The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20033271.tiff -- ME Banks and Gesso, LLC 720 Kipling St.,Suite117 ■■ Lakewood, Colorado 80215 (303) 274-4277 Fax(303) 274-8329 www.banksandgesso.com November 3, 2003 Board of County Commissioners of Weld County Attn: Esther, Cierk to the Board P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 RE: USR-1436 Premier Paving, Inc. -Adams Sand and Gravel Mine Dear Esther, Attached please find a copy of the "request to proceed" letter for this project signed by the landowner, Mr. James Adams. You will also be receiving a signed letter from the applicant, Mr. Russ Otterstein of Premier Paving, Inc. We look forward to presenting this project to the Board of County Commissioners on December 17, 2003. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Ma`�Jacob Y Project Manager tear 2003-3271 OCT-31-2003 FR1 11:57 AM BANKS AND GESSO LLC FAX NO. 303 274 8329 P. 02 44� Nir 6Th BOARD OF COiJNTY COMMISSIONERS PHONE (970)3367204,Ext.4200 FAX: (970)352-0242 P.O. BOX 756 OREELEY,COLORAOO 80632 CO RAC October 20, 2003 RECEIVED .\+W V 6 2003 Russ Ott stein, Premier Paving, Inc. __ ,_.:,nleF`Benks`and OeSso-, a-Ikea-- — = BANKS-6 BESSE),ttC_._ . - _...720 Kipling Street, Sulte 117 Lakewood, Colorado 80216 Dear Mn Otterstein: Your application fore Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review 111436 for Mineral Resource Development Facilities, Including Open Pit Mining and Materials Processing and a Concrete and Asphalt Batch Plant In the A(Agricultural)Zone District, has been recommended unfavorably to the Board of County Commissioners by the Planning Commission. The legal description of the property Involved is shown as part of the 81/2;NE1'/4 and the NE1/4 NE1/4 of Section 19,Township 1 North, Range 88 West of the 6th P.M;, Weld County, Colorado. If you wish to be heard by the Board of County Commissioners, It will be necessary for you or an authorized agent to indicate your request bysigning the bottom of this latter and returning it to this office. Regular hearing procedures will then be followed In order to proceed as quickly as possible,we must receive your reply on or before November 19, 2003. If we are not in receipt of your request by that date, the matter will be considered dosed. Sincerely, • BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS W COUNTY, COLORADO David E. Long, Chair DEUeLt7)o�p I/we, , do hereby request the Board of County Commissioners to consider the above mentioned application. -- rielt jillii BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PHONE (970)336-7204, Ext. 4200 ID FAX: (970)352-0242 P. O. BOX 758 C. GREELEY, COLORADO 80632 COLORADO October 20, 2003 Russ Otterstein, Premier Paving, Inc. . c/o Banks and Gesso, LLC 720 Kipling Street, Suite 117 Lakewood, Colorado 80215 Dear Mr. Otterstein: Your application fora Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review#1436 for Mineral Resource Development Facilities, including Open Pit Mining and Materials Processing and a Concrete and Asphalt Batch Plant in the A (Agricultural) Zone District, has been recommended unfavorably to the Board of County Commissioners by the Planning Commission. The legal description of the property involved is shown as part of the S1/2 NE1/4 and the NE1/4 NE1/4 of Section 19, Township 1 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. If you wish to be heard by the Board of County Commissioners, it will be necessary for you or an authorized agent to indicate your request by signing the bottom of this letter and returning it to this office. Regular hearing procedures will then be followed. In order to proceed as quickly as possible,we must receive your reply on or before November 19, 2003. If we are not in receipt of your request by that date, the matter will be considered closed. Sincerely, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS W COLORADO COUNTY, O cAj 6"). al\el David E. Long, Chair DEUeeg // �^ I/we, �v , do hereby request the Board of County Commiss onf ers to consid r the above mentioned �O Q e oned application. NM Banks and Gesso, LLC 720 Kipling St.,Suite117 ■■ Lakewood, Colorado 80215 (303)274-4277 Fax (303) 274-8329 www.banksandgesso.com October 24, 2003 Board of County Commissioners of Weld County Attn: Esther, Clerk to the Board P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 RE: USR-1436 Premier Paving, Inc. -Adams Sand and Gravel Mine Dear Esther, On behalf of the applicant, Premier Paving, Inc., we request that Weld County waive the 45-day requirement and allow this case to be heard by the Board of County Commissioners on December 17, 2003. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this request. Thank you. Sincerely, 90.404-- Maureen Jacoby cc: Russ Otterstein, Premier Paving, Inc. • EXIMOIT F Wald Cc:';r p Department . i September 8,2003 c t. ) 1 " 2003 Mitchell Martin L " Weld County Planning Commission Weld County Planning Offices 1555 North 17th Ave. Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Mitch: Please accept this letter as an ANGRY PROTEST to the consideration of the Prmier Paving's proposed Adams Sand and Gravel Pit: TO: Issue a Permit for a Mineral Development Plant which includes an Open Pit Mini g.Processing. a Concrete and Asphalt Batch Plant on Weld County between Weld Roads#8 and#6 and between Highway#85 and Weld County Road 27(Old Highway#85)south of Fort Lupton. It has been stated that a minimum of 85 cement Trucks in and 85 Cement Trucks out(TOTAL OF 170 TRUCKS A DAY)using this road each thy to start andmanv more additional trucks to he added in the days to comeas the company grows This is Unbelievable!!! For someone to think he can add another 170+New Trucks A D•y to this road,he must be out of his mind. With the present traffic on these roads as heavy as it is already: 1. With Weld County Road#27(Old Hwy#85)being the ONLY ROAD coming out of or goinginto the South End of the City of Fort Lupton for people working and shopping to Brighton and on to wherever. ntly Colorado State Patrol will tell you it is the heaviest traveled north and south road in South Weld County already! The State Patrol works this road all the time) The Speed Limit on Road#27(Old Hwy #85)right now is 40 Mph. for safety purposes and for amount of traffic using this road. WCR#6 and#8 are also heavily traveled getting to US#85 2. With Fort Lupton School Buses and Children waiting and using Road#27(Old Hwy#85) in and out of school up to four times a day or more. 3. With dairy feeding trucks and vehicles moving feed and cows to and from large dairies already using these roads. Trucks moving corn and silage from fields. 4. With all the Halliburton Oil Trucks and Pickups (across the road from this proposal),with BJ Oil Services Trucks and Vehicles and Ritchie Bros. Auction Equipment and trucks using these roads day and night. 5. With all the farming trucks farming equipment and field workers using these roads to farm and transport their crops. (Farmers for example: Sakata, Villano, Sasaki, Watada,Yokooji are just a few of the farmers farming the land.) 6. With all the people living in the farm area south and east of US Hwy#85 trying to get to work or get to town to meet their needs.they must travel on/or across Weld County Road#27.#6 and#8 each time 7. With all the environmental problems that come with this proposal (Dust.Noise, Smell,Odor,Traffic. Traffic Injuries, Underground Problems,Dumping Problems, Safety Regulations). 8. With the Colorado Department of Transportation and Colorado Motor Carriers Association has stated: in their brochure",SIZE MATTERS FOR SAFE DRIVING"that"Weld County has one of the highest Commercial Vehicle accident rates in the State of Colorado. In 1998 20%of all truck crashes in Colorado involving fatalities occurred in Weld County" (I will provide the brochure at the hearing.) AND Let's not forget all the soil and land for farming that is lost and no longer providing food for people everywhere. When the soil is gone,there won't be a second chance to fix it. THERE IS NO WAY SOMEONE CAN ADD ANOTHER 170+TRUCKS A DAY AND A SAND/CONCRETE PIT TO THIS AERA AND CALL IT A SAFE SUCCESSFUL CONCLUSION. IT WILL BE THERE FOR YEARS TO COME. CALL IT COLORFUL COLORADO. YA! I HAVE HEARD THAT BEFORE THIS PROPOSAL SHOULD BE DENIED AND SENT BACK TO PREMIER PAVING CO. IMMEDIATELY. SOUTHERN WELD COUNTY DOESN'T NEED THEIR BUSINESS THERE. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH MAKING MONEY,BUT IT IS THE WRONG PLACE FOR THIS BUSINESS. I REQUEST YOUR CONSIDERATION AND DENIAL OF THE PREMIER PAVING ASPHALT AND CONCRETE PROPOSAL ON WELD COUNTY ROAD#8,BETWEEN US HIGHWAY#85 AND WELD COUNTY#27(OLD HIGHWAY#85), SOUTH OF THE CITY OF FORT LUPTON. LET SOUTHERN WELD COUNTY BE A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE CAN STILL LIVE. IF IT MUST BE DONE, BUILD IT WEST OF THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVER OUT OF THE WAY OF SIGHT AND SAVE OUR SOIL. YOU CAN AND I HOPE YOU WILL SAVE OUR FARM LAND. ALL THE OTHER APPROVED SAND AND GRAVEL PITS IN SOUTHERN WELD COUNTY ARE PRESENTLY WEST OF US HIGHWAY#85 AND WEST OF THE SOUTH PLATTE RIVER. Thank You,Your Help Is Appreciated! Floyd E. Acr d man ore Fort Luptonites 930 South Fulton Ave. Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 Telephone 1-303-857-2458 Resident of Fort Lupton-38 years r BRICE STEELE P .C . ID :3036595053 0CT 02 '03 21 : 33 No .003 P . 02 IIIA, ;;'y`" 'i011...flft �';.�,� '(Ulf' Lk',;1.(�1�(.'lh E:i11KJEI s]V,,, I"„II ",. 25 South 4s' Avenue Brighton, Colorado 80601-2029 Telephone: 303-659-3171 Fax; 303-659-5053 Lysle R. Dirrim,Of Counsel October 3, 2003 Mr. Kim Ogle Weld County Dept. of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Adams Sand and Gravel Mine Dear Mr. Ogle: Mr. Paul Banks has requested that I contact you with regard to the proposed Adams Sand and Gravel Mine (case no. USR-1436). At this time the Fulton Irrigation Ditch Company ("Fulton") has no objection to the above project going forward provided appropriate agreements can be entered into between Fulton and Premier Paving, Ine, The engineers from both companies have been meeting and working toward such an agreement. Please feel free to contact me with any further questions or concerns. Ver truly yours, Brice Steele BS/jlk Cc: Paul Banks Extisrr e\uomlmeme eid Seuli.Nidy Kamm\My nuremernaliahn\rul eMo$le.Li.doo % E • ;; Banks and Gesso, LLC 720 Kipling St.,Suite117 Lakewood, Colorado 80215 (303) 274-4277 Fax(303) 274-8329 www.banksandgesso.com October 1, 2003 Mr. Brian Grubb Fort Lupton City Planner P.O. Box 148 ' Fort Lupton, CO 80621 RE: USR-1436, Adams Sand and Gravel Mine Dear Mr. Grubb: Thank you very much for taking time to meet with me and Paul Banks yesterday regarding the proposed gravel mine south of Fort Lupton. As we discussed, Premier Paving, Inc. is in the process of finalizing a road improvement agreement with Weld County. Attached please find a copy of Premier Paving's initial road improvement proposal. Since this letter was submitted, Premier Paving has also agreed to construct an acceleration lane for trucks exiting from the site and turning right (south) on to County Road 27. 1 have also included a copy of the proposed haul route for your review and file. Again, thank you for your time and input regarding Fort Lupton's concerns about this project. Please let me know if you have any additional questions or suggestions, or if I can provide additional information. Sincerely, 1'l�Ja1A4re�/i2 Maureen// Jacoby cc: Russ Otterstein, Premier Paving, Inc. Kim Ogle, Weld County Planning EXHIBIT uSC$/Vst, fr PREMIER PAVING INC. 5085 Harlan St..Denver,CO 80212•Phone:(303)940-3668•FAX(303)940-3648 August a≤ , 2003 Mr. Donald Carroll Engineering Administrator Weld County Public Works Dept. P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 RE: Road Improvement Agreement for Adams Property; USR-1436: Sand and Gravel Mine Application Dear Mr. Carroll: As we've discussed, Premier Paving, Inc. has applied for a Weld County Use by Special Review Permit to operate a sand and gravel mine on property just south of Weld County Road (WCR) 8 between U.S. Highway 85 and WCR 27. All entering vehicles will use the WCR 8 entrance. Vehicles leaving the site will use either WCR 8 (-20%) or WCR 27 (-80%). Premier Paving proposes the following road improvements to accommodate truck traffic associated with the proposed operation, based on your comments: U.S. 85 at WCR 8 Intersection: All incoming vehicles will use this intersection, plus outbound vehicles heading north on U.S. 85. 1. Increase the southbound left-turn deceleration lane to 1,120 feet, (including a 300 foot taper) by re-striping to meet the State Highway Access Code requirements (per LSC Transportation Consultants' Report,August 20, 2003, pg. 5). 2. Increase the northbound right-turn deceleration lane to 1,100 feet(including a 300 foot taper) by re-striping to meet the State Highway Access Code requirements (per LSC Transportation Consultants' Report, August 20, 2003, pg. 5). 3. Increase the northbound right-turn acceleration lane to 1,680 feet (including a 300 foot taper) by re-striping to meet the State Highway Access Code requirements (per LSC Transportation Consultants' Report, August 20, 2003, pg. 5). U.S. 85 at WCR 6 Intersection: Only southbound traffic leaving the site will use this intersection. Per our traffic consultant, LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. and CDOT, no improvements are necessary for trucks to make a left-hand turn from WCR 6 to U.S. 85 at this intersection, since it is signaled. Mr. Donald Carroll Page 2 Weld County Public Works Dept. August AS, 2003 WCR 8 Ingress/Egress: All incoming vehicles will use this access to enter the site. Northbound (on U.S. 85) traffic will exit at this location. 1. According to our traffic consultant, expected traffic at this access does not meet the volumes necessary to require acceleration or deceleration lanes (See attached LSC report dated August 20, 2003). 2. Access road will be paved from WCR 8 to 300 feet into the site. WCR 27 Egress: Southbound (on U.S. 85) traffic will exit at this location. No vehicles will enter at this location. 1. According to our traffic consultant, expected traffic at this access does not meet the volumes necessary to require acceleration or deceleration lanes (See attached LSC report dated August 20, 2003). 2. Access road will be paved from WCR 27 to 300 feet into the site. 3. A Ditch Crossing Agreement will be negotiated with the Fulton Ditch Company prior to construction. WCR 27 /WCR 6 Intersection: 1. Reconstruct the northwest corner turn radius to allow sufficient space for southbound, right-turning trucks. Based on information from the Weld County GIS department, this improvement can be made within the existing right-of-way. 2. According to our traffic consultant, expected traffic at this access does not meet the volumes necessary to require acceleration or deceleration lanes (See attached LSC report dated August 20, 2003). 3. A Ditch Culvert Relocation will be negotiated with the Fulton Ditch Company prior to construction. Surface Improvements: 1. WCR 8 (between U.S. 85 and WCR 27): 3" new HBP with gravel shoulders. 2. WCR 6 (between U.S. 85 and WCR 27): 2" new HBP with gravel shoulders. 3. WCR 27: no surface improvements are proposed. Right-of-Way (ROW) Dedications: 1. WCR 8: Dedicate 40'from current center line. 2. WCR 27: Dedicate 65' from current center line. Mr. Donald Carroll Page 3 Weld County Public Works Dept. August?‘, 2003 Please let me know if these improvements are sufficient to meet county requirements. Thank you. Sincerely, Russ er tein attachment: Report from LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc, dated August 20, 2003. cc: Paul Banks, Banks and Gesso, LLC ALL NORTHBOUND TRUCKS WILL EXIT HERE(-20%OF IOPROVDIDIT: TRUCK TRAFFIC) 7 NEW PAVEMENT M77H GRAVEL SHOULDERS BETWEEN U.S. 85 MID ACCESS POINT. IMPROVEMENT: IMPROVEMENT: INCREASE LENGTH OF NCREASE LENGTH OF DECELERATION LANE TO 1,120' APCFI FRATION LINE TO 1,680' -1,300'FROM SITE INCL 300' TAPER (PER COOT NCL 300' TAPER (PER COOT ACCESS TO U.B.85 SPECIFICATIONS) SPECIFICATIONS) WF, n Cn,..T R[L5]A t IMPROVEMENT. b'. PoOHf-OF-WAY DEDICATION) D CECELEL ERARF LENGTH OF FROM CENTER UNE OF ER 8 DECELERATION LANE TO 1.100' INCL 300' TAPER (PER COOT SPECIFICATIONS) 300' OF PAVEMENT ALL TRUCK TRAFFIC WILL ENTER HERE IN III TN 65' RIGHT-OP-WAY DEDICATION IN FROM CENTER LNE OF ER 27 u IN I - - - - `=_ II �s =r = _ _ _ _ � IL l II I N - ALL SOUTHBOUND TRUCKS Ii SUBJECT PROPERTY 3W EM OF PAVEMENT WILL EXIT HERE(-80%OF I' TRUCK TRAFFIC) 1 U 1 I IMPROVEMENT: N' ACCELE (PER II STANDACCELERATION D ) LANE CS COOT II BTANMRM) FOR TRUCKS � EXITING ONTO WCR 27 II 1 0 L - - - - _ _ _ - _n _ - .= —s• D cwP5r1 0X -3,700'FROM SITS ACCESS TO WCR 0 GRAPHIC SCALE 0 200 500 MILLI I I ( IN FEET ) t inch = 000 f4 SIGNALED INTERSECTION -2,000'FROM WCR 27 TO IMPROVEMENT: INCREASE TURN RADIUS WITHIN 4, IXISTNG RIGHT-OF-WAY. - --- ' IMPROVEMENT: 2' NEW PAVEMENT WITH GRAVEL SHOULDERS BETWEEN U.S. 85 MC WCR 27. PROPOSED TRAFFIC PATTERN .MI BANKS AND GESSO,LLC. PREMIER PAVING, INC ADAMS SAND AND GRAVEL MINE �� 720 KIPUNG ST., SUITE 117SE BY SPECIAL REVIEW LAKEWOOD, COLORADO 80215 5085 RON Si'. WELD COUNTY DENVER, COC 80212 COLORAD (303) 274-4277 JOB NO DATE SCALE DRAWN BY DESIGNED BY APPROVAL REV SHEET 02045 9/12/03 1"=500' DRF OCT-07-2003 TUE 04: 19 PM BANKS AND GESSO LLC FAX NO. 303 274 8329 P. 01/04 = Banks and Gesso, LLC■ Lakewood,klling St. Suite od, Colorado 80215 Phone(303)274-4277 Fax (303)274-8329 www.banksandgesso.com Fa)C To: Kim Ogle, Weld Co. Planning From: Maureen Jacoby/Paul Banks Fax: 970-304-6498 Pages: 4 including this cover Phone: 970-353-6100 x 3540 Date: October 7, 2003 Re: USR-1436 -Adams Mine CC: Kim, Attached please find the Memorandum of Agreement between TKO and Kerr McGee regarding surface use of the Adams property. Also attached is a mining agreement between TKO and Premier Paving. Please call me to discuss scheduling the County Commissioner's hearing for this project. Thank you. ThilettiAte.vt_ciate6.7— EXHIBIT 1 OCT-07-2003 TUE 04:20 PM BANKS AND GESSO LLC FAX NO. 303 274 8329 P. 02/04 18/06/2003 16:19 3039483648 PPI PAGE 01/14 MEMORANDUM OF SURFACE USE AGREEMENT This MEMORANDUM OF SURFACE USE AGREEMENT(herein"Memorandum")is made this day of October,2003 by and between Kerr•McGeee Reek'Mountain Corporation(XMRMC), Kerr- McGee Gathering LW (KMG), both with an address of 1999 Broadway, Suite 3600, Denver, CO 80202, and TKO LLC(TKO)with and address of 5085 North Harlan Street Denver,Colorado 80212. WHEREAS,KMRMC,KMG and TKO have entered into a Surface Use Agreement which relates to entry on and use of a tract of land being the NEMNE/4 and S/2NEt4 of Section 19,Township 1 North,Range 66 West, 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado, which is under contract to purchase by TKO for sand and gravel mining and extraction. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other goodand valuable consideration,the parties hereby covenant,promise and agree as follows: I. The Surface Use Agreement provides in pan that the TKO will extract sand and gavel and' related materials from the site in a manner which does not interfere with continued oil and gas extraction at the Site. 2. The sole purpose of this Memorandum is to give notice of said Surface Use Agreement, as required to substantiate a Right to Enter and perform sand and gravel mining and reclamation operations at the Site. ICERR-MCGEE RO • `IINTAIN CORPORATION, a Delaware corporati..•, By: f N A• . , n-Fact KERR-MCGEE GATHERING LLC, a Colorado limited liability company By:Ken-McGee Rocky Mountain Corporation, Its sole member a'By: AME'g. W w eN ttorpe . Fact ' TKO LLC, a Colorado limi - ' ' company By: Name: Russell Otterstein Title: Manager OCT-07-2003 TUE 04:20 PM BANKS AND GESSO LLC FAX NO. 303 274 8329 P. 03/04 10/06/2803 16:19 3039403648 PPI PAGE 14/14 STATE OF COLORADO ) CITY AND )SS. COUNTY OF DENVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this sudsy of October, 2003, by JAMES P. WASON, as Attorney-in-Fact for KERR-MCGEE ROCKY MOUNTAIN CORP ]aware corporation,on behalf of that corporation. ATeAp��c official seal. ss rr�T ate(S; . E) 7 uat r1\4- S ,per;.q Col- Notary Public ` My ', .. MO, , OF co C AND )SS. COUNTY OF DENVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 6th day of October, 2003. by JAMES P. WASON, as Attorney-in-Fact for KERR-MCGEE ROCKY MOUNTAIN' CORPO• - • = sole member of KERR-MCGEE GATHERING LLC, a Colorado limited -`' liabilit <" ' -Ifof that company. /o A4x ' Witness my banal, official seal 1 ` (SE i)),,%y 981-A - Notary el Myco, teiCounseatin EylasOf I%N, STATE OF COLORADO ) CITY AND )SS. COUNTY OF DENVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this(j day of October, 2003, by Russell Otterstein,as Manager for TKO LLC,a Colorado limited liability company,on behalf of said company. hand and official seal. q� 0 4k r . CA•� } Notary Public y is ommission ex octre et OCT-07-2003 TUE 04:20 PM BANKS AND GESSO LLC FAX NO. 303 274 8329 P. 04/04 10/07/2003 15:39 3039403648 PPI PAGE 01/01 18/07/2593 14:38 3038968881 RL18rTtT a tppP PAGE B2/O2 r MINING AGREEMENT This Agreement dated October 7a 2003 between TKO,LLC, a Colorado limited liability company and premier Paving,Inc a Colorado corporation is as follows: For t en dollars($10.00)a nd o then good and valuable ca utidetuion TKO, LLC ltaeby grants to Premier Paving, Inc. the tight to mine each property now held or baeife, acquired by TKO,LLC subject to the surface tights and permit restrictions pertaining to suchpopaties. TKO,LLC MEM=PAVING,INC. ,414 l) By: Rowell Otterstciu,Meaner xwwti Ottaratem" PrertdmR --- E. Banks and Gesso, LLC 720 Kipling St.,Suite117 Lakewood, Colorado 80215 (303)274-4277 Fax (303) 274-8329 www.banksandgesso.com clo Ga; a C.. October 6, 2003 Mr. Kim Ogle Planner Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17`h Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 RE: USR-1436 — Adams Sand and Gravel Mine Dear Kim: Attached please find a copy of the Branch Ditch crossing study (peformed by Lyman Henn Inc. on behalf of Premier Paving, Inc.) that has been submitted to Tetra Tech's review on behalf of the Fulton Ditch Company. As you know, attorney Brice Steele has also written a letter indicating that the Fulton Ditch Company does not object to this project going forward. We trust that this information, along with the soon-to-be-finalized Kerr-McGee Agreement, will be sufficient to schedule a County Commissioner's hearing date for this project. Thank you. Sincerely, Maureen Jacoby cc: Russ Otterstein, Premier Paving, Inc. LYMAN I-IENN INC ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS FROM THE GROUND DOWN 02 October 2003 File No. 103060-00 Tetra Tech RMC 1900 South Sunset Street, Suite 1-F Longmont,Colorado 80501 Attention: Mr. Colby Hayden Subject: Proposed Improvements Affecting the Branch Ditch Premier Paving Inc. Application to Weld County for Approval of a Use By Special Review Permit for Sand and Gravel Mining (USR-1436) Weld County, Colorado Mr. Hayden: Lyman Henn Inc. (Lyman Henn)has prepared engineering sketches on behalf of Banks and Gesso, LLC,to illustrate two proposed improvements to site access in regards to the subject application for sand and gravel mining operations. The Branch Ditch, operated by the Fulton Ditch Company,runs along the eastern edge of the proposed mining area,paralleling Weld County Road(WCR)27 as shown in Figure 1. These proposed improvements will impact the Branch Ditch. Lyman Henn understands that Tetra Tech RMC will review these proposed improvements on behalf of the Fulton Ditch Company. This review is to be completed before the Fulton Ditch Company's board meeting, scheduled for 10 October 2003, so that these improvements can be presented for approval. Weld County has determined that two locations along WCR 27 and WCR 6, adjacent to the Branch Ditch,will require improvements. The locations of the proposed improvements are described below and shown in Figures 1 and 2. As part of preparing these sketches,Lyman Henn performed a site visit with Banks and Gesso, LLC on 26 September 2003 to document existing conditions and layout the proposed improvements. Lyman Henn also contacted Tetra Tech RMC for preliminary guidance regarding the design of a crossing over the Branch Ditch. Lyman Henn understands that permanent crossings require box culverts,headwalls and tail walls, a minimum of 2-ft of free board to ensure conveyance, ditch maintenance roads,and that utilities are to be kept out of the ditch right of way(ROW). Lyman Henn understands that on the up gradient(east)side of the ditch,the ROW is 35 ft from the center line of the ditch or15 ft from the edge of the ditch crest, and on the down gradient(west) side of the ditch,the ROW is 50 ft from the centerline of the ditch or 5 ft from the toe of the outside of the embankment toe. The proposed improvements encroach onto the defined ditch ROW. Lyman Henn understands that Tetra Tech RMC will evaluate the impacts of this encroachment and provide recommendations on design changes,if necessary. 110 16th Street,Suite 900 — Denver,CO 80202-5202 —Tel: 303.534.1 100 — Fax: 303.534.1777 — www.LymanHenn.com Geotechnical,Tunneling and Construction Services Tetra Tech RMC 02 October 2003 Page 2 Access Road along WCR 27 Haul truck traffic will exit from the proposed mine site at this location using a bridge to cross the Branch Ditch and an acceleration lane for southbound traffic. The existing access bridge will be used to cross the Branch Ditch at this location,provided its design will accommodate the truck traffic. As shown in Figure 3,this access bridge consists of two 8-ft wide by 17.8-ft long by 10-inch thick concrete slabs placed on concrete footers. The clear span of the bridge slab is 7 feet. The concrete footers are continuous underneath the slab and then extend to form 32-inch long wing walls on the upstream and downstream sides of the bridge. The ditch is channeled between the footers. Approximately 16-inches of freeboard exist at this bridge, as measured from the base of the concrete slab to the water surface. The water was approximately 8 to 10 inches deep at this location. The proposed acceleration lane design will run parallel to the ditch with approximately an 8-ft buffer between the crest of the ditch and the edge of the acceleration lane. If required, guard railing will be installed between the lane and the ditch. The proposed acceleration lane will be 380-ft long and 12-ft wide and will taper down for an additional 144 ft. Existing utility poles will have to be relocated or abandoned. Photographs of the existing conditions at this location are attached. Intersection of WCR 27 and WCR 6 Haul truck traffic will be required to turn from southbound WCR 27 to westbound WCR 6, crossing over the Branch Ditch. The existing crossing over the Branch Ditch consists of a 48-inch corrugated metal pipe culvert overlain by fill and asphalt. This existing crossing is not wide enough to accommodate the turn radius of the trucks. Therefore, an extension of this culvert is proposed to the north of the existing culvert as shown on Figure 4. This extension will consist of installing 15 ft of additional 48-inch CMP attached to the existing CMP, backfilled and paved to grade. The current conditions at this crossing consist of a 6 to 7 ft wide ditch flowing into the 48-inch CMP. This pipe is out of round on each end. There are approximately 28 inches and 18 inches of freeboard on the south and north ends of the culvert,respectively, with a water depth ranging from approximately 6 inches to 12 inches. The condition of the existing CMP culvert on the north side was observed by Lyman Henn to be poor. The CMP is partially crushed and separated from the overlying fill. Loss of ground was observed above this damaged section, extending approximately 5 feet south onto WCR 6. Lyman Henn recommends that the entire culvert is replaced during the construction of the extension. A report by Felsburg Holt&Ullevig, titled"US 85 Access Control Plan from I-76 to WCR 80", dated December 1999, stated that"Weld County must make auxiliary lane improvements on CR 27 at CR 6 at the same rime as adjacent intersections on CR 27 are improved so large trucks can safely make turns." Lyman Henn understands that at this time no improvements to this intersection are scheduled by Weld County. Photographs of the existing conditions at this location are attached. IIENN IN(' ). Tetra Tech RMC 02 October 2003 Page 3 Lyman Henn is requesting Tetra Tech RMC to review these conceptual improvement plans and provide feedback so that a conceptual plan can be submitted to the Fulton Ditch Company board meeting for approval. Lyman Henn is also requesting a search for any documentation that may have been submitted for the design and/or construction of the existing access bridge to the Adams property along WCR 27. Please contact Mr. Jay Davenport or Mr. Tracy Lyman to discuss these improvements. Sincerely yours,i Jay C. Davenport,P.E. <yJ. L \.G., .E. Project Engineer Principal Enclosures: Figure 1 —Banks and Gesso,LLC's Figure 5.2:Extraction Plan Map Figure 2—Proposed Traffic Pattern Figure 3—Proposed Improvements at Site Access along WCR 27 Figure 4—Proposed Improvements the WCR 6&WCR 27 Intersection Photos of the Site Access along WCR 27 Photos of the WCR 6&WCR 27 Intersection c: Banks and Gesso, LLC; Ms. Maureen Jacoby G:WROJECTS\103060 Adams Pit 1R.Records and Conespondence\R II Repot-tattler Report.doc I ILYMAN ( I1 Ny " IN(' > ) j __-_-__._________-______�__ _ __ - —` ❑ PROPOSED ACCESS nom r IRIDnEss AND(CRESS) / —1 30 r� ''� ❑ is / (Tro ';;; Il- 1 0€RATE I I -I. M[LUDES OVERHEAD YO I I. ❑ 1 NATLURAL CAS LINE I I S „ IfI IGRAPHIC SCALE I Y H ..... ... ..... 1 , I PHASE ONE "j ❑ • Y /I/ (IPPRO 30 ACRES) 0+(�j I I la s FARM ROADS TO BE I I n r USED AS INTERNAL 1 I I `�'2` HAUL R.MOS�i, „P r rw OIL STOCKPILE II "E� ❑ �.._.._..�.._.. LEGEND (APPRox L12 ACREN BOUNDARY '). t j ' — IAPvnO.. 112 YREs) MINING LNIIS . -j (ERR µ[GEE N,..'I SLURRY WALL I I a 0 CAS L COLLECTION • _ _ _ DITCH/WATERWAY •Bo SETBACK lc _ ._ _ _ _ _. •III•.......... ........._L._.1._.. Z� •_. -._�\�i .�©i - ( ' \ z] SETBACK 'iIOPSpLNro z�ls _ UIOERGMMIrvO 17 III \(// scuE r10usE / ^� REEEw unurr w J ❑j��/ vwxw I PAVED ROM !tl CONCRETE Pvm \ III uwALEo WOAD [� III I _ I EgmNG NOYSE - Ensmc RIDES CONTOUR I I ASPHALT PLANT B c CE TO ETISTXO n11ERYECMrf CONTOUR I 1 ®TrJJ�jj I I EXOTIC STRUCTURE raesaL STOCKPILE PN118E'IWO I '- ''j (APPROA 29 A[PFs) .• BRANCH DITCH TREES lily— I GRAVEL PLANT/ (RANCH w0 aPETurtn nOCxegEs ® i �CB RI) o-Tp _—- LANDSCAPED BEE/STOCKPILE I / Jj 1 ❑ µµNC DIRECTION I I 1 PHASE THREE ''I II ❑ • RATER SELL -��,) (APPROx. 28 ACRES) 1.-20' I it --- - I ..1 I I i OVERBIRttrvSTOCKPILE \ ;I I , (b µCH w0 21 STYOCCPES) DEWATE� 1 °E REN FIGURE 52.E I0N PLAN MAP C®B a NDGE�,LLC PRENERPAYiNG Ll4flY9PE0ll FEND" CAWS SNIDNIDGPAVEL MNE r..r .r._.. _..r..� Tana.._ _. ._..........a....,n....rc...n...w..... ....x...... ... .ndpNi..r v_. ._ �•1 'yawlww-ww mnWAD cam, ARmance PIG)In-d2r.41. i TO BE ROOMED c, . I I tunas I e/TTi 5 1in, 1'.12 DIRRE mwa9r I µPR:+' Iµ.1111 ALL NORTHBOUND TRUCKS WILL EXIT HERE(-20%OF IMPROVEMENT: TRUCK TRAFFIC) 3'NEW PAVEMENT WITH GRAVEL SHOULDERS BETWEEN VS BS AND ACCESS POINT IMPROVEMENT: IMPROVEMENT: / INCREASE LENGTH OF INCREASE LENGTH OF DECELERATION LANE TO I.I30• ACCELERATION LANE TO BOO -TWV FROM WE IxCL.UDC TAPER(PER COOT INCE.3E0 TAPER(PER ROM Access TOVa.M SPECIFCATIONS) SPECIFICATIONS) I � PFq'EMEM, AC RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION J iNCREASE LENGTH W FROM CENTER LINE OF WCR B DECELERATION UNE rO I.IN' NICL. L0'TAPER(PER CWT SPECIFICATIONS) yp'OF PAVEMENT ALL TRUCK TRAFFIC �I WILL ENTER HERE BR5'RMNT-Of-WAY OFOICATION FR OM CENTER LINT OF WCR 27 11 dL 1 N II ALL SOUTHBOUND TRUCKS A00 OF PAVEMENT WILL EXIT HERE SUBJECT PROPERTY e.20%OF TRUCK TRAFFIC) CONSTRUCT N LA WOE ACCELERATIONSTANDARDS) LANE(PER COOT EITI OT FOR TRUCES EXITING ONTO wu 27 I 9 g D -AIss FROM WE Access TOU=R GRAPHIC SCAM wrist) SIGNALED INTERSECTION a FROM WCR W TO nwwELcxr: km 64 INCREASE TURN RADIUS WORM ppp EXISTING RIGHT-Of-WAY. AORPRMN IMPROVEMENT N LWPAVEMENT M HUS GRAVEL q c 2. SHOULDERSEW BETWEEN RD owan MIND PRCPOSED TRAFFIC PATTERN .WP no. ■wigs Am)00550,LLC PREMIER PAVWD INC. ADAMS SAND AND CRAWL MINE USE BY SPEW R&tW —0 Aao =ill n._. . .ro m0: War .wan rtr 02045 I 9/lT2/03 i'R2W' I OREM UaWRAM 1,FT 1FT 1 MIND ACCEGS ROAD aN EXISTING X TFIO, D a-F ACCESS GRIDOE r BY & BRANCH DITCH GROUND na-rr 10-INCH WICK € SURFACE BAGS RAGED ON I-{1 THICK AOTl 1 TTHE DITCH EXfFTON10 MOW 1 EXISTING ACCESS ROAD 8FT 20FT 24FT rya _ WCR 27 D2-IRON LORD CONCRETE LING 1 � 1 2f 1� WALL WENDING FROM FOOTERS --Icr g PROPOSED 2fT ACCELERATION LANE NFI� AIPRCX E CREST Od� CROSS SECTION AT BRIDGE (1 IN = 20 FT) 8 no V MINIS COM EXISTING APPROXIMATE NE (IS OFF DITCH R.O.W. cC OF° moo GROUND BRANCH DITCH SURFACE AGRICULTURAL FIELD - --L _ WCR 27 7FT PROPOSED 24FT ACCELERATION LANE WITH N GUARD RAIL CROSS SECTION ALONG ACCELERATION LANE (1 IN = 20 FT) 0 20 40 SCALE IN FEET PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS IAIACENT TO BRANCH DITCH ADAMS SAND AND GRAVEL PIT VIEW COUNTY, COLORADO PLAN VIEW (1 IN = 20 FT) PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AT SITE ACCESS ALONG WCR 27 SCALE: AS SHOWN SEPTEMBER 200.3 FIGURE 3 / MFNONINATE LOCATION CF NESDEICE ACCE98 BRINE I I I I I 4 LJ' __L APPROMMAIE MET Of` I ry 0 20 40 DADINGENT I y / 3 SCALE IN FEET / 6 I mimosa CULWR[XIEMION 1MT 11 (10-ETON cup 1 \ I/1 G / i AI.NNNaka E ILGIIo l OF PROPOSED CURE NAMX6\ / / EMSIINC arm MOS 1111E 'fNO1INMTE IDCAIICN CV (10 R OFFSET ROWofrsN arm CURB RADIUS .>,-f----..-. CREST OF MN) EMETNG DDCH Woe(40-INCH C1P PVT OOFNOOIG c T» EC IT NOD COMMIT MAD 0 I I x g o 5 I PLAN VIEW (1 IN = 20 FT) WCR 27 PROPOSED BRANCH DITCH WCR 6 SHOULDER AND NEW CURB RESIDENCE „* . R 24FT 118FT ^ . 5=T 04FT PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ADJACENT TO BRANCH DITCH PROPOSED - ... ADAMS SAND AND GRAVEL PR CULVERT MELD CO1MIY, COLORADO LYTvAN (48-INCH CRAP) PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AT THE HENN WCR 27 & WCR 6 INTERSECTION INC CROSS SECTION AT CULVERT (1 IN = 10 FT) (LOOKING SOUTH) _ SCALE: AS SHOWN SEPTEMBER 2003 FIGURE 4 PHOTOGRAPHS OF EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS ALONG BRANCH DITCH s m"Q.Ct t . ₹,v • • Existing access bridge over Branch Ditch to WCR 27 looking north. a $ t � � i �Wp�' JCL k 4 aa�x z w y� �. o,X: a t . °8 T� qr 4y Proposed Acceleration Lane to WCR 27 parallel to Branch Ditch looking south � � E i. . p• y T 4 • q ₹ v N Existing access bridge over Branch Ditch to WCR 27 looking east. • 1 F#^. HSYYyTfnJ X. {u :v WH nF vy � x W \ • sx - S � t � ..y.n. Branch Ditch at WCR 6 & WCR 27 looking south. 1 4c t�'`^y wW.- x �t• L h'7. rit.it ^Cx 'At � _ „ <• ,�I�vim: __. rt zC^p# ., 2 4 a taY6iI `3W'� s .. N � I ri, -:J - .. , . - ...../.--fort •..I., Branch Ditch at WCR 6 & WCR 27 looking north. OCT-14-2003 TUE 03: 13 PM BANKS AND GESSO LLC FAX NO. 303 274 8329 P. 01 Mt Banks and Gesso, LLC. 720 Kipling St.Suite 117 Lakewood, Colorado 80215 Phone(303)274-4277 Fax (303)274-8329 www.banksandgesso.com Fax To: Kim Ogle, Weld Co. Planning From: Maureen Jacoby/Paul Banks Fax: 970-304-6498 Pages: 2 including this cover Phone: 970-353-6100 x 3540 Date: October 1,3C2003 Re: USR-1436-Adams Mine CC: Kim, Attached please find a letter from Brice Steele, attorney for the Fulton Irrigating Ditch Board, confirming the Ditch Board's approval to go forward with the County Commissioner hearing for this project. Thank you, zs ti OCT-14-2003 TUE 03: 13 P11 BANKS AND GESSO LLC FAX NO. 303 274 8329 P. 02 «•••�� v .�,.,.,c r .�.. IU:JUJbpy SUSS 0CT 14'03 2 :50 No .012 P.02 FUL7'ON IRRIGATING DITCH COMPANY Office at 25 South Fourth Avenue Brighton,Colorado 80601-2029 Telephone:303.659-3171 October 14,2003 VIA FACSIMILE Mr. Kim Ogle Weld County Dept. of Planning Services 1555 N. Ile Avenue Greeley,CO 80631 Res Adams Sand and Gravel Mine Dear Mr. Ogle: The Board ofbitvotors of the Murton Irrigation Ditch Company("Fulton")along with its engineer met with representatives of Adams Sand and Gravel Mine("Adams')and Banks and Gesso, LLC on Friday, October 10,2003. Following the meeting the Board instructed me,as Secretary and Attorney for the Company, to write you again reiterating that the Company does r. not object to the project going forward at this time. Adams has assured the Company that it will address concerns with regard to roadway crossing and easements once the County has approved their project. At this time Fulton agrees that it would neither be cost effective nor reasonable for Adams to engineer the crossings as requested prior to gaining County approval of their project. Again,Fulton has no objection,in concept,to the crossings as proposed, and dots not object to the development process progressing,provided the appropriate permits/licenses arc executed with Fulton prior to the property going into production. this The Board would like to thank you for your insistence that Fulton he contacted during process and your refusal to allow the project to go forward without our input. Please feel free to contact me with any further questions or concerns. cry truly yours, 8551k Brice S cede Cc: Maureen Jacoby Cfl. ,..,W W^ YamMtylMww '�aMNWJ1.�lfyht.we, SENN • VISCIANO • KIRSCHENBAUM P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1801 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 4300 DENVER, COLORADO 80202-2604 TELEPHONE (303)298-1122 FACSIMILE (303)296-9101 ARTHUR P. MIZZI www.SennLaw.com AMizzi@SennLaw.com November 12, 2003 Board of County Commissioners for Weld County, Colorado 915 Tenth Street P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Re: Premier Paving, Inc.'s ("Premier") Mining Special Use Permit USR 1422 Dear Commissioners: This firm represents Villano Brothers Properties, Inc. (the "Villanos") with respect to the captioned application. The Villanos own property adjacent to, and immediately north of Premier's proposed operations. The Villanos run a commercial farming operation on that land and had expressed concerns with Premier's application at the hearing before the Weld County Planning Commission. However, since that hearing the Villanos and Premier have resolved their differences. Therefore, the Villanos formally withdraw their objections to, and generally support, Premier's application. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Si rel , . izzi APM:vew cc: Mr. Robert Villano Mr. Russ Otterstein Mr. Paul Banks k P?2707\003\corn'APM L Commissione -: CAROL Harding - Case #USR1436....previous case # 1422 Page 1 From: Gene Watada <gene.watada.b7b0@statefarm.com> To: "'rmasden@co.weld.co.us"' <rmasden@co.weld.co.us> Date: 11/17/03 4:47PM Subject: Case#USR1436....previous case# 1422 Commissioner Rob Masden P.O. Box 758 Centennial Center Greeley, Colorado 80632 Re: Commissioner Meeting December 17, 2003 Premier Paving Hearing Case# USR 1436 Dear Rob Masden: It is to my understanding that the hearing for case# USR 1436 will be held on December 17, 2003 at the Commissioners office. I am asking for your vote of NO and to recommend other Commissioners to do the same. I understand this is progress...but, at what expense and whose expense! To add another gravel pit to the Southern part of Weld Co is unconscionable. The safety of human beings and property damage will be compromised if this Gravel pit is allowed to be developed along Weld County Road 8 and 27 bordering hwy 85. Safety Issue 1: School children safety: Morning bus shuttle...WCR27, WCR6 and WCR8 51 Children Mid Day bus shuttle...Wcr 27, WCR6, and WCR 8, 36 preschoolers After School bus shuttle...WCR 27, WCR6, WCR8, 57 Children ***This does not account for the students that drive to school and the bus that travels hwy 85 northbound. Traffic: June 2003 Survey WCR8 between HWY 85 &WCR27 818 vehicles WCR 27 between WCR 8 &WCR 6 3200 vehicles WCR 6 No figures available at this time Safety Issue 2: Additional claims on vehicles...Regardless of safety precautions taken, gravel or rocks will always fly off the trucks hauling the aggregate...They do not cover their loads like the law requires them to do so. Even if they covered the loads there is aggregate on the under carriage or sides of the trucks that fall off and hit vehicles. Because of the number of gravel pits this area has the higher percentage of broken or chipped glasses on vehicles. More cost to consumers. Its difficult to subrogate against these gravel trucks when aggregates fall off because there is no proof that this rock fell off the truck or was merely lying on the road and was "kicked back"! Safety Issue 3: Aggregate companies traditionally do not pay the private contractors very much for each load....therefore the private contractors have to make CAROL Harding - Case#USR1436....previous case# 1422 Page 2 more loads per day to pay for expenses. The safety issue is that they have a tendency to push the limits and compromise safety issues. Reclamation: Companies such as Premier Paving will tell us that they have plans for reclamation of the land. How many gravel pits still sit idle after the aggregate is removed...they are eye sores yet to this date. The problem is apparent that there is no time limit when they have to do the reclamation. Mean while the aggregate company sells the land after they have reaped and raped the land! Therefore they don't have to do any reclamation even though they promised to do so...they're new owners! Again, I ask you for your support in denying this permit to open another gravel mine. Southern Weld County has been known for the agriculture...if we permit this mine to go into processing...Southern Weld County will be known as "Southern Pits County of Weld County! Thank you for your time. Gene Watada 135 West Hill Drive Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 303-857-4882 Email gene_kathywatada@yahoo.com CAROL Harding - Proposed Gravel Pit Page 1 From: "Leinweber, Larry" <Ileinweb@ball.com> To: <rmasden@co.weld.co.us> Date: 11/19/03 9:56AM Subject: Proposed Gravel Pit Mr. Masden, I just wanted to send a note saying that I favor the Commissioners approving the proposed gravel pit which is to be located between County Roads 6 & 8 and between the old US 85 and "new" US 85. I believe that property owners should have the right to either sell or use their property as they wish without the interference of neighbors and adjacent cities, such as, Fort Lupton. Thank you, Larry Leinweber 4686 Weld County Road 23 Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 303-857-6482 CAROL Harding - NO ON GRAVEL PIT- HWY 85 Page 1 From: "Irsik, Barbara J" <BIRSIK@amfam.com> To: <rmasden@co.weld.co.us> Date: 11/20/03 3:09PM Subject: NO ON GRAVEL PIT- HWY 85 I am sorry that this is very informal but I work in a very busy office. , PLEASE NO GRAVEL PIT ON HYW'S 85. My reasons are like everyone else's (I've read them all in the paper, etc) Sincerely, Barb Irsik 904 S. Denver Ave Ft. Lupton, CO 80621 r 4 f Y � CAROL Harding - Re: Case #USR1436 Page 1 From: "Sharon Schuyler" <kodib46@msn.com> To: <Rmasden@co.weld.co.us> Date: 11/19/03 9:07AM Subject: Re: Case#USR1436 Dear Mr. Masden: I am writing you with an urgent request regarding Case#USR1436 - Premier Paving/Adams Gravel Pit. I am highly opposed to this pit being put into operation at this location for the following reasons: 1) The heavy load of traffic imposed on old highway 85 (a two lane, narrow highway)will be hazardous to other drivers. There is no way a large gravel truck can turn onto 85 or onto either Co Rd 6 or 8 without taking up both lanes and part of the shoulder to make the turn. The highway is not made for that kind of traffic at those intersections. 2) The highway isn't in the best of shape as it is and the over-weight trucks will not help the situation. 3) The seniors of Fort Lupton as well as others use that highway to avoid the heavy traffic on the four lane (85) as a safer route to Brighton where many of them go to the doctor, hospital, pharmacy, grocery, KMart, WalMart, etc. and this would be a big imposition for them. They would surely be killed on this highway. This is the only direct route for them that is slower in nature (40 mph) as compared to 65 mph on the four lane. 4) The dust created by this pit would cover the surrounding homes and definitely drift into the community of Fort Lupton. 5) Safety is my main concern in this issue. I don't want to keep someone from doing what they want to with their land but they should take into consideration those living in the area and the impact it will have on their lives at the present and in the future. We are being swallowed up by gravel pits in this area and another one is not needed. Thanks for your vote against this project at the December 17th meeting at 10:00 a,m. at the Greeley Centennial Building. Sharon "You are here to enrich the world and you impoverish yourself if you forget the errand." —Thomas Jefferson tKV CAROL Harding - Page 1 From: "Glardon, Arlyne" <aglardon@tristategt.org> To: "'rmasden@co.weld.co.us"' <rmasden@co.weld.co.us> Date: 11/20/03 1:27PM To: Rob Masden, Weld County Commissioner I am e-mailing to inform you that I am totally opposed to the proposed gravel pit proposed between County Roads 6 and 8 requested by Premier Paving and Asphalt. We already have gravel trucks traveling on Road 6 between Highway 85 and 1-25 in numerous numbers, and they present so many dangers with their traveling at high rates of speed, taking the whole road to turn corners, flipping up rocks on the roads, etc. We do not need even more trucks on the roads in the surrounding areas. Arlyne E. Glardon 6989 County Road 6 Brighton, CO 80603 PµA LL ZTIX CAROL Harding - Gravel Pit Page 1 From: "Renee" <dodgenay@frii.com> To: <rmasden@co.weld.co.us> - . Date: 11/19/03 2:04PM - Subject: Gravel Pit Dear Mr. Masden, I am writing in regards to the impending gravel pit to be placed south of Fort Lupton between Co Rds 6 and 8 and Old Highway 85 and Highway 85. It will be a major problem with traffic, trucks upwards of 150/day, in the area creating dust and very hazardous driving not only for younger drivers but for the numerous seniors of the area that use Old 85 as a safer means (40 mph as opposed to 65 mph on the four-lane) to travel to Brighton for doctors, hospital, pharmacy, shopping, etc. The trucks simply can not safely make the turns onto or off of any of the four roads mentioned without overtaking the other lane and the almost shoulder less road. Also, the impending dust in the surrounding area as well as into the city of Ft. Lupton will pose a major problem for those who already have breathing difficulties. r^� In the last two days we have had 2, four car pile ups in the area. We don't need to add to an already problem. Please don't let them open this gravel pit, for all of our sakes. Thank you for listening to my concerns. D. Renee' Froid f � , November 24, 2003 Mr. Rob Masden Weld County Commissioner P.O.Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Dear Mr. Masden I am writing in opposition to the impending gravel pit between Weld County Roads 6 and 8 and Old Highway 81 I grew up in this area and since my parents still live there I still travel those roads. This gravel pit will add daily truck travel on these 2 lane roads, creating dust and thrown rocks damaging windshields. While turning,these large trucks will need both lanes of the 2 lane roads thus being safety hazards. Many senior drivers use Old Highway 85 as a slower road (40 mph vs 65 mph)to Brighton for appointments and errands. They do not need these hazards added to their drive. Even entering Highway 85 at WCR 8 is dangerous because of traffic volume, let alone the addition of large trucks. Please listen to the citizens who oppose this pit and rule against it. Thank you. Sincerely, • Lindsay Bissell BLindsell 3481 W 1B061h 3481 W trim R Westminster,CO 80031-2224 EXHIBIT c 4siz #/Y34-- CAROL Harding - Page 1 From: greg quenzer <gregquenzer@yahoo.com> To: <rmasden@co.weld.co.us> Date: 11/21/03 11:47AM Just say n00000000000 to gravil pits,'" We have enough problems with jerk truckers around her already and them screwing up all the roads. Let those companies (hopefully not you) line their pockets with money some other way. These companies can go out in the middle of nowhere and find the same gravil that they use here in town,just because it would cost them more-toughiii1iim Highway 85 already is a mess, maybe you could explain why only certain sections of it is getting repaved anyway! The area South of Brighton going towards Henderson? Why not have them finish the job while the equipment is already there-lets be a little cost effective right''Ill What kind of kick back or bonus or benefit do the people who live around the gravil pit get-nothing. Don't let this happen, especially since only a few benefit and the majority suffermilii1 mi Greg Quenzer-very concerned citizen Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker- Get it now CAROL Harding - GRAVEL PIT Page 1 From: <Nanetbal@aol.com> To: <rmasden@co.weld.co.us> Date: 12/4/03 6:11 PM Subject: GRAVEL PIT MR. ROB MASEN, WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONER.; I AM ASKING YOU PLEASE DO NOT LET PREMIER PAVING AND ASPHALT AND THE ADAMS FAMILY PLACE A GRAVEL PIT BETWEEN CO RD 6 AND CO RD 8 IN FORT LUPTON. WE JUST MOVED TO WELD COUNTY FROM ADAMS COUNTY. WE LIVE OFF OF HWY 85 IN BRIGHTON. WE SEEN ALL THE GRAVEL TRUCKS UP AND DOWN 85 AND OLD BRIGHTON RD. THEY CUT RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU ON HWY 85, NEVER YIELDING TO GET ON THE HWY. BECAUSE THEY KNEW YOU WOULD HAVE TO TRY TO YIELD OVER TO THE OTHER LANE BECAUSE THEY WERE JUST TO BIG AND NO ONE WANTED TO GET IN AN ACCIDENT WITH THEM. THE ROADS WERE ALWAYS SO GROOVED FROM THEM STOPPING. SOME TIMES YOU COULD LOSE CONTROL OF YOUR CAR FROM THE GROOVES IN THE ROAD. ON 104TH AND HWY 85 THEY FINALLY USE CEMENT AT THE STOP SIGNS BECAUSE OF THE REPAIRS THAT NEED REDONE SO OFTEN. THERE WERE NUMBERS OF ACCIDENTS BECAUSE OF THE TRACKER TRAILERS MAKING SO MANY RUNS. WE MOVED TO FORT LUPTON TO GET AWAY FROM THAT TYPE OF TRAFFIC. MY FATHER IN LAW STAYS WITH US SEVERAL TIMES A MONTH. HE IS ALMOST 85 YEARS OLD. HE cannot BE DRIVING DOWN HWY 85. HE ALWAYS TAKES ROAD 27. HE DRIVES BETWEEN FORT LUPTON AND COMMERCE CITY BY ALL BACK ROADS. THANK YOU I REALLY HOPE THIS CAN BE STOPPED. IT NEEDS TO BE STOPPED r swum , w ' CAROL Harding - (no subject) Page 1 From: <NanStutz@aol.com> To: <rmasden@co.weld.co.us> • Date: 12/5/03 11:47AM Subject: (no subject) Mr. Masden, - I am writing to oppose the proposed gravel pit on Old Highway 85 between roads 6 and 8. This will cause a extreme safety hazard to have upto 150 trucks per day turning onto a two lane road with no shoulders. This road is 40 mph and trucks will be driving up to 50 60 miles per hours on this road. The dust and air polution from a gravel pit will be a health hazard to childen, pregnant women and senior citizens, may who live in this area. Please have this email availabe to you at the hearing which will be held on December 17th at 10:00 am. Thank you, Nancy Stutz resident living on Old Highway 85 Brighton, CO I CAROL Harding - (no subject) Page 1 From: <HEI1927@aol.com> To: <Rmasden@co.weld.co.us> Date: 12/6/03 3:41 PM Subject: (no subject) Dear Sir; My wife and I have been residents of Fort Lupton for over thirty years.Because of the limited number of stores in Fort Lupton,we often travel to Brighton to do our shopping.We do not care to drive on SH 85 because of the high speed.(we are in our middle 70's) When we go to Brighton,we always travel "the old road". It is very disturbing to hear that perhaps CR27 will be crowded with as many as 170 heavy trucks daily. Please do what you can to prevent this from happening. Thank you, Mr.and Mrs H.E.Ingraham 850 McKinley Ave Fort Lupton Co. 303 857 4872 4 CAROL Harding - Request by Premier Paving &Asphalt on the Adams family parcel for gravel pit. Page 1 From: Roland Froid <cfroid@juno.com> To: <rmasden@co.weld.co.us> Date: 12/8/03 12:13PM Subject: Request by Premier Paving &Asphalt on the Adams family parcel for gravel pit. Mr. Rob Masden, Commissioner I am writing to register my NO in allowing to Premier Paving & Asphalt Co. to put their operation in this location of the County. There are many issues, which make this a negative for the area, that must be considered on the matter. First and foremost will be additional truck traffic. I will NOT travel U.S. Highway 85 south from Fort Lupton due to the already heavy traffic of both cars and trucks. I use WCR 29 to travel to Brighton for shopping and medical reasons at least 2 to 3 times a week. WCR 29 has very heavy traffic, I counted over 30 vehicles in my last trip in just 15 minutes. Can you imagine what that will translate to in a 24 hour period no to mention what that means for 30 days. I have close friend who lives a short distance from the site who related a incident where TWICE with the past few months of very serious accidents that have backed up traffic for a long time creating a parking lot effect which took hours to clear up. There a people I have witnessed who regularly pass on double yellow lines, challenging on coming traffic. No only that, but the road itself will not stand up under that type of additional heavy truck traffic above the current oil field companys using this Highway. Now they want to add up to 150 more trucks to this congestion. I think NOT. Secondly is the matter of the affect on the underground water table that this potentially could effect. I also have a close friend who lives across the river west from the two currently operating gravel operations west of US Highway 85 and the Platte River. Their operations have caused his domestic well water tame to drop and he is concerned. The people on the adjacent properties as well as Fort Lupton water are operationally jeopardized from these type of operations. For the future, cannot see another large hole full of water sitting there helping no one. I say NO again. I feel the future use to be better directed with development of Industrial/commercial in the corridor between WCR 29 and US Highway 85 from Fort Lupton to Brighton. Keep the gravel operations on the WEST side of US Highway 85 and the Platte River. I could continue but I feel you must have received the jest by know. For many many years, the North end of Weld County Has always looked at the South portion of the County as the Denver area cast offs of "UNWANTED S"for years giving us who live here a feeling of low regard for those UP NORTH. Being looked down on; but they want our business and money. Now that growth in other areas is requiring gravel operations for construction, let the south end be overtaken with this type of growth. I THINK NOT. I feel there are other statements which I might address on the particular issues will not at this time. I have no axe's to grind nor fell bitter toward any particular company or business ventures who wish to locate in this local, but wish for progressive, positive growth to i � CAROL Harding - Request by Premier Paving &Asphalt on the Adams family parcel for gravel pit. Page 2 come this direction. For example, we are in need of a development of Patio style homes where, for those of us wish to remain in this area, might be able to move when we do feel we don't of can't do the yard work, but are not ready for"Assisted Living"or"Housing Homes"yet. Because of the lack of these type facilities, my wife and I will be forced to relocate elsewhere, but this probably doesn't matter to your. I appreciate your taking the time to read this very LONG message but sincerely hope you will take my NO under consideration. Respectfully Submitted, a 69 year resident of Fort Lupton. Roland Froid, 233 Elizabeth Court, DEC-09-2003 TUE 03:37 RI BANKS AND GESSO LLC FAX NO. 303 274 8329 P. 01 Banks and Gesso, LLC. 720 Kipling St.Suite 117 Lakewood,Colorado 80215 Phone(303)274-4277 Fax (303)274-8329 www.banksandgesso.com Fax To; Esther Gesick, Weld County From: Maureen Jacoby Fax: 97O-352-O242 Pages: 2 including this cover Phone: 97O-356-4OOO x4226 Date: December 9, 2OO3 Re: USR-1436-Adams Mine CC: Hi Esther, Attached please find a letter of support for this project (USR-1436)from Albert Watada. He owns adjacent property to the south. The original was sent to the Commissioners, and I am sending a copy to Kim Ogle as well. Please include this letter with the Commissioners' packets, and let me know If you have any questions. Thank you. jj z LLSI°. /4/.310 DEC-09-2003 TUE 03:37 PM BANKS AND GESSO LLC FAX NO. 303 274 8329 P. 02 • November 21, 2003 Board of County Commissioners of Weld County P.O. Box 758 Greeley,CO 80632 Dear Commissioners: I am writing this letter regarding USR-1436,the development of water reservoirs on the Adams property. I own farm property adjacent to and south of the Adams site. My farm property is located west of CR 27 and north of CR 6 1/4. I also live and farm near the Adams site, at 2292 CR27. Creating more water storage is important for this area. I was president of the Consolidated Ditches for 23 years. These ditches use more water than the City of Denver on a yearly basis. In addition, Weld County is the 4th largest agricultural county in the United States. Because of my experiences as a farmer and ditch board member, I support the development of new water storage in Weld County. Thank you. Sincerely. `/ •'�-lam / 'q •• Albert Watada 2292 County Road 27 Fort Lupton,CO 80621 '.o a MEMORANDUM TO: KIM OGLE, PLANNING SERVICES FROM: CHARLOTTE DAVIS, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ISUBJECT:USR-1436 RUSS OTTENSTEIN C. DATE: 12/10/2003 COLORADO CC: The application material prepared by Banks and Gesso, LLC, dated February 2003, states, on page 1, that "the property currently supports a residence. The remaining acreage of the property is a cornfield". My referral dated 7-29-2003, condition 3, recommends that the septic system for this residence will require an engineer evaluation. After searching the Weld County Assessors files, it has come to my attention that there are 2 residences on this property. Neither residence has a permitted septic system. This memo is to advise you that condition 3 should be changed to state the following: 1. The Environmental Health Services Division was unable to locate a septic permit for the septic systems serving the existing residences. If the residence(s) are to be removed the septic system(s) must be properly abandoned. If the residences remain, the septic systems shall be reviewed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer. The review shall consist of observation of each system and a technical review describing the systems ability to handle the proposed hydraulic load. The review shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Services Division of the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment. In the event the systems are found to be inadequately sized or constructed the systems shall be brought into compliance with current Regulations. Mat GlS► Wallac amen H.Grant ` T' GRANT 436 Coffman Street Suite 200 came.on A.Grant •VT LLL��LLL 111111 1 GRANT 1 Post Office Bon 908 Phi4p.A.Golton Si.. /"�O!A . ' _ LLP Phone Longmont Colorado 800502 0908 Chad R.Hamilton ,vT ju�^'�AVI Phove. 303.]]6.310C Tom R Kiteley Fax: 303.]74.2349 ATTORNEYS AT LAW email: law,:grant grantcorn Mark Springston Web'. aww grant grantcorn Wi,vam J.MCCarren December 8, 2003 Esther Gesick Asst. Deputy Clerk Weld County Board of County Commissioners - Centennial Building 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Re: USR-1436; Adams Mine Dear Ms. Gesick: Would you please enclose the attached letter with the December 17, 2003 Board meeting packets. Please let me know if you have any questions or require additional information. Very truly yours, Grant, Grant & Goiran LLP B a . =ikon Enclosure DR o ChaNMASAAGPOV.Fllar oei t at packets l2401- t Wallace H.Grant AN GRANT GRAN 436 Coffman Street Smte 200 Cameron A.Grant GRANT 111��LLL 1iLL11 Post Office Box 908Grant Philip A.Goiran S ^OI ♦ , T LLP e Colorado 80502-0908 Chad R.Hamilton ,vT lV�--`jn Ate' Phone. 3039'6.3100 Tom R.Kiteley Fan 303»4.2349 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Email: law egrant-gr ant eom Mark Springston Web toaw grant-grant tom William J.McCarron December 8, 2003 Weld County Commissioners 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: USR-1436; Adams Mine Commissioners: This letter is written on behalf of Joe Saskaki, Jane Sasaki and Sasaki Farms who own property adjacent to the proposed Adams Mine at 1821 County Road 27, Brighton, CO 80603. By this letter, they formally object to the application and request that the Commission deny the applicant's permit request in the above referenced matter. Based upon our clients' previous experience, and after conversations with Kim Ogle in the Weld County Planning department and Erica Crosby with Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology it is evident that the improvements and facilities to be constructed on the Adams Mine site would damage or otherwise adversely affect the irrigation wells located on the Sasaki property. Therefore, my clients are not comfortable with Weld County granting a permit for the Adams Mine. It is my understanding that the Division of Minerals and Geology has conditioned their permit approval upon the remediation and mitigation terms outlined in the Banks & Gesso Document titled "Mitigation Measures for Off-Site Groundwater Impacts" dated October 8, 2003. Nonetheless, because the consequences of approving the permit for the Adams Mine are severe, these measures do not provide surrounding property owners with enough assurance that their irrigation wells will not be harmed. My clients' livelihood depends upon the water from their wells. The only action that would protect Weld County residents would be your complete denial of the Adams Mine permit. Thank you for considering these concerns. Very truly yours, Grant, Grant& Goiran LIP By CC: Joe and Jane Sasaki Chad R. Hamilton Kim Ogle 0:1Qi.*aS MOPGLCu®rm re pang 12.S-03dr °c `°RT ettp of jfort !Lupton I lu.-Plcni ,, „,61' tll l I.A i l l SI,'ON( 1 IICS.A 1)) SI R- II{ Fnl:I AC )IACIII P.O Roy 11S Countv „I ACdd C0L0RAD° 1301 S. A7rRinlcy ;Ave uc 130;1 S�7-6691 I url Lupton.G,Inr.Iclo Sf16'_I P.Iv (1H) S57-W51 Pcrtonnuncc Inle,_rilc.Team„ork Vccounlahilitc mid Scn it Memo To: Vicky Sprague Clerk of the Board of the Weld County Board of Commissioners From: Richard D. Blodgett, City Administrator Subject: Resolution of the City Council of the City of Fort Lupton Urging Denial of an Application before the Weld County Commissioners on the Ottenstien/Premier Paving/Adams Project in Section 19 T 1N R66W, South of WCR 8 between US 85 and WCR 27, known as Weld County Case Number USR-1436. Date: December 11, 2003 At its Regular Meeting of December 10, 2003, the Fort Lupton City Council Unanimously adopted the attached Resolution No. 2003-045 Urging Denial of the subject Application. We would appreciate it if you would distribute this Resolution to each of the members of the Weld County Board of Commissioners and have it entered into the record at the public hearing to be held at 10:00 AM on December 17, 2003. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, ^ Richard D. Blodgett (/411 itie42=i •✓I� AlmC� er r RESOLUTION NO. 2003-045 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT LUPTON URGING DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON THE OTTENSTIEN/PREMIER PAVING/ADAMS PROJECT IN SECTION 19 T1N R66W, SOUTH OF WCR 8 BETWEEN US 85 AND WCR 27, KNOWN AS WELD COUNTY CASE NUMBER USR-1436 WHEREAS the Weld County Planning Commission has recommended denial of this application for the reasons set forth in its record, and WHEREAS, the use proposed for this site would be one of 170 such permits granted by Weld County, with 115 of those permits granted between WCR 66 and WCR 2, and WCR 1 and WCR 29, and with 72 of those permits granted within WCR 38 and WCR 2 and WCR 1 and WCR road 37 (an area depicted on attached exhibit A, showing a concentrated burden on rural, agricultural, urban, suburban uses and transportation corridors in this area of the county, and WHEREAS, Section 22-5-80 B. and C. in the Natural Resources area of the Comprehensive Plan of Weld County states: CM Goal 2. Promote the reasonable and orderly development of mineral resources. CM Goal 3. Minimize the impacts of surface mining activities on surrounding land uses, roads and highways. (Emphasis added) WHEREAS, the number of permits issued and operating have already created a direct, and unacceptable, level of highway danger due to truck traffic, showing a concentration of the most dangerous intersections in Weld County matching the concentration of permits as depicted on exhibit A and B attached hereto, and WHEREAS the industrialization of a significant portion of area in and adjacent to agricultural, rural, urban, and suburban uses stigmatizes these areas and drives down the value and options for development of adjacent areas far more than the localized gains realized, and WHEREAS, the existing highway structure cannot safely handle the type and volume of traffic now being experienced, and funds for maintenance and repair of highways and county roads is more and more limited, and WHEREAS maintaining the economic viability of Highway 85, as a safe, efficient and attractive corridor for the benefit of all of Weld County should not and cannot be lost or discounted by merely focusing on one localized project at a time, and WHEREAS routing trucks down a certain road, or to a signalized intersection, does not make them disappear, but creates a even higher level of safety hazard and road wear and tear as they continue back and forth through our cities and throughout a wide area of the County, and WHEREAS there exists now a need for major expansion and improvement of Highway 85, and Weld County Roads 27, 2, 4, 6, and 8 in the Fort Lupton area with no funds in sight to do so and • WHEREAS, the efforts to create reasonable and orderly development of natural resources, and minimize the impacts of surface mining have not been sufficiently effective to date, its is therefore RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT LUPTON COLORADO to strongly urge the Weld County Commissioners to deny the approval of this permit and continue to deny permits in this area until a comprehensive plan specifically addressing the safety and economic and development needs and desires of southern Weld County can be implemented in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE FORT LUPTON CITY COUNCIL THIS 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2003. City of Fort Lupton, Colorado 8,a 4z-42 Notts-Lb S. David Norcross, Mayor Approved as to form: Attest: , • 470A1C1.4.so, /6:17pat, T. William Wallace, City Attorney Barbara Rodgers, City Clerk 12/16/2003 11:49 3038570351 FT LUPTON PAGE 03 w • ; 1a 'Er rIasi' j „ f• .ff�4 - 5 .tea°:�4! e1 � seQii't, ;,4 The _ _. -_ ....,.,y v yr tw..„ ....„ N ,,-s __ I 1r L..Tlv'. - I,• ry a - : _ in, . , ,...., .:„...,,,,.7.,:_ / II1 - 4 III 2. r _ . i � _ ._.__ 8 gi -�:rn �_• . _. . „ . . - •....„:„.. . . ......., ,, ,.. .., . _...C..i•Ci-. �� -� / , . _ .... . . _ .. . ® ," .....„ . .. .. . _ . __ • _ . . , , . , - EXHIBIT 4 ,z•cic- xexq . Q ii 0 al y _ - g p € a 12/16/2003 11:49 3038570351 FT LUPTON PAGE 04 Cottrity sheriff's. : • deputies hit the 'O� move _ seven ' • gliww_fatali_tii w '- -post ---- zaroous ions �►W.+ie�.xt .-fll-- 7. s damws,r the diem me cake.alone wth the weld cony Pitt Iftrki,h maim_ aim_ a mw dorm by county's Y hazardous weareemoneT nap bows f WeN lesfir hat led the state i the Mendslat trouble epaS. its office workin wag g g m Now,Nmaake Sheriff John = is introdom S, leader In trade ..,, w� pram that he t i^ ablonroad -f,': 3t +�- 'c r.' r fatalities county's persistent t ID ,--P--- y� T*r spry ',m 8mte •--4: rc }Two i« The deputies used i data on car crashes that '-� 'i :,�,� " � _ � � ��be used t ' Y._._ ,cal .z s Cooke. said and t I the program repast.* yvhatorlty to test tr> e fatalitir �� Weld's No.s- the program th:e :real wa SIIet'I�S O ttlll LeEda �IIn( 2 i software ns _ makingten Foncelov4 a commander in the sl waves national seti ‘3.. 4.. '� � - it office, saf plat ety D.C., where the appro 50 .� "I'm laudeck Very enthused. about this p 2. y gram." said Bill Copley, a safety progr ;r " h �F Federal Motor Cart •• who has seen Pi r y 1e r '. cc t 4777- 7 LT7w3�.: may-•• en�Il' �t Mg 1189 30 ZQU ft The sheriff's d M© .` n :44. 1; A to be that department's a were the us 7r -` °� ; la �, __ I: -,- is '� r:; j orado State traffic accidents the C shifted'r;snf ,i w z ° ` 13, added a usnt of�5 to�, 7. patio iamed,,,W See%W M FAT ALMI3,PayeA7 EXHIBIT B 1 i AT 1 n foci epa 2 ' f ;11111111 1 : .� itel$SPilli isilligirlill11144{ 111111414* imilp si itertaii. 2s illiic vb. . 4,11gintif .. Ilihni ., 1141°Ifritiliiii Mritimarkitliti i PL- _til ?-1!.:.. - • b i-- Cn :;. ..1• :. O . Ct " I If Ell eh gm gi fJ1i .:-. i .-E bi) — • - -11. - ‘: li xv 'Inas 1 ..-‘ .. .. t 8 c• 1.- Lit °II 11111 hill IL ' ::•.: , -- w cz 2- sal v - 1 ? it • Joil .01 i e m m m in 1 CAROL Harding - Gravel Pit requested by Preimer Paving and Asphalt and Adams Family Page 1 j From: <LeoBissell@aol.com> To: <rmasden@co.weld.co.us> Date: 12/14/03 12:33PM Subject: Gravel Pit requested by Preimer Paving and Asphalt and Adams Family Dear Mr. Madsen: We are writing in opposition to the above gravel pit. Old Hwy 85 at the present time carries a large volume of traffic. We use this highway to reach Brighton for doctor's appointments, shopping, the hospital and when we visit our dughter in Westminster and our son and family in Denver. (In the summer our grandsons have a total of 60 baseball games held at Westminster's Hidden Lake sports complex. We attend each game meaning we use Old Hwy 85 60 one way trips for the grandson's baseball games) At the present time my wife is having extensive lung tests as ordered by Dr. Currie, a Greeley specialist. If a gravel pit begins operation her lung problems would be highly affected. Please vote in opposition to this gravel pit, Mr. Madsen. Thank you. Leo A. Bissell 3900 WCR 29 Fort Lupton CO 80621 EXHIBIT 1 —6-b list+14310 I CAROL Harding - Premier Paving and Asphalt Page 1 From: <Dcbissell@aol.com> To: <rmasden@co.weld.co.us> Date: 12/12/03 1:08PM Subject: Premier Paving and Asphalt December 13, 2003 Rob Masden Weld County Commissioner Dear Mr. Masden, I am writing to express my objection to any authorization which would allow the placement of a gravel pit on Old Highway 85 between Rds 6 and 8 to the South of Fort Lupton. I view this as a safety hazard as well as a health hazard to those living or driving through this community. Old Highway 85 is a narrow two lane road which provides easy access for local residents to both Fort Lupton to the North and Brighton to the South. Many choose to travel this road and thus avoiding the four lane highway with higher traffic speeds. These two communities provide valuable services (grocery, clinics, hospital, pharmacy, library, etc)which are used by my parents and their neighbors who live off of this Highway on Road 10. Many in this community are elderly and have lived here for many years. I believe the large trucks traveling along and then entering and exiting from this narrow stretch of Highway pose a danger to pedestrians as well as motorists. In addition the gravel dust, falling rocks, and noise will add more hazards to the health and safety of this community. I respectfully request that you take these concerns under consideration when making a decision regarding the sighting of this business. Many people will be effected by the decision. Sincerely, D'Anne Bissell dcbissell@aol.com EXHIBIT Lest2 GE-- -* ( argi MEMORANDUM WIDcTO: Board of County Commissioners COLORADO DATE: December 17, 2003 FROM: Kim Ogle, Planner III SUBJECT: Modifications to Staff Comments based on discussion at Planning Commission Hearing date held September 16, 2003 The applicant, Don Carroll - Weld County Public Works, Char Davis - Weld County Public Health and Environment and Kim Ogle - Planning Services met to discuss changes previously discussed at the Planning Commissioners hearing on September 16, 2003 that were not reflected in staff comments, given that the PC Resolution was for denial of the application. The previously discusses modifications to text are reflected as follows: 2 1. Prior to Recording the Plat: 8) Weld County Road 27 was an old state highway-verify the existing right of way width. This road is designated an arterial status road, which requires a 130-foot right-of-way at full build out. The applicant shall dedicate 65 feet of right-of-way from the existing center line of Weld County Road 27. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated as needed for the acceleration lane on County Road 27, based on construction drawings. an additional 35-foot right-of-way for the widening and installation at the acceleration lane at the exit. The City of Fort Lupton, in its referral dated August 26, 2003, states Weld County Road 27 should be improved to arterial standards according to the-Fort Lupton Transportation Plan. The applicant shall provide written evidence of approval from both the City of Fort Lupton and the Weld County Department of Public Works. Upon written approval, this shall be delineated on the plat. This road is maintained by Weld County. 9) Weld County Road 8 is designated on the Road Capital Improvement Plan in the County-Wide Impact Fee Code Ordinance,Section 20-1- 30,as a collector status road,which requires an 80-foot right-of-way at full build out. There is presently a 60-foot right-of-way. A total of 40feetfrom the centerline of Weld County Road 8 shall be delineated on the plat as right-of-way dedicated for future expansion of Weld County Road 8. The applicant shall dedicate an additional 10-foot of right-of-way in front of the property for future widening and installation of a decelcration lanc at the cntrancc. This road is maintained by Weld County. The City of Fort Lupton,in 43 referral dated August 26, 2003, stated Weld County Road 8 should be improved toaitLdial standards according to the Fort Lupton Transportation Plan.-The applicant shall provide written evidence of approval from both the City of Fort Lupton and the Weld County Department of Public Works. Upon written approval, this shall be delineated on the plat. EXHIBIT I FP ? . I ' 10) Weld County Road C is designated on the Weld County Transportation Plan Map as a local paved road, which requires GO feet of right-of way at full build out. There is presently 60 feet of right- of-way. A total of 30 fcet from the centerline of Weld County Road 6 shall bc delineated as right of way on the plat. This road is maintained by Weld County.There are residential/agricultural parcels and a dairy operation adjacent to this roadway. Renumber as required. 4-1-) 10)ln reviewing the traffic study, the applicant indicated that on a daily basis the site will generate 170 vehicles trips. The applicant identified that the haul route shall be from the pit entrance on County Road 8, to U.S. Highway 85 for northbound traffic. Southbound traffic will exit south,then cast onto County Road 27 (Old U.S. Highway 85), then south to Weld County Road 6,thence west to U.S. Highway 85 at the new light. The inbound traffic will utilize U.S. Highway 85 to Weld County Road 8 east to the pit entrance only. The applicant shall install an acceleration and deceleration lane at the main exit on Weld County Road 27 to accommodate this volume.entrance to accommodate this volume. A construction drawing will be required for review and approval by the Department of Public Works. Upon written approval, this shall be delineated on the plat. 4-2-) 11)The applicant shall install an additional right turn lane from Weld County Road 27 onto Weld County Road 6 to accommodate trucks turning westbound. The intersection detail shall take into consideration the right-of-way, drainage, utilities, and other such issues. If widening is required,the applicant is responsible to acquire additional right-of-way or relocate the utilities,if needed. Upon written approval, this shall be delineated on the plat. 43j 12)All proposed lanes and turning radiuses shall be widened to accommodate trucks. The intersection design and improvements shall take into consideration the right-of-way,drainage, utilities,and other such issues. 44-) The applicant shall dedicate an additional 10-foot right of-way adjacent to Weld County Road 8 to accommodate improvements at this location. This should be shown on the plat drawing. 43j 13)The applicant shall delineate locations of the 2:184 slope screening berms around the perimeter of the property to be mined that is to be planted with native plant materials indigenous to the Colorado High Plains. Areas adjacent to State Highway 85 shall be augmented with deciduous and evergreen materials of sufficient size in height and breadth to screen and buffer the activity from the traveling public. berm around the perimeter of the property to be mined that is planted with native plant materials indigenous to the Colorado I ligh Plains. Areas adjacent to—Ctatc I lighway 05 shall bc augmented with deciduous and evergreen materials of sufficient size in height and breadth to screen and buffer the activity from the traveling publie. 1C) 14)The materials utilized in the Landscape, Screening, and Buffering Plan shall be delineated on a screened mylar of the Extraction Plan Map and all plant materials shall be identified on said drawing. This document shall be prepared for recording. 47) 15)The applicant shall delineate all right-of-way and easements associated with the Branch Ditch Company. N. The traffic impact study states that improvements to U.S. Highway should be made to bring the existing auxiliary lanes up to standard, and those improvements can be made within the existing pavement. The study did not address the need for a left turn acceleration lane onto U.S. Highway 85; however, CDOT would have required one. With the County's assistance, CDOT would now like to take the opportunity to restrict the access to a three- quarter movement. By restricting the access, traffic would have to travel south on Weld County Road 27, then west on Weld County Road 6 to the new traffic signal to enter U.S. Highway 85. CDOT realizes that the County may require improvements on Weld County Road 27, but feels that the dollars which would have been spent on the left turn acceleration lane can be spent here instead, thus implementing a portion of the Access Control Plan (ACP). By limiting the access, CDOT will also be impacting the properties west of U.S. Highway 85. As part of the ACP, CDOT recognized that some properties would be forced to travel out of direction,but concluded that safety outweighed convenience. The applicant would be responsible for erecting a sign at the northeast corner of County Road 8 and U.S. Highway 85 prohibiting left turnsby trucks The applicant would be responsible for advising the property owners of the change. Evidence of such shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services. The applicant shall provide written evidence of coordination and approval of the requirements of CDOT, including written evidence of coordination with the Department of Public Works, to the Department of Planning Services. O. The applicant shall enter into a Road Maintenance and Improvements Agreement for the designated haul route and all intersection improvements. The applicant shall also address all transportation and non-transportation improvements associated with this application. Move to "Prior to Operation" and reletter. P. The applicant shall provide evidence from CDOT that an access permit has been obtained and all conditions of approval have been met. Written evidence of approval from CDOT shaft be submitted to the Department of Planning Cervices. Move to "Prior to Operation" and reletter. Q. O. 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.A.1 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." Finally,Section 22-5-100.A.2 of the Weld County Code 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. The plat shall be amended to include any possible future drilling sites. ft:P. The applicant shall submit a signed copy of an agreement with the Branch Ditch Company,or provide site engineering calculations and documentation specific to the ability of the existing ditch crossing structure to handle the increased load without doing damage to the ditch or the ability of the ditch to convey water at the historical flow rate. Evidence shall be submitted to the Weld County Department of Planning Services for review and approval. 32. Prior to operation: Add items "O' and "P" and reletter "E" and "F" here E. The applicant shall enter into a Road Maintenance and Improvements Agreement for the designated haul route and all intersection improvements. The applicant shall also address all transportation and non-transportation improvements associated with this application. F. The applicant shall provide evidence from CDOT that an access permit has been obtained and all conditions of approval have been met. Written evidence of approval from CDOT shall be submitted to the Department of PlanningServices. DRAFT COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO ROAD MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 2003, by and between the COUNTY of WELD, STATE OF COLORADO, hereinafter called "County" and PREMIER PAVING (USR-1436 -- Adams Sand and Gravel Mine), hereinafter called "Operator," and WHEREAS, Operator has acquired land use permits from the County for gravel mining and plant operations on 112 acres located in the South 1/2 of the Northeast '/o of the Northeast '/ of the Northeast '/of Section 19, Township 1 North,Range 66 West of the 6th P.M. WHEREAS, the gravel pits, concrete, and asphalt plants generate an increase in heavy traffic; and WHEREAS, the existing County roads that serve the gravel pits , concrete, and asphalt plants will require increased maintenance and improvement due to the increase in heavy truck traffic; and WHEREAS, the County and Operator have reviewed maintenance and improvements proposals put forth by Operator, and both parties agree that such maintenance and improvements will enhance the accessibility and safety of the roads that serve said gravel pit, concrete, and asphalt plant site. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions hereinafter set forth, the County and Operator agree as follows: 1. The county road which serves said plant site is Weld County Road 8 between U.S. Highway 85 and WCR 27, WCR 27 between WCR 8 and WCR 6, WCR 6 between WCR 27 and U.S. Highway 85, which are hereby established as the haul route. All truck traffic shall use only the haul route. 2. Within six months after its first shipment of materials, Operator shall complete the road improvement associated with the proposed operation. (See the Attachment "A.") 3. The County shall be responsible for general maintenance including snow removal. 4. Operator shall provide construction drawing of all off-site road improvement in accordance with Item 2 (See the Attachment "A.") 5. All construction and material controls for a project will be in accordance with the current Standards Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, as supplement or revised, provided by the Colorado Department of Transportation. During construction, signage shall be posted in accordance the Uniform Manual on Traffic Control Devices. 6. It is the intent of the parties to this Agreement that Operator shall bear the cost of 1 maintenance and associated improvements to the Road required by its hauling activities. Therefore, any repairs and maintenance following the initial improvements as set forth in Item 2 above shall be addressed as follows: a. Upon notification by the County, the County shall inspect and conduct with Operator a field visit of the road and develop a plan for maintenance and improvements, with the County to have the final decision as to what maintenance and improvements are required. 7. The County shall, to the best of its ability, require all gravel pit, concrete, and asphalt operators, and commercial and industrial haulers having facilities along or in the vicinity of the Road and using the Road on a regular basis to participate as additional parties to this Agreement or in a Road Maintenance and Improvements Agreement similar to this Agreement, with such Agreement to provide that the cost of maintaining the Road shall be apportioned among and paid by all Operators. 8. No Third Party Beneficiary Enforcement: It is expressly understood and agreed that enforcement of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and all rights of action relating to such enforcement, shall be strictly reserved to the undersigned parties, and nothing contained in this Agreement shall give or allow any claim or right of actions whatsoever by any other person not included in this Agreement. It is the express intention of the undersigned parties that any entity other than the undersigned parties receiving services or benefits under this Agreement shall be deemed an incidental beneficiary only. 9. Indemnification: To the extent authorized by law, Operator agrees to indemnify, save and hold the County harmless from and against any and all claims, damages, losses, and judgments which may be suffered or incurred by the County as a consequence of any breach by Operator of its obligations and duties set forth in this Agreement on those portions of the haul route described in this Agreement. In the event that any dispute shall arise under this Agreement, the prevailing party in such dispute shall be entitled, in addition to any other relief of which such party may be granted, to recover its reasonable attorney's fees and court costs incurred in connection with the resolution of such dispute. 10. Failure of either part to perform any of its respective obligations hereunder by reason of acts of God, strike, or acts of any governmental agency or authority having jurisdiction over matters set forth herein shall excuse timely performance of such obligations, but shall not excuse the performance of such obligations as soon as reasonably practical. The parties may, however, mutually consent to excuse a party from performing any obligation, in whole or in part, upon a showing that performance has been rendered impracticable by reason of FORCE MAJEURE. 2 11. This Agreement may not be assigned in whole or in part by either party hereto without the written consent of the other party. Such consent will not be reasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed. 12. If any clause or provision of this Agreement is illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, then it is the intention of the parties that the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected. 13. Should the Operator sell its operation, cease operating, file bankruptcy, or in any way release ownership and responsibility of the permitted property, this Agreement as set forth herein, shall be terminated, unless assigned as provided in Paragraph 11 above. If the aforementioned release as set forth in Paragraph 10 above should occur, the Operator shall give a minimum notice of ninety (90) days to the County before the date of termination. If the aforementioned release should occur, the County shall have the option of immediately terminating this Agreement. Notwithstanding the terms of this paragraph, the requirements of USR-1436 shall not be waived by the terms of this paragraph and the failure to have a maintenance Agreement in effect may be grounds to revoke USR-1436. 14. By entering into this Agreement, the parties do not intend, either expressly or implicitly, to create a joint venture or partnership. Except as provided herein, neither party shall have the right or authority to act for, or on behalf of, or to enter into any obligations which are binding on the other part to this Agreement. 15. All notices to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered in person, or mailed by certified or registered U.S. Mail, or sent by a nationally recognized overnight delivery service, to the party to receive such notice at the following addresses: Weld County Board of Commissioners(County) P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Premier Paving, Inc. 5085 Harlan Street Denver, CO 80212 16. All notices shall be effective upon receipt by the party to receive such notice, or by the third day following deposit of said notice in U.S. Mail, or the first day following deposit of acknowledgment or refusal of delivery of said notice. 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed the Agreement the day and year first above written. ATTEST: PREMIER PAVING By: By: signature signature ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Weld County Clerk to the Board By: By: David E. Long, Chair Deputy County Clerk ,r.. M:\WPFILES\AGREEMN \Road-Improv\Premier Paving-agr.doc 4 Attachment A Premier Paving, Inc. agrees to the following road improvements to accommodate truck traffic associated with the proposed Adams Sand and Gravel Mine: U.S. 85 at WCR 8 Intersection: All incoming vehicles will use this intersection, plus outbound vehicles heading north on U.S. 85. 1. Increase the southbound left-turn deceleration lane to 1,120 feet, (including a 300 foot taper) by re-striping to meet the State Highway Access Code requirements (per LSC Transportation Consultants'Report,August 20, 2003,pg. 5). 2. Increase the northbound right-turn deceleration lane to 1,100 feet (including a 300 foot taper) by re-striping to meet the State Highway Access Code requirements (per LSC Transportation Consultants'Report,August 20, 2003,pg. 5). 3. Increase the northbound right-turn acceleration lane to 1,680 feet (including a 300 foot taper) by re-striping to meet the State Highway Access Code requirements (per LSC Transportation Consultants'Report,August 20, 2003,pg. 5). U.S. 85 at WCR 6 Intersection: Only southbound traffic leaving the site will use this intersection. Per our traffic consultant, LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. and CDOT, no improvements are necessary for trucks to make a left-hand turn from WCR 6 to U.S. 85 at this intersection, since it is signaled. WCR 8 Ingress/Egress: All incoming vehicles will use this access to enter the site.Northbound (on U.S. 85) traffic will exit at this location. 1. According to our traffic consultant, expected traffic at this access does not meet the volumes necessary to require acceleration or deceleration lanes (See attached LSC report dated August 20, 2003). 2. Access road will be paved from WCR 8 to 300 feet into the site. WCR 27 Egress: Southbound (on U.S. 85) traffic will exit at this location. No vehicles will enter at this location. 1. Create a paved right-turn (southbound) acceleration lane with gravel shoulder, 12 feet wide by 380 feet in length, plus 144 foot taper(per CDOT specifications). 2. Access road will be paved from WCR 27 to 300 feet into the site. 5 3. A Ditch Crossing Agreement will be negotiated with the Fulton Ditch Company prior to construction. WCR 27 /WCR 6 Intersection: 1. Reconstruct the northwest corner turn radius to allow sufficient space for southbound, right-turning trucks. Based on information from the Weld County GIS department, this improvement can be made within the existing right-of-way. 2. According to our traffic consultant, expected traffic at this access does not meet the volumes necessary to require acceleration or deceleration lanes (See attached LSC report dated August 20, 2003). 3. A Ditch Culvert Relocation will be negotiated with the Fulton Ditch Company prior to construction. Surface Improvements: 1. WCR 8 (between U.S. 85 and WCR 27): 3"new HBP with gravel shoulders. 2. WCR 6 (between U.S. 85 and WCR 27): 2"new HBP with gravel shoulders. 3. WCR 27: no surface improvements are proposed. Right-of-Way(ROW)Dedications: 1. WCR 8: Dedicate 40' from current center line. 2. WCR 27: Dedicate 65' from current center line. End of Attachment A 6 - IN- Z5 � p .J -J • • • . _ J B w9� " ` J - L • <\ • 11I 1 BM �7 s,lM I I I Ui (i1`—4923 �',.SgB1ECT �� / a9;5 - __._._.__— �'a._..--- ........._.fNola �h.• . .. '4938 r y Na . ..__ p .fi v :7171 4 y .,rain T •-l• lElevator " 9 Well • I, O 0 ti • i Mobile Han Independence Park _.. School kki • Well...._... ,,/2D 493 ......: --_... - ...._ .� ._ __.._ : `h • ,N ._....•_.._ „h• BMY .,_... • t.1�' ,ii 4926 NrbJ / • Water c4<> --}} 4950 �I I• 4 i • I-IGH- Tank �— a _ fi•; Radio - . to4flt9 H rpwe II nberg — — / Seale r-2010'• tzi m M .-.. I .;$f 7,, exserr ■■ Banks & Gesso, LLC EXHIBIT B: INDEN MAP I -ME 720 Kipling, Suite 117 PREMIER PAVING,INC usQ4jy ° Lakewood, CO 80215 ADAMS SAND AND GRAVEL MINE I banksandgesso.com 10/25/02 02045 7 6* :. _ r' _.,, 1* %'' ' :: A '`t" I l'bw " ..4� Fr x I Fly„ Y Ij, triat. 1^ 31 .;1. Y �� syr"�)..,_ \I ii, .., ,,,,. . _..t,A4 , .- ' l?' ' 4) : al1i jt ��, ,;4 `; ;` -1 'Y 11` .fin y'� ?"1 ' -• . Ayy I "`' ■ > .,A •et,iit..et' ati 1Ink,ji4v* ,1) i \ I- R b i �y VS � JJ`1 F Y 1ti pr ', < IC 1111 �� - `II' `'YE -4"%'' ill T- , Jr • 'Os* ty 1 r2 P A 1 ` e F t R ',{.' 1 —l r I $ ! err'. rq l iAS I x ii ,%a .. -•4 v.',. ■I ` a ,n+ I -+.. a -,•€ w_ ;r{ r+'q'( :; ti y >1 fl y 1�4.'p+1^'•ks'g`KI P� 5 J yi ` i • i' ' . _ ,„, y 1 - t . , t ,� r, .* t, i /..„ • .... i, ,, , , vt;," , 7ft , . , ., .. , 333pr'a �" ` ' AA 1 • _ka t sf 7 4 Y3 t 1q , ddv"f 40. . A '�- p 04 • . 4 t Ia tt � 11 a �i , 1 i „?< r ) X i 47 r, '*'; + ), ;1 lilt";II� +',4 i4A�'a'' - A. �, . L.() .8 FI B NE 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 411. Stil k'� I ,y -� 71e F s iz it' -,� y. — e 1 er t � ` a ' ' �. • t r ". a d IC Il.l I �..�—r I L =: isyy `" . 0•411,:i3 lid,- , �; .'. E�r i-rtrtitre , > - - - - 4*4 14 PI • E � `" ' u 4.a '4. m t � q Srel. yµ..2 _;,,y e 2!-*,447 41;"."4,4,-t,1—' 3 t °� &4 } 'x r' }' � ` _ t p{ � 424 1' F .x -0 ,Ott % ! iii - _ .t l L -y P #r• • F IA d I t .,1 1 - 4. JrY' . - I ' / i i 1J' Tppt\F ` . Ef Ki I " a �' i C Y,1 - N 5, # , _ , c> x 3 j Y _ €₹g. � drM C{ �} , .}E ' r. ' GHT is ki . , , ii , ) , s,21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 AISAAgaTh,tt t `8�, § 4,-4' a4 ''1 r a --411-441."9-4,7,S �y, .C -x4 kr47 E Ci ir{. __ Nei `49 '�gg� illW. i' i.5`. � #�`''�Ix x s at"r t sL n n qr ../ a " " 44" , ₹ '1 a f a yit 'i kM 'xt r 1 1I c. . , t ,44_,,: i4,,,,\\,,,t,„ 11 4 IC �1 9 3 s '� f' 1 w 6 o- fl.• 1 _ 44'4' r, �F it ;:t I, ^1� N - •Illl � iit 'r�, - - �, � "'It '�;.,. -„art " . S a 1 \ 1`i 5 Y W 4 s y TM« pi ti I i .. . 1 7x7' h 'y , z3 3,. 4 i1\� y l C r.j� 1 5 ` `��E Q! l Y p 3 1'1? € X u: / ; , 5y F� 1 # , f". ice, \ ;�; � ' \> .�.i -, , . 4 -.' : 1 = i ' cltil . ...�" _ �`.• ��, ''SI'Z t '' • Y ,' kw"fr y5y 1 t r 1 to • p` . v . }j . .?• s 4 a • ' 4t ₹ rl'J. a $A t 1 F 1. ' i i t �' i6t"1 xg1,1 }i t kP. 41 � ( ,₹ � \ .-4",!-.7 ,,,,;,',. ,� I,' : Gr , ii,Ja its v ₹y {4 IS ' '=,,:.'f..1 '', w € i '6.4I".01(( tt r ''':-''',4.- A.a . ' t � +{ M p .. t4,:. t Cb }}} Y 4 t l c, "t y FFFy 5i I 666 i-� SLx' f ? q .. \�\\\ , ; as �aA�� t '. 4v 9 lt' I.a 41:.'n,''' . > F I , ,,,$)4t. r '- .sex- "`•' � .` tom #�}. ' "R• •I lx Y d• '• s . 4 ,, w5 ^Ta 'a!'^ ey"`1ti g>< 4 �: , fi w9 t 1,q'' 1 ₹ j .• t'k rt r r L._.._,_. 1 Il a� • 4\ Y {4 ) ) ) [3T-nU ' ".z" �., i Y V t� �s 1Cd ��j.n yaY. 2L : h 4+ t mss , YLS ' - rz§' S.. , y' •; ..r4,—,77,,i #-{7, &t vJ ` ,, 3.rrr1.₹ 4 v s .rte a... . ATTENTION! 't �` � �, A •• Halliburton Vehicles ;' • f'i' i Y. , , ,.aw '` Destined South on 85 `'" -•',AC TURN LEFT HERE TO RD. 2J RIGHT TO HWY 85 r r . "�"t. ♦ . 3 w It-jiillir , f xK This �, n is .n -IAe, dr, Je ,F9. of kk�.Ilibor4t 2Lress fro rer-, eft,26,cLel land- . .fiy „Fa'Fig wi" i� t E'er- „r✓ ti sn .. ey,E,r a ATTENTION! , mr '.144;1.4.;4[S442,44 ",IA" . =4a q., i y, m ._ � g k ot..E Pik ' .. u y� . Halliburton Vehicles , . ..,.. .• -fr ». . ' Destined South on 85 '- TURN LEFT HERE TO RD.2i . RIGHT TO HWY 85 , ibercr - ;. _ ".=4..1r-A-',"""--4"--1"-'. ' '..- '+wj...7 ATTENTION _ I _. _. ---- --Sam- - -.ree d f •, s= t it Ili '•ua I 0 r• jak .r ,,t,Mfg ♦. i1 • t. 1 .4e4'-•.....444...', _it,. , 1c „FF s• A_ We I d. Cou.,n+ y loced. 2 17 cul- Road. 6 . --trarn1 1 i>CJ o (c)rner ) ti; 7 ++ nom• This jS the -turn, n9 } cue o.+ Weld. Cou,rri- y loo . 2r7 tn-l-o (Zoccd- (o , I J__, ei,5 it_} L kn) flrIifS Cf (�� road 2 n n c l'UC 'CC�CL i L 1 cc Ki ��c) n r� ) k ri , ,. ---;,:....,.,•,......, t sr a' I 1, *a - 1 -- ~ -C AI rbO� n-, --k -Eu r n �PI fil. i rid �� 1 5 lu ikeil [i. cir(tHtti ir house . Ito Dc T1 14 • ; I. t Y i 4.. . p. vit+ t - *y�yy, !R ♦ .�., ' of r^ C ravel Pit 1 W, f L �3"-',4,444-4r..,:-61, f j e gym:• 4 bilitota y� ..�-j�lA 'r1} Concrete anddf'bri s ISM yards / one F eed UP + rurn -f-he proCe5si rj P ; f- II _ I I i 1111 ill 1arav ( j S I 1\ ;r m Air ' . : .M r -...v-�<f"Aim a 4 V' M II �• L r j ,. 14 _ *tf1. y ,y 3/4 % t, T� fA US k}1y h way y 35 cund. snu+h o-f road, 6 - ,Ilitre ., a itr V i 1 50 pie cj ravel j + e�U; me n-f and buy Id n�S. This ;s wha+ c\ ci-A.ve,/ , loo 1i Ke- Iry nyAltir • h4 yam_ 4MjA .� ` c t l i �.V 1i i s it here, -f-he u,CAl1* +-o ex and ULt5t rom Ol)t F, T1t t ' mt� -- ' tex: r 7 w®.mur— �k �s Cittk�', va• d • .0 O t�.,e 1, W'` ' �..� 1 Crave I Fiff US 35 c�nd scuzih c Goad : F y.fin.,,'. (vc.i1( �- debri5 r 414414— Ncr�, s,de f pit he e com pang � :a)Yt to p re. - expo n +o looK I , Ke, above � cfu hese Ctrs ifo' iv) ' p; Ifs i-I were ct tit 0 20 yco C'k`.)0 oR+l of Ieccd e be- 1, i Dar, lAJ&t-1'en bvrc . r,,,, 1 MI5 a .��'":7 t ,r .r..„- T l ' i. !TI•� ry, .i0y,,, ..r At ,1 ID @ US KiTy )1w y 35_ ul(tt ) f,► wt.. r „ iiv • -x,, l5't0„ ,.._0. 3i ' 2r ./I_ by _ Jr 'v M y+1� „ '..`. � rte. Y.., p ' t.let �! >, w r l _Il 15 I s 1A-, Mty 1 c -1-I I A , it. . y* , ,+'#'M.. , *, -' 1:111:1/4,1%'''"ref. - "' i .kk .� a, < et�4 T 4` „ A,. 0,1144` ,i, riplV.:S,TWMN.l1fR 'V4•,3w'n i1a.MS`M>,^•p•v=- ':c} - r T• . r 3 jw a • u{1 • "`a T ? It R 1 ie r - _.r • �C))1ct us q �� rc)i�t( 55 _ OcL�"-fli) b . rc • # fi zx.k:W J Aa • { Kn .1. • ears, Lkiccfen b119 • :fr a A • a .f • _ AOC �, ai r P, le o- debts 20' oo—i rn . r f 3a1.1) c> home I OF s ' $ I y •Yf��. :.�+"ki u.+�(+e "+4e �45)'%`wnr 5 iy Ff les debris 20� Try m 4e C.Jturch • " : 3 0/Fit-om,— � ! y s y' *! Yh 0 * • a e}P } \..„1„.. • - s 1 -. M . ip . , 1. Neeil s si h, tsa.r„ s a ^ i I. ' ' k tvitej t,IP-;4,',... .� iI , ' ,,,,iiiiii .,, , „. , . .,. , 4, „, ,,<,. , ,,,,,sio,,,, , ,, 4 , ,,,,,,,4. . , . IIIIIIIIr —et,o b f - 6e h Me:3 cLi 3 rCoccd Z. r► 1 e re rased ar-ecc • . v .Y ... .lull. It r �q Y III C. y�. jyj A 3�tlpj IA � 0.15 ►`' . w :. ; t x, Y -<d"4f7 r t '"� S, w' r • s a r . ". i • — e s one . Ste_ y • w T A-• 7 M1 e x ... ..4*-4,,,,,-.7-':- I 1. / / 7 I ! t'' 1l,IY 4 I y. r % ,, — nn.,• Ttl l�r� Mid l i `ii. _— r 4n 5 Y Ysv m I `- .� ... .. _ �r , ham? ...x:r. ter .=wrs-. "s._ ,. Sr-+- iiti '.e -r `4. ..-^4 14 ;�.V .� c .gw 1-1--r-i cc 1'i �i -Irz,11 CE-G0-�- 7, -i-c.))) r&u rn s ck_I t a � 'an'v a 171 t f a i i '„ gip.. }4 AILi +ca 4i. - _ ' _ �w . C. r , c, '7 Y � 1 ) 111 A :' i a ?Y VS �..... - 1 rte'_...._ to tee nik rte' ..— t. - iNt , i 4 r �y, r 11110.,4 • 'gyp,. ,. ..y Y •' ` ' . ti. ,a,�„e.a sr `a - - ,•. a C,'. ,� � ,0 � ATy 411044„,,,,tc14.0Sielj 41714,41 4 • az. r .w _ - 3 k�}fj 8 1 5 t l a a i k r gik° 7 .�-Pli�tk Y•F 9e •• k 1 /411W1/4rt ., '411 *t a 1.4 11-Si Ile el e. ` - • Weld County Commissioners 195 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Weld County Commissioners: Please accept this letter as a PROTEST concerning the Premier Paving,Inc.proposed Adams Sand and Gravel Pit. which includes Open Pit Mining.Processing and a Concrete and Asphalt Batch Plant in Weld County between Weld Roads#8 and#6 and between Highway#85 and Weld County Road#27(Old Highway#85) south of Fort Upton Two years ago a similar proposal came before the Weld County Commissioners less than 900 Feet South of this proposal on the east side of WCR#27(Hwy Old 85) At that time the Weld County Commisioners DENIED THE PROPOSAL -INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE AREA The Weld County Planning Commission on September 16 2003 -DENIED THIS NEW PROPOSAL - BF,ING INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE AREA It has be n tated h t a i im im of 85 ement/ snhaltf Gravel Tracks in and 85 Cement/!Asphalt/Gravel Trucks out(TOTAL OF 170 TRUCKS A DAY)using these roads each day to start and many more additional trucks to be added in the days to come as the company grows. The hours being 6 AM to 6 PM week days plus week-ends. This is Unbelievable,for someone to think he can add another 170+New Cement/Asphalt/Gravel Trucks A Day to this road. These are huge trucks. As we stated,when we were here two years ago. The Problems have not changed. I. TRAFFIC: 1. Weld County Road#27(Old Hwy#85)is still the ONLY ROAD coming out of or going into the South End of the City of Fort Lupton for people working and shopping to and from Brighton and on south with out getting on US HWY#85 with all the trucks and speeding cars there. (PreSently Colorado State Patrol will tell you, again, it is the heaviest traveled north and south road in South Weld County already! The State Patrol works this road all the time.) The Speed Limit on Road#27(Old Hwy #85)right now is still 40 Mph.for safety purposes and for amount of traffic using this road. WCR#6 and#8 are also heavily traveled getting to US#85 2. Fort Lupton School Children and Buses are still waiting and using Road#27(Old Hwy#85) in and out of school up to four times a day or more. (There is a Mobile Home Park at WCR#6 and US Hwy 85)with approximately 50 children or more entering and leaving schools buses daily.) 3. Trucks are still moving corn silage and vegetables_from fields and dairy feeding trucks and vehicles _still_moving feed and cows to and from large dairies in the area and continuing to use these roads. 4. The Jialliburton Oil Trucks Pickups and Employee Vehicles(directly across the road from this proposal),$T Oil Services Trucks and Vehicles and Ritchie Bros Auction Finipment and_ Trucks are still using these roads day and night. 5. All the farming trucksiarming equipment and field workers vehicles are still using and parking along these roads to farm and transport their crops. (Farmers for example: Sakata, Villano Bros., Sasaki, Watada,Yokooji are just a few of the farmers still farming the land.) 6. The people living in the farming area south and east of US Hwy 85 are still trvingso get to work or get to town to meet their needs,they must travel on/or across Weld County Road#27 #6 and#8 each time_ 7. NEW-Colorado Department of Transportation and Colorado Motor Carriers Association has stated: in their brochure"SIZE MATTERS FOR SAFE DRIVING"that"Weld County has one of the highest Commercial Vehicle accident rates in the State of Colorado In 1998. 20%of all truck crashes in Colorado involving fatalities occurred in Weld County" WCR#27(OLD HWY 85)CAN NOT HANDLE ALL THESE CEMENT/ASPHLT/GRAVEL TRUCKS. II. ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS 1. You Mill have to face ll he enviro mental problems that come with this proposal (Dust,Noise, Smell,Odor,Traffic,Traffic Injuries,Underground Problems, Dumping Problems, Safety Regulations,and Water Problems.) (Yes,I know they will be regulated.) (Explain-Two examples of Regulating these companies.) 2. NEW-The Dump- One of the largest trash dumps in Southern Weld County is within a few yards south of this proposed site. It was used by both Fort Lupton and Brighton for dumping all their trash for years (1950's through 1980's). It is now covered on top with a small amount of top soil. I know the Adams family didn't tell Premier Paving the EPA problems that will come with that underground drainage flow from the south to the north below and on to the propossed site. (Let me think? Methon, Toxic Gases,Radon,Mercury,Asbestos, All kinds of Chemicals, etc., etc.) Premier Paving says, "It is going to make this a water holding and wildlife site when finished. YOU MUST BE KIDDING! The only thing they are going to do is trash the place and sell the hole to some city like Thorton to hold water and leave the piles and holes standing for years and years. 3. Add to that the unsightly condition of having ugly pits and piles of sand along the road for years and years to come. 4. NEW: GREELEY TRIBUNE Saturday Dec 6 200312/10/2003 EXPERTS SAY WELD COUNTY EMISSIONS CONTRIBUTE TO METRO RATING. Weld County Commissioners met with elected officials,oil company representatives and the state health department to further explore the issue. What will 170 DIESEL TRUCKS a day do for emissions? 5. Let's not forget ajj the soil and land for fanning that is lost and no longer providing food for people When the soil is gone,there won't be a second chance to fix it. fONCLI JSION: THERE IS NO WAY SOMEONE CAN ADD ANOTHER 170+TRUCKS A DAY,A CONCRETE AND ASPHALT BATCH PLANT AND GRAVEL PIT TO THIS AERA AND CALL IT A SAFE SUCCESSFUL CONCLUSION. IT WILL BE THERE FOR YEARS TO COME. CAI IT COLORFUL COLORADO cATJ.IT DENVER'S DUMPING GROUND. THEY ARE NOT BUILDING ANY ROADS IN SOUTHERN WELD COUNTY THAT I SEE!! I REQUEST YOUR DENIAL OF THE PREMIER PAVING ASPHALT AND CONCRETE PROPOSAL ON WELD COUNTY ROAD#8,BETWEEN US HIGHWAY#85 AND WELD COUNTY#27(OLD HIGHWAY #85), SOUTH OF THE CITY OF FORT LUPTON. J FT SOT JTHERN WET D COT TNTY BE A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE CAN STILL LIVE Thank You for Your Consideration,It Is Appreciated! Floyd E. Acre a many mo�Luptonites (10,000 TO 12,000) 930 South Fulton Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 Telephone 1-303-857-2458 Resident of Fort Lupton-38 years CAUTION WIDE TURNS wcr 27 wcr6 eb n 4 Ir paw get out of way Traffic count Hwy 85 north bnd Nov 01 ,03...to Nov 08, 2003. . .24hr period 66041 vehicles Nov 09,03.. .to Nov 15, 2003...24 hr period 60027 vehicles Nov 16,03.. .to Nov 22, 2003. ..24 hr period 57091 vehicles Nov 23,03. . .to Nov 30, 2003...24 hr period 64103 vehicles Average count per day 8142 vehicles Traffic count Hwy 85 South bnd Nov 01 ,03.. .to Nov 08, 2003. . . .24 hr period. . . ..65822 vehicles Nov 09,03. . .to Nov 15, 2003.. . .24 hr period 59187 vehicles Nov 16,03. ..to Nov 22, 2003. . . .24 hr period 57487 vehicles Nov 23,03...to Nov 30, 2003. . . 24 hr period 60046 vehicles Average count per day 8087 vehicles Traffic' Count Safety @ who's cost? Week of 11 /12/03 WCR 6 between Us 85 & WCR 27 72 hour count. . . 252 veh . . . 33% trucks Week of 06/27/03 WCR 8 between US 85 & WCR 27 48 hour count 818 veh . . . 21 % trucks Week of 06/27/03 WCR 27 between WCR 8 & WCR6 48 hour count 3233 veh . . . 11 % trucks Hello