.
He stated the applicant will obtain a Flood Hazard Development Permit, and the Final Drainage
Plan has been submitted for review by staff, which will require a few minor modifications. He
confirmed the applicant will be required to enter into a Long-Term Road Maintenance
Agreement, as well as an Improvements Agreement for the necessary improvements to the
access. In response to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Kimmi indicated the designated haul route is
County Road 64.5, east to 83rd Avenue, and then north or south; however, approximately
fifteen percent of the overall traffic is expected to travel west on County Road 64.5. Further
responding to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Kimmi indicated he is unsure whether the City of Greeley
is requiring the applicant to enter into a Maintenance Agreement. In response to Commissioner
Kirkmeyer, Mr. Kimmi reiterated both County Roads 64.5 and 25 were annexed by the City of
Greeley; however, the majority of the haul route is under the County's jurisdiction. Further
responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Kimmi confirmed the City annexed the roads in
conjunction with a flagpole annexation for two properties within the immediate area, and he
indicated the traffic count for County Road 25 is approximately 97 vehicles per day. In response
2010-0334
PL2024
HEARING CERTIFICATION - LAFARGE WEST, INC. (USR-1657)
PAGE 3
to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Kimmi confirmed the traffic count for County Road 64.5 was taken in
July, 2009, and the count for County Road 25 was taken in November, 2008. Responding to
Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Kimmi indicated it was not made clear to him why the City
requested the access be moved from County Road 25 to County Road 64.5.
Lauren Light, Department of Public Health and Environment, stated the site will be served with
potable water from the North Weld County Water District, and the applicant intends to install a
septic system for the office trailer. She indicated the Dust Abatement Plan has been approved,
and the Waste Handling Plan has been submitted; however, staff is requesting additional
information. She stated noise at the site will be restricted to the levels allowed within the
Industrial Zone District, and the applicant intends to utilize shroud covers on the equipment to
help mitigate noise. She indicated an Air Emissions Permit, Stormwater Discharge Permit, and
Aboveground Storage Tank Permit will all be required prior to operation. She confirmed the
Department does not have any outstanding concerns regarding the application, and the
applicant has worked diligently to address many of the issues before today's hearing date.
Jennifer Vecchi, Vecchi and Associates, represented the applicant and introduced others in
attendance, including Anne Best-Johnson, Sonia Stephens, and Emily Waldron of Lafarge, Pam
Hora of TetraTech, Mark Severin, Hydrologist, and Gene Coppola, Traffic Engineer. She
clarified when the application process began over two years ago, the access to the site was
originally located on County Road 64.5, and it has been the intention of Lafarge, since the
beginning of the application, to utilize County Road 64.5. She further clarified during
discussions with staff from the Department of Public Works, it was requested that the feasibility
of utilizing County Road 25 be evaluated. She stated staff indicated the proposed access on
County Road 25 would be acceptable, and at that time, the City of Greeley began the
annexation process, therefore, it was requested that the access be relocated to County
Road 64.5. Ms. Vecchi reviewed a PowerPoint presentation, marked Exhibit E, and confirmed
the team has worked closely with the Colorado Division of Wildlife to develop the reclamation
plan for the site. She reviewed specifics of the Lafarge West, Inc., company organization and
the vicinity map, indicating the Whitney Ditch is located to the north of the site and she
confirmed the applicant is in the process of finalizing the necessary agreement for the ditch
crossing. She indicated the floodplain runs along the southern portion of the site, and a
conveyor belt system will be utilized, in order to minimize truck traffic throughout the site. She
explained that 20 to 40 acres of land will be mined at one time, and it is intended that mining
operations will proceed in phases, while reclamation of the finished phase is completed. She
indicated the company was encouraged to expand the river corridor and minimize the affected
amount of surface acreage. Ms. Vecchi reviewed the reclamation plan for the property, which
includes unlined ponds, 50 acres of wetlands, river corridor enhancement, and re-vegetation.
She further reviewed the property owners and the oil and gas companies currently doing
business on the site, and she confirmed there are signed agreements with each of the oil and
gas companies. She clarified the expected expansion of 0 Street bisects the property, and the
proper amount of land has already been reserved for this road project. She indicated the
washing and crushing operations will take place within the plant on the northeast portion of the
site, and the plant will be located on the site for the entire duration of the mine, which is
expected to be approximately 20 years. She confirmed a berm will be constructed surrounding
the plant, and she reiterated there is only one access to the site, on County Road 64.5. She
stated the stock piles will be placed around the borders of the mining cells, and she gave a brief
2010-0334
PL2024
HEARING CERTIFICATION - LAFARGE WEST, INC. (USR-1657)
PAGE 4
explanation of the intended conveyor system and its crossings. She confirmed the proper land
reservation has been made for the proposed realignment of County Road 25, and the company
has instituted a nature setback for the eagles nest/habitat located in close proximity to the site.
She explained the restrictions set forth indicate mining may only take place two months out of
the year in this location, in order to help protect the habitat. She indicated the creation of the
smaller ponds will complement the raptor nesting area, new grass and wetland areas will be
created, and the mining activities will not disturb any of the existing wetlands. Ms. Vecchi
reviewed the phases of the mining plan, la through 5c, and confirmed the last mining phase is
located south of the river.
In response to Chair Rademacher, Ms. Vecchi indicated the draft agreement with the ditch
company has been revised, and it is now a matter of finalization by the attorneys. Further
responding to Chair Rademacher, Ms. Vecchi confirmed the ponds will not be lined, and the
Poudre River Trail runs along the southern boundary of the site. She indicated a meeting was
held with representatives the Trail Board, and there were no concerns presented. Responding
to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Ms. Vecchi indicated the amount of time required to mine a cell of
up to 40 acres will depend on market conditions and the amount of material needed; however, it
is expected that each cell will be mined and reclaimed within a two to five year period. Further
responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Ms. Vecchi indicated at any one point, up to 80 acres
could be open; up to 40 for active mining, and up to 40 being reclaimed, post-mining.
Further responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Gene Coppola, Traffic Engineer, stated the
daily vehicle trips generated by the site will vary; however, an average of 175 truck trips per day
is expected, with up to 375 truck trips during peak time periods. Commissioner Kirkmeyer
expressed her concerns regarding County Road 64.5 not being the safest road for this type of
access. Mr. Coppola indicated during the initial stages of the application process, the
requirements regarding the necessary auxiliary lanes were discussed with staff; however, the
applicant did not want to negatively impact the surrounding properties or existing improvements
within the area. He further indicated the possibility of utilizing an access on County Road 25
was investigated; however, it was determined that the access would be too close to the Loos
property. He stated the focus was once again on County Road 64.5, and the applicant worked
to minimize the impact to adjacent properties by relocating the access, and worked through the
necessary improvements with County staff. He confirmed the auxiliary lanes are designed for a
speed of 55 miles per hour, in accordance with the CDOT Access Code, and the length of the
lanes will be determined upon the conditions of the road.
No public testimony was offered concerning this matter.
In response to Chair Rademacher, Ms. Vecchi indicated there are no requested modifications to
the Resolution. Further responding to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Ogle reiterated the hours of
operation are daylight hours, Monday through Saturday. Chair Rademacher indicated
Development Standard #23 states no more than ten employees may be on the site, and he
suggested the applicant address the anticipated future need for number of employees. In
response to Ms. Vecchi, Ms. Light confirmed the number of employees on the site will dictate
the size of the septic system to be constructed. After discussion among the applicant's
representatives, Ms. Vecchi requested a modification of Development Standard #23 to indicate
sixteen (16) employees.
2010-0334
PL2024
HEARING CERTIFICATION - LAFARGE WEST, INC. (USR-1657)
PAGE 5
Commissioner Kirkmeyer indicated she still has major concerns regarding the traffic at the site,
especially with issues of safety. She questioned why County Road 64.5 has been determined
to be the best access by the applicant and why the County concurs with an access on this road
instead of County Road 25. In response to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Barker indicated the County
has the ability to create additional specific requirements concerning the road improvements/
access for the applicant to address as Conditions of Approval. He clarified, in a previous USR
permit, the Board requested the Town of Milliken to create additional road improvement
requirements for an applicant for a site which was located within the Town limits, but access to
the site was on a road maintained by the County. He indicated the Board has the ability to
require additional Conditions of Approval through the approval of the USR permit, indicating that
the applicant must satisfy the requirements of the municipality as well. He further clarified the
Board has also approved an instance of ordering future road improvements, as done in
conjunction with the Town of Firestone. Ms. Vecchi clarified, for the record, that the City of
Greeley will be developing Road Maintenance Agreements for these roads as well. Chair
Rademacher indicated he shares the same concerns as Commissioner Kirkmeyer, and he
would like Mr. Kimmi to address her questions.
Mr. Kimmi clarified when the application was first presented, the access was located on County
Road 64.5.; however, staff expressed concerns regarding the safety of the road and the access
to the site. He confirmed staff presented the requirements that acceleration and deceleration
lanes would be required, for both eastbound and westbound traffic. He indicated the applicant
expressed concerns regarding the need to obtain additional right-of-way to complete the
required improvements, and a surrounding property owner also did not want to lose his very
mature cottonwood trees, which would be required to be removed. He stated, at that point, staff
and the applicant began the discussion regarding utilizing County Road 25 for an access to the
site, and this access is the one that was formally approved by Janet Carter, Department of
Public Works, at the time the road was still under the jurisdiction of Weld County. He indicated
the City of Greeley annexed the roadway shortly thereafter, and later provided a letter, dated
January 14, 2010, indicating the required improvements for the access on County Road 64.5.
Mr. Kimmi read a portion of the letter, marked Exhibit F, into the record, indicating the City of
Greeley is only requiring a westbound left-turn lane into the site and a 50-foot turning radius for
eastbound traffic entering the site. He confirmed the letter clarified that the previously required
acceleration/deceleration lanes and 60-foot turning radii would not be required by the City, since
the improvements were not deemed to be necessary. He further confirmed the letter did not
address why the access was moved back to County Road 64.5 from County Road 25.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer indicated she would like to know why the City of Greeley moved the
access point, and wants to ensure a copy of the letter gets added to the file, as the file does not
currently contain the letter.
Responding to Commissioner Conway, Mr. Kimmi confirmed staff discussed safety concerns
with representatives of the City of Greeley during a previous meeting. Commissioner Conway
expressed his concerns regarding the safety of the road, especially with the addition of the truck
traffic accessing this proposed facility, which could be up to 375 trucks per day during the peak
season. In response to Commissioner Conway, Mr. Coppola clarified the average amount of
truck traffic will be approximately 175 truck trips per day; however, it may be possible to have up
to 375 truck trips during the peak summer season, depending on demand for product. He
2010-0334
PL2024
HEARING CERTIFICATION - LAFARGE WEST, INC. (USR-1657)
PAGE 6
confirmed there are specific traffic warrants to be addressed, which take safety into
consideration. He clarified the applicant will be widening a portion of the road, which will create
safer travelling lanes; therefore, he expects the traffic conditions to improve even though
additional traffic is being generated. Commissioner Kirkmeyer commented that more than half
of traffic accidents on these types of roads occur at accesses, and she believes the addition of
this access will create the possibility of additional accidents along this stretch of road. She
expressed her frustration that the City of Greeley does not seem to think the additional traffic
expected to be generated by this facility will create a safety hazard for motorists.
Responding to Chair Rademacher and Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Coppola confirmed the
roads will be designed upon the criteria required for a road with a speed limit of 55 miles per
hour, and the design will adequately accommodate truck traffic, in accordance with CDOT
standards. Further responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Kimmi stated the length of the
turn lane approved by the City of Greeley is 705 feet, and he reiterated the City is not requiring
that an eastbound acceleration lane be constructed. In response to Chair Rademacher,
Mr. Kimmi reiterated the average speed of traffic on County Road 64.5 is 59 miles per hour.
Upon studying the drawings of the proposed road improvements, Mr. Coppola clarified the
right-turn lane into the facility will be a length of 660 feet, and the left-turn lane into the facility
will be approximately 1,000 feet in length. He further confirmed an eastbound acceleration lane
out of the facility will not be constructed, since the City of Greeley is not requiring one to be
constructed. Commissioner Kirkmeyer reiterated her concerns regarding the safety of area
residents and motorists who utilize this road, and she confirmed she does not want lives to be
endangered by the addition of the truck trips generated by this facility. She confirmed she has
no other concerns with this application; however, the traffic safety concerns are extremely
troubling.
In response to Commissioner Conway, Mr. Coppola confirmed it is his personal and
professional opinion that the addition of the proposed truck trips, without an eastbound
acceleration lane, will not create a serious traffic safety hazard. He clarified if the number of
expected truck trips is broken down into peak hour statistics, then only one truck will turn right,
into the facility, every ten to twelve minutes during a peak hour. He further clarified the existing
traffic count is approximately 153 vehicles traveling westbound during a peak hour, and the
proposed truck traffic will only add one turning truck approximately every 20 minutes, which he
does not consider to be a high conflict. Responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Coppola
summarized, overall, one truck will enter the flow of traffic, either eastbound or westbound,
approximately once every five minutes, during a peak hour. He clarified a sharp curve in the
road is located approximately one-quarter mile from the site access, therefore, he does not
anticipate the trucks traveling the posted speed limit within the vicinity of this facility. He further
clarified the applicant is actually expecting to send approximately 40 percent of the truck traffic
westbound, and 60 percent eastbound, not the 15/85 ratio previously mentioned by staff.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer clarified the traffic count data proves the speed of the traffic in this
area is high, even though the curve in the road referenced by Mr. Coppola is posted at 20 miles
per hour. Commissioner Conway expressed his concerns regarding sun glare issues at the
access, since the road runs directly east/west, and he understands that sun glare is known to be
a major contribution to vehicle accidents during both early morning and evening commute
hours. In response, Mr. Coppola confirmed sun glare is not included as a condition during the
standard traffic reviews, since it is considered to be temporary in nature, and all drivers must
2010-0334
PL2024
HEARING CERTIFICATION - LAFARGE WEST, INC. (USR-1657)
PAGE 7
adjust to those conditions. Responding to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Kimmi indicated the previous
recommendation provided by Ms. Carter contained the requirement for an eastbound
acceleration lane, and he confirmed Ms. Carter is currently on her way to the hearing to help
provide clarification of this matter.
Responding to Chair Rademacher, the Board concurred with the modification of Development
Standard #23 to indicate up to sixteen (16) employees, as requested by the applicant.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer read a portion of a memo, written by Ms. Carter, into the record,
indicating the County did originally require the construction of an acceleration lane. She
reiterated she does not have any other concerns with this application, and she is confident the
applicant will develop a responsible facility; however, she is still greatly concerned with the
traffic safety issues presented. She indicated a continuance of this matter may be necessary so
that the parties can work together to create a better solution. Ms. Vecchi clarified that County
staff based their requirements on the standards provided by CDOT; however, the City of
Greeley utilized their own criteria created for arterial roads, therefore, the City of Greeley is only
requiring improvements concurrent with arterial roads. Commissioner Kirkmeyer clarified this
road is still a County Road with a high traffic count, and it is not simply an urban road within a
municipality just because it has been annexed by the City. Responding to Chair Rademacher,
Mr. Coppola confirmed the applicant would be required to acquire a significant amount of
additional right-of-way to make the improvements required by the County. He further clarified
the improvements proposed by the City of Greeley will allow the applicant to spare the existing
cottonwood trees near the current right-of-way. He confirmed the County has indicated the
Department cannot help the applicant obtain the necessary right-of-way, it must be purchased
from the property owner. Further responding to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Coppola explained the
acquisition of right-of-way will be complicated due to the requirement of offsetting the road while
not encroaching upon the drainage ditch.
Ms. Carter confirmed the applicant originally requested an access on County Road 64.5, and
the County indicated turn lanes would be required, due to the volume of the current traffic on the
road. She indicated the applicant expressed concerns regarding the existing trees near the
road, and indicated to staff that because of the curve in the road, it is likely that most traffic is
not travelling the posted speed limit, and essentially requested a variance of the design criteria.
She clarified not all drivers significantly reduce their speed at the existing curve, and many the
drivers do accelerate once they come out of the curve, therefore, staff indicated the design
criteria would remain based on the speed limit of 55 miles per hour. She further clarified the
applicant then requested to move the access to County Road 25, and the applicant did request
assistance with the acquisition of right-of-way; however, staff instructed the applicant that the
necessary right-of-way would have to be purchased from the property owner because the
County does not employ eminent domain. Ms. Carter indicated the City of Greeley annexed
County Road 25 and a portion of County Road 64.5, at which time it appears the access to the
site was once again proposed on County Road 64.5. She clarified the City is only requiring a
turn lane, and is not requiring the other improvements required within the CDOT access code.
She further clarified the letter, marked Exhibit F, indicates the City is waiving the previous
requirement of turn lanes, since they now maintain this section of roadway, and she confirmed
the City has the proper ability to make this decision. She explained, in her engineering
judgment, the acceleration/deceleration lanes required by County staff are necessary to protect
2010-0334
PL2024
HEARING CERTIFICATION - LAFARGE WEST, INC. (USR-1657)
PAGE 8
the safety of the traveling public. In response to Chair Rademacher, Ms. Carter indicated the
curve in the road is approximately 1,500 feet from the site entrance, or a distance of less than
one-half mile. Responding to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Carter confirmed she has read the
correspondence provided by the City of Greeley, and she disagrees within the interpretation of
the City of Greeley Traffic Engineer. She explained the engineer is utilizing a logical method;
however, the County's knowledge of the surrounding area prompts a different perspective for
the necessary road improvements, and the County does not agree with the conclusion provided
by the City. Further responding to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Carter confirmed she believes
there are traffic safety concerns with the addition of the proposed truck traffic and she confirmed
the Department has required these types of improvements at other similar project sites. She
clarified, based upon the calculations, the turn lane for left acceleration out of the site was not
technically warranted; however, the statistics were so close that the County felt like it was
necessary to include the requirement, especially since the deceleration lane into the site was
warranted. She explained the Department concurs that the acceleration lane for eastbound
traffic is definitely warranted for this facility. In response to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Ogle
confirmed a surrounding property owner has four very mature cottonwood trees which straddle
the current right-of-way, which he does not want to be removed.
Ms. Carter clarified it was recently indicated by the applicant's engineer that the trip distribution
has been modified so that approximately 40 percent of the traffic may now travel westbound
from the site, therefore, due to the change of trip distribution, the westbound acceleration lane is
most likely now completely warranted. Responding to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Carter
indicated she believes the City of Greeley most likely based its determination on the previous
trip distribution of only fifteen percent of the traffic travelling westbound, and the other
85 percent traveling eastbound. She confirmed the new change in distribution will affect the
peak hour traffic totals, which also affects the various criteria. Commissioner Conway indicated
he also believes the City of Greeley may have made its determination based upon a different
formula, and Ms. Carter confirmed this possibility causes her to question the City's
determination even further.
Mr. Coppola clarified the new trip distribution numbers were utilized in the determination made
by the City of Greeley, which is one of the reasons why the City disagrees that an acceleration
lane is warranted. He explained the minimum of 50 vehicles completing a right-turn during a
peak hour will not be met at this location. In response to Chair Rademacher, Ms. Carter
confirmed CDOT was not involved in these discussions; however, the County utilizes the values
listed within the CDOT Access Code for this classification of roadway. She clarified
Mr. Coppola utilized a different classification of the roadway, which is more urban-based, and
utilizes a minimum of 50 turning vehicles; however, the County's warrants are a minimum of
25 turning vehicles, during a peak hour. Further responding to Chair Rademacher, Ms. Carter
confirmed County Road 64.5 is considered to be a low-volume regional roadway, in accordance
with CDOT standards. Mr. Coppola explained the classification described by Ms. Carter
exceeds the classification utilized by the City of Greeley.
Ms. Vecchi indicated the applicant would like to offer a solution to this situation by concurring
with the addition of a Condition of Approval under the heading of "Prior to recording the Plat" to
state, "The applicant must collectively come to an agreement with the Weld County and City of
Greeley Departments of Public Works, regarding acceptable design parameters for the access
2010-0334
PL2024
HEARING CERTIFICATION - LAFARGE WEST, INC. (USR-1657)
PAGE 9
and final road design of County Road 64.5, so that safety concerns are adequately addressed."
In response to the Acting Clerk to the Board, the Board concurred with the addition of the
proposed language as Condition of Approval #1.1.
In response to Chair Rademacher, Ms. Vecchi indicated she has reviewed, and concurs with,
the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards, as modified.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to approve the request of Lafarge West, Inc., for a Site
Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit #1657 for a Mineral Resource
Development Facility, including Open Pit Gravel Mining and Materials Processing, in the
A (Agricultural) Zone District, based on the recommendations of Planning staff and the Planning
Commission, with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards as entered into the
record. Her motion included the addition of Condition of Approval #1.1 to state, "The applicant
must collectively come to an agreement with the Weld County and City of Greeley Departments
of Public Works, regarding acceptable design parameters for the access and final road design
of County Road 64.5, so that safety concerns are adequately addressed."; and the modification
of Development Standard #23 to state, "The number of employees on the site at one time shall
not exceed sixteen (16)." The motion was seconded by Commissioner Conway. Commissioner
Garcia expressed his appreciation to the applicant for a detailed presentation and for seriously
considering the Board's safety concerns. Chair Rademacher expressed his appreciation to the
applicant for the willingness to come up with language for the Resolution which provides a
solution to the concerns presented. There being no further discussion, the motion carried
unanimously and the hearing was completed at 11:15 a.m.
This Certification was approved on the 8th day of March, 2010.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST: '73 ' '�
' 1861 ('�• ' gla 'ad- acher/Chair
Weld County Clerk to the Bold �yS .
r . 6_,
B \ rbara Kirkmeye , Pro-Tem'
De ty Clerk t the oard �^
Sean P. nway
alilZ_ C
m F. Garcia
David E. Long
2010-0334
PL2024
`≥
OCI � c 7—
� Cr M
f �� Q M o" ,% K- C
s , NT %____ ...t.
\� 7.
C. )* C 0 l-
C ' (-- -P ti � 1MP
c
N = ^Y ]
O -frn_ I ,
J
1
Q as _ J
W W d ,a5 ` pru�b � �J �� i ,t' 1l r
F' >- ti p y ILI a �,k,RL�(r), r-c- " id . Pfd,/\
M V N Q r Q \� 1`, ,
V 't Y7
y Ea) E
F (` C /
0 3g ' e \A'
fn 0 U T ^L Li- 0r _
W cn � a � e n �` �� ' � 3
`� # # C _ •
z w w y W o y, Z E ' ar 2 im s ? a- �y
Y Y Q 2 c ,F it F . , ' v
W o o w z f � , �f 7-k oci . N - c
s 00 a
EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET
Case USR #1657 - LAFARGE WEST, INC.
Exhibit Submitted By Description
A. Planning Staff Inventory of Items Submitted
B. Planning Commission Resolution of Recommendation
Summary of Hearing (Minutes dated 11/3/2009, and
C. Planning Commission 2/2/2010)
D. Planning Staff Certificate of sign posting and photos
E. Applicant Copy of PowerPoint Presentation (w/CD)
Correspondence from City of Greeley re: Road
F. Public Works Staff Improvements
E-mail re: Clarification of Addition of Condition of
G. Clerk to the Board Approval #1.1
H.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
O.
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
U.
V.
W.
Hello