The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About810216.tiff RESOLUTION RE: APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO SPECIAL USE PERMIT NO. 365 - FLATIRON PAVING COMPANY, C/O MICHAEL J. HART, P. O. BOX 229, BOULDER, COLORADO 80301 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, in a public hearing on September 13, 1978, denied Special Use Permit No. 365 for Flatiron Paving Company, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, decision was appealed in District Court action by the applicant and on March 4, 1981, the Board of County Commissioners denial was reversed and remanded to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration of attaching conditions to the Special Use Permit, and WHEREAS, on June 10, 1981, at 2 : 00 o'clock p.m. , the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado held such a hearing to consider the request of Flatiron Paving Company, c/o Michael J. Hart, P. O. Box 229, Boulder, Colorado 80301, for an amendment to Special Use Permit No. 365 for an asphalt plant and concrete plant on a tract of land described as follows: Parts of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 30 and the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 29, Township 2 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. WHEREAS, the Board reviewed the testimony of the applicant and of all others present and reviewed the recommendations of the Weld County Planning Commission of August 1, 1978 and having been fully informed, is satisfied that the above described request for an amendment to Special Use Permit No. 365, should be approved with conditions and development standards, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners added the LHR 410 PL0592 810216 Page 2 RE: APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO SUP - FLATIRON PAVING Condition that approval is subject to success of an agreement regarding maintenance and upgrading of County Road 3 , and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners added that the Board be notified of any change in the proposed location of the plant site on the 80 acres so that they may take appropriate action. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that Special Use Permit No. 365 be, and hereby is amended for location of an asphalt plant and a concrete batch plant on an existing sand and gravel operation as set forth in the recommendations of the Weld County Planning Commission and subject to the development standards and conditions contained in the Special Use Permit and those added herein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for approval contained in said Planning Commission recommendations dated August 1, 1978 be, and hereby are, adopted as the findings of fact and incorporated into this Resolution as a part hereof. The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 10th day of June, A.D. , 1981. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO ABSTAINED huck Carlson, Chairman , Norman Carlson, Pro-Tem ATTEST: (1 /17/i „ (Aye) Weld County Clerk d Recorder C. W. Kirby ��erk to the /e oard )) . 5(Aye) BY:j77? T. Martin Deputy Co my Clerk e) PPRQ D AS TO FORM: un K. Ste nmark County Attorney DATE PRESENTED: JUNE 15, 1981 A public hearing was conducted on June 10 , 1981 at 2 : 00 P .M. , with the following present: CHUCK CARLSON CHAIRMAN NORMAN CARLSON PRO TEM BILL KIRBY COMMISSIONER JOHN MARTIN COMMISSIONER JUNE STEINMARK COMMISSIONER Also present: ACTING CLERK TO THE BOARD, KEITHA WHITE ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY, R. RUSSELL ANSON PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE, TOM HONN The following business was transacted: I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated May 4 , 1981 and duly published May 7 and May 28, 1981 in the Johnstown Breeze a public hearing was held on the request of FLATIRON PAVING CO. FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR LOCATION OF AN ASPHALT PLANT AND CONCRETE BATCH PLANT ON AN EXISTING SAND & GRAVEL OPERATION. Russ reviewed this case for the record. The Board denied the original request on September 19, 1978. The applicant appealed the denial to the Weld County District Court which issued an order favoring Flatiron. Russ read the court' s findings, dated March 4 , 1981, with instructions to the Board. The judgement states: "Now, therefore, it is ordered that this matter be remanded to hte Board of County Commissioners for further consideration and approval of any conditions to be placed upon the opertion of the plaintiffs' proposed asphalt plant and concrete batch plant, which the Commissioners deem reasonable and necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. " Tom read the Planning Commission' s favorable resolution of August 1, 1978 , and recommended development standards. Tom read into the record a letter dated June 8 , 1981, from Flatiron regarding the upgrading and possible paving of CR 3. James Short, President of Flatiron Paving Col, was present and discussed their request. Dale Johnson, area resident, presented to the Board and reviewed at length a letter from the area residents which contained their comments and suggested changes to the development standards. Mike Hart, vice president of Flatiron, responded to the opposition and answered questions regarding the SUP. Other area residents voiced their concerns. CHANGE TAPE 81-37 Mike Shaw, questioned if the plant' s location on the property is a definate one? Mr. Shaw has a cattle operation adjacent to the gravel pit. Mr. Hart stated it was not and Flatiron would be willing to work with Mr. Shaw regaining this matter. Commissioner Carlson made a motion to approve the 3UP as requested with the development standards as reconnended by the Planning Commission; subject to the success of an agreement on the utxrrading of CR 3. Commissioner Kirby seconded the motion and it carried by the following vote, all Commissioners voted aye except Chairman Carlson who abstained from voting. The Chairman stated he was abstaining because he was on the Planning Commission when this item was first considered. Commissioner Steinmark made a motion that any adjustment of the plant site on the 80 acres is to be reported to the Board so they may take appropriate action. Commissioner Kirby seconded the notion and it carried unanimously. AP1'l;ST: WELD COUNTY (TFRK AND RECORDER RMAN AND CLERK TO THE BOARD BY: �u �r '�(__ ,i;.. ) iii )l C :y/. / ,Deputy- County Clerk' ,x / 3.7 LMA? .`r/( NOTICE Pursuant to the zoning laws of the State of Colorado and the Weld County Land Use Code, a public hearing will be held in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado, at the time specified. All persons in any manner interested in the Special Use Permit are requested to attend and may be heard. The purpose of said hearing is for the consideration and approval by the Board of County Commissioners of any conditions to be placed upon the operation of teh proposed asphalt plant and concrete batch plant, which the Board of County Commissioners deem reasonable and necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. BE IT ALSO KNOWN that the text and maps so certified by the Weld County Planning Commission may be examined in the Office of the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners , located in the Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Third Floor, Greeley, Colorado. DOCKET NO. 81-31 Flatiron Paving Company c/o Michael J. Hart P.O. Box 229 Boulder, CO 80301 DATE: June 10, 1981 TIME: 2 : 00 P.M. REQUEST: Special Use Permit for location of an asphalt plant and concrete batch plant on an existing sand and gravel operation LOCATION: Parts of the the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 30 and the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 29, Township 2 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. Weld County, Colorado. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO BY: MARY ANN FEUERSTEIN COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AND CLERK TO THE BOARD BY : Keitha White, Deputy DATED: May 4 , 1981 PUBLISHED: May 7 and May 28 , 1981 in the Johnstown Breeze LHR 410 Affidavit of Publication STATE OF COLORADO ss. County of Weld, Paula A . Barton of said County of Weld, being duly sworn, say that I am an advertising clerk of THE GREELEY DAILY TRIBUNE, and THE GREELEY REPUBLICAN that the same is a daily newspaper of general circulation and printed and published in the City of Greeley, in said county and state; that the notice or tr r at fat w` advertisement, of which the annexed is a true copy, has Cooney• ww44c�Rn. been published in said daily newspaper for consecutive wow Mme waa (days) (weeks); that the notice was published in the m aay mm!F a xr warms ur.ramn�r s*.nrwtM t regular and entire issue of every number of said I'm •nu* Azt. newspaper during the period and time of publication of a is said notice, and in the newspaper proper and not in a t'n.o es tam ibwM'tiw supplement thereof; that the first publication of said batch Rtait OW aHote a comnrt Tawannra notice was contained in the issue of said newspaper nacauYT II - t its Ina safely amanita'.TAt No. bearing date IT AI W LflaffMM loftaw mops so M ttia WOW aunty Plowing c • b•StaikitOpil First In twit°Mks Mnr WI 1M SOHO mom' County in ran day of June A.D. 19 81 straagTMrd mon* •" at and the last publication thereof; in the issue of said newspaper bearing date the r � S t . e�m'nu^•twt First Tp p�I:M RM, RIMIEST: *WS Via YamX n. June A.D. 198 1 late*.a.prisistpoofstoiattt day of wren Nernst am existing Ind one gravel bgliooS." that said The Greeley Daily Tribune and The Greeley Quauartet ' ' t busou@aau erm mMa noon ms a Republican, has been published continuously and Sadao 70a Otani'a tiro r Wks 204 mr uninterruptedly during the period of at least six chin 1°f ntjcc' / months next prior to the first issue thereof contained Off Sofro ce wuaISItl s said notice or advertisement above referred to; that said ►r , newspaper has been admitted to the United States patort ` d mails as second-class matter under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof; and at that said newspaper is a daily newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. June 1 , 1981 Total charge : $15 . 95 c < < . �C��_� �. Advertising Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1st a of June /r A.D. 19 81 `2 My c mison expires-"..." / Notary Public • �.• �: BEFORE THE -WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF -COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Date August 1, 1978 Case No. SUP# 365:18 :17 APPLICATION OF Flatiron Paving Company c/o Michael J. Hart -ADDRESS P.O. Box 229, Boulder, Colorado 80301 Moved byFrank Suckla that the following resolution be introduced -for passage by the Weld County Planning Commission: Be it Resolved by the Weld CountydPLa{wing missdio£ttoat tF t p e appli- cation for site approval of asphallant4ycone°re�Cen T " ng the following described property in We d County, Colorado, o-wit: See attached with Develppment Standards be -recommended (favorably), >sc.oweity.‘ ) to the Board of County Commissioners This recommendation is subject to the concurrent adoption of the proposed Development Standards which are designed to set standards for the operation and maintenance of - the facility. The Planning Commission further recommends the adoption of staff recommendation No. II concerning the routing of traffic' to and from the facility, although -the final decision concerning this particular matter is to be left to the Board of County Commissioners. These recommendations are based on the following reasons: (see attached) Motion seconded by Ben Nix Vote: Tor Passage Chuck Carlson Against Passage Jerry Kiefer I3en Nix - Irma White _Frank Suckla Tercy Hiatt Bette Kountz The Chairman declared the Resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this case to the Board of County Commissioners for further proceedings. L-BRTIFICATION OF COPY I , Shirley A. Phillips , Recording Secretary of the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution is a true copy of the Resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County, Color- ado, adopted on August 1, 1978 and recorded in Book No. VI of the proceedings of the said Planning Commission. Dated the 2 day of August , 19-78 . ,`\\\ti,\.\J,, "\C; `\\.V Secretary V • REASONS FOR APPROVAL Frank Suckla: "I think Weld County is going to get the short • end of the deal regardless of how it goes and • I feel that this area adjacent to Boulder County-- the residents of the area are primary , their interest is Boulder County and Boulder County will also get the biggest benefit of the gravel and cement asphalt plants. I think Weld County will benefit some, but not. like Boulder County will , but realizing that it is one of the necessary evils , I will have to vote y-es. " Bette I{ountz : , "I 'm following the recommendation of. the staff which I am in agreement with . " (See attached) _Percy Hiatt : "Based upon the additional testimony that we' ve received today from Flatiron , I ' m convinced their operation will not have an adverse impact on the community out there. " Ben Nix : • "I would place my judgment somewhat in line with that of Mr. Hiatt . But I ' d like to also state that it ' s my conviction that -Flatiron people will be necessary for them to meet the health standards , it will be necessary for them to develop this thing and operate it in such a way -that it will not create a situation whereby properties will be lowered in value . And I would like to state further that I think that it 'goes without saying that the county minerals are perhaps for the benefit of those people who live there are unfortunately located in along the crease of major streams that eventually enter the Platte River and this is the minable resource that we have in this county which we must. pre— serve and mine as it is needed . Therefore , this is the reason for -ny vote affirmative." Chuck Carlson : "Basically speaking, the State of Colorado has passed a low not to put any permanent structure over any minable product . And this includes gravel . And when you have a minable product such as this , the expense that goes into moving this product gets phenomenal if you have to move it very far because there is a load heaviness of the product that has to be moved . That expense has to be passed on the people and the people, you and I , have to pay for it . There isn ' t any ' of us in this room that doesn ' t use gravel or • asphalt . You couldn ' t have got here today if you • didn ' t . We all use it . . We all benefit from it .. And the best ways we can do to keep the expense down is things that we 've got to consider. . Probably 90% of you that are opposed of . it are in--are 'pros for Proposition 13 in California an-d still here you are opposing this . And that don 't really make a lot of sense . But in one respect we ' ve got to save dollars where we can save dollars and their minable product has to be used when its available to be used . And there is so many things I -think that are pro for it . I just couldn ' t go against it . " DESCENTING OPINIONS • Jerry Kiefer : "I ' ve studied this "pretty thoroughly. I ' ve gone back to the site . I 'm trying to weigh the pros • and cons and I feel that there is still doubt in my mind and I feel that the additional operation of the asphalt plant--S am not convinced that this would not be incompatible. That it would not be in harmony with the present use of the land, so my vote would he no. " Irma White : "This isn ' t a easy decision for me either , but I don ' t believe it ' s compatible with the surrounding neighborhood , that it should be an industrial zoned site , so my vote is no. " Date : 11)- (-) 2%—.1 CASE NUMBER : SUP-365 :78 : 16 NAME: Flatiron Paving Company REQUEST: Asphalt Plant and Concrete -Batch Plant LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SE+ NEI , Section 30 and SWi NWi, Section 29, T2N, R68W LOCATION : 3i miles north and 1 mile east of Erie • THE DEPARTMENT OF. PLANNING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDS• HAT TiiI� REQUEST -BE approved' FOR THE _FOLLOWING REASONS : . 1_ •It is the opinion of the department of Pla in S .rvices staff that the re-Quest is in compliance with the basic goals and policies of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan , Witbiin the • Plan , it is stated on Pages 62 and 63 that . "-Industrial land use in the rural areas of the county should' be limited to those industries which cannot • • suitably be located within -a municipality . Rural • industrial developments should be encouraged only when the industry is agriculturally oriented or requires a physical environment that cannot reason- ably be furnished in a municipality. Industries • such as concrete plants , asphalt plants, gravel and sand operations , . . . and other industries requiring • location adUaa-cent to their raw materials, . . . should be carefully controlled to insure the minimum • damage to -the environment and an acceptable highway or roadway impact . " • The Plan sets forth a basic policy which relates to establish- ment of such uses as outlined above: Page 64="Zoning for industrial use in areas outside the areas covered by the comprehensive plans of the existing municipalities zhall be encouraged only for low employee doncentration , agriculturally related industries or other industries that can show they cannot reasonably be accommodated within the areas covered • by the municipalities' comprehensive plans. " It is the npi ni nn of tha nppnrtmant of Planning Servires Staff that _the concrete batch plant and asp-halt p1 ant prupngedi by Flatirc Paving Company in the current application is Tcnsistpnt with the • • Flatiron Paving Company SUP-365 :78: 16 STAFF RECOMMENDATION July 18, 1978 ' • determination's and policies set forth above as identified in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan . This opinion is based upon : A. . The applicant has identified that the contiguous property contains a substantial raw material suited for use in producing asphalt ' and concrete batch • products. Further, the applicant addressed economic considerations which,. in the opinion of 'the Department of Planning Services staff , show that due to the location of the adjacent raw material , it would not be reasonable to locate such requested facilities within areas covered by the municipalities' • comprehensive plans; • B. Minimal environmental affects are anticipated by the location of the requested asphalt and concrete batch plant . It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services staff that potential air and water pollution will be effectively controlled and monitored. In addition noise will be limited to acceptable limits and flood plain effects will be mitigated by proper site design . The •environmental standards are • addressed in the proposed Development Standards attached hereto; and C. Impacts on highway and road surfaces can be satisfactorily mitigated. 2. It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services staff that the proposal is consistent with Sections 3 . 3E. 2 and 3. which states : "The Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners shall consider the following in making their determination in approving or denying a Special Use Permit : Compatibility with the surrounding area, harmony with the character of -the neighborhood and existing agricultural uses, need for the proposed use , its effect upon the immediate area, its effect upon future development of the area, and the health , safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the area and the county . Before a permit for a Special Use is issued, the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners shall determine through public hearings , that the following plans , methods and studies which shall accompany the application for a Special Use Permit , provide adequate pro- tection of the health , safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the area and the county. " I ,- Flatiron Paving Company SUP-365 : 78 : 16 STAFF RECOMMENDATION July 18 , 19-78 • It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services staff that the location , operation , and maintenance of the proposed asphalt plant and concrete batch plant facility as set forth in the Special Use Permit application and -as controlled by the Development Standards attached hereto will minimize adverse impacts on surrounding uses and the area in question to the greatest extent possible. Further, it is the opinion of the staff that the current proposal provides adequate protection of the health , safety and welfare of -the inhabitants of the area and the county. These determinations are based on : A. The Colorado Water Conservation Board has indicated the flood hazard determinations by Leonard Rice Consulting Water Engineers , Inc. are acceptable and reasonable. B. The Weld County Health Department has outlined the applicant shall obtain an emission permit for the concrete plant , an individual sewage permit for any permanent sewage disposal system, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for any anticipated effluent discharge and shall comply with noise levels established in Section 25-12-103 , Colorado -Revised Statutes 1973, as amended. These items are addressed in the Development ' Standards. C. The Colorado Geological Survey has no objection to the request ; and -D. The anticipated impact on roads in the immediate vicinity of the proposed operation will be minimized to the greatest extent possible. The manner of traffic control and road maintenance are specified below. . 3. The Department of Planning Services recommendation is subject to the following conditions : A. Concurrent adoption of the attached Development Standards which are designed to set certain standards for the location , operation and maintenance of the proposed asphalt and concrete batch plant facility ; and B. Prior to establishment of an asphalt and concrete batch plant facility on subject property , Flatiron Paving Company and the Weld County Board of County Commissioners mutually entering an agreement to define an acceptable program of traffic control and road maintenance required to mitigate highway and roadway impact which will be y,: generated by said facility . Said agreement should also < H .,y consider necessary temporary routes . FlsI . '1 3+x'1;{ f if r.r;.n. • • Flatiron Paving ipany `_, • SUP-365 :78 : 16 STAFF RECOMMENDATION July 18, 1978 • Based upon information received from the Weld County' Department of Engineering Services and Boulder County, roads adjacent to and in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site are not designed for the traffic impacts that the proposed operation will generate . Comments from Boulder County also indicate -premature deterioration to the road surface of County Line Road will result due to hauling operations, and recommend consideration of alternative routing. • ' The Weld County Department of Engineering Services identified .limitations of existing Weld County Roads 161, 3 , and County Line Road. These roads and appurtenant bridges will suffer impacts as a result of the proposed facility if net properly re-designe-d and maintained. • The following alternatives are suggested as alternative routing and maintenance programs to be agreed upon : I . Utilize County Road 16i and County Line Road as proposed by Flatiron Paving Company in the subject Spacial Use Permit application . Road 16z should be upgraded as specified in item 1 of a memo dated June 28 , 1978, .from the Department of Engineering 'Services . Additionally, a cooperative maintenance agreement should be made between Flatiron Paving Company , Weld County and Boulder County for the • purpose of defining the method of repair and main- tenance for County Line Road between Colorado State Highways 119 and 52 ; - II . Utilize County Road 3 to State Highway 52. In a memo dated July 14 , 1978 , the Department of Engineering Services outlines two alternatives for utilizing this route. Numbers 1 and 2 of each alternative should to followed; and III . Utilize a private easement route from subject property crossing County Road 16i , south to Colorado State Highway 52. The safety and design of. the County Road 161 intersection and dust abatement measures for the private easement route must be considered if this alternative is utilized. It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services staff that Alternative II is the most desirable of the alternatives. Traffic will utilize existing public Right-of-Way . This alternative is also consistent with the routing approved with Special Use Permit 260 : 74 :23 en November 27 , 1974 , for the Nelson Properties gravel mining permit . • _• ., / 1 - r . y- �• y , ),' G U Flatiron Paving Company • �` DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 3 c 1. Permitted uses on the hereon described Special Use Permit area shall be a concrete batch plant , asphalt plant with associated parking, office and maintenance facilities, and those uses approved under SUP-260 :74:23. 2. Location and extent of required fill for the plant site shall be made in accordance with the recommendations of Leonard Rice Consulting Water Engineers, Inc. in their letter dated June 7, 1978, made a part hereof by rail erence and recorded in theoffice of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. No use shall be established within the Special Use Permit area which will reduce the discharge capacity of the Boulder Creek channel and flood plain to less than 18 , 000 cfs. 3. The Special Use Permit area shall be maintained in such a manner so as to prevent soil erosion , fugitive dust and growth of noxious weeds . The site shall be maintained in such a manner as to present a neat and well kept appearance . 4. One access to the site , shown hereon as "existing and future access road" , shall be used for employee traffic. Access for truck traffic shall be located in accordance with an agreement for traffic con 1 and road maintenance made with the Weld County oar of Commissioners . c' 5 . All phases of the asphalt and concrete batch plant facilities and operations shall conform with all applicable County, State and Federal Health _Standards and - Regulations and any other applicable rules and regulations of governmental bodies having jurisdiction on the premisis . 6. All phases of the operation must conform to n-sise levels as set forth in 2-5-12-103 CRS , 1973. 7. The asphalt and concrete batch plants shall only be operated between the hours of 7 : 0O -a.m. and 5 :00 p.-m. 8. The Special Use Permit shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the Development Standards stated above and all applicable Weld County Regulations . Any material deviations from the plans and/or Development Standards as shown or stated above shall require the approval of an amendment to the Special Use Permit by the Planning Commiscion and the -Beard of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans and/or Development Standards shall be permitted . Any other changes from the plans and/or Development Standards shall be filed in the office of the -Department of Planning Services. ■ FLATI FON PAVING COMPANY POST OFFICE 3OX 229. BOULDER, COLORADO .3-0306 • PHONE: (303) 443-9400 June 8, 1981 Mr. Tom Honn Department of Manning Services, Weld County 915 10th Street Greeley, CO -80631 RE: Flatiron _UP-260 Nelson Pit Dear Mr. Honn: The approval of Flatiron Sand and Gravel Company's request for placement and operation of a concrete batch plant and an asphalt mixing plant at the Nelson Pit required the Board of Commissioners to approve any conditions to be placed upon the operation. A number of conditions were -discussed in the application for amendment to the Special Use Permit. Flatiron is still willing to agree to the conditions as previously proposed. An additional condition which has been proposed relates to the haul routes and road maintenance. We would agree with a proposal to upgrade County Road 3. flatiron would .provide all labor and equipment necessary to trap And m mix, haul, and lay and compact hot bituminous pavement on County Road 3 f rom Road 161 to State Highway 52. We would suggest the County provide the .permanent mat- erials of aggregate and asphalt cement. The other gravel oper-ation at the intersection of County Road 3 and County Road 161 is Boulder Creek Gravel Products. We understand their permit _requires road maintenance and dust control, also. We suggest they could provide the additional aggregate base course necessary on County Road 3. This would provide an equitable and lasting solution to relieve the expected maintenance and dust problems. The expected cost for the total upgrading of Road 3 with 3" _of hot bituminous -pavement 214' wide would be $84,009.00 (2400 tons x $35.00 per ton) . These costs would break down as follows: 1) Flatiron - $38,520.00 2) Weld County - $31,080.00 3) Boulder Creek Gravel Products - $14,400 (6" ABC @ $3.00 per ton) . Mr. Som Honn Page 2 We hope this clarifi-es for ynu Flatiron's Aesir-es on the proposed conditions. Please feel free to _call with any questions. Sincerely, 71d-filet-- James H. Short President Flati-ton Paving Company of Boulder JHS:naw 41�X17 wil1N 1961 f'� 6 RECEIVED T, Weld Comfy z' r , Planning Commisslom :o 4 O IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WELD AND STATE OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 30181 FILED IN DISTRICT coURS BOULDER GRAVEL PRODUCTS, INC. , ) own ® own d/b/a FLATIRON SAND AND GRAVEL ) MAR 4 )991 COMPANY, a Colorado corporation, ) and MILTON H. NELSON, ) Ma fastsictie Plaintiffs, ) ) vs . ) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ) OF THE COUNTY OF WELD AND ED ) DUNBAR, LEONARD ROE, NORMAN ) CARLSON, JUNE STEINMARK AND ) VICTOR JACOBUCCI IN THEIR ) OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AND THE WELD ) COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, ) Defendants. ) Flatiron Sand and Gravel Company/ hereinafter referred to as Flatiron leases certain property from plaintiff Milton H. Nelson, here- 3 inafter referred to as Nelson. Flatiron conducts sand and gravel mining operations on the subject property, which is in the "A" zone, pursuant to a special use permit issued by the defendant commissioners. In connection with the ongoing sand and gravel mining operations Flatiron sought to operate a concrete and asphalt mixing plant and applied for a special use permit from the defendant Commissioners ; their application was denied Sept-ember 12, 197-8. Plaintiffs thereafter brought this action claiming in the alternative that: I. Concrete and asphalt mixing plants are accessory uses to their sand and gravel mining operation, and as accessory uses are subject to regulation but not to prohibition. II. Assuming that plaintiffs' proposed mixing plant is not an accessory use, there was no competent evidence of record to support the denial of plaintiffs ' application, or to show that the use was related to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the county. Defendants deny that the batch plant proposed by plaintiffs is accessory to the ongoing mining operation, and therefore defendants did not exceed their jurisdiction in denying the same, arid defendants further claim that they did not abuse their discretion in denying plaintiffs ' application for a special use permit to operate the proposed mixing plant. The Court finds as follows : 1. Plaintiff Nelson owns and leases to Flatiron certain property C.) which is zoned in the "A-agricultural district , more specifically described in the plaintiffs ' complaint. 2. Under Weld County Zoning Resolution as amended Sand and Gravel Mining is permitted in an "A-agricultural district" upon granting of a special use permit by the Board of County Commissioners . 3. Flatiron has conducted -Sand and Gravel Mining operations on the subject property pursuant to special use permit no. 260 granted by the Board of County Commissioners. 4 . In May 1972 Flatiron, desiring- to avoid legal confrontation over the question whether a -mixing plant was an accessory use, applied to the defendant Commissioners for permission to operate an asphalt plant and a concrete plant on the subject property. That application has been consistently treated by all parties as an application to amend special use permit no. 260 . - - - 5. The Meld County Department of Planning Services reviewed Flatiron's application and recommended that it be approved, subject to certain conditions to be imposed upon the operation, which conditions Flatiron agreed to comply with. The Commission' s recommendation was reduced to resolution and submitted to the Board of County Commissioners . 6 . The Commissioners denied Flatiron 's application setting forth grounds which will -be -addressed later in this Order. - 7. - - '!Accessory use" is defined by - Weld County Zoning Resolution 12. 2 (2) as "a use naturally and normally incidental to, subordinate to and devoted exclusively to the main use of the premises. 8. Weld County zoning resolution -6.1 (3) (E) (S) provides "rack crushers and concrete and asphalt mixing plants -may be allowed. However, the planning commission or Board of County Commissioners may set out additional conditions under which these operations may -be permitted; and said conditions may vary by location due to abutting land uses. " 9 . The Weld County comprehensive plan provides in pertinent part that: "Industry such as concrete plants, asphalt plants, gravel and sand operations . . . and other industries requiring location adjacent to their raw materials . . . should h-e carefully controlled to insure the minimum damage to the environmentand an acceptable highway or roadway impact". (-Emphasis added) - 10 . The record demonstrates that the concrete and asphalt plant proposed by the plaintiff is naturally and normally incidental to and - 2 - rC0 a devoted exclusively to the on-site gravel -mining operation. 11. Weld County Zoning Resolution does not set forth standards to be applied by the commissioners in determining whether to grant or deny application for permission to operate a mixing plant in conjunction with sand and gravel mining operations . See Western Paving Construction v. Commissioners, 181 Colo. 77 (1973) ; and General Outdoor Advertising v. Goodwin, 12-8 Colo. 344 (1'353) . The Court concludes on the basis of the foregoing that plaintiffs ' proposed mixing plants are accessory to the sand and gravel mining operation at the subject property, -and that therefore the Commissioners had the authority only to impose additional conditions upon those operations but no authority or jurisdiction to deny them. The Court notes that section 3. 3 of the Weld County Zoning Resolution provides that the Commissioners may deny an application for a special use permit to operate mixing plants . However, the Court concludes that this section applies to requests for the approval of mixing plants to be operated other than in conjunction with sand and gravel operations. Although the question of whether the board abused its discretion is rendered moot by the foregoing conclusion, expedience requires the Court to enter further findings in the event of further appeal. Assuming the Commissioners had jurisdiction to deny plaintiffs ' application for a special use permit, the Court makes the following findings: 1 . The grounds cited by the Commissioners in denying Flatiron ' s application are as follows : a. That it is possible to locate the propo -ed -nixing plant within the comprehensive planning area of some Weld County municipality. b. That the economic advantage to be gained by a decrease in Flatiron 's hauling costs is insignificant. c. That Flatiron has failed to thoroughly investigate alternative sites. d. Plaintiffs ' application is not based upon existing needs . • e. That existing road conditions are inadequate to withstand increased traffic produced by the installation of the proposed plants . f. That the operation of theproposed plants would result in extensive adverse affects upon the surrounding neighborhood. The Commissioners madeno finding that the conditions recommended I - 3 - O by the Department of Planning Services and the Planning Commission were inadequate to protect the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of Weld County. Evidence of the increased cost to flatiron occasioned -by the _denial of the special use permit, and evidence that there is a present need to utilize the mined product in asphalt and concrete, is uncon- tradicted in the record. Thera is absence of evidence showing the feasibility of locating proposed plants -within existing municipal boun- daries, and absence of evidence establishing the existence of other preferable sites within or without municipal boundaries . The record does not contain competent evidence supporting findings of the rderendant Board of Commissioners, concerning the present inadequacy of existing road conditions, or that the operation of the proposed facilities would result in extensiveadverse affects upon the neighborhood, particularly in light of the conditions which the Board -might place upon the operation of these mixing and batch plants which would nullify these adversities . The Court notes that both the -Planning Department and the Planning Commission concluded that the conditions they recommended--conditions to which Flatiron agreed1were sufficient to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. Those findings are not controverted. The ijefendant failed to -make findings with regard to the following criteria: whether the proposed -operation is compatible with the surround- ing area; whether the proposed operation is harmonious with the character of the neighborhood and existing agricultural uses; whether there would be any adverse effect on the future development of the neighborhood; and, whether the proposed use would be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the area. Therefore, assuming the Commissioners had jurisdiction to prevent the operation of the proposed _batch and mixing plants by denying a special use permit to Flatiron, the Court concludes that such denial was an abuse of discretion, and that the resolution of the Commissioners in this regard must be set aside. NOW, THEREFORE, IT =S ORDERED that this matter be remanded to the Board of County Commissioners for further consideration and approval 'of any conditions to be placed upun the operation of the plaintiffs ' proposed asphalt, plant and concrete batch plant, which the Commissioners _deem - 4 - seasonable and necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. DONE this 4th day of March, 19B1- BY THE COURT:ThrrDistrict Jude ge 7071--- - 5 - r 1 CO O CO-.- CC NnN W _ X m z w m O O \ v) 0Qa CO oaf 00 • a U ° > \ U O -UJ } J • — W F— W tl z z cp O a O I 1.1 s • ° L o 0 i o o th CC 2 _CI F- a Q W G • N Z O Y 0 0 N CO d r-i N to O F- 7 W V) -' = C O CO -O- CO C) 1-+ Y W i V) C W • O— Fes" .w. N t LI d .-- D W Y O p H . O C C-) C CC C X D • H h•+ LL T W V) F- y C V) = ........_................. 9 t) -n `Ir^�� D V) Ol C)AO W r Z _C0 S N� - a Q ", F- V) Cl) r+ LL O Z 0 d r-. Oc ti O N CW�a ."U C Cr W � .:: C C Li.' Y L 0 O r_ Ca +) O 3/ • LL1 VI 1- 1-4 S W -1.-1.1.. W F- 5.7 U C-0= W C PI D V) F- • a COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: June 4, 1981 We, many of the people of the Pleasant View area, have been involved in opposing Flatiron's desires to-place an asphalt batch plant and concrete plant as an amendment to their special use permit (SUP)-260, which is a sand and gravel mining operation in the Boulder Creek Valley in south-west Weld County. To briefly review the situation, the Weld County planning commission on Aug. 1, 1978, approved an amendment of SUP-260 by an addition of an asphalt and concrete plant. This was done with application SUP 365:78:17. The matter was then forwarded to the County Commissioners. The hearing began on Sept. 13, 1978. Intensive hearings and testimony were given, final result was that the Board denied SUP 365:78:17 for asphalt and concrete plant by Flatiron -Paving. A summary of the denial follows: 1. Flatiron did not -show that the plants could not be located within an existing municipality which is the preferred location according to the comprehensive plan. They presently have 6 plants operating within the confines of municipalities or their comprehensive plans. 2. Economic considerations for hauling costs are not that great and historically Flatiron hauls gravel to its plant sites. 3. Alternative locations of plant sites have not been thoroughly investigated. 4. This request is based on future economic development and need and not on existing need. 5. The roads in the area are not in a condition to support increased traffic. 6. The adverse effects on the neighborhood would be -extensive. Subsequent to that, Flatiron filed a -civil suit against the Commissioners on the basis -that the comprehensive plan did not -give the Commissioners power to deny an amendment for the addition of an asphalt and concrete plant, but that they could only develop standards so as to protect the environment and safety in the neighborhood. The case was heard in front of Judge-Hayes and early in 1981 he rendered a decision in agreement with Flatiron. Therefore, the hearing on June 10, 1921, is scheduled to set development standards for an asphalt and concrete plant as an amendment to SUP 260, which is SUP 365:73:17. You are aware that changes have been made in your comprehensive plan, such that in the future the Commissioners will have the ability to deny amendments to gravel pits for the addition of asphalt and concrete plants. However, because this law was not specific enough on the original comprehensive plan, it appears that the initial wish and judge- ment of the Commissioners to deny an asphalt and concrete plant as an amendment to SUP-260 cannot be accomplished. We agree that this power should be retained by the -2- Commissioners and are in support of the new comprehensive plan. - However, it clearly leaves the situation of SUP-260 and SUP 365:78:17 such that it was the intention of the Commissioners to deny the addition of asphalt-concrete plants in the neighborhood, but through legal manipulation the opposite-may occur. One of the seasons clearly stated by Commissioner Steinirark was that asphalt and concrete plants are inappropriate for this neighborhood; therefore, it is appropriate that very stringent development standards be placed upon Flatiron so as to insure maximum protection for the agricultural-sesidential community that this plant will effect. We now would like to suggest some development standards we feel would lessen the adverse effects of these plants upon our neighborhood. The Planning Staff recommended eight standards: #1: SUP area uses shall be a concrete batch plant and asphalt plant with associated parking, office, and maintenance facilities and those nses approved under SUP-260--74-23. We believe the court clearly directs the Commissioners point to allow a concrete batch and asphalt plant. We also concede that parking employees cars at these plants is a reasonable accessory use to that. We believe an office of -specified size is also reasonable, but there is no justification for maintenance facilities or any maintenance activity hasides that which may be needed to be done on the asphalt plant or the concrete plant, and this may be done only during operating hours. The reason no maintenance facility is needed is that in the past 2 years Flatiron has developed a large maintenance facility approximately 3 miles east of the Nelson pit. Therefore, the need fora maintenance facility at this site does not exist. In addition, a maintenance facility would only further insult the environment and adversely impact the neighborhood. #2: We agree with this standard. #3: We agree with this standard. #4: We agree the access by -Flatiron should be only Rd. 3, as rewngmended by the Planning Staff. In addition, Rd. 3 should be paved with asphalt and maintained totally by Flatiron. This is in complete compliance and agreement with development stand: #3 Sup-260 which states that hauling is to be on Rd. 3 and norther road in this vacinity will be used. This is also in wnipliance with Planning Staff recommendations. With the addition of an asphalt plant, county, city and private trucks will be coning into the plant area to receive various amounts of asphalt. Most of these trucks are standard dump truck size, tut the County Commissioners do not have the right to tell these trucks which roads to use. Therefore, the simple addition of an asphalt plant increases the traffic on all other roads leading to the plant and thereby -3- aggravates invironnental situations and endangers the health and welfare of neighborhood families. However, within the Commissioners jurisdiction is that they can require Flatiron to use an access road which has been stated as Rd. 3 and to pave and maintain it. #5: We agree with this _standard. #6: We agree with this standard. #7: The asphalt and _concrete plants shall be operated between the hours of 7 A.M. and 5 Y.M. In -a publication on the Nelson property SUP-365 application of May 1978, Flatiron proposed operating standards. In that they proposed as #4 operating standard operating hours of 7 A.M. to 5 P.M. Monday thru Friday. We believe that only Monday-Friday working hours, as proposed by Flatiron, is appropriate. We further believe that a-ten hour working day is inappropriate and unreasonable; therefore, we propose a 61/2 hr. working day which would have to_be within the confines of 8:30 A.M. and 3 P.M. , before and after the school children and buses are present. In addition, we would clearly state "operating hours" means -that the gates of the asphalt-concrete plant do not open, and no activity or employees -enter the property prior to starting time of 8:30 A.M. In addition, the sane would apply for quitting time, i.e. , by 3 P.M. , the gates would be closed and all employees will have left-the plant, and no truck traffic would go in or out of the plant. No maintenance activity should take place after closing. 73ecuase SUP-365 is an amendment to SUP-260, we would request that the -same working hours he applied to SUP-260 (which is the sand and gravel operation and the -crusher) because of the added insult upon -the environment. It is not unreasonable, and indeed appropriate, because of the adverse impact of the other two plants, that a decreased operating schedule of the gravel pit seems highly seasonable. In summation, we request-that the sand and gravel pit, crushing operations, asphalt and concrete plants, maintenance of plant equipment, traffic and presence of employees occur only between 8:30 A.M. and 3:00 P.M. Monday thru Friday. #8: We will address this toward the end of the letter. We propose these additional development standards as necessary for minimizing the impact and protecting our neighborhood but still reasonable to Flatiron operations: #9: The Planning Staff reeuunended certain conditions as found on page 10 in the transcript from the hearing on SUP 365. We agree with letter "A" and al-so with letter "B" regarding traffic routes. In paragraph "B," number III is consistent with SUP-260 and with-the recommendations of the planning staff, and would effect the least number of people possible. -4- #10: Dust control for the whole gravel pit and plant areas and any truck traffic routes is required, preferably by paving. #11: 25-foot high berm of dirt, parallel to the river course should be placed on the east and west sides of the plants such that the plant would be between these two berms. The berm should extend in a parallel direction both north-cart to a south-west direction beyond the asphalt and concrete plants. , so that homes shall not be able to visualize the plant. The barricade will not only provide a visual buffer but will also enhance the ability of Flatiron to comply with the county health t de as related to noise. This berm would also decrease any adverse effect upon the environment by an -xplosion of either propane or oil, which would spread fire onto agricultural areas and set off prarie fires which would endanger lives. #12: Planting 4-inch caliber trees and shrubs at the base of the east and west berms outside their perimeters. Trees should also be planted on the western boundry of the Nelson property and also on the east bank of the river. These trees would provide visual , noise and dust barriers from the asphalt-concrete plants and all trees planted -should be 10 feet apart. #13: All employee vehicles, trucks and equipment must be parked in specific confined areas hidden fran view _from how sites by an additional or same berm as previously described. No additional buildings for vehicle parking, and all vehicles must be removed by closing time. #14: Flatiron must waive the right to demand a warrent from any and all inspectors, local,-oounty and state, who desire to check -operation under SUP-260 or SUP-365. #15: There will be absolutely no -aggregate-material brought into the site from another source, other than the Nelson pit. At any time that this chould occur, Flatiron would lose the right to continue operation -of -the asphalt-concrete plant. #16: No fuel storage tanks located on the Nelson property. #17: Legal stop sign will be placed at the junction of Rd. 16' and Rd. 3 so that all vehicles leaving the Nelson property will stop prior to crossing Rd. 161 and entering Rd. 3. #18: Speed limit will be 30 MPH on-Rd. 3 and -Rd. 161/2. Rd. 16i is again included because of the addition of an asphalt--concrete plant because city, county and private vehicles will becoming to this site for asphalt. #1-8: No dumping of any kind is permitted on property encompassed in SUP-260 or SUP-365. #20: Development -standards #4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, and 18 must be _completed before the asphalt and concrete plants may be erected at the proposed site. -5- #21: The Special Use permit shall be limited to the plans shown hereon andgoverned by the Development Standards stated above and all applicable Weld County Regu- lations. Any deviations fran the plans and/or Development Standards as shown or stated above shall require the approval of an amendment to the Special Use Permit by the Planning Commission and the IBoard of County Commissioners before such changes Iran the plans and/or Development Standards shall be permitted. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITIED, THE UNDERSIGNED J /�, S ti� 5-4, S 4.-c4. /4N(ig‘i le_m c Cf f (1° 4. mow +-t.. I~7 3 L1 W 0. 110 ' t- �r/ 62 lLe L) C - I, .2577 -- weii11Y Z9oterlet-- /0 7S9' 41. (- ,C7W/7 4 ,,Vl F.- ( Al )41L.C7 41, t‘r70 Wne S- 'DJ( 3t 4 c7o A/cif -6- 3-(;- , , i' ey /S w2 71,40 a cirwn , i'� C Y , jj, J-2'7/ -c, 'l/` fa,,� , o z 5 c n 12"I Ed e 1 _ i {7 /1 i 46A -- /-- 2 7� / � tCo �9 =yL e'>5)� �' 64. cti .C:c ) ) �. /{{{W/ggJqJ'ryl/�lO 4 / (7 .iele 4 ,c u ` 1 i n ` l / 1 ,y /.1 /tH R I//J �{ qiiriO-1-c4 4J /� 'Ad n' 25 ! IV,e0, tied /S e'lefryvve-0-stli 60-1 Sos-v( -b- CONTINUED SIGNATURES =ER TO COMMISSS(IION�ERS _June 4, 1981 /'1 i rtic,4„...._, „ct.,E cc. 722e 5?)z/ Vl_ 0.X // / c (\ \ i ' i� , i rN. r � 1.2i�, �a , �s, �" �4L /( A 2 A 2 i�< ,.d" fr .. ' ' %lair, 7,,z sv l/ a?"5— ...„-- c.c. -2_,/7 I 7J/ 9 tVefd C 755-Cree A:0 larC'EGZI-C--6{AXIY; (V lei v ---- o2\ sic- --c. k ciao._ 5 ham,-ic am i' Ian- Calla •Boyv i gAiL /A-73„.. - kie...5d, /6 4 1 I i/o",;I C/ ' 2- -. /74K--15- / ;'1/ 0 /1-i_. 6 //r. J j nC_ J _ 4 :_` , j _ _ .. _ _ .. I !' 1 I . v--,- ' ' 1 k-e X iivizt 7f7l' c4"P # / c '/ !/ ,i t l ( k ( L- - G ,,z% --re '/5% 4-> fib /P F, aT _ror, Paving Company ‘4,\ / SUP-365 : 78 : 17 VR / b SUR OUYDING PROPERTY OWNERS / June 20, 1978 d *A MIAhny )i14 //«z. 4 7 :-. : 11e 1 ✓� :, 8',6 /6• /5- it ) M/ ✓s j.:..., 74, 6- ;Y / Milt n . and Helen C. Nelson Gerald and Claudia Je n Sprague 2040 st Longs Peak "-/5 w,c- Z't `; � -- ��.-•v J,1N3 _ L 9 t Lone t , Colorado 80501 Longmont , Colorado 80501 William E. and Margaret Robobel P.O. Box 11 Erie, Colorado 80516 Michael -,S---acrd--Vi-r-g-inia--Show 71.4-35- WeLd County -Rend 164 ,- Longmont , Colorado 80501 l Howard V. and--M-&r5--Ann---Ra muts-eu ' 3DIJ I�etrte ^ � /7,3V ii/C/6 - Longmont , Colorado 80501 14 _ w W ll�n-a�z�-3ams and Virginia Shaw Route 4 , Box 66 A-1 Longmont , Colorado 80501 Dale S. and Lynn D. Johnson 1300 Route 2 , Box 318 2A Longmont , Colorado 80501 John W. Lamar 1 1300 oute 2 , Box 318-A Long t , Colorado 80501 j /G r vc _...el . ScJ57 Regnier Farms , Inc . 1300 Route 2, Box 334 Longmont , Colorado B0501 Herman and Betty L. Schlagel 1300 Route 4 , Box 39 Longmont , Colorado B0501 Arthur, Lucy and Luther Stromquist { 7 n�_ a . 1340 Routes ,,��'-^�0 /'t/ n OKY ,=� i< Longmont , Colorado 80501 Lee Ervin Olson 1300 Route 4 , Box 42 Longmont , Colorado 80501 Ronald F. and Barbara T. Hankins 1300 Route 2 , Box 325 Longmont , Colorado 80501 G/•' 17 -i'a Sti' ', 3o _ - Ccc �l 7o4,.Lc c��.L i' v'-/-1,c' <{ 6 ,:t...de, t, - , . y 2 Y/ Gu /5(4/ c 4. . y. / .1 `! /.:9 9r Afc: f' l 7,.. f-,. . . .. 7 yc ;o I fc / C%3 5/ l,,e 3j.• " -, ri..r . i i ift The purpose of said hearing is for the consideration and approval by the Board of County -Commissioners of any conditions to be placed upon the operation of the proposed asphalt plant and concrete batch plant, which the Board of County Commissioners deem reasonable and necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. pcia (Y1Mtill t e _ To Turn Haun Date July 14 , 1978 WI ` Rodney H . Hutchinson , En ineerin De artment COLORADO From 9 9 � Subject: Flatiron ' s S_UP Application to Ammend SUP-2-60 : 74 :23 As per your request , I offer the followinig comments nn two -alternativ- hall routes from the prop'o sed asphalt anid concrete batch pl-ants on Weld County Road 162: ALTERNA-TIVE #1 A private Boulder Creek crossing on subject property for access to Weld County Road 3 . 1 . Proper cover should he comstructed over the culvert on Weld County Road 3 to handla the expected heavy truck traffic . 2 . Weld County Road 3 -should be upgraded to Wald County standards , -including asphalt , to support the anticipated loads and to relieve the expected maintenance and dust problems . ALTERNATIVE #2 Access on Weld County Road 162 west of Boulder Creak and establishment of haul route south on Wald County Road 3 . 1 . The requirements for Alternative #1 should be followed . 2 . Weld County Bridge 152/1-B is rapidly deteriorating . This is a 122 foot structure which is prese-tly limited to 10 ton and will not support the anticipated heavy loads . The structure would require replacement. 3 . No assurances that trucks will not proceed west OT Weld County Road 152 can be achieved .FehRodTey Hutchinson 1\112137VA, Weld County Department of tngideering J ,6�RHH : sarip ED Ig�B pia°eit �Ysr* A.,e misisztt •\ U (rSe61821 Z 9 Oil I l , 9 � June 27, 1979 TO: WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS GRamAmr":OLo, After reviewing all of the testimony from last year's hearings for the Flatirons Gravel Location north of Erie on Mr. Milt Nelson's property, we as residents of Weld County Road 33* (and other accesibie looations) wish to know the following: (1) Even though Road 33 was approved for hauling gravel from their Special Use -Permit, it was -pretty well stipulated at the hearings previously held that -entrance to -Highway 52 would result in a dangerous turn for such barge -equipment from Road 34. Why have they allowed to continue to permit it? (2) It was well determined at those hearings that the majority of the gravel would go to Weld County. Why not take the gravel out to the North or East? This was suggested to the Commissioners during the past hearings that they should study such directions as it would save in fuel costs, taxes, and make for easier highway accessibility. Has any such study been made? (3) We too, as well as the residents of Road Hi , question the environmental impact of such a large corporation using this road. What studies have keen stone to guarantee road maintenance, hours of hauling, noise levels, etc.? Thank you for your immediate response. N��JJJJtgqEE � �pADDDRESS PHONE (1) 4 /7 �-� a1g. /6 .2c 2��l - y� 7 (2) 74, 21L0 41 /g. - J.c'R' It%z 7TH 4;9) 5,000 let 9-2 e (3) ) fH Mir -..e- ...__________4>2r urn � .5 9,19-36 (4) 4,9 coiait €443 Kl Pft a 1Plickz SI4 (5) e�i�9cia // if (6) TO - ,, I S (7) � .(:. 11/ f ��:,Y -00?6 k. (8) 1el-e- 6 ‘• 36. k' 7v (9)( j i.) A 9) C_,Lj cc) `K a�� 4Lc1. 3 /'4 AT - -3 LI ZCj &ICt.Q a e, c_ .44_4e',c, (10) c11) (12) , ) O(13) (14) 174' *100% of residents of this road & accessible locations Vie , �'- � June 11 , 1979 Weld County Commissioners We -are very much -against the County giving. Flatirons Eand and Gravel Company -temporary use of County -Road 16- as an a_ccess route. We Feel that if in dive years the creek has not been low enough for them to install their low water cros-sing, it will never be low enough for at least another five years . If Flatirons is granted temporary use of County Road 16 , we feel that it should be limited to no more than three months . The Friday that Flatirons received their notice that they were using County Road 162 -when their permit stated that they were to use County -toad 3g, They -found it necessary to tie up traffic in front our house for -at lea:t five minutes while the truck drivers talked to each. ,Are we to get more traffic control on our roads? Our roads are not wide enough Sor this _,ind of traffic . Also we leel that the corner of -County Road 1 and county noad 16 is not wide enough for big trucks to turn without causing a hazard to other traffic . e do not !feel that local residents who use these roads should have to watch out for rlatiron1s trucks . Once Flatirons puts in their low water crossing and the creek rises, the rros ing washe-e rout like Turnpike crDs: ing did , Flatirons will be u-sing County Road 16 and County noad 1 for the duration of their sand and gravel mining. 'Sincerely (-)--q/h4,O 444 ) ,.t�o/ Z /)k/ (6- c- 2 c' Q ) / �G 7� y/3 le ((/ fó1 ) / 672,3 St/ I Z C{ Sys > tr—cei-L ,‘€4 e 1 .��; /u� -),.fi r , Caw .-9 r Y7 � nL et-y1.4, art�vV O( �� _ A Ve:et ,7,/ xe7`7 -,isdkr2ze > 4 ; -Yu e �;e �J. 6' " p 77 n `nn N\ 7y Ruth Ann Parade 7 '� " , GA, . ,. : \ 77509�9 North �lounly Line Road ! Lonbmunl, Cotc,iado 80501 :"jab 1. Y� 'd"'o`,/�J • O Q 1;I X ( 4 2„TiL L . - '< -c> ��,tiT - : i �,. .7Y1, 1 /( . cf. li Cr L-[�-C.C/X7 h 11.t. ,4r,1-- L-2. ..7 t_ ...C a Z.U: Z C 77�= / --L�u-.�r , !., /Lc_ f2 ( cd Lt Y �� l �iii .,,,/,_(t./ Zc I� a '2e_ � CL.t Ce• '7L l�u' 722_J7Ze-2J Lt I, "'it- L. el 1 LClc •-� 1 KLI`jL, g-i' ^t, l'.4c 1, g",i. ICA L/7,/te[11-e2- 61LCam'-LC.L t c 4:C. < �e7 " Atf 7 ;;z ,_,lu) ,it-e gtt<,'3 X-CinK_,,LiiiJ �i '1 R.o 1ti.c ciZ rl t/ G _ ,� �/J/( r,l_. ?Liz l 02' L 1(2 -)L_ V.( l:-ilt / (z& /�c Lc" l ?��` j {c.ce ;2-2 , 1----- ('(`i r _ .{ec.�.` `,c— et t-, `,'6;1 4 'n o «. Cc z rx� - cl tt_L-c (4._ ..../C JG-t . ` 7. b rte a2i - - 1‹, 6 y., tip; •</ 1 � L ,C <. -1 YI D' • / “)'/t ' / /) il ee K-EN NEUENS, D.V.M. PRACTICE LIMITED TO HORSES 354 WELD COUNTY ROAD 1&h LONGMONT.COLORADO 80501 (303) 772-4840 %� -4 .t e-c-! C,-( '�1{-JCL/ i i'1 (1-41,72< i-yule f`)1.F'-✓v( ?/-)7,!_:U tli_c- !o-1_, u ii - Z-1/1i_ &i r_1.tr.? 1v_.�U 0 6 -3 2 5.4._./ ��.Ei V 1l / .L >Q<,r /La -cc?) •-1/�.c; iD A.,2-2 _7(2)tA-recwz2fr , - 1 L(2-O)!.�! o{ ',,,-tom L-� .. -°�-� C-(/' yv' ( 7-z� (1 P 7 ) ik (1-‘-'. , --- )Cc�„�.yt LL 4L7 �, � 0. fit/,2'n,,t✓ C1/V--6. o'- t vY�1J 4 r .( ,. _ -71"� 'V'i-"" (� ,J. 1-UCc,2� � ft.”k-1,�.Y�.<_ � /.i ,e,cam-' _� r L-<_).,c_-Q.t, �i�_,-f.-y>�t� x.2(,-�.-c(7 r t'-..'- ,C ,k G a-/ v! 'C�., Z.. � -A ) fk CfY �Lt A 1L .� «��z -y'ti� CI_ 6 ct o� -r' ).--, ,_ _._ . o7 ',Ai_/____C-\:2.<_-C/ _,--(7k.„4„.„. -yit`-. 1.22--,..c r "! '.G=.-4.. .., <-'/I• / e tti b r Lu C Q,U e„,___c ky ` _ {_Q_, e i a__ /�'L L': -C.-- Z.1-t <" C> F.i._C ( _t _C X.ii.. , r, (.�.c. j " c,'1_ \-(- ( < ,Z 1 G- k„)-,7.1..„-„SC < '< e ,,,),1_,..),,A c, �, r ��. Y.x'. L( L'& P 1E'C� z-y.. ,7„ -� - ,-e, _ -yam- ca. -1't-Z4'V 1 :-.x. W.t7q 1.(_/'L G_. )� Al - i, , ti- �m _. . .may, !/�/ .D _ �� _ �,`' G 4' Z'Il_ Zi / -c-- ' O- Ln�1�Yv7n. " J_ 2.<-... .i_,c_¢.y,J C- C a a'=e.._ I L.< }- 1.-lilt "el<4,2-e- ---'11-0 c-: C a > � < c:Flez ve (7 r LCUY.;2.2—i�z < ,. 2 ' l 'yLiLt_f (L: < c� O it - L. -'i.. —) a�7 4c c.elk: __ _ / 9 7 / JJ —1.--1-,..a._,-/t `Lj (,c« .Le) y a . ' ' t' ?. 7..C y<. DALE S. JOHNSON, M.D., P.C. Ophthalmology 1319 VIVIAN STREET LONGMONT, COLORADO 80501 CcIt► M Telephone 772-3611 titk119 9 -"" June 8, 1979 \ , Weld County Commissioners • • 915 10th St. Seeley, Cb 80631 Dear Commissioners: I a writing this letter in reference to a letter that was sent to us several days ago concerning a special hearing for Flatirons, regarding a Special Use Permit #260 and specifically, Development Standard #3 allowing for use of Road 3 only. I regret that I will be unable to attend this special meeting iii'`person as my schedule does not allow, on occasion, for rapid changes. In this case, I have 4 major surgical eye cases to be perfauwed on Wednesday, and I feel it unfair for my patients to disrupt their planning in that they have been anticipating this for several months. Therefore, I hope that you will accept this rieans of discussing this situation with you. The situation as I see it, is that Flatirons Gravel Co. applied for, and recieved a SUP #260 in 1974 and the official Platte registered in Book 279, reciept 1651457, was filed as of July 1975. In that, four development standards were specified for the operation of this gravel pit. Of these, development standard #3 states that only Road 3 shall be used by Flatirons in regard to their gravel operation. Since the situation developed over 4 • years ago I would assume that this standard would have been implemented and met since that time. However, since the beginning of operations of the gravel pit, approximately in April 1979, Road 161 has been used consistantly as their only method of ingress and egress from this gravel site. The planning staff was notified and Cathy Carter was assigned to the investigation. Her investigation is now record and I would suggest that during this hearing she be present for comment. In my conversations with Ms. Carter, she felt they were in violation and therefore, discussed this with her supervisor, Tom Hahn. He apparently then communicated with Flatirons and within 24 hours 99% of the traffic had ceased on Road 162. Indeed, since that time, all transportation of gravel by Flatirons has ceased, yet continued use of Road 161/2 has been used for employees ingress and egress as well as large eauiment that is used in their gravel operations. It was my assumption that Flatirons would then take the appropriate steps . to use Road 3 and Road 3 only after this notification by Tan Hahn, yet I recieved a letter from the Commissioners notifying our neighborhood of the special hearing for Flatirons requests to use Road 161 as a temporary road. I imagine that their discussion will follow the lines that gravel is a much needed resource and because of the high water of the river, they are unable to build a low water crossing at this time and would desire to use Road 16?. To this thought I have several ax'uents: 1) The dorunent was signed and entered in a record as of July 1975. Fran that time until 1979 is four years and that is quite ample time to develop a low water crossing. I would hope that this, • blatant violation was not their intent, and therefore, one can only assume that ignorance of one of only four development standards in a SUP would be their excuse for this violation. I feel that ignorance to this degree should not be rewarded by allowing them to use Road 1614 thus endangering inhabitants on that road plus County Line Road. 2) Tb a comment that this is the only way they can get the gravel out, I would refer to the Commissioners to a letter dated October 23, 1974 from Bruce Hanna, Flatirons Company, to County Engineer Richard Straub. In this letter the use of Road 3 was discussed and as an alternative to high water periods, Mr. Hanna volunteered the use and feasability o₹ a conveyor system. Though I understand that this conveyor system concept is not legally binding to Flatirons in the event of high water and that indeed, it is not in the development standards, it would certainly nulify any argument of Flatirons that they have no other way to extract the gravel from this pit. Therefore, Road 161 would not be their only other egress route option. On the contrary, by their own admission, they are perfectly capable of transporting the gravel over the river by use of conveyor systems and then taking the trucks out on Road 3. 3) Finally, I would like to bring to your attention once again that throughout the 1974 hearing, the people of the Pleasantview area recognized the need for mining valuable mineral resources to the population of both Boulder and t9eld Counties. In that end, they did not try to obstruct the issue on SUP #260. Only four development standards, and of these, three of which are quite general and applied to most any gravel operation anywhere in the county. The fourth one being #3, restricting egress/ingress route for this operation to be limited to Road 3. I would want you to understand that in no way are we against the gravel pit, however, I cannot tell you honestly that it is something I would desire for any one of your back yards. We do -expect the development standards and the legal responsibilities of Flatirons to be met. This is basic to their use of this land for mining gravel. We are not opposed to gravel operation, but this in no way implies that we give them free license to be in violation of the development standards, which I think are minimal to say the least. 4) I regret my inability to be at the hearing on June 13 at 1 P.M. and would -prefer the hearing to be delayed to such a tine that I would be able to come up and present this data and respond to any comments that Flatirons makes in person. Several neighbors have however, changed their busy schedules to attend this meeting. I do recognize that your schedules are also busy and this may be a request that you are unable to meet at this time. I would request your careful consideration of the situation and look forward to hearing from you on these matters. Sincerely and best regards, Dale S. 3bhnson, M.D. C6J/ps 4 0 �•.�� ::• \<11C / p ( u t JLr GRE�4EV. ottnicrn„rxwcOrsw , co. 8 dSZ7/ ro, c 758 � , ea . 8063/ lidinkon.O . 44_4e.. ,t.ott /4,%a a,z c� 4° e a..c.GL.4•4 , am. a-taoa4Z the.. 112 4 .r.kar As. Cucti— trLOt Acrelde. aq,At C.4. a not AtAPata0 of ;J.a t ,A,` ,c4.roa..eQ. ,.h,a„e - t�C el-e.ru a- „ . t 4u-ciao Cou.2, ��e�aaa.� z .o� ro t�.o. a cc� 2�..� We fay 4.4.t An 4 /`J$ a.,Lct_ And_ /. 4.2 a Garai. / L0 a.. n en..ee_ /6ya, 04 devni 4 -4434"/ AAAtrA. rite_ Ac eF/ Situ 2.4.4. p to fo L,. � a , .a. / waa. / ea eila;r4 , Jfite.,uuAfre* , ainot Q2 ist•- --- 4 fate_ dc:z 134 7.k.d, Coi . &C'+` • 02 Ae_ve. AttA I Cc nie. 1974,14- denatt T i an .it �-rvn.4t iii_. a e t. Q and /nada Ate mail iu. ►,,.. , oD 4crojet .,Q,',ke, t ttt24t t t O ;444,,r — /. St 2./u, "A%nriaw .,. " ork 7 -wt (xicke G . ,,x443 Iw z) Q . rot ,Qe,,,,4..t Ifni a. twat. 01,A.o w4_ dA.t.terce kinrk /6% in. Qouxn.e4 ,to 35-/wt.p.h. June 8, 1979 505 Weld Cty. Rd. 161 Longmont, CD 80501 Weld County Commissioners , e - A.' P.O. Box 758 Gam` Greeley, CO 80631 Commissioners: We are highly concerned about the upcoming request of Flatiron Paving Company to use Weld Ooaity Road 161 as a "temporary" haul route for their gravel trucks. Please consider: • 1) Flatiron has had almost five years to construct their low water crossing as per special use Permit #260. They did not do it and we as Weld County residents should not '/ be forced to suffer the consequences of their poor planning. 2) Flatiron has other gravel pits in the area--this source can wait until they meet the conditions of their. permit. 3) In a letter dated October 23, 1974 from Bruce Hannah of Flatiron to Richard Straub, Weld County Engineer, they stated that in the event their low water crossing is inoperable, they will use a conveyor system to transport the gravel acLuss the creek. This is their stated alternative, not road 16 . 4) They have illegally used Rd. 161 since the opening of their pit in April of this year and we have suffered the effects of over 100 mulit-ton/multi-axel trucks per day. They got caught breaking the conditions of their permit and are now asking you to legalize their future use of load 161. Their offier to grade the road and water it is missing the whole point. Besides the dust and poor road, there was horrendous noise, smell and DANGr;R from 5:30 A.M. until after 9:00 P.M. 5) Our children just got out of school this week, and sixty days represents to us the whole summer. Neighborhood children ride bicycles and ponies daily to visit each other, and there are 12 children living in the 5 residences on Road 161 west of Boulder Creek. This proposed haul route would also affect another 30 families on County Line Road, with upwards of 40 children. I don't feel that there is justification for endangering out children with this unreasonable request. 6) Do you as commissioners have the legal right to "amend" a special use 'permit? Flatiron has already violated their their permit--you should be tagging them and closing them dawn instead of considering their unreasonable requests for special priviledges. `they're already wasting our taxpayers money in their pending lawsuit against the commissioners. ,o Pleace refuse their request on June 13th. Respectfully, No.'I)_S3C\ Rev:'77 st1i910 sI VII.ACTION: -a l97s Bradford Publishing Co 18465 .Street.DenverColorado(5;15111 t)-7.pg Court Filing Stamp it IN THE COURT r IN AND FOR i I L! COUNTY OF WELD AND STATE OF COLORADO Civil Action No. Div. STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF WELD ss. Filed with the Clerk of the hoar ci 'I BOULDER GRAVEL PRODUCTS, INC. , of County Commissionersj H, d/b/a FLATIRON SAND AND GRAVEL OCT 171978 I COMPANY, a Colorado corporation, and MILTON H. NELSON, /2. : SD QIY/ �' it 'i —CiOUNTT CLERK 1XO of CpppEp� gy Plaintiffs '+`]U("r ' • vs SUMMONS I Ir THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 'I OF THE COUNTY OF WELD and ED DUNBAR, LEONARD ROE, NORMAN j I' CARLSON, JUNE STEINMARK and VICTOR i 1 JACOBUCCI , in their official I �j 'I capacities, and the WELD COUNTY '' I PLANNING COMM SSIO 11 I Defendant S I I II THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO II TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS , GREETINGS: I 1 IiYou are hereby summoned and required to file with the clerk an answer to the complaint within !!I 20 days after service of this summons upon you. If you fail so to do,judgment by default will be taken j against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. If service upon I i p you is made outside the State of Colorado, or by publication, or if a copy of the II I complaint be not served upon you with this summons, you are required to file your answer to the com- plaint within 30 days after service of this summons upon you. Warning: If this summons does not contain the docket number of the civil action, then the j!complaint may not now be on file with the clerk of the court. The complaint must be filed within ten II days after the summons is served, or the court will be without jurisdiction to proceed further and the !;' action will be deemed dismissed without prejudice and without further notice. Information from the court concerning this civil action may not be available until ten days after the summons is served. ' This is an action* for relief as more clearly set forth in the I Complaint attached hereto. f (t ' I! Dated October 17 1978 i i I 1, 1 ll -- • --- - • - - ,^-1 j Clerk of said Court John A. PrV Attorney for Plaintiff Reg. #0925 H By 1227 Spruce et - P.O. Box 1170 1 I Deputy Clerk Boulder, CO 8O3O6 Address of Attorney 11 442-6514 II I (Seal of Court) I i "This summons is issued pursuant to Rule 4. C.R.C.?.. as amended. If the summons is published or senvevl without a copy of the complaint 1 after the word "action" state the relief demanded. If body execution is sought the summons must state. 'This is an action founded upon tort." II _______ __ e-c : e#4 n dot Q24.4"—tet. irjo6-4 D 27,ITC . /OA2<rn IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WELD AND STATE OF COLORADO CIVIL ACTION NO. - -BOULDER GRAVEL PRODUCTS, INC. , ) d/b/a FLATIRON SAND AND GRAVEL ) COMPANY, a Colorado corporation, ) and MILTON H. NELSON, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs . ) COMPLAINT FOR THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS )ECLE 1T6 YEJLDW AND DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT OF THE COUNTY OF WELD and ED ) -DUNBAR, LEONARD ROE, NORMAN ) CARLSON, JUNE STEINMARK and VICTOR ) JACOBUCCI , in their official ) capacities, and the WELD COUNTY ) PLANNING COMMISSION, ) ) Defendants. ) Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Rules 57 and 106 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, and for their Complaint against Defendants allege as follows: First Claim For Relief 1. Plaintiff Milton H. Nelson (hereinafter "Mr. Nelson" ) is owner of certain real property (hereinafter "the property" ) located in Weld County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Those parts of the following described parcels lying West of the centerline of Boulder Creek, East of the Godding, Dailey and Plumb Ditch and North of County Road 16 1/2 : The Southeast one quarter (1/4) of the Northeast one quarter (1/4) of Section Thirty (30 ) , Township Two (2 ) North, Range Sixty-eight (68 ) West of the Sixth Principal Meridian. The Southwest one quarter (1/4) of the Northwest one quarter (1/4) of Section Twenty-nine (29) , Township Two (2 ) North, Range Sixty-eight (68) West of the Sixth Principal Meridian. All within the County of Weld, State of Colorado 2 . Plaintiff Boulder Gravel Products, Inc. d/b/a Flatiron Sand and Gravel Company (hereinafter "Flatiron" ) and Mr. Nelson have entered into a written agreement pursuant to which, among other things, Flatiron has leased the property for the mining of sand and gravel . 3 . Pursuant to statutory authority, Defendants the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Weld and Ed Dunbar, Leonard Roe, Norman Carlson, June Steinmark, and Victor Jacubucci, in their official capacities (hereinafter "the Commissioners" ) have zoned the property as "A-Agricultural District" , and the property has been so zoned during all times relevant to this Civil Action. 4. Under the Weld County Zoning Resolution, as amended, sand and gravel mining is permitted in an A-Agricultural district upon the granting of a special use permit by the _Commissioners . 5. The Commissioners have previously granted Flatiron a special use permit for the mining of sand and gravel on the property, which has been and remains valid and in effect during all times relevant to this civil action. 6. On May 9, 1978, Flatiron applied to the Commissioners for permission to operate a concrete mixing plant and an asphalt mixing plant on the property in conjunction with the mining of sand and gravel. 7 . The Commissioners, by a Resolution dated September 18, 1978, denied the application of Flatiron for permission to operate a concrete mixing plant and asphalt mixing plant on the property in conjunction with the sand and gravel _operations. 8 . In denying the application of Flatiron for permission to operate a concrete mixing plant and an asphalt mixing plant on the property in conjunction with the mining of sand and gravel the Commissioners were exercising quasi-judicial functions. 2 9 . In denying the application of Flatiron for permission to operate a concrete mixing plant and asphalt mixing plant on the property in conjunction with the mining of sand and gravel the Commissioners exceeded their jurisdiction and abused their discretion for, inter-alia, the following reasons : (A) Under the Weld County Zoning Resolution, once the permit for mining sand and gravel on the property was granted Flatiron was entitled as part of the open mining operation to operate concrete and asphalt mixing plants on the property. The Commissioners were without authority to deny these lawful uses in conjunction with mining of sand and gravel on the property, and had authority only to impose conditions and safeguards on the operation of the concrete mixing plant and asphalt mixing plant; (B) The Commissioners ' denial of the application by Flatiron for permission to operate a concrete mixing plant and an asphalt mixing plant on the property in conjunction with the mining of sand and gravel is in no way related to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Weld County; (C) The record of the Hearing before the Commissioners on the application of Flatiron for permission to operate a concrete mixing plant and an asphalt mixing plant on the property in conjunction with the mining of sand and gravel reflects no evidence which would constitute a proper basis for the denial of the application. 10 . There is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy available to Plaintiffs. Second Claim For Relief 11 . Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege as a part of this claim for relief each and every allegation of Plaintiffs ' First Claim for Relief. 3 12 . The rights of Plaintiffs have been substantially and adversely affected by the Commissioner' s improper actions in interpreting and implementing the Weld County Zoning Resolution and Plaintiffs are entitled to obtain from this Court a declaration of the proper construction of the Zoning Resolution and of their rights under the Zoning Resolution. 13 . The proceeding to determine Plaintiffs ' rights will involve the determination of issues of fact, and will require the introduction of testimony and other evidence. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the Court grant the following relief: 1 . A judgement declaring that Plaintiffs are entitled under the Weld County Zoning Resolution to operate a concrete mixing plant and an asphalt mixing plant on the property in conjunction with the mining of sand and gravel, subject to reasonable conditions tailoring the uses for the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Weld County, and further declaring that the Commissioners exceeded their jurisdiction and abused their discretion in denying the application of Flatiron for such lawful uses . 2 . The issuance of a Citation to the Commissioners to show cause why this relief should not be granted; 3 . The issuance of an Order directing the Commissioners and the Planning -Commission, and their agents and employees, to certify and deliver to the Court at a specified time and place the record transcripts of all proceedings before the Planning Commission and the Commissioners, with Exhibits introduced, including, but not limited to hearings before the Commissioners on September 13 and September 1-8, 1978 . 4. Plaintiffs ' costs, expert witness fees and reason- able attorney' s fees; and 4 5 . Such additional relief as the Court may deem appro- priate. HUTCHINSON, BLACK;'HILL, BUCH,ANAN & COQ % , � $ ' . JO PURVI'S Re stration No. 0925 By S C. B(R I S L $'7 Re straton No. 4 1227 Spruce Street IBaulder, Colorado 80302 Telephone: 442-6514 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS Plaintiffs ' Address : Flatiron Sand & Gravel Company P .O. Box 229 Boulder, Colorado 8030_6 5 Hello