The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20000050.tiff WELD COUNTY. CON'MfSSIO ERS t1999 DEC -7 PH 3: 48 RECEIVED Weld County Referral October 28, 1999 • 0O11 ��1 ;'Ai`� o The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: Applicant Hall-Irwin Construction Case Number AmUSR-1172 Please Reply By November 18, 1999 Planner Anne Best Johnson Project Amendment to Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit to include the sale of landscape materials from a site permitted for a Sand and Gravel Mining Operation in the Agricultural (A)zone district. Legal SE4 of Section 36, Township 1 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. Location North of and adjacent to WCR 2, approximately 1/8 mile east of WCR 23.5. (.,,EN Parcel Number 1469 36 400034 The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) December 21, 1999 ❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan ❑ We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. • ❑ See attached letter. Comments: �J-�`�� /f')G�' �/G/,'77D�� /� �/�/- • Signature Date //3 Agency +Weld County Planning Dept. +1555 N. 17th Ave. Greeley,CO. 80631 •(970)353-6100 ext.3540 +(970)304-6498 7 fax • 1 sf: 2000-0050 S 2 • 1 ♦ • WELD COUNTY Milli k e 11 lbwn titiltOptourpt.t.la nil• Milliken,CO 80543 • (970)587-4331 • (970) 587-2678 Pax RECLI ,'CD Ield County Planning C December 3, 1999 DEC 6 1999 Weld County Commissioners RECEIVED 915 10th Street P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Dear Commissioner: On behalf of the Citizens of the Town of Milliken,The Board of Trustees would request that the Weld County Commissioners deny USR-1237 as presented by the owners of Loveland Ready Mix.We are opposed to this project for multiple reasons, many of which are directly related to health, safety and welfare issues, as was presented to the Weld County Planning Commission, at their November 16, 1999 hearing.We were stunned that the Planning Commission did not take into consideration the request for denial by the Town of Milliken, eTh the Planning Staff of Weld County,The Colorado Department of Wildlife and the numerous citizens who spoke against the proposal. We humbly request that this document become part of the permanent record of any hearing. In fairness to the recent regionalism which is taking place in Weld County,we hope that your direction is to deny this proposal,if however you find that this is an acceptable use then the Town of Milliken would request that the County Commissioners include the following 24 conditions,to help alleviate the impact of this business on the Citizenry,the Community and the County. These conditions are of extreme importance,and the failure to include any one of these will undoubtably create a negative impact on the Town of Milliken. 1. Petroleum products and fuel will be stored on site,therefore we are requesting that the owners of Loveland Ready Mix be required to install a functional fire hydrant within 100 feet of the fuel storage area. 2. That a full and complete engineered traffic study be undertaken and paid for by the applicant, so as to either confirm or deny the Town's position relating to safety issues with their truck traffic. That any conditions identified in the study be implemented prior to any construction taking place. 3. That the owners of Loveland Ready Mix contribute to the improvements deemed necessary at the intersection of SR 257 and SR 60. Their contribution shall be a percentage of the total cost as determined by the traffic study now being undertaken by the Town of Milliken,and shall be based on the projected number of truck trips. 4. That a visual buffer be created along the eastern edge of the property,immediately adjacent to SR 257. Such buffer shall consist of not less than 6 acres. This buffer shall be designated as open rTh space/parks and donated to the Town of Milliken,along with access to the same,prior to commencing operation. 5. The owners of Loveland ready Mix shall post an assurance bond, in enough monies to cover potential water table damage, as determined by a reputable engineering firm. This bond will run for the duration of the operation. 6. That the operation of Loveland Ready Mix not commence before the hour of 7:00 a.m. and cease by 6:00 p.m., six days per week, Sunday excluded. There will also be no operation of the plant or mining operation on any observed holidays. That under no condition shall this operation be allowed to operate 24 hours per day, or seven days per week. 7.That the company be required to pave WCR 48 %the entire length,between WCR 17 and SR 257. That the owners be instructed to dispatch trucks headed west, along 48 'A. 8.That any signage associated with the operation be approved by the Town of Milliken, in regards to current signage regulations. 9. That the facade of the batch plant be constructed so as to resemble a barn and silo,thus decreasing the visual impact on the area.That said facade be painted in appropriate colors so as to blend in with the surrounding area. Or,that the height of any proposed building or structure be limited to less than 35 feet using low profile batch plant systems. 10. That the Town has final approval of any and all landscaping plans,and that such plans take into consideration visual corridors, seasonality, and growing conditions at the site. Further, that the landscape plans include mature specimens of the species recommended. 11. That any septic system proposal be denied, on the basis of being within the flood plain,which is susceptible to annual flooding, and that the owners be required to connect to the Town of Milliken's sewer system,at the applicants cost. That the use of port-a-lets be prohibited,due to the fact that this will be a permanent operation. 12. That the operation be required to attach to the Town of Milliken's water system, which runs through the property. 13. That the USR be issued for no more than 10 years, knowing full well that any future renewal application may or may not be approved. 14. That there be no stock piling of material which would extend over 20 feet in height. Specifically, this would be measured from the lowest point on the property. 15. That any importation of material be limited to no more than 6 months from issuance of the USR. 16. That the color of any and all structures,pole, fences,building and or equipment,be approved by the Town of Milliken, and blend in with the surrounding area. r 17. That security lighting be installed. This lighting shall conform to zero light pollution standards, and of sufficient illumination to protect the area, yet not create an obnoxious situation. 18. That all existing healthy trees be maintained. 19. That all objectionable weeds be eradicated on a yearly basis. 20. That there be a limit to the maximum number of trucks at the site,not to exceed 10. 21. That any structures be required to have a ground set not to exceed 18". 22. At the end of the mining operation, on this site, that all equipment be removed and no further processing take place. 23. That the Town be granted a 100 foot trail/open space easement along the river corridor, on both sides of the river. This granting shall take place prior to commencing operation. 24.That any transportation of material from north of the river,which is being transported to the south side of the river,be accomplished by conveyor belts, rather than a low water crossing. It is the hope of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Milliken, that the Weld County Commissioners, will incorporate these conditions,along with their own, in an effort to respond to the concerns of the community, and in the cooperative fashion that the new regionalism is based upon. Sincerel , teTh Ted ez Mayor t WELD COUNTY = d county Planning Dept. C0MMISSS!0,,T S 1999 DEC -7 PM 3: 8 7tuttleApplegate,lnc. DEC Oa 1999 Consultants for Land, Mineral and Water 'RECEIVED (RECEIVED LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL DATE: November 30, 1999 RE: USR- 1237 TO: Ms. Anne Best-Johnson TA JOB #:98-261 Weld County Planning Department Services 1555 North 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 WE TRANSMIT: THE FOLLOWING: FOR YOUR: Attached n Prints /Bluelines n Use nUnder Separate Cover ❑ Originals ❑ Approval nInformation Below El Copy of Letter ■ Information r\ n Applications El Review & Comment ElSpecifications n Material Returned ❑ Other n Revise & Resubmit Number of Copies Dated Sheets Description 1 11/24/99 2 Letter—RE: USR-1237 1 Copy to: Signed: bco. 600 Gary J. Tuttle w/Enclosures: /��t 11990 Grant Street,Suite 304 • Denver,Colorado 80233 • (303)452-6611 • (Fax)452-2759 • tutapple@csdnet t�"',�a.itqC�''� 5,n.� t `'T.t� , v ., �ar'� s' r 13“ ��.�a>La+y "_T uv�,.,r*1.1:,hfra#4^4 tcr,t..}*y„•n•wx,V=1 COP Yeti' , t . r 999 Bit 3. 118 E ' I` % 0 ''hbttIeApplegate;Inc. De ConsultantsforLand, Mineral and Water �l2ltl County Rldnt�)ng' P November 23, 19'99 Noy 29 1999 NIs.,Anne Best-Johnson ft"E C E l V D Weld County,Department ofPlanning Services `„ 1,555 Nort1T'17th Avem e Crreeley,'Colorado 8'0631 RE:' :Loveland Ready Ivfix, URS-1237 Dear Anne; During the Planning'Commission Hearing on our Use by S,pecial Review Application, the ,, - Commission discussed several of your.suggested conditions for'approyal. ,In order to facilitate r ..� our Board of,County Commissioners`Hearing,`- suggest°w,e explain.and,amend some wording in these,conditions so they know what w,e want. f , Usiirg yourstaff report for the Planning Commission Hearing,:l will'use the same numbering order for mrinput.` ' 2. First D On November 18, 1999,,the Mined Land.Reclamati"on Board approved our State.Permit.'This , cosidition should'say that we will submit a copy ofthe approval.letter fxoin,ihe State of Colorado. F. At the hearing we discussed the difficulty of working with:and getting commitments from oil and • gas:companie's They are not inclined to say if and when they will drillad'ditional wells,but are' eager to,sell applicants the dn1ling nghts.€or a highprice. Bruce Barker mentioned•that the County accepts a reasonable effort and accommodations with`the oil and.gas companies: • • The oil company has:been notified by you with a letter and also`with a sign on the property and •• the newspaper publication. Thus far, they,have not responded. 'We plan to contact them by certified letter and ask for,their input. We,Consider all these steps-Co be a reasonable effort to solicit comments. We would like'this condition'to'also include "the County Commissioners accepting a reasonable effort to make contact with;the mineral interests, even;if.no'comments are received". f 1r1*90 Grant St: ! suite 304'• Denver,C0,80233 5441 Boeing Drive:! Suite 200,0 Loveland CO'80536'8855 ( ) 452 " (970),461-9884 • Fax.(970)613-1177•' (303)452-6611.t•,Fax 303 275.'9 Ms.AnneBest-Johnson November 23, 1999 Page 2 of 2 G • Section 31.5.5 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a 350 foot setback from oil and gas structures. I understand that the County may be amending this to a smaller amount: We will wait and see what that is. If it won't work on our layout,I believe we will have to apply to the Board of Adjustment fora variance. I. With this condition,a member of the Health Department staffinentionedethey wish to have'a copy of the NPDS penmt and,a;storm water management planprepared for the State Department of Public Health and Environment. Development Standards St. Vrain River should be changed to Big Thompson River: 30. Development Standard 22 referenced here should be Development Standard 25. It may advisable for us to review a draft of this motion since it is quite long. Thanks for your help with this application. , Cordially, TUTTLEAPPLEGATE, INC. Gary J. tuttle GJT/csw cc TA File#99-243 Steve Fancher,Loveland Ready Mix,Inc. r ��a FAX TRANSMISSION WI PCi WELD COUNTY COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES " "? FAX: 970-304-6498 2 PHONE: 970-353-6100, EXT. 3540 m rin _y,;,(Fi 0 I 'Cc. f_ C=) To: Gary Tuttle Date: November 29, 1999 FAX: 303.452.2759 Pages: 1, including cover k_J t•y ",z'} 4 PHONE: 303.452. 6611 `x> FROM: Anne Best Johnson,Long-Range RE: USR-1237 Loveland Ready Mix Planner 970.353.6100 x 3540 COMMENTS: Hello, Gary. I hope this weather finds you well. I received your fax. Unfortunately, Planning Staff cannot change Conditions of Approval or Development Standards between Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioner hearings. You may, as the applicant's representative, address these issues at the next hearing. Thanks. CONFIDENTIAL This facsimile is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this facsimile is not the intended recipient nor the employee or agent responsible for delivering the facsimile to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. n is d STATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman St., Room 215 Denver,Colorado 80203 nhb OF Phone:(303)866-3567 L S FAX:(303)832-8106 Y ON TY November 24, 1999 Bill Owens Governor Greg E.Watcher Executive Director Mr. Steve Fancher Michael B.Long Loveland Ready Mix Concrete, Inc. Division Director P.O.Box 299 • Loveland, CO 80539 RE: File No. M-99-065, Milliken Site, 112c Decision Letter - Conditions, Financial and Performance Warranty Request-Construction Material Operation • Dear Mr.Fancher: On November 18, 1999, the Division of Minerals and Geology approved your 112c mining permit application. The conditions to the approval are noted below: e1 Stipulation No. Description • 1. Prior to any consumptive use of groundwater at this site, the operator will provide the Division with a letter or other proof from the Office of the State.Engineer (OSE) that groundwater requirements of the OSE have been satisfied. 2. A 200 foot buffer zone shall be maintained between the edge of the pit and the top of the bank of the Big Thompson River at all times between April 1st and October 1st of each year. A 100 foot mining setback from the top of the bank of the Big Thompson River must be maintained at all times. If the operator mines the zone between 100 feet and 200 feet from the top of the bank of the Big Thompson River, all mining must be completed and backfilled to original ground surface within one low flow season falling between October 1st and march 31st. The operator has committed that "At no time shall the zone between 100 and 200 feet from the highwall to the top of the bank of the • Big Thompson River exceed a maximum horizontal distance of 400 feet." (Tuttle-Applegate FAX to the Division of October 25, 1999). 3. During each year that the reclamation permit for the Milliken Pit is active, the operator shall provide to the Division of Minerals and Geology a signed affidavit stating that a 200 foot buffer zone is established between the edge of the pit and the top of the river RECEIVED bank. The affidavit shall be submitted by April 1st of each year and shall include a �, statement that the buffer zone will be maintained during the period from April 1st F '. 9 1999 through October 1st. rPage 2 November 24, 1999 Mr. Steve Fancher 4. If mining occurs within the strip of land that is between 100 feet and 200 feet from the top of the bank of the Big Thompson River, final reclamation will include a stable backfill to the original ground elevation within the mined strip and reclamation of the surface of the fill in accordance with the approved reclamation plan. The amount of financial warranty set by the Division for this operation is $238,500.00. You must submit a financial warranty in this amount and a performance warranty in order for us to issue a permit. In the event you have requested a financial warranty form, we have enclosed it in this letter. If you have not, please select a type of financial warranty from Rule 4.3. Then contact us so that we can provide you with the appropriate warranty form. We have enclosed a performance warranty form with this letter for your use. PLEASE NOTE THAT MINING OPERATIONS MAY NOT COMMENCE UNTIL A PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE DIVISION AFTER RECEIPT OF YOUR FINANCIAL WARRANTY AND PERFORMANCE WARRANTY. A PERMIT WILL NOT BE ISSUED UNTIL WE VERIFY.THE ADEQUACY OF BOTH YOUR FINANCIAL WARRANTY AND PERFORMANCE WARRANTY. If you have any questions,please contact me. • Sincerely, -Mirs A A-eff 41( Gregg R. Squrrs Environmental Protection Specialist Enclosure cc: Gary Tuttle/Pam Acre,Tuttle Applegate,Inc. Barbara D. Chiappone,DMG • M:bss\pmm temp MAP19065.GRS Weld ;p3 aq ref ' I � � I'M' � `` 16 1y Qur 352-02T7 Ext i . . , A,]4 GfiEELEC-„olo.);,TRIBUNE °s1. '` ;„ 5g1,1 -- tribuneo „ anio p ,,..;74„,;., EDtTORI LBUARD ' a �` ,r ,+r `*° ' � h /s ER v,5u^taatq-£ -1"` pig d "{.fit V +„ i'� �� ' JIMELS�ERRY a bnsna GrLp 1 e'1 p�� ' ' Eat 2U, Isber9®prceleYnlb ao CHRIS COBLER Editort .Ext,2BROWN Cryedko �, py E 1 230 Coble 0p IeyV b o Ext 229 .brow iliNg yv b o �` q 4a RANDY<BAMOERT4ar;en9,,,, THOMA.,iNt'ARTINEEs,i",ea 'rk Ion"- *wonnv t w C, �mlise E 1230. banged®prealeN bM1m E t 219 meM ez®pr£ee 1b� r 111 JEt2IF SUzw„p„,�1CKNewaedi , .Efiio ,yeEL20pio edi t E G228 ck0p le�ybb mm ExL 200 fietOp'''''. Ib c0A L •,, ne�e�died d l r Wednesday'Nbveb`eP999` ' C _ ®t+sourse he.e interests clam Commissioners shoo 74.1 F's directlyi-with'the rights of the prop- • 'for agreement erty owneex Steve Pancher of Love- , ,a r i . - land°Rea$ Mix wants to retrieve all cr.- push ,i„„.7.72, t 1.n.- Rural urban conflicts''wd b the the valuable miaefals from the site ,,,I`T9 underlying story of what hap,,ge„}visn nit and thent0e.able to develop the F---•Fri '' - Weld County for years co come, pr ertytafter that operation is fin- I How well we deal with this i"ssue ishe i I will dictate our quality of life for • Statela1w even-requires that these '- enerations.Will we have smart. ,, val,"vable:�ruk'ieraisbe mined befo e f--1 —" "" g p eve a, to-t - V---k �,� growth as vaguely defined as that= laneeS deve",,„, . Such a requite 0i tail tit ,� term is—or will we destroy what , .- meatafspringstfrOm the need for con- ra makes us special? Crete oisatisfy<the demand created OO •The latest example of this is theby growiflr which in turn leads to propo,'sal I y'Loveland Ready-Mix to mo'e tpralsvurban conflicts. operate a gravel mining,pit next to 'Ellie County's comprehensive plan the town of Milliken.Town resi- callsy₹'or it to`respectthe plans of • dents,the Division of and Welds towns.At the same time, the the county planting staff alllined up plan places a priority on retrieving „to oppose , , availal1letminerals and protecting' , the opera- .'r f n,r ruralmterests. tion. - ' � 1' s�' Horw do wetsatisfy these compet . The town -"r- 7 AFC ing nterestsv'The Bounty commis- "which re vet d 1? stoners wtO must;give final •cently com -el�la �i approvai,,get„the,next crack at an- pletedits Mm +'[gn k e e- swenngi„`sthis difficult question. compirehen - "�` A pjace.to start woul'd-be to delay sive„.plan k • muss net A approvaldof the operation..Ask both objected he i meet'Wj(lapms:t., s s.• sides,to.get together and consider a ' cause the ,.„ euf r compromise.Already,Loveland , Chee d led Read Mix has"than ed its oii inal mining oper • a8t xt@ ,'�, , Y �, g g ation stand. ,. , proposal.to'lessen the impact of the right in the,path of�whereR Filfikenl c;; : milnnig lihcluding additional landscap is projected io grow Nearby home mg fencing andlimitedhours.of'opea owners understandably dolt want anon41 r nr ,„,- ., to be`near the noise, traffic anddust A key.,remaining point of con created by mining. tentioi"•..the rd n uration of the mng. The wildlife division^argued that The company wants to mine for ini33 the 120 acres represent-prime•habi- yearslandt then reclaim the property tat for many rare and threatened for,development. If the mining species along the Front Range.Like could be.Sped up, the land could be the town, the DOW wants the land developed sooner,andfit within Mil- /y"'\ preserved as open space. - - hken''s g o�wth,projections. f ' Like'most rural-urban conflicts, esolutions'do not come easy. Our fu _-. ^—i «tore depends,though, on how' hard r " „T�',; ewe search for them.- s (1)(f:;\ MEMORANDUM 1111111 TO Anne Best-Johnson, Long Range Planner DATE: November 22 1995 il C. FROM- Donald Carroll, Engineering Administrator ; /� SUBJECT: USER- 1237, Loveland Ready Mix COLORADO The Weld County Public Works Department has reviewed this proposal. This project falls primar ly under the purview of the Use by Special review for a Gravel Mining Operation and a Batch Plant standards. Our comment and requirements are as follows COMMENTS: WCR 48.5 is ,dentified on the Weld County Transportation Plan Map as a local gravel road with a r,ghtot-way width of 60 feet and is ma ntained by wed County. REQUIREMENTS: 1. Upgrading and Paving:The applicant shall enter into a Road Maintenance and Improvements Agreernem: with Weld County Public Works to upgrade and pave WCR 48.5 for approximately 2,000 feet west of State Highway 257 through the west entrance. This shall reflect 24 feet of asphalt with six-foot gravel shout iers Depth of asphalt aid base or full depth asphalt will be determined through soil investigations 2. Storm Water Drainage: The applicant shall supply a storm water drainage report The design shall retain the storm water runoff for a fully developed site from a 100-year storm. The drainage facility shall be designed to release and retain water at a quantity and rate not to exceed the quantity and rate of a I(IC year storm failing on an undeveloped site 3. Improvements: P ease contact the Colorado Department of Transportation to verify any improvements additional setbacks, or right-of-way from Highway 257 to the facility. 4. Traffic Impact Analysis: A traffic impact analysis will be required for the intersection of WCR 48 5 anc State Highway 257 if additional improvements are required due to heavy truck hauling The operator shat be responsible for the improvements cc USR-1227 phr151Sr I: XHIIIBtT II 4,(?0,\ MEMORANDUM tttt ��' TO: Drew Scheltinga & Jim Brewer DATE: November 19, 1999 •; ' FROM: Donald Carroll, Engineering Administrator igilt 4 ,, TIE11 County Planning Lep SUBJECT:USR-1237;Loveland Ready Mix Concrete,n. • COLORADO N0V �� 2 3 1999 RR I am requesting a pavement design on WCR 48.5 for approximately 2,000 feet vJ� fcEl V F I X Highway 257 to the entrance of the proposed concrete batch plant.. The applicant will enter into a Road Maintenance and Improvements Agreement with Weld County Public Works to upgrade and pave this section of road which will include 24 feet of asphalt with six foot gravel shoulders. The depth shall be determined by the Weld County Public Works Department through soils investigation and pavement design. Additional input from the Colorado Department of Transportation regarding length of taper, accel-decel lanes, left turn slots, and any other requirements will be handled through the standard referral process and will be incorporated into the Improvements Agreement. The file and previous correspondence are available for your review. cc: Frank B. Hempen,Jr., Director of Public Works, County Engineer Dave Becker, Director of Operations ]] .4, n0 Anne Best Johnson, Long'Range`'Pllanner 3 III C 0 Z USR-1237 k .. C? r ' Fri .p Th I -.i�fLJ✓�L- Jant N.ews vi, a Best . Cemmar ��' �_ Gre ele ,f ri High 75'. bone Low Newspa(t 35 - \ Reddents say nnoratinn GfB6•r- will harm environment _v A" BY DAN ENGLAND MINING PIT . MJ!iken A controversial l minor pa adjacent ntto Bare Tuttle ann t t mil a u d th e:tree open--'�'--�-- ce Le PaIt t]Iik .a oCc app d Tusda; Tuu1eA t atan D.� and nrdhmhtrreoumt n.b .se. Ica lcscbeaam_o:.-evr_ p.miiiiiJ s alne the O. ;d Court PI t _Commistoe _I sr me promo mid Mai si Pp 1'. lg e ft le /� The dp a camedespite objecgons from m a e Me a a h am:red`r around r I n - n. z. s e t r I -.r c a1 ie-aFrer - ] the adS ani1 t d h nt aha .he I. Wildlife..h n WHAT'S re v it-. ..n .1 n Ehrbch ra 'Yob Fe.a v A4x Fa the , e 'ac mot sesca sums, �, gaff NEXT- - - q fiihiess e r v th d t 1 d_e fe p t 00 fear m of mon de :nth:area II The plan Much u u e t o the met bottom.L Debated obuild a gray-, the in the flood bur speak rental far harmful end a mmmg oper and to the frank},ma imartal.Is cembik r Jeara emanst the taarose' an sale mine of at• zon near f° et .k ' - Iles un planner qv Mllkenwill dieoratom h s- t p space in onoehen 11f the dIFt gravel Best Johnson ow consltl- dI ofa o 7uule p to el u took pre d ai t Co m about the nmod ow-be becon d."and h o correct hWfm develop s.n Celand pl 'k t J.e of at Weld The mining would be t slam n the tos b v F Im d Pk:'glee tendal Lekeland d Mx n e o CounlrCum-. moue to o t the gh vs; n hab to keep me eames trete It J a with nos truce meslonere:A e tc the impost of hoped re: our seems to ale h beet m illing to v truce meeting to ore- walla. c i III HE al h. e "We think our ph t r gh a lesn"Ph .doss the plan- a e aid: Idl f al important said]R S h • Ia nt p 1." An c n.af d Mil' has not duled:n_ 3 z t it.s tar,., won administratorfor commineo Milliken P:a. r t t s. 'scheduledok,nag Jr: pit OK'd l do mat i Au ld weec But l s pin ex t operation cause to pasture: Tuttle d V : td t killk• 1TL and e -iu'ee r„the,orod Al t.�l.t. 1 .nor p fwd officials h d h c o I la e r habitat Bat that s no h.. Use Eh.ut cramp the a d a ed re sued Lh See MINING PIT.Page A16 oIu t d di t tt or no c 4 r r r n or s h d nuec d o± omen xt • sd, ,lt m n llllhker I b.I n PI • _ tl - n -t rmnn a WED COUNTY COMMIc..1n -17-, November 10, 1999 1999 DEC -7 I{ 3- t#9 C 7`v,ED Meld County Planning DeP, Ms. Ann Best-Johnson Weld County Department of Planning Services ov i 7 1999 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 VED Dear Ms. Johnson; I respectfully request that the special review proposal by Loveland Ready Mix for USR- 1237 be denied. As a resident, land owner, builder, and developer in the Milliken area, I feel that the location of this operation in the proposed area would carry several negative effects which would be detrimental to our! r"-\ 1. Quality of life in general 2. Traffic safety 3. Environment 4. Entry appearance to the Town Milliken 5. Property values 6. Market ability of our lively hood — new homes Thanking you in advance for your consideration on this matter. Sincerely, i WELD COUNT'f 1999 Drf' _7 PM 3 44 November 10, 1999 RFCEIYED Ms. Ann Best-Johnson Weld County Planning Lep Weld County Department Planning of Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 NOV 17 1999 RECEIVED Dear Ms. Johnson; I respectfully request that the special review proposal by Loveland Ready Mix for USR- 1237 be denied. As a resident, land owner, builder, and developer in the Milliken area, I feel that the location of this operation in the proposed area would carry several negative effects which would be detrimental to our! 1. Quality of life in general 2. Traffic safety 3. Environment 4. Entry appearance to the Town Milliken 5. Property values 6. Market ability of our lively hood — new homes Thanking you in advance for your consideration on this matter. Sincerely, Le'Pot-L. lGI ers r } CI WEALD COUNTY COM flr•t.'IONErS November 10, 1999 1999 DEC -7 PM 3= i9 RECEIVED Ms. Ann Best-Johnson Weld County ,VeidCcu Department of Planning Services nty piann;ngtsp. 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 AIM/ 17 , ECEI c Dear Ms. Johnson; I respectfully request that the special review proposal by Loveland Ready Mix for USR- 1237 be denied. As a resident, land owner, builder, and developer in the Milliken area, I feel that the location of this operation in the proposed area would carry several negative effects which would be detrimental to our! 1. Quality of life in general 2. Traffic safety 3. Environment 4. Entry appearance to the Town Milliken 5. Property values 6. Market ability of our lively hood — new homes Thanking you in advance for your consideration on this matter. Sincerely, mad Russle 3 L.L.C. C 75'2 rtr 17-7-1 WEED COUNTY November 10, 1999 1999 DEC 7 PM 3: X39 RECEIVED Ms. Ann Best-Johnson Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Ms. Johnson; I respectfully request that the special review proposal by Loveland Ready Mix for USR- 1237 be denied. As a resident, land owner, builder, and developer in the Milliken area, I feel that the location of this operation in the proposed area would carry several negative effects which would be detrimental to our! M 1. Quality of life in general 2. Traffic safety 3. Environment 4. Entry appearance to the Town Milliken 5. Property values 6. Market ability of our lively hood — new homes Thanking you in advance for your consideration on this matter. Sincerely, Roil Rote f LC c rr .J. i WELD COUNTY ��r,�a ar an.rrr\ December 1999 1999 DEC 27 AM ff: 02 Homeowner at the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities RECENT-7r Hwy 257 and Mad Russian Boulevard RECE NNTr Milliken, CO 80543 Weld County Commissioners 915 10th (356-4000) Greeley, CO 80631 RE: PROPOSED CONCRETE BATCH PLANT--MILLIKEN, CO Dear Weld County Commissioners: On behalf of my family and as a resident of the City of Milliken I would ask that the Weld County Commissioners delay the approval of the proposed Loveland Ready-Mix gravel mining pit. My concerns revolve around the safety issues that their heavy trucking industry would create. Highway 257 would become incredibly dangerous with the slow moving concrete trucks moving to the North up the steep grade. Until the traffic safety issues have been carefully researched and addressed I would ask that you do not quickly approve this project. The Mad Russian Golf Course Communities are ,�.., in a major growth surge with another 148 homesites becoming available the Spring of the year 2000. All of the homeowners will be using the Mad Russian Boulevard where it enters Highway 257. Already, we are having serious concern for the safety of the children that are picked up by the slow moving buses at that intersection. The traffic/safety-road issues are a major concern. Please delay approval of the concrete batch plant as these issues are researched and addressed. Thank you. Sincerely, HOMEOWNER AT THE MAD RUSSIAN GOLF COURSE COMMUNITIES ?AT lhd LEABOW4104(91:" oh�NE ,►t 55-cf94 ,_7:mrp n= 1 _ Cal 1 WELD COUNTY December /1999 riem 1999 DEC 27 AM l 102 Homeowner at the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities Hwy 257 and Mad Russian Boulevard Milliken, CO 80543 l;e1d County Commissioners 915 10th (356-4000) - Greeley, CO 80631 RE: PROPOSED CONCRETE BATCH PLANT--MILLIKEN, CO Dear Weld County Commissioners: On behalf of my family and as a resident of the City of Milliken I would ask that the Weld County Commissioners delay the approval of the proposed Loveland Ready-Mix gravel mining pit. My concerns revolve around the safety issues that their heavy trucking industry would create. Highway 257 would become incredibly dangerous with the slow moving concrete trucks moving to the North up the steep grade. Until the traffic safety issues have been carefully researched and addressed I would ask that you do not quickly approve this project. The Mad Russian Golf Course Communities are -., in a major growth surge with another 148 homesites becoming available the Spring of the year 2000. All of the homeowners will be using the Mad Russian Boulevard where it enters Highway 257. Already, we are having serious concern for the safety of the children that are picked up by the slow moving buses at that intersection. The traffic/safety-road issues are a major concern. Please delay approval of the concrete batch plant as these issues are researched and addressed. Thank you. Sincerely, HOMEOWNER AT THE MAD RUSSIAN GOLF COURSE COMMUNITIES IkkONO /AK5 C� 5ili\it6uc z 11 ou,.We \Ick5kr, Co S WELD COUNTY COP`*.11C, EUYi "?C. December 1999 1999 DEC 27 AM 01 Homeowner at the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities — {''� Hwy 257 and Mad Russian Boulevard SEC_;V L D Milliken, CO 80543 Weld County Commissioners 915 10th (356-4000) Greeley, CO 80631 RE: PROPOSED CONCRETE BATCH PLANT--MILLIKEN, CO Dear Weld County Commissioners: I am a homeowner in the Mad Russian Golf Course Subdivision. We moved to this beautiful area because of the specatular views, the elegant neighborhood and the pastoral setting. As you are probably aware, the neighborhood has a higher number of retired people who are home during the day. We are concerned about the noise, traffic and dust that a gravel mining pit would create. Also of serious concern is the possibility of the batch plant adversely effecting property values. We would ask, that you as our county commissioners look carefully at the possibility that the county's comprehensive plan calls for it to respect the "city plan" of Weld county's individual towns/cities. F'"\ It is my understand that the town of Milliken has turned down this proposed concrete batch plant. If you were to approve it---wouldn't that be a failure to respect their "city plan". If the batch plant were to go in the revenues would be lost to the Town of Milliken and their "city plan" for the developement of the area would be delayed for 33 years. It is our desire that the Weld County Commissioners do not approve the Loveland- Ready Mix gravel mining pit. Sincerely, /tehg-01-7— HOMEOWNER AT THE MAD RUSSIAN GOLF COURSE COMMUNITIES f.e_nyisyclUovamol pk\ )uc j Umiv �o�f��urj Co � � December 1999 WELD COUNTY COMV' mmr? n, (ems, Homeowner at the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities ( e Hwy 257 and Mad Russian Boulevard 1990 DEC 27 AM 10. 59 Milliken, CO 80543 RECEI� -D Weld County Commissioners 915 10th (356-4000) Greeley, CO` 80631 RE: PROPOSED CONCRETE BATCH PLANT--MILLIKEN, CO Dear Weld County Commissioners: It is of great concern to me to hear that the Weld County Planning Board gave preliminary approval to the proposed concrete batch. plant. It is my understanding that the staff did not recommend its approval. I am asking that you as the Weld County Commissioners do NOT RECOMMEND its approval. The obvious reasons are as follows: 1 . TRAFFIC SAFETY. . . .dangerous traffic conditions due to heavily loaded concrete trucks leaving the plant (during full production) every 3 minutes. A steep road grade exists to the North on Hwy 257. . .road is narrow with little shoulder. . . .traffic speeds are high. . .School bus safety is a problem. 2. ' CONCRETE BATCH PLANT RESIDUAL DUST. . . .particularly effecting the newest phase at the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities. . . .148 lots to be available in the Spring of the year 2000. 3. NOISE there is a higher number of retired people that have moved to this beautiful and pastoral setting. . .they are home during the day. . .from early morning on the noise will be of concern. 4. LENGTH OF CONCRETE PROJECT. . . .the 33 year duration of the project is in direct opposition to the growth plan that the Town of Milliken has previously outlined for the area. 5. CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TOWN'S INTERESTS AND THE COUNTY'S INTEREST. . . . It is my understanding that the county is called to respect the growth plans that towns/cities have determined in their "city-plans". The Town of Milliken has previously turned down the concrete batch plant and by the way forfeited the revenues in favor of a beautiful future for Milliken. 6. PROPERTY VALUES An industry that has noise, dust, visual issues, and safety issues does not enhance our property values in a golf course community. 7. WILDLIFE ISSUES The area is a wildlife haven. In allowing this batch plant you will be destroying their homes. It is a prime habitat for rare and threatened species along the Front Range. We ask that you do not recommend the approval of the Loveland Ready-Mix Concrete /^\ batch plant. ��Thankryyo�u for your careful consideration of�this -,matter. !( INCERaY, )& AhrtI 6U ' 1 1( V2 / 1v£ HOMEOWNER AT THE MAD RUSSIAN GOLF COURSE k. IAU6t/ Co c(1300 ) December 1999 WELD COUNTY COMM?SS(ONFRS (' Homeowner at the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities rr Hwy 257 and Mad Russian Boulevard 1999 Ut+: 27 Mi ll: 00 Milliken, CO 80543 Weld County Commissioners RECEIVED 915 10th (356-4000) Greeley, CO 80631 RE: PROPOSED CONCRETE BATCH PLANT--MILLIKEN, CO Dear Weld County Commissioners: It is of great concern to me to hear that the Weld County Planning Board gave preliminary approval to the proposed concrete batch. plant. It is my understanding that the staff did not recommendits approval. I am asking that you as the Weld County Commissioners do NOT RECOMMEND its approval. The obvious reasons are as follows: 1. TRAFFIC SAFETY. . . .dangerous traffic conditions due to heavily loaded concrete trucks leaving the plant (during full production) every 3 minutes. A steep road grade exists to the North on Hwy 257. . .road is narrow with little shoulder. . . .traffic speeds are high. . .School bus safety is a problem. 2. CONCRETE BATCH PLANT RESIDUAL DUST. . . .particularly effecting the newest �.\ phase at the Mad Russian.Golf Course Communities. . . .148 lots to be available in the Spring of the year 2000. 3. NOISE there is a higher number of retired people that have moved to this beautiful and pastoral setting. . .they are home during the day. . .from early morning on the noise will be of concern. 4. LENGTH OF CONCRETE PROJECT. . . .the 33 year duration of the project is in direct opposition to the growth plan that the Town of Milliken has previously outlined for the area. 5. CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TOWN'S INTERESTS AND THE COUNTY'S INTEREST. . . . It is my understanding that the county is called to respect the growth plans that towns/cities have determined in their "city-plans". The Town of Milliken has previously turned down the concrete batch plant and by the way forfeited the revenues in favor of a beautiful future for Milliken. 6. PROPERTY VALUES An industry that has noise, dust, visual issues, and safety issues does not enhance our property values in a golf course community. 7. WILDLIFE ISSUES The area is a wildlife haven. In allowing this batch plant you will be destroying, their homes. It is a prime habitat for rare and threatened species along the Front Range. We ask that you do not recommend the approval of the Loveland Ready-Mix Concrete batch plant. Thank you for your careful/ul consideration of this matter. SINCERELY, ett.-id '� G�K �! ." 77cin JJ`, HOMEOWNER AT THE MAD RUSSIAN GOLF COURSE C16 1i' ^,Mkt 5rici\i l_bv4A C0 n I WELD COUNTY crti,jmirci F.a December 1999 IN? DEC 27 AM SJ: 59 Homeowner at the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities _ Hwy 257 and Mad Russian Boulevard RECEIVED Milliken, CO 80543 Weld County Commissioners 915 10th (356-4000) Greeley, CO 80631 RE: PROPOSED CONCRETE BATCH PLANT--MILLIKEN, CO Dear Weld County Commissioners: On behalf of my family and as a resident of the City of Milliken I would ask that the Weld County Commissioners delay the approval of the proposed Loveland Ready-Mix gravel mining pit. My concerns revolve around the safety issues that their heavy trucking industry would create. Highway 257 would become incredibly dangerous with the slow moving concrete trucks moving to the North up the steep grade. Until the traffic safety issues have been carefully researched and addressed I would ask that you do not quickly approve this project. The Mad Russian Golf Course Communities are e"1 in a major growth surge with another 148 homesites becoming available the Spring of the year 2000. All of the homeowners will be using the Mad Russian Boulevard where it enters Highway 257. Already, we are having serious concern for the safety of the children that are picked up by the slow moving buses at that intersection. The traffic/safety-road issues are a major concern. Please delay approval of the concrete batch plant as these issues are researched and addressed. Thank you. Sincere , / HOMED ER AT THE MAD R SSIAN GOLF COURSE COMMUNITIES /tr4 /A , I j1 4 1, Z ;rs WELD COUNTY COMMicr ra. December 1999 ( 1499 DEC 27 AN fO 55 Homeowner at the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities C r . Hwy 257 and Mad Russian Boulevard RECEIVE D Milliken, CO 80543 Weld County Commissioners 915 10th (356-4000) Greeley, CO 80631 RE: PROPOSED CONCRETE BATCH PLANT--MILLIKEN, CO Dear Weld County Commissioners: I am a homeowner in the Mad Russian Golf Course Subdivision. We moved to this beautiful area because of the specatular views, the elegant neighborhood and the pastoral setting. As you are probably aware, the neighborhood has a higher number of retired people who are home during the day. We are concerned about the noise, traffic and dust that a gravel mining pit would create. Also of serious concern is the possibility of the batch plant adversely effecting property values. We would ask, that you as our county commissioners look carefully at the possibility that the county's comprehensive plan calls for it to respect the "city plan" of Weld county's individual towns/cities. It is my understand that the town of Milliken has turned down this proposed concrete batch plant. If you were to approve it---wouldn't that be a failure to respect their "city plan". If the batch plant were to go in the revenues would be lost to the Town of Milliken and their "city plan" for the develripement of the area would be delayed for 33 years. It is our desire that the Weld County Commissioners do not approve the Loveland- Ready Mix gravel mining pit. Sinc rely, n.azziHOMEOWNER AT THE MAD RUSSIAN GOLF COURSE COMMUNITIES Mr.d Mrs.Garold Sisson P.O.Boa 39 Johnstown,CO 80634-0039 C' j yP° __ December 1999 (�WnppEpLD` COUNTY _ li`si n'�t j.lf�:.u-onr.� m //�\ Homeowner at the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities Hwy 257 and Mad Russig S9IEleardfl &; 26 Milliken, CO 80543 p. r tL `^ Weld County Commissioners—s G �'J; L� "Q 915 10th (356-4000) �� Greeley, CO 80631 RE: PROPOSED CONCRETE BATCH PLANT--MILLIKEN, CO 8 Dear Weld County Commissioners: It is of .great concern to me to hear that the Weld County Planning Beard gave preliminary approval to the proposed concrete batch. plant. It is my understanding that the staff did not recommend its approval. I am asking that you as the Weld County Commissioners do NOT RECOMMEND its approval. The obvious reasons are as follows: 1. TRAFFIC SAFETY. . . .dangerous traffic conditions due to heavily loaded concrete trucks leaving the plant (during full production) every 3 minutes. A steep road grade exists to the North on Hwy 257. . .road is narrow with little shoulder. . . .traffic speeds are high. . .School bus safety is a problem. 2. CONCRETE BATCH PLANT RESIDUAL DUST. . . .particularly effecting the newest r`\ phase at the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities. . . .148 lots to be available in the Spring of, the year 2000. 3. NOISE.,. ,. .there is,.a. higher number of retired people that have moved to thb beautiful and pastoral ,setting. . .they are home during the day. . .from early morning on the noise will be of. concern. 4. LENGTH OF CONCRETE PROJECT. . . .the 33 year duration of the project is in direct opposition to the growth plan that the Town of Milliken has previously outlined for the area. 5. CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TOWN'S INTERESTS AND THE COUNTY'S INTEREST. . . . It is my understanding that the county is called to respect the growth plans that towns/cities have determined in their "city-plans". The Town,of Milliken has previously turned down the concrete batch plant and by the way forfeited the revenues in favor of a beautiful future for Milliken. 6. PROPERTY VALUES An industry that has noise, dust, visual issues, and safety issues does not enhance our property values in a golf course community. 7. WILDLIFE ISSUES The area, is a wildlife haven. In allowing this batch plant you will be destroying their homes. It is .a prime habitat for rare and threatened species along the Front Range.. We ask that you do not recommend the approval of the Loveland Ready-Mix Concrete / batch plant. Thank you for /yJouur careful consideration of this matter. INCERELY, � j/cC . /4 I ]r - Q (( cJ�Wr�a. Ise \1 HOMEOWNER AT THE MAD RUSSIAN GOLF COURSE n December 1999 WELD COUNTY CONAISSIONES c, Z �h4 Homeowner at the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities ( ) Hwy 257 and Mad Russian Boulevard DEC1949 28 AM $ 25 2 �— Milliken, CO 80543 REC: ED Weld County Commissioners :WED cm 1.--- 915 10th (356-4000) C d' Greeley, CO 80631 ` ) ct . 15 — RE: PROPOSED CONCRETE BATCH PLANT--MILLIKEN, CO 1 1 Dear Weld County Commissioners: Z It is of great concern to me to hear that the Weld County Planning Board gave preliminary approval to the proposed concrete batch. plant. It is my understanding that the staff did not recommend its approval. I am asking that you as the Weld County Commissioners do NOT RECOMMEND its approval. The obvious reasons are as follows: 1. TRAFFIC SAFETY. . . .dangerous traffic conditions due to heavily loaded concrete trucks leaving the plant (during full production) every 3 minutes. A steep road grade exists to the North on Hwy 257. . .road is narrow with little shoulder. . . .traffic speeds are high. . .School bus safety is a problem. 2: CONCRETE BATCH PLANT RESIDUAL DUST. ...partieularly effecting .the newest phase at the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities. . . .148 lots to be available in the Spring of 'the year 2000. 3. NOISE there is a higher number of retired people that have moved to this beautiful and pastoral setting. . .they are home during the day. . .from early morning on the noise will be of concern. 4. LENGTH OF CONCRETE PROJECT. . . .the 33 year duration of the project is in direct opposition to the growth plan that the Town of Milliken has previously outlined for the area. 5. CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TOWN'S INTERESTS AND THE COUNTY'S INTEREST. . . . It is my understanding that the county is called to respect the growth plans that towns/cities have determined in their "city-plans". The Town of Milliken has previously turned down the concrete batch plant and by the way forfeited the revenues in favor of a beautiful future for Milliken. 6. PROPERTY VALUES An industry that has noise, dust, visual issues, and safety issues does not enhance our property values in a golf course community. 7. WILDLIFE ISSUES The area is a wildlife haven. In allowing this batch plant you will be destroying their homes. It is a prime habitat for rare and threatened species"along the Front Range. We ask that you do not recommend the approval of' the.Loveland Ready-Mix Concrete batch plant. Thank you for your carefu consideration of this matter. SINCERELY,taM _ , _ ,1 / ', c--0/ -_ HOMEOWNER AT THE MAD RUSSIAN GOLF COURSE ''' r---26:-.-.L,-___- December 1999 (_\{* '1,1N cAk� q�f. -z_ Homeowner at the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities Hwy 257 and Mad Russian Boulevard ;- , pflit I 'Ve- Milliken, CO 80543 II / County Commissioners �� 11 )- Weld915 10th (356-4000) 1f�n� y Greeley, CO 80631 11 RE: PROPOSED CONCRETE BATCH PLANT--MILLIKEN, CO Dear Weld County Commissioners: It is of great concern to me to hear that the Weld County Planning Board gave preliminary approval to the proposed concrete batch plant. It is my understanding that the staff did not recommend its approval. I am asking that you as the Weld County Commissioners do NOT RECOMMEND its approval. The obvious reasons are as follows: 1. TRAFFIC SAFETY. . . .dangerous traffic conditions due to heavily loaded concrete trucks leaving the plant (during full production) every 3 minutes. A steep road grade exists to the North on Hwy 257. . .road is narrow with little shoulder. . . .traffic speeds are high. . .School bus safety is a problem. 2. CONCRETE BATCH PLANT RESIDUAL DUST. . . .particularly effecting the newest phase at the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities. . . . 148 lots to be available in the Spring of the year 2000. 3. NOISE there is a higher number of retired people that have moved to this beautiful and pastoral setting. . .they are home during the day. . .from early morning on the noise will be of concern. 4. LENGTH OF CONCRETE PROJECT. . . .the 33 year duration of the project is in direct opposition to the growth plan that the Town of Milliken has previously outlined for the area. 5. CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TOWN'S INTERESTS AND THE COUNTY'S INTEREST. . . . It is my understanding that the county is called to respect the growth plans that towns/cities have determined in their "city-plans". The Town of Milliken has previously turned down the concrete batch plant and by the way forfeited the revenues in favor of a beautiful future for Milliken. 6. PROPERTY VALUES An industry that has noise, dust , visual issues, and safety issues does not enhance our property values in a golf course community. 7. WILDLIFE ISSUES The area is a wildlife haven. In allowing this batch plant ;you will be destroying their homes. It is a prime habitat for rare and threatened species along the Front Range. We ask that you do not recommend the approval of the Loveland Ready-Mix Concrete batch plant. Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter. e NCERELY, �� ( �� / I / l?DI E OP, g{ IXMISIT e �, �l II 1� � CO C Bt- r--IA (� HOMEOWNER AT THE MAD RUSSIAN GOLF COURSE __- - • December 1999 Homeowner at the Mad Russian Golf,Rourse Communities Hwy 257 any: Mad Russian Boulevard-- ' Milliken, CO 80543 's Weld County Commissioners � 915 10th (356-4000) Greeley, CO 80631 V RE: PROPOSED CONCRETE BATCH PLANT--MILLIKEN, CO r. Dear Weld County Commissioners: It is of great concern to me to hear that the Weld County Planning Board gave preliminary approval to the proposed concrete batch plant. It is my understanding that the staff did not recommend its approval. I am asking that you as the Weld County Commissioners do NOT RECOMMEND its approval. The obvious reasons are as follows: 1. TRAFFIC SAFETY. . . .dangerous traffic conditions due to heavily loaded concrete trucks leaving the plant (during full production) every 3 minutes. A steep road grade exists to the North on Hwy 257. . .road is narrow with little shoulder. . . .traffic speeds are high. . .School bus safety is a problem. 2. CONCRETE BATCH PLANT RESIDUAL DUST. . . .particularly effecting the newest phase at the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities. . . .148 lots to be available in the Spring of the year 2000. 3. NOISE there is a higher number of retired people that have moved to this beautiful and pastoral setting. . .they are home during the day. . .from early morning on the noise will be of concern. 4. LENGTH OF CONCRETE PROJECT. . . .the 33 year duration of the project is in direct opposition to the growth plan that the Town of Milliken has previously outlined for the area. 5. CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TOWN'S INTERESTS AND THE COUNTY'S INTEREST. . . . It is my understanding that the county is called to respect the growth plans that towns/cities have determined in their "city-plans". The Town of Milliken has previously turned down the concrete batch plant and by the way forfeited the revenues in favor of a beautiful future for Milliken. 6. PROPERTY VALUES An industry that has noise, dust, visual issues, and safety issues does not enhance our property values in a golf course community. 7. WILDLIFE ISSUES The area is a wildlife haven. In allowing this batch plant you will be destroying their homes. It is a prime habitat for rare and threatened species along the Front Range. We ask that you do not recommend the approval of the Loveland Ready-Mix Concrete batch plant. Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter. SINCERELY,n ) t/ a U t�-cfi+ ,�t. Act 2 EXHIBIT OMEOWNE T THE MAD JUJSSIAN GOLF CO R -R1 3 //6 87 O. O.c -. p'9P` ' /L/ i A/n ) December 1999 C7 CJ ry \ Homeowner at the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities Hwy 257 and Mad Russian Boulevard ^ � "^ Milliken, CO 80543 • , Weld County Commissioners '' - -- ✓ _5 O '1' 915 10th (356-4000) Greeley, CO 80631 RE: PROPOSED CONCRETE BATCH PLANT--MILLIKEN, CO Dear Weld County Commissioners: It is of great concern to me to hear that the Weld County Planning Board gave preliminary approval to the proposed concrete batch plant. It is my understanding that the staff did not recommend its approval. I am asking that you as the Weld County Commissioners do NOT RECOMMEND its approval. The obvious reasons are as follows: 1. TRAFFIC SAFETY. . . .dangerous traffic conditions due to heavily loaded concrete trucks leaving the plant (during full production) every 3 minutes. A steep road grade exists to the North on Hwy 257. . .road is narrow with little shoulder. . . .traffic speeds are high. . .School bus safety is a problem. 2. CONCRETE BATCH PLANT RESIDUAL DUST. . . .particularly effecting the newest phase at the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities. . . .148 lots to be available in the Spring of the year 2000. 3. NOISE there is a higher number of retired people that have moved to this beautiful and pastoral setting. . .they are home during the day. . .from early morning on the noise will be of concern. 4. LENGTH OF CONCRETE PROJECT. . . .the 33 year duration of the project is in direct opposition to the growth plan that the Town of Milliken has previously outlined for the area. 5. CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TOWN'S INTERESTS AND THE COUNTY'S INTEREST. . . . It is my understanding that the county is called to respect the growth plans that towns/cities have determined in their "city-plans". The Town of Milliken has previously turned down the concrete batch plant and by the way forfeited the revenues in favor of a beautiful future for Milliken. 6. PROPERTY VALUES An industry that has noise, dust, visual issues, and safety issues does not enhance our property values in a golf course community. 7. WILDLIFE ISSUES The area is a wildlife haven. In allowing this batch plant you will be destroying their homes. It is a prime habitat for rare and threatened species along the Front Range. We ask that you do not recommend the approval of the Loveland Ready-Mix Concrete batch plant. Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter. SINCERELY, ,//�/� EXHIBIT j� �G'UG(I l✓/��;dl, 2— _A-LA c� � vCt �j O/1 //H�OMMED R AT THE D RUSSIAN GOLF COURSE L SQ4123� `%Il/ G�� C(' Y//(�J�-3- December 1999 Homeowner at the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities Hwy 257 and Mad Russian Boulevard - Milliken, CO 80543 Weld County Commissioners 915 10th (356-4000) Greeley, CO 80631 RE: PROPOSED CONCRETE BATCH PLANT--MILLIKEN, CO Dear Weld County Commissioners: I am a homeowner in the Mad Russian Golf Course Subdivision. We moved to this beautiful area because of the specatular views, the elegant neighborhood and the pastoral setting. As you are probably aware, the neighborhood has a higher number of retired people who are home during the day. We are concerned about the noise, traffic and dust that a gravel mining pit would create. Also of serious concern is the possibility of the batch plant adversely effecting property values. We would ask, that you as our county commissioners look carefully at the possibility that the county's comprehensive plan calls for it to respect the "city plan" of Weld county's individual towns/cities. It is my understand that the town of Milliken has turned down this proposed concrete batch plant. If you were to approve it---wouldn't that be a failure to respect their "city plan". If the batch plant were to go in the revenues would be lost to the Town of Milliken and their "city plan" for the developement of the area would be delayed for 33 years. It is our desire that the Weld County Commissioners do not approve the Loveland- Ready Mix gravel mining pit. Sincerely, HOMEOWNER AT THE MAD RUSSIAN GOLF COURSE COMMUNITIES S027 WIC, t C(Al , (Jc) ` Z 4 EXHIBIT -_-'N�� December 1999 :_-__— _- c_ Homeowner at the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities T 1 Hwy 257 and Mad Russian Boulevard ; - <. r" Milliken, CO 80543 --"— C---- (-e E— Weld County Commissioners C--) 77) 915 10th (356-4000) CX�1 Greeley, CC' 80631 RE: PROPOSED CONCRETE BATCH PLANT--MILLIKEN, CO V1�\ X Cl'- Dear Weld County Commissioners: It is of great concern to me to hear that the Weld County Planning Board gave preliminary approval to the proposed concrete batch plant. It is my understanding that the staff did not recommend its approval. I am asking that you as the Weld County Commissioners do NOT RECOMMEND its approval. The obvious reasons are as follows: 1. TRAFFIC SAFETY. . . .dangerous traffic conditions due to heavily loaded concrete trucks leaving the plant (during full production) every 3 minutes. A steep road grade exists to the North on Hwy 257. . .road is narrow with little shoulder. . . .traffic speeds are high. . .School bus safety is a problem. 2. CONCRETE BATCH PLANT RESIDUAL DUST. . . .particularly effecting the newest phase at the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities. . . . 148 lots to be available in the Spring of the year 2000. 3. NOISE. . . . .there is a higher number of retired people that have moved to this beautiful and pastoral setting. . .they are home during the day. . .from early morning on the noise will be of concern. 4. LENGTH OF CONCRETE PROJECT. . . .the 33 year duration of the project is in direct opposition to the growth plan that the Town of Milliken has previously outlined for the area. 5. CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TOWN'S INTERESTS AND THE COUNTY'S INTEREST. . . . It is my understanding that the county is called to respect the growth plans that towns/cities have determined in their "city-plans". The Town of Milliken has previously turned down the concrete batch plant and by the way forfeited the revenues in favor of a beautiful future for Milliken. 6. PROPERTY VALUES An industry that has noise, dust, visual issues, and safety issues does not enhance our property values in a golf course community. 7. WILDLIFE ISSUES The area is a wildlife haven. In allowing this batch plant you will be destroying their homes. It is a prime habitat for rare and threatened species along the Front Range. We ask that you do not recommend the approval of the Loveland Ready-Mix Concrete batch plant( Thank you for your c eful consideration of this matter. '---1,cLet Q. 1�0 SINCERELY, • ( �� nr,IA Id O,� a - ' i-n- - —' 4 UXHIBIT HOMEOWNEK AT THE MAD RUSSIAN GOLF COURSE }_' u". (231 December 1999 Homeowner at the Mad. Russian Golf Course Communities Hwy 257 and Mad Russian Boulevard Milliken, CO 80543 Weld County Commissioners 915 10th (356-4000) Greeley, CO 80631 RE: PROPOSED CONCRETE BATCH PLANT--MILLIKEN, CO Dear Weld County Commissioners: I am a homeowner in the Mad Russian Golf Course Subdivision. We moved to this beautiful area because of the specatular views, the elegant neighborhood and the pastoral setting. As you are probably aware, the neighborhood has a higher number of retired people who are home during the day. We are concerned about the noise, traffic and dust that a gravel mining pit would create. Also of serious concern is the possibility of the batch plant adversely effecting property values. We would ask, that you as our county commissioners look carefully at the possibility that the county's comprehensive plan calls for it to respect the "city plan" of Weld county's individual towns/cities. It is my understand that the town of Milliken has turned down this proposed concrete batch plant. If you were to approve it---wouldn't that be a failure to respect their "city plan". If the batch plant were to go in the revenues would be lost to the Town of Milliken and their "city plan" for the developement of the area would be delayed for 33 years. It is our desire that the Weld County Commissioners do not approve the Loveland- Ready Mix gravel mining pit. Sincerely, LAJLA KPie��-- it HOMEOWNER A.T THE MAD RUSSIAN GOLF COURSE COMMUNITIES V yflI 1`h(1 Ott, PeltR_Spn Ali III) l) El/ LO SVI EXHIBIT USL#►231 Subject: PROPOSED CONCRETE BATCH PLANT--MILLIKEN,CO Attention: Dale K. Hall County Board of Commissioners Dear Thle K. Hall chair - -.: As a homeowner in the Mad Russian Golf Course Community, I am of course deeply concerned with the proposed concrete plant. We as members of the community want to watch our corner of Weld county grow and reach the potential of beauty that it is capable of. However, as the Postmaster in Morrison, Co, our town was faced with the same dilemma that you are now facing. The plant was approved. Before you make any decisions, I can tell you how this concrete plant adversely affected our town. Believe me, there are many more cons than pros. Please contact me at my office. The phone number is (303) 697-6095. US Postal Service Morrison, Co 80465-9998 Larry Romer -- 2 EXHIBIT UG • l.612.41Z3"1 "EAR WELD COUNTY COMMISSONERS JUST BECAME A HOMEOWNER IN THE MAD RUSSIAN GOLF COURSE SUBDIVISION AS POSTMASTER IN MORRISON CO 80465. WE FACED THE SAME PROBLEM THAT YOU ARE NOW FACING,,,AND BEFORE YOU MAKE THIS CHOICE, I CAN TELL YOU WHY YOU SHOULD HOLD UP ON THIS FOR NOW. THERE ARE MORE CONS THEN PROS' PLEASE CALL ME AT MY OFFICE 303-697-6095 US POSTAL SERVICE MORRISON CO 80465-9998 LARRY ROM>ERO December 1999 Homeowner at the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities Hwy 257 and Mad Russian Boulevard ' - �{ pp Milliken, CO 80543 Mrzs Weld County Commissioners 1( 901.1 j 915 10th (356-4000) V y Greeley, CO 80631 Nrlill Ili lV f r� RE: PROPOSED CONCRETE BATCH PLANT--MILLIKEN, CO T -nth Dear Weld County Commissioners: It is of great concern to me to hear that the Weld County Planning Board gave preliminary approval to the proposed concrete batch plant. It is my understandir..g that the staff did not recommend its approval. I am asking that you as the Weld County Commissioners do NOT RECOMMEND its approval. The obvious reasons are as follows: 1. TRAFFIC SAFETY. . . .dangerous traffic conditions due to heavily loaded concrete trucks leaving the plant (during full production) every 3 minutes. A steep road grade exists to the North on Hwy 257. . .road is narrow with little shoulder. . . .traffic speeds are high. . .School bus safety is a problem. 2. CONCRETE BATCH PLANT RESIDUAL DUST. . . .particularly effecting the newest phase at: the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities. . . .148 lots to be available in the Spring of the year 2000. 3. NOISE there is a higher number of retired people that have moved to this beautiful and pastoral setting. . .they are home during the day. . .from early morning on the noise will be of concern. 4. LENGTH OF CONCRETE PROJECT. . . .the 33 year duration of the project is in direct opposition to the growth plan that the Town of Milliken has previously outlined for the area. 5. CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TOWN'S INTERESTS AND THE COUNTY'S INTEREST. . . . It is my understanding that the county is called to respect the growth plans that towns/cities have determined in their "city—plans". The Town of Milliken has previously turned down the concrete batch plant and by the way forfeited the revenues in favor of a beautiful future for Milliken. 6. PROPERTY VALUES An industry that has noise, dust, visual issues, and safety .issues does not enhance our property values in a golf course community. 7. WILDLIFE ISSUES The area is a wildlife haven. In allowing this batch plant you will be destroying their homes. It is a prime habitat for rare and threatened species along the Front Range. We ask that you do not recommend the approval of the Loveland Ready-Mix Concrete batch plant. Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter. SINCERELY, // 7 EXHIBIT CHOMEOWNER AT THE MA RUSSIAN GOLF COURSE 1414 U5&*123-1 anowea to onng any gravel in to mare concrete. 1 ne six monies was autnonzea oecause one OT the Planning Commissioners was concerned that Loveland Concrete Plant would not be able to make a go of the business without first getting a customer base, prior to starting the mining operation. Surprised us that the Planning Commissioners would be concerned whether a Company makes a profit or not. This is a business decision, not for the Planning Commissioners to be concerned with. A complete "Traffic Study" needs to be done on all of the safety issues that were discussed. WILDLIFE ISSUES: During this meeting Gary Tuttle stated that they have already done away with the prairie dog population. My question is how was this accomplished and was it done in an humane way and did the County supervise the removal. Since this is a haven for wildlife (bald eagles, hawks, deer. rabbits, foxes, owls, fish etc) what will happen with them. The County should request input from the Colorado Wildlife Division. EXNIBIT MILLIKENS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IGA: The Town of Milliken had this land as open space in their Comprehensive Plan, which with the wildlife and the beauty of the area it should stay that way. The Town of Milliken denied the Applicant the right to annex into the town because it did not comply with this plan. It was my understanding that Weld County recommended to the towns that they draft up a Comprehensive Man and IGA and it would be looked at, prior to any decisions made that would affect the towns. Gary Tuttle stated that since the IGA was not signed yet, It was not valid. Since this was already proposed and waiting for signatures, would believe that it is valid. The County Attorney should make a decision on the validity of this. Because the concrete plant will be right between the Mad Russian Estates and the Town of Milliken, it will have a drastic effect on the Residents, i.e reduced property values, noise, dust, visual issues, and safety concerns. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: We have lived in the area for more then two years and the pest two springs the river has exceeded it's banks in both directions because of the area being in a flood plain. With the concrete plant right where the river overflows, this would cause insurmountable damage. Since there are 'Wetlands" on this acreage it should stay as is and be environmental sound. Also the haul back needs to be discussed on how it will be disposed of. GRAVEL MINING OPERATIONS: Approximately four miles Northwest from this location there is another mining operation at County Road 54 and 15 that must have just been approved in 1999.. The gravel from here is being trucked to Lafarge Concrete Co. in Loveland. It looks like Lorimer County must not be approving these kind of operations, since all of Larimer County firms are now trying to get Weld County's approval. The County needs to seriously consider these new requests, since there are so many already in operation within their boundaries. SIZE OF OPERATION: The Planning Commissioners made a decision to limit the number of mixer trucks to twelve at any one time. How is the County going to monitor this and does it mean that only the same twelve can come and go out of this plant.? If this is not true, then it can become a very big concern if they can have twelve trucks coming and going all of the time. This could become a very big operation. Need to have a better definition on this, since we were not allowed to question it at the time of this meeting. Because the County was very instrumental on having the Towns in Weld County have a Comprehensive Plan and a IGA in place, they need to respect the input from them and make decisions to better serve the City and County residents. We hope that all of our concerns are taken in effect with an open mind, and you do not approve this application. Frank & Carol Knowski 2148 County Club Parkway Miliken, Co. 80543 Tele. 0 970-587-2826 CC: Honorable Governor Bill Owens Environmental Protection Agency Division of Wildlife Town of Milliken Editor Greeley Tribune Editor Johnstown Breeze December 1999 diMON Tl Out�> NL Homeowner at the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities f �ry y� Hwy 257 and Mad Russian Boulevard. V ur} 2srrow Milliken, CO 80543 Weld County Commissioners - - \ileac6 ,I �H 915 10th (356-4000) Greeley, CO 80631 {-g V(-6 6d CL) RE: PROPOSED CONCRETE BATCH PLANT--MILLIKEN, CO UU Y \172*-7 Dear Weld County Commissioners: It is of great concern to me to hear that the Weld County Planning Board gave preliminary approval to the proposed concrete batch plant. It is my understanding that the staff did not recommend its approval. I am asking that you as the Weld County Commissioners do NOT RECOMMEND its approval. The obvious reasons are as follows: 1 . TRAFFIC SAFETY. . . .dangerous traffic conditions due to heavily loaded concrete trucks leaving the plant (during full production) every 3 minutes. A steep road grade exists to the North on Hwy 257. . .road is narrow with little shoulder. . . .traffic speeds are high. . .School bus safety is a problem. 2. CONCRETE BATCH PLANT RESIDUAL DUST. . . .particularly effecting the newest phase at the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities. . . . 148 lots to be available in the Spring of the year 2000. 3. NOISE there is a higher number of retired people that have moved to this beautiful and pastoral setting. . .they are home during the day. . .from early morning on the noise will be of concern. 4. LENGTH OF CONCRETE PROJECT. . . .the 33 year duration of the project is in direct opposition to the growth plan that the Town of Milliken has previously outlined for the area. 5. CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TOWN'S INTERESTS AND THE COUNTY'S INTEREST. . . . It is my understanding that the county is called to respect the growth plans that towns/cities have determined in their "city-plans". The Town of Milliken has previously turned down the concrete batch plant and by the way forfeited the revenues in favor of a beautiful future for Milliken. 6. PROPERTY VALUES An industry that has noise, dust, visual issues, and safety issues does not enhance our property values in a golf course community. 7. WILDLIFE ISSUES The area is a wildlife haven. In allowing this batch plant you will be destroying their homes. It is a prime habitat for rare and threatened species along the Front Range. We ask that you do not recommend the approval of the Loveland Ready-Mix Concrete batch plant. Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter. SINCERELY, EXHIBIT . �OME ER AT THE MAD RUSSIAN GOLF COURSE IASZ#1231 December 1999 ^n Homeowner at the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities -- Hwy 257 and Mad Russian Boulevard i .- Milliken, CO 80543 Weld County Commissioners 915 10th (356-4000) Greeley, CO 80631 RE: PROPOSED CONCRETE BATCH PLANT--MILLIKEN, CO Dear Weld County Commissioners: I am a homeowner in the Mad Russian Golf Course Subdivision. We moved to this beautiful area because of the specatular views, the elegant neighborhood and the pastoral setting. As you are probably aware, the neighborhood has a higher number of retired people who are home during the day. We are concerned about the noise, traffic and dust that a gravel mining pit would create. Also of serious concern is the possibility of the batch plant adversely effecting property values. We would ask, that you as our county commissioners look carefully at the possibility that the county's comprehensive plan calls for it to respect the "city plan" of Weld county's individual towns/cities. It is my understand that the town of Milliken has turned down this proposed concrete batch plant. If you were to approve it---wouldn't that be a failure to respect their "city plan". If the batch plant were to go in the revenues would be lost to the Town of Milliken and their "city plan" for the developement of the area would be delayed for 33 years. It is our desire that the Weld County Commissioners do not approve the Loveland- Ready Mix gravel mining pit. / /Sincerely, HOME ER d THE MAD RUSSIAN GOLF 7COURSE COMMUNITIES 1 EXHIBIT KK LLsn 414231 December 1999 Homeowner at the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities Hwy 257 and. Mad Russian Boulevard Milliken, CO 80543 Weld County Commissioners 915 10th (356-4000) y Greeley, CO 80631 1,6_74O , AKs 6r. t R RE: PROPOSED CONCRETE BATCH PLANT--MILLIKEN, CO Dear Weld County Commissioners: \ailtaW6 Co It is of great concern to me to hear that the Weld County Planning Board gave preliminary approval to the proposed concrete batch plant. It is my understanding that the staff did not recommend its approval. I am asking that you as the Weld County Commissioners do NOT RECOMMEND its approval. The obvious reasons are as follows: 1 . TRAFFIC SAFETY. . . .dangerous traffic conditions due to heavily loaded concrete trucks leaving the plant (during full production) every 3 minutes. A steep road grade exists to the North on Hwy 257. . .road is narrow with little shoulder. . . .traffic speeds are high. . .School bus safety is a problem. 2. CONCRETE BATCH PLANT RESIDUAL DUST. . . .particularly effecting the newest phase at the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities. . . .148 lots to be available in the Spring of the year 2000. 3. NOISE there is a higher number of retired people that have moved to this beautiful and pastoral setting. . .they are home during the day. . .from early morning on the noise will be of concern. 4. LENGTH OF CONCRETE PROJECT. . . .the 33 year duration of the project is in direct opposition to the growth plan that the Town of Milliken has previously outlined for the area. 5. CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TOWN'S INTERESTS AND THE COUNTY'S INTEREST. . . . It is my understanding that the county is called to respect the growth plans that towns/cities have determined in their "city-plans". The Town of Milliken has previously turned down the concrete batch plant and by the way forfeited the revenues in favor of a beautiful future for Milliken. 6. PROPERTY VALUES An industry that has noise, dust, visual issues, and safety issues does not enhance our property values in a golf course community. 7. WILDLIFE ISSUES The area is a wildlife haven. In allowing this batch plant you will be destroying their homes. It is a prime habitat for rare and threatened species along the Front Range. We ask that you do not recommend the approval of the Loveland Ready-Mix Concrete batch plant. Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter. SINCERELY, 1 EXHIBIT HOMEOWNER AT THE MAD RUSSIAN GOLF COURSE / L t,SR 4sz31 !C January 4, 2000 Weld County Commissioners 915 10 Greeley, CO 80631 RE: PROPOSED CONCRETE BATCH PLANT -- MILLIKEN, CO Dear Weld County Commissioners: I am a homeowner in the Mad Russian Golf Course Subdivision. We moved to this area because of the spectacular views and the pastoral setting. We are concerned about the noise, traffic and dust that a gravel mining pit would create. The Mad Russian Golf Course Communities are in a major growth surge, with another 148 homesites becoming available this spring. All the homeowners will be using the Mad Russian Boulevard where it enters Highway 257. With the amount of traffic on the highway now, the slow moving concrete trucks going up the steep grade to the north would create a very dangerous situation. Many of the truck drivers are not as courteous as they were at one time. Rocks falling from the gravel trucks and hitting windshields is also a concern. We are also concerned with the noise created by this plant and the trucks traveling by each day. There are a number of retired people living in this area„ who are home during the day, and will be effected by the noise. Also of concern is the possiblity of the batch plant adversely effecting property values. We ask that you do not recommend the approval of the Loveland ReadyMix Concrete Batch Plant. Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter. Sincerely, ,LJ � gg > yam_ Kermit and Lois Peterson Homeowner at the Mad Russian Golf Course Community Hwy. 257 and Mad Russian Boulevard Milliken, CO 80543 i I 41 MXNfi1T mm LiSa #.ar <date> Weld County Board of Commissioners 915 10th Street, 3rd Floor Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Commissioners, It is of concern to my husband and Ito hear that the Weld County Planning Board gave preliminary approval to the proposed concrete batch plant near Milliken Colorado. We are requesting that you seriously consider and not recommend it's approval for the following reasons: Traffic safety, more large trucks on Hwy 257 create a greater risk to those of us who frequently use the highway..The hill on which the Mad Russian Estates is located, is dangerous enough without an increase of large truck traffic. We travel several times daily on the highway and have been subjected to several close calls with slower trucks being passed on the curve. going north on 257. Also, while turning into the subdivision, from southbound 257, trucks not slowing down for residents to enter safely. Is our safety and the safety of others worth a landowners profit. The Town of Milliken is opposed to this operation, which is located in their backyard, how can the financial interests of the landowner ever out weigh the interests of the people of Milliken or any other small community Milliken has struggled for years to change the image of the community. They deserve your support. There are several families who live on Road 48 1/2, they deserve to have their interests protected. Personally, put yourself in their situation, in their location, what would you want your commissioner to do? Thirty-three years is a long time for the people who reside and travel near the proposed area. We will have to live daily with your decision. Please, we ask you to carefully consider your decision on the concrete batch plant. Sincerely, Linnea and Dean Stumpf 101 Eagle Drive Milliken, CO 80543 g )(NWT KIO Litt 5'4 '* ,7 Ken 8 Jodell Holman 2157 Country Club Pkwy - --- - Milliken,Co 80543 .. . Melonaglia 476- Ss7-St'7C •1 January 4, 2000 Weld County Commissioners 915 10th Greeley, CO 80631 Dear M. J. Geile: Subject:Proposed Concrete Batch Plant—Milliken,CO I am a homeowner in the Mad Russian Golf Course Subdivision. We moved to this beautiful area because of the spectacular views, the elegant neighborhood has a number of retired people who are home during the day. We are concerned about the noise, traffic and dust that a gravel mining pit would create. Also of serious concem is the possibility of the batch plant adversely effecting property values. We would ask, that you as our county commissioners look carefully at the possibility that the county's comprehensive plan calls for it to respect the "city plan" of Weld county's individual towns/cities. It is my understanding that the town of Milliken has tumed down this proposed concrete batch plant. If you were to approve it—wouldn't that be a failure to respect their "city plan". If the batch plant were to go in the revenues would be lost to the Town of Milliken and their"city plan"for the development of the area would be delayed for 33 years. It is our desire that the Weld County Commissioners do not approve the Loveland-Ready Mix gravel mining pit. Since ly, Ken&Jodell Holman Mad Russian Homeowners and Weld County Voters t EXHIBIT use afriz37 December 1999 13,14 Homeowner at the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities ..10 to Hwy 257 and Mad Russian Boulevard , r. _,,, +. n ¶ Milliken, CO 80543 �? .. Weld County Commissioners i 0 ''6 'f' 915 10th (356-4000) SS,� Greeley, CO 80631 " • RE: PROPOSED CONCRETE BATCH PLANT--MILLIKEN, CO Dear Weld County Commissioners: It is of great concern to me to hear that the Weld County Planning Board gave preliminary approval to the proposed concrete batch plant. It is my understanding that the staff did not recommend its approval. I am asking that you as the Weld County Commissioners do NOT RECOMMEND its approval. The obvious reasons are as follows: 1. TRAFFIC SAFETY. . . .dangerous traffic conditions due to heavily loaded concrete trucks leaving the plant (during full production) every 3 minutes. A steep road grade exists to the North on Hwy 257. . .road is narrow with little shoulder. . . .traffic speeds are high. . .School bus safety is a problem. 2. CONCRETE BATCH PLANT RESIDUAL DUST. . . .particularly effecting the newest phase at the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities. . . .148 lots to be available in the Spring of the year 2000. 3. NOISE there is a higher number of retired people that have moved to this beautiful and pastoral setting. . .they are home during the day. . .from early morning on the noise will be of concern. 4. LENGTH OF CONCRETE PROJECT. . . .the 33 year duration of the project is in direct opposition to the growth plan that the Town of Milliken has previously outlined for the area. 5. CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TOWN'SINTERESTS AND THE COUNTY'S INTEREST. . . . It is my understanding that the county is called to respect the growth plans that towns/cities have determined in their "city-plans". The Town of Milliken has previously turned down the concrete batch plant and by the way forfeited the revenues in favor of a beautiful future for Milliken. 6. PROPERTY VALUES An industry that has noise, dust, visual issues, and safety issues does not enhance our property values in a golf course community. 7. WILDLIFE ISSUES The area is a wildlife haven. In allowing this batch plant you will be destroying their homes. It is a prime habitat for rare and threatened species along the Front Range. We ask that you do not recommend the approval of the Loveland Ready-Mix Concrete batch plant. Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter. SINCERELY, /� _LuirplI3, MEOWNE AT THE MAD RUSSI pr GOL/F CO �� t-ac fr- 4 IIXI ISIT NYU tv USt'tan Nancy Nolin Gary and Nancy Noun Homeowners 105 Par Drive Mad Russian Estates Maliken CO 80543 4. iXHIS T ( usg#a December. / 1999 Homeowner at the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities Hwy 257 and Mad Russian Boulevard Milliken, CO 60543 n` r' ' Solon R Conaway Weld County Commissioners 2I46Cawnyc1u6Pkwy Waken Co 80543-9611 915 10th (356-4000) Greeley, CO 80631 RE: PROPOSED CONCRETE BATCH PLANT--MILLIKEN, CO Dear Weld County Commissioners: It is of great concern to me to hear that the Weld County Planning Board gave preliminary approval to the proposed concrete batch plant. It is my understanding that the staff did not recommend its approval. I am asking that you as the Weld County Commissioners do NOT RECOMMEND its approval. The obvious reasons are as follows: 1. TRAFFIC SAFETY. . . .dangerous traffic conditions due to heavily loaded concrete trucks leaving the plant (during full production) every 3 minutes. A steep road grade exists to the North on Hwy 257. . .road is narrow with little shoulder. . . .traffic speeds are high. . .School bus safety is a problem. 2. CONCRETE BATCH PLANT RESIDUAL DUST. . . .particularly effecting the newest phase at the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities. . . .148 lots to be available in the Spring of the year 2000. 3. NOISE there is a higher number of retired people that have moved to this beautiful and pastoral setting. . .they are home during the day. . .from early morning on the noise will be of concern. 4. LENGTH OF CONCRETE PROJECT. . . .the 33 year duration of the project is in direct opposition to the growth plan that the Town of Milliken has previously outlined for the area. 5. CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TOWN'S INTERESTS AND THE COUNTY'S INTEREST. . . . It is my understanding that the county is called to respect the growth plans that towns/cities have determined in their "city-plans". The Town of Milliken has previously turned down the concrete batch plant and by the way forfeited the revenues in favor of a beautiful future for Milliken. 6. PROPERTY VALUES An industry that has noise, dust, visual issues, and safety issues does not enhance our property values in a golf course community. 7. WILDLIFE ISSUES The area is a wildlife haven. In allowing this batch plant you will be destroying their homes. It is a prime habitat for rare and threatened species along the Front Range. We ask that you do not recommend the approval of the Loveland Ready-Mix Concrete batch plant. Than you for your careful consideration of this matter. SINCERELY , (�G�l/ re 1^ (/,1 „`.IIe� i EXHIBIT HOMEOWNE AT THE MAD RUSSIAN GOLF COURSE r4 C!5%1�LZ37 ,or Decembercdf 1999 Homeowner at the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities ' Hwy 257 and Mad Russian Boulevard Milliken, CO 80543 - Weld County Commissioners 915 10th (356-4000) Greeley, CO 80631 RE: PROPOSED CONCRETE BATCH PLANT--MILLIKEN, CO Dear Weld County Commissioners: I am a homeowner in the Mad Russian Golf Course Subdivision. We moved to this beautiful area because of the specatular views, the elegant neighborhood and the pastoral setting. As you are probably aware, the neighborhood has a higher number of retired people who are home during the day. We are concerned about the noise, traffic and dust that a gravel mining pit would create. Also of serious concern is the possibility of the batch plant adversely effecting property values. We would ask, that you as our county commissioners look carefully at the possibility that the county's comprehensive plan calls for it to respect the "city plan" of Weld county's individual towns/cities. It is my understand that the town of Milliken has turned down this proposed concrete batch plant. If you were to approve it---wouldn't that be a failure tc respect their "city plan". If the batch plant were to go in the revenues would be lost to the Town of Milliken and their "city plan" for the developement of the area would be delayed for 33 years. It is our desire that the Weld County Commissioners do not approve the Loveland— Ready Mix gravel mining pit. Sincere , 7v,�,,, C<P'e--C-c ac-t-r HOMEOWNER AT THE MAD RUSSIAN GOLF COURSE COMMUNITIES j IXHISIT SS 44sR 1a 7 December 1999 Homeowner at the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities Hwy 257 and Mad Russian Boulevard " 7 r• -2' Milliken, CO 80543 Weld County Commissioners 915 10th (356-4000) 5 IL Greeley, CO 80631 // /7/11(e 2 Ce 'C4'3 RE: PROPOSED CONCRETE BATCH PLANT--MILLIKEN, CO Dear Weld County Commissioners: It is of great concern to me to hear that the Weld County Planning Board gave preliminary approval to the proposed concrete batch plant. It is my understanding that the staff did not recommend its approval. I am asking that you as the Weld County Commissioners do NOT RECOMMEND its approval. The obvious reasons are as follows: 1. TRAFFIC SAFETY. . . .dangerous traffic conditions due to heavily loaded concrete trucks leaving the plant (during full production) every 3 minutes. A steep road grade exists to the North on Hwy 257. . .road is narrow with little shoulder. . . .traffic speeds are high. . .School bus safety is a problem. 2. CONCRETE BATCH PLANT RESIDUAL DUST. . . .particularly effecting the newest phase at the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities. . . .148 lots to be available in the Spring of the year 2000. 3. NOISE there is a higher number of retired people that have moved to this beautiful and pastoral setting. . .they are home during the day. . .from early morning on the noise will be of concern. 4. LENGTH OF CONCRETE PROJECT. . . .the 33 year duration of the project is in direct opposition to the growth plan that the Town of Milliken has previously outlined for the area. 5. CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TOWN'S INTERESTS AND THE COUNTY'S INTEREST. . . . It is my understanding that the county is called to respect the growth plans that towns/cities have determined in their "city-plans". The Town of Milliken has previously turned down the concrete batch plant and by the way forfeited the revenues in favor of a beautiful future for Milliken. 6. PROPERTY VALUES An industry that has noise, dust, visual issues, and safety issues does not enhance our property values in a golf course community. 7. WILDLIFE ISSUES The area is a wildlife haven. In allowing this batch plant you will be destroying their homes. It is a prime habitat for rare and threatened species along the Front Range. We ask that you do not recommend the approval of the Loveland Ready-Mix Concrete batch plant. Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter. SINCERELY, /%Th� �/ /' t,.-?e EXHIBIT HOMEOWNER AT THE MAD RUSSIAN GOLF COURSE Homeowner at the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities Hwy 257 and Mad Russian Boulevar4 Milliken, CO 80543 Wayne Metcalf&Andrea Drake 100 Eagle Drive Weld County Commissioners Milliken,CO 80543 915 10th (356-4000) Greeley, CO 80631 RE: PROPOSED CONCRETE BATCH PLANT--MILLIKEN, CO Dear Weld County Commissioners: I am a homeowner in the Mad Russian Golf Course Subdivision. We moved to this beautiful area because of the specatular views, the elegant neighborhood and the pastoral setting. As you are probably aware, the neighborhood has a higher number of retired people who are home during the day. We are concerned about the noise, traffic and dust that a gravel mining pit would create. Also of serious concern is the possibility of the batch plant adversely effecting property values. We would ask, that you as our county commissioners look carefully at the possibility that the county's comprehensive plan calls for it to respect the "city plan" of Weld county's individual towns/cities. It is my understand that the town of Milliken has turned down this proposed concrete batch plant. If you were to approve it---wouldn't that be a failure to respect their "city plan". If the batch plant were to go in the revenues would be lost to the Town of Milliken and their "city plan" for the developement of the area would be delayed for 33 years. It is our desire that the Weld County Commissioners do not approve the Loveland- Ready Mix gravel mining pit. �7 Sincerely, ia6. ///�� HOMEOWNER AT THE MAD RUSSIAN GOLF COURSE COMMUNITIES /(90 "bk . r i tt**'$MILD110ASE SORT MC 31, BOX 213 9_1(O, NV 89801 NOTICE Pursuant to the zoning laws of the State of Colorado and Weld County Ordinances and Resolutions, 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, First Floor, Greeley, Colorado, at the time specified. If a court reporter is desired, please advise the Clerk to the Board, in writing, at least five days prior of the hearing. The cost of engaging a court reporter shall be borne by the requesting party. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if special accommodations are required in order for you to participate in this hearing, please contact the Clerk to the Board's Office at (970) 356-4000, Extension 4226, prior to the day of the hearing. The complete case file may be examined in the office of the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners,Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street,Third Floor,Greeley, Colorado. E-Mail messages sent to an individual Commissioner may not be included in the case file. To ensure inclusion of your E-Mail correspondence into the case file, please send a copy to chardingn©, co.we!d.cO.us. DOCKET #: 2000-01 DATE: January 19, 2000 TIME: 10:00 a.m. APPLICANT: Loveland Ready Mix Concrete, Inc. P.O. Box 299 Loveland, Colorado 80539 REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit #1237 for Open Out Gravel Mining and a Concrete Batch Plant in the A (Agricultural) Zone District LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NE1/4 of Section 3, Township 4 North, and part of the SE1/4 of Section 34, Township 5 North, all in Range 67 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado LOCATION: West of and adjacent to State Highway 257; approximately 1/2 mile north of State Highway 60 (See Legal Description for precise location.) f EXHIBITBOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WFLD COUNTY, COLORADO USA#a31 DATED: January 3, 2000 PUBLISHED: January 6, 2000, in the South Weld Sun r[ -��n>n sh&a4 be appto d • 7-h is prof� � il 5 P�QS /Q O soie t� %1 was tichaset by HycP`ie / y .�.�" n `� 5e//by fie A af�//O9 l�tv'eJ f hefen- /�ir I yl Q I�,� P�S !�I i yl cAG'/ y`oQ i-)iE? h e �-©.un T isvr /f tfP ©# I QPmk, RR =.C1! I ©v k71 icr yeui ytaYii )$9 Vainzere p U n ' S 31, BOX 2 RESOr. 1��n�ts t I A0/1 ge-Ce/� HC 31, BOX 213 c� t/y fI1 ELKO, NV 89801 December 1999 I I'd 2A ��„ 97k5L-K Homeowner at the Mad Russian Golf Courrsecommunities Hwy 257 and Mad Russian' Boulevard . . -) Milliken, CO 80543 Weld County Commissioners 915 10th (356-4000) Greeley, CO 80631 I 0 r) (13 C' L c ,T RE: PROPOSED CONCRETE BATCH PLANT--MILLIKEN, CO d li I V E rl I C C'' Si"J `J 3 Dear Weld County Commissioners: It is of great concern to me to hear that the Weld County Planning Board gave preliminary approval to the proposed concrete batch plant. It is my understanding that the staff did not recommend its approval. I am asking that you as the Weld County Commissioners do NOT RECOMMEND its approval. The obvious reasons are as follows: 1. TRAFFIC SAFETY. . . .dangerous traffic conditions due to heavily loaded concrete trucks leaving the plant (during full production) every 3 minutes. A steep road grade exists to the North on Hwy 257. . .road is narrow with little shoulder. . . .traffic speeds are high. . .School bus safety is a problem. 2. CONCRETE BATCH PLANT RESIDUAL DUST. . . .particularly effecting the newest phase at the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities. . . .148 lots to be available in the Spring of the year 2000. 3. NOISE there is a higher number of retired people that have moved to this beautiful and pastoral setting. . .they are home during the day. . .from early morning on the noise will be of concern. 4. LENGTH OF CONCRETE PROJECT. . . .the 33 year duration of the project is in direct opposition to the growth plan that the Town of Milliken has previously outlined for the area. 5. CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TOWN'S INTERESTS AND THE COUNTY'S INTEREST. . . . It is my understanding that the county is called to respect the growth plans that towns/cities have determined in their "city-plans". The Town of Milliken has previously turned down the concrete batch plant and by the way forfeited the revenues in favor of a beautiful future for Milliken. 6. PROPERTY VALUES An industry that has noise, dust, visual issues, and safety issues does not enhance our property values in a golf course community. 7. WILDLIFE ISSUES The area is a wildlife haven. In allowing this batch plant you will be destroying their homes. It is a prime habitat for rare and threatened species along the Front Range. We ask that you do not recommend the approval of the Loveland Ready-Mix Concrete batch plant. Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter. SINCERELY, EXHIBIT se,t r_ W %.- / HOMEOWNER AT THE MAD RUSSIAN GOLF COURSEI 1/J60/An December 1999 Homeowner at the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities Hwy 257 anc. Mad Russian Bquleltarcf' : 2 L� Milliken, CO 80543 r R MA 41� Weld County Commissioners- �� 915 10th (356-4000) 1/V�� Greeley, CO 80631 RE: PROPOSED CONCRETE BATCH PLANT--MILLIKEN, CO Dear Weld County Commissioners: It is of great concern to me to hear that the Weld County Planning Board gave preliminary approval to the proposed concrete batch plant. It is my understanding that the staff did not recommend its approval. I am asking that you as the Weld County Commissioners do NOT RECOMMEND its approval. The obvious reasons are as follows: 1 . TRAFFIC SAFETY. . . .dangerous traffic conditions due to heavily loaded concrete trucks leaving the plant (during full production) every 3 minutes. A steep road grade exists to the North on Hwy 257. . .road is narrow with little shoulder. . . .traffic speeds are high. . .School bus safety is a problem. 2. CONCRETE BATCH PLANT RESIDUAL DUST. . . .particularly effecting the newest phase at the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities. . . .148 lots to be available in the Spring of the year 2000. 3. NOISE there is a higher number of retired people that have moved to this beautiful and pastoral setting. . .they are home during the day. . .from early morning on the noise will be of concern. 4. LENGTH OF CONCRETE PROJECT. . . .the 33 year duration of the project is in direct opposition to the growth plan that the Town of Milliken has previously outlined for the area. 5. CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TOWN'S INTERESTS AND THE COUNTY'S INTEREST. . . . It is my understanding that the county is called to respect the growth plans that towns/cities have determined in their "city-plans". The Town of Milliken has previously turned down the concrete batch plant and by the way forfeited the revenues in favor of a beautiful future for Milliken. 6. PROPERTY VALUES An industry that has noise, dust , visual issues, and safety issues does not enhance our property values in a golf course community. 7. WILDLIFE ISSUES The area is a wildlife haven. In allowing this batch plant you will be destroying their homes. It is a prime habitat for rare and threatened species along the Front Range. We ask that you do not recommend the approval of the Loveland Ready-Mix Concrete batch plant. Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter. SINCERELY, F '22 _ z ..z._ �~ --+ cry: _ �_ EXHIBIT -- ' HOMEOWNER AT THE MAD RUSSIAN GOLF COURSE ale# y 9 January 11.2000 Mr Dale Hall,Chair, Weld County Commissioners 915 10th Street Greeley,CO 80631 Re. Docket #: 2000-GI Special Review Permit Mr Loveland Ready Mix Dear Commissioner Hall: I am writing in regard to the request for a Special Review Permit by Loveland Ready Mix Concrete Inc. that would allow Loveland Ready Mix to mute gravel and operate a cement batch plant adjacent to the Town of Milliken. I have followed this process from the very beginning and have attended all the meetings held by the town of Milliken and the county. I am opposed to this project for many reasons. I plan to attend die public hearing on.January 19 2000 to be held in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld county. 1 am asking that I be allowed to speak at that hearing. I have been asked to speak by several of the residents of Milliken,some of them will be at the hearing as well but want me to speak on then behalf as well as those who are unable to attend the meeting. I don't represent the town nor all of it's residents by any means I have attended several meetings regarding this project and I have done quite a bit of research on my own as well as listened to many of my friends that also oppose this project.Therefore, I have several items that I want to bring to the attention of all of the commissioners before you decide the fate of This project and the future of our town. I would like to address some misstatements that have been made by the applicant as well as the Weld County Planning Commission and also relate some things that arose in discussions with other agencies such as CDOT, State Attorney General's office,Town of Milliken and the Weld County Planning Commission staff I will try to keep my comments brief and concise but it may still take 15 or 20 minutes to address all the things that I have been asked to address by my friends. This seems to us to be a more expedient way to address our issues than to have all of us attend the meeting and each of us make a presentation. I trust that my request to speak will he granted and 1 appreciate your consideration on this matter if for some reason this is not possible I would very much appreciate some one from your office contacting me prior to the meeting next Wednesday so that we may find another avenue to get our issues before you and the other commissioners. I can lie contacted by phone at 970-587-4589. Thank you for your cooperation Sincerely • ,'John F. Neal P.O. Box 338 2150 Country Club Parkway Milliken,CO 80543 EXHIBIT LJYY December 1999 Homeowner at the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities Hwy 257 and. Mad Russian BO1.ef''td) p 0: 1114 Milliken, CO 80543 Herschel R. Hein Weld County Commissioners 2140 Country Club Pkwy. 915th 1;356 44000) Milliken, CO 80543 Gre Greeleeyy, CO 80631 RE: PROPOSED CONCRETE BATCH PLANT--MILLIKEN, CO Dear Weld County Commissioners: It is of great concern to me to hear that the Weld County Planning Board gave preliminary approval to the proposed concrete batch plant. It is my understanding that the staff did not recommend its approval. I am asking that you as the Weld County Commissioners do NOT RECOMMEND its approval. The obvious reasons are as follows: 1. TRAFFIC SAFETY. . . .dangerous traffic conditions due to heavily loaded concrete trucks leaving the plant (during full production) every 3 minutes. A steep road grade exists to the North on Hwy 257. . .road is narrow with little shoulder. . . .traffic speeds are high. . .School bus safety is a problem. 2. CONCRETE BATCH PLANT RESIDUAL DUST. . . .particularly effecting the newest phase at the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities. . . .148 lots to be available in the Spring of the year 2000. 3. NOISE there is a higher number of retired people that have moved to this beautiful and pastoral setting. . .they are home during the day. . .from early morning on the noise will be of concern. 4. LENGTH OF CONCRETE PROJECT. . . .the 33 year duration of the project is in direct opposition to the growth plan that the Town of Milliken has previously outlined for the area. / 1101m \ 5. CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TOWN'SINTERESTS AND THE COUNTY'S INTEREST. . . . It is t my understanding that the county is called to respect the growth plans SNIt that towns/cities have determined in their "city-plans". The Town of Al Milliken has previously turned down the concrete batch plant and by the way a X V forfeited the revenues in favor of a beautiful future for Milliken. ma 6. PROPERTY VALUES An industry that has noise, dust, visual issues, and r"° -arwa° safety issues does not enhance our property values in a golf course Ismismar0 community. tis 7) WILDLIFE ISSUES The area is a wildlife haven. In allowing this batch J plant you will be destroying their homes. It is a prime habitat for Nofi� A/Q605 rare and threatened species along the Front Range. .A (*epi"r5 We ask that you do not recommend the approval of the Loveland Ready-Mix Concrete batch plant. Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter_ Herschel R. Hein SINCERELY, ip �/L ° 2140 Country Club Pkwy. U� �7�Gv4 Milliken, CO 80543 HOMEOWNER AT THE MAD RUSSIAN GOLF COURSE a'Is vj 1.4-4 G> c.V it)'-e-r of- en) /)-1"41- a.-st e ei _A✓m //✓ W.e-/64 Co From: Virginia & Ted Bajgert <vtbajgert@bwn.net> To: <charding@co.weld.co.us> Date: 1/17/00 2:06pm Subject: Cement plant in Milliken We understand that the Commissioners hearing on the subject plant is scheduled for Wednesday, January 19, 2000. As new residents of Milliken we are very interested in what action you will take on this matter. We searched for where we wanted to live, and chose the Mad Russian area for our new home. This area is very beautiful and as stewarts of the land, we are obligated to maintain this beauty. It it our opinion that the cement plant being considered should be located elsewhere. In addition, the dust, and traffic are factors that would mitigate against approval for this plant in this location. As a result, we are asking you to disprove this matter when you vote on in on Wednesday. Thank you for your consideration. Virginia and Ted Bajgert o?O°U -0/.5a- �XM#i#T A44 From: "Carol McKenzie" <mckenziec@thompson.k12.co.us> To: <charding@co.weld.co.us> Date: 1/18/00 8:06am Subject: Inclusion into the case file - public hearing: Special ReviewPermit#1237 for Loveland Ready Mix DATE: January 17, 2000 TO: Board of County Commissioners of Weld County - FROM: Kenneth J. and Carol R. McKenzie RE: A site specific development plan and special review permit #1237 for open cult gravel mining and a concrete batch plant in the Agricultural Zone District: Part of the NE 1/4 of Section . _ 3, Township 4 North, and part of the SE 1/4 of Section 34, Township 5 North, all in Range 67 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. c, Dear Commissioners: My wife and I have contracted to purchase a home at 2149 Country Club Parkway in the Mad Russian golf communities in Milliken, CO. We have grave concerns about the development of a gravel/mining operation by Loveland Ready Mix Concrete, Inc. at the proposed site. The destruction of the view, caused by the industrial development required to mine, crush, process and store gravel, would be a blight on the community. The dust in the atmosphere, caused by the mining and crushing of rock, is a concern for our health as well as the environment. At peak operation, there could be 1 to 2 huge trucks every 3-5 minutes, grinding their way uphill on Hwy. 257, past the Mad Russian, and jake-braking their way back down the hill as they return to the plant. This means clouds of black diesel fumes being spewed as the trucks run back and forth, to say nothing of the noise! The development of this mining site would destroy the aesthetic and quiet nature of the Mad Russian and other adjacent rural settings and would greatly diminish the value of all neighboring properties. Another concern is the safety of the residents of the Mad Russian. The added truck traffic caused by the development of this mining facility would greatly jeopardize the safety of those using the same highway. The last thing we want to see is 4 lanes of noisy traffic going past our community...created to minimize the dangers caused by the additional truck traffic. It is our understanding that the Town of Milliken rejected a request by g EXHIIT L3.83 i. s.#M7_ Loveland Ready Mix Concrete, Inc. to annex property and approve the development of this operation. How, in good conscience, can you override the wishes of the elected officials of Milliken and its citizens? If this proposal were approved, the county commissioners would be running roughshod over the economic development of the Town of Milliken! What message are you sending to other small communities within Weld County? We respectfully question whether any of the commissioners would approve this operation if it were in the near vicinity of their homes. Finally, we feel that the meeting time for this public hearing excludes the appearance of most employed individuals. Wouldn't it be in the public's best interest if a "public" hearing were held at a time when most people could attend? This feels like a "done deal". We hope that this is not so! Sincerely, Kenneth and Carol McKenzie Carol McKenzie Assessment Sent By: Universal Environmental ServiceS;303 655 0687; Jan-18-00 10:21 ; Page 2/5 Alex Fischer and Anne Shaffer 9916 WCK 48 1/2 Milliken, Colorado 80543 January 11, 2000 Weld County George limiter, Glenn Vaad, Barbara Kirkrneyer,Mike Gcile and Dale I fall Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 758 Greeley,Colorado 80632 • Subject: Docket#: 2000-01, USR-1237,Loveland Ready Mix Concrete,Inc. After attending the Weld County Planning Commission Meeting held Tuesdar', November 16. 1999, in the Weld County Public Health/Planning Building, we arc very disappointed with the =recommended approval of the above referenced subject. We question the Planning Commission's decision making process in regards to how their decision affects myself and others within the community. Serious concerns arise with their lack of accepting, addressing and considering input, via written or oral from the community and own Planning Staff. It is apparent the Planning Commission is not keeping the best interest of the overall community in mind in their decision making. We are surprised that this decision was reached after limiting input from the community and only after one session. Ms. Anne Best Johnson (Staff Planner) recommended denial of the application due to the fact that the application is not in compliance with the following of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance: 24.3.1.1 That the proposal is consistent with the Weld County COMPREHENSIVE PLAN and other applicable Weld County Ordinance in effect; 24.3.1.3 That the ILSFS which would he permitted will be compatible with the existing surrounding land U,5'ES; 24.3.1.4 That the USES which would be permitted will he compatible with future development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning and wit the future development as projected by the COMPREHENSIVE PLAN or MASTER PLANS of affected municipalities; and EXHISIT I1164 a37 Sent By: Universal Environmental ServiceS;303 655 0687; Jan-18-00 10:21 ; Page 3/5 January 11,2000 Page 2 24.3.1.7 That there is adequate provision f r the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the NEIGHBORHOOD and the COUNTY. We have previously expressed our concerns in our July 11, 1999, correspondence and arc very concerned with the following issues. We ask that the Weld County Commissioners take these into consideration in your decision making process. • Ground Water. The applicant had not provided scientific sound documentation on the impact to the local groundwater table There are non-registered groundwatc- wells located within 500-feet of the proposed gravel mine. Additionally, there arc several ponds located within 500-feet of the proposed gravel mine. There is inadequate information regarding the pie-watering effects on adjacent properties. An estimated pumping ra e for de-watering and subsequent pumping rate to maintain an appropriate drawdown for mining activities has not been demonstrated. An estimated radius of influence (cone of depression) resulting from maintaining a continuous drawdown has not been presented. The estimated transmissivity and storage capacity of the alluvial aquifer has not been adequately presented. These items have an impact on the properties located within the near proximity and adjacent to the proposed gravel mining operations. Several questions arise and include: How will the final reclamation of the mining operations affect the local groundwater conditions of the adjacent properties? There is inadequate information and documentation regarding the effects "lakes" or "ponds" (final reclamation) and how they will affect the local groundwater table. 'Will there be an artificial increase of the local groundwater table as a result of the "`lakes" or "ponds?," thus creating a mounding effect. This may lead to seepage and/or flooding in subsurface structures such as basements, cellars, and crawl spaces. How will de-watering for the mining operations affect the structural integrity of nearby homes? There is concern of subsidence resulting from de-watering the local groundwater table and how it may affect the structural integrity of our home. Sent By: Universal Environmental ServiceS;303 655 0687; Jan-18-00 10:22; Page 4/5 January 11,2000 Page 3 • Property Value Concern. The mining concrete operations on the north side of WCR 48 1/2 will decrease the 1 roperty values of our home and property. It would change our neitithorhood from a quite residential/agricultural setting to a commerci /industrializes zone, which would be far less desirable to live in, or for resale. Unsightly mining Aerations would be seen from all sides of the operation. • Traffic ant Weill. Dv'tgerous traffic situations would arise with the proposed vehiel traffic along Wet.`' County Road (WCR) 41' 72 and going north on SH 257 witho-. any passing lauea. A very dangerous and significant situation occurs for school buses and commul.rs along WCR 48 1/2 and the Mad Russian development, because of the nature of the exists off of STI 257. Additionally, WCR 48 1/2 cannot support the volume of traffic that will result if the gravel mine/cement plant is built. Nor is WCR 48 1/2 wide enough to allow for two-lane access when both oversized commercial cement truck and neighborhood traffic are on the road. There is no right-of way on the south: ide of WCR 48 1/2. The driveable width of WCR 48 1/2 is approxima.tr.ly 20 feet. Tl e width of a commercial cement truck is at least 9 feet; the width of an average non-commercial sedan ss approximately 6 feet. Clearly this does not allow for two way traffic. The safety of our neighborhood is at stake. Through traffic from over-sized vehicles, without posted adequate speed limits is an accident waiting to happen. The sudden stops and the wide turns required lbr access into and out of the plant pose threats to pedestrians and neighborhood traffic. The citizens who ride their bikes on road will be endangered by the constant truck traffic. There is an extreme potential for serious accidents to happen. • Noise and Air Quality. The proposed hours of operations and accompanying noise from the large trucks and equipment, back-up beeps and plant operations should not be tolerated by any homeowner. Imagine the frustration we will feel when we realize that the once quiet, early morning hours are now violated with axle noise, continual dust, and discord from mining operation equipment. What was once a beautiful panorama of opt;.1 meadow, now becomes an unsightly wasteland. The prevailing wind is from the north. The prevailing wind will carry noise and dust created during the process of gravel mining and affect properties located immediately down wind, south of WCR 48 1/2. • Wildlife. The proposed mining site is a haven for wildlife including bald eagles. Additionally, a Preble Meadow Jumping Mouse habitat assessment was completed in March 1999 indicated that the site has a low potential to Preble's habitat and recommended that a survey not be completed. Sent By: Universal Environmental ServiceS;303 655 0687; Jan-18-00 10:22; Page 5/5 January 11,2000 Page 4 The habitat evaluation was conducted in early sprint: on March 4 and 9, 1999, when herbaceous vegetation is not dense because of the wi ier weather. Significant habitat changes can occur over several months. It is unclear n consultants habitat assessment whether plant species were actually collected or just t reconnaissance was pertonued to determine the habitat for the Preble. According to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife, the Preble hibernates underground in burrows from September to May. • Gravel Mining Operations. Currently, there is a ravel mining operation located within two-miles of the proposed Loveland Rea y Mix site and other mining operation located approximately four-miles north f the proposes site. Loveland Ready Mix proposes to operate the facility for 33-ye; r5 and then ask for an extension. Is really necessary to have three operations within such a close proximity to each other? We ask that these concerns as well as the concerns of c :tors be taken into consideration prior to any final decisions. Please contact us at 970.58" .2191 if you have any questions regarding the above stated concerns. Sincerely • 4if sand Ann cr December 1999 Homeowner at the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities Hwy 257 and Mad Russian Boulevard,, Milliken, CO 80543 r' G Weld County Commissioners am David and 915 10th (356-4000) 106 Eagle Drive Greeley, CO 80631 Milliken Co 80543-9623 RE: PROPOSED CONCRETE BATCH PLANT--MILLIKEN, CO Dear Weld County Commissioners: It is of great concern to me to hear that the Weld County Planning Board gave preliminary approval to the proposed concrete batch plant. It is my understanding that the staff did not recommend its approval. I am asking that you as the Weld County Commissioners do NOT RECOMMEND its approval. The obvious reasons are as follows: 1. TRAFFIC SAFETY. . . .dangerous traffic conditions due to heavily loaded concrete trucks leaving the plant (during full production) every 3 minutes. A steep road grade exists to the North on Hwy 257. . .road is narrow with little shoulder. . . .traffic speeds are high. . -School bus safety is a problem. 2. CONCRETE BATCH PLANT RESIDUAL DUST. . . .particularly effecting the newest phase at the Mad Russian Golf Course Communities. . . .148 lots to be available in the. Spring of the year 2000. 3. NOISE there is a higher number of retired people that have moved to this beautiful and pastoral setting. . .they are home during the day. . .from early morning on the noise will be of concern. 4. LENGTH OF CONCRETE PROJECT. . . .the 33 year duration of the project is in direct opposition to the growth plan that the Town of Milliken has previously outlined for the area. 5. CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TOWN'S INTERESTS AND THE COUNTY'S INTEREST. . . . It is my understanding that the county is called to respect the growth plans that towns/cities have determined in their "city-plans". The Town of Milliken has previously turned down the concrete batch plant and by the way forfeited the revenues in favor of a beautiful future for Milliken. 6. PROPERTY VALUES An industry that has noise, dust, visual issues, and safety issues does not enhance our property values in a golf course community. 7. WILDLIFE ISSUES The area is a wildlife haven. In allowing this batch plant you will be destroying their homes. It is a prime habitat for rare and threatened species along the Front Range. We ask that of recommend the approval of t Lovelan Ready-Mix Concrete batch plant. Thank yo for your careful consideratio of thi utter. SINCERELY, C� 4C- ! ( 17" HOMEOWNER AT THE MAD RUSSIAN GOLF COURSE EXHIBIT C IOC sot Hoe -C. Ml ll i k en Tbwr hall, 1103 Broad St.,Drawer 290 • Milliken,CO 80543 • (970)587-4331 • (9716 587 2678 Fa, %4blirm, "old Cou❑:y PI .inr,iag C :p, December 3, 1999 DEC 61999 Weld County Commissioners R E C C I ',1 Cry 915 10th Street A P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Dear Commissioner: On behalf of the Citizens of the Town of Milliken,The Board of Trustees would request that the Weld County Commissioners deny USR-1237 as presented by the owners of Loveland Ready Mix.We are opposed to this project for multiple reasons, many of which are directly related to health, safety and welfare issues, as was presented to the Weld County Planning Commission, at their November 16, 1999 hearing. We were stunned that the Planning Commission did not take into consideration the request for denial by the Town of Milliken, the Planning Staff of Weld County,The Colorado Department of Wildlife and the numerous citizens who spoke against the proposal. We humbly request that this document become part of the permanent record of any hearing. In fairness to the recent regionalism which is taking place in Weld County,we hope that your direction is to deny this proposal, if however you find that this is an acceptable use then the Town of Milliken would request that the County Commissioners include the following 24 conditions,to help alleviate the impact of this business on the Citizenry,the Community and the County. These conditions are of extreme importance,and the failure to include any one of these will undoubtably create a negative impact on the Town of Milliken. 1. Petroleum products and fuel will be stored on site,therefore we are requesting that the owners of Loveland Ready Mix be required to install a functional fire hydrant within 100 feet of the fuel storage area. 2. That a full and complete engineered traffic study be undertaken and paid for by the applicant, so as to either confirm or deny the Town's position relating to safety issues with their truck traffic. That any conditions identified in the study be implemented prior to any construction taking place. 3. That the owners of Loveland Ready Mix contribute to the improvements deemed necessary at the intersection of SR 257 and SR 60. Their contribution shall be a percentage of the total cost as determined by the traffic study now being undertaken by the Town of Milliken,and shall be based on the projected number of truck trips. 4. That a visual buffer be created along the eastern edge of the property, immediately adjacent to SR EXHIBIT 11 EEC , ) tale *237 257. Such buffer shall consist of not less than 6 acres. This buffer shall be designated as open space/parks and donated to the Town of Milliken,along with access to the same,prior to commencing operation. 5. The owners of Loveland ready Mix shall post an assurance bond, in enough monies to cover potential water table damage, as determined by a reputable engineering firm. This bond will run for the duration of the operation. 6. That the operation of Loveland Ready Mix not commence before the hour of 7:00 a.m. and cease by 6:00 p.m., six days per week, Sunday excluded. There will also be no operation of the plant or mining operation on any observed holidays. That under no condition shall this operation be allowed to operate 24 hours per day, or seven days per week. 7.That the company be required to pave WCR 48 '/2 the entire length,between WCR 17 and SR 257. That the owners be instructed to dispatch trucks headed west, along 48 '/:. 8. That any signage associated with the operation be approved by the Town of Milliken, in regards to current signage regulations. 9. That the facade of the batch plant be constructed so as to resemble a barn and silo,thus decreasing the visual impact on the area. That said facade be painted in appropriate colors so as to blend in with the surrounding area. Or,that the height of any proposed building or structure be limited to less than 35 feet using low profile batch plant systems. 10. That the Town has final approval of any and all landscaping plans,and that such plans take into consideration visual corridors, seasonality, and growing conditions at the site. Further, that the landscape plans include mature specimens of the species recommended. 11. That any septic system proposal be denied, on the basis of being within the flood plain, which is susceptible 1:o annual flooding, and that the owners be required to connect to the Town of Milliken's sewer system,at the applicants cost.That the use of port-a-lets be prohibited,due to the fact that this will be a permanent operation. 12. That the operation be required to attach to the Town of Milliken's water system, which runs through the property. 13. That the USR be issued for no more than 10 years, knowing full well that any future renewal application may or may not be approved. 14. That there be no stock piling of material which would extend over 20 feet in height. Specifically, this would be measured from the lowest point on the property. 15. That any importation of material be limited to no more than 6 months from issuance of the USR. 16. That the color of any and all structures,pole, fences,building and or equipment,be approved by the Town of Milliken, and blend in with the surrounding area. 17. That security lighting be installed. This lighting shall conform to zero light pollution standards, and of sufficient illumination to protect the area,yet not create an obnoxious situation. JAN-10-00 MON 11 :23 AM WELD COUNTY PUBLIC WKS7 FAX:9703046497 PAGE 1 MEMORANDUM r*par TO: Frank Hempen, Jr. DATE: January 10, 2000 IFROM: Diane M. Houghtaling C. SUBJECT: Loveland Ready Mix COLORADO The traffic counts for SH 257 and WCR 48.5 were completed January 6,2000. The existing traffic does not warrant any improvements to SH 257. Based on a growth rate of 15% per year the background traffic won't warrant any auxiliary lanes until 2020. The addition of the traffic generated by the Concrete Batch Plant(employee,supplies and delivery) however, will require a left turn bay within five years. Concrete Batch plants are not listed in the ITE Trip Generation Manual and my estimates may be slightly high. As the plant is expected to operate for 33 years the left turn bay will eventually be required. I recommend a left turn bay be installed on SH 257 for the batch plant unless the developer can provide a more comprehensive trip generation and traffic distribution study- I also recommend WCR 48.5 be widened at the intersection to allo concrete trucks to turn into WCR 48.5 without crossing the center of the road. nw _ ... 7671 Date t_ Dag"Past-ir Fax Note Fr• CA-1 Q , Co./Deft. Ph000 x Phone Fs — •� a Fax If ♦ s Fax {tt, i,..,,,, Weld County Referral ( October 28, 1999 • COLORADO The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: Applicant Hall-Irwin Construction Case Number AmUSR-1172 r Please Reply By November 18, 1999 Planner Anne Best Johnson I, Project Amendment to Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit to P include the sale of landscape materials from a site permitted for a Sand and Gravel I Mining Operation in the Agricultural (A)zone district. I Legal SE4 of Section 36, Township 1 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. l. Location North of and adjacent to WCR 2, approximately 1/8 mile east of WCR 23.5. Parcel Number 1469 36 400034 The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) December 21, 1999 • We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan ❑ We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. ❑ See attached letter. Comments: c-` ,1 jl , "! i 6,- l/ 7 i , 7 � ` r Date 1//'Y�j Signature �iil' �' "�JCi -� r�. /,( L' Agency 71 ' / i . C/ 4Weld County Planning Dept. +1555 N. 17th Ave.Greeley,CO.80631 +(970)353-6100 ext.3540 +(970)304-6498 fax USR 1237: gqLoveland) Ready-Mix y V Y ' .., rY '� f; I I . lit } vM 14 ` ,r "r 31T fr _ 1 i' f »..•.r'a sl'� to IT^^' ;1 , I a Y ... I ,5 r h Ss 4r �E �ij'f • tla �4, �(,'� I7. ; s Y < 3)�11a. \ '11•� + >' .,`/ �-- Yyr .�iF',,)7 �� ' �E,fi�Y'' l't��Tl Yr� a�11�1 ' ' 4`_ r �<1, rY ie.i_� :,, Pt,.r4 Ay ,,, t, ,i ��1,, S i.(«, es, �..:�, "1... 14_4_,,' 1 ll^ T1 1 i ,,yyr��'��••-- ""nr T��i; a kt t ' 1 1 I:FII� ' O)41 Y Ski ytiK a. s ti c i a , •V1. \%} ?'`� 3 e+ ti WCR48.5 4 , to.,..1 , Y r. 1 aO.' 'ti, .rry0 • � 6�3 STATE HWY 6Q , "b's ' u,t. r ,r ��4I ' ' jar -••�. .ry Ana , ,... VICINITY MAP SCALE I"2000' / 0 � S tdF �N F F if mi 4 / RI !ill i 11 I. ,: 9 .- / '��' DAY �Y Hi:Ir3;(110 i Pill '` $� r , ,r y�, f• t��y� I / R p {� s; II I t� ' co 111 ° dy 1i. /41 III I h Ri' , hhhh� A¢ 11 I1�� Gl}•� 41iv �� yl, ; 14 I19 yx o R R 6 ;� II tµ i / qgg N 4.c71. �11bw , 7i I � � ill 1. 1 q r 4 j/ 8Q `, Ylll .{�` 1�y i O... n� 9 �" p6 I si I i .p I 1 N i;F ill N Gigiiijji1' F 1I%_! < Ii R G 8 I . Y---1L F WF ;F 1 ii ! i I II •o '� .x i , RF al1 i! it A it I 4 It3hIhh11h1 LOVELAND RWDY MIX - Dab: 11/03/99 JobDro R°' 99-225 MILLIKEN TuttlsApplegate,Inc. Oroxn: LMR I. Cq..R...I for A p.iili.bay DUNN PROPERTY - uR.o mtRp..wRsa RI,: E: CJf Osw,491011) �w.: uwwncev.owc WELD COUNTY,COLORADO �5 19801 I To:(3018524159 np. . Scow: 65 RO110 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS'SIGN POSTING CERTIFICATE THE LAST DAY TO POST THE SIGN IS: I • 9 , 2-0DV. THE SIGN SHALL BE POSTED ADJACENT TO AND VISIBLE FROM A PUBLICLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. IN THE EVENT THE PROPERTY BEING CONSIDERED FOR A SPECIAL REVIEW IS NOT ADJACENT TO A PUBLICLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY,THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES SHALL POST ONE SIGN IN THE MOST PROMINENT PLACE ON THE PROPERTY AND POST A SECOND SIGN AT THE POINT AT WHICH THE DRIVEWAY (ACCESS DRIVE) INTERSECTS A PUBLICLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. I HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE SIGN WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY AT LEAST 10 DAYS BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S HEARING FOR USR- I2? 7 . THE SIGN WAS POSTED BY: 1 Frn r41.ZL)C C). Aanci ln NAME OF PERSON POSTING SIGN SIGNATURE FOI `PERSbN POSTING SIGN STATE OF COLORADO) )ss. COUNTY OF WELD ) l— r",V1-)SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO ME THIS � cu DAY OF u�ai` ,QC(co• /)C,1 t.J 1 I / / c / NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: CL-R - O 3 - THIS FORM SHALL BE PLACED IN THE APPROPRIATE FILE FOR THE ABOVE CASE. ' -1i7U.IllfrifiMPRI Il I I i ---_1#14.1t.!IP�t __ _..il4Y,_ .41410 ..4 plc 444A ! -\ e.m4 - rtMr __ONI GCS, b -- —orb ELEV. 4 ' [1_41-044Lelt.4* — v' Sad ir 1250' T OVEa._�2 Iw 30. -14104- -01411 _ - - lt IWO - - 1,C0 t , • EXHIBIT 1 FFP use#cz37 I 1-/ t (- County Fl:.nning L a I EXHIBIT ,,ir',v 05 ',999 _ 4-21-99 - 9�, 147C 31 .� COORDINATED PLANNING AGREEMENT This Coordinated Planning Agreement is made and entered into effective as of the day of, ,A.D. between the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Weld, State of Colorado, hereinafter called the "COUNTY," and the "TOWN OR CITY OF " a Colorado Municipal corporation hereinafter called the "MUNICIPALITY." RECITALS A. The COUNTY exercises governmental authority regulating land use, growth and development in its unincorporated areas, which areas include lands surrounding the MUNICIPALITY; and B. The MUNICIPALITY exercises governmental authority over the same matters within its municipal boundaries, and annexations, and is able to provide municipal services and facilities for efficient and desirable urban development; and C. In Title 29,Article 20, Colorado Revised Statutes,the General Assembly of the State of Colorado has granted broad authority to local governments to plan for and regulate the development and use of land within their respective jurisdictions; and D. In said Title 29, Article 20, Colorado Revised Statutes, the G neral Assembly has further authorized and encouraged local governments to cooperate and contract with each other for the purpose of planning and regulating the development of land by the joint and coordinated exercise of planning, zoning, subdivisions, building, and related regulatory powers; and E. Existing and anticipated pressures for growth and development in areas surrounding the MUNICIPALITY indicate that the joint and coordinated exercise by the COUNTY and the MUNICIPALITY of their respective planning, zoning, subdivision, building and related regulatory powers in such areas will best promote the objectives stated in this agreement. NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings herein set forth, the parties agree as follows: 1. PURPOSES AND OBJECTIVES. The purpose of this Agreement is to establish procedures and standards pursuant to which the parties will move toward greater coordination in the exercise of their land use and related regulatory powers within unincorporated areas surrounding the MUNICIPALITY. The objectives of such efforts are to accomplish the type of development in such areas which best protects the health, safety, prosperity, and general welfare of the inhabitants thereof by reducing the waste of physical, financial, and human resources which result from either excessive congestion or excessive scattering of population, and to achieve maximum efficiency and economy in the process of development. However,any action taken pursuant to this Agreement that pertains to any land within the municipality, for incorporated areas, and within the County, for unincorporated areas, is subject to final approval by the governing body of the municipality or county, respectively. 2. DEFINITIONS. For the purposes of this Agreement the following terms shall be defined as set forth herein: 2.1 Development. Any land use requiring regulatory approval by the elected governing body of the applicable party in the Urban Growth Area except for an amendment to a plat or a down-zoning, neither of which creates any additional lots and except for a Recorded Exemption or Subdivision Exemption. Existing agricultural uses, which are lawful uses, either as uses by right under the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, as amended, or as legally existing non-conforming uses, are also exempt from the definition of "Development". 2.2 Non-Urban Development. Land uses which typically do not require services such as central water and sewer systems, road networks, park and recreation services, storm drainage, and the like, and which are generally considered to be rural in nature, expressly including land used or capable of being used for agricultural production and including developments which combine clustered residential uses and agricultural uses in a manner that the agricultural lands are suitable for farming and ranching operations for the next forty years. 2.3 MUNICIPAL Referral Area. The area located outside of but within three miles of the MUNICIPALITY's municipal boundaries. 2.4 Urban Development. Development which is characterized by development density typical to urbanized areas and requires support services such as central water and sewer systems, road networks, park and recreation facilities and programs, storm drainage, and other similar services which are typically furnished by MUNICIPALITY. 2.5 The Urban Growth Area is hereby established and shall consist of all lands as designated on the map attached hereto and referred to herein as "Exhibit A," EXCEPTING those lands located within the MUNICIPALITY's municipal boundaries. 3. PLANNING COORDINATION. This Agreement is intended to be a Comprehensive Development Plan adopted and implemented pursuant to C.R.S. § 29-20-105(2). Following the execution of this Agreement by both parties, COUNTY Development approvals in the MUNICIPALITY's Referral area will be processed and determined in accordance with the following: 3.1 Referral. The COUNTY will refer all proposals for Development within the MUNICIPAL Referral Area to the MUNICIPALITY for its review and recommendation. Such referral will include at least a copy of the written Development proposal and preliminary COUNTY staff summary of the case. The COUNTY will allow not less than twenty-one (21) days for the MUNICIPALITY to review same and furnish its recommendations to COUNTY staff prior to formulation of the COUNTY staff recommendation. If the MUNICIPALITY does not respond within such time, COUNTY staff may proceed with its recommendation, but any MUNICIPALITY comment or recommendation received on or before the Thursday next preceding the meeting of the Board of County Commissioners or Planning Commission at which the matter will be considered will be transmitted to the Board or Commission. If the MUNICIPALITY submits no comment or recommendation the COUNTY may assume it has no objection to the proposal. If the MUNICIPALITY submits recommendations, the COUNTY will either include within its written decision the reasons for any action taken contrary to the same or furnish such reasons to the MUNICIPALITY by a separate writing. 3.2 Development Outside Urban Growth Area. To the extent legally possible the COUNTY will disapprove proposals for Urban Development in areas of the MUNICIPAL Referral Area outside the Urban Growth Area. In reviewing proposals for Non-Urban 2 Development in such areas,the COUNTY will apply its Comprehensive Plan and zoning and -• subdivision ordinances, and, where appropriate, the MUD Plan . 3.3 Development in Urban Growth Area. The following shall apply to proposed Development in the Urban Growth Area: (a) Upon receipt of any proposal for Development of property then currently eligible for voluntary annexation to the MUNICIPALITY, the COUNTY will, in writing, notify the proponent of the opportunity for annexation and notify the MUNICIPALITY of the proposal. (b) The MUNICIPALITY will require extension of sanitary sewer service to property in the Urban Growth Area, subject to its rules and regulations, which include provisions requiring a written contract for extraterritorial service and the construction of new mains and other facilities necessary to serve the property with costs assessed in accordance with the MUNICIPALITY'S rules and regulations. MUNICIPALITY agrees to give notice of any proposed change in said rules and regulations to COUNTY 21 days prior to adoption. (c) If The MUNICIPALITY provides municipal water service to property within its boundaries, subject to its rules and regulations, it will provide water under provisions similar to those indicated above for sewer service. Where water furnished by the MUNICIPALITY is received in whole or in part from an outside water provider such as a water district under a Water Service Agreement dated the MUNICIPALITY shall exercise its obligations under this agreement consistent with the terms of the Water Service Agreement including (list any special restrictions including limit on service area). The MUNICIPALITY will negotiate in good faith with the water provider to explore ways in which the extension of water service outside MUNICIPALITY boundaries can be coordinated so as to achieve the purposes stated in Section 1 above while still recognizing the rights and obligations of the water provider and its constituents. (d) In recognition of the availability of public water and sewer service within the Urban Growth Area as indicated in paragraphs (b) and (c) above, the COUNTY will require public water and sewer service as a condition of approval of any subdivision, rezoning or planned unit development and will not approve such Development until the applicant obtains a written contract for same with the MUNICIPALITY, or water service from if the MUNICIPALITY cannot provide water. This Agreement shall be prima facie evidence of the availability of municipal water and sewer service within the meaning of§32-1-203(2.5)(a), C.R.S. (e) The COUNTY will not grant any waiver of current Municipal street standards for any Development without the consent of the MUNICIPALITY. (f) To the extent legally possible, as determined by the COUNTY, the COUNTY will deny proposals for Non-Urban Development in the Urban Growth Area. Nothing in this subsection shall restrict the COUNTY from approving, by means of a process such as recorded exemption or subdivision exemption, the isolated partition or division of ownership parcels located in the Urban Growth Area having existing residential improvements served by septic systems, regardless of the size of resulting lots. Nevertheless, the COUNTY will not permit such a concentration of such divisions in any particular area as will frustrate or materially hinder the evolution of genuine Urban Development, as defined in §2.4 of this Agreement, in the Urban 3 (� ') Growth Area. Furthermore, the County shall not be restricted from allowing the expansion of legally existing non-urban uses provided adequate protection for future urban uses is included in any such approval. (g) If any MUNICIPALITY recommendation of disapproval of a Development proposal is based upon a conflict or incompatibility between proposed uses in the Development and anticipated MUNICIPALITY zoning classification for the property, the COUNTY will not approve same unless the applicant demonstrates (i) that no such conflict or incompatibility will reasonably occur, (ii) that suitable mitigation measures to be imposed by the COUNTY as conditions of approval will eliminate or adequately mitigate adverse consequences of incompatibility or conflict, or (iii) that the MUNICIPALITY'S anticipated zoning classification of the property is unreasonable because of existing or planned uses of adjacent property. The MUNICIPALITY shall be given notice of, and may appear and be heard at any hearing or other proceeding at which the COUNTY will consider such issues. (h) The parties anticipate that ¶ 3.3 (e)-(g) will be addressed in more detail if a Mutually Acceptable Plan is considered and adopted for the UGA or the referral Area. 3.4 Mutuality of Impact Consideration. The parties recognize that decisions by one party regarding development may impact property outside of each particular jurisdiction. The parties agree that those jurisdictional boundaries will not be the basis for giving any greater or lesser weight to those impacts during the course of deliberations. 3.5 Referrals to County. The MUNICIPALITY will refer proposals for Development which lie within 500 feet of any property in unincorporated Weld County to the COUNTY for its review and recommendation. Such referral will include at least a copy of the written Development proposal. The MUNICIPALITY will allow not less than twenty-one (21) days for the COUNTY to review same and furnish its recommendations to MUNICIPALITY. If the COUNTY submits no comment or recommendation the MUNICIPALITY may assume it has no objection to the proposal. If the COUNTY submits recommendations, the MUNICIPALITY will either include within its written decision the reasons for any action taken contrary to the same or furnish such reasons to the COUNTY by a separate writing. Where the DEVELOPMENT is proposed as part of an annexation of more than 10 acres, the provisions of this section shall be deemed satisfied by compliance by the MUNICIPALITY with the Notice and impact statement provisions of the most current version of the Municipal Annexation Act then in effect. If any COUNTY recommendation of disapproval of a Development proposal within 500 feet of any property in unincorporated Weld County is based upon a conflict or incompatibility between proposed uses in the Development and existing or anticipated zoning classification for the property, to the extent legally possible the MUNICIPALITY will not approve same unless the applicant demonstrates(i)that no such conflict or incompatibility will reasonably occur, (ii)that suitable mitigation measures to be imposed by the MUNICIPALITY as conditions of approval will eliminate or adequately mitigate adverse consequences of incompatibility or conflict, or (iii) that the MUNICIPALITY's anticipated zoning classification of the property is unreasonable because of existing or planned uses of adjacent property. The COUNTY shall be given notice of, and may appear and be heard at any hearing or other proceeding at which the MUNICIPALITY will consider such issues. 4 4. ANNEXATION. 4.1 The MUNICIPALITY will give serious consideration to all petitions for annexation of lands within the Urban Growth Area and will consider, in any determination to annex such properties, without limitation, the following factors: (i) the extension of one or more municipal services to the area would place an unreasonable economic burden on the existing users of such services or upon the future residents or owners of property in the area itself; (ii)the area is not reasonably contiguous in fact to the MUNICIPALITY's existing boundaries, and its annexation would result in disconnected municipal satellites 4.2 The MUNICIPALITY will not annex properties located outside the Urban Growth Area unless such property is both eligible for annexation and is necessary to the MUNICIPALITY for municipal purposes such as utilities. 4.3 To the extent legally possible the MUNICIPALITY will annex the full width of each COUNTY road right of way contiguous to newly annexed property unless such road serves primarily COUNTY properties rather than existing or newly annexed Municipal properties, in which case the MUNICIPALITY will annex none of such COUNTY road right of way. 4.4 Notwithstanding any provision hereof to the contrary, the MUNICIPALITY is not obligated to annex any property within a Development approved by the County after the execution of this Agreement by both parties which does not conform to the County Urban Growth Standards, unless a waiver or modification of such standards was granted by the COUNTY and approved by the MUNICIPALITY. 4.5 Nothing in this Section 4 shall be construed to limit the MUNICIPALITY from annexing any land within the Urban Growth Area, regardless whether such annexations are involuntary or result in disconnected municipal satellites. 4.6 In determining off-site improvements to be constructed by proponents of in-MUNICIPALITY Development, the MUNICIPALITY will consider identifiable impacts on the COUNTY road system resulting from such Development on the same basis as in- MUNICIPALITY impacts. 5. IMPLEMENTATION OF AGREEMENT. Following the mutual execution of this Agreement each party will promptly enact and implement such amendments to its existing regulations as may be necessary to give effect to the provisions of Sections 3, and 4. Each party shall have sole and exclusive discretion to determine such measures and any new ones enabling it to perform this Agreement. Each party's land use regulations as referred to herein are ordinances whose amendment requires certain formalities, including notice and public hearings. The mutual covenants in this section and elsewhere to implement this Agreement promptly are given and received with mutual recognition and understanding of the legislative processes involved, and such covenants will be liberally construed in light thereof. 6. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 6.1 Severability. Should any one or more sections or paragraphs of this Agreement be judicially determined invalid or unenforceable, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remaining provisions of this Agreement, the intention being that the various sections and paragraphs are severable; provided, however, that the parties shall s then review the remaining provisions to determine if the Agreement should continue, as modified, or if the Agreement should be terminated. 6.2 Enforcement. Either party may seek specific performance or enforcement of this Agreement in a Court of competent jurisdiction, but neither party shall have any claim or remedy for damages arising from an alleged breach hereof against the other, nor shall this agreement confer on either part standing to contest a land use decision or action of the other except as a breach of this agreement. This agreement is not intended to modify the standing the parties may possess independent of this agreement. This Agreement is between the MUNICIPALITY and the COUNTY and no third party rights or beneficiaries exist or are created hereby. 6.3 Termination. This Agreement will continue in effect until June 30, 2000. The parties shall review the Agreement in June, 2000, and in June of each succeeding year to determine if the Agreement should continue in effect for the period of a year thereafter. The parties may terminate this Agreement at any time if a mutually acceptable Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the MUNICIPALITY referral area or growth area is developed and implemented by both parties 6.4 Amendment. Upon the request of either party, this Agreement shall be subject to amendment according to the same procedures as the original adoption (requiring the written consent of the amendment by both parties); provided, however, that changes in the Urban Growth Area defined in ¶2.5 herein may occur by resolution of the MUNICIPALITY concurred in by the COUNTY when the change is a deletion to the UGA or an addition of property which (a) was in common ownership and contained within a common legal description with property previously included in the UGA; or (b) directly adjacent to and contiguous with property previously contained within the UGA and capable of being served by MUNICIPAL services, including water or sewer, within a reasonable period of time. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have executed this Agreement effective as of the date first above written. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF WELD By: , Chair ATTEST: By: Weld County Clerk to the Board , Pro Tem By: Deputy Clerk to the Board By: By: By: H 6 TOWN or CITY of/4 1I:ken, COLORADO By: , ayor • ATTEST: By: ,Clerk 7 ‘Skirril1 MEMORANDUM WI`PcTO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners and Assistant O County Attorney Morrison COLORADO LA/ FROM: Anne Best Johnson, Long Range Planner ,-/ SUBJECT: USR-1237, Loveland Ready Mix This morning, we have been hearing concerns expressed by the applicant, the applicant's representative, as well as citizens in the vicinity of this proposed development. At the request of Chairwoman Kirkmeyer, and in consistency with Department of Planning Services practices, I would like to address concerns brought forth thus far and how the proposed Conditions of Approval and Development Standards address these issues. It is also important to note that illustrations provided by the applicant's representative, Mr. Gary Tuttle, this morning are not the same illustrations for the Mining Operation or the Reclamation Plan as submitted with the application material to the Department of Planning Services. The new maps have not been reviewed by referral entities (including the Division of Water Resources and the Division of Minerals and Geology), the Department of Planning Services, the Weld County Planning Commission or the Weld Board of County Commissioners. The applicant needs to be made aware that any change may constitute a substantial change to the application as submitted and may need further review by referral entities, Planning Commission, and Planning Staff. In any instance, where a concern is not met by an existing Condition of Approval and/or Development Standard, a new Condition of Approval and/or Development Standard shall be proposed at the end of this memo. The following items were received in a memo dated 12.3.99 from the Town of Milliken. This letter was distributed this morning. The numbering to follow corresponds with the Town of Milliken memo numbering system: 1. Fire hydrant placement. Proposed Condition of Approval S. 2. Traffic Study, engineered 3. Applicant contribute to the improvements needed at the intersection of SH 257 and 60. 7. Paving of WCR 48.5 Proposed Condition of Approval Q. 4. Visual buffer 10. Landscaping Prior to recording the plat, item E requires submittal of a landscaping and buffering plan to the Department of Planning Services. Should the Board seek different language, see Proposed Condition of Approval P. 5. Bond for water table detriments. Legal counsel is needed to address this concern. {{ SERVICE,TEAMWORK,INTEGRITY,QUALITY Y exiiiiiii 6. Hours of operation. Current Development Standard #29 state that hours of operation are from 7 am - 6 pm, 7 days per week. See Proposed Development Standard 29. 8. Signage Proposed Condition of Approval T. 9. Design of Facility Proposed Condition of Approval P. 11. Septic System Current Condition of Approval 8 and 14. 12. Connect with Town of Milliken's Water Source Applicant has a tap with Little Thompson. The Board is at the discretion to require a change to Condition of Approval 16 in that the applicant must connect with the Town of Milliken's water source. 13. USR Length of Operation Proposed Condition of Approval U. 14. Stock Pile height. Proposed Condition of Approval V. 15. Imported material time limit Existing Development standard 10. 16. Design Standards. Proposed Condition of Approval P. 17. Lighting Current Development Standard 35. 18. Existing Trees. Proposed Development Standard 34. 19. Weed Control Existing Development Standard 33. 20. Truck Numbers Existing Development Standard 13 may be changed at the discretion of the Board from 12 to 10. 21. Structure Ground Set Height. Existing Condition of Approval 3, and additional information provided by the Department of Environmental Health. 22. Operation closure and equipment removal. Proposed Development Standard W. 23. Trail easement. Proposed Development Standard P. SERVICE,TEAMWORK,INTEGRITY,QUALITY 24. Conveyor Belt Use Existing Development Standard 11. Condition of Approval additions: P. The applicant shall attempt to address each concern of the Town of Milliken, as outlined in a memo dated December 3, 1999. Q. The applicant shall address the concerns of the Department of Public Works as outlined in memos dated January 10, 2000; November 22, 1999; and November 19, 1999. The applicant shall submit written evidence to the Department of Planning Services that these concerns have been adequately addressed to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. R. The applicant shall submit written evidence from the Division of Minerals and Geology that the letter received on November 24, 1999 is referring to the application Mining Plan and Reclamation Plan as presented to the Department of Planning Services in the application materials. S. The applicant shall contact the Milliken Fire District and submit evidence to the Department of Planning Services that all concerns have been addressed and will be met. T. The applicant shall meet and adhere to the sign regulations of Section 31, the Agricultural Zone District and Section 42.2, Signs in the Agricultural Zone District of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, as amended. U. The application shall be for a Gravel Mining Operation and a Concrete Batch Plant for a maximum of 10 years from date of County approval. The applicant needs to be made aware that any change may constitute a substantial change to the application as submitted and may need further review by referral entities, Planning Commission, and Planning Staff, V. Stockpile material shall not exceed 20 feet in height. The applicant needs to be made aware that any change may constitute a substantial change to the application as submitted and may need further review by referral entities, Planning Commission, and Planning Staff. W. The applicant and operator of the property shall be responsible for the removal, and reclamation of the property once the operation ceases. Changes to Development Standards: 3.a. St. Vrain River shall be changed to Big Thompson River. 13. The number of mixer trucks will be limited to 10 at any one time. 29. Hours of operation shall start at 7:00 a.m. Mining and processing operations shall cease at 6:00 p.m., six days per week, excluding Sunday and observed holidays. 34. All existing healthy trees on the property shall be maintained. SERVICE,TEAMWORK,INTEGRITY,QUALITY PL1373 USR #1237 Exhibit III Oversized revised Storm Water Management Pre- Mining and Mining Plan Map See Original File PL1373 USR #1237 Exhibit JJJ Oversized Revised Reclamation Plan Map See Original File "rrli «�\� 1.4.; . \ � a . ti, V' Ali { : ' lag ° ! ammis 1111 . a et '11 . \. /t•,,ti\ \ ' 2± � kk • \ ' { / � » r :+ \\ } . } « . H ^\ & ` ° : \ \ » , I� iiiiiiir 4» . : }/ .."1.1. / it 4 \ \ ' � . }} % ` ` »< a ` ' » . > % T \ \ \ » d ! . . ..ii "/ \\ \ ` f } 2 I 0 / » `/ . 0 p < j . ® \ �� 1 . \ / . 1 < \ . \ %\ \, . : : * § » t % '.,.e:� , ■ \ _ dr ® i »Z / \ I j . . \ /� \ ` ` � : , # < . rf . \ 4 ` ' . .2. . » p 14 1 8-2000 7:40AM =RLt1 ISS THOMPSON SOH 663 0605 P. 2 Jilt I)!Ui1411ee DATE: January 17, 2000 TO: Board of County Commissioners of Weld County FROM: Kenneth J. and Carol R. McKenzie RE: A site specific development plan and special review permit#1237 for open cut gravel mining and a concrete batch plant in the Agricultural Zone District: Part of the NF 1/4 of Section 3, Township 4 North, and part of the SE 1/4 of Section 34,Township S North, all in Range 67 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado Dear Commissioners. My wife and I have contracted to purchase a home at 2149 Country Club Parkway in the Mad Russian golf communities in Milliken,CO. We have grave concerns about the development of a gravel/mining operation by Loveland Ready Mix Concrete,Inc. at the proposed site. The destruction of the view,caused by the industrial development required to write, crush, process and store gravel,would be a blight on the community. The dust in the atmosphere,caused by the mining and crushing of rock, is a concern for out health as well as the environment. At peak operation, there could be I to 2 huge trucks every 3-5 minutes,grinding their way uphill on Hwy. 257,past the Mad Russian, and jake-braking their way back down the hill as they return to the plant. This means clouds of black diesel fumes being spewed as the trucks run back and forth, to say nothing of the noise! The development of this mining site would destroy the aesthetic and quiet nature of the Mad Russian and other adjacent rural settings and would greatly diminish the value of all neighboring properties. Another concern is the safety of the residents of the Mad Russian, The added truck traffic caused by the development of this mining facility would greatly jeopardize the safety of those using the same highway. The last thing we want to see is 4 lanes of noisy traffic going past our community...created to minimize the dangers caused by the additional truck traffic. It is our understanding that the Town of Milliken rejected a request by Loveland Ready Mix Concrete. Inc. to annex property and approve the development of this operation. How, in good conscience,can you override the wishes of the elected officials of Milliken and its citizens? If this proposal were approved, the county commissioners would be running roughshod over the economic development of the Town of Milliken! What message are you sending to other small communities within Weld County? We respectfully question whether any of the commissioners would approve this operation if it were in the near vicinity of their homes. Finally, we feel that the meeting time for this public hearing excludes the appearance of most employed individuals. Wouldn't it be in the public's best interest if a"public^hearing were held at a time when most people could attend? This feels like a"done deal". We hope that this is not so! Sincerely, debt_ Kenneth l� and Carol McKenzie t ^ l ni 9 eii17/2GOOS:42 PM ? EXHIBIT I In MTh US/Z*I23i SPrvin i fha Irnhr,e+,-'""-, n e;n,i-en area since 1904 #1111111111PIThe . ,piaci11rpeeze Vol.96 No.1 THURSDAY January 13,2000 READY-MIX... From page 1 separate it from Highway 257; that Loveland Ready-Mix put up a performance bond to cover potential damage to the water table; that the hours of operation be limited; that Weld County Road 48 1/2 be paved (at the company's expense) all the way to Weld County Road 17, and that westerly traffic from the plant be required to use that route; that the town have final approval of any landscaping plans and that Milliken has See READY-MIX pg. 16 Photo by Ted Chavez Next Wednesday, Weld County Commissioners will consider a plan to construct a gravel min- ing and concrete batch plant on this land just south of the Mad Russian subdivision. the plant. READY-MIX... Knowski said he feels the From page 14 planning meeting in Novem- Ready.Mix plant hearing set for Jan 19 control over the maximum ber was no more than a number of trucks at the site. "rubber stamp" for Loveland by Matt Lubich effects to the river and all along that we simply don't Town officials have voiced Ready-Mix. Company officials MILLIKEN -- Town offi- nearby riparian and area want this operation in our frustration that the county has were given the chance to cials and residents say they'll wetlands, the Weld County community," Town Ad- been pressing communities to rebut complaints at the be there next Wednesday to Planning Commission voted ministrator J.R.Schnelzer said become a part of an inter- hearing, he said,but residents voice their opposition, when unanimously to approve the Tuesday. "But the fear is that governmental agreement were not given the chance to between the county and respond to those comments. the Weld County Commis- application and forwarded it if the commissioners are towns, and now seem to be He was also dismayed at the stoners consider an applica-- to the commissioners for a going to pass it, we want ignoring a community's wish- quickness with which a deci- tion by Loveland Ready-Mix final decision. some sort of controls on it." es sion with such possible long- Concrete, Inc. to open a This past fall, when town Chief among those condi- County Commissioner Dale term effects was made, he gravel mining and concrete officials first got wind of the tions, the town administrator Hall disagreed with the said. batch plant operation just company's proposal to the said, is that a full and corn- assessment that the county "On very important issues south of the Mad Russian county, an attempt was made plete traffic study be under- subdivision. to bring the plant site into taken to gauge the effect of has already decided what they that have a great impact on The hearing is set for 10 the town through annexation. truck traffic going to and will do about the plant, and the county, we were amazed a.m.,Jan. 19, in the commis- Officials said they wanted the from the plant along Highway is First, Milliken's wishes. that this was recommended to sioners'hearing room, located operation under their jurisdic- 257. The town wants Love- Furst,the IGA isn't signed be approved after only one on the first floor of the tion and control. Those land Ready-Mix to abide by and official,"he said, "and I session,"he said. Centennial Center, 915 10th efforts fell through, and the findings and recommends- don't think anyone from the Loveland Ready-Mix offi- St.,in downtown Greeley. Loveland Ready-Mix con- tions of that study. Milliken county is saying this is a done dials have already made some deal." concessions, including an In mid-November, despite a tinued to pursue their ap- also wants the company to Asked his thoughts about agreement to limit truck recommendation by a Member plication with the county. share in the eventual costs of why the county's planning traffic and operation hours,as of their own staff to deny the Last month, the Milliken improvements at the intersec- staff would recommend denial well as pave WCR 48 1/2. application because it wasn't Town Board drafted a list of tion of. Highway 257 and of the proposal, and the The company is still seeking .K,,,w> t !Aunty about rgk1lioq X.,waut,0„ ' e�nts !+*""w^ zoning t�finances, wasn't to see put upon the opera- 'a d„ al planning board would un- approval to operate the plant animously approve it, Hall for just over three decades compatible with surrounding tion, and forwarded them to call for a six-acre buffer along residential land uses and the county commissioners. the east of the plant, to said he had reviewed the before returning it to a minutes of the Nov. 16 natural state. posed possible detrimental "I think we've made it plain See READ,Y,-MIXpg.14 meeting, but had reached no conclusion. Comments regarding the Frank Knowski, a Mad proposal can be forwarded to Russian resident, said he and the county commissioners by e- his neighbors will be at the mail at charding@co.weld.- me■ting next Wednesday to co.us. Their phone number is continue-their opposition to 356-4000,ext.4226. 7; EXHIBIT WAN --ate- ': • het EXHIBIT [goo USP ' I Z37 „ �A 55• i • �5 ` b 9wua- r 3"� � CCI and CML Growth Management Legislation CCI Contact: CML Contact: Christopher Castilian Sam Mamet Director of Legislative Affairs Associate Director 1700 Broadway Ste. 1510 1144 Sherman St. Denver, CO 80290 Denver, CO 80203 303-861-4076 ext. 231 303-831-6411 4 EXHIBIT WP November 1999 Dear County and Municipal Elected Officials and Staff: The purpose of this guide is to assist county and municipal elected officials and staff in effectively communicating our CCI/CML Growth Management legislative proposal. This legislation is crafted to improve Colorado land use enabling statutes toward the goals of better intergovernmental cooperation and more effective growth management by counties and municipalities. We realize the issues involved in land use planning and growth do not always lend themselves to easy explanations. We also realize how critical it is for everyone to understand and support the intentions behind our joint efforts in addressing the issue of growth. To enable local elected officials to engage the average citizen or busy legislator on the merits of our 10-point proposal, CCI and CML have teamed to create this guide. It is designed to translate our growth management legislation into easy-to-understand, conversational points. We are pleased to report Rep. Matt Smith, R-Grand Junction, and Sen. Norma Anderson, R-Lakewood, have agreed to be our prime sponsors. We now need your help in recruiting other legislators to sign on as co-sponsors. For your convenience, we have included a One-On-One Contact Form in this guide. We are excited to be embarking on a partnership that addresses the most important issue facing our constituents. Thank you for your support and assistance. Cheryl Olson, Mark Arndt, Janet Terry, Lorraine Anderson, CCI Land Use and CCI President CML Growth Chair CML President Natural Resources Morgan County City of Grand Junction City of Arvada Latimer County Commissioner Council Member Council Member Commissioner CCI and CML Growth Management Legislation KEY POINTS O Cities, towns, and counties must work together to plan for and accommodate responsible growth; O Agricultural lands are key to Colorado's heritage and we must use every effort to save our farms and ranches for their inherent agricultural and open space value; O Communities will be recognized and rewarded for managing growth through a program which will designate communities as "Colorado Heritage Communities." O Regional planning is critical to managing Colorado's growth; O Counties and municipalities need the tools and incentives to ensure better cooperation in addressing Colorado's growth; O Municipalities are better suited to provide urban-level services and developments requiring these services should be sited within municipal boundaries; O Municipalities must annex responsibly and in coordination with their regional neighbors; O State assistance is appropriate and necessary but local control is paramount. CCI and CML Growth Management Legislation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY wey,e164). 1 . Preservation of Agricultural Lands and the � t,/ Agricultural Industry as part of Colorado's Heritage P CCI and CMI. are working with interested agricultural groups to create incentives for protecting Colorado's precious agricultural lands and the people that make their living off of those lands. V G. Reward Local Governments that Cooperate on a Regional Basis to Plan for and Accommodate Growth New statutory language that reflects part of Governor Owens' Smart Growth Agenda and allows for the executive director of the Department of Local Affairs to reward and recognize communities that are regionally planning for growth. This fund will only be created to accept moneys otherwise made available to DOLA and will not require a new appropriation. 3. Annex First! Encourage proposed urban development that is contiguous to existing municipalities to first seek annexation prior to developing in the county. This proposal is based on the assumption that new urban development, near an existing municipality, should ideally be occurring within the municipality (i.e. so the development can receive the full range of municipal services, so municipal development standards can be applied, so the development can he more effectively integrated into an existing community, etc.) This provision would minimize leapfrog development and sprawl. q'. Strengthen Intergovernmental Agreement Authority for Counties and Municipalities Counties and municipalities already possess broad enabling authority to enter into intergovernmental land use planning agreements. The proposed language would expressly authorize counties (via an IGA) to impose munal 5 lopment standar�c s upon development occurring in unincorporated areas near a municipality to better integrate that development into the existing community. This section also allows local governments to make IGAs binding, thus encouraging more counties and municipalities to enter into longer-term 1 / agreements (at local option). Enforcing Locally Adopted Master Plans Y P Some critics of current land use practices in Colorado say that comprehensive plans lack "teeth." Many municipalities and counties have chosen to put "teeth" in their plans by requiring compatibility with the plan for site specific development approvals. The Colorado Supreme Court specifically condoned this practice in 1996 in Board of County Commissioners v. Conder. Ironically, the very next year, in an apparent attempt to countermand Conder, the General Assembly amended county and municipal planning statutes to reassert that plans are "advisory only." The proposed language would reconfirm the, autlafig of local governments to give their plans le•al force and effect if they ch-Tose to do so. 6. Strengthen Intergovernmental Referral of Land Use Proposals The proposed language would strengthen county referral of land use decisions in two key ways: 1) it would make the obligation apply generically to any land use approval that requires a public hearing; and, 2) it would expand the sphere of influence from a two-mile to a three-mile radius in order to be consistent with other statutes. Significantly, this proposal stops short of any formal extraterritorial jurisdiction on the part of the municipality (i.e. no veto power, just an opportunity to make a recommendation), and is designed simply to foster better intergovernmental communication and coordination. 7. Improving Municipal Annexations Through. Additional Planning This section of the legislation would: 1) require municipalities to demonstrate an ability to serve the proposed areas prior to annexation; and, 2) require any annexation to occur pursuant to the previously adopted three-mile plan. These new requirements would indirectly underscore the need for good inter- municipal and municipal-county relations, since counties and nearby municipalities already have standing to challenge any annexation that does not conform to the requirements of the statute. 8. Improving Municipalities' 3-mile Annexation Plans With this provision, the three-mile annexation plan required under current law would be given real force and effect in the sense that any annexation consummated by a municipality would have to be in conformance with the plan. The foregoing language would make one key addition to the mandatory contents of the plan--a municipality would have to give some forethought to the question and go on record indicating what, if any, territory within the three-mile area it may be interested in and capable of annexing. This provision also is designed to foster better intergovernmental coordination and cooperation by requiring annexation plans to be submitted to the county. Again, however, it stops short of giving the county veto power over a particular municipal plan. Lastly, a number of municipalities and counties expressed an interest in additional flexibility in the three-mile planning requirement. Some cities want the ability to plan beyond the three-miles, consistent with an IGA with the county, and others, who have no intention of ever growing that far will riot have to plan out to three miles. 9. Provide Greater Authority for Municipalities to Police One Another's Annexations Legal standing for a third party to challenge a municipal annexation is quite limited under current law. If one municipality is concerned about the expansion of another, often their only recourse is to "woo" the landowners and annex the property first before someone else does. The proposed language is intended to provide an alternative to defensive annexation by expanding the ability of municipalities to monitor and challenge nearby annexations from a one-mile to a three-mile radius. Again, this would be consistent with current law that implies a three-mile sphere of interest around all municipalities. This proposal is not intended to increase the amount of litigation between municipalities, but to increase the desirability of communication and coordination, and the likelihood that annexations will occur in full compliance with the statutes (including the new requirement that annexations be in conformance with a previously adopted plan). 10. Increased Land Use Planning Interaction Between Counties, Municipalities and Special Districts Experience in Colorado has shown that growth at the suburban fringe or in exurban locations is as likely to be caused by this combination of factors as it is by municipal annexation. Thus, any comprehensive proposal to promote better intergovernmental cooperation and coordination of growth must address the role played by special districts. Consistent with several other provisions discussed above, the proposed amendments are based on the premise that municipalities have a sphere of interest within a three-mile radius of their boundaries. The assumption is that municipal influence over the creation of new service districts within that area should be increased, particularly if municipal authority to annex within that area is going to be curtailed in any way. According to the proposed amendments, counties will still have exclusive approval authority over service plans of special districts. Counties, however, shall deny the service plan of a special district if, in addition to the current criteria, evidence is presented that services are available from a county municipality or county within a reasonable time and on a comparable basis, or the facility or service standards of each county or all municipalities within three miles are compatible to those being proposed in the service plan. These criteria are based upon the premise that urban level development ought to occur within municipalities, where services are available and can be efficiently provided. It is IMPORTANT to note that these bases for denial are NOT new; counties may currently deny special district service plans under existing law using these criteria. The amendment also adds new substantive criteria that both counties and municipalities "may" consider when deciding whether to approve a new special district service plan--i.e, the degree to which the creation of the district may lead to leapfrog development. Finally, the legislation proposes to redefine "material modification" to include changes in the boundary of a special district that include territory within a municipality's three-mile plan. is 9/r....÷.—H, Joint CML/CCI Legislative Proposal to Improve Land Use and Growth Management Practices by Colorado Local Governments December 1, 1999 INTRODUCTION CML and CCI are pleased to present the final draft of our proposed growth management legislation, representing months of feedback from the memberships of our respective organizations. The purpose of this legislation is to improve Colorado land use enabling statutes, toward the goal of better intergovernmental cooperation and more effective growth management by counties and municipalities. The overriding purpose of this exercise is to come up with a set of statutory changes that would: (1) be capable of passage in the General Assembly, and (2) would actually do some good. In our initial discussions of this legislation to date, we have assumed that the political viability of land use legislation in the General Assembly depends on the following characteristics: • Respects private property rights. V� Respects local control of land use decision making. • Does not impose any significant unfunded mandates on local governments. • Is evolutionary, not revolutionary, and generally involves amendments to existing statutes rather than the adoption of a whole new statutory scheme. Would improve regional planning decisions by fostering better municipal-county relations. ` / Legislative Declaration V Although it is not substantive law, a statement of legislative intent will enhance the bill by stating clearly what we are trying to accomplish. Presumably this would be the type of declaration that would be in the bill, but not codified into statute because other provisions of the bill are scattered all over the C.R.S. Perhaps the following could be a starting point: I THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY HEREBY DECLARES THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS BILL ARE NECESSARY AND DESIRABLE TO IMPROVE REGIONAL LAND USE PLANNING BY FOSTERING BETTER COMMUNICATION TION AND COOPERATION AMONG AND BETWEEN TSTING_GOVERNMENT ENTITIES, PARTICULARLY THOSE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THAT HAVE TRADITIONALLY AND PROPERLY EXERCISED THE AUTHORITY TO PLAN FOR AND REGULATE LAND USE. y. /MORE SPECIFICALLY, IT IS THE INTENT OF THIS BILL TO FOSTER lliEpp BETTER PLANNING AND MORE ORDERLYDEVELOPMEN'I A'1"THE. URBAN FRINGE IN PROXIMITY TO EXISTING INCORPORATED MUNICIPAL ITIES, AN AREA IN WHICH THERE IS A CRITICAL NEED FOR COOPERATION BETWEEN_CQUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES. THIS BILL S INf TENDED TO MORE FULLY EFFECTUATE THE PURPOSES UNDERLYING EXISTING ENABLING STATUTES THAT GOVERN PLANNING AND LAND USE REGULATION BY COLORADO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, INCLUDING THE MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION ACT OF 1965, §§ 31-12-101, et seq., THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAND USE CONTROL ENABLING ACT, §§ 29-20-101, et seq., AND THE SPECIFIC STATUTORY LAND USE POWERS CONFERRED UPON COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES BY TITLES 30 AND 31 RESPECTIVELY. 1. Preservation of Agricultural Lands Comment: CCI and CML would like to include in this legislation a component that encourage, the preservation of agricultural lands and the agricultural industry in Colorado. Such a pro p.aal would focus on the purchase of conservation easements/leases or could provide ncc lauli,/aurnn /i,r purchase/transfer of development rights. CCI and CML are currently working the r,rnauv agricultural interests to define this section of our legislation. 2. Colorado Heritage Communities (1) IN ORDER TO RECOGNIZE AND REWARD COMMUNITIES THAT COOPERATIVELY PLAN FOR AND MANAGE GROWTH, THERE SHALL BF CREATED A PROGRAM WHICH WILL DESIGNATE COMMUNITIES AS "COLORADO HERITAGE COMMUNITIES." (2) SUCH AREAS WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR PLANNING GRANTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS TO ADDRESS CRITICAL PLANNING ISSUES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, MITIGATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, AND ENERGY USE. (3) THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS IS CHARGED WITH DEVELOPING CRITERIA FOR THE DESIGNATION AND PROTECTION OF COLORADO HERITAGE COMMUNITIES. SUCH CRITERIA SHALL INCLUDE: a) DEMONSTRATED COORDINATION WITH IMPACTED NEIGHBORING 2 GOVERNMENTS; b) DEMONSTRATED ABILITY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE; AND, c) DEMONSTRATED RESPONSIBLE STEWARDSHIP OF COLORADO'S NATURAL RESOURCES. (4) THERE SHALL HEREBY BE CREATED A FUND IN THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS THAT IS AVAILABLE TO RECEIVE ANY MONEYS APPROPRIATED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, OR OTHERWISE MADE AVAILABLE BY FEDERAL GRANTS, PRIVATE DONATIONS OR OTHER EXECUTIVE BRANCH DEPARTMENTS, AGENCIES AND PROGRAMS. Comment: This section is revised to reflect a portion of Governor Owens'Smart Growth Agenda. The intent is to use already existing planning grants to reward communities who cooperate on a regional basis to plan for and accommodate growth. The fund will be created to only accept moneys otherwise made available to the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA), and will not require an appropriation of new dollars. The Colorado Heritage Communities program is modeled on an earlier program that was operated by DOLA. 3. Encouraging Annexation of New Urban Development. § 29-20-104, C.R.S. is amended by the ADDITION OF NEW SUBSECTIONS to read as follows: § 29-20-104. Powers of local governments. (2) PRIOR TO THE CONSIDERATION OF ANY APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OR URBAN DEVELOPMENT OF ANY LAND WITHIN THREE MILES OF ANY MUNICIPALITY AND INCLUDED WITHIN ANY MUNICIPALITY'S THREE-MILE PLAN AS PROVIDED IN SECTION :1-1 ,- 105 (1)(f), AND PROVIDED THE LAND IS ELIGIBLE FOR ANNENAT ION PURSUANT TO C.R.S. § 31-12-104, A COUNTY MAY REQUIRE TH E LANDOWNER FIRST TO SEEK ANNEXATION TO ANY SUCH MUNICIPALITY. IF A COUNTY HAS REQUIRED THE LANDOWNER TO SEEK ANNEXATION AND THE MUNICIPALITY IS UNWILLING OR UNABLE TO ANNEX THE LANDOWNER'S PROPERTY WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME ACCORDING TO THE PROCEDURES FOR ANNEXATION SET FORTH IN ARTICLE 12 OF TITLE 31, THE COUNTY SHALL THEN CONSIDER THE LANDOWNER'S APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNTY'S ADOPTED MASTER PLAN, STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES. FOR PURPOSE OF THIS SUBSECTION, "URBAN DEVELOPMENT" SHALL HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS THAT PROVIDED IN SECTION 31-12-103 (13). Comment: This proposal is based on the assumption that new urban development near an existing municipality should ideally be occurring within the municipality (i.e. so the development 3 can receive the full range of municipal services, so municipal development standards can be applied, so the development can be more effectively integrated into an existing community, etc.) This principle is being included in a number ofIGA 's around the state but, reportedly, some county attorneys may be concerned that counties lack express enabling authority to forestall a development approval in the unincorporated area unless the property owner pursues annexation first. This is the first of several provisions in the proposed legislation that would use a "3-mile" standard. In 1987 the state basically acknowledged a 3-mile sphere of interest around municipalities when it required municipalities to have a 'plan in place"for the unincorporated area within three miles of the municipality prior to annexing any property. § 31-12-105 (1)(e). Other than being a prerequisite for a valid annexation, however, the 1987 enactment did not flesh out the meaning or legal force and effect of the 3-mile plan. 4. Strengthening Intergovernmental Land Use Agreements. 29-20-105 (1) C.R.S. is amended to read as follows: / § 29-20-105. Intergovernmental cooperation. (1) Local governments are authorized and encouraged to cooperate or contract with other units of government pursuant to part 2 of article 1 of this title for the purposes f planning or regulating the development of land including, but not limited to, the joint exercise of planning, zoning, subdivision, building, and related regulations. UNDERAN TRACT BETWEEN A COUNTY A MUNICIPALITY, COUNTIES ARE S ALLY AUTHORIZED TO ADOPT BY REFERENCE THE MUNICIPALITY'S DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND RE}UIREMI=,N'1'S, AND TO ENFORCE THOSE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS WHEN APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT OR REI5EVELOPMMNTOFLAND IN ANY UNINCORPORATED AREA THAT IS WITHIN THREE MILES, OR SUCH OTHER DISTANCE ASAGREED TO BETWEEN THE MUNICIPALITY AND COUNTY PURSUANT TO C.R.S. § 31- 12-105 (G), OF THE MUNICIPALITY AND THAT IS LIKELY TO BE INTEGRATED WITH OR ANNEXED TO THE MUNICIPALITY IN 'THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW TO THE CONTRARY, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED TO MAKE ANY INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONTRACT CONCERNING LAND USE PLANNING OR REGULATION MUTUALLY BINDING AND ENFORCEABLE FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED TWENTY YEARS. ANY INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONTRACT ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION MAY BE RENEWED OR EXTENDED FOR SUCCESSIVE periods. NOTHING HEREIN SHALL AFFECT THE ENFORCEABILITY OR VALIDITY OF EXISTING INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONTRACTS. Comment: Counties and municipalities already possess broad enabling authority to enter into intergovernmental land use planning agreements. However, critics question the effectiveness and the long-term enforceability of such agreements. The foregoing language is intended to 4 address a couple of these concerns. The proposed language would expressly authorize counties (via an IGA) to impose municipal development standards upon development occurring in unincorporated areas near a municipality. (As indicated in § 1 above, the preferred alternative would be for new urban development to actually annex to a nearby municipality, but this provision would come into play if the parties were unable or unwilling to annex. The theory here is that development adjacent to an existing community will be better integrated with the community if consistent standards are applied.) Again, this is a practice that may already be reflected in some IGA 's that exist around the state, but express enabling authority would avert possible legal challenges (e.g. a challenge based on the theory that a county's ability to regulate land use in an unincorporated area is limited purely to the authority granted in county enabling legislation) and may encourage more counties and municipalities to enter into such agreements. Many land use and other IGA 's are only entered into on a year-to-year basis as both county and municipal attorneys fear the unlawful delegation of legislative authority and binding future councils. Express enabling authority for binding, long term planning agreements may allay some of these fears. The decision to enter into binding agreements (or not) would be a local option. 5. Binding Master Plans. 30-28-106 (3)(f) and 31-23-206 (3) C.R.S. are amended to read as follows: § 30-28-106. Adoption of master plan--contents. (3) (f) The master plan of a county or region is advisory only UNLESS THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DETERMINES TO MAKE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MASTER PLAN OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MANDATORY BY ADOPTING ALL OR ANY PORTION OF THE MASTER PLAN OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY RESOLUTION OR ORDINANCE THEREBY GIVING IT THE FORCE AND EFFECT OF LAW. ************* 31-23-206 (3) C.R.S. is amended as follows: § 31-23-206. Master plan. (3) The master plan of a municipality is advisory only UNLESS THE GOVERNING BODY DETERMINES TO MAKE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MASTER PLAN MANDATORY BY ADOPTING ALL OR ANY PORTION OF THE MASTER PLAN BY ORDINANCE THEREBY GIVING IT THE FORCE AND EFFECT OF LAW. Comment: Some critics of current land use practices in Colorado say that comprehensive plans lack "teeth. " However, although the courts have traditionally noted that plans are "advisory" documents only, many municipalities and counties have indeed chosen to put "teeth " in their plans by requiring compatibility with the plan for site specific development approvals. The 5 Colorado Supreme Court specifically condoned this practice in 1996 in Board of County Commissioners v. Conder. However, the very next year the General Assembly amended county and municipal planning statutes to reassert that plans are "advisory only. " The proposed language would reconfirm the authority of local governments to give their plans legal force and effect if they choose to do so. 6. Strengthening intergovernmental referral of land use proposals. § 30-28-110 (5)(a) C.R.S. is amended to read as follows: § 30-28-110. Regional planning commission approval, required when--recording. 5(a) Notice of the filing of preliminary plans of any type required by this section to Ise-submitted to a district, regional, or county planning commiscion or to the board of eounty commissioners APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A PLAN OR PLAT OF ANY TYPE OR THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY ZONING ACTION THAT IS REQUIRED TO BE APPROVED FOLLOWING A PUBLIC HEARING ACCORDING TO ANY STATE OR LOCAL LAW OR REGULATION, if the situs of these plans THE PLAN, PLAT OR ZONING ACTION lies wholly or partially within twe THREE miles of the corporate limits of e ANY municipality but not within the corporate limits of another municipality, shall be referred to the town or city clerk of such municipality by the county planning commission or, if there be none, by the board of county commissioners. Within€ourteen TWENTY-ONE days of the receipt of such plans, the municipality, by action of its city council or town board, or, if one exists, by action of its planning commission, may make its recommendation to the board of county commissioners, which shall forward the same to the district, regional, or county planning commission, if any. Failure of the town board, city council, or agents designated by them to make any recommendation within fettrteeft TWENTY-ONE days of the receipt of such plans shall constitute waiver of its right to make such recommendation. Comment: Current county planning statutes already require counties to submit certain "preliminary"plans proposed in the unincorporated area near a municipality to the municipality for a "recommendation. " The proposed language would strengthen this obligation in two key ways. It would make the obligation apply generically to any land use approval that requires a public hearing. It would also expand the sphere of influence from a two-mile to a three-mile radius in order to be consistent with other statutes. Significantly, this proposal stops short of any formal extraterritorial jurisdiction on the part of the municipality (i.e. no veto power,just an opportunity to snake a recommendation), and is designed simply to foster better intergovernmental communication and coordination. 7. Additional Requirements for Municipal Annexations. § 31-12-104 (1)(b) C.R.S. is amended and 31-12-104 (1) is further amended BY THE ADDITION OF TWO NEW SUBSECTIONS to read as follows: 6 § 31-12-104. Eligibility for annexation. (1) An area is eligible for annexation if the governing body, at a hearing as provided in section 31-12-109, finds and determines: (b) That a community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and the annexing municipality; that said area is urban or will be urbanized in the near future; and that said area is integrated with or is capable of being integrated with the annexing municipality. The fact that the area proposed to be annexed has the contiguity with the annexing municipality required by paragraph (a) of this subsection (1) shall be a basis for a finding of compliance with these requirements unless the governing body, upon the basis of competent evidence presented at the hearing provided for in section 31-12-109, finds that EITHER of the following are shown to exist: (I) Less than fifty percent of the adult residents of the area proposed to be annexed make use of part or all of the following types of facilities of the annexing municipality: Recreational, civic, social, religious, industrial, or commercial; and less than twenty-five percent of said area's adult residents are employed in the annexing municipality. If there are no adult residents at the time of the hearing, this standard shall not apply. (II) One-half or more of the land in the area proposed to be annexed (including streets) is agricultural, and the landowners of such agricultural land, under oath, express an intention to devote the land to such agricultural use for a period of not less than five years. (III) It is not physically practicable to extend to the area proposed to be annexed those urban services which the annexing municipality provides in common to all of its citizens on thc same terms and conditions as such services arc made available to such citizens. This standard shall not apply to the extent that any portion of thc area to be annexed is provided or will within the reasonably near future be provided with any service by or through a quasi municipal corporation. (c) THE TERRITORY TO BE ANNEXED WILL RECEIVE URBAN SERVICES ON THE SAME GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THE REST OF ANNEXING MUNICIPALITY RECEIVES, WITH SUCH SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY THE ANNEXING MUNICIPALITY, BY OR THROUGH A QUASI-MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, OR BY AGREEMENT OF THE LANDOWNERS IN THE TERRITORY TO BE ANNEXED. IF URBAN SERVICES ARE NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO THE TERRITORY ON THE SAME GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THE REST OF THE ANNEXING MUNICIPALITY RECEIVES WITHIN THREE YEARS OF THE ANNEXATION, THEN THE TERRITORY MAY BE DISCONNECTED FROM THE MUNICIPALITY AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 31-12-119; PROVIDED, HOWEVER THAT NOTHING HEREIN SHALL PRECLUDE A MUNICIPALITY AND LANDOWNERS FROM AGREEING TO A LONGER PERIOD FOR EXTENSION OF URBAN SERVICES TO THE TERRITORY TO BE ANNEXED. 7 (d) THE ANNEXATION IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE MUNICIPALITY'S ADOPTED THREE-MILE PLAN AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 31-12-105 (1)(f). Comment• The foregoing language is proposed in response to the criticism that municipalities need to annex more thoughtfully and more responsibly. Under current law, the determination of eligibility of particular territory for annexation is a fairly simple one for municipalities to meet--if the territory is one-sixth contiguous with the municipality, it is presumptively eligible, and all other criteria set forth in the statute are assumed to be met (i.e. it is presumed that the territory is capable of being integrated with the municipality and is "urban" or soon will be). The proposed language, however, would raise the bar for annexation in two substantive ways. These new requirements would indirectly underscore the need for good inter- municipal and municipal-county relations, since counties and nearby municipalities already have standing to challenge any annexation that does not conform to the requirements of the statute. First, there would be a new requirement that the municipality show an ability to serve the property before it is annexed. (This would be a mirror-image provision to one already in the law permitting landowners to seek de-annexation after the fact, if they are not served within three years.) Presumably. this requirement may help to quell the speculative annexation of property or the defensive stockpiling of territory which may occur in so-called "annexation wars. " Second, a new provision would affirmatively require that the annexation occur pursuant to a previously adopted plan, namely the 3-mile plan that is already required in the statute, and would be strengthened as to its contents and legal force and effect, as described below. Although current law already requires a plan, it does not require that a particular annexation relate to the plan in any particular way. 8. Improving the 3-Mile Annexation Plan. 31-12-105 (1) (e) C.R.S. is repealed and reenacted as follows: § 31-12-105. Limitations. (1)Notwithstanding any provisions of this part Ito the contrary, the following shall apply to all annexations: (e) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph (e), no annexation may take place that would have the effect of extending a municipal boundary more than three miles in any direction from any point of such municipal boundary in any one year, UNLESS SUCH OTHER DISTANCE IS OTHERWISE AGREED TO BY INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MUNICIPALITY AND COUNTY PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION (G) OF THIS SECTION. Within said DISTANCE three mile urea, the contiguity required by section 31-12-104 (1)(a) may be achieved by annexing a platted street or alley, a public or private right-of- way, a public or private transportation right-of-way or area, or a lake, reservoir, stream, or other natural or artificial waterway. Such three-mile limit may be exceeded if such limit would have the effect of dividing a parcel of property held in 8 identical ownership if at least fifty percent of the property is within the three-mile limit. In such event, the entire property held in identical ownership may be annexed in any one year without regard to such mileage limitation. Such three-mile limit may also be exceeded for the annexation of an enterprise zone. (f) Prior to completion of any annexation within the three-mile area DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (e) OF THIS SECTION, the municipality shall have a plan in place for that area THAT INDICATES ANY TERRITORY WITHIN THE THREE-MILE AREA FOR WHICH THE MUNICIPALITY MAY BE WILLING TO ENTERTAIN AN ANNEXATION PETITION, AND which generally describes the proposed location, character, and extent of ANY streets, subways, bridges, waterways, waterfronts, parkways, playgrounds, squares, parks, aviation fields, other public ways, grounds, open spaces, public utilities, and terminals for water, light, sanitation, transportation, and power to be provided by the municipality and the proposed land uses for the area. Such plan shall be updated at least once annually. AT LEAST TWENTY-ONE DAYS PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OR UPDATING OF THE PLAN, THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE MUNICIPALITY SHALL SUBMIT SUCH PLAN TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ANY COUNTY GOVERNING AREA INCLUDED WITHIN THE PLAN FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW AND COMMENT UPON THE PLAN. NOTHING IN THIS SUBSECTION SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO REQUIRE A MUNICIPALITY TO PREPARE A PLAN FOR ANY TERRITORY IT DOES NOT INTEND TO ANNEX. (G) NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS SECTION TO THE CONTRARY, A COUNTY AND A MUNICIPALITY MAY PROVIDE BY INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE ADOPTION OF AN ANNEXATION PLAN INCLUDING TERRITORY IN EXCESS OF THREE MILES FROM THE MUNICIPALITY. Renumber succeeding paragraphs accordingly. Comment: As explained above, the 3-mile plan required under current law would be given real force and effect in the sense that any annexation consummated by a municipality would have to be in conformance with the plan. The foregoing language would make one key addition to the mandator' contents of the plan--a municipality would have to give some forethought to the question and go on record indicating what if any territory within the three mile area it may be interested in and capable of annexing. This provision also is designed to foster better intergovernmental coordination and cooperation by requiring annexation plans to be submitted to the county. Again, however, it stops short of giving the county veto power over a particular municipal plan. Lastly, a number of municipalities and counties told us that they would appreciate additional flexibility in the three-mile planning requirement—some cities wanted the ability to plan beyond the three-miles, consistent to an IGA with the county, and others did not want to have to plan out three-miles with no intention of ever growing that far. 9 9. Greater Authority for Municipalities to Police One Another's Annexations. Section 31-12-116 (1)(a) C.R.S. is amended as follows: § 31-12-116. Review. (1)(a) If any landowner or any qualified elector in the area to be annexed, the board of county commissioners of any county governing the area proposed to be annexed, or any municipality within one mile THREE MILES of the area proposed to be annexed believes itself to be aggrieved by the acts of the governing body of the annexing municipality in annexing said area to said municipality, such acts or findings of the governing body may be reviewed by certiorari in accordance with the Colorado rules of civil procedure. Such review proceedings shall be instituted in any district court having jurisdiction of the county in which the annexed area is located. In no event shall such a proceeding be instituted prior to the effective date of the annexing ordinance by the annexing municipality. Comment: Legal standing for a third party to challenge a municipal annexation is quite limited under current law. If one municipality is concerned about the expansion of another, often their only recourse is to woo the landowners and annex the property.first before someone else does. The proposed language is intended to provide an alternative to defensive annexation by expanding the ability of municipality's to monitor and challenge nearby annexations from a 1-mile to a 3-mile radius. Again, this would be consistent with current law that implies a 3-mile sphere of interest around all municipalities. This proposal is not intended to increase the amount of litigation between municipalities, but to increase the desirability of communication and coordination, and the likelihood that annexations will occur in full compliance with the statutes (including the new requirement that annexations be in conformance with a previously adopted plan). 10. More Control Over the Formation of New Special Districts. 32-1-203 (2) and (2.5) C.R.S. are amended by the ADDITION OF NEW PARAGRAPHS to read as follows: § 32-1-203. Action on service plans--criteria. (2) The board of county commissioners shall disapprove the service plan unless evidence satisfactory to the board of each of the following is presented: (a) There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be serviced by the proposed special district. (B) ADEQUATE SERVICE IS NOT, OR WILL NOT BE, AVAILABLE TO THE AREA THROUGH THE COUNTY OR OTHER EXISTING MUNICIPAL OR QUASI- MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, INCLUDING EXISTING SPECIAL DISTRICTS, WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AND ON A COMPARABLE BASIS. (C) THE FACILITY AND SERVICE STANDARDS OF THE PROPOSED SPECIAL 10 DISTRICT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE FACILITY AND SERVICE STANDARDS OF EACH COUNTY WITHIN WHICH THE PROPOSED SPECIAL DISTRICT IS TO BE LOCATED AND EACH MUNICIPALITY WHICH IS AN INTERESTED PARTY UNDER SECTION 32-1-204 (1). (D) The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is inadequate for present and projected needs. (E)The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area within its proposed boundaries. (F) The area to be included in the proposed special district has, or will have, the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. (2.5) The board of county commissioners may disapprove the service plan if evidence satisfactory to the board of any of the following, at the discretion of the hoard, is not presented: (A) The proposal is in substantial compliance with a master plan adopted pursuant to section 30-28-106, C.R.S. • (B) The proposal is in compliance with any duly adopted county, regional, or state long- range water quality management plan for the area. (C) The creation of the proposed special district will be in the best interests of the area proposed to be served. (D) THE CREATION OF THE PROPOSED SPECIAL DISTRICT WILL NOT FOSTER URBAN DEVELOPMENT THAT IS REMOTE FROM OR INCAPABLE OF BEING INTEGRATED WITH EXISTING URBAN AREAS OR PLACE A BURDEN ON ADJACENT JURISDICTIONS TO PROVIDE URBAN SERVICES TO RESIDENTS OF THE PROPOSED SPECIAL DISTRICT. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS PARAGRAPH, "URBAN DEVELOPMENT" SHALL HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS THAT PROVIDED IN SECTION 31-12-103 (13), ********** The introductory portion of 32-1-204.5 (1) C.R.S. is amended to read as follows: § 32-1-204.5 Approval by municipality. (1) No special district shall be organized if its boundaries are wholly ANY PORTION OF THE TERRITORY PROPOSED TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE SPECIAL DISTRICT IS contained within the boundaries of a municipality or municipalities, except upon adoption of a resolution of approval by the governing 11 body of the municipality. The information required and criteria applicable to such approval shall be the information required and criteria set forth in sections 32-1- 202(2), and 32-1-203(2), AND 32-1-203(2.5). ADDITIONALLY,FOR ANY SPECIAL DISTRICT THAT IS PROPOSED TO BE APPROVED WITHIN THREE MILES OF A MUNICIPALITY, THE MUNICIPALITY MAY CONSIDER WHETHER THE PROPOSAL IS IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE MUNICIPALITY'S THREE-MILE PLAN AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 31-12- 105 (1)(f). With reference to the review of any service plan, the governing body of each municipality has the following authority: ************ 32-1-205 (1) C.R.S. is amended to read as follows: § 32-1-205. Resolution of approval required. (1) A petition for the organization of a special district filed in any district court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of section 32-1-301 shall be accompanied by a resolution approving the service plan of the proposed special district by the board of county commissioners of each county where the proposed special district lies or, where required pursuant to section 32-1-204.5, by a resolution of approval by the governing body of each municipality. IF THE BOUNDARIES OF A PROPOSED SPECIAL DISTRICT INCLUDE ANY TERRITORY WITHIN A MUNICIPALITY, THEN THE PETITION FOR ORGANIZATION SHALL INCLUDE A RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE SERVICE PLAN FROM BOTH THE COUNTY AND THE MUNICIPALITY. If the boundaries of a proposed special district include territory within two or more counties, a resolution approving the service plan for such special district shall be required from the board of county commissioners of each county which has territory included in the proposed special district; but the board of county commissioners of each of the respective counties, in their discretion, may hold a joint hearing on the proposed special district in accordance with section 32-1-204. ************ Subsections (2) and (3)(c) of 32-1-207 C.R.S. are amended to read as follows: § 32-1-207. Compliance--modification--enforcement. (2) After the organization of a special district pursuant to the provisions of this part 2 and part 3 of this article, material modifications of the service plan as originally approved may be made by the governing body of such special district only by petition to and approval by the board of county commissioners or the governing body of the municipality which has adopted a resolution of approval of the special district pursuant to section 32-1-204.5 in substantially the same manner as is provided for the approval of an original service plan; but the processing fee for such modification procedure shall not exceed two hundred fifty dollars. Such approval of modifications 12 shall be required only with regard to changes of a basic or essential nature, including but not limited to the following: Any addition to the types of service provided by the special district; a decrease in the level of services; a decrease in the financial ability of the district to discharge the existing or proposed indebtedness, or a decrease in the existing or projected need for organized service in the area. Approval for modification shall not be required for changes necessary only for the execution of the original service plan or for changes in the boundary of the special district; except that the inclusion of property which is located in a county or municipality with no other territory within the special district OR CHANGES IN THE BOUNDARY OF THE SPECIAL DISTRICT THAT LIE WITHIN THE THREE-MILE PLAN AS PROVIDED IN 31-13-105(1)(F) may constitute a material modification of the service plan or the statement of purposes of the special district as set forth in section 32-1-208. In the event that a special district changes its boundaries to include territory located in a county or municipality OR WITHIN THREE MILES OF A MUNICIPALITY with no other territory within the special district, the special district shall notify the board of county commissioners or the governing body of the municipality of such inclusion. The board of county commissioners or the governing body of the municipality may review such inclusion and, if it determines that the inclusion constitutes a material modification, may require the governing body of such special district to file a modification of its service plan in accordance with the provisions of this subsection (2). (3) (c) A board of county commissioners may request any special district located wholly or partially within the county's unincorporated area, and the governing body of any municipality may request any special district located wholly or partiall\ within the municipality's boundaries OR WITHIN THREE MILES OF THE. MUNICIPALITY'S BOUNDARIES, to file, not more than once a year, a special district annual report. The annual report shall be filed with the board of count> commissioners, any municipality in which the special district is wholly or paniall> located OR WITHIN THREE MILES OF THE SPECIAL DISTRICT'S BOUNDARIES, the division, and the state auditor, and such report shall be deposited with the county clerk and recorder for public inspection, and a copy of the report shall be made available by the special district to any interested party pursuant to section 32-1-204 (1). If a special district files an annual report pursuant to this paragraph (c), such report shall include but shall not be limited to information on the progress of the special district in the implementation of the service plan. The hoard of county commissioners or the governing body of the municipality may review the annual reports in a regularly scheduled public meeting, and such review shall be included as an agenda item in the public notice for such meeting. Comment: These proposals concerning oversight of special districts are based on the assumption that urban development in unincorporated areas is made possible by a combination of (1) regulatory acquiescence by the county and(2) the creation of one or more special districts to provide the urban level of services necessary to sustain the development. Experience in Colorado has shown that growth at the suburban fringe or in exurban locations is as likely to be caused by this combination of factors as it is by municipal annexation. Thus, any comprehensive proposal to promote better intergovernmental cooperation and coordination of growth must address the role 13 played by special districts. Presently, oversight of new special districts serving unincorporated areas is under almost the exclusive authority of the county (even when the special district is proposed to overlap a portion of incorporated territory). Under current statutes, municipalities have legal standing to challenge the county's action when a special district is proposed within three miles of the municipality, hut do not have an absolute veto power. Consistent with several other provisions discussed above, the proposed amendments are based on the premise that municipalities have a sphere of interest within a three-mile radius of their boundaries. The assumption is that municipal influence over the creation of new service districts within that area should be increased,particularly if municipal authority to annex within that area is going to be curtailed in any way. According to the proposed amendments, municipalities would be given dual oversight over the creation of new special districts within the 3-mile area along with the counties. The amendment would also add new substantive criteria that both counties and municipalities "may" consider when deciding whether to approve a new special district service plan--i.e. the degree to which the creation of the district may lead to leap-frog development. Significantly, the initial discussions of this subject have focused exclusively on the creation of new districts and not the expansion of services or territory by existing districts. 14 2000 CCI and CML Growth Management Legislation One-on-One Contact Form NAME: COUNTY: SENATOR: Date Talked To: Response/Comments: Agreed to Co-Sponsor: REPRESENTATIVE: Date Talked To: Response/Comments: Agreed to Co-Sponsor: I �,� t .`irk° 2> tea 0 111%, iiii N. *sic Z , A7 % ' , C� ��V °°'o �z %''e :Se tas I. 1111111 , , �, , 1 ` I` /w j �1 5 5 1 i% "172 0 vo(td 1't'bl4 S It MEMORANDUM TO: Jeff Stoll DATE: October 14, 1994 CFROM: Pam Smith, Environmental Specialists • COLORADO SUBJECT: I.S.D.S. Flood Plain Policy Septic systems will not be allowed to be located in the floodway. Septic systems will be allowed in the flood plain, but the system must be installed in a manner as to prevent the infiltration of groundwater into the septic tank and to prevent the release of sewage from the tank during a flood event. If the tank is above the flood plain elevation, no special installation requirements would be necessary. If the tank is not above the flood plain elevation then the access to the tank manhole lids must be covered with 20 mil PVC and sealed with plumbers cement. When the seal is broken, i.e. the tank is opened for pumping, etc., the tank must be re-sealed prior to backfilling again. A backflow preventer or one-way valve, must also be installed in the effluent line between the tank and the absorption field. All other percolation and suitable soil criteria must be met for a conventional septic system to be installed. For inspection purposes, the materials to seal the manhole lids must be on site. The manholes are not required to be sealed at the time of inspection in order to allow for the inspection of tee's in the tank. • EXHIBIT From: caroline z clemetson <c_clemetson@juno.com> To: <charding@co.weld.co.us> Date: 1/19/00 8:52am Subject: re: Proposed Loveland Ready-Mix Concrete Batch Plant. — - 1/19/00 8:16:01 AM 2155 Country Club Parkway Mad Russian Estates Milliken, CO 80543 Weld County Commissioner 915 10th Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Proposed Loveland Ready-Mix Concrete Batch Plant - Hwy 257, Milliken, CO Dear Weld County Commissioners: On behalf of my family and as a resident of the City of Milliken I would ask that the Weld County Commissioners delay the approval of the proposed Loveland Ready-Mix gravel-mining pit. My concerns revolve around the safety issues their heavy trucking industry would create. I have 3 small children and the first one would start school next year. My understanding is that the school bus system would stop on Hwy 257 to pick up and drop off area students. Hwy 257 would become incredibly dangerous with the slow moving concrete trucks moving to the North up the steep grade causing other motorist to make "risky" passes to get by these trucks. Also, the "empty" concrete trucks returning to the plant (going south on Hwy 257) would come flying over the hill and have no chance of slowing down for a stopped school bus. (NOTE: By law, school buses do not pull over to the side of the road to drop off and pick up students). It would be nice to think that truck drivers would take more precautions due to the size of their trucks and inability to slow down at high speeds of 65 mph or greater, but being realistic, they would be returning to the plant after a long day of work and they just want to get home. I do not have a problem with this type of industry conducting business; I just feel that the "location" is wrong. Until the traffic safety issues have been carefully researched and addressed I would ask that you do not quickly approve this project. The Mad Russian Subdivision is in a major growth surge with another 148 homesites becoming available the Spring of 2000. All homeowners will be using the main road into and out of the subdivision (Country Club Pkwy AKA Mad Russian Blvd.) and entering Hwy 257. The traffic/safety road issues are a major concern. Please delay approval of the concrete batch plant until these issues are researched and addressed. Thank you. Sincerely, ant tan U CRSA § 34-1-305, Preservation of commercial mineral deposits for extraction Page 1 *52022 C.R.S.A. §34-1-305 upon, or otherwise permanently preclude the extraction of commercial mineral deposits by an WEST'S COLORADO REVISED extractor from, land subject to said use. STATUTES ANNOTATED TITLE 34. MINERAL RESOURCES (4) Nothing in this section shall be construed GEOLOGICAL SURVEY to prohibit a board of county commissioners, a ARTICLE 1. GEOLOGICAL governing body of any city and county, city, or SURVEY town, or other governmental authority which PART 3. PRESERVATION OF has control over zoning from zoning for agricultural use, only, land not otherwise zoned COMMERCIAL MINERAL on July 1, 1973. DEPOSITS (5) Nothing in this section shall be construed Current through End of 1999 1st Reg. Sess. to prohibit a use of zoned land permissible under the zoning governing such land on July 1, § 34-1-305. Preservation of commercial 1973. mineral deposits for extraction (6) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a board of county commissioners, a (1) After July I, 1973, no board of county governing body of any city and county, city, or commissioners, governing body of any city and town, or any other governmental authority from county, city, or town, or other governmental acquiring property known to contain a authority which has control over zoning shall, commercial mineral deposit and using said by zoning, rezoning, granting a variance, or property for a public purpose; except that such other official action or inaction, permit the use use shall not permit erection of permanent r „ of any area known to contain a commercial structures which would preclude permanently Of mineral deposit in a manner which would the extraction of commercial mineral deposits. it, interfere with the present or future extraction of *52023 such deposit by an extractor. CREDIT(S) (2) After adoption of a master plan for extraction for an area under its jurisdiction, no 1998 Main Volume board of county commissioners, governing body of any city and county, city, or town, or other Amended by Laws 1975, H.B.1706, §2. governmental authority which has control over zoning shall, by zoning, rezoning, granting a HISTORICAL NOTES variance, or other official action or inaction, HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES permit the use of any area containing a commercial mineral deposit in a manner which 1998 Main Volume would interfere with the present or future extraction of such deposit by an extractor. Derivation: C.R.S.I963, §92-36-5. (3) Nothing in this section shall be construed Laws 1973,1-1.6.1529, § I. to prohibit: a board of county commissioners, a REFERENCES )gl governing body of any city and county, city, or town, or any other governmental authority LIBRARY REFERENCES which has control over zoning from zoning or rezoning land to permit a certain use, if said use 1998 Main Volume does not permit erection of permanent structures Copyright (c) West Group 1999 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works j IiXHISIT Us&4f i31 Copyright(c) West Group 1999 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works CRSA § 34-1-305, Preservation of commercial mineral deposits for extraction Page 2 Zoning and Planning 479,285,390. County,App.I986,725 P.2d 57,affirmed 763 P.2d 551. WESTLAW Topic No.414. C.J.S.Zoning and Land Planning§§25,63, 128,200. 2.Zoning ANNOTATIONS Application of Preservation Act to rezoning request did not result in denial of all reasonable use of property, and NOTES OF DECISIONS thus did not effect unconstitutional taking of property, in that Act permitted uses authorized by preexisting zoning regulations to continue and zoning regulation had not been Inverse condemnation 1 amended since the effective date of Act. Cottonwood Zoning 2 Farms v. Board of County Com'rs of County of Jefferson, 1. Inverse condemnation 1988,763 P.2d 551. Enactment of Preservation of Commercial Mineral Preservation of Commercial Mineral Deposits Act permits Deposits Act, which placed limitations on use of land, did local governments to pass zoning ordinances which forbid not work inverse condemnation depriving owner and lessee mining operations in areas containing commercial mineral of all use of property without just compensation, where at deposits and local governments can permit any use of such time of effective date of Act property was zoned land so long as the permitted use is not incompatible with agricultural, and owner and lessee were still entitled, mining. C&M Sand&Gravel,Div.of C&M Ready Mix without limitation, to all uses permitted under that zoning. Concrete Co. of Boulder v. Board of County Com'rs of Cottonwood Farms v. Board of County Com'rs of Jefferson Boulder County,Colo.,App.1983,673 P.2d 1013. Copyright (c) West Group 1999 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works Hello