The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20012875 (y//2 `ir, 1<,AK. G it co. . . /JS l ' /y, /2 ri st f� 41 4.1 /rpr <j, c . dtil,e�t.1 Tr ' /1 n7- ,,(2-- I let le'�� /1 I c ,�eie ( /e /�/ Ctc 1 lJ r4I e/ „ 14 /Ail U � v,y !'�,,? /: /h1 , - ✓�iq ,`crvf • 6fcyS et/'rh ,i,, 6 z4#A II lc 4 Ac/' 2,2 1, ,, 19-i ;/ , '1 „ ((tinr erc / /U C. A 1k //.'/tom thou. fce J /11 Mer/CCt ,^ q y ,J ^ J� 1 6" GCF/ lierly 0(1 � J� e Odd e�'1��. AI .22 " 2 C 47 in- / jc c "}V I-'C �, c/'S . 6 hi , n y li-`h i; /2 Z. ',VJ 4 i IA/ 4r `4,, /71 c, I '/y✓/�4 7r(ble ')e. r /%it , '/J Ar Alt( el /1 4s/ �r �7I I G1v /i eQ/ tip' c / X/ it , lic . L V lull £ (4n7c / JJhg9", *,c, 4 J" fa// ` />ir , / f ru c/�S C071, � q.f 444A .i /7. ^ /{ O e / L/2.�� 4 ( e , C,-�P_ — L: Fe , 1 ///(Ire c :6' 45 EXHIBIT 2001-2875 �5 2 O7, Licit A AI(-1 2i (ed.',1 7.1 M �j7G cfJJ /9Cut iG2. - ;262 / 'C 62 71 // / ''"c I .' /6.¢7, tit, I v. h� -r� � I f1 /rtF1 c� w v, JIf ( f�;y. � 7 Coq / 1y �, i /cc/ /i f/, ,rife c ..7/ ee4 J JI*4 ,F et, reit l ` 4— is, „lr„� / �c ly 1,1..7 A. ,any ,,, / re)7 f, tie<4 / 61., 11 ne , /I 1pl^ f' �7 4 Ci.'f/ 414 {7 yy fe r4ch. - "nil✓. SS i ;' .e /.. J '^ I I-f ez 7c /Ar C./6,i7i Pr'h.- cGG„, 4/ yr I>7, tf fly Lk 1' elM) i" (c1, J. 0 ,-' cl7Y /"O4 e/ of J A/ / / CL �" , q i4J / 17e te ,rJ 4 el v �-/te A, OC/i- 17 illJC (in pie a- 7fL xi 4 I OJ , wL 41 , 7 it, if.5, /A, .2 0 1 Jel'Oti I/ // /l ( X21.341 ‘,71/42r f f/Je- tr4 c Al' le• l :' 1 I/-i ;: 1. 1 • s17,L C.c.. rf pi .G cA. C,:e. ,... C Pf dG9„e. P7, ,7 , ,( A it 1)C A-/cf .4 ,le)i I c f/'G / I,'e- e 0', /C Ct: L • /mac`i / ;I` r /� I/C l� q /�rcl.q / o i j/,;s� E�.JzrY�<l.� cc�'ou ��,c�� 4J� c,°. I 0 7/ cC rew ,��', /c . rY./ � if 74/,e: J 2,..rtw //�, Y / 241 I AI i'L'L'i i I ri �/t rt Zcl,/n/j /° l T et/cif /t, q ' 1Gic le-// l Ly/ f_. /677 ' t'J 4 der r /�/C,., tirt int, ;c I li d�, e/ re. // 7 L, i G e C((r h r7 L one �(// -2— Tian/ ao (� r fA /' Uul (l/ CPS h f /4 4 .4470lCZC Weld County Planning Dept. Hi-Country Agency, Inc. RECEIVED 1335 8TH AVE. Greeley, CO. 80631 -1839 970-353-2199 FAX 970-353-3403 Bob Martin, Jr Robert Martin, Sr. Sep-18-01 DEAR MR OGLE, REFERENCE USR#1306 WE ARE WRITING TO YOU IN REFERENCE TO THE"PLATTE SAND AND GRAVEL"PERMIT. WE OWN THE PROPERTY ON 12023 CR 36. AT THE LAST MEETING OF THE TOWN BOARD OF PLATTEVILLE IT WAS STATED BY MR. SHARKEY, THAT PLATTE SAND AND GRAVEL WAS LOOKING AT OUR ROAD AS A POSSIBLE HAUL ROUTE. THIS WILL PUT OUR HOME ON THE EDGE OF A TRUCKING BUSINESS . BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION, PLATTE SAND AND GRAVEL WILL HAVE UPWARDS OF 1 LARGE TRUCK EVERY SIX MINIUTES , DAWN TO DUSK, EVERY DAY FOR THE NEXT 20 PLUS YEARS. OUR HOME IS ABOUT 100 FEET FROM THIS ROAD .WE ARE AT THE INTERSECTION WITH A STOP SIGN THAT STOPS 1 OF 4 VEHICLES. AFTER SEVERAL CALLS TO THE SHERIFF OR THE STATE HWY PATROL, WE WERE TOLD AS YOU ARE AWARE "WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH OFFICERS TO PATROL THE AREA". THIS NOT ONLY CREATES A TRAFFIC HAZZARD FOR OUR HOME, BUT THE NOISE OF STOPPING TRUCKS, (WHEN THEY CHOOSE TO STOP), THE DUST AND THE CONSTANT STRESS FOR NOT ONLY US BUT ANYONE ON OUR ROAD , IS NOT A REASONABLE ENVIOREMENT FOR US TO DEAL WITH. WE COME HOME AND EXPECT PEACE AND QUIET , NOT A BUSINESS BEING CARRIED OUT A FEW FEET FROM OUR FRONT DOOR. PLATTE SAND AND GRAVEL SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO RUN A HUGE OPERATION IN THE MIDDLE OF FARMS AND ACREAGES. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN AN INDUSTRIAL OPERATION IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. UNLIKE MANY GRAVEL PITS PLATTE SAND AND GRAVEL, IS NOT ON THE EDGE OF A MAJOR HIGHWAY. THEY NEED TO HAUL THROUGH POPULATED AREAS, ALREADY FULL OF TRAFFIC. REGARDLESS, IF THE BUSINESS ITSELF IS IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIR PROPERTY, THEY HAVE TO DISRUPT TOO MANY OF THEIR NEIGHBORS TO OPERATE IT. PLEASE VOTE" NO" ON THIS PERMIT. COUNTY ROAD 36,( NOR ANY OTHER COUNTY ROAD LEAVING FROM THEIR OPERATION TO HWY 66, OR HWY 85), DOES NOT NEED THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC AND HAZZARDS THIS WILL CAUSE. SINCERELY, BOB , ANNE, MIKE ,BRIAN, AND ANDY MARTIN 970-785-6172 turiefrta4 't /tt4 tm--1 ir 414-t 4- EXHIBIT 1 24 it KR Us PI • ••ng Goat. • rr eI e, nr= #r V6) dcto ofe't-alj"' Po Pay .fie ie #140" 9n 65; ikiffrocli 66 ancD cat 0-6 uovoiao a ei d. -. c -Mycl aa- of /75 Pe _ move ouc+ 441 �(�"�'e a`°aa , fir( oy - `C2 Pea'CQ- ard fret htdid die i" `" ✓Jo (z'" ic poi /O i b8 Ei&datic St; EXHIBIT 'ratae 60C 7 12.. 7 27/e C'o% 9-/f— c72Da/ 8'vbs/ 00 Ri �,C, / Li;c:m ' Ci‘):a a Z274 r� nay Ei) Caa_ar/,/;2 _7124. ar S2 U�j02 � � S . va?t 7.,7-aaje://c_ do, sz72.dzirty_esw_zawy_a _.„ ,07.5zOy_se_ deA°°/_,6_,zertlyza,o34/ yzezdiyzezdA6 & k& i Aci0/4 JA- ,./.2e__ _ _ryzeo/dz,&:Aeri/Aced,rzesse 400c✓�'.�7 9 „avid-JAZ L.7/eff-aelel-k/ s'z ( V U i. t K9J. 12Q- ;\ 31c;\ vxs\& 30c0 c5oac C co.A1e,A LLG, 8 0 „n H J „��Z J� ` (r. q tu Ti: :. Y VO 140 q1,-O ��\�3L-J :\5cit \f\Q__.k. \/N�C� . .-1--- \\ o-Q,. \ VN it - co ps_ossR,u,\. , \/\_Tho3 ex.s_tv re,c\- V\(\0 c.e, ` ,('a l C)\iN V CY NV � . V \9` 3 3\r/ .\ C.\�L san 'N)`- C\auit \- \ �� 5-z`C \ � ` � D Y cx-W sl '\�'QL .as EDP' , .S lac �o� ,, SThoo .s awe.. Lb v��QitC0L\ `tea \c- SC o �. k�o �cs�1 � �� `\t tC y \\ �Lo v� 1a . \�wJ \ c\v\ aceic\ \A \ovc , �o O ,b —\ . \r��o, u_- °Pv r vow Mow. L\Vo,W\Gkb k. EXHIBIT tt -\I-\ ` -SC, I Vi 12- kio3 b \c•\ \,�u\. ry \ \\\Q ,C'_SJ., ?D \ Benjamin Lovins 444 Stevens Circle Platteville, Co.80651 a nt Pie,r t'tg D3 Weld Count Planning Dept. 1555 N. 17th Street Greeley, Co. 80631 Ref: Revised Case#USR-1306 Dear Mr. Kim Ogle, I am writing this letter to let you know that as a resident of Platteville I am strictly opposed to the implementation of the new gravel pits planned by Platte Sand and Gravel, Owens Brothers,and Aggregate Industries. Sincerely, Benjamin Lovins EXHIBIT n Weld County Plv6'.Brig Dopt, u d-- 3 a-ao l 1555 i\) i7 )-1 A Qo sou "r-- P-r=.-n *„,So-c=skao 0.,\\OLs.N.,,,÷4 _ W� CZ��Mn'y . . `^^U a 0Q CA.S�, k l 4 i‘eL,Wel \. CiL4 , 4 9.40.149:it al (h.g_i a CO, ..)Ainstri. - --- ‘--\--a_ L1/4)j ,..Qa-v.cp LA:Sai+ °LAI-cc L\FQ_ -(2442,6 `--t-- . 4-,A,u_g_ R a e sk N-4 00 6\ v C 4 .5.4 a/J ova o Q V0.V U V pvy �Xt40 th (� t' /�J _ U .any Anita Lovins 444 Stevens Circle Platteville, Co. 80651 Weld County Planning Dept. Weld Count Planning Dept. 1555 N. 17th Street Greeley, Co. 80631 Ref: Revised Case#USR-1306 k Nom} fi t.± h V _ e Dear Mr. Kim Ogle, I am writing this letter to let you know that as a resident of Platteville I am strictly opposed to the implementation of the new gravel pits planned by Platte Sand and Gravel, Owens Brothers,and Aggregate Industries. I oppose this for many reasons. First we have struggled long and hard to obtain the property that we now own and we certainly do not want to be forced into watching the value of this property depreciate so that one individual can make money.The gravel pit as planned,will not benefit the community in any appreciable amount. Instead, it will only help to benefit the mining owners while the community suffers a loss. Secondly, prior to any final decision being made as to the allowance for this gravel pit I strongly believe that a traffic study should be completed for the traffic that will be incurred onto both Highway 66 and 85. Furthermore, I believe that a traffic study should be completed for the roads in Platteville such as Grand Ave. and the other county roads in Platteville because I am sure these roads will eventually be used for the trucks used for the gravel pit. Highway 66 is already congested and is a very dangerous road during inclement weather. The addition of the huge trucks used by the gravel pit will only increase the congestion and the danger. More people will die on this dangerous road. Finally,there are many other issues that make the addition of the gravel pit a negative for the community rather than a plus. These issues include the negative affect on the water supplied to the community, the negative affect on the local wildlife, destruction of sites that have historical significance, negative affect on local stream flows, increase of noise and dust, increase of asphalt odors, loss of prime agriculture land, and many others as you well know.Again,these negatives far out weigh any positives gained from this proposed gravel pit. For these reasons and others, I am asking that the proposed gravel pit be denied. This ban will be for the good of the entire community rather than a few individuals. SI eryF rely, Anita Lovins SONBIT ISO F September 21, 2001 Ls e:Cj CCS ''c4 g Mr. Kim Ogle,Planner i) Weld County Planning Dept. Greeley, CO 80631 P, t h'�"� s1 9, q Re: USR#1306 Platte Sand and Gravel S&H Mine Dear Mr.Ogle, Weld County Commissioner,Rob Masden,could see through what was happening at the hearing on August 22 concerning the Platte Sand and Gravel, S&H Mine near Platteville. "I have considerable concerns about this coming in at the 11th hour with substantial changes. They had already gone through the planning process, and we take Planning Commission reconunendations very seriously." That recommendation was a 7 to 0 vote oposing this gravel operation. Even with this realization,the Board of County Commissioners did send the application back to the Planning Commission for more review. This gave Platte Sand and Gravel the opportunity to go back to various referral agencies,which had already responded negatively,to try to change their referrals. Commissioner Chairman,Mike Geile, showed concerns about giving Platte Sand and Gravel the opportunity to resubmit their application and,as a result, setting a precedent for giving second chances. He wanted the hearing to go on that day. Being an agricultural area,the feelings of our neighborhood remain the same. An industrial venture of this size and operating length is NOT suitable to our area. The noise,traffic,dust,devaluation of our properties,and the mere safety of all who use the roads (whether they live here or not), are only a few of the concerns that arise by allowing this company to move in to our area. The changes they have proposed, in that 11th hour,do not change the impact it would have on our lives. Please DO NOT allow a company that has no previous experience in mining to move in and ruin our way of life,just to benefit theirs. Sincerely, qcti_ Mary Odenbaugh 11100 WCR 38 Platteville,CO 80651 EXHIBIT 31_916 Terrence Lovins 444 Stevens Circle Platteville, Co. 80651 -,,;i Weld Count Planning Dept. 1555 N. 17th Street Greeley, Co. 80631 Ref: Revised Case#USR-1306 V Dear Mr. Kim Ogle, I am writing this letter to let you know that as a resident of Platteville I am strictly opposed to the implementation of the new gravel pits planned by Platte Sand and Gravel, Owens Brothers,and Aggregate Industries. I oppose this for many reasons. First we have struggled long and hard to obtain the property that we now own and we certainly do not want to be forced into watching the value of this property depreciate so that one individual can make money. The gravel pit as planned,will not benefit the community in any appreciable amount. Instead, it will only help to benefit the mining owners while the community suffers a loss. Secondly, prior to any final decision being made as to the allowance for this gravel pit I strongly believe that a traffic study should be completed for the traffic that will be incurred onto both Highway 66 and 85. Furthermore, I believe that a traffic study should be completed for the roads in Platteville such as Grand Ave. and the other county roads in Platteville because I am sure these roads will eventually be used for the trucks used for the gravel pit Highway 66 is already congested and is a very dangerous road during inclement weather.The addition of the huge trucks used by the gravel pit will only increase the congestion and the danger. More people will die on this dangerous road. Finally,there are many other issues that make the addition of the gravel pit a negative for the community rather than a plus. These issues include the negative affect on the water supplied to the community, the negative affect on the local wildlife, destruction of sites that have historical significance, negative affect on local stream flows, increase of noise and dust, increase of asphalt odors, loss of prime agriculture land, and many others as you well know.Again,these negatives far out weigh any positives gained from this proposed gravel pit. For these reasons and others, I am asking that the proposed gravel pit be denied. This ban will be for the good of the entire community rather than a few individuals. )Sihcerely errence n EXHIBIT 11 % 111- I W&c Cc.,,. 71,,1. I ir,, G3;-^_ Fet CO X gt ^pia E„ r..r: & , a V AWM September 17 , 2001 Kim Ogle Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Ave . Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Platte Sand and Gravel , USR/1306 Dear Mr. Ogle : I remain adamantly opposed to the USR permit #1306, the application by Platte Sand and Gravel , regarding a permit for a concrete, asphalt , - precast batch plant and general mining operation. The only change in this application is the smaller initial request for acre usage . Nothing else has changed. I absolutely think with time, the entire acreage will be utilized, with subsequent application incrementally or in whole, for the remainder of the land to be used in a similar manner. I remain committed to convincing the Weld County Planning Commission and the Weld County Board of Commissioners this is prime farm land. My family has previously owned the applicant' s land for the past 30 years . In the Weld County comprehensive plan, section 22-2-60 , under section AA1 goals and policies, the very first statement is to "preserve prime farm land for agricultural purposes" . In addition, as stated in the Weld County comprehensive plan, section 22-2-40, the definition of prime farm land is that it relies on a consistent supply of irrigation water at a usable distance with appropriate soil quality to produce high-yield crops . There is a substantial amount of water on the applicant' s land for irrigation. There are 24 shares of Western Mutual Ditch and 7 shares of Hughes-Cook, which in total is 9 . 5 cubic feet per second. There are also eight irrigation wells, adding an additional 14 . 6 cubic feet per second of water. Thus, this is over 24 cubic feet of water per second. Mr. Forest Leaf, a water engineer, has reviewed this data and agrees to the fact that this is sufficient water to provide for over 1600 acre feet of water for the irrigation of the 360 acres that have been traditionally been irrigated here . We have data from the last several years, and the average annual crop yield is 3 . 5 tons to the acre of alfalfa and grass . Therefore, no mining should be allowed on this 368 acres to preserve this prime farmland. Page 2 I feel it is the responsibility and obligation of the Weld County Commissioners to preserve this prime farm land. The applicant continues to state this concrete, asphalt, precast batch plant and gravel mining operation will "have little effect on the surrounding area" . I continue to be outraged by this statement . My family owns 500 acres of prime, irrigated farm land under sprinkler pivots immediately adjacent to the east and northeast of the applicant' s land. We have three homes with three domestic wells and eight irrigation wells in the immediate vicinity. Whereas there has been some attempt to mitigate the potential of the watering and dry mining techniques, I remain concerned. In addition, there is mention of an intermittent access route, a northern route, at intersection 23 and 40 . This is the location of two of my homes where young children live and play. The traffic currently on this road is incredible and would only worsen and increase with time . I remain concerned about the bus route through this heavily trafficked area. The traffic volume is staggering and concerning. Highway 66 is substan- tially congested, and as you well know, two additional mining operations are in the approval stages along highway 66 . In conclusion, I continue to strongly urge rejection of USR permit #1306 . Approval would be catastrophic for my family, the community and Weld County. Sincerely, n AAAmittil Michael J. Pt snik 18995 Weld County Rd 23 Platteville, CO 80651 MJP :PS/scp/ccva0917/17119 j / '/- ,,cVG' RE I. R .u4) Ce, wale I1 1306 , fLar7e Ccwc a 6 ,e4veL tea rho•DeatQ 711 I OJ-e : c 7 L, c A.2,4,1445 t 1 6� . I Az-ail ` Acey 9&143 , - e 1 et 2,04,„Li eLeLQ 005 ,?7/0." P — 4 r0 e. 2. m / 1772 / P' -3� September 21st. 2001 P Weld County Planning Dept, Mr. Kim Ogle, Planner Weld County Planning Department Greeley, Colorado 80631 RECEIVED Re. USR#1306 Platte Sand and Gravel S&H mine Dear Mr. Ogle, Again we are going before the Planning Commission for another review. Attached to this letter is a copy of my previouis letter that was sent to you dated January 20th 2001. The issues that were raised in that letter still remain. At the August 22nd hearing before the County Commissioners the application was sent back to the Planning Commission so the referral agencies could look at the 11th hour changers. The =mended application really has not significantly changed from the origional. The applicant is still asking to be able to mine 600,000 annual tons per year if the market demands are there. Nothing has changed the impact to the safety and origional concerns of the community. I hope everyone sees thru the smoke and mirrors and can vote to not allow this application to go ahead. Sincer8lYEC9'' 9 14( Stanley E. Odenbaugh 11100 WCR 38 Platteville Colorado 80651 EXHIBIT 1 January 20th, 2001 To: Kim Ogle Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley Colorado 80631 From: Stanley and Mary Odenbaugh 11100 WCR 38 Platteville Colorado 80651 Re Proposed Use by Special Review (mining operation) Application by Platte Sand and Gravel L.L.C. USR#1306 After Reviewing the Use by Special Review Applocation submitted by Platte Sand and Gravel L.L.C. We find there are many issues of concern. Many issues have parameters so broad based and liberal that we find them totally unacceptable. There also are some facts and statements that are untrue. The best way to address our many concerns would be to follow the order of sections in the application. Many statements are duplicated in other sections of the permit application and we will try not to repeat our concerns. All our responses are based on facts and figures as stated in the USR application by Platte Sand and Gravel L.L.C. USR application 24.7.1.3 Statement: There are six houses within 500 feet of the permit area, three are owned by Mr. Sharkey, one is owned by Ms. Hoffschneider, both of whom are associated with this case, and all are within the permit area. The remaining two are located outside the permit area.One is in the south quadrant surrounded by the permit area and the other is across the ditch north of their ranch house complex. Response: The application is made for all property inclusive in the legal description of the property owned by Mr. Sharkey and Ms. Hoffschneider. Our property extends south from road 38 and road 23.Our property line adjoins the east property line of the permit area. Our house lies about 300 feet from the permit area. 24.7.1.4 Statement: When complete the lakes and surrounding land will be ideal for the intended final use, that of a private habitat reserve and recreation area, for use by the owners. We feel the final land form will not degrade the surrounding area but will tend to enhance this rural setting. Response: We feel there isn't any information regarding the amount of users that will be allowed to use this area. Will there be fishing boats, ski boats,jet skis, racing boats, camping on the beaches, night time activities etc.? How will all the people utilizing this 2 private recreational area and access the site? The word"final" land form is used in the statement. As we all know if a 100 year permit is allowed not one of us here will be around to see the final land use. What must be addressed is the disruptions and effects on the community and adjacent land owners during the mining years. These and many more issues need to be addressed before we can fully respond. 24.7.1.6 Statement: Other pluses were that there were no houses close to the mining areas, there are no other gravel pits in the immediate vicinity. Response: There are houses in the immediate vicinity and also there is a permitted gravel pit less than one mile from the proposed area. 24.7.1.7 Statement: The property is fenced to keep trespassers out and will have a locked gate at the entrance.----We do not believe we will need a 404 permit from the U.S. Armny Corp of Engineers as we do not plan to affect wetland areas or waters of the U.S. Response: The existing fences are 3 and 4 strand barbed wire fences, some with wood posts and some steel T posts. This is not adequate to keep anyone out of harms way should they stray on the proposed permit area. The western boundary of the pit is basically along the South Platte River. During the year numerous people legally navigate the river with canoes for recreational use. Most of the remaining borders to the proposed permit area are accessible by bordering county roads. Signs are a means to discourage access but are not adequate. In the past the county has required other pits in the area to have a perimeter fence of no less than 6 feet in height, that is non penatrable by humans. This should be a requiremrent for this application also! The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was contacted and did do a site invistigation. Terry McKee from the corps performed this investagation and wrote a letter stating that according to the proposed mining areas there would initially be no wetland impact. The applicant would have to contact his office at a later a date due to the fact that there are existing wetlands within the permit area. At that time the Corp had not stated that there is no 404 requirement for the full permit area. This portion refers to the response to the Use by Special Review Questionnaire by number sequence as presented in the application. Question#3. Explain how this proposal is consistent with the intent of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance and the zone district in which it is located. Application response: Concrete and asphalt plants are also allowed and are defined as Mineral Resource Development Facilities. Our response. Although this is correct we feel the applicant has not done any studies to show a need for these type of facilities. There are numerous asphalt and concrete plants 3 in the immediate area that are not operating at full capacity now. These additional plants operating at this site will NOT allow the surrounding community to enjoy the rural setting we have now. We also feel these facilities will add to the number of proposed trucks already at 50 for the processed gravel export only. In order to make specification HBP material the existing pit run material,will need to have addiditionial fine material imported . Typically there is not enough fine material (topsoil# 200)for asphalt in the proposed permit area of the South Platte River. This again will add to the vehicle trips in and out of the site. Question 5a. How many people will use the site? Application Response: Depending on the activities and demand for material it may be from zero to 200+people using the site. Our Response: This number of 200 is enormous. The number 200+is infinite. How will these 200+people access the site? Question 5b. How many employees are proposed to be employed at this site? Application Response: 15 to 20 full time and as many as 30 plus part time and seasonal workers. Our Response: Adding these numbers up again you get an infinite number of 50 plus. How will these employees access the site?Fifty plus people require 100+vehicle trips a day ! This would have a severe impact on the safety and quality of life to all along the access roads. Question 5c. What are the hours of operation? Application Response: Gravel processing and mining 4:00 am to 8:00 PM (two shifts). Maintenance and emergency activities 24 hours per day. Our response: This broad range of hours of operation only addresses actual working hours of production. Sixteen hours of production, plus a minimum of one hour before and one hour after the proposed sixteen hour work period for employees going to and going from the site.The 16 hour production period is at a minimum,18 hours of disruption to the community and especially the adjacent land owners. That only would leave us with 6 hours of possible peace and quiet, in a period when most of us are asleep.This isn't fair to us. THINK ABOUT IT! When would delivery of raw cement and oil for the cement and asphalt plants occur? In the middle of the night? Many vendors will be accessing the site How many and how will they access? Does the 50+employees that are proposed to work on site reflect one shift or two? If two,the number of site employees would increase to 100 for a 16 hour work day. Nowhere are the days of operation stated. Will we be disrupted when we are normally home on weekends by the mining activity again taking away from our peaceful way of life as we know it now? 4 Question 5d. Only Temporary structures are needed for the mining operations. We expect three at this time, a shop building, scale/scale house and a precast concrete building. Our Response: Is this a pre-cast structure made of concrete or a structure built for a pre-cast plant operation? Nothing is mentioned as to the size of the structures. They previously state they want 24 hour maintenance. This would be a 24 hour disruption to the surrounding community. They only address the mining operations in their response. What type of support facilities will be needed for the proposed concrete and asphalt plants? Question 5e. When the site becomes fully developed and the market developed we expect the following table to reflect our daily traffic counts.This may vary day to day due to market needs. (see table) Our response: This amount of daily vehicle traffic is of GREAT CONCERN!!! If you add up the daily volume projections as stated, it reflects 130 vehicles a day. This number is enormous but if you think about it, that number can only go higher! The 130 reflects single trips. This count does not reflect that of operation employees of 50+, raising the number to 180+. The new number is 180. This table reflects vehicles. Now we must talk about trips, a vehicle trip in and trip out. They state 50 gravel haul trucks. With an 18 hour operation if a truck made a round trip every 3 hours that single truck could have 6 loads or 12 vehicle trips. Multiply that number times 50 and you get 600 vehicle trips daily with just the gravel haul trucks alone. Now add in concrete mixers. Thirty mixer trucks with the same formula but using only a 10 hour day. Three loads a day times 30 trucks is 90 loads daily. Ninety times two for trips equals 180. Same formula for asphalt trucks equal 180 trips daily. Lets just add up the total of these three categories. Gravel haul trucks. 600 vehicle trips Concrete mixers 180 vehicle trips Asphalt trucks 180 vehicle trips Total Daily Trips 960 This may seem outrageously high but these are realistic figures. The 960 trip figure doesn't even consider the on site employees, delivery trucks, precast delivery trucks, recreational vehicles, vendors, etc. The applicant is asking to allow over 1000 +vehicle trips per day to access the site . We must put public safety ahead of anything else. The safety of anyone using the public roads, school buses, surrounding land owners accessing their property and farmers using the roads to go to and from their farms with farm implements, riding horses,bike riding, etc., must be considered and addressed..Daily trips in excess of 1000 in the surrounding community is TOTALLY unacceptable. A statement made in the application: "The operator does not expect prevailing hydrologic conditions to be disturbed. We will comply with applicable Colorado water laws and regulations(as the operator understands them)governing injury to existing water rights in order to minimize any disturbance, which might occur to the prevailing hydrologic quality 5 of water in surface and ground-water systems both during and after the mining operation and during reclamation" We feel the operator should GUARANTEE that he will not change the prevailing hydrologic conditions and should fully understand the Colorado water laws and regulations!! We need something in writing stating what will be done when our wells do dry up! In reference to the noise report, the applicant states'We do not believe the noises generated from this pit will disturb surrounding residences." How can they say this when they have not done a site specific study! The study should reflect conditions when the air is calm and sound carries. This happens quite often in the morning hours when the mining and processing would be in full operation. No where does the noise decibel level table address back up alarms on equipment. These alarms emit a very piercing, high pitched beeping sound that is very annoying by design. These alarms are required on all moving vehicles in the permit area. These issues need to be addressed. Nowhere in this application is the issue of the noise emited from recreational vehicles adressed. We feel a site specific study should be done on ski boats,jet skies, racing boats, fishing boats, etc. We feel this operation would GREATLY DISTURB and DISRUPT the surrounding residences and take away from the peaceful quality of life that we now enjoy. Dust control plan. Who will moniter the speed limits and what is the penalty for violations? With the amount of trips per day, watering the unpaved roads twice a day is not adequate. What means for dust control will the applicant do to keep the dust down on the county roads that are outside the permit area? With the amount of projected vehicle trips per day the applicant needs to come up with a better plan than the one stated! Sewage disposal system. If the existing ranch house is used for the office the existing septic system would be inadequate. The leach field system would need to be upgraded to reflect the increased number of people to use the facility We must express our great concern for granting a 100 year permit to a company with no past history in the mining business. In the intrest of public safety, the county should require, at a minimum, a 6 ft. fence that would prevent any individual entry. This fence should be required around the entire permit area. This requirement is consistant with existing pit operations in the area and county and should not be exempted in this case. In reference to CRS. 34-1-304 Master Plan for extraction. "In developing the master plan,the planning commission shall consider, among others,the following factors: (b) The potential for effectictive multiple-sequential use which would result in the optimum benefit to the landowner, neighboring residents, and the community as a whole: Response: Multi-sequential use would only benefit the owner and not the neighboring residents, or the community as a whole. The neighbors will be burdened with all the negatives that we have stated throughout this letter and we are concerned that property 6 values will drop and the quality of life will be severly impacted by the ongoing 100 year mining process! Nowhere in this entire application have we read where the community or Weld County would recieve any benefit, since most of the processed materials will be transported to the Denver metro market . (d) The quality of life of the residents in and around areas which contain commercial mineral deposits: Response: How can our existing quality of life be maintained with the proposed type of operation requested by the applicant? If you consider all the negative issues we address, they will far out weigh any positives which are minimal and only benefit of the owner, not the neighboring residents, or the community. You must consider these genuine issues in accordance with CRS 34-1-304 ALL studies done for this application must be SITE SPECIFIC! In summary,the concerns that we have brought up in this letter plus any future issues which may arise, should be addressed before any action can be taken. This application as stated is so broad based with parameters so wide open that the oerator could virtually have unlimited methods and directions of operation as well as unlimited annual export quantities if the market so demanded. We request that you DENY the application for USR change based information stated in the USR permit application#1306 as presented based on facts and concerns of all affected residents and communities. Thank Y u, • G (. Stanley and Mary Odenbaugh a41c Ocunty mg Dopt. wy r+ September 19, 2001 j I r \ ; k Weld County Planning and Zoning Commission 155N. 17th Ave. Greeley, CO 80631 Kim Ogle Case#USR-1306 The purpose of this letter is to let you know that I am still opposed to the application by Platte Sand and Gravel LLC. The changes that have been proposed for less acres and less years do not change anything in the overall plans by the applicants. These two items can be reversed at a later date by an amendment to the application and nothing has changed. We will still be contending with the dust, noise, truck traffic, road damage, which all change our quality of life. As a concerned citizen the truck traffic impact on the school bus routes will put our children in danger at all times. I do not believe this agriculture land should be destroyed and the industrial side of the application is not compatible with the ag zoning. Preservation of our history should be of great importance and this location is the site of the original Fort St. Vrain trading post. This property is the home of wild life which should be protected. I want it to be known that I David Amerine still stand opposed to this request to permit such an operation. IS'lirQ �tv -- David Amerine 2551 15th Ave Greeley, CO 80631 EXHIBIT I 3(0 September 19, 2001 Weld County Planning and Zoning Commission 155N. 17th Ave. Greeley, CO 80631 Kim Ogle Case #USR-1306 The purpose of this letter is to let you know that I am still opposed to the application by Platte Sand and Gravel LLC. The changes that have been proposed for less acres and less years do not change anything in the overall plans by the applicants. These two items can be reversed at a later date by an amendment to the application and nothing has changed. We will still be contending with the dust, noise, truck traffic, road damage, which all change our quality of life. As a concerned citizen the truck traffic impact on the school bus routes will put our children in danger at all times. I do not believe this agriculture land should be destroyed and the industrial side of the application is not compatible with the ag zoning. Preservation of our history should be of great importance and this location is the site of the original Fort St. Vrain trading post. This property is the home of wild life which should be protected. I want it to be known that I Marva Amerine still stand opposed to this request to permit such an operation. 4thbC"-N—ene 2551 15th Ave Greeley, CO 80631 EXHIBIT Weld County Planning and Zoning Commission 155N. 17`h Ave. Si pp 'V F .. L c h lG !: C) Greeley, CO 80631 Kim Ogle Case #USR-1306 The purpose of this letter is to let you know that 1 am still opposed to the application by Platte Sand and Gravel LLC. The changes that have been proposed for less acres and less years do not change anything in the overall plans by the applicants. These two items can be reversed at a later date by an amendment to the application and nothing has changed. As an adjoining property owner I will still be contending with the dust, noise, truck traffic, road damage, loss of property value which all change my quality of life. As a concerned citizen the truck traffic impact on the school bus routes will put our children in danger at all times. I do not believe this agriculture land should be destroyed and the industrial side of the application is not compatible with the ag zoning. Preservation of our history should be of great importance and this location is the site of the original Fort St. Vrain trading post. This property is the home of wild life which should be protected. I want it to be known that I Kathryn Hardin still stand opposed to this request to permit such an operation. Kathryn Hardin 11250 WCR 38 Platteville, CO 80651 IC14< 15/1A4P1 EXHIBIT 1,1, aOJ a " _ , t. LLSR4` 1 � 0 ( . a-,na, P;a ��(_� a�Bu,�, et-h tt al/ 4+4 e' P e� CCL._,-C L 6 . -0 _ ty-ti-a- --aL ee ti a� p an w &t )4_, . g_ �l p 4_ ,ate %-a-emsne �a�rrteua re-a_ 0- I ' S-ta o-s2, Die- c. (Y6- -tT- ..0 Ake_. eal4t;')Wi'it7442, Z “-- ±-1“:1-) . Aica- ,o� Q,� Ate- > IJ .A -a- t ems- -- . EXHIBIT _ I3� R- imatly#vh Mr. Kim Ogle, Planner September 17, 2001 Weld County Department of Planning Services kit 1555 N. 17th Avenue ` 2p;. Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Revised USR#1306, Platte Sand and Gravel, LLC - n - Dear Mr. Ogle, ` d° a" r This is our second letter opposing the Use By Special Review Permit #1306 - now revised - application by Platte Sand and Gravel, LLC. The applicant has stated that there have been two changes made to the original application: a reduction in size - to 180 acres, and a reduction in years - to 20 years. We feel strongly that these changes do notaddress the majority of our concerns or those of the community at large. First of all, these two changes to the scope of this application are temporary. The applicant, Tom Sharkey, during the Platteville hearing on this matter, stated that at the end of 20 years they will reapply depending upon "market conditions", in other words, with continued growth along the front range, the applicant's intent is to mine the full 800+ acres for the full 100+ years. In addition, these changes do notaddress hours or days of operation, traffic concerns, dust and light pollution, Platteville and Weld County comprehensive plans, compatibility with existing land uses or compatibility with future development. School bus routes have not been considered and the traffic study submitted by the applicant raises significant questions about its applicability to the truck numbers which are actually in the application. All other gravel mines we have seen are located directly on or adjacent to a state highway or interstate highway. To route this incredibly high volume of truck traffic onto so many miles of rural roadways is unsafe, unreasonable and incompatible with the way of life of the existing community. The applicant continues to refer to the residents of this community as"insignificant", doing nothing to openly discuss potential solutions to the many problems we see in turning this beautiful, historic land into an industrial zone. The Planning Commission's recommendation that the applicant"be a neighbor"has, in our experience, been blatantly disregarded. Basically, this is the same application as was submitted to the Weld County Planning Department earlier this year in every way other than the two above mentioned changes. Even according to the applicant's consultant Tom Haren, there is"no substantial change"to this application. Lacking this substantial change, this application still calls for denial based upon the deliberation and subsequent findings of the Weld County Planning Commissioners on June 5, 2001. Thank you in advance for your consideration of our concerns. Sincerely, E tZti '11/P `III and Dave Eldredgf- 10997 CR 36 Platteville, CO 80651 EXHIBIT lib ft Weld County 'L nh g Dept. s9 9 Pt -� 1 September 14, 2001 e. L L v Mr. Kim Ogle, Planner Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 UNITED NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE RE: Revised USR#1306, Platte Sand and Gravel, LLC Dear Mr. Ogle: This letter is our second response opposing the Use By Special Review Permit#1306 revised application by Platte Sand and Gravel, LLC. Two revisions were submitted to the Planning Department on August 15, 2001 by Mr. Tom Haren on behalf of the applicants. The first is a proposed reduction in the initial size of the mining site to 180 acres. The second is a proposed length of permit for 20 years. We, the undersigned, are residents of the area which will receive the most adverse impact from this proposed mining operation. That neighborhood includes the area immediately surrounding the mine site, along site access county roads and along the haul route described in this USR revised application. We believe that the proposed revisions do not adequately address our numerous, legitimate concerns about this proposed operation. Infact, outside of these two revisions, there is no substantial change proposed from the original application. Mr. Haren's August 15, 2001 letter to you clearly stated that he, too, perceived "no substantial change" in the application. Lacking substantial change, this revised application warrants denial for the specific reasons highlighted by the Weld County Planning Commission in their June 5, 2001 hearing of this USR case. Our concerns as residents and neighbors are summarized in the Planning Commissions Resolution of Recommendation to Board of County Commissioners from the June 5, 2001 hearing. First, the revised application is still not applicable to pre-cast concrete plants, per Section 23-2-220.A.2 of the Weld County Code. Second, the revised application is still not compatible with existing land uses, per Section 23-2-220.A.3 of the Weld County Code. Third, the revised application is still not compatible with future development in the surrounding areas, per Section 23-2-220.A.4 of the Weld County Code. Specifically, the revised application is not compatible with The Town of Platteville's current Comprehensive Plan. The details of that incompatibility are presented in the Town of Platteville's letter of referral to this revised application. Fourth, the applications Development Standards and Conditions of Approval are still not adequate for the protection, of our health, safety and welfare as residents of the neighborhood and county, per Section 23-2-220.A.7 of the Weld County Code. The EXHIBIT X41a revised application's proposal for the accompanying industrial activity (e.g. asphalt batch plant, concrete batch plant, asphalt/concrete recycling plant, pre-cast concrete plant); reflects little regard for these significant issues. We emphatically assert that each of us as neighbors would experience significant negative impact from this industrial mining and processing operation. That impact would be particularly felt in a loss of our quality of rural life, the p ysical health of ourselves and our livestock, and the financial strain of demonstrably decreased property values. Our farming activities would be affected immediately by traffic conflicts between haul trucks and farm vehicles. This proposal still directly conflicts with our recognized Right to Farm covenant. Fifth, the truck traffic routes generated by the proposed operation are in direct conflict with existing school bus routes for the RE-1 School District. Our children who ride the buses on these routes are at increased risk for accident and injury. The hazards that this conflict imposes are not addressed in the revised application's traffic study. In fact, the traffic study's numbers for vehicle volumes generated by this proposed operation are not consistent with the original application. Sixth, the proposed permit area surrounds two historical sites which have major significance for Weld County and the State of Colorado. The ruins of the Fort St. Vrain Trading Post (circa 1838), site 5WL814 of the Colorado Historical Society, is listed on the State Register of Historic Places. It has potential eligibility for designation in the National Registry of Historic Places. The other site is a stop on the historic Overland Stage Route. In addition, the famous Dent dig site of the pre-historic Clovis culture era is also nearby. These are critical archeological treasures which are irreplaceable and singular in their national heritage significance. The application fails to address adequately any substantial, written agreement for protection/mitigation of these sites. We ask that you give careful consideration to our concerns contained in this letter. Your response to our concerns in your Planning Staff review and in your second presentation to the Planning Commission on October 2, 2001 would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME ADDRESS • C. 2. 3 l Ptl4rre✓i/LE "-� T1 M�l/©u r= � 117 7 7 1 (Ott S S tz-ce%eai4 Q /4/he lSraa.hftaei ///.ms -/ d 3 a' jO/47/7„d, //4 „J'/'9i, "S 3` poeeh4a� (X66sGe'ql 3 k �o/ I)ii /7z;6/,' Ellice �/oti& L II ? 77 C,' t# 36 fe.vi//. c /1 t k,. tc Mry�-� /} I—h h i/25a wct3g P eae1A?t(o a GA LG Scc� Fr- i ( q 4(o WCt Vo `leviII r...;a-- s� lli ,it ; /I e_ � / 5'D6y/ Well 36 Pkrre.v%44/ems �n4/ /4' /act&'N,c. Caere—ate__ ' 0,44.,�1�Gt <�i� 5144tH �"ntact%)IN /6//y taCRd 073 PAA&.'t/� � Ce� 1 i 5:,i ticlrac c�.t. /04SO cv6fL P/ l-e!(t—)C:, \\ N .. cll . Lr. r -;-- ,. , c nc>f,-,re ,oQg7 Lice 3C P'L.FF?"TEv,LLe/ FROM : SUNRISE_WOOD_PRODUCTS,LLC FAX NO. : 3032962972 Sep. 18 2001 07:47AM P2 I revised application's proposal for the accompanying industrial activity(e.g. asphalt batch plant,concrete batch plant, asphalt/concrete recycling plant,pre-cast concrete plant); reflects little regard for these significant issues. We emphatically assert that each of us as neighbors would experience signifiraffi ucgalixtimpact from this industrial mining and processing operation. That impact would be particularly felt in a loss of our quality nfnrral life -physical health of ourselves and our livestock, and the fmanciaLstrain of demonstrably decreased property values. Our farming activities would be affected immediately by traffic conflicts between haul trucks and farm vehicles. This proposal still directly conflicts with our recognized Right to Farm covenant. Fifth,the truck traffic routes generated by the proposed operation are in direct conflict with existing school bus routes for the RE-1 School District. Our children who ride the buses on these routes arc at increased risk for accident and injury- The hazards that this conflict imposes are not addressed in the revised application's traffic study. In fact,the traffic study's numbers for vehicle volumes generated by this proposed operation are not consistent with the original application. Sixth,the proposed permit area surrounds two historical sites which have major significance for Weld County and the State of Colorado. The ruins of the Fort St. Vrain Trading Post(circa 1838),site 5WL814 of the Colorado Historical Society,is listed on the State Register of Historic Places. It has potential eligibility for designation in the National Registry of Historic Places. The other site is a stop on the historic Overland Stage Route. In addition,the famous Dent dig site of the pre-historic Clovis culture era is also nearby. These are critical archeological treasures which are irreplaceable and singular in their national heritage significance. The application fails to address adequately any substantial,written agreement for protection/mitigation of these sites. We ask that you give careful consideration to our concerns contained in this letter. Your response to our concerns in your Planning Staff review and in your second presentation to the Planning Commission on October 2,2001 would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME ADDRESS \ShF_/"Y" - XQY1(kY �1c4- A,' ,), JtbY)i�fc;(.c;,') Cc .frita�M jai Malori !Tic/Weer S9� N Yom-' Oohr2aug, Co / *mot, &ii," ,t hcls 2/205 u/,.21 '5A �.. 6r...Fa.fem, (it . dcnn;e //a 4.4299a /4tyda 6-re e4 Cti Susi G."019 vto2 S . Par +SJ6t}n1sT0 G (74-1 L� t ftnshI 1-11 i 161Y? cE �3a7a Pin e.LiI&,r� SSierr) Linn iltethor Iflts Wek 35Ya- ?teat-evJ1 United Neighborhood Response Letter RE: Revised USR#1306 September 14, 2001 SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME ADDRESS &leo/a LictJ diy/e Crier 206 67 iO7; 'e_ _ CO o'dDGr S/ Ja Sah v` W - Sa m P t -fev i l e, co '°44A (A) 7 v S M- Li amesan 414 Soar, OA . /erreicCe F (�ovt� evillc� co S 997 eve Pt rc le g sj s°4 L4autA" Avilk DT Loy i ry a Le € r ' / ' r 6 ke, a Razz blot 44lid✓ 710 !to23 c 12 3 ) I1*TTeoLCE pd-re-- 13ob Marl-- l\ ee„,,,.,QCzk f Lam- ,, ( I t ll 7 W cz1Q 3& rzutu yza i,n,„ �zo ----4,a-\,,,,,, Le_vvv._ < < a \ I ri Loc ua '1 6 1 4 \i,k 806: .ti -,. DE)-ME 'l DI 1./ER ,9,0 g. N O4 PJ&,i- iii MA-4x�v.vi -17-)�� beSc )ms 'lC, 7 (-22'oudr i c_ lc Lt ) '(iiTfr`v, /fir United Neighborhood Response Letter RE: Revised USR#1306 September 14, 2001 URE PRINTED NAME ADDRESS. r ittlfrL1.O- , 5704/ d55b7 ,z7 - -- e_ fetus. .x.evii xvittii Vi-5H 4 Pk i-A "247 GUC� 30 Pial2V!lb O .' Z7� 06 /4fSt- g44-7-1146‘,y rt2.17 tacit 36 Alor6E ai(fe,m 6;06s76;06s7C� J / C .uak /C e`er- ///too—WcA „fpeg%tie v•/�, ��ce .nor �o6.S/ � \.t �/'q/6491-ine, 41k 74 )<vnet C / ( ?ao \ tie: ! C�u bock � i► &&c wc? 35 P to/jF�. l/> CC CA/� 44 r u,5;� ` , ,. � - _, W� ict♦A�� -c1��2- rir��- ��- �8 ��c��c�c cp fowl CcK O-ir Vta VIAA--)n� 2.,- i(39 , r-KgC) vl4ar� � e � �� >� roc - 7 ,. 9DU�10 C 191 / 3 tOcia ash+ Ic.HQJ ,Ile G biict } 19 (an Froor�c� ria �1 c�� Li OIL �1a eoi(� c �1(�r, Crime LCiu n , C,l..�l,v`:� r United Neighborhood Response Letter RE: Revised USR#1306 September 14, 2001 SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME �I ADDRESS .-ti-Y"a�j� ,.._,�frw._!L) /A7c f t ‘e\J E S E LA t S 1 ' 4 e r I C 1 I are () _(A-,-- r \) 1 i_ i_ E ®b a� , ,o1 , . (1_, \\ Ma Main �t r't i� ��ev 1(e pa_ A--V�o. 7 Rk.,\ C,. Ma, rqq h4; ' 7 Ma;n Sc Pietifeo; I(e- rnuwl �'-� - R1YMoNa Mil_ Ler ieD,dy u/CR 8o, PkGrrEVit-As se4;t)u c Riff n, ust t3/A-N'E aRo rEMM4CLC' / 7 a R& (oat 3z P/4 gee dip__ . 9 /-JA �y ea.t'L- gi.r2.6 . CO( 4idt ..J n-o, . 1� .el i'1--chic)-Pi eta irgQ(0, 4-la ei2 Gt---e- c',4:5- FR/94K C ‘ Si-F.:,„/A 7 - / 5-40 4tsCRch8''7-10-04 1_,e_ti, )/C 0s RoQ__, L+033i\6c�-, t6 A f(c.3 U AQ i ) )aik to ( roN'k roues Hog LIyz-abe,4h I?Icl 'eAA\\c acfr )57,4443;///9 _I 0 57-62/7/421e4 /�Z,9/fev,2ic. 'e:aa Jell-R .3( ndcvibti `j Itutq k,JC)2 3 (0PLat+eu; iSe, CcO � - �. vu� w, �,PPe ( 9 Qcsk 3C ) I, e,.+ e,, CO 1 United Neighborhood Response Letter RE: Revised USR#1306 September 14, 2001 SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME ADDRESS /frj ¢ ‘E /SS /erne t Tj itD LtX1Xax /10#f AA G 14 t //��L�4e_CD, nor t� / /ens Lvicie o3 Aevt,//.o Co , cliwj a , Noe Ilia*, ,(visit GILL 11 g4`(4„k /1,S"vJ "-A )„7- 7A //w.�/e , Cc: t7z41 ven Ste 4 SAC 1/ OA1j9 1 � so, psA,nil l ,rhea /76/f Ccc c2 '6 , Ph#cv/l�co74t I (cull Y � ar 0 U ( Mort/ CdetioaL Jl1 ll/bc Ctree,;s '-tia 6,4 a ,{S? of 4 d? Len r Zj / Icy Pc 7/6 A/a//e //c / 3ofln �, Lbee1'ce / / '17o wcv 36' - 61A iccovi 3 , Ci7vILY--z- ) Ui34 Wc.Ra3 t/t _ _ . et+ 4I 21r 'n It e Co, n Fatt neat ac flitnn /ry genlic(ZS N. Avenue CEeie 1*31 it aUe hoof ues 4 Concrrn`s e • use* tUoi, 'k'ppltclt,hen Weld Coon+'/ W 9eoflAttkt fcbvrvary 4, 7,001 S orate K�r'r► as ov s finy Pt/ s et �a ahte less 46r tyre ride C6rryr+ a rite% • ase4 mint sife s -to'li� e • mutt aon s • Icahn ,k is X14 1 lug oterttbit us;, -A-Vettiskvici . . 40 SAO does, rut adtVess c ciesiura 1. ttiet bay" OA ��dt s Cso , 44 4& d 1. h �^ 1itttevi(Ie,.kstI&ev h�telvs � ' is a� t trr os toads �� ern 4r Vltat !� lot�� 0 wad cl at Wed 44.`� Vain s �C e a >an inet� its 0,4,,44 -Jive eased mole. We I a ttwe p50e do.r+e4u1 tomacr c a►� `40 • t kio AL •u l� kh�s ter. Vet Its L a� r 4i r • f t tint A'�nt tame eons eras ort en t'So ,fiete:irl whorl tor algu n • tt • '5cwsY PILNW M CbitiwttSStcAtli OA LLa Cole Lovins 444 Stevens Circle Platteville, Co. 80651 Attn: Kim Ogle, planner Weld Count Planning Dept. 1555 N. 17th Street Greeley, Co. 80631 Ref: Revised Case#USR-1306 Dear Mr. Kim Ogle, I am a resident of Platteville and I am strictly opposed to the implementation of the new gravel pits planned by Platte Sand and Gravel, Owens Brothers, and Aggregate Industries. I believe a traffic study should be completed prior to any approval of these mining operations. 1;600.4 Cole Lovins EXHIBIT 9 _ °.o - Cl do : ()LW Ct-Glyg,,,,,,,,,e;,3 G,71.1,,, , , , : r: : _ : /M Y 14 6:L. ' 1777 cattP i c a R.�-� 36 d . 80 s /- ?e .x.-62 k I `J .0-frvL kJlu- "C Go r a set/ 3b. %€ 4'6'fr - ' to C-Ownw-ril r��u cf. yd-a- ,o ..r Q-ems, _gam�, a-e1-,4 a,£ / P o Lec „a _ .yep A-cd-e ., t \PAC_ ems_ , /" I. ' La Gilr til., -' to evil, otoe - a-Y-, e hat frail- 61_O G-. a-n -t- te2A_ gistte- 1 wee 4 � eso . Cad- d o .a_ . -cL,0 cdh - -4 o of Hello