The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20012125 \'Veld County Planning Dept. few .7, leo / We/1 Co tthic y ,IAN 04 2.00'1 Pig/ o�/Mo:ey PliAeJ RECEIVED al2fow: led c/ Cgfe teeth er / ti-JA - /fo 1 / /, 1 pa osed q /!rag e Fecal/ Nu Lk/Jfrqpe/ 4I „pc,/ ,'/ �/e j�d v d We , 4rmaty Z o 4 C ,P4) /n fide'', ki 4& C917,1 c� ° h S o Pry d1./.4O/ Oh/ A G7 Cie f¢ du giro �/ Ur e �yoa /o /kite?* v T c Conccr of w ;LUG kJ j j oti tL� 6&r/ j ae o 1/l e- 4u/ham oci ?b- at A% a AO lurk/ cp-00 o /O o Aga , , o u, Ca,, h 0/ Sc e, an oz h•� � C4, /*In/ tic. "U/cir � *j l / art J-0 wry % au,. • /! ff e UI , /o u �r ' 1yc • �, f �v! Z¢- 4�� /l�cf rqv � ` �/y // �" 4, 5- C GM ,A of jot .� /r .� .- 0 v/ U/ /is 0,5y. . �N /J would1 Ad a- [e4/!1u At7, �fi ZHv G `/4'• .d W•'!� resv/1 /w a. T4Tcc/'/ oh" iC/ /Auf . 7Z flee) 1107 I `` 0/4,4 tad 4 ia /¢. IAN ci0th//7 `A4d /J' is h/o_ I /(N !V. e fo4el . Mhmpk/ t a.4 J a., 4�7 1/- O/�"ljc r4740t1 . Wien) / e- /,h S 1 / , / t/ �/�c/d /� kid J/ 4/�h 1 Je "tie p O Tai✓ 1-114" j fe. 0 1'hI(/ ih7° 4 f lip - 1 ' Ce MOM/ lT �c0elvye. rave/ 7rc %. 1 31 our 4/� /01 yin,i is an/race. fo our � � /�" 0,. ' e of : J cau, d / l Woo/Jr � ` w / � off' �-� � , it c" of ge- eJ4fcUT`y 4Q Zv/i)d _y• , A cie/ iiu e d O i o I or ro er / • lift 4"Ue. (/Ai ç jt coactd clot 4,1 ,i `i o e. ti , 1ac,�.� h.Jf V . fit 5. 1e-- o I U 4~ Lie- was &h oji LtcA9i "nu Chid (de- f o A / mt/ o v9/-c/ ii; //f 4 d J cav /O :71 (of by /OS 4, 4 // er' Me h(if 1Aeut.ii, art, / uw e •rvbA /o p fox/ of J h4T4v� acr fj /4_ ft re . QV r`/ Aok✓ 4, d /0,s {'a av 'S 97 Ff FAA, l tevd • (w4 )9 1I CAI/ /IR 4e- u// eft- ft b WieeZ.h / oaf. t'? 04r I; fl f o/� u /� ad d 1,14ssoc,'4 / ry 112 /Z. Ad Jar/. ! i ! WW idho 5oftc/r.y /N /4 /h• « Jee/v e d g/we& ve ave. tb /a T o F / t a„ el lr/y,7 rod �h, iiJ, hove imeti Al /2„dfc4 •a . (//e, �Yec/e I on7)*e. f hi"c, 4 c ,`.I (ilea/I �C '1r / _yell A P'a'le :re- it, h, , 4 he. ,4o'ScfI C4 N ,'a,A' ft,uL • Lf/c 016'1 tidy) dv.r 111 � i jail L6// (f o �� A fte 0,w n WeI et. Tr e , ox, i h {h• e� 11(11111(111c �Gh,GJ•`r 11) ive. eu gavot _ u /��- 04 d us- Wolf he 'c- ho of7cr Ace 74 r. ve • - ;A, 4, J,h IA or VI Z14 // /o bah- I/4 oor / 14/ s/ra our 4 4/ or /! c- aftd re iti*/`'// led /Agit 0(4,11, AU./ f, c 54�` of fit)r / 4 � 4/0440 en) .0 Li' Sai,/. /6sgi Wc, o? // fitiyev,y4 Co j06f-/ a.rn.' k,k c c : we/f Co d Coin, ,1(J, 07 ref Weld County ^ Planning Dept. , 5 ?,,,„i � � ., .._ �r N,ti n R E C ti , p zn � JAN 24 9= 02 ialai/ REcuj i=ii � , /7 ),:t 'ur,, d F Ai Brit S , J (�O0/✓ /3/../ derbye)," 51 i Ave?, Lo rani a #4,71, , ! Er. , 'c,w Crol. l 9Q /0 f tc of 010/(c 4 A!/}� For 4/. �`q ct/ , 1 r /7 ,fiA e' �ja,r 1 d 11^1/414- / L L c , f l.(/c II/o r/n x (le 212 tibia.,,,C 4"e. ��a GJe- d O its J /Pa,o1c. J rv//�1..', ,; «yam; J 2*7eJ rer//14 A C& 9 e �/ , Vie, rh, I cfloki1 h, j e 4//ena ec/ 4 J �� f / U Gv'c 1i/otoi /'/' f o A� e- ho f eI Qiry fhe/1- �(!^ecc- . eL/ L/erc. Ore- cr/I!!' ve/ , /.f Gdh`c/ is "Fisc-NA,, erJ , Co 4,rez,- , fgh,e. U F V/// % te., °/e k 1, c-//.r �J P y k. . toe), Loh cevhi Ohl dS 7:ffite- 2F'� ill*ove� , 4 ,{, i-Irf Grcw tecc,'vc I iler�r /erii . L c� �V4r,v /j e/ 1 eLeherj / I-A J f4 W.retz ,,l✓/ )'1 /7!>c,r(S/// f i t4 Lvulc-1- ,�/'If f A ho) be. e, poG�J c� i� i f iv Ne hie Ja- Glance, 4, ;vo /'v QPole, ily (/ 0 2001-2125 . ...... „N. 02 ,...., is 4/J IA di 14 , SSA, e- a„ / 6 i (tic° t�,,/L v.//e, J, l u o l / /_T 1 a�' hrt/ ah1 f i cihQ vc / ,/f Cut"/✓ A Pe-Ce in-1 4.511 0"EL' //y 0 I /fel rH A,Peth) • U biu/<e 4// /Co { rote /Ms/,S6 gl .7;/' fL¢ 7 Arc y J al I-S W rm oc J 4, ¢ 1/' r //'�7 GHQ. /7/,d, r 0 6' er,,,' / 4 eh (<1 /c y PAfe- . t Lf4- / :f I L f-0 1/ /,•it,' ✓ e/1 10c, 71` // //J"�yofc<J •/ ,!v/-•�AU, eitea., lre. Ur/,/ / V�i, in4Ni V VIP.'n CO 117191 itry, F /2 J / q �p S �o VS. ,��/ L non/ , f� q/'cu. 4 ,ler/,A curn`v /O �/ te4,4/feJe/zro),., 1/c / /fie a�/c /o ,I�<^u Aide �,•// too Ar. S { / el clone.S c.. . 1z,e/� u Jry// EUC Gray/„J �j 7r,!/c I p, ek, .e_IS an1u7 /0 546Sf4,w / /c. glJ/�- �A .S J!/ C / / �, �'4u�a/ �jo` ��FfcJ/,/e, .✓rJ if 1T'/J+y J1��c,�/f Ili: ii C4f/, We /arc- I, '1/4" d/.'y •ny✓ ,�/� ila, o fJc- " Pic- G(9� )crvc, , j i f °Piet" cJ / .v 4 %I /kit' . /2 Na,r///��v / „) ld(G1 At /an- t / 1, Ve) cor b /C�egr1 G3 ! lave_ e d J y / lox / Ythr,•a,1 c e J l lily;or golf �s, �J 4 :/of Jf lox/ t /A a, 1 pi e 4'F laipv• ,Tr It] O rv/ rJ 4/4wee/ f/�� Lei/ J, f/cck ,')Pin f",- J I A e / , /f Bier I-1a r.'VeW , Ow Ivy Ail C Come W. '// - WcifL LJJ )-�' x / r4U`l i h to /I ��e, �, yak ten f. // �j(� I. ,vc r u p F di ) it IA,- l ah A " f/O0l c / • V S re ce / r `//'A�' �e VII /Uf G d c/P ft`4ie ,d. /4, / /X .e1 17/</Ai j //c IA/ i9e,' �l� ft. TA/ ul 0 ilia' /hi§ °Il e. `�I • fJr 9ef Gda A (�/Qf7e J Owy !v tea/ us„ c�dhei s l.!/af CGn L 4/r q,01 9/47 �f�ir> eI v y�, / / 1 ie./ 4 / ld �� /% col/ /uJ� fle t, et in /J e i` h o rf ai A //e, Ca ui,� LI 4"., 71%e- r've N 1 ' /� 4�� w) /4 ocrti, n/ /+ rgve l�Qy d Lam/ /v// my ufa c r ? � r/ S ¢c l C/.Sje erm. / /J , gpely fvv 4, Culcre/e A` " u1 % /roof Fur . dai4v p,tvc r .w // /l e, c .' q_oc!‘41e- 11/; ye v e if' yd ? ( eiw �a4/1 Cli yv,�� leke,f u 4/1.e-, �/j /"Lci Qom,) 41 ,/te e e- ao) ;1l/y{ �µf��ry e lit- tic/ �� / DO��/��c S CA. %We--�- o �fj,l �,G U/� if (/Glii2c V ✓ ti ape,ai-G / 'Linty tychl evu,, / Cahmnj ers. //vtmii.. x 4:.�.'./` "�� Z-- i i6 fJtv4co golf-/ 'a' Weld County Planning Dept. 5 7001 RECEIVED �EQ =c- ,•oi In/ 4 P C o U NT DIP?: 0 f P2AfvJ4 o >IER vi I AM A PPo 5ED To T41, 5,4A1 p N./ c.}AA v� P_ /3TS TYAT 144 TIE SsfX PANS GflAvf4 A Lc' WANT %o P4-/T/N h/B C,9N`T 2 ET TAMT/i./Pi f'/Y_ .7-/re 1,1,-y1. [" 2;717 MANY Aloft A c c,DE,v s c kl/ r,+' 0-0R �h',AZ p.7 fN 614/A6 rd 5 c 4)0 2- z 5 o 0 o ' HoA P: WiroLP ilk ro4'N JR DUST4LL oVa . Jr WovLP Nor !4✓or11C_Azz- RiAQ $ iE.sp/ :Ir6 .Td ;7c4 /4/004P &4 To;TN c'P4/VP ALL Refi4P5 (<ilo uL ,o Nor 54' fir To Di) V ' Ofr. TWA' f 6>'T xi i}b TN/.iNG T//AT C0 a.hP ,'4Pi'?4 /5 cvf' C'/fi.4P4'EN. So A4)/ h' G✓'Ho HAVE CNt 4 DRniv f y 5c//oo, 2 r G GET To G TNER AND DFFE.%T Th`ic THfk6. Isla BFCAo'S oNe c'Ni2/.) is motif 7;94,y T/,�E 141,9cLE sAv flAt is Oj 7 P2 E/I-. F Fp 4. A's San At 2,9121) a R 17f/9NA,/fig , `ia .- �oU„?iypi nni 'Cl: h �, ape February 5, 2001 i 800/ At Mr. Kim Ogle, Planner " Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 RESPONSE to USR#1306, Platte Sand & Gravel, LLC Dear Mr. Ogle: Over a year ago, I relocated to a farm property located at 11247 WCR 36 near Platteville, CO in Weld County after having lived in Boulder County for nearly ten years. During that time, I witnessed the tremendous growth that Colorado experienced and is continuing to experience today. I moved to Weld County knowing that the new developments, new roads, increased traffic had not hit the area, and was looking forward to the peace and quiet of an agricultural setting. After the initial adjustment of a new move, we began the process of turning our 80 acres into a full-time Horse Boarding Facility. Over the past year, we have strung miles of wire for fence, built horse runs as well as many other projects that required many hours of daylight. We are now near the end of this stage of our facility development and we find out that Platte Sand & Gravel, LLC has applied for a Special Use Permit for a Gravel & Mining Operation on the adjacent property. The operation of Platte Sand & Gravel would not only damage the numerous habitats surrounding the St. Vrain Creek and South Platte River but also, would threaten the Bald Eagles who return each year to nest and roost in our nearby trees, not to mention the potential impact on the vegetation and other wildlife within the proposed site. After further reviewing the application by Platte Sand & Gravel for a Special Use Permit, I discovered information regarding the proposed haul route for this operation. The route would include constructing a road to run directly adjacent to our West property line with a buffer of only 200 feet. r EXIGENT 1 37 This would cripple our horse business! The noise and dust levels would increase tremendously along with increased traffic of heavy equipment, trucks, etc. The estimated number of vehicles using this road on a daily basis ranges anywhere from 100 to 350! Additionally, it would mean continuous traffic on Weld County Road 23, which is dirt based and in extremely poor condition as of this day; maintained only twice per year. My intention is to attend the Public Hearing scheduled for Tuesday, February, 20th at 1:30 pm in Greeley to voice my opposition to the Special Use Permit application. Sincerely, Kris Mattingly Weld County Resident r February 5, 2001 WOO Mr. Kim Ogle, Planner �untyQlann'ngpep t. Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue FEB 7 2001 Greeley, CO 80631 UNITED NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE ECE� V�D RE: USR#1306, Platte Sand and Gravel, LLC Dear Mr. Ogle: This letter is a united neighborhood response opposing the Use By Special Review Permit#1306 application by Platte Sand and Gravel, LLC. 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 application and the Town of Platteville. With all due respect for Weld County policy under Section 22-5-80 of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, we believe that USR#1306 does not warrant approval by the County Planning Department, the County Planning Commission, nor the Board for County Commissioners for the following reasons. First, the application, as submitted in November, 2000, is not in adequate compliance with Weld County Zoning Ordinances pertaining to sand and gravel mining permits. The details clarifying our zoning ordinance concerns are attached to this letter as Attachment A. Second, the application is not in adequate compliance with the current Weld County Comprehensive Plan. The details clarifying our county comprehensive plan concerns are attached as Attachment B. Third, the application is not compatible with the Town of Platteville's current Comprehensive Plan. The details of that incompatibility are presented in Attachment B, page 1 and in the Town of Platteville's response to this application. Fourth, the scale of mine operation proposed in this application is extreme in reference to its size, length of permit, and accompanying industrial activity(e.g. asphalt batch plant, concrete batch plant, asphalt/concrete recycling plant,pre-cast concrete plant which are requested in the application). Yet, there is no evidence that the applicant has any previous business experience in sand and gravel extraction. The applicant's status as a"limited liability corporation" indicates that there is questionable legal liability carried by the applicant in regard to serious concerns about water table protection, mine operations, wetlands and wildlife habitat, and potential, downstream mining effluent during intermittent flooding of the adjacent South Platte River. 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 4 Page 2 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 application. Sixth, the proposed mine site includes 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 being 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. These are critical archeological treasures which are irreplaceable and singular in their county, state and national heritage significance. The application fails to acknowledge this conflict and does not attempt to address any appropriate protection/mitigation for these sites. Seventh, the proposed Reclamation Plan does not reflect current benchmark practice and state-of-the-art design for mined land reclamation. The application's proposed nine lake plan does not consider adequate access for oil and gas leases currently held on this property. In addition, the amount of water required for mediated lake surface evaporation in perpetuity is significant. With increasingly limited water resources in the county, this water would be removed from agriculture application. Such use is in direct conflict with the surrounding agriculture production to which the County has pledged its support. Finally, the application states that the proposed operation would have "minimal impact" on surrounding residents and current land uses. 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 physical health of ourselves and our livestock, and the financial strain of demonstrably decreased property values. Our farming activities would be immediately affected by traffic conflicts between haul trucks and farm vehicles. In the long term, any adverse affect from mining on the aquifer supplying our agricultural and domestic wells directly conflicts with our inherent right to farm. The application makes no attempt to study, address or mitigate these critical issues. We ask that you give careful consideration to our concerns contained in this letter and its attachments. Your response to our concerns in your presentations to the Planning Staff and to the Planning Commission would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, SIGNATURE PRINT NAME ADDRESS '� JDm�I ��a`'� �� f r5+i p1 I z f GUC�3 w �a IE�ViIII um "! is /YJfrrrinxcV //?v7 p 36 ya�i/� m --1&�va e, tb✓ct Teselvn.5 1�laffeuille Co8iaS/ ) ) ) Neighborhood Letter January 29, 2000 UNITED NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE RE: USRI/1306, Platte Sand & Gravel,LLC SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME PHYSICAL ADDRESS CITY/STATE/ZIP (dvu 47xvLc Ch✓osy -Jo -Oath S 5v-- Otigig �_ P/a!& It , co go/4 / v rte t�a,e4 5 9_,Inmi«<41 _1114/ rX a/ /4 tiov///, re, 10‘, > / U <'L>/ ' l GC��fiQyr�P c'1�!//L�1 Masi�7Yr ' �i2 74�Pf' 0Z �FClc &. l' 17` h a; gY / g mi. l_z Yotzc C // 77 7 ex24I- 3 6 Picky; Yf r G X06V/ L Ti 6610 L8robor QoT( IN % w(Tk 4v otac, ( c6 te,4,--)C;;;;;7),e_Are— LIA./9A -Y6/A-tT $2-Lo /-tat 1Pfo LezzttIGc- /1 £& J ati'Lido (!h nstc� f l �n k 1 t I jg g8 u;c,� 3 a/�. PIeAvi I (� , Co S006), xd ',sr, rl e fli 4 1� flr) 12O z 3 c /2 36 TlCvi zGLs (e) ga7 11 a /Jilt, m ,fit)�hk litre (7/ #14/frviA ce2 v67 ..04 '�2 X 5&erni /YOl''/y9,ta 4 Swank IL (X. (.f'cZ o?y IX.fle i/,A Co odd , //�> LN/Po/i=t.49,u ofci//,_ �� 5 ede,Ji e/,e e f{ i7-7Ti4c; SG&s% C�Q4c,,,,azt �t .44-47 & ene c X'tPnb9cj5� /Cc/;(7 wet/ V /fjTr2Ur//z�j- fort/ .C624-b -7 tx gr Ck en t,ci, _ I(� I wc& d-5 ?I c ,`�(, C ohs � 3 ) ) ) Neighborhood Letter January 29, 2000 UNITED NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE RE: USK/41306, Platte Sand & Gravel,LLC SIGNCA%;lRf PRINTED NAME PHYSICAL ADDRESS CITY/STATE/ZIP - ---TerreAice, Ftcv;xs 99Y Jyhrti,S C rele &4, l/e, 6 gam, ��__- . �. ► .ACS — •;yL L \/( 10 i i< ) (,)\ 1OuEL 11777 C , 2 , 3 (p FLA-7TEti( LLE-,co.Flo(o5/ ,/, - en ilk e.‘ rila -1 Cdch\ c Lufk I Han we_ P/ //° o • 4r ICI -i ._ / U &i • a Pii o • S . 13 l0- '04'1na ►3 T 1o44%.'✓tel (j395- &GIZ l-IO tpI$c-euaJ Cu c'v6 Ste/ 4.40, .,th“'.^i FPR < 0 L ST JA4C I Z5-7 0 u cfr 3 ? -mcV iLL l:-t) -U6-s--/ O ., .C44, cti �0de,IAL.v-o. t w -i Lca-23 P4/.�,'41t , Co 8oe0rf n•,._ � /I \JE,4Ai niE pc.efet�/ a/7a Zr'Nilo& &' g�7Re ey, & /A aai t.C�a 5va.(1ic � ' /(e. Y' ! h'4)/ R -3i_0 Pis: re 0i /IC' C_a gob ri 0) 't Whig b%M/b ' kkoi EMAkKLE (7)lb COCL 52-- PktAdip &Z 57 /w.--1-<.- , )4' 4^--:4 Kcckie1 7-I-�.sv,L (giclC wcrt a3 Is�t-cv; Ike_ coOgQ \ fk4,, �J,.t aka,* P N d yl Feha r _ i crt 7 to-tic 23 I IC ct �U I (1� L llO, Do b.�. C 4 ) ) Neighborhood Letter January 29, 2000 UNITED NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE RE: USR#1306, Platte Sand & Gravel,LLC SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME PHYSICAL ADDRESS CITY/STATE/ZIP T 71 y ' 26-6 MA kbO yf6 5/tvescCKc`P. P I/�c (0 sags-1 \.)/nro ,mE�c�r '7T / �l`2�1.htitS �,f!'_(� 1 ///�� / 'f 1. ay's/ / { p �- / as /Z*'3 414e 2.5' (Jj��i 6/ear can t ,1 . ,. Iya 4144, d- Laur; Pc.., L //PS- 4,64 go V fr r7 cJi e_ soc-/ 1, • '�' UL(-+at-Pra K. �.eu€.12 I«cD_ --4- . 31 PcA-7Tavru„E co 57o6s1 ' 7Ltiy 1-krd hh 1106-000e- 3? p/Q nwi lie ,co /�_ '. . e�.t-3 qj M \n—I , ln..l r . S\ . .41,4M.2.„:114_) co , ieJ�5 ..�j ..-t ' Qndc. FLcerr g j5 ivae ,3 m/. t. e", ZOMf (' 7- C cc-tea,, -) ..e_ z (), i! ,-- Jai l l ` .( / � /� lOka;4 7 l c>G(z 34e Zl c `rU;l I 6 $c7k51 C �;V- 1� 0 GIruA L_ ' -t4- 10997 Gvc,C 3C° RocEevc))2 C080195) " �/��,Lu L ,k a .r /o rF ("yen '76 P/<- c�, ;/ii J cam. cY0C t� � �J - �� ,` `�-� .� ��c�rc��. a i��fg7 �C(� 3C ��ps-,-�,�i�� Co �'�D't 1 6 ) ) ) Neighborhood Letter January 29, 2000 UNITED NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE RE: USR#1306, Platte Sand & Gravel, LLC SIGNATURE PRINTED NAMEPHYSICAL ADDRESS / 7� y'�/-CITY/STATE/ZIP I ,Bix,,ci- 0. r7:1/1-2... - I- ' -Brack W . ‘I I t- INN Ward �u..A^� R4, 34. Ilifevilbt CO ?otst p2104^-1. AtiAtiecciw/u�, J v� .�r(ivt�e� tr) i14 Iii WGP� 3(v PIQ+Aedi I l�' i Cr) JO BSI oL4 0 ?nAc7 OPrifilm C 1/6170 O, 64 3 6 fit.ILL-a , ft) 1 ' 4`i 0L ti L w FDRRD L, PRINT-7_ /'19zt wesas PcA uF., -Tre,V, , 48,obJI itOrtar ,,, E alit Mathew E R P_r",2t2 19241 6321&2 NWT Coo Plai+ev1'lit, to Robb gebitela J PJ Me-t Linda, J . Tyr ,'n-1-7... ) Nat w c-R as P I a. v i l l eD w04, 51 c e - ccw._ : ):(yi(ic Coo_ 4\ll e-1 1 r l aim I & -i c� Dr, W 1(�flsel-._ CO �`.f..� ("Leto,- J� %/� //y rllearJ //91( r c .3eL �alled, e CO 9O6S/ CjLc . 7 &7A Atirenn alinCIC2 1u13y G.7G(� ,P3 PI <vlLe t66 �bOCnS) (GUS e&rc, z e I :CCG eL YA ic & 10134 wC2 ;o Platte_Vi f le Soy 51 7 Neighborhood Letter January 29, 2000 UNITED NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE RE: USR#1306, Platte Sand & Gravel, LLC SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME PHYSICAL ADDRESS CITY/STATE/ZIP /r " /�r/l '/�/l iard� �ioyp ilJ. 61.a vb la- got was/ 8 ) ) ) Neighborhood Letter January 29, 2000 UNITED NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSE RE: USIU/1306, Platte Sand & Gravel, LLC SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME PHYSICAL ADDRESS CITY/STATEI/IP /? % / 3-� %cit f, goof //i/WF eke,. --y_� 4,2,117�/ 0--e1_ J IA y g0 , s 11,25-5( Ive-R I/ 0 - --_...._W_I-- oa \L 1 :Sync 60/l/ R, 74 X11 ..61,6 I T u ( n tc4C.:QV " .4-ts..i I 4 1c Lt c ra c: 7/s .v.„ c . l ----- --` "--=-`C - c`' (-0c aiC L- f' -M H 7- n J Cj G-)--e_7 (n / 9s--Ea( RC .32e L4- i�J C�On,,4ic-. L :C4 GU =�_... \"1, c he 1121 . 11ie,s-!-P(a \\ak I tact H D I ea P.\_+\e lie_- Co._ SO�5 : )1,w,nJ C-ZOA- Kakc.ce_a_ �_ 3e_r1' I 'RCN 5 `�1 R 3 Ialid ✓, (/� C' c )aL,5J - .' /�e,krv� 114; SS (1R//gl,��- Y : ?s6 We le- a- .. _ 0.8-11€ V;I c, Co iobsl -(r ,,,,„ fir A�'lt pre?' / 1 _ // __ . l ��/ ie. h Kw Pr 1{i✓, Zvlcee ZceJ2 73 /10C` F/ (E) hit^s� _ 9/ 41:t_tilatr- L\\c,L 1 . 1'Y\O-6e i -1531{ - - �t u\kr Ie--, Gt- /Ce n NI p.,�,,./ /4/ 5) tt toe ,�' I °! _.. __.. )56-Vje %&c ?5-- 9 r Attachment A United Neighborhood Letter RE: USR#1306 Detail of concerns specific to the Weld County Zoning Ordinances outlined in Section 23-4-230,Division 4 of the Weld County Code: Section 23-4-260,Application F. Platte Sand and Gravel was a newly formed LLC on December 22, 2000. Thus the application does not include detail of any past or present held permits for open cut mining. The lack of business experience given the extreme size and scope of this proposed operation is alarming. Without this business history their is no"track record"of mining practice by the applicant. We have no access to references from current businesses familiar with the company's mining practice. We have no access to references from neighbors of past or current mining operations with regard to their conduct towards neighbors during and following mining activities. This LLC's Articles of Organization with the State of Colorado[Addendum A] indicate a corporate duration of 25 years. It is unclear and unreasonable,then,why this USR application is requesting a 90-110 year permit. GA The application lists its types of operation to include a concrete batch plant,an asphalt batch plant,a concrete casting facility,and a concrete/asphalt recycling plant. It states that a rail load-out complex is proposed for future use. None of these industrial activities are approved in Section 23-3-20, "Uses allowed by right"in the county's Agriculture Zone District. The only concrete or asphalt batch plants indicated in the code are to be"used temporarily and exclusively for the completion of a PUBLIC road improvement project." This application does not fulfill that code specification. In addition,the permitting of a cast concrete plant,concrete/asphalt recycling plant or rail load-out complex is not even suggested by the"uses allowed by right"code. Section 23-3-40 does allow for special review permit of asphalt and concrete batch plants,but makes no exception for asphalt/concrete recycling plants,cast concrete plants nor rail load-out complexes. With the 100±year length of permit requested such batch plants and recycling plants would become essentially permanent and the agriculture zone would be completely compromised into a heavy industrial zone for all private,commercial intent and purpose. We are completely opposed to these multiple plant facilities. Section 23-4-270,Drawing requirements A.4 The application maps fail to identify all residences within 1/2 mile of the proposed operation. The vicinity map does not distinguish between homes,barns and farm outbuildings,so the actual number of residences is not represented. Section 23-4-280,Supporting documents C. Cross-sections of all drainage structures are not evident in the application. D. Profile and typical cross-section of proposed haul roads are not evident in the application. Section 23-4-290,Operations policies B. The application interprets"hours of daylight"as 4 AM to 8 PM with two work shifts and 24 hours/day maintenance/office operations. We oppose this extremely broad interpretation which is in direct conflict with the surrounding rural residences, farms,and livestock operations. The proposed days of operation per week are not even mentioned in the application. We assert that the accompanying noise and overall traffic disturbance from extended hours of operation will significantly disrupt the lives of the surrounding residents,our livestock as well as resident wildlife. C. No detailed plan for noxious weed control during the proposed years of mine operation is outlined. The adjoining prime farmland must be protected from invasion of any noxious weeds migrating from this site. D. No mention is made in this application for the mitigation of noise, dust and visual impact through the use of perimeter soil berms, landscaping or fencing to reduce the impact of sound, sight and dust emission on the surrounding properties or neighborhood. E. Other than the estimates mentioned in the application regarding increased traffic over the proposed haul route,there is no mention of the increased traffic impact or trip counts anticipated on other local,access roads. These local roads include WCR 36, 38,40,40.5,25,and 32.5 east of WCR 23. No traffic study has been completed in this application. F. The above mentioned access roads are all considered local,gravel roads by the county Public Works Department. WCR 32.5 east of WCR 23 is the exception. The proposed dust control plan of "watering twice a day"is thoroughly inadequate to the amount of road surface which would require treatment. Paving to achieve dust control creates a higher safety risk by encouraging the increase of vehicle speed on road surfaces. G. The proposed excavation and plant sites are hazardous and harmful to nearby residents and livestock for numerous reasons. This code addresses three specific reasons: 1. Human and livestock protection through fencing requirements In the past the County has been very clear in its requirements for other sand and gravel operations, specifically, a fence with a minimum height of 6'and impenetrable to humans. The application makes no mention of such safety fencing. In fact, such fencing should be required by the County around the complete perimeter of the proposed permit. However,such fencing would result in a"Catch 22" scenario because such fencing would also interfere with the natural movement of wildlife species in affected riparian areas and along migratory corridors. The natural movement of affected wildlife species should also be afforded equal protection by the County. This inherent conflict is not addressed in this application. 2. Safe/smooth flow of traffic This concern is one of the primary issues for surrounding residents. All the access roads around this proposed site are designated as"other local"roads in the County's Transportation Plan. These roads are all gravel and carry very light vehicle trips per day at present. As mentioned before,the impact on these roads has not yet received adequate study. In addition,the proposed haul route has significant deficiencies in safety design which preclude mitigation by acceleration/deceleration lanes. Specifically,the westbound turn from WCR 23 to WCR 32.5 or northbound turn from WCR 32.5 to WCR 23 cannot accommodate such lanes without significantly redesigning and reconstructing the WCR 32.5 bridge over the South Platte River. As currently constructed that intersection presents no less than a fatality hazard with the traffic volumes being proposed. The intersection of WCR 21 and State Highway 66 is also completely inadequate for the traffic volume being proposed. 3. Water augmentation to compensate for water losses The application attempts to address augmentation due to lake surface evaporation following the reclamation plan. However,this augmentation would be required in perpetuity and the application does not clearly outline the amount of evaporation augmentation required nor the means by which the appropriate water sources will then be acquired. As significantly,the application makes no effort to address augmentation or compensation from agriculture or domestic wells running dry as a direct result of this proposed mining operation. According to immediate neighbors,there are 10 domestic wells and 4 agriculture wells which are within 600 feet of the proposed permit property line. Within a half mile there are a much larger number of wells. The agriculture wells are primary irrigation sources for prime agriculture land as defined by County Code. No mention is made of monitor wells,other water table measurements, or compensation agreements which would adequately protect the rights of surrounding property owners. No mention is made of the potential need for augmentation for loss of irrigation water in the Western Mutual Ditch which forms an adjacent boundary on the east and south sides of the permit area. I. We have already stated our opposition to the proposed multiple plant facilities. These are totally incompatible with the"abutting land uses"which are entirely agricultural, not industrial, in their operation. The rural nature and quiet locale of the adjoining neighborhood residences would be effectively destroyed by such proposed facilities. K. The zoning ordinance states,"The USE will not cause injury to vested or conditional water rights." Our concern regarding potential affect on the water table and water wells is outlined above. The water ,.. rights for members of the Western Mutual Ditch Company are at significant risk in spite of the application's claim that"this ditch will not be affected by the mining operation." There are no completed, third party studies by the applicant to back up this unfounded conclusion. In fact,the letter of referral from Mr. Kim Lawrence on behalf of the Western Mutual Board of Directors cites very specific concerns regarding their vested or conditional water rights. These concerns must be studied and addressed before this application can proceed. There is no"plan of exchange or substitute supply"nor"decreed plan for augmentation"included in the application. Section 23-4-300,Reclamation policies A. The application states that the proposed final use will be"nine private lakes/ponds with surrounding wildlife habitat areas." It further suggests"facilities for private recreational purposes",but these facilities or purposes are not detailed. This proposed use cannot be projected as essentially compatible in 100 years. Even if the surrounding agriculture activities were preserved and active, the final land use plan appears incongruous. For the length of the permit, the surrounding area is expected to bear the burden of multiple, continuous stresses resulting from mining operation without any inherent compensation even in the proposed final use. A private reserve offers no benefit to the public domain. The nine lake"reclamation"does not reflect even a current industry benchmark for pit reclamation in agricultural zones. There is no effort made to return the land to productive grazing pasture or hay ground. Thus,the loss of the agriculture zone is permanent. In fact, the "reclamation"is limited to the small amount of acreage which is not covered by lake surface. The loss of water alone from evaporation on the lake surfaces is irresponsible when considered in perpetuity. This water would be diverted from agricultural uses which is in conflict with the County Comprehensive Plan(A Goal 8,page 22-16 of the County Code). The application's assertion that the adjacent riparian areas would remain viable as wild life habitat after a 100 year mining operation is unfounded. There is no supporting documentation or study of wildlife behavior which would confirm an ongoing,healthy wildlife population,particularly related to the bald eagle, after prolonged exposure to adjacent mining and industrial processing of mined materials. B. The safe condition of the land in its proposed"final use"is not relevantly addressed. The existence of a large amount of lake surface adjacent to nearby residential neighborhoods and livestock operations poses a safety risk hazard. The municipal comprehensive plans of both Platteville and Milliken clearly outline residential growth plans closer and closer to this site over the next 10-20 years let alone 100 years. C. The application states that storm water can be contained on site without concern for drainage. Since this site is almost exclusively in the 100 year flood plain of the South Platte River,it is clear that the site will be affected by flood waters. The application has not demonstrated any means by which such unpredictable flooding could be controlled onsite. Nor has it addressed the significant concern of the potential hazardous effects of mining effluent(stockpiled materials,processing chemicals and waste, stockpiled recycling materials,stored fuels, sewage sludge)being washed downstream offsite. Section 23-4-310,Cancellation of permit The process for revocation due to permit violations is contingent upon the local residents reporting such violations to the County. It is commonly understood that the County does not have sufficient staff to be proactive in protecting our health, safety and welfare from the impacts of this proposed operation in any of its numerous dimensions. Thus, the bulk of the responsibility to report alleged violations of permit is left to us. The approval of this application would impose significantly stressful living conditions on us,our families our livestock and farms. This is not to our choosing. We would then be expected to act as the primary watchdog for the County to protect our own health,safety and welfare. We would be reactive instead of proactive. The burden of reporting alleged permit violations is placed on us in addition to the personal,professional and financial burdens we would bear from the mining and industrial processing itself. This burden is in no way shared by the operator and the neighbors shoulder it by default. This is completely unacceptable to us. There is no benefit to the surrounding property owners nor neighborhood! In CRS 34-1-304 the Master Plan for extraction states, "In developing the master plan,the planning commission shall consider, among others, the following factors: (b)the potential for effective multiple-sequential use which would result in the optimum benefit to the landowner, neighboring residents and the community as a whole. This application benefits no one beyond the landowner. It is not in compliance with the County Master Plan. r Attachment B United Neighborhood Response Re: USR#1306 Detail of our concerns specific to the Weld County Comprehensive Plan as outline in Section 22 of the Weld County Code: Section 22-5-80,Commercial and mineral resource deposits goals and policies B.1. CM.Goal 2 The goal is to"promote the reasonable and orderly development of mineral resources." This application does not adequately demonstrate compliance with this goal. The sheer size of the permitted property,the size of the mined acreage(831.11 acres),and the length of the requested permit(90-110 years)place this operation in the extreme in Weld County and the State of Colorado. There is nothing reasonable about the scale of operation. As we have stated elsewhere in this letter the proposed mining operation and accompanying material processing plants would essentially"rezone"this property from agricultural to industrial for the next century. Orderly development would require sensitivity to and compliance with the Comprehensive Plans of the Towns of Platteville and Milliken. The town governments of both municipalities have clearly indicated that this application is not compatible with their current Comprehensive Plans. The outlined Urban Growth Boundaries of both municipalities are contiguous with the property in this application. The 10 year Comprehensive Plan for Platteville cites the area contained in this application as"agricultural buffer"to maintain the integrity of the Town's boundaries with other towns such as Milliken and Gilcrest. This proposed operation does not fit. The Platteville Plan states that industrial enterprises are strongly encouraged to locate east of U.S.Hwy.85. This proposed industrial processing operation does not fit. The Platteville Plan outlines the direction of residential development to the north and northwest of the existing town limits towards this site and its proposed haul route. The land use incompatibility increases accordingly. The Platteville Plan marks WCR 23 as its western urban growth boundary and WCR 36 as its northern urban growth boundary. These two, local roads would experience the most negative impact from traffic congestion from this operation. Such heavy truck congestion is not conducive to future residential development. The primary public traffic routes on the west and northwest sides of town would be severely impacted by the proposed haul route. The Platteville Plan promotes the development of recreational trails and future parks along the South Platte River corridor. This application's site and haul route serve as effective barriers to that development for the length of the proposed permit. It does not fit! The current Intergovernmental Agreements(IGA's)between the County and the Towns of Platteville and Milliken warrant particular consideration by the County in reviewing this application given both municipalities' opposition to USR#1306. C.CM.Goal 3,Policy 3 The goal is to"minimize the impacts of surface mining activities on surrounding land uses,roads and highways." The policy states that a mine application should be reviewed in accordance with the goals and policies of the area in which the application is located. The application fails to adequately address these impacts; and in fact, attempts to minimize such impacts. The mining conflict with surrounding municipal land uses is detailed above. The conflict with adjacent agricultural activities, gas resource leases,historical/archeological sites and private residences is significant. Please consider: 1. The surrounding farmers Right to Farm is challenged by this application. There is no attempt to address the concerns regarding the integrity of the water table in this area. The application states that the onsite water table is at approximately 6 feet. The application claims that the primary mode of mine operation will be a"wet" operation. However, at numerous places in the application it is stated that this could change to a"dry"operation at ,.-. the discretion of the operator at any given time. We are completely opposed to a dry mining operation at any time during the length of the proposed permit! As the application notes,a dry operation would require extensive dewatering of the pit site in question at the time. Such dewatering activity poses a threat to the agricultural wells and Western Mutual Ditch, and thus to the livelihood of the farmers who rely on those water sources. The application contains no professional engineer study certified by engineering stamp that guarantees no impact on surrounding water resources. The reason is simple,no guarantee is possible. The water resources of this proposed mine and the surrounding area are a shared underground resource. No augmentation plan to address these critical aquifer concerns are included in this application. Those of us who are livestock breeders are deeply concerned about the potential impact of such a large scale operation on our breeding stock. The gestation and birthing cycles of both registered horses and cattle can be impacted by the industrial activity and truck traffic congestion. 2. The final reclamation map included in the application locates only those gas well heads that are currently active. There is no consideration given to adequate access for exploration and drilling of additional wells on this property as allowed and required by law. 3. The significance of the historical/archeological sites and the impact imposed by this application are stated in the main body of our letter. 4. The numerous private residences within 1/2 mile of this mine site would experience severe negative impacts from this proposed operation. The loss of our rural quality of life which affects our health, safety,welfare and livelihood cannot be mitigated. The depression of our property values would be irreconcilable;and these values could not be recovered in our lifetime nor the lifetime of even our children,or grandchildren. Essentially,the equity of our properties would disappear overnight with the approval of this application. This would produce a critical, financial burden on all neighboring property owners without any liability accorded to the applicant. D.CM.Goal 4,Policy 4 Goal 4 is to"minimize hazardous conditions related to mining activities and the mining site. Policy 4 describes the County's responsibility to"impose such conditions as necessary to minimize or eliminate the potential adverse impact of the operation on surrounding properties." CM.Policy 4.1 Our objections concerning the general use,scale and density of this proposed mine and its accompanying industrial processing plants has been cited previously. It is clear, from the perspective of surrounding residents,that this activity is not compatible. Our specific concerns regarding traffic,dust and noise are presented in the paragraphs which follow. CM.Policy 4.2 The shielding of mining operations from PUBLIC view is not adequately addressed in this application. Setbacks and vegetation coverage is noted. However, we residents consider ourselves to be members of the PUBLIC. There is no reference in the application to site specific details of equipment storage areas, location of stockpiled soils, or stockpiled recycling materials. Apparently these areas could change over the life of the permit. No visual mitigation options such as soil berms,fencing or landscaping is mentioned in the application. CM.Policy 4.3 The proposed haul route to Colorado Hwy. 66 from the site is detailed in the application. It includes WCR 23,32.5 and 21. As we have noted previously,there has been no traffic impact study,trip count study or other review done to address this policy. Other access routes noted in the application include WCR 36,38,40,40.5. No detail is given for these roads regarding the increased congestion from employee vehicles, smaller operations vehicles,delivery vehicles or other traffic related to this site. The minimizing of traffic impacts cannot be accomplished without road specific studies. CM.Policy 4.4 The evaluation of the County Department of Public Works regarding this application is supportive of our concerns about our local roads and dramatically increased traffic volume generated by this proposed operation. WCR 23,36,38,40,and 40.5 are local,gravel roads not designed or intended for the number of vehicle trips which would be generated by this permit. No mitigation is presented in the application. As aforementioned,the primary public routes in and out of Platteville to the west(Hwy. 66)and northwest(WCR 32.5) would carry the daily burden of potentially fatal conflicts between public traffic and heavy trucks along the proposed haul route. The road design limitations and lack of signalization are critical along this route. The proximity of the intersection at WCR 32.5 and WCR 23 to the bridge over the South Platte River precludes any engineering effort to install acceleration/deceleration lanes without unreasonable cost to the County. The visual site restrictions eastbound and westbound over the bridge preclude any safe mitigation without acceleration/deceleration lanes. These routes are �.. also used daily by school buses and very slow moving,wide-load farm equipment. The unmitigated consequences are a"fatal accident waiting to happen". The application makes no attempt to detail internal road circulation beyond the proposed haul route. In fact,the proposed internal haul route would require permitting from the Western Mutual Ditch Company to cross the ditch immediately north of the intersection of WCR 23 and WCR 36. This has not occurred. This internal road could not"line up"with WCR 23 without right-of-way agreement from the adjacent property owner on the southeast side of this site. This has not occurred. No mention is made in the application regarding the location of parking for employee vehicles,haul trucks,nor other heavy equipment to be used in this operation. CM.Policy 4.5 Our opposition to batch plants,recycling plants,cast concrete plants and rail load out complexes is detailed elsewhere. The application's additional request to be able to move the plants' sites from one location to another to suite the operator's convenience is also objectionable to us. The application gives no indication where such additional plant sites would be located. Any control measures imposed by the County for one plant site may not be applicable for any other site on this property. The intensity of impact on surrounding neighbors could vary greatly according to the sole discretion of the operator. This is not acceptable business practice. It does not protect our health,safety and welfare as county residents. CM.Policy 4.6 The requirement for security fencing around extraction sites is considered common safety practice by the County when permitting other operations of this type. No mention is made in the application of this. The fencing presently in place in and around this property is 3-4 strand barbed wire at its best. This may be adequate for cattle, but it is not up to the County standard of 6', impenetrable by humans for surrounding sand and gravel mines. The inherent conflict between security fencing and wildlife flow has been detailed previously. CM.Policy 4.8 Our concerns about the maintaining of environmental standards in this application are detailed below under CM.5. E.CM.Goal 5,Policy 5 The goal provides for"timely reclamation and use of mining sites". Although the application indicates that reclamation would proceed as soon as mineral deposits were depleted in each in each pit,we have great concern about the requested size of the open pit at any given time. CM.Policy 5.1 The application requests an ongoing open pit of approximately 40 acres. This is notably larger than most sand and gravel USR's approved by the County. This size open pit does not minimize the disturbance of vegetation or overburden. In fact,the proposed size of open pit exacerbates numerous other problems including air, dust, light and noise pollution. We oppose the requested 40 acre open pit. CM.Policy 5.3 The application makes an attempt to address the protection of existing wildlife habitat and riparian areas, however the setbacks offered are not congruent with the significance of the habitat in question on this property. The Colorado Division of Wildlife site specific studies have identified critical raptor habitat at this location. Their fmdings include two night roosting sites for bald eagles and golden eagles. The bald eagle remains a federally protected species under the federal Endangered Species Act. The Division's recommendations for larger setbacks at these two locations are essential to the preservation of their habitat. The Division's site specific survey has also identified habitat areas suitable for other federally protected species, including the Preble's meadow jumping mouse and Ute Ladies'-tresses orchid. There are standard survey protocols established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding these endangered species. However,to our knowledge,no such surveys have yet been conducted on this site. We strongly encourage these surveys to be conducted in the appropriate season for such reviews. We are also deeply concerned about the diversity of non-protected wildlife species which are represented on and around this property. These include mammals such as deer,badger and fox. Represented are numerous raptor species including various hawks, falcons,kestrels and owls. Other bird species include resident blue heron, pheasant,wild turkey,ducks,geese and other native species. Also,migratory species such as whooping crane and pelicans are seasonal visitors to this area. We ask that careful consideration be given to the Division of Wildlife report regarding this site,and we request that the Division's recommendation be adopted as appropriate qualifying standards of wildlife protection during this USR permit review process. CM.Policy 5.4 Our strong concerns about the compliance of this application with County flood hazards have been stated already. The vast majority of the proposed mine site and plant site are located in the 100 year flood plain as determined by County Planning Department standards. The application states that the plant sites would be elevated, i—. but no detail is presented regarding what ancillary equipment would be included on those pads, e.g. fuel storage units, vehicle wash bays, and equipment storage units. The lack of flood protection for stockpiles of recycling materials is particularly disturbing. Such potential flood effluent from this site downstream on the South Platte /-•-• River would pose a health hazard to downstream residents and livestock. CM.Policy 5.5 The proposed"final reclamation plan"outlined in this application does not return the land to a form and productivity in conformance with the established comprehensive plan for the area. Our concerns in this regard are extensively noted elsewhere in this letter. In fact,the nine lake plan effectively removes the existing land and creates an artificial landscape that does not match anything in the surrounding area. CM.Policy 5.7 Trucking operations limited to the transport of mined materials is delineated in this policy. However, the application requests permit for truck importing of asphalt/concrete recycling materials which obviously do not originate on this site. We are opposed to this request. In addition,the applicant's intention to operate an asphalt batch plant on site would likely require the import of additional material not mined on site. To meet asphalt specifications for state approved mix design,the applicant would need to import additional material not available through normal mining activity on this site. Such importation of materials only increases the number of heavy truck trips per day and is not in compliance with this policy. We are opposed to this import activity! The trucking operations related to processed materials is also a primary concern. The application's own "guesstimates"of 130 single truck trips per day is simply a projection. There is no guarantee that the number of trips would be regulated in any way other than the discretion of the operator and undetermined"market demand". The daily vehicle traffic counts and related congestion on the haul route and other access roads is a primary concern we have as neighbors. The application attempts to minimize the negative impact by its lack of detail. We are opposed to this lack of detail. Actual traffic from other nearby sand and gravel operations suggest that 130 single trips(260 round trips)is a likely minimum. Again,no traffic study has been presented. If"market demand" increases then the truck volume increases exponentially. Even the minimum numbers are overwhelming to the existing infrastructure of our county roads. Our health,safety and welfare and that of our families and animals are at stake. Section 22-2-60,Agricultural goals and policies A.1.A.Goal 1 The primary goal of this plan is to"preserve prime farmland for agricultural purposes". The application states that the property within the boundary of this permit is not classified as"prime". In fact,the vicinity map used by the County Planning Department to determine the location of"prime farmland"in the county indicates otherwise. That map identifies about 20%of the property on the north end as"prime". It also identifies another 20-25%of the property in the vicinity of the existing irrigation pivot as"irrigated farmland,not prime". Historically these areas have been productive for cattle grazing and hay production. Careful consideration should be given to these areas for preservation as farmland before they are removed forever as a result of the proposed mine operation. E.1.A.Goal 5 The goal is to minimize the impact of extraction of mineral resources on prime agricultural land. Our request for careful consideration of the issue in this application is outlined in the paragraph above. 11.1.A.Goal 8 The goal states that water currently associated with a farm or rural unit of land should be retained for agricultural uses. The reclamation plan for this application clearly is in direct conflict with this goal. This application indicates that augmentation for the evaporative loss of water from the lake surfaces created in the reclamation will be made with water currently associated with agricultural production which is confirmed on page 8 of the application itself. We oppose the loss of this agricultural production water in perpetuity. Such plan is contrary to this goal. Section 22-3-20,Fire protection The USR questionnaire included in the application states that the applicant does not know who will provide fire protection to the site. This lack of detail reflects negligence regarding a basic provision for any development in the County. The types of mining activity and plant processing requested in the application pose a significant hazard for fire resulting in potential human injury or death. These associated activities pose a fire safety risk that includes the uncontrolled spillage of batching materials which can further threaten the environment and ground water. The application completely fails to address these basic provisions of the County Code. Section 22-4-10 The purpose of this article states that"environmental degradation from development either should be reduced or eliminated in order to prevent harm to life,health and property." It further states that"impacts from proposed land uses on air,water,waste,noise and public health should be considered." We are deeply concerned that the size and scale of this proposed operation has high risk for such degradation to ourselves,families and neighborhood. Those environmental concerns are further detailed as follows. Section 22-4-30,Water goals and policies B.WA.2 goal and policies 1. The aquifer which is affected by this proposed operation does provide domestic drinking water in surrounding domestic wells. The County will strive to maintain Federal Drinking Water Standards in this aquifer. 2. It is our contention that the conditions of this application warrant evaluation of the impacts on groundwater quality. No such study is offered in the application. Our concerns include contamination by overburdened, inadequate septic systems on site and by the potential for hazardous spills of chemicals(e.g. hydrochloric acid, lime, cement)commonly associated with the batching of concrete and asphalt. WA.Policy 2.1 With the projected daily employee numbers noted in the application at approximately 40-50 the existing septic systems on this property is not adequate to prevent raw sewage overload of the leach fields. Ground water contamination is inevitable without substantial upgrades and auxiliary toilet facilities. C.2.WA.Policy 3 The County discourages the diversion of water from agricultural uses. We have noted under H.1.A.Goal 8 above that the reclamation plan outlined in this application is not compatible with this County policy. WA.Policy 3.1 The policy states that"the County will favor applications that return water to abandoned agricultural land for productive agricultural use." We have duly noted under H.1.A.Goal 8 that this application summarily removes in perpetuity water from its current agricultural use to augment evaporative loss from its proposed nine lake reclamation plan. This practice does not incur the County's favor regarding such applications. D.1.WA.Goal 4 The goal states that the County will"strive to maintain the quality of all public streams as outlined in the State and Federal Water Discharge Quality Standards." However,even with the setbacks from the South Platte River described in the application it states on page 18, "if the river erodes the bank after mining is complete...We will not rebuild the 200 foot buffer if that occurs." Such failure of mitigation implies failure to maintain the quality of the river bed related to federal discharge standards. This failure is not acceptable under this Comprehensive Plan goal. Section 22-4-40,Mr B. This proposed mining and processing operation will produce the"criteria pollutants"causing the most concern in the County,carbon monoxide from intensive vehicle traffic and particulate matter in the form of dust from concrete batching(cement dust), the open mine pit,stockpiled materials awaiting offsite hauling, and consequential dust from intense vehicle traffic. These air quality issues are not addressed in the application via site specific study. Section 22-4-50,Mr goals and policies B.A.Policy 1 It is our viewpoint that this land use application must demonstrate future impacts on current air quality. The requested extreme size and scale of this proposal including the overwhelming volume of related traffic,both gas and diesel driven,make this policy requirement essential to the health, safety and welfare of us,our families and livestock. The dust abatement strategy proposed by this application lacks any site specific study of the various particulates which will be discharged. It lacks any study of the health risk this imposes on neighboring residents and livestock. Finally, it lacks any substantial proposal for minimizing or mitigating these health risks. Section 22-4-60,Noise The Comprehensive Plan acknowledges noise as a"source of environmental pollution". It identifies �—, exposure to"excessive noise over prolonged periods"as a"threat to public health". This application's noise report admits that its data"is not a site specific noise report".The application maintains that the noise level will never exceed the minimum required by County code. The application suggests that the operator"will work with the neighbors to keep noise disturbance to minimum". It states, "We do not believe the noise generated from this pit will disturb surrounding residences." However,these implied assurances to neighbors remain assumptions and conclusions drawn by the application without documented, site specific study regarding the actual noise levels generated at the site by mining equipment,processing plants, and heavy industrial vehicles equipped with OSHA required"reverse alarms". This lack of noise abatement detail is totally unacceptable to us as neighbors of this proposed operation. A.N.Goal 1 The stated goal is to"minimize the impact of noise on County residents". Our rural neighborhood is still relatively undisturbed by the noise pollution associated with urban,commercial and industrial development. This permit would impose an extremely large mining and industrial processing operation on surrounding neighbors. The severe noise levels directly related to this operation would destroy the quiet of our rural locale. In addition to the stress placed on humans,we assert that this stress will negatively affect our breeding livestock of horses, cattle and alpacas. These noise sensitive livestock may present symptoms of noise stress which would adversely affect their natural gestation,delivery and postpartum process. Such negative affects would directly interfere with our current breeding programs and practices. The application makes no attempt to address these issues in its noise report. It offers no liability for financial losses incurred by surrounding breeders as a result of unmitigated noise volumes. Section 22-4-90,Waste transfer,processing and diversion The application includes a request for permit of asphalt/concrete batching plants and asphalt/concrete recycling plant. It is common knowledge that such industrial processes generate waste by-products which may be harmful to the health, safety and welfare of surrounding neighbors. Such waste can generate potential contamination of ground water, soil, and air. The proposed transfer,processing and diversion of such waste is a great concern to us as neighbors. The application does not include any plan regarding generation,containment, disposing or recycling of waste at the proposed site. This is basic for the protection of the interest of the County and for the protection of the health and safety of ourselves and our families. Section 22-4-100,Transfer,processing and diversion goals and policies A.2.TPD.Policy 1 The policy states"land use applications will be required to characterize the waste stream associated with the proposed land use. This application fails to address this critical issue. A.2.TPD.Policy 1.1 The policy clears indicates that the applicant will"submit a plan to manage waste". This has not been done to our knowledge. For the reasons stated above this is a basic omission of this application which we completely oppose. Section 22-4-180,Hazardous waste goals and policies A.H.Policy 1 It is common knowledge that the industrial processes included in this permit application include potential hazardous chemicals and compounds. The concerns we have expressed regarding normal waste are restated emphatically regarding hazardous waste generation and disposal. To our knowledge,the application has not presented an inventory of potential hazardous waste resulting from asphalt/concrete batching and recycling,nor has it outlined a plan for safe containment and disposal of hazardous wastes generated at this site. Section 22-5-30,Wildlife goals and policies A.2.W.Policy 1.1 Our major concerns regarding the wildlife habitat and migration routes which would be heavily impacted by this proposed operation are outlined above under Sec. 22-5-80,CM.5.3. This specific County wildlife policy specifies that proposed developments such as this"should incorporate...adequate setbacks and buffered areas as prescribed by the Colorado Division of Wildlife." We strongly support this policy and maintain that this application must defer in writing to the Division of Wildlife recommendations for this specific site. A.2.W.Policy 1.2 The policy clearly states the County's intention"to protect critical or unique habitat areas of high public value,such as habitats of endangered or unique species, significant viewing areas and breeding and spawning areas." We contend that this application must comply with Colorado Division of Wildlife recommendations for this site. r� B.2.W.Policy 2 The County's reference maps identify a large percentage of the property contained in this application as critical wildlife habitat. The County's letters of referral include the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. These agencies' site specific studies and reports are essential tools for appropriately evaluating the effect of this proposed operation. We strongly support and encourage that the site specific studies and recommendations from these agencies be required by the County Planning Department in their efforts to protect appropriately the wildlife resources of the County. Page 1 of 1 AW NI id I4 A • aptawatith. • ARTICLES OF ORGANIZATION • FOR PLATTE SAND&GRAVEL, A COLORADO LIMITED UAZI JTY CORPORATION The underaipned,a natural pawn of at bast 21 years of age,acting a croaker, hereby time a Larked Liability Company by virtue of the Colorado United Lfablfttjr Company Ad,and adopts the following Articles of Organization for such Limited Liability • Company. l25D91p C ARTICLE i urea I�E22CIE'TIEN pOF STATE • The name of the Limited tlebMy Company is PLATTE SAIL t3Ft-A11lf su.b ARTi6LE ' Pilnoipls Pisa of Busks • The pdndpel place of business at the limited tiabIly company Y(loo be hashed). •• AR11cLE NI Duration The laded ieb yoornpanyshddhaolveadterminatefwe bAlve(2T)iweratom the date of filing these Midas of Organization with the Secretary of Statte unless sooner • terminated in accordance with law. • ARTICLE IV Registered Aged The reptsaned agent of this tilted listen, company In this state Is Thomas Sharkey. The business address of the registered agent is 15430 Copperfield Drive, Colorado Springs,CO 80311. • ARTICLE IV Mho Managers The a and business address of the ivied manager who is to serve es manager unth the first annual l meeting of the members or urtff his successor is elected and quelled is as follows: Nome Arias • Thomas Shaakey 15430 Copperfisid Drive Colorado Swings,CO)$Lf• • • ' itture 3T ...iunage_pnm Lim maul e&uueyi—Luuuocuoetype-Io uoc_seq—z3u7Iuoe.acnuyr—va,azuu_rype1LIvivi Page 1 of 1 • Rocky Holleclinelder 1300 Herten St Lakewatid,CO80214 ARTICLE dl lambent There will be at least two members of This Umited Liability Company upon formation. ARTICLE Yti • Organisers • Nam adds Thorns turkey 5430 Copperlfeld Drive Colorado Springs,OO 90821 • !Crystal Haft chneider 6843 W.Indore Place Ulileton,CO 80123 ART1CLE VIII' • Right to Continue Business Upon the death,retirement resignation,expui ion,banlauptoy,or dSS*J%oh of a . member dr the occurrence of any other event which may terminate the continued membership of a member (tbsolutfon Event) In the United Debility.Company, the buekess of the Untied Liability Company may be continued so'tong as Mere Is at least one remaining member and all members consent to the continuation of business. The managers of the United Liability Company shag call a special meeting of members within 90 days situ the DYsdlution Event for purposes of determining whether the business should be continued. EXECUTED this ifday of Decanter,2000. fl : : • STATE OF COLORADO } • }se. • .iuuage_pinht_ionn.ronea.uvc_yr—zuuuo oc_iype—ia.uvc_sey-nnivocalnu_y —va.aluu_kypeiiivivI 1 Weld County Planning Dept. r rl 7 2001 January 20th, 2001 To: Kim Ogle RECEIVED 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 EX IT 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 CocAn �xj /11O-4-47./. ode L, t(4-444 Stanley and Lary Odenbaugh February 5, 2001 Kim Ogle Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Ave. Greeley, Co 80631 RE: USR#1306, Platte Sand and Gravel LLC Dear Mr. Ogle, I am writing to let you know what kind of impact the proposed Platte Sand and Gravel mining operation would have on my family. My husband and I moved to Platteville in May of 1999 after he suggested that our three children could have the same opportunities he had. We live on Weld County Road 32 '/2 and would endure a great amount of impact from this mining operation. We moved here so that our children would be in a safer community, quiet area and beautiful land surrounding them. If the permit for this operation were granted our lives would be greatly effected. Our children would have to catch a school bus on the very same roads that the enormous amount of truck volume would be traveling. The school in which they attend, Platteville Elementary, is also located along Highway 66, which will be heavily used. At the very intersection where children cross the road, heavy trucks would be running morning and afternoon. There are no lighted cross walks in this area, nor a stoplight so that the children could cross the road safely. The noise and extra traffic on the county road would also be very intrusive. Many trucks already use this road to avoid the Port of Entry located on Highway 85. My mailbox is run over at least once a month due to the road not being wide enough to handle heavy truck traffic as it is. The dust on the road would also be a large inconvience, both for health reasons as well as an annoyance. There are many historical markings in this area as well. Native Americans and trappers settled this area many years ago. The South Platte River is home and water source to many animals in which this mining operation would also effect. Just the beauty of the land is enough to save. Why should we let large corporate America ruin the beauty of the land surrounding us, when up the road 3 miles there is another pit already in operation? I hope I have expressed my great opposition to this operation. I realize that you have a great decision to make,but hope you will keep in mind the many individuals and families that will be impacted. Thank you for your consideration of my family as well as many others. Respectfully, Weld County Planning Dept.. r 2001 Christy Hi e RECEIVER EiCHreR January 31, 2001 Weld County Planning Dept. Kim Ogle Weld County Department of Planning Services _ 1555 N. 17th Ave. 2001 Greeley, Co 80631 RECEIVED RE: USR #1306, Platte Sand and Gravel, LLC Dear Mr. Ogle, We are writing to you regarding the Platte Sand and Gravel operation application #USR1306. We live approximately one mile east of the intersection of County Roads 23 and 36, where the vast majority of the truck, etc. traffic will be concentrated. We hope we can adequately represent how strongly opposed we are to this sand and gravel operation on this site. This is a beautiful piece of land with some of the best water rights around here and an obviously long stretch of river frontage. It is a favorite roosting site for Bald and Golden eagles as well. As you know, Bald eagles are still recovering from near extinction and places like this that provide the ideal habitat play a very big role. Our family moved here 13 years ago. Selecting this community was in large part due to the beauty, wildlife and peace and quiet. Three of our four grown children attended high school here and now have chosen this community as well, including our six grandchildren. Over the years we have become avid bird watchers, enjoying many sightings of Great Blue Herons, Kingfishers, hummingbirds, songbirds, all varieties of hawks, falcons, water fowl, wild turkeys and of course Bald and Golden eagles. We have come to appreciate the `perfect nature' of the balance in this gentle environment. If this project is allowed to go forward, we have no doubt that at the very least the eagles will leave. They do like their privacy and peace and quiet as much as we do. The rabbit and prairie dog populations will go unchecked. They in turn will strip much of the vegetation in our landscape. The obvious destructive chain of events has no end. While these issues are crucial to our quality of life and our environment, the truck traffic is potentially as devastating. The current (and likely conservative) estimate is 1.30 sand and gravel trucks a day, one way; so 260 (likely more) is the number we will be dealing with, which is 16 per EXHIBIT 14 hour, which is 1 every 3 minutes along the very route where our grandchildren and our neighbors children and grandchildren ride a school bus twice every day. It is on County Roads 23 and 36 that we take early morning rides on horseback or long walks. Our children and grandchildren all learned their horsemanship and love of nature here as well. In summation, we hope we have conveyed how complete the devastation would be to our environment and quality of life if this project were allowed to happen. We were told that writing to you about what is in our hearts would not mean anything to the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners because you are required to discount anything that is not considered a point of law. While we understand the concept we were nevertheless compelled to share our hearts and we hope it is not pointless. Please vote for our community of Platteville (incidentally named for the beautiful river that runs through it and not for the sand and gravel pit that runs through it). Thank you for your careful consider ion in this ma r, Mike and Kim Youel f6-73--c-ce_e he._ aft, re:7w e)- 24 6/ d -6(e-, , , PLI-' . CA) dt lutt-Loc", . _4te-e_ oc, &971--- 60 set-e. Yr: ii. , ze,s7i----„ !„ld cu;i V Planning D='Pi. g 20W r foy/ oI -R l or ; r Dopt 71-rr�,r,�o a 0G (i v r . pew 141 CqL_ kt aati j / No E i�� you haae �o �o !i 90 JoSA It 8s to 7� aAuf d i . , —4401 , w�-Gc_ ./o Ate u date 04a- , 6-tc} &iv°, x0044 Auld m z c a , (Aaie O lig pita ett 1621 /30i EXEUNT e brvo s 4, 2ooi `;veld County PL.nriing Dept. • SC Kc n nq 1r 'P(An lever ,eid Coo nk , � ar'tirre ± cc '1?1anni is cervices 200? \6 � N a venue Orte\ey) Co 8o1231 RECEkV ! D }sk kbor-a,00d .C-%Sues 4 Conceals 'Re: USR,t# I3oh, .kppttCct_tton weld CCOI- +'J, C o 0-e.&' 6uO fsrorn {' epr opus 3a •c4,ngravel loafdnparntl- trey pia-t n d c yd ire tart dtrecrLi wes-E a, .tucQ40 . Vk �onc-erne un es-fa p 0 5 Lndu5-E-ruca oper`a.tton th an usjrtcottor td coon unt1�/ care ccs flows. l RAAC' IC:. f1ego-,k -e on -€he CcKu&(L1y oc h e -Et) 611.1. Cnthe somowrte' _corm cu'ea would' overwble(vnt thcrect5-e oc -�-raf{ic on btu( n`l r u -lam Cobrk �4 . � cis Weil cots c! lLu route *thed in us J3o4 6hv �oU,5 h a tu;e crHect betrc' -ie c�6nsaret- disru ve noise o trn t r}i ra-ttq ns 4s wet] cos 4rtrcE horse seed d nu n\bers vtcics du5tCanc@ ect use tto-hon. -1C'Cj �,,_, ,,� T� N 4ix 11-1E- R95E f L U L OF SPLOST �P U tcb&o�-U C Mao aS VDU -eo consta-e.r w ha - ns when 4h, (5 volume cn tease( WI-her-pro lee t-ec1 ornoun 11 1 , tot0?-0,e boora.rys ac ethorh sys 13o(v �Pro(� e5 wti (yenska & sec 'al- •exts-riM JS lea r ohm ? tow .SC f Can (his ? �ldee� Re COQtiltYMal ncC v nd - Se -Efet ti arm ejp2ecl rind n rnbRf 5 tr �s-F let a1 t f t S cfl WC&≥ yo. c 44. 4j m es S love c�rtv-ev\ on t t qo c�r,� had Mh�/eh k c ke t t h}}S o Ps u C, k-t -h beau) e oc ,s}- ieit n Aa cod k` NOT See roe tk n like c� y rows otrEbeetcvSe c --Faro is , \ T -lobes octZ Tu E H oLp ru StDCl W G T(S IS 'TRUE 1-01)47 . -corm .b ca l o� , HAS been -eccejlen+ - c t ties o� vec-e-k-o-13 k S �a re n e t rrtq cct-i 0 wett� r"j ry .s -the fp k ofi S rtn ►-era. Yon.e dom c wet( used r- he y&rd, an um4-S and house t ss necessray ,u) Gt e can wonder c�t-h the c(emarv,s t me i� we t ou wares' CDrcttnu (�owtn WCet(,er��Ri -Ehts o�ecc�t m tr\e tit if4 rms t 'ri'ob held t"S. What? he rNe hoJ'J U t t O cbnsOf VD T\ - m ! EXHIBIT al4 CSrO.v et £j, . , PR(DV 'JPcL u� )20u 4- kh;s Srasm ko,nd ko \1/4v2 i n `rckce. d ui� 3 -\-o sleep kn 'e n\o -lane out c\corS Lurk-hook cu oo notc-e /kt fts-e crops vnirftals have rs 1'2oPEzTy ko Se\l -Vcr ro,Y ret ire mert income. se 1++15 V\w E 8E.Cakos fReostAINI A-St WHO kcal- PVI The vAt ut ST 4NouLD k-65,9G tN /1/4 9eacEFiL SiJut2aJMEAJT vel>5ns laaM6 tv6-q- lb Ar 406G lA►%JE o mperte&. JJotse does -haarel fir in a to an corec.. Otaa CONCt zHS ©t I€C Lzwporkank cancenrt S art eck-i on cu cl l inbt l.ky for t oo 7,e4r T\oc rplatn Control '\n1 on e -≥,Id eggIt. anti other echichrc pr yes can --die 'St ' t3bC r fl5Derhl ��ec eck under the -rred-erd( N G ERcb S tES. ACC. `l't.wo Sc' the aklesk- h is itrci4( st�hes in w' Coonfy Con cs t exkh hcas orve oecre ded.ta&cA to The 1?EtF uttle Kcal ��6ctely�• MSo,khe >Mat *I- # -EhC lor0pb9eck haul route c,votcls -the cool- ue�� tot\ on l W 25: -tTh$ Means S ues-h'on i -the corrertt4 r«nA c`4 q�cs ctre eon -trpct�i nape' -t ��f ,sectect -toh en t ry rrmers os- --l-h tS Indus\--rw kra c . is cotirse cfo� ek 5�. rc>1�IGL-0(-iIbN We. sk your Co sick-c cii ion -car c�t� ohs- us Sir- car loss cc_ qui:my c '"` doe -to the - ackk- k rmkrre c er�i-I'tdei5woula Suer clepki-t'nn c our v dei S) krct�"t�c n 4ikm ar ses t' o I -c -to -those cspeucL Cry close -k the efroposec‘ ,p t.r� ≤ cu-�. mtne and, -khe drastic hecc�ceR K� K-c'h c = cur pe }y VQIJes Wt-t:heok t.ct(Sttt+y or com?encct4-ion i USt* 13oi, crtesr kit, tank yo Q. crtgy, &vat- GP1/4LE L. 9RolaeR6—scow t tcle(b Wct. clo Tiatlevtlle, Co So(,Si Lisltb ON Fo -Lowinl6 c GC r CC : Cold County -Mann I nc� &mm ISSIo r3 `P. 6. *Box 154 Gucci ey, Co 9,0(931 1-c-rN : ± kn fbIsoro cri sfie I3t ck1aS t ua L4cte.r NkLke k\�11e-C S-4-ephen Moky Jack cpple "carit chi &tm li i-- Addo Maors Cathy Clanmp Cooney dmmm (over L\St3 17 , O 3°x158 Eree l ev ) CO 90(03)--, A-TTJ1 : MgSder\riXwa V Germ aet� 14,kn e Get e r-� r'�y v :� •,y cittannii February 2 , 2001 Weld County Department of Planning Services Attention: Kim Ogle 1555 N. 17th Ave . Greeley, CO 80631 RE : Case #USR-1306 Dear Mr. Ogle : This letter is in response to the USR Permit #3601 application by Platte Sand and Gravel , LLC, regarding a permit for a concrete, asphalt, precast batch plant and general mining operation. I am adamantly opposed to the application, and I hope to convince the Weld County Planning Commission and the Weld County Commissioners to reject USR #1306 outright, primarily because of multiple violations and discrepancies and inconsisten- cies with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan and Weld County Zoning Ordinance . My family previously owned approximately 1552 acres of this permit site, now owned by Mr. Tom Sharkey. We operated this farm and ranch land under the name Scottdale Ranches for 31 years . Previously this was the Haystack Angus Ranch for many years . Platte Sand and Gravel has made the outrageous statement in the application that this land is "not productive crop land" . This indeed is prime agricultural land. Historically 368 acres of this land have been used for irrigated crops . 127 acres have been used for alfalfa (and corn as a rotational crop) , 58 acres in grass/alfalfa mix and 183 acres in grass . The average crop production has historically been 3 . 5 tons/acre of irrigated crop with total average yield of 1288 tons of alfalfa/grass . I have records dating back to 1988 corroborating these yields . Unfortunate- ly, this land has not been cared for and has been neglected by Mr. Sharkey. There is adequate water for irrigation and agriculture, which includes 31 shares of Western Mutual Ditch (7 of these shares are Hughes and Cook) and 8 irrigation wells with pump rates approximating 900 GPM. Additionally, this land has historically been home to a 550 head cow/calf operation (350 pair leave for summer pasture May through October) . ��R Page 2 Approximately 1000 acres of dry land, sub-irrigated and irrigated pasture exists on this land. This land is excellent agricultural land for farming and has been significantly useful for ranching with historical documentation. Use of the property for agricultural purposes has been a financially successful venture as well . Thus, there is a critical violation by the applicants for failure to conserve productive agricultural land, and it is my contention that the entire acreage in the application should be considered productive, agricultural land. The applicant further states that this concrete, asphalt, precast batch plant and gravel mining operation "will have little effect on the surrounding" area. This statement is outrageous and absolutely false . I own approximately 500 acres of prime irrigated farmland immediately to the east and northeast portion of the applicants' land. We have three homes with three domestic wells and ten irrigation wells on these 500 acres . The three domestic wells are within 169 feet to 516 feet of the applicants' land. Two irrigation wells are within 169 and 427 feet of the applicants land, and three wells are approximately 800 feet away. I think it is a fairly reasonable assumption that continued function of these domestic and irrigation wells is in great danger from this mining operation and almost assuredly if dewatering and dry mining techniques are utilized. My right to farm is threatened. There is mention of a northern access route at intersection 23 and 40 . This is the location of two of my houses, on a narrow dirt road, where small children live and play. Farm equipment at slow speeds is frequent at this intersection. This route runs approximately two miles through many country homes and farms to reach paved road at Highway 60 . WCR 23 is a bus route that also is heavily trafficked with agricultural machinery. The headquarters of the operation is stated to be on WCR 23 . There is also mention of as many as 40 employees and 200 people on the land at any one time . Thus, this northern access route proposed seems relatively dangerous and a major concern regarding continuing agricultural use of surrounding land in the area because of the heavy traffic and congestion about this mined area. The requested permit time is 100 years . I think there will be a substantial effect on the surrounding area. Agricultural will begin to disappear further and further from the mining site . The traffic volume mentioned here is simply staggering. Highway 66 is already congested. I would think a formal traffic study is warranted. Approval would change this agriculturally zoned area to a true industrial area for 100 years ! The noise and dust pollution will be significant and should not be minimized. Property values will plummet . Do not forget the historical significance of the Fort St . Vrain area which exists in the midst of the requested mining area. Indian burial grounds have been rumored to be in this area, and over the years multiple .-. Indian artifacts have been found in this area. ,-. Page 3 I have major concerns regarding the wet lands in the applicants permit . It has been relatively dry over the past few years, but ther is no question multiple areas of wet lands exist in the areas requested for mining. The applicant has completely ignored these wet lands and is bold enough to state a permit from the U.S . Corps of Engineers is not required. This is ridiculous . This would also have a substantially negative impact on the existing wildlife and would adversely affect this habitat . The Platte River runs along the west and north side of this property. Deer, eagles and hawks, owls, ducks and other species live in this habitat . There are statements in the application also regarding the flood plain. This entire area is in the 100 year flood plain. As recently as three years ago, hundreds of these acres were flooded and inaccessible for weeks. Approximately 25 years ago, this entire area was flooded and under water. The river banks in the spring erode regularly, and the river path continues to change significantly. Forty acres of river bank were lost four years ago during spring flooding. Please do not allow the applicant to minimize the historical, real flooding that regularly occurs in this area. This entire area is indeed located in a flood plain. This appears to be a direct violation to the Weld County comprehensive plan. My family has retained one-half of the oil and gas royalties on the property now owned by Mr. Tom Sharkey. There are approximately 43 existing oil and gas wells currently in production. At least another six or seven wells have yet to be drilled (some of these because of wet land restric- tions incidently) . I have major concerns regarding the ability to maintain and optimize the current oil and gas production as well as future drilling and redrilling operations . There is currently considerations and plans for well spacing capabilities to be changed to every 20 acres . Thus, my financial interest and ownership interests in the oil and gas wells seem to be in jeopardy here . Finally, there is essentially no significant quantity of land proposed for reclamation by the applicant . All the mined area will be multiple lakes (767 acres) and essentially only the banks of these lakes will be reclaimed, which is a total of only 64 acres of the entire area. The scale and size and scope of this proposed operation is hugh. This is one of the largest single pieces of agricultural land that remains in the immediate front range . It is beautiful open space that requires your help to survive . r Page 4 In conclusion, I strongly urge rejection of USR Permit #1306 . There are multiple compliance violations and attempts to minimize adverse effects and multiple misstatements and falsehoods in the Platte Sand and Gravel application. Approval would be catastrophic for my family, the community, and Weld County. Sincerely, Michael)Pta snik 18995 WCR 23 Platteville, CO 80651 • rta-UO-duUt nun u4 da rn rma Nu, r, ud • Weld County Planning.Dept. • l+ebruary.S,'2001 • r r; 8 20W RECEIVED Weld ('t>unity Planning Commission ' ' 1555 North.17th Avenue . (:ircekcy, CO .80631 . • Re: . Special Permit Use Applicati on'of Platte Sand and Craven, LLC (S&H Mine) Referral'Case LJSR-1306 Dear Planning Commission: • ' • • 'i'Ju letter is submitted on behalf of Mike Youcl and k'/j/QuE(in opposition to the special IJin Pei mit application of S&}I Mine, dated November'6, 2000. Tor the raasons,cet forth below,the application and supporting material are legally defreienl, incomplete and not in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance of Weld County, the Weld County Comprehensive Plan and the Intergovernmental Agreement between Weld County end the`fawn of Platteville concerning coordinated planning. Byway ufgenotal overview, the application does not meet Section 24,1.1 of the Weld • \ 'County Zoning Ordiitunce and,is incomplete and legally deficient because it does not . i un drip suffieirnt information or adequate detail for the County to make a reasoned • • • • 'decision es to whether the proposed uses will "protect and promote the health,safety, . • convenience,and general welfare of the present and future residents of Weld County." 'the pmlitlaed'laroject,6nttsists of five industrial facilities or plants in addition to mining ' operations that will extend over 831 acres for 110 years or more. The industrial facilities will include a concrete batch plant, an asphalt batch plant, a concrete casting facility, a • concrete/asphalt recycling plant,and a maintrmnnue facility w Rh"one more temporary buildings..A rnilrond siding is else proixised. An ustitoated i 30 vehicles per day will be • , • 'required to oonduet this'.business, making at least one round trip each into and out of the ' site For a minimum of 260 tripS/clay. • • As u gtnierat dornment, we agree with the views expressed by the "!'own of Platteville in , ` its January 11; 2001 letter that the proposed develop bent does not comply with the , Town's Comprehensive Plan, is detrimental to the peace and tranquility of the area, is • inconsistent with the preservation of the history of the area,and causes noise,traffic and • • I'MMof,1'snmYn WNW Comb VLium pe YIN • rr.0-uo- out nun u4;su rn YHA NU, r. U. • 4evclopntent,impacts which are inconsistent with the plan and policies of the Town, The proposd d Mining site fs'a residential and agricultural area dominated by the South Platte • 'River and MI flood,plaid. The entire operation is supposed to be sited within the flood plain notwithstanding the impacts on tioo.i flows, wildlife and wetlands, which are inadequately disclosed in the application. • our specific objections to the application are as set forth below: Agmssgmlicsiast. ,'the application is deficient in ifs compliance with Section 44,1.4 in that it does not eolhain any assurance as to the source of the applicant's legal right to • enter the land affected by the permit. 'there is no indication that an easement has been granted ior•the ptilteipal private aucess road referenced on Page 2 of the application or to . • any other pnvate.mad or private bridge which is among the many mentioned as ponvntially being used. There is no assurance as to the safety of the bridges for the • number of trips, weights of vehicles, or sive and type of vehicle proposed to be used. The reads which are'proposed to he used are primarily gravel roads which are not designed to support the estimated additional traffic which will he generated by this facility. • ' According to the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, a road which has average daily . " traffic counts in excess of 2(Hr should be designed as a paved road. See Comprehensive • '. Plan at Tnhlc 6 Sind Appendix at 7-2. entere is the possibility that the residents of this area • may he called upon to contribute financially to the paving of the affected roads, ; notwithstanding the'fact that the mine operations is the source of the wear and tear on those roads and the dust generattal by them. This has occurred on more than ono occasion in Summit County, including on rr gravel read where dust problems were caused by a gravel yeahy. The applicant must bear the burden of the increased maintenance demands and erotioti o f dust that it will cause on these gravel roads. Those burdens should not be borne by the neighboring residents or a local improvement district comprised in part of existing residents. 'Alternative haul routes;including the acquisition of new right-of,-way, should be eveluatocl in the application. • 2t iL&pedpneg. 'There is no apparent compliance with Section 44.1.6, prior experience of the applicant with similar mining operations. This is especially important where the applicant here proposes to open a mine of 830 acres in size for a period of over 100 years. • • pelailed DPicri lin.n!'lgnls zs. The application does not comply with 44.1.1 h19ofar • • as a detailed description of the methods of operation is required. The concrete batch . • plant, asphalt'plant, concrete casting facility, concrete/asphalt recyling plant and • maintenance facility tire not described in any "detailed"way. The impacts of those facilities are left for the reeler to guess. We do not know their size, the particular omiras'ions for•them, if permit applications have been submitted for them, or the noise • . . Ravels ussoeiated with each one. The application's noise report at Page 26 is limited to • various pieces of mining equipment. fro"\ 1.4;Gn lk':fMOVV W.4f1.wy Flmr.M.+a rttf-Ub-euu1 nuN J4:aa ;11 FAX NO, P. 04 • Re +t utiwll• The application does not include it permit from the Mined Land Reclamation Beard, or an approved reclamation plan from that agency or proof of posting of an adequate bond, In this absence of those materials, it is impossible for the Planning ('otnrnission to ensure that the public health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of Wcld't'otinty can he assured: in violation of 44,1.7.10. The omission of this information violates 44.1.7.7.9. , . ' , Water. 'f he application gives almost no specific information about impacts on groundwater or surface water, it does not include documentation as to the water rights , permits,for the pits which will be created, notwithstanding the admission in the application that such permits must be acquired prior to mining. There is no specific infortation about the steps Which will be, taken to prevent adverse impacts to the water rights or water quality of the nearby landowners. Most of these landowners have domestic water wells which"may be affected in quantity or quality by this large mining ' operation: there is nal su fficicnt detail in the application nor is there assurance by means ' of permits front the stale agencies with expertise to guarantee that neighbors will not be adversely affected by the excavation arid its contact with ground and surface water. The direction of groundwater flow is not provided. , y' ' Wildlife. The application mentions having made a contact with the Colorado Division of Wildlife regarding a site.specific'wildlife study. No wildlife study is contained in the application;however, and there is no astir antic That one will he completed. There is no disclosure of the specific species of wildlife which use the affected area and, therefore, no discussion of the impacts that the operation will have upon the particular species there. ,1 here is no disclosure or investigation of whether the'arca is used by threatened or endangered species protested by either the State of Colorado or the. United States. Some • of the adjacent residents have observed wasting bald eagles on the proposed site or immediately adjacent to it. A conclusory statement that the "reclamation plan will better ' serve the wildlife using; the property'"" (Application at 4) is not supported by any specific information and makes nci provision for pretcction of wildlife during the 100-plus year ,.term of the permit ' AiMairijs, ,11w application states that a consultant has been retained to prepare a "preliminary wetlands study for the property. We do not anticipate any wetland problems for this'site, (Application at 5.) lids type of eonclusory statement does not give Weld County the &pc and quality'of intonnation needed to ascertain whether the proposed operation will be consistent with the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Weld County. Suction 24.1.1. The application tails to include any information about whether he site includes any "jurisdictional wetlands" as defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Anny.Corps ofrngincers: Further, the application contains no site , specific information about the vegetation at thi$ site. Wetlands are characterized by very ' parricidal.species of Vegetation and a consistent degree of soil saturation. There is no . P L%;w.1 a.YnW NWC;'nunp Pl.nnmy,r;a! �� rtb-U0-zuut nut 04. J1ma no. �n r. • • information in the application which indicutes that the applicant is aware of either of these ehtuneteristics: Wetlands play an important role in presevine the quality of water by the ftltnititnt perfortiwd by wetlands soils and 'vegetation. This proposal will disturb up to $(10 acres of land, all of which is conceded to be within the Platte River flood plain, and • which sliuuld be presumptively treated as wetlands. Therefore, an advent impact on water quality should be presumed in the absence of a'detailed demonstration that no such • w3tlandr, impacts will be caused. ' • Beferr souse. We notc that certain wildlife and environmental agencies may have received letters of referral from the County with respect to this application. However, we would note that the referral letters and responses arc not the equivalent of the kind of analysitt which the referral agencies must give to a permit application by the applicant, nor has the upplicant proven that permits such as a dredge and fill permit for operations in wetlands is nut here required. The applicant only makes conclusory statements to that ' effect,.without support and without regard for the locution of this:project in the South Platte River 100-yctir flood plain. Wok!County is not required by its zoning ordinance to ; treat non responses to reform' letters us ouncfusive. Here, the County should withhold its • petty it Until it receives proof of receipt ofall uecesaery permits by the applicant. )ld luting Inndt. The application makes a conclu;ory statement that these "operations • will have little affect on these surrounding uses." 'Ibis statement is inconsistent with the finding Cif the Town of Platteville that the proposal is inconsistent with its Comprehensive Man: It is a 1sn6inconsistent with Section 24.7.1.3 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, which i'e&uires the applicant to show that permitted uses would be compatible with surrounding hind uses. riot simply to stttr.ihat as a conclusion: • • ?`liijae,''fheeriplication does not conform with 24.6.1.1 or the County Comprehensive Hen hi, that it does not demonstrate that the uses consisting of five industrial facilities and more thati 206'vehtele trips Per day,'as well as the use of other dredging and excavating rnachines 'vill comply with the noise standards in C.R.S. § 25-12--101, et seq. The"noise .report" which eimsists of two-thirds of one page(huge 25 of the application) is highly . deficient:;It does not include the noise which will be generated by the five industrial • tncjllheti ill the site. .It does not account fir the numbers of'Mobile noise sources listed in outsory,fashion at page 25, It does not describe in detail any of the mitigation measures or,other noise reduction technology which is available and should be required in order to .protect the health, safety and welfare of Weld County residents. It does not account for the numbers of,vcltictcs which will enter and leave the site multiple times each day to • haul nmttiri l to and from the site, as well rut to transport workers to and from the site, The noise plan makes no attempt to show oompliancawith the Colorado Noise Statute or the Wc4d County Comprehensive Plan ut 5-2 -•5-3, 4 • P'd I Pn\ymRo wan tbiWH“Mw,nl+'PI FEB-05-2001 NON 04:32 PM FAX N0. P, 06 • ,Lisr utiljty., The applivation is deficient in that it does not demonstrate that the operation of tha uses for which a permil is sought will comply with the'air quality regulations of the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission. This violates Weld County Zoning Ordinance 24.6.1.2;which requires a demmstration of said compliance, Systajjfluality. The application does not contain sufficient information to comply with 24,6.1,3,which requires a showing of compliance with the water quality regulations of 'the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission. There is no citation to those water quality regulations, only a one-sentence mention on page 8 that water quality laws will be followed. • Hued lfaisttrth,.'The application concedes that the proposed site is within the 100 year tlnod phcni see application at 7. By definition, those lands within the 100 year flood plain arc within the Weld County Flood Hazard Overlay District,although the application erroneously states that no records were found indicating that this area is in the flood prone or flood way districts. Application al 8. Therefore, the application is deficient and does not provide sufficient information to prove compliance with the Weld County Ordinance 53. In particular, there is no discussion of how the five industrial plants, some with multiple buildings, and the many materials stockpiles within the flood plain will not interfere with the passage of floods and accommodation of flood flows as is required by, inrcr cilia, 53.2.10.3, bLJ t d Stonnwt'utet Permits. The application references a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES),,,ermit and storm water permit"that is now required bylaw.",Application at 1E. however, the applicant has not obtained either permit and at a different point in the application (at page 3) indicates that there may be water'diseltarged from the pit and that"we will obtain the necessary discharge permit prior to discharging water, The application is inconsistent about the need for a timetable H ' for obtaining the requisite permits and,therefore, has not demonstrated to the Planning Cornmissign that there: is adequate protection of water resources as required by the County Comprehensive Plan at 5-1. Industrial, iii FDevelopment,' The special use permit process contains specific reference to asphalt and concrete batch plants at 31,4.1 hut does not specifically mention concrete casting facilities or concretefasphalt recycling plants. The application does not ' specifically describe the latter facilities ur'stafe whether they arc in compliance with all appliL ehle zoning requirements, The existence of industrial facilities which will require stale and federal permit$, regarding noise and air pollution at a minimum brings the application within the definition of"urban development"contained in the Interim Coordinated Planning Agreement, Section 2.4. Consistent with the agreement,proposals for urban development in the Platteville Planning Area outside of the Urban Growth Area should be disappruved. .Accordingly, the applicant has not'provcn that the industrial �� Y..11in pal z. a,r w rid rb,nry Pbanmµ,.p! rco-uu-cuul zlvn UM',PC flI rM .W, . f u' facilities it proposes,which are not specifically described at present within the County Zoning Ordinance definition of mineral ruaource development facilities, can be approved, For all of the above reasons, we ask the Planning Commission to deny the application. • • Ed and Linda Printz Ield County Planning Dept 17921 Weld County Road 25 Platteville, Colorado 80651 REcE February 6, 2001 I) RE: USR#1306, Platte Sand and Gravel, LLC Mr. Kim Ogle, Planner Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Mr. Ogle: Our family has lived in the Platteville-Gilcrest community since 1977 and live in close proximity to the proposed gravel mining operation. We have read the Use By Special Review (Mining Operation) Application as proposed by Platte Sand and Gravel, LLC and believe the proposed operation is not in adequate compliance with Weld County Zoning Ordinances. On the surface the proposal presents many inconsistent facts and leaves many questions unanswered. The proposal does not appear to be a complete, well thought out business venture, but leads us to believe they intend to obtain County approval and then will "grow into a business" at the expense of the existing community. The reality is this proposed gravel mine is a large commercial industrial operation that does not fit into the existing community. The community is based upon traditional, irrigated agriculture. Within the past fifteen years the increased oil and gas drilling and production activity and the general increase of the surrounding population has placed a burden on the roads and hiways. We routinely _-- observe large trucks traveling at excessive speeds of 50 to 60 miles per hour on he gravel roads past our house, and in addition, observe the trucks passing through stop-sign protected intersections at these speeds without even attempting to stop. During the prevalent dry months, the dust from the now existing truck and car traffic is so dense that it often takes 3 to 5 minutes for the visibility to clear to 100 yards. We have a great concern for the safety for the residents of the community, but especially for the school children that ride buses or drive cars. We have in the past, contacted the Colorado State Patrol regarding certain habitual traffic offenders, but the existing problem is now largely uncontrollable and with the added truck and pickup traffic from the proposed gravel operation it will be totally uncontrollable. es- EXHIBIT I In addition, as farmers, we realize the value of the very limited water supply and strongly question the impact of the gravel mine on water resources. The proposal fails to quantify the impact of the operation on water supplies, let alone propose a plan to mitigate losses. Finally, the proposed operation would have significant negative and far reaching impact on surrounding residents and current land uses. Our homes and real estate are typically the largest financial investment of the majority of the community residents. With the proposed gravel mine the decreased property values, and just as importantly, the decrease in quality of community living would be dramatic. Please give careful and full consideration to the proposed application. Respectfully, Ed and Linda Printz Hello