HomeMy WebLinkAbout20071122.tiff HEARING CERTIFICATION
DOCKET NO. 2007-31
RE: SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND AMENDED USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT#1259 FOR A MINERAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT FACILITY, INCLUDING
A CONCRETE AND ASPHALT BATCH PLANT, CONCRETE CASTING FACILITY,
RECYCLING PLANT,MATERIALS BLENDING,IMPORT OF MATERIALS,AND GRAVEL
MINING, IN THE A(AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT - LAFARGE WEST, INC.
A public hearing was conducted on May 2, 2007, at 10:00 a.m., with the following present:
Commissioner David E. Long, Chair
Commissioner William H. Jerke, Pro-Tern
Commissioner William F. Garcia
Commissioner Robert D. Masden
Commissioner Douglas Rademacher
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Esther Gesick
County Attorney, Bruce Barker
Planning Department representative, Jacqueline Hatch
Health Department representative, Char Davis
Public Works representative, Donald Carroll
The following business was transacted:
I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated April 13,2007,and duly published April 18,2007, in
the Fort Lupton Press, a public hearing was conducted to consider the request of Lafarge West,
Inc.,for a Site Specific Development Plan and Amended Use by Special Review Permit#1259 for
a Mineral Resource Development Facility,including a Concrete and Asphalt Batch Plant,Concrete
Casting Facility,Recycling Plant,Materials Blending, Import of Materials,and Gravel Mining,in the
A (Agricultural) Zone District. Bruce Barker, County Attorney, made this a matter of record.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services, presented a brief summary of the proposal,
entered the favorable recommendation of the Planning Commission into the record as written,and
gave a brief description of the location of the site. She stated a portion of the property was removed
from the Use by Special Review boundary prior to the Planning Commission hearing,therefore,the
total area to be included is 1,152 acres, with 640 acres to be disturbed. Ms. Hatch stated the
applicant has submitted a Traffic Study to the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT),as
well as an Annexation Agreement to the City of Fort Lupton,which addressed Conditions of Approval
#1.B and #1.C. She stated the remaining Condition of Approval #1.A, which was stricken as a
Condition Prior to Scheduling,has not been addressed. She stated the applicant is required submit
an agreement with the property's mineral owners/operators or show evidence of an adequate
attempt to reach an agreement. Although they have submitted signed Surface Use Agreements with
K.P. Kauffman Company, Inc., and Peterson Energy Operating, Inc., the applicant has not
completed agreements with Kerr-McGee or Encana. Based on these comments, Ms. Hatch
suggested Condition of Approval#1.A be moved to become a Condition Prior to Recording the Plat.
She stated the life of the mining activity is anticipated to last for 34 years,depending on demand and
market conditions. She further stated the mining will be conducted in nine phases, and the
2007-1122
PL1477
00 , , ✓91cl, SZ3 -07
HEARING CERTIFICATION - LAFARGE WEST, INC. (AMUSR#1259)
PAGE 2
processing area, which will be the last portion to be mined, will be located on 40 acres in the
southeast portion of the property. Ms.Hatch stated the site currently contains two gravel operations,
it will be compatible with surrounding land uses,and there will be a vegetated berm on the south and
east sides. She stated the Cottonwoods Pit is proposed to remain,the site will be dry mined, the
operation will have a maximum of two shifts with 40 employees each, the site will operate during
daylight hours,and the facility will operate in compliance with the noise standards for the Industrial
Zone District. Ms. Hatch stated twenty referral agencies reviewed the proposal,and staff received
one letter of support from a surrounding property owner, as well as two letters of opposition
expressing concern regarding noise, dirt, pollution, traffic, wildlife, and safety.
Responding to Commissioner Jerke, Ms. Hatch stated the agreements with oil and gas operators
were initially required as Conditions of Approval Prior to Scheduling; however, they are now
proposed to be done prior to recording, which could result in a third party veto.
Char Davis, Department of Public Health and Environment,stated the site will have a commercial
well for the office and batch plant area, and be serviced by a septic system. She stated staff has
requested the applicant provide information regarding emissions, discharge, and evaluations or
abandonment of existing septic systems,and there maybe some additional requirements from the
State regarding water quality.
Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, stated the site is accessed from Weld County Road 6,
which is classified as a collector status road. He stated there is a traffic signal at the intersection
of U.S. Highway 85 and Weld County Road 6,which is the primary haul route for three major haulers
in the area. Mr. Carroll stated the average daily traffic count is approximately 2,000 vehicles,and
the Traffic Study has been reviewed by staff. He stated the applicant will be required to improve and
pave the turning radii and approaches,and there is a Road Improvements Agreement in place with
the applicant, similar to those required for the other existing haulers. He further stated the major
route will be to access U.S. Highway 85 and then travel south. Mr. Carroll stated the applicant is
proposing the use of a conveyor over Weld County Road 8,south to the main operation near Weld
County Road 6. He stated the required improvements are addressed in Conditions of
Approval#1.N,#1.Z.6 and#1.Z.7. Responding to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Carroll stated
all improvements have been coordinated with CDOT,which also required extension of the left turn
slots and acceleration lane. He stated there is a free right-turn, which allows trucks to gain
momentum before entering traffic and traveling south; however, there is not an acceleration lane
heading north. In response to Commissioner Jerke, Ms. Hatch stated the property line starts
approximately 450 feet from U.S. Highway 85,west of the river. She stated there is approximately
one-quarter of a mile of frontage on Weld County Road 6,which is a collector status road,and staff
is seeking an additional 10 feet of right-of-way for a total of 40 feet. Commissioner Jerke
commented 140 feet maybe more appropriate to accommodate anticipated future development in
the area. Mr. Carroll stated the applicant may be proposing a slurry wall, therefore, right-of-way
distances will need to be determined prior to construction.
Eric Reckentine, Manager for Northern Colorado Aggregates, represented the applicant and
displayed a PowerPoint Presentation, marked Exhibit O, which he reviewed for the record.
He displayed a vicinity map, and stated the existing ditches will not be required to relocate. He
displayed the locations of existing mining operations in the area, as well as the surface property
owners who lease or have sold their land for mining. He further stated the processing plant will
2007-1122
PL1477
HEARING CERTIFICATION - LAFARGE WEST, INC. (AMUSR#1259)
PAGE 3
remain on the southern end of the property for the life of the mining operations, the site will be
accessed from Weld County Road 6, and trucks will go to U.S. Highway 85,with a majority of the
traffic traveling south. Mr. Reckentine stated the applicant is proposing to convey the mined material
south to the processing plant,and they are also proposing concrete and asphalt batch plants. He
stated the applicant intends to place a landscaped 30-foot berm to shield the site from
U.S. Highway 85 and the City of Fort Lupton,which will be done prior to commencing with mining.
He also displayed a drawing of the site layout and site circulation.
Jennifer Vecchi,Vecchi and Associates,LLC,stated the site will be reclaimed following mining,and
the applicant has worked closely with the City of Fort Lupton, since its Urban Growth Boundary
(UGB)encompasses a portion of the property. She stated they held neighborhood meetings and
did follow-up with those who had concerns. She further stated the Reclamation Plan includes a silt
basin,wetlands, lined ponds on the south end for water storage, unlined ponds, enhanced wildlife
corridors,potential for parks,trails and open space, use of a historic site,potential for fishing ponds,
and limited development consistent with the City of Fort Lupton and Weld County Comprehensive
Plans. Ms. Vecchi displayed a photo enhancement showing what the property will look like from
U.S. Highway 85 once the site is constructed and buffer improvements are complete. She stated
the applicant intends to do concurrent reclamation.
Mr. Reckentine reviewed the phasing plan and concurrent mining/reclamation plan. He stated due
to the plan to convey materials,all commercial traffic will be directed to Weld County Road 6 to limit
traffic along other surrounding roads. In response to Commissioner Masden,Mr. Reckentine stated
there will be no slurry walls,just unlined reservoirs with clay liners,and some may be used for water
storage. He clarified Lafarge does not own all the properties that will be mined; however, the
surface owners will be negotiating the end use, which may include water storage.
In response to Commissioners Rademacher and Masden,Gene Coppola,Traffic Engineer,stated
the number of truck trips will range from 20 to 70 per day, during peak hours, and all site traffic will
go east to U.S. Highway 85, with the exception of local deliveries in Wattenburg. Mr. Reckentine
stated only Lafarge trucks will be accessing the asphalt and concrete batch plants; however,
contracted drivers will be accessing the site to haul aggregate products. In response to
CommissionerJerke,Mr.Reckentine stated the mined portion of the McWilliams property will result
in 1,500 acre feet,the Rittenhouse property will create 1,800 acre feet,and the Lafarge properties
have the potential for water storage in the future,although some of the mining cells will be used for
the storage of silt that is too fine to sell. Mr. Reckentine stated there is adequate augmentation,and
the applicant does not own the parcel, therefore, they cannot make that commitment today. He
stated the decision of the property owner will be based on the perceived market value of the
anticipated water storage. He further stated the offset distances for the processing site are very
restrictive for the existing site plan.
In response to Commissioner Garcia, Mr. Reckentine stated there is an old farm house on the
northern portion which is to remain as part of the trail system on the Lafarge property. Responding
to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Reckentine stated trucks will not be transporting material
internal to the site,the conveyors will reduce dust,and the trial system can only be guaranteed on
the Lafarge properties,since the applicant cannot make commitments on behalf of the surface land
owners.
2007-1122
PL1477
HEARING CERTIFICATION - LAFARGE WEST, INC. (AMUSR #1259)
PAGE 4
Tom Parko, Planning Director for the City of Fort Lupton,stated the applicant has worked with the
City of Fort Lupton for three years to review plans and updates,and the City supports the proposal.
He stated the City understands the need to extract minerals along the river,it has entered into a Pre-
annexation Agreement with the applicant/property owners, and would like to enter into formal
Annexation Agreements once the site is mined or reclaimed. He stated the applicant has been a
good neighbor and has worked verywell with the City of Fort Lupton. In response to Commissioner
Jerke,Ms. Hatch stated the Pre-annexation Agreement was included in the packet;however,it was
not required as a Condition of Approval.
Bill Stieber, surrounding property owner directly west of the proposed plant, stated his
great-grandfather homesteaded the farm west of Watttenburg,and purchased additional land where
he currently resides. He stated his major concern for the proposal is what kind of neighbor he will
have to live with for the duration of the mining. He stated he is not concerned with impacts on his
property value since he does not intend to sell; however, he is concerned with what the living
conditions will be like next to a mining facility. There being no further comments,Chair Long closed
public testimony.
In response to Commissioner Masden, Mr. Reckentine stated Lafarge has 25 monitoring wells,
which were required through the Division of Minerals and Geology(DMG)Mining Permit. He stated
they have developed a Mitigation Program,and 25 additional monitoring wells will be installed,for
a total of 50 wells by the end of the project. He stated the DMG permit details the mitigation options
that will be used if surrounding water is affected. Responding to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr.
Reckentine stated Lafarge has to remain 400 feet from the river, unless they do bank stabilization,
in which case they can come within 200 feet. He stated if the river floods,they will reclaim the area
and then pump the ponds. In response to Commissioner Masden, Mr. Reckentine stated the
proposal only affects 10 acres of wetlands, and Lafarge owns 150 acres of land which will create
a wetland silt pond.
Mr. Reckentine requested Conditions of Approval#1.T and#1.V be moved to become Conditions
of Approval #2.D and #2.E, Prior to Construction, and that Conditions of Approval #6 and #7 be
modified to allow the applicant 180 days to complete the plat. He stated the issues with Kerr-McGee
have been resolved and they are very close to signing a Surface Use Agreement,and the applicant
is agreeable to requiring a Surface Use Agreement with Encana as a Condition Prior to Recording
the Plat. Commissioner Jerke stated the applicant has shown the drilling envelopes on the plat,
which is sufficient,therefore,nothing further needs to be done,regardless of whether an agreement
is reached, or not. The Board agreed to leave the language stricken. In response to Mr. Barker,
regarding Condition of Approval#1.Z.7,CommissionerJerke stated he is uncertain whether80 feet
is adequate. Mr. Carroll stated based on his review of the plans, the applicant is indicating an
additional 20 feet will be reserved for additional right-of-way. He stated the standard setback
distance in the A(Agricultural)Zone District is 20 feet,for a total of 70 feet of setback distance from
the centerline. He stated the plans show a landscaping berm 140 feet from the centerline;however,
the reservoir is well beyond that distance and would not effect the location of the water storage area.
CommissionerJerke stated it is important to have the appropriate amount of right-of-way reserved,
and proposed to amend Condition of Approval#1.Z.7 to reflect a total of 140 feet of right-of-way at
full buildout and a total of 70 feet from the centerline of Weld County Road 6. Responding to Chair
Long, Mr. Reckentine stated he and the applicant have reviewed,and concur with,the Conditions
of Approval and Development Standards, as proposed and modified.
2007-1122
PL1477
HEARING CERTIFICATION - LAFARGE WEST, INC. (AMUSR#1259)
PAGE 5
Commissioner Masden stated the applicant has worked with the City of Fort Lupton and taken a lot
of time to mitigate potential impacts on surrounding property owners, therefore, he supports the
application. Based on those comments,Commissioner Masden moved to approve the request of
Lafarge West, Inc. for a Site Specific Development Plan and Amended Use by Special Review
Permit#1259 fora Mineral Resource Development Facility,including a Concrete and Asphalt Batch
Plant,Concrete Casting Facility,Recycling Plant, Materials Blending, Import of Materials,and Gravel
Mining,in theA(Agricultural)Zone District,based on the recommendations of the Planning staff and
the Planning Commission,with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards as entered
into the record. His motion included deleting Conditions of Approval#1.Tand#1.V,and adding them
as Conditions of Approval#2.D and#2.E,amending Condition of Approval#1.Z.7 to reflect a total
of 140 feet of right-of-way at full buildout and a total of 70 feet from the centerline of Weld County
Road 6,and amending Conditions of Approval#6 and#7 to allow the applicant 180 days to complete
the plat for recording. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jerke, and it carried
unanimously. There being no further discussion, the hearing was completed at 11:05 a.m.
This Certification was approved on the 7th day of May 2007.
APPROVED:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WEL OUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST: ill, CC))
La David E. Long, Chair
Weld County Clerk to the ar
illiam Je ke Pro-Tem
By: )6113...ticiri-
Deputy Clek to the Board • ✓��
CAA'lCh Will' F. Garcia
TAPE #2007-12 &
Robert D. Masden
DOCKET#2007-31
Douglas`Rademac er
2007-1122
PL1477
\N. 0
N"co
t
lki
,; e p
0
) 'Ct i— 4 1
W ) \ v)
4
�(re
co w r� yco
L.)o l� C>
a O e 5 -..s W' -1- -._. \J -.-wc 4.
cc
W O. N N \-.. v x \
I- ,_ E w z v M c
< c W u c z° c) Q t� p' p �
N 2 � d Q O1 .., , sa �- r
CO z ? E
ca Z W t
O o o * J\
U) Q W \o PcL.5
Z re Q 1 `�
3 IA
sl \ O t TI
_..,
wCO
rLL O r0 >. c()__ (10
4t * CO m v � ) 7 ta
Z WW w W � IU � (1
w 00 W c n C��k ° \*'‘14 _ tJ"�
S 0 0 d Z
EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET
Case AMUSR#1259 - LAFARGE WEST, INC.
Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description
A. Planning Staff Inventory of Items Submitted
B. Planning Commission Resolution of Recommendation
C. Planning Commission Summary of Hearing (Minutes 09/20/2005,
11/15/2005, and 05/16/2006)
D. Clerk to the Board Notice of Hearing
E. Steven McWilliams Letter of Concern, dated 02/09/2007
F. Steven McWilliams Letter withdrawing Objection, dated
02/26/2007
G. Planning Staff Memo re: Items Prior to Scheduling, dated
02/26/2007
H. Planning Staff E-mail comments from CDOT, dated
11/06/2006 and 2/13/2007
1.1 Tetra Tech, Inc. Summary Letter, dated 01/19/2007
1.2 Tetra Tech, Inc. Surface Use Agreement with Peterson
Energy Operating, Inc., dated 10/10/2006
1.3 Tetra Tech, Inc. Surface Use Agreement with K.P. Kauffman
Company, Inc., dated 01/15/2007
1.4 Tetra Tech, Inc. Pre-Annexation Agreement from City of Fort
Lupton, dated 10/31/2006
1.5 Tetra Tech, Inc. Memorandum of Understanding with Fort
Lupton Fire Protection District, dated
09/2006
1.6 Tetra Tech, Inc. Revised Mineral Owners list, dated
08/11/2006
J. Baker and Hostetler, LLP Letter of Intent to complete Agreements with
Kerr-McGee and Encana, dated 02/07/2007
K.1 James King E-mail re: Draft Surface Use Agreement,
dated 02/06/2007
K.2 James King Draft Surface Use Agreement with Encana
(with Redline/Strikeout), dated 02/06/2007
K.3 James King Draft Surface Use Agreement with Encana,
dated 02/06/2007
K.4 James King E-mail re: Draft Compatible Development
and Surface Use Agreement, dated
02/06/2007
K.5 James King Draft Compatible Development and Surface
Use Agreement, dated 01/31/2007
K.6 James King Various E-mail Correspondence
L.1 James King E-mail re: Review of Draft Surface Use
Agreement with Kerr-McGee, dated
01/25/2007
L.2 James King E-mail re: Review of Draft Surface Use
Agreement with Kerr-McGee, dated
01/07/2007
L.3 James King E-mail Correspondence re: Review of
various versions of Riverbend Oil and Gas
Well Operations Maps
L.4 James King E-mail re: Review of Draft Surface Use
Agreement with Kerr-McGee, dated
08/18/2006
L.5 James King E-mail re: Preliminary Riverbend Gas/Oil
Facilities Maps (Sheets 1-13), dated
08/16/2006
L.6 James King E-mail re: Updated Surface Use Agreement
with Kerr-McGee, dated 06/21/2006
M. Planning Staff E-mail re: Waiver of 45-day scheduling
deadline, dated 03/16/2007
N. Planning Staff Certification and Photo of sign posting
O. Applicant PowerPoint Presentation
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
Hello