HomeMy WebLinkAbout20071096.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Chad Auer, that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE: AMUSR-1259
APPLICANT: Riverbend c/o Eric Reckentine with Lafarge West, Inc.
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL: N2 Section 13; SE4 NW4 Section 12; E 30 acres SW4 SE4 Section 12; S2 of E
60acres SW4 Section 12; W4 SW4 SE4 Section 12; NW4 SE4 Section 12; E 30
acres NE4 SW4 Section 12; Pt N2 NE4 Section 24; E2 SE4 Section 12; of T1N,
R67W of the 6'h P.M.,Weld County,CO.and W2 NW4 Section 18;W2 SW4 Section
18; Lot A and B RE-2347 Pt NW4 Section 19; Lots 1 and 2 SW4 Section 19; Pt W2
SE4 Section 19; Pt NW4 SE4 Section 19;W2 SW4 Section 7; of T1 N, R66W of the
6'h P.M., Weld County, CO.
REQUEST: An amended Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit 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.
LOCATION: General vicinity is East of and adjacent to CR 23, North of and adjacent to
CR 6, and West of and adjacent to State Highway 85.
be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 23-2-260 of
the Weld County Code.
2. It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the applicant has shown compliance with Section
23-2-220 of the Weld County Code as follows:
A. Section 23-2-220.A.1 -- The proposed use is consistent with Chapter 22 and any other
applicable code provisions or ordinances in effect.
Section 22-5-80.B(CM.Goal 2)states,"Promote the reasonable and orderly development of
mineral resources." The site contains two gravel operations currently (SUP-310 & USR-
1259).
Section 22-5-80.B(CM.Goal 3)states,"Minimize the impacts of surface mining activities on
surrounding land uses, roads and highways." A traffic study is required to be submitted to the
Department of Public Works prior to recording the plat for review and approval. The
Department of Public Works has stated that the Department has a long-term road
maintenance and improvements agreement with Mobile Premix, which is owned by the
Lafarge Company, which is associated with the designated haul route. This document is
adequate and will remain in place. The Department of Public Works will not support a
change in the haul route allowing truck traffic to head west on County Road 6. All truck traffic
shall head east on County Road 6 and utilize the light at County Road 6 and State Highway
85.
B. Section 23-2-220.A.2--The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the(A)Agricultural
Zone District. Section 23-3-40.A.3 of the Weld County Code provides for an amended Site
Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit 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.
C. Section 23-2-220.A.3--The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with the existing m,
surrounding land uses. The site contains two gravel operations currently(SUP-310&USR-
1259) The proposed use would be compatible with surrounding properties which include •
t4
2007-1096
Resolution AmUSR-1259
Riverbend
Page 2
gravel operations to the south(AMUSR-921 &AMUSR-905)and to the north east(USR-603
& USR-695)and agricultural uses to the west. State Highway 85 is to the east of the site.
The applicant is proposing to install a vegetated berm on the south and east sides of the
plant side area to shield the operations from surrounding landowners and traffic on State
Highway 85. The existing cottonwood gallery to the west and north of the plant site is
proposed to remain to buffer the landowners located west of the site.
D. Section 23-2-220.A.4 -- The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with future
development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning and with the future
development as projected by Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code and any other applicable
code provisions or ordinances in effect, or the adopted Master Plans of affected
municipalities. The surrounding property is primarily agricultural in nature with a few homes
in the area.The site contains two gravel operations currently(SUP-310& USR-1259). The
proposed use would be compatible with surrounding properties which include gravel
operations to the south (AMUSR-921 & AMUSR-905) and to the north east (USR-603 &
USR-695)and agricultural uses to the west. State Highway 85 is to the east of the site. The
City of Brighton in their referral dated August 8, 2005 suggests that the applicant include a
primary trail as part of the site. The City of Fort Lupton in their referral dated August 23,2005
recommends approval of the application but do request that the screening blend into the site
and that the County continue to provide the City with updates and be aware of the future
traffic issues at County Road 6 and State Highway 85.The City of Fort Lupton in their referral
dated April 13, 2006 request that the applicant enter into an annexation agreement prior to
the Board of County Commissioners hearing. No referral was received from Adams County.
Planning Staff believes that,with the endorsement of the Conditions of Approval,contained in
this recommendation, the approval of this use will not jeopardize the health, safety and
welfare of the surrounding property owners.
E. Section 23-2-220.A.5--The application complies with Section 23-5-230 of the Weld County
Code. The proposal is located within the Flood Hazard Overlay District area as delineated on
FIRM Community Panel Map #080266-00981C and Map #080266-00983C dated
September 28, 1982. Building Permits issued on the Lot will be required to adhere to the
following fees.
Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the subject site will be required to
adhere to the fee structure of the County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11)
Effective August 1, 2005, Building permits issued on the subject site will be required to
adhere to the fee structure of the Capital Expansion Impact Fee and the Storm
water/Drainage Impact Fee. (Ordinance 2005-8 Section 5-8-40)
F. Section 23-2-220.A.6--The applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort to conserve prime
agricultural land in the locational decision for the proposed use. The subject site is primarily
classified as prime land and other land as delineated on the Important Farmlands of Weld
County map, dated 1979. A portion of the lots are currently farmed. Section 22-5-
80A.1.CM.Policy 1.1. states"access to future mineral resource development areas should be
considered in all land use decisions in accordance with state law. No County governmental
authority which has control over zoning shall, by zoning, rezoning, granting a variance or
other official action or inaction, permit the use of any area known to contain a commercial
mineral deposit in a manner which would interfere with the present or future extraction of
such deposit by an extractors'.
G. Section 23-2-220.A.7--The Design Standards(Section 23-2-240 of the Weld County Code),
Operation Standards (Section 23-2-250 of the Weld County Code), Conditions of Approval,
and Development Standards ensure that there are adequate provisions for the protection of
health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and County.
Resolution AmUSR-1259
Riverbend
Page 3
H. Section 23-4-250--Additional requirements for Open-mining have been addressed through
this application and the Development Standards will insure compliance with Section 23-4-250
Weld County Code.
This recommendation is based, in part,upon a review of the application materials submitted by the applicant,
other relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral entities.
The Planning Commission's recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following:
1. Prior to scheduling a Board of County Commissioners hearing:
A. Section 22-5-100.A of the Weld County Code states"oil and gas exploration and production
should occur in a manner which minimizes the impact to agricultural uses and the
environment and reduces the conflicts between mineral development and current and future
surface uses." Section 22-5-100.B of the Weld County Code states "...encourage
cooperation, coordination and communication between the surface owner and the mineral
owner/operators of either the surface or the mineral estate." Section 22-5-100.B.1 of the
Weld County Code also states "new development should be planned to take into account
current and future oil and gas drilling activity to the extent oil and gas development can
reasonably be anticipated." The applicant shall either submit a copy of an agreement with the
property's mineral owner/operators stipulating that the oil and gas activities have been
adequately incorporated into the design of the site or show evidence that an adequate
attempt has been made to mitigate the concerns of the mineral owner/operators. Drill
envelopes can be delineated on the plat in accordance with the State requirements as an
attempt to mitigate concerns. The plat shall be amended to include any possible future
drilling sites. (Department of Planning Services)
B. The applicant shall submit a traffic study to the Colorado Department of Transportation for
review. Evidence of approval shall be submitted in writing to the Department of Planning
Services. (Department of Planning Services)
C. The applicant shall submit written evidence to the Department of Planning Services that an
annexation agreement has been submitted and approved by the City of Fort Lupton.
(Department of Planning Services)
2. Prior to recording the plat:
A. The applicant shall submit a Landscape Plan identifying the number,size and species of all
plant material to the Weld County Planning Department for review and approval. This plan
shall include specifications of any proposed berms, if required. The proposed berms will be
extended to mitigate impacts to surrounding properties and adjacent road rights-of-way. The
applicant shall use breaks in the berm with landscaping to fill the void,culverts,or some other
method that will allow water to flow freely. (Department of Planning Services)
B. The applicant shall address the requirements(concerns)of the Department of Public Works,
as stated in their referral responses dated July 28, 2005 and August 12, 2005. Evidence of
approval shall be submitted in writing to the Department of Planning Services. (Department
of Planning Services)
C. The applicant shall address the requirements (concerns) of the Department of Building
Inspection, as stated in their referral response dated July 12, 2005. Evidence of approval
shall be submitted in writing to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of
Planning Services)
D. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirement(concerns)of the West Adams and
Platte Valley Soil Conservation District, as stated in their referral response dated July 25,
2005 and the letter from United States Department of Agriculture dated January 20, 2005.
Resolution AmUSR-1259
Riverbend
Page 4
Evidence of approval shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Planning Services)
E. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements(concerns)of the City of Fort Lupton,
as stated in their referral response dated August 25, 2005 and April 13, 2006. Evidence of
approval shall be submitted in writing to the Department of Planning Services. (Department
of Planning Services)
F. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements(concerns)of the City of Brighton,as
stated in their referral response dated August 28, 2006. Evidence of approval shall be
submitted in writing to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning
Services)
G. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirement (concerns) of the Fort Lupton Fire
District, as stated in their referral response dated August 26, 2005 and the letter from John
Dent P.C. dated August 19, 2005. Evidence of approval shall be submitted to the
Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
H. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements (concerns) of the Brighton Ditch
Company, as stated in their referral response dated July 31, 2005. Evidence of approval
shall be submitted in writing to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of
Planning Services)
The applicant shall submit to the Department of Planning Services,a copy of site agreements
with the Lupton Bottom Ditch Company.
J. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements(concerns)of Weld County Sheriffs
Office, as stated in the referral response dated August 17,2005. Evidence of such shall be
submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of
Planning Services)
K. The applicant shall address the requirements (concerns) of State of Colorado Division of
Water Resources, as stated in the referral response dated July 18, 2005 and April 13,
2006.Evidence of such shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of
Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
L. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements (concerns) of State of Colorado
Historical Society,as stated in the referral response dated April 10,2006. Evidence of such
shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services.
(Department of Planning Services)
M. The applicant shall address the requirements(concerns)of State of Colorado Department of
Transportation, as stated in the referral response dated July 15, 2005 and April 25, 2006.
Evidence of such shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning
Services. (Department of Planning Services)
N. The applicant shall submit a Flood Hazard Permit to the Department of Public Works for
review and approval. Evidence from the Department of Public Works that the application has
been approved shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of
Planning Services)
O. The applicant shall provide a detailed drawing of the access points showing entrance and exit
lanes with adequate turning radiuses, paving to the scale house area,small paved parking lot
to accommodate customers, circulation pattern on the immediate area including employee
parking,truck parking area etc.to the Department of Public Works. Evidence shall
be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Public Works)
P. The applicant shall submit the Department of Public Works a detailed drawing of the
conveyor crossing of County Road 8. (Department of Public Works)
Resolution AmUSR-1259
Riverbend
Page 5
Q. The property has an open oil and gas building permit(OG-0020026). The permit was issued
in 2000 and is facing expiration. A "No Rise" Certificate is required for this permit. The
applicant shall provide written evidence that the building permit has been completed.
(Department of Planning Services)
R. Evidence shall be provided to the Department of Planning Services that all vehicles located
on the property must be operational with current license plates, or be screened from all
adjacent properties and public rights of way,or be removed from the property.All other items
considered to be part of a noncommercial junkyard must also be removed from the property
or screened from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way. (Department of Planning
Services)
S. The applicant shall submit written requests to vacate the existing Use by Special Review on
site (USR-913 for a recreational facility, and SUP-310 for gravel mining). (Department of
Planning Services)
T. The applicant shall amend the existing Emission Permit for the modification in the operation if
the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment determines that such a
modification represents a significant change in emissions or production. Alternately, the
applicant can provide evidence from the APCD that they are not subject to these
requirements. Evidence of approval shall be submitted to the Department of Planning
Services. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
U. Any existing septic system which is not currently permitted through the Weld County
Department of Public Health&Environment(WCDPH&E)will require an I.S.D.S. Evaluation
prior to the issuance of the required septic permit. In the event the system is found to be
inadequate, the system must be brought into compliance with current I.S.D.S.
regulations. If, in the future, the septic system is removed for mining the applicant shall
provide written evidence to WCDPH&E of the removal. Evidence of approval shall be
submitted to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
V. The existing Colorado Discharge Permit System(CDPS)must be amended for the increased
operation if the Water Quality Control Division(WQCD)of the Colorado Department of Public
Health&Environment determines that such a modification represents a significant change in
the discharge. Alternately,the applicant can provide evidence from the WQCD that they are
not subject to these requirements. Evidence of approval shall be submitted to the
Department of Planning Services. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
W. The applicant shall provide current evidence that the facility has an adequate water supply
(i.e., well or community water system). Evidence of approval shall be submitted to the
Department of Planning Services. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
X. In the event the facility's water system is a well and serves more 25 persons on a daily basis
the water system shall comply with the Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations(5 CCR
1003-1). Evidence shall be provided to the Weld County Department of Public Health and
Environment that the system complies with the Regulations. Evidence of approval shall be
submitted to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Public Health
and Environment)
Y. The applicant shall complete all proposed improvement including those regarding
landscaping,screening,access improvements and parking lot requirements or enter into an
Improvements Agreement according to policy regarding collateral for improvements and post
adequate collateral for all required materials. The agreement and form of collateral shall be
reviewed by County Staff and accepted by the Board of County Commissioners prior to
recording the USR plat. (Department of Planning Services)
Resolution Am USR-1259
Riverbend
Page 6
Z. The plat shall be amended to delineate the following:
1. All sheets of the plat shall be labeled AMUSR-1259. (Department of Planning
Services)
2. The on site parking, circulation, and entrance and exit lanes as approved by the
Department of Public Works and Department of Planning Services. (Department of
Planning Services)
3. The location of any on-site signs. (Department of Planning Services)
4. The approved Landscape, Screening and Berm Plan. (Department of Planning
Services)
5. Oil and Gas encumbrances including gathering lines with appropriate setbacks shall
be delineated on the plat. (Department of Planning Services)
6. Setbacks to the mining operation are measured from the right-of-way or future right-
of-way lines plus the standard setback of 20 feet in the agricultural zone district. No
structure will be allowed in the future right-of-way. A slurry wall or retaining wall is
considered a structure. The County has retained some rights-of-way from the 1889
Resolution. (Department of Public Works)
7. County Road 6 is designated on the Weld County Transportation Plan Map as a
collector status road, which requires eighty(80)feet of right-of-way at full build out.
There is presently sixty (60) feet of right-of-way. A total of forty(40) feet from the
centerline of Weld County Road 6 shall be delineated right-of-way on the plat.This
road is maintained by Weld County. (Department of Public Works)
8. All future and existing County Roads shall be delineated on the plat including their
existing and future right-of-way. (Department of Planning Services)
3. Prior to construction:
A. A building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction or placement of any structure
such as a scale,concrete and asphalt plant,office,concrete casting facility, recycling plant,
office trailer and any other structures placed on the parcels. An electrical permit will be
required for any electrical service to equipment. A plot plan shall be submitted when applying
for building permits showing all structures with accurate distances between structures, and
from structures to all property lines. (Department of Building Inspection)
B. The approach road shall be paved with asphalt, concrete, or the equivalent from County
Road 6 to the scale house. The approach road shall be elevated to the same height as
County Road 6 with adequate turning radiuses to accommodate heavy truck hauling.
(Department of Public Works)
C. The applicant shall install a stop sign at the exit of the pit approach on to County Road 6.
Also required will be additional speed limit signs on the designated haul route from the facility.
(Department of Public Works)
4. Prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy:
A. An individual sewage disposal system is required for the proposed Office/Weigh Station and
shall be installed according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
Resolution AmUSR-1259
Riverbend
Page 7
B. The septic system is required to be designed by a Colorado Registered Professional
Engineer according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
C. A storm water discharge permit may be required for a development / redevelopment /
construction site where a contiguous or non-contiguous land disturbance is greater than or
equal to one acre in area.The applicant shall inquire with the Water Quality Control Division
(WQCD) of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment at
www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/PermitsUnit if they are required to obtain a storm water discharge
permit. Alternately,the applicant can provide evidence from WQCD that they are not subject
to these requirements. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
5. Prior to Operations:
A. The State of Colorado, Division of Water Resources in their referral dated April 13, 2006
states, "A substitute Water Supply Plan(SWSP)or court approved augmentation plan must
be obtained to replace the depletions caused by the operation. The Riverbend pit is currently
included in a SWSP along with other mining sites owned by Lafarge West, Inc. The
approved SWSP does not allow any evaporation or consumptive use at the Riverbend pit,
therefore, a new SWSP must be obtained prior to exposing water in the pit or consuming
ground water at the site." Evidence of approval shall be submitted to the Department of
Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services)
6. The Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the
property until the Special Review plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk
„. and Recorder. (Department of Planning Services)
7. The attached Development Standards for the Special Review Permit shall be adopted and placed on
the Special Review Plat prior to recording. The completed plat shall be delivered to the Weld County
Department of Planning Services and be ready for recording in the Weld County Clerk and Recorder's
Office within 60 days of approval by the Board of County Commissioners. (Department of Planning
Services)
8. In accordance with Weld County Code Ordinance 2005-7 approved June 1,2005,should the plat not
be recorded within the required thirty (30) days from the date the Board of County Commissioners
resolution a $50.00 recording continuance charge shall added for each additional 3 month period.
(Department of Planning Services)
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Riverbend
AMUSR-1259
1. A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for an amended Site Specific
Development Plan and a Special Review Permit 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, as indicated in the
application materials on file and subject to the Development Standards stated hereon.(Department of
Planning Services)
2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 23-8-10 of the Weld
County Code. (Department of Planning Services)
3. All liquid and solid wastes (as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act,
30-20-100.5, C.R.S., as amended) shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that
protects against surface and groundwater contamination. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
4. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. This is not meant to include those
wastes specifically excluded from the definition of a solid waste in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites
and Facilities Act,30-20-100.5,C.R.S.,as amended. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
5. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust,
fugitive particulate emissions, blowing debris,and other potential nuisance conditions. (Department
of Public Health and Environment)
6. The applicant shall operate in accordance with the "waste handling plan". (Department of Public
Health and Environment)
7. Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions shall be controlled on this site. The facility shall be
operated in accordance with the dust abatement plan at all times. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
8. This facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Industrial Zone as
delineated in 25-12-103 C.R.S., as amended. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
9. Adequate handwashing and toilet facilities shall be provided for employees and patrons of the facility.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
10. Portable toilets may be utilized on sites that are temporary locations of the working face and portable
processing equipment, etc. for up to six months at each location. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
11. Bottled water shall be provided to employees at the temporary locations of the working face at all
times. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
12. Any septic system located on the property must comply with all provisions of the Weld County Code,
pertaining to Individual Sewage Disposal Systems. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
13. A permanent, adequate water supply shall be provided for drinking and sanitary purposes.
(Department of Public Health and Environment)
14. If the water system is a well, the system shall comply with the requirements for a community water
system as defined in the Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations(5 CCR 1003-1). (Department
of Public Health and Environment)
Resolution AmUSR-1259
Riverbend
Page 2
15. The applicant shall remove, handle, and stockpile overburden, soil, sand and gravel from the facility
area in a manner that will prevent nuisance conditions. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
16. All potentially hazardous chemicals must be stored and handled in a safe manner in accordance with
product labeling and in a manner that minimizes the release of hazardous air pollutants(HAP's)and
volatile organic compounds (VOC's). (Department of Public Health and Environment)
17. If applicable,the applicant shall obtain a storm water discharge permit from the Colorado Department
of Public Health & Environment, Water Quality Control Division. (Department of Public Health and
Environment)
18. If applicable, the applicant shall comply with all provisions of the Underground and Above Ground
Storage Tank Regulations (7 CCR 1101-14). (Department of Public Health and Environment)
19. If applicable,any vehicle washing area(s)shall capture all effluent and prevent discharges from drum
washing and the washing of vehicles in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Water
Quality Control Commission,and the Environmental Protection Agency. (Department of Public Health
and Environment)
20. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the State and Federal agencies
and the Weld County Code. (Department of Public Health and Environment)
21. "No Trespassing"signs shall be posted and maintained on the perimeter fence to clearly identify the
boundaries of the site. (Department of Planning Services)
22. Lighting provided for security and emergency night operation on the site shall be designed so that the
lighting will not adversely affect surrounding property owners. (Department of Planning Services)
23. Section 23-4-290.8 of the Weld County Code limits the hours of operation for sand and gravel
operations to the hours of day light except in the case of public or private emergency or to make
necessary repairs to equipment. Hours of operation may be extended with specific permission from
the Weld County Board of County Commissioners. This restriction shall not apply to operation of
administrative and executive offices or repair and maintenance facilities located on the property.
(Department of Planning Services)
24. Existing trees and ground cover along public road frontage and drainage ways shall be preserved,
maintained, and supplemented, if necessary,for the depth of the setback in order to protect against
and/or reduce noise, dust, and erosion. (Department of Planning Services)
25. Where topsoil is removed,sufficient arable soil shall be set aside for re-spreading over the reclaimed
areas. (Department of Planning Services)
26. Should noxious weeds exist on the property or become established as a result of the proposed
development, the applicant/landowner shall be responsible for controlling the noxious weeds,
pursuant to Section 15-1-180. (Department of Public Works)
27. County Road 8 shall be used as a service access only. The main access in onto County Road 6.
Materials will be transferred on conveyors and bridged across the South Platte River to the main plant
area. (Department of Public Works)
28. Conveyors will be used to move material from the site across County Road 8 to the main processing
facility. There will be no direct hauling across County Road 8. The applicant shall be totally
responsible for keeping this crossing area free of gravel, spillage, vandalism, etc. (Department of
Public Works)
Resolution AmUSR-1259
Riverbend
Page 3
29. The historical flow patterns and run-off amounts will be maintained on site in such a manner that it will
reasonably preserve the natural character of the area and prevent property damage of the type
generally attributed to run-off rate a velocity increases, diversions, concentration and/or unplanned
ponding of storm run-off. (Department of Public Works)
30. The site must take into consideration storm water capture/quantity and provide accordingly for best
management practices. (Department of Public Works)
31. If any work associated with this project requires the placement of dredge or fill material, and any
excavation associated with a dredged or fill project, either temporary or permanent, in waters of the
United States which may include streams, open water lakes and ponds or wetlands at this site,the
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers shall be notified by a proponent of the project for proper
department of the Army permits or changes in permit requirements pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act. (Army Corps of Engineers)
32. The landscaping on site shall be maintained in accordance with the approved Landscape Plan.
(Department of Planning Services)
33. A building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction or placement of any structure such as a
scale,concrete and asphalt plant,office,concrete casting facility,recycling plant,office trailer and any
other structures placed on the parcels. An electrical permit will be required for any electrical service
to equipment. A plot plan shall be submitted when applying for building permits showing all structures
with accurate distances between structures,and from structures to all property lines. (Department of
Building Inspection)
34. A plan review is required for each building for which a building permit is required. Plans shall bear the
wet stamp of a Colorado registered architect or engineer. Two complete sets of plans are required
when applying for each permit. (Department of Building Inspection)
35. Buildings shall conform to the requirements of the various codes adopted at the time of permit
application. Currently the following has been adopted by Weld County: 2003 International Building
Code; 2003 International Mechanical Code; 2003 International Plumbing Code; 2002 National
Electrical Code; 2003 International Fuel Gas Code and Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code.
(Department of Building Inspection)
36. Each structure set on a foundation will require an engineered foundation based on a site-specific
geotechnical report or an open hole inspection performed by a Colorado registered engineer.
Engineered foundations shall be designed by a Colorado registered engineer. (Department of
Building Inspection)
37. Building wall and opening protection and limitations and the separation of buildings of mixed
occupancy classifications shall be in accordance with the Building Code. Setback and offset
distances shall be determined by the Weld County Code. (Department of Building Inspection)
38. Building height shall be measured in accordance with the Building Code for the purpose of
determining the maximum building size and height for various uses and types of construction and to
determine compliance with the Bulk Requirements from Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code.
Building height shall be measured in accordance with Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code in order to
determine compliance with offset and setback requirements. Offset and setback requirements are
measured to the farthest projection from the building. (Department of Building Inspection)
39. A Flood Hazard Development Permit shall be submitted for buildings constructed, moved and
berming in the 100-year flood plain. (Departments of Building Inspection and Planning Services)
r
40. Effective January 1, 2003, Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to adhere to
the fee structure of the County Road Impact Program. (Ordinance 2002-11)(Department of Planning
Services)
Resolution AmUSR-1259
Riverbend
Page 4
41. Effective August 1,2005, Building permits issued on the subject site will be required to adhere to the
fee structure of the Capital Expansion Impact Fee and the Stormwater/Drainage Impact Fee.
(Ordinance 2005-8 Section 5-8-40) (Department of Planning Services)
42. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of
Section 23-2-240 of the Weld County Code.
43. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of
Section 23-2-250 of the Weld County Code.
44. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Open-mining Standards of
Section 23-4-250, Weld County Code.
45. Personnel from the Weld County Government shall be granted access onto the property at any
reasonable time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the
Development Standards stated herein and all applicable Weld County regulations.
46. The Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the foregoing
standards and all applicable Weld County regulations. Substantial changes from the plans or
Development Standards as shown or stated shall require the approval of an amendment of the Permit
by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans or
Development Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the
Department of Planning Services.
47. In accordance with Section 23-2-200.E of the Weld County Code, if the Use by Special Review has
not commenced from the date of approval or is discontinued for a period of three (3) consecutive
years, it shall be presumed inactive. The county shall initiate an administrative hearing to consider
whether to grant an extension of time to commence the use or revoke the Use by Special Review. If
the Use by Special Review is revoked, it shall be necessary to follow the procedures and
requirements of Division 4 of the Weld County Code in order to reestablish any Use by Special
Review. (Department of Planning Services)
48. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing
Development Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Development Standards may be
reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners. (Department of Planning
Services)
Motion seconded by Erich Ehrlich.
Resolution AmUSR-1259
Riverbend
Page 5
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Abstained Absent
Michael Miller
Bruce Fitzgerald
Chad Auer
Tom Holton
Doug Ochsner
James Welch
Erich Ehrlich
Roy Spitzer
Paul Branham
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this
case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I, Donita May, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution, is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County,
Colorado, adopted on May 16, 2006.
Dated the 16th of May, 2006
loC.A_,v, a
Donita May
Secretary
SUMMARY OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
A regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held in the Southwest Weld County
Conference Room, 4209 CR 24.5, Longmont, Colorado. The meeting was called to order by Chair, Bruce
Fitzgerald, at 1:40 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Michael Miller absent
Bruce Fitzgerald
Tom Holton
Chad Auer absent
Doug Ochsner
James Welch
Roy Spitzer
Erich Ehrlich
Paul Branham
Also Present: Kim Ogle and Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services; Don Carroll,Department of
Public Works; Char Davis and Pam Smith, Environmental Health; Lee Morrison, County Attorney.
The summary of the last regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held on September 6,
2005, was approved as read.
Hearing items to be continued:
CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1259
APPLICANT: Riverbend do Eric Reckentine with LaFarge West Inc
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: N2 Section 13; NE4 NW4 Section 12; W 30 acres W2 SE4
Section 1; SE4 NW4 Section 12; E 30 acres SW4 SE4 Section
12; S2 of E 60 acres SW4 Section 12; W4 SW4 SE4 Section 12;
NW4 SE4 Section 12; E 30 acres NE4 SW4 Section 12; Pt N2
NE4 Section 24; E2 SE4 Section 12 of T1 N, R67W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado, and W2 NW4 Section 18; W2
SW4 Section 18; Lot A and B of RE-2347 Pt NW4 Section 19;
Lots 1 and 2 SW4 Section 19; Pt W2 SE4 Section 19; Pt NW4
SE4 Section 19; W2 SW4 Section 7 of T1 N, R66W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, CO.
REQUEST: An amended Site Specific Development Plan and a Special
Review Permit 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.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Hwy 52; East of and adjacent to
CR 23; North of and adjacent to CR 6; and West of and adjacent
to State Highway 85.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services,stated the applicant submitted a letter September 2,2005
requesting a continuance to October 18,2005,to allow for additional time to finalize the ditch agreements and
provide for appropriate mineral notification. Planning staff is recommending the November 15,2005 hearing Q'
date due to a full agenda on October 18, 2005.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No "I' �,'
one wished to speak. W
Doug Ochsner moved that Case AmUSR-1259,be continued to November 15,2005. James Welch seconded
the motion. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision.
Roy Spitzer,yes;James Welch,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes;Tom Holton,yes;Doug Ochsner,yes; Paul Branham,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair announced that case number four on the agenda would be heard next.
CASE NUMBER: 2nd AmUSR-249
APPLICANT: Asphalt Specialties Company
PLANNER: Kim Ogle
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt of the NE4NW4 and NW4NE4 and S2NW4 SW4NE4 and SE4
of Section 31, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for
Mineral Resource development Facility's including a Concrete
Ashpalt Batch Plant, Asphalt Recycling Plant and Gravel Mining
in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
LOCATION: North of and adjacent to State Highway 52; and east of and
adjacent to County Line Road.
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services,said the applicant had submitted a facsimile letter into our office
today requesting an indefinite continuance to a date uncertain,as they have several issues yet to be resolved
prior to proceeding with the Planning Commission. Planning staff supports this request and recommends the
Planning Commission grant a continuance. The applicant is present, as is the attorney representing the
surrounding property owners.
Rob Laird,representing Asphalt Specialties, 10100 Dallas Street, Henderson,CO 80640,said they have some
unresolved issues to complete and thought it best to ask for a continuance rather than take up the public's
time.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Judson Hite,attorney for the homeowners, said that rather than an indefinite continuance,they would like to
request the more specific date of November 15, 2005.
The Chair asked Mr. Ogle about that date. Mr. Ogle replied that since the applicant had requested an
indefinite continuance they will contact the Planning Department with a specific date they would like the case
to be heard.
Lee Morrison, County Attorney, said the full notification process must again be observed. Mr. Morrison
suggested Mr. Ogle confer with the counsel for the homeowners as soon as the applicants are ready to
proceed to avoid scheduling issues.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No
one wished to speak.
Doug Ochsner moved that Case 2nd AmUSR-249 be continued indefinitely. Tom Holton seconded the
motion. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision.
Roy Spitzer,yes;James Welch,yes; Erich Ehrlich,yes;Tom Holton,yes; Doug Ochsner,yes; Paul Branham,
yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Consent agenda items:
CASE NUMBER: 2nd AmPF-431
APPLICANT: DBM Consulting LLC & Lehigh Enterprises Acquisition Corp
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 4, 5, 6 & 7 Block 2 Western Dairymen Cooperative Section
10, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: An Amendment to a PUD Final Plat Redesign -consolidating
II- jS-- ,
2. CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-1259
APPLICANT: Riverbend do Eric Reckentine with LaFarge West Inc
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: N2 Section 13; NE4 NW4 Section 12; W 30 acres W2 SE4
Section 1; SE4 NW4 Section 12; E 30 acres SW4 SE4 Section
12; S2 of E 60 acres SW4 Section 12; W4 SW4 SE4 Section 12;
NW4 SE4 Section 12; E 30 acres NE4 SW4 Section 12; Pt N2
NE4 Section 24; E2 SE4 Section 12 of T1 N, R67W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado, and W2 NW4 Section 18; W2
SW4 Section 18; Lot A and B of RE-2347 Pt NW4 Section 19;
Lots 1 and 2 SW4 Section 19; Pt W2 SE4 Section 19; Pt NW4
SE4 Section 19; W2 SW4 Section 7 of T1N, R66W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, CO.
REQUEST: An amended Site Specific Development Plan and a Special
Review Permit 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.
LOCATION: South of and adjacent to State Hwy 52; East of and adjacent to
CR 23; North of and adjacent to CR 6; and West of and adjacent
to State Highway 85.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services, said they had received a letter from Eric Reckentine
and LaFarge West requesting a continuance to allow the applicant time to revise the maps and
documents to reflect modifications to the permit boundary. Staff is requesting this case be continued
indefinitely.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against the continuance. As
there was no one, the public portion of the hearing was closed.
Doug Oschner moved that Case AmUSR-1259, be continued indefinitely. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
CONSENT ITEMS
3. CASE NUMBER: PZ-1085
APPLICANT: Twin View Estates LLC
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot B of RE-2953; part of the SW4 of Section 5, T4N, R68W of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Planned Unit Development Change of Zone for nine (9) lots with
Estate uses, one (1)common open space outlot(11 acres) (Twin
View Estates PUD).
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 3 and north of and adjacent to CR 48.
Lauren Light,AGPROfessionals, representing the applicant, said they wish to remain on the consent
agenda.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against the case remaining
on the consent agenda. As there was no one, the public portion of the hearing was closed.
2
5— I(a_�t�Oa
Welch, yes;Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously.
Specific time for public input has been set aside for discussion on the following items:
— 2. CASE: AMUSR-1259
APPLICANT: Riverbend do Eric Reckentine with Lafarge West, Inc.
PLANNER: Jacqueline Hatch
LEGAL: N2 Section 13; SE4 NW4 Section 12; E 30 acres SW4 SE4 Section 12;S2
of E 60acres SW4 Section 12;W4 SW4 SE4 Section 12; NW4 SE4 Section
12; E 30 acres NE4 SW4 Section 12;Pt N2 NE4 Section 24;E2 SE4 Section
12; of T1 N, R67W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, CO. and W2 NW4 Section
18; W2 SW4 Section 18; Lot A and B RE-2347 Pt NW4 Section 19; Lots 1
and 2 SW4 Section 19; Pt W2 SE4 Section 19; Pt NW4 SE4 Section 19;W2
SW4 Section 7; of TIN, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, CO.
REQUEST: An amended Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review
Permit 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.
LOCATION: General vicinity is East of and adjacent to CR 23, North of and adjacent to
CR 6, and West of and adjacent to State Highway 85.
The Chair asked the applicant to step forward as a member of the Planning Commission, Tom Holton, had
some questions. Mr. Holton asked Mr. Reckentine if the area that Thornton owned was presently permitted.
Mr. Reckentine replied that it was presently permitted under a separate USR. Mr. Holton wondered if he
needed to recuse himself due to his five percent ownership in the three hundred twenty(320)acres to the
north. He is an adjacent landowner, even though the property was currently being annexed by Fort Lupton.
Mr. Holton added that his family would not gain from this application being either approved or denied.
Mr. Reckentine responded that he did not have a problem with Mr. Holton hearing the case. Cyndy Giauque,
County Attorney, suggested the record show what Mr. Holton's interest was in the property, and that
another member of the Planning Commission needed to recuse himself. Roy Spitzer said the firm he works
for currently has contracts with LaFarge and felt it prudent to recuse himself from this case.
Jacqueline Hatch, Department of Planning Services. Eric Reckentine with Lafarge West Inc.represented by
Jennifer Vecchi have applied for an amended Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit
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.
The sign announcing the planning commission hearing was posted on May 4, 2006 by staff.
The site is generally located east of and adjacent to County Road 23,north of and adjacent to County Road 6,
and west of and adjacent to State Highway 85.
The operation will process approximately two million tons of aggregate per year and mine approximately forty
to fifty acres per year. At this rate it is anticipated the mining and reclaiming of the site would be thirty four
years, however the rate of mining and overall life of the mine is dependent upon demand and market
conditions-the life of the mine may extend beyond the thirty four years. The operation is planned for a total of
nine phases that the applicant will go into more detail with in their presentation.
The processing area will be located on approximately forty acres in the southeastern portion of the property by
the CR 6 and State Highway 85 respectively and will be the last portion to me mined
The site contains two gravel operations currently (SUP-310 & USR-1259) The proposed use would be
2
compatible with surrounding properties which include gravel operations to the south(AmUSR-921 &AmUSR-
905)and to the north east(USR-603&USR-695)and agricultural uses to the west. State Highway 85 is to the
east of the site. The applicant is proposing to install a vegetated berm on the south and east sides of the
plant side area to shield the operations from surrounding landowners and traffic on State Highway 85. The
existing cottonwood gallery to the west and north of the plant site is proposed to remain to buffer the
landowners located west of the site.
The City of Brighton in their referral dated August 8,2005,suggested that the applicant include a primary trail
as part of the site. The City of Fort Lupton in their referral dated August 23,2005 recommended approval of
the application but do request that the screening blend into the site and that the County continue to provide the
City with updates and be aware of the future traffic issues at County Road 6 and State Highway 85.The City of
Fort Lupton in their referral dated April 13, 2006 requested that the applicant enter into an annexation
agreement prior to the Board of County Commissioner's hearing. No referral was received from Adams
County.
The total area within the permit as outlined in their application is 1,152 acres (640 acres to be disturbed).
The property will be reclaimed as unlined groundwater-fed ponds,lined water storage reservoirs as well as silt
basin wetland and upland areas. The deposit will be dry mined through the use of dewatering trenches and
pumps.
There will be a maximum of two shifts and forty employees working on the site. Section 23-4-290.6 of the
Weld County Code limits the hours of operation for sand and gravel operations to the hours of day light except
in the case of public or private emergency or to make necessary repairs to equipment. Hours of operation may
be extended with specific permission from the Weld County Board of County Commissioners.This restriction
shall not apply to operation of administrative and executive offices or repair and maintenance facilities located
on the property.
The facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Industrial Zone as delineated
in 25-12-103 C.R.S., as amended.
Twenty referral agencies included conditions that have been addressed through the development standards
and conditions of approval. Two letters from surrounding property owners have been received.
The Department of Planning Services would like to request two changes to the conditions of approval: item
2.F. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements of the City of Brighton, as stated in their referral
response dated April 28, 2006. Evidence of approval shall be submitted in writing to the Department of
Planning Services; and item 1.D. presently in "prior to Board of County Commission" be moved to "prior to
operations"and added as a new number five and re-numbered accordingly.
The Department of Planning Services has reviewed case number amusr-1259 and recommends approval to
the Planning Commission, with the attached Conditions and Development Standards as amended.
Mr. Holton asked about the annexation to Fort Lupton and would that occur in the future. Ms. Hatch replied
Fort Lupton is asking for an annexation agreement prior to scheduling the Board of County Commissioners
hearing and it would be on just the properties owned by the applicant, not the entire property.
Mr. Ehrlich asked about the Kerr-McGee agreement and where it stands. Ms. Hatch said they had received
correspondence from the oil & gas entities on the site stating they are working with the applicants, and
we have a condition, prior to scheduling the Board of County Commissioners, that those annexation
agreements are complete. (Page 5, 1.A.)
Eric Reckentine, 1800 No Taft Hill Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80526, Area Manager Northern Colorado
Aggregates Division, stepped forward and said he appreciated the opportunity to present the Riverbend
application to the Planning Commission today. Their goals are to mine natural resources and return them
back to nature. La Farge is the largest diversified supplier of construction materials in the United States and
3
Canada. LaFarge is the world leader in building materials and is located in seventy(70)countries throughout
the world. Their chief products include aggregate, asphalt and concrete. They have received numerous
industry awards and pride themselves on their reclamation achievements. Their plan is to work together to
create a comprehensive plan with Weld County and the Fort Lupton community. They plan to expand their
two existing permitted gravel sites located adjacent to the South Platte River on County Road 6 and south of
State Highway 52. Their goal is to concurrently mine and reclaim the site from south to north, creating: silt
basin wetlands;lined ponds for water storage; unlined ponds;wildlife habitat;re-vegetation;future parks,trails
and open space;fishing ponds; river corridor enhancement;and passive recreation. The company goal is to
protect the aquifer, minimize traffic impacts and create a beautifully reclaimed site for the future. Mr.
Reckentine outlined the site boundaries, talked about the existing ditches and that they would not be
relocated, and pointed out the various plants to be located on the site. He said all materials would be
conveyed from north to south and plant access would be on County Road 6 exclusively. All commercial traffic
would travel down County Road 6, enter into the site, load and come back out on County Road 6. The
majority of traffic would continue south down Highway 85 to the Denver market area. All mined materials
would be conveyed from north to south. They would establish a conveying network and as they mined out a
property, materials would be conveyed down to the stationary plant and processed. They plan to have a
gravel processing plant, a concrete batch plant and an asphalt batch plant. He addressed berming and
planting and said a key feature of the site was that they are shielded from public view due to the South Platte
River and the riparian corridor they will protect,and the large cottonwood trees on the site,excluding the plant
site area. They intend to create a twenty five foot berm in the area and vegetate it prior to mining, thus
establishing a riparian corridor that would tie into the existing corridor and create a shield of the plant site
location from view.
Gene Coppola, 9323 Ermindale Dr, Lonetree, CO,traffic consultant for the project,gave background on the
traffic studies conducted in the area. In late 1999, early 2000, these three major facilities; Aggregate
Industries, Asphalt Paving and LaFarge, realized they would be expanding their facilities served by County
Road 6 west of Highway 85. A joint traffic study was conducted which assessed not only the background
traffic growth but also the build-out scenario for each of those facilities. That study resulted in the
determination that a right turn lane was necessary along the south side of County Road 6 leading to
southbound Highway 85. In conjunction with that lane, an acceleration lane would be brought up to current
standards along the west side of Highway 85. Additionally,the northbound left turn lane,from Highway 85 to
County Road 6, would be lengthened and traffic signals would be necessary at some point in the future.
Those improvements were implemented when Aggregate Industries increased production at their facility. It
was a joint venture among the three operators. In conjunction with this project, LaFarge has updated the
traffic study which confirmed that County Road 6 and Highway 85 remain functional and will serve future traffic
needs. That study determined the only improvement necessary would be the west bound right turn lane from
County Road 6 into the site ingress. As a part of the referral process, Colorado Department of Transportation
(CDOT) has also requested LaFarge look at lengthening the right turn lane southbound on Highway 85 to
County Road 6, and they have agreed to consider that request.
Mr. Reckentine continued with landscaping plans and said they will establish a berm along the east side of
the property to create a visual barrier from view of Highway 85, adjoining property owners and Fort Lupton.
The berm will be established and vegetation in place prior to installation of any of these plants along County
Road 6.
Jennifer Vecchi,Vecchi &Associates, PO Box 1175, Longmont, CO 80504, reclamation specialist,said that
LaFarge has put considerable attention and detail into developing the mining plan, and they gave equal
thought and energy to the reclamation plan. Long after this property is mined, the reclaimed site will
remain. LaFarge began working about two years ago with representatives from Fort Lupton,the city council
and the planning commission, and they hosted neighborhood meetings. Three important points came out of
those many conversations: preservation and enhancement of the riparian corridor; connecting ditch areas;
and the site proximity to Fort Lupton. LaFarge had talked to Fort Lupton about annexation but they are not
contiguous and do not meet the state statutory requirements for annexation. LaFarge will pursue an
agreement for pre-annexation prior to the Board of County Commissioners hearing for the properties as
contiguity becomes possible. Lafarge will mine the site to the southeast,where the majority of the activity will
4
take place. The berm will be established along the eastern and southern boundaries at the beginning of the
project prior to bringing any equipment into the site. Elements of the reclamation plan will include the
development of wetlands, with special attention to the protection and enhancement of wildlife habitat, lined
and unlined ponds for future water storage, upland pasture lands,re-vegetation of the river corridor, potential
trails, open spaces, potential fishing ponds, civic uses, and passive recreation. There is a limited
development potential around some of the lakes later on, but it would have to be consistent with the County's
and Fort Lupton's Comprehensive Plans. The view from Highway 85 across the road includes a mobile home
park on the northeast corner and we have allowed for landscaping and berming to mitigate the view to and
from the site. Concurrent reclamation will be practiced,where only forty to fifty acres will be mined at a time,
reclaimed, and then another forty or fifty acres will then be mined. There will be progressive reclamation
throughout the life of the mine.
Mr. Reckentine gave an overview of the mine plan and concurrent reclamation plan, saying the plant site will
be stationary throughout the life of the site. LaFarge will reclaim phase one as mining in two is starting,
reclaim two as mining in three is starting, etc. Mr. Reckentine closed by saying that this presentation
represented seven years of work on their behalf and they believed they have presented a mine plan that will
maximize gravel extraction and provide the community with a reclamation plan that will add value to the
community.
Mr. Miller inquired about the south to north phasing plan and said it seems like development will occur around
the northern boundary of the property. He wondered if it wouldn't make more sense to begin there and move
south to minimize the impact on the Fort Lupton development area, and asked if that would be a possibility.
Mr. Reckentine said it was considered and was not an impossibility, though they don't know what kind of
development may occur to their north. The mine plan was established to minimize the outlay of the conveyor
up front and if there was development up north there would be no issue with running the conveyor the entire
length and mining the northern areas and moving south.
Mr. Miller asked if the import of materials was for asphalt and where would those materials be stored. Mr.
Reckentine said the materials would be stored in the same processing area as the plant due to proximity for
recycling but that they might at some point bring in a portable facility as well.
Mr. Miller inquired about the number of truck trips and if they were included in the traffic study. Mr.Reckentine
replied he believed they were included in the traffic study but the actual numbers would depend upon the
construction in the area but would be handled through the way the peak traffic flow and operation hours are
set up.
Mr. Miller asked Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, if there was a point in the evaluation of the traffic
study where the acceptable traffic levels would be exceeded. Mr. Carroll deferred to Mr. Coppola, LaFarge
traffic engineer,to address the question. Mr.Coppola said the traffic study assumes roughly ninety(90)trucks
in and out per hour,but they do not expect to ever exceed that. As far as the adequacy of County Road 6 and
Highway 85, most of those lanes were built for this design load and also some of the lanes in existence were
not traffic volume sensitive. For instance,the east bound right turn going south on Highway 85,the design of
that acceleration lane is a constant whether we have two hundred (200)or five hundred (500)cars an hour.
The design will not change even if traffic changes. Mr. Miller said his concern was that there were loaded
trucks going both in and out thereby doubling the volume and road capacity would be exceeded, especially
when material import and export from the two additional proposed facilities was factored in. Mr.Coppola said
he did not see that happening, as this was the largest operation, the other two would be smaller, and even if
volume was doubled, they would still be well within acceptable limits.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application.
Dorothy Gandleman, DJR Well Service, 12563 CR 6, Brighton,CO,located on the corner of Highway 85 and
County Road 6. Her business is located just in front of this proposed development and she expressed
concern with traffic as her business will have slow moving vehicles entering County Road 6 at the same time
as the LaFarge vehicles. She wants the speed limit such that it provides safe entry for all. Ms. Gandleman
5
expressed concern about dust and plans for abatement, as well as requesting that the prairie dog colony be
disposed of properly and not relocated to her property. She appreciated the addition of berms to mitigate
views. Mr. Miller asked Ms. Gandleman if she had experienced any difficulties so far. She replied that
Aggregate Industry trucks do not obey stop signs and her trucks always need to sit and make sure it is clear
prior to entering the road.
Henry Teener, County Road 22, said he was involved in an accident on County Road 6 where he dealt with
CDOT, who told him that Highway 85 is a high speed road between Denver and Greeley. Mr. Teener said
rush hour traffic is horrendous, and when you put a truck on the road that is carrying eighty five thousand
(85,000) pounds, the speed up lane was not long enough to get a truck up to any sort of speed. When they
come out of Brighton and proceed north, there is a train of trucks at this point, and this business will impact
safety and traffic tremendously during commute hours and CDOT is pushing this route as an alternate route to
I-25.
Carl Eiberger, 754 CR 23.75, said he had never seen a concurrent reclamation plan, thought it was a great
idea and supported it.
The Chair closed the public portion of the meeting.
Mr. Reckentine responded to community concerns: Lafarge manages prairie dogs year to year to mitigate the
problem; a dust mitigation plan exists for the proposed site; the majority of processing would be on the
Rittenhouse property;irrigation would be provided for tree planting;sprayers would be located in several areas
for dust abatement; truck traffic on County Road 6 is per Fort Lupton's request and would be safer located
away from future building. Mr. Coppola added that turn lanes on Highway 85 and County Road 6 are a truck
design and meet CDOT standards for truck designs for expressways,which is the classification for Highway
85, so acceleration and deceleration have been accounted for. Mr. Fitzgerald asked if the south bound lane
had a stop sign. Mr. Coppola said it is not a sheltered turn lane,that traffic would stop on red and proceed on
green.
The Chair asked the applicant if they had read and agreed with the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval. Mr. Reckentine replied yes.
Ms. Hatch said currently there is a note regarding the Brighton Ditch that the applicant needs to address. She
suggested an addition on page 7,a new item I.and re-letter accordingly to read,'The applicant shall submit to
the Department of Planning Services,a copy of site agreements with the Lupton Bottom Ditch Company." Mr.
Reckentine agreed to that term.
Mr. Miller asked Ms. Hatch for clarification about the addition of the new item I. and would it be the same as
existing item H except it was addressed to Lupton Bottom. Ms. Hatch replied they had received a referral from
Brighton Ditch so currently item H. says"they shall address". Since they do not have a referral from Lupton
Bottom, they are asking for an agreement with them.
Mr. Ehrlich asked Ms. Hatch if items H. and I. could be moved from "prior to recording the plat" to "prior to
scheduling the Board of County Commissioners hearing". She replied that they could be moved. Mr. Ehrlich
said something else that was inaudible. Mr. Miller said that could potentially delay scheduling the hearing if
they don't respond promptly. Mr. Ehrlich's response was inaudible. Mr. Miller responded they could schedule
the hearing before they got a response from the Lupton Bottom Ditch. If we put it"prior to recording the plat",
they could proceed with scheduling the Board of County Commissioner's hearing and move forward with the
application and add that agreement in prior to recording the plat.
Mr. Fitzgerald asked if production could begin prior to recording the plat. Ms. Hatch said no. Mr. Fitzgerald
said that would cover the Lupton Bottom and that was all that was required.
The Chair asked for discussion or a motion.
Mike Miller moved to add a new letter I.on page 7 and renumber accordingly, referencing the acquisition of a
6
signed agreement between the applicant and the Lupton Bottom Ditch. Tom Holton seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Chad Auer,
yes; Paul Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Roy Spitzer, abstained;
James Welch, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried.
Mike Miller moved to accept staff language regarding item 2.F., page 7 addressing the requirements of the
City of Brighton and also move item 1.D., page 6 to page 10, number 5. and renumber accordingly. Tom
Holton seconded.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Chad Auer,
yes; Paul Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Roy Spitzer, abstained;
James Welch, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried.
The Chair asked the applicant if he was still in agreement with the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval. Mr. Reckentine replied that he agreed.
Mr. Holton asked Mr. Reckentine about a letter from the Fort Lupton Fire Department and a location for a
future station location. Mr. Reckentine said Fort Lupton Fire was vague as to a future station location but
LaFarge is willing to negotiate when Fort Lupton narrows that down in the future. The only concern that
LaFarge has is that this is an MSHA(Mine Safety Health Administration)regulated site and anyone working or
walking around the site needs to have MSHA certification, so basically is has to be in an area of post mining.
Mr. Holton said they are basically looking at a fill site rather than a station. Mr. Reckentine said there was no
definitive answer yet.
Don Carroll, Department of Public Works, clarified that the light at County 6 and Highway 85 is a free right, a
non-stop condition to keep trucks rolling and is probably marked as a yield. The idea is to keep the trucks
rolling and up to speed and merge them in so as not to impede traffic. Mr. Carroll said he had heard mention
of County Road 10 being used, but there is no access to Highway 85. We do not have any right of way
because that was more than likely homesteaded prior to our 1889 resolution. One would also have to cross
the river to get to County Road 10.
Mr. Fitzgerald asked if there were plans to make County Road 10 go through to Highway 85. Mr.Carroll said
they had no right of way on County Road10.
Mr. Holton asked Ms. Hatch why on the PUD's under Section 22-5-30.H., regarding oil and gas, why is that
different than what we are seeing on this USR, and isn't that more consistent with what we are trying to do in
the county than what is referenced under Section 22-5-100.A. Ms. Hatch said she will check into that,though
that is the shell they have always used but maybe the Code could be changed. Mr. Holton said Section 27-5-
30.H. contained more consistent language with what we are trying to do here rather than Section 22-5-100.
He would like to see language from Section 27-5-30.H. and maybe the attorney or the Board of County
Commissioners could look at changing this. Ms. Hatch replied that Section 22-5-100 pertains to oil and gas
operations and Section 27-5-30.H. references PUD's and this is a USR, not a PUD. Mr. Holton said he
understood that but why would the language be different from one section to the next when they both deal with
the same subject. Ms. Hatch responded that she would have to compare the two sections side by side. Mr.
Holton said the basic difference at the end between the two is that Section 27-5-30 says, "OR shall provide
written evidence that an adequate attempt has been made to mitigate the concerns of the mineral owners on
the subject property." Ms. Hatch said they do allow that. If an applicant is having a hard time getting an
agreement with a specific mineral owner they can provide evidence they have been trying for a specific period
of time and go before the Board of County Commissioners with that evidence and the Board can make the
determination at that time. Mr. Holton asked if that should be referenced in the application versus what is in
Section 22-5-30.H.which is not very specific, saying you only need to provide evidence rather than a written,
signed agreement. Ms. Hatch said they needed to provide an agreement or show the drill envelopes in a
USR.
7
Mr. Fitzgerald asked the County Attorney if that was something that could be changed at this time. Ms.
Giauque replied that they needed to abide by what staff had recommended.
Mr. Miller said staff has the ability to accept evidence of an attempt to negotiate,as it is written now,whether it
is written in the Code or not.
Mr. Fitzgerald asked Ms. Hatch if she could assure them this will happen if the mineral owners do not come
forth with an agreement. Ms. Hatch replied the applicants have that option, over so many years, if they still
have not reached an agreement but have been attempting to make one. Currently the mineral owners on the
site have been working with LaFarge and she sees no problem.
The Chair asked the applicant if he was still in agreement with the Development Standards and Conditions of
Approval. Mr. Reckentine replied that he agreed.
Chad Auer moved that Case AmUSR-1259, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with
the amended Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's
recommendation of approval. Erich Ehrlich seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Chad Auer,
yes; Paul Branham, yes; Erich Ehrlich, yes; Tom Holton, yes; Michael Miller, yes; Roy Spitzer, abstained;
James Welch, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried.
Mike Miller complemented LaFarge on a very complete application and their willingness to step into the twenty
first century and address issues up front rather than wait for resolution by the Planning Commission.
Bruce Fitzgerald echoed Mr. Miller's comments and said that working with the city of Fort Lupton and the
neighbors is a good step in establishing a good relationship.
2. CASE: USR-1555
APPLICANT: Tsunami Communications Inc.
PLANNER: Michelle Martin
LEGAL: Part NW4 of Section 33, T2N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Major
Facility(two 1.5 Million Gallon Water Storage Tanks) of a Public Utility or
Public Agency in the A(Agricultural)Zone District).
LOCATION: East of and adjacent to CR 17 and south of CR 16.
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services, presented a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special
Review Permit for a Major Facility(two 1.5 Million Gallon Water Storage Tanks) of a Public Utility or Public
Agency in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
The sign announcing the Planning Commissioners hearing was posted May 2, 2006 by Planning Staff.
The site is located East of and adjacent to County Road 17 and south of County Road 16.
The facility will not have an undue adverse effect on existing and future development of the surrounding area
as set forth in applicable Master Plans. The subject property lies within the three-mile referral area of the City
of Dacono,Town of Firestone and Town of Frederick. The City of Dacono in their referral dated April 10,2006
stated that they had no conflicts with the request. No response has been received by the Town of Firestone.
The Town of Frederick in their email dated April 21,2006 is requesting the tank be painted to blend in with the
environment. The following Conditions of Approval and Development Standards address the Town of
Frederick's concern.
'"`� Mr. Fitzgerald asked if the new tower presently under construction was under USR-1508. Ms. Martin replied
8
Hello