HomeMy WebLinkAbout20011590.tiff HEARING CERTIFICATION
DOCKET NO. 2001-40
RE: SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT#1324
FOR AN ASPHALT AND CONCRETE BATCH FACILITY IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL)
ZONE DISTRICT -ASPHALT SPECIALTIES COMPANY, INC.
A public hearing was conducted on July 11, 2001, at 10:00 a.m., with the following present:
Commissioner M. J. Geile, Chair
Commissioner Glenn Vaad, Pro-Tem
Commissioner William Jerke
Commissioner David Long
Commissioner Robert Masden
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Carol Harding
Assistant County Attorney, Lee Morrison
Planning Department representative, Chris Gathman
Health Department representative, Char Davis
Public Works representative, Don Carroll
The following business was transacted:
I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated June 15, 2001, and duly published June 20, 2001,
in the Tri-Town Farmer and Miner, a public hearing was conducted to consider the request of
Asphalt Specialties Company, Inc., for a Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special
Review Permit #1324 for an Asphalt and Concrete Batch Facility in the A (Agricultural) Zone
District. Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney, made this a matter of record. Chris Gathman,
Department of Planning Services, presented a brief summary of the proposal and entered the
favorable recommendation of the Planning Commission into the record as written. Mr. Gathman
stated the site is located directly east of Weld County Road 27 and,of 15 referrals,nine responded.
He reviewed the reasons for approval and stated the Planning Commission is requiring fencing and
screening to mitigate impacts, especially to the residences on the north side of the facility. He
stated the surrounding uses include a grain storage and processing facility to the north, farmland
to the south, cropland and a residence to the east and cropland and a single family residence to
the west. Mr. Gathman stated the site is within one-half mile of State Highway 85, and screening
will be completed with six-foot berms and landscaping with several trees along the berms. He said
a referral response was received from the City of Fort Lupton suggesting the addition of a Condition
of Approval to address concerns dealing with traffic on Weld County Road 27, which turns into
Denver Avenue in Fort Lupton. Mr. Gathman stated the proposed haul route is south on Weld
County Road 27,west on Weld County Road 6, and then onto Highway 85. He further stated the
site consists of prime farmland; however, the applicant is only proposing to develop 14 acres out
of 18 which is already separated from the rest of the property by the Union Pacific Railroad; the
remainder of the 80 acres will remain in crop. Mr. Gathman stated the Planning Commission
recommends approval with Conditions of Approval and Development Standards, and Department
of Planning Services staff has recommended the addition of Conditions of Approval#3.N and#3.O
stating, "The applicant shall attempt to address the concerns of the City of Fort Lupton in the
referral response received April 18, 2001," and "The applicant shall attempt to address the
concerns of the West Adams Soil Conservation District in the referral response received April 20,
2001." Responding to Commissioners Vaad,and Chair Geile, Mr. Gathman stated the berms have
2001-1590
PL1532
HEARING CERTIFICATION -ASPHALT SPECIALTIES COMPANY, INC. (USR#1324)
PAGE 2
been added since the site plan stage; and the Section of the Comprehensive Plan which instructs
the Board to promote mineral resources applies to sand and gravel development,as well as oil and
gas. Mr. Gathman further responded that the City of Brighton did not respond to the referral, and
staff was unsuccessful in attempts to contact City officials.
Don Carroll,Department of Public Works,stated Weld County Road 8,which is the north boundary,
has an average daily traffic count of 1,100 and Weld County Road 6, the southern boundary,
counts 210. Drew Scheltinga, Department of Public Works,stated staff received an in-depth traffic
study which staff reviewed and concurs with. The study found the impact will mean an additional
320 heavy truck trips and 40 additional car trips, and it included the intersections of Weld County
Road 6, and Highway 85, as well as Weld County Roads 27 and 6. Mr. Scheltinga stated he has
met with the applicants,who agree to the requirement of a haul route which will be south on Weld
County Road 27 to Weld County Road 6, then on Weld County Road 6 west to Highway 85. He
stated there is a signal in the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT)plan for a traffic light
in approximately two years; until improvements are made at the intersection of Weld County
Roads 6 and 27, trucks will not be able to make turns and stay in the traffic lane; there are some
immediate requirements at Highway 85, such as a left turn lane, and an additional left turn slot on
Highway 85 onto Weld County Road 6;there will be a 27 percent increase in traffic on Weld County
Road 27,which will require a maintenance agreement;and some type of improvement is necessary
on Weld County Road 6 which will not support that type of truck traffic. Responding to Chair Geile,
Mr.Scheltinga stated the applicant is hauling materials to the site which is included in the additional
320 truck traffic figure. Char Davis, Department of Public Health and Environment,stated staff has
no concerns at this time. Responding to Commissioner Masden, Mr. Scheltinga stated the traffic
signal will be installed in 2002.
Dan Hunt, President of Asphalt Specialties Company, Inc., stated this is a small family-owned
business which is expanding into southern Weld County and,although it is not a popular business,
it is a necessary one.
Paul Banks, Banks and Gesso, LLC, represented the applicant and stated they submitted an
application on Weld County Road 20.5 in southwest Weld County,which was processed last year;
however, when they received a negative staff report, they withdrew their application. Staff asked
the applicant to find a property with more appropriate uses in the area, which would be more
compatible. This site was chosen because of the Union Pacific Railroad,feedlots on two sides,and
Haliburton, Inc., being located in the area. This is an 80-acre parcel with 18 acres split off by the
railroad. He said the residence and crop land will remain as it presently is, and the haul route is
absolutely agreed upon. Mr. Banks indicated the applicant will be using only 14 of 67 acres,which
is not in either the Brighton or Fort Lupton future growth areas, and no Intergovernmental
Agreements apply to the site. Mr. Banks discussed the site impacts and reiterated the designated
haul route is agreed upon, as well as all improvements, including turn lanes at Weld County
Road 27 and Highway 85 and widening of turn lanes at Weld County Roads 27 and 6. He stated
this type of business operates 200 or 225 days per year, not 365; the traffic study requires a
maximum number of truck trips, and shows 160 trucks entering and 160 trucks leaving during the
day, during the paving season; control of dust emissions is included on trucks; the applicant will
also submit a Dust Abatement Plan; and,within a few hundred feet,there are 55 decibels of noise
from the operation. Mr. Banks explained the odor is minimal since the asphalt is not exposed to
the open air. The material is brought to the site in a closed tanker, piped to a mixer drum which
is enclosed, where the exhaust is emitted as steam, piped into trucks, and taken to the job site.
2001-1590
PL1532
HEARING CERTIFICATION -ASPHALT SPECIALTIES COMPANY, INC. (USR#1324)
PAGE 3
He reiterated that, except for filtered exhaust, no asphalt material is exposed to the air,and stated
the applicant agrees with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards.
Responding to Commissioners Vaad and Jerke, Mr. Hunt stated the range of market from the site
is typically a 20 to 25 mile radius, his aggregate sources are on the Boulder County line, as well
as several sites throughout Weld County, and his own company hauls it in, with some contracted
trucks also hauling it in. He also responded the plants are not placed at the gravel pits because
those are usually along the river and in sites not appropriate for this type of operation, as well as
the fact that sand and gravel pits are generally temporary, and this is a permanent operation.
Responding to Chair Geile, Mr. Hunt stated he is willing to discuss funding of the traffic light at
Weld County Road 6 and Highway 85 with CDOT, although if this is approved, it would help
accelerate the process, and he cannot commit to that without first knowing the costs, and he
pointed out that the maximum traffic will not be present until full build out in four or five years.
Responding to further questions from the Board, Mr. Hunt stated there are no other asphalt or
concrete producers in this vicinity, which is part of the reason they picked the site. He said there
are locations in Henderson, Longmont,and Greeley;he proposed driver training for his own drivers
and contracted drivers, to understand there are slow moving farm vehicles, and to educate all
drivers that enter and leave site.
Responding to Chair Geile, Mr.Gathman stated the Planning Commission originally looked at 6:00
a.m. to 10:00 p.m. as hours of operation; however, the standard in the Weld County Code for
gravel pit, and other similar types of operations specifies daylight hours, except in emergency
situations and government contracts. Mr. Hunt stated daylight hours is agreeable, he also
responded to Commissioner Jerke that at full build out,there will be 20 to 30 full-time jobs,although
most economic gain results from the product being produced. Responding to Commissioner
Masden regarding bufferring, Mr. Hunt stated they will berm and fence as appropriate to the south,
north, and west.
Brian Funderburk,Administrator of Fort Lupton,stated the Planning Commission referral is part of
the record ,and the City Council has the same concerns as those listed. He stated the Council still
has grave concerns with traffic, even with the proposed haul route. He stated the area between
Fort Lupton and Brighton is becoming more industrialized,with heavy traffic,especially in the early
morning,which will be compounded by this proposal. He stated the Weld County Code states the
proposed project should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,and contribute to agricultural
purposes that will contribute to the continuation of agricultural uses; however, with the trucks in
conflict with the slow-moving agricultural equipment and trucks, it does not appear to be something
that can be abated. The City Council urges tearful consideration and the addition of a Condition of
Approval that the asphalt plant cannot operate until the improvements on Weld County Road 6 and
Highway 85 are made. Responding to Commissioner Vaad,Mr. Funderburk stated Fort Lupton and
private developers in Fort Lupton get asphalt from Henderson, from this company. In further
discussion, Mr. Funderburk stated the speed limit is 40 miles per hour on Weld County Road 27
and the proposed route is the only one that makes sense; however, the improvements are
necessary before the traffic is impacted.
Bill Wallace, Fort Lupton City Attorney, stated he is also a member of the Chamber of Commerce
who met yesterday and he is representing the Chamber. He stated all entities along Highway 85
have worked on the access agreement to keep it a safe and practical highway for the benefit of
citizens of Weld County, and impacting Highway 85 in a negative way is wrong. He stated these
2001-1590
PL1532
HEARING CERTIFICATION -ASPHALT SPECIALTIES COMPANY, INC. (USR#1324)
PAGE 4
issues were discussed in the meetings, and there is already more truck traffic on Highway 85 than
can be safely handled. The access committee was trying to keep Highway 85 viable for all the
towns along its route, and adding this kind of traffic hurts that viability. He also stated it would be
difficult to enforce the haul route, and the Police Department should not have to verify whether
traffic comes from that facility. Responding to Chair Geile, Mr. Wallace state the Fort Lupton
Chamber of Commerce officially opposes this proposal.
Floyd Acre, resident of Fort Lupton, stated he is opposed to this request. He stated most people
in Fort Lupton do not know the road by Weld County Road 27, but by old Highway 85; it is the only
road south from Brighton to Fort Lupton; it is one of the heaviest County roads traveled in Weld
County and it already has heavy traffic on it; school buses have to use this road; the site is within
100 yards of a cattle feeding operation with over 1,000 head of cattle,which requires hauling feed
and hay in and hauling cattle in and out; Haliburton Oil Company is within 300 yards of the site with
many vehicles moving on this road;and BJ Services also has numerous trucks and pickups on this
road. Mr. Acre stated there is vegetable farming to the south and the north, with farming
equipment,farming vehicles,and hundreds of people working in the fields,and it is the easiest way
to get out of Fort Lupton. He also stated the Board of County Commissioners have already
approved three sand and gravel pits on the west side of Highway 85, down by the river, which is
going to require a signal light to get across from the gravel pits, and stated he is concemed about
environmental problems, and that regardless of berms, there will be odor, accidents, dumping
problems, and safety regulation violations. Responding to Commissioner Vaad, Mr. Acre stated
he counted trucks one day while traveling from Brighton to the flea market for one-half hour, and
there were150 to 180 trucks, most of which were gravel trucks going in and coming out.
Joe Hubert, area resident, stated sometimes traffic is heavier on Weld County Road 27 than on
Highway 85, and there are 57 residences on Weld County Road 27, going one mile north and one
mile south of the site; there are also a trailer park with 60 spaces which is east on Weld County
Road 6. He further stated the zoning should be agricultural residential,instead of agricultural;there
will be a downturn on property values; the project will affect the lifestyle of everyone living in the
area; traffic will increase tremendously, and have conflict with slow moving vehicles; enforcement
of the haul route creates a problem;and dust,which is already a problem from a feedlot in the area,
will worsen. Mr. Hubert stated the area supports a different kind of agriculture than most
understand, being a vegetable-growing community; therefore, it is very labor intensive, with as
many as 40 migrants in the fields at one time,which is different from most agricultural applications.
Mr. Hubert submitted a residence map with red dots denoting residences in the area, marked as
Exhibit CC.
S. David Norcross, stated he is Mayor Pro-Tem of Fort Lupton, and he submitted maps showing
sand and gravel mining operations and cement and asphalt batch plants, in two parts marked as
Exhibit EE, and stated several other projects have been approved in the area. Mr. Norcross stated
delays should be expected on the signal light project and we need to preserve the beauty of the
community.
Jane Sasaki submitted a petition signed by 475 opposed to this project, marked Exhibit FF, and
stated she agrees with Floyd Acre. She also stated the mobile home park has 260 residents and
approximately 120 cars on a daily basis. She said there are three buses of school kids, and it has
to be dangerous with that many school kids being transported. She urged the Board to carefully
consider the safety and protection of life of those children in the area.
2001-1590
PL1532
HEARING CERTIFICATION -ASPHALT SPECIALTIES COMPANY, INC. (USR#1324)
PAGE 5
Gene Watada discussed the number of cars and trucks currently on the road and said there is not
enough right-of-way to widen; the dust is already a problem; diesel fumes are nauseating; and
berming is ineffective against dust. Mr. Watada stated this is an agricultural community, relying
heavily on hand labor.
Dorothy Janich stated the application shows potable water is required for drinking,but the applicant
is using wells for industrial purposes, but questioned the effect to the water table, and whether the
Water Court would change the use from agricultural to industrial. She also questioned why the
applicant requested a waiver of the noise report and stated she agrees with the previous speakers
about the safety of trucks. Ms. Janich also questioned whether the sign noticing this hearing was
properly posted,and Mr. Morrison requested certification of sign posting be presented for inclusion
in the record before the hearing is over.
Bruce Murry questioned the plans for disposal of contaminated water and what provision has been
given in the haul route for crossing Highway 85.
Sgt. (inaudible), Colorado State Patrol, stated officially the State Patrol is neutral on this matter;
however, he looked at the accident statistics for the unincorporated stretches of Highway 85
between Weld County Road 2 and Highway 52,from July 1,2000 to June 30,2001,and had a total
of 105 accidents, 55 of which were property damage, 49 which were injury crashes, and 1 which
was a fatality about a month ago which involved a turning truck. For the same time period,on Weld
County Road 27 from Brighton to Fort Lupton, there were a total of 20 crashes, 9 of which were
property damage, and 11 which were injury crashes; all of which reiterates the proposed
improvements should be in place before the plant goes into operation.
Joe Sasaki, who farms in the area, stated a number of farmers who were unable to attend asked
him to speak for them. He stated there are many, many trucks and school kids on the road; many
acres are being farmed; many businesses are in the area; and the way of life of farmers who work
in the area will be impacted by the truck traffic. Mr. Sasaki stated that with 320 trucks per day,
there will be a truck pass by every eight minutes. (Clerk's note - Rest of testimony not properly
recorded due to equipment problems.)
Joyce Hewitt stated she is opposed to this project and appalled that the Board might consider
approval. She recently built a new home to retire in and is experiencing problems with odor, dust,
noise, and all those nuisances which have previously been mentioned.
Bernice Dersham,Charles Spain,and Dick Stalks,all stated they are opposed to the project. Chair
Geile recessed the hearing for lunch.
Upon reconvening at 1:25 p.m., Lawrence Haas, Boulder resident, who is a co-owner of a farm in
the area, stated Mr. Watada farms his land along with the parcels to the west and south. He
stated when he was considering the sale of the farm, he wanted the purchaser to use the railroad;
however, he is in favor of the application. He clarified for Chair Geile that the real estate contract
is contingent upon the application being approved.
Tom Yokooji, son of and speaking for Frank and Mary Yokooji, who have been residents for 57
years, stated they first leased and now own their own farm, although they see this project as a
curtailment of their dream. He stated he is in agreement with all the safety issues which have been
2001-1590
PL1532
HEARING CERTIFICATION -ASPHALT SPECIALTIES COMPANY, INC. (USR#1324)
PAGE 6
expressed. Mr.Yokooji stated his parent's residence accesses onto Weld County Road 6;they are
concerned with safety involving access into the trailer court; safety concerns regarding the three
school buses which load and unload each without bus lanes; and needed improvements to Weld
County Road 6.
Stephen Branwcci discussed the safety of his 45 employees, and stated the increased traffic on
Highway 85 has pushed more traffic to Weld County Road 27. Responding to Commissioner Vaad,
Mr. Branwcci stated the western line of his property, along the Highway, is zoned Industrial, and
he has workers on the property from April first through the 3rd week of June,then again for harvest
in September and some in October. He stated ten of his employees live on Weld County Road 6
and ten live on Weld County Road 27 in labor houses.
Summer Everson, editor of the Fort Lupton Press, stated last night, no sign was posted and she
submitted several pictures and press clippings, marked Exhibits GG through JJ. She said the road
is a two lane road with no acceleration or deceleration lanes and a lot of youthful, inexperienced
drivers. She reiterated there is no shoulder on the road and it cannot be widened. Ms. Everson
stated the picture of the fatality which occurred earlier this year demonstrates that the drivers in the
large trucks are not the ones paying for their mistakes. Responding to Chair Geile, Ms. Everson
stated she is not representing the newspaper,just giving her personal concerns.
Gene Watada stated on the west side of Weld County Road 6 this morning,there were six to eight
trucks blocking it even before this plant is open.
Chair Geile closed public testimony.
Commissioner Vaad stated he had asked Planning staff to prepare an exhibit showing other sites
approved in this area, and Mr. Gathman pointed out asphalt and concrete batch plants, as well as
sand an gravel mining operations; however, he stated his map is at least several years old. Mr.
Gathman said he can prepare the additional information, but not in the time allowed. Chair Geile
reopened public testimony and Joe Hubert stated he drives by the property every day and has seen
the For Sale sign; however, no notice of hearing was seen. Floyd Acre and Gene Watada gave
further information about other projects approved in the area.
Margaret Spain stated she is opposed to the project, and Louis Seltzer of Brighton discussed the
impact on businesses in Brighton and Fort Lupton.
Joe Sasaki stated there are also 300 other employees driving down Weld County Road 8 to
Hudson, 300 park on Weld County Road 8, and that the roads will not handle the additional traffic,
especially during harvest time. Dex Statson stated the problem can only be understood by
residents in the area. Chair Geile again closed public testimony.
Mr. Banks stated the proposal is compatible with surrounding land uses and specified the Union
Pacific Railroad, Haliburton Oil Company, and several feedlots. He stated there was testimony
given about other approved growth in the area, and although Weld County Road 27 caused a lot
of testimony, the haul route only uses one-quarter mile, then three-quarters of a mile of Weld
County Road 6. Mr. Banks also asked the Board to consider the months of planning, site plan
work, and the effort and money already expended to make this the best site plan.
2001-1590
PL1532
HEARING CERTIFICATION -ASPHALT SPECIALTIES COMPANY, INC. (USR#1324)
PAGE 7
Mr. Hunt stated the industry is not living up to its commitments; however, he will stick with any
commitments that are made, and if a haul route is established, he will ensure it is followed. Mr.
Hunt said they looked at numerous sites but felt this was most compatible with surrounding land
uses,and the closest asphalt plants to Ft. Lupton are the company sites in Henderson, Del Camino
or Greeley. He said there is a lot of sand and gravel up and down the river, and the biggest
concern seems to be traffic. Mr. Hunt reiterated the 320 truck count is the maximum increase;
therefore, the count would not go higher for the life of this facility without reappearing before the
Board of County Commissioners, and it will take three or four years to get to that maximum. He
said the applicant can limit the amount of traffic to half, or 160 trips until the signal improvements
are done at Weld County Road 6 and Highway 85. Responding to Commissioners Long and Jerke,
Mr. Hunt stated the railroad fits into a longer term plan, and it will not be used in this application;
and that he is not using irrigation water rights for this facility, he has a new well permit, and the
asphalt plant uses very little water. Mr. Hunt stated the State water engineer granted the well
without requiring him to turn back any water rights;and the applicant has a lease on the remaining
farmland and it will be irrigated. Responding to Chair Geile, Mr. Hunt stated that in regard to weight
limits,they are bound by CDOT regulations and, since a lot of business is to State contracts, they
do not get paid if they are overweight. Responding to further questions from the Board, Mr. Hunt
stated they will be in operation no later than next spring, although they may try for a bit earlier.
Responding to Commissioner Masden, he stated he has made a concession to cut traffic in half
until the signal light is installed; however,this is a substantial investment and hard to agree to wait
without knowing when CDOT will install the light. He stated they will try to mitigate the impact by
cutting truck traffic down and seeing if the project can be pushed along.
Responding to Commissioner Jerke, Mr.Gathman stated referrals were received from Fort Lupton
and the Adams County Soil Conservation District after the Planning Commission Hearing, and are
marked as Exhibits E and N, and Mr. Scheltinga stated the intersection at Weld County Roads 6
and 27 was scheduled for design next year and construction the following year. He said he would
not delay this project to wait for that; especially southbound on Weld County Road 27 going west
on Weld County Road 6 would have to be done now. Mr. Scheltinga also responded that if
approved today, the project could be expedited at the Board's direction; however, there are
restrictions about intersection projects,such as arranging for the relocation of existing facilities for
utilities, irrigation, etc. Mr. Scheltinga said it would be possible to do Weld County Road 6,
depending on the location of utilities, irrigation structures, and rights-of-way.
Responding to Commissioner Masden, Ms. Davis stated the emissions are regulated through the
State with an air pollution emissions permit; Condition of Approval#2.L requires a Waste Handling
Plan, and an annual inspection is required for the air pollution permit. Responding to Chair Geile,
Mr. Barker noted staffs certification states the sign was posted on July 1, 2001, although Mr.
Gathman stated he actually posted the sign on June 28, 2001 around 12:30 p.m. and he showed
the spot where it was posted on the site plan.
Responding to Chair Geile,Mr. Gathman stated staff has requested addition of two new Conditions
of Approval, as #3.N and #3.O, with renumbering as appropriate. Chair Geile summarized his
concerns as access onto Highway 85 from Weld County Road 6 without the signal lights being
installed, since CDOT projects are not always done in a timely manner,there is no assurance this
will be done in the near future; the project is not consistent with agricultural uses although weight
limits have been dealt with,the evolution of Weld County Road 27,which is the old Highway 85 and
the entire area, has been towards vegetable farming, which requires moving produce on a six or
2001-1590
PL1532
HEARING CERTIFICATION -ASPHALT SPECIALTIES COMPANY, INC. (USR#1324)
PAGE 8
seven month basis; there are no concerns with wells; pursuant to Agricultural Goal A.6, the only
way that transformation will occur is if improvements on Weld County Road 27 and the signalization
on Highway 85 and Weld County Road 6 are completed; pursuant to Agricultural Goal A.7, this
project will cause a hindrance to the operation efficiency of agriculture in the area; requirements
of Public Facilities and Service Goals and Policies Goal P.2 requiring availability of adequate
facilities and services are not met, therefore, there is a very definite concern to the health, safety
and welfare of the citizens in the area; and requirements of Section 22-3-60, which is intended to
provide for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods through the County, will not be
met until there is signalization at the Highway access point.
Commissioner Masden stated he has major concems regarding the traffic issue, which is why he
asked the applicant to change or consider coinciding the signalization with the opening of his
facility; however, the applicant's response of cutting the expected truck traffic in half would still put
80 truck trips each way into the same area. Other than the major concern regarding traffic,
Commissioner Masden stated his concerns regarding dust, emissions, and berming have all been
addressed.
Commissioner Jerke stated he also has concerns regarding the transportation issues,although he
is not persuaded this project would ruin agriculture in southem Weld County. He stated he lives
on a very busy County road with much truck traffic, and agriculture remains king. Commissioner
Jerke stated the key argument is whether the proper safety can be provided at the intersections
of Weld County Roads 27 and 6 and Weld County Road 6 and Highway 85. Since the intersection
at Weld County Roads 27 and 6 is a County project,Commissioner Jerke stated he would be open
to working with the applicant; however, knowing we cannot lead CDOT around by the nose, and
knowing how difficult it is to make a left tum onto a highway with a truck, his concerns remain.
Commissioner Long stated he would echo the same comments, but add also that southern Weld
County has more accidents involving trucks than any other County in the State, therefore, the
transportation items are the main concern, especially with the untimeliness of CDOT.
Commissioner Jerke stated he and Commissioner Long will be going to a seminar concerning the
conflicts of gravel, oil and gas, water, and all these resources, and how the people of south Weld
County are not targets, but are simply where the resources are, where the highways are, where
the rivers flow, and where the population is converging.
Commissioner Vaad stated the request is not in compliance with Section 22-5-80.B.1, specifically
to promote the orderly development of mineral resources; Section 23-2-230.B.3 that the uses
permitted will be compatible with the surrounding land uses, although the applicant made a valid
effort to show compatibility; and Section 23-2-230.B.4 that the uses would be compatible with the
future development of the surrounding area; therefore he moved to deny the request of Asphalt
Specialties Company, Inc.,for a Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit
#1324 for an Asphalt and Concrete Batch Facility in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner Masden. Commissioner Vaad stated this is has been one of the
most difficult decisions to make, particularly as it regards protecting private property rights;
however, there is a lack of compatibility as evidenced by the testimony that has been given,
although he is not convinced private property rights have been protected in this case.
Commissioner Vaad also stated that if anyone giving testimony in this case will think about it, they
might agree that their private property rights would have been affected by approval of this request.
2001-1590
PL1532
HEARING CERTIFICATION -ASPHALT SPECIALTIES COMPANY, INC. (USR#1324)
PAGE 9
He also stated the Board of Commissioners has to look at numbers, and he understands Weld
County Road 27 is in bad condition because of the traffic, and, although he does not feel it would
double,there would definitely be an increase. He stated none of these things are insurmountable,
all of them could be solved; however, it will take money, some of which could come from the
applicant; therefore, transportation issues did not weigh heavily in his decision. Commissioner
Vaad further stated that he does find there is a lack of compatibility, and he does not feel private
property rights have been protected and the people in the area do not want change.
Chair Geile reiterated he will support the motion to deny, based on Section 23-2-230.B.2 and 4, of
the Weld County Code,as well as Section 22-2-60.F.1,which requires public facilities and services
such as sewer,water, roads, schools and fire and police protection to be provided and developed
in a timely,orderly and efficient manner,and Section 22-3-50 concerning public facility and service
goals and policies. On a call for the vote, the motion carried unanimously.
This Certification was approved on the 16th day of July 2001.
APPROVED:
BOARD OF C NTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD CO , COLORADO
A �J In�'�
ATTEST: gisk' / 4' .LA,
"" eile, Chair
Weld County Clerk tot �B._ .vu o I`
Glenn Vaad, ro-Te
BY: .
Deputy Clerk to the `( W itH,Jerke
TAPE#2001-28 and 29. e 6
avi E. Long
DOCKET#2001-40 (�
bed D. Masden
2001-1590
PL1532
Cl ATTENDANCE RECORD
HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS ON THIS 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2001:
DOCKET#2001-40 -ASPHALT SPECIALTIES COMPANY, INC.
DOCKET#2001-41 - LIZ BLASIO
DOCKET#2001-42 - BRIAN AND KATHY WILLIAMSON
PLEASE legibly write or print your name and complete address and the DOCKET#
(as listed above) or the name of the applicant of the hearing you are attending.
NAME AND ADDR SS�(//Plea a include Cit�y(and�Zip Code)DOCKET#/OFOO'�HE��ARING ATTENDING
J ht J /0141{2 r° 40,1
g,t,t,, A,,2 Ai f V k vj
/ ,I7 , e22 /c'c✓a7 FC6 a (
' a / - :u v 4 /A &2 �'. / 2 /
glun Qvu/ Wcloi /3 co Z /.IC 2 Q f rhop70A) /N J�,�
Joel-4'o /Gf/U� 0175e .0'.' 1Z55G 117CQ K fr-I lupkl n/ fi()6a)
�,- X E-d4et,;ya II5l s GUCv 4/So'LC-iC/<3,'d 4., .fY/ZC. Az k046
Owe. , Stteb&r MCC WCf2 49 Ft-ALGA, god 2- I
So rnrr\et Iveescn I5 Al LJca,oo„ Ul\r \ 9t. 'g''lu' . (am, 806oIS
S _Oath/ dNAItGR0;5 96U ?AJS-fttO9 rd, L'P1., rd `KUfit?i
lic Iii /h2 LicQ -i-7 '&TI-6, c coLt3 aiaz
gtez5tirtz: AA II a 49'6'603
E
4?sSc e,eXd)o 3o3-y674P_ ¶36 S. rtcelfm r,Q S2.1 363-,S'57-)K55
/2673 �d C�.4T7-1 ?"Cc3
",:z /„o n e 2� � ��°. t0/e3
er �,,,r �� /D-O X S. /`/iti4,-/n,"c.K S n - go boozJ�^si- /s aS/ t )&51)nLun_P 1Dri u.-.e r)))-1-1O, F06 0,:
Res. EIv/c 5czr, 15 aR t Lax- e, -tee\ CY1•1 WKcV nerc Q Rc,C°o3
c/9e4Nt/ /3naX•af«/' '.237 We Aefri• ,7 424/ t; 49 . 8Oe/
ATTENDANCE RECORD
HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS ON THIS 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2001:
DOCKET#2001-40 -ASPHALT SPECIALTIES COMPANY, INC.
DOCKET#2001-41 - LIZ BLASIO
DOCKET#2001-42 - BRIAN AND KATHY WILLIAMSON
PLEASE legibly write or print your name and complete address and the DOCKET#
(as listed above) or the name of the applicant of the hearing you are attending.
NAME ANDADDRESS(Please include City and Zip Code)DOCKET#OF HEARING ATTENDING
4//-eJ GL//1-7RDff e,.C .Ctet-nA) S-D621
ff,12 j a G' /T 7, f4 ci f,Yoi223 .200/-YO
q 65 So , ii+ /t / i. 0 Con
712z,,gA7Y. 54 faZ,abe i27 , go6Z/
4714 / S -7 4 /3V? wc/2 G 77Ly9To', c o ¶OCZ(
aoO ( ar ( 2n -hdh\Co R'o-h01. (
`77'1a _i4 J ,. �.o,2I ' dome �7 �/" Lo-. _ ��, 1-21
S paz ,77 iat 4<2 I
'JCa�isthetCb dr_ (Acr M.6:25 cR a 3%.
�ja � Ad*/ yya£ix eci/9 .J. ° 6 Z'o& a3
e
EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET
Case USR#1324 -ASPHALT SPECIALTIES COMPANY, INC.
Exhibit Submitted BY Exhibit Description
A. Planning Staff Inventory of Item Submitted
B. Planning Commission Resolution of Recommendation
C. Planning Commission Summary of Hearing (Minutes 04/17/2001)
D. Clerk to the Board Notice of Hearing
E. Planning Staff Referral comments from West Adams Soil
Conservation District
F. Planning Staff Letter from Banks and Gesso, LLC
(04/06/2001)
G. Planning Staff Referral from City of Fort Lupton
(03/27/2001)
H. Planning Staff Letter from Banks and Gesso, LLC
(04/18/2001)
Planning Staff Letter from Lawrence Hause re: Minerals
ownership (04/19/2001)
J. Planning Staff Letter of concern from Surrounding
Property Owners (04/19/2001)
K. Planning Staff Office of State Engineer Well Permit and
Findings
L. Planning Staff Letter from Office of State Engineer re:
General Purpose permit application
(05/31/2001)
M. Planning Staff Letter from Office of State Engineer re: Well
permit denial (05/17/2001)
N. Town of Ft. Lupton Comments and Concerns (06/21/2001)
O. John and Helen Dent E-Mail of Opposition (06/28/2001)
P. Joyce and Richard Huett E-Mail of Concern (06/27/2001)
Q. Charlotte Jones E-Mail of Opposition (06/29/2001)
R. Floyd Acre Letter of Opposition (07/03/2001)
S. Larry McGammon E-Mail of Opposition (07/09/2001)
T. Diane Jewell Petition in Opposition (07/09/2001)
U. Debbie Martin E-Mail of Opposition (07/09/2001)
V. Juanita Adams Letter of Concern (07/10/2001)
W. Tim Matsuno E-Mail of Opposition (07/10/2001)
X. Mary Kleinsteiber E-Mail of Opposition (07/10/2001)
Y. Ben Counter E-Mail of Opposition (07/10/2001)
Z Betty and Gideon Swick E-Mail of Opposition (07/10/2001)
AA. Vem and Carolye Johnson E-Mail of Opposition (07/10/2001)
BB. Paid Ranks Aerial Phntn (reriureri vercinn)
Residence map (red dots denote
CC. Ina Hiihert resirienres)
DD. SKIPPFn- NIP! If:ATF CF AA
EE. S David Nnrrrncs Map nf Ratrh Plants (9 parts total 17
pages)
FF. Jria Rasaki Petitinn (475 signatures)
GG. ,Summer Fversnn Picture nf site
HH. Summer Fvercnn Pirture nf WCR B
I I. Summer Fvercnn Ft I iiptnn Press rlippings ( lily 7, 2001)
JJ. Summer Fversnn Ft I iiptnn Press clippings ( lime 7� 7001)
KK. planning Staff Sign Potting Certificate
LL.
MM.
NN.
OO.
PP.
Hello